Talk:Slant Magazine

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

SlantMagazine.com → Slant Magazine – The article name shouldn't be a url. It shouldn't have been moved from "Slant Magazine" in the first place without atleast a discussion, instead of just citing another article name with ".com" as justification. Also, per Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Searching slantmagazine on Google, Google Books, nytimes.com, VillageVoice.com, and "Slant Magazine" is the common name. Dan56 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Salon.com's a kind of exception, where the .com acts as a disambiguator. It's certainly not indicative of any WP style guide I'm aware of (see Category:American online magazines). And per Dan's evidence, "Slant Magazine" is used by reliable sources like the NYT.
• And comment: you can just be bold and revert if you like; no need for a formal move request at this stage. --DeLarge (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as .com isn't a part of the name, but merely the web-link, which begins with www. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be bold, if this page hadn't been moved like four times before, which seems like controversial. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The user who moved this page has recently either (i) moved other pages boldly (Comic Book Resources) or (ii) requested other pages be moved uncontroversially (Radar Online). I'm going to move this back, just to establish that there's no consensus or guideline to support those moves. Every other example where the .com is used in the title (Amazon.com, TMZ.com, Salon.com) are instances where disambiguation would be required. I'm also going to relist Radar Online at WP:RM. --DeLarge (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the page move for now, and struck through part of my comment above. I'd have preferred not to, but the WP:RM template is misbehaving as long as the page is at Slant Magazine. It may not reappear at WP:RM again otherwise, and if I'm going to re-open the discussion, I need to do it properly. --DeLarge (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It does look in this case that sources like The New York Times do refer to it as Slant Magazine. So do we italicize it then? We don't normally italicize website names, such as Google.

Also, I think the issue might be less confusing if we had more consistency. I see the argument for TMZ.com and Salon.com, with the suffix being used as disambiguation. But if disambiguation is the only reason, it would be less confusing to disambiguate as "Salon (website)" and "TMZ (website)." If we want to give common-name titles, we should do that for all. Adding "(website)" retains the common-name title, whereas as ".com" changes the title. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Salon and Slant Magazine are published (bottom of their pages, copyright) under such titles: "Salon" and "Slant Magazine". I know that Slant Magazine is referred to this way by most sources, like Metacritic. So, you know where I stand. Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For matters of italics, see MOS:ITALIC: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online) should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) _{(italicizing his own signature since 2006)}

In conjunction with other discussions DeLarge and I and other editors have been having, and seeing as how the site's logo is "Slant Magazine," I'm withdrawing my argument for SlantMagazine.com. I'm not sure on the italics issue, but that's something that can brought up at the MOS page and doesn't have to be part of the discussion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Slant Magazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061117144447/http://www.nypress.com/18/30/film/seitz.cfm to http://www.nypress.com/18/30/film/seitz.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100127015642/http://www.moviemaker.com:80/producing/article/50_best_blogs_for_moviemakers_moviemaker_magazine_20100121/ to http://www.moviemaker.com/producing/article/50_best_blogs_for_moviemakers_moviemaker_magazine_20100121/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 15:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Slant Magazine → Slant (magazine) – I think the magazine/website is really called Slant, not Slant Magazine. (This might have changed at some point - no idea.)

Clues from slantmagazine.com:

• Logo only says "Slant"
• The site seems to refer to itself exclusively as Slant in prose; Donate page refers to "Since its foundation in 2001, Slant has..." ... "Sign up to receive Slant’s latest reviews, interviews, lists, and more" ... "if you like what we do, consider becoming a SLANT patron" ... articles credited to "Slant Staff"... etc
• Social media accounts say "Slant" - eg Instagram account, Twitter

Thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is good WP:NATURALDIS, supportable by the fact that "Magazine" is used in the website's copyright notice/terms of use as its correct legal name. -- Netoholic @ 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the website's title is "Slant Magazine", its probably using "Slant" alone for brevity once its clear what the topic is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that might be the case... though the fact that the logo and social media accounts just say "Slant" doesn't totally fit with that. In any case I think their branding is a little bit confused. Popcornfud (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.