Talk:The Tatler (1709 journal)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Tatler (1709) was copied or moved into Tatler (1901) with this edit on 23 May 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Comments

someone please tell me how to pronounce the name of this magazine - is it taytler of tattler???

can someone put a picture of the front page up? I can't work out how to do it ...

The connection with Sir Richard Steele's Tatler papers made here is preposterous: the magazine itself makes no such claim, though I haven't thumbed it in decades. As far as being aristocratic now, it's simply Celebrity Lifestyles presented in a Harper's Bazaar format. --Wetman 08:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous -- there is no connection to Addison & Steele's publication, which closed down in the 18th century -- this is not the "oldest English language publication still in print." Also, what's more alarming is that a search for "Tatler" produces this page and not the original Tatler.

Agreed, there really ought to be two articles. Richard Pinch 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split. The two magazines have nothing in common whatsoever. Mahlum (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricetatler.jpg

Image:Beatricetatler.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 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 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricetatler.jpg

Image:Beatricetatler.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) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Tatlers?

Do the Asian Tatler editions have anything to do with the London-based Condé Nast title? If so, this should be made clear; if not, they should be placed under the heading of "Unrelated Tatlers".Matthau (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tattler

Is it known why it has always been Tatler rather than the more obvious "Tattler"? Varlaam (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we rename this page?

This Tatler has no connection to the original Tatler, so perhaps this should be "Tatler (1901)" or something similar? Heywoodg ^talk 07:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Defective multi-page move. Please discuss which page should be at Tatler in one location at Talk:Tatler (1901)#Move older ≠ wiser 22:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the current page Tatler to Tatler (disambiguation).

RE: previous Tatler move. This article was split (not by me) a couple of weeks ago into Tatler (about the 1709 version) and Tatler (1901) (about the current version). When I discovered this split, I pointed out to the mover that this had damaged a lot of links, and we agreed that Tatler would be renamed Tatler (1709) (which I did yesterday, and set about fixing the small number of links to the historical Tatler to point to the 1709 article), and that Tatler (1901) would reclaim the name Tatler, thus restoring most of the damaged links to their rightful target. However, the articles seem to have been messed around by the last set of admin moves, so that Tatler is now a disambig page, which is a much worse state of affairs than the one I was trying to fix. Now all links to Tatler are wrong. Can someone please put things back the way I requested them? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] :: Page Tatler has between 50 and 100 incoming links, but most of them are from talk pages and user pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than having separate discussions, please participate at Talk:Tatler (1901)#Move. I realize the outcome of this proposal is different, but it seems quite pointless to have two separate discussions at the same time regarding what should be at Tatler. older ≠ wiser 21:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

A requested move affecting this page is being discussed at Talk:Tatler (1901)#Move. older ≠ wiser 21:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1709)

I won't wade in with another page move while everything is still up in the air, but this article title should be Tatler (1709 journal) rather than Tatler (1709) - the disambiguation should tell the reader what they'll be getting if they click on the title. Wikipedia doesn't even use the year-only disambiguation for films; it's always "Title (19xx film)". --McGeddon (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to "The Tatler" because that is what it was called. filceolaire (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that failed. :( Anyone else want to try? filceolaire (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's because The Tatler already exists as an article. You can leave a note at WP:RM/TR and ask an admin to clear the way and make the move; it seems uncontroversial (the sources all seem to refer to the journal as "The Tatler"). --McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]