Talk:The Birmingham News

WikiProject Alabama rating
Rated as B class, still needs work on references/inline citations but the basics are there. Altairisfartalk 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

External Link
Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1388, that might be useful.

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  02:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Birmingham News → AL.com – This article is currently written in the past tense with "Birmingham News was a newspaper" suggesting that further updates are not on topic. However, this is not really accurate; just like a sports stadium changing its name does not imply a separate article should be made, the newspaper has merely gone digital-only and changed its name, the only hitch being that AL.com is effectively a merger with the Mobile Register and The Huntsville Times as well. But The Birmingham News seems more important than the other two combined, so it's probably easier just to consider it as if the other two newspapers merged into it. Either this article should be moved to AL.com (first choice) and cover the total history of the paper from 1888-present, or a new spin-off article AL.com should be made. Given that AL.com won TWO Pulitzer Prizes today, that's surely enough for the digital edition to be notable all on its own, but a move seems preferred given that it's the same exact staff & management. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It was The Birmingham News from 1895 until 2023. The new website is a separate operation and shouldn't supersede the original name in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on the "it's a separate operation" claim? It's undisputed that AL.com was the digital branch of the three newspapers for a long time (wayback machine from 1999).  Far from being separate, it posted the exact same stories that were in the print edition.  When the print editions were discontinued this year, it was the same staff of journalists to my knowledge that kept working - certainly true for their most famous ones (e.g. Ramsey, who's won two Pulitzers now, in 2018 and 2023, he didn't switch jobs).  It seems like there's strong continuity here to me.  (The FAQ for AL.com even still includes a line about it honoring print subscriptions with The Birmingham News et al - they should probably fix that.)
 * Really the main concern, IMO, is that there was also a merger of the three newspapers under the hood, even if they kept separate articles, due to media consolidation awhile back. But per above comments, I think it's more intuitive to have one article that's a continuous history of the news operation, print & digital, than it is to create a fresh article.  SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose It seems like a new article should be created for the webpage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)