Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.


Question about a magazine's extra publications[edit]

Hi Project Magazine people, could someone answer this question for me? When National Lampoon (magazine) was in its heyday in the 70s, about 4 times a year they would put out various special publications that were also sold on newsstands, but that were not actually that month's issue of the magazine, they were separate additional things. Quite often these were large-format paperback books, such as "National Lampoon Gentleman's Bathroom Companion" in 1975. Does anyone know what you would call these publications? I am assuming there is a proper term for them... Do you call them special issues or what, because they were in addition to the regular issues. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


I have added this article to the project. I have my doubts about whether it is anything more than an attempt to promote a startup attempt but I am not familiar with notability requirements for such articles so maybe someone here can have a look. Looks like most google hits are unrelated. --KenWalker | Talk 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

007 James Bond Car Collection[edit]

now they really are taking the p*** there really is too many now to collect and its costing to much money. I have already spent £629 on these cars and now they have adden more its gonna be at least £1000 when i finish this is getting ridiculous. What Do You All Think?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people[edit]

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Wallis Time.jpg[edit]

File:Wallis Time.jpg has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Slant Magazine article ...[edit]

... reads like ad copy written by the staff of Slant Magazine. Is this even a notable "magazine"? It's online only, and I thought they folded in the first dot-com crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl4de runn3r (talkcontribs) 08:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stub sorting, you can help![edit]

On a whim, I started my stub-sorting career with the Magazines. When I started, the "Category:Cultural magazine stubs" and "Category:Magazine stubs" categories where both oversized and were barely distinguishable in the types of articles they contained. I've now created a number of new categories, and am completing sorting these two main categories out into my opinion of appropriate categories.

I would welcome help in a number of areas.

  1. Feel free to review the stub categories and make sure that magazines are placed in appropriate categories. (Note: please follow the stub sorting guidelines before creating any new stub categories) Please move any mis-sorted articles to a new appropriate category. Avoid the {{mag-stub}} and {{culture-mag-stub}} when possible, as these are non-defining categories. (feel free to review my remarks on the talk page for the cultural magazine stubs)
  2. The Category:Academic journal stubs could use some sorting. Anyone well versed in academia would be helpful here.
  3. And of course, these are stubs. Many of these may be able to be moved up the class ladder. I've included a number of articles that were either marked stub or unassessed. After review, if someone determines an article is deserving of start-class or higher, then reclass the article, and remove the stub tags. Also, feel free to improve any of these articles so the stub tags can be removed.

Dawynn (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cats by country[edit]

Does anyone know whether there's been a consensus regarding how magazines are categorized by country if the magazine publishes international editions? Some such magazine articles are categorized only in its primary/initial country of publication while other (and fewer) articles are categorized with each "by country" cat that applies based on having international editions. Either way has merits to me. Any thoughts?  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing question[edit]

I've been working in fits and starts on The Advocate. It started as a newspaper and transitioned to (and is still published as) a magazine. Is there a guideline as to whether it should be categorized as both a newspaper and a magazine? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any such guideline, but my opinion would be to categorize it is as both (as it currently is), since it was at one time or another both. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Women's magazines but no gay magazines?[edit]

Wonder why under men's magazines there is a section for gay magazines but under the women's listing there is no reference to gay women's magazines. Would have been interesting to see what's out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Der Spiegel needs cleanup of numerous un-cited POV statements[edit]

Der Spiegel needs your help to cite or remove numerous un-cited POV statements.

Article has been tagged since December 2009.

-- (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just go remove them, per WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. You don't need "help" to do that. And asking for it from a projectful of editors sounds very much like canvassing in support of your side in an edit-war. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge redundant media projects into taskforces/workgroups[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media#Merge redundant media projects into taskforces/workgroups. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Shot - National Geographic Magazine[edit]

The National Geographic Magazine page could be improved by a discussion of "Your Shot". This photography competition is based on the National Geographic website and it has a large, international following. Every month, the winners of the competition are published in the National Geographic magazine. One of these winners was the notorious Crasher Squirrel. Another winner was spotted by the band Weezer, who used the image for the Raditude album cover. It was also the focus for a debate on digital manipulation, when National Geographic was tricked into printing a doctored image after it won the contest (here). Your Shot is a significant photo contest, and as such it deserves a mention. --Ofe13999 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Magazine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Magazine articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ikon (magazine)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ikon (magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article content seems to indicate the subject does not meet Proposed deletion, a search for references did not find support for the content of this article as written.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of China Economic Review[edit]

Hello - I'd like to request a member of this group (or anyone for that matter) address the request for cleanup on the entry for China Economic Review. Possible conflicts of interest have been noted on the magazine's Talk Page, and on my own user page. Thanks.

