Wikisource talk:Periodical guidelines

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource talk:Periodicals)
Jump to: navigation, search

Recurring or serial work[edit]

  • A special case to consider is where the periodical contains an entire work split up over multiple editions of the periodical. These should be linked and I'm working on a special header for such cases.
  • A concern I have about the Periodical/edition/article structure is that some things in the periodical like poems will have no logical place and wherever they are put will not be the place they were in the original work.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Re the serial work, I'm not sure {{versions}} is right in this case. Two options are a different header style for such works that links to the next work - which is the track I was taking - or multiple templates on the same work as some articles on use. Consider fr:Les_Mois and fr:Les_Mois/Texte_entier. I don't particularly like this latter method but it's worth looking at a while. I'm not too worried about the page name, I don't expect most casual readers are using the address bar as their primary means of navigation.
  • Re the poems, well, I suppose, but does a limerick, or even a one-liner, get it's own page?--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it isn't quite right. The French page is a little similar to my (abandoned) synthesis plan. I'll wait and see how your header turns out.
  • Personally, yes, I would put limericks etc on their own pages but I can see others disagreeing. To me, however, it's a variation on Wikipedia's "Not Paper" argument: we are not wasting resources either way. The other extreme would be to have the whole issue on one page, which is likely to be worse. That said, with Weird Tales/Volume 36/Issue 1 and Amazing Stories/Volume 01/Number 01, I've left "other" stuff in the parent and just put the stories and poetry into subpages. In these cases, "other" mostly means adverts, as well as the covers and contents pages. I'm not sure what other people think about that approach. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright references[edit]

A source for a later additon: Some relevant copyright case law appears to come from Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. ( RE: renewals, there is point 8: "We unanimously conclude that where a magazine has purchased the right of first publication under circumstances which show that the author has no intention to donate his work to the public, copyright notice in the magazine's name is sufficient to obtain a valid copyright on behalf of the beneficial owner, the author or proprietor." I don't have time to add this right now but plan to get back to it at a later date. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)