This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Now that the article name is no longer a url, I think Deadline Hollywood should be italicized, as with other periodicals (MOS:ITALICTITLE is one related MOS entry). Other websites which function as online magazines/news outlets seem to italicize, as in Salon, The A.V. Club, Daytime Confidential, and Digital Spy.— TAnthony^Talk 21:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that this website functions identically to the online versions of other trade magazines like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.— TAnthony^Talk 15:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly made the change, but I will allow time for objections/comments before I update the formatting of any links to the article.— TAnthony^Talk 21:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, Deadline.com's About page has nothing to do with our MOS, in which we italicize major works. Hopefully my boldness will get a discussion going. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 04:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is fine. An RfC is fine. Consensus is wonderful. We don't simply make a major, undiscussed change to dozens of articles unilaterally.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the RfC was closed after only one week and three comments, one of them nuetral, is also troubling. RfCs generally last 30 days and are intended to generate a large number of comments. This one was done with seemingly no notice and rushed through in a manner contrary to Wikipedia process and consensus. I have asked the closing admin to reopen the RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on my talk page, the discussion above was not an RfC, but a requested move. There would have been a notice at the top of the article as well as the template here. The change to the article title/location of the page does not have any direct bearing on how editors may choose to stylize the name (hopefully, in line with the manual of style), nor did it affect dozens of articles. Dekimasuよ! 05:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't think there had been an RfC regarding italicization of the title, which is of course a separate issue from an article title change.— TAnthony^Talk 15:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 5000+ transclusions, and there are already hundreds of articles in which Deadline.com, Deadline, and Deadline Hollywood are intentionally or inadvertently italicized, so my paltry few edits (which are certainly NOT "major", as you suggest) are literally a blip. I'm sorry for alarming you, of course, and I've stopped. I was unaware of the old RfC to which you are referring, and did not really think this would be controversial, but seriously, it's not a catastrophe. Thanks for seeking to reopen the RfC, and I'll be happy to revert my own edits, and even change preexisting italicization, if consensus goes that way. — TAnthony^Talk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your collegiality and your desire to work productively and collaboratively. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to this article move/should it be italicized or not per some of the editing by TAnthony and Tenebrae, so I figured I'd chime in. Regarding the article move, I support that decision per the site's About us page. Now regarding if it should be italicized or not, while yes the site's own About page does not use italics for their name (but does for other publications), per our MOS and the citation templates, the correct, full use of the information would be |work/website=Deadline Hollywood|publisher=Penske Business Media. The work/website parameter in the citation template will italicize the text as seen in with the ref after this sentence.^[1] And I feel inclined to keep it formatted as such. I'm also going to ping Joeyconnick to this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also notified the Film and Television projects (here and here) to this discussion, since they are two that cite this website a lot, in case any one else wanted to join in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the move but think that Deadline Hollywood should at least mention that it is also known as Deadline.com. This from The New York Times reflects that recent use. As for the citation template, works and websites are italicized on Wikipedia, so I'm fine with doing that for Deadline Hollywood. I would not include or link to the publisher, though, since the website is already noteworthy on its own. The publisher parameter is more helpful when the work/website is non-notable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that I wasn't advocating the using of the publisher parameter regularly. I used it here for the example mainly to highlight the formatting citation templates use for each parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Favre1fan93. Whatever we do, we need people to stop using |publisher= for entities that are works/websites, not actual publishers, just because they don't want those entities' names italicized. I don't know why people are so concerned about having website names italicized but surely it's better to be semantically correct (listings works as works and not publishers) over quibbling whether the name of a work is italicized. I'm not sure why there's a belief or policy of website names not being italicized but if it's that important to people that they not be, please use |work/website= and {{noitalics|name_of_website}}. I would also say Deadline Hollywood is just as much a work as any of the entertainment press entities that have print versions, and so by default should be italicized. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of this seems to be avoiding WP:COMMONNAME. Virtually one refers to the site as "Deadline Hollywood." (And on a separate matter, even Deadline Hollywood doesn't even italicized Deadline Hollywood at http://deadline.com/about-dhd/: "Deadline Hollywood (Deadline.com) first began in March 2006 as Deadline Hollywood Daily....")

• The New York Times uses "Deadline.com" [1].

• That's from twenty-THIRTEEN so I fail to see how that's relevant to how we refer to it today. I'm curious to know the dates of the other references in this list. The switch to "Deadline Hollywood" is recent—I don't think anyone's disputing that. But just because it was known previously as either Deadline or Deadline.com doesn't mean we ingore its name change. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is also probably a bad example because the article actually uses both Deadline.com and Deadline Hollywood.— TAnthony^Talk 15:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Newsday uses "Deadline.com" [2].
• The New York Daily News uses "Deadline.com" [3].
• The San Francisco Chronicle uses "Deadline.com" [4].
• The Washington Post uses "Deadline.com" [5].
• Vanity Fair uses "Deadline.com" [6].
• Esquire uses "Deadline.com" [7].

I could give countless more examples in addition to these highly RS, highly respected, wide-circulation mainstream magazines and newspapers. One reason we have the guideline WP:COMMONNAME is so that Wikipedia doesn't appear to value eccentricity and ultimately arbitrary in-house style over real-world usage.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the article be moved back to Deadline.com? That's a separate issue, which you're welcome to reopen in its own section since the 2/5 RM didn't get much participation. And if you'd like to do that, I suppose we should hold off on the italics debate.— TAnthony^Talk 01:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, *sigh* I guess you're right. That move discussion, as you rightly noted, garnered virtually no participation over its seven days. I guess we should try again, and neutrally notify everyone who has ever edited this article and this talk page — or maybe just over the last year or last two years if that's too much — and also post a notice at the titles/naming project, WIkiProject Film, WikiProject Television, whatever others that cite Deadline a lot. Oy! I guess I can volunteer, if everyone can give me a couple days. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't see what the fuss is... who cares if it's cited on "thousands" of pages... it's not like the difference between Deadline, Deadline.com, and Deadline Hollywood is so vast that people are going to be confused about which source we're talking about. They can get it either from how it's wikilinked or the context. I mean, The Huffington Post hasn't been HuffPost for too long either, but a) the article is at "HuffPost" even though I assume that's not how it's commonly known and b) I assume there are also thousands of articles that refer to that one source in different ways, too, yet the sky isn't falling and mass confusion does not reign. Consistency is nice to have but it's not a requisite and it's certainly not (in my own personal opinion, granted) worth this level of fretting. I think given the official name change, the article title should be titled "Deadline Hollywood" and it's inarguable at this point that whatever its title, it should be italicized as per MOS:ITALICTITLE. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's good form to say "My opinion is inarguable." I think the fact we're all discussing it demonstrates that that's not true, as well as the fact that mainstream sources don't italicize Deadline Hollywood and our doing so would be fringe and eccentric. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: Deadline Hollywood should be italicized, as with other periodicals. MOS:ITALICTITLE says, in part: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost)." This has already been implemented for other sites like The A.V. Club, Daytime Confidential, and Digital Spy. It was noted in the comments above that Deadline.com's About page does not italicize the title; well, neither does the Salon About page, or HuffPost's self-references in articles or its About page. Anyway, the specific stylization which may be used by website themselves does not necessarily impact our own MOS, which is based on our internal consensus.— TAnthony^Talk 00:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think the wording of the RfC should probably be — neutral and brief as required — "Should footnoted citations of this website be "Deadline.com", "Deadline Hollywood" or "Deadline Hollywood"? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer an RfC, it's a talk page discussion. The website should be cited with the current article name, Deadline Hollywood, and I've suggested that it should be italicized. As far as I know I don't have to be neutral, and editors are welcome to disagree with me. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 00:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For something that's going to affect an untold number of pages throughout Wikipedia, we need to have an widely publicized, formal discussion. Affecting so many pages as it does, this goes beyond local consensus.

Also, please note that magazine and newspaper examples I give above. Virtually no one uses "Deadline Hollywood," which flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this website meets the criteria cited above from MOS:ITALICTITLE perfectly, it seems like overkill to put the community through that. But I agree that the Deadline.com issue needs more discussion first.— TAnthony^Talk 01:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding use of Deadline Hollywood vs. Deadline.com, The New York Times has 201 results for the former and 266 results for the latter. Variety has 3,150 results for the former and 301 results for the latter. Los Angeles Times, it is 474 results vs. 167. The Hollywood Reporter, it is 93 vs. 76. I see mixed use of both. If there are other domains to check, let me know. I searched for "deadline.com" site:<domain> and "deadline hollywood" site:<domain>, respectively. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That site-domain parameter is fantastic! I've never seen it before! What a great tool!

I tried it out myself. I love it.

I do have to say, in my brief use of the the tool today I did not run across Deadline Hollywood italicized. If no one's italicizing it, then our doing so would be fringe and not WP:COMMONNAME.

But as I promised my good colleague TAnthony, I will put together a move request and widely neutrally publicize it in hopes of getting more than three opinions. Just give me a day or so, since notifying every registered who's worked on this article (or the last one or two year's worth, if everyone is too much to do) will be a big job. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as italicization goes though, we should be looking at our own MOS. Some of the accepted style guides contradict each other, and our MOS is the result of the community deciding on a common style or styles. It's interesting if a predominant number of sources don't italicize DL, for example, but I don't think that should be a factor for our stylization in the same way that we use usage in sources to help determine the common name. We don't mimic non-standard stylization (like unusual capitalization or characters) in titles and most other situations per MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, and I think italicization falls under that methodology. We wouldn't use boldface for titles and people just because some books or magazines did so, just like we wouldn't italicize a song title because some sources do. The MOS is relatively clear, it all comes down to whether consensus decides that Deadline is an online magazine/news site or not.— TAnthony^Talk 21:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can gather, the two names are in roughly equal use, so either Deadline Hollywood or Deadline.com would fit per WP:COMMONNAME. I prefer Deadline.com since it's shorter and since it doesn't create an italics controversy. Before we start a formal move request, any thoughts on this new data Erik and I gathered? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to "vote" until we have an actual move request, but I think my main issue with "Deadline.com" is simply that most website articles I've come across do not use the domain name as the article name. I've been looking through Category:Internet properties by year of establishment and there are significantly more website articles that do not use domain names. Some years have none at all that use domain names. I don't know if there is any methodology to this from WikiProject Internet or WikiProject Websites, but it says to me that there is some choice or trend (subconscious or not) behind it.— TAnthony^Talk 22:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a representative sampling I did using the tool Erik turned me on to. The terms seem divided, though clearly New York newspapers prefer Deadline.com, while Time Inc. publications prefer Deadline Hollywood. I've got three batches: The first prefers Deadline.com, the second prefers Deadline Hollywood, and the last is roughly split even at the same site.

A

• Newsday

Deadline Hollywood 14, Deadline.com 236

• New York Daily News

Deadline Hollywood 44, Deadline.com 276

• New York Post

Deadline Hollywood 0, Deadline.com 7

• The Plain Dealer (Cleveland.com)

Deadline Hollywood 39, Deadline.com 158

• The Seattle Times

Deadline Hollywood 15, Deadline.com 76

B

• The Washington Post

Deadline Hollywood 804, Deadline.com 101

• Newsweek

Deadline Hollywood 394, Deadline.com 1

• Vanity Fair

Deadline Hollywood 82, Deadline.com 17

• Entertainment Weekly (ew.com)

Deadline Hollywood 111, Deadline.com 70

• Time

Deadline Hollywood 176, Deadline.com 43

• Toronto Star (thestar.com)

Deadline Hollywood 113, Deadline.com 28

C

• Esquire

Deadline Hollywood 3, Deadline.com 3

• The San Francisco Chronicle

Deadline Hollywood 9, Deadline.com 8

• Houston Chronicle

Deadline Hollywood 15, Deadline.com 19

• The Miami Herald

Deadline Hollywood 7, Deadline.com 12

• Reuters

Deadline.com 251, Deadline.com 219
--Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no formal discussion (some informal discussion above) about italicizing Deadline Hollywood. The WP:COMMONNAME is Deadline Hollywood, and no one italicized it — not even Deadline Hollywood. MOS:ITALICTITLE does not say that every single news site is italicized — only generally, not always. It is clear that Deadline Hollywood is never italicized in its real-world usage, so there is no basis for a bizarre, eccentric version of the name that appears solely in Wikipedia. MOS:ITALICTITLE wisely indicates there is no "one size fits all" and we're to use WP:COMMONSENSE.

