Jump to content

Talk:Rolling Stone/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

albums

its all wrong. looks too complicated for me to fix thoughД narchistPig (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Muddy Waters info completely wrong

The Muddy Waters entry mentions it as having been recorded in 1950 (February) and the title as being Rollin' Stone (no 'g', with an apostrophe). The entry for the Rolling Stones band cites the bands name from the song and links here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollin%27_Stone

So the info in *this* article is incorrect (1948 and Rollin' with a 'g' and no apostrophe). Right?

Macshill (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Source 3

The article cited for " Rolling Stone Magazine changed its format in the 1990s to appeal to younger readers" is not relevant to the claim. The source cited describes a change in page size to appeal to retailers and advertiser, not young readers.138.253.82.127 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

garth cover

Why is an image of garth brooks shown in the covers section? that particular cover isnt mention, nor has it reached iconic status others have. either replace with a more notable cover or remove entirely.Д narchistPig (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Replaced Garth Brooks with Original Janet Jackson Cover

I believe it can be argued that Janet Jackson's 1993 Rolling Stone cover is a much more iconic, and recognizable than Garth Brooks April 1993 cover.MRGQ (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to go onto the Rolling Stone link shown here, but the page won't open! Something is really wrong with the link. Can this link be fixed, please? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 23/02/2010 - Trying to access from New Zealand.

I tried to open the link http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32255149/wall_streets_bailout_hustle/ from google and it is saying "Error: Page cannot be displayed. Please contact service provider for more details. (3)"

Could someone with access let them know? Has Rolling Stone been banned?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.150.61 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, new messages go at the bottom of the page. Second, the servers must be down or something, I'm pretty sure RS knows this, they must be working to fix this at the moment. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Website not working

'Lo. I just looked at RollingStone.com, and it shows what appears to be a starter domain page. (Albert Mond (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Technical glitch. They will be back up shortly. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Straight Arrow Press

This stub should be expanded, and a mention made of this "holding company" in this article. ahh, so senor wenner operates a...holding company. verry interesting. what would Janis make of that?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles for music albums are full of links to that album's review on the Rolling Stone website. However, all of those links no longer take you to the album's review on the Rolling Stone website. Perhaps the Rolling Stone website was reorganized/updated recently? Anyway, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than I can tell us whether is there some global fix which can be done, or whether we have to individually try and fix each review link. Thanks. Tinman44 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the cover of Rolling Stone

I think picking the photo of John Lennon and Yoko Ono is inappropiate, just as I would think that of Janet Jackson. The magazine isn't about them. Each issue features different content and interviews. There must be a way to place a more representative cover on the article! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is really finding an iconic cover, the problem is more finding one with public license Snychronization (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The Lennon-Ono cover is "iconic" only insofar as the whole issue was iconic: devoted entirely to John Lennon after he was killed a month earlier. Rolling Stone had supposedly intended to devote an entire issue to Lennon before he was killed. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning the Talk-page

Could someone clean out the irrelevant comments on this talk page? I refer to "Rolling Stones Sucks Dick" amongst others.. T-roland (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) They ran over a companion of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.105.196 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

It's a total mess. No attributions, poor grammar, dubious assertions. Needs real editing, should perhaps be started over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.242.194 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the part saying that the magazine gave poor reviews to Nevermind and Let It Be when they were released, but included them on the 500 Greatest Albums list. The simple fact is that the list was compiled by 273 critics, and the initial reviews of those albums were not. It's not inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.76.109 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, then it means that the ones who initially made the reviews are morons, or what? On the other hand, it depends which is reviewers favorite genre. For example I probably would not enjoy much a rap or hip-hop album, even if it was very good. 82.141.119.195 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think the article should feature a better cover?

I mean, come on. The cover in use right now is dreadful, and doesn't show AT ALL how RS is a music magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NevermindtheBlondeonBlonde (talk • contribs) 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Tim Heidecker's fans and cronies attempting to vandalize the Rolling Stone page

Comedian Tim Heidecker recently announced that he was becoming Rolling Stone's Editor in Chief. Unfortunately, there is no verification or public announcement from the magazine itself, nor are there any other announcements besides his own.

