This article 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.
I think a newer cover would look better. The cover shown is from 1974. Gilliamjf 04:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the first cover. I think it's fine. Mike H.That's hot 09:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Concur. First cover is appropriate. Anything more recent would both be fleeting in importance (as are all topics covered in People) and no more relevant than the next issue's cover. --Habap 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could remember precisely what Jeff Goldblum's character said about the articles he wrote for People. It was something along the lines of "No longer than the average American can read in the average [expletive for trip to the bathroom]" --Habap 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The table for Sexiest Man Alive needs some serious attention, and also needs to be relocated into the appropriate section. Also, the article itself could use some more content; it's much smaller than the article for People en Español. Any takers? --Andy (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC) They actually skipped it entirely once in addition to the couple that they substituted. Once it was around New Year's. Count the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The very first issue of "People Magazine" did not debut in 1974, but rather August 20th, 1973. I have the very issue in near mint condition. Elizabeth Taylor & Richard Burton are on the cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the first issue of Time Inc.'s People Weekly had Mia Farrow on the cover, and was from March 4, 1974. — Walloon (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I too have the very first issue of Elizabeth Taylor on People. People started as kind of a low quality magazine before Time Magazine took an interest in them and then purchased the mag shortly after tat at a very low price. They were impressed with the format and had been looking for that type of mag. to increase their market share in the '70s. They were considering starting their own but the name "People" was what they really liked. So when they purchased it, they really just wanted the name. They changed the format and slowly got rid of the original staff. Mia Farrow was the first face on the cover when Time took over People but Liz Taylor was on the very first. I don't think I can ever part wih it because it is sooooooooo rare. Ben Coler Bouder Colorado - Studio5ive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The cover logo for the magazine has the word "Weekly" superimposed in smaller letters over "People". Why is that word missing in the reproduction included here? — Walloon (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt this article be under People Weekly since that is the official publication name?-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
People Magazine's 100 Most Beautiful People is a list compiled and published by the American People Magazine of 100 people judged to be the most beautiful individuals in the world. It is published annually. Until 2006, it was People Magazine 50 Most Beautiful People.
Once in a while you have an editor claiming Mel Gibson was the first Australian winner and Hugh Jackman is number 2. Starting this section to see what other people think and if status quo is correct, Jackman as the first Australian winner. --John KB (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.
Per WP:RM, a controversial move must be discussed before the move is carried out ("if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested"). I have therefore speedily reverted the initial undiscussed move, and closed this discussion accordingly. I would suggest waiting a few days before initiating a new move discussion, to avoid confusing the matter with the closed discussion below. Cheers! bd2412T 15:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - There is nothing in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that suggests that a parenthetically disambiguated title can have a primary topic. Our guideline on incomplete disambiguation states that "When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it)." "People (magazine)" is an example of incomplete disambiguation, and should be a redirect to People (disambiguation); it should not be the title of an article. Neelix (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel you, but I oppose. I don't like partial disambiguation. (Hmm, I wonder what User:In ictu oculi will think of this move request?) RedSlash 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose it clearly is not the primary topic of "People" and is therefore disambiguated. There is no good reason to use ambiguous disambiguation if it isn't the primary topic, which it is not, since you're not moving this to People. "People (magazine)" is an artefact of Wikipedia, and is a construct not of the real world. Saying that "People (magazine)" is some sort of set term is original research if not supported by sources using People (magazine), for which you have not provided. Though you can probably find sources to support People magazine if you wanted that title. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Flyer22, question: according to the following how many primary topics are there for the word "People"? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article.
