Talk:In depth: XM and Sirius merger

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The slash character (/) is to be avoided in article titles. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so. Over on WP, someone moved the original article, "XM Sirius merger" to "XM/Sirius merger", and I just left it. TomXP411 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it makes that much of a difference as /'s are not special in the main namespace. Bawolff 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dupe?[edit]

This is currently a redundant article. However, there's a reason: I want to track major events involving the merger, so I'm using this article to consolidate links. When something new comes up, it will get posted here. When something major happens - such as a regulatory action, stockholder vote, or announcement from XM or Sirius, it might also merit its own article. This is based on Wikinews:Content_guide#Write_news_articles Content Guide, which says to create an "In Depth" page to track an ongoing event.

TomXP411 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Guidance[edit]

I'm obviously new to Wikinews.

What I'm trying to do with this article is something I can't do on Wikipedia: keep a running journal of news articles and events related to the merger. I am trying to reference events that wouldn't be considered "encyclopedic" on WP, yet are newsworthy enough to merit comment.

I want to basically make this a day to day supplement to the WP article. The WP article itself gives the facts. I want this to give the color: what people think, why this merger may be good, why this merger may be bad. Mostly, I want to keep up to date, and keep other people up to date on what's going on.

To that end, I'm not sure about some things. Categories, for example: the recent edit comment, "(in depth page: in category:no publish? should be in Newsroom, neither on main page I think) " is confusing. What exactly does this mean? That this article should be in the Newsroom? What about "neither on main page?".

A few poeple have added categories. Thank you for that. :) If you could maybe leave some comments here, so I know what else needs to be done, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, TomXP411 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any in depth reports since I've been here, so I'm not sure how it works. My "(in depth page: in category:no publish? should be in Newsroom, neither on main page I think) "-comment (sorry about my crappy English), refers to the following: since it is not really a time-specific article, I don't think it should be listed under a specific date on the main page. Neither should it be continually listed on the Newsroom as a developing article. This really is a different subset of pages. One way to filter them would be cat:No publish, however for some reason I can't understand the DynamicPageList in the newsroom keeps listing it... Maybe we should set up a different category to group all these reports. Anyway I think it's really valuable what you're doing here!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I too have never seen in 'In depth' report since I've been here, almost 3 years now. However I new category (maybe template?) might be needed, if more articles in this fashion are created.TomXP411, welcome to Wikinews! terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Only sort of in depth thing I've sort of seen here is some Australian stuff, and DV's chili finger thingy (Chili_Finger_Incident). I believe for the most part they were linked from various other articles. Bawolff 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The best approach is a series of short articles, if you think you can get the number up to a half-dozen or more it'd merit Category:XM-Sirius merger. If you can't get beyond 3-4 sentences for a particular day the information should go in the briefs - which encourages other people to work on them. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No publish[edit]

What is the point of this if its not on the mainpage? No publish is useless in this case. DragonFire1024 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This will never appear anywhere with no publish and no date template. If you want a background piece you need several articles to group in a category. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I plan on writing up a summary of the monopoly hearing tonight. That will be an article in its own right. Should I create a category and include the text in this article as part of the category? Or do I create a category and include this as one of the items in the category? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. (I do understand that I need more than one article to make a category - that makes perfect sense.) TomXP411 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe it shouldn't be on the main page because it's not a time specific-event. You could create an infobox with a category to list the articles, and put this page as background information. I mention in also in the discussion above.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to create the infobox. Could you drop one in so I can see how it's done? Thanks. TomXP411 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Newsworthy[edit]

This article, to me, is becoming less and less like news but more an aricle for 'pedia. What does everyone else think??--MarkieTalk 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Background pieces aren't always newsworthy in their own right. The funny part is that I addressed these issues on Wikipedia and was told "That's all speculation. Take your article to Wikinews". So I did. I strongly believe this article is important, and the WP people are right - the mass of this article isn't really encyclopedia appropriate.

I spend quite a bit of time on XMFan.com, and I see the same questions asked almost every day. That's why I started this article, but then people STILL asked the same questions, so I started the FAQ section and have started pointing people here. I have seen similar things in the past in print news, where the paper will run an article about a current event and run another one that gives background information. Magazines run sidebars all the time, with information related to a main article. I'm trying to document this merger because this is an interesting opportunity from many perspectives: the consolidation in the radio market affects our voice in the American political system, the potential for monopoly is a major financial issue, and the consumers deserve to known, as obvious stakeholders in this. Right now, I can point people here and say "look here and in 5 minutes, you'll know all that anyone else does." Indeed, I think that the combination of Wikipedia and Wikinews is a powerful force for informing the public.

Anyhow, this article isn't supposed to stand alone. (Hence the No Publish flag) It's to support articles written about the actual events of the merger as they happen. I've already talked to several people who read this and are glad it's here. Also, as far as I know, it's the only place on the Internet that actually consolidates the merger information that is available. --TomXP411 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about this before, it's not a classical news report but an In depth-coverage, the first of it's kind on Wikinews apparently, although it's mentioned in the content guide (or somewhere).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo?[edit]

It seems that the word "exiting" should be replaced with the word "existing". Please edit the article if I am correct.

I quote:

;Will I need a new radio?: The answer is "maybe". Conflicting reports have been popping up from different people in Sirius. Both companies have made statements that subscribers' exiting receivers will continue to work. However, some people involved with Sirius have said that duplicates will be removed. The problem is that there is only room for so many channels, and if the company wants to bring new content, some channels will have to be removed. Also, there is no cost savings in running all of the existing channels. Most of the music stations on each network have a parallel station on the other network. Also, the duplicate simulcast stations (CNN and Fox, for example) can be cut from one network. Without having exact figures, it's likely that Sirius and XM together could cut 1/3 or more of their channels without losing content. Under this scenario, it's possible that one set of radios would lose an entire genre of music, such as XM losing its Urban category and Sirius losing its rock category.

Kushal one 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdated[edit]

This article pertains to an active news story but has not been updated with key events since June 2007. Because of this, certain elements are misleading and/or false. In the FAQ, the section on pricing is very vague. Sirius and XM have announced their post-merger A La Carte pricing. The Department of Justice has approved the merger as of March 24, 2008. The FCC still has to approve the merger, however. --Thoreau - (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo[edit]

{{editprotected}}
'occured' => 'occurred' Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)