Update: Senior Editor of Rolling Stone has denied Tim's announcement. "Tim Heidecker is not the new editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone, though I'm sort of honored he cares." Christian Hoard ‏@christianhoard

Fans of the comedian are attempting to vandalize the page and add Tim as the Editor in Chief. In attempting to do so, they have only provided Tim's announcement as evidence of this. Which of course could be fake, and likely so.

I am a fan of Tim, but vandalizing Wikipedia in order advance one's joke shows very little respect for the millions who rely on Wikipedia for information and conveys a sense of disdain for Wikipedia in the assumption that since anyone can edit it, it must be flawed source of information, and therefore can be manipulated. EugeneMondkar (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has been temporarily semi-protected. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


stars and criticism

URL for Shoutmouth reference is now dead, though a Way Back copy exists: http://web.archive.org/web/20070630190730/http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/12829

Even so, it does not make any mention of the 3.5 stars being abused, so that claim needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagle (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added the link to the |archiveurl= parameter. However, the ref is some distance from the phrase "frequent abuse of the 3.5 star rating", so it's not necessarily intended to be associated with it. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Italian edition

Anyone interested in this article want to add the 1980 incarnation of Rolling Stone in Italy?

Italy – Published in Italy since November 2003, first by IXO Publishing and now by Editrice Quadratum.

Would this be better as:

Italy – Published in Italy since November 2003, first by IXO Publishing and now by Editrice Quadratum. An earlier Italian edition began in April 1980.

Rolling stone edizione italiana

Pubblicazione quattordicinale. Il primo numero risale al 12-25 aprile del 1980 al costo di 600 lire / 48 pagine

http://stampamusicale.altervista.org/Rolling_stone/index.htm

EdRicardo (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

UVA

Alright Wikipedia lefties...what's it going to take to get this scandal into the page? It meets all the Wikipedia standards for being included. I'm looking at you Gamaiel

Hello? Major, major scandal going on and not a word about it here? How pathetic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.114.216 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of deliberate omission. I think it's simply a matter of no one has done it or seen fit to do it. You are welcome to make additions. Be sure to follow Wikipedia policies or your edits are likely to be challenged or reverted. – JBarta (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've attempted to integrate it into the article. Additions, addendums, slight omissions, grammar changes welcome. Tutelary (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Necessary?

Many artists and celebrities have criticized the magazine for the cover including Dropkick Murphys, Tom Bergeron, Stone Cold Steve Austin, James Woods, Ralph Macchio, Dean Cain, OneRepublic, Brad Paisley, David Draiman, Carson Daly, Brad Ziegler, Nikki Sixx, Tommy Lee, Kevin Sorbo, and Louis C.K.

Is it really necessary to have a laundry list of celebrities criticizing the magazine? Seems to violate WP:NOT#IINFO, but hey, maybe there was some long discussion abuot it. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So there is a problem here. There are two different versions of the "Rape on Campus" source. We had a citation to the later version, and this was changed on 20 May to the original (19 Novemeber) version by an IP editor with the comment "Referencing original article, not RS's post-hoc edit/explanation." The problem with that change is that the original version does not support the statement that Will Dana apologized. So I put in both versions. I'm not happy with this solution, and I'm going to change it to a different source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Origin of name

I am curious as to the origin of the publication's name and as to any relation to the band, The Rolling Stones.

--74.198.12.4 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

--I'm pretty sure it came from a Muddy Waters song. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


I know for a fact that they had to ask The Rolling Stones for permission to use their name as the magazine title. I have seen the letter that Mick Jagger sent them, it's in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Wikipediarules2221 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Which doesn't mean that that's actually where the name comes from. Here's a third variant: that it's based on the Dylan song (NY Times source). The Muddy Waters theory is currently in the article. The source is a book which I do not own but according to Google Books there is no mention of Muddy Waters or Rolling Stone on page 104. --Mudd1 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
If anyone cares to make the source of the name more accurate look first at:

How Rolling Stone Magazine Got Its Name "At Gleason's suggestion, Wenner named his magazine after a Bob Dylan song, and with Stermer's permission, he lifted his design from the Sunday Ramparts." 

A Bomb in Every Issue: How the Short, Unruly Life of Ramparts Magazine Changed America (The New Press, NYC 2009) By Peter Richardson (page 109). . .

