Talk:Compact (newspaper)

Merger

I don't think the entries for Compact and Tabloid should be merged, because compact is used to describe only the size of the paper, whereas Tabloid is a much broader term and also includes the content of the paper. That is, although a tabloid paper is compact, a compact paper may not be a tabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.204.15 (talk • contribs)

• Keep separate because they are to different things Gang14 (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the above, and will remove the merger notice. Merging could only reduce the chance of readers gaining a full understanding of the issues. Tabloid also has other meanings outside the UK. Both terms should be described fully in their own article. Honbicot (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• There's definitely a distinction, but you have it wrong. In application to newspapers, the term “compact” does not in fact, describe only the size of the paper; a “compact” paper is of broadsheet quality. The term “tabloid”, on the other hand, has two definitions, one neutral and one disparaging. —SlamDiego_←T 20:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the corresponding merge notice from Tabloid. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality

This article, like many “reliable” sources, defines “compact” not merely to identify physical format, but also the quality of the newspaper. As such, it is a gross violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy to identify any specific newspaper as “compact”. Since the “quality” aspect is part of the definition found elsehwere, the proper resolution is to remove the list of ostensibly compact newspapers, and to make sure that any other news papers noted in the article are not claimed by the article itself to be compact. The neutrality failure would become immediately evident to most editors if I added the National Enquirer and the Sun to the list of ostensibly compact newspapers. We'd have a boil-over at the implication that these were of broadsheet quality (though certainly some of their supporters would claim exactly that). —SlamDiego_←T 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the term 'broadsheet quality' is not as neutral as it perhaps could be, any other suggestions for the readership/editorial standards? High brow seems a little strong... Maybe 'former broadsheet compacts'? It Figures. (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really an option to redefine “compact” — “reliable” sources define it in terms of quality. So the point is that this article and others cannot maintain “neutrality” while baldly claiming that any given newspaper is in fact a compact. —SlamDiego_←T 02:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:NewspaperSizes200508.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:NewspaperSizes200508.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)