Talk:The New Indian Express
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The New Indian Express 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 written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small} | Brands High‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
Indian Express , The Indian Express and The New Indian Express
Indian Express was the name of the newspaper till 1999/2000 and then when it was split between two factions of Goenka families the Mumbai headquarted North & West Indian edition became The Indian Express (note the prefix 'the'),while the Souhtern editions headquarted in Chennai became The New Indian Express.Hence all Indian Express is supposed to have a seperate page as it was earlier. Southernstar (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the page INDIAN EXPRESS
It seems that out of some misunderstanding / confusion the page INDIAN EXPRESS has been merged with THE INDIAN EXPRESS.Tough they are same newspapers they need a different page as the INDIAN EPXRESS name was common for both the current day THE INDIAN EXPRESS and THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS.May be if there is no response/concerns then I will try to restore that page.Also I will try to add the reasons for bifurication. Southernstar (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The New Indian Express.jpeg
Please go to
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Questionable "facts"
- With a paid circulation of 301,601, it beats me how the paper reaches 24% of the national population!!
- No references at all for things like "arguably the flagship" (it either "is", or "isn't" -- what's "arguably" doing here?)
- "major, drastic and exceptionally modern layout and design makeover" sounds superfluous and is unsubstantiated.
Nshuks7 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Updated images
OTRS received updated images of the front page of the weekday and Sunday issues of the newspaper.
The article had both a logo and a front page with the 2008 design. I replaced the front page image with the 2011 redesign, but removed the logo. I also added the Sunday version below the info box. However, the text talks about the 2008 redesign, so could use some work to mention the 2011 redesign.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)