Talk:If (magazine)

Comment

I find that opening paragraph confusing. Can't someone give this a chronological description? Pepso 14:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to "Worlds of Tomorrow" that is supposed to go to an article about the magazine, but instead links to an article about an anthology of the same name. I can find no evidence of an article about the magazine, but whether or not there is one, the link needs fixing. Moremoth (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Lower case title

I'd like to remove the "lower case" tag. I know the magazine was often referred to by fans using lower case, but it is invariably indexed in the secondary sources with upper case "I". The masthead on the issues I checked uses all caps. The cover uses a lower case "if" more often than upper case, but it's not invariant. I think we should follow secondary source usage here. Any comments? If nobody objects I'll change it in a few days. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bits and Pieces

From Robinson, Frank M. (1999). Science Fiction of the 20th Century: An Illustrated History. New York: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-6572-3.

Robinson describes IF as the "most major of the minors" (Minors being the minor sf mags). (p. 126) Robinson always spells it IF.

"IF' had always been a neat package with attractive covers and perfect binding (glue, no staples). It had also managed to stay afloat during a period when the number of magazines dropped from a high of forty-six titles in 1953 to less than a dozen by 1960." (p. 128)

"He [Pohl] also regarded the magazine as more or less a 'fun' project. But Galaxy was really his baby and was considered the prestige magazine of the two." (p. 128)

"Pohl was the only on who was surprised when he won three Hugos in a row for editing IF. It had been fun, and the fun had showed." (p. 129)

Much of the other information is duplicated. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also to OrangeMike who added some of this material; I moved a couple of bits around, and deleted a couple of bits I felt weren't really necessary. Let me know if you disagree. Mike Christie (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; but I do think the "stayed afloat" is relevant, given the mortality rate in that era. (Lord, if only there were still that "less than a dozen" pro mags around!) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lords yes. Wouldn't it be nice to have that many choices? I agree, looks good both Mikes. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK -- I added the numbers to the section on the ANC liquidation. Robinson isn't giving an opinion, so I didn't mention him, just used his numbers. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From L. Sprague de Camp's Science-Fiction Handbook (p. 117):

"QUINN PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Kingston, N.Y. is the firm of James L. Quinn, who publishes the bi-monthly digest-sizd If Worlds of Science Fiction, or simply If, soon to be a monthly. Mr. Quinn is not to be confused with Robert Guinn, owner of Galaxy Publishing Corporation, or with the veteran fantasy author Seabury Quinn. This magazine pays from one and a half cents a word up to on acceptance; two cents and up to established writers. It runs all science fiction, all original material, no articles, and no serials, and buys all magazine and anthology rights but returns specific subsidiary rights on request. The length limit is about 21,000 words. Until recently Mr. Guinn [sic] edited the magazine himself, but he has now retained LARRY T. SHAW, a small owlish-looking young man with a variety of previous editorial experience, as editor.

I couldn't figure out how to integrate this material -- so I'm just copying it here. -- llywrch (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The pay rates are worth including, I think. Most of the rest (except the rather nice description of Shaw!) seems already in the article, except for the note on length limit. Is that worth putting in? Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Length limits and pay rates, in addition to having always been changeable at publisher's whim, are getting pretty fancrufty. (The description of Shaw might be incorporated into his article, though.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pay rates might be worth mentioning in the bit where the article talks about Pohl raising the rates on Galaxy, and leaving If at one cent a word. As you say, though, there's no telling what the rates had been in the interim. I'll leave it out and see if anyone else thinks it's worth adding. Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the points I found most interesting was that at one time it was "all science-fiction" -- which I take to mean no non-fiction articles, book reviews, etc. -- & that the name was somewhat unclear even at the beginning. As for the description of Shaw, he already has an article so that info might fit better there. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was some non-fiction material; the article has a note on the first issue: "In addition to the fiction and the editorial by Fairman, there was a letter column, a profile of Wilson Tucker, a selection of science news, a guest editorial by Ken Slater, a well-known British fan, and an approving review of the TV show Tales of Tomorrow." I suspect de Camp means that the magazine wasn't accepting fantasy. Several magazines that took fantasy were starting or had started around that time -- F&SF, Fantasy Fiction, and I think some others. If we agree that's a clear interpretation, I think you're right that that could be added to the article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Status?