We are not simply discussing the word people; we are discussing the word people disambiguated with the word magazine. I highly doubt that most of our readers are going to be looking for the far less notable Australian People magazine. I also suggest that you read past discussions regarding partially disambiguated titles being WP:PRIMARYTOPICs; there are plenty to choose from, such as the two I linked above...one showing that Neelix was behind the way that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was when it introduced language suggesting that partially disambiguated titles cannot be a primary topic, and that there was sentiment from others that there was never any valid WP:Consensus for such a change. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
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. --BDD (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
People (magazine) → People (American magazine) – Article titles are either the primary topic for their base name (see cheese) or they're not. If they are not, they require a disambiguator. If a parenthetical disambiguator is chosen, that disambiguator should aaaaaaaalmost always be completely unambiguous among other topics that are notable enough to have WP articles about them (i.e., if I start a band called "Boston", that's not going to be enough to cause Boston (band) to move. If U2 (or even a more obscure band, like the lesser American band Falling Up) changed their name to "Boston", neither article should be placed at Boston (band).) In this case, there are two magazines called "People" that have articles--this one and an Australian magazine. This page was speedily and boldly moved to People (American magazine), but a requested move was filed to reverse that. BD2412 speedily closed the request and moved it back. I do disagree with the closing of the move immediately above... but I respect it, and would like to propose the move for reals this time. (Paging Flyer22, Neelix, 220.127.116.11, and In ictu oculi, as well, though of course everybody and their mother are invited to participate.) RedSlash 01:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the close of the discussion above, I really had no choice in the matter. Once an undiscussed move has been objected to, the title must move back to the state that it was at prior to the original bold move to prevent an objector from being forced to prove consensus in favor of moving back. Once the title was moved back, further participation in the discussion would necessarily be confused by the appearance that supporting a move meant changing the title as it stood following the reversion of the initial move, while opposing a move meant remaining at the title as it stood following the reversion of the initial move. bd2412T 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Support – indeed, partial disambiguation is silly. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Support per my comments in the previous survey. Ambiguous disambiguation is bad. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Support. Seems odd that one would take primacy over the other. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I appreciate the concerns about partial disambiguation, but comparing the subjects it seems WP:COMMONSENSE that when people are looking for People magazine it's not a toss-up between the most widely read magazine in the US and a cheap Australian lad's mag. benmoore 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, Ben Moore. That's essentially what I was stating on this matter. It's not even just the United States; the American People magazine is known in many parts of the world due to its dedicated coverage of American celebrities, including American celebrities who are quite famous internationally. Above, in the previous recent move discussion on this topic, Neelix stated, "'People (magazine)' is an example of incomplete disambiguation, and should be a redirect to People (disambiguation); it should not be the title of an article." By contrast, if this article is moved backed to Neelix's version, I feel that not having People (magazine) redirect to this article would be a huge disservice to our readers, since I believe that the vast majority of our readers will be looking for this article when they click on the People (magazine) link. It's similar to what David Levy and Obiwankenobi agreed on in this discussion; David Levy, who, in that discussion, stated that he is neutral on the matter of partially disambiguated titles being WP:PRIMARYTOPICS, also stated in that discussion, "There might be consensus to move Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), but I doubt very much that there's consensus to redirect Thriller (album) to the Thriller disambiguation page, which would be extremely counterproductive (because an overwhelming majority of persons arriving at Thriller (album) seek the article about the Michael Jackson album)." He also pointed out: "Even Neelix's original version contained an acknowledgment that it sometimes is appropriate for such a redirect to lead to an article."
On a side note: The title People (American magazine), especially because the American aspect is far more well known than the Australian People magazine, makes it seem as though there are different versions of this magazine for different countries. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My original version's acknowledgement that such redirects may sometimes lead to an article was accompanied by a stipulation that the target article should not be a parenthetically disambiguated title. Neelix (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Pretty much per Ben Moore above. What's odd is that anyone would think that an internationally known and distributed magazine would not take primacy over a single-country one with less than one-tenth the circulation. In fact, given the total number of citations in People (Australian magazine) (one), and the number of those that are independent secondary sources (zero), the most appropriate resolution of the issue might be found in an AfD on that article. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Fat&Happy, I also considered that, by looking at its Wikipedia article, the Australian People magazine is not WP:Notable. But I remembered not to judge the notability of a topic on the state of its Wikipedia article. I haven't yet looked into the notability of that magazine. I take it that you have? Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nah, it was pretty much an offhand comment based on the same observation you made, which at least indicates that notability has clearly not been established.
