Talk:Wizard (magazine)

Comics B‑class High‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

title change

Does anyone know when it changed from Wizard: The Guide to Comics to Wizard: The Comics Magazine? --Chris Griswold 08:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that, but the latest issue (#180) gives the full title as Wizard: The Magazine of Comics, Entertainment and Pop Culture. I'd guess that they changed the name again when they changed the magazine's format. Should the article be moved to Wizard (magazine)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved (to "Wizard (magazine)") since they changed the subtitle to include more than just comics, and the "Comics, Entertainment and Pop Culture" tagline is rather lengthy to have at the top when (magazine) can suffice. Danny 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be the common name for the magazine, by any stretch of the imagination. Wizard (magazine) would seem preferable. --W.marsh 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. "The Magazine of Comics, Entertainment and Pop Culture", is more of a subtitle. It's not "Time: The Weekly News Magazine" it's just "Time". Therefore it's simply "Wizard" (they even hide they subtitle next to the barcode for crying out loud as they did with "The Comics Magazine")Danny 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried to move it, but it won't let me because Wizard (magazine) already exists and then I got an autobot revert when I tried to manually move all content cause it thought I was blanking. Does anyone know how to work around this? Having the title and subtitle does not seem appropriate, nor is it consistent with all the other magazine pages I checked. Danny 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need an admin to take care of it. I wonder where you could find one of those... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's dealt with. In the future, Danny, please don't try to move pages by cutting and pasting the content. There's a lot of good reasons not to do that, primary among them being that the page history is lost. You need to use the "move" link at the top of the page; if that fails, you'll need an admin to do some housecleaning deletions of redirects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I didn't know. Danny 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The flip side of this is that you didn't screw anything up; even if you had, everything on WP is trivially easy to undo. Don't worry about too much about the rules. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McFarlane controversy?

I have removed the following piece of text which was recently added:

That relationship deteriorated over the years due to internal squaballing over payment for many of McFarlane's pieces that were utilized (and essential to the success of the magazine). This lead to the eventual ban of McFarlane's products (comics, toys or otherwise) being covered in the pages of Wizard or it's sister companies.

This is an interesting tidbit of information, and one worth adding if it can be verified, but until it can should be left out. Elijya 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed POV and Unreferenced tags

I've removed these tags since they were added by an unregistered user with few contributions. I can see the potential for their legitimate placement, though, if anyone were to explain what part of the article they feel is POV and what they feel needs sources. Elijya 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Non-Neutral Comments

I've removed this paragraph: "Critics also characterize Wizard as simply an organ to generate hype and publicity for the largest publishers, DC and Marvel, and sometimes others like Image, Dark Horse and Top Cow. It is true that Wizard has arranged mutually-lucrative deals with publishers - preferential advertising and coverage, in exchange for news exclusives for the print magazines and product (toy, comic) exclusives for the publisher's string of conventions. Additionally, critics have accused Wizard of promoting comics they had a financial interest in, whether because they are published by Wizard Entertainment-owned Blackbull Press, or because Wizard's online store has a large inventory in stock. The actual degree to which Wizard influences the buying patterns of its client base is unknown." As this seems to be a non-neutral, poorly sourced comment. IDTboy 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is true. It is a PR publication for the industry. That is a fact that needs no verification. It IS criticised for that. Deal with it.

I agree with the user above about this paragraph being non-neutral and in need of sourcing. All encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I say it is about time this paragraph is backed up with some sourcing. If it is such a commonly known fact it shouldn't be too hard to find solid verifiable sources. Paragraph is removed and can be re-posted when sourcing is found. Jackmantas (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Wizard Magazine?

Here is some interesting info that may help bulk up this page. http://thebraxcave.com/2007/11/16/the-end-of-wizard-magazine/

I'm not much of a writer so I figured I would just drop the link for you guys to decide.

Merge from 100 Greatest Villains (Wizard magazine)

The article 100 Greatest Villains (Wizard magazine) is nominated for deletion. Would this article be a good place to merge that list? Only the Top 10 are listed, so I'm hoping copyvio is not a concern. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Afd seems fairly certain, I've merged in the list for consideration by editors of this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]