Talk:Science fiction magazine: Difference between revisions

Science Fiction Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Start‑class High‑importance

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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment 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.

Science fiction magazine received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I've put a lot of time and research into this article and would appreciate some feedback. 209.247.222.103 21:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit, Hu, but be aware that there is someone who comes through here from time to time and dewikifies all dates. Rick Norwood 15:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit, Gtrmp. Rick Norwood 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad overview but entirely focused on American magazines, which is relevant historically but gives a less-than-complete picture. It needs either incorporating information about non-English magazines or splitting into two or more entries.

In digests, it might be worth including Apex Digest.

Cybermonklives 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Puppet masters.png 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 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo magazine appeared for four issues as a bedsheet in the 1970s.

To my knowledge, Galileo never published in a "bedsheet" format.

I have in my possession the following issues, all in 8 1/2 x 11 format with stapled spine:
Issue #4 July 1977 (quarterly)
Issue #5 October 1977 (quarterly)
Issue #6 January 1978 (bimonthly)
Issue #7 March 1978 (bimonthly)
Issue #8 May 1978 (bimonthly)
Issue #9 July 1978 (bimonthly)
Issue #10 September 1978 (bimonthly)
(catastrophic computer problems ensue, delaying next issue)
Issue #11 & 12 double issue June 1979 (bimonthly)
Issue #13 July 1979 (bimonthly)
Issue #14 September 1979 (bimonthly)
Issue #15 November 1979 (bimonthly)
Issue #16 January 1980 (bimonthly)

A 17th issue was planned, but the magazine folded.

Defunct magazines
Galileo, 1976–1978, 10 issues
Also incorrect (see above).

Based on this information, I intend to edit corrections into the article.
Despite Wikipedia's assertion that I am not logged in, I did indeed log in, but I have no idea if the four tildes will work.
mikeheadroom1
msgeary@hughes.net
66.82.9.103 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good info. I used it and what you posted to create a separate article for the magazine itself (Galileo). Thanks. Pmcalduff (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo published 16 bedsheet issues, as the current version of this article and several older versions I checked confirm. The "besheet" size is the 8.5 x 11 size, pulp era slang for "bigger than pulp". Rick Norwood (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ThrillingScienceFictionOctober1973.PNG 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) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair use established Pmcalduff (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the science fiction magazine The Leading Edge belong in the lists here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Authentic cover issue 29.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Startling Stories.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "current magazines" includes many marginal magazines and omits many others. In short, I suspect a magazine gets on the list when the editor of the magazine puts it there. Since it costs next to nothing to publish a webzine, and they come and go as rapidly as mayflies, there should be something to guide the reader of this article to the "major" magazines. I suggest that only magazines that the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America consider to be "professional magazines" should appear on the list of American magazines. For other countries, Locus might be a good source -- they cover international magazines regularly.

Here is SFWAs list of current English language sf and fantasy magazines. (Note that some non-US magazines appear on the list.)

• Analog Science Fiction and Fact
• Asimov's Science Fiction
• Baen's Universe
• Brutarian
• Cemetery Dance
• Clarkesworld Magazine
• Chizine
• Cosmos
• Dark Wisdom
• Dragon
• The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction
• Odyssey - Adventures in Science
• Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show
• Pedestal Magazine
• Realms of Fantasy
• Strange Horizons
• Subterranean Magazine

Comments? Recommendations?

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I'd say any US magazine not on this list can be cut. I'd go further and say that it's not the job of this particular article to list all current professional sf magazines. A list article could be created for that. This article ought to list magazines notable for some reason (historical significance, controversy, current market leaders, etc.), and provide a pointer to any lists. Someone started a "defunct American sf magazines template" which I think is not going to last; there are far too many for a template. It's at the bottom of quite a few magazine articles, such as If, for example. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this list is too restrictive: magazines not on the list might be notable anyway, e.g. if stories from them have been nominated for major awards or included in best of the year anthologies (e.g., "The Way He Does It" by Jeffrey Ford from Electric Velocipede #10 being nominated for a World Fantasy Award. (I subscribe to EV but I'm not connected with it or its editor in any other way.) --Jim Henry (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single nominee could be dumb luck; if they don't meet our general standard of notability, publishing a single nominee is not enough, especially when we're talking about any award below the Hugo/Nebula level, be it a Tiptree or a Ditmar or whatever that libertarian thing is. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SFWA list is far too restrictive, because it would eliminate magazines that are notable yet don't qualify as professional under their rules. It would also eliminate magazines that DO qualify as professional under their rules yet they haven't gotten around to approving yet. Considering the trouble they have getting members approved in a timely manner right now, I don't think a 'cratic bottleneck should keep magazines off this list. Obviously not every magazine that exists should be on it, but I think a criteria based on length of publication, more than 3 stories reprinted in major Best Of volumes or more than 10 honorable mentions in same, or 2 or more nominations/wins for major awards (for the magazine itself, for the editor of the magazine, or for the stories in the magazine), are excellent criteria for marking a magazine as notable. Also, Orange Mike, the idea that the World Fantasy Award is below the Hugo/Nebula level is patently absurd. And though the Tiptree may not have been around for as long, it is certainly a major award to get. It seems to me like you have some kind of personal issue with EV or with small press magazines in general for you to make a statement like that. Theangryblackwoman (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]