The contents of the Quark/4 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
The contents of the Quark/3 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
The contents of the Quark/2 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
The contents of the Quark/1 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
While nothing in any article suggests notability, I'll go on the limb and say that having done some rescue on related topics (other sf anthologies), the odds are some sources could be found. Still, we should probably merge the individual articles (which right now are just tables of contents/infoboxes, i.e. catalog-like entries) into one. Ping
User:ReaderofthePack for her opinion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree as well. Generally speaking, there's not as much use for individual articles at this point in time. If research shows exceptional notability for one or all volumes, then we can always restore. In the meantime it's better to show notability for the anthology as a whole.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(｡◕‿◕｡)00:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd say stories should only be mentioned if there's a reliable source discussing them. I have at least one source that talks about the anthology -- Tymn & Ashley's 1985 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines; I can share that if you don't have access.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Also
this has a review of Quark/1, as does
this.
This has a review of Quark/3. These are fanzines and are not the highest-quality sources, but given that Ashley (in the source I'll send you) talks about fan press reception, I think they could be used.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The contents of the Quark/4 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
The contents of the Quark/3 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
The contents of the Quark/2 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
The contents of the Quark/1 page were
merged into
Quark/ on 15 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
While nothing in any article suggests notability, I'll go on the limb and say that having done some rescue on related topics (other sf anthologies), the odds are some sources could be found. Still, we should probably merge the individual articles (which right now are just tables of contents/infoboxes, i.e. catalog-like entries) into one. Ping
User:ReaderofthePack for her opinion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree as well. Generally speaking, there's not as much use for individual articles at this point in time. If research shows exceptional notability for one or all volumes, then we can always restore. In the meantime it's better to show notability for the anthology as a whole.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(｡◕‿◕｡)00:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd say stories should only be mentioned if there's a reliable source discussing them. I have at least one source that talks about the anthology -- Tymn & Ashley's 1985 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines; I can share that if you don't have access.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Also
this has a review of Quark/1, as does
this.
This has a review of Quark/3. These are fanzines and are not the highest-quality sources, but given that Ashley (in the source I'll send you) talks about fan press reception, I think they could be used.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merger complete.
Klbrain (
talk)
13:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)