Talk:The New-York Magazine

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 to The New-York Magazine. Consensus is that the article should be moved, but that the additional disambiguation isn't necessary. New York Magazine will redirect to New York (magazine) and I'll add the appropriate hat notes. Cúchullain t/ c 14:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

New York Magazine → The New-York Magazine (1790–1797) – This article needs to be clearly distinguished from New York (magazine), which is also referred to as "New York Magazine" even though "Magazine" isn't technically part of the title. Looking at the "What Links Here" list for New York Magazine, many of the links should actually be directing to New York (magazine). Since the subject in this topic was a short lived publication from the late 1700s, it is significantly less common and noteworthy than the current publication of the "same" name. This page should be moved and New York Magazine should redirect to New York (magazine), just like Time Magazine redirects to Time (magazine). – Dream out loud (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment according to the article New York Magazine, the publication was "one of the four most important magazines of its time" although admittedly this fact is uncited and somewhat weaselish. I don't know if it's automatic to assume that the current magazine is more notable, taking WP:RECENT into account. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that statement it very weaselish, but even if it is true, there were no way near as many magazines in existence in the 1700s and it was only published for 7 years. By contract, New York has been in publication since 1968 and is still going strong. – Dream out loud  (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support but note that New-York Magazine seems to be hyphenated in the better Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the modern New York magazine should be redirect target. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE I've added "The" and a hyphen to the proposed title since (as it was mentioned above), that it how the title is properly formatted. At this point, I guess the question is whether we still need the years as disambiguators or if we could just rename it to The New-York Magazine.  Techinally, the magazine's full title is The New-York Magazine; or, Literary Repository, but I think we can omit the second half in the article title as per WP:COMMMONNAME (like how Moby-Dick's formal title is Moby-Dick; or, The Whale).  I still think they should be in place as it helps eliminate the confusion that was present to begin with. – Dream out loud  (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the modified proposed title, I suggest that "(1790-1797)" is no longer necessary. Kauffner (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Continue to support the reason for the RM remains: "This article needs to be clearly distinguished from New York (magazine), which is also referred to as "New York Magazine" even though "Magazine" isn't technically part of the title. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The New-York Magazine per nom and Kauffner. That would be a very idiosyncratic search term for the modern New York, and hatnotes can deal with potential confusion. I also agree that incoming links to New York Magazine should be fixed in preparation to retarget that to New York (magazine). --BDD (talk) 15:58, 3 July 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.