Wikipedia talk:Press coverage

message: His article is entered twice: in January and March sections. I guess the reason is that its source text is dated 1/3/2005, and it is unclear whether this is European or American date format. Please clarify. The magazine seems to be European. Mikkalai 19:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krowne, Aaron 

message: I wrote a piece about Wikipedia for Mensa's COMSIG.  It's in there, but I'm not sure it would qualify as "press coverage".  Someone please advise me on this.  Additionally, I'd feel weird about adding it myself without asking first since I wrote the article.  CryptoDerk 23:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I see this page mostly as a reference for Wikipedians who want to know about our public image (or just bask in the fame.)  Since I'm a regular reader here and I'd want to know about the article you mention, I'll say go ahead and add it. Isomorphic 03:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about "press"

message: Moved this comment to discussion and corrected citation:
::Ahem. This is not in the version of Time Magazine for this date which came through my mailbox in England this morning.Apwoolrich 18:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 June 2005 Time article 

message: PBS's Nightly Business Report just aired a long accolade about Wikipedia, saying that no one should miss it. While the transcripts of the program aren't available yet, they will be later tonight, so I recommend looking at the NBR Transcript Archive and look for the July 21 entry. --Titoxd 01:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBR 

message: I'm sorry for not having the time for a more extensive summary right now (article here). I may do it later if there's not another translator. --Filius Rosadis 00:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covering Seigenthaler incident in Arabic 

message: "Few web sites generated as much media buzz in 2005 as Wikipedia..." Bensaccount 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Discover Magazine]] Jan 2006

message: New Zealand Listener Feb 4-10 2006
Sarah Barnett interviewing Sir David Attenborough
:Is television living up to its potential? 
::No. The only way to raise money is by advertising. Advertising has very great limitations, because they measure success by the size of the audience. When I started, the BBC got its money from the licence and there was no advertising. You were able to schedule programmes over a range of subjects, on the grounds that you ought to present a comprehensive view of the world around you, and not miss out those bits that were awkward, or that interested some people more than others. At that stage it seemed to me that television offered a huge and democratic way of providing education, interest and knowledge. And that has not been fulfilled because of the demands of advertising.
:So, the potential will never be fulfilled? 
::I think that's so, but I think that there will be other ways now. We're approaching it with things like Wikipedia. So I don't despair, but I think that television hasn't produced the benefits to humanity that it could have done.
Can someone figure out how to add that on to the list?  Cheers,  --GeLuxe 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviewee mentions Wikipedia - help! 

message: Wikipedia and Britannica: The Kid’s All Right (And So’s the Old Man), by Paula Berinstein. This is a really great article.  The email(?) interview with Jimbo is fantastic, especially the part about time delay, which is the most lucid explaination of that proposal I've seen yet. Paula really did an amazing job. --James S. 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searcher article 

message: Why is this page called "Press coverage 2005" when there are comments about 2006 coverage on it? Tamino 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this "Press coverage 2005"? 

message: I've put in The Economist's article "The wiki principle" in the section for April. I'm afraid it's a bit long, but that is because the article on their website is premium content (i.e. you can't read it unless logged in), so I felt I had to summarise it myself. Tamino 09:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Economist'' article 

message: I added a link to the evolution page image. For other interesting results, look at the site. It would be great to have these tools available for every article (we can dream, can't we?) --ScienceApologist 06:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM research

message: If Wikipedia is a primary topic on a podcast, should it be mentioned here, at "Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio", or somewhere else? --Elonka 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Podcasts

message: Is there a template like  for marking talk pages when a specific article is cited by the press? It's not exactly "being recommended as a source" if they're criticizing a POV section... I'm thinking of Hawarden, Iowa, if you're curious. -- nae'blis 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template analogous to {{tl|source}}? 

message: Blog streakers etc
Do you think this is worth mention or not really?
(Mention wikipediaholism)
Simply south 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read this on Yahoo! news 

message: I'm not sure this is worth mentioning somewhere, but WP was mentioned in an article about 2006 consumer trends in The Oregonian, the major paper here.  Its partly because of TIME's Person of the Year. Jason McHuff 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland, OR Oregonian article

message: Her claim that she "tried to edit out the erroneous statements" about her brother John O'Brien "but some Kiss-the-Hem-of-my-Purple-Robe Wikipedian Lord apparently usurped my efforts"  doesn't appear to be supported by the page history.  The sentence affirming that O'Brien appeared in the film Scrooge has been in the article consistently since its original addition (and Wikipedia is backed here by IMDB).  I wonder how many of her other claims will turn out to be false? Grover cleveland 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Erin O'Brien / Cleveland Free Times article

message: --Joel Mc 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IHT Article of 13 March 2007

message: I'm not sure how I would word this on the page. Morgan Wick 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICROSOFT_WIKIPEDIA_WAOL-?SITE=WASEA&SECTION=HOME] 

message: The Finnish Wikipedia held a public seminar on March 21, at the Helsinki main post office's library, to celebrate their 100'000th article. I attended part of the seminar and got a few photographs too. Should this be mentioned on this page? JIP | Talk 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish Wikipedia seminar 

message: The requested move of the disputed islands Dokdo just made news here, might it be worth a mention?  It's currently on the front page here. --Cheers, Komdori 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dokdo]] requested move in [[Chosun Ilbo]] 

message: "My impression is" that many of the reviews of Wikipedia (there being one in today's Sunday Times tend towards the negative.
While there is probably a tendency to "pick the bad examples" for newspapers something will have to be done before the whole of Wikipedia is affected.
Jackiespeel 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative coverage of Wikipedia

message: I am a bit puzzled.  Where do the stix in this article come from.  I was under the impression that it was impossible to know what pages get the most hits, etc.  Perhaps it is just in general cats which I suppose poses some problems.  Can anyone point me towards and explanation
Joel Mc 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reseacrh in question was about the number of "searches", not "hits". And the article refers to "Compete" site analysis tool, whatever it is, you may start from here or from their FAQ. `'Miikka 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And judging from this it looks kinda notable. May be someone is willing to write a wikipedia article about it. `'Miikka 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Utter, David. "Anime, Sex Popular At Wikipedia"

message: There is a 48 min English language movie on YouTube by a Dutch filmmaker. It was shown at the "Next Web Conference"
Dutch article: http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/39405191/
TechCrunch article: The Truth According to Wikipedia
I'm not sure if links to such documentaries are collected somewhere, and if so, on what page.
-- nyenyec ☎ 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should go on Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, taking TV to mean web TV not just broadcast TV. Lumos3 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IJsbrand van Veelen film: "Wiki's Waarheid" 

message: Their concerns about the smut on Wikipedia put me in mind of the remark attributed to Samuel Johnson when praised for keeping dirty words out of his dictionary "So, you've been looking for them have you?" Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Concerned Women for America]] 

message: So I can't find the article about Ebony Anpu mentioned in 2600. OK, fine. But why can't I find the AFD listing for it? Cholerashot (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was deleted three times in February 2007 the first on 16 February and the last on 25 February. For the AfDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu the last delete was in response to a recreation after this last AFD--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the links you've provided. After reading the last AFD I have no doubt it was the right decision. It's just that it seemed shady that neither Search nor What links here was turning up anything. Cholerashot (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebony Anpu 

message: I wondered if this CBC article was fair game here. -- Reaper  X 03:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely ... is relevant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Prentice 

message: Would this AP story about Bruce Ivins be the sort of thing to be mentioned on this page, or not?  (It's also mentioned in this US News blog and this Washington Post story.)—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivins / anthrax story? 

