Talk:List of defunct American magazines

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sunshine

Surely Sunshine Magazine should be on this list, given its huge Middle America popularity during the middle of the 20th century. 198.73.131.132 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Tjaques in Canada 198.73.131.132 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and done. —ADavidB 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destinies

In the science fiction section the Destinies bookzine should be included. It featured a number of award-winning stories and remains a cult favourite. 69.172.79.122 (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sci-fi

Anybody who thinks that wikipedia has outgrown its early geek-o-rama personality need only look at this article: it lists 15 magazines and more than 30 sci-fi magazines! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost three years later, the geek-o-rama aura lingers: There are now many more non-sci-fi magazines ... but about half are red links. ALL of the sci-fi magazines are blue links. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the List of defunct American periodicals are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made, unless the addition is merely a bluelink to an existing article. Additional claims, beyond the mere appearance of a (notable, bluelinked) defunct periodical in this list, should be cited per WP:V.

As a courtesy to editors who may have added many claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged ^{[citation needed]} to allow some time for sources to be added. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to category?

Wouldn't this list be better as a category? There would be many thousands of magazines on this list if it were ever to be complete; that seems too unwieldy to be useful as a list, but a natural fit for a category. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A category would include the list items that have articles, though not those that are currently included as red links. Of course, without citations, it could be argued that the red links don't belong. —ADavidB 07:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think red links are a good thing, so I wouldn't make that case. You're right that the red links on the list have some use, but I don't feel it's useful enough if the eventual fate of this list is to be turned into a category -- we're just building up more work for someone to deal with later.

I have a copy of Frank Luther Mott's five volume history of American magazines, and he lists 23 pages of magazines, almost every one of which is now defunct, just covering the period up to 1849. I think a list as long as this would have to be doesn't really serve the reader well.

The relevant category already exists: it's Category:Defunct magazines of the United States. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have both? That is, keep this list as it is, while also adding the existing articles to the "Defunct magazines" category? A too-long list can be dealt with if/when it happens. —ADavidB 18:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see if anyone else comments. I think it would be better to get rid of the list, but I don't feel strongly about it, so let's just see if anyone else has an opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]