This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Magazines (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Media (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Journalism portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Journalism portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

January 2012

Tucker Max is using this page as a method of discovering if you're good enough to be his assistant. Good luck. (unsigned)


)))))+uifa sdhfgtdhcjxkbvkgdfhuvvc

Pharma Focus Asia 123www.pharmafocusasia.com/magazine/archives/ --222.67.209.21 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, the publisher is a stinger, who don't offer a sample issue ~__^--222.67.209.21 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if someone come across any fake magazines in the following, please let me know http://pharmcast.tradepub.com/ --222.67.213.171 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How current is the data?

I think the references NEED to say when the data was accessed. The reader has no way of know how old these constantly changing figures are. ike9898 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A look at the article history suggests that the US data was updated in Jan 2009. ike9898 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

figures

The American magazine circulation numbers have been out for weeks - this article needs updating.91.107.104.32 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of data for Asian magazines

Where is the source come from? I know some magazines in Hong Kong and Taiwan has a circulations of more than 100,000 but they are not listed here. --Quest for Truth (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Why is it that some of the magazines' titles aren't in italics?? Bobnorwal (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

They all should be per MOS:ITALIC.--Lexein (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands

The Netherlands section is all wrong, a lot of brochures, folders, door-to-door papers and free handout papers are included. Would someone correct this.(?) Nukemduke (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the Circulation aspect

One of the key flaws in this particular post as I went to add a new one is it is difficult to "Verify" the distribution. The page is viable, yet grossly incomplete. With that said, in order to keep the page true, shall we remove the "Circulation" component which should therefore remove the "Verify" concern of an otherwise useful page? Dfortuna (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC).

Top magazine missing

I'm just curious if anyone knows how the definitions are tortured so as to exclude the most widely circulated magazine in the world and the most widely read magazine in the world from being included from this article? --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

how can it be top in the world, yet not appear on any of the regional lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.86.53 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 December 2014‎
Tom Hulse The problem is that the sources providing circulation numbers are published by organizations which help marketers buy advertising in the magazines. Magazines which do not sell advertising are not included in their lists. The Watchtower, an extremely popular religious magazine which is given away for free, is not included here because it does not sell advertising. I work for Consumer Reports, a United States magazine with 8 million paid subscribers and it also is not included here.
Besides these lists only providing information about magazines which sell advertising, another bias is that they make no distinction between digital versus paper circulation or between free versus subscription circulation. AARP, named as the most popular magazine, is provided for "free" to people in the United States who join a very popular club and who mostly want the benefits of organization membership, not the included magazine subscription. Likewise, a significant percentage of The Watchtower circulation is when someone gives the magazine away for free, and in my opinion, people receiving a free thing are a different kind of reader than someone who pays money to receive something.
There are email-only newsletters which have much higher subscriber numbers, and these are not included in this list at all. However, this is a bit unfair because some of these magazines are combining their email numbers with their paper numbers to get a high subscription count.
There are lots of ways that this page could be improved, but it is very difficult to find any one source which describes this issue. Tom Hulse, if you can propose a system for counting circulation, then I would discuss that with you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
When I posted that question, I didn't realize it was during a tiny window of time when someone had deleted the whole "worldwide" section. I see now that the article has included them for quite awhile. I would strongly agree though, that there is a huge problem with our sources in general in this article. They seem to vary widely in their bias, but all are just plain incorrect if used to support general magazine circulation comparisons that would be useful to a Wikipedia article. In fact, it's not really bias; they're open about what they document. These sources are merely interested in a different measurement than what our editors wish to use them to support. And it's not just paid vs unpaid either. Many of the regional sources are merely documenting the magazines that they work with, which is sometimes most of the big ones. It's deceiving in that it almost looks like a complete list of overall circulation for a given area, as our Wikipedia editors are using it for. I doubt there even exist the comprehensive types of sources and measurements of the magazine industry that we need to make a balanced article, even on a regional basis. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Magazine or Pamphlet

And what is the difference between a magazine and a pamphlet which the Watchtower seems more akin to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.233.4 (talk) 19:02, February 14, 2015

A pamphlet is usually regarding a single subject and is not a periodical. If you have a pamphlet that contains articles on multiple subjects and is published monthly or weekly, then it's called a magazine. P.S. Don't forget to sign your comments, thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide list

There are almost certainly more than two magazines by one publisher that are distributed worldwide. As such, the section does not currently seem to constitute a neutral point of view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)