Talk:Analog Science Fiction and Fact

Infobox fields
I'd like to eliminate the publisher and frequency fields from the infobox; the publisher is currently Penny Publications, but the infobox doesn't just cover the current incarnation of the magazine, and I think it's misleading to list a single publisher. The frequency hasn't been strictly monthly for over thirty-five years, with the exception of 1996. I think infoboxes for magazines are problematic when a magazine changes significantly over its lifetime, and I'd be OK with eliminating it completely, but if we keep it I think these fields should go. If I don't hear objections I'll cut them soon.

I planned to take this article to FAC back in 2011, but got derailed; I'm gearing up for another go, just FYI in case anyone wants to get involved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the infobox as there were no objections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I only said I was going to remove the fields, but I ended up removing the infobox. Well, this infobox would be a little more useful than for some magazines, since there's only one start date and it is still current, but I don't think it adds enough to be worth it.  If anyone thinks it should be put back, please say so and we can discuss it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a current magazine, so why delete the infobox with a simple summary of information about it? If they want to know how the magazine changed, they can read the article. The Saturday Evening Post has changed over its lifetime, why can it have an infobox and not Analog? JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 10:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that readers take the information in the infobox to be the key information about the magazine, but nothing about the current Analog is what's important about it. The period from 1937 to some time in the 1950s is the reason Astounding/Analog is important.
 * If we put the infobox back, I'd like the information to include that data, which means mentioning Campbell as editor, and saying it was a pulp/large pulp for part of that time, and that it was monthly, and that Street & Smith were the publishers. If we do that then it would seem silly not to include the other editors and publishers and all three formats, and then it's no longer a concise summary.
 * Re Saturday Evening Post: I'm not against infoboxes per se -- I've written a lot of articles about Anglo-Saxon kings, and infoboxes are usually (though not always) helpful on those articles (e.g. Offa of Mercia). I don't like infoboxes that can't be concise while giving the key information, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

November 1985 cover
The November 1985 cover isn't free, and would need a FUR specifically for this article, which I'm not sure we could produce. We do have several free images already; do we have to have one from the 80s? Without a good justification I think the picture will have to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who added the image. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Last I checked these things, every non-free image needs a rationale for each article in which it appears, so until/unless there's one for this image in this article, it has to go. Personally I'd quite like to see an '80s cover in the article, but not enough to spend the time writing a rationale -- that's really up to the person who wants to place it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Astounding" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astounding&redirect=no Astounding] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)