Galaxy Science Fiction is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 18, 2017. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
So what were the other two? Adding them to the footnote would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Some quick notes on the recent revert by Ylee.
I'll place a note on the SF project page to ask for more opinions. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I left this a couple of weeks to see if anyone else would comment, but since nobody has I've gone ahead and removed the material Ylee added, as we have a majority, albeit a small one, to do that. If other people comment we can revisit this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I have the first undefined reference <gold195210> fixed (it was at the end of the caption of the cover art image at the top) by using a reference to the covers from the body of the article. I can't tell where the second undefined reference <gold195201> can be defined. Geoff | Who, me? 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Shortride, I don't think there's a generally agreed standard that all magazine articles should have infoboxes. I'm not against infoboxes in general -- I've written many articles about Anglo-Saxon kings which benefit from them -- but they're not automatically a benefit to every article, and I think that in this case the fields that are true across the whole life of the magazine are few enough that it's pointless to have one.
I think it's also worth mentioning that this article was promoted to featured article without an infobox, so there are at least some other editors who see no reason to add one. Per WP:BRD I propose to remove the infobox again; please discuss here before re-adding it. I'm not absolutely opposed to it, but I don't see the value, and would like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Galaxy Science Fiction is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 18, 2017. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
So what were the other two? Adding them to the footnote would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Some quick notes on the recent revert by Ylee.
I'll place a note on the SF project page to ask for more opinions. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I left this a couple of weeks to see if anyone else would comment, but since nobody has I've gone ahead and removed the material Ylee added, as we have a majority, albeit a small one, to do that. If other people comment we can revisit this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I have the first undefined reference <gold195210> fixed (it was at the end of the caption of the cover art image at the top) by using a reference to the covers from the body of the article. I can't tell where the second undefined reference <gold195201> can be defined. Geoff | Who, me? 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Shortride, I don't think there's a generally agreed standard that all magazine articles should have infoboxes. I'm not against infoboxes in general -- I've written many articles about Anglo-Saxon kings which benefit from them -- but they're not automatically a benefit to every article, and I think that in this case the fields that are true across the whole life of the magazine are few enough that it's pointless to have one.
I think it's also worth mentioning that this article was promoted to featured article without an infobox, so there are at least some other editors who see no reason to add one. Per WP:BRD I propose to remove the infobox again; please discuss here before re-adding it. I'm not absolutely opposed to it, but I don't see the value, and would like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)