Just noticed that a user has added a copy of the Argentina version of Rolling Stone magazine. The Periodical Title is Rolling Stone Argentina: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/239130-Rolling-Stone-Argentina

According to Wikipedia there are numerous international versions of Rolling Stone published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone#International_editions

Should each version have a separate Periodical Title or should they just be credited to Rolling Stone https://www.bookogs.com/credit/19902-Rolling-Stone with the Publication Location indicating the version?

There are many examples of magazines that have international versions, so this has wider implications for the database.

Perhaps Rolling Stone (Argentina International Edition)?
Or use the 2 letter abbreviation AR, etc?
Ideally they could all be grouped together by using the same Media Group.

Another option would be to enter "Argentina.." into the edition code (not ideal), or AR followed by edition #.
For other periodicals it may be possible just to tag on International Edition in parenthesis (or not).

If multiple magazines are subbed probably would be good to mention the international editions in the Rolling Stone (publisher or magazine) profile.

Need the ability to cross-link and something like sub-labels.

Thanks davilona. So, group by country/region and then cross reference to the parent company.

What if we change Rolling Stone Argentina to Rolling Stone (Argentina) with the role as Periodical Title and add Rolling Stone as the Franchise?

I can't think of another role for Rolling Stone at present, unless we use Periodical Title for both. Any suggestions?

Franchise, I hadn't thought of that. Should work if using Rolling Stone Magazine, unless you want to include books/reference there as well.
But franchise using the magazine name would put all of the magazine editions together and separate from their other stuff--a good thing, I think. Then each country edition could be cross-linked to the franchise (or vice versa).

I think the country in parenthesis looks better and gets the point across clearly.

Sorry to make this topic murkier but I just discovered a similar thread from about 2 years ago: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/48690-Rolling-Stone-Spanish-version

The outcome of that discussion was that Rolling Stone is the Periodical Title with Rolling Stone (xyz country) as a Series.

In my mind, a series is a set or sequence of related books written by an author/s. Rolling Stone (xyz country) is not a Series, nor for that matter a Publisher Series.

In a nutshell, I don't like the outcome of that previous discussion.

No, it doesn't make any sense to list as a series; it is the name of a periodical. According to the AR edition site, the official title is "RollingStone Argentina" http://www.rollingstone.com.ar
The website lists the other int'l editions at the bottom.
The series credit, imo, isn't appropriate for a standard periodical publication, even if it is an off-shoot of the original domestic magazine; that it is an off-shoot seems to make franchise even more appropriate.
I can see how it might make organization easier, but I don't think series or publisher series is a very good option.

Thanks davilona. I note that the agreed upon method of that previous thread was never implemented anyway.

Well if there isn't any precedent to be broken, I think that it is safe to move forward...

The outcome of that discussion was that Rolling Stone is the Periodical Title with Rolling Stone (xyz country) as a Series.

Back then we only had a very few credits to choose from. We had no Franchise, no Publisher Series, or Periodical Title, so we basically just had Publisher and Series. :)

Personally I don't like creating "false" entities, where the name of the entity doesn't appear anywhere on the publication. It complicates submitting as it makes the correct entries harder to find, and increases the likelihood of duplicates.

I'm assuming that the "Rolling Stone Argentina" is actually mentioned somewhere on the magazines (at least Rolling Stone España is/was), so I'd prefer using that over "Rolling Stone (Argentina)".

I think Rolling Stone should be the periodical title, I've never seen the branding include the country name. I believe Rolling Stone España and the likes are more like local branches which are responsible for the local editions, but I'm not sure what the appropriate credit for them would be.

So, in the end, I don't really care what the exact credit roles are as long as both Rolling Stone and the local office(s) are credited.

The problem I have in fulling interpreting the current data is the lack of images, however it is clear that the country of publication is not included in the titles shown on the cover.

The Spanish edition https://www.bookogs.com/book/13326-Rolling-Stone-Los-500-Mejores-Albumes-De-La-Historia has the Periodical Title as Rolling Stone España but this seems to be inferred rather than explicit.

The same applies to the two Argentinian submissions: https://www.bookogs.com/book/268330-Los-500-Mejores-Discos-De-Todos-Los-Tiempos and https://www.bookogs.com/book/239129-Charly-Garcia-La-Guia-Definitiva The latter submission has an image of the credits and the Argentinian location seems to be apparent only by the publisher details.

