Talk:Condé Nast

Fair use rationale for Image:He condenast large.gif

Image:He condenast large.gif 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 ensure 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) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arstechnica

Poor arstechnica, hope it doesn't end up as a fashion geek web blog. :( --buzlink (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Need coverage of international publications

Although Condé Nast is described as a "global mass media company" there is only a list of U.S. publications. A list is needed of international publications (such as British Vogue).

Portfolio magazine

Portfolio magazine is closing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.231.2 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

I just updated the page to reflect the latest CN news and the current magazine landscape. Starfounder (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Starfounder

Requested move 29 October 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Condé Nast Publications → Condé Nast – The word Publications was officially removed from the name in 2009 by it's parent Advance Publications. This is reflected in Wikipedia on both the Advance Publications page and in the body of the Conde Nast page as well. 69.2.120.11 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support to reflect name change and majority usage. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, agree with rationale by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FFM?

The page uses the acronym FFM in the publication list. Any chance this could be defined somewhere? I have no idea what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.2.152 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This must have been addressed—I no longer see FFM in the article or in lists of periodicals. rags (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Following section reads as an ad.

ushering in a new era less reliant on print adverting and increasingly focused on the development of digital platforms, innovative products and new marketing services to generate revenue. --TheNk22 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Update

Charles Townsend is not the chairman and hasn't been for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmacolon (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Number of titles published

I'm counting 19, not 20. Since this talkpage doesn't seem to draw much traffic, I'll just fix it. If I'm wrong, please add or subtract titles accordingly and correct the count. rags (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are 19 in the lede. In the body of the article more than 20 are listed when e-publications and sites are included, but fewer if they are not. Since status seems somewhat murky and fluid for many titles, I choose to leave it as is for more knowledgable, and more interested, editors to correct. rags (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)