Talk:Rolling Stone

message: I thought about taking the current infobox image to WP:FFD. Seems that every current cover has replaced every previous cover, and WP:MAGAZINES/WG doesn't explain how to solve this matter. WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#Unacceptable use don't explain as well which usage of magazine covers are acceptable except only to illustrate critical commentary. If every cover is getting replaced over and over, then this becomes the WP:NFCC#8 issue. To put this another way, almost every cover would implicitly fail the criterion if getting replaced over and over, meaning that a cover may not suit well as a lead image. Why not no magazine cover in the lead instead? That can solve the problem, right? --George Ho (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I previously noted the Infobox contained only the logo image for quite a long while until 24 November 2016. You could make an argument to do that again. Personally I'd still argue for picking a better cover image, but it is far easier to delete than it is to gain consensus for a better choice of image. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

text: There is already a section on this above. I don't think it needs any type of noticeboard at this point. Simply getting consensus on which cover image to use would suffice. Do have any you would propose?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a static logo, not each cover, that would be, to me, ridiculous.  - FlightTime (open channel) 21:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. I don't think anyone is proposing to put each cover. The question is about the current cover and if it should be changed. And, if so to which one? If anyone is advocating for no cover at all, I would be opposed to that. Especially when it is a publication known for its cover photos. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same as before I would suggest an anniversary edition such as the Rolling Stone magazine #1000 cover, but I'm open to suggestions if someone thinks another image would be more representative or more notable in some other way. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to that. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Changed to the 1,000th issue cover for now if it makes everyone happy. However, I'm not sure how much I can hold off as many covers will be made and then published. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If that image is chosen by consensus, then someone wanting to change it to something else would need to obtain a different consensus per WP:ONUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well... Umm.... ... ...  George Ho (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an anniversary cover, it reportedly cost $1 million to make I think that makes it more noteworthy than most, but I am not saying it is the only possible choice. (If I absolutely had to pick only one single cover to represent the entire history of the magazine it would have to be the Lennon cover by Leibowitz, but we've got that in the article body already.) If someone wants to argue that some other cover is more famous or important in some other way they can still discuss that. My objection was to the cover being arbitrarily changed to something more recent purely because it was more recent and not because the cover was more noteworthy than any of the hundreds of other covers. I hope we can get at least a few years out of this choice. -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: there has been said:
"We're big in Japan."
'd claim that 'i'm big
in Germany, [east?]
because Nina Hagen's
known my own story since
1996; as Todd Rundgren is in the know of our, my own story... Was able to be  part o' IUMA since that summer 
and did set up a bobskaradio.com 
portion since 1999...
"BOB" knows that just as the name says [claimed, WE are no more...  dead.]
Was so happy to see finally shake Todd's had in 2o12 in Charlotte, NC _ WHERE my rehab [CAROLINA MEDICAL in Charlotte] post a road-rash betwixt my honduh rebel 45o and a ,68 nova on Riverside/Sam Houston State University,  X's' main 'movie' has been on fb for way over a decade...
sooo...    can you dig it?
Yest the owner of thay site seem's more with it some. 2600:1004:B08B:9363:9D8A:88E8:FAB1:81C2 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  X's for Eyes (soundcloud) 

message: They currently have a pay to publish scheme for the general public called "thought leaders", where anyone can publish an article with them for a $1,500 annual fee and $500 upfront. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Rolling Stone is generally considered an unreliable publication and source and their pay to publish scheme certainly doesn't help matters. 
https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/rolling-stone-wants-content-from-thought-leaders-who-pay-2k/
https://metalinjection.net/its-just-business/you-can-write-for-rolling-stone-magazine-if-you-pay-them-2000 Instantwatym (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this a "scheme?" Sounds like the same thing done by Forbes, Entrepreneur, and others. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay to Publish Scheme for the General Public