Talk:Digital Spy

message: In 2004 a sub-forum was added to General Discussion called Chatter, for less serious topics. Chatter was once full of gaming threads such as 'word association' and such posts were banned because they took up precious server space. However, this restriction was lifted on the 16th of March 2006 after server upgrades.
On the 9th of April 2006, a few changes were made. 'Print Media' and 'Books' forums were added. Posts in General Discussion now contribute to a user's post count. Also, on the 30 April 2006, a World Cup 2006 forum was added. On the 10 June, this was changed to a Sports forum, with a dedicated Football sub-forum
I say this should be removed because
*1. DS has gone through many forum changes over the years - yet only these ones are listed
*2. They are only regarding General Discussion forums, and not even the main digital ones
*3. 'Tis unencyclopediaic 
Anon Dude
:Removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Forums

message: Anyone know what the a b c links are in Reference 1, they don't seem to do anything.
Were they links to a section that is no longer part of the article?
pjb007 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are links to the three instances of that reference. See the little superscript [1] that appears throughout the article. The a,b,c jumps the page to those sections but on such a short article they all appear in screen at the same time so it's not as obvious that they are jumping to those sections Ydam 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Question 

message: *Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum?  Wickethewok 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search brings up no hits , the only thing I can find are stats on the forums from Big Boards . There is actually quite a bit there that could be added to the article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no proper independent sources for this website then why does it have an entry? Free advertising perhaps? 82.25.244.171 18:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: In relation to this quote:
Without a reliable source to back this criticism up, I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV and should be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also say the same for the additions made to the article on January 20 2006. If the criticisms cannot be backed up with a reliable source (not from a forum, as per WP:RS), they should be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The only thing I could find was from a blog (could violate WP:RS?): http://if.futurescape.co.uk/2005/07/big_brother_for.html which features a small bit about the concerns you placed in the article. --tgheretford (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to say, a lot of banned people on the site have a track record of re-registering. For all we know, all the members in the cached versions of the threads could be the same person with a grudge. Marks87 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Alanjay (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I removed some text as per WP:COPYVIO from the DS:BB section (diff) which was directly copied from a copyright page: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/about/a41859/digital-spys-best-ever-figures.html. --tgheretford (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: I removed the Digital Spy Big Brother 2007 section from the article (diff) because for the following reasons:
# The thread is nowhere near notable enough to have its own section, let alone article within Wikipedia.
# The people involved in the thread do not meet the notability guidelines.
# There is no verifiable third party sources to establish the threads importance, i.e. news reports by third party sources like the BBC or The Times for example (note: the thread itself is NOT a reliable source).
# The section violates WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, most of the section reassembles a news report for the aforementioned thread.
If it keeps being added back, I will have no qualms to ask for the article to be semi-protected unless anyone can provide an answer to my concerns outlined above. --tgheretford (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a similar entry as Wikipedia is not the place to include information about transient threads on a forum and for the reasons you gave above. If it were an "offical" DS competion then there may be some basis for its inclusion but even then I would have some doubt about its suitability. I would support any protection placed on this entry if required. Munta 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Spy Big Brother 2007 thread section 

message: Was this an "official" campaign endorsed by the site, or was it simply a couple of posters deciding to try and defend (what is in my opinion) the indefensible? Either way, is it really worthy of a mention in the article? Marks87 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it - it is unsourced and speculative - not what an encyclopaedic article is supposed to be.  The amount of racist trolling on the forums certainly increased during big brother but I don't know (and I imagine it wouldn't be easy to prove) exactly where they all came from or if they were part of an organised campaign.  If we can get some sources for it then it could be included (because if it did happen as an organised concerted action then it is worthy of mention), but that proof and sources is a different issue - speculation on a forum is miles away from something being a fact. SFC9394 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with what SFC9394 has to say and the removal of the unsourced section. I suspect, that considering that there won't be an news or major article for Digital Spy that could be used as a reliable source (remember, WP:RS states that threads on forums are not reliable sources) that it couldn't be included in the article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that Stormfront forums did have posts requesting that people registered on DS to stir up touble and some did gloat about how they were banned and re-registered. However, I have no wish to revisit the Stormfront website for evidence of this. Ultimately though I would not be for this inclusion (although not due to forums being unreliable sources), I just don't think this has any relivance to the DS website since all forums are going to have "undesirable members". Munta 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stormfront 

