Talk:Now (1996–2019 magazine)

Magazines Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

This article reads like an advertisment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.193.53 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Is this the most current logo of the print edition? It's definitely not for online edition? Chowdermax (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the pages to Now (1996–present magazine), Now (1940–1947 magazine), and Now! (1979–1981 magazine) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Ambiguous page title since the current celebrity magazine is preceeded by two other UK magazines of the same name. Disambiguator for the 1940s magazine seems insufficiently descriptive, while the title of the other should probably not be capitalised. Also open to other suggestions. PC78 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but suggest Now (1996–present magazine), Now (1940–1947 magazine), and Now! (1979–1981 magazine) - The differences between "news" and "politics" is a very wide, overlapping line. I think since these are very distinct by virtue of their publication dates, that we could try that approach instead. -- Netoholic @ 03:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't object to doing it that way, but we ought to be consistant with the dates, i.e. "1940–1947" & "1979–1981" vs "1940–47" & "1979–81". PC78 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - OF course. It was typo, and I've fixed it. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sensible suggestions and much more user-friendly for readers -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These would be better disambiguated by year. "News" and "political" are not enough to distinguish them, as the news magazine could be described as political and the celebrity magazine contains celebrity news. Peter James (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but support Now (1996–present magazine), Now (1940–1947 magazine), and Now! (1979–1981 magazine) -In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed-ish with Netoholic & In ictu oculi, though the first could be Now (1996– magazine), for WP:CONCISE purposes. Better yet, we could just cut them all to first year of publication, the way we do with TV series, etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your suggestion violates MOS:DATERANGE which says to not do "open-ended date ranges". Indeed, every other article title that I've ever seen does some variation on "1996–present". So I oppose your specific suggestion on this. OTOH, your more general suggestion on how to handle magazine article titles like this may have merit, and is probably worthy of a wider discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.