User talk:Moverton/2004
I was just looking at your List of articles published in Collier's New Encyclopedia, and was wondering whether we would not do just as well to leave this at simply Collier's New Encyclopedia, or Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921) if there is any possibility that we have more than one edition represented. In many respects the fact that this is an encyclopedia does not prevent us from treating it like any other work which is subdivided into chapters. It is only much bigger and in many more volumes. It may even need to be subdivided further with, for example, Collier's New Encyclopedia - 3 but that would have been downlinked from the head page for the work. The "list of ..." approach is certainly common on Wikipedia, but I wonder if it is the best way to proceed here. I look forward to your opinions. Eclecticology 20:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I hadn't really thought about it, but it is a good point. I think it would be better to use "Collier's New Encyclopedia" rather than "Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)". The articles could be indicated as coming from different editions if necessary. The articles I plan on adding here will be a selection of the largest ones. It won't be everything in the encyclopedia. A single list should be sufficient. This also brings up the topic of magazine articles. Should it just be the name of the magazine rather than "List of articles..."? Or perhaps these are different. —Mike 02:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- IMO the best way to deal with magazines is a primary page with just the name of the magazine that links to subpages for the separate volumes (named something like [magazine name, Vol. 467, sept. 1845] or whatever format is appropiate for referring to a specific volume of the magazine). The "volume pages" can then link to the separate articles of the volume. If it is a "small" magazine with a limited total number of articles (if, f.x. only five volumes were published and the magazine then was given up) the articles can be listed at the primary magazine page under volume headings. --Christian S 07:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think we are probably in general agreement, although I think that [magazine name, Vol. 467] should normally be sufficient for any magazine published monthly or less frequently. "Sept. 1845" in the example would refer to a particular issue or number in that volume. The intention was often that the issues in a volume would be bound together at the end of the period, and the pagination was thus continuous over the entire volume as opposed to beginning at page 1 with each separate issue. Eclecticology 16:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, specifying the volume will usually be enough. --Christian S 19:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- IMO the best way to deal with magazines is a primary page with just the name of the magazine that links to subpages for the separate volumes (named something like [magazine name, Vol. 467, sept. 1845] or whatever format is appropiate for referring to a specific volume of the magazine). The "volume pages" can then link to the separate articles of the volume. If it is a "small" magazine with a limited total number of articles (if, f.x. only five volumes were published and the magazine then was given up) the articles can be listed at the primary magazine page under volume headings. --Christian S 07:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have made the suggested changes. See Collier's New Encyclopedia and The National Geographic Magazine. —Mike 04:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It looks fine:-) I like the way you made issue headings at the volume page of The National Geographic, it is in good correspondense with the guidelines suggested above and can be used as a model for similar pages in the future. Perhaps it is time to create a "How-To page" on submission of magazines? --Christian S 06:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well done. Christian's right. Perhaps I can start to get something rolling at Wikisource:Title formats. Eclecticology 07:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)