Talk:Condé Nast Traveller

Magazines Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Circulation and WP:UNDUE

Because each circulation figure is part of magazine's past. It may high or low, but it should be included in the text (based on a reliable source, of course). What's wrong with that? Secondly, please stop questioning my edit, but refer to any WP rule that states that past circulation figures should NOT be included. You may see undesired points in an article about a mag from WP:MWG. --Egeymi (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"refer to any WP rule that states..." I did link to, and explain the relevance of WP:UNDUE, twice. In an edit summary, and in a comment on your talk page, which you've since removed.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, 2007 circulation numbers here seem WP:UNDUE. That the info is from a 2007 Guardian article makes it no less UNDUE. Put another way, 2007 was a while ago. What makes the circulation #s for a part of that year encyclopedic? "Circulation" appears 4 times on the article page now. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:MWG I inserted the circulation figure. Circulation is a significant topic for a mag, given that it is included in the infobox, so no matter how many times this word is used. That's all what I can tell you. Happy editing. --Egeymi (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is encyclopaedic if you're making an overall point about the circulation, such as that it has dwindled over a certain period of time, etc. What you are doing is inserting a random piece of information with no relationship to the rest of the article whatsoever, therefore the previous editor's mention of WP:UNDUE. If you're really craving some Wikipedia editing (due to Wikipedia madness!), I suggest you add the two circulation figures, as well as any other dates if you have them, in the infobox, and you can write their corresponding times with the appropriate citations. How does that sound? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Well put. Hoping consensus is respected and we don't need to call in administrator to wield the mop. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]