Talk:Popular Science

Magazines Low‑importance

	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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

"Average subscriber household income of over $100,000.".. That's amazing! I read PCGamer, so I'm guessing the average income is about 25,000. Oh wait, HOUSEHOLD income, including husbands, wives and anyone else living there. Scratch that, it's not that impressive anymore, just medium to lower-upper class ^_^ JayKeaton 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's a good chance that the average man who reads PopSci doesn't have a wife or kids... :) -- Kicking222 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about the magazine and film short series. For the general concept of interpreting science for a broad audience, see popular science.".. i dont see any thing in this artical about films. was that portion removed or is this a typo? Usnn 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that there are no cites for this article. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books archive of Popular Science[edit]

I just stumbled across the Popular Science archive in Google Books a few days ago. The pages of each issue can be direct-linked, and so now Wikipedians have a way to add just an insanely huge amount of verifiable cites in articles. For example:

Study of Northern Lights Leads to Invention of New Compass, Popular Science, May 1932, p40, Scanned by Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=1ScDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA39

I've started a category to go along with it for Google Books, and I should probably make a second category for Popular Science itself:

Category:Articles with verifiable citations via Google Books

The wealth and breadth of material covered by Popular Science over the years is so massive that I think it may turn out to be a major contributor to Wikipedia articles.

DMahalko (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citable?[edit]

Hi, I got the March 2009 issue and I found some facts and estimations for various things, some of which have articles on this site. Does this magazine count as a source that can be cited or is it best not to? Thank you. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerson.js Chicareli.js Demo.js (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource Popular Science Project[edit]

Hi guys,

I just wanted to let you guys know that Wikisource has a project for adding and proofreading the Popular Science issues that have fallen into the public domain. That project can be found here. There is a lot of work to be done, but once we get the issues ready, it would be great to add a link from Wikipedia to the project. I just thought I would mention it here on this discussion page. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 1872-1915 it was a first-rate scientific journal for the educated public. After that, not so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't There a Popular Science Book?[edit]

I have next to me as of this writing date a book that Popular Science made. It is called "Popular Science FYI." Can someone confirm this book? AnimalCrossingCool (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Popular Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080929011557/http://www.gizmodo.com.au:80/2008/09/popular_science_launches_in_australia.html to http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/popular_science_launches_in_australia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Popular Science. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quarterly vs monthly and early issues[edit]

according to the german version of this article, Popular Science is a monthly magazin, not quarterly.

and by the way: hier are early issues of the mag. https://archive.org/stream/popularsciencemo01newy#page/n7/mode/2up -- 62.216.207.245 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]