Talk:List of newspapers in the United States by circulation

message: Hopelessly out of date.
It is now November 2014 may we please have some up-to-date circulation figures (assuming American newspapers do not keep their low sales a secret).90.194.161.249 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

message: I remember seeing that paper in or around the top 10 on other such lists, but it does not even appear on this list. Is there an explanation? 66.237.109.194 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chicago Sun-Times 

message: Our article on the Financial Times states a US circulation: 143,473. (Source: ABC figures April 2009). That would certanly put it into this level. I suggest we add it, and alter the reference accordingly. --Duncan (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Times 

message: How is a "Top 100" determined by the source link in the article (http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/newstitlesearchus.asp)?  Does someone (or a group) comb through these listings to come up with this as the determination of the top 100 circ?  Or, is there a list already published (either by ABC or Scarborough) that has a top 100 already printed in an easy-to-read format?  If the former is the way done, it seems like a daunting tasks to go through for this. EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 100 Complied From Link? 

message: This chart currently lists WSJ as the top Sunday circulation at 19.M, but WSJ doesn't even have a Sunday edition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.40.1 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall St. Journal does not have a Sunday edition 

message: Your article on the NYDN lists it as the fourth most circulated newspaper in the country, but here it's lower down.
Could you, in addition to these figures which include "electronic circulation," also give the ordinary figures for circulation of hard copy dead tree newspapers so readers can examine and evaluate those figures?  Or if the Daily News doesn't have the 4th highest circulation in the US, could you correct that?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Daily News 

message: Puzzled why the Wall Street Journal is designated a "nationwide" paper but the New York Times is not. I would say both are, though both likely see their largest circulation in New York. Woodshed (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationwide 

message: ABC is the recognized authority, yet the Orlando Sentinel, the highest ranking central Florida newspaper--aside from the Tampa Bay newspapers, is missing. As one sees from the article, it is a separate paper from the Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, which is distant from Orlando's media market. The name similarity is no foundation for confusion, nor is the common ownership. Many papers have names such as Sun or Sentinel. Also, the Tribune Company is owner of several companies.Dogru144 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed — between the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, at about #40 or so. (A previous editor thought it wise to remove the numbers from each row.) Woodshed (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC ranking, Orlando Sentinel missing

message: The previous citation for all the data pointed to a dead web page (404 error). I replaced it with a top 10 list of the same figures that are from a Huff Post article, except it did not included the Mercury News for reasons explained in the previous version of the page. I also clarified what the figures include a bit in the opening section. AAM (the source for the data, and who runs the website of the now-inaccessible previous link) does include some top 25 lists on their website currently (both daily and sunday papers), if someone wants to use that as a basis for expanding the list. However, if possible it would be preferable to cite a non-primary source that's likely to publish the data in a way that can be verified long term. If the above link starts working again in the future, the previous version could be reverted, though you may want to salvage some of opening paragraph changes. Agyle (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduced from top 100 to top 10 

message: It is now May 2014 and you are still citing figures for the period ending March 2013.90.198.239.143 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than a year out of date