Chinaeconomicreview (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloginity Magazine[edit]

Hi everyone, I am a new member of this group, and looking forward to contribute as much as I can. I wanted to get your awareness for Bloginity which is up for deletion. I was hoping that some of you here may be able to help the group out with the improvement of the article, and or help with the debate. (Knox387 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

The Diplomat[edit]

There seems to be two problems with the Diplomat. First is notability, the only references I could find about it were itself and Wikipedia. Second is it seems more like an advertisement than an actual informative piece. Imasomething (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion has been started in the right area. Sorry about the mistakes I made here. Imasomething (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Publications by year of establishement.png[edit]

Useful? Who knows? Interesting? I think so.

Made this for kicks and giggles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


I wonder whether anyone who reads this page might like to wander over and assess Jewish Sports Review? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Epeefleche, I wandered over to Jewish Sports Review. Good article. Corrected a typo and left two comments on the Discussion Page. Please read them if you have time. I do not know how to change the Category Biweekly to Bi-monthly. Please steer me to more articles. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the notability of Juxtapoz[edit]

Could experienced editors take a look at this magazine? 2 of its 3 references are questionable. Thanks! John Milito (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about sf magazine articles[edit]

There is a question here about science fiction magazine articles that I'd be glad to get feedback on from editors who have worked on magazine articles. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Project Magazine's importance rating on National Lampoon magazine?[edit]

I hope you guys don't object, I took the liberty of changing the importance rating from "low" to "mid". National Lampoon was an extremely influential magazine all during the 1970s and even the early 80s. Invertzoo(talk) 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How about newspapers?[edit]

I wonder if the editors of this project wouldn't be interested in expanding and adopting the area of newspapers as well, forming the WikiProject Magazines and Newspapers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, this project is near-death... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This might be an idea, although I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism is also good for newspapers. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Would it then make sense to merge Magazines to Journalism? Hardly anybody is active here... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, although it would be preferable to keep the projects separate, I think, if some activity could be stirred up. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What Investment magazine[edit]

The article for What Investment magazine doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria listed on the project page. I thought I'd bring it here to check before adding a propose for deletion tag. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

IT Week magazine doesn't appear to exist any more[edit]

Wasn't sure where to bring this up, apologies for the noobishness. Was cleaning up some references on other articles and noticed one to which is a dead domain. IT week also has it's own article which doesn't make any mention of the publication no longer existing so thought it appropriate to flag it here. Shedwigs (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


There is a discussion about the use of {{ESPYs}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template:ESPYs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletions at New York Review of Books[edit]

Would someone please review this deletion? I believe that this material ought to be in the article, as it simply describes the content of this publication. Thanks! -- (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Seems like a good edit to me: sourced to a blog and vaguely POV. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please note that the statement is also sourced to Commentary (magazine). What if the blog reference were dropped, and the material were simply: In addition to domestic issues, the Review covers issues of international interest, including frequent articles about Israel. "Topic: the New York Review of Books", Commentary, accessed March 11, 2012 I think if you'll look at the link, in which writers at Commentary describe this aspect of The New York Review of Books, you'll see that it is a key component of the content of this magazine. Thanks. -- (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As you also posted this on my talk page, I have responded there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Commentary (magazine)#"Contributors" section[edit]

This discussion could use some input from editors from this project. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Music Trades[edit]

Is The Music Trades a reliable source? Its articles (in my N=5 convenience sample) could well have been written by public relations departments of the profiled companies, because they were so positive and lacked authors' names, imho.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Today's Railways[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Today's Railways has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Railways Illustrated[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Railways Illustrated has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

CIO magazine[edit]

I was amazed that there's no Wikipedia article about CIO magazine, so I just created a little blurb about it today. Would members of this WikiProject help it conform to Wikipedia standards? CoLocate (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Magazine articles by quality and importance: error[edit]

When I click on any of the links in the table "Magazine articles by quality and importance", I get an error message:

Forbidden (403)
You are not allowed to view this page. If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: enwp10 [at] toolserver [dot] org.

--Iantresman (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. --Iantresman (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lobster: denounced in the House of Commons[edit]

I've (hopefully) improved the article on Lobster (magazine), a magazine on the security services and conspiracy theories that was denounced in the House of Commons. I'd welcome a review on its quality and importance, on it way to trying for a Good Article review. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Resurgence & Ecologist[edit]

FYI, one of the oldest environmental magazines, The Ecologist, published recently only online, has merged with Resurgence, edited by Satish Kumar. A new, combined print publication, Resurgence & Ecologist, is slated to come out this month (Sept. '12)... This set of articles will thus need to be updated soon. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How to organize content about magazines[edit]

I started Magazines in Houston to chronicle all of the small/minor magazines published in Houston that are featured in secondary reliable sources.

