Talk:Amazing Stories

Reprints ?

The article mentions that quite a few stories printed in Amazing stories have been republished over the years. What about the other contents of the magazine? Specifically I'd be interested to learn whether the reviews published in the very early issues Strange Adventures have been reprinted anywhere? Or, alternatively, does anyone know whether the old issues of SA have been collected by some libraries, where one can look them up? (I'm searching for the issue of Amazing Stories cover-dated December 1932, which contains a review about a book written by a journalist named Bochow whom I'm interested in with regard to my doctoral thesis).93.206.41.98 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of that issue so I can't help you there. The Tymn/Ashley encyclopedia lists several sources that have partial or complete collections. Universities are BYU, Florida International, Harvard, Indiana (Lilly Library), MSU, MIT SF library, Northern Illinois, Penn State, Sarah Lawrence College, SUNY-Albany, Syracuse, Texas A&M, Tulane, U of Arizona, U of California Riverside, U of Maryland Baltimore, U of Montana, U of New Brunswick, U of New Mexico, UT Austin, U of Winnipeg, U of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Public Libraries listed are Dallas, NY, San Francisco, Red Wing MN. It's a 1985 reference so some of those institutions may no longer have the magazine.

I don't follow your comments about Strange Adventures; there was a magazine called that but it was quite unrelated to Amazing. I don't know of any reprint source for 1932 non-fiction from Amazing, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, the above-posted information is a tremendous help! Of course, I was referring to Amazing Stories when I wrote "Strange Adventures" (I mixed up the two publications in a moment of absent-mindedness).93.206.41.98 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

