Talk:List of newspapers in the United Kingdom

message: Why have the Sunday papers been tagged onto the end of the daily papers? They are separate newspapers with separate editorial staff even if the ownership is the same. Mintguy 15:45, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Scottish newspapers deserve the same treatment as national newspapers. I don't mind that The Times, and The Sunday Times are listed together (I'd prefer if they weren't). But Sunday versions of Scottish newspapers should be listed in the same way (whatever that is), not just noted casually at the end. Dduck 14:29, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: It's looks fine the way it is now Dduck 17:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the Western Mail and Y Cymro into a new Wales section, as they are not regional but national Welsh papers.  I have also added Y Byd as a planned newspaper, as they're trying to get that off the ground in Aberystwyth.  aliceinlampyland 15:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: The list will quickly get unmanageable, when we add, say Newsquest's 300 titles. Which we will. Could I suggest:
*By ceremonial county for town & village papers
*By city for proper cities - though to be honest, I'd be happy to subsume them into counties, too, along the style in Twin towns
*Umm, and another look at the Regional Newspapers. What are the criteria for inclusion here. Why, for instance, is the Yorkshire Post not in the list. Why are the Liverpool Daily post, & Belfast Telegraph in the list?
--Tagishsimon
:This looks like a good idea to me.  And I think it would be best to subsume the cities into the counties - why should tiny cities such as Wells or Ripon be made more prominent than far larger towns such as Reading or Northampton?  And the regional newspapers certainly could do with reconsidering. Matthew 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organisation alert: By Ceremonial County?

message: "Sunday broadsheet newspapers have tended to keep the broadsheet format due to considerations of size, as to maintain the same content in a tabloid paper would be excessivly [sic] unruley [sic]."
Would whoever added this care to clarify what you mean?
And was I imagining it, or were the Times and Independent once listed here in what were the right categories last time I knew (Sunday ones broadsheet, otherwise compact)?
-- Smjg 14:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other day I read somewhere that the plan of the Sunday Times is to remain broadsheet.  I haven't seen anything about what the Independent on Sunday plans to do.... -- Smjg 16:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that the Independent on Sunday is a compact, the only example of this statement is the Sunday Times.  So does it make much sense to leave the statement in at all? -- Smjg 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am sure the Sunday Express switched to tabloid a few years after the Daily Express, but I can't find any information for it. That the Daily Express switched in 1977 is documented here at BBC News, but it doesn't mention the Sunday. My Dad took them both, and I clearly remember the Sunday Express being broadsheet for quite a long while after the daily (I was born in 1972). SimonTrew (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday editions 

message: The dates of establishment are inconsistent with those in History of British newspapers.  Who is right? -- Smjg 18:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been more helpful if you had stated which newspaper's dates you thought were inconsistent, rather than leaving it to each reader to compare the two articles. My reading is that the discrepancies are in the foundation dates of the Mail on Sunday, Sunday Express, and Independent on Sunday. I remember the Mail on Sunday being founded, so it was certainly not established in 1896 -- the 1982 date sounds plausible. I think the Independent on Sunday was founded the same time that the Independent was, but I won't swear to it. -- Arwel 20:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Independent on Sunday was founded in 1990, four years after the daily paper. Loganberry 23:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Is it really possible to make a hard and fast distinction between "regional" and "local" newspapers? For example, The Birmingham Post is readily available in newsagents 25 miles and more from the city, yet has been classed as local. Conversely, the Liverpool Echo is listed as regional. Both papers are city-based, and I think both the Echo and the Manchester Evening News would fit better into the "local" category. Loganberry 23:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the M.E.N. is freely available (for a price) here in Crewe, and we're 30 miles from Manchester. I've seen the Liverpool Echo on sale in Rhyl... -- Arwel 00:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could say that I've seen the Echo at Euston station, but that would be cheating. =;) But I doubt any local paper of any importance is entirely confined to its "named" town or city, so in that sense they're all regionals. But I used to live in Liverpool, and at least at that time (early-mid 1990s) it definitely felt like a city paper first and foremost, in the sense that the Daily Post with its wider circlation area isn't. Loganberry 13:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The Birmingham Post is stocked daily by the Co-Op supermarket in Long Buckby, some 50+ miles from Birmingham!  It's tough to draw a line between regional and local - as an example, the Northampton Chronicle & Echo focuses on Northampton and the western half of Northamptonshire.  Local, or regional?  I should say local, as Northamptonshire is a county, not a region (eg South West or East Anglia).  By this measure, only newspapers such as The Yorkshire Post would truly count as regional. Thoughts? Matthew 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional v local? 