I also considered the People magazine or People Magazine option, but that doesn't seem to be the standard way to title magazine articles on Wikipedia, unless the word magazine is a part of the brand, which is why Time magazine is located at Time (magazine). Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per basically all the arguments made above. Hot Stop 03:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The WP community accepts the fundamental abstract concept of a primary topic. If a certain title or term is much more likely to be recognized to mean a certain topic than any other, then it should be the WP article title for that topic (or redirect to it). There is no reason this concept should not apply to partially disambiguated titles. That is the case here, clearly, for the reasons given above. As Obiwankenobi (talk·contribs) points out, the alternative is to make People (magazine) redirect to People (American magazine). This would be contrary to WP:CRITERIA, as the more concise title is preferred since we have a wash on the other criteria. There is nothing "bad" about WP:PDAB titles as others have suggested. --B2C 06:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - I'm not quite sure how any why any of us arrived at this RM (I was pinged so technically canvassed but would have seen it anyway). The fact is that no matter how many individual editors come here and "oppose," the majority consensus of the editing community is seen both (a) in the way that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is worded, and an "oppose" !vote here is basically disagreeing with the guideline and should be done by raising an RFC, (b) in the way that article corpus reality is, we don't have John Smith (primary footballer) and John Smith (lesser known footballer) for a simple reason, that no one types in (footballer) when searching as if there's only one, and if they mislink (footballer) then dab-bot notification will tell them and other editors. So support, we have no such thing as WP:PRIMARY MAGAZINE and a RM is not the place to challenge something hardwired into WP:ARTICLETITLE. Those who object, open a RFC and we'll have WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLERWP:PRIMARYFILM and all the other projects inputting on whether we want the have primary parentheticals and ambiguous disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Where does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC oppose the notion that partially disambiguated titles can be WP:PRIMARYTOPICS? As stated in the previous recent move discussion on this topic above, Neelix tried to get that guideline to state that, but I don't see where his proposal stuck. Perhaps it subtly stuck? And while I doubt any of our readers, unless very familiar with the way linking at this site works, will type in "People (magazine)," they will type in "People magazine." And it's ridiculous to suggest that the vast majority of them will not be looking for this article, about the American People magazine, when they do type in "People magazine." Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nah, I still don't see where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC opposes the notion that partially disambiguated titles can be WP:PRIMARYTOPICS; the fact that it doesn't is exactly why Neelix tried to get it to state such. I've already made myself clear on the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Flyer22, yes I realize that you don't see it, which is why I asked the question - question, do you agree or disagree with my assertion above that the en.wp article corpus is not set out on WP:PRIMARY FOOTBALLERWP:PRIMARY POLITICIAN etc lines? i.e. Do you think that en.wp has primary (footballer) (politician) etc in other categories than (magazine)? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I too am not really sure what point you're trying to make, but can you see what you're looking for in this list? benmoore 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, judging by all of the comments above, I'm not the only one who doesn't see that. And I don't see it because it's not there. As for the rest, I'm pretty much done commenting in this discussion. Also, no need to continue to ping me to this discussion. It's clear that I am watching this article/talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, not necessarily - I am asking you not what you think should be the case but what you think de facto is the case, there's a difference. I am asking you whether you believe that en.wp de facto/actually/currently has primary (foo) (widget) (whatever) in other categories such as (footballer) (politician) - since what is being proposed is primary (magazine). I know what you want, that is evident from the proposal, I do not know what you believe the rest of en.wp already does. Hence the question. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I gave a link to a list of examples, and on closer inspection you yourself noted several examples in the PDAB discussion, so you're aware it does happen. In fact I largely agree with your position taken there, and think this falls under a few where […] borderline notable (non-encyclopedic) article shouldn't be given much weight, i.e. while partial disambiguation is to be avoided in the general sense, there are occasions where there's one important and highly notable subject that the reader is almost certainly looking for, and another that could probably be taken to AfD. To put the two on par makes no sense to me. benmoore 22:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not really "aware it does happen" - I'm aware that there are 4 or 5 pop song articles which are at odds with the rest of the encyclopedia. The reason I asked for (footballer) (politician) examples was that Wikipedia doesn't do this. It seems you're also aware then that it's only 4 or 5 pop songs. If those 4 or 5 disruptive pop song examples are going to be held up as examples then they need to be brought into line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Creating a non-pop song example for the American people magazine is a very bad idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok well 17 examples there currently, songs, bands, albums and a TV series; I'd guess there's more out there. Do you have any examples of footballers or politicians where this situation exists? By which I mean, same full name, no natural disambiguation and massive discrepancy in notability between the two? I don't imagine it's all that common in the political sphere. But sure, I see that we will have to agree to disagree on this. benmoore 22:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There are only 4 songs. But yes there are 2 albums and 3 bands. There are no footballers or politicians because the idea of primary parenthetical such as (Michael Jackson album)/(American band)/(John Lennon song) editors has only been proactively advanced by a small number of pop music editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The Michael Jackson example is advanced by editors in general, not just "a small number of pop music editors." Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
To find an appropriate PDAB example of a politician (or footballer), say named "John Doe", all of the following would have to apply:
There would have to be primary topic for John Doe that is not a politician.