"Surely there's nothing more definitive than Wenner himself pointing to the Gleason article that lays it all out, saying "The name Rolling Stone came directly from the essay he wrote titled 'Like a Rolling Stone,' in The American Scholar. Feverishly I ripped open the pages of American Scholar to look at it for myself. Keyword search for "Muddy," no hits. Keyword search for "Dylan," hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit . . . 23 of them in all. So though I certainly agree that Gleason "would have also been well familiar with the song by Muddy Waters," it clearly was NOT what the magazine was named after. Wikipedia has it wrong. But Richardson's statement that "Wenner named his magazine after a Bob Dylan song," is a bit of an over-simplification too, as Wenner wrote, "The article became the philosophical, ethical, and cultural base on which Rolling Stone still operates." That is certainly a much more nuanced answer, more complete and more worthy, I'd say." Discussion and sources EDLIS Café 15:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC) EDLIS Café 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

25 best singers of all time

hi there guys! in the stones magazine german wiki page, there's a link to the top 100-whatevers of the magazine. so there you can find the top 25 singers of all time and i was just shocked. 50% of the people are not known outside of america, ray charles (awesome musician, but not awesome singer cuz he never rly opened his mouth) i splaced #3, drug-addict mick jagger with #16 far above supervoice-jacko at #25, whilst pavarotti isn't even listed. guess you do the same reaction now as i did before - what the... --78.43.41.122 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You do know that Nickelback is worse than Limp Bizkit? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

38.105.132.130

38.105.132.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) apparently has a conflict of interest: this IP address resolves to ns1.wennermedia.net; Wenner Media is the publisher of Rolling Stone. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Managing editor section?

There's a staff section, with unclear info about whether they are current or former, and Jann Wenner is listed as the publisher, but should there be some info about the managing editors, past and current? That seems to be a significant role at the magazine. For example, all the coverage about the fraternity reporting scandal was on Will Dana, not Jann Wenner. Dana is briefly mentioned as leaving, but would a section of past and current managing editors be useful?Timtempleton (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

New source

Sydney Ember. Rolling Stone, Once a Counterculture Bible, Will Be Put Up for Sale", The New York Times, September 17, 2017. 32.218.33.125 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Indonesia shuts down

On the International editions section, change "Indonesia – Published in Indonesia since June 2005 by a&e Media" to "Indonesia – Published in Indonesia since June 2005–January 1, 2018 by a&e Media.[1]" RamliKroe (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done ToThAc (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Rolling Stone Indonesia officially shuts down". The Jakarta Post. January 1, 2018. Retrieved January 8, 2018.

YouTube

I'm curious why I don't see any mention of Rolling Stone Youtube. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What kind of mention were you expecting? I would understand including it in the External links section, but I wouldn't expect it to be included otherwise. -- 109.79.94.23 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

New Cover Photo

The current cover shown in the article is from 2012. Was going to upload a newer version but thought it best to get some input on which cover to use. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Without input, I wasn't sure what was best so I simply updated with the most current cover of the publication found on Amazon. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The image should not be changed without good reason. It is not clear there is any good reason to change the image. Even if there is a good reason to change it then we should be able to do better than changing it to the September 2019 cover image. The magazine has been published since 1967, there should be some cover images that were more notable than others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.
For example: Led Zepplin or Johnny Cash or Janet Jackson. Yahoo took the latest cover as a reason to look at 10 other covers, most of which are fairly recent except John Lennon and Yoko Ono.
For the time being I have reverted to the last cover image but many other articles magazine article Infoboxes avoid the copyright complexity and simply use the logo instead of a cover image, and when it comes to the Rolling Stone magazine logo we have three different SVG to choose from if there is any problem. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not entirely surprised to find that there already exists Category:Fair use Rolling Stone magazine covers. The Janet Jackson cover image is already used in her article. The Heath Ledger article includes a cover image too. The John Lennon and Yoko Ono cover is also already used in an article titled 26 October 1993.
If for some reason there is a real problem with the cover showing the judges of The Voice then we can reuse existing images, or use only the logo. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Normally you would be fine to revert per WP:BRD, but you missed the part about the discussion already being discussed above. If you want to change it, you can jump in the discussion, but changing to your preferred version isn't acceptable during the process. I don't really care about the image so no need to push my point here, but using something newer than 7 1/2 years old IS an improvement to the encyclopedia. Here is a link for your future editing WP:CONSENSUS.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to but it is good that made a suggestion and waited some time before making your change but WP:BRD still applies as normal, even if people are slow to notice. I reverted to the status quo, not my preferred image.
Template:Infobox_magazine doesn't say anything about what image should be used. Perhaps there are some guidelines elsewhere. I don't accept what seems to be your starting point, that newer images are preferable or even desirable. I would even say the older the cover image the better, but as I said before a cover image of some particular notability would be better. I'm fine with the status quo but I reiterate my earlier suggestion to use the Lennon/Ono cover, Vanity Fair literally called it the "Greatest Rolling Stone Cover Ever".
Any real discussion and consensus requires more people though and anyone looking to change the cover image would be wise not to do so until they have other opinions, either by requesting WP:3RD opinions or by some other means. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Point is moot. Use any image you wish, but an article about a CURRENT magazine reflecting one of the CURRENT covers is absolutely more appropriate than using a historical image. If you want to use a historical image in the body to describe a specific cover or show one for that time period, it would be appropriate as well. As far as the discussion, there is not time limit for any discussion but chiming in as a new IP user (who seems to have a pretty good grasp for Wikipedia despite being a new user) and reverting things after the fact certainly isn't a good way to introduce yourself to the community. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I get that in your opinion a current image is better, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, WP:RECENTISM is a problem not a virtue. It is not like as if the magazine hasn't gone through some fundamental change of direction or started a new era. (BTW, I'm not new, but I prefer to use the option to edit as an Anonymous IP. There's an essay at WP:WNCAA elaborating why some people might choose this option.)

