Talk:Digital Spy/Archive 1

message: This is neutral as far as I can tell. I'll remove the neutrality disputed tag unless anyone can prove otherwise - Wezzo 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as its not locked; someone just added the  tag. --Kiand 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Just wondering if this section is entirely necessary --Marks87 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoffs 

message: I require the image tag changing to: thumb|right|Digital Spy Homepage|330px
Also on reading the article some vanity requires removing:
:Some contributors to the Digital Spy forums have become celebrated for the nature or the frequency of their posts. Leading lights include PamelaL, the 'first lady' of DS, and Dundee_mark, the 'first boy'. Rudi enjoys much virtual backslapping for his popular and witty 'signature'. More recently, Digital Spy readers the world over have been following the progress of Ann1982, whose pregnancy and lifestyle many find particularly engrossing, and her regular updates are followed with a dedication usually found amongst soap-opera audiences.
Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above paragraph being added then removed several times is the reason it's been protected in teh first place. -- 9cds(talk) 09:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long is it going to remain protected then?  Pretty shocking situation here.  Consensus amongst all established editors (read that as not 2 day old sock accounts) is that the para is vanity.  Pages should not remain protected to ensure consensus cannot be implemented. SFC9394 09:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed a compromise above, but the user who posted the paragraph hasn't returned to say what they think of it. I get the strange feeling they never will (well, not in their current guise anyway)... Marks87 09:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be unprotected and the vanity removed, and whom ever removed teh editprotected tag, please do not. My edit has not yet been carried out. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained above, the page is no longer protected. -- 9cds(talk) 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected Page Edit

message: Another edit that I had to dispute, is this comment "Notable membership trends include a significant gay membership and a preponderance of left wing views." that is neither verifiable or neutral really necessary or worthy enough for inclusion in the article? --tgheretford (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just removed the claims - they are unsourced - if the person who added them wants to add an independent respected source to back up these claims then they can be included in a fair wording form.  What is "a significant gay membership"?  Just that some poeple who post are gay?  National average?  Higher than national average?  How about "a preponderance of left wing views" what does that mean? All who post are left wing?  Most?  More than normal?  The wording is just weasle words, not sourced, not clear and of a questionable motivation.  Discussion is encouraged, but I would say that neither claim is verifiably true (or indeed clear enough to be notable) SFC9394 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Link spam (IE:  Links which fail WP:WEB & do not belong here) will not be tolerated in this article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute - 16 July 2006

message: This article is currently listed on WP:RFC/ART. I am here via the RfC, but can find no section on the talk page which is obviously about it. So I made this one :) I presume the paragraph under dispute is this one. I see two problems. First: is it stuff you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia? I personally don't think so. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second: who says this is the case? We need to cite sources, and those sources need to be reliable sources. (The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources section is probably particularly relevant to an article about a website.) The claims in the paragraph are unsourced and almost certainly unsourceable. So they shouldn't be here at the moment. NB: The entire article is unsourced and I personally think the same reasoning should apply to the lot;  but the RFC was specifically about that paragraph. Telsa (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on both the comment and regarding the whole article being uncited. I added a template. If the information on the page can't be given appropiate citations, it may become a candidate for deletion. I personally don't think that should happen in my opinion but that is what Wikipedia deletion policy suggests. --tgheretford (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have cited sources for things and stuff which could not be cited i have removed as well as forum stats have been removed (They can be found out on there website + its hard to cite them when they change very often) + i removed the features section (it just makes the article sound like an advert + it can be found out on the website its self) (So i have removed the dipute tag now :-)) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, the article has shrunk quite a bit removing all the non verifiable content, but at least everything is verifiable so I can agree on how the article is at the moment. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better, yes. Fast work!  Telsa (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments