Talk:Microsoft disgruntled with partner Dell's interest in open source
Title edit
Could we make this title a little more POV than it already is? —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- (a) Suggestions please (b) Damn but your sig is long in wikicode. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on... Don't you agree that the title is a little POV? —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)P.S. The only way to get rid of the "Damn" wikicode is to use a template, which we(and I)do not want on Wikinews.
- I'd like to see a better title, its somewhat POV and enough to discuss a change, but I don't think enough to unpublish. The problem is "whack" is attributed to the corporation when it is a single person who has used the phrase. The only alternative I can come up with is Microsoft disgruntled with partnet Dell's interest in Open Source. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying that we should unpublish. I do like your title better than the current one. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, moved and redirects fixed. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a better title, its somewhat POV and enough to discuss a change, but I don't think enough to unpublish. The problem is "whack" is attributed to the corporation when it is a single person who has used the phrase. The only alternative I can come up with is Microsoft disgruntled with partnet Dell's interest in Open Source. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I kinda liked the "whack" title :) Towsonu2003 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the "whack" title did seem to catch my attention, but it just wasn't NPOV. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose of "whack" was that it was a direct quote. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I realized that :) —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- so it's okay to change the name of the story back? Towsonu2003 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I realized that :) —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose of "whack" was that it was a direct quote. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the "whack" title did seem to catch my attention, but it just wasn't NPOV. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the old title was fine. It's perfectly npov to use "wack" if its from such a direct verifiable quote (whic is not an accusation). Just mention the quote & source clearly in the article so that people know where the title came from. Nyarlathotep 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. Of course, there are a few situations where quotes in titles are pov, i.e. accusations. For example, you can't necessarily use any accusatory word used by Isael's critics in just any related article about Israel. But here "wack" is an internal quote by microsoft about microsoft (or what microsoft should do). Such a quote, if verifiable, is always intrinsically npov in any situation. fyi, Even accusatory quotes are npov if attributed in the title, although these are often not very good titles.
Bad Dell! Naughty Dell! edit
Steve Ballmer: "What have I told you before about playing with those f**king penguins!?"
*Throws chair for MASSIVE DAMAGE!*
Michael Dell: "I'm soooo sooowwwwwwy..... :( "*whimpers in fear*
FreeBSD Daemon: "So Michael, ...wanna do it now or later?..." *poke, poke* :P