An infobox was recently added; I don't think it benefits the article, and per User talk:Shortride#Infoboxes for Wonder Stories and Amazing Stories I'm not the only one. I'll leave this notice here for a day to see if anyone else comments before removing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The 80 year publishing history of Amazing Stories is too complex for the Infobox magazine template. I have used it on a few magazines with a short and simple lifetime but it does not do well for long run magazines with multiple owners and editors. For example, how many times a year was it published? These details are covered with charts and tables in the article. Eliminate the infobox in this article. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am flabbergasted that a featured article like this has no infobox. Infoboxes are not designed to represent the whole complex history of a topic. Instead, it is intended to provide a rapid overview of basic current information. When was it established? That's in the first sentence of the lead. When did it stop publishing? Sorry, no infobox, you'll have to search through the article. What's it's ISSN or OCLC number? Sorry, not in the article at all. Very unhelpful! --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; though if there's a consensus here to add an infobox of course we can do that. I'd really rather not until others chime in, though. There are articles where infoboxes are helpful, and there may be magazine articles for which the same is true, but in this case there's just too little that can be put in an infobox that is accurate and useful. Who's the publisher? Well, there were several. When did it stop publishing? It stopped at least twice, and depending on how you count the online version it may or may not be stopped now. Editor? Too many to put in an single infobox field. The genre and the launch date are simple to state, and both are in the lead sentence. Is there something else you think the infobox could convey that would be useful? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  Amazing Stories has an amazing number of publishers. I think only showing two is a bigger omission than the ISSN. Much of the history of Amazing Stories happens before the ISSN was created in 1975. Maybe that is why it is not at the top of the article. Amazing Stories stopped publishing numerous times, should they all be in the infobox? I think the infobox should be fully populated or removed. Update: There are at least four ISSN numbers for Amazing, ISSN: 0002-6891, ISSN: 0164-7687, ISSN: 0279-1706, and ISSN: 1058-0751. Which one do we use? There may be more. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that partial is worse than nothing; a compromise could be to put text (such as "see below") linked to the relevant section. ‑‑xensyria^T 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Stories was published monthly, bimonthly, quarterly and sporadically over its 90 year history. There have been about a dozen publishers and at least four ISDN numbers. It has died and has been resurrected multiple times in the last 30 years. The infobox wants a frequency of publication, a publisher, a first issue, last issue and an ISDN. Amazing Stories is far too complex for that. One of Randykitty complants was the ISDN and OCLC numbers were not found in the article. This information could be added to the text. I am planning to remove the infobox in the next few days. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says that each and every line of an infobox should be filled in. If it's inconvenient, leave it empty. Having ISSN and OCLC numbers is quite useful, though. When you click on them, you'll go to WorldCat, which will tell you what libraries hold the magazine. First issue and final issue can be in there, as well as the country. The cover image looks a lot better in the infobox than it does as a thumb. An easy to see link to the magazine's website, which is still up, is handy, too. I really don't see any unsurmountable problems. --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Stories was promoted to a Feature Article without an infobox. The magazine ended around 1995 and the trademarks have been acquired by several new owners who have tried to restart the brand several times with limited success. The current owner's website states: "The World's First Science Fiction Magazine returns as a Social Magazine for FANS!" The website is published by "The Experimenter Publishing Company". The infobox does not provide useful information for the magazine's most notable period. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason why featured articles should be kept in stasis once promoted. If the end date is unclear, again: leave it blank. The start date is not disputed. As for the ISSN, if there is more than one, there's a number of solutions: 1/ list the most recent one (which is what we usually, but not always, do). 2/ List the one that was in use longest. 3/ Modify the infobox so that it can accommodate multiple ISSNs, like the {{Infobox journal}} does. I think the WorldCat links are very important, because they help our readers localize the magazine in a local library. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles are not static after reaching feature status. My issue is the severe limitations in the infobox template and the complicated history of Amazing Stories magazine. The magazine was published monthly, bimonthly, quarterly by a dozen different publishers. It stopped publishing several times. The web site listed is a fan site and blog. The website owner grabbed the Amazing Stories trademark after Wizards of the Coast abandoned it in March 2007. The web site is first rate but I doubt it has any formal relationship with the magazine. I have added a link to WorldCat with the OCLC and ISDN numbers. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; articles should continue to improve where possible. I agree with SWTPC6800; now that everything that gives an incomplete picture of the magazine has been removed, the only items left in the infobox that are not stated in the first sentence of the lead are the ISSN and OCLC, and as discussed above the ISSN is arguably incomplete too. I would prefer to see the infobox removed. Randykitty, do you really think such an abbreviated infobox helps the reader? You're right that the OCLC is important, but it's now linked at the end of the article. I'm not trying to remove any information from the article; I just don't see what a reader gets from an infobox on this article other than the appearance of uniformity with other magazine articles with infoboxes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." WP:INFOBOXUSE I have used infoboxes on Electronics Illustrated, Model Rocketry (magazine) and Modern Electronics. I don't think it would be possible to construct an infobox for Electrician and Mechanic. Amazing Stories publishing frequency and editors are clearly shown in the tables for each decade. This method is far superior to the limited features of the infobox. I am removing the infobox. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that at this point you have consensus to remove the infobox. The information in the current box is correct and not misleading. I understand you are not in favor of an infobox. I have yet to hear an argument how this infobox is detrimental to the article. Until a convincing argument is brought forward, I think the box should stay. --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't get involved in this sort of discussion very often, so I'd like to ask for some clarification. There are three of us discussing this; two are regular editors of the article, and those two think the infobox is a bad idea; the third editor thinks it should stay. It was added by an IP who has not stayed to participate in the discussion. Would that really be characterized by most editors as "no consensus"? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it does look to me as if that would be good enough to remove the infobox in most editors' eyes. I'd also add that the usual cycle is bold/revert/discuss, which if followed here would have left us with no infobox. I dislike even single reverts if a discussion can do the job instead, but the result is that the bold edit becomes the status quo, which is not the intent of that guideline. If you don't agree we have consensus to remove it, how can we resolve this? Can we bring in a third party to assess consensus? I hate to do an RfC on this because I have heard that infoboxes draw partisans (on both sides); I'm not a partisan against infoboxes, though I use them sparingly, and I don't want to make this article a debating area for that disagreement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Tell me why the current infobox is so bad for the article... --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to go to work, but here's a quick comment; more tonight, if you'd like to continue the discussion. Infoboxes are good when they succinctly summarize key information about the subject of the article. Those three words -- succinct, summarize, and key -- are important; there's no value to a non-succinct infobox, nor to one that is no more succinct than than the article itself, nor to one that doesn't contain the most important information. This one is succinct, but it doesn't summarize, and it omits key information that can't be easily placed in this format. It gives the reader the impression that this is the key information about the magazine, but that's not the case. The reader's eye is drawn away from the accurate, complete information to the infobox. That's my primary objection. A separate issue is that the infobox format also tends to encourage other editors to add more fields to a thinly populated infobox, so in a case like this where there are several fields that can't easily be populated it leads to additional maintenance work to clean up good faith edits adding incomplete data. That last point applies to all infoboxes, and isn't an argument to omit an infobox in a case where it adds value, but in a marginal case I think it's an argument against adding one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm far from convinced and don't see any of the disadvantages you describe. However, it's two against one, so in the absence of consensus I have removed the infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you -- I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:, why do you keep deleting the infobox? Please stop. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus for it, so I reverted you per BRD. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove it again till we get consensus that there needs to be one. There's a discussion above from 2015 in which one person wanted to add an infobox and two did not. The infobox addition was also reverted by Ian Rose a day or so ago.

Infoboxes can be useful for magazines, but here the publishing history is complicated enough that I think it would be useless, and perhaps misleading. To quote from my comments higher up this talk page: "There's just too little that can be put in an infobox that is accurate and useful. Who's the publisher? Well, there were several. When did it stop publishing? It stopped at least twice, and depending on how you count the online version it may or may not be stopped now. Editor? Too many to put in an single infobox field. The genre and the launch date are simple to state, and both are in the lead sentence." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that an infobox would be more confusing than useful to readers, for the reasons listed above. We're better off without it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Put what you want in the infobox. It frames the photo at the top of the page and makes the page look cleaner. --evrik ^(talk) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not a decorative device, it's an informational tool. In this case, it doesn't work for information even if it's clean-looking in browsers. Also, note that infoboxes are all that you see in some apps when you open an article until you scroll, so they're very important. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should remain as it was until or unless a new consensus emerges to add an infobox, so I've removed it while this discussion takes place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should retain the infobox, but hey if you like ugly articles, go for it. --evrik ^(talk) 18:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Online versions

The link to University of Wisconsin–Parkside archives is odd; the collection is offline (so why a specific link?). A few websites do have scanned online versions however:

• The Pulp Magazine Project Volume 1, Issues 1-9 and Volume 3, Issue 1
• University of Pennsylvania serial archive, Volume 1, 1-9; 9, 5&9; 15, 11; 21, 4 & 11; 24, 1; 25, 3; 31, 11; 32, 8; 33, 11; 34, 4
• Amazing Stories official website Back Issues, linking to Volume 1, Issues 1-9 at Archive.org

If anyone finds more sources, please add them here (and or update the main article if it's a comprehensive batch)! --xensyria^T 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and Trademark

A search of the US Copyright records show that copyright for "Amazing & 29 other titles" was transferred from Arthur Bernhard & Ultimate Publishing Company, Inc. to TSR Hobbies, Inc. on 11 May 1982. Copyright Document Number V1912P303. This was the latest entry I found. The entire assets of to TSR Hobbies could have been transferred to another party. It was common for writers to maintain an individual copyright on their stories and grant a onetime use to a magazine. Reprints of science fiction magazines would be a copyright nightmare.

The current trademark for "Amazing Stories" is held by Steve J. Davidson, PO Box 1068, Hillsboro, New Hampshire 03244. Serial Number 77422636, Registration Number 4237952, Filing Date March 14, 2008, Registration Date November 6, 2012. The Goods and Services covered are "Electronic publications, namely, periodical magazines featuring fictional pieces, articles, interviews, illustrations, photographs, imagery, animation, digital video, digital audio and other information in the fields of science fiction, fantasy and horror in popular culture recorded on computer media." And "Publications, namely, periodical magazines featuring fictional pieces, articles, interviews, illustrations, photographs, imagery and other information in the fields of science fiction, fantasy and horror in popular culture."

A trademark expires if it is not used in commerce for a period of time. Someone else can start using it then register a new trademark. Wizards of the Coast held the trademark from 2003 to 2007 (Serial Number 76534774). -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Influence on the field

I've reverted the recent changes by an IP to the "Influence on the field" section. The additional material looks reasonable, but it's not sourced, and I don't have my copy of Trillion Year Spree handy to check if it supports it. My recollection is that it does not support the new wording. If we can find a reliable source that gives this opinion we can re-add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted changes to the lead

