Jump to content

Talk:Rolling Stone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.78.195.140 (talk) at 03:40, 30 January 2021 (→‎Another New Cover Photo 2021: Fan spam. Across multiple articles.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Britain/England

Theres several times where the british flag is used for the beatles (all english) but the england flag is used for the rolling stones, I don't want to change anything yet. Is there a reason for this thanks Tukogbani (talk) 20:03, 21st July 2009 (GMT)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Indonesia shuts down

On the International editions section, change "Indonesia – Published in Indonesia since June 2005 by a&e Media" to "Indonesia – Published in Indonesia since June 2005–January 1, 2018 by a&e Media.[1]" RamliKroe (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done ToThAc (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rolling Stone Indonesia officially shuts down". The Jakarta Post. January 1, 2018. Retrieved January 8, 2018.

New Cover Photo

The current cover shown in the article is from 2012. Was going to upload a newer version but thought it best to get some input on which cover to use. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without input, I wasn't sure what was best so I simply updated with the most current cover of the publication found on Amazon. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image should not be changed without good reason. It is not clear there is any good reason to change the image. Even if there is a good reason to change it then we should be able to do better than changing it to the September 2019 cover image. The magazine has been published since 1967, there should be some cover images that were more notable than others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.
For example: Led Zepplin or Johnny Cash or Janet Jackson. Yahoo took the latest cover as a reason to look at 10 other covers, most of which are fairly recent except John Lennon and Yoko Ono.
For the time being I have reverted to the last cover image but many other articles magazine article Infoboxes avoid the copyright complexity and simply use the logo instead of a cover image, and when it comes to the Rolling Stone magazine logo we have three different SVG to choose from if there is any problem. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely surprised to find that there already exists Category:Fair use Rolling Stone magazine covers. The Janet Jackson cover image is already used in her article. The Heath Ledger article includes a cover image too. The John Lennon and Yoko Ono cover is also already used in an article titled 26 October 1993.
If for some reason there is a real problem with the cover showing the judges of The Voice then we can reuse existing images, or use only the logo. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally you would be fine to revert per WP:BRD, but you missed the part about the discussion already being discussed above. If you want to change it, you can jump in the discussion, but changing to your preferred version isn't acceptable during the process. I don't really care about the image so no need to push my point here, but using something newer than 7 1/2 years old IS an improvement to the encyclopedia. Here is a link for your future editing WP:CONSENSUS.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to but it is good that made a suggestion and waited some time before making your change but WP:BRD still applies as normal, even if people are slow to notice. I reverted to the status quo, not my preferred image.
Template:Infobox_magazine doesn't say anything about what image should be used. Perhaps there are some guidelines elsewhere. I don't accept what seems to be your starting point, that newer images are preferable or even desirable. I would even say the older the cover image the better, but as I said before a cover image of some particular notability would be better. I'm fine with the status quo but I reiterate my earlier suggestion to use the Lennon/Ono cover, Vanity Fair literally called it the "Greatest Rolling Stone Cover Ever".
Any real discussion and consensus requires more people though and anyone looking to change the cover image would be wise not to do so until they have other opinions, either by requesting WP:3RD opinions or by some other means. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point is moot. Use any image you wish, but an article about a CURRENT magazine reflecting one of the CURRENT covers is absolutely more appropriate than using a historical image. If you want to use a historical image in the body to describe a specific cover or show one for that time period, it would be appropriate as well. As far as the discussion, there is not time limit for any discussion but chiming in as a new IP user (who seems to have a pretty good grasp for Wikipedia despite being a new user) and reverting things after the fact certainly isn't a good way to introduce yourself to the community. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get that in your opinion a current image is better, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, WP:RECENTISM is a problem not a virtue. It is not like as if the magazine hasn't gone through some fundamental change of direction or started a new era. (BTW, I'm not new, but I prefer to use the option to edit as an Anonymous IP. There's an essay at WP:WNCAA elaborating why some people might choose this option.)

For a long time the Infobox only contained the logo image and did not include a cover image. The image was moved from the article body into the Infobox with no explanation 24 November 2016. IMO it doesn't look as good to have both the logo and the magazine cover (which itself includes the logo again) in the infobox at the same time anyway. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it about the IP. Just remember WP:LOUT. If you are an experienced user, I am sure you know the guidelines and will follow them "if applicable." Now, it is also your "opinion" about the logo and the image being used together. Some pages do the same while others don't. As far as a newer image, it is always preferable to have a more recent image in pages. That's actually not my opinion but pretty standard practice in Wikipedia. Again, I don't really care so its moot, but make sure to base things on policy and guidelines. Happy editing (I mean that sincerely). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've both stated our opinions, and if maybe others want to pursue the matter they can consider our opinions if they think the article should use a different image. WP:LOUT duly noted (experienced is maybe the wrong word, old and with a history of procrastination might be the more appropriate description).
I went ahead and added the historical cover image to the article body, maybe other editors will let it stay in the article for a while. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another New Cover Photo 2021

Someone went ahead and changed the cover the edit summary said "Most recent cover" but gave no explanation why. (Image was changed to the cover labelled February, 2021, featuring Dua Lipa.) By the time I spotted it the previous cover image had been deleted from Wikipedia.
No reason was given for the change of cover. What makes any one cover more suitable than any other? Rolling Stone has existed for more than 50 years and had many famous over images, why not any one of those? (See above.) If the cover needs to be changed to something "recent" then how often should it be changed, monthly, yearly? If it is an entirely arbitrary decision without any discussion or consensus then there is nothing stopping an editor changing it next month too.
I've removed the the Cover image from the Infobox for now since the logo is included, a cover image is not necessarily required at all. Please discuss before adding or changing a cover image. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need fans arbitrarily changing the cover image just because someone they like happens to be featured that month. [1][2][3] -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

I'm curious why I don't see any mention of Rolling Stone Youtube. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of mention were you expecting? I would understand including it in the External links section, but I wouldn't expect it to be included otherwise. -- 109.79.94.23 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]