For a long time the Infobox only contained the logo image and did not include a cover image. The image was moved from the article body into the Infobox with no explanation 24 November 2016. IMO it doesn't look as good to have both the logo and the magazine cover (which itself includes the logo again) in the infobox at the same time anyway. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it about the IP. Just remember WP:LOUT. If you are an experienced user, I am sure you know the guidelines and will follow them "if applicable." Now, it is also your "opinion" about the logo and the image being used together. Some pages do the same while others don't. As far as a newer image, it is always preferable to have a more recent image in pages. That's actually not my opinion but pretty standard practice in Wikipedia. Again, I don't really care so its moot, but make sure to base things on policy and guidelines. Happy editing (I mean that sincerely). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We've both stated our opinions, and if maybe others want to pursue the matter they can consider our opinions if they think the article should use a different image. WP:LOUT duly noted (experienced is maybe the wrong word, old and with a history of procrastination might be the more appropriate description).
I went ahead and added the historical cover image to the article body, maybe other editors will let it stay in the article for a while. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Another New Cover Photo 2021

Someone went ahead and changed the cover the edit summary said "Most recent cover" but gave no explanation why. (Image was changed to the cover labelled February, 2021, featuring Dua Lipa.) By the time I spotted it the previous cover image had been deleted from Wikipedia.
No reason was given for the change of cover. What makes any one cover more suitable than any other? Rolling Stone has existed for more than 50 years and had many famous over images, why not any one of those? (See above.) If the cover needs to be changed to something "recent" then how often should it be changed, monthly, yearly? If it is an entirely arbitrary decision without any discussion or consensus then there is nothing stopping an editor changing it next month too.
I've removed the the Cover image from the Infobox for now since the logo is included, a cover image is not necessarily required at all. Please discuss before adding or changing a cover image. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need fans arbitrarily changing the cover image just because someone they like happens to be featured that month. [1][2][3][4][5] -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I was the user who uploaded the image, in the article there was a cover from the year 2012 and I wanted to update the cover a more recent decade, I don't understand the problem with that. Exactly since you call me a fan it makes me laugh, just like I did with the Cosmopolitan and Glamour magazines, right? You are an IP and I see that you have language and you write in Wikipedia code, that makes me suspect that you are a Wikipedia user who uses as IP only for the purpose of eliminating these images and I do not think you are so cowardly. Alexismata7 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no need to change the cover. There is no requirement to include a recent cover image. There is no requirement to include any cover image at all. It is clear you are huge Dua Lipa fan but that's no reason to spam as many magazine articles as you can with covers of Dua Lipa. You need a better reason for changing the cover image, otherwise something like BTS will end up everywhere, and that does not make a better good encyclopedia.
I choose to edit anonymously as Wikipedia allows. I make no claim to be anything other than a user who does not log in because there is no requirement to do so. You can go to the admins and ask them if I'm a sock puppet but you're the one spamming articles with Dua Lipa.
If you want to suggest a famous or notable cover image that is another matter, but changing a cover image just because you like Dua Lipa is not a good enough reason. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
N.B. Template:Non-free magazine cover "Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." That's exactly what is happening here, it's a blatant violation. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But who are you to say that the image should not be changed? This is a free encyclopedia and my way of supporting the project was by adding the image of a recent cover. Likewise, since it is not a requirement to have a cover necessarily, it does not give you the right to remove it simply because you do not like or do not think the image ... Ah, but the previous image you would have left still, right because Dua Lipa does not appear, right? I have added covers to some magazines and coincidentally Dua Lipa was part of their recent issues except NME and my reason for adding it is for its current notoriety in popular culture and more for Rolling Stone. And I repeat it again, the articles should not have a mandatory cover but it is not mandatory to leave them without an image when there is one that was uploaded. Alexismata7 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"who are you" it isn't about me. You've ignored the rules, you've spammed Dua Lipa across multiple articles, you've no basis for your fair use claim.