The lead was recently cut quite a bit; I've reverted the changes. The edit summary was "Way too much material irrelevant to a lede. Removed stuff like SFWA contract disputes and the like from the start to boil it down to a proper intro." The lead is long, but it's a long article, and I don't think the lead was inappropriately long. The lead should summarize the article, but the cuts removed discussion of most of the publication history. The SFWA dispute led to the loss of two editors, and was a significant event in the life of the magazine. If anyone thinks the lead should be cut let's talk about it, but I'm not convinced -- and it should be mentioned that this is the version of the lead that was in the article when it was promoted to featured status, so there is some consensus behind it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Christie, a significant change to a long standing feature article should first be discussed on the talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I also think that lead is way too long and detailed. [[1]] notes that intros should be "concise" - and while this lead does contain four paragraphs, which is the general rule of thumb for intro size, a couple are huge and should really be broken into several smaller paragraphs. A casual reader coming to this article for a quick sense of Amazing Stories' history would, I think, find it overwhelming and intimidating - the intro should be for the casual reader, with details below for the more interested reader.

Compare the intro for Time (magazine), which is 12 lines long in my browser configuration yet covers all the important details. Amazing Stories' lead, by contrast, is 30 lines long (actually more, because it goes below the illustration and thus half the lines are full width) and delves into (IMHO) excessive detail about every editor.

I would suggest first creating an infobox, as with Time, and then trimming the intro a bit at a time, moving information down if needed (much of it is duplicated). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of infoboxes, as I think they tend to oversimplify, but we can add one if there's consensus to do so. I'm not clear what information you're saying is duplicated -- do you mean duplicated between the lead and the body? That's a requirement; there shouldn't be anything in the lead that's not in the body. Or do you mean something else? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

David, I see you've just added an infobox. There's a discussion further up this page about it which (with only three participants) did not result in adding an infobox. Could we wait to add it until there's a consensus? I'd be fine with bringing in more editors, perhaps from the sf WikiProject, to get a broader discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT - I've added an infobox (didn't see your comment, sorry) with very rudimentary information - the form has lots of spaces for more info if people see fit, if we want to keep it.

Yeah, "duplication" wasn't the right word - what I meant was excessive detail. The intro doesn't need, I think, names of eight different editors or discussion of McFadden/Tek and Brown's plans that didn't go through or many other details - those are of interest to some readers but really bog down a first quick introduction.

I think the two middle paragraphs of the intro could be distilled into a single paragraph roughly the size of the current fourth paragraph. It should convey to the casual reader the that the magazine went through a number of owners, editors, styles and approaches over the decades as it struggled to be profitable, with a sentence or two about interesting moments - the Shaver Mystery, the fight with the SFWA, the Hugo Award era.

The final paragraph is good for context and importance. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

POST EDIT CONFLICT (this gets a bit confusing) - we can certainly remove the infobox for discussion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be easier for you to do the trimming, since in my head all the information is interesting and important. Would you mind making the edit, and then we can discuss what's left out and see how it looks? And the very simple infobox you've added is OK with me; it doesn't have the numerous fields that are likely to be inaccurate, like "last year published". If we can leave a comment in the article telling editors not to add fields to the infobox without discusson, I'd be OK with leaving it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the infobox and then came here and remembered this discussion. I took it out because it duplicated the picture below, which had a caption pointing out Gernsback's signature; I think that's a nice touch. I suppose it could be combined with the infobox; that didn't occur to me. If someone wants to put it back, I'd suggest including the caption to the existing picture. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested intro rewrite

I'd replace the second and third paragraph of the intro with this:

Amazing was published, with some interruptions, for almost eighty years, going through a half-dozen owners and many editors as it struggled to be profitable. Gernsback was forced into bankruptcy and lost control of the magazine in 1929, and by 1938 it was purchased by Ziff-Davis, who hired Raymond A. Palmer as editor. Palmer made the magazine successful though it was not regarded as a quality magazine within the science fiction community. In the late 1940s Amazing presented as fact stories about the Shaver Mystery, a lurid mythos that explained accidents and disaster as the work of robots named deros, which led to dramatically increased circulation but also widespread ridicule. Amazing switched to a digest format in 1953, shortly before the end of the pulp-magazine era. It was sold to Sol Cohen's Universal Publishing Company in 1965, which filled it with reprinted stories but did not pay a reprint fee to the authors, creating a conflict with the newly formed Science Fiction Writers of America. Ted White took over as editor in 1969, eliminated the reprints and made the magazine respected again: Amazing was nominated for the prestigious Hugo award three times during his tenure in the 1970s. Several other owners attempted to create a modern incarnation of the magazine in the following decades, but publication was suspended after the March 2005 issue. A new incarnation appeared in July 2012 as an online magazine.

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• As a casual reader, this looks good. My only question in comparison to the current lead is whether Cele Goldsmith deserves a mention. ‑‑Yodin^T 13:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree; this looks good, and my only concern would be the omission of a mention of Goldsmith. I might copyedit a touch, but that can wait. SWTPC6800, what do you think? Re the infobox, I'd rather remove the "frequency"; it was bimonthly too, and quite irregular at other times -- not something summarizable in an infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

FlashSheridan (and anyone else interested): I'd like to modify of the recent edits, but having had my first revert undone I'd rather discuss it here first. The changes are:

• Mention the early use of reprints -- this is already mentioned further down the article, so this is a duplication. The article gives the publication history first, and then covers the magazine contents and reception, so this belongs in the second half anyway, but as it is I think it can just be cut.
• Mention Wertenbaker's story as the first original story -- I'd like to keep this but move it to the contents section. The ISFDB isn't an ideal source for statements like "was the first" because you have to check all the other stories to see if they're original. I'd source this to p. 57 of Ashley's The Time Machines, where he says that both the first two new stories Gernsback wrote are by Wertenbaker. That seems worth mentioning if we're going to mention the first one.
• Mention the asterisk used to indicate new stories, starting in August 1926. Without a mention in a secondary source (which we might be able to find) I think this should be cut; there are plenty of sources describing the early Amazing and if they don't mention this I don't think it's notable enough for the article. We're not in a situation where we're short of sources and have to determine what to include by reading the magazine.
• Mention that Campbell's first story appeared in Amazing. I think this is fine but as far as I can see it's still not mentioned in the body or sourced; I'll go ahead and put it in the body and source it.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Split the "Early years" section to "1920s" and "1930s". I think this should go back to being one section; on a wide screen the 1920s section is too short for the table, and splitting the table would be make a 1930s table that would be too long for that section.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Campbell cleanup. I obviously disagree about re-merging the 1920’s and 1930’s; that’s IMO the crucial distinction. (See also Moskowitz.) I also think the mention of duplicates should be in the section to which it applies. I see your point about ISFDB not being ideal, but I think it’s more than adequate, and given that the early issues are now (mostly) widely available, I don’t share your objection to citation of primary sources.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says it's OK to use primary sources for easily verifiable statements of fact, and I think that's what the asterisk would be; we'd have to cite an issue that explains what the asterisk means. My concern is more that there are a lot of things one could comment on in that way -- layout, back cover art, most common interior illustrators, well-known letter writers, content of editorials, and so on -- and using secondary sources is a good way to filter things down to what historians of sf have considered notable. Personally I think it's an interesting detail because it makes it very clear that the magazine was not initially printing much original fiction, but how do we decide what to include if we're making our own decisions rather than using secondary sources? Having said that, I admit I do exactly this in some of the sf magazine articles -- the article on If has a collage of cover images illustrating the formats, but I don't recall anyone discussing that anywhere -- I just thought it was useful for readers of the article. So perhaps I'm being inconsistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Rarely influential

FlashSheridan: The statement that the magazine was "rarely influential" is cited in the body to Brian Aldiss, Trillion Year Spree, p. 205. I can take a look and pull the original quote tonight. I think the statement is OK as it stands; it says "rarely", not "never", and as far as I'm aware, after about 1930 Amazing was never again a major force. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't influential after it revolutionized the field; Seekers of Tomorrow (p. 18) dates Amazing’s decline to the loss of Doc Smith to Astounding. But it obviously was influential earlier.

—FlashSheridan [14:42, 28 February 2017‎]

"distributed only" vs. "only distributed"

A very minor disagreement has come up over a fairly subtle wording change, regarding the sentence "The last issue, March 2005, was distributed only as a PDF download, never as a physical magazine."

It has been edited to say " .... was only distributed as a PDF ...." but that is not really accurate. The "only" modifies "PDF download", because that's the only format in which it was distributed - it doesn't modify the verb "distributed" because this implies that alternative verbs were previously applicable - such as before March 2005 it was distributed and also inflated and ignited, but in March it was only distributed.

As I said, this is very minor and subtle, but I thought I'd give the reasoning here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've no problem with leaving this as you have it, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning -- I think in common usage both would mean the same thing. It's true that if had been ignited the following month, only the former wording would be correct, but to my ear, at least, the gain in technical precision from the new wording is outweighed by the slight loss in colloquial feel. It's a fine point, though, and if it sounds better that way to you, I'm not going to object. Thanks for giving the explanation, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

2018 Relaunch

Davidson, Steve (February 3, 2018). "AMAZING STORIES TO LAUNCH KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGN". Experimenter Publishing Company. excerpts:

• Starting March 1, 2018, we will be running a Kickstarter campaign to raise seed funding for the magazine.
• The first issue is planned for August, to be available at WorldCon in San Jose; several well-known writers have already committed to contributing to it.
• The magazine will be published on a quarterly basis after that.

Turnbow, Gene (February 4, 2018). ""Amazing Stories" Returns to Print If March 1 Kickstarter Succeeds". Krypton Radio.
Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Protect this page

--evrik ^(talk) 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The page has been protected. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 18:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Annual circulation of Amazing Stories.gif - units?

This should be units (copies), not 000's - right? 50,000 000's (as it is now) is fifty millions, is it not? Today it's really unusual today to see such low figures for a long-running pop mag. How could they ever break even? (well, the article says that they mostly didn't, but then how did they survive for all these years...) Retired electrician (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-adding "and many others"

I'm re-adding "and many others", removed as part of this edit. Ashley says "More major new writers debuted in Amazing or Fantastic in this period than at any other magazine. To consider them in detail would take far too long" and then lists nine writers, some from each of the two magazines. I think this is enough to support the phrase -- without it it's not clear that this was a significant fact about the magazines at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Bimonthly"

This article uses the word "bimonthly" several times, but never specifies whether it's using this irritatingly ambiguous word to mean "twice a month" or "every two months", or even if it means the same thing in every case. The tables do provide some clarity, but I think ideally it would be clear from the prose. Can this be clarified? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added a note that I hope helps resolve this; in magazine histories, "bimonthly" almost invariably means "every two months". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence to say "publishing every other month" - avoid that confusing term entirely. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I put it back with your explanation inline -- the term is everywhere in magazine publishing history and is used elsewhere in the article so I think it's better to explain it at first use so it can be used again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We overlapped - I have just replaced most of the rest of "bimonthly" with "every other month." I won't re-edit if you change it back but I still think there's no reason to stick with a potentially confusing term. Clarity trumps habit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ian Rose, who I know reads the sf magazine articles, for another opinion. I'm OK with this change if there's consensus for it; my hesitation is that "bimonthly" is a term a reader is going to see in practically any article they ever read on magazine history, and it always means every other month. (I have seen "fortnightly" used for the other meaning in the UK; I've never seen a magazine with that frequency in the US.) It's true it's a confusing term, but it's the term that gets used, and I think the reader would benefit from knowing it. Without it they'll follow a citation to Ashley or Tuck and not be clear what they're reading. As I say, I'm not insistent, just concerned we're doing the reader a disservice. Ian, what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks for the ping, Mike. I think it works better to explain "bimonthly" the first time and use it thereafter. There is a bit of conflict between making it ultra clear for the lay reader and going with a term that's common in publishing (and, ipso facto, that's commonly used in the sources). So I think using the term throughout with an explanation the first time is the best compromise. FWIW I would also expect to see "fortnightly" if we meant it was published every two weeks, and if it was published literally twice a month instead of every two weeks (not the same thing) then I'd expect to see "twice-monthly" or "twice a month". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

David, based on Ian's opinion I'd like to change it back but I'll wait a bit in case you have further comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. My only response is that people don't read long articles sequentially from top to bottom; they jump around (I certain do!). So a non-small number of people will see "bimonthly" without seeing the one-time explanation, leaving them in the same position of possible confusion that led to the initial concern above. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current version looks good to me (the initially confused reader). I know next to nothing about magazine history, but did think to ctrl-F for "bimonthly" in search of an explanation. As I mentioned, the tables do also help somewhat. Appreciate the thought that's gone into this! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)