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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
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
C. A. Russell, re this edit, I think the right tense is past, not present. WP:WAS says the distinction is whether there is a definite expiration date. An issue of a magazine is an object that still exists, but the magazine is a whole is defunct, so I think dead magazines should be "was". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, I have restored the sentence version approved at FAC. Until this is discussed, it would be preferable if parties did not edit war over it. serial # 13:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your attempt to shut down the side that you happen to disagree over procedural issues—by appealing in the direction of non-policy and trying to contextualize it as policy—I have reverted. I'm not backing down on this by ceding to someone's attempt to unilaterally decide what is what. We can take this to the 3RR limit, ending in my favor temporarily. From there, we can watch the discussion unfold as *actual* guidelines are upheld—and we end up using the correct tense. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no plans to revert further; I'm happy to abide by the outcome of the discussion here. C. A. Russell, I don't think citing BRD, as I did, or FAOWN, as Serial Number 54129 did, is an attempt to shut down discussion. The latter is policy, after all, and though the former is not, it's generally agreed to be good practice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References 9 and 10 cite Weinberg, "Biographical Dictionary", but in the Sources section "A Biographical Dictionary of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists" it appears with the ISBN 0-313-21221-X, which is not correct, as it belongs to the previous source: "Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Fiction Magazines". The year of publication also appears to be incorrect. Furado (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