According to the Penn library's list of Serial first renewals, IF magazine didn't renew any of their magazine copyrights. Does anyone know if this is correct? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm don't know whether that source is definitive -- what I've always done to check copyright is to follow the instructions here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

iF magazine?

Does anyone know anything about iF magazine, which has the web site http://www.ifmagazine.com ? Is it just a web site, or a print magazine? How notable is it? Does it need a WP article of its own? At least, does this article need some sort of hat note to tell people looking for that iF that they've come to the wrong place? For that matter, does someone still hold the trademark for our IF, and if so does the new magazine violate that trademark? -- Zsero (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it. I'd suggest that if this new magazine acquires a WP articles we add a hatnote at that point. Mike Christie (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that at present it's a blank page with an "under construction" note and a logo, I'm not gonna sweat it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It's definitely a functioning web site with all sorts of articles, a staff page that lists 17 people, and an archive that has items from 2006. The more I look at it the more it seems like this is a serious entity, though I'd never heard of it until yesterday. It's cited as a source in WP articles, which is how I found out about it in the first place; I saw something from 2009 sourced to "If magazine" and thought "whoa, has my favourite SF magazine started up again?!" -- Zsero (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's odd; all there is at http://www.ifmagazine.com is the logo and under-construction notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What's odd is that this is all you see. At that very same URL I find a fully-functioning site. -- Zsero (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the site, I'll add that this is an entertainment and pop-culture website, with very little of the SFnal about it (unless you consider the Saw franchise SF). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not the IF of my youth :-( -- Zsero (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Graph label for y-axis is wrong

Hi.

The graph that shows the amount of magazines in circulation as a function of the year indicates that the amounts are in thousands ("Circulation in '000s"). However, the axis has values in the thousands as well (40,000; 60,000; etc.). As per the text, which states that circulation rose to 60,000 copies (...), the graph label is wrong for the y-axis. If 60,000 is in '000s, then the value shown isn't 60,000 but actually 60,000,000. All the values have been amplified by a factor 1,000. Either the label has to drop the "in '000s" part or the values shown have to be divided by 1,000 (so 40, 60, etc.).

Seigneur101 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right; I will try to fix this, but may not get to it today. Mike Christie (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. I've fixed the axis label and reloaded the image. --DavidCane (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

First name in cites

Hello, just a minor heads up: Why are some citations including the first name of the author, whilst some do not? Compare "Michael Ashley, Transformations, p. 273." with "Ashley, Transformations, p. 127." for example. --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No good reason; I've made it consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline and Merger section

Re: "Eight selections of stories from If have been published." There's also the anthology 6 Fingers of Time. Here's a description: CONTENTS: The 6 Fingers Of Time And 5 Other Science Fiction Novelets ed. Anon. (by Samuel H. Post) (MacFadden Books 50-244, 1965, 50¢, 128pp, pb)

Cover says “...novellas from Galaxy magazine”, although all stories are from If!

• 7 · The Six Fingers Of Time · R. A. Lafferty · nv If September 1960
• 28 · A Pride Of Islands · C. C. MacApp · nv If May 1960
• 44 · Sitting Duck · Daniel F. Galouye · ss If July 1959
• 58 · I.O.U. · Edward Wellen · nv If March 1961
• 97 · To Each His Own · Jack Sharkey · ss If January 1960
• 109 · The Junkmakers · Albert Teichner · nv If July 1961

See http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?214281 Hope this helps!Darci (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; this SFE entry mentions this and another similar anthology. I'll add these to the article some time this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. I moved the list of anthologies to the bibliographic section, which I think is a more natural place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative selection of covers including some wraparound ones

The "External links" section points to the gallery at http://www.philsp.com/mags/if.html. It looks comprehensive enough for front covers, but it doesn't seem to have any wraparound ones. https://web.archive.org/web/20151026040215/http://thegoldenagesite.blogspot.com/2012/05/if-assortment-of-covers-1952-68-cover.html has some wraparound covers. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We do have one wraparound cover already in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I just wanted to share something I found that might be useful. TompaDompa (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, not a criticism. Attractive too; nice to get another chance to admire them (I sold mine a few years ago). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent relaunch

