Talk:PiQ (magazine)

First issue

Well, the first issue arrived. I scanned the cover and added it to the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I was wondering what it looked like while waiting for it to come in the mail. Hatredcopter (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tenses

AnmaFinotera, stop with the baseless accusations of vandalism and stock responses to my edits of this article on my talk page (I call them stock responses since they requested references on a matter of grammar). I wasn't experimenting, and I clearly wasn't vandalizing, just changing the tense to what I felt was right and adding a clarification(that the issues were sent subscribers of newtype) and eliminating a redundancy (as its run dates are shown in the infobox). Also, a magazine is a periodical- just like newspapers- and when a newspaper ends its print run it becomes a was, not an is. Every single defunct newspaper I checked here (and I checked around thirty) referred to the newspaper as a was, not an is (for that matter, every defunct magazine I just checked uses the same tense). So I'm going to reestablish my edits; I look forward to your response in the interest of quelling this disagreement. Westrim (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making a vandalistic action in the article by your wholly inappropriate changing of the title of a reference. It isn't prose, it doesn't need changing regardless of the tense issue. The title of a reference should be its actual title, not one you make up. For the tense, the magazine still exists, whether its defunct or not. It IS a magazine that no longer is in print. Same as a television series. It may be off the air, but it still IS a television series. Other pages violating the MoS has nothing do to with this one. I've asked a copyeditor who is better versed in grammar than either of us to offer a third opinion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First, stop the hostile tone. I'm editing the grammar, not attacking you honor, intelligence, or English skills. Second, what do TV series have in common with magazines? That isn't a very relevant citation. Third, I didn't realize that I was editing a reference and not a part of the article: looking at it on the edit page it just looked like another sentence, not a part of a reference, so that was an unintended mistake, and definitely not vandalism. However, in realizing that it was a reference I checked the reference and it was gone- I guess they took the magazines site down, so I'll remove that. Fourth, it's not just other pages; every single defunct American magazine between a and d used the past tense. That's a pretty darn systematic error, if it is an error. I think it's because we're not talking about the magazine itself, but the publishing of the magazine- first it is published, and then it was published. I'll change it again, and please respond here before you undo it. (written in response to your first draft, but had to step away). Westrim (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You get a hostile tone when you keep redoing an edit you have been told to stop doing. I also told you multiple times you were changing a ref. If you'd bother to read your talk page instead of just clearing it, you might have spotted that. Do NOT change it again. If you do, you will violate WP:3RR and I will happily report you. Why can't you wait for a third opinion? Just leave it alone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The link (and thus, what is being refenced) no longer exists. And you took a hostile tone from your first revert of my edits here. Westrim (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you changed the reference for no valid reason. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. At least I thought it was valid, because I thought it was a sentence in the article, not in the reference. See my second post. And the PIQ site is still nonexistent nowWestrim (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And see my answer...you were told it was a ref. Irrelevant now since its gone and apparently the website had never been hit by the Internet Archive. In the future, try using the edit summary more often to explain your edits, especially when removing content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And when you told me it was a reference in your first response, I checked it, realized my mistake, realized it no longer existed, and deleted it (the timing is a bit off due to balky connection and external intervention, i.e. dinner). I'm sorry I didn't thoroughly comprehend your responses to my edits, and I'm sorry I didn't realize where the sentence was. Can we get back to the what I was focusing on, and initially thought you were focusing on, and sort out what tense to give the article.Westrim (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even links which no longer work are valid references. They indicate that at one point the link worked and contained the specific information. Please do not remove it again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nihonjoe just weighed in, noted that with the date there the reference is still useful. Thank you, Nihonjoe. However, could everyone please leave my talk page alone? I wasn't vandalizing (that implies intent, and I certainly had no intent to degrade the article), I was trying to be constructive, and AnmaFinotera's comments were made before seeing my reasoning. Or at least they were written as if they were. Sorry I can only type about 20WPMWestrim (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on the issue of the ref. The copyeditor I asked about the tense is Scartol. On another note, Nihonjoe, I marked it a stub because of the discussion on the Assessment page. Do you think its long enough be considered a very low level start? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's too large to be a stub, IMO. It would be a Start in my book. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Copyeditor has arrived! =) Like using "would" to describe simple past tense, the use of present vs. past for an extinct publication – so far as I know – is not a rule which is set in stone. (The absence of a guideline here on WP testifies, I believe, to its fluidity.)

Thinking in terms of pure logic, I can't see a more inherent reason to past-ify magazines compared to books. (Both have limited printing runs – should we only use present tense to refer to books which are still being reprinted?) While it does seem that most WP articles for extinct periodicals use the past tense, I don't believe this creates a requisite any more than the prevalence of infoboxes demands their inclusion. (I don't care for infoboxes myself.)

As a reader, however, when I see "is" used to describe a magazine, I think immediately that it's still being published. Readjusting in the next sentence (which the reader will naturally do), therefore, will require a little bit of work. Because one primary mandate for the writer is to relieve the reader of all excess labor, I would recommend using "was" here. – Scartol • Tok 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: Since I can't imagine this is the first time a discussion like that has taken place here, you might want to inquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. – Scartol • Tok 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the sentence change suggested below by Keeper? (I hadn't realized you were away from wiki for awhile when I initially left my request :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scartol, I completely understand the logic you are applying here, and agree that primarily we should be concerned with "how the reader reads", and with what level of fluidity. Grammatically, it still is a magazine though, (or newspaper, or other periodical) but since it is no longer published, it is inherently awkward to say is, I agree. I don't believe we should completely sacrifice grammatical accuracy (and I agree there's differentiation in different fields as to whether "is" is accurate) for the sake of reader ease, therefore I offered a solution that quickly (as in within a word or two of is) clarifies that it is discontinued (I used the word "former", but was wisely redirected). What do you think of the solution, lead sentence as it reads now? Keeper ǀ 76 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion and tenses

The sentence seems lonely with nothing else there. Is there any more information we can add about how the site operated before shutdown? I only saw it twice, and it didn't stick with me. Oh, and I sent a query to a Purdue University site called the Online Writing Lab about the tenses. Waiting for their response. Westrim (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Purdue University's answer wouldn't make a difference. The issue is Wikipedia editing guidelines, not just pure tense. Its Wikipedia guidelines that determines if we consider a magazine that isn't published to be "is a magazine" or "was a magazine." As for the lack of info...there really isn't much. The website was a blog type thing, no real info at all. With only four issues, I suspect this one will eventually be merged back to A.D. Vision. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They're reputable. I can't find anything in Wikipedia about how to tense periodicals, and every periodical page I looked at backed my position on the issue (though you don't seem to find that compelling). Also, didn't you just elevate this from stub? Westrim (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has its own editing guidelines regarding that sort of thing, and it isn't purely a grammar issue. Its a matter of what Wikipedia considers to be "is" versus "was". I elevated to start because Nihonjoe said he thought it was. I disagree, as does another editor, though, who also called it a stub. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And where specifically are those guidelines? I've looked all through the edit help pages, and I can't find anything regarding this issue, nor any discussion of "is" vs. "was". Please provide links, and please address the unanimity of every other defunct magazine article on this issue. And I don't mind whatever the article is classified as, it just looked like you agreed with him since you changed it with no fuss. Westrim (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough here to have a decent stand-alone article. There's no reason to merge it to the ADV article. There's nothing wrong with having an article this size, especially since it's well-sourced. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a really easy solution to whether this "is a magazine" or "was a magazine". Change the lead sentence to be clearer. I will say though first, it is a magazine, always will be. It is a magazine that was published but is no longer published. (Actions are past tense, not items). My grandma is a person that was alive 3 years ago, as an example. To solve the confusion and apparent difference in style, the lead sentence could be (and should be) changed to read something like:

PiQ (pronounced /piːk/) is a former American popular culture magazine that was published by PiQ, LLC, a subsidiary of A.D. Vision, from March to July 2008. (ref).

All I did was add the word former (could also use the word "defunct" but it's harsher) in the lead, makes it crystal clear from the outset. Removed the word "once" in front of "published", it's ambiguous (was it published only once? From what I can tell, it was published four times). Is this an acceptable solution? Keeper ǀ 76 14:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems okay to me, though I'll wait for AnmaFinotera to weigh in. I'm not sure that former will work though, seems redundant to was. Also, the once you removed was referring to it time wise (as in once upon a time), not number of issues wise. Westrim (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "once", the ambiguity that you mention is exactly why I removed it. I understood what it meant in context, but there is more ambiguity with that particular word than with the word "former", and therefore used it as (1) a clarifier, and (2) to replace the removed clarifier "once". There is no redundancy (or at least, only mild redundancy) to use the words "was" and "former" in the same sentence, they quite commonly and naturally occur together. The sentence would read fine without the "was" though, to be fair, and just say

PiQ is a former American popular culture magazine published by PiQ, LLC...from March to July 2008 Keeper ǀ 76 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution to me. It still notes the magazine is, as in it exists, while quickly indicating it is no longer published. I also agree with the removal of once, as it is more ambiguous. It could indicate being out of print, but it could also indicate that it simply changed publishers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that, is that PiQ is a magazine, but was published. I'd get rid of "former", that's inaccurate. It's still an American Popular Culture magazine, regardless of not being published. So, I'd reccommend ''PiQ is a American popular culture magazinet which/that was published by PiQ, LLC...from March to July 2008 Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Good catch Gwynand. I broke my own "rule" trying to fix it to conform to the "rule". What about the word "defunct" or something similar as a clarifier (mostly to ease those that have a problem with simply saying is). Keeper ǀ 76 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will also note here that there are several articles that have this incorrect, as pointed out by Westrim, including several articles that share the same category (disestablished blah blah blah from 2008)...Keeper ǀ 76 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm trying to think of the best word. "Defunct" seems to be quite popular on Wikipedia, for categories and articles alike, although I'm not sure it applies to the magazine itself. The building they published it in might be defunct, or the business publishing it might be defunct, but the actual magazine simply doesn't have new issues coming out, I'm not sure if that makes it defunct. I wouldn't call the Harry Potter series of books defunct just because Rowling is no longer writing new ones... although that might be a different topic. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discontinued" would seem to me to be an appropriate word in that context... I share your slight unease with "defunct" for some reason. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discontinued seems good. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, discontinued. Much better. From the onset, I never liked defunct. Ugly. Keeper ǀ 76 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I only said defunct because that was the name on the lists (other lists, not the ones that this article has already been added to); I never thought it should be used in the magazine's article. And once again (since people keep on not checking for themselves at the "Category:Defunct magazines of the United States" list) EVERY SINGLE ONE of the now forty or fifty magazines I checked on the page UNIVERSALLY used "was" in the page's title sentence. Examples:"After Dark was an entertainment magazine; A Magazine was founded in 1989; The Little Pilgrim (1853 - 1868) was a periodical... Does everone get it now, because I'm tired of repeating myself to no recognition of what I just said. Westrim (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everything should be "was" except for the sentence describing the magazine. "Is" is correct, PiQ, and other magazines, are still magazines now regardless of any more issues coming out or not. The rest of the articles should be fixed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone wrote them all that way sometime, with no intervention by a copy editor if it is in fact wrong. Still waiting for actual proof that it is. Oh, and defunct wouldn't apply to a book, since it's not a periodical, something which is by design updated... periodically. The worst a book can suffer is going out of print, and that sure hasn't happened to the HP series yet.Westrim (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of fixing the others. They are magazines, newspapers, etc, that were published. Saying was published, was founded, etc, are correct, and I recognize that Westrim, from the beginning. But they are discontinued magazine, still magazines. The only time I could (grammatically) say "magazine x" was a magazine is if it ceases to exist, not ceases to be published. For example, if I hold up my car and driver, I would say this is a magazine. If I light it on fire, I could point to the pile of ash on the floor and say "This was a magazine". There is a fundamental difference, and I'm changing the others to more clearly and correctly reflect that. It will take a while, I hope you and others will help make Wikipedia better in this very trivially way. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, I will not use the term defunct anywhere in my improvements to the grammar. Where appropriate, I'm using the term discontinued to explain that it is a magazine (or newspaper) that is no longer published/circulated. Keeper ǀ 76 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but I'd still like a reference- Wikipedia edit rules, a grammar site that addresses this, anything- to back that up. To my understanding, when talking about the whole run of a periodical it is not referred to by the magazines that make up the run, but the act of publishing the run. Westrim (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I referred to the Harry Potter series which more or less had a schedule of releases and which is now "done". It still is a series, as PiQ still is a magazine, albeit discontinued. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible guidance

