Talk:The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction

message: "Although it physically resembles a traditional pulp"...
No it doesn't! Pulps were bedsheet size and printed on pulp paper, often with tacky illustrations. F&SF has always been digest-sized, printed on book paper, and has no illustrations except cartoons and the occasional diagram in a science article.
:My mistake, I've read it for years, always assumed it was like pulps, but without actually knowing... Stan 05:57, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The statement that the "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction never used interior illustrations of stories. . ." is in error. Interior illustrations of stories are present in the April to October 1954 issues.--RKihara 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Who were the illustrators? Pepso2 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: April 1954; The Inner Worlds - Uncredited, The Silence Game - Uncredited, Centaurus Changeling - Emsh. May 1954; Star Lummox - Kirberger. June 1954; Warrior in Darkness - Solovioff, Star Lummox - Kirberger. July 1954; Shadow of Wings - Solovioff, Careless Love - Solovioff, Star Lummox - Kirberger. August 1954; Fondly Fahrenheit - Solovioff, Gilead - Solovioff. September 1954; One Too Many - Solovioff, Brave New World - Kelly Freas, Prone - Faragasso, There Ought to be a Lore - Kelly Freas. October 1954; Lot's Daughter - Kelly Freas, Music of the Sphere - Kelly Freas, Mars is Ours - Solovioff. They may have stopped since a poll taken around this time showed that interior illustrations were not wanted by a majority of readers. Long stories and serials were also unpopular, but the editors felt that perhaps the sample was not representative--RKihara 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just checked the F&SF Bibliography, http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/bibliography/bibliography.htm for interior art and they show more interior illustrations for September 1956 through December 1956, September 1957, and April, May 1959. Nothing else after.--RKihara 06:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior illustrations 

message: :Image:Fsf2.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fsf2.jpg

message: :Image:Fsfgift.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fsfgift.jpg

message: I've updated the image talk pages to indicate that their copyright has expired, as appears to be the case.  Mike Christie (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images updated 

message: The image :Image:Bokfsf.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. --21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bokfsf.jpg

message: Can any-one give any figures on how many  copies are distributed?  A table covering the magazine's history would be very helpful. Kdammers (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: I plan to work on this article to get it up to featured quality; if anyone is interested in helping that would be great.  I intend to restructure it along the same lines as Analog Science Fiction and Fact: Publication history, then contents/reception, then bibliographic details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan to take this to FAC 

message: I took out Kornbluth; per Mark Rich's bio of Kornbluth he was going to take a job as consulting editor but would have been under Mills.  I am also going to take out Tenn, who is listed under 1958; no other sources list this, and as it's in 1958 it was again probably a temporary or subsidiary post.  Tenn was certainly never listed on the masthead as editor, and the SFE3 doesn't mention any role for him at F&SF. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a memoir by Tenn in the March 2009 issue of F&SF in which he tells how Mills asked him to replace Kornbluth and came to edit Robert Bloch's That Hell-bound Train.  He goes on to say he'd quit by the time the story had won the Hugo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.210.73 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial succession 

message: I can't source this: "Boucher's Berkeley residence at 2643 Dana Street served as F&SF's office, and shortly after the magazine began, the Berkeley Post Office called to inform Boucher that it was creating a special mail sack for all the incoming correspondence, a constant flow that included some 80 to 120 manuscript submissions each week" so I've removed it.  It's specific enough that I suspect a source does exist somewhere; if anyone recalls seeing this (perhaps in one of Boucher's introductions?) please post a note here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: , you cut "To save money" from "To save money, Van Gelder reduced the publication frequency to bimonthly, increasing the page count and price".  This was cited to SFE3, which says "To reduce costs Van Gelder switched to bimonthly publication from April 2009, but increased the page count from 160 to 260 with a corresponding price rise."  Is this not correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 change to bimonthly 

message: The 1959 Flowers for Algernon published by F&SF was a short story. It was expanded into a novel in 1966. I don’t have access to the source for the incomplete quote about it, so I don’t know how to correct the sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John W. Kennedy (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to this sentence? 'Daniel Keyes had been unable to sell "Flowers for Algernon" until Mills bought it in 1959; it went on to win several awards and according to Clute and Nicholls is "arguably the most popular sf novel ever published".'  What's the issue?  It was both a short story and a novel, so I don't think the quote is inaccurate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Flowers for Algernon''

message: the Asimov quote you added seems a bit out of place to me.  You've put it in the right place chronologically, but the surrounding material is really about events related to the magazine.  Something like this might belong with the discussion of Asimov's 399 science columns, but there's already a sentence about Asimov's feelings about that, which you added a cite to.  I think the quote should be cut.  Since we disagreed over Galaxy I didn't want to just cut it without discussion though.  What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote was really more to set up a contrast with Asimov later agreeing to endorse a competing magazine (while still writing for the first; neat trick, that) despite his warm feelings toward F&SF. I see your point, and will move the quote to Assessment. Ylee (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really belong in the Assessment section, though?  It's not really an assessment of the magazine itself.  The rest of that section is about critical opinions of F&SF.  I think the quote would be more usable in the article about Asimov himself, since it says more about him than it does about the magazine -- and we already have a comment about his relationship with F&SF. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Asimov's opinion of any magazine is inherently an assessment of the magazine itself, but I've removed the quote. Ylee (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asimov quote 

message: The site doesn't appear to have been updates since 2021 & email and other contact links no longer work. The magazine itself is still published but there is no way to contact them. 50.110.167.96 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine site dead?