Talk:Analog Science Fiction and Fact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rename[edit]

I've been tidying up the science fiction magazine entries and plan to rename this article as Astounding (magazine) at some point. I've done this where the word "magazine" wasn't part of the published title. This article already has a bewildering collection of redirects, so what's one more? Please don't create Astounding (magazine) as a redirect, I think that would make it harder to rename this page. Notinasnaid 23:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Job done. I have done a little tidying up and removal of double redirects, but this is a can of worms. There is no consistency at all in linking and this is more than I am inclined to attempt. However, here are some ideas, off the top of my head.


The primary article title should be Analog (magazine). That is the current title and is what should usefully appear in Category:Science fiction magazines. I've tried adding the correct category line to the Analog Redirect at Analog Science Fiction, but it won't show up, therefore, I will rename this article to the title the magazine has carried for the last 45 years within the next week, unless there are objections. -- Jon Dowland 12:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well...just why should Analog, rather than Astounding, appear in the category list? It isn't a category list of current magazines, but rather the ones significant enough to appear in Wikipedia. (Maybe, eventually, all of them.) Personally, I think the Astounding era and name are more important to the history of science fiction than the Analog years. Ideally... why not both? Especially if you are a current reader, perhaps you could create a new article, both would appear in the category list, and the articles could be tightly linked. 62.189.130.33 22:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This whole thing is really screwed up. As much as I rever the old Astounding (I began reading it in 1956 and once had a complete collection of the 1940-1959 issues), it's absurd that if someone looks up Analog he's redirected to an article called Astounding. Yes, yes, I know that the Astounding article says that it was later renamed Analog. But that's immaterial. The way it's set up now, it's as if someone does a search for "U.S. News and World Report" and is redirected to an article called "U.S. News", which is what the original magazine was called in the 1930s before it merged with "World Report". What sense would that make? Or if you search for "Newsweek" you end up at an article called "News-Week" or whatever the hell it was called in 1940. Personally, I think that there ought to be an article called Analog, to which anyone searching for Astounding would be referred to. After all, the Analog name has been around for about 45 years now -- it ain't gonna go away.... Hayford Peirce 00:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see... there are about 100 links to Astounding and 25 links to Analog. Only a handful of these links are of the form [[Astounding|Analog]]. Given that I think changing the article name wouldn't serve the majority of those links well. But I think splitting the article would be a good thing. Why don't we try to evolve a good article here, then the finished product could be sprung on the world? I suggest the article be called Analog Science Fiction and Science Fact if that has been its publication title throughout, or Analog (magazine). Calling it Analog Science Fiction would serve to perpetuate calling it by the wrong name. I think Analog (magazine) is probably my favourite.

Unless I hear shouts of "no! splitting bad!" I'll try and draft something and add it here (if nobody else does). There's actually very little to rescue from the existing article, which is almost entirely about Astounding... Notinasnaid 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I second that this article be renamed "Analog Science Fiction and Fact". The first sentence should read something like:
Analog Science Fiction and Fact is a science fiction magazine, first published as Astounding Stories in 1930.
It doesn't matter that Astounding was more notable than Analog, they're both notable, and Analog is still published. It implies in the current first sentence that Analog isn't published anymore, unless you read carefully that it is. I'd almost go so far as to say that calling it Astounding implies a non-neutral POV, as it implies that Astounding is better than Analog. --Dwiki 06:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I Second the Rename[edit]

Whoever wants the title to be Astounding mainly wants it to be that way because of bias (prefers the days of Astounding, or prefers the name, etc.) -- not that it actually affects other articles. From what I know, Analog is a lot more common a title than Astounding.

Someone has stated that Analog generates less links than Astounding; this is because the title was wrongly named Astounding to begin with; and people who wrote articles probably decided to link to Astounding. An easy way to fix this is to rename the article Analog, and have Astounding REDIRECT to Analog, so that the links won't be messed with.

There are many reasons why you should switch to Analog. One is that most people know the magazine as Analog, and not Astounding, and would probably do a search FOR Analog. That is precisely what I did, and was surprised to find an article named Astounding. Analog just recieves more hits. People Wiki and Google for Analog, not Astounding.

Also, at the beginning, I thought that Analog magazine had actually been renamed to Astounding, instead of the other way around. The article title and the "explanation" in the intro actually confused me and led me to believe otherwise. Upon paying closer attention, I found that the rename was actually to Analog. So, to avoid confusion; rename the article.

I should also mention that it's not encyclopedic to name the article Astounding. The unwritten rule (or maybe it is a policy/guideline of Wikipedia) is that the article title must reflect the most recent title of the article's subject; for obvious reasons.

While I haven't read many stories from Astounding or Analog, which means I don't know which contains the "better" (if there is such a thing) science fiction works, that also means that I am unbiased in selecting the correct title. None of that should matter. So -- can someone change the title already, and stop discussing? I would if I knew how. Also, someone should have the first sentence be something like: "...was originally titled Astounding", etc. Besides, I actually think Analog is a cooler name than Astounding (this does not influence my decision of course).

Agree with the above. Further, the magazine has been known as Analog longer than it was known as Astounding. PaulLev 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried to make the change this morning but was unable to for various reasons. I then posted a request at Wikipedia: Requested moves, where I spelled out the reasons for my request. They, in turn, have added a Discuss link, which brings you back to this Discussion page. You might check out the above link. If you agree with what I wrote, then I guess you should say so here. Or maybe there, I don't really know.... But I really think something should be done about this, this proposal has been floating around for a long time time. 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to reiterate my support for this move. To give an analogy: Having Astounding as the name for Analog article is the equivalent of calling The New York Post article The New York Evening Post (the paper's name until the 1930s).PaulLev 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we please all reach clear consensus that the article should be moved to "Analog Science Fiction and Fact" and not "Analog Science Fiction". The argument was presented that this is more likely to be Wikisearched, but why not just have the article have the exact name of the magazine as currently published. We can easily put a redirect at Analog Science Fiction so that anyone who searches for it will be redirected to Analog Science Fiction and Fact, which is (if we can reach consensus and an admin is merciful) where the article will reside. --Dwiki 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That works for me.PaulLev 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine by me. Hayford Peirce 18:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
YAAY! I promise I will help with any redirect cleanup once the dust settles. --Dwiki 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved this article and fixed the double redirects. In future, please follow all of the steps for requesting a move. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! --Dwiki 21:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Analog cover[edit]

Now that the Kindly Administrator has straightened out the name of the article and all the redirects seem to work, shouldn't the initial picture at the top of the article now become an Analog cover instead of an Astounding cover? I just happen to have an April 1997 cover that illustrates another Wiki article but I am, of course, too modest to put it in. I'm sure someone else could scan a recent issue and stick it in.... Hayford Peirce 22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just inserted the Analog April 1997 cover to the top of the article, and moved the 1939 Astounding cover to the Golden Years.PaulLev 23:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Astounding Science-Fiction, or...?[edit]

