Talk:International Socialist Review

message: This need to become a disambiguation page: three ISRs... --Duncan 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig. page 

message: :Image:International Socialist Review March-April 2006.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:International Socialist Review March-April 2006.jpg

message: :Image:Internationalsocialistreview.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Internationalsocialistreview.jpg

message: Well, as we head for day two of this discussion, I just thought I'd make the case for Duncan2006's suggestion that this page be converted into a disambiguation page and split into three articles.
1. Standard practice at Wikipedia is to make use of simple disambiguation page with a minimum of links. Generally, this takes the form of the name of the target page followed by a short description. What we have here is a disambiguation pages with illustrations and excessive links.
2. As to the argument that somehow the current ISR is related to the original ISR because it borrowed the name of the original... Again, it is standard Wikipedia practice for each publication to have its own page. The conservative Washington Times "borrowed" its name from the New York Times — a direct snatch designed to ensure instant credibility. Yet those two are not on a single page to "emphasize" the inspiration in name selection. For all I know, the New York Times may have ripped off the name of the London Times with similar intent. Same story: EACH PUBLICATION GETS ITS OWN PAGE. Another example, perhaps? Max and Crystal Eastman, the children of a preacher, were directly inspired in choosing the name of their 1918-established publication, The Liberator, by the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison's earlier publication of the same name. And what do you know, there's a current publication of the same name... How does Wikipedia deal with this? With a disambiguation page.
3. I'm not adverse to breaking out of the mold with an illustrated disambiguation page with extensive descriptions and links, actually. It's not standard, but I can see the value. What I do object to is the fact that the page in its current form looks like crap. There is a loathsome info box at the bottom trying to sell magazines to people. There is white space all over the place caused by excessive graphics for the content. It's a mess.
4. The reason A likely reason that Wikipedia prefers three stub articles to one gigantic stub article with three parts is because separation makes for easier identification of what needs to be done. The current mess is part of the Wikipedia "Chicago" project and the "Illinois" project, for example, even though only one of the three publications is from Chicago, Illinois. And what will happen tomorrow morning when the ISR (mark 1) coverage is B-class while the ISR (Cannonite) and ISR (ISO) sections remain stubs? Is a quality article on the first ISR going to be in any way enhanced by having two UNRELATED stubs tagged to the bottom? I think not. I'm certainly not going to be a party to such a breach of logic and good layout myself, be advised.
5. I emphasize that the three magazines are completely independent of one another, each worthy of consideration and analysis on its own merits. The main content will be written by different people due to the fact that the magazines were written in three different eras and people today have different periods of interest and areas of expertise. Each of these three individual histories will develop at its own pace.
6. There is one and only one reason for the current layout as it stands, I think: it "advertises" the current magazine based on search traffic from the first two. This is, obviously, not a valid reason for the continuation of the current "over illustrated over wikified" disambiguation page that we have before us.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. This is, as Duncan2006 pointed out, a simple call here. The page "International Socialist Review" should be made into a standard Wikipedia disambiguation page and its content split between three stubs. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm working on the history of the first ISR, which looks like it will be wind up a good C class or a weak B quality-wise article by the end of the day. I own bound volumes of the second ISR and have enough interest in that to play with it a little bit next week, if I don't get distracted. I've got no interest or expertise in the third.  Carrite (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, I'm taking the advice above with naming of the article for the first ISR, rather than my previous suggestion. That can always be changed later if necessary. The spread of dates is nice — it's pretty hard to mistake one publication for the other based on that, whereas the distinction between the SWP and ISO might be a fine one for some users... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Above I explained that it was only worth separating this out into three articles if we did not end up with one long article and two stubs. This is exactly what has been done, without agreement on the talk page.--Duncan (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The case for a disambiguation page being a disambiguation page