message: Hey should it not be noted how poorly run the forums are and the fact they ban people for no reason? Like overclockers.Jimmy93211 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already mentioned in the Introduction Munta 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: At least it was til earlier today when that section was removed. Munta 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have re-added the citation needed markers. 
Please show where they are acknowledged by people in the relevant areas, otherwise all that has been put into the article could simply be made up, Wikipedia is not the place for unsubstantiated claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.253.138 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a horrible feeling that most of the information can only be found on Digital Spy forum threads and not verified by a third party, violating WP:RS and in turn WP:V. Just to note from verifiability policy that forum threads, being self-published sources, are not reliable sources of information (ie. anyone could write anything in a post). If it is not verified or references from reliable third party sources cannot be found, you can, as stated within verifiability policy, challenge (which you have done so now) and remove the unreferenced information from the article (which you should do within a convenient time period - give enough time for people to add citations, if they can find them). Because of the number of citation required tags within the article, I will tag the article accordingly. --tgheretford (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations!(2) 

message: Citations should just not be needed for such things, as they are widely known common knowledge to the DS community (and more)! The only things requiring citations should be things which could factually be disputed. It's like citing that the Earth revolves around the Sun - plain stupidity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvmedis (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that someone has placed the tag on the page is that they dispute the majority of the page, in that the information needs to be verified by a third party, regardless if it is truthful or not to the DS community or wider. What can be referenced in the article should be because the next time that or another editor may read the article and see that the article is still unreferenced, they can, in good faith, remove text or even nominate the article for deletion. Just to clarify, when you submit work to Wikipedia, one of the conditions of doing so is that the text you write is verifiable by third party sources, not just truthful.
To quote from the verifiability policy:
This covers anything you write, whether you believe everyone thinks it is true or not. --tgheretford (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations!(3) 

message: I noticed that a criticism section of the administrators within Digital Spy is being added regularly. Without references to verify the information added, it violates WP:V and WP:NPOV and unreferenced material should be removed, especially when it involves individuals (see WP:BLP).
As for the "DS" in the introduction, I decided to add it back as it is a well used abbreviation of Digital Spy in both first and third party sources. --tgheretford (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism sections/"DS"

message: It definitely needs more third party coverage cited in the article.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the BBC for starters? . Or AOL?  Yes I agree, there is a need for more third party sources for this article, and I fear that what I have found so far via Google is blogs (not acceptable for sources), first party sources and products not associated with the topic of the article. --tgheretford (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody's ever suggested that this might be non-notable? 

message: I've decided to invoke WP:REDFLAG within WP:V and removed some edits. Specificially these edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Spy&diff=181442846&oldid=181442005
As I believe the Flickr source is self-published, I've removed the text, especially considering as it is potentially controversial, it really needs good third party sources to back this up (from reputable published newspapers for example) hence why I have removed the text as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:V (see also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --tgheretford (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours of involvement with BNP 

message: I have noticed more edits are being added regarding the moderation of Digital Spy. This includes this recent edit: . However, no editor has added verifiable citations from third-party sources to back up these edits. The edits have also, in my opinion, been lopsided towards the controversial issue of forum moderation without adding third-party references to the reaction from Digital Spy moderators to the accusations over the moderation of the forum.
I agree with another editor further up this page with regards to (former?) forum members who are using this forum for their sound bytes for the moderation of Digital Spy away from the website where from personal experience, moderators do close and delete threads which attack the way that the forums are moderated. That is fair enough, as on Wikipedia, we have a similar official policy which advises editors not to attack other editors, and offending material can be deleted on sight. Back to Digital Spy, they prefer you to contact them personally if you have any problems with the website, either with moderation or technical issues.
May I suggest that unless someone can come up with verifiable third-party references from both sides of the argument (forum members and moderators) that these edits stop and this information is not added to the article. Because of the controversial aspect of these edits, I have added a controversial issue tag to the top of this talk page. If anyone wants to discuss the controversy of moderation on Digital Spy, then the article on Wikipedia, having a target of being a verifiable and neutral encyclopedia, isn't the place to do it. ----tgheretford (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over forum moderation

message: In fact i've experienced mods who apply bans for things that are extremely dubious aka extreme interpretations of the term "offensive" and then when called on it go back and try to clean up the thread further to cover their asses to look consistent.  It still doesnt work because by that standard of moderation the entire thread shouldn't exist.  It seems merely mentioning that certain african american names are indicators of lower socio economic class= you banned for stereotyping.  It is a strange place where freedom of speech simply doesn't exist, and political correctness is taken to the logical extreme, especially it seems if the mod might have an axe to grind with you about your political opinions.  This is only one of several incidents i've experienced with digital spy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.76.163 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfortunately there is no way to document moderation issues