The German edition has been submitted with Deutschland in the title but this is not shown in the cover image, again this seems to be inferred: https://www.bookogs.com/book/204637-Rolling-Stone-Deutschland-218

The two French editions don't credit Rolling Stone and the only reference to the location is recorded in 'Publication Location': https://www.bookogs.com/book/142096-Rolling-Stone-ndeg-90 and https://www.bookogs.com/book/131592-Rolling-Stones-50-ans-de-legende-rock

What really needs to be addressed is what will users want to search for, i.e. is Rolling Stone sufficient or should this further broken down into the country of publication? I personally don't have the answer but I feel this matter needs to be addressed now before there are umpteen submissions that need to be sorted. As I originally state there are many magazines that are published in international versions, so this is not unique to Rolling Stone.

I totally agree that titles should not contain information that is not printed on the cover, but there might be room to manoeuvre with some of the other roles to effect a differentiation, if this is seemed necessary.

Back then we only had a very few credits to choose from. We had no Franchise, no Publisher Series, or Periodical Title, so we basically just had Publisher and Series. :)

I did wonder why users opted for the role Series instead of Periodical Title for magazine submissions at one time.

for fulling please read fully.

What really needs to be addressed is what will users want to search for, i.e. is Rolling Stone sufficient or should this further broken down into the country of publication?

The search is just one part of the puzzle, at the same time we have to keep data organized in a logical way, and keep the submission process/data entry relatively simple and straightforward for all kinds of users. The wonders of an open database. :)

I dug out some international issues (I took some screenshots, see the links below), and it seems that they all follow the same pattern, more or less:

Rolling Stone [logo]
Local Entity (for example "Rolling Stone Australia" or "Rolling Stone Deutschland")
US Entity ("Rolling Stone USA")
Publisher

Australia: https://i.imgur.com/ohevzGX.png
India: https://i.imgur.com/BtGZz5x.png
Italy: https://i.imgur.com/Xn9s2bg.png
Colombia: https://i.imgur.com/QyainPX.png
Brazil: https://i.imgur.com/nTMhMqG.png
France: https://i.imgur.com/nkkwdrE.png
Germany: https://i.imgur.com/wmZLBsA.png

If we entered all the above data as is, the local offices would take care of grouping the international editions by country. Though if we keep "Rolling Stone" as a periodical title on all editions, or as a franchise, we would have no entry for the US issues only.

Thanks mirva, I am impressed by your international collection of Rolling Stone mags and thorough research.

As a suggestion, how about we keep the generic Rolling Stone as a catch all credit and then credit the various country entities as outlined in your comment (including a new one for Rolling Stone USA) using the role Periodical Title. The role of Franchise can be used to credit Rolling Stone. The actual title should not have any inferred information.

Additionally, instructions could be added to the profile of Rolling Stone detailing the credit split and with any luck someone might follow them.

I am impressed by your international collection of Rolling Stone mags and thorough research.

Haha. They are not mine, I just have access to them.

Rolling Stone USA

I forgot to mention that it seems that the Rolling Stone USA credit is only used on the international editions, the US editions I checked didn't have a local office mentioned.

how about we keep the generic Rolling Stone as a catch all credit and then credit the various country entities as outlined in your comment (including a new one for Rolling Stone USA) using the role Periodical Title. The role of Franchise can be used to credit Rolling Stone.

Like I said this would cause a problem with the US issues, they would not have an entry of their own, they would share an entry either with the franchise or with the office name that is exclusively only mentioned on the international editions.

But it's not necessary a huge issue. If only we could sort the credits by role, then it would be a different story... Maybe in a decade or two. :)

I realise creating a Credit for 'Rolling Stone USA' is artificial in this circumstance, but I can't think of any other way of differentiating the various versions.

The generic credit Rolling Stone is being credited for diverse roles, such as periodical title, first published by, about/subject, contributor, etc. In time that credit will be cluttered with all sorts of publications that do not involve the magazine per se. I just think it would be helpful to collect each magazine into the country of publication to make them readily accessible.

