Talk:Science fiction magazine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arbitrary section break

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)

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)

Gtrmp edit

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

Some comments

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Puppet masters.png

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)

Correction to information on "Galileo Magazine of Science and Fiction"

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)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:ThrillingScienceFictionOctober1973.PNG

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)

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

Magazine for List

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Authentic cover issue 29.jpg

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)

Current magazines

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm sorry you feel that way; I'm just fumbling towards a way to find an equitable standard that's fair to all. The Hugo and Nebula are the Big Two in the field; I feel that it's absurd to pretend otherwise. The World Fantasy Award is second-tier, like the others I named. Speaking as somebody who's attended the past 30 and more WisCons, I obviously have nothing against the Tiptree (indeed, I'm proud to say that I know most of the members of the Tiptree juries [past and present] and many of the winners); but it's no Hugo or Nebula. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely disagree that the World Fantasy is second tier to Hugo and Nebula. I agree that the Tiptree isn't on the same level, but Tiptree award winners would indeed be notable, as they don't just hand that out to any old person, as you know. As far as coming up with an equitable standard, I think the one I proposed, perhaps with modifications of the numbers, is equitable. If a magazine publishes stories that Best Of editors feel are worthy of including in their volumes or, in the case of Datlow/Link/Grant and Dozois, bestow honorable mentions on, that makes them notable because they have been noted by those in the field whose opinions matter for whatever reason. The same with award nominations and wins. And to avoid the mayfly issue mentioned above, a length of publication requirement would be useful. 5 years, I think, is enough to merit a publication with being more than fly-by-night. I would consider a publication meeting two of those three qualifications (award noms/wins, Best Of inclusions/mentions, minimum length of existence) to be notable. Theangryblackwoman (talk) (not able to sign in properly from work) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.137.52 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike about the Tiptree; my wife was a judge the very first year, and we both consider it an important award, but as he says, the Hugo and Nebula are the big two.

As for the list, I think the question is really what the function of the list in this article should be. If a magazine is not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia then I don't think it should be listed; that seems an easy bar. But leaving it at that seems like it would lead to a fairly long list that would be better suited to a list article. I think some criteria should be applied to reduce the list to ten or fifteen representative, just because this article is primary an article, not a list. I don't mind not using the SFWA rule if there's a better one to be had. Mike Christie (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, current magazines should be divided into two categories: online magazines and paper magazines. 80.202.39.54 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but some magazines were "paper" then later became just online versions and others have both. That said categories could be created to deal with these, it just needs thinking out, and then for someone to do it who has the time.--SciFiDragon (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

From the article: Magazines like Strange Horizons, Ideomancer, InterGalactic Medicine Show, Jim Baen's Universe, and the Australian magazine Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine are examples of successful Internet magazines

Probably should take out Jim Baen's Universe from the list, they announced that the online magaizne will cease in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.118.226 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

heavy metal

If you go to the wikipedia page on Heavy Metal (magazine) the first sentence calls it a science fiction magazine. I don't read it myself but judging from what I have seen from it, there is a significant amount of science fiction content; unless you have a link where the authors or editors or better, a reliable secondary source, says that it is not a science fiction magazine I think it should stay. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The article says it is a comics magazine; it just happens to be a comics magazine that runs science fiction and fantasy comics, along with erotica. The burden is on the person making the assertion to provide some evidence that it is regarded as part of the science fiction magazine category. If the SFWA, for instance, considers sales to Heavy Metal to constitute qualifying sales (which it does not, by the way), that sort of thing would over-rule my objection. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't comics be included? Is it not sci-fi just because it's illustrated? Is it any less literature or art? Why does this one magazine need to be sourced, nothing else is. Besides the SFWA is probably not a good source, they tend to be snobbish about the comics. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes Heavy Metal runs science fiction; so does the New Yorker and Playboy. Neither of them belongs on this page. Many many SFWA members have written for the comics; your impression may be out of date. And you won't help things by calling science fiction "sci fi", a pejorative reserved for the crappiest of the crap within the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to defer to your experience on whether or not Heavy Metal should be included, although I would still appreciate an explanation why(erotica, comics and science fiction are not mutually exclusive). I think the bigger problem is that this article needs a tighter definition about what constitutes a 'Science Fiction magazine' and ideally it would be better sourced to show that the magazines that are included are notable. I could also do without the nerd rage about my use of widely used and easily understood terminology that only bears a negative connotation amongst a very small group; such behavior is not wp:civil and is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Incivil? In what parallel universe is it incivil to inform someone that they are using an offensive term which a minority group finds obnoxious? Should Cymry ignore it when you say somebody "welshed on a bet", or Romany when you say you were "gypped"? Oh, yeah, I'm a nerd, and my kind has no right to speak up. Remind me: who's being incivil here again? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC) not likely to change his username to "Raging Nerd" any time soon

That aside, it is true that we may be verging on a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY problem here, and that's a reasonable concern. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's probably enough article to avoid conflicts with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I'm more concerned with the complete lack of inline citations and what that would mean if the article came under close scrutiny by some of our more deletionist editors. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)