Template talk:Major english-language current affairs magazines

Archives

---

1. Archive

Definition of scope

I'm unsure of how exactly to define the scope of this template. Naturally I want it to be useful but very focussed. Here is my conception for this template:

• Any magazine here must cover current affairs, and may also cover cultural issues, e.g. commentary on news events and reviews of movies.
• Magazines here must be actively publishing today, this template is not an historical archive.
• Must be a magazine; not a newsletter or pamphlet, for example. Not a newspaper: daily or Sunday. Not your blog.
• Must be notable ("major") within the context of its home country: i.e. must be well-known and well-circulated. For the US there ought to be at least a circulation of approximately 60,000 per issue; for the UK appoximately 12,000. For a smaller country like Ireland or New Zealand, a smaller circulation should be tolerated as long as the magazine is well-known. Smaller circulation cross-border publications should be included too.
• Must not be published by a club, political party or special interest group. No student or university magazines, no magazines aimed purely at members of a certain political party. Not the magazine you photocopy and give to your friends. Still not your blog.
• Must cover current affairs/politics; may cover literature/arts. A pure music magazine clearly shouldn't be here, neither should a magazine dedicated purely to short stories, book reviews or poetry, no matter how famous or influential. Put these in the arts navbox.
• Language: should be entirely in English or have English as a full and equal participant in a genuine multi-lingual setting. No non-English language magazines from countries that happen to have English as a language, for example.
• Brand new? This is a tricky one: brand new magazines shouldn't be included unless they are already around a year old.
• Online/paper-only/both: I see no reason to exclude online-only publications. They must still be "major": famous and widely-read within their origin nation at least.
• Serious/silly: Let's not include every title looking at the celebrity news/movies/celebrities: let's avoid "tabloids". Titles such as National Enquirer are not serious enough for this template, but Private Eye, which takes its satire seriously, is included. Put another way, Private Eye investigates stories and occasionally steers public affairs, whereas National Enquirer usually only gets it right by accident.

The definition is motivated by looking for a class of publications that encompasses The New Yorker, The Walrus, Time (magazine), The London Review of Books, etc.

(I updated the criteria on 2009-12-31 to allow major current affairs titles without cultural content to be included, since this, hopefully, will not clutter the template too much, and will finally allow U.S. News & World Report to live in this navbox. It also allows E!Sharp to be included, which I believe does not cover culture.)

Robertbyrne (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (I updated the definition after my initial post of this comment.)

Variant (magazine) and Readers' Digest

Should this be included? It's free, very local to one city, and I've never heard of it. It's free with a print run of 15,000. I think it's just not notable. --Duncan (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging by their website ([1]), they do meet the requirements for this template. I would guess that they are available in at least Glasgow and Belfast, and there are references to Edinburgh on the website too.

Not to completely change the subject, but do you think Reader's Digest fits the criteria? I haven't checked a physical copy of it, but based on their website they don't appear to cover current affairs in every issue. I think I should add a criterion that both current affairs and culture (e.g. reviews) must be contained in every issue of the publication. What do you think? Robertbyrne (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On Readers Digest; that is clearly not a current affairs periodical. It's a general interest magazine, and I'm going to remove it now. On culture, I'm not sure. This template is called current affairs magazines. I don't see why culture should be one of the criteria. I would rather have mainly culture magazines somewhere else than this template. --Duncan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument against including purely current affairs/news publications is that it only increases the number of titles, possibly to a far too great number for a single template.

(I have been too lazy to start other templates covering purely culture or purely current affairs, but I think they may be useful and have no overlap here).

Every magazine already listed would remain if culture were not a requirement, and in addition, many, many more titles could be added. It's hard enough maintaining "proportional" popularity (only specified for the US and UK), i.e. people do tend to add low-circulation magazines. Having purely news magazines -- and in my opinion there are not many significant ones, given that we already have Time, Economist, New Yorker... -- would bring in more titles that editors will be tempted to add to this template, but which may be "niche", in my opinion, e.g. US titles with 5,000 to 35,000 copies per issue, which for the US is quite low, certainly below the circulation of any US title in this template. Robertbyrne (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This magazine has a 15,000 *print run* because it's free. That's different from a magazine's *circulation*. I think this does not fit the criteria of a major current affairs magazine and doesn't belong here. So, petitioning that it be removed... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.233.139 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created Template:EnglishArtsMagazines

I moved three titles from here to there. Please take a look and fill out the list, etc. Robertbyrne (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

monacle

does monacle really fulfill the criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.225 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Monocle does fit the criteria. It's quite "lifestyle"-ish overall, but it does cover current affairs. The December 09/January 10 has 33 pieces/articles, and of these I would estimate that about 14 are current affairs reports or investigations, about four are analysis/opinion pieces, many falling within the current affairs/politics sphere, there's a two-page arts review section, there are business/corporate reports, and many of the others are the trademark lifestyle/review pieces, comparing cities, towns, consumable goods and clothes. So, I think over half of the magazine qualifies, which seems good enough. The business emphasis does suggest Monocle should also be added here maybe. Similar, but more purely lifestyle, titles include Financial_Times#How_to_Spend_It and WSJ., but I think they clearly do not qualify for this navbox whereas Monocle probably does. Robertbyrne (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding Commentary magazine

Commentary (magazine) has long been very influential. I think its circulation is at least 60,000. Norman Podhoretz is a former editor, John Podhoretz, his son, is current editor. Terry Teachout writes for it regularly. On any list of "Major" English-language current affairs & culture magazines, this one would be included. It is undoubtedly more influential than several U.S. magazines already on the template. -- Noroton (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Does Human Events cover culture?

It's been years since I read it, but it wasn't covering culture then. Has it changed? -- Noroton (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Culture coverage has been removed as a requirement, so I guess Human Events can stay either way. Robertbyrne (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I created Template:Major English-language business magazines

Template:Major English-language business magazines.

Robertbyrne (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Science and Technology magazines template

Template:Major English-language Science and Technology Magazines has also been created. Robertbyrne (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Left Review

Doesn't NLR fit here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.233.139 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we know the circulation of it? Robertbyrne (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Exact circulation figures have always been hard to come by, as has any reliable information about its inner workings, but its bi-monthly issues are said currently to sell around 10,000 each." This is lower than the 12,000 mark suggested above, but the Guardian article in general is an argument for the NLR's notability; at one point it calls it "irreplaceable". I think that for its reputation alone the NLR should be listed among the "major" magazines. Ham (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) D'oh! It was there already. Ham (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Drouth

I'm surprised to see The Drouth listed - it seems to be a small circulation local magazine rather than a 'major' title. Chrislintott (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Salon

How about Salon? The template is linked on its page, and although it’s not in print I’ve seen it discussed a lot more than some of the other US political magazines listed in the template. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like Salon is already in the template. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Do these magazines belong?

The Diplomat seems to be online only, and based in Japan.

The Brooklyn Rail freezine?

Well, no comments, and they don't seem to belong, so I'll remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.202.36 (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)