I reiterate that this situation is not unique to Rolling Stone: Vogue, Weight Watchers Magazine, Woman's Weekly, Mad Magazine, are just some of the magazines that are published in international versions. To collect all of the variations into one credit seems to me clumsy.

Hmmmm... It seems I'm not choosing my words very wisely.

What I'm trying to say is that the "Rolling Stone USA" is almost as problematic as "Rolling Stone" as it appears on every single international issue, so the entry can't be uniquely for the US edition, leading to a situation where we either accept the fact that we don't have a "pure" US entry, try to ban users from crediting "Rolling Stone USA" on the international issues, or create a fake entity solely for the US edition.

The last two options are not ideal as they complicate data entry, and at least in Discogs it is seen as a more important factor than having properly sorted entries. But I'm not hell-bent following the same logic here, I'm just saying it's not something that should be dismissed so easily as we share some of the userbase.

In general I have nothing against having entries for the different editions, but I do think fake entries should be avoided whenever possible. I'm not really fond of the idea of creating one for the US edition either, especially considering the current database functions, but if we want an entry for the US edition alone, we might not have other options.

Light bulb moment. I finally see your point with the credit "Rolling Stone USA" as it appears on both the domestic and international versions.

Frankly I am at a loss how to treat this matter. It might be that just crediting Rolling Stone as the 'Periodical Title' is sufficient and let the role of 'Publication Location' differentiate which international version is being submitted. If at some stage the two roles are searchable as key words for example, then in theory a user will find what they want. I also see that creating fake entries could at some stage have unintended ramifications; the data equivalent of Frankenstein's monster.

On that note, I wish you and all of the Bookogs community a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Hopefully, everyone will receive lots of books that can be submitted :)

A see a user has created a new credit for Rolling Stone (fr) without any reference to Rolling Stone. I still don't know this matter should be resolved, but I feel this is probably not the right way.

A see a user has created a new credit for Rolling Stone (fr) without any reference to Rolling Stone. I still don't know how this matter should be resolved, but I feel this is probably not the right way.

Hi, I am the bad guy for Rolling Stone (fr). What is the "right" title for french edition if RS (fr) is not.

And note there was 4 Series since 1988 (the very first Series). Lot of researches to find the good issues in order :-)

It is not a matter of "bad" or "good", simply that this has not been resolved. Hopefully this time around we can make a decision.

Do they all, or at least some of them say "Rolling Stone France" somewhere, like this:
https://imgur.com/nkkwdrE

Maybe that could be used? It would also be then similar to the two existing entries in the database:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/239130-rolling-stone-argentina
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/72593-rolling-stone-espana

My current opinion is just to allow the regional variations entered as separate entries. The US version alone is 1300+ issues, so mixing everything under one entry would be a big mess. Even if we had an advanced search, or some sorting options, I think the smaller entries would be more useful, and more manageable.

Thank you mirva, I'll do that

So, just to clarify is Rolling Stone to be credited for these international editions in any capacity or do we just create totally separate databases for each country/region?

Do we use the English name for the country/region or is it going to be the localized language name?

On that 2nd question, we have France, Argentina, Deutschland, and Espana.

I'm lucky, France is the same name in english and french :-)

I saw too editions from Australia, Brazil, China, Colomboa,, India, Italy, Mexico, Russia... maybe more!

Colomboa => Colombia

I would just use what is officially used, possibly mentioned on the magazines. The ones that I've seen so far have used the local country name: France, Deutschland, Argentina, España, and Australia, India, México, Brasil, Italia, Colombia - but I don't know if this the case with all of them.

just to clarify is Rolling Stone to be credited for these international editions in any capacity

I don't know, it depends on what the "Rolling Stone" entry is supposed to be. If it's the entry for the original US magazine, then probably not. But if it's more of a generic franchise credit, then it could be also added. What do you think - would it make sense to add both?

Personally, I would keep the US editions separate by crediting them in the generic Rolling Stone database and not crediting the international versions to this name. I think it would be a good idea to provide a list of the international versions in the profile of Rolling Stone using hyperlinks, so that users are aware of them.

I'm fine with the official names in the Credit title.

Sounds like a plan to me.

I vote for that.

Sounds good to me too. I think that way the whole situation will be clearer, and more manageable.

Thanks for the replies. I have made the changes accordingly.

On a similar them is Vogue magazine, however it is actually listed by the magazine in a 'pain in the backside' fashion:

https://www.bookogs.com/credit/337199-british-vogue (country listed first)
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/117850-vogue-espana (country listed last)

Having the country listed last is easier as it allows the user to spot it more easily, but it is not what the magazine calls it eg. American Vogue (not yet listed).

Personally, I would cheat and credit the country first. It just makes them difficult to find otherwise. That's my opinion.

(Or you could use it for kitty litter and forget the whole darn thing)

According to what we choosen for Rolling Stone, don't you think country name should be after Vogue ?

I've just created Vogue France with another question : Am I right to gather "Vogue Paris" and "Vogue Hommes" under "Vogue France" (which doen't exist) :
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/410521-vogue-france

I agree with Mike, surely putting country afterwards is more easy for users as when they type in Rolling Stone the other versions will appear in the drop down.

Also useful to list the other versions of Rolling Stone on the profile page (which I think has already been done for some other entries).

Gee, I must have been half asleep when I made that reply.

I meant it the other way around: Vogue first and then the country. Sorry for the mix up. I hope the editing I did at the time was more accurate.

Mike, I have changed the credit to Vogue Paris and created a credit for Vogue Hommes.

Westpier, I agree a full list would be helpful, the problem I encountered is Wikipedia doesn't list them with the correct country names, so I would be guessing if I compiled it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone#International_editions and the same here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rolling-stone-magazine-for-sale_us_59bf9b1ce4b086432b0864d8

I suggest to write VOGUE in capitals

And I ve created a VOGUE (usa) entry so you can gather the other country versions.
I'm creatin Arabia, Italyn Australia, etc... entries

Italia

This trend to use stylized capitalization has recently been discussed in another forum: https://www.bookogs.com/forum/390915-capitalization-of-credits

Information on Bookogs is case sensitive, so using stylized capitalization can lead to duplications. I think we should steer away from using capitals.

By the way, your home (or is that a warehouse) must be full to the brim with magazines!

If you want the titles to reflect the printed article that is your right, but Credits need to be accessible to all users.

I have made a list of the international editions on the Vogue page and linked them.

ah ok for capitals

Hi, it's been a long time ;-)
I've just found a new series for Rolling Stone Australia (May-July 2020)
https://books.discogs.com/credit/522606-rolling-stone-australia

I'm not sure if it is only a digital magazine ?

I don't understand your question.

Maybe you meant that the magazine ceased production in January 2018, but returned in February 2019 as a digital platform.

I have added this detail to the profile of Rolling Stone Australia.

Yes, thank you.
I was not sure if it was only digital (english is not my native language).

What is the best title:

Rolling Stone Australia Series 2 #001
or
Rolling Stone Australia Digital Series #001

?

or
Rolling Stone Australia Series digital #001

Looking at the cover of your submission: https://books.discogs.com/book/794884-rolling-stone-australia-series-2-001 it just states "May - July 2020 Issue 001"

There is no mention of series 2 or digital series. Personally I would enter the data exactly as it is shown.

Some images are showing as broken links at present and I can't view the covers of older editions to compare how the date and issue number are shown on those. Until that problem is fixed it is difficult to give you a clear answer.

I have managed to view some of the older covers and I can see that the issue numbers will overlap.

One way to differentiate the old paper editions from the new digital editions would be to add the date to the title. It is an easy task as there are only 8 attributions.

At least this would faithfully record the information rather than introduce an element that doesn't exist.

Maybe some other users might have an opinion on the best solution.

I remenber we discussed about Series a long time ago and the forum said to add "Series" because if you don't you are going to have the same numbers together as for Rolling Stone France we had 4 different Series with each time the numbers to begin again at 1 ! https://books.discogs.com/credit/408658-rolling-stone-france
so without "Series" it will be very difficult to see the good order of printing.

IMO this is not a Series or a Publisher Series. I don't know anything about Rolling Stone France, I live in Australia.

In the example of Rolling Stone Australia, the magazine ceased publication, another publisher resurrected the title and made it a digital only format and confusingly reset the issue numbering back to zero.

To add series information to the title that doesn't exist is fabricating data. Whether that is acceptable is for the community to decide.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.