Talk:The Week

message: I propose merging The Week Magazine into The Week. please comment here if you have thoughts on the matter. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I have cit the advertorial about the website and list of readers. It was pure marketing puff, with no references or notability. --Duncan 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertorial 

message: Someone added in examples of some of the articles in the current The Week. I don't see a basis for the selection, and they were trivial and not notable.--Duncan (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they are notable from an encyclopaedic viewpoint. We don't have similar selections from other periodicals. In itself, it's not so hard to imagine, or see, what sort of articles it carries. --Duncan (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Someone has posted the split template onto this page, but without a rationale. This article is small already, and three new articles would simply produce stubs. Since there is no motivation for the split, I have removed the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanBCS (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested split 

message: or some reason, this is in the category 'Monthly Magazines'. My question is simple - why? The current incarnation is weekly, an I can't imagine a mag calle the WEEK being published MONTHLY. Anyone got a rationale? I'll remove it from the category now, feel free to revert. Scanna (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly? 

message: I find it interesting that there seems to be little to no criticism of The Week being essentially an aggregator, much like most Web sites. The Week does no new investigation/reporting of it's own - it simply skims other publications and cherry picks articles (with attribution). Disclaimer: I subscribe to The Week and read it cover to cover, so I'm complicit. 
I'm surprised that other publications such as Time and Newsweek (which I've subscribed to in the past but have dropped due to their descent into into drivel) aren't crying foul. Dlchambers (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would that be a criticism? It's a news digest... --Duncan (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Unless I missed it somewhere in this article, there is no mention of the fact that this magazine is INCREDIBLY opinion based.  'Multiple Viewpoints' is more like 'one single viewpoint'.  We have this magazine sent to our house due to a relative giving it to us as a gift (thinking we would enojoy it, but wrong) and I have yet to see an issue that doesn't exaggerate everything (and attack every single decision he makes) right on the cover.  
::Every decision WHO makes?  Captain Quirk (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I subscribed for a year and found you are exactly right.  There is no diversity of opinion at all in The Week.  I was happy when the subscription ended. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You do understand what a tabloid is, right? C6541 (T↔C) 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Viewpoints?

message: The topic of the article, "a weekly British news magazine which also publishes a US edition, and between 2008 and 2012 additionally published an Australian edition", appears to be notable. In keeping with WP:DAB and related guidelines, it's not unreasonable to mention that there are other publications with the same name that are unrelated beyond that. But in keeping with that guideline, this article should not cover those topics in any detail. Therefore, I am removing the "Defunct magazines also known as The Week" section, as off-topic. If anyone feels The Week (1883–1896), The Week (1933–1941), or The Week (pre 1965–1968) are independently notable, feel free to write a specifically-titled page and list it at Week (disambiguation)--this DAB page is already linked in a standard "For other uses..." hatnote. DMacks (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I split off The Week (Canadian magazine) for the first one. DMacks (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ...that meaning was dropped into the long-existing other ones' article here via . DMacks (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The other two might be notable enough also, but I can't figure out if they are actually related to each other (the pre-1965 one as a "refounding") enough to have a single article for them together. Or if the last one is more appropriately merged into International Marxist Group, though that article doesn't even mention that this publication or its successor wound up under their umbrella. I also asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines for input. DMacks (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic content removed 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Week (Indian magazine) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: THE WEEK JUINOR IS IN THE US NOW, OUT-DATED MINDS!!! Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Update 

message: The caption for the image of the magazine cover claims it is from 2005. However, this cannot be as the cover mentions president Obama and wikileaks, both of which were not around in 2005 1948coolstuff (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's actually the 17 Dec 2010 edition. Thanks for catching that. Station1 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  first photo caption has wrong year