Talk:GQ

Untitled

Since Gentleman's Quarterly is a historical curiosity rather than the actual name of the magazine, wouldn't it make sense to move this page to GQ (magazine)? --Dtcdthingy 21:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Overtly politica territory?

Does featuring a political leader on the cover necessarily lend itself to endorsing a specific political ideology? Granted, I have not read that particular issue of this publication, but based on the magazine's general subject matter I would doubt it espouses political rhetoric. --NEMT 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs serious work. Right now it reads like a simple advertisement for the magazine.-PassionoftheDamon 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets try to add sources going forward, that would help greatly. Thanks --Tom 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is GQ related to the Gentlemen's Quarterly, which started in the 1920's, as a modification of the original monthly Gentlemen's Magazine, which had been published since the 18th century? I seem to have read that somewhere, but no mention of this is made in the article. The original 18th century Gentlemen's Magazine is most famous for having provided the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" which appeared on its logo) for the new currency being developed by the Continental Congress. Maybe it's just an urban myth, but might be worth researching.72.203.165.45 (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Non notable cover image

I'm all for having a cover image but in other magazine article editors are saying non free covers should not be used and only a logo should be used in the infobox but that a particularly notable cover image with some commentary might be included in the article. The cover image showing Ryan Gosling does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article as being particularly notable. That issue number isn't anything special, not a first issue or a hundredth issue or anything. I'd like to see a more significant image used or some explanation provided for why that image was chosen. -- Horkana (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The GQ website has a gallery of past covers. Their choice for that article of a cover with JFK seems particularly notable and historical and would be a good choice for here too. There are also some covers from the time the magazine was called Apparel Arts which might be interesting. It's such a long list including 528 covers it is hard to know what to choose. The Ryan Gosling cover could probably be kept for contrast as an example of the modern GQ. Will have to wait but if someone else wants to change it before I have time please go ahead. -- Horkana (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:GQ magazine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GQ magazine.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Art Cooper overly credited with magazine shift

When Condé Nast Publications purchased GQ from Esquire, it freed the editorial and advertising staffs both to compete directly with Esquire magazine. So the shift from strictly fashion and style to a truly general-interest magazine began under editor Art Haber. Perhaps the single event that this transition can be hung on was the creation of its annual men of the year awards, and that was unambiguously the initiative of publisher Steve Florio. By the time Cooper replaced Haber, the magazine's circulation had risen to over 800,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsperberg (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with GQ Thailand

There's not enough content in GQ Thailand to merit a separate page, and probably not enough notability either. What little is there would be better accommodated in a short paragraph here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Merge GQ Thailand is a small article and a somewhat unimportant entity. It's GQ that makes it known, not the fact it's from Thailand. Put it with the main article...Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

- Publisher incorrect in infobox. - Out of date cover shot in infobox (showing cover from November 2007) - Circulation numbers presented are from 2013. NickBoydCU (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GQ. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907043118/http://gawker.com:80/5352827/ to http://gawker.com/5352827/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GQ. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907043118/http://gawker.com/5352827/ to http://gawker.com/5352827/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413233748/http://www.magsdirect.com/gq-information.html to http://www.magsdirect.com/gq-information.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexist section

Hello everyone! As I was patrolling recent changes I noticed an IP blanking the sexist section of the article without reason. As I saw the section was sourced and no reason was given I reverted. They have since left me a message on my talk page (can be viewed here) explaining their reasons. I agree with them. Even just quickly glancing over the section it needs to be better sourced and the tone needs to be changed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a problematic section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: An IP recently removed some of the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"GQ Jr." spinoff circa 1965?

I have heard there was spinoff version aimed at teen guys, circa 1965-1966. The name may have been "GQ Jr." Supposedly it only lasted a few issues. Anyone have any information on that? PapayaSF (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)