|WikiProject Magazines||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Horror||(Rated Start-class)|
In a world as transient as SF magazine publishing, I think the word "recently" should be qualified. Notinasnaid 16:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rayray 09:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) Apologies if my previous edit led to any confusion. I misunderstood your original addition, and was just trying to make it a little clearer. No offence intended.
Whats wrong with thier site?
I was wondering, whats wrong with the weird tales website? Did they change it or what? I kind of need to visit it.
- If you went to http://weirdtales.net/ then you did visit it. This is a site in the early stages of creation. Or recreation. Anyway, what you see is what there is - right now, a list of basic files found in an empty site, and nothing else. If they (re)create it soon we can take the link out of the article. On the other hand... there is also a http://www.weird-tales.com/ which claims to be the official site, but as it seems to be selling tee shirts I'm not so sure! Notinasnaid 08:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats just great. They dont even have their guidelines listed.
The article should make it clear that Baird, not Wright, first published Lovecraft. Does anyone know who discovered Seabury Quinn? Nareek 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with the world of weird tales so please forgive me if I'm in error but it's my understanding that Ann Vandermeer and Stephen Segal were replaced in 2011 by Marvin Kaye as editors. The text of this article reflects that already but the infobox and Ann Vandermeer's page do not. I intend to change them in line with the new reality. If I'm mistaken in doing this please revert my edits LordFenix (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible Bias against the Kaye version of WT?
I'm puzzled at some of the coverage of the Marvin Kaye version of Weird Tales. Firstly, an positive review of a MK WT issue from a RS was deleted as "not relevant to the history or background of the magazine", but a negative review of a MK WT issue (an issue which was not, AFAIK, offered for sale to the general public) is allowed to stay on the article. There's also a piece from the SFE saying under Kaye, WT's future is "once again in the balance" - a comment that could have been made about the previous versions as well, but here seemed designed to make the new editor look bad.
I understand many people were upset with the departure of the previous WT editors (a fair opinion) but surely the new WT deserves a chance? I hope I'm wrong, but the coverage of the Kaye WT here doesn't seem in line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality ([[Stephen Jones]] has spoked very highly of Kaye's WT, for instance). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think Ain't It Cool News is a very good source for critical commentary about the magazine, though it's true that recent issues are going to be hard to find critical commentary for. In particular, commentary on a single issue, in an era where the magazine has less circulation and less influence than it used to, seems unnecessary. Overall I think the coverage is unbalanced at the moment; there should be more on the earlier period, using sources like Mike Ashley's histories. If I get time next year I'll try to do some work on the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)