Thanks for moving the covers around -- it looks good. I have a copy of the most famous of all issues, the "future" issue of November 1949. I'll scan it and do something with it, either here or at the Campbell article, or both. In the meantime, I note that the Nov. '49 issue is called "Astounding Science Fiction", with no hyphen. The article, however, says that the magazine was renamed "Astounding Science-Fiction". Is this worth looking up in order to put in a sentence about the vanishing hyphen? Hayford Peirce 01:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1949 picture looks good. But the "citation needed" in the paragraph puts the whole Analog article in the Unsourced Category (see listing at bottom). If you can't get this citation soon, I think it makes sense to remove the sentence that needs the citation, and then re-enter when the citation is in hand.PaulLev 20:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I had already thought about removing that sentence and have just done so. The rest of the info about the November issue doesn't needed a citation, since it's there in the "Requiem" footnote. I've also added some info about when I *think* the minor name change took place. "Requiem" mentions the block letters, and shows them, but doesn't specifically mention the hyphen being removed. It does write SCIENCE FICTION, however, without the hyphen. In any case, the hyphen vanished between 1945 and 1949. Hayford Peirce 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good.PaulLev 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like it! I just looked at eBay and there's someone selling the November 1949 issue -- to my surprise the starting price is only $3.99 and so far no one at all has bid on it. I'd have thought that this issue would be more of a collector's item. Maybe it isn't at all.... Hayford Peirce 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The prices of science fiction magazines in the collector's market are pretty static, and have been for the last 30 years or so: you can find it at a variety of prices in (e.g.) bookfinder.com. Even October 1937 is available at a price that, for age and importance, doesn't seem bad. Only the first couple of years, and especially the first issue, have prices that would frighten a venusian. The main problem with the older issues is that they are crumbling. Notinasnaid 08:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the update. I do remember about 12 years ago when I left S.F. (the city, not the genre) I had pretty long-running collections of various mags -- NO ONE would buy them. I finally gave them to the Vets Hospital, I think.... Hayford Peirce 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

first paragraph of article[edit]

I revised the first paragraph - which Hayford reverted - mainly becaused the original, reverted wording concluded with Analog Science Fact & Fiction. As someone pointed out in another edit that was reverted to the original - a few weeks ago - the "Science Fact and Fiction" at the end can be jarring, since the current name of the magazine is "Science Fiction and Fact". I therefore think, at the very least, that the first paragraph should conclude with the current name - and an indication (in terms of giving the year) of when that name was adopted. In addition to that, the only other change that I think might be worthwhile is my change of "magazine" to "pulp magazine" near the top. My reasons for the change were it reads better than just repeated "magazine" and it is true. Thoughts on these changes?PaulLev 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I found the following very repetitive and needless: "Astounding Science-Fiction, then in 1960 to Analog Science Fact & Fiction, in 1965 to Analog Science Fiction and Science Fact, and in 1991 to its current Analog Science Fiction and Fact". A reader really has to stop and study this to figure out the difference between the last two names. The changes are trifling. And all that info overwhelms the first paragraph -- it could easily go into a later one, along with any other variations that have cropped up over the years, of which there are several. As for pulp magazine, the word pulp is clearly derogatory. Today it isn't used anymore, since the pulps have disappeared. But from the 20s, say, through the 40s, and maybe the 50s, "pulp" meant "low-class junk, fit only for illiterates or imbeciles". The fact that Hammett, Chandler, and Heinlein wrote for the "pulps" was immaterial -- it was still junk. One of the reasons that Campbell wanted to change the name from Astounding was to try to move the mag. out of the pulp category. In fact, at one point he expanded the size of the mag. and used non-pulp paper. If this were an article about, oh, let's make up a name, Thrilling Super-Science Stories of the 1930s, with a tentacled monster grasping a half-naked woman on the cover, then one could, I think, safely use the word "pulp" to describe the mag. To use it for Analog is just plain wrong. Hayford Peirce 20:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
re: the current revision: I still think the first paragraph should have a phrase that indicates the year in which the current title (Analog Science Fiction and Fact) was adopted; otherwise, what's there now is ok with me.PaulLev 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Profession ASF.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Profession ASF.jpg 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 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 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Astounding Cover 11 35.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Astounding Cover 11 35.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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Planned rework[edit]

Just a note to say I'm planning to do some work on the article over the next couple of weeks. I plan to give it a structure like If; publication history, focusing on the publishers, editors, distribution, circulation, and so forth, followed by a section on contents and reception, which will go through the history from the point of view of the fiction. I only have a couple of references (the first two of Mike Ashley's new history of the magazines) with me, and won't get back to my library till September, so I'll be restricted to the period before 1970. Mike Christie (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

British Edition[edit]

