Talk:Weekly World News

Whnoever updated the page cannot write in the English language. All the updated material consists of mangled and often incomprehensible gibberish.128.83.131.92 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever creatred this page did a good job. I updated it a bit, going into further detail as to the reoccuring stories featured in the pages of WWN. I'll update it as need be.

Hm, would it make sense if we merged the "Description" section and the "Features" section together? The features are a description after all... —DaemonDivinus 16:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should not eliminated the description entirely, but simply condense it down to a paragraph or two. —spman

Why not remove the stick from your bum Mr. Superm401 and at least have the chutzpah to post a message on the talk page. While yes, the article does need to be re-edited as has been discussed, we are not by any means listing "every damn story ever published" by WWN, we are simply acknowledging some of the frequent subjects which appear in the pages of WWN with a few specific examples of each. This is important in order for those not familliar with the publication to get a grasp on what specifically it is. I don't see why some people get so up in arms over WWN, it's a joke, it's satire, no different (and far better IMHO) then The Onion. - spman

Possible future covers???

How are the three photos captioned "The first/second/third of three possible future cover [sic] of the Weekly World News" encyclopedic? WWN might spout unmitigated crap, but that doesn't mean we have to when talking about them. If they're covers that have appeared, we should say so, but if they're "possible future" covers, than this is like listing all 250 million US citizens and describing each of them as a "possible future" US president. How absurd is that! Anyway, "cover" should be "covers". JackofOz 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If these have not appeared, what is their copyright status? --Wetman 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Nat'l Enquirer

I remember hearing that the reason the WWN uses a B&W press is that it was the old press used by the National Enquirer. The WWN lauched in 1979[1], so that may be the case. Since I'm not certain, I'm not adding it to the article. Bobak 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

The Elvis section seems to be portrayed as being accurate, as well as some other sections. All things considered, that should probably be rectified. 141.149.206.197 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even bothering with it, but...

Someone vandalized one point in mentioning "Miss Adventure" and replaced it with "Miss America." --71.109.37.168 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. And if someone is going to vandalize, they could a least check their vandalism for spelling! I also made some minor related corrections, the article could use a lot of editing.65.6.15.68 14:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page 5 Girl

It would be tempting to add that unlike The Sun's Page Three girl, WWN's Page 5 girl is usually...well...you know...kind of a skank, doubtless a deliberate parody of Page Three. 65.6.15.68 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wondering

Does anybody believe this crap?