| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Record Collector article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
First issue
edit"In September 1979, The Beatles Book came with a record collecting supplement, and the response was positive enough for O’Mahony to launch Record Collector as a separate entity in March 1980."
It would be more accurate to say that the No. 1 issue of Record Collector - the September 1979 issue - came with The Beatles Book as a supplement, since The Beatles Book was stapled inside Record Collector's pages. Record Collector continued to be published with The Beatles Book for 5 further monthly issues.
The No. 6 issue of Record Collector (March 1980) was the first issue to appear without The Beatles Book. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a little research shows that the first issue was Sept 1979. SilkTork (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Tone
editMost of this article is almost unchanged since it was created in 2006 (here) by an editor who contributed to no other articles. (Has anyone ever checked it for WP:COPYVIO?). It's very interesting, well written overall, and clearly created by someone who knows their stuff - but it's almost totally unsourced and fails to meet many of the MOS guidelines that articles should follow. Should it be rewritten from scratch based on reliable sources, left as it is, or simply be improved gradually and incrementally? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Glad you mentioned this. I made an edit yesterday that is often a tell-tale sign of WP:COPYVIO. It's definitely worth exploring that angle. -Thibbs (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I also became concerned reading the article at how much stuff is unsourced and appears to be OR. I checked on the query above regarding when the magazine was launched, and it is true - the first issue is Sept 1979. As such, I would suggest that we follow Ghmyrtle's suggestion, and remove all the material written by User:Bill Decker, a lot of which is inappropriate anyway, such as the list of "Distinguished Record Collector contributors – past and present", as it appears to be unreliable, and would simply get in the way of writing a useful article. SilkTork (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that someone called Bill Decker was a contributor to Record Collector back in 2010. As an RC subscriber, I would be sad to lose a lot of factually accurate information, but we do need to look hard at sourcing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re RC being an offshoot of The Beatles Book - I think that's true. Is this reliable enough? See also here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- The promotional nature of the writing had led me to think it was likely written by someone closely involved with the magazine, so I'm not surprised to learn that Decker was a contributor. SilkTork (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I also became concerned reading the article at how much stuff is unsourced and appears to be OR. I checked on the query above regarding when the magazine was launched, and it is true - the first issue is Sept 1979. As such, I would suggest that we follow Ghmyrtle's suggestion, and remove all the material written by User:Bill Decker, a lot of which is inappropriate anyway, such as the list of "Distinguished Record Collector contributors – past and present", as it appears to be unreliable, and would simply get in the way of writing a useful article. SilkTork (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)