Talk:Magazine (disambiguation)

Change order

I've re-arranged this page to reflect the dictionary entry. "Magazine" started as a store for various items, and the other meanings derive from that. The main article is on the publication anyway, so anyone coming here will be looking for the other uses. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on entry order

(Moved from user talkpage)
I see you've re-edited this after me. It looks tidier, but you've lost "periodical publication" completely now; was that intended? I was only seeking to put it into it's proper context. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. I hope dis is better. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's pretty much what I'd edited it from. Periodical publication isn't the main meaning of the word; the main meaning is a wharehouse or a store. (That's why the french meaning was added; that's where it comes from, and they still use it}. The publication takes it's name from a "storehouse" of information. So I changed the page in line with that. Are you objecting to me doing that? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main meaning is the publication, as demonstrated by the main article being about it. Also, as per WP:DAB#Partial title matches, The Gentleman's Magazine should not be included. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(back again!)Well, the dictionary Ive got here (Collins), and Wbster’s [1] and the Wiktionary entry all give storehouse, so if the main article gives periodical publication as the meaning, maybe it’s the main article that’s wrong; perhaps it should be moved to Magazine (publication). How about that? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that publication is the main meaning, with storehouse as a less common definition. However, if you want, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and see what they think. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You’re sure? Perhaps you have a source for your certainty?
I’m sure to people who read them, periodical publication is the main meaning; to people interested in, say, warships, ammunition store is the main meaning; to photographers maybe storage container is.
What I’m arguing against is prejudging the question, and for not giving one meaning undue weight. And I think there’s enough evidence to be less definite about it. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people who read magazines greatly exceeds the number of those who store things in them. Here, I'll post it on WP:Requested moves myself. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definition

And this definition:
"A magazine is a publication that is usually printed on a regular schedule."
is not sufficiently clear: Magazines are general publications like The People's Friend, or Cosmopolitan; it doesn’t encompass journals (like BMJ) or comics (like Batman) or newspapers (The Independent) which all come out on a regular schedule. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "general" is an appropriate word, though. Computer Weekly is a magazine, as is Cat Fancy; both are aimed at specialist rather than general audiences (as, indeed, are the majority of magazines). Perhaps the emphasis should be on the kind of content: "A magazine is a type of regular publication largely consisting of feature articles rather than items of news or works of scholarship." By no means perfect, but you can see where I'm heading... Barnabypage (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Claudius Aelianus is a reference to the concept of a magazine in the "classical" sense. From context, that sense is of a fundamentally POV article. (See also Pamphlet). The essence of a magazine is that it provides its subscribers with an armory (magazine in the military sense) of arguments that they can use in debate with persons who hold other POVs. --Una Smith (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in an etymological sense that's true, but I don't think it's a useful working definition of 'magazine' in the real world today. Barnabypage (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine needs to be defined so that it is clear how it differs from Journal, and probably Journal should be added to the dab page. Both journals and magazines are periodical publications. The article Magazine conflates "magazine" with "periodical publication". --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, not “general” either. The definition is in the Magazine article; this is a dab page, so surely it isn’t the place for lengthy discussions about what a published magazine is, or isn’t. Surely all it needs here is a list of articles on the different uses of the word, and links where to find them.

But most other dab pages I’ve seen have " X can refer to: ", followed by a list; why does this one have to say “A magazine is (some kind of publication). Other uses are”, when there are plainly alternative meanings ? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I have cleaned up the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker12, it seems your concern is with the special position of Magazine at the top of the dab page, and/or with the description of Magazine there. It is common practice on dab pages to describe the thing, to help readers choose which thing it is they want to read about. The description should be neutral. Do you have a concern at this time about lack of neutrality? The special position of Magazine on the page reflects the fact that the two pages are named Magazine and Magazine (disambiguation), implying that Magazine is a primary topic. If you dispute that, now is the time and Talk:Magazine#Requested move is the place to dispute it. To get an idea of how to dispute this, you can study other requested moves listed on WP:RM. I hope this helps. --Una Smith (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Magazine → Magazine (publication)

Please see Talk:Magazine#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Right, I'm not gonna get into a revert war here, but the simple fact is that the introduction to the article "A magazine is a kind of periodical publication" implies the publication is the primary and original meaning, and this is entirely factually incorrect and misleading.

My edit clarified the correct meaning, but it was reverted:-

A magazine is a container or collection of related items, and is commonly used to refer to a kind of periodical publication, containing multiple written articles with a similar subject, theme, or style.

The current introduction is not just poor, but it is incorrect, and should speak truthfully. Guinness2702 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we update the intro text of the article to us my wording or similar wording. Discuss: Guinness2702 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is correct per MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no need to include a dictionary definition, or even worse, to pipe the primary topic link as you have. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it meets MOS, but it just reads wrong, and not that I'm trying to wikilawyer here, but WP:IAR makes it clear that it's more important to improve wikipedia than to strictly adhere to MOS. The current intro is misleading, and missing significant information in this particular exceptional case, hence my argument for changing it (and ignoring MOS for this one). Guinness2702 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it misleading? The article magazine is about a kind of periodical publication. Dab page intros don't generally include etymologies. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been shown that the publication is by far the primary topic (see the verdict of the discussion I opened previously in Talk:Magazine#Requested move). Therefore it gets the first sentence to itself. I see no reason to apply IAR here. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]