Talk:Imaginative Tales

Table description line break
It looks like different browsers are rendering the table slightly differently. In Firefox, having the break between Space and Travel results in Space appearing on its own line, which doesn't happen in the other browsers I tested with. And in mobile browsers it's unpredictable where the break is going to occur. Figuring out the correct styles to give so it renders consistently across browsers could be difficult. A simpler fix for now would be to move the br to before Space so it at least renders the same in desktop browsers. --Mikaka (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks for looking into this. I wish there were a way to have wrapping text in that location in a table, but as far as I know it's not possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Link removal
I fail to see how adding links to the sources section (in appropriate areas) is "useless" as an IP editor pointed out when reverting my edit. It is not supported by any guideline/MOS, and links have been used in sources in various articles, including FAs.  Gerald WL  08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're going to quote me, please do it properly: I didn't say "useless", I said "None of these links are needed (or useful)". Linking publishers and their locations isn't terribly useful, and the locations even less so. Read the lede of WP:MOSLINK: "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." The "topic at hand" is the magazine Imaginative Tales. Can you explain how links to Connecticut will "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand"? I'm struggling to see an advantage, but if I've missed something, please help me out. It's an FA, so we work on the presumption that the publishers are reliable and appropriate for the subject matter: the links don't aid readers' understanding, so there is no need to overlink just because there is something to link to. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5CAD:D89E:6ACF:3A3F (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That quote is referring to links in the lead and body rather than the source. It's not an overlink. It's common practice I do which has been accepted by other editors. So let's say at the "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". There's a link to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, why not link that so that readers can know more about the book? What is Greenwood Press and Contemporary Books? Back to overlink, I am aware of it, that's why I keep New York unlinked, because the whole point of overlink is that commonly-known stuff don't need to be linked. If you're saying that links must be related to Imaginative Tales, then in the "bibliographic details" section, Greenleaf Publishing company should be removed cause it doesn't enhance understanding of the magazine.  Gerald WL  09:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "That quote is referring to links in the lead and body rather than the source." Really? Can you quote the clarification in that lead that says "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand" is only applicable to "links in the lead and body rather than the source"? Can you also answer my question above Can you explain how links to Connecticut will "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand"? Thank you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:CD01:787D:258E:4458 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead that is the question I handed to you. Read the rest of my reply.  Gerald WL  10:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you answer me two questions please:
 * 1. Can you quote the clarification in that lead that says "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand" is only applicable to "links in the lead and body rather than the source"?
 * 2. Can you explain how links to Connecticut will "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand"?
 * Thank you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:CD01:787D:258E:4458 (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, your reply merely looks at "That quote is referring to links in the lead and body rather than the source". See the succeeding bit. To try and answer your question: it's not Connecticut, it's Westport, Connecticut, which is something not everyone knows, and a part that merits a link per MOS:UL: "Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases [should be linked]." Westport-- as well as Contemporary Books, Liverpool University Press St. Martin's Press, and Greenwood Press-- don't qualify WP:OVERLINK as you cited, which concerns everyday and simplistic words.  Gerald  WL  10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You've avoided the main thrusts of the questions entirely, which makes me wonder if you have any proper arguments. The use of links should be to assist readers understand a subject. Linking a publisher or their location does not help a reader understand anything about Imaginative Tales at all. I'm struggling to parse an explanation that Westport falls into the categories of "technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases" (and that's even before you get to how it helps a reader understand anything about the subject matter); it's a rather spurious line of reasoning altogether. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:CD01:787D:258E:4458 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you stand with your argument, why not remove the author links or the "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction"? Within the sources section it doesn't help readers understanding Imaginative Tales. I've put links in citations in lots of articles and in nearly every articles I've created, and no editors seem to be bothered by it other than you. You use a sentence in the lead of the policy as your only argument; if it has to be only relevant to the subject, might as well remove the link to Ziff-Davis (which is not related to Tales), Galaxy Science Fiction Novels (not related too), as well as Playboy. If your argument is "technical", well, Contemporary Books, Liverpool University Press St. Martin's Press, and Greenwood Press are also technical.  Gerald WL  10:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I use a sentence in the lead as my only argument? Aside from the fact that I am actually basing my argument on a policy (which doesn't seem to be your case), it's only the strongest one there is (and you seem to be ignoring the other policy-based argument of overlinking). Using links is a question of balance: a publisher is of minimal importance, but using an authorlink can be important to show the person responsible for the source is an expert in the field. Just because you've put links in doesn't mean people are not bothered by it, and you may find people have removed them a few days after the article has shuffled off the MP. And trying to claim Contemporary Books, Liverpool University Press St. Martin's Press and Greenwood Press are "technical terms" is, I think, along the lines of 'clutching at straws'. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:CD01:787D:258E:4458 (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Explain how Contemporary Books, Liverpool University Press St. Martin's Press and Greenwood Press are not technical and common among everyday lives?  Gerald WL  10:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Company names are not technical terms. I'm going to drop out of this and let others chip in if they want to, as if you're down to using line of argument, I'm not sure there is much more I can say. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:CD01:787D:258E:4458 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This sort of link can be useful to some readers though I wouldn't call them technical links. I agree with the IP that they don't fit the definition of increasing "readers' understanding of the topic at hand", but they're very commonly included -- you see these links in many, perhaps most, articles.  I think it's OK to leave them in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