message: I'm wondering if people here realise that the user alanjay is in fact the Business Director of Digital Spy. . Why therefore, is this person making edits to his own article. Is that not against the rules? 217.65.158.118 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point if true. I had something similar happen on another article. I had a run in with a well known radio group in the UK who were removing my good faith edits regarding one of their radio stations. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If Alanjay is the business director on Digital Spy, he should declare an interest on this talk page, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. --tgheretford (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you can get a series of temporary bans for basically what amounts to a non-offence. Think of it as getting a life sentence for accruing too many parking tickets. The Digital Spy moderation is the worst I've seen on any forums, and no wonder the forum has such a bad reputation.84.70.80.219 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: User Alanjay - Conflict of interest 

message: It seems dubious to me that it is the "largest media-based discussion centre" - please can we find a citation for this or remove it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: if only it could be documented. sadly it can't because the mods do overreact at a drop of a dime, and when called on it will try to reclean the thread up even further to make themselves seem more consistent. but the reality is that they ban users much of the time using the most extreme and arbitrary interpretation of what is offensive. There seems to be a level of corruption or simply neglect in care for the forums.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.76.163 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It would be a window into the moderation policy

message: This seems not to have been updated recently - as I am asked not to make such changes I will make the comment here (is that ok?)
Big Boards which is an independent tracking site of many forums around the world http://www.big-boards.com/board/329/
Forum software: vBulletin
Number of posts: 26,014,116
Number of members: 274,335
Post per member ratio: 95
Posts last week: 243,342  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanjay (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Spy Forum Statistics 

message: The DS website is currently forwarding viruses, apparently through their advertising banners.  While not directly responsible for the viruses, DS have not pulled the banners despite acknowledging the problem days ago.  Should this be mentioned in the article?  It's relevant, because it's dragging DS down as malware and people should be warned of it where possible.  I'm not sure how relevant though, which is why I've added to the discussion and not edited the page. Wokstation (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through for sources on Google News to meet verifiable policy, I can't see anything about the viruses/malware issues on the site which would meet that policy, so for the moment, I wouldn't add it. If it does get picked up by reliable sources, then that could be reviewed. --tgheretford (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viruses on site 

message: Er...In 2009............as of 31st January 2008?
Surely a mistake!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Edition 

message: Was just browsing through a few pages for songs (e.g. Marina and the Diamonds - Hollywood), and the first prominent review is by someone from Digital Spy.  Now from reading through this I know they think they're a big forum etc., but surely DS doesn't rank up there with the likes of the BBC or NME?  Do these belong on a huge site like this, as it's akin to taking quotes from the blog of a nobody.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.202.223 (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of digital spy quotes for other Wikipedia pages? 

message: They gave away two awards in December 2009 - one to EastEnders for Soap of the Year and one to Barbara Windsor for Soap Icon, however it looks like they were the only two awards they gave out. anemoneprojectors talk 23:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soap Awards 

message: The website layout has changed and the current screenshot is outdated. Here is a new screenshot. 
http://i46.tinypic.com/1z31j44.png  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaneRyles (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, as long as it meets the policies and guidelines for fair use - in particular adding a copyright template, information on where it was sourced (the front page of the website) and a fair use rationale. You'll need to set-up an account and be active for four days with a good standing account and have made at least ten edits before you can upload it though. --tgheretford (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Layout 

message: The Guardian have reported on the changes and included some history here so probably worth writing about. –anemoneprojectors– 09:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 changes

message: Moderation of Digital Spy continues to be controversial in that it is heavy handed and politically slanted. It employs a large number of liberal-left leaning young and gay people who are particularly involved in gay rights activism and this informs its moderation policy. Its articles are often hard hitting towards those it disapproves of, but the site does not bear any similar examination of its own reporters. While there is much anecdotal frustration around the net with Digital Spy's practices, it's difficult to cite evidence as the proof has been inevitably deleted. Can anybody help? The politics and practices of the site considering its reach are surely ripe for discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.227.51 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Over Moderation Continues 

message: Any objection to switching the title to italics? I'm looking at WP:ITALICS, which says:
 czar ♔ 01:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: I'm surprised there isn't any mention of James Welsh.
According to the Guardian he was a co-founder. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/01/digital-spy-entertainment-technology-revamp
What's the real story. There are no citations under the history section. ClarkF1 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Welsh