Help talk:Entering non-genre periodicals

From ISFDB
Revision as of 20:05, 20 August 2008 by Kpulliam (talk | contribs) (→‎Further Comments: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What are non-genre magazines?

I have moved a long parenthetical sentence to a separate paragraph, "What are non-genre magazines?", and cleaned up a few spelling/grammar issues, but I also wonder if we want to describe the data entry rules in detail here or point the users to the main Help page/template that deals with these issues? Ahasuerus 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page is still a work-in-progress, i saved it only because I had to be away from my computer for a while and did not wish to risk a crash.
My reason for describing the data entry rules in detail here is to specify which ones are actually optional for this special case. i will include a link to the main help on these issues as well.-DES Talk 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Dialog between Bill and DES

Thanks for creating this! I composed my response offline so apologies for any criticisms that have already been fixed.BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, responding inline, inserting copies of your signature to make it clear who wrote what. This is still very much a work in progress, which is why it isn't linked anywhere yet. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"What are non-genre magazines?" - we should include examples of newspapers too. The New York Times, the London Evening Standard, for example.BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, will do. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Why should one enter non-genre magazines" is a question, so either it needs a "?" at the end or should be changed to "Why one should enter non-genre magazines" (statement). BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, will do. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't state WHEN we should add such:

  • When the first printing was in a magazine?
  • When the first printing in a certain country was in a magazine?
  • For ANY printing in a magazine?
  • Do we include SF stories that have ONLY appeared in non-genre magazines (so far)?
  • If an author is notable enough that we're including their non-genre books, do we include their non-genre shortfiction in non-genre magazines?
  • When we spot stories by SF authors in such a magazine, do we include them "just in case" or leave them out? BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say that an editor may choose to create stub entries for any of the above, but it is more important when the first or only printing (or first or only printing in the English language, since the ISFDB is English-language-centered) is in a non-genre publication.
As to non-genre short-fiction, i would tend to leave it out for now, but that is really a separate discussion, and i don't presume to settle that question now.
As to stories by known SF authors, when the editor doesn't have the actual story at hand, and must guess as to whether it is SF or not, that would be a judgment call, IMO. If it were me, i would tend to do additional research and see if i could find some other reference (an anthology, a lotus listing, or whatever) to indicate tha tit was SF before listing it, unless the author involved was pretty well known to write nothing but SF, or the title suggested that it was SF, or perhaps suggested that it was part of a known SF series, or something of the sort. failing that I wouldn't list, but I don't want to state that as a rule. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Required data" - all the example dates are day, month, year: I've bowed to American format and allowed month, day, year for Saturday Evening Post entries for example. Do we want them regularized in general, or for each magazine, or do we not care? (Personally I vote for "not care" - these are only stubs and the CONTENT is important, DATE of the publication is important, date FORMAT in a title is not.) BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing within a given magazine is IMO a Good Thing, beyond that i don't think it is vital. I'll mention other date formats. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's purely cosmetic. One thing I do want to avoid though is the need to create individual Wiki pages for each magazine to state the rules for such - I think the "look at other editions for formatting advice" you give is a good guideline though. BLongley
Largely cosmetic, but not quite purely. If you know the format used, and it has been used consistantly, doing a search for a specific issue is easier and more reliable (that is, no result really means no such issue on file.) But I agree it isn;t vital, and if anyoen really wants to do clenup afterwards to enforce consistancy it is easy enough to do, there is no need for the editor who does inital entry to feel constrained by hard and fast rules on this point. -DES Talk 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That's the main thing for me - keep this simple or it will put people off. We've already gone from one simple submission, to maybe needing two (if Editor Series have become desirable). Even creating the Non-Genre Magazine index has meant there may be three edits needed, if it's a new one: and then we've gone from ISFDB-editing to Wiki-editing (and you know how many editors are currently frustrating us by not even finding their own talk-page!). If we're not going to standardize all dates though, I doubt anybody will remember exactly how each magazine title is formatted: and as I don't want us to create Wiki pages for each non-genre magazine to record such, my original 'title, abbreviated month, year' in separate fields is still likely to be my preferred search. (Or is anyone thinking of entering Months numerically for any particular title?) BLongley 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree that things need to be as simple as possible. Note that editor-series, if though valuable, can be done afterwards by anyone who thinks they are valuable, there is no need to require the editor who does the initial entry to do them. The same is true of editing wiki pages. As for date format, I'll standardize them if people want that, and write a standard into the help page, but I was trying not to be overly prescriptive in leaving that a bit looser. Mind you, if we did create such wiki pages they should be short and quick to create, and once created should need little maintenance -- if someone else thinks it worth the effort I don't see why you would complain. I don't plan to create such pages at this time, however. -DES Talk 22:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"date of the issue (or issues, in the case of a serial) " confuses me too. I don't think we should discourage entry of a single episode if that's all that we know about. There's no guarantee that a serial completed even in a genre magazine. I think at this point that we should also mention that if we HAVEN'T found a precise edtion of a magazine, notes on the title record will do just fine in the meantime - there's no good reason to make a monthly or weekly or even daily title look like an annual if all we have is a year.BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I intended that line to cover cases where a serial is know to have been printed in multiple issues, and the dated of each issue are known. i will cover the other possibilities better. i agree with you when a reasonably accurate issue date is not known, leave it to a title note. I will mention title notes in general better. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"If there is no information about a variant title, you may assume that the title was not changed." I think this is too dangerous an assumption. Many references don't state that it was published under a different title in ISFDB terms (lacked or added a leading "The" for example). I think the default should be "assumed the same, but not proven" until we get a primary check. BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What i meant was, in the absence of evidence, enter the title in the known later form, but obviously this can be changed when and if evidence is found. I didn't mean to imply that was good enough to verify on. I think we are in agreement on this, just a question of how to say it for clarity. I'll reword. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Steps to take" - if we've done it right with the "Editors of..." stuff, then there's no need to go to ADVANCED search at all unless there's going to be a LOT of results and you want a smaller results page. Some existing data is also missing the EDITOR record so I wouldn't recommend restricting the search by that yet. If we do find there's enough data to want to narrow it down, I find title, month (abbreviated), year in the three separate fields of the "ISFDB Publication Search Form" best - that avoids any problems where the title format is vague. And these are only stubs - we have to be allowed to be a bit vague. BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I DO want to allow for stubs to be entered with the actual editor's name when known, and not all such will be marked as pesuds of "the editors of" since that is a separate step that may be missed. Besides, I would send people to advanced search anyway to avoid the 100-entry limit, we're already over thirty on the SEP

Editor Field - either we stick with "Editors of MAGAZINE NAME" (and we probably need to standardize Magazine name a bit - e.g. I've no idea when Collier's was "Weekly" or "Magazine") or we have problems. Pseudonyms are currently controversial - they work well as pseudonyms of "Editors of MAGAZINE NAME" but creating such makes "promotion" of such editors to full ISFDB "Author" a major pain. BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I will remove the recommendation to make such entries pesuds, but I think that if the actual editor's name is known, it is perverse not to enter it.
I'm not recommending NOT entering such at all, but if it's an insignificant detail then a note for the relevant issue is enough, IMO. When it's someone like Alice K. Turner then it's not insignificant. If people are against pseudonyms (and I can see why) then we can either leave notes or credit the Editor in the database field, in which case we've lost all the simplicity of entering these: the original suggestions meant you could create these stubs in ONE sunmission. As soon as you start adding inconsistencies then it means more work - e.g. varying the Editor (which breaks simple search for "Editors of...") means that to keep all the publications together you have to go along the lines of swfritter's Editor Series. Which means a second edit pass and second approval at a minimum. The more work we make, the less likely people are to do it: this is also why I demonstrated that for small runs of magazines, with consistent editors, it's easy to add one link to the set without doing all that work. BLongley 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that a) we can't be sure that we know who is "significant" or not, it might well be that a change of editor will correlate with a change in the frquency of SF content, and b) really any editor is significant. IMO the only reason to use an "editors of" entry is when we don't know and can't easily find the actual editor's name. When i make such entreis I plan to dop a little research, at least a google search and an OCLC searc. if either yields an actual editor's name i would of course use that instead of "editors of".-DES Talk 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll leave you to do the Editor Series work. (And I think we should probably stress that people enter the data anyway, the people that CARE about such can fix it up later - if this help page ends up with too many rules then I want it separated into "How to Enter" for normal editors and "How to Arrange" for the zealots.) To me, almost all Editors are INsignificant. Really. Even Campbell or Gernsback. ("SACRILEGE!!", I know). The Editors I have been known to look for are Damon Knight and John Carnell - but currently ISFDB isn't even properly set up to search for all real Editors whose taste in selected works is something I share. I'd search for "Angus Wells" if it did but Editors of Single-Author Collections don't get credited. I'd much rather that was sorted than add every J. Random Bloke that ever edited a non-genre magazine to our Author directory. We're already having to deal with multiple authors with the same name, I'd like to minimise the risk of more collisions between Good SF Bloke and nonentity with same name. BLongley 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As for the issue with searching, i frankly don't see it as a major issue. Instead of searching on "Editors of Playboy" one can just do a title search on "Playboy", or an advanced title search on "Title=Playboy" and "titletype=Editor". The latter finds all the same records, plus at least one that already exists using a real editor's name (the above mentioned Alice K. Turner). (Indeed several of the playboy editors may have been significant -- i have read comments in author's intros to stories about various SF authors having ongoing relationships with such editors.) -DES Talk 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The simple search for title Playboy gives 57 results, none of them of type Magazine. Yes, WE know we have to look for the EDITOR records among them, but many of our casual users don't. (Seriously, go show ISFDB to someone that's never seen it before but likes SF - the "Simple" searches are anything but that to them, the results are so polluted with things they never wanted to see it really does put people off - but I know that's something Al will have to attend to, we won't fix that here.) Advanced search does mostly give us what we want, but 1) there are still a LOT of missing Editor records (I had to fix half a dozen just to do the few non-genre mags we've just covered) and 2) if we've put people off with a bad Simple search there's no way we're going to get them to try Advanced. BLongley 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In the words of one Web programmer who looked at the ISFDB earlier this year, "Do you really expect casual users to be able to use this, um, interface?"... Ahasuerus 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"In the year field enter the date of publication in YYYY-MM-DD format as closely as it is known" - this again is where we should consider title notes instead. There's no point creating a "Playboy 1962-00-00" record just because you haven't pinned down which of a dozen it is. Nor a "Saturday Evening Post 1962-02-00" record if you can't pin it down to one of the four (or was it five that year?). If it's not accurate enough, title notes are the way to go. BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of magazines that were only quarterly, If the issue was "1892 Spring" i would put the date as 1892-00-00. Similarly a monthly or bimonthly would not have the day, and might not have the year, filled in. I will clarify a bit. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Publisher - I don't want too many new publishers, leave blank if it's not someone publishing SF. Or at least keep it consistent. BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistent yes. I don't think most of these mags had all that many publishers, and in most cases people working form secondary sources will leave this blank anyway. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page count - approximations are enough for me. Format - I'm not bothered, just don't invent any more new ones please. I've left dimensions in notes when I found them. "Digest", "Pulp", "Bedsheet" are STILL so poorly defined here that I wouldn't use them anyway. (Someone go fix the regular help please?) BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll suggest leaving this field blank. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes - Ah, this is one of the big philosophical differences. Yes, if you think you have a good authoritative source, mention it. If you're creating a Frankenpub from multiple sources, as I occasionally do, I prefer NOT to reveal my sources as I want them investigated. Quoting sources for such may stop people investigating further and from challenging entries. Even an "Information sourced from Ebay auction" comment seems to make people think "that's good enough for me". (And in this case, The FictionMags Index does have a LOT of such.) BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dosage. I want to know what sources a person used so i know where not to waste time and where else might be worth looking, or on the other hand where to check if an entry seems odd. Indeed if I were the ISFDB dictator, i might be inclined to say "make no entry at all without a noted source". But I'm not, still i want to encourage listing the sources used. Still we can discuss the matter. -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's precisely BECAUSE people want to "know where not to waste time" that I avoid such notes - as I don't think a double-check is ever wasted. (Treble might be, quadruple, quintuple ones, yes... but I'm still waiting for multiple verifier support. I might stop checking everything when I see two or three careful verifiers have put their names to something.) And I don't mean just go check I transcribed it right, I mean RESEARCH it by the best means you know how. (Any good sources I find are mentioned in ISFDB, just not at publication level.) It's probably not worth a big discussion - we've had those before, and you're not the only person telling me I should quote sources, but I think my slightly maverick attitude helps in the long run. If I don't quote sources, it means someone that thinks sources are essential will double-check it. Of course, someone could just delete the 80% of data here that doesn't have a source credited and start over again: but if so I'd rather they do it with our data on another site. Al might get a bit annoyed that so much of his original typing was wasted, too. -BLongley
I am not proposing to delete unsourced data, but like anthologies without page numbers, I would hope it becomes rarer over time. You may be right about lack of sources inducing people to double check, but it is still a bit unfair IMO, people should be able to decide if they want to spend time double-checking you, or single-checking stuff that no one has really vetted at all. As for myself, if I see something that looks odd, I am I think at least as likely to check it if I see a source listed, perhaps by trying a different source, to see if they agree. If no one ever records sources, who will we know when something has in fact been quadruple-checked, and avoid quintuple checks. Well I've made my point, and I probably won't convince you. But I think it it is a good idea for this help page in particular to recommend recording sources, as this sort of data is even more likely than most to be built on secondary sources, and recording them may help us get a better handle on where our info is coming from, and may induce some people to do a bit more research when creating an entry. Frankly, i suspect that many if not most of the "non-genre magazine" entries will come, not from general checklist such as we might have in the "sources" page, but from "acknowledgments" or "history" sections of reprint anthologies. I could be wrong. If people actually record their sources we might find out. -DES Talk 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't let me discourage YOU from adding sources: I just think with current ISFDB software a mixture of those editors that don't add sources and those that do is probably healthier all round in the meantime and encourages multiple checks. If I didn't research as much as I do I'd probably be adding far more notes AGAINST current entries: which might be another useful indication, e.g. if I spot an Ace publication with an ISBN starting "07221" I immediately know that can't be right: I could add a reference to the publisher page that points out which publisher DOES use that prefix, and it isn't Ace: or I could just remove the incorrect ISBN: or correct the pub from my other research: or delete it entirely. I make deletion a last resort, but as people won't always go down to pub level notes I prefer to correct rather than note, where possible (I don't want anyone thinking Ace ever published 07221 pubs if they're just looking at a publisher/year summary, for instance). BLongley 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing that MIGHT make me change my practices is if notes were signed, verifiably. I agree over-checking is a waste of resources, and I'd be happy to stop checking a pub from secondary sources if it had, say, been checked by you against The FictionMags Index and swfritter had commented that another later magazine said it was a reprint from that exact magazine, and MHutchins mentioned that the original magazine was credited in a Collection. I believe Al is working on Edit Histories that might give me that confidence that Notes were added by the person that the Notes SAY added it (and in the meantime, you might want to add "SIGN your notes" as a guideline). Of course, I'll never be truly satisfied until it's been Primary Verified several times over by people I respect, and I want people to treat my edits with the same paranoia I exhibit towards other people's work. (I see I've recently passed 30,000 edits - I'd guess at least 5,000 of those are correcting myself, 1,000 of the rest are probably still not perfect, and there's 100s where other people gently pointed out where I may gone wrong. I do NOT want to sound "authoritative" in any way - so I WANT a bit of vagueness about the reliability of anything here, before anybody finds out that I am actually a conglomerate of Scientologists sent here to establish a reliable reputation before we reveal the fact that L. Ron Hubbard wrote all Speculative Fiction, ever, and we WILL shortly submit and approve the Variant Authors when you're all asleep. ;-) BLongley 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, as Bill said, you are not the only one pointing out that recording one's sources is a Good Idea for numerous reasons. For starters, an unsourced FrankenPub can be misleading since it doesn't warn casual users where the data comes from and that it may not be reliable due to possible conflation of multiple publications -- see examples below. Moreover, even if Bill returns to the pub later on, he (not to mention other editors) will probably have to re-do all the legwork since he won't remember what sources he may have checked. Finally, based on prior experience with unsourced publications, the Frankenpubs will be eventually reviewed and re-checked by other editors, who will confirm and source some of the data elements and move the rest of them to Notes with a comment along the lines of "Original ISFDB record stated that the publication date was 1923-00-00, but the source of this information is unknown". Doesn't look like a productive way to approach things, but it's been my experience that many otherwise sane contributors occasionally disagree with me (!) on what appear to be clearcut issues. Probably something in the water... Ahasuerus 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The exceptions (for me) are entries from some sources that people think are good but I'm yet to be convinced of - so I'll quote OCLC if that's all I used. But if I found a pub on "Read It, Swap It" and somebody on Alibris wants to sell it to me, and Amazon admit it exists but assure me it's by HarperCollins even though the pub existed years before HarperCollins was formed, and there's a cover-scan on somebody's personal site that we can't use, but seems to prove there was a Panther edition, even if Panther was just an imprint of Granada by then, I'm not going to quote sources. BLongley 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In that kind of case i might say something like "Data combined from various online vendors, no one of which seems fully reliable". The notes I really want are "Data from 'acknowledgments' section of Best Vampire Stores edited by Elwood and Greenburg" (to make up an example). -DES Talk 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I do add some notes about sources in a roundabout way - e.g. here is information about 36 different printings, recorded in the source. The page for that title is long enough already that I didn't use it to create all 36 though, just the ones I could verify. BLongley 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll be getting back to this later tonight.

