Talk:Amazing Stories

message: 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)! --xensyriaT 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online versions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright and Trademark 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Influence on the field 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested intro rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "distributed only" vs. "only distributed" 

message: 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.
Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 Relaunch 

message: --evrik (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been protected. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --evrik (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect this page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-adding "and many others" 

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