Talk:New York Times to start charging for access to web news

Review of revision 1196926 [Passed]

Revision 1196926 of this article has been reviewed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good, but it should include the prices of the plans. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1196926 of this article has been reviewed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good, but it should include the prices of the plans. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

SIX sources?

Why does such a short article require six sources? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

More than necessary doesn't hurt. Plus, it's kind of interesting to see other companies' spin on the issue. --SweetNightmares (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It does hurt. The policy is WN:CS - which also goes on to explain the issue. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the version I requested for publication:http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Times_to_start_charging_for_access_to_web_news&oldid=1196793 I don't know where the others came from, but they are not necessary for sourcing, IMO. I will remove them. Mattisse (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. People forget this isn't Wikipedia, and the whole point isn't to act as a link agregator. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)