Talk:The Yorkman

Email addresses

Instead of putting your email address in plain view of spammers, you might want to make use of the 'Email user' link in the wiki. I believe Elembis or Lint have used this already so check their user pages for how to link to the email page. --Simon 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad sizes

Would you consider using ads with different sizes? The current ones look kind of messy, but short and wide ads would stack on top of each other nicely.

468x60 is the most common size

What do you think? — Elembis (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

468x60 is a bit fiddly for my tastes, but I'm liking 500x100, and it would be nice to have them stack neatly. -- The Yorkman 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad policy

Are there any criteria that an ad must meet to be accepted? — Elembis (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We've never turned down and ad yet, and the more we have the more flavour we can give to the paper and the more we can serve the community. All the ads for this issue have been done as 500x100 pixels, and that's probably going to continue for the forseeable future. Either create the ad and e-mail it to us, or for those without photoshop skills, we can generally botch something together from a slogan and a vague idea. -- The Yorkman 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I think three ads per issue is enough, so please line Image:Open Arms banner.jpg up for the next issue. — Elembis (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

I like the paper so far, but issue 2 made me consider a couple of things I'd like to see the paper shoot for in the future. I'd be willing to help with both of these.

1. Objectivity. I understand that the title is "The Yorkman", but the paper is read by people all over the island. With that in mind, I think the writers should try to maintain an objective tone instead of saying that the road network "represents a great triumph over adversity", that a "pro-pirate stance is a concern for many" (without giving names), that MickR's leadership was "inspiring", etc. I don't necessarily disagree with these statements, but I would rather read articles that are not obviously York- or outsider-centric.
2. Source citations. In my perfect world, every piece of information or statement that isn't common knowledge would be attributed to someone. (E.g., who is concerned by pro-pirate sentiment? Who thinks the Civilized Highway Society has shown "unswerving dedication"? It shouldn't be that hard to get a few people to speak up.) True, we can't verify sources, but I'd rather have sources I can't verify than no sources at all. And the source could speak up if the quote happened to be in error. I understand that it would be a big task to get every claim validated by a player in print (generally with an in-game comment), but I'm willing to help, and I'm sure others are as well. All it'd take is a pre-issue post with questions people are invited to answer and ask to others (so their responses can be reported), like this: "What do you think of recent activity by the Civilized Highway Society to expand the road network?" And articles would be more concise if each claim required a source.

I hope this criticism will be helpful and will be taken with the understanding that I think the paper is great already. — Elembis (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)