message: What is the criteria for this? It seems rather arbitary. -- Joolz 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically those that don't fit neatly into either of the other two categories, and can be considered as somewhere between the two. -- Smjg 13:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that because of the typeface used in the title. Generally, the style and content of certainly two of the papers in the category (mail/express) is very much tabloid in style. What defines something as tabloid, other than dimensions. --waxapple 16:52, 13 Dec 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle-market?

message: This article is a bit messy at the moment, I suggest we have:
*National Papers
*Scotland
**Scottish National papers
**Scottish Regional
**Scottish Local
*Wales
**Welsh regional etc
*England
**etc...
that way it keeps it much tidier... -- Joolz 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way National vs. Scottish is handled at the moment is a bit ambiguous.  It states that some of the 'national' papers have Scottish editions.  Do England, Wales and Northern Ireland share the same editions then?  As such, should they be listed as 'National' for being three out of four, or under each?  And of the 'national' papers that don't have Scottish editions, which have one edition throughout the UK and which aren't sold in Scotland at all? -- Smjg 13:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Infact, not only that, The Guardian has a northern England edition, if i recall correctly. -- Joolz 15:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the newspapers have different print sites. Hence The Telegraph is different here in Manchester (Trafford Park Printers) than the West Ferry version in London. Indeed, the Guardian is called 'The Guardian (North)' - however the differences are so slim that listing every single variation of a newspaper here is the wrong place to do so. Perhaps details of the Guardian North and Telegraph variation should be printed on The Guardian page? In addition, some areas of the country get the early 1st edition, some the 2nd edition and some the final 3rd edition. In Bury (Lancs) I get the 2nd edition of the Times and FT, but the final edition of the Telegraph and Guardian.  --Mrclarke 07:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bit of a mess?

message: Can we not come up with a more appropriate name? I know we can't really call them 'broadsheet' anymore, but to call them serious implies that the others arent. Whatever our beliefs about the other papers, they are serious. Robdurbar 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '1.1 Serious papers '

message: I've removed this bit as the IoM is not in the United Kingdom. For the record the three listed papers were:
===Isle of Man===
* Isle of Man Courier
* Isle of Man Examiner
* Manx Independent
--Robdurbar 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle of Man

message: * Isle of Man Courier
* Isle of Man Examiner
* Manx Independent
--Robdurbar 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle of Man

message: The incomplete list of local newspapers is substantially too large in scope for this article.  Pretty much every locality in the UK has a local paper, and I would suspect that the list is nowhere near complete, yet is already too large.  I haven't just been bold and deleted them in case there is some project or precedent that I am not aware of but I am sorely tempted to remove the list, perhaps retaining only the most notable/those with wikipedia articles. MLA 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is a list page, my view is that it is not yet too long. if & when it is, the better thing to do, I think, would be to seperate it into a series of pages. But certainly not remove it. As it is, we have only scratched the surface of the number of papers in the UK. --Tagishsimon (talk)
*Yes, we should definitely move the Yorkshire papers (and any following lists of regional papers) into a series of separate articles; this single county is already dominating the page and would almost lead one to believe that Yorkshire was a constituent country on a par with Scotland.Polocrunch 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section on Yorkshire newspapers seemed just to be a verbatim wikification of the source website.  Is it needed at all, rather than just a hyperlink to the external site with all this information on? Matthew 14:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Local newspapers

message: Since when do encyclopedia articles amount to lists ? This article need replacing with an article about the British press. Johncmullen1960 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists can be encyclopedic, wikipedia has a section on them at WP:LIST.  This isn't a great example as the information could be captured in a category so it's not especially value adding.  MLA 08:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lists and encyclopedias 

message: I have removed the History of British Newspapers website because of a Page not found notice.  Kathleen.wright5 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed - History of British Newspapers website 

message: In the listing it gives "national papers" then "Scottish papers", however, if my memory is correct. The English daily newspapers, which are normally published in London and Manchester, do not normally circulate in Scotland. While editions produced for Scotland are published in Glasgow and Edinburgh as separate publications, even if they have the same ownership as those English titled publications.
In some cases there may be additional printing plants used, for example Inverness, but that would be the same publication as produced in Glasgow.
Looking at the local list for Worcestershire, there are about ten weekly papers, including the oldest continuously published weekly newspaper, since 1690, also the daily "Worcester News". I'll come back to the topic another day when I've put more details together.
81.174.167.128 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of newspapers in Scotland - The Scottish editions of the nationals are AFAIK basically the same as published in England, but with the word Scotland on the front page and the odd Scottish related article replacing England related ones. Jooler 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National and Scottish newsapers 

message: Two users have taken the 'liberty' to undo improvements that were made a while back:
* Middle-market papers have been re-merged into "Tabloids".
* "Serious", later "'Serious'", has been changed back to the highly POV "Quality".
Why?
Maybe the latter term could be better phrased as "Papers focused on serious journalism".  What do you people think? -- Smjg (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regression 

message: I think this page could be improved by creating a general index page for Newspapers in The United Kingdom, then having link entries that take the reader to several pages, e.g:
England - National Morning Papers
England - provincial daily papers, morning and evening
England - Weekly paper by county
Scotland - National Morning Papers
Scotland - daily papers, morning and evening
Scotland - Weekly paper by county
Wales - National Morning Papers
Wales - daily papers, morning and evening
Wales - Weekly paper by county
Northern Ireland - National Morning Papers
Northern Ireland - daily papers, morning and evening
Northern Ireland - Weekly paper by county
Then a note, to the effect that Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, but include links to pages that have their newspapers:
Isle of Man newspapers
Guernsey Newspapers
Jersey Newspapers
There are many newspapers in England that are not listed.
Brian  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian426uk (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Tidy-up 

message: The Metro is listed as "working towards national status, wide availability in the major cities makes it the UK's 4th highest circulation paper."  How can it be included in the "National" section if it is only working towards national status?
Until it is available throughout the UK, as with the other "National" papers, it should only be described as Regional.--86.132.232.235 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro being "National" 

message: As well as being verbose, the tone is lofty and POVish. The initial "Traditionally" has that tone and reflects the subjective nature of the comments. The assertions may not be based on research either. What's more important about the British press is its age, extent and national nature. There's also excessive emphasis on sheet-size, which is no longer an indicator of the type of content. Such old-man stuff might appear on a separate page about sheet-size. What matters are things like readership, circulation, distribution, content, law, regulation and the press's relationship with broadcasting and the web. Under Wales we have "Newspapers focused on serious journalism" which is highly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: first paragraph

message: I suggest stating that Viscount Cowdray and the Pearson family have a stake in the Pearson group, publisher of the Financial Times, and citing The Sunday Times Rich List. Alekksandr (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial Times

message: I think I'm right in saying the editor of The Mail on Sunday is Ted Verity, not Geordie Greig, who is editor of only the Daily Mail. The table lists Greig as the editor of both for some reason. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Mail on Sunday editor

message: I have added The New European to broadsheets but should it be under specialist?--Darrelljon (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New European 

message: Within the table of tabloids: The first was a red link, the second was improperly formatted in.
I have removed both, partly because I suspect they were added by people connected to them without fulfilling the distribution criteria. Quite apart from anything, I am not sure either of them reach Wikipedia's notability standard.
If I'm wrong, please do revert the edit. 2A00:23C7:6C88:B101:4585:5F0D:3113:D574 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life News UK and Eastern Eye 

message: The Observer has both its old format (Berliner) and its current one (Compact) listed, as opposed to all the other papers which show only their current format - this seems a bit inconsistent.  I would change this myself, but can't figure out how to do it without mucking up the table. MFlet1 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Observer 

message: I've edited Private Eye's entry to read 'None' instead of centre, which seems more accurate to me as it'd be just as critical of centrist as any left or right leaning news. (I'm not sure 'none' is best, perhaps 'unaligned' which I only thought of now is better, or something else.) I'm also sceptical of the same currently written for The Week and The Economist. The former's page says it 'presents a broad spectrum of political viewpoints' which is not the same as centrism. The latter is described in its info box as economically and socially liberal, and radical centrism; perhaps aligning with that, either to focus on the economic context or specify radical centrism would be best? OJFord (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrist vs unaligned magazines 

message: The gaps in the circulation figures are misleading. A much better job is done in the List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation article but this is not obvious to the casual reader. 
I'd suggest that either the circulation column is deleted altogether, or the most recent circulation figure is included. A note could be added for those that are not current referring to the above-mentioned article. If nobody objects, I'll make this change. Chris55 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: change column to "circulation (year)" to make more obvious to the casual reader. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation figures 

message: "The Globe Echo is an independent English newspaper based in London, United Kingdom, established in mid-2021". Is this a "newspaper"? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Globe Echo