Other Comments

  • Do not enter a cover artist, nor a cover image URL. Leave both fields blank.

I'm curious about the above limitation. Could we extend this and allow 'genre' covers and cover artists to be listed? (i.e. the Cover is for the SF work being added)

You may also want a line about crediting interior artwork (When its associated with the SF work. kpulliam 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interior art is mentioned in the fifth step of this section. I see your point about the cover art of the magazine. I agree that if the cover illustrates the spec-fic that's indexed, it and its artist should be credited. MHHutchins 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, i will qualify this. -DES Talk 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Bonestell for example did covers for Colliers which are worth recording I'd think. The articles and pictures became The Conquest of Space which we have a stub entry for already. Dana Carson 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Going forward

I think that I have incorporated all the comments made to date in the current version of the help page, and that it is reasonably complete, if not correct. Please review it and make further comments, as needed, so that we can come to a consensus on this issue. -DES Talk 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments

  • In What are non-genre Magazines, the last two sentences "General newspapers, such as the New York Times and the London Times have occasionally published SF. Any issues containing works of speculative fiction can also be entered in the same way as a non-genre magazine." should be combined to read "General newspapers, such as the New York Times and the London Times have occasionally published SF and any issues containing works of speculative fiction can also be entered in the same way as a non-genre magazine."
  • In "Why...." second paragraph, "It is never required...." should be changed to "It is not currently required...." or "It is not always required...." or even better... "It is not always necessary...." Never is such a strict word. (Required is too.)
  • In "Required Data": "The name(s) of the author(s) credited in the initial publication." is flat wrong. We would (and mention a few lines later) gladly take the canonical name of the author, if that is all that is available. Perhaps a better first sentence would be "The name(s) of the author(s) as credited in the initial publication, or if unknown then the name of the author as shown in a secondary source." - This line needs more work... I don't like what i just wrote either.
  • In "Steps to take", "In the "year" field...." I think we need more definition on the quirks of periodical dating. Some obvious dating problems (that a predefined conversion would solve:
    • Mid-MONTH should be entered as YEAR-MM-15
    • MONTH_XX-MONTH_XX+1 should be entered as YEAR-XX-00 (Use the first of two months listed)
      • Unless it's DEC-JAN and the year of publication matches JAN, then use YEAR-01-00
    • Is Winter at the end of the year or the beginning? Should WINTER 77 be entered as an early '77 date, or a late 77 date?
      • Season Month = Month Season Begins? (Or the reverse SEASON=Month Season Ends) - Barring other evidence, where FALL is in Year XX and Winter is published in YEAR XX+1.
    • Others: BONUS, EXTRA, 'Holiday', etc. What to do if a supernumary issue falls is issued on the same day as a regular issue. (This one will be exceedingly rare to even occur and to ALSO have SF in it. Feel free to ignore this one, just postulating.
      • Just being silly on this one... what about those poor periodicals issued prior to 1751, where Jan 1-March 24 were part of the preceeding year by current standards... should the editors be concerned about that. (Seriously - I'm just kidding; of course we should record the printed date - Now where did I leave those copies of the Transcripts of the Proceedings of the Royal Societey.. Oh wait.. they weren't fiction - Did they 'ever' publish fiction. What IS the oldest periodical to include fiction. Newspapers have been doing it for centuries....)
    • Issue no. and year (no month) enter as YEAR-01-IssueNumber (This puts multiples in order) or enter it as YEAR-XX-00 through No 12. All others get entered as YEAR-12-XX?
  • In "Steps to take", "If the accurate page count (including front and back covers)" Do we really want to do this? I thought page counts excluded from and back covers. (I could be wrong, will go read the help) - Yep. I'm wrong. the instructions say use front and back covers.... BUT I believe the early astoundings and other magazines entered from secondary sources often/usually left off the covers. Something for me to go research some then)... moving on...
  • In "Steps to take", "If a novel-length work published in a single issue is being entered, add "(Complete Novel)" to the title, and use a type of "SERIAL"." needs an admonishing that just because the magazine calls it a 'Complete Novel' we don't. And then a link to the right help file describing that fact.
  • In "Steps to take", "Leave the date field blank." Why? Per previous instructions this will most likely be the first or only publication in a periodical. We have already determined some date, and it's likely an original publication. We should instruct them to duplicate the issue date unless they have a reason not to. (Or maybe I don't understand what's supposed to go here - Feel fee to throw the clue stick at me.)
  • In "Serials". "Do not assume that a serial started in one issue must have been continued in the next. There are cases where a serialization was started but never completed." - Are there really? And the next issue was published? I personally thought that the only time this happened was when a magazine went under, or didn't go to print due to war/paper/money shortages for some several months. (But I'm often wrong - I'm just questioning the need for this. Even if it didn't get published... we would want to document that with an 8888 date wouldn't we?)
  • In "Editor Pseudonyms" how about if the Editor is known, have them add both the known editor and the Editors Of. No Pseudonym problems, and this solution is upgradeable while preserving all information, and making list link (to Editor Series) wok prior to the upgrade. (besides, few editors worked in a vacuum... they must have had lackeys or henchmen)
  • "The Alternative" should be moved to "Why one should Enter"... why make someone read to the bottom... if they were going to give up and move on.. they did it LONG before they found out about the alternative.

Sorry there was so much... the page as is, is great... these are just the things I thought of... many (most?) of them can be ignored. Kevin 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Help_talk:Entering_non-genre_periodicals&oldid=125177"