ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 05

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page for the Moderator noticeboard. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from January - February 2009.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Moderator noticeboard.


1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31


Expanded archive listing


Contents

Asimov's Mysteries

Have just submitted a correction to SMVSMSTRSL1969, as I missed the ˆ in "Foreword (Pâté De Fois Gras)" and instead of deleting the title I just corrected it as there is no other title like this to affect. Otherwise there would have been two titles for this essay when there should only be one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the right way to do it. When you need to correct a title and it's the only one in the database, you can simply change it without going through the "drop title/add title" method of changing title records of contents. See, you're catching on.  :) MHHutchins 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Printing date vs. published date

I believed this has come up before but I don't remember if a consensus was reached about how it should be handled. Some publications give a publishing history along these lines: "Published March 1955, First Printing February 1955". I just approved Bluesman's change in this pub from March to April. In reality we know most books are printed at least a month before they're published, but most publishers aren't that honest in the publication history they print in most books. So which should we use? I'd go with the printing date if it's stated in the publication itself, mainly so it wouldn't conflict with statements in later printings. MHHutchins 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples I own that differ that way, but I'd prefer printing date usually - except maybe for First printing details from the First edition. It's not a perfect solution as this WILL often still conflict with statements in later printings: I own too many "Panther/ Granada / Grafton / Triad" or "Sphere / Orbit" editions of the same books to guarantee accuracy in printing histories. (Which is why I don't tend to create past editions from printing history details in a later edition unless it's a very rarely reprinted book.) BLongley 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've found this in several of my early pb's and the printing date is the one I use.Kraang 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd personally use the published date but add notes. For example with Doubleday books from 1958 to 1988 we know the printing date from the gutter code but use the SFBC offering date or the copyright page's printing date as the "official" date. Likewise, when using a date from Amazon it's nearly always the on-sale-by date which is when book stores are allowed to start selling/distributing them implying they were manufactured and shipped earlier. I've seen that the date in most books is either the month after the on-sale-by (if it's late in the month) or the same month as the on-sale-by. The implication is for most books when they say "First printing, some date" that the date is really when it was first sold and not when it was manufactured. I suspect the reason most books don't have a full date that matches the on-sale-by is that publication schedules get changed too often. If the stated date is only has a month/year then it's usually "close enough" should the on-sale-by get adjusted. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Inheritors/The Gateway to Never

Just submitted two edits: THNHRTRSGT1978 and NHRTRSGTWTN1972. Please reject the first. I saw it before seeing the Ace Double pub. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ahasuerus 20:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nine Billion Names of God

Just submitted what will look like a new pub (cloned) and is identical except for the content and the notes to THNNBLLNNM1987. Cloning was easier than importing because although I could update the page numbers, there is no access to the notes. Once this goes through I will submit to delete the other pub. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just realized I forgot to add "The Best Short Stories of Arthur C. Clarke" to the pub. So much for saving a step! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've approved it so you can go ahead and make the changes. Sometimes I forget how much more convenient it is to be able to approve your own edits as a moderator. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Safe and Vault Technology Magazine?

? I guess the definition of s-f is definitely being expanded. At least for a while.--swfritter 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor was misinformed as to what "ISFDB" stands for, but the misunderstanding has been since resolved :) Ahasuerus 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the ISaFeDB must be what he was looking for. Actually, it would be nice to have a large vault to protect my collection.--swfritter 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Soldier, Ask Not

Submitted a typo correction to SLDRSKNTZB1967 and it probably looks exactly like what was there. When I read the notes, at the end it said "Solder, Ask Not" and I just added the 'i' to make it "Soldier....". Saw it still in my pending and thought someone up there must think I've put in a 'null' submission. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, as it's Marc Kupper's verification I left it for him to approve. BLongley 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

102 H-Bombs

Just submitted an edit for 102HBM1971 and forgot to add after the bracketed Currey note and "5 Eggs". as there were two stories added for the US edition. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved and note added. BLongley 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Timemaster

Just submitted an edit for TIMWMSTR1992B and the date after the DiFate cover statement should be '91, not '96. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved and adjusted. BLongley 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

HTML in Notes - Discuss please

I've just realised I've been posting examples of such duff submissions in "Help Desk" that only Mods will be able to check anyway, see here. We do seem to be encouraging people to enter nicely formatted notes, but they are beginning to bite us more and more often. Any ideas? Should we be discouraging such, only allowing them from Mods that presumably know a bit better, demanding that Al makes sure notes are well-formed HTML before submissions are allowed, or something else? I can't see updating Moderator Help on how to visually check a submission would help much (it'd slow us down to about ten minutes for each of Harry's Perry Rhodan entries for instance) but when it's breaking publications rather than just submissions, I think we could do with some changes. BLongley 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've documented how Data Thief got past the problem, but I don't want him to be the only recourse when things go wrong. BLongley 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't supported!! If they were you wouldn't have to enter the codes. More than once I have suggested they are a bad idea. We usually don't expect editors to do more work than they want to do. Once you HTML the notes it then requires anyone who edits them in the future to do the same thing to any modifications/additions with the possibility of errors being made. One of the reasons I am generating the NavBar data is that it was obvious editors were going to enter them anyway and the chances of mistakes being made is lessened because they are in a standard format.--swfritter 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a variety of freely available HTML editors out there, which we may be able to incorporate into our editing tools one Al has time for development again. For now, it may be prudent to update Help with a suggestion to limit the use of HTML to the basics like "br", "ul/li" and canned navbars. Ahasuerus 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, it's been broken versions of those basics that cause the problems. For instance, this is what happens when you get the canned Navbar slightly wrong. Try editing it. See? Pretty severe. BLongley 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
True, pretty severe and the complexity that goes along with navbars is probably unavoidable. I am not sure what to do about broken navbars aside from asking our editors to be more careful :( Ahasuerus 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Other things aren't so bad: this is just ugly, but fixable. And in between we have things like HTML in page numbers making submissions unapprovable and unrejectable. BLongley 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Unrejectable? Can they still be rejected using "hardreject.cgi" and viewed using "dumpxml.cgi"? Ahasuerus 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's why Al revealed hardreject to us. I can't recall whether dumpxml worked on those or not. BLongley 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We might also want to guess at how strict validation will get in future - we're getting invalid "ul" submissions (unbalanced "li" and "/li" pairs) at present, should we tell people to make it valid rather than just working? BLongley 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If memory serves, the original HTML standard didn't require "/li"'s (at least it didn't in 1994 when I manually converted the rec.arts.sf.written FAQ), so most browsers should support them in the foreseeable future. Ahasuerus 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking more of what Al will choose to do rather than what the browsers will do. But it looks like IE8 and similar will be cracking down on old-standard HTML soonish. BLongley 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that not closing the lines [</li>] will be a problem with some browsers? I used to always close everything until I noticed that my browser (Firefox) had no problems with some editor's submissions that didn't close lines. Then I stopped doing it. (Omitting the </ul> causes a mess, even with with Firefox.) MHHutchins 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It probably won't be a major problem with browsers for a while, you can always run in non-strict mode if it starts looking funny. But in this XML world the pressure is on to make things more standard. BLongley 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If I ever get my development server up one of the things to play with is either limited wikitext support, full wikitext support, or at least cleaning up the HTML to be XHTML compatible. I already have a bunch of HTML cleanup code I can look at as a reference. I usually spot the invalid HTML when approving and just do an approve/edit not bothering to notify the editor as most of the errors are clearly typos and not editor misunderstanding.
ISFDB defines its pages to be HTML 4.01 which is also the current spec. If you look at the spec pages for lists, tables, etc. you will see that end-tags for <LI> and many of the table sub-elements are optional and they don't use them in their examples. As ISFDB uses DOCTYPE and says it's HTML 4.01 the assumption is a browser MUST accept the HTML even if people move on to an XHTML only world.
True, we've probably got years yet before any significant problems. And if the world moves to HTML 5 "/li" stays optional anyway, if we move to XHTML then we should be including them sooner rather than later. So no hurry, but future-proofing tends to be better done before the future arrives. BLongley 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not know about hardreject.cgi though so far I've never been stuck. There was one submission on the queue that complained about XML ERROR (because someone put an & in the page # field as in page "9 & 10") and clicking to view the submission would fail. I got it off the queue by manually creating the URL to pv_update.cgi and then doing the reject. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
hardreject.cgi and dumpxml.cgi have been documented on Help:Screen:Moderator for some time now, but as I suspected uptake hasn't been high. Maybe it's time to ask all Mods to put that page on their watchlist so they keep up to date? BLongley 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, watch added but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the watchlist as it is. I saw a small irony in that the documentation says "this is an undocumented function"... --Marc Kupper|talk 01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacehawk, Inc.

