Talk:The Week: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:01, 13 November 2016

Magazines Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class 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.

Merge proposal

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]

Suggested split

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]

It is back with no more reason and will soon be gone. Op47 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2013 (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.

Every decision WHO makes? Captain Quirk (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Off-topic content removed

The topic of the article, "a weekly British news magazine which also publishes a US edition, and between 2008 and 2012 additionally published an Australian edition", appears to be notable. In keeping with WP:DAB and related guidelines, it's not unreasonable to mention that there are other publications with the same name that are unrelated beyond that. But in keeping with that guideline, this article should not cover those topics in any detail. Therefore, I am removing the "Defunct magazines also known as The Week" section, as off-topic. If anyone feels The Week (1883–1896), The Week (1933–1941), or The Week (pre 1965–1968) are independently notable, feel free to write a specifically-titled page and list it at Week (disambiguation)--this DAB page is already linked in a standard "For other uses..." hatnote. DMacks (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I split off The Week (Canadian magazine) for the first one. DMacks (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other two might be notable enough also, but I can't figure out if they are actually related to each other (the pre-1965 one as a "refounding") enough to have a single article for them together. Or if the last one is more appropriately merged into International Marxist Group, though that article doesn't even mention that this publication or its successor wound up under their umbrella. DMacks (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 The topic of the article, "a weekly British news magazine which also publishes a US edition, and between 2008 and 2012 additionally published an Australian edition", appears to be notable. In keeping with [[WP:DAB]] and related guidelines, it's not unreasonable to mention that there are other publications with the same name that are unrelated beyond that. But in keeping with that guideline, ''this'' article should not cover those topics in any detail. Therefore, I am removing the "Defunct magazines also known as The Week" section, as off-topic. If anyone feels ''The Week'' (1883–1896), ''The Week'' (1933–1941), or ''The Week'' (pre 1965–1968) are independently notable, feel free to write a specifically-titled page and list it at [[Week (disambiguation)]]--this DAB page is already linked in a standard "For other uses..." hatnote. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 08:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 :I split off [[The Week (Canadian magazine)]] for the first one. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 08:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
+:The other two might be notable enough also, but I can't figure out if they are actually related to each other (the pre-1965 one as a "refounding") enough to have a single article for them together. Or if the last one is more appropriately merged into [[International Marxist Group]], though that article doesn't even mention that this publication or its successor wound up under their umbrella. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 09:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)