Talk:Newsarama

message: Frankly, the Talk @ Newsarama "article" appears to be irredemible crap, but I thought I'd better merge-tag them for a week just to be sure. - SoM 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Talk @ Newsarama]]

message: Okay someone has pasted the POV tag the top of the article, questioning its neutrality, without bothering to give any reasons here.
As the writer of most of it I obviously think the article is free of POV. It mentions Newsarama's strengths as well as some of the major criticisms of the site, all of which are painstakingly sourced and contextualised. 
If some reasoning for the placement of the tag is not posted here in the next 48 hours I will remove it. Hueysheridan 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it relates to this thread on Newsarama itself, as does much of the vandalism of recent days - SoM 09:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who is interested in reading a discussion of the merits of the article (which prompted some major edits to the "criticism" section) by Newsarama staff and readers should follow the link. Hueysheridan 09:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Okay, now that the notablity issue is resolved lets get to improving the article. The talk section is pretty small, but the larger one was just terrible, espically the part about censorship. I've only seen one topic deleted since I've been there, and that was because it turned into a massive slapfight. Besides that Users only get banned when the break the most common rules, and they get warnings too. Anyway, could someone who isn't a member of Newsarama please fix it up? --Shaoken 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not notable enough for a section, but surely an article about the site should at least mention that it includes Talk @ as one of its features? Especially if Talk is one of the more popular elements, whether or not the actual contents of Talk @ are notable and/or warrant any detailed description. --Mrph 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be if it goes into detail. But I fail to see how, for example, "The site also features a Talk@Newsarama section, a discussion forum for its readers" could be viewed as vanity. If anything, omitting all mention of Talk@Newsarama would seem to be wrong, as it's not fully describing the subject of the article. (On a different note - can you sign your comments, please? As per WP:SIG, all comments on talk pages should really be signed. It makes it much clearer who said what, and when. Thanks!) --Mrph 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is anyone suggesting that we should list names of posters, in-jokes and topics discussed, though? I'm definitely not, Darrik2 doesn't seem to be, and you're certainly not - so if we're all in agreement on this, where's the problem? --Mrph 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most Wikipedia has to explain about Talk@ is that it exists and what its function is (social discussion); simply as part of showing a comprehensive description of the site as a whole. I post there myself, but I don't really see the purpose of an description of Talk@ that stretches beyond 2 sentences. Terram 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk section 

message: That Newsarama is down a lot I mean I have a 403 Forbidden showing up every time I go to the site Supermike(talk) 7:22, 03 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: has anyone notice

message: The criticism section reads a lot like "what Rich Johnston thinks about Newsarama".  Why is so much weight given to this guy's opinion?  By all means, criticism ought to be recorded when reliable, third-party sources attest to such, but why should so much weight be given to the opinion of one guy who works for a rival comics website?  --212.32.102.5 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The criticism section 

message: The sentence Subsequently, under Siegel, the site's traffic has risen above that of many close rivals is sourced to newsarama.com - Quantcast Audience Profile but this does not appear to mention any "rivals".  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Newsarama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcj.com/272/n_online.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=43699
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified