This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Newspapers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Journalism Low‑importance 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Even its sister publication OC Weekly's article is larger. This article needs more info on early history, the Village Voice purchase, the New Times Media agreement that led to the demise of New Times LA, etc. ^{Blank Verse} 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. For such an important independent paper it really needs a much more comprehensive entry. patrickw 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

i just happened to be talking about the "takeover" this morning with my boss (unfortunately, i work in an agency that the LA Weekly targets more frequently than we'd like), there isn't alot of information out there, but i did read that the New Times L.A. was around up until 2002 (i used to pick it up while in college). There is an LA Times article i just read today that talks a little about the merger, check it out here: [1] -- HatchetFaceBuick 20:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Some first steps taken to address the weak point in this article pointed out above. Updated the article to reflect staff turnover, some of the controversy of brining in Jill Stewart in to become news editor. At some point, I believe it'd be worthwhile to create a section within the article dedicated to the New Times acquisition and the fairly big changes to editorial policy and staff that have resulted since. Pisciotta11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC). reply

[2]

Image:Laweeklylogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Image:06cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on LA Weekly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704210832/http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/2006/11/laceys_wednesday_night_massacr_1.html to http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/2006/11/laceys_wednesday_night_massacr_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704210832/http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/2006/11/laceys_wednesday_night_massacr_1.html to http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/2006/11/laceys_wednesday_night_massacr_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130005039/http://lacitybeat.com:80/cms/story/detail/new_times/7943/ to http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/new_times/7943/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130005039/http://lacitybeat.com:80/cms/story/detail/new_times/7943/ to http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/new_times/7943/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LA Weekly. 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://archive.is/20120604044154/http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/magform.asp to http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/magform.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply