ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 27

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 - June 2020.

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

Delete/fix wrong author picture

Image:Josef Čapek.jpg is the canonical visage of Karel. Josef is actually the one cropped out from the original pair pic: the elder graying gentleman with staid suit, incipient baldness, round face and eyeglasses. So please

  1. Stop the image from displaying at Josef Čapek
  2. I guess purge it altogether from the system as of no real use (the current Image:Karel Capek.jpg is rather better)
  3. Ideally, assign Josef with a real face of his own: there are several solo photos available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Josef_%C4%8Capek with little chance of confusion.

--JVjr 15:44, 7 January 2020 (EST)

I can easily remove the picture but as we know who uploaded it, let me ping Linguist for an opinion as well. Other from that, I agree with you. Annie 16:53, 7 January 2020 (EST)
I just don't remember doing that, but since my name appears, it must be me (which weirdly reminds me of « But I must have said it before, since I say it now » in Luciano Berio's Sinfonia) ! Please do whatever you think fit. Linguist 04:51, 8 January 2020 (EST).
OK. Image is removed from the author and deleted from the server :) If someone wants to add a new picture, please go ahead and do that and submit an EditAuthor submission to add it. Annie 12:20, 8 January 2020 (EST)
I have uploaded the picture of the aforesaid elder graying gentleman, in the hope it will meet less disapproval :o). Linguist 08:34, 9 January 2020 (EST).
Uhm - this is still the younger brother - the one you just uploaded is the same one I deleted. Did you mean to upload another one maybe? Annie 22:24, 9 January 2020 (EST)
Annie, this might be the old problem we encounter: you have to refresh your browsed sitepage: after I had done this, Josef appeared. Christian Stonecreek 02:57, 10 January 2020 (EST)
Ah, I see. I thought I never opened the old one from this browser but apparently I had. Thanks! Annie 11:06, 10 January 2020 (EST)

The Death of Ahasuerus

Should this book be added to the works of Pär Lagerkvist? It claims to be the third novel in a series that began with Barabbas and The Sibyl. We have the latter but not the former. ../Doug H 22:20, 9 January 2020 (EST) (P.S. I'm mostly asking for the shock value of the subject line).

Reading the description on Amazon, it doesn't sound like it meets the inclusion criteria. Descriptions have been known to be wrong, though. Are there speculative fiction elements in it? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:24, 10 January 2020 (EST)
Though we do have Sibyllan, which is kind of a prequel to it, so maybe? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:46, 10 January 2020 (EST)
To me it sounds like it should perfectly fit into our little database. Lagerkvist's work per Wiukipedia thematizes the eternal conflict between Good and Evil, and using the speculative character of Ahasuerus should make the novel speculative. I for one have added some similar titles to the database. Christian Stonecreek 13:49, 10 January 2020 (EST)
The Swedish Wikipedia says that:
  • Sibyllan is a 1956 novel by Nobel Laureate Pär Lagerkvist. It begins Lagerkvist's religious epic in four parts: Sibyllan, Ahasuerus's Death [The Death of Ahasuerus], Pilgrim at Sea and The Holy Land.
According to the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, "[Ahasuerus was] allowed to die in the second volume as reward for abandoning his obsessive religious concerns".
It sounds like we want to include at least the second volume. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy refers to volumes 3 and 4 as "tales of interest", but it's not clear how much speculative content they have. Might as well add them and include a note about what we know about them. Ahasuerus 16:26, 10 January 2020 (EST)

Asimov's January-February 2020

First day back on the job and I made a mistake already. When I entered the recent Asimov's I misspelled Paul Di Filippo's name. When/if my submission is accepted, I'll correct. MLB 19:51, 11 January 2020 (EST)

Removing erroneous tags -- software changed

As per this 2019-09 discussion and FR 1303 "Allow the removal of erroneous tags", the software has been changed to allow the removal of erroneous tags.

The Title page has been enhanced to display a new blue link, "View Tag Breakdown", next to the "Current Tags" line if (and only if) the current user is a moderator. Clicking the link on the Title page for Jules Verne's De la Terre à la Lune takes you to the "Tag Breakdown by User" page for the title. The page shows which users are responsible for which tag. As we discussed last September, it "will let moderators contact taggers and ask them about questionable tags". If you are a bureaucrat, the page will also let you remove one or more tags.

For now, if you determine that a tag is erroneous and the tagger is not responding to you queries, please let me know and I will remove the offending tag. Hopefully this will let us address the most egregious cases. Depending on how it goes over the next few months, I may make the "remove" functionality available to all moderators. Ahasuerus 17:47, 14 January 2020 (EST)

Superb, Ahasuerus! Many thanks for the work! Christian Stonecreek 02:21, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Sure thing! It's so nice not to be sick any more and to be able to work on development again :-) (Keeping my fingers crossed.) Ahasuerus 10:56, 15 January 2020 (EST)
I am very glad you are feeling better (and not just because of your great work here). —Uzume 11:22, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks for the kind words! Unfortunately, I apparently jinxed myself and got sick again right after posting. Hopefully it'll teach me to provoke the universe :) Once I over it, I really need to concentrate on the new Amazon interface since certain types of Amazon data, e.g. bestseller lists, is fleeting. Ahasuerus 20:29, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Now there's already the first case that might become a topic: we have the following tags that I recently stumbled over: 'classic werewolf anthology', 'werewolf', 'werewolves', 'werewolf anthology', 'werewolf romance' & 'Young-adult werewolf', with only 'werewolf' and 'werewolves' having a considerable amount of numbers behind them. I'd say that all others could be subsumed under one of those two. And would it better to apply the new feature or should those that were installed by users no longer active better be set to 'Private'?. Christian Stonecreek 02:21, 15 January 2020 (EST)
It looks like there are two separate issues here. The first one is how to handle clearly erroneous data, e.g. a title that has no time travel elements getting tagged with "time travel". The second one is how to handle duplicate or overlapping tags like "werewolf" and "werewolves".
FR 1303 only covered the first issue and that's what the latest software patch addressed. Duplicate and overlapping tags, on the other hand, were discussed in FR 911, "Allow moderators to edit and merge tags". FR 911 is not ready for implementation because we still need to reach consensus re: which (if any) types of tags can be merged by moderators. My personal inclination would be to allow merging misspelled and almost-identical tags like "werewolf"/"werewolves" and "near-future"/"near future". I wouldn't use very specific tags like "classic werewolf anthology" or "powerful young adolescent female character" myself, but I wouldn't be in favor of merging them either. Different users use tags differently and that's fine.
Then we have users whose tags are perfectly fine except for the messed-up format. For example, consider "futurist, science fiction, dark energy, dark matter, clockworks horse, clockworks people", which needs to be broken up into 6 separate tags. I haven't given it much thought yet. Ahasuerus 10:55, 15 January 2020 (EST)

Old Bones

I recently recieved Old Bones by Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child while at the rehab facility that I was "visiting", and while it seems, so far, not to have any fantastic content, it IS a sub-series of Preston & Child's Pendergast series, which is listed here. Should I list this book, link it to the Pendergast series, and note that it is non-genre? I'm asking on the moderator board because the moderators have to okay it. MLB 17:48, 14 January 2020 (EST)