as you have already been told[6] there is a better fair use argument for older cover image. it is on you to justify the change. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those extremely rare instances where I agree with an IP user. Far more appropriate would be to use a famous, past cover, such as the Lennon/Ono cover which is considered iconic. Alexismata7, please WP:AGF, it is uncivil to cast aspersions on another editor as you did above. Wikipedia works by consensus. If one of your peers challenges the rationale for an edit, you provide your rationale, and allow other of your peers to also discuss the matter. Eventually (hopefully) consensus is found. We work together here, not by going on about "who are you to say", since IP user didn't dictate anything, he/she/it shared his opinion regarding an edit. My feeling is that using a very recent cover bumps up against fair use, and it potentially sets an annoying 'precedent' where others might take it upon themselves to start updating magazine covers every month, which does not improve the encyclopedia in my estimation. The encyclopedia exists to be an encyclopedia, not a rolling demonstration of "right now" content. Stability is a virtue.Anastrophe (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To hopefully emphasize what you are saying, cover photos would become a form of WP:FANCRUFT where it is changed each month or someone uses one "they like" just because it suits them. Thinking we need a consensus on an issue to use for the infobox (my thoughts are something newer-ish) and then leave historical ones (like Lennon) in the "Covers" section. Just my 2 cents. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I certainly asked him/her/it "who he was" because it told me that the image should not be changed, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia (with rules) in which we all have our ways of contributing to help the project. There is currently a discussion and I already explained to the IP that I will upload new images with different people but with the Rolling Stone not because my upload was motivated by the fact that I wanted to place an image that represented the current situation of popular culture, as it is [Dua Lipa]] and many other characters that can be Miley Cyrus or Taylor Swift. Alexismata7 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My most significant concern was not the 'who are you to say' (although that is also uncivil - all users have a say), it is more the assumptions you made, e.g. "You are an IP and I see that you have language and you write in Wikipedia code, that makes me suspect that you are a Wikipedia user who uses as IP only for the purpose of eliminating these images and I do not think you are so cowardly." We are supposed to assume Good Faith, not immediately trash other users based on what we think may be their motivation. We are to leave motivation out of it, and instead focus on encyclopedia content, and whether it's appropriate, reasonable, and an improvement. To be fair, IP user also made some assumptions about motivation; however, IP user did not call you "cowardly", which is a gross affront. Please. We are to at least make a small effort to maintain a collegial atmosphere here.
A user can have a username, be an IP, can have a huge detailed user page with lots of 'flair' or just a blank page, they can be ten years old or almost 100 (like me), they can be non-native speakers of whichever wikipedia language version they edit, they can be tall, short, male, female, live in a box or live in a mansion, be conservative or liberal, and everything in between all those dualities (and they can even maintain a fictional presence of who they are so you can only guess and always be wrong - welcome to my user page). Making assumptions about a user just because their an IP is certainly common, that doesn't make it worthwhile to do so or even a correct characterization. I'm full of coffee right now, and can't seem to stop typing. Sorry.
I would agree with user CNMall41 in general. Perhaps there's a way to just pick a random cover from the last two years. I don't read RS, and haven't seen any of its current covers in years. I just visited a random month generator webpage, and it output July 2019. I'm not going to look up that issue, and I have no dog in this fight. Perhaps we use that? Anastrophe (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is a link to Amazon with some recent covers in case someone has a suggestion. As stated when this conversation came up last year, I really don't care what is chosen but would think something more recent than 2012 would be better since it is about a current magazine. Older covers that have themselves become the topic of notability could be included (based on room and length of page) in the "covers" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@CNMall41: @Anastrophe: You are right, I have realized that I was wrong in having responded in such a way. I will try to solve the matter, anyone here will argue which is the cover that should go in the main article and I promise to put it or upload it (if it is not uploaded). Alexismata7 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia went through a phase (years back) of eliminating cover images from Infoboxes almost entirely, with some editors insisting there was no fair use justification at all for including anything other than the logo. Wikipedia is full of rules and it is difficult to be aware of them all, so the rules can often be enforced very selectively and in ways that seem can seem unfair arbitrary and capricious. I want Wikipedia editors to take the rules a bit more seriously and apply them more consistently.
I'm not trying to hold anyone to the harsh standard of not including any cover image at all but I do think that when a magazine has over 50 years and many famous even iconic covers, I don't think there is a strong enough fair use claim to use allow the use of some arbitrary non-notable recent cover. Even if editors felt it was necessary to pick a Rolling Stone cover from the last 10 years that's over 200 covers, and we already have 12 Rolling stone covers from the 2020's. If there's local consensus to include a particular cover I will of course go along with that but this particular choice of cover seems like WP:FANCRUFT (thanks CNMall41, I can remember that the guidelines exist but not always their specific names). The matter was slightly complicated by bots deleting the previous cover so I could not easily roll back, also the previous cover didn't seem particularly notable either. In 2017 The New York Times wrote about the cover, and said the Kanye West wearing a crown of thorns from 2006 drew particular criticism[7] so it might be a notable choice. I wouldn't choose the Rolling Stone cover of Obama (or the even more recent Biden cover) unless it was specifically to make the point that Rolling Stone mixed pop culture with politics, but that could probably be done more effectively using prose.
Apparently the Beatles have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine more than anyone else in one form or another over 30 times, and if we were not trying to go for something recent I would suggest an anniversary edition such as the Rolling Stone magazine #1000 cover which recreated the cover of Sgt. Pepper's using the faces of 150 celebrities.[1][2]

