Talk:Crisscross

message: The writers claim: "According to Alexa Internet Alexa.com, Japan Today, now renamed "Crisscross News Japan", is the largest news and information site about Japan in English." are ill-founded. Using the very tools he/she claims to verify this, show that japantimes.com has a higher ranking than both japantoday.com and crisscross.com over the last several months than this internet site. Removed unverifable claim.
:Please check this graph, where you will see that japantoday.com was higher than japantimes.co.jp through the past 18 months until the name change to crisscross.com. After the changeover Metropolis and Japan Today Friends remained under the japantoday.com domain. If you add up the reach figures of japantoday.com plus crisscross.com you will see that the numbers are still in excess of japantimes.co.jp.Sparkzilla 10:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

message: The result was no merger. - Sparkzilla 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was no consensus, possibly due to the discussion being closed prematurely by the editor most vocally opposing merger. Heatedissuepuppet 11:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:Merge#Closing.2Farchive_a_proposed_merger - there is no "no consensus" category. Even so, you were the only person for the merger, three other editors said "No merge" and one edited the article to address some of your concerns -- in other words the consensus was clearly for no merge. The discussion was closed after 5 days according to WP:Merge. Sparkzilla 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger". There was no clear consensus, DavidLyons said "maybe", you and another editor said no merge. Heatedissuepuppet 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Lyons said "No merge" in his edit summary. 3-1 were against the merger, and one of the participants suggested changes to improve the articles. Please also note that WP is not a democracy and decisions are also made based on the quality of the arguments. As the minority opinion, you simply did not have a good enough argument to merge. You are welcome to take this further through the dispute resolution process. In the meantime, do not revert the situation as it stands. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Metropolis page does not deal with all Crisscross products. The Crisscross page also covers Japan Today, Crisscross Social Network and Crisscross Creative. Crisscross, the company, is mentioned in each source, including the Newsweek article. Sparkzilla 09:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japan Today article would fit better at the Metropolis article, since Japan Today uses Metropolis' articles. Sure, there is Crisscross Social Network and Crisscross Creative, but they aren't notable enough to warrant an entire article. That said, I'm not sure whether everything should be merged into "Metropolis" or into "Crisscross". The one thing I'm certain of is that there is no need for two separate articles. Heatedissuepuppet 11:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan Today is completely differnt form Metropolis: Metropolis is a paper-based city guide; Japan Today is an Internet only news and discussion site. But just to make totally sure that you are aware of that basic fact I have added more sources to differentiate the pages. Sparkzilla 11:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heatedissuepuppet, could you explain more clearly your reasoning for proposing to merge, and could you direct us to WP policy regarding mergers? David Lyons 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that Criscross and Metropolis can stand as separate articles.  They provide two different services as explained in the references for both articles. Cla68 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though the refs only mention Crisscross briefly, it is enough to establish notability perhaps. Once notability (for a corporation at least) can be established, then it is permissible to ref some types of sources from the company itself (Web-Site, Press releases, etc..). I don't have a problem with keeping this and Metropolis separate. However, Metropolis' history, etc., shouldn't be repeated here, and rightly belongs on the Metropolis page. This article is about Crisscross, and if people want to read about Metropolis they can go to that page. David Lyons 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: :Image:Crisscross.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the owner of the image and license it for use on Wikipedia. -- Sparkzilla talk! 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Crisscross.JPG

message: I see that Sparkzilla is a major contributor to this article. Sparkzilla is Mark Devlin, the publisher of the of this company. That seems like a conflict. Isn't the policy: if it's notable, someone else will write the article?220.107.219.238 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest? 

message: I believe this article has been deleted without going through proper policy prodcedure.  Please check Metropolis (English Magazine in Japan) talk pages 132.239.1.230 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article