Talk:The Week: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:21, 8 April 2012

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

I propose merging The Week Magazine into The Week. please comment here if you have thoughts on the matter. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorial

I have cit the advertorial about the website and list of readers. It was pure marketing puff, with no references or notability. --Duncan 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Someone added in examples of some of the articles in the current The Week. I don't see a basis for the selection, and they were trivial and not notable.--Duncan (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry if the examples were not useful. As I said, it was a random selection from my stack of The Week mags. I searched on the internet (to cite) and found these 2. I thought it would show the broad variety of articles in The Week. So, are you sure they are useless? --QuirkyQuark (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are notable from an encyclopaedic viewpoint. We don't have similar selections from other periodicals. In itself, it's not so hard to imagine, or see, what sort of articles it carries. --Duncan (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugested spilt

Someone has posted the split template onto this page, but without a rationale. This article is small already, and three new articles would simply produce stubs. Since there is no motivation for the split, I have removed the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanBCS (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly?

or some reason, this is in the category 'Monthly Magazines'. My question is simple - why? The current incarnation is weekly, an I can't imagine a mag calle the WEEK being published MONTHLY. Anyone got a rationale? I'll remove it from the category now, feel free to revert. Scanna (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

I find it interesting that there seems to be little to no criticism of The Week being essentially an aggregator, much like most Web sites. The Week does no new investigation/reporting of it's own - it simply skims other publications and cherry picks articles (with attribution). Disclaimer: I subscribe to The Week and read it cover to cover, so I'm complicit. I'm surprised that other publications such as Time and Newsweek (which I've subscribed to in the past but have dropped due to their descent into into drivel) aren't crying foul. Dlchambers (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be a criticism? It's a news digest... --Duncan (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Viewpoints?

Unless I missed it somewhere in this article, there is no mention of the fact that this magazine is INCREDIBLY opinion based. 'Multiple Viewpoints' is more like 'one single viewpoint'. We have this magazine sent to our house due to a relative giving it to us as a gift (thinking we would enojoy it, but wrong) and I have yet to see an issue that doesn't exaggerate everything (and attack every single decision he makes) right on the cover.

I subscribed for a year and found you are exactly right. There is no diversity of opinion at all in The Week. I was happy when the subscription ended. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm over reacting and missing the point of this magazine, but it seems like a ridiculous Tabloid if anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckolar612 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand what a tabloid is, right? C6541 (T↔C) 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :I subscribed for a year and found you are exactly right.  There is no diversity of opinion at all in The Week.  I was happy when the subscription ended. [[Special:Contributions/138.162.128.52|138.162.128.52]] ([[User talk:138.162.128.52|talk]]) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 Maybe I'm over reacting and missing the point of this magazine, but it seems like a ridiculous Tabloid if anything.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ckolar612|Ckolar612]] ([[User talk:Ckolar612|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ckolar612|contribs]]) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:You do understand what a tabloid is, right? ''[[User:C6541|C6541]]'' <small>''([[User talk:C6541|T]]↔[[Special:Contributions/C6541|C]])</small>'' 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)