Talk:Tatler

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

– Originally a contested technical move, then a separate move discussion from Talk:Tatler (1709) consolidated here as a multi-page move. older ≠ wiser 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tatler (1901) → Tatler
 * Tatler → Tatler (disambiguation)


 * as agreed following article split with suboptimal naming of descendent articles. Current incarnation should keep unqualified name. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Object seems like we should determine whether the 1709 or the 1901 founded versions are primary. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This should have been determined before the article was (apparently unilaterally) moved; the move has broken over a hundred inbound wikilinks. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that this cut-and-paste split needs to be untangled: it looks like Tatler (an article about both the 1901 and 1709 magazines) had the bulk of its 1901 content stripped, and was moved to Tatler (1709); Tatler (1901) was then created from scratch with a big copy-and-paste of everything that was cut from the Tatler article. If Tatler (1901) is moved back to Tatler, it will have no edit history. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bleh. I don't think a simple history merge is possible, but if the pages are to remain separate there does need to be clearer indications of where the edit history is. Perhaps best option might be to undo the split and then redone following the instructions at WP:SPLIT. Besides the edit merge, there definitely needs to be discussion of which, if either, of the magazines it the primary topic. I've never heard of the modern magazine, but as a erstwhile lit major, I am well aware of the older magazine. older ≠ wiser 11:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The history attribution templates are attached on the talk pages, with the diff#'s so contribution linkage can now be found. The 2005 versions of the article (when it was created) focused on the 1709 version, so the edit history would seem to properly belong to the 1709 article? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: previous Tatler move. This article was split (not by me) a couple of weeks ago into Tatler (about the 1709 version) and Tatler (1901) (about the current version). When I discovered this split, I pointed out to the mover that this had damaged a lot of links, and we agreed that Tatler would be renamed Tatler (1709) (which I did yesterday, and set about fixing the small number of links to the historical Tatler to point to the 1709 article), and that Tatler (1901) would reclaim the name Tatler, thus restoring most of the damaged links to their rightful target. However, the articles seem to have been messed around by the last set of admin moves, so that Tatler is now a disambig page, which is a much worse state of affairs than the one I was trying to fix. Now all links to Tatler are wrong. Can someone please put things back the way I requested them? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See :: Page Tatler has between 50 and 100 incoming links, but most of them are from talk pages and user pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support the modern Tatler as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Interesting situation, while Clement Shorter's Tatler claims some kind of continuity with Steele's The Tatler, this is a bit wishful, perhaps WP:OR on Clement Shorter's account? The WP:FORK seems to me a reasonable split given a 250 year gap. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the 1709 version seems to be the more encyclopedic topic, more historically significant, and the more educational topic. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The modern Tatler (which remains in print after 112 years) seems like a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC against a journal that ran for two years in the 18th century. --McGeddon (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The modern Tatler is a clear primary topic. The small number of links to Tatler is highly misleading, because 65.94.79.6 has been through and changed most of them to Tatler (1901). There are several hundred links to that. Tatler (1709) has only around 60 links, and that number is unlikely to increase significantly. Tatler (unqualified) should refer to the current version. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The remaining links to Tatler will need to be fixed, since most of them do not mean the 1901-version. (most of the 1901/1709 links are properly disambiguated to link to the specific version; most of what's left is ones that are neither one or the other.) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There only appears to be a single remaining inbound article link to Tatler; an 1894 Henry James story which either refers to the 1709 version or is just using it as a generic name for a magazine. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The modern Tatler has been around long enough to be The Tatler as far as 99.9 percent of people are concerned. Furthermore, it's oft cited, and it makes no sense that all these citations would be pointed to "1901" when nobody but nobody refers to it in that way, and nobody would even consider 1709 in modern literature or fashion any more. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sorry
Sorry for the mess. I split the pages and was attempting to "be bold" doing so. I should have thought about the existing links though. Heywoodg  talk  05:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD is fine, but you should have gone and fixed the incoming links as well. Just remember for next time you split a page, please check the incoming links and point them to the appropriate pages. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

London Life Magazine
London Life existed as a magazine title prior to Tatler rebranding to that name.

Published 1920's? to 1950's (I think I have seen issues for sale on ebay from 1920's or 1930's), and I have actually seen physically issues from 1945 to 1953

Small format (slightly smaller than what is now called A5 format), Newsprint type paper, stapled, colour cover but black and white inside with the occasional colour page, about 70 pages, and sold for about 1 shilling. "Racey" content for it's day with lots of "cheesecake"/glamour photos of women and discussions of fetish topics (corsets, shoes etc)

http://www.magforum.com/londonlifeindex.htm

Apparently the title was also briefly used for a pornographic magazine in 1977 http://www.magforum.com/mens/mensmagazinesatoz6.htm

--90.220.152.124 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Tatler Magazine proposes that both Tatler_(1709_journal) and Bystander_(magazine) be merged into Tatler. Tatler_(1709_journal) was Tatler in its earliest form, but is the same magazine as the Tatler we know today, celebrating 308 years. I think also that the content in the Bystander_(magazine) article can easily be explained in the context of Tatler, and the Tatler article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Tatler_(1709_Journal) and Bystander_(magazine) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Tatlermagazine (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The several magazines which have existed as Tatler since 1709 have separate identities with long gaps in between. The Bystander article covers its separate identity from 1903 to 1940, and concludes with a brief mention of the 1968 merger with Tatler. The current articles may be expanded in due course if an editor comes along with a passion for the subject, which would make a merged article unwieldy. As it is, the three articles have a straightforward construction, which targets specific groups of Wikipedia users and avoids material which may not interest all readers. As the proposer's user account has been blocked for the obvious potential COI, I am tempted to remove the attached merger proposal template from the articles, but as the merger suggestion itself is not outside standard Wikipedia practice, I will not remove them for now. Philip Cross (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, well explained by Philip Cross. DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing to add to Philip Cross' arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wealthiest readership
We really need a ref for this. The Tatler isn't anywhere near as posh as it pretends to be - most print sales are in ordinary mainstream supermarkets, where it can be found shelved among the other women's lifestyle and celeb glossies and not far from the National Enquirer. --Ef80 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)