Unless one of the authors makes it to the "above threshold" status (which none of them is IMO), it is not eligible. We do not list non-SF series books in the series we list unless they qualify in a different way. Annie 18:43, 14 January 2020 (EST)
Okay, just thought I'd ask as one auther has about forty books on this site, and the other has about thirty. But, less work for me. :) MLB 20:01, 14 January 2020 (EST)
Hm... if at least one of them can be considered above threshold, it will be in - I do not consider either of them genre but a lot of their books are borderline I guess thinking about them. Let me go check some numbers on their ineligible titles. :) Annie 20:11, 14 January 2020 (EST)
Reading the wikipedia entry for Still Life with Crows it is definately NOT spec fic imo. Makes me wonder if there's a single book in the Pendergast series that is? MagicUnk 00:12, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Doing some more reading, The Cabinet of Curiosities has spec fic elements, so at least that volume belongs MagicUnk 00:23, 15 January 2020 (EST)
SFE has them as well as books of interest under the author record - so most are in. Also - the whole series is set in a slightly alternate world if I remember correctly - just different enough to make them SF (although I would admit that I had not read any in more than a decade and my memories are a bit murky). So let’s not rush into deleting and/or marking anything as non genre based on descriptions. :) Annie 02:18, 15 January 2020 (EST)
I haven't read any of their books in quite some time, decades in fact, but Relic and Reliquary were definitely speculative, as Relic had a monster, and was made into a monster/horror/action movie The Relic in 1997 and Reliquary was a direct sequel. MLB 07:18, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Yeah, I did some further reading, and you're right. These are eligible all right. Reading some more wikipedia entries, I have strong doubts about Brimstone and Dance of Death, whereas The Book of the Dead as third volume in the Diogenes trilogy seems to be eligible again. Should we keep them all in and update the non-eligible titles and flag them non genre? MagicUnk 07:46, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Sorry, didn't read Annie's response properly MagicUnk 11:37, 15 January 2020 (EST)
If you look at SFE and SFE again, you can see what they consider genre. We can differ from them if we have a reason to - with notes and so on (and their list may not be complete) but a lot of those borderline thrillers tend to sound non-SF on paper - partially because the publisher is a mainstream one and they do not want to scare the readers who think that genre is for kids. Read the description here for example - nothing tells you it is one of our books - although it is. The more mainstream a publisher is, the more likely is that they will try to mask or outright forget to mention the SF elements so when you are looking to decide if it is genre, keep that in mind as well. Welcome to the fun :) Annie 12:25, 15 January 2020 (EST)

Cemetery Dance #77

I'm tired, so I submitted what I could of this issue. I'll finish the contents tomorrow. MLB 02:53, 16 January 2020 (EST)

I added the incomplete template so we do not forget about it. When you submit the complete contents, just remove it.  :). Annie 03:06, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Split Famous Fantastic Mysteries magazine?

Should we split off the latest installment from Famous Fantastic Mysteries magazine, published by Altus Press, and make it a (new) magazine series? Some more info I can find elsewhere? (there seem to be only two... from Altus Press) Thanks! MagicUnk 12:27, 16 January 2020 (EST)

If you look at the copyright / introduction page of the Fall 2016 issue (via Amazon Look Inside), they are pitching it as a continuation of the original series (Vol 14, No 5 where as June 1953 was Vol. 14, No 4 plus the essay starts "Yes, it's back"). I have no preference whether we accept that or separate them out, just providing it as background. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Kindle vs. Smashwords

Should I enter both Kindle and Smaswords (with ISBN) ebooks if I can't find the Kindle ISBN to be absolutely sure they're different pubs? (see Goodreads here for an example of both Kindle and Smashwords pubs.) Thanks! MagicUnk 16:33, 24 January 2020 (EST)

At least half (if not more) of all Kindle books don't have an ISBN. It's only if they are released on other platforms that they sometimes have one. Most publishers that assign them to ebooks use the same ISBN for all versions (Apple, Kobo, etc.) of the ebook. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:56, 24 January 2020 (EST)
So, what you're saying is that I should merge Smashwords and Kindle records, right? MagicUnk 02:36, 25 January 2020 (EST)
Often the same file is offered for sale via different store fronts (basically the same as happens with physical books and stores). Unless you have evidence they are different editions, I would leave them as a single record. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2020 (EST)

Second opinion

I'd like a second opinion here (Vértice publications catalog number); I would remove the catalog ID (as it's a copy of the pub serial #), would you? Thanks! MagicUnk 16:47, 24 January 2020 (EST)

No, I also think the catalogue no. doesn't belong in this entry. Christian Stonecreek 08:54, 26 January 2020 (EST)
I.m.o. it's better to have the numbers in two places than not at all. If you want to remove the catalog ID's, there are hundreds, maybe thousands (M=SF, Zwarte beertjes, Heyne Science Fiction, etc. etc.) --Willem 14:59, 26 January 2020 (EST)
I don't want to go that far :) only removing those catalog IDs that are abused as substuitute for pub series no. - have a look at the series in the thread over at Zapp's page for an example; the numbers will still be available from the pub no field. MagicUnk 17:36, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Ugh, I really need to learn to pay more attention... @Willem. You're right. The examples you mentioned have these duplicates as well - should be removed imo. MagicUnk 16:06, 27 January 2020 (EST)

Personal opinions of editors in listings

Hi, I've recently signed up so I could add some SF entries where I can help with missing covers, publishing info etc. In the meantime, as I've been using ISFDB on my own SF research project (as a reliable data source), I've come across the following entry:


Title: Computerworld Author 1: A. E. van Vogt Date: 1983-00-00

Note: Novel of post-Orwellian '1984' days - from computer's point of view. Pretty pathetic on the technical front. Seemingly written with 1970s knowledge of computer power and architecture.

The magazine Computerworld asked DAW Books to change its title since they claimed it might be confused with their own publication. So from July 1985 DAW reprints were published under the title "Computer Eye".


Is it acceptable to make such statements as:'Pretty pathetic on the technical front.' ?

A brief perusal of your Help file indicates the opposite. What is correct procedure here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brentwz (talkcontribs) .

Thanks for finding this! No, that's not what ISFDB intends for a note or a synopsis. I'll delete this phrase. Stonecreek 05:35, 26 January 2020 (EST)
As a point of reference, here is what Template:TitleFields:Synopsis says:
  • Synopsis - A short non-spoiler synopsis can be entered here. Note that this is not a place for criticism or reviews, and should maintain a neutral point of view.
Ahasuerus 08:35, 26 January 2020 (EST)

Ignoring on the "Non-Latin Authors with Latin Characters in Legal Names" cleanup list

Can we set up this cleanup report so we can ignore entries? For example, this author needs to be ignored because his legal name is in Latin characters, but he writes under 榎宮祐. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:23, 29 January 2020 (EST)

To Merge "Panther Granada" and "Panther / Granada"

In the light of this discussion, would some kind Moderator please merge Panther Granada into Panther / Granada. Many thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 15:16, 3 February 2020 (EST)

No problem. Done, see here. --Willem 16:12, 3 February 2020 (EST)
Great, that's 32 pubs gone to a better place :) Kev. BanjoKev 20:41, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Stra Trek Log Five

Blongley is the sole PV for this but he's no longer active and I found the cover art credit in Holdstock's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Joe Petagno. I'd like to add this information and append a note to link to the Holdstock publication if no one objects. --Mavmaramis 08:31, 15 February 2020 (EST)

Publication Series: Voyager Classics

In the Series Record there are seven hc pubs and one ebook attributed to the Classics series, apparently because of (?) the Note: ... "In March 2013 additional publication appeared that are being advertised as "Voyager Classics".

I'm questioning whether or not they should be attributed so, or decoupled.

None of these pubs have been PVed yet, but from a physical copy of the 4th printing of the 2013 hc edition here, I have, for example, the following from the Copyright page:

Collector's Edition published by HarperVoyager 2013 An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers
Previously published in paperback by Grafton 1967 reprinted twenty-one times
HarperCollins Science Fiction & Fantasy reprinted once
and Flamingo 1993 reprinted eleven times
Voyager Classics 2001
and by Voyager 2004 reprinted six times,
2008 reprinted twenty-eight times

That was lengthy I know but it does show, IMO, that the title doesn't carry on as Voyager Classics beyond 2001. What do you think? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:51, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Maybe move them to their own series (these are the collector editions and they belong together). Keep in mind that back in the days, Voyager Classics was both the publisher (well the imprint) AND the pub series. The copyright shows that the publisher is not viable anymore after 2001 for the title, the series name may survive elsewhere though so I would not mess with the series just based on that. But with the gap in years, the lack of the word Voyager Classics anywhere in the new book (you have it, can you verify that) and the different way these look, I'd say that they are their own series and the two can be connected with notes. Annie 22:02, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Pages change

With regard to this pub. I've submitted the 1999 1st printing and now I'd like to change the Pages field (from vi+404 to [6]+404) and the Preface and Introduction pagination to match (see the penultimate line of the latter's pub Notes). What do you think? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 15:02, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

How sure are you that the 6th printing did not use roman numerals for these first pages? Not all printings are always exactly the same even if most of them are... Annie 15:16, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Using Look Inside for the book's 2004 5th printing, the pages are unnumbered. The first page of the Introduction even has the same black mark at lower right that mine has. Kev. BanjoKev 15:25, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
If the 5th printing is in 2004, this 1999 date on the 6th is wrong as well. Any idea when the 6th printing is really? Annie 15:45, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Yes, the date's wrong as well - should be 0000-00-00. Locus1 or OCLC don't have the 6th. No Amazon either. Where else to look? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 16:04, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Nowhere I can think of. :( OCLC, Amazon (proper look inside showing the whole page) or a later printing are the usual go to. 0000-00-00 it is then. My best guess is that it was verified as the only pub at the time and made a 6th printing even if it was initially added to be the first. Or something like that... Or we are hitting some old dating rules (it is pretty old). Anyway - Give it a day or so in case someone else has something else to say but I would say to go ahead and submit it after that. Annie 17:13, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Annie, appreciated :) Kev. BanjoKev 18:56, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Done. Kev. BanjoKev 19:36, 5 April 2020 (EDT)

Catalog of Copyright Entries

Hi, This is a reply to the message left on by talk page by Dirk P Broer.

I think there's been some confusion about the dates from the Catalog of Copyright Entries. In the online copyright database (https://cocatalog.loc.gov), which includes entries from 1978, both the registration date and date of publication are given. But this wasn't always the case. In the pre-1978 volumes I've been using, only one date is given. An explanation of what this date represents is given in the volumes themselves. For example, the volume that includes the entry for "Double Star" is Jan-Jun 1956 (it can be found here: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig3101lib/page/n13/mode/2up). Page vii details the information that can be present for each entry. Item 13 is the "Date of publication as given in the application", no mention is made of the registration date!

Also some of the dates in the Catalog of Copyright Entries can be cross-checked against other sources to confirm that they are publication dates. Two examples are:

Heinlien - Rocket Ship Galileo: Heinlein's biography by William Paterson contains the statement (Vol. 1, page 437): "Rocket Ship Galileo came out on October 13", which checks with the date of 13 Oct 47 in the Jan-Jun 1948 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Asimov - Pebble in the Sky: Asimov's autobiography "In Memory Yet Green" contains the statement (page 580): "On January 19, when Pebble in the Sky was first published...", which checks with the date of 19 Jan 50 in the Jan-Jun 1950 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Based on this information, could you please re-consider your decision to revert my edits?

Note, apologies if I've posted this twice - I'm new to these message boards.

regards, Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SPGraham1957 (talkcontribs) .

Benjamin C. Kinney and Best Vegan Science Fiction & Fantasy 2018

Did one of my infrequent searches on Twitter for "isfdb", and came across this Tweet.

TL; DR is that this author has two entries on ISFDB, presumably because the aforementioned anthology appears to have credited him without his middle initial on the title page. This made me think a fix was just a case of making the "C."-less author record a variant of the parent, but then I noticed that the original (Fixer) submission seems to have the right name in the Title->Authors field? http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4274178 I dunno if it's a case that one of the subsequent edits removed all the authors apart from the editor, but it's moved me to the point that I'm inclined to step back and let one of the grown-ups take over.

If everyone else is Twitter-less, but needs me to reach out back to the author for any clarifications, let me know. ErsatzCulture 12:22, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Story authors are not added to anthologies as authors - they are added to their own stories only. Fixer submits what he finds in Amazon - and we need to clean the stories authors from the anthology editors list after approval. So yes - once approved, all stories authors who are not editors of the anthology had been removed.
And yes - if one pub uses the initial and one does not, we need to pseudonym. Let me look into these two records. Annie 12:35, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Per later comments in that Twitter convo, it looks like that story has been published in two different anthologies; in the other one, it's credited to his correct name, but with a slightly mangled story name. (Waiting for confirmation on that though.) ErsatzCulture 12:42, 2 April 2020 (EDT) EDIT: confirmed this is the case
All fixed I think. Everyone is welcome to come over and post when they find this kind of issues - they are easy to fix. Annie 12:59, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
PS: And "title page" for a story is the page where the story starts, not the copyright page of the book :) When the two disagree, the title page wins - the copyright one is irrelevant. We use it when there is no other info but the author names should be added as they are on the stories title pages. Annie 13:03, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Audible-ASIN

I noticed the External-ID links of some Autible-ASIN seem not to work. For example Das Labyrinth von London has an Audible-ASIN that leads to Amazon's Audible portal, but not to the publication. Only if You put in the Audible-ASIN code into the search field there, You'll find the audible book, though the URL of it contains the ASIN code. --Zapp 13:40, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

This is because this ASIN is for Audible-DE and our External ID field leads tothe Audible.com site. I had restored it to notes for now - this is the same situation we are monitoring over for the Japanese ones. That is why I had not added it as an external ID but as a site link when adding the book - which you then decided to move to the External IDs and then come and mention that it does not work. :). Please do not add non-working links and IDs just to clean a report... We cannot act if we cannot see how many problematic ASINs work only on non-US Audibles. Annie 13:51, 2 April 2020 (EDT)
Also keep in mind that if you are in Germany, your default Audible is Audible.de. Which means that when you search unless you tell it to go to Audible.com and stay there(there is a link at the top), it will search on Audible.de. That is why it finds it with a search for you - the initial link drops you on Audible.com, then the site search helps you and redirects to Audible.de. Annie 13:56, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Request to merge "Orbit / Hachette Books Group" into "Orbit (US)"

Hi, I submitted this PubUpdate earlier today http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4615032 , but I just remembered a discussion where I was told there's some moderator-only functionality to merge publishers, which is probably a better way to solve the problem.

So, can I ask that "Orbit / Hachette Books Group" http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?66201 - which only has a single pub - be merged into "Orbit (US)" http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?25520 please, and then my submission can be rejected.

Per the note in my submission, the original submitter of that pub, who PVed it, hasn't been active on ISFDB for over a year, so I don't think this should be a controversial change?

Thanks ErsatzCulture 10:49, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

When there is only one publication, both methods work the same - going for a merge pays off if you have 2 or more. In this case I prefer to do it via the pubUpdate (as it will end up in the PV list if they ever come back). PV being active or not is irrelevant for how controversial something is - not being here does not mean we can just ignore them. The PV actually added a note on why they changed it so I will transfer some of their notes to the note after approving the change - this is indeed one of the normalized publisher names. Annie 11:12, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

Request to change date - Minority Report - PKD

Whichever way one looks at the date here it's wrong and should be 'date unknown'. Please refer here and here. Can I make the change? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:24, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

Go ahead. Add a moderator note explaining why so someone does not reject it. Some of these very old verifications do have very weird dates (different rules? Different times? People not paying attention? Who knows...) :) Annie 21:30, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
Done. Thanks Annie. Kev. BanjoKev 15:11, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

What is the matter with Stonecreek?

I have a complaint about moderator Stonecreek. I do not understand why he does what he did. I added two books, which he plainly rejected. Without any notice, question, or message on my discussion page. I had to find the two on the page Rejected Edits with a short notice what I did not do correctly. In both cases Stonecreek was right, no problem with that, see here [1] and here [2]. It took me a lot of time to search for the information of these two publications, which I did at the request of another moderator, JLaTondre, see [3]. In both cases Stonecreek as moderator could have easily corrected the mistakes, especially the Capitals with the titles of the poems, instead of plainly rejecting them without further ado. This is very frustrating for me! What is the job description of a moderator? To frustrate other people or to help them when something is not correct? This is not the first time Stonecreek rejects a submission without any discussion, about sets of books or boxes. I did not agree with him and it led to a big discussion, see [4]. B.t.w. that question still isn't solved. It takes me again a lot of time to add the two publications again, correctly this time. My first thought was, because of the frustrations, to quit my submissions. But can Stonecreek be told please to stay away from my submissions or edits? Or maybe Stonecreek can be rejected… as moderator? Zlan52 09:59, 20 April 2020 (EDT)

Sorry about the rejections, but I do also have a complaint: Why ain't it possible for an editor who is active for several years to study the help pages and take the advice issued at many times before to his heart? To submit novels with 40 pages and titles without considering the not-too-complicated regularizing of case was not okay. In my view - and at a stressing time like this - it is the moderator's job to help those who are new to the task, and this is a time-filling task.
I have the feeling that many of your submissions are done with the last fuel in your tank, that is, when you are already tired and not really up to the task. This ain't a good time to work here. Please consider to submit when you're fully awake: that way all of us wouldn't be exposed to stress. Stonecreek 13:13, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
We can't expect perfection from editors, especially from editors who are not ready to moderate their own submissions yet. That's why Moderator Qualifications say, in part:
  • A moderator will often have to explain to an editor why an edit is incorrect or needs to be changed in some way. Doing this in a supportive and friendly way is critical to making the ISFDB a successful cooperative venture. Moderators should be able to manage these communications without offending editors, particularly newcomers.
Over the last year Stonecreek's moderation of other editors' submission has prompted a number of complaints and discussions. The last time the issue came up in a big way, I wrote:
  • I have discussed recent issues with moderation with Christian. He has re-committed himself to following consensus when editing ISFDB records/guiding editors and to following other ISFDB rules and guidelines like not changing existing series organization without prior discussion. I will keep an eye on things to make sure that we don't have problems going forward.
The exchange above suggests that the current situation isn't working and is discouraging editors from contributing.
BUREAUCRAT NOTE: Christian, going forward, please limit your approvals and rejections to your own submissions. I appreciate all the work that you have done working with new editors, but the current situation is untenable. Ahasuerus 15:57, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
P.S. As an aside, we may want to enhance the software to let moderators change the status of rejected submissions back to "New". It would make it much easier to reverse accidental or erroneous rejections. Ahasuerus 15:57, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Okay, but let me add a note: I don't want to drive anybody away from the database, my sole intention is to better the quality of data; and Zlan52 is not a newcomer, being around for more than four years - if we consider this time span as short, we all should be viewed at most as teenies ;-). Christian Stonecreek 00:22, 21 April 2020 (EDT)
Except that we do not make people moderators based on how long they had been around - some editors need more assistance due to various reasons. Long term editors who are not moderators are some of the people we need to help even more - so they can make the leap into independence. Working with them to help them get better is a bit different from aggravating them to the point of being ready to give up. Rejecting someone’s work because it is not perfect instead of approving and working with them to fix it is not the way to keep volunteers around. If you are unwilling to fix someone else’s work, don’t work on that submission. And we all know that this is a pretty common way for you to handle non-perfect submissions - regardless of the editor. Take the break from working with the imperfect submissions and then come back with fresh eyes. Because when I joined, you were not dealing this way with mistakes. Maybe try to remember the time when you were trying to teach and mentor instead of punish and reject - when you want to, you can do a marvelous job at it. :) Annie 00:54, 21 April 2020 (EDT)
First of all I work as diligently as possible with my admissions. I do like a database as ISFDB very much. I hate it when I make mistakes, but then I’m only human and for that reason bound to make mistakes. It doesn’t mean I like them, not at all. It is a very good thing that there are moderators to check the edits and correct things if necessary or start a discussion with the editor. I take their opinions very seriously! I listen and learn. But not from Stonecreek as moderator. I don’t know why he does what he is doing. His way of communicating, or better the lack of communication, is very annoying and frustrating. The above mentioned incidents are not the only ones that I came across with Stonecreek. The frustration was building up over the time. Most of the incidents were small, and not worth my time to start a discussion about with him. For instance with the Italian book Un Amore a Siddo. The dustjacket shows as author Philip J. Farmer, but more important the title page gives Philip José Farmer. The book itself is credited correctly, but the novel and novella in it are credited as by Philip J. Farmer. I corrected this when I verified the book. But Stonecreek rejected both corrections. Why? “Cancellation/Rejection Reason: name is two times verified”. So, if something is two times (wrongly) verified before, it is always right? See [5] and [6]. Stonecreek must have its own Help pages, where this is stated. I cannot find it. Oh no, I do not study the Help pages, that’s why. Stonecreek’s answer to my complaint is very arrogant: “I have the feeling that many of your submissions are done with the last fuel in your tank, that is, when you are already tired and not really up to the task. This ain't a good time to work here. Please consider to submit when you're fully awake: that way all of us wouldn't be exposed to stress.” If being a moderator is so stressful to him and also “a time-filling task” maybe he should resign as moderator, to get some rest. Do not strain yourself too much please. --Rias Zlan52 07:44, 22 April 2020 (EDT)
At this point, Stonecreek has been removed from moderating other's submissions. I recognize that this has been frustrating for you, but there has been a resolution to the situation. Going forward, I think it would be best if we focused on the facts and diffused the emotions (I know that is easier said than done). For the two submissions you highlight above, I have made the changes. It would be unusual (though not unknown) for a publication to use a different author credit on the collection title page then on the story title pages. It is not unusual for the database to have errors that get missed by multiple verifiers. This pub was entered before we had support for translations. Back then, the practice was to enter the contents as English titles and they were only changed to the foreign language titles latter. That should have only impacted the titles (you can see the change being made in the edit history), but it does mean that the initial verification wasn't necessarily as strict. Since you are the only active verifier of the publication, you are the only one who can tell us what the credits are so your edits should have been accepted. However, given the disconnect between the name shown on the cover and the publication credit, I could definitely see a moderator asking questions to verify which was correct. I added a pub note explaining the delta to avoid future confusion (which is always good practice in cases like these). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2020 (EDT)

The Cyborg Handbook

Hello Moderators. I have in my possession (since 1999) a paperback copy if this book

As far as I can tell from the contents page is is quite a wide ranging history of cybernetics from the very early times to a point presumably sometime prior to publication (1995). There is one Philip K. Dick short story in it (I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon).

The back cover blurb says the following: "an initial look at cyborg society and the range of cyborg technologies, from the restorative and normalizing to the reconfiguration and enhancing....The handbook brings together key documents from the history of cyborgs as well as the best writing about them, including recent cyborg cultural theory."

Do the moderators feel this book warrents inclusion on ISFDB - the editor Charles Hables Gray does have an entry (2 essays and a short fiction). --Mavmaramis 07:35, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Sure! If there's a piece of speculative fiction inside, we do want it in! Stonecreek 10:30, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
Stonecreek. Before I start I want be certain that I can enter the entire contents of the book (not just the Dick story) which may or may not be "speculative" in nature but more fact based or based on the latest (as of 1990s) research. It consists of chapters of seperately titled essays by various hands. It has an extensive bibliograohy which references numerous journal articles and such like and an index. --Mavmaramis 15:40, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
Think of the alternate history case: if it is speculative fiction, it is included; if it is genuine historian "what if" which is not speculative, it is out. Same should apply there. Are those essays discussing the fiction or are they really about the science? As cyborgs don't exist, it is kind hard to say from the blurb :) That will determine if we include as non-genre (and only add otherwise illegible contents) or we add as genre and then all is inside. Annie 15:51, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
Hello Annie. As i am not an expert on where the "threshold" lies it's very hard for me to determine between essays discussing the "fiction" or essays discussing the "science" which could be theoretical or acutal. Below are portions of the introduction which metions three pieecs of fiction (the Dick story and two I can;t determine) in the hopes that it might help.

Book is organised into three sections. "The Genesis of the Cyborg" includes the prehistory and birth of the cyborg figure....documents and interviews with Martin Clynes (who coined the word cyborg) and J.E. Steele (bionics) The second section is "The Proliferation of Cyborgs" exploring msjor centres of cyborg production in our culture: scienee and engineering (including space exploration/war), medicine (which includes articles in relation to heart transplant patients psychological experience and bioethics) and the imagination (this section includes cyborgs in comics, films and TV series) The third section "The Futures of Cyborgs" which addresses the implications of cyborgs is divided into anthropolgy and politics. It says that the bibliography lists a large number of cyborg fiction, films and technical literature from computer science. medicine, genetics and bionic engineering "often cited at great length in many of the theoretical articles" It could mean that if I do end up entering the contents I could be entering non-speculative material but neither you (as the moderators) or I would know. --Mavmaramis 02:51, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

We would only enter the essays that are genre. So from your description, only essays from the imagination section and then maybe the bibliography if it has a meaningful list of genre items. In the pub notes, you would then add a statement that only genre contents have been indexed (so something like that). -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2020 (EDT)
Bibliography cites about 10 nonfiction speculative sources and about 50 other speculative fiction novels. I'll do as you suggest JLaTondre and only enter "Part 4" contents with some notes. Thank you all for your input on this. Not an easy task when faced with such an grey area. Any issues with with the submission (which won't be immediately) then do please post on my talk page. --Mavmaramis 08:05, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

suggested corrections

I have the following corrections for ISFDB, I do not have the necessary computer skills to add these myself (tried in the past, made more work for moderators) so I hope a moderator will add these:

  • Andy Duncan, "The Devil's Whatever" is definitely in the Pearleen series
  • Lev Grossman, "Endgame" is in the Fillory/Magicians series
  • Josh Malerman, should be "Ghastle and Yule" (Ghastle, not Ghastly)
  • Lucy Sussex, "A Small Star of Cold" and "The Revenant" are 2 titles for the same story (I own Sussex's collection Absolute Uncertainty says Small Star will be published in Eidolon 1 as The Revenant)
  • Dave Hutchinson, "Catacomb Saints" is a chapter from his novel Europe at Dawn in his Fractured Europe series, I would note it as an excerpt rather than a separate entry in the series
  • Gene Wolfe "Wrapper" and "The Wrapper" are the same story
  • Peter S. Beagle, the novel I'm Afraid You've Got Dragons was NEVER published, Beagle pulled the book after a conflict with the publisher, Black Gate has a good article online about this titled "The Mystery of Peter S. Beagle's I'm Afraid You've Got Dragons"
  • Here is the complete TOC for the unpublished New Dimensions 13 with first publication noted (although review copies exist) again nice article on Black Gate online, including the very cool cover
    • Michael Swanwick, Trojan Horse (Omni, Dec 1984)
    • Daniel Gilbert, In the Specimen Jar (Asimov’s, August 1984)
    • O. Niemand, Afternoon under Glass (F&SF, Nov 83) (George Alec Effinger pseudonym)
    • R. A. Lafferty, Buckets Full of Brains (Mischief Malicious, 1991)
    • Charles L. Grant, A Voice Not Heard (Asimov’s, Sept 84)
    • Damon Knight, “O” (Universe 14, 1984)
    • Carter Scholz, Transients (Terry’s Universe, 1988)
    • Molly Gloss, Interlocking Pieces (Universe 14, 1984)
    • Lucius Shepard, Black Coral (Universe 14, 1984)
    • Barry N. Malzberg, Quartermain (Asimov’s, Jan 85)
    • Howard Waldrop, Flying Saucer Rock and Roll (Omni, Jan 1985)
    • Edward Bryant, Dancing Chickens (Light Years and Dark, 1984)
    • O. Niemand, Two Bits (F&SF, June 1984) (Effinger psuedonym)
    • Connie Willis, All My Darling Daughters (Fire Watch, 1985)
    • Silverberg, Gate of Horn, Gate of Ivory (Universe 14, 1984)
    • Sharon N. Farber, Return of the Dust Vampires (Whispers V, 1985)
    • Vonda N. McIntyre, Superluminal (Asimov’s, October 1983 as “Transit”)(This was confirmed with the editor of Asimov's SF magazine)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerSSS (talkcontribs) .

Thank you for the information. I took the liberty of adding bullets to your post to make it easier to read. I will make the necessary changes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

New Dimensions 13

Thank you for posting my corrections. One more note for New Dimensions 13: The Vonda McInityre novella "Superluminal" was published as "Transit" in the October 1983 issue of Asimov's SF magazine. I obtained this informed from an Asimov's editor in a post on the now defunct Asimov's message board. This makes sense, because Transit is the middle part of McIntyre's novel Superluminal. (I don't have a copy of Superluminal, but I believe her novella "Aztecs" (1977) is the first section of Superluminal, don't know if "Aztecs" was expanded in the novel.)

Sorry, you did mention the variant title in your prior post, but I missed it. I have created the variant. The information on "Aztecs" and "Transit" is already listed in the notes to Superluminal. I will add it to their title records also. Thanks for the follow-up! -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

New Dimensions 13/Damon Knight

One more New Dimensions 13 item: Damon Knight's "O" should be linked to his listing for O (no quotation marks) first published in 1984 Thanks again. Template:Subts:unsigned

Done. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

James S. Austin

I recently added It's A Grimm Life to the database, if my submission is accepted I'll change James A. Austin to James S. Austin. I'm sorry that I screwed up his name. It's not James S. Austin. MLB 20:02, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

Approved. And authors merged to save an edit :) If you meant that it is a different Austin from the one we had with that last sentence, just edit and add an (I) in that book - although it seems the same guy to me based on his publishing history - thus me merging. Annie 20:16, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

Essays in booklets

Hello Moderators. This will almost certainly fall outside the remit of ISFDB but it seems to be comming (becoming ?) more prevalent now. Many speculative fiction films, eespecially collector's editions or DVD/Blu-Ray combo packs (Eureka, Criterion and so forth) come with additional material - especially a booklet that contains an essay about the film in question. I have no intention of breaking ISFDB rules/standards merely passing comment on the rise of such things and what happens if (or when) one of these booklets contains an essay by a known "above threshold" author. --Mavmaramis 13:16, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Even if you are above threshold, non-genre essays are not included unless they are either a complete book or are in an otherwise genre publication - Asimov's essays in one of our magazines are eligible; the ones in Nature are not. The part of the rules that will apply here is "This includes any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published scientific articles will be excluded." These pamphlets are not standalone books but part of the DVD/Blu Ray publication and as such ineligible.
The only way to decide that they are eligible will be if we treat them as separate publications but that will set a precedent of treating separate pieces of a whole as single things (i.e. a paperback+disk combo is not added as 2 publications now unless they already existed separately - and then someone can make the case that in the digital era, every article in a magazine is a part of the whole so can be split as well... ). So not eligible unless reprinted and then only in the reprint is the way I read the rules. :) Annie 13:36, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Annie. Again reiterating my statement that "I have no intention of breaking ISFDB rules/standards" but playing devil's advoacate you mention "non genre" works. So the essay relating to the film Robinson Crusoe on Mars by Paul McAuley (an above threshold author) in the booklet included with the Eureka DVD/Blu-Ray combo is non genre ? How does that work ? (Not specific to that example but in general) --Mavmaramis 15:45, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Our non-fiction is not really judged based on genre/non-genre but based on the "Works about speculative fiction" basis - this is the only part in the acquisition policy that non-fiction can use to get into the DB (that and "being printed in a genre magazine (book)" or "is a complete book by an author over the threshold"). If the essay is about the books, it is eligible (as this is a valid publication technically). If it is about the movie specifically, it is not about speculative fiction (movies and performances different from readings are not considered eligible) - so it is out. We occasionally do add too many TV and movie related non-fiction IMO but that does not mean anything ever written about any genre-related content (games, movies, TV, music, dolls...) is eligible or that we want it. Think of the non-fiction here as a support for our fiction - we are mainly a fiction DB. Annie 16:08, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
While I agree with your position, the inclusion policy as written doesn't state that. It defines "speculative fiction" as a series of genre items without using the word published. It then says we include "published works of speculative fiction" (defining published to mean print, electronic, & audio) and "works about speculative fiction". The latter doesn't mention published at all. It's not unreasonable (actually I would say it's quite logical for them to) come away with the position that works about movies & TVs are allowed. If that's not what we want, there should be a rules discussion about changing it to "works about published speculative fiction". -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Are you saying that a movie is "speculative fiction" under the terms of the DB? Because only if that is true, then the books about them are eligible. And if you read it this way, then this part of the inclusions:
  • Online publications available exclusively as a Web page, but only if
  • published by a market which makes the author eligible for SFWA membership (listed here), OR
  • shortlisted for a major award
would make any online short movie or almost any song eligible for inclusion if it is shortlisted for an award.
And if we are saying that the current rules allow all non-fiction about movies, it also allows all fiction about genre songs and about anime (not excluded either) for example.
If we need to clarify the policy, let's do that - but I think I am reading the policy as designed... :)Annie 17:17, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
The issue of "works about movies & TVs" has come up a number of times. I have seen editors adopt three different approaches:
  1. Include all non-fiction works about content that is both speculative and fictional regardless of the medium: board games, comics/manga, video games, movies, TV/anime, etc.
  2. Exclude non-fiction works about content that we do not consider to be "published" speculative fiction, where "published" is defined as per the Rules of Acquisition, i.e. "paper", "electronic" or "audio" publication.
  3. Include only non-fiction works about speculative content which can be plausibly linked to "published" speculative fiction. This approach lets us include secondary bibliographies, i.e. bibliographies of bibliographies even though they are not -- technically -- "about" speculative fiction. It also includes non-fiction works about popular shared cross-media universes like "Doctor Who" and "Star Wars", but only as long as there is a plausible connection to the universe's "published" component. Thus a book about "Star Trek" physics would be included (because it applies to all media including Star Trek novels) while a book about Star Trek movie outtakes and bloopers would be excluded.
Personally, I prefer the third approach. I seem to recall that it had plurality support the last time we discussed the issue, but I don't think it was ever codified. Ahasuerus 18:03, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
So should we reopen and try to codify this finally? I am operating under approach 3 because this is how I had always read (and understood - and been explained to) our rules. Or should we try to find the old discussion first? :) Annie 18:07, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
I prefer the third approach also. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
OK, I'll re-post it as a proposal on the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus 15:22, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
Done. Sorry about the delay! Ahasuerus 16:04, 1 May 2020 (EDT)
Yes, as written (as opposed to how designed), the definition of "speculative fiction" (in the definitions section) doesn't say anything about published. It just defines what is included and excluded in terms of genre elements. There is no discussion of medium. Then you get down to the rules of acquisition and it merely says "works about speculative fiction" with no discussion of medium. While Included #1 defines published, #2 doesn't use that term so leaves it ambiguous and people could interpret as "published works about all speculative fiction mediums". I'm not saying we have to change it. We could leave it as it and just explain what is meant when people submit stuff. Or we could change it and still have to explain it since most people don't read the policy before submitting (though some do). I was just trying to explain why even experienced editors could be confused about this topic. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Confusion is our middle name around here when we start hitting the borders of our eligibility :) Sounds like we are on the same page then these are ineligible under the current rules (or the spirit of the current rules anyway)? Annie 19:07, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
I fear I many have opened an old can of worms. And reading your discussion it's safe to say and firmly reiterate that I have no intention of breaking ISFDB rules/standards by entering such material and leave it at that. Thnaks to all for your views regarding this. --Mavmaramis 19:37, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
The cans need to be opened and cleaned up or they get older and smellier and harder to clean later :) Don't worry at all - if such questions arise, never hesitate to post for opinions - sometimes we may need a change rules, sometimes a moderator or 3 may need to revisit their own reading (including the one(s) that are trying to answer to you) and sometimes we know what we should be doing but noone bothered to write it down. Discussions are useful in a project such as ours - so don't feel like you did anything wrong here. :) Annie 19:41, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Individual letters in Asimov's PVed by inactive editors