The British reprint edition did not actually end until the August 1963 issue - I have a copy with the announcement on the inside front cover that "... after 24 years of publication the British Edtion ... ceases with this issue". I have never edited the Wikipedia, and I don't know the protocols for changing someone else's data. Should I just go ahead and make the change? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr B 3.14 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just go ahead and edit it as you see fit. It should be sourced, if possible, but don't worry about that -- I have some reference books I can use to source it at some point. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! To sign your name, you can just add "~~~~" every time you leave a comment on a talk page; when you save the page that will be converted into your signature. Mike Christie (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

I'd like to start working on this article over the next few weeks with the goal of eventually bringing it to featured status. I see the section structure has changed a little since I last worked on it, so rather than revert I thought I'd post here to get some input. The structure I'd like to use would look something like this:

  1. Background
  2. Publishing history
    1. Clayton
    2. Street & Smith
    3. Conde Nast
    4. Davis
    5. Dell
  3. Contents and reception
    1. Bates
    2. Tremaine
    3. Campbell
      1. Golden Age
      2. 1950s
      3. 1960s
    4. Bova
    5. Schmidt
  4. Influence on the field
  5. Publication details

I've used this outline on a few sf magazine articles that have made it to featured status -- see Wonder Stories or Amazing Stories for examples -- and I think it works well; it divides the purely business-oriented details, such as publisher, distribution issues, hiring and firing of editors, and circulation, from the literary part of the history: the fiction and its reception.

Any comments? If nobody objects I'll start gradually reworking the structure in this direction over the next week or two. Mike Christie (talklibrary) 15:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections, so I've gone ahead and starting reworking it. If anyone else is interested in trying to get this to featured level, please chip in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Golden Age dates[edit]

A citation-needed tag has been placed on the assertion that the Golden Age is usually dated 1938-1946; I'm currently citing "Golden Age of SF", in the 1992 Nicholls & Clute Encyclopedia of SF. It says (p. 506, first column, first main para) "in conventional usage (at least within fandom) older readers regularly refer quite precisely to the years 1938-1946 as sf's Golden Age, and younger readers, though not necessarily convinced, had not yet jettisoned the term when the first edition of this encyclopedia was published in 1979. In 1992 it is not a term so often used ...". I think this is sufficient for the dates to be given, though Nicholls is clearly saying that even back then the definition was fraying a bit. Any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your other updates. This is about as tight as I've ever heard it - 8 years, including 4 war years when Heinlein and others were "busy" doing other things. Seems less like a Golden "Age" than a Golden "Couple of Years!"  :) The Age definitely came to an end when a particular old magazine newsstand distributor sold out. The new distributor, with new debt from buying out the former owners, had to raise rates, forcing dozen of neophyte magazines out of business soon after birth. While the affect on (or by) Campbell and Analog was slight, it effectively killed the huge volume of slick little mags that had been distributed then and were barely operating in the black. This was in the 50s, I believe. Harder to date start. 23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

I'm expanding the article and will drop some notes here, both to capture things I need to come back to and to comment on points that may require some talk page discussion.

  • The Golden Age section is starting to get pretty long. I think the best approach is to let it get as long as it needs to, based on the sources, and then use summary style to cut it down to whatever size it should be for this article. Listing the main stories for that period takes a lot of space, but I think it's necessary to give the reader an idea of just how dramatic the change was over the first few years.
  • Note that Ashley, Time Machines, has an assessment of 1940-42 on p. 157 that I haven't yet included; should come back to that when the Golden Age section is largely done.
  • It's going to be difficult to find sources for the period after 1980; Ashley's next book wasn't turned in to the publisher last I heard, so that's thirty years of history not covered. I propose to post a message on the Analog online forum, asking for any input on possible sources. That might also be a good place to solicit outside reviews and comments on the article. I will also contact Schmidt directly and ask if he has any ideas about sources; he might even be willing to put a notice in the magazine suggesting readers take a look at the article. Anyone think that's a bad idea? I think it could be a good way to get more editors, as well as getting feedback on the article itself.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've added more encyclopedic information in the lead. Thanks.Orangepulp81 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I inserted "some of" in the string "published their first stories" because Asimov's first 2 published stories were in another magazine. See BEFORE THE GOLDEN AGE, BOOK 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.178 (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)