There would have to be more than one politician named "John Doe".
Of the politicians named "John Doe", one would have to be meet the primary topic criteria relative to the others (much more likely to be sought, etc.).
Is it any wonder we can find no such examples? It shouldn't be, and the fact that we can't is irrelevant to this discussion. However, if you could find such an example, and that primary use is never-the-less fully disambiguated, then that would be a point (but subject to WP:OTHERSTUFF, of course). Anyway, the situation here is:
There is a primary topic for People that is not a magazine.
There is more than one magazine named "People".
Of the magazines named "People", one meets the primary topic criteria relative to the others (much more likely to be sought, etc.).
That is why the title of this article is, and should remain, a PDAB at People (magazine). --B2C 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can't find any politicians or footballers that meet the PDAB criteria (yet), but there is at least one American football player that does.
See John Adams (disambiguation)#Sports. That said, I suspect a good argument could be made that this particular John Adams is not sufficiently notable to be the primary topic for American football players named John Adams. But that's besides the point, which is, if he was as notable among American football players as People magazine is among magazines, then he clearly would be the primary topic for John Adams (American football).
Besides, the real issue here is not whether this topic is primary for People (magazine) (as it would redirect to this article if it wasn't the title), but if it's a legitimate title. There is nothing at WP:AT or anywhere else which says it's not a valid title, so it is. This topic is primary for this valid title, so there is no reason it can't be the title. There is nothing anywhere in policy or in convention that says People (magazine) can't be an article title and must be a dab page title or a redirect.. --B2C 02:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Obi-Wan. I don't see a common sense reason for doing this. --NeilNtalk to me 22:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One common sense reason is that Wikipedia is also used by Australians. i.e. People is called Who (Australian magazine) in Australia and Wikipedia has some Australian readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Our guideline on incomplete disambiguation states that "When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it)." The current title should redirect to the disambiguation page. That guideline clearly and unambiguously applies to this case. If users disagree with that guideline, they should start a discussion on the guideline talk page suggesting that the guideline change. Neelix (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Community decisions are what make guidelines. Plenty of discussion and consensus-building has left INCDAB intact. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:DAB archive this was discussed here. Piet Delport arrive with a question about what happens with such situations, and after a few chatting between the users who participated Piet Delport added the section and wording of his preference. That is not community consensus; it's like WP:PDAB when it was approved (alleged 7-5 consensus). Its subsequent removal denoted it was in fact that community sometimes agree with moves over PDABs and INCDABs, but not always as it is not as helpful as it is believed. Although community discussions are reflected into the P&G, does not necessarily mean they are overwhelming accepted, PDAB as an example, and even WP:D begins with "occasional exceptions may apply". The reason is not everybody is personally invited to discuss, the discussions are taken to pages not everybody watches, or even they were accepted 10 years ago and now they are a "rule" (why it is Titanic (1997 film) and not Titanic (1997 movie)? and why Twilight (2008 movie) is a red link?).
