Talk:Tate Etc.

Clearly not spam
Clearly not spam. I have no interested in promoting this magazine, only in giving insight on its contents and using the contents to support articles on writers/critics of art and design. Perhaps tagger could explain himself/herself.

OatmealSmith 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory
User:DGG trimmed this article down to an appropriate stub, but another editor reverted it to dump some table of contents material back in. Take a look at WP:NOT to see some things that do not belong in the encyclopedia. Do you really think we should be a table of contents service for every journal that is worth having an article on? Since this is a core policy, it is pretty sure that the table of contents material will not be allowed to remain. Here are some things that COULD usefully be added: I note that another article created by User:OatmealSmith may also raise concerns similar to this one: List of Eye magazine issues. EdJohnston 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * External coverage or third-party opinion about this magazine
 * Any events in the history of the magazine that have been notable enough to be covered in other media.
 * Explanation of the difference between Tate Etc. and Tate Online
 * The issue of listing table-of-contents info was discussed in the AfD debate for an article called BSTJ papers. In this case the logic was that the papers and the journal were hard to find, and some of the papers were famous. The first two of these criteria don't apply here. In any case that AfD closed with Delete in January, 2007. EdJohnston 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I have proposed deletion of List of Mad Magazine issues. I hope a broader discussion emerges that will be more inclusive of listing magazine issues. But there needs to be a level playing field. If Mad Magazine issues can be listed, then so should other magazines, including those devoted to fine arts that have an impact on fine arts. OatmealSmith 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of including the contents of TATE ETC, because it is connected with the Tate gallery and therefore gives a useful snapshot of art and artists endorsed by the institution. It is more significant than a standard commercial mag. It is, for example, sent out to the large membership of Friends of the Tate.  Ty  04:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Against merging. The mag has a variable relationship with the gallery, at one time being published by it, but now, I believe, published independently in liaison with the gallery.  Ty  05:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. It's been in place since March.  Ty  04:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Title
Do we have to have TATE ETC. as opposed to Tate Etc.?  Ty  05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no we don't. Changed per Manual of Style (capital letters).  Ty  08:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Publisher
I recall that the publisher has changed at times from Tate to an outside publisher and maybe back to Tate. Anyone have any info on this?  Ty  08:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Simon Grant leaving as editor
I know Simon Grant has left as editor after many years, but I can't actually find any third-party reporting on this... if anyone can find a good third party source to cite that would be great :-) Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)