| Revision as of 15:38, 19 January 2013 editSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,130 editsm SilkTork moved page Talk:Q (magazine) to Talk:Q magazine: WP:Natural - "Q magazine" is used by reliable sources and by Misplaced Pages editors.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:40, 19 January 2013 edit undoSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,130 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talkheader|search=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Magazines|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Magazines|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
== Bias == |
|
|
|
{{findnotice}} |
|
This whole article sounds a lot like it was written by the authors of the magazine. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Q Reviews == |
|
|
|
|
|
Graded out of 5 or 10? If 10, ] is incorrect and needs to be changed. (Review 3/5). --] 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:They're rated out of 5. - ] 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Arrested Development - Season1 (2005) - Not being an avid fan of Arrested Development i don't want to remove this, but I didn't know they had an album of this title, let alone it receiving 5* <span style="font-style:italic;font;color:green;font-weight:bold;">David</span></span><span style="font;-color:red;font-weight:bold;">Humphreys</span><small><sup>]</sup>ABOUT<sub>]</sub></small> 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Silent Shout by The Knife wasn't given half a star, I happen to own that particular issue of Q Magazine and I can clearly see a whole star given to it <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Albums awarded 5 stars == |
|
|
Why has the albums awarded 5 stars part of the page been removed?? I thought this was an interesting feature especially considering the infrequency with which Q give 5*'s. The more recent ones awarded also illustrate the general decline of the magazine.] |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I've re-instated this section from its last incarnation six months ago. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's neither noteworthy nor self-evident that the magazine rarely gave reviews 5 stars, nor is there any reasonable way to verify that it's true or that the list is exhaustive. The general decline of the magazine's quality is plausible (no argument from me there), but whether there has been a decline, whether the list illustrates this point, and whether the list is generally interesting at all, are all matters of opinion. I don't feel such trivia belongs in the article, but don't feel so strongly about it to delete it myself. :)—] 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that Q are somewhat notorious for their fussines in reviewing albums - or not even fussiness necessarily, everything they review seems to get 3 stars, with a few exceptions. I was going to ask if anyone could find a source that mentions that they're seen as being fussy or something. It is certainly rare for them to give 5 stars, and I think the list is quite interesting considering how short it is relative to how long the magazine has been around.] 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
can someone put pyschocandy by jesus and mary chain into the list? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please be aware that Q magazine can give albums 5 stars to a certain album now that they didn't originally give 5 stars in the very first review of the certain album e.g. (What's The Story) Mornin Glory by Oasis, which originally got 3 stars but in an Oasis interview two years ago all the albums were rated and (What's the Stroy) Morning Glory was given 5 stars |
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering, was Blur's The Great Escape really given 5 stars on its first review, because i didn't think it was, and somebody has added it to the list |
|
|
|
|
|
The Strokes' ] was given 5 stars but it's been downgradfed to a 2-star sinve. Can somebody put ths in, wheneve I try it's deleted. (] 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is because the list is for original reviews of the albums] 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Muse's Origin of Symmetry has been put on the list, was this really given 5 stars? ] (]) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article Name== |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''Move'''. —] (]) 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requested move== |
|
|
PageName → NewName – Q Magazine (in all caps without the parenthesis) is a Melbourne LGBT magazine. The name of the magazine here is just "Q" and nothing else.--] 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom. --] 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
Add any additional comments |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The above "debate" doesn't automatically mean that ] should be occupied by the other magazine. One is a longstanding, influential national music magazine with a truckload of incoming links, the other is a one-line stub on a special interest single-city free magazine/paper with hardly any (if ''any'') links. Indeed, there are many links for the British Q to Q Magazine: . |
|
|
|
|
|
The dab I've put in place is the sensible option. Leave this article here, Q Magazine redirects here, and we have a dab header. --] 11:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Fair use rationale for Image:Qlogo.png== |
|
|
] |
|
|
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. |
|
|
|
|
|
If there is 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Editors == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could we manage a list of former editors, and their periods of service? ] (User:Pigsonthewing); ]; ] 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== EMAP == |
|
|
|
|
|
Q was originally, and for a long time, published by ]. I believe that should be mentioned, once cited. ] (User:Pigsonthewing); ]; ] 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anyone a collector? == |
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to ], does anyone have these issues in their attic somewhere? ] (]) 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
