Talk:The Guardian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Guardian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | The Guardian was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Today in Focus was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Guardian. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | The La Lista article was blanked on August 12, 2024 and that title now redirects to The Guardian. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history. |
Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2025
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Claim is that The Guardian was last named Newspaper of the Year at the British Press Awards in 2014. In fact the most recent award was in 2023, as in Wikipedia's own report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Press_Awards# 2A02:C7C:64CA:E600:146A:5497:15FB:977B (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Done 🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 18:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2025
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The wikilink to Comment is Free in the third paragraph of The Guardian § Online media is circular (simply redirects back to the same section). Please remove it. 240B:C020:4E5:A511:F928:82C2:DC62:3699 (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done Day Creature (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
No flaws? No critical errors?
Can't believe that the Guardian was/is a publication which never had erred in its whole history, with the latest blunder being the introduction of the anti-anti-ad blocker. ~2025-41606-00 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Clarification: scope and framing of “50 photographs that reshaped sport” (2023)
I am proposing a clarification regarding the editorial framing of The Guardian’s 2023 feature “50 photographs that reshaped sport.”
The article is structured as a retrospective canon spanning multiple eras of sport, presenting selected images as historically formative moments rather than contemporaneous news photography. The feature places photographs from different decades within a single curated framework, including images associated with figures such as Muhammad Ali and other historically definitive athletes.
This clarification is offered to ensure accurate understanding of the article’s scope and intent, as the feature functions as a historical retrospective rather than a routine gallery or event recap. No changes to article content are proposed at this time. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you (or the LLM you're using) want clarified, or what this clarification might be. (The article didn't on 25 December, and doesn't now, mention or refer to the Guardian article "50 photographs that reshaped sport".) But I note the last sentence: "No changes to article content are proposed at this time." -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Happy New Year, and thank you for the clarification.
- Understood no changes to article content were being proposed in that comment. My intent there was simply to note the broader context for why I had sought third-party input, given some back-and-forth with other editors regarding the interpretation of factual, independent sources elsewhere.
- I appreciate you taking the time to respond and to help keep the discussion focused and properly scoped. I’ll keep any future requests concise and limited to specific, actionable edit proposals, as you outlined earlier. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- @VisualArchiveEditor, please do not use LLMs or AI tools to write your messages to other people - it is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and it makes it very hard for us to understand what you are actually wanting. You will find it a lot easier if you just write your own comments and stick to the key points you are asking about. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2026
References in popular culture. The founding of the Manchester Guardian is depicted in Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" (2018). Plumalux (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)