Talk:Fantastic Story Quarterly

Magazines to include
I suggest that coverage of Wonder Story Annual be included in this article, as it was another reprint magazine of the same era from the same publisher, and doesn't really need an article of its own. The context and background are almost identical. Mike Christie (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Pepso2 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights
For future reference, all the magazine copyrights were renewed, so any usage of the covers would have to be under fair use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Back to the Future
, I see you've reverted my undo of your addition of the information about Back to the Future. Can you comment here about why you think it's worth adding? This is something that might interest a reader of the article about the film, and I can see they might want to click through to this article. But no sources about the magazine mention it, so I don't think it's notable in the context of the magazine. Also pinging, who did the GA review, for another opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike C.. As I wrote on your own comments page, the magazine's appearance in this very popular movie is, I'm sure, far and away the most prominent reference to the magazine in all of pop culture, seen by tens of millions of people, and is thus significant and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your not deleting it again. Thanks! Elendil&#39;s Heir (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir
 * Also pinging, who has reviewed a lot of science fiction magazine articles, since Josh appears to not be very active at the moment. Ian, can you give an opinion? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the fact that something is mentioned somewhere doesn't make it appropriate to include, especially when it's cited to a primary source like a YouTube clip. Also, as a matter of procedure, the article should remain as it was before the disputed info was added while that addition is being discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The magazine would be unknown today to most people but for its being briefly shown in Back to the Future. I'm baffled why a single line about that appearance, added to a short article like this, would be deleted. And what better primary source could be used, under the circumstances? Elendil&#39;s Heir (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir
 * The way I think about it is that it's the sources about the article's topic that make something notable. If a reliable source for Back to the Future mentions Fantastic Story Quarterly, that justifies adding a mention of the magazine to the article about the film.  If a source about the magazine mentions the movie, then the movie can be mentioned here.  There are cases where editorial judgement is required -- for example I could imagine some Back to the Future article in which the journalist dug up information about the magazine and wrote several paragraphs about the magazine and why it was a suitable prop in the film.  That would probably justify a mention here.  Without some filter like this, it's too easy to end up with "In popular culture" sections that accumulate every mention of something in other media.  See WP:IPC: the key point from that essay is "their sources should establish their significance"; I think that's what's missing here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As a quick third opinion: I'd support including a mention of the appearance in Back to the Future, but only if a reliable third-party source can be identified. I agree that an appearance in a big film could be worth mentioning, but only, I think, if it's been deemed worth mentioning in reliable sources (whether journalistic or scholarly). I wouldn't support including it cited only to a YouTube video of the film. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)