Talk:Crisscross

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)

Merger proposal

The result was no merger. - Sparkzilla 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Crisscross doesn't seem to be notable outside it's "Metropolis" and "Japan Today" dealings. Metropolis "barely clears the bar of notability", and the company even less so. All the sources are primarily on the magazine, and not on "Crisscross publishing". Heatedissuepuppet 08:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages. I think these articles have a pretty large overlap - Crisscross is notable only for publishing Metropolis, possibly also for JapanToday, but I don't think that's enough to warrant a separate article. Most sources in this article are about Metropolis, and in doing so they mention Crisscross, but that's it. Heatedissuepuppet 13:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.