Talk:Boxing News
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boxing News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
This not an advertisement for the magazine. Boxing News is known world wide, has existed for 98 years and has 15,000 circulation. It is important to the sport and culture of boxing and, for this reason alone, deserves a wikipedia entry. Furthermore, Wikipedia contains pages describing (including current issue details) many magazines, including The Ring (boxing), Pro Wrestling illustrated and Vogue. so there is a clear precedent for this type of page. If you insist on a rewrite, I will comply, but please could you explain explicitly what you would like the changes to be. Thanks.
Danny Flexen
This has now been marked for a style re-write but please could you be specific in how you want this re-written.
Danny Flexen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbflex (talk • contribs) 11:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:7-12-07.jpg[edit]
Image:7-12-07.jpg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:BNfrontjuly20 Page 1.jpg[edit]
Image:BNfrontjuly20 Page 1.jpg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Repeated changing of picture[edit]
It's not appropriate to upload the front cover every week. It violates WP:NFCC item 2 (at least). Stifle (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Opening Paragraph[edit]
The opening paragraph is quite clearly an advert for this publication. I'm not familiar with it myself (stumbled upon the page from another), but it definitely needs changing by someone who actually knows what would be reasonable in its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.38.75 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)