https://www.bookogs.com/credit/48705-visions
Originally created as a Publisher Series on this book 3 years ago:
https://www.bookogs.com/book/48702-right-where-you-are-sitting-now-further-tales-of-the-illuminati
Hijacked yesterday as a German magazine by user indy133, then original use changed to Visions (2): https://www.bookogs.com/credit/530531-visions-2

Same as Discogs, if Visions started as a publishers series it should remain as that and the magazine should be Visions (2).

I never do these things, normally. And it was no hijack, it was just a small change. Visions series will just have a few entries, Visions magazine will have hundreds. So I thought it was better to have the 1 for this. It was just a small change, nothing serious..

Just name them Visions (Magazine) and Visions (Publisher Series). ;-)

'Just name them Visions (Magazine) and Visions (Publisher Series).'

Unfortunately, this is happening on the site. Contributors are going against forum consensus and disregarding guidelines. Imagine trying to pull this off on Discogs?

I never do these things, normally. And it was no hijack, it was just a small change. Visions series will just have a few entries, Visions magazine will have hundreds. So I thought it was better to have the 1 for this. It was just a small change, nothing serious..

I see your point, but, following the guidelines, maldoror is right, as the second created credit gets the number. Changing / updating existing data is only allowed to correct or improve it.

I understand Indy133 reason for doing it as I've felt like doing the same in the past and did once accidentally when I couldn't work out who created the profile, unsurprisingly it upset another user.

This was is easy to rectify just by amending Visions to Visions (2) and vice versa.

Just name them Visions (Magazine) and Visions (Publisher Series)

Yes, of course, I just wanted to wait, until we have some kind of decision on that topic.

Unfortunately, this is happening on the site. Contributors are going against forum consensus and disregarding guidelines. Imagine trying to pull this off on Discogs?

Fortunately this is not Discogs and we can try to make things better here. That's why we discuss these things and not just try to copy the Discogs methods.

Yes we can discuss this as much as we want but until the guidelines have been changed and approved by staff we should not be making up our own credit systems...which is happening. I also think it's a good idea to have one thread about this as we are currently discussing this on 3 different threads at the moment. I will say what I said earlier again here. I do not see the point in replacing one flawed system for another. I like the Wikipedia style disambiguation idea that someone mentioned but how realistic is that going to be?
What happens when we have 50 authors called John Smith or some other popular name, how will the (Brackets) work then?
How many credits with a suffix do we have in the database that will need to be changed and how do we change them?
We need to be asking ourselves these questions before any decisions are made.
Jay.

What happens when we have 50 authors called John Smith or some other popular name, how will the (Brackets) work then?
How many credits with a suffix do we have in the database that will need to be changed and how do we change them?
We need to be asking ourselves these questions before any decisions are made.

Do you think the numbers would make it easier? Any approach to limit the amount of choices will help.

It doesn't really matter that "It was just a small change, nothing serious..", it is either right or wrong and it seems the general consensus is that it shouldn't happen.

Nothing here is serious, it is just data after all. But if you want to contribute the guidelines are there so that the data stays orderly.

This is what I find in the guidelines which seems fairly clear:
Different entities with the same name (for example, two artists named "John B") should be entered as "John B" and "John B (2)". The (2) is not part of the name but is used to distinguish the two names. If you need to create a third, use (3) and so on. Never swap about the suffixes, once an entity is designated a numerical suffix, the entity must remain with that suffix. The suffix has no relation to popularity or historical order. (2.4.1. )

This is what I find in the guidelines which seems fairly clear:
Different entities with the same name (for example, two artists named "John B") should be entered as "John B" and "John B (2)". The (2) is not part of the name but is used to distinguish the two names. If you need to create a third, use (3) and so on. Never swap about the suffixes, once an entity is designated a numerical suffix, the entity must remain with that suffix. The suffix has no relation to popularity or historical order. (2.4.1. )

I know that, of course, but if you fave followed the thread about name identifiers you should know already that the numbers will not be in use for long.
If you like, we can change it now as mirva has proposed:

Just name them Visions (Magazine) and Visions (Publisher Series).

I collect magazines for a long time now.
After much trial-and-error, In my own administrative database I use a format like:
Periodical title (LC) [yyyy-yyyy]

Explanation in case of Visions mentioned above
Periodical title: Visions
LC (ISO 3166-2 Landcode of publishing): DE
1st yyyy (first year of publication): 1992
2nd yyyy (last year of publication): present

Complete Periodical title would then be:
Visions (DE) [1992-present]

Maybe that might be an idea?

Individual periodicals can have a similar format:
Isue title of this one: https://www.bookogs.com/book/219462-visions-253-april-2014
would then become:
Visions (DE) 20140400 i253

Both are also very friendly for computers, when sorting alphabetically on titles.

@ArkivoRividi

We should start a new thread discussing magazine title naming.
I think it's a big deal since magazines account for about 15% of the items on this site.

If you like, we can change it now as mirva has proposed
It's not about what I like, it's about what is best for the database. Personally I don't think that publisher/book series and Magazine titles should even be in the same field.

We should start a new thread discussing magazine title naming.
I think it's a big deal since magazines account for about 15% of the items on this site.
I agree

If you like, we can change it now as mirva has proposed

It's not about what I like, it's about what is best for the database. Personally I don't think that publisher/book series and Magazine titles should even be in the same field.

We should start a new thread discussing magazine title naming.
I think it's a big deal since magazines account for about 15% of the items on this site.

I agree

I'll start making a proposal for a magazine Naming Convention, based on what I've learned in the last couple of years.

And of course, I'll try to explain as much as possible the logic behind it.

Then we have something to discuss about. To try and get consensus without a starting point is very difficult.

So stay tuned, within a couple of days it should be ready.

I have started a new thread with a proposal.

https://www.bookogs.com/forum/541795-proposal-for-naming-convention-of-periodicals

So let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement on naming periodicals.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.