Talk:Shave (magazine)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Print magazine?[edit]

Here is a source that says it's an online magazine: http://www.tsbmag.com/2010/04/22/blog-of-the-week-shave-magazine/ --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Im not really sure how that source verifies that it is not a print as well. All that source talks about is what information can be found on the website. --Plasmanine (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not many sources explicitly detail that it is printed on paper as the term magazine usually implies this. http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/5/entertainment/55/30847 --Plasmanine (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing. The TSB cite reads "...that doesn’t mean I don’t know a good men's-centric blog when I see one. Hence, today’s entry in our Blog of the Week feature: Shave Magazine. The website features..."

This source not only calls the magazine a website, without referring to any print component, but also refers to it as a blog. Mondo Times calls it a free magazine based in Canada, and notes that the website is in English, but it doesn't say Shave is actually published as a print magazine.

There's something else: I've done a Google search, and can find virtually no mentions of Shave. This speaks to the whole issue of notability — generally, if a subject doesn't generate significant Google hits, Wikipedia doesn't deem it notable. I'm not a hardliner about basing notability on Google hits alone, but I do think we need specific secondary sourcing to show that Shave is a print publication. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Glad to have the discussion. TSB rings true to another notion over the misuse of the term 'blog.' I think it is clear that it is not a blog no more than Equire.com is a blog.

I was able to find many sources that refer to past issue covers for the magazine (mostly photographers who claim they shot it and approving fans) but I was also able to find the linkedin page of a sales manager who wrote on his page that it is a print "...it made sense for us to move into print." http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/imran-amlani/23/2b4/234

Also, I don't know if this a credible source, but I found a blog from a stylist who writes that he had the "...opportunity to style and direct the first print editorial fashion shoot for the Canadian men's magazine SHAVE." http://styleguy-jared.blogspot.com/2010/09/behind-scenes-at-shave-magazine-shoot.html --Plasmanine (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, per WP:ABOUTSELF, sources such as a person's LinkedIn page can only be used in an article about that person. However, I think the LinkedIn page of a sales manager for that magazine is essentially a LinkedIn page for the magazine, so that cite works for me. Another editor may think differently, but that's a bridge to cross another time.

So, I say go for it. I'd put in a phrase such as "print and online" with the LinkedIn cite, giving the quote in the footnote.

And it's a good thing we both checked: It looks as if Shave was online only for two years.

I'm sorry we got off to a rocky start, but I'm glad we were both able to work collaboratively. What's more, I'll look through some Shave interviews and if there are pertinent quotes to add to articles every so often, I'd be glad to do so. Obviously, you or anyone else can as well, but if you're only adding links to Shave, multiple times, that's a red flag, obviously.

Good working with you. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Good call. I will do that. Also, don't worry about the start, I don't take wiki edits too personally :) I am also glad we could work together collaboratively on this. --Plasmanine (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]