Talk:Sun Sentinel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who owns it?

Does anyone know what major news company, if any, Sun sentinel is owned by?

It's owned by the Tribune Company. I've added this detail to the article. Jordon Kalilich 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think corporate is editing their own page.

You're not kidding -- it reads like a PR brochure, especially the Overview and the section about Sun-Sentinel.com. 156.75.192.109 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now reverted to the last version before The Sun Sentinel decided to use the article as free advertising. I have this on my watch list, and will revert as necessary, andd take further action as required. This article was a shame on Wikipedia when I saw it. Jeffpw 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Circulation numbers

The article says "It reaches more than 600,000 readers daily and more than 850,000 on Sundays," but the sidebar has circulation numbers of 226,591 daily and 319,103 on Sundays. The numbers in the article are unsourced, so I'm replacing them with the ones provided by BurrellesLuce. --144.142.21.44 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! -- Donald Albury 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Area of circulation

Oh, come on, can't someone find a source for where the Sun-Sentinal is distributed. The statement given by Grahambunk in his edit summary, "The Sun-Sentinal is available EVERYWHERE in South Florida. Anybody that lives here would know that. Walk around Miami, Ft Lauderdale, or West Palm and you will see the paper for sale." is pure original research, and not acceptable in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 20:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was move per request, except after performing the move which was focused on removal of "South Florida" and not really on the hyphenation, I have been looking and the hyphenation is very consistent across reliable sources (do a book search) and is the form used on every page of the paper edition (do a Google image search) so I am boldly adding back the hyphenation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

---

South Florida Sun-Sentinel → Sun Sentinel – The proper-noun name of the paper is not South Florida Sun-Sentinel — the article itself never even calls it that. The newspaper's own website calls it simply the Sun Sentinel, without a hyphen. See: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/about/site/sfla-helpindex,0,4571624.htmlstory : "Who to contact at the Sun Sentinel and SunSentinel.com"; "Listed below are many contacts for the Sun Sentinel and for SunSentinel.com"; " Write to us at Sun Sentinel, ..."; "Most articles in the Sun Sentinel have..." Tenebrae (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is the fine-print legal name of the newspaper, as you can see here. But in every other context, they use the proposed form. Kauffner (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, agree with above analysis. — Cirt (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Both editors above properly follow WP:COMMONNAME. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Sun-Sentinel → Sun Sentinel – I closed the above discussion removing "South Florida" from the title but not acting on removing the hyphenation. Obviously dissatisfied with this, the requester unilaterally moved the talk page and then made an "uncontroversial" technical request to move the article to make an end run around the close, which was surprisingly acted upon even though I dropped a note at the technical request indicating what was going on. Anyway, let's not focus on the conduct here but the merits. Should the page be moved to Sun Sentinel or not?

Though Tenebrae noted that the Newspaper's website appears to drop the hyphen, the physical printed newspaper normally hyphenates "Sun-Sentinel", which you can see from a Google images showing pages from the print edition. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. It appears they may have recently started dropping the space and the hyphen, using a stylized camel case "SunSentinel" ([5]) and I did find a recent use by the newspaper with the space but without the hyphen: [6], so it's not perfectly clear cut what the newspaper itself uses. However, as I noted, the vast majority of reliable third party sources shown through a Google Book search use the hyphen. Given that I am making this request for consensus but think the current title should remain as I closed it, with the hyphen, it would avoid confusion if comments were prefixed with "keep hyphen" or "remove hyphen" or something similar, rather than "support" or "oppose".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I need to say, in order that debate not be improperly influenced, that I did not do an "end-run." I moved the talk page before seeing the the admin had re-inserted the hyphen, since I was going by the proper wording of the move-request and simply thought the admin had made a typo. That was a reasonable presumption since admins are editors like the rest of us and cannot summarily change a boxed consensus decision. If the admin believed the title should have had a hyphen, then he, as an editor, could have called for an RfC or a move-request himself.

The talk page moved to the consensus wording, and only then did I notice the article page did not. That's when I looked into it further. Since the admin had no more right to change the boxed consensus decision than any other editor, then, no, I did not consider it controversial or other than a technical move to title the article as all the other editors in the boxed decision agreed it should be titled. The article should be titled what three editors agreed to title it, not what one editor unilaterally decided. Only then should there be an RfC or a move-request on whether to add a hyphen.

This is not to say the admin doesn't have a valid point; only that like the rest of us, he needs to go through protocol.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to square your post above with what happened here. As best I can make out you seem to think I am someone other than the closing admin, since I can't see why you would otherwise say "...cannot summarily change a boxed consensus decision"--I closed the discussion. If you read the close you could not think it was a typo given that I addressed the hyphenation directly. Seeking to reverse the addressed result of a formal close of a requested move can never be a proper basis of an uncontroversial technical request. Anyway, I opened this discussion so that the hyphen issue can be focused on, where before it was a side note; let's focus on it. I have no skin in that mix other than that seeing that articles are properly titled, following policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"hard to square? I wish you'd assume good faith. I saw the closed-box header that reads. "South Florida Sun-Sentinel → Sun Sentinel." I didn't read your note since I had no reason to assume any admin would do anything other than what that header said. Then, as I stated, "I moved the talk page before seeing the the admin had re-inserted the hyphen." SInce you had no more right to change the consensus decision than any other editor, I don't see how asking it to be moved to where consensus agreed to move can be controversial --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Remove hyphen So let me get this straight. First, Tenebrae requests a move to Sun Sentinel. After two editors agree and no one opposes, Fuhghettaboutit closes as moved, specifically saying "per request." So far so good. Then Fuhghettaboutit changes his mind. Um, ok. Tenebrae moves the page to the original target. (Anthony Appleyard agrees.) Does this call for a tip of the hat, as it is enforcing consensus, or a wag of the finger, as it is contradicting an admin? I call a plague on both your houses. Tenebrae, I'm sympathetic to your position, but you probably should've contacted Fuhghettaboutit rather than moving the article again, and you definitely should've contacted him instead of filing a technical request. Fuhghettaboutit, I understand what you did, but it's hard not to see your close as a supervote. This second RM should be pointing the other direction. But I support Tenebrae's initial proposal. If the paper inconsistently uses hyphenated, unhyphenated, and camel case forms, I prefer the unhyphenated form as something of an average. The Google Books search is unconvincing; many of those results use outdated names for the paper anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  This is a strange one. They appear to be preferring to remove the hyphen, but the name registered with Florida, if I read this correctly, is Sun-Sentinel Company, LLC.[7] Apteva (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A formal company name and the WP:COMMONNAME may be different. Also, it's easier for the print publication to move away from a hyphen use than for a corporation to formally change its name. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

