Talk:PiQ (magazine)

First issue

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)

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)

Tenses

Collectonian, stop with the baseless accusations of vandalism and stock responses to my edits of this article on my talk page (I call them stock responses since they requested references on a matter of grammar). I wasn't experimenting, and I clearly wasn't vandalizing, just changing the tense to what I felt was right and adding a clarification(that the issues were sent subscribers of newtype) and eliminating a redundancy (as its run dates are shown in the infobox). Also, a magazine is a periodical- just like newspapers- and when a newspaper ends its print run it becomes a was, not an is. Every single defunct newspaper I checked here (and I checked around thirty) referred to the newspaper as a was, not an is (for that matter, every defunct magazine I just checked uses the same tense). So I'm going to reestablish my edits; I look forward to your response in the interest of quelling this disagreement. Westrim (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making a vandalistic action in the article by your wholly inappropriate changing of the title of a reference. It isn't prose, it doesn't need changing regardless of the tense issue. The title of a reference should be its actual title, not one you make up. For the tense, the magazine still exists, whether its defunct or not. It IS a magazine that no longer is in print. Same as a television series. It may be off the air, but it still IS a television series. Other pages violating the MoS has nothing do to with this one. I've asked a copyeditor who is better versed in grammar than either of us to offer a third opinion. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First, stop the hostile tone. I'm editing the grammar, not attacking you honor, intelligence, or English skills. Second, what do TV series have in common with magazines? That isn't a very relevant citation. Third, I didn't realize that I was editing a reference and not a part of the article: looking at it on the edit page it just looked like another sentence, not a part of a reference, so that was an unintended mistake, and definitely not vandalism. However, in realizing that it was a reference I checked the reference and it was gone- I guess they took the magazines site down, so I'll remove that. Fourth, it's not just other pages; every single defunct American magazine between a and d used the past tense. That's a pretty darn systematic error, if it is an error. I think it's because we're not talking about the magazine itself, but the publishing of the magazine- first it is published, and then it was published. I'll change it again, and please respond here before you undo it. (written in response to your first draft, but had to step away). Westrim (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You get a hostile tone when you keep redoing an edit you have been told to stop doing. I also told you multiple times you were changing a ref. If you'd bother to read your talk page instead of just clearing it, you might have spotted that. Do NOT change it again. If you do, you will violate WP:3RR and I will happily report you. Why can't you wait for a third opinion? Just leave it alone. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The link (and thus, what is being refenced) no longer exists. And you took a hostile tone from your first revert of my edits here. Westrim (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you changed the reference for no valid reason. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. At least I thought it was valid, because I thought it was a sentence in the article, not in the reference. See my second post. And the PIQ site is still nonexistent nowWestrim (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And see my answer...you were told it was a ref. Irrelevant now since its gone and apparently the website had never been hit by the Internet Archive. In the future, try using the edit summary more often to explain your edits, especially when removing content. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And when you told me it was a reference in your first response, I checked it, realized my mistake, realized it no longer existed, and deleted it (the timing is a bit off due to balky connection and external intervention, i.e. dinner). I'm sorry I didn't thoroughly comprehend your responses to my edits, and I'm sorry I didn't realize where the sentence was. Can we get back to the what I was focusing on, and initially thought you were focusing on, and sort out what tense to give the article.Westrim (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even links which no longer work are valid references. They indicate that at one point the link worked and contained the specific information. Please do not remove it again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nihonjoe just weighed in, noted that with the date there the reference is still useful. Thank you, Nihonjoe. However, could everyone please leave my talk page alone? I wasn't vandalizing (that implies intent, and I certainly had no intent to degrade the article), I was trying to be constructive, and collectonian's comments were made before seeing my reasoning. Or at least they were written as if they were. Sorry I can only type about 20WPMWestrim (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on the issue of the ref. The copyeditor I asked about the tense is Scartol. On another note, Nihonjoe, I marked it a stub because of the discussion on the Assessment page. Do you think its long enough be considered a very low level start? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's too large to be a stub, IMO. It would be a Start in my book. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Copyeditor has arrived! =) Like using "would" to describe simple past tense, the use of present vs. past for an extinct publication – so far as I know – is not a rule which is set in stone. (The absence of a guideline here on WP testifies, I believe, to its fluidity.)

Thinking in terms of pure logic, I can't see a more inherent reason to past-ify magazines compared to books. (Both have limited printing runs – should we only use present tense to refer to books which are still being reprinted?) While it does seem that most WP articles for extinct periodicals use the past tense, I don't believe this creates a requisite any more than the prevalence of infoboxes demands their inclusion. (I don't care for infoboxes myself.)

As a reader, however, when I see "is" used to describe a magazine, I think immediately that it's still being published. Readjusting in the next sentence (which the reader will naturally do), therefore, will require a little bit of work. Because one primary mandate for the writer is to relieve the reader of all excess labor, I would recommend using "was" here. – Scartol • Tok 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: Since I can't imagine this is the first time a discussion like that has taken place here, you might want to inquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. – Scartol • Tok 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the sentence change suggested below by Keeper? (I hadn't realized you were away from wiki for awhile when I initially left my request :P) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scartol, I completely understand the logic you are applying here, and agree that primarily we should be concerned with "how the reader reads", and with what level of fluidity. Grammatically, it still is a magazine though, (or newspaper, or other periodical) but since it is no longer published, it is inherently awkward to say is, I agree. I don't believe we should completely sacrifice grammatical accuracy (and I agree there's differentiation in different fields as to whether "is" is accurate) for the sake of reader ease, therefore I offered a solution that quickly (as in within a word or two of is) clarifies that it is discontinued (I used the word "former", but was wisely redirected). What do you think of the solution, lead sentence as it reads now? Keeper ǀ 76 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion and tenses

The sentence seems lonely with nothing else there. Is there any more information we can add about how the site operated before shutdown? I only saw it twice, and it didn't stick with me. Oh, and I sent a query to a Purdue University site called the Online Writing Lab about the tenses. Waiting for their response. Westrim (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Purdue University's answer wouldn't make a difference. The issue is Wikipedia editing guidelines, not just pure tense. Its Wikipedia guidelines that determines if we consider a magazine that isn't published to be "is a magazine" or "was a magazine." As for the lack of info...there really isn't much. The website was a blog type thing, no real info at all. With only four issues, I suspect this one will eventually be merged back to A.D. Vision. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They're reputable. I can't find anything in Wikipedia about how to tense periodicals, and every periodical page I looked at backed my position on the issue (though you don't seem to find that compelling). Also, didn't you just elevate this from stub? Westrim (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has its own editing guidelines regarding that sort of thing, and it isn't purely a grammar issue. Its a matter of what Wikipedia considers to be "is" versus "was". I elevated to start because Nihonjoe said he thought it was. I disagree, as does another editor, though, who also called it a stub. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And where specifically are those guidelines? I've looked all through the edit help pages, and I can't find anything regarding this issue, nor any discussion of "is" vs. "was". Please provide links, and please address the unanimity of every other defunct magazine article on this issue. And I don't mind whatever the article is classified as, it just looked like you agreed with him since you changed it with no fuss. Westrim (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough here to have a decent stand-alone article. There's no reason to merge it to the ADV article. There's nothing wrong with having an article this size, especially since it's well-sourced. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a really easy solution to whether this "is a magazine" or "was a magazine". Change the lead sentence to be clearer. I will say though first, it is a magazine, always will be. It is a magazine that was published but is no longer published. (Actions are past tense, not items). My grandma is a person that was alive 3 years ago, as an example. To solve the confusion and apparent difference in style, the lead sentence could be (and should be) changed to read something like:

PiQ (pronounced /piːk/) is a former American popular culture magazine that was published by PiQ, LLC, a subsidiary of A.D. Vision, from March to July 2008. (ref).

All I did was add the word former (could also use the word "defunct" but it's harsher) in the lead, makes it crystal clear from the outset. Removed the word "once" in front of "published", it's ambiguous (was it published only once? From what I can tell, it was published four times). Is this an acceptable solution? Keeper ǀ 76 14:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems okay to me, though I'll wait for Collectonian to weigh in. I'm not sure that former will work though, seems redundant to was. Also, the once you removed was referring to it time wise (as in once upon a time), not number of issues wise. Westrim (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "once", the ambiguity that you mention is exactly why I removed it. I understood what it meant in context, but there is more ambiguity with that particular word than with the word "former", and therefore used it as (1) a clarifier, and (2) to replace the removed clarifier "once". There is no redundancy (or at least, only mild redundancy) to use the words "was" and "former" in the same sentence, they quite commonly and naturally occur together. The sentence would read fine without the "was" though, to be fair, and just say

PiQ is a former American popular culture magazine published by PiQ, LLC...from March to July 2008 Keeper ǀ 76 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution to me. It still notes the magazine is, as in it exists, while quickly indicating it is no longer published. I also agree with the removal of once, as it is more ambiguous. It could indicate being out of print, but it could also indicate that it simply changed publishers. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that, is that PiQ is a magazine, but was published. I'd get rid of "former", that's inaccurate. It's still an American Popular Culture magazine, regardless of not being published. So, I'd reccommend ''PiQ is a American popular culture magazinet which/that was published by PiQ, LLC...from March to July 2008 Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Good catch Gwynand. I broke my own "rule" trying to fix it to conform to the "rule". What about the word "defunct" or something similar as a clarifier (mostly to ease those that have a problem with simply saying is). Keeper ǀ 76 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will also note here that there are several articles that have this incorrect, as pointed out by Westrim, including several articles that share the same category (disestablished blah blah blah from 2008)...Keeper ǀ 76 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm trying to think of the best word. "Defunct" seems to be quite popular on Wikipedia, for categories and articles alike, although I'm not sure it applies to the magazine itself. The building they published it in might be defunct, or the business publishing it might be defunct, but the actual magazine simply doesn't have new issues coming out, I'm not sure if that makes it defunct. I wouldn't call the Harry Potter series of books defunct just because Rowling is no longer writing new ones... although that might be a different topic. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discontinued" would seem to me to be an appropriate word in that context... I share your slight unease with "defunct" for some reason. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discontinued seems good. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, discontinued. Much better. From the onset, I never liked defunct. Ugly. Keeper ǀ 76 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I only said defunct because that was the name on the lists (other lists, not the ones that this article has already been added to); I never thought it should be used in the magazine's article. And once again (since people keep on not checking for themselves at the "Category:Defunct magazines of the United States" list) EVERY SINGLE ONE of the now forty or fifty magazines I checked on the page UNIVERSALLY used "was" in the page's title sentence. Examples:"After Dark was an entertainment magazine; A Magazine was founded in 1989; The Little Pilgrim (1853 - 1868) was a periodical... Does everone get it now, because I'm tired of repeating myself to no recognition of what I just said. Westrim (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everything should be "was" except for the sentence describing the magazine. "Is" is correct, PiQ, and other magazines, are still magazines now regardless of any more issues coming out or not. The rest of the articles should be fixed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone wrote them all that way sometime, with no intervention by a copy editor if it is in fact wrong. Still waiting for actual proof that it is. Oh, and defunct wouldn't apply to a book, since it's not a periodical, something which is by design updated... periodically. The worst a book can suffer is going out of print, and that sure hasn't happened to the HP series yet.Westrim (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of fixing the others. They are magazines, newspapers, etc, that were published. Saying was published, was founded, etc, are correct, and I recognize that Westrim, from the beginning. But they are discontinued magazine, still magazines. The only time I could (grammatically) say "magazine x" was a magazine is if it ceases to exist, not ceases to be published. For example, if I hold up my car and driver, I would say this is a magazine. If I light it on fire, I could point to the pile of ash on the floor and say "This was a magazine". There is a fundamental difference, and I'm changing the others to more clearly and correctly reflect that. It will take a while, I hope you and others will help make Wikipedia better in this very trivially way. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, I will not use the term defunct anywhere in my improvements to the grammar. Where appropriate, I'm using the term discontinued to explain that it is a magazine (or newspaper) that is no longer published/circulated. Keeper ǀ 76 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I referred to the Harry Potter series which more or less had a schedule of releases and which is now "done". It still is a series, as PiQ still is a magazine, albeit discontinued. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)