Talk:Philosophy Now

Fair use rationale for Image:PNcover57.jpg

Image:PNcover57.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 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) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement

I was thinking of creating a Wikipedia article about the Philosophy Now Festival, which I have attended twice in London (2011 and 2013). But should that have its own article or should it be part of this article about the magazine Philosophy Now? The Festival is organised by the magazine but is held at Conway Hall. There is also the annual Philosophy Now "Against Stupidity" Award, which is surely worth a mention but the same question applies - separate article or put it here? ContraryM1978 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Also the quite long list about contributors in this article seems to include some really famous philosophers PLUS everyone who wrote for a recent issue of Philosophy Now, regardless of whether they have a Wikipedia article about them or not. It struck me as a a bit odd. Why these particular contributors and not all the ones from other issues? Maybe it should be pruned a bit? ContraryM1978 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody replied and it has been over a month so I think I'll just go ahead and add those 2 new sections to this article hope that's ok. Will try to find good references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.233.38 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, comment above was by me but I forgot to log in. ContraryM1978 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• That list of contributors should go, unless there are sources independent of this publication that comment on these particular contributions in relation to this publication (i.e., not just cite those articles). You may find some advice on improving this article in the magazine article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks useful, but to be honest I don't think I have the time or knowledge to do a big overhaul of this article. (Though I can see it needs it). I have now added those two sections I promised to add, and that makes sense because I went to those events. Even though the PN festival was vey big both times (I saw it!), it was really difficult locating press references to it. I found a Daily Telegraph article about the Against Stupidity Award though, so I have included that. I want to work on some other article but might come back to this one sometime in the future? ContraryM1978 (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've finally done a little work on this article to highlight some of Philosophy Now's most noted (by the media) past content by creating a scoops and controversies section. Hope this helps. I also intend to create a short paragraph on the Philosophy Now Radio Show, which was a regular radio programme on Resonance FM, even though the show appears no long to be running. ContraryM1978 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philosophy Now. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.delta.edu/rspfeiff/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate article on Philosophy Now Festival

I wanted to add quite a lot more material on the Philosophy Now Festival, which I have attended several times (I have programmes etc). However, as it has gained in prominence over recent years, and has attracted mainstream press coverage making it notable independently of the magazine that organises it, I think I'd suggest creating a new, separate article on the festival. Any comments? ContraryM1978 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, I've started a new article for th Philosophy Now Festival as I suggested here recently. I'm glad I did - there is quite a lot of notable material to include and it might take a while to get it right. ContraryM1978 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)