Submitted an edit to SPCHWKNCQG1974 about the interior art and completely forgot to put it in the contents.... so did a second submission for that. Please combine! Thanks. --Bluesman 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, they merge automatically. Both approved. BLongley 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When the Waker Sleeps

Submitted an edit for WHNTHWKRSL1975 and think I may, in the contents, have added the interior art under the title "When the Sleeper Wakes" instead of "When the Waker Sleeps". Wells on the brain... or holes in.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Fixed now. BLongley 19:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Fritz Leiber

Just submitted a clone of THBKFFRTZL0000 and the price should have been C$1.25. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one is the clone as we have THBKFFRTZL1974 and THBKFFRTZB1974 which have consecutive publication record numbers. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed it this morning. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Swords of Lankhmar

Just submitted two edits for TSWRDSLNKH1968. Please reject the first as I misspelled "Lankhmar" in the added contents. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixer's progress

As mentioned over on User talk:Fixer the other day, "There are about 700 "Time Travel" ISBNs in Fixer's database that are not in the ISFDB and the first 3 submissions found 2 new paranormal romance authors, Natale Stenzel and Brenda Joyce. I then asked Fixer to submit the rest of their books, which generated a complete specfic bibliography for Stenzel and will generate what appears to be a near complete specfic bibliography for Joyce once all submissions are approved. Not a bad ratio, overall, so I will play with it some more over the weekend."

I tried a few more time travel titles earlier tonight and found Veronica Wolff, Tracy L. Ranson, Elisabeth Naughton (possibly little to no sf content), A. J. Menden -- all new authors -- as well as more books by Liz Maverick. The approach looks increasingly promising, so I expect that I will continue hunting for new authors in Fixer's database and then submitting all of their known work for "approval by other hands".

There are two things to keep in mind when processing these submissions. First, most of the authors that Fixer is currently processing are supernatural romance practitioners, so expect a lot of series novels and some multi-author anthologies. Second, Amazon's data entry clerks seem to think that all paranormal romances -- even borderline ones -- are automatically "gothic", "time travel", "fantasy", etc, (e.g. , Misha Crews, whose fist novel is a romance/mystery with no visible SF elements) so it may be prudent to check reader reviews to see whether the book is specfic. Ahasuerus 04:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lora Leigh's "Breed" series seem to be severely incomplete here. Amazon seem to label them Wolf Breed, Coyote Breed and Feline Breed (the last being a bit of an amalgamation). BLongley 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll add her to the list. In other news, Marianne Mancusi has been submitted -- we may need to create a list of authors who have been submitted by Fixer and need to be organized/researched/etc. Should we use Fixer's Talk page for these purposes?
Also, the Secrets: The Best in Women's Sensual Fiction, Vol. XX series contains a fair amount of specfic according to reader reviews, but only one, Volume 14, is in Fixer's database. Submitted now. Ahasuerus 15:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at Secrets on Amazon and that's the only volume I saw that was completely Spec-Fic. A few volumes are partly in (proportion of stories in brackets after title):
Secrets: The Best in Women's Sensual Romance, Vol. 2 (1 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Sensual Fiction, Vol. 5 (1 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Sensual Fiction, Vol. 6 (2 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Sensual Fiction, Vol. 7 (1 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Sensual Fiction, Vol. 8 (2 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 3 (1 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 4  (1 of 4)
Secrets Volume 13: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance (1 of 4)
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 15 (1 of 4)
No sign of any Spec-Fic in these though:
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 9 
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 10
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 11
Secrets: The Best in Women's Erotic Romance, Vol. 12
The presence of "Angela Knight" seems to be a good clue for some relevant content. BLongley 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Day the Martians Came