message: I found this page about Flagged revisions because someone linked to it on the History of Wikipedia page. My question is, even though the content of this article appears to have several factual errors, should it still appear here?-RunningOnBrains 02:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about adding pages 

message: I just added a press mention of WP to Talk:David Irving, here, using the  Template. Shouldn't this show up automatically here? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It adds the page to a category, is all. If you want it to turn up here, you have to add it manually. See  --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Then why does WP run on a computer? Fire the damn thing! ;-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  was not designed to add entries to this page. This page was not designed to take entries via such a template. I'm struggling to see the problem, other than your misplaced expectations. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My addition not showing up 

message: We should must upgrade the the 50 most viewed articles to at least Good Article. Especially the wiki article which is also not a good article and is the most viewed on Wikipedia with 131,383 hits per day. --Extra999 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 most viewed 

message: Perhaps we should move the "used in" part to its own article to match the others by that name. Disavian (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think approval or disapproval for this would lie in if the other years articles do this, but that's just me, a Wikipedia Rookie. I could just as easily be wrong. 82.33.215.26 (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I was going to add this to the list, but since I'm kind of sort of a little bit quoted in the article, I thought it might raise potential WP:COI issues. Anyway, if it meets the criteria for addition, you can just copy-paste the following template: 
*
Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Political Report 

message: I want to be able to see the listing of all years' press coverages on the same page, preferably without having to separate the months of each year; for example as each month's listing starts at 2001 the listings continue on chronologically to 2015 until the next month, February, and then again we have one contiguous list that goes on all the way to 2015, and so on, by month. Just wondering, is there a quick and easy way of creating this 'catch-all' list? Without having to physically take each page, append them, and manually by hand stitch together every year's month to go under it's own year? I'm thinking maybe there's a method to do something similar with the API interface but I haven't yet learned how to use that. -- œ™ 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a way to get all the press coverage from all the years (2001-2015) all one page going by month?

message: Iselilja has noted that the Gollum article was mentioned at:
There has been a court case running on the comparison of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Gollum from the film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings, details can be found here. According to the above Foreign Policy report, making this comparison risks prosecution for insulting the President, yet "some people are still willing to take the risk: As of Wednesday afternoon, the Wikipedia page describing Gollum had been edited to say he was “originally known as Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”"  I checked, and this claim was added by IP  and removed by Thegeniusboy05 21 minutes later with the edit summary "Reverted vandalism related to recent news event".  Does this need to be noted in press coverage?  It seems to me unfortunate that the news magazine is asserting that Wikipedia was describing Gollum as originally known as the Turkish President when it was vandalism that survived a mere 21 minutes.  However, given the wider context of a court case on the topic and the high-profile target (a head of state), I wonder if the WMF (or someone) would want to know.  Thoughts?  EdChem (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gollum 

message: It seems kind of redundant to have to add press coverage in an article talk using , then add it to  WP:Press coverage using . It's a lot of work and easy for one or the other to get missed. Why not have a bot that monitors new instances of  and automatically add it to WP:Press coverage. Likewise create a way in WP:Press coverage to mark which articles it discusses (if any) and the bot can automatically add the  in the article talk page (if not already existing) when it detects new entries in WP:Press coverage. -- GreenC 14:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea. If you haven't already, you could propose this at WP:VP to see what the community thinks about it. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 18:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tlx|press}} and [[WP:Press coverage]] 

message: There are now 21 pages of press coverage. Currently, they are listed as "Wikipedia:Press coverage 20XX". I propose we list them as subpages ("Wikipedia:Press coverage/20XX" – note the slash) to add a structure hierarchy as they all stem off the main page of WP:PRESS. Any thoughts on the matter? — TGHL ↗ (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display the year pages as subpages of this page 

message: Just now this was the no. 1 item in my Firefox browser new-tab-page's news feed: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Wired is painting a scene of Wikipedia as something like a Nazi whitewashing haven, and editor  as the one-woman truth brigade.  I have no issue with Coffman, or improving our WWII articles and using better sources of course, but this piece is rather disconnected from reality. (This is often the case with articles that single out particular editors to profile; they tend to overstate the impact of a single person, while also glomming all other editors into a faceless pile of poor encyclopedists.)  That said, this would not be the first time that WP:MILHIST has been taken to task for over-dwelling on things like what medals a Nazi officer was awarded, and other trivia, while missing the big picture.  There is a germ of a real issue in here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird ''Wired'' piece 

message: See Daily Beast article. Mathglot (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historian earns $millions plagiarizing WP et al.