Talk:Scribner's Magazine

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

journal - vol. - iss.[edit]

Some Scribner's are [[Scribner's Magazine/Volume NN/Number N]] and others are not.

It would be good to settle this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's possible I'm the one who's introduced the inconsistency. I tend to think the "/Number N/" portion of a URL is unnecessary cruft, a level of detail better handled in a header, and skip it -- this is how I've approached Oregon Historical Quarterly, where I've done most of the work. But I'm not a fanatic about it...no problem if you want to move the pages I created and standardize. -Pete (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Later volumes have issues with toc, although, I think the majority doesn't. The table of contents is the thing, I guess. That there are many stories broke into several issues is another problem where it "looks" better to have the cruft of numbered issues. I started looking into Scribs because the first publication of Peter Pan was in them (The Little White Bird, Vol. 62). That was split into at least 3, maybe 4 issues. Mostly, I think I will only be strongly in favor of separate issues when the tocs show up and a little annoyed about aux-toc until then.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I see you put the toc all on one page for OQM....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the originals rarely if ever contained a sequential TOC, and to me it seemed more useful to have all articles in a single volume visible on one page, than to have four separate pages for each volume. But, this publication had far fewer articles per volume than Scribner's, and probably more uniformity as well (as in, no one-paragraph items, no free-standing photos or poems unassociated with an article...) So, my choices there may not be relevant here. If you have any suggestions about how to handle the Quarterly I'm interested (but of course, having put several years' of work into it, major changes could be a little difficult...)
And, I really am fine with moving the articles I created for Scribner's to a more standard title -- only wanted to explain my thinking, I don't have strong preferences here, and I'm glad somebody is looking at the bigger picture. -Pete (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am strongly in favor of breaking into issues due to the images, the 800+ pages/volume and the 5M restriction on my email (for delivery to my ereader).--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)