Talk:The Age

message: It is fair to have a link to a blog critical of The Age, as occurs on the Andrew Bolt page with the Boltwatch blog. Anonymous421 12:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a not notable blog which has only existed since last month. Please stop entering it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a "notable" blog and what isn't? Where are the rules determining this? Can you expand on this please? Otherwise it appears to me that you keep censoring it because of your own political affiliation. ---Befeleme 13:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AgeWatch

message: How many times has the original 17 Oct 1854 first edition of The Age been republished ie. as was done in 2004 to commemorate 150th aniversary?
It was reprinted in 1954 as well. My aunt had a copy in her papers which I inherited. I could scan it and put it here, but I don't know what its copyright status would be. Adam 03:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe  would apply. But since it was first printed in 1854, wouldn't any copyright be expired (ie, )?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Age 1854 

message: Anyone know whether the Keith Sinclair that was editor in the 50s was the same Keith Sinclair who was a noted NZ poet and historian. I mean, I really doubt it, but maybe someone knows. I've added (editor) to the name to prevent confusion for now--s_oteric 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keith Sinclair

message: Added Sensis to The Age's list of competitors.  The media at the time claimed that the sole reason Sensis/Telstra bought The Trading Post was to compete against Fairfax in classifieds.Amargosa 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitors 

message: :Image:The-age.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The-age.svg

message: For some reason the image of the front page of The Age was deleted, for reasons to do with fair use rationale. This seems strange to me, as every other newspaper on Wikipedia has an image of a front page. Can anybody who knows more upload one with a valid fair use rationale so it doesn't get deleted again? HorseloverFat 08:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page of The Age 

message: A rather poor reproduction (Image:TheAgeNov111975.jpg) of the Age's front page reporting the dismissal of Gough Whitlam is captioned as being from the edition of 11th November 1975. Since the dismissal took place on that day some time around midday (after the GG returned from a Remembrance Day Service) and since the Age so far as I know has never been an evening paper I suspect that is a mistake. The actual date is unclear but it is probably the day after. My edit reflects this ambiguity. Stroika (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Caption 

message: Before describing the paper's "modernisation" from 1942 onwards, the article has an unreferenced quote: "Walker described a newspaper which had fallen asleep in the embrace of the Liberal Party." In the Wikipedia article on the Liberal Party of Australia we are told "The formation of the party was formally announced in February 1945." Who is Walker? When did he really say that? Does it make sense chronologically?
We are also told that "By the 1980s a new competitor had appeared in Rupert Murdoch's national daily The Australian." The Australian began publication in 1964. 
Both comments read like careless and sloppy journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Problems With Time

message: Pravda on the yarra is a much funnier and ruder tag than the guardian one, and has roughly the same number of google hits. So why is one acceptable and the other not? Greglocock (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pravda on the Yarra

message: I have just added a section titled "Masthead". I have cited the information with a reference to a journal article. However the article doesn't show up in the reference list. Can anyone advise? NDCole (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference List

message: User:Brandonfarris just added a new section with the above title, and I have reverted it as a caution. The sources are all competitors of The Age (particularly Murdoch media), and could(?) be suspected of trying to damage the paper's reputation. A lot of the "evidence" is about events expected(?) to happen in the future. It just doesn't seem solid sourcing to me, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a disgusting edit and I have reverted your deletion. The content was sourced to an RS, and is certainly notable. Greglocock (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the first time I've had an edit of mine described as disgusting. Interesting. It's obvious that you feel strongly on this matter. Any chance you could comment on the points I made? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant disgusting as in an antithesis of what wiki is about. Your paranoid observation about the sources is daft. The paragraph was well written, sourced from RS, notable and so far as I can tell correct, with no speculation. So instead of leaving frankly comical if lame threats on my talk page why don't you usefully edit an article where your prejudices don't get in the way? Greglocock (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just silly to say that there was no speculation. "...expected to be interviewed by police" is precisely that. What has actually happened and what is going to happen all just seems so unclear. Accusing me of paranoia and prejudice, and making comical and lame posts doesn't help either. That's just heading down the personal attack path. Can you actually discuss what I wrote, rather than me? HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Further, re reliable sources, what is a reliable source in one context is not necessarily a reliable source in another. I (and many others) regard the Herald Sun as an excellent source for sports stories and results, but often quite an appalling one for political stories. This matter is something else. It's about its opposition. To be gentle, I have my doubts. The Australian is also from the Murdoch stable. I'm happier with the Crikey source for its independence. HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Age hacking scandal 

message: No it isn't. It is a small format newspaper but not a tabloid by content, which is far more important. So far as I can tell the content hasn't changed much even as its size and readership have shrunk, still the same dreary politically correct Melbourne centric gossip focussed on real estate and political wrangling. Whether a paper is a tabloid newspaper depends on content, not size, eg the News Of The World was a classic tabloid by content, yet it was a full size paper (at least when I was growing up). So stop it. Greglocock (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a subjective issue. Whether or not a newspaper engages in tabloid journalism, broadsheet journalism or whatever journalism is a matter for readers of that newspaper. It is not a fact that can be confidently stated by any rational thought. However, the size of the newspaper and what category that size is, is a fact that is quite simply indisputable. For that alone, it is perfectly fine and factual to state that The Age is a daily tabloid newspaper. I have made no mention at all about content, for that would be my opinion, and that is wrong to put on a Wikipedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.226.105 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not subjective. The Age is NOT tabloid in its journalist style. This is a blue sky issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Further, if you're definitely only commenting on the paper's size, that needs to be made clear in your wording, precisely because of the two distinct meanings of the word. But I see no need for the size of the paper to be mentioned in the lead. It's covered well in the Infobox, where it's described as Compact. That links to "...a broadsheet-quality newspaper printed in a tabloid format", an excellent description of The Age. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Age is a Tabloid newspaper 

message: Berliner format is 470x315. Tabloid is 430x280 approx. The copy of The Age that I retrieved from the bottom of the parrot cage (like many semi intelligent Victorians he gets a very cheap subscription) is 405x292. The Age is no Berliner. Yes that is OR, but of course I would expect Age readers to believe what they are told rather than actually finding out. Greglocock (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Berliner

message: The Guardian ref says it has moved to the right of its previous position. It does not specify by how much. It certainly does not say Centre. This is a stupid, misused, tag in the infobox anyway since Australian newspapers don't actually have a political alignment in the sense that it was meant to be used. For example the backing for parties in federal elections is not significantly different (statistically) between the main daily papers. If you can find a ref that explicitly identifies a political alignment for this comic then put the ref in. Greglocock (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political alignment - Centre- OR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825042518/http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media to http://www.similarweb.com/country_category/australia/news_and_media
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219150210/http://www.grocon.com.au/pdfs/melbourne/Media_House_completed.pdf to http://www.grocon.com.au/pdfs/melbourne/Media_House_completed.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310212326/http://www.nondescriptpress.com/ to http://www.nondescriptpress.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627062038/http://about.theage.com.au/ to http://about.theage.com.au/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810175102/http://inside.theage.com.au/ to http://inside.theage.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified