This has been discussed in a couple threads but I'm starting this one with a more specific title in order to solicit more feedback.

The question has been raised about how to properly credit periodicals in such a way that the publication is linked. Let's imagine for the sake of discussion that this credit is called "Periodical Imprint." Examples include "Rolling Stone" or "The New York Times."

I propose giving this credit equal prominence to that of "Author." (To relate the concept back to Discogs, it's similar to the "Main Artist" — it's the prominent entity on the front cover.) The "Periodical Imprint" credit would be linked and would display where the author credit normally displays at the top of the submission (as well as in the regular credits section).

The title of a particular issue of a periodical would not be the imprint itself (similar to how a novel title does not include the author's name), but it would typically be the information unique to that particular issue — most often the volume / issue number and / or the date, though not exclusively.

As an example, I added the most recent issue of The New Yorker using the "Author" credit as I would the hypothetical "Periodical Imprint" credit under discussion (admittedly bending the submission rules, but easy to fix by simply deleting the credit): http://www.biblio.gs/book/51533-November-23-2015-The-Tech-Issue
It displays like this: The New Yorker - November 23, 2015 (The Tech Issue)
Where "The New Yorker" links to what would eventually be a list of other issues of the magazine (along with other credits to the entity).

Thoughts? Criticism? Other ideas?

Disagree with using issue# and date as title of part.
Agree with using periodical imprint as main tag in entry.
I say if there is no title then we can't force to invent an artificial title. But I tent to get an agreement to develove rules to define what's a tile on periodical releases. Eg a monographic issue like http://www.biblio.gs/book/18834-Rolling-Stone-The-500-Greatest-Songs-Of-All-Time

And please I miss imput from staff

7_Sea_Cods mentioned "The New York Times". I was under the impression that as a community we had already decided against submitting newspapers. Perhaps I missed something?

Adambassador — re: newspapers, I probably missed the decision, not you. I'd like to see the discussion, but I won't get into it here, though. If newspapers are off limits, ignore the reference to them here.

emilianito1972 — yes, I'd like to get input from staff, too. re: Title… it's a tricky issue. The "Author - Title" format works better for books than is does for magazines and other periodicals. I think there are a few ways to think about it, and I'm going to use the same example as above: http://www.biblio.gs/book/51533-November-23-2015-The-Tech-Issue

  1. The magazine is untitled.
  2. The magazine's title is: The New Yorker [as on the cover]
  3. The magazine's title is: The New Yorker, November 23, 2015 (The Tech Issue) [similar to what's on the cover and also at the bottom of every page, see images]
  4. The magazine's title is: November 23, 2015 (The Tech Issue) [the data unique to this issue of the magazine]
<h2 class="headertext" id="1-obviously-wont-work-simply-because-i-dont-think-we-can-submit-anything-with-no-data-in-the-title-field">1 obviously won't work, simply because I don't think we can submit anything with no data in the title field.</h2> <h2 class="headertext" id="2-isnt-a-good-solution-because-every-issue-would-have-an-identical-title">2 isn't a good solution because every issue would have an identical title.</h2>

Unless I'm not considering all realistic options, this leaves us with either #3 or #4. I don't think one is more "artificial" than the other. I work for a record distributor and we sell some magazines (along with some books); in our stock system, the "title" of magazines is the issue number and date only. Not that this example should carry much weight here, but in terms of organizing data I think it's a legitimate way to think about the situation.

One advantage #4 has over #3 is that, assuming the Periodical Imprint is the "main credit," it doesn't duplicate data. In other words, "The New Yorker - November 23, 2015 (The Tech Issue)" is displayed rather than "The New Yorker - The New Yorker, November 23, 2015 (The Tech Issue)"

But I don't know, do people think #3 is a more accurate representation of the "title" and that's more important than the display?

My input from the other thread:

I definitely think the periodical title would be good above the issue title, I think that having the periodical title repeated would be fine, certainly for the magazine in the Spanish Rolling Stone example where the periodical title would be slightly different to the issue title, I would also like to see separate fields for numbering and dating of issues.
For example

periodical title: Rolling Stone España
issue title: Rolling Stone
issue number: 172
date: 15-11-03

Publication date is probably the right name for the field, or Periodical publication date. Also it has to be noted it will be the listed publication date as many magazines issue a month early, so the December issue will actually come out some time in November. Whereas newspapers will have the exact day of issue on them.

OK, so that's 3 in favor of a "Periodical Imprint" field. I'd like to get into the other issues raised but maybe we can resolve this first:

What's a good name for this field?
- Periodical
- Periodical Publication
- Periodical Title
- Periodical Imprint
- Periodical / Serial
- Periodical / Serial Publication
- Periodical / Serial Title
- Periodical / Serial Imprint
etc.

I like "Periodical Publication" because it's used on wikipedia to describe "work that appears in a new edition on a regular schedule" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_literature
I also like "Periodical Imprint" because it describes a "brand"-like entity better than, say, "Periodical Title" which is a little more ambiguous in my opinion.

