Talk:Neowin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Microsoft Subject matter[edit]

The article states that the news is generally Microsoft-centric, and i don't think this is true anymore. I think the site has grown into a broader aggregation of news topics, and now focuses on the full width and breadth of the computer tech industry. I'm changing the article to accurately reflect this. Tzvi Friedman (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

From checking the site it appears to be predominantly microsoft related and have a microsoft advocacy slant. It's listed as an advocacy site in the Os_advocacy article. I will alter the page slightly if there are no objections IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone objected and reverted without discussion, Instead I have found citations for Microsoft Enthusiast website IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Main categories[edit]

The categories of "News, Software, Gaming" are a little outdated. Recently, the front page has changed the sidebar tabs to "Top Stories, Blog posts, Forum Posts". Software and gaming still have tabs on the main feed, but are accompanied by Microsoft, Apple, and Editorials.

I think that adding editorials to the list of "main categories" would be fine though. Tzvi Friedman (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Neowin's forums are not dead[edit]

They will be back up soon. Devs have been working non stop. Kyle Korth (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't edit someones comment man. Kyle Korth (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The article does not point out clearly that neowin is a MS "supporters" site. Moreover, sensationalist terms are used. An example: "Neowin is considered to be one of the great representations of the growth and concentration of enthusiastic users in computing, and of the omnipresent Microsoft Windows Operating System in all its forms." I think it should be rewrote by someone neutral (I do not write well in english). 83.190.232.232 22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Neowin is a MS Supporters site, They may have started out as a Microsoft orientated site, but they now have pretty large communities of both Apple and Linux/Unix/FOSS users and supporters. (82.34.56.106 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

The site is very much a microsoft advocacy site IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Stardock Affiliation[edit]

Can someone add something to the article about Neowin's affiliation with Stardock. I would do it my self but I can't seem to find any info on it, other than it exists.Mossman93 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Archives of Previous Discussions[edit]

it is a broke ass slahsdot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.64.177 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote that this article be deleted for irrelevance. Neowin isn't any different from a hundred other popular websites out there without a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.21.230 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Is neowin notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia? The only thing currently noteworthy appears to be coverage of the leak of Windows 2000 source code onto the internet IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I will remove the particularly non-notable parts: i.e the parts with no references from reliable sources as to why they are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have drafted a possible compromise article in my user space. The draft retains what I believe could be construed as encyclopaedic in nature, cutting out a lot of chaff that is not notable (please see WP:NOTE for more information). Whilst I don't think the article is worthy of a WP:AfD nomination, I think a considerable amount of evidence must be added to the article to show its notability in general. Links to any news stories that Neowin has broken (other than the Windows 2000 one already included) need to be added, along with the gist of the story. Any material I deleted from my draft is because I thought it was excessive detail (forum statistics), unverifiable (staff count), or trivial and therefore not worthy of inclusion (development section). If you flesh it out with something, then make sure it's both important and well-sourced. Feel free to make changes to it, but bear in mind that others may have edited the draft. This diff is my original proposal. CoI note: I know user DaveLegg personally, but have no links to Neowin. I decided to offer this compromise as an impartial third party. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Your "11:50, 27 October 2010" draft appears a suitable compromise, except that reliable sources list it as a Microsoft/Windows enthusiast website. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I added the site structure part of the draft to the article IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It is clear from just a quick look at the front page, or forum list, that it is a technology site in general, and not just a Microsoft/Windows enthusiast site. DaveLegg (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the draft. And I think that if the description of the site is disputable, for now it could be simply as it is in the draft: a technology news site. Look at the front page and you'll find that roughly half the stories are not related to Microsoft or its products. There are, for example, stories on Android, Symbian, Ubuntu and Limewire. The draft states that editorial focus is predominantly on Microsoft and its products, but that there is also other news covered. I don't see how that clashes with the sources or the website itself. Brammers (talk/c) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Three reliable sources say it's an enthusiasts website, (half the articles being about microsoft and products is a good indication of that to me). Wikipedia is for material with Verifiability not truth. Note that the intro as is says that neowin "actively focuses on Windows, Mac and Linux." IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to deny that it is a MS/Windows enthusiast site. My argument is simply that it is that, and far more, and thus it would be inaccurate and misleading to describe it purely as a MS/Windows enthusiast site.129.67.127.65 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction does not describe it purely as a MS/Windows enthusiast site, it mentions other topics covered. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)