This recent cover gallery page might be helpful, takes ages to load though. -- 109.79.68.226 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Anyone? -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (28 November 2005). "Rolling Stone Is Going 3-D for No. 1,000 (Published 2005)". The New York Times.
  2. ^ "Lots of people will get their pictures on the cover". USATODAY.com.

TLDR the cover image used in the Infobox of this article was changed for no particular reason. It can be changed again, but please try to discuss first and pick a notable cover image. WP:N WP:NFCC#8 -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone decided on a cover to propose yet?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's an idea (and I am ready to get roasted for suggesting it), but if we claimed fair use for each cover and then allowed there here for each decade listed, that would likely keep the fancruft off this page and we wouldn't have to worry about people trying to change this cover so much. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't require a vote. As Alexismata7 has so clearly shown anyone can just change the image, but it helps for the image to be notable and to have consensus if you want other editors to stop the next person from arbitrarily replacing whatever image you add. It might be possible to reuse a Rolling Stone cover image already uploaded to Wikipedia for other reasons Category:Fair use Rolling Stone magazine covers, Heath Ledger 2006 for example.
I don't think having an image for every decade would be workable, but I wouldn't say it was impossible, there are list articles of all the people who have been on the cover of Rolling Stone and it is possible someone could make a reasonable argument for adding images to some of those articles.
I'm not set on any particular cover but my preference would be for a cover featuring a musician, or group of musicians. -- 109.76.136.35 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't require a vote. However, I believe we are in WP:BRD territory at this point with all the reverts and changes that have taken place so consensus should be established. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Britain/England

Theres several times where the british flag is used for the beatles (all english) but the england flag is used for the rolling stones, I don't want to change anything yet. Is there a reason for this thanks Tukogbani (talk) 20:03, 21st July 2009 (GMT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolling_Stone/Archive_2&oldid=1137162297"