Talk:Apple rumor community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale

Contents 1 stub? 2 page rename? 3 Citations needed 4 iPhone Nano 5 9to5mac 6 Notability 7 Ars 8 macforum.com 9 Re-did Layout

[edit] stub?

Does this really qualify as a stub? It seem pretty complete to me. Whoever did it, did a good job

[edit] page rename?

I think this page should be called "Apple rumors community."

Since Apple's business today is about so much more than the Mac, and the rumors sites often devote more time to software/iPod/other hardware projects than they do to the Mac specifically. Rumoring isn't about the Mac anymore.

[edit] Citations needed

This page is flirting with WP:NOR. It makes some specific proclamations about events and stances that really need citations. Properly-sourced links to the rumour sites themselves will probably do. Warrens 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone Nano

shouldn't this be there? 132.205.44.5 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9to5mac

Shouldn't there be something written about this site? --Cwinnipeg 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Does a subject like this belong in Wikipedia? Does it really meet guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT? Jason McHuff 08:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ars

What About Ars? MatthieuV (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't generally a rumor site but they should be discussed somewhere Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] macforum.com

I have become involved in a nascent edit war over the addition of macforum.com to the external links section of the article. I believe that it should not be included, as the site consists only of discussion forums, was apparently created less than three weeks ago, has only 30 registered members, and 254 of the site's 265 posts have been made by site administrators. Additionally, the IP used here to make the additions and the site's whois registration also suggest that this is site promotion spam. Sites mentioned in this article should be limited to those that have (or had at some point) significant impact on the rumors community, not brand new sites attempting to create traffic for themselves. I would appreciate the input of additional editors on this question...thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with WildCowboy's views. macforum.com appears to be a site with little to no relevence. It in no means should be listed in an article such as this when competing with sites such as MacRumors which has nearly 160000 registered members.Spanky Deluxe (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of links to the 6 most important sites Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-did Layout

I've redone the layout to make the content more relevant. The main sites now have their own pages.

Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)