Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Project-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.
 Project  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.

long time?[edit]


Dear all,

I have noticed that you have decide to classify Intereconomics as a maganize. But as stated in Springer (the publisher), it is a journal:

And if you see the classification in here: you will see that it is not necessary that a journal is peer-reviewed to be a journal (for example: "The majority of scholarly journals go through the peer-review process, although there are some that are scholarly and non-peer reviewed, such as Journal of financial econometrics."(I am guessing that that is the reason why you changed from journal to magazine. If it is because something else please tell me).

Here you can also see the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and a journal that is not peer-reviewed:

Thank you for your time.

Isanjar (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Category question[edit]

Is there any good category for websites that function similarly to magazines - by publishing material on a range of topics? I am struggling to see what to categorise a lot of major websites out there like FiveThirtyEight, The Toast and so on, which are clearly more like a news magazine than a blog - in that they aren't just written by one person. Blythwood (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Talk:True Detective (magazine) Talk:True Detective see Talk:True Detective (TV series) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Weird Tales (anthology series) -> Weird Tales merger[edit]

I've proposed a merger of Weird Tales (anthology series) -> Weird Tales at the target talk page; please comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about |firstdate= parameter[edit]

Should the date for |firstdate= in {{Infobox magazine}} be the date that is printed on the cover of the magazine, issue date, or the date which the magazine was released for sale? —Farix (t | c) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be the issue date, usually the masthead date. The date the magazine was released for sale is not always easy to tell, and although it can be quite different from the issue date that's something that can be explained in the body of the article. The fact that the two don't correspond is something many readers won't know, so it would be confusing to use release date. Where the cover and the masthead disagree, it's a little harder to say, but usually this means that the issue was delayed so the cover was printed (or overprinted) with a later date. In those cases I'd go with whatever the sources index the issue as. That's rare for a first issue, though; usually it happens in the middle of a run when a magazine is experiencing difficulties of some kind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So let's use Weekly Shōnen Jump as an example. If the date on the first cover says August 1, then that is the date that should be listed in |firstdate= instead of the July 2, 1968 date that a source in the article? I'll also point out the the Media Arts Database (MADb), published by Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs, only gives the issues dates for everything published before the October 18, 2009 issue.[1][2] The reason for this clarification is that I know I'm going to encounter resistance as I update manga magazine articles to reflect those cover dates and the MADb, however, the template's documentation doesn't make it clear which dates to use. —Farix (t | c) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't read Japanese, but Google Translate doesn't seem to give the 2 July date, unless I'm missing it. However, per WP:TRUTH, if that source says the cover date was 2 July 1968 then we have to use that unless we have a better source. If you have a copy of the first issue, and the cover date is clearly 1 August, then I would use that; this is one of the rare cases that a primary source trumps a secondary source. In situations like that, when a secondary source is clearly wrong, if the source is something a reader might consult (such as a reference work) then I sometimes add a footnote explaining the conflict and giving the basis for choosing one source over another. See note 2 in Startling Stories for an example. If multiple reliable sources all agree on the 2 July date I think you would have to explain the discrepancy to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)