Misplaced Pages

Talk:Salon.com: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:06, 17 March 2012 editTenebrae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users155,424 edits Requested move: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 17:13, 17 March 2012 edit undoCallmederek (talk | contribs)345 edits Requested moveNext edit →
Line 115: Line 115:
*'''Support'''; .com should only be used if it's part of the site's branding. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 14:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC) *'''Support'''; .com should only be used if it's part of the site's branding. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 14:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; As DeLarge himself contested to remove ".com" at ], ], ] and ], the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous &mdash; they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that ''doesn't'' change the name of the site. ] allows changes if there ''is'' a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason.--] (]) 16:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC) *'''Support'''; As DeLarge himself contested to remove ".com" at ], ], ] and ], the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous &mdash; they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that ''doesn't'' change the name of the site. ] allows changes if there ''is'' a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason.--] (]) 16:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
* '''oppose''' for precision. Its not lots of domains like google or yahoo would have, its just salon.com. ] (]) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:13, 17 March 2012

This notice should appear on top of the talk page. Please do not remove

Centralized discussion about the use of salon.com as a source in Misplaced Pages articles

WikiProject iconCalifornia: San Francisco Bay Area Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconCompanies Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconJournalism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Topics

The following is the previous content of this article. Apparently, it refers to a feud between John Ivring and John Updike. Salon.com appears to have reported on it. I fixed the formatting (the letter part began with several spaces). What is its significance (if any?) Paullusmagnus 16:56 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mr Updike,

From the letter you address soecifically to me, ( 30 Aug. 1998) I can only ascertain that you hold my own humble opinion, in what can only be regarded as low esteem. This is, as an author of your venerable stature is no doubt aware, your peroragative, but is one in which your own weakness for unsubstantiated hyperboyle, a flaw often found in this young country amoung our old men of letters, is unmistakely revealed.

Yours in cahoots Old Gore

Not just fannish, but subjective all over

This article is in need of being rewritten to be objective. The definition in the first sentence calls it a 'liberal magazine.' That is not an objective or universal term.

As the poster below asked 'by what standard?'


I'm confused on why saying this magazine is a "liberal magazine" is not subjective? Many magazines and blogs do have political leanings and i think this information would be important towards the wiki Is there not a way to make this statement and still stay within the wiki rules? Hippydog (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC) hippydog

this article is pretty fannish, isn't it?

There are a few things in this article that stood out to me as being biased in favor of a "Salon is great!" definition. Here they are:

1. "Though providing several services, it is best known for its online magazine, with content updated each weekday."

What are these services? Stating they exist without defining them just seems to be bragging that Salon.com has other services aside from web journalism.

2. "Salon's magazine covers a variety of topics. American politics is a major focus, but by no means the only one. It has extensive reviews and articles about music, books, and films. It also has articles about 'modern life' in all its forms, including relationships and sex. It covers technology, with a particular focus on the free software/open source movement."

Again, this entire paragraph seems to be apoligist, seemingly trying to convince the reader that Salon is something special. Verbiage such as "but by no means" and "extensive" seem redundant, inserted only to praise Salon.


3. "Its online subscription-only discussion boards, Table Talk and The WELL, are quite popular."

Quite popular to who? By what measuring standard?


4. "As one of the earliest and most prominent web-only media outlets"

where is the cite for this claim?

5. "On 25 April, 2001 Salon.com launched Salon Premium, one of the first online content subscriptions. Salon Premium, having successfully signed over 130,000 subscribers, defied critical expectations and staved off discontinuation of services."

Where is the cite of this 130K figure, or for that matter, "critical expectations"? Where is the evidence of any of this?

This article to me comes across as pretty biased. And the screenshot of the homepage doesent refelct the recent horrible redesign Salon.com got.--202.49.19.27 01:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Literally half of this aricle is devoted to Salon.coms monetary woes. Although it's money problems are certainly relevant and deserve inclusion, they overwhelmingly bias the article against Salon. I'll try to add some additional content (neutral point of view of course) sometime soon. Freddie deBoer 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

New screenshot?

Am newbie to this and don't want to attempt images - but can we update the screenshot since the re-design?


Chief executive editor is not David Talbot anymore

Can somebody please update? Thanks. Andries 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Much information out-of-date

Hello! Much information on this page is out of date. Current information can be found at these sources:

Thank you.


Louis.bennett (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical Project Manager, Salon.com

New York Times

It would be interesting if we could indicate that Salon has some kind of link to the New York Times. ADM (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Update please, has this magazine folded or what

Could someone refresh and update this article. First of all, it makes it sound like the magazine should have filed bankruptcy protection by now if it was $80 million in debt in 2003. I assume some magics happened that it survives today, so what happened. Also "liberal politics" as a writing topic could use more summary, does this mean Salon advocates for it or is critical of it, and if it must exclusively write about "liberal" politics does this mean it takes a conservative or liberal position. 75.72.165.211 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

History to prose

There is a tag requesting that the History section of the article should be changed to prose. I have done so, but I have not edited the Business Structure, as it does not seem to require an edit.

Can I have feedback on the article's changes so that I can remove the tag.

Davidlive (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog

I'm removing the use of blogs as a means of criticizing Salon.com. If the criticism is reliably sourced, then it should be published by a third party.VR talk 19:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Here's an archive of content that may not be on Salon anymore:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Salon.com be renamed and moved to Salon (website).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current logtarget logdirect move

Salon.comSalon (website) – Previously moved boldly to this new title. I reverted and brought it here as a matter of procedure after unsuccessfully encouraging the page mover to do so himself. See also Talk:TMZ.com#Requested move. --DeLarge (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Violates the MOS guideline WP:TITLECHANGES, namely "if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." The TLD suffix is widely used as a disambiguator for websites (see Category:Websites and its many subcategories). WP:NCDAB does not make any insistence on using a word in parenthesis as the primary style of disambiguation, and in fact offers several alternatives. Page mover cited three other recent move requests where the ".com" was removed after he'd added it, but that was in cases where the title did not need disambiguation. See also WP:NCCORP, where the legal status suffix (e.g. LLC, inc., Ltd, etc) is recommended as a disambiguator where required, but not used at all when this is not the case. --DeLarge (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; .com should only be used if it's part of the site's branding. Powers 14:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; As DeLarge himself contested to remove ".com" at Talk:Radar Online, Talk:Slant Magazine, Talk:Comic Book Resources and Talk:Comics Bulletin, the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous — they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that doesn't change the name of the site. WP:TITLECHANGES allows changes if there is a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose for precision. Its not lots of domains like google or yahoo would have, its just salon.com. Callmederek (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Categories: