Table:Officiality of News

Officiality of News
It has come to light that damn-near everything that a certain crew member says on Twitter has been listed in the "News" section. While some of it is newsworthy, the majority is not. Remember that when cast and crew are posting on twitter, they are not acting in an official capacity. They are merely employees of a company, and anything they say on Twitter is just their opinions. The Infosphere is not a rumor site. Please keep the News section to important information released through official (non-Twitter) channels, or if it comes from Twitter, make sure that it can be confirmed, preferably by the highest-level crew possible (DXC or MG would be ideal). Any thoughts? --Buddy (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2012 (CET)


 * I concur (because I suggested this). I mean not to discredit Eric Rogers, he has contributed to the Infosphere rather significantly in his own way.  But it has come to our attention that we seem to take anything the says as news, and sometimes this news may not be accurate.
 * I recommend we cut down the news section down to its bare essentials. It was not news when Rogers confirmed how 'Shaun' was spelt.  It was not news when he confirmed the title of an episode to a production code.
 * It's news when an episode airs or a DVD is released, when an announcement about an upcoming season is made or something extraordinary like the recasting ploy.
 * We need far stricter policies on what gets into the news section; The Infosphere is a memory bank not the site with the latest news. Our mission is not to be the first one with information, but to have the most accurate information.  And if we are first (or at least very early) out with information, then that's just to our credit, but we should not consider this our mission.  If any of you want a Futurama news site with all these sort of up to the second news, I'd recommend you create another website for that. --Sviptalk 09:32, 24 February 2012 (CET)
 * Makes sense. I just don't understand why the title of an episode the production code of which is already known being revealed is not news.  It sure seems like ***Futurama*** news to me.  Also, Eric Rogers didn't reveal the title of 7ACV09 nor did he reveal the title of 7ACV18.  Is any of these the one that you meant?  Sanfazer (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, that is Futurama news, but not worthy of the frontpage of the Infosphere. --Sviptalk 20:20, 24 February 2012 (CET)
 * Exactly, we should just change the page(s), it doesn't need to be news. We don't make every other edit into news. --Buddy (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2012 (CET)
 * I see. What about the Copyright Catalog revelations then?  Sanfazer (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2012 (CET)
 * Not them either. The Catalogue is the copyrighting of works, not names.  There are plenty of examples where the copyrighted name is not the name of the final episode.  The revelations can remain within the season article. --Sviptalk 01:13, 26 February 2012 (CET)
 * Got it. Sanfazer (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2012 (CET)