Talk:PiQ (magazine)

message: Well, the first issue arrived. I scanned the cover and added it to the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I was wondering what it looked like while waiting for it to come in the mail.  Hatredcopter (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First issue

message: Westrim, I need to admit that I am seriously struggling to find any precedence or references that back up my changes to this (and several other) articles, as you requested.  Frankly, I'm not finding anything that refutes my changes either, which is equally frustrating.  I've looked offline, including the Purdue resource you mentioned, and literally cannot find anything.  I'm hoping that you can see my logic in making the changes however, and I did find a slightly related past discussion on WikiProject Grammar, which clarifies a bit I think.  (Basically it said if some of the "discontinued" products, in this example cars and video games, are still in existence, you should grammatically say "is" with clarifiers about it being discontinued, dissolved, etc in the lead.)  I hope that helps, I really feel strongly about this for some reason, I'm a gnome at heart, and this one has really challenged me.  I came into this thinking it was quite obvious (maybe that's why there's no direction? I don't know), and I'm going to continue to make changes to what I perceive to be incorrect uses of the term was, especially for very current discontinuations (I've been working through the 2008 category and the 2007.  Cheers, Keeper  76 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have to say I fell into this discussion for the same reasons. The usage you've been advocating is the one that makes the most sense to me (ie it is currently existing, but was published in the past, hence "Foo Times is a discontinued magazine that was published...") but it's a case of "feels right" rather than anything genuinely 100% decisive. Westrim's point about referring to the print run of the magazine when you talk about it does, inherently, make sense - but it still sounds wrong to me! ~ mazca t | c 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, thanks to all for taking a look at this. I never intended to make a great fuss about this, but when AnmaFinotera pushed back hard I felt the need to defend my position (of course, her main reason for opposition was my editing of a sentence that it took me four go-rounds to realize was a reference and not part of the article, 'headslap', so no knock against her). I especially got interested when I found all those other pages that seemed to support me. I think, Keeper76, that the solution the videogame conversation that you mentioned found makes the most sense currently- that is, george is an object that was published/made by- so I'll back that wording. Again, thanks for taking the time to look at what is definitely a minor issue, if pervasive.Westrim (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "ironicalness" (yes, I know that's not a word), is that the further "back" I go, or in other words, as I work my way through the categories of "2008 disestablished", "2007 established", and now, what I'm currently attempting to fix, "2006 disestablished", the worse the article prose is the further I go back.  Fascinating really. The articles I'm attempting to fix right now, the 2006 disestablishment's and beyond, have literally not been touched for months.  Why?  Because they are "old news" I presume.  The mags are long dead, of little interest to the current batch of Wikipedia editors.  They are dastardly bad articles, if I may be so bold and presumptuous.  Any help I can get is much appreciated!  .  Again, I've finished adjusting the 2007-2008 article3s, I'm about halfway through the 2006 articles.  The '06 (disestablished) articles are really really bad, in more ways beyond the "is" vs. "was" issue.  Sigh,  Keeper  76 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll do what I can to help implement the consensus, and start going through the defunct magazine categories.Westrim (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible guidance 

message: In the grand scheme of things, this is a magazine that published a whopping four issues and by the article's own admission, didn't make much of an impact.  Perhaps it might be more useful to pare it down and put it back into the ADV article? MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could certainly bring it to AFD if you wish, but I'm guessing based on precedence (and the fact that this is one of the better articles in this genre of defunct magazines - heck, it has sources), it would probably survive.  Might not be worth it.  What's the "ADV" article?  Keeper  76 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind the question, found it.  Keeper  76 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it would be deleted. It certainly establishes more than a minimal level of notability, it's properly sourced. I'd say just leave it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It is notable enough for being the successor of NewType only to fail after 4 issues, and its abrupt closure (well, until you tried to go through and remove half the article). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually agree that the full inclusion of those quotes gives the commentary in them undue weight. Both could be fit into the natural prose in a sentence or two. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first quote should be included. The staff's own words better show the abruptness of the closure and their reaction to it than a summary. The quote in the reception section might be able to be fit into the prose though. In either case, I'd rather he'd actually started a discussion than basically just come rip it all out without any real explanation, then say the article should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would say no. The Newtype article is already overflowing trying to keep track of all the different versions of Newtype, and this magazine was completely separate from Newtype. Yes, many of the same people worked on both, but but the magazines are not the same, and had completely different foci. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No. The Newtype article, which is primarily about the Japanese version, not the ADV one, is already is in a desperate need for a split, to remove the US version from it and get them back separate. Additionally, as Nihonjoe noted, they are extremely different magazines.  If PiQ were deemed unnotable and a merge were suggested, it would be merged to A.D.Vision, however I do not think a merge is appropriate. Yes, it was a four issue magazine, and its article will always be fairly small, it has 8 independant sources on it (and more are available, they just aren't used as they are redundant). Brevity doesn't necessarily equal unnotable. I'd only support a merger right now if notability was fully challenged in an AfD and consensus agreed it wasn't notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really worth an article? 

message: Is there any word on what will happen to those with remaining (i.e. unfulfilled) subscriptions? It seems like something should be mentioned in the article. Argel1200 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been publicly announced, hence nothing being mentioned in the article. With the PiQ site shut down so quickly, I suspect nothing may ever be said unless they send something out to subscribers and those subscribers report to news sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's like most other defunct magazines (those that aren't bought out by another magazine), whatever subscription that was left is just gone. I haven't heard anything from them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining Subscriptions? 

message: How does this article fail this criteria? The article includes pretty much everything needed unless you want a summary of each of the four issues. There's not really anything else which needs to be included as far as I can tell. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, it was from the lack of a features type section, similar to what Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump have. With only 4 issues that I've never seen, I wasn't able to write one up. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  B3 Structure