Series talk:Science Fiction Chronicle

From ISFDB
Revision as of 17:21, 9 September 2016 by Holmesd (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use this page for discussing the editing of Science Fiction Chronicle. Separate discussions by subject matter.

Magazine title

I like the number/month method even though many issues don't display it on the cover. I copied this from my post on the series page. As for issues that don't have the whole number displayed on the cover, Doug, check out the covers from 1993, the year I'm currently working on. -John- Syzygy 17:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple entries for a year in the series view

There are multiple entries for the same year in the series view (1984 has 2 – one empty; 1993 has 7 – one for each week). I expect some kind of merge needs to be done. The total number of issues is the same for following the grid and series views (54). There doesn’t seem to be series entries for 2000 and beyond. I expect we should have entries for up to 2006.

I'm no expert at some of this and I'm still learning so please correct if I'm wrong. I've submitted merges for the above. Some of the EDITOR records have no publications submitted but are there for the awards. As issues are added to that year, their EDITOR records can be merged. I believe that's why there are no series records for some years - they have no pubs and no awards entered. As they are, they will appear. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is one issue that covers two months that cross a year boundary (Dec 95/Jan 96). The grid seems to put multiple-month records in the first month. Does the grid do that automatically or is there something special that needs to be done or is it based on the date entered for the publication? Ditto for the serial summary.
I don't see any such issue. I believe the grid is determined by the magazine issue date, and that goes by the first month of a multi-month entry. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Not there yet, it's in my pile to enter. I was trying to get this stuff figured out before starting. Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Naming in the issue grid

Most issues in the grid show issue number and month. There are exceptions, starting in 1997, whence all but one do not include the number. The exceptions are all unverified, so finding the number may be difficult.

This is due to different people entering the data whether verified or not. Some of us tried to maintain the same conventions but stuff happens. It looks like all the unverified ones need to be changed if we want to keep the "number/month" convention. If we don't, we'll have to change the other ones. I like the "number/month" method (as long as the number is shown prominently on the cover) because it shows immediately where there are gaps in subs entered. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the number/month as well and am happy to change the existing. If anyone else has an opinion, jump in. Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Remember, if you want to change someone else's verified data, you should talk with him first on his talk page (if we don't get any more response here). I'll say here that I patterned my SFC entries after those of Locus. Check out various Locus pubs to see the various series and formats. Doug / Vornoff 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I figure this is a discussion forum for getting a reasonable, consistent approach. Once we figure that out and document it, we can identify changes to specific issues and notify the verifier(s). Doug H 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I also like the number/month method even though many issues don't display it on the cover. Syzygy 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
John, I looked at most (not all) of the SFC covers on the ones entered and all had the number. Where are you seeing these? Are these for some that aren't entered. Also, I started looking through various magazine grids (by entering "magazine" in the series search) and they are all over the place on magazine titling conventions. I'd vote for the way Locus does it. Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Check out any issue in 1993, the year I'm currently working on. Syzygy 16:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Bi-monthly publication naming - using - or /

  • One of the bimonthly publications uses " - " (Science Fiction Chronicle, #198 July-August 1998) and another uses "/" |(Science Fiction Chronicle, #189 May/June 1996). The one's I have use the "/" notation.
Again, different people entering data. The " - " notation is used by Analog - good enough for me. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Counter-argument is the magazine itself puts the "/". One vote each way, although I'm more interested in consistency so will go either way. Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right that it should be as shown on the title page of the magazine, if there, and then by the cover if it's not. Remember any questions you have can also be posed on the Help Page. Doug / Vornoff 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
By title page, I assume you mean page 3, under the title banner, above the table of contents, next to the publication information. The copies I have give me (cover date in brackets): (July / August 1992): July 1992/Volume 13, Number 10/Issn 0195-5365/Whole #153; (October/November 1994): October 1994 / Volume 16, Number 1 / Issn 0195-5365 / Whole #177; (December 95/January 1996): Issue #187 / December 1995-January 1996 / Volume 17, Number 2 / ISSN 0195-5365. It looks like they use only the first month unless it spans a year and avoid "/" because it is a separator for other information. Given the cover is a) more visible / recognizable and b) more complete, I think I'd prefer using its spanned "/" notation. The title page is not only inconsistent about order for Issue/Date, but changes what it calls it (Issue / Whole). Doug H 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
On this help page it says "A hyphen should be used between two months used for a bimonthly issue." If you go by the Help, it looks like a hyphen should be used. Here's an example done by an experienced editor where he uses the hyphen. Not only that but the month is given as "March-April", the date is "1985-03-00" and the cover shows the month as "April", so inside on the publisher page it probably says "March-April", or "March/April". Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Which features should be included in a Series?