There is a note with THDTHMRTNB1989, addressed to MOD that is a good one, regarding dual ISBNs on some pubs [mostly from the 80s]. Just curious how it should be handled. Since it was addressed to a MOD I bring it here rather than Rules & Standards. Since I see a lot of these, it is of more than passing interest. I doubt the ISBN/ISBN would be accepted by the DB, and even if it was a search would have to list both to get a result (the search engine is a little weak on extrapolation). ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no harm in adding a pub note about other ISBNs, it just needs to be clear which one applies to the pub you're entering. If we don't have pubs for the other ISBNs, I'd create stub entries for them. I don't see many US / Canadian separations but I have often found a tp or pb referring to an hc edition. How much information you can be sure of for the other editions will vary - title and author probably, maybe a publication date is stated, but price and pagination and cover artist may all be different. Lots of notes may ensue. BLongley 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been adding the second ISBNs in the notes, but in this case the editor created a new pub entry from the one with the two ISBNs. It is basically splitting the one pub into two entries, one for each ISBN. Without this 'splitting' would a search using only the CDN ISBN even turn up the pub? Since all of these dual pubs are printed/bound in the US, I use that one as the primary, but does this practice "bury" the CDN ISBN?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, leaving alternative ISBNs in notes does bury them away from searches here, although Google might find them now. Previous hosts for ISFDB banned "Spiders" from indexing our pages, but now we're world-widely famous! (So be careful what you say, the whole world is looking at us now!) I would still recommend creating a separate pub with the other ISBN if we don't have it already. ISBN search is one of our main features on the "simple" interface so I'd like all Spec-Fic ISBNs to go somewhere useful, even if it only goes to a publication that says "this is the Canadian ISBN for this US-printed book - it might be the same physical book". I've spent some time recently filling in "Omnibus" titles with no contents (People will state that the book is an Omnibus of titles 1-3 in a series, or 7-9, or 1 and 4, or such useful information that works so long as we never need to change our numbering) but if you don't actually ADD the contents to the database half the usefulness is gone. Maybe more - "Boxed sets" get their own ISBN at times. Simply put - "every Spec-Fic ISBN deserves an entry". IMNSHO. BLongley 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I also submitted an edit for THDTHMRTNS1989 and mistakenly said the CDN ISBN was not on the copyright page. It is. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, go fix it! BLongley 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the big question about "The Day the Martians Came" is whether it's a Collection or a Novel. I seem to be the hold-out for Collection, and did all the links and variants and everything. BLongley 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you there, Bill. I'd call it a collection with new linking material, not even a fix-up novel where at least there's an attempt to make it look like one cohesive work. There's even a table of contents and each work's individual copyright is listed, for god's sake. The situation with this...let's call it a book...came up early in my verifications here on the ISFDB, and Scott Latham had already verified my edition as a novel. I was too green to want to make waves. Well, at least, there's your record to show each of the stories that make up this "novel". MHHutchins 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I too was a little nervous about challenging perceived wisdom. I'm happier to make waves now, and I think the move is towards "more detail" rather than "let's just hush this up as a bit of a tricky situation". Given the Import tool (which still needs careful use, don't ever try to import Duplicate contents) we should see less laziness in future. Although we have to balance that with peer-pressure to add more detail than we're interested in. BLongley 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And don't try to import from a novel! It only took one attempt for me to DON'T DO THAT AGAIN. MHHutchins 01:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stealing images, the lengths some sites will go to prevent it...

I wish everyone, not only mods, could see this submission. It's a wonderful attempt by a website to keep someone from linking to their images. And it works! I'll keep the submission on hold so that as many mods as possible can get a chance to see it. My laugh for the day. :-) For you non-mods, instead of the image that the submitter was trying to link to, it's an amazingly large graphic (at least 1000 pixels wide) that simply states "I STEAL IMAGES FROM WWW.SCI-FI-ONLINE.COM". (Technically, we're not stealing -- we're deep-linking. Perhaps it should say "I'm stealing bandwidth." And bandwidth is so much cheaper than it used to be.) MHHutchins 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! (Really.) He got away lightly - if you've ever seen what "Something Awful" did to "bandwidth thieves" this is mild in comparison. Not quite a "Goatse" or "TubGirl" but severely disturbing. (And really, do NOT try to find such - just be aware that some Rick-Rolling can take you to some really unpleasant places.) BLongley 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

TOR Double #10

Submitted an edit that will replace the existing image for TORDOB10 with another one. Simply because the first one was turned sideways and the new one is orientated correctly. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't have a monitor that can do a 90 degree turn? :-) Submission accepted. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixer now auto-merges with pre-existing Titles

Fixer has been taught how to do "Add Pub" for pre-existing Titles by the same author(s). He ignores case for matching purposes, so he will add "I am legend" to "I Am Legend". He also ignores anything after the first left parenthesis, e.g. "I Am Legend (Horror Classics)" will be added to "I Am Legend", although the Publication record's title will contain " (Horror Classics)". He also ignores anything to the right of the first colon, so "Dragon: Book One of The Return of Fooble" will be added to "Dragons". It's not perfect, but I expect that it should get the job done in 95%+ of all cases. And for the other 5% there is always Unmerge.

Keep in mind that Fixer is new at this, so mistakes are possible and even likely -- please post here if you run into any. TIA!

P.S. I have also downloaded all "science fiction" and "fantasy" records from the Library of Congress and Melvyl, but the data is not quite ready for submission. I would estimate that it will be another week or two depending on how much free time I will have... Ahasuerus 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bleiler78 as a Secondary Source for Verification?

This was discussed this past summer, but apparently it hasn't been added so far. Any thoughts on when we could get Bleilers 1978 Checklist added as an official reference. The Reference:Bleiler78 page was created but Bleiler78 was never added to the list. - Thanks Kevin 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we were not able to add Bleiler78 using standard moderator tools and Al hasn't responded to a request to look into the underlying issues yet... Ahasuerus 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I'll check back on this issue in another 6-12 months (Chuckle) Kevin 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Was a bug report filed? --Marc Kupper|talk 07:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
A note was left on Al's page User_talk:Alvonruff#Problem_with_editing_the_verification_table but I don't know about a bug report.Kevin 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocket Jockey images

Submitted two images for RCKTJKY1952. Please ignore the first one as (I think) it was for a different "Rocket" Del Rey title. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. BLongley 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Sub

Submitted two edits for STCNTRSBBC1956 Please reject the first - typo in the notes. Thanks. --Bluesman 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. But you really don't need to ask for such here for a mere notes issue - if you've submitted the correction, we'll either let both through and you'll have fixed it anyway, or we'll spot an error and reject the first anyway. DO let us know if you've accidentally submitted a proposed merge of Heinlein and Asimov or something really dangerous though. But notes? I know there are 'Killer' Notes submissions possible that will mess up a publication beyond normal mod-fixing capabilities, or just make a submission unapprovable and unrejectable, but it's unlikely you'll submit one. BLongley 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Titles linking to one Publication?

I'm not sure how to unlink this problem so I'm pointing it out to those more knowledgeable. 714097 and 966733 both have TRNSHMNWLQ2008 listed and I get a Warning when I attempt to merge the Titles. - Thanks - Kevin 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This Anthology Publication contained two Anthology Titles, one by Mark L. Van Name alone and the other by Mark L. Van Name and T. K. F. Weisskopf. Anthology, Collection and Omnibus Titles are considered "container" Titles and are not displayed in associated Anthology/Collection/Omnibus Publications, therefore you can't access them via Edit Pub or Remove Title. I had to change the bogus Anthology Title (the one by Mark L. Van Name alone) to a non-container title type (POEM works well since it stands out), then Remove it from the publication and finally delete it. All fixed now, but it reminds me that I need to write a script that will look for container pubs that contain 0 or 2+ container Titles of the same type... Ahasuerus 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, yes, we seem to need such. I won't publish my script yet, nor the results (needs refinement in the first case, and I'd like to clear up my own messes in the second: and some of the second seem to have been cleared already, I'm not working from a fresh backup). We could probably do with some more submission validations: e.g. a COLLECTION of COLLECTIONs doesn't work, nor a NOVEL containing multiple NOVELs (this is why "OMNIBUS" should be used more often, IMO, there was a reason behind the Ace Double arguments all those months ago, and it seems NESFA are adding to the confusion.) But I found at least 50 pubs that need a look, and I didn't include CHAPBOOK (that's not a Can of Worms, it's a Case of Cans of Worms. If not a Pallet of Cases of Cans of Worms.) and only looked at the 2+ side of the problem. We could probably do with a thorough review of these problems, figure out how and why they happened, and update submission Help and Moderator Guidelines a bit. And I'm even more sure that we need some diagrams. (I did recharge my laptop, only to have it recalled for software updates. But I should have some decent diagramming tools shortly.) BLongley 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fledgling

Just submitted a new pub, 3rd printing of Butler's "Fledgling" and forgot to change the date to "0000". --Bluesman 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ahasuerus 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Angry Candy

Submitted two edits for a third printing of Ellison's book. Please reject the first. Forgot to put the date to 0000. --Bluesman 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. MHHutchins 04:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Outlaw Vampire of the Milky Way

Just submitted a new pub for Weston Ochse, and used the cover image from the publisher's website. I don't know if ISFDB has their permission or not, but the owner, Roy Robbins, sent me the book I entered and is a great guy. I have two email addresses for him but don't know how you go about the permission deal? If you want, e-mail me from my talk page and I'll give them to you. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools