Talk:Metro Silicon Valley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper → Metro Silicon Valley — Although the masthead includes the descriptive phrase of the former, the paper's actual title as seen at the corporate website appears to be either simply "Metro" or the more specific "Metro Silicon Valley". The latter is recommended to better distinguish from the company's other paper titled Metro Santa Cruz. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support, Though I also have not yet seen a print copy, it does indeed seem from the main site that the more correct title would be Metro Silicon Valley. Smeelgova 09:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• What is the title as written on the actual paper/print version of the paper? Smeelgova 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

• Unfortunately, as an "East Coaster" I've never held a print copy in my hands. Any locals out there that want to help us out with this? -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accusations added in repeated edits

It's not that there aren't sources, it's that it's undue weight. All the sources show is that some people are making allegations. The two sources in the section I have now twice removed are the petition itself and the newspaper's disclaimer; the latter is pretty standard and the former does not indicate that independent coverage has raised this to a notable level. Particularly given the accusation of children being involved, independent coverage showing that this is a major concern is required. Otherwise it falls under "Anyone can say anything and sometimes does". The first statement is from a 3rd party and does not make the claim about children, so I judge that to be valid to include. Anyone wanting to include more needs to find similar 3rd-party coverage reporting on the child endangerment allegation and/or the petition. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I examined the one 3rd-party source and sourced what I could to that, then shortened the statements about Metro; this still needs further 3rd-party coverage to justify spending more space on it, and in particular saying that Metro has ascribed the petition to its investigative journalism needs a source to be there. But more of what the other editor wants in is now in (and the source is no longer a bare URL). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro Silicon Valley. 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/20070217210343/http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid%3A47 to http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid%3A47

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) 22:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)