GreatStroidVerser, I don't think we need quite as much detail as you've added -- e.g. the science editor, the number of pages, or the fact that it's numbered 177. For due weight we should just give the relaunch a sentence or two. And why are there so many citations at the end of the paragraph? All we need is one reliable source [added: I meant this link] that gives the facts about the relaunch. I also see that several of the sources are not acceptable -- the Space Cowboys blog is not independent of the topic for example, and File 770 is a semiprozine -- not the worst source but surely we could find something in Locus? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that we do need this much detail. A short paragraph is too much detail? That's just silly. References include Locus. Twice. Why would I not put abundant references? In fact, you're the very guy that kept going on about references as I see in the revision history. Now it's too many? Come on now, you can't have it both ways. File 770 is a multiple Hugo-winning zine that has been around for decades, more reliable than most sources I'd venture. Why would I not add the science editor? This is supposed to be encyclopedic, not subjectively discretionary. The number of pages? Do pay close attention to the overly detailed discussion of the magazine's page numbers by year already provided in this article. And you make mention of the page numbers now? Why the one and not the other? Can't have it both ways. Due weight? That's an arbitrary stricture. Why was the issue number included? Why would it not be for a relaunch after decades of hibernation? Why are any of the issue numbers included in the article then? Because they mark notable moments of time in the magazine's history. The Space Cowboy reference is from an award-winning publisher, it's not simply a blog and since when does a valid reference have to be entirely independent? A reference is a reference when reporting facts. Do you not like facts? And not acceptable to whom exactly? You? I have viewed your history of gatekeeping and based on this current line of questioning that clearly underlies your intent here as well. You contradict yourself throughout in service to your gatekeeping. This is a Wiki. Remember that concept? This is not your personally-owned article, forever static, with a little bronze star on top. Everything that has been added to this article is valid, relevant and timely -- Wiki at its best. GreatStroidVerser (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines; you and I don't get to make up the rules. Due weight isn't an arbitrary stricture; it's part of the policy requiring a neutral point of view. The part of that policy I was referring to says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." A semipro revival is a minor aspect of this article. I linked to the wrong essay above; I meant to link to the guideline on reliable sources, which says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Space Cowboys source is not a good source because it's written by someone who is not independent of the topic, and it is indeed a blog -- see here, which is titled "blog, podcast". It's published on the publisher's website, so it could be considered to fall under this part of the guideline, which says "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process", but the publisher is not a news organization, so this is essentially an opinion. It might suffice if we just needed evidence that the issue existed, but we can do better than that.

See also this essay on overcitation. It says "If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses), and the last three citations are less reputable or less widely circulated (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out those less-reputable sources." Multiple citations are unnecessary and interfere with readability; if we have a high-quality source saying something we don't need ten or twenty of them. You'll see if you look at other articles that it's quite rare to see more than three citations together.

You say I'm acting as if I own the article, and there's a policy that says nobody owns it, so you are right to raise the issue. However, that policy also says "While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership." This article is a featured article, and I'm trying to do exactly that -- explain civilly why I think we need to trim some of what you've added. I would like to collaborate with you on improving this article, not fight about it. I should also mention that the requirements for a featured article say it must be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". We need to use the best sources available.

Re the page count: the article doesn't mention the page count for Hong's semipro version; these revivals are less important than the original so I think less detail is needed, but since the page count is given in the bibliographic details section we could add it there, along with the price; I think I can dig up the page length and price for Hong's version too. I would like to cut the paragraph you've added to Worlds of IF was relaunched as a digest-sized semiprofessional magazine in February 2024 by Starship Sloane Publishing, with Justin T. O'Conor Sloane as editor. The issue included reprinted material by Robert Silverberg and David Brin as well as some original fiction. Then move the mention of the page count to the "Bibliographic details" section, and cut the citations to the minimum high-quality sources needed to establish those facts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and trimmed the entry down to a couple of sentences, with two citations, to the SFE and to the new issue itself. See this essay that explains how disputed edits are handled. If you still feel your version is better, I will post a note at the Wikipedia science fiction project page, which may bring others here to discuss it so we can get a consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)