True. I think the lesson we can all learn from this RM is that if as closer, a different name appears to be the correct one, other than any that came up in the discussion, the correct action to take is to bring that up, and let someone else close the discussion - and let everyone who has participated weigh in on that new proposal, instead of just being surprised. In this case a half an hour later the close was revised, but I would recommend that it should have been reverted, the proposal made, and leave it for someone else to close. It is not unusual for someone thinking of closing an RM to have an alternate proposal, but as expert witness, that removes the possibility of also being the closer. Apteva (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – and I would have opposed the first move, too, if I had seen it, since removing the South Florida part of their name just leaves the title less precise and less informative. Another point for the minimalists. It is part of the official name (just do a web search on "Sun Sentinel" to see all the places it's used), and helps to make it clear what the article is about, even if it is common to shorten it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, using the following example: We don't call it the New York Daily News because that's incorrect (and if being labeled "minimalist" for wanting an encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedically precise, then guilty as charged!). New York Daily News is rightly in Wikipedia as Daily News (New York), and whether web searches find hits places outside the paper calling it the New York Daily News doesn't matter — the paper calls itself just the Daily News. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This search suggests that they refer to themselves as "New York Daily News" on about 6 million of their own web pages on nydailynews.com. Wouldn't that "natural disambiguation" be better than the odd parenthetical? Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First, whenever it says "New York Daily News" it does NOT italicize "New York." Second, the masthead says Daily News. Third, the paper says Daily News on its top-right folio every other page. Fourth, from the paper's own website, under "Terms of Service", and referring to the website of part of the larger "Daily News Service":

• The materials comprising the Daily News Services are provided by the 'Daily News as a service to you for your noncommercial, personal use ...
• The Daily News assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the materials comprising the Daily News Services. The Daily News makes no commitment to update the information on the Daily News Services. No advice or information given by the Daily News or any other party on the Daily News Services shall create any warranty or liability. Further, the Daily News is not responsible for any content transmitted or posted to the Daily News Services by a third party. Any such third party content does not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or positions of the Daily News. (See below regarding "User Content.")
• The Daily News periodically schedules system downtime for .... The Daily News shall have no liability for ....
• The Daily News makes no, and expressly disclaims any....
• The Daily News is not responsible for, and does not control, any third party content or advertisements ..."

And so on. I live in New York. It's the Daily News. By the way, the website is "nydailynews.com" only since the LA Daily News beat it to "dailynews.com".--Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that when they disambiguate themselves from other newspapers of the same name, they do so with "Natural Disambiguation", using the long form of the name, not by a parenthetical. My impression was that "natural disambiguation" was preferable on WP in many cases. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the WP:COMMON for it is just Daily News. Nobody in New York calls it "The New York Daily News". And as an encyclopedia — and I don't mean this is anyone's goal but just an unforeseen consequence — Wikipedia probably shouldn't encourage bad habits by people who don't know better and give the name inaccurately ... an encyclopedia is where someone goes for, at its best, unambiguously accurate facts. Daily News is the paper's name, and we should respect that. And in any case, and I;m guilty of this as well, we've gotten kind of off-topic!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Requested move 4 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no consensus among the discussion participants for a move, and there is ambiguity in the real world about the title. Since the current article target is not explicitly wrong, the status quo endures and the article is not moved. (non-admin closure) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Sun-Sentinel → Sun Sentinel – As per the official name policy, the newspaper's official name is "Sun Sentinel" (source). Also, as per the common name policy, Sun Sentinel is searched 25x more than "Sun-Sentinel" (Google Trends). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. -- Calidum 14:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, this reflects a 2008 name change mentioned in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not so sure about this. Their website is "sun-sentinel.com" and at the bottom of their website it says "Copyright © 2020, South Florida Sun-Sentinel". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007: Hm, that's odd! Just having a look at other sources, they seem to use "Sun Sentinel" everywhere else: YouTube channel, Newspapers.com archive, LinkedIn, Android app. I think with the URL it's just one of those things where they've included the dash to represent a space, and with the footer, I think that's just an anomaly? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: I note with wicked pleasure that the explanatory supplement at official names, which started life as an essay of mine, is cited above as policy. Unfortunately it's not a policy and it says so explicitly, and isn't even accurately cited. It does not support this proposed move, for many reasons. And that's a common mistake, as the page also says quite explicitly. (It's quite funny really.) I note with less pleasure that the sources cited all appear to be primary sources, so the claim that they support the move on the grounds of common name is similarly questionable. Andrewa (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• This is an interesting circumstance. Would this be considered a third-party source? [8] It comes from the Florida Press Association. – The Grid (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom and per FPA source provided by The Grid. BD2412 T 23:47, 12 November 2020 (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.