Westrim, I need to admit that I am seriously struggling to find any precedence or references that back up my changes to this (and several other) articles, as you requested. Frankly, I'm not finding anything that refutes my changes either, which is equally frustrating. I've looked offline, including the Purdue resource you mentioned, and literally cannot find anything. I'm hoping that you can see my logic in making the changes however, and I did find a slightly related past discussion on WikiProject Grammar, which clarifies a bit I think. (Basically it said if some of the "discontinued" products, in this example cars and video games, are still in existence, you should grammatically say "is" with clarifiers about it being discontinued, dissolved, etc in the lead.) I hope that helps, I really feel strongly about this for some reason, I'm a gnome at heart, and this one has really challenged me. I came into this thinking it was quite obvious (maybe that's why there's no direction? I don't know), and I'm going to continue to make changes to what I perceive to be incorrect uses of the term was, especially for very current discontinuations (I've been working through the 2008 category and the 2007. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say I fell into this discussion for the same reasons. The usage you've been advocating is the one that makes the most sense to me (ie it is currently existing, but was published in the past, hence "Foo Times is a discontinued magazine that was published...") but it's a case of "feels right" rather than anything genuinely 100% decisive. Westrim's point about referring to the print run of the magazine when you talk about it does, inherently, make sense - but it still sounds wrong to me! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to all for taking a look at this. I never intended to make a great fuss about this, but when AnmaFinotera pushed back hard I felt the need to defend my position (of course, her main reason for opposition was my editing of a sentence that it took me four go-rounds to realize was a reference and not part of the article, 'headslap', so no knock against her). I especially got interested when I found all those other pages that seemed to support me. I think, Keeper76, that the solution the videogame conversation that you mentioned found makes the most sense currently- that is, george is an object that was published/made by- so I'll back that wording. Again, thanks for taking the time to look at what is definitely a minor issue, if pervasive.Westrim (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The "ironicalness" (yes, I know that's not a word), is that the further "back" I go, or in other words, as I work my way through the categories of "2008 disestablished", "2007 established", and now, what I'm currently attempting to fix, "2006 disestablished", the worse the article prose is the further I go back. Fascinating really. The articles I'm attempting to fix right now, the 2006 disestablishment's and beyond, have literally not been touched for months. Why? Because they are "old news" I presume. The mags are long dead, of little interest to the current batch of Wikipedia editors. They are dastardly bad articles, if I may be so bold and presumptuous. Any help I can get is much appreciated! . Again, I've finished adjusting the 2007-2008 article3s, I'm about halfway through the 2006 articles. The '06 (disestablished) articles are really really bad, in more ways beyond the "is" vs. "was" issue. Sigh, Keeper ǀ 76 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help implement the consensus, and start going through the defunct magazine categories.Westrim (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this really worth an article?

In the grand scheme of things, this is a magazine that published a whopping four issues and by the article's own admission, didn't make much of an impact. Perhaps it might be more useful to pare it down and put it back into the ADV article? MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You could certainly bring it to AFD if you wish, but I'm guessing based on precedence (and the fact that this is one of the better articles in this genre of defunct magazines - heck, it has sources), it would probably survive. Might not be worth it. What's the "ADV" article? Keeper ǀ 76 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind the question, found it. Keeper ǀ 76 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be deleted. It certainly establishes more than a minimal level of notability, it's properly sourced. I'd say just leave it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is notable enough for being the successor of NewType only to fail after 4 issues, and its abrupt closure (well, until you tried to go through and remove half the article). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would actually agree that the full inclusion of those quotes gives the commentary in them undue weight. Both could be fit into the natural prose in a sentence or two. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the first quote should be included. The staff's own words better show the abruptness of the closure and their reaction to it than a summary. The quote in the reception section might be able to be fit into the prose though. In either case, I'd rather he'd actually started a discussion than basically just come rip it all out without any real explanation, then say the article should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could it be merged into a subsection in the Newtype article? -Malkinann (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. The Newtype article is already overflowing trying to keep track of all the different versions of Newtype, and this magazine was completely separate from Newtype. Yes, many of the same people worked on both, but but the magazines are not the same, and had completely different foci. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The Newtype article, which is primarily about the Japanese version, not the ADV one, is already is in a desperate need for a split, to remove the US version from it and get them back separate. Additionally, as Nihonjoe noted, they are extremely different magazines. If PiQ were deemed unnotable and a merge were suggested, it would be merged to A.D.Vision, however I do not think a merge is appropriate. Yes, it was a four issue magazine, and its article will always be fairly small, it has 8 independant sources on it (and more are available, they just aren't used as they are redundant). Brevity doesn't necessarily equal unnotable. I'd only support a merger right now if notability was fully challenged in an AfD and consensus agreed it wasn't notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Remaining Subscriptions?

Is there any word on what will happen to those with remaining (i.e. unfulfilled) subscriptions? It seems like something should be mentioned in the article. Argel1200 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been publicly announced, hence nothing being mentioned in the article. With the PiQ site shut down so quickly, I suspect nothing may ever be said unless they send something out to subscribers and those subscribers report to news sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's like most other defunct magazines (those that aren't bought out by another magazine), whatever subscription that was left is just gone. I haven't heard anything from them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

B3 Structure

How does this article fail this criteria? The article includes pretty much everything needed unless you want a summary of each of the four issues. There's not really anything else which needs to be included as far as I can tell. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was from the lack of a features type section, similar to what Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump have. With only 4 issues that I've never seen, I wasn't able to write one up. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)