The Obituaries and Editorials are part of separate series, but none of the other regular features use this approach. Is it because there are different names for these, while the other features go by the same name each issue? Would the Releases feature go here (April Releases, September Releases, …)? These two series use a different approach Editorial (Science Fiction Chronicle) and Science Fiction Chronicle Obituary, as opposed to Obituary (Science Fiction Chronicle). The only other obituaries are from Locus and Analog and they follow this naming.

I'm guessing the two you cite were modeled after existing Series conventions. There are many "Editorial (xxx)" series and the only other obit series were from Locus, Analog and Algol, although the latter uses "Obituaries" in the plural. I believe making new series is up to the individual editors; if you want a series for (Releases) you'd have to figure out some sensible way to do that. The question I suppose you have to ask is it worth it? Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Using the issue number or date in feature titles

Most of the features in the issue use “(Science Fiction Chronicle #nnn)” in their name. There are some issues that follow this rule and some that don’t. Two verifications have a mixture within the issues (#134 and #143). This means that if you list all titles for a feature (e.g. “Authors & Editors (Science Fiction Chronicle”), you get a mixture of naming types. Both (and a combination) have been used in various magazines at ISFDB.

Those were done by the same editor, a possible oversight? It happens all the time. This is another case where a consensus is needed and all the prime verifiers should be aware and agree. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposal then - for consistency - use the (Science Fiction Chronicle #nnn) and I'll change the existing ones. All in favour (or favor), say Aye, ... Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You're taking about disambiguators here, and I prefer the month year method. I will follow any consensus reached, though. Syzygy 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
In this example we got around it by using both. They are seasons instead of months but the idea is the same. If that doesn't work for you all, I guess I don't really have a preference - I've used both. Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

List of features

Of the features, not all names have been used consistently. Some exceptions (some are possibly typo’s, but some may reflect changes in titles between issues). There are also variations within a publication between the name in the table of contents and at the head of the article.

    • Authors & Editors (27) vs. Authors and Editors (1)
    • British Market Report (1) vs. British Market Reports (1) vs. The British Report (4) vs. The London Report (35)
    • Ed Naha’s Hallywood (1) vs. Ed Naha’s Nahalywood (21) vs. Nahalywood (2)
    • Jeff Rovin’s S.F. Cinema (2) vs. S.F. Cinema (10) [Kay Anderson’s Continuum (3) never appears without the nane {Continuum}, nor does Marvin Kaye’s Nth Dimension (1) or Don D’Ammassa’s Critical Mass (3)]
    • London Report (5) vs. London Report: Or, Beer and Loafing in Los Angeles (1)
    • Newsnotes (4) vs. Newsnotes and Events (8) vs. Notes (1) vs. Small Press Notes (3).
    • Publishers (19) vs. Publisher’s Notes (1) vs. Publishing Newsnotes (26)
    • The Twiltone Forest: Fanzine/Small Press Reviews (1) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Fanzines & Small Press (5) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Fanzines & the Small Press (1) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Fanzines/Small Press Stuff (2) vs. The Twiltone Forest: Small Press & Fanzines (3) [likely should be The Twiltone Forest].
I believe here the rule is enter what is on the title page (or the header of the column), not the ToC. So you will have those variances. I suppose you could gather them together under a Series if they were all definitely related. One choice, though, is whether to add the sub-heading or not. The Twiltone stuff could benefit from a Series, I think. Naha does have a Series. As to "London Report": I can't recall if that column has a sub-title every time, because if it did you could use it as the title and "London Report" as the Series as is done with many columns that have sub-titles. These are things that could be discussed on a column-by-column basis. Doug / Vornoff 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I missed that one, as well as the London Report. I'll go back and check my stats. Is this the right place for those column-by-column discussions? Doug H 00:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Missed them because I'd searched the series for Science Fiction Chronicle, which these don't include. Doug H 13:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems ok to me but I haven't seen this before. Otherwise it would be on your talk page or some public help page. Doug / Vornoff 06:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not use the 'Discuss This Page' feature for this magazine series? Discussions here are going to get bogged down. Syzygy 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree - we are rapidly getting confusing with the responses all over the place. I don't see that 'Discuss This Page' on the Science Fiction Chronicle series page. I think we are on it now, aren't we? Doug / Vornoff 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you're logged in on the wiki page, it is the first option under the 'This Page' heading where it says 'Discuss This Page'. It does not currently exist at the time of this posting, but I'll see what I can do to get it started. Syzygy 16:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Page has been started. The first heading is 'Magazine title'. Syzygy 18:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Series_talk:Science_Fiction_Chronicle&oldid=439528"