Talk:MailOnline

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mail Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905103217/http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 to http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

sourcing

Sourcing Can anyone explain the following line:

Martin Clarke, editor of MailOnline, said, "We will soon be introducing features that will allow us to link easily and prominently to other sites when further recognition of source material is needed."[53] However, by July 2013, MailOnline articles, including main articles, still did not contain any links to original sources or tips.[54]

Sinmaz, Emine (24 July 2013). "MailOnline article showing no links". MailOnline. Retrieved 25 July 2013.

The article cited - about an orca/ killer whale - does not have any links. What links should it show? Unless anybody can explain, it looks like the Mail has bought some photographs from a photographer and used them in a story. Is there any evidence that the pictures have featured elsewhere? Certainly the pictures do not appear to have been used anywhere else. This article, on that basis, would be the original source, so there is no need for it to link to anywhere else. So this does not illustrate the point at all, and I suggest it should be removed. Perhaps there are other illustrations of the phenomenon, but this one does not work.Booklung (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The bullet points should be moved to before the types on the 'Types' section at the beginning of the article

In my opinion, the bullet points should be moved to before the types on the 'Types' section at the beginning of the article as in my opinion it would make the article look more professional. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mail Online logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)