Now that discussion has begun, let us please keep that status quo that has exited since the article became "Deadline Hollywood" until a unilateral, undiscussed change to that status quo was made today. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding how we determine italics or not. Unlike with naming, it's not about what other people use, as they all have their own house styles. As per MOS:ITALICTITLE, it should be italicized unless there is a good reason not to. There is no style version of WP:COMMONNAME where we adopt the most common style for rendering various elements. "Other people aren't" is not a good reason as, which people have pointed out to you at multiple points, we also make other stylistic changes that other people may or may not: MOS:CURLY, MOS:DASH, MOS:SLASH, etc etc etc. Other people have also pointed out that other news websites that we do italicize here at Wikipedia are not necessarily rendered in italics elsewhere either. At this point, it's a well-established news site and it should be italicized. To do otherwise is to make a "bizarre, eccentric" distinction between Deadline Hollywood and HuffPost, Salon, etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tenebrae for starting the italics discussion again now that the article name has been decided upon. Thank you Joeyconnick for your comment above, I've made the same argument in previous discussions that WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with style, and there are some MOS guidelines that make this pretty clear. As I've said a few times on this page: Deadline Hollywood should be italicized, as with other periodicals. MOS:ITALICTITLE says, in part: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost)." This has already been implemented for other sites like The A.V. Club, Daytime Confidential, and Digital Spy. It was previously noted that Deadline.com's About page does not italicize the title; well, neither does the Salon About page, or HuffPost's self-references in articles or its About page. Anyway, the specific stylization which may be used by website themselves does not necessarily impact our own MOS, which is based on our internal consensus. Some of the accepted style guides contradict each other, and our MOS is the result of the community deciding on a common style or styles. It's interesting if a predominant number of sources don't italicize DL, for example, but I don't think that should be a factor for our stylization in the same way that we use usage in sources to help determine the common name. We don't mimic non-standard stylization (like unusual capitalization or characters) in titles and most other situations per MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, and I think italicization falls under that methodology. We wouldn't use boldface for titles and people just because some books or magazines did so, just like we wouldn't italicize a song title because some sources do. The MOS is relatively clear, it all comes down to whether consensus decides that Deadline is an online magazine/news site or not, which seems pretty obvious.— TAnthony^Talk 23:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that this article has about 122 edits since its creation, and by a relatively small amount of editors (several of which are now blocked). I wouldn't give the "status quo" too much weight; the creator didn't italicize Deadline and no one seems to have ever held it up to MOS:ITALICTITLE. So it was not a conscious choice by consensus, but rather the result of neglect LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 23:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should italicize it, as I previously said above, and as per the rationale and examples provided above by Joeyconnick and TAnthony. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ITALICTITLE is clear: It very consciously uses the word generally and not always for news sites, so this debate does not come "down to whether consensus decides that Deadline is an online magazine/news site or not."

RE: "we wouldn't italicize a song title because some sources do." Any source that italicizes a song rather than an album is WP:FRINGE styling. That is not a good example.

RE: "it should be italicized unless there is a good reason not to." If no one else italicizes it, what better reason is there? What other reason is there? I ask in all seriousness. If the fact no one italicizes it is not good reason, then the "generally" may as well be be "always." But it is not.

