Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines/Archive 2

Should we include online magazines in this section?
I was going to add an online publication to the list of Canadian magazines, but I realized it was an online-only publication, and wondered whether there is a better place to add it?

(wiki newbie, pls excuse any faux pas)

Wikimanlogin (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC) wikimanlogin

Notability criteria for magazines?
Are there any notability criteria for magazines? This goes especially for niche magazines. There's currently a spat about a magazine called Christian Order where the argument seems to be that if it caters for a minority interest then it is likely to bt non notable. Could anyone point to any precedents or criteria so that we don't get into an WP:IDONTLIKEIT bun fight?

JASpencer (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about having an ISSN number?
I would consider subscriber numbers in the thousands, or the existence of an ISSN number, to be a possible indicator of notability. Sometimes a company newsletter will have an ISSN, but that's pretty rare.

Audited subscription records would have to be documented by a reliable, third-party source. rhyre (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's the other way around: not having an ISSN is an almost sure sign of non-notability and magazines without one will only very exceptionally be notable. But having an ISSN is nothing out of the ordinary, they can be obtained very easily. --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic Journals - sister project
Hi everyone,

I noticed this project via Talk:Partisan Review. In case you havent seen, there is a Academic Journals project, and we have been including some magazines within our scope because there wasnt a more appropriate project at the time, but .. you can have them! ;-)

You may find our discussions useful, but they are limited due to the lack of people who are involved in the discussions. Notability has come up quite often. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:22, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

CFD on categories Semimonthly-Fortnightly-Biweekly-Semiweekly magazines
&mdash; The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit ) 05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Dispatches (magazine)
I have nominated Dispatches (magazine) for deletion, as a result on a discussion on WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard that gave circumstantial evidence that the article was created by staff of the magazine (or a meatpuppet of same).

Because deletion is not the correct cure in this case if the subject is indeed notable, I tried but failed to find notability guidelines for magazines. My gut feeling is that a magazine with only three issues out yet would have to be quite extraordinary to be notable already, and consequently extraordinary sources for its notability should be required. But it is possible that I'm totally off the mark here, so I'd appreciate if some members of this WikiProject would go to WP:Articles for deletion/Dispatches (magazine) and weigh in. Thanks. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WHAT TO DO WHEN SOMEONE WHO HAS A CONFLICT KEEPS POSTING NEGATIVE/DEROGATORY EDITS
Am having to monitor our page, Fade In, as twice now someone who has a conflict with us keeps posting defamatory and vulgar edits. How do we monitor this, put an end to this or find out specifically who is doing this? They should be booted from membership. (Eightofspades (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I'll watch it, too. It would be helpful to provide perspective by expanding the article with  some material from  third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases  DGG (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add Full Quality Scale to Project Banner Template
I propose to add the FQS categories to this project's template, because the parent projects, Journalism and Media already use those too, and because it will further organize the articles which are automatically dumped into the "NA-Class" category, like the template, project and disambig pages, etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

x Magazines and Defunct x Magazines
I think the Category:American computer magazines should be split into its existing category and (new) Category:Defunct American computer magazines. It is a very cluttered category. There already is Category:Defunct computer magazines.


 * 1) Is the split I propose a good idea?
 * 2) Do I create a subcategories under both Category:American computer magazines and Category:Defunct computer magazines? patsw (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Without objection, I started Category:Defunct American computer magazines. It is turning out to be quite a large category. patsw (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Turns out only 27 are currently published and 49 were defunct. A few were web sites improperly called "magazines". Perhaps a Category:Defunct British computer magazines category can be created for more cleanup. patsw (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Since you guys don't seem to have a notice board for articles in your project's scope that are undergoing deletion review, I'm posting this here...

The article for Girls and Corpses is undergoing deletion review at Articles for deletion/Girls and Corpses. Dismas |(talk) 02:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

World Aircraft Information Files
I have created an article about the British part-work World Aircraft Information Files.

I would be grateful if some of you might take a quick look at it, and tell me how it can be improved.

As you will see, I have put a lot of work into created wikilinks for every File in the partwork, but I want advice on how to make it better. This could include any categories it could go in that I haven't done yet, etc.

Thanks.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Anna Wintour
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Anna Wintour/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Manga anthologies?
Does this project cover manga anthologies such as Weekly Shōnen Jump? If so, you'll find a good list of additional articles at List of manga magazines. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Sheinbaum
Why is there no mention of Stanley Sheinbaum, who also was a principal in the publication?

172.131.150.153 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Steve Clar

Categories mess
The discussion here might interest other participants in this project. I feel rather overwhelmed, so advice/help is more than welcome... --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorization
Hello. The actual categorization is not proper. Though being from Germany, I believe, that the industry is similiar organized (means: classification of print titles, related to association standards/memberships). In magazine-publishing one basically devides consumer (b2c) and industry (b2b) titles. Scientific and religeous titles are not included here.
 * Consumer titles include:
 * General Interest (like newsweeklies, mass women or men magazines, yellows, ..) and
 * Special Interest (business, travel, ...) and
 * Very Special Interest (core hobby products: flies-fishing, watch-collectors, ..)


 * Industry (or Branch- or Trade-) titles are not devided. They do not include special-or very-special-interest-titles.

So there might be magazines for plane fans (b2c) and those for persons working in the industry (b2b). One is consumer, one industry-title. Obviously sometimes it is not easy to seperate into clear classification. Normally, the fact that a a magazine is sold in outlets classifies it as a consumer title. Sometimes hardcore fans might read the same title like professionals, as this can be seen with many title e.g. in the Category:Rail transport magazines. Still, one might devide those titles to b2c or b2b based on ads inside. Advertisers rather wouldn't like to advertise in titles, who have no clear readership and obviously professionals (purchasers) are treated different than just enthusiats (here: collectors, fotographers, travellers, ..). I beliebve most titles in this category to be b2b2 titles.

But most of the actual Category:Professional and trade magazines' subcategories are wrong. Both, the classification as subcategory and the magazines collected in those subcategories too.

Example 1: It makes no sense to have a Category:Tourism magazines which includes titles like a classic industry (b2b) title Travel Agent (magazine) and a classic consumer title National Geographic Traveler. As this category includes consumer titles, it makes no sense to have it as a subcategory for industry titles.

Example 2: American Iron Magazine or Cycle World seem to be clear consumer magazines (which already a publisher like Hachette Filipacchi Media indicates). They belong to Category:American motorcycle magazines. So far fine, one cat higher Category:Motorcycle magazines is still okay. But putting this cat to Category:Transportation magazines, now together with before mentioned b2b-Category:Rail transport magazines is misleading.

Rgds --Wistula (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of interest
The members of this wikiproject may be interested in the AfD discussion for this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co.
Pending a decision on the AfD noted above, it would be helpful to get assistance in the article talk space from members of this project. The discussion in Talk:Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. concerns the notability of the article, whether there are other related articles that may be created (there is no article on a much bigger and more significant defamation suit), and whether cuts to the article should be restored or retained. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)