From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please comment. I just listed this article on the Cleanup page. I'll be happy to clean up this page, and to poke around cleaning up pages like this, but for a newbie (me), this article is a good example of "What do I do now?" A dicdef followed by an unrelated article is an obvious candidate for cleanup, but what's the best approach? Omit the dicdef altogether? Make a stub from it and hope somebody expands it into a real article? Split the two and create a disambiguation page, and let somebody else decide what to do with the dicdef? Any opinions? A. J. A. DeWitt 20:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) YO

== Headline text ==YOOOO

Not sure what you mean by an 'unrelated article', but I think this one would benefit from less sectioning - the content of the Publication and Categories sections is fine, but does it really need to be separated? I think not... Barnabypage 08:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence[edit]

The last sentence (about magazine closures) is terribly misleading. In fact, going to the source, more than 2.5 times as many magazines were launched in 2012 as ceased publication, where it was only 1.6 times as many new as ceased in 2011. (Also, those figures are for the U.S. and Canada, not for the world.) [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)



I suspect the paper magazine to be the most prominent search. So I'd suggest to start the page of with something like: This page is about ... if you're looking for an article regarding firearms please go here. If you're looking for the band go here (put in links) Otherwise keep the content and expand on magazines and their editorial process perhaps, include e-zines? -- MGM 22:01, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page needs to be made into a disambiguation page if content is to grow. How about splitting the content between Magazine (medium), Magazine (band) (already exists) and Magazine (firearms). I'm not sure about the last one. Any suggestions?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 18:57, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Seems this has been taken care of. ike9898 23:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


This article does not belong in the category 'Magazine publishers', because it is not an article about magazine publishers. I think that's all that needs to be said. That is the convention on how categories are used in Wikipedia. If you want to add this category back, please discuss it here first. ike9898 23:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Background information[edit]

It would be great if someone knowledgeable on the subject could add a little tidbit as to why monthly magazines are printed one month in advance. Thanks for your consideration. --Cioxx 13:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why the name magazine?[edit]

Magazine used to mean store house. Somewhere along the line it became used for periodical booklet. Does anyone know how this happened? --njh 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is from
1583, "place where goods are stored, esp. military ammunition," from M.Fr. magasin "warehouse, depot, store," from It. magazzino, from Arabic makhazin, pl. of makhzan "storehouse," from khazana "to store up." The original sense is almost obsolete; meaning "periodical journal" dates from the publication of the first one, "Gentleman's Magazine," in 1731, from earlier use of the word for a printed list of military stores and information, or in a fig. sense, from the publication being a "storehouse" of information. Barnabypage 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

An article on 'magazine' in the arsenal rather than publishing context would be useful. If anyone has the requisite knowledge please add it. 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Alert link (removed)[edit]

This belongs in an article on anti-consumerism or anti-commercialism, but doesn't add to understanding of magazines. Barnabypage 12:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

please comment at Talk:Contact_magazine[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Contact magazine. Lillies (who has only made 2 edits to wikipedia) edited Contact magazine and I think Lillies' main change is dubious. --EarthFurst 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

link to 'periodical'[edit]

The word "periodical" in the first sentence links back to this page and doesn't provide any further information. For now, the hyperlink should be removed. Unfortunately, I dodn't see an edit tab for the top of the article and I'm not sure how it should be done. --Absolute Zerr 3:30 EST, 31 December 2006

Never mind, It's done.


Wow, this article needs a lot of work...anyone with some knowledge in this subject?


Also, what about the decline of magazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cuckoo in the nest[edit]

Why is there a lengthy plug for FAIR in this article? Should it not be removed? What has it to do with the subject of the article? Godingo 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed - if on Wikipedia at all, it should be an article in its own right. It adds nothing to understanding of the broad concept 'magazine'. Barnabypage 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I heard that the word has its roots in Arabic. Is it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

publication info[edit]

What's the name of the box (or full page) containing the publication's information such as the address, the name of the chief editor, the web URL if any, etc.? Usually located at the beginning near the table of contents.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The masthead. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. So, that should be present in this article, and wikilinked, right? --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see a place in the present article where things like the structure and layout of magazines would go. I think I would wait and see if editors more knowledgeable and active on this page than I (I just happened to know the answer to your question) think so or no. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, right, i just wanted to point out to anyone who might tend to this article that it'd be something to add to it. Maybe i'm acting too proud of having found a "bug". --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Add category for "Motorsports Magazines"[edit]

Hi all: I came to this page looking for a list of Motorsports Magazines (Motorcycles, ATVs, Personal Watercraft, etc.) but there does not seem to be a category that is appropriate. I would be willing to start collecting information about Motorsports Magazines and filling out such a page if enough of you agree that it is appropriate (but I sure as heck don't want to go to all the effort and have it reverted!) That said, I rarely check Wikipedia for updates (vs. actually use Wikipedia for reference, which I do almost daily) so if someone would like to see me do add this please email me at my name (with no space) at gmail dot com. Thanks in advance. MikeSchinkel (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. I'd add regarding the analysis in the duscussion section that nothing in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports the notion that finding every possible dab for a page and adding them to compare to the use of the primary is a good gauge (and here adding them all up still results in a significant disparity). Rather we are to look at whether the primary is "much more used than any other topic" (singular), which is the case here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

MagazineMagazine (publication), to make way for a disambiguation page at Magazine. The discussion started at Talk:Magazine (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Support move except that for greater clarity I would move the article to Magazine (publication format) or Magazine (periodical format). Seeing the word "Magazine" by itself on WP:RM, I thought first of Magazine (artillery) and second of the more general sense of a storage place. --Una Smith (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Publications are the primary meaning by a long shot IMO. For what it's worth, the first 10 pages of a Google search for "magazine" are all about publications. TJ Spyke 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As usual, just another attempt by this user, all over Wikipedia, from horses, to plants, to London, to try to make all primary topics disambiguation pages, so that Wikipedia readers will get her dabs, instead of getting articles when they enter a search. And, if she creates the dab she will fill it with everything in the English word that has anything related to magazine in the name, see the Tumbleweed article, and the Tumbleweed (disambiguation) referenced to single sources, and ancient articles found on google books against current and topical articles. Don't support User:Una Smith's attempts to change policy without community consensus unless you want this article and its dab to be unusable and to turn readers off the article and away from Wikipedia to actually usable sources. --KP Botany (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Everyone, please dismiss KP Botany's argument. It is both ad hominem and a lie. --Una Smith (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clear primary topic is the publication sense.
  • Possible compromise Rename magazine as magazine (periodical), but also redirect magazine to magazine (periodical). Continue to maintain magazine (disambiguation). Barnabypage (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I'll have to say that if the purpose of posting this on the WP:Gun talk page was to garner sympathy because we're likely to say, "OOOHhh, yes, we should make Magazine a disambig page because that means that gun magazines will have an even footing with regular magazines..." well, the logic is lost on me. A magazine is clearly something you read. There are other uses, yes, but that's what the "other uses" template is all about. Probably half of the 50,000 hits on the firearms magazine article were probably ME! I'm again' it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    Probably not the intent, it's just required to alert other potentially impacted pages. --KP Botany (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible compromise, again. (Sorry, I seem to have kicked this off) My only beef was with the Magazine (disambiguation) page having a categorical statement about what a magazine is, when it has several, equally relevant meanings. Magazine with a re-direct to Magazine (publication), or (periodical), is fine by me. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, publication is the most common usage of the term. --Muchness (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Per Wikipedia article traffic statistics:

So Magazine has less than 3x as many hits as the other topics combined. And many of the Magazine hits are due to over-linking, such as this example from Apple Inc.: The magazine MacAddict named the period between 1989 and 1991 as the "first golden age" of the Macintosh. --Una Smith (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) One important benefit of putting a disambiguation page at an ambiguous base name is to facilitate disambiguating incoming links from mainspace. Magazine has thousands of these links. Looking at the first 15, I count 8 that refer to the format (ie, the article now at Magazine), 4 overlinks, 1 use of Template:Magazine, one mystery link, and one wrong link. --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, many of those 8 links referring to the format actually should link to Periodical publication, not to Magazine. See Talk:Magazine (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

“Types of magazines” Subsection of “See Also” Section Needs Work[edit]

The Types of magazines subsection found at the bottom of this page needs to be methodically expanded to include all major categories that currently exist. One that comes to mind right away is “Children's magazines”. Cajd (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Link to History of Newspapers and Magazines[edit]

I've noticed that under the link for "History of Newspapers and Magazines", the page has only a tiny paragraph about magazines, the rest is all newspapers. I've already proposed on said page that that be separated, so I think that the paragraph from there should be added to this page, and the link should be taken off. Allyalleycats (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Allyalleycats

Proposed deletion under: History > Britain[edit]

There is a non-sequitur sentence in this paragraph: "Despite being among the first mass media outlets to venture from the bible, periodicals still remained rooted in the naturalized class and gender system held by European and American society.[7]"

Despite having a citation, the sentence a) does not make sense in itself and b) has no connection to the rest of the paragraph.

What is meant by the line "the first mass media outlets to venture from the bible"?

Abdul tom (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Quite right. It’s rubbish so I deleted it. The rest of the paragraph too which was off-message (eg the printing presses used weren’t “archaic”, they were state of the art). Andyjsmith (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)