Talk:World (magazine)

message: This article doesn't make sense. It is the fourth largest newsweekly in the US, but hope someday to have a circulation equal to the largest newsweeklys. Isn't this a bit circular?
It is not the fourth largest... nevermind news, it doesn't even crack the top 20 for religious, commentary, or conservative magazines either. As for weekly news magazines (I am uncertain if The World even fits in that category) after the top three: Time, Newsweek, and US News, the New Yorker, The Economist, Weekly Standard, The Nation... and many many more clearly have greater circulation numbers, subscribers, name recognition etc... I cannot even find it listed in any top magazine circulation figures (ABC etc.) Unless fourth largest is a reference to page size or font, there is no way that this fourth place claim is valid. I would like to see a figure supporting this cited in a source outside of the magazine's own web page.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.79.186 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The magazine has repeatedly claimed that it is the fourth largest in terms of circulation of all weekly magazines, though its circulation is certainly lower than that of The New Yorker or the Economist... perhaps they consider those outside the category because they devote more space to editorializing rather than reporting.  Anyway, you're probably right about this.  Fortunately, the point is now moot because starting in January World is switching to a biweekly format, so it's definitely not in that category anymore. --Spangineerws (háblame) 15:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Circulation figures for magazines change, but I just called 'em and they said their circulation is about 123,000, and that it fluctuates but averages between 123,000 and 125,000.  I've updated the article to say that its circulation is about 123,000.  I also deleted the phrase that says it has steadily grown, since it sounds like the growth has not been all that steady of late.  NCdave (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the writers of World magazine cannot write a single paragraph without slandering someone who is in their opinion a liberal. the magazine writes about homosexuals as if they are living weapons of mass destruction (but it is to be expected of a small publication christian magazine.) They also have a Puritan movie rating system that belongs in 13th century europe. Also extremely anti-animal welfare and anti-environmental issues, claims there is no evidence of global warming. Claims every Muslim is a terrorist and that no christian or jew (as long as they're not an athiest jew) can never do wrong.
let's remember that we're unbiased here on wikipedia, so let's keep our articles that way.
--Ancalagon06 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem to be typical of articles on ideological media to have criticism sections, Phillip.  I just looked at The Nation and there is no criticism section (in fact, hardly anything that resembles criticism) in the article.  NCdave (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every magazine comes filled to the brim with lies and hatred 

message: A few sources that could be used to expand this article: , , . --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I am concerned that this article is completely sourced to the magazine itself (or its on-line version).  The notability of the magazine needs to be established through reference to independent sources that discuss it (whether such discussion is positive, negative or neutral does not matter... the key to estabilshing notability is referencing sources that simply discuss the topic). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability needs to be established 

message: An image used in this article, File:WORLD-June-05,-2010.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WORLD-June-05,-2010.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:WORLD-June-05,-2010.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: recently moved this page from World (magazine) to WORLD (magazine). Under our guidelines at MOS:ALLCAPS, regardless of how the magazine chooses to stylize the name, we would go with just World, as the title is not an acronym or initialism. I will have the page move undone, but this will require deleting the redirects left at Talk:World (magazine) and World (magazine) first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing the page move