Talk:Charlottesville Observer

Source to add something to

The comments on Waldo Jaquith's entry on the Observer folding would make a tremendous source to flesh out this article: Click here. --Seantubbs 10:57, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Comments on blog posts are far from reliable sources. Avoid. -- B.S. Lawrence 16:00, 23 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree, especially when they are sourced. The quality of conversation is fairly high at cvillenews. Frequently people bring up topics that are not captured anywhere else. --Seantubbs 22:00, 23 January 2012 (EST)

So wrong. You say "especially when they are sourced." If a comment is (reliably) sourced, then there is no problem: reference the source, and do not reference the comment. And if the comment is not sourced, it has no business being on cvillepedia. In either case, again, comments on blog posts are not reliable. (If they are, wait 'til you see what I start making up!) Worth re-reading: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Verifiability -- B.S. Lawrence 13:44, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Name -- Kwalters 14:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

I'm unclear what the official name for this paper was. A lot of sources say "Charlottesville-Albemarle Observer" while a lot say just "Charlottesville Observer" --Kwalters 14:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)