Other input? Adambassador? mirva? seburns? nik?

Periodical Title, Periodical Imprint

I'd be fine with either of these, I think they both work. I'm thinking that maybe "Periodical Title" would be the easiest, everyone might not be familiar with the concept of 'imprint'.

Thanks for the reply mirva. (BTW what's the code to "quote" a post?)

Here are the votes so far:
2 — Periodical Imprint
1 — Periodical Title
1 — Periodical Publication

I'll post the results on the "New credit role requests" thread at some point, unless seburns sees this first.

BTW what's the code to "quote" a post?

It's ">" without the quotation marks. Just put it in front of the quote. It's a bit glitchy, but works with fine short quotes. I remember trying to quote something with line breaks, and it only quoted the first paragraph... :)

I'll add two cents (late to the party, I know).

I've been using the Publisher Series field to tag pulp magazine issues so that all issues are grouped together:
http://www.biblio.gs/book/70345-Short-Stories-April-10th-1934

For these fiction magazines, I've been using the Editor tag and allowing that to stand as the main credit. In the case of Short Stories, Weird Tales, Black Mask, Astounding SF, etc., the key editors stayed for years (at least a decade).

Where no editor is credited. I have been adding no main credit tag:
http://www.biblio.gs/credit/70392-Golden-Fleece

With regard to date vs. volume and issue numbers, if the volume and issue numbers are consistently given on the spine, I tend to use those in the title. If the volume and issue numbers are not given on the spine, or not consistently given on the spine, I use the date. With Short Stories, I switched from using Vol. and issue numbers to date because the volume and issue numbers were dropped from the spine part way through the run, but the date was on the spine consistently.

I have a lot more pulps from my collection yet, so if anyone has a better way to submit these, please let me know.

I'll add two cents (late to the party, I know).

Nah, you're right on time!

I think the way you're adding them is fine. Even though we've been at this for a year, I still think this is the early stage and I just want to see as much data input into forms and fields as possible. Things will become abundantly clear when we have much data to work with.

Thanks; I'll continue what I'm doing.

I haven't been active on here for a bit but I got a notification for this thread.

My request for a periodical credit was added a few months after I suggested it. It's "Periodical Imprint"

Granted the guidelines here are currently all but nonexistent but if Bibliogs is going to be anything like Discogs, I think "Series" tags should be kept to documented series. For example, the New Yorker isn't a "Publisher Series" it's a periodical magazine. Just my 2 cents.

With that, I'm going to update my example from the first post here.

I fail to see how a periodical is not a documented series put out by a publisher (Vol. 1, No. 1, Vol. 2, No. 2, etc.). Nevertheless, I switched to "Periodical Imprint."

Sure, broadly defined, a periodical is a series in the sense that it's a set of things that come out one after the other.

I think periodical literature — magazines, journals, etc. — is different enough from, say, a series like "A Game of Thrones" that it's helpful to use a different tag. Perhaps my suggestion to use the imprint over the editor as the main credit for periodicals will never happen, but if the developers ever wanted to implement such a function, it would be helpful to have the imprint properly credited rather than having to go back through every entry in the DB and sort out if it was a periodical or a title in a book series.

Perhaps my suggestion to use the imprint over the editor as the main credit for periodicals will never happen

For fiction magazines, I don't think that's a good idea at all; the taste and judgement of the editor has an enormous impact on the magazine. Particularly where a single editor ran the magazine for an extended period of time. Astounding SF/Analog was edited by John W. Campbell for decades; Campbell edited Unknown for its entire run. Weird Tales was edited by Farnsworth Wright from 1924 to 1940, and was succeeded by Dorothy McIlwraith from 1940 to 1954. McIlwrath brought in new authors and artists, including Ray Bradbury. Joseph T. Shaw edited Black Mask from 1926 to 1936; when he was fired, many name authors (including Raymond Chandler) left the magazine.

If "Periodical Imprint" is elevated above the editor, I'll probably go back to "Publisher Series" for these pulps.

Besides, "Periodical Imprint" sounds like a division of a publishing house that publishes magazines, not a particular magazine. Much the same way that a publisher has imprints that put out different types of books.

I think periodical literature — magazines, journals, etc. — is different enough from, say, a series like "A Game of Thrones" that it's helpful to use a different tag.

And why would we use Publisher Series for Game of Thrones when we have Series? Isn't Series intended for a fiction series like Game of Thrones or Hercule Poirot?

For fiction magazines, I don't think that's a good idea at all

I wouldn't get too hung up on the idea downplaying any one editor's impact on a magazine. They're the editor, they get the editor credit. Everything else is a data display issue.

To draw a Discogs parallel, I'm suggesting trying to document any release on the site the way its creators represented it: often times the performer is the main artist, sometimes the composer is the main artist, sometimes the compiler is the main artist, etc. By entering the artist on the cover as the main artist, we're not making a value judgment on others who might be involved in the release, we're simply documenting the release as it exists.

The way many books are presented, the author and the title is the focus. The way periodicals are typically presented, the brand is the focus. You don't see Time Magazine presented as: Nancy Gibbs - Time Magazine on the newsstands. Even here: http://www.biblio.gs/book/70345-Short-Stories-April-10th-1934
Harry E. Maule isn't anywhere on the cover.

Anyway, I'm sure at this point the idea won't be implemented in the near future and most likely never.

If "Periodical Imprint" is elevated above the editor, I'll probably go back to "Publisher Series" for these pulps.

This is why we need a database manager and set of guidelines. People need to be on the same page and not enter data based on personal preference.

Besides, "Periodical Imprint" sounds like a division of a publishing house that publishes magazines, not a particular magazine.

True, it's not ideal, and if it could be improved on, great. As you can see from the thread above, I tried to make a few suggestions. mirva was the only other person who chimed in, and "Periodical Imprint" was the one we both agreed on.

And why would we use Publisher Series for Game of Thrones when we have Series? Isn't Series intended for a fiction series like Game of Thrones or Hercule Poirot?

I have no idea. The credits are basically a free-for-all right now.

To draw a Discogs parallel, I'm suggesting trying to document any release on the site the way its creators represented it
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way things are handled on Discogs. If we handle pulps the way Discogs handles records, then:

Harry E. Maule - Short Stories, April 10th, 1934

becomes:

Jack Hulick, James B. Hendryx, Ernest Haycox, R, S. Spears*, George Allan England - Short Stories (Isle of Vanishing Men)

I dread to think how http://www.biblio.gs/book/70357-Unknown-Worlds-Aug-1942 would be handled.

Did I suggest "List every entity on a magazine's front cover as the main entity?" No. That's a horrible idea and basically the opposite of my proposal.

I don't know what your problem here is. If you think "Publisher Series" is a better credit for periodical brands, make your case. As long as everyone agrees to use the same credit roles for the same type of entities, that's the most important thing in the long run.

Isn't Series intended for a fiction series like Game of Thrones or Hercule Poirot?

That has been my understanding, and I've seen many others use it that way as well.

"Periodical Imprint" sounds like a division of a publishing house that publishes magazines, not a particular magazine.

Yeah, that's basically the problem of "Periodical Imprint", and the reason why my first choice was "Periodical Title". Also as a non-native English speaker I know from experience that the concept of "imprint" isn't familiar to everyone, I had a fellow Discogs user explain it to me eons ago, but even after studying English for a decade I wasn't familiar with the term. "Title" on the other hand is a lot more familiar.

To draw a Discogs parallel, I'm suggesting trying to document any release on the site the way its creators represented it: often times the performer is the main artist, sometimes the composer is the main artist, sometimes the compiler is the main artist, etc. By entering the artist on the cover as the main artist, we're not making a value judgment on others who might be involved in the release, we're simply documenting the release as it exists.

And this is why the automatic main credit isn't ideal at all, or the limit of three main credits, as it can contradict the publication. The above works in books that often clearly have a main credit (whether it's an editor, writer, compiler, or other), but I think periodicals are more problematic.

I think periodicals probably shouldn't have a main credit at all, the names featured on the cover are usually "merely" subjects of articles/interviewees/guest writers, etc. Giving them the main credit would be like making Marilyn Monroe the main credit for Marilyn in Art. I think the staff of the periodical is more entitled to a main credit than the subjects they write about - but I'd rather have neither.

Did I suggest "List every entity on a magazine's front cover as the main entity?" No. That's a horrible idea and basically the opposite of my proposal.

Hah, sorry then I misunderstood you too. :-)

IDid I suggest "List every entity on a magazine's front cover as the main entity?" No. That's a horrible idea and basically the opposite of my proposal.
I didn't say you supported that. I was saying Discogs is not necessarily a model we should follow here.
I think the staff of the periodical is more entitled to a main credit than the subjects they write about - but I'd rather have neither.
I might agree for things like Time or Newsweek. On the other hand, editors like John W. Campbell (Astounding SF), Hugo Gernsback (Wonder Stories), Farnsworth Wright (Weird Tales), and Joseph T. Shaw (Black Mask) had a huge influence on the development of entire genres of popular fiction. When Fanny Ellsworth replaced Shaw at Black Mask, and when Dorothy McIlwraith replaced Wright at Weird Tales, the entire character of the magazine changed. That's why I believe these editors deserve a main credit.

Of course, the down side is that characters like "Sergeant Saturn" (Startling Stories, Thrilling Wonder Stories, Captain Future) might get a main credit...

Yeah, that's basically the problem of "Periodical Imprint", and the reason why my first choice was "Periodical Title".

How about two credits?
"Periodical Title (Nonfiction)" as a top-level credit; and
"Periodical Title (Literature)" as a credit which ranks just behind Author and Editor.

Even if "Periodical Title (Nonfiction)" is a top-level credit, I still think that, for an individual copy:

  1. The magazine's title is: The New Yorker, November 23, 2015
    (You'll note I dropped "The Tech Issue"; I think that is a blurb, not a subtitlle)
Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.