I now have a lot of information about a series of neighborhood magazines which later were published under the single unifying masthead "Houston City Life." The magazines were started by one company, but were transferred to another company. Should I start two articles each, one about each company, and redirect "Houston City Life" to Media Link? Or should I start an article on "Houston City Life" and redirect "Media Ink" to "Houston City Life"? (I am not aware of Media Ink publishing other magazines, but the Creneau company published other magazines that were not related to "Houston City Life")

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Prove notability of trade magazine[edit]

How do I prove the notability of a trade magazine? I found Risk Management (magazine) and gave some new info, but it needs more sources. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Have a look here. Basically, it's not simple to show notability of a magazine or academic journal, because there rarely are third-party sources about these periodicals (unless they did something stupid generating a lot of controversy). --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Cool! I've seen others cite this magazine, so I'm going to presume notability :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic Economics[edit]

As the editor of this publication, I've reviewed the entry for Chiropractic Economics magazine and it seems to be in good order. All details listed are correct and validated with neutral, unbiased (i.e., non-internal) references and links.

I'd like to get the "problematic" label removed from this entry. If anyone can assist me in resolving this issue, I'd be highly grateful.

Regarding the "questionable" activity regarding links, I believe the Webmaster made some edits, but not for SEO purposes directly.

GOOD Magazine and GOOD Worldwide[edit]

Edit request moved to Talk:Good Worldwide. jonkerz ♠talk 00:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Two deletion nominations[edit]

Tinywords and Bottle Rockets (magazine). Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I have tagged them with {{WP Magazines}}, so that they'll get listed here by the article-alert bot. --Randykitty (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Is this project still active? If so, could you have a look at this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I had a quick look and at least at first sight it looks well-sourced and notable. I did not check the sources, though, and the references could be formatted better, I think. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Internet Archive[edit]

The Internet Archive has an extensive collection of magazines' back issues. There is a separate collection of computer magazines. Be sure to use the Internet Archive template when adding external links to articles on individual magazines. Ylee (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Prince William Living[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Prince William Living has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't think that notability can be established for this magazine.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recharge (magazine)[edit]

This AfD debate could use some input from knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of past subjects/articles covered in a magazine[edit]

Hi. I'm not a regular participant in this WikiProject, so I wonder if more experienced editors can have a look at the Tokyo Journal article, which I have been involved in editing. I'm particularly curious as to whether it is normal practice to include an ever-increasing list of all the past topics and subjects covered in a particular magazine, as is the case in the "Features" section of this article. Thanks for any comments or advice. --DAJF (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've had a go at it. It is indeed not normal to include such sections (see our magazine article writing guide). Such list basically constitute unsourced OR and SYNTH. (Although editors often argue that the source for this is the tables of content; even when accepting that argument, there remains the fact that such lists reflect what particular editors find important about the magazine's content, which still is OR/SYNTH). As a rule of thumb, like any info in articles on any other subject, information on a specific article or contributor should only be included if there exist reliable sources independent of the magazine that cover such contributions or subject lists. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look at the article and cleaning it up to bring it in line with the manual of style guidelines. Thanks also for providing a link to the guidelines about adding too much puff about past contents. They confirmed what I suspected was probably the case, but I just couldn't lay my hands on them. --DAJF (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Yale Record[edit]

A relatively new editor added an article on The Yale Record. The article is a good start, but it is largely unreferenced and contains some unencyclopedic tone. Can anyone help? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

TfD on Template:Major English-language business magazines[edit]

There is an ongoing deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 15#Template:Major English-language business magazines which has been relisted due to insufficient participation. Contributions from WikiProject Magazines members would be welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Daniel Kelly - publisher[edit]

Dear magazine experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable publisher, and should the article be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Philatelic journals or Philatelic magazines[edit]

There's a discussion over the proper name for the category Philatelic journals editors here may be interested in. --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Magazines At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


I created Treats! and then I ran into a brick wall. Can't even find the editor. Not sure if I should blank the page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Eyes needed on Treats![edit]

I'm requesting eyes ( and input ) on the talk page of Talk:Treats!. On the article I removed an image here as I believed it failed NFCC 3, 5, & 8. I placed a note on the talk page with a detailed rationale, The admin chillum agreed with me , however, TonyTheTiger did not and he restored the image. I'm seeking consensus on whether or not this image violated NFCC 3,5 & 8. Thanks ! Kosh Vorlon    20:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the image was restored along with the addition of corresponding text in the article and further explaination on the talk page of the need for a color image so as not to mislead the reader into believing this is a black-and-white art magazine as might be inferred from the more famous image in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Opinions needed for an RfC[edit]

Vogue editions merger proposal[edit]

I am proposing that the articles on the various Vogue editions be merged. If you are interested in opining, please see the proposal and discussion here. Holdek (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC , take 2[edit]

So I closed my prior RFC as it was suggested that it was malformed I've re-opened it here . Your input would be appreciated Kosh Vorlon    16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Magazine template categories[edit]

Hi WikiProject Magazines. Is there any reason why Category:Magazine templates and Category:Magazine navigational boxes don't exist? I can think of several templates which could be included in such categories, e.g. {{50 largest US magazines}}, {{BritishMagazines}}, {{Vogue magazines}}, {{Private Eye}}, etc. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody provided a reason why these categories do/should not exist, I have created them. DH85868993 (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)