Talk:The Daily Telegraph

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Daily Telegraph article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

United Kingdom C‑class

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Media C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism C‑class High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Unassessed

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	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.

Template:Vital article

Circulation and ownership

What would be helpful to me is decade-by-decade figures on average daily circulation. Can anyone add that to the article?

Isn't the DT about to change ownership? Anyone know enough about it to write a little snippet for the article? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:41, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New ownership hasn't been decided yet.But this REALLY needs some history of the former owners,generations of Lords Burnham followed by the Lords Camrose until Black elbowed them out.That covers over 130 years of history that's omitted.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Out of date listing of Telegraph website employees

This is a continuation of the following discussion at David J Johnson's talk page. Here is the template massage David placed on my IP page: "Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Daily Telegraph, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Do not remove properly sourced content just because of your own view".

This message was inappropriate, since I did provide an adequate edit summary. To enlarge on the points being made in that summary; a list of non-notable employees from 2014 - a snapshot - is of little or no use in an encyclopedia. It would also need continuous maintenance, since it will inevitably become out of date. Indeed, the first named employee, Kate Day, has already left the organisation. David also said Do not remove properly sourced content just because of your own view". Firstly, of the three sources used in the disputed section, two purportedly pointed to a personal blog, and in fact now only point to a general Telegraph page. The other source is out of date, since it references Kate Day's position. In short, the content is not properly sourced. However, even if it was properly sourced, that does not exclude it from being removed if it is not relevant, or not needed, or for a host of other reasons. As noted, this type of content is of little or no use, so properly sourced or not, it can safely be removed without adversely affecting the article. Actually, I would consider this an improvement. For the reasons noted here, I'm removing the content again. I suggest this removal resets WP:BRD, so please revert again according to the terms of BRD, if you think it's necessary - and add to the discussion here if you do so. Thanks. 31.52.160.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not supply any source or evidence that the info was out of date - only your own personal view that it was. It would have been advisable to have awaited other editors comments before again deleting the disputed content, you are now up to two deletions of the same wording. I have no intention of edit warring with you, as you appear to be a fairly new contributor, albeit using different IP addresses, rather than creating a Wikipedia account. David J Johnson (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did say to revert again if you thought it necessary, in effect to do so without it being considered edit warring. My actions were a hundred percent in keeping with BRD, whereby a bold edit is just that. Discussion does not need to initially take place on the Talk page. According to BRD the onus is on the editor performing the revert to open the discussion. Anyway, let's not get bogged down with this type of stuff. Please feel free to revert again if you think the removal is not an improvement and we can discuss it further here. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if these people are worth including, and as some are sourced to the paper's own blog it does rather seem to be original research. The status quo version should however be kept until consensus is reached here, so I am putting it back for now.Charles (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got further thoughts on this? There does seem to be a distinct lack of interest. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]