There is a larger issue here. If Wikipedia demonstrates eccentricity in direct contradiction to real-world usage, that undermines our credibility. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undermines our credibility?? Again, find somewhere in the MOS that says we should apply style based on external sources. I've provided two examples that say we shouldn't. I really can't understand why you are so attached to the unitalicized version when this website fits exactly into the criteria for italicization. And how do you explain Salon and HuffPost, which are actually noted in MOS:ITALICSTITLE but, as I've pointed out, do not self-identify with italics? The explanation is, our MOS is our MOS, we don't care how others may apply style. I don't know how much clearer it can be.— TAnthony^Talk 01:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tenebrae: Please revert your removal of the Italic title template and other italics removals. The MOS is clear that this online magazine should be styled in italics. This has been hashed out over several years of discussion and the above response by editors to your opening of this discussion bears out the community consensus to italicize the titles of online and offline periodicals. That is Wikipedia's present style of titling, and if you want to change that, the correct venue would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. It was a sometimes excruciating uphill climb for editors to bring Wikipedia's style up to date, so I don't see it changing back in the near future.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting two days with no further reply or action, I went ahead and reverted the removal of italics. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were big events in the U.S. this weekend, so I've been away from Wikipedia. That's on me. But one thing needs clarified: MOS:ITALICSTITLE makes a distinction between online magazines and news sites. Deadline Hollywood is not a magazine, but a news site. Magazines contains feature stories, interviews, profiles, columns and the like, which Salon and HuffPo do. News sites solely contain news items — that's why MOS:ITALICSTITLE makes that distinction. That MOS page says news sites also are italicized, and that's what needs to change for the sake of common sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ITALICTITLE specifically doesn't make a distinction between magazines and newspapers, it lumps them all under "Periodicals" and then gives examples (newspapers, journals, magazines) of names that periodicals may go by. The sentence that starts with "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites" is the logical extension of combining the "periodicals" bullet point with the "Actual medium of publication or presentation is not a factor" guideline. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The italics in the opening sentence in "also known as Deadline.com" was reverted, with the edit summary saying "Deadline.com is not italicized. We don't ital dotcom names." I'm not aware of any guideline or other convention that says that online publication names that include ".com" should not be in italics. I note that the {{cite web}} template and similar templates do use italics for the "website=" parameter that would ordinarily include such a name, as previously mentioned above. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such guideline either, but even if there were such a guideline, I can't see how it would apply given the claim here is (I believe) that the site's title was "Deadline.com". We're not talking about a raw domain name here (www.deadline.com)—we're saying at some point, the title of what we have now established is a work like any other periodical was "Deadline.com". While that may bring up memories of times when ".com" was tackily added to the title of every other company/element/thing, it doesn't mean it wasn't the title of the work, so it ought to be italicized like every other previous title. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone outside Wikipedia routinely italicizing dotcom names. What happened to WP:COMMONSENSE: "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." When virtually no publication or website italicizes dotcom names, it makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of eccentric outliers when we're the only ones who do. I don't see how that helps our credibility. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must go with Tenebrae on this issue. Dot coms are only italicized in reference citations. I don't recall seeing dot coms italicized anywhere else, and as domain names, they are not listed in the guideline to be italicized. That's why I did not italicize the dot com when I italicized the other titles with this edit.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: it has already been soundly established earlier in this debate that what other people do outside Wikipedia in terms of style has zero bearing on how and what we apply as styles here. That logic applies to how we name articles but it does not extend to how we style their content... there is no equivalent guideline or policy for style and in fact, again as previously mentioned via multiple vectors, several guidelines that specify we change how other people render certain elements. If you have new arguments to offer, I welcome them. If not, you are beating the deadest of horses. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the WP:COMMONSENSE horse isn't dead yet. Having Wikipedia appear like a bunch of eccentrics with no acknowledgment of real-world usage does not help our credibility — which, whether you've noticed or not, currently isn't held in the highest esteem. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously sticking with this ridiculous argument that Wikipedia's worldwide credibility is affected by our style guide?? Give us a break already, and again, please cite something in our MOS or other guidelines that suggests we follow the stylization used by outside sources.— TAnthony^Talk 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the real world. I work in media. I'm around newspeople all day. So, yes, I'm saying that looking like a bunch of eccentrics affects credibility. That's a fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be the wrench thrower, but the site is commonly referred to as "Deadline." Not sure if that changes the italicized argument (I really don't care either way on that).--CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CNMall, the common name is Deadline. They haven't used the Hollywood part of the original moniker in years--141.157.254.24 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From https://deadline.com/about-dhd/: Deadline Hollywood — The Definitive Choice for Industry Insiders. Deadline Hollywood (Deadline.com) first began in March 2006 as Deadline Hollywood Daily, the 24/7 Internet version of Nikki Finke’s long-running LA Weekly “Deadline Hollywood” print column. In 2009, Nikki’s site was purchased by PMC (formerly known as Mail.com Media Corporation). It has become the authoritative source for breaking news in the entertainment industry and readers check the site multiple times each day. Deadline Hollywood is regularly included on lists of top entertainment websites. Influential industry leaders and key decision-makers across many fields track Deadline many times a day and its postings regularly receive more reader comments than all of the entertainment industry news sites combined. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, even the URL seems to imply the page was created while it was still Deadline Hollywood Daily, which means the paragraph in question could predate the shift to just being Deadline. It’s more than just the URL and the social media anymore.--63.118.20.162 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common name trumps "official" name every day of the week. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The site finished its redesign after our last move and all mentions of "Hollywood" remaining on the site seem to be residues from long ago. I would support moving it to "Deadline (website)" now. Nardog (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penske Media Corporation, the company that owns the website, continues to list it as Deadline Hollywood and Deadline.com for short. Furthermore, the comments section of the website reads, "Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that's a residue. The same paragraph appeared as early as 2014, well before the redesign. The page you linked to doesn't assert "Deadline" is short for "Deadline Hollywood", it only lists "Deadline" as a brand and recycles the same blurb.

A problem that poses for us is that the rebranding was never announced but rolled out gradually. An older version of the blurb is actually more informative: "DeadlineHollywood.com began as the 24/7 Internet version of Nikki Finke's LA Weekly 'Deadline Hollywood' print column until it was purchased by MMC in July 2009 and renamed Deadline.com." "Deadline Hollywood" became a mere section of the site upon the purchase, alongside "Deadline New York" etc., until Finke left and Mike Fleming, who headed the New York section, took over and the geographic distinction was dropped. Nardog (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the clause:

Deadline Hollywood, commonly known as Deadline and referred to also as Deadline.com

not "grammatically correct"?

It has the advantage of avoiding the abysmal "and also" construction, which has been restored by the reversion of my recent edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]