ISFDB
Are the ISFBD citations reliable? Because my reliable sources detector detected it as generally unreliable.  Gerald WL  09:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Practically speaking the ISFDB is extremely reliable for bibliographic data, though not for biographical information such as author birthdays. It's been used in FACs for a long time, but at the most recent FAC to use it the source reviewer argued against it.  It's crowd-sourced, which is an instant no-no for reliability, but submissions of data to it are vetted by the moderators there, and as a result it's about the best source there is for citing what appeared in what magazine when.  However, because of that negative source review I think it should be replaced where possible, at least in FAs.  I've put in two hardcopy citations (ironically these are practically speaking less reliable than the ISFDB, but they meet the requirements for a high-quality reliable source), and a citation to Phil Stephensen-Payne's magazine content index -- he's a professional bibliographer and that index was created by him and William Contento. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One more note: I've left in one reference, since the source being used there is the issues themselves; the ISFDB is simply a convenient place for a reader to see the contents, and is not being used as a source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

FA?
Not even 15K, with refs. The standards for FA sure have fallen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk • contribs)
 * There’s no minimum length requirement for featured articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, you beat me to it. I would add that I came here organically as a reader would, when the title caught my eye on TFA, and that I was quite happy to see Prosesize tell me the article I was strapping in for was only around a thousand words -- sometimes you want to read a concise well-written and comprehensive article, not a doorstopper. By the way, looking at that FAC, fantasy comedy is a surprisingly core-Wikipedia-demographic article to be in such sad shape and I might try my hand at it. (Though I disagree with you a bit on the ideal name -- it should be at comic fantasy, IMO.) Vaticidalprophet 13:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Featured article criteria have been the same for a very long time now. Article length depends on the topic. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is some sort of thorough coverage requirement and I'm not seeing it here. By the logic being used here you could write a two-sentence article with only one ref (only one to be found) and it could make FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Would you mind signing with ~ after your comments? It makes these threads easier to read.  Yes, there’s a requirement that the article be comprehensive, and I believe this article is about as comprehensive as is possible given what sources exist.  The question of how short an article can get and still be featured is a vexed one; there have been plenty of discussions about that.  An article with only one source probably wouldn’t have sufficient notability to survive as a separate article, though.  And it’s often the case that a very short article is better off merged into a more general article — for example there was a very short FA about a tropical storm, Erick, I think, which ended up being merged into the article about that year’s storm season. Speaking for myself I wouldn’t bring an article shorter than this to FAC; this is right at the lower limit of what I think is featurable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I could try answer IP's reasonable concern that "By the logic being used here you could write a two-sentence article with only one ref (only one to be found) and it could make FA". For me a short article can be seen as comprehensive by how it's layouted: does the user who wants to bring it to FA strive it to be comprehensive or not. This article has lots details: table, an average-sized history, a nicely-written reception, and a bibliographic detail. Meets the guidelines and all. You can tell by all this that it is comprehensive. I assume a one-sentence article would just be from one or two sources, which would not even merit an article. In a sense, Wikipedia is a work of art.
 * Thank you for coming to my TED talk.  Gerald WL  09:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A long time ago I deliberately nominated a very short article to stimulate the debate about short FAs. The FAC is here; DrKiernan (now DrKay) opposed on 2b, which requires a "substantial" table of contents.  That's an impossibility for an article much shorter than this one.  I think DrKay correctly saw that 2b is the only part of the FA criteria that refers to length.  In the case of that FAC I think it's possible to argue the article could be merged to another one, but DrKay's point struck me as valid too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A long time ago I deliberately nominated a very short article to stimulate the debate about short FAs. The FAC is here; DrKiernan (now DrKay) opposed on 2b, which requires a "substantial" table of contents.  That's an impossibility for an article much shorter than this one.  I think DrKay correctly saw that 2b is the only part of the FA criteria that refers to length.  In the case of that FAC I think it's possible to argue the article could be merged to another one, but DrKay's point struck me as valid too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)