Talk:List of newspapers in Australia

message: Shouldnt there be a separate list of defunct newspapers? User:SatuSuro 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct

message: How many of theis papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch?
--J intela 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J intela, you can find a list of all the newspapers owned by Murdoch at List of assets owned by News Corporation --Wiki apprentice (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murdoch 

message: The list is getting long (Not a lot of links to articles however) which can make it hard to read the section you want. Should it or shouldn't it be broken up some how? Bidgee (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - break up to states - 
* but not moving the red links - it should be no linked article no mention, if lists have  large amount of grey or red links they should be pruned or the list got rid of
* also  the lead sentence should not be a see also or external link location - bad mos
* current state a bad
* prod- able in its current state    SatuSuro 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! Also some of the papers have external links and when it should have a wiki link. Bidgee (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking up the list into States and Territories?

message: This list suffers from a range of issues:
* Listing active and defunct newspapers at the same time
* Ad hoc additions of information that has not been cleaned up
* A complete mix of blue, red and grey links
* Ext links mixed up and not cleaned up
* Low interest over time to actually maintain a consistent standard
* Consequently - I suggest:-
** a slow but gradual divestment of all grey and red links - no article - no mention
** a slow check against state projects to see if they have parallel state lists
** a separate list of defunct newspapers and a change in lead para of this list to identify active newspapers
*** setting a standard on this page for following eds to see SatuSuro 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: In the absence of valid references, describing a publication's political leaning as liberal/conservative constitutes original research, and they shouldn't be in the article. 120.152.253.32 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal/Consevative labelling 

message: The list only includes English-language newspapers. What about newspapers in other languages eg Neos Kosmos, La Fiamma, Le Courier etc. m.e. (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic press 

message: This seems out of place to me. If we do want to capture this information, it should probably go somewhere else SLV Brad (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.5 Chronology of Ballarat Newspapers 

message: An online news website is not a national newspaper; especially if there is no physical form of it printed.
It does not make it have to be put under "national newspapers" as well as under every single state and territory.
I have therefore removed all of "Alankabout News Online (internet) and Alankabout News Online (Daily) and Alankabout News Online (Language: Arabic)"'s--Beager (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming of "Alankabout News Online (internet) and Alankabout News Online (Daily) and Alankabout News Online (Language: Arabic)" 

message: Unsure why this page [the defunct list one] even exists. All of the detail here is already specified on the other (which is older by 5 years) page and in a clearer manner. JabberJaw (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment - there has been a tendency towards gigantism and monumentally large lists in the Australian newspaper lists - would strongly support anything that actually reduces and disperses rather than accumulating in size JarrahTree 13:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree that action is needed - arguably having 1 list is "simpler" as a 'one page presents all' link (although bloat would be a valid concern), but cannot disagree that having all defunct newspapers organised in the separate defunct list page is a useful solution too.  I am of a mind to simply cut/paste all the defunct content out and see what it looks like.  Are there any other parallel pages like this elsewhere around the wiki-world to compare to? (i.e. active/defunct listings). JabberJaw (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, actually, I found some rather easily by backtracking the categories...  List of defunct newspapers of France, List of defunct newspapers of Germany, List of defunct newspapers of Hungary, List of defunct newspapers of Norway. JabberJaw (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also note that 4 of the 5 (including Oz, but not Hungary) were started by user Neelix in 2009.JabberJaw (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  yeah we all make mistakes....  I do think that List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom is not how to do it... nor is for that matter - List_of_defunct_newspapers_of_the_United_States - the joy of gigantism is a wikipedian illness...  I do think there needs to be every effort to help someone trying to ascertain something without having to dive into an undifferentiated mine shaft of indeterminate depth...   we have also to be aware that the much much older project journalism is now a companion with the newer and insufficiently developed newspapers project (on the talk pages) - in relation to talk page tagging btw - it really should be trying to find a reasonable compromise between sufficient coverage against not getting too big - whatever is constructed.. JarrahTree 14:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there are more examples - perhaps we can peruse the Category:Lists of defunct newspapers and find the best balance (which I suspect will still be the 2 discrete articles option). JabberJaw (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger