What do you thing about developing a warning message when formats: Magazine, zine, newspaper, etc are selected along with Series.
Something like: "If this release is a Magazine/Zine/Journal, please enter name of publication as "Periodical Imprint".
I notice some magazines are entered as series, so if could be enter properly
Thank you

Personally, I think Periodical Imprint is a rubbish term that sounds like a company that publishes magazines, not a magazine. Or a line of books published using a magazine name as an imprint. People use Series because it makes more sense than Periodical Imprint. I did a google search for "Periodical Imprint"; I essentially found no references indicating the term is used to describe a magazine title.

Not to mention the fact that there actually is a magazine called Imprint. I did find references to the periodical Imprint.

The first thing to do is add a term that makes intuitive sense, like, I don't know, possibly, Periodical Title.

Then nuke Periodical Imprint

I notice some magazines are entered as series, so if could be enter properly

Are these recent submissions, or older ones? Because I know I at least added some with the Series credit before the Periodical Imprint credit was added. Not sure if I've fixed them. :P

The first thing to do is add a term that makes intuitive sense, like, I don't know, possibly, Periodical Title.

I agree that Periodical Imprint is not the best choice. I would've also chosen Periodical Title over it, but I was the only one (not that there were that many votes to begin with). A lot of libraries use "periodical title", so it would make more sense.

But I think even then we just probably have to guide some users to use the correct credit. Maybe a time to create a wiki page for the credits?

Personally, I think Periodical Imprint is a rubbish term that sounds like a company that publishes magazines, not a magazine.

Rather than continuing to grumble about this, I suggest proposing a change in the "New credit role requests" thread. "Periodical Imprint" was chosen based on literally two people participating in the thread discussing it. Furthermore, it was a compromise rather than being either my or mirva's first choice.

If everyone's on board with "Periodical Title," then let's go with that.

I've posted a request and link to the "New credit role requests" thread.

Ok, it has been changed now. Go and fix your submissions!

Thanks mirva. I agree we should start trying to assemble a "How To" wiki page for periodicals...

I've created a Credits list: https://www.biblio.gs/wiki/Credits-list
It doesn't have any definitions yet, so feel free to add them.

Is there anything other unclear with periodicals than the credit role?

Is there anything other unclear with periodicals than the credit role?

Not too much... I think we've sorted the credit role (hopefully). Although I think there was the situation emilianito1972 noted where the cover simply said "Rolling Stone" but the magazine itself was Rolling Stone España — in that case, what would the Periodical Title be? What it says on the front, or what the publication is called?

The only other thing to hash out is a standard way to enter the title. Options are:

[Title] [Volume/Issue #]
[Title] [Volume/Issue #] [Date]
etc.
(Or should we leave it to whether or not it appears on the cover?)

Technically all this data already exists in other fields now, so we'd be duplicating it. We could almost have the title auto-generated by these three fields...

I added a lot of pulps. If the volume and issue were on the spine or cover, I tended to use that. Otherwise, I used the date.

There are exceptions. Adventure dropped the Vol./Iss. Nos. from the spine when it changed publishers, so I think I used date throughout for consistency.

Examples:
https://www.biblio.gs/book/71710-Planet-Stories-Vol-3-No-6
https://www.biblio.gs/book/70620-The-Shadow-October-1st-1937

where the cover simply said "Rolling Stone" but the magazine itself was Rolling Stone España

That's a difficult one. If the magazine doesn't have "Rolling Stone España" printed anywhere, it might be problematic for submitters to find the correct entry.

The only other thing to hash out is a standard way to enter the title.

So far I've entered them "as on release." Different magazines have different numbering methods, so maybe the method should be specific to each magazine rather than all magazines?

Of course we can standardize it too, in which case we don't have to care about establishing a method for each magazine. Though we still need to take into account the fact that not all periodicals have a date or a volume/issue number.

We could almost have the title auto-generated by these three fields...

That's true. But that would need coding...

Thinking about magazines and how to eter correctly, I think we are considering books and periodical publications in the same way and that is not OK. Regarding books main identifiers are: Title, Author and Publisher, and template seems to be designed mainly for books/novels/etc but when we are handle magazines, etc main identifiers are others like: Periodical Tite, Headline, front cover photo, issue number, date,... and somehow the template should be (slightly) different.
Why force to enter the title of a magazine? most of them haven't got it
We should put in first place what makes an issue as unique and the most significant:
In this case: https://www.biblio.gs/book/86176-Ruta-66-78
Periodical title: Ruta 66
Date : Nov, 1992
Issue Number: 78
Headline: Festival Reading (not suere this one)

In this case: https://www.biblio.gs/book/13150-Thrasher-5-1991
Periodical title: Thrasher
Date: May, 1991
Issue Number: 5
Volume Number: 11

Agree with comes a term with magazines, but same with zines, with journals, and all kind of periodical publications

Why force to enter the title of a magazine? most of them haven't got it

I disagree with this. I think the periodical title belongs to the title field more than anything else. I think we mostly should discuss what else belongs there.

I was wondering if Comicogs would have it figured out, but looks like no...

and somehow the template should be (slightly) different.

In what way? Just curious, because I haven't had any problems with it. :)

That's a difficult one. If the magazine doesn't have "Rolling Stone España" printed anywhere, it might be problematic for submitters to find the correct entry.

It is a tricky one. According to https://www.biblio.gs/forum/48690-Rolling-Stone-Spanish-version the magazine is named "Rolling Stone España" and it's printed that way inside the magazine. Perhaps as suggested in that thread, the title would be "Rolling Stone" but the Periodical Title would be "Rolling Stone España."

The alternative, using exactly what the cover says as the Periodical Title, presents the problem that there would be parallel issues of a single entity "Rolling Stone" that represented two different magazines. A hypothetical example being RS #123, July 1976 (the US issue) and also RS #123, February 2007 (the Spanish issue). That might also be problematic.

(The third option would be creating, say, "Rolling Stone (2)" for the Spanish version. I don't know if that makes sense.)

The only other thing to hash out is a standard way to enter the title.

Thinking about this more. Perhaps we could borrow from Discogs g3.1.3 — "consider what is going to be most useful to other users, so the most complete title is better no matter where it appears. In rare cases, it may be necessary to make up a compound title from the various versions of the title on the cover, spine, label etc."

So rather than asking for a standardized way to enter the title, we could just suggest "joiners" (e.g. "different components of the title should be separated by commas" or "within parentheses").

When I think in a book I think in the title, author and lesser in publisher
About magazines I think in the name of the magazine, common for each issue. I read "the June issue of Rolling Stone" - Name of magazine, date, issue number, not title of magazine
An issue of a magazine is not recognizable by any title, they are not given title but date/issue# and offter the cover star
Check front page from a newspaper: http://nubr.co/CG63q3
Identifiable by its name (periodical title): The Guardian
Headline: "Police review..."
Cover shot
Date

BTW I miss be able explain in Spanish... I wish a thread in my language :)

Sorry for misunderstanding you. I'm not a native English speaker either, which makes it even more difficult... :)

An issue of a magazine is not recognizable by any title

Yeah, magazines don't have a unique title in the same sense that books do, but the name of the magazine is often also considered a "title".

If we title magazines as on the release then this https://www.biblio.gs/credit/90417-BRAVO is the only way to do it properly but not useful and also redundant info.
If we title with the name of the mag plus issue#, cover date, etc or similar https://www.biblio.gs/credit/48174-Ruta-66 we are inventing a title and there are no rules for that on bibliogs

https://www.biblio.gs/book/90430-BRAVO

This says No. 43 on the cover. Why is it so unthinkable to simply call it Bravo No. 43?

https://www.biblio.gs/book/52148-Ruta-66-104 also has an issue number on the cover. I think you are way overthinking this.

What bothers me is turning cover blurbs into publication titles, as in:
https://www.biblio.gs/book/13326-Rolling-Stone-Los-500-Mejores-Albumes-de-la-Historia

Making cover blurbs part of the title leads to randomly sorted titles on the page for the periodical title credit, which is not good.

BTW I miss be able explain in Spanish... I wish a thread in my language :)

No, I understand you. Periodicals have some fundamental differences to books. A separate template asking for different data, or a separate database, would both make sense. But realistically, neither of those things will happen. We will just have to figure out how best to input the data into the template we have now.

I think there are two basic alternatives:
1.) Title is simply the publication title, nothing else. This involves duplication of one data field (Publication Title). It would theoretically be possible for data to still display [Title], [Issue Number], etc. but that would have to be coded by the developers.
2.) Title is an amalgamation of different data (e.g. title, issue number, etc.). This involves duplication of more than one data field.

Really I think someone like nik should weigh in here, with input from the developers. Is there a significant downside to duplicating data in the title field, simply for the sake of distinguishing titles of the same periodical?

Making cover blurbs part of the title leads to randomly sorted titles on the page for the periodical title credit, which is not good.

First off, let's not assume the Periodical Credit page will be sorted alphabetically. It would make sense to sort by issue number.

Text on cover can include blurbs (promotional language), contents ("Interview with xxx"), subtitles ("The Fashion Issue"), etc. Agreed blurbs shouldn't be part of the title. IMO contents should not either, but subtitles should.

First off, let's not assume the Periodical Credit page will be sorted alphabetically. It would make sense to sort by issue number.
Yes, it would; actually volume number first and then issue number. Or create a format like Magazine Title (YYYY-MO-DD), so they will sort neatly by date. But now it's alphabetical by title. And I'm sure people would argue the standardized format is not "As On Release." So what do you do with magazines that present Volume Nos. in Roman numerals?
Text on cover can include...subtitles ("The Fashion Issue")...
The Fashion Issue seems an awful lot like a blurb to me.

Agreed blurbs shouldn't be part of the title.

Same here.

on the cover

Are we taking the data from the cover/spine, which usually only has issue number and/or date, or from inside the magazine, which usually has the full info (Volume/Number/Issue + date)?

So rather than asking for a standardized way to enter the title, we could just suggest "joiners" (e.g. "different components of the title should be separated by commas" or "within parentheses").

That's true, and that way we wouldn't probably get so many of the "but it's not as on release" complaints. We would still have a sorting issue though, but I almost think sorting should be done by the system. Otherwise we have adjust data way too much.

Yes, it would; actually volume number first and then issue number.

We also have to take into account that not all magazines/zines have an issue number and/or a volume number. Not all of them have dates.

Are we taking the data from the cover/spine
If you're referencing my comments here, I generally entered the most visible data in the title field, but pulled Vol. No., Issue No., and cover date from the contents page if necessary. (I also frequently tried to mirror the headings and layout from the contents page in the Chapters field)

If you're referencing my comments here

It was just a general question, aimed at everyone. :)

I generally entered the most visible data in the title field

Yeah, that is what I've been doing as well. But it seems that others have been doing it differently.

So what do you do with magazines that present Volume Nos. in Roman numerals?

There are a few different ways to deal with this.

• On the user end: only enter Arabic numerals in the Volume field, enter as on release in the title field (this works for numbers that are spelled out, e.g. translate "One" into "1" in the Volume field)

• On the programmer end: have a "shadow" Volume field (like the shadow cat# field on Discogs) that converts Roman to Arabic on the back end for sorting purposes

• Simply ignore the problem and let the data sort as it will

At the moment, I'm leaving the pulp magazines l've entered alone until some things are sorted out.

Actually, another issue: name changes. In general, when the magazine is clearly the same publication (the names are similar, continuity of numbering, general look, editorial style), I enter the actual name in the title field, and use name variations so both variants go to the same profile. Examples:
https://www.biblio.gs/book/70620-The-Shadow-October-1st-1937 vs.
https://www.biblio.gs/book/83069-The-Shadow-Magazine-April-1st-1937

Similarly,
https://www.biblio.gs/book/72944-Unknown-June-1941 vs.
https://www.biblio.gs/book/72961-Unknown-Worlds-December-1941

On the other hand, if a name change is accompanied by a radical change in look and editorial style, i treat them as separate publications. An example where ownership, editorial style, look of the magazine, everything except Vol./Iss. numbering changed:
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/70629-Wonder-Stories vs.
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/70953-Thrilling-Wonder-Stories

Here's another magazine change with a name change. It went by a few other names too but I have not yet added them.

https://www.biblio.gs/credit/92059-Nintendo-Official-Magazine
https://www.biblio.gs/credit/92060-Nintendo-Official-Magazine-UK

If those are the same magazine, the name variation is so slight I see no need for two profiles. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge these into a single magazine with a Name Variation?

All of the previous names are also quite similar.

Nintendo Magazine System (Issues 1-53)
Nintendo Magazine (Issues 54-68)
Nintendo Official Magazine (Issues 69-131)
Nintendo Official Magazine UK (Issues 132-151)
Nintendo Official Magazine (Issues 152-162)

There were some significant layout and content changes with each rebranding from what I remember but I don't know if that's enough to separate them. It doesn't seem right to bundle them all together either though. Since the "UK" part only appeared on 19 issues it makes sense to merge them. Anyone else have any suggestions?

It doesn't seem right to bundle them all together either though.

Why not? The issue numbering didn't change, right?

The thing is that, unlike in Discogs, the name variation here can be used for any credit. So why should we keep separate entries for something that is clearly the same entity? Isn't it much more useful to have everything under one entry?

You'll note that I bundled together Unknown and Unknown Worlds. I also bundled together "Flynn's Weekly Detective Fiction" and "Detective Fiction Weekly (Formerly Flynn's)."

But which name should get the main credit? The original name which hasn't been used since the early 90s or the most recent name? Also with the current site there is no way to view different name variations, any word on whether that's coming in the future?

Also there appears to be an Australian version of "Nintendo Magazine System" which is different to the original "Nintendo Magazine System" from the 90s. The Wikipedia article is not very informative, though.

I'd use the name it's best known under. For example, I used Detective Fiction Weekly as the main credit.

Well Nintendo Official Magazine has the most issues, but it's not as well revered as the original Nintendo Magazine System as far as I know. Seems like a totally arbitrary decision.

Then use the original name if you prefer. Just pick one. I think you are overthinking this.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.