Talk:Apple community

message: Does this really qualify as a stub?  It seem pretty complete to me.  Whoever did it, did a good job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.132.52 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: stub?

message: I think this page should be called "Apple rumors community." 
Since Apple's business today is about so much more than the Mac, and the rumors sites often devote more time to software/iPod/other hardware projects than they do to the Mac specifically. Rumoring isn't about the Mac anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staecker (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page rename? 

message: This page is flirting with WP:NOR.  It makes some specific proclamations about events and stances that really need citations.  Properly-sourced links to the rumour sites themselves will probably do. Warrens 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: shouldn't this be there? 132.205.44.5 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone Nano 

message: Shouldn't there be something written about this site? --Cwinnipeg 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9to5mac 

message: Does a subject like this belong in Wikipedia?  Does it really meet guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT? Jason McHuff 08:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: What About Ars? MatthieuV (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ars 

message: I have become involved in a nascent edit war over the addition of macforum.com to the external links section of the article.  I believe that it should not be included, as the site consists only of discussion forums, was apparently created less than three weeks ago, has only 30 registered members, and 254 of the site's 265 posts have been made by site administrators.  Additionally, the IP used here to make the additions and the site's whois registration also suggest that this is site promotion spam.  Sites mentioned in this article should be limited to those that have (or had at some point) significant impact on the rumors community, not brand new sites attempting to create traffic for themselves.  I would appreciate the input of additional editors on this question...thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  macforum.com 

message: I've redone the layout to make the content more relevant. The main sites now have their own pages.
Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-did layout 

message: An anonymous user or users have added a link to Apple Cafe in the "Other Sites" section of this article.  I assert that this site does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability under WP:WEB.  The site has been in existence for only a few weeks, has only a handful of content, and has apparently had only a few dozen visitors since its inception.  The addition of this site here appears to be self-promotion, which is not permitted under WP:SOAP.  If someone wishes to assert notability for the site, please provide a rationale here before re-adding.  Thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Cafe 

message: Rumors are only a fraction of the issues most of the Apple community sites deal with. Article should be broadened slightly to reflect this, and by adding a fuller list of Apple community sites. --Jimthing (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: I added a link to Macworld, but there are other print magazines that are part of the Apple community.  The list could be divided into print magazines (which in general should have their own Wikipedia articles) and sites that are only websites or blogs without a print component.  The entire list needs to be organized as well, perhaps by prominence, web traffic, or at least alphabetically.  I'll work on this article as time permits. – Mark K Adams (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Scope & Organization 

message: In case editors are overlooking the edit summaries: Seems to me that these examples and other promotional material simply don't belong per WP:NOT. Without independent sources, it's an NPOV violation as well.
(Granted, the editing by  and , has something to do with )  --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why 87.112.71.198 self-reverted, but does anyone have policy-based concerns about  reverting ClueBot NG's edit? --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Soapbox

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Apple community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070403082824/http://www.macscoop.com:80/articles/2006/09/20/no-more-confusion-introducing-macscoop to http://www.macscoop.com/articles/2006/09/20/no-more-confusion-introducing-macscoop
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section  added, as of 05:01, 26 May 2017 UTC (diff), there's only one source throughout the section. I'm concerned that those content may not meet WP:V, please discuss here before adding back the section or make further edits on the same topic per WP:BRD.
In the first paragraph, "various Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook pages are used to bring simple, beautiful, and quick-to-read news," it's clearly one's opinion, which violates WP:NPOV. The rest of the paragraph is also unsourced.
In the second paragraph about "Apple Hub", the source, which is an Instagram post by Apple Hub itself, verifies that Apple Hub started as "All About Apple 2014", and is okay to use per WP:ABOUTSELF. Regarding it as "the most popular and growing news page in the Instagram Apple community" is clearly one's opinion and does not adhere a neutral point of view, which violates WP:NPOV. Growth of followers is unsourced. Social media links to the page should generally be avoided per WP:ELNO.
In the paragraph about Team Apple News, its former name and removal by Instagram are unsourced. Links to the organization's pages on social media should be avoided per WP:ELNO. Referring it as a "talented group" is clearly not written in a neutral point of view, which violates WP:NPOV. Rest of the paragraph is unsourced.
In the paragraph about Ascending News, the page's goal, activeness and popularity are unsourced. Same for Apple Dsign.
In the paragraph about Apple Design Hub, "posts made to the page are noticeably higher quality than those made to other competing repost pages" is clearly one's opinion, which violates WP:NPOV.
In the paragraph about Apple iDesigner, saying their renders are beautiful and often more visually attractive is clearly one's opinion again, which violates WP:NPOV. Similar issues in the paragraph on Venya Geskin.
The whole section is written like an advertisement as it contains one's nonneutral opinion and the way external links to social media pages are presented. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Media Communities 

message: I noticed that the Apple Community is big on Instagram with accounts that report the latest Apple News. Maybe mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesatter (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Community on Instagram 

message: Hi there,
I was looking at this page and noticed that this edit by user Itechinsights seems to be entirely AI-generated. The source provided is an advertisement to the home page of the user's own blog. Is there something that can be done about this, such as a removal of the content? PitConclave (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, many thanks for bringing that up, I've reverted. DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI-generated content