Jump to content

Talk:MoneyWeek

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

Tags

[edit]

I've tagged this article for not establishing the notability of the article, only using self refs, and not telling us what outside viewpoints of this company are. Its website is currently on WP's blacklist for spam. NJGW (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reference to MoneyWeek's ABC-certified circulation now added. If the self ref/notability point is still a concern, suggest the entry for Investor's Chronicle is also flagged in this way, as this entry also shares the same issues. Other external mentions of Moneyweek:
  • [1] - The Times blog
  • [2] - ISSN number
  • [3] - The Guardian: "The independently published finance weekly, Money Week, registered growth of 14.9% year on year to 35,794; leaping ahead of Financial Times Group's weekly Investors Chronicle, which fell 8.9% compared to the first half of 2007 to 31,919."
With the above in mind, suggest notability tags removed. Dami99 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read wp:Notability for information about how to establish notability of a topic. NJGW (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the above, suggest the following recent, additional third party mentions of this topic would constitute notability when taken with previous examples above.[4][5]most recent audited ciculation figures for July - December 2008 Dami99 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't read the Notability policy. It says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Circulation info about a magazine isn't detailed info about the magazine. NJGW (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As asked on deletion talk page: can you give a specific example of what, hypothetically, would be deemed significant coverage in this instance? A third party article directly about this magazine (by another magazine)? Dami99 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good start. NJGW (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What else would you suggest? Dami99 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything and everything that is a wp:RS (lots of tips at that link) that could be called "Significant coverage" and which "address the subject directly in detail." NJGW (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domain is blacklisted

[edit]

How does this have an article and links to the site when I cannot even reference one of their articles as I get a spam filter notice because the site is blacklisted? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.moneyweek.com
    Triggered by \bmoneyweek\.(?:co\.za|com|net)\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)== Blacklisted Links Found on MoneyWeek ==[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on MoneyWeek which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.moneyweek.com
    Triggered by \bmoneyweek\.(?:co\.za|com|net)\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on MoneyWeek which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.moneyweek.com
    Triggered by \bmoneyweek\.(?:co\.za|com|net)\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MoneyWeek. 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) 11:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit request from BENFP

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed:

Par 2 delete whole par

Par 3 change to: For the period January to December 2023, the magazine had an Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) certified combined print & digital circulation of 47,341 [1]

Par 5 Delete: “headed by Bill Bonner, who contributed a weekly column in the magazine.”

Par 8 add to end: In 2020 Dennis Publishing, including MoneyWeek, was bought by Future plc. [2]

Par 9 change to: MoneyWeek is edited by Andrew Van Sickle. Previous editors include John Stepek and Merryn Somerset Webb. Ban in China - delete as this refers to a different publication See also: Delete “International Living” as irrelevant

In the sidebar box: Change Editor in chief to Editor: Andrew Van Sickle

Change circulation from 46,498 (December 2016) to 47,341 (December 2023) [3]

Add new cover image

  • Why it should be changed:

Much of the information is out of date

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

BENFP (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/51060167.pdf
  2. ^ https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/future-buys-dennis-for-300m/
  3. ^ https://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/51060167.pdf
 Question: Please @ me on this: Is there a reason why you want to delete paragraph 2? ⸺(Random)staplers 21:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ugly paragraph (IMO), and the subject of ownership is dealt with in paragraph 8 BENFP (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BENFP: (forgot to ping, doing it now) - Question - Are you requesting this changes or just making suggestions? I am unclear based on the wording. If you are requesting the changes, can you amend the request so we know exactly what you are requesting and the policy-based reason behind it? It looks like the "Par" numbers (I am assuming this means "paragraph") are not in order based on what is currently on the page. You can ping me hear when complete and I will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, CNMall41, I am requesting, as much of the information is out of date.
    The paragraph number/order seems to have changed - the numbers were correct initially. Here is what I'm requesting:
    Change this text: From July to December 2015, the magazine had an Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) certified circulation of 45,540 (99.0% of which was in the UK and Ireland).
    To this text: For the period January to December 2023, the magazine had an Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) certified combined print & digital circulation of 47,341
    ---
    After this text: In 2017, MoneyWeek was re-acquired by Dennis Publishing. The brand joined Dennis’ Current Affairs division, which included The Week.
    Add this text: In 2020 Dennis Publishing, including MoneyWeek, was bought by Future plc.
    ---
    Change this text: MoneyWeek is edited by John Stepek. Merryn Somerset Webb is the magazine's editor in chief.
    To this text: MoneyWeek is edited by Andrew Van Sickle. Previous editors include John Stepek and Merryn Somerset Webb.
    ---
    Ban in China section: Delete this whole section as this refers to a different publication entirely, owned by "21st Century Business Herald". The MoneyWeek that is the subject of this Wikipedia article isn't banned in China.
    ---
    See also section: Delete “International Living” as irrelevant. It has nothing to do with MoneyWeek
    For references, see above BENFP (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also:
    In the sidebar box: Change Editor in chief to Editor: Andrew Van Sickle
    Change circulation from 46,498 (December 2016) to 47,341 (December 2023)
    Add new cover image BENFP (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: In the future, please provide sources for items you want changed. For instance, you want the editor's names updated but the source on the page is old and supports the old content. If you want new content, we will need a source stating such.
  • First Request - Numbers were updated in the information box based on the source provided. I removed it from the lead.
  • Second Request - Implemented but reworded.
  • Third Request - No source provided. I would suggest providing a source from the website. Although it would be a primary source, we are still allowed to use it for uncontroversial information.
  • Fourth Request - Removed. Took me a while to verify but I believe they are referring to Moneyweek (Chinese newspaper) in the sources I found.
  • Fifth Request - Removed the See Also section as there is no corresponding Wikipedia page to link to.
  • Sixth Request - Infobox is updated but editors cannot be added unless there is a source to verify who the editors are. There was no cover that was suggested as a replacement.
CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks very much for your help, I appreciate it. BENFP (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:MoneyWeek&oldid=1254513567"