Talk:List of literary magazines/Archive 1

ISSN
A good many of these lived and died before ISSNs were dreamed of. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this current or historical? Deb 11:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * both, although all the articles I have found or started are historical, I'd love to see the list expand to cover as wide a range as possible. Filiocht 11:49, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not a single ISSN is listed on this page. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to untag this page and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not? Keesiewonder talk 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding the first one. :) --Mareklug talk 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning house
I'm removing everything that doesn't have an article and taking all the external links out as they should go in the parent articles. - brenneman  {L}  08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to do the same. It's become cluttered again. DaveClapper 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --Alabamaboy 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just did the same Wickedjacob (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Standards
I'm not sure what the standards are to get listed in this article. But, I wanted to suggest a couple defunct literary magazines from the 19th century: Burton's Magazine, Godey's Lady's Book, Graham's Magazine, Southern Literary Messenger. Also, shouldn't all these titles be italicized? --Midnightdreary 15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's been removing stuff?? I listed a couple new lit mags, and they're now missing from here - as well as pages to some of these mags. What the heck, wiki??? 98.17.198.124 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the page wasn't notable, it got deleted. If it is not notable enough to have a page, it is not notable enough to be on this list. A lot of people are using this list to just advertise their websites.  Wickedjacob (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that in a "list of literary magazines" the sole criterion would be existence as a literary magazine, just as orbiting the sun might qualify a planet for inclusion in our solar system. Perhaps the section should be renamed "List of notable literary magazines," or more precisely "List of literary magazines deemed notable by the suspect analysis of Wikedjacob, or others," or, if you prefer, "List of literary magazines with existing Wikipedia entries." I happen to publish one of the magazines most recently removed from this list. The fact that I had not created a page or listing here for my own magazine (and have no plan to) would run counter to your argument against self-promotion. Your reasoning that a magazine would be notable if it would link to an entry is irrational. It is just as easy to create an entry for a magazine as it is to insert the name of one on this list. It might be better, if one is to behave as self-appointed arbiter, to actually investigate--to see if the journals are listed anywhere like Duotrope, Poets & Writers, and Every Writer's Resource (all of which have approved my magazine for a listing). This list isn't comprehensive; it isn't useful to anyone if it omits new publications or publications without (yet) a corresponding Wikipedia entry. Either change the substance, or change the name. --Michael Dean Anthony, Founder & Editor, Thumbnail Magazine. 72.177.51.231 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup, and "The Notability Issue"
I recently invested some time cleaning up this list, primarily in separating the “No Longer Published" from “Currently Published,” and in verifying that the internal links do indeed go to the correct pages.

A few periodicals were removed during this process because they clearly didn't belong, being strictly political or cultural publications. Others were added because they obviously should be: Boulevard, Chelsea and the North American Review are three examples of established literary journals that have existing pages of their own yet were not, until recently, included on the list.

But then there's the problem of the myriad publications that don’t have existing pages of their own, and whose “notability” or “influence” may be difficult to measure. Should every regional or special interest periodical be listed here simply because they are, indeed, “literary magazines” of some sort? Perhaps not. This might compromise the list by making it too long, too unwieldy, to serve as a ready reference.

The notion expressed by Wickedjacob —that if a publication doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, it shouldn’t be included— does make a certain amount of sense. Because this is a Wikipedia list, it should primarily serve to organize and “connect” Wikipedia entries... right?

However, just today I added the handful of publications that are listed on EWR’s Top 50 List and were not already included here, and at least half of dozen of those —all established literary magazines, including Carolina Quarterly and Mississippi Review— DO NOT yet have their own Wikipedia pages. Yet I think its easy to make the case that they should be included here, and should, indeed, have their own entries too. Its my hope that their inclusion on this list will prompt the creation of those pages. I agree with Mr. Anthony that resources like Duotrope, P&W and EWR should be referenced in determining if a publication warrants inclusion on this list, as should common sense. If not, we run the risk of doing disservice to smaller or more newly created periodicals – those that may, in fact, be the next big “notable” thing.

I’d appreciate the input of more experienced volunteers with WikiProjects Magazines on how notability and inclusion has been determined for similar lists. --SlothropShuffle (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This list will likely never be comprehensive but there are certainly many notable literary magazines that are still not included. Among them from the UK are Ambit and London Magazine, Michael Horovitz's sporadic New Departures, the defunct Second Aeon. From New York the venerable and long running but now defunct (I think) New Directions, possibly should be Fuck You; a magazine of the arts. Also The Booster (renamed Delta)a shortlived but key magazine relevant to Henry Miller, Anais Nin and their Paris set, the various manifestations of City Lights Review. Just some titles off the top of my head, including a few I hope to get around to researching and writing pages for. Altcult101 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some further thoughts / questions: is a purely poetry publishing magazine a literary magazine? I believe so and see that the long established US magazine Poetry is here but there are not listings for UK magazines such as Agenda, Magma or Acumen. I feel a lot less comfortable about the inclusion of Playboy, which is a lifestyle magazine that happens to publish some short fiction and not as a major part of the content. Harpers is here and about that I have a similar concern, but if it that is OK then why not Atlantic / Atlantic Monthly, which has a stronger literary provenance? Altcult101 (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that purely poetry focused publications belong on the list, as do literary mags that are exclusively focused on creative non-fiction, etc. There are already a number of poetry journals on the list. The list appears to have been a little US-centric up to this point, which is my guess as to why those UK journals aren't yet included. Altcult101, please add them, along with the historically significant defunct journals you mentioned! First creating a page for each publication, however, is a good idea and will probably help establish "notability" and ensure that they don't disappear from the list.

In continuing to consider Mr. Anthony's comments (above), I'm beginning to feel that while the title of the list needn't be changed, perhaps it should be mentioned that this is "a list of notable publications" in the intro. "Notability" will always remain somewhat subjective, but recent editors of the list seem to be agreeing on some similar basic notion... Please comment with your thoughts. --SlothropShuffle (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I too share the concern about Playboy's inclusion, but because that venerable mag has been a source of serious literary publishing in the past (and may be in the future?) it seems fair to leave in on the list. Atlantic Monthly is on the list, for good reason, and the same goes for Harper's, IMO. --SlothropShuffle (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, somehow missed Atlantic. I found a couple of titles with entries already on Wikipedia but not on this list - and have now included them. Unfortunately the entry for Botteghe Oscure is insubstantial and the one for London Magazine is confusing. It is the magazine of that title that began with Lehmann in 1954 (albeit reinvented and continued by other publishers and editors since) that is relevant. I will think about how that might be resolved. Altcult101 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on journal list names
There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Listings
Why does the listing here of a magazine have to have an external link? Does this mean to another Wikipedia article? I'm not sure that there are no other deserving magazines than those that have such articles.

User: smilesofasummernightSmilesofasummernight (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this contribution should have come a little higher up, sorry!

User: smilesofasummernightSmilesofasummernight (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it needs an internal link. If a magazine is not notable enough to have its own WP article, it has no place in this list, either. Otherwise this list just becomes a spam magnet for all kinds of obscure magazines and websites. If there is a notable magazine (i.e., meeting the notability guidelines) that you think should be added, you should first create an article for it and then add it here. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the list is incredibly anglophone-centred. something should be done about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.169.117.168 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro requirements not followed
Just saw that Literary Juice was entered even though it is only a year or so old. The intro states that: "This is a list of literary magazines and journals: periodicals devoted to short fiction, poems, essays, creative nonfiction, book reviews and similar literary endeavors which have published each year for ten years or more."

I was tempted to take the entry out, but started looking more closely at the list and noticed several others that don't fit that sentence. I know it was probably put in there to prevent tons of newer webzines from being listed and having a ten year requirement does imply that it is more than likely a reputable and notable journal. However, some of the listings that don't fit the requirement have been there a while. These were probably just missed by other editors, but makes me think that it is time to review that requirement.

Basically, we need to either revise the requirement or go ahead and do some cleanup. I lean towards cleanup, but wanted to pose the question first. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Further categorization suggestion
This list is highly useful for all writers and people like me who are simply curious the topic. But, I think it would be more useful if it were categorized further (i.e., journals/magazines that are peer reviewed vs. those that are not). Possibly other categorizations could include those that are run a non-profit enterprises (which would include universities). Another categorization could include those that rely mostly on unsolicited submissions vs. those that rely on solicited submissions. The New Yorker, for example, should not be in the same category as as The Iowa Review. Possibly an American literary magazine template could follow. I would offer to do it myself, but my knowledge in this area, and my access to resources, is limited. Eurodog (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Example (incomplete: needs work)

Inclusion criteria
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory listing, etc. it's rare to have lists that do not apply some version of the notability criteria or other standards to ensure encyclopedic quality (i.e. to ensure this doesn't become a place to promote the zine you just thought of). From the look of this talk page, the current lead, and the content of the list, I'm not seeing that there's a unified sense of an inclusion criteria. To me it seems appropriate to simply apply the common selection criteria. Basically boils down to two questions:
 * 1) Does it have a Wikipedia article?
 * 2) Are there sources at the Wikipedia article that show it fits the scope of the list (i.e. that it's a literary magazine)?

Then we can do away with this seemingly arbitrary 10-year requirement, which seems to be implemented to ensure it doesn't become a place for promotion but would technically rule out, for example, a magazine published for 8 amazing years in the 19th century.

Aside from that line in the lead, the list is just about there as it is (very few redlinks). As there's not a whole lot of activity here I'm just going to go ahead and boldly remove that statement from the lead, remove the remaining redlinks, and re-add the couple that I removed for not being around for 10 years. Revert, of course, if you feel it merits more discussion. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of literary magazines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821171730/http://www.litmags.com.au/home.html to http://www.litmags.com.au/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)