Talk:Make (magazine)

	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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Robotics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics 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.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

POV

This article is full of opinion and is definitely not NPOV. It sounds like the writer of the article is trying to sell the magazine. Chriskelvie 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I will point it out as (1) reading like an advertisement, (2) not citing sources, and (3) POV. Iamunknown 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Details

I've added a list of some projects. I'll try to edit the article over the next few weeks to make it less POV. Autarch 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten parts of the article to make it more NPOV - anything that sounded like an opinion or mission statement was removed and sometimes replaced with some more NPOV phrasing. Autarch 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV editing

Removed obvious POV and issue listing sections. Removed advert tag. Shouldn't the actual title be "Make:"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rydra Wong (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have to admit the listing of issues was my fault - I must have gotten carried away! Hopefully I made it a bit lesss POV with my other editing. As for the colon in the title - does that only appear with the subtitle "technology on your time"? Autarch 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the colon in the title - their website seems to use the colon (and subtitle) in all graphic representations of the magazine but text references show it titled without. Absent a definitive answer or larger consensus, I suggest it be left as is for the moment. -- Rydra Wong 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Autarch 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should include the colon, however ORA do often refer to the magazine as MAKE, although even their own capitalisation varies, so it is probably OK here for now. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Make01.jpg

Image:Make01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references and pictures

There are many potential references for this article at Make's press page, but it's somewhat disorganized in a way that slows finding the actual sources appropriate for referencing - a lack of direct links to the quoted news articles, etc. I'd also like to add this critical review as a reference since it would help counter some of the hype associated with Make. There are also a bunch of Creative-Commons licensed pictures at Flickr of Make offices and events that could be added to the article someday. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Make Controller Kit to Make (magazine)

I've placed a merge tag on both Make (magazine) and Make Controller Kit, suggesting that Make Controller Kit be merged here. To be honest, I don't see the notability beyond the fact that Make is behind the product. If it did not have the name Make in it, it would most likely not pass any inclusion guidelines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all accounts. Merge away! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. It's been a week, and one person has voiced an opinion, in support of a merge. As usual, silence means consent. The section might need to be tweaked. With the image placement and size, I'm not 100% happy with it, but ATM, that's the best I can do. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

There are no independent reliable sources as references that support this magazine as a notable topic. Conflating the "Make Movement" in the second part of the article does not demonstrate notability for this magazine. Sources are needed, independent of the subject that significantly discuss this magazine as a topic. So, this means more than passing mentions and more than websites owned by the company. Based on these comments, I am tagging the article for notability until there are independent reliable sources as references. ---Steve Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2017 notability has become a non-issue. Removing tag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make (magazine) has come back and we should edit this page to reflect that.

Make (magazine) has come back and we should edit this page to reflect that. Should we include Make: Community aswell? Logo4poop (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Logo4poop[reply]

It really depends on what coverage we have in independent reliable sources. If we have facts to cite from good, third party sources, then add them. If not, then no. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make has been published since 2005 and the current wording makes it seem like it has been published since 2019

@Binnenstaat: I believe you have wrongly reverted my recent edit (possibly thought it was vandalism). Please take a look again, have a think about it, and decide whether to restore my edit. It aims to clarify that Make magazine has been published since 2005, rather than since 2019. This can be confirmed by reading further in the article, but as it stands the current wording makes it (wrongly) seem like Make has only been around since 2019. Cheers and have a good day. 76.218.105.99 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears another user changed it back to the proper date. 76.218.105.99 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]