Talk:Space.com

I've removed the paragraph below regarding "Santa tracking" in 1999. It's a really minor point that does not belong in this article. Also, the last sentence suggests very strongly that this is merely an attempt to inflate the value of some old CDs as collector's items.

HERE'S THE ORIGINAL:

Because of possible upcoming Y2K (Year 2000) issues on Christmas Eve of 1999, and to ensure that children and the young at heart world-wide could monitor Santa Claus activity on December 25, 1999, which was one one of the largest waves of Santa Claus sightings in the 20th century, space.com NORAD, and the NORAD Tracks Santa program prepared a special CD-ROM in advance of Santa Claus' Christmas Eve journey. This CD-ROM featured high-resolution, audio-enhanced movies and telemetry data of his journey and included all the Santa Cam videos of his 1999 visits. Space.com distributed the CD-ROMs for a nominal shipping fee, after one ordered these CD-ROMs from its website.^[1][2] At this point, in the 21st century, these 1999 NORAD Tracks Santa season CD-ROMs are probably a collector's item.

Never before have I indulged in recommending that material appearing in an article should be removed, but...

The article says:

> On June 8, 2010 TechMediaNetwork owner of TopTenReviews.com, Space.com, and LiveScience.com announced that their latest site OurAmazingPlanet.com was going live.

A couple of points, if I may:

• This paragraph was confusing at first, since it came at the end of an article that is titled and is otherwise completely devoted to facts directly relating to "space.com." I think, for instance, this piece of information should be in an article about Techmedianetwork instead of here.

• This may be less important since I'm recommending its removal anyway, but the phrase "was going live" is rather idiomatic, and I don't think its meaning is clear.

It seems to me that this paragraph was haphazardly appended to an otherwise properly developed article.

--Nei1 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. Moreover, a bunch of the other claims in the article are unsourced. N2e (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Space.com screenshot on Nov. 21, 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This page and Imaginova should probably be merged since the latter seems to only cover a certain timeframe of Space.com's history and offers little else. Jcc724 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)