Your discussion is of PDAB, not INCDAB; INCDAB remains intact, and because of broad consensus. If it were not so, we would be having a discussion on the guideline talk page about whether or not to change INCDAB. Neelix (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose move, realistically in no way can the phrase People (magazine) not refer primarily to the one that has around fifty million readers. - WPGA2345 -☛ 08:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"People (magazine)" is not a phrase. "People Magazine" is a phrase. That would be an appropriate title for this article. A Google Books search turns up no instances of "People (magazine)", as far as I can tell, but many thousands of instances of "People Magazine". Neelix (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Per what I stated in my "03:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)" post above, I'm certain that this article would be moved back to "People (magazine)" after being moved to "People magazine" or "People Magazine." The latter ways are not the standard ways to title magazine articles on Wikipedia, unless the word magazine is a part of the brand, which is why Time magazine is located at Time (magazine). Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
There aren't any other magazines called Time. Wikipedia policy on article titles states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Moving this article to People magazine or People Magazine would be a natural method of disambiguation. Neelix (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if you might not think of "People (magazine)" as a phrase, it is pretty clear that if you asked a good-sized group what "People (magazine)" referred to, with or without the punctuation, almost all of them would think first of the popular culture weekly. - WPGA2345 -☛ 03:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Neelix, what does "there [not being] any other magazines called Time" (if true) have to do with the fact that Time (magazine) is not located at Time magazine? I'm certain that the vast majority of people and vast majority of WP:Reliable sources refer to that magazine by calling it "Time magazine," and yet the Wikipedia article is not at that location. There are various other similar magazine examples on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned that there aren't other magazines called Time is that the difficulty we are attempting to overcome in the present People case does not apply to the Time case for that reason; there is no ambiguity in the title of the Time (magazine) article, therefore INCDAB does not come into play. In the case of People, however, moving the article to People magazine would make People (magazine) no longer an issue. People (magazine) could redirect here without INCDAB requiring that title to link to the disambiguation page because the hatnote to People (Australian magazine) would be required here whether People (magazine) redirected here or not. Moving to People magazine is not required by other guidelines or policies, but it seems to me to be a healthy compromise between the opposers and supporters. In general, it seems that the supporters want this article to fall in line with INCDAB and get rid of the ambiguity, and the opposers want the title of the article about the American magazine to demonstrate that it is more prominent than the Australian magazine. Both of these concerns would be addressed by a move to People magazine. Neelix (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support. Once we disambiguate, it is most helpful to readers and to editors to do the job properly and remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 5 February 2014 (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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved.Number57 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per BenMoore, Obi-Wan, and B2C in #RM2 above. This magazine is distributed worldwide with a circulation of 50 million; the Australian one is distributed only in that country. Moving this would only do a disservice to readers and INCDAB can and should be ignored in this instance. -- Calidum 04:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
SupportWP:PRECISE prefer People (U.S. magazine) as it is published from the U.S., and carries insufficient disambiguation to identify the topic. That it has worldwide circulation is immaterial to the matter. The New York Times has global circulation, that does not mean it isn't an NYC newspaper, same for Economist, Time, etc. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, per #Requested move -- move People (American magazine) back to People (magazine)? and #RM2. Editors should really read the arguments made in RM2 before casting their vote in this section. It makes absolutely no sense to move People (magazine) to People (American magazine), especially since People (Australian magazine) does not show any WP:Notability. That article is still in the same shape it was in during the previous move discussion. If it has no WP:Notability, it should be deleted. While WP:Consensus can change, it is silly to be having another move discussion about this matter so soon after the last one, especially when that other article is basically the same as it was before. Like WP:Consensus can change states, "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Flyer22 did you propose an AFD? If your argument for an exception to WP:Disambiguation is based on deletion of the 60 year old Australian magazine, why have you not resolved the exception with an AFD? Looking at Google Books "People magazine" + Australia shows significant if often controversial notability, and the Australian version of the American magazine "less than stellar launch of Who Weekly, the Australian version of People magazine." (Mackoff 2005). Disrupting a guideline with an exception with an argument with no basis in sources is more disruptive than following the guideline. Your claim for lack of notability is unsupportable in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to know my argument for not accepting your move request on this matter can look to the previous two move discussions; I am not repeating myself on that. And since there was very strong WP:Consensus to keep this article titled People (magazine), with no problematic issues whatsoever having resulted from that very strong WP:Consensus, your claim of WP:Disruption on my part in this case is silly. As for WP:Notability, I stated that "People (Australian magazine) does not show any WP:Notability"; I was referring to the article. It doesn't show WP:Notability, as others also noted in the RM2 move discussion. I also stated, "If it has no WP:Notability, it should be deleted." The word if in that statement clearly shows doubt as to whether the topic is non-WP:Notable. If it is non-WP:Notable, that is obviously even more reason not to disambiguate this article in the way you so desire. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.