Sorry for a dumb question, fellow moderators... See the submission I have on hold (buried in the middle of Annie's held Fixer collection). The editor wants to add a specific letter and letter credit to an issue of Asimov's, where the existing submission has a single "Letters" by "various" to cover all of the letters. The credit would be for an author whose entry only exists because of another letter credit. The Internet Archive has a scan showing the letter is indeed present, so that's not an issue. But do we want to be adding such separate credits? Thanks for any thoughts. --MartyD 11:26, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

I've added several hundred if not thousands of letters, for letter writers above the "threshold," such as authors, scientists, editors and fans of note. It's easier to determine this for older magazines, not so easy for more recent publications.Rkihara 12:17, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
The letter is not spec fiction, nor about spec fiction per se, so I am against adding this as separate contents. MagicUnk 13:30, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
That’s irrelevant inside of a SF magazine though - we do not skip essays in those, speculative or not. However for letters we specifically say that editors may add other letters, not just the ones from the genre known figures so technically adding it is allowed. I’d allow it personally - I would even add ones that create new authors. Annie 15:20, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
This is another area where our documentation is contradictory. Help:Screen:NewPub manages to say both that "Entries may be restricted to significant letters by well-known sf personalities. Editors have the option to include other letters." (under Content Information: Contents always included) and "Entries should currently be restricted to significant letters by well-known sf personalities." (under Content Information: Letters to the Editor). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
The Policy page has the “have the option” language. But yeah - sounds like another thing we need to decide what we want to do. :)Annie 21:12, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
It certainly looks like we need to revisit this issue on the Rules and Standards page.
As I recall, one issue that we ran into back when we started entering magazine letters was that it wasn't always easy to tell whether the author was a "well-known sf personality". During the pulp era, some early letterhacks used joke pseudonyms, diminutive forms of their names, etc. Much later, when the pseudonym was discovered, there was no easy way to identify the missing letters.
In addition, "well-known personality" can be hard to define. For example, Louis C. Smith was an early SF bibliographer and fan, but he is not exactly a household name. If we didn't have his letters on file, it would make life more difficult for those who have been working on his biography. Ahasuerus 21:26, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
Right, I for one was surprised a number of times about the relevancy of letter authors I thought not worth to list in the first place. And, in this case, we already have one letter by the author: if we don't allow the new one, per plain logic we would have to delete the other one. If it's an essay in a genre magazine it is eligible (and how do you know it's not about spec. fic.?). Stonecreek 01:17, 3 May 2020 (EDT)
And we never know if that unknown author won’t end up writing a story 4 years later which wins him an award - and then backtracking and trying to find the letters is so much harder. Or that this unknown author is not actually the main force behind the conventions in a small country somewhere. I’d rather opt on the side of inclusion - if an editor wants to add essays from a book/magazine we are not marking as not genre, they can add it. Plus - if the same aufhake writes 30 letters, we really want them here. Except we will never know if we do not allow the letters. Just thinking aloud here :) Annie 01:25, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) Ok, thanks, all. I will accept it. ... And now that I go to do that, I see Ron is one of the PVs! :-) --MartyD 07:51, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Precious Artifacts 2 - PKD

I've prepared a submission to extensively update the Contents section, page count and pub notes here (preserving extant data). Can I go ahead? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:14, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Yes. Just add a summary of the changes in the moderator notes so it is clear what was there. Or a summary of what is there now - this seems to be easier. Annie 19:23, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Annie, and yes, so it makes sense in the Edit History :) Kev. BanjoKev 21:16, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Queue

Hi, I have 2 extensive submissions in the queue. While I'm not looking for prioritization in any way, or complaining at this difficult time, but I am getting concerned over this one 4636646. It's been over 2 days now for that and I'm anxious to get on with all the follow-up work needed - I hope you understand. Thanks for your time and patience! Kev. BanjoKev 09:48, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Some days get a bit crazy - weekends can be hard and then things can pile up early in a week. Got that one now and will clear some more shortly. Annie 15:24, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Much appreciated Annie :) Kev. BanjoKev 16:08, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Change to verified pub

Recording change of the title of a content record of Au XXIXe siècle - La journée d'un journaliste américain en 2889 in 20 récits d'anticipation et de science-fiction, per Talk page of sole primary verifier Hauck. Changing hyphen to em-dash based on online images. ../Doug H 12:52, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Cover art credit evidence

A posting here gives image credit to Alan Gutierrez,

It is the cover art to this publication. It is also the cover rot this book where it is credited to Gutierrez. However. I cannot find the Altan no. 836 ebook listed above on ISFDB.

Is the Twitter post (which includes close up of signiature) and the perryp[edia website sufficient evidence in the moderators opinion for the records to have that data added and notes linking to the source ? --Mavmaramis 16:18, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

The Night of the Dragonstar pub record also links to a local copy of the signature. That signature is very similar to other Gutierrez's signatures. I would credit based on the signature. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
Great. Theere is a massive BUT which I stated quite clearly but will rrepeat in case you missed it. I cannot find the Altan no. 836 ebook listed above on ISFDB. If I knew how to find it to edit it then I would do so but I cannot find it hence I was really hoping one of the Mods would be better equipped to find it. --Mavmaramis 19:11, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
We do not have 836: this is what we have from that magazine. I can add it later or you can - let me know. Annie 19:36, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
If you'd be so kind as to add that would be great as I don't actually own a physical copy of the book. --Mavmaramis 07:22, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
Neither do I - you do not need to own a book to add it :) I will see what I can do in the morning. Annie 07:27, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
I'll add the issue; it's more easy for me to do it I think. And I would wait with the ebook edition to enter: the magazine was first published in 1987 as a digest / booklet. Christian Stonecreek 08:56, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
Oh yes - I was planning to enter the original, not the e-reprint. :) Thanks for taking care of it! Annie 09:21, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

"CHAPBOOK Publications with Multiple Fiction Titles" modified

As per the outcome of this R&S discussion, the cleanup report CHAPBOOK Publications with Multiple Fiction Titles has been modified to let moderators "ignore" records. Ahasuerus 16:40, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Unknown UK, August 1940

We have a bit of a pages problem here and the PV is not around so I need someone to look at it with me and check my thinking. It obviously cannot be 64 pages if the contents are on the correct page. According to Galactic Central (issue listing (at the moment - we know these are unstable), the contents are where we have them and the magazine is 80+ pages. Does anyone see a reason not to change this to 82 pages (or 84 maybe?) (and it will match the other one from this year December) - later the magazine comes down to 64 pages but in 1940 all the issues seem to be 80++ at GC). Thanks for any opinions. Annie 23:46, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Seems quite correct to change it cautiously to 82 pages, I'd say. Christian Stonecreek 13:59, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for checking it over. Pages changed to 82. Mod note contains all the explanations. Annie 14:11, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Bureaucrats and the UNHOLD button

As you know, moderators can put submissions on hold. Only the holding moderator can "unhold" a submission. In the past it occasionally led to problems when a moderator became unavailable before getting a chance to approve or "unhold" submissions.

The software has been modified to let bureaucrats "unhold" submissions held by other moderators. If you notice that a submission has been on hold for a while and the moderator is not available, please post a request on the Moderator noticeboard and a bureaucrat will "unhold" the affected submission(s). Ahasuerus 19:30, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Something went wrong with either this patch or the previous one -- the "rejection reason" is now lost when you reject. It does not matter if I do it with the item on HOLD or after I unhold - the reason is getting lost. Annie 19:44, 13 May 2020 (EDT)
Fixed -- sorry about that! Ahasuerus 20:12, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Correction to publication data for Edison Marshall's "The Serpent City"

The story is said to have first appeared in Weird Tales 1974. In fact that was a reprint of "The Serpent City" from The Blue Book Nov. 1919. Source is the PulpsMag index. Also I read the story a while back.

beb

Verified and fixed. Here is the story now. Thanks for identifying that missing first printing of the story! Annie 17:26, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Aphotic Realm 2020 Issues

I would like to add details for the latest issue of Aphotic Realm (issue 9), but no magazine tracker exists for 2020. I also can't work out how to add details for a new year for a magazine issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RayDaleyWriterUK (talkcontribs) .

Just start it as a New Magazine (here), add the details, contents and everything else you want to add and submit. The yearly series is created as a second step once we have the issue in the DB - we are publication based so add the issue itself first. Annie 19:42, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

The H. P. Lovecraft Collection

Hello moderators. I bought a physical copy of this It's 6 hadback volumes, all different colours, no dustwrappers in a slipcase with ISBN 978-1-78428-860-0 Publisher is stated on copyright page(s)to be "Sirius Publishing, a division of Arcturus Publishing Limited" with a date of publication as 2018. A search for ISBN brings up no results Individual volumes have their own ISBN. Only one of the volumes is listed (and that's paperback too) The Randolph Carter Tales

My thoughts on entering this: Create a "container" (clone the e-book entry) and edit. Create individual entries for the 6 volumes.

Does that soumd like a plan or do you have any thoughts/suggestions --Mavmaramis 09:50, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

This this boxset (on Amazon as well)?
I would add each volume individually as collections (especially because they have their own ISBNs but even if they did not...) and then add the set as well (a clone from the ebook will do it for that if the title matches or you can add a new one and we can merge/variant depending on the name) and then import from the individual volumes. :)
I think that The Randolph Carter Tales is actually exactly the hardcover you are holding (both Amazons think so - and despite online sellers with no copies calling it a paperback...) so I updated it and added some notes. A lot of these notes need to go into the slipcased edition notes but I parked them here for now. Unless the ISBN was used for both a hardcover and a pb at the same time... or clothbound confused some sellers. All other volumes are showing as hc only everywhere so I think this one is safely a hc as well... Feel free to edit this one as much as you want :)
PS: We had a long and not very productive discussion on the topic a few months ago that led nowhere as usual... Due to the separate ISBNs and the fact that the individual volumes appear separately as well, it is probably an overkill to try to follow it but if you are curious... Annie 18:28, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for your clear guidance Annie. Yes it is that set (to which you linked). Yes container title is same as e-book, hence why I mentioed it. I just want to clarify the publisher - given the Randolph Carter volume says "Artcurus" whereas the actual books say "Sirius Publishing, a division of Arcturus Publishing Limited" - there is a "Sirius / Arcturus Publishing" so surely it should be this ? --Mavmaramis 00:02, 3 June 2020 (EDT)
"Sirius / Arcturus Publishing" sounds correct based on what I am seeing on the copyright page that is visible... I have half a mind picking up that set as well - it looks nice and I have a soft spot for well done books... Although I am also seeing Sirius on its own in the DB - let me check with the PVs and see in what direction we want to merge. Go for "Sirius / Arcturus Publishing" for now - if needed, I will merge it later if we decide to do something else. Annie 00:37, 3 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you again Annie. The set is quite lovely and it's only £35. Deinately says "Sirius Publishing, a division of Arcturus Publishing Limited" on copyright pages of books so I'm going with Sirius / Arcturus Publishing. --Mavmaramis 04:16, 3 June 2020 (EDT)

The New Challenge of the Stars

Hello Moderators. In regards to this book I made some brief notes in regards to the differences between it and this version. I'd like to create a page to document the changes more fully than the brief notes allow if that is acceptable. If allowed would a moderater be wlling to assist in the creation of such a page and then to link it to the the publications ? --Mavmaramis 17:56, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

We can easily create a new Wiki page but... Wiki pages are not archived in the same way as the DB and they do not get exported/backed up with the Site backup - so there is a chance to lose the information and anyone downloading the archives may not have it. What I would do is to use {{BREAK}} in the notes (see some examples - open the entries to see how they look like). This leaves the data in the proper DB and does not always show it on the publication screen unless someone clicks on the "View Full Notes". What do you think? If you insist on the Wiki page, we can always do that but we are trying to migrate data from wiki to the DB... :) Annie 18:01, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
What I meant was a seperate page on this site. I've seen other examples (although finding an example immediately would be tricky) where there was a link to a seperate page here giving more detail than was allowable in the notes (or in the format like what you linked). --Mavmaramis 01:18, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
And all those separate pages will be moved to the DB Notes fields sooner or later - or this is the plan anyway.
I can create a wiki page for you for now - do you have a preferred title for it? Then we can add the link to it to the web pages of the title records (not the publications most likely) so people can find it. And then when I or someone else get to that one during the cleanup in a few years, it will get moved to the DB :)
There is no maximum allowable data in a note field... Annie 02:16, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Ok if that' s the case - and I wasn't aware those seperate pages HERE were not (as it were) here. I think what I will do, and to save some future person is to edit the TNCOTS notes to explain the diffferences in more detail. --Mavmaramis 03:52, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Think of the site as two separate sites living together - the DB part and the Wiki part :) We can link between them but we treat them differently for backups, approvals and so on. We do have some sprawling pages which are just not practical in notes (yet) (so we can link to them via the web pages links) so if you think the text will be really long, we can do that. But anyone downloading the archive to use offline will not have this data with the book.
Historically, we used the wiki a lot more but there had been an effort to slowly move the data into the database. You may also want to add the notes on the title level and not the publication level - but they are easy to move once they are written. Thanks for working on these! Annie 04:00, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Second set of eyes on eligibility for a non-fiction submission

Can someone look at this and share an opinion if it is eligible? Under the current rules:

  • Published non-fiction works about speculative fiction which can be plausibly linked to published (as defined above) speculative fiction. This rule allows the inclusion of secondary bibliographies, i.e. bibliographies of bibliographies, which are two steps removed from published speculative fiction. It also allows the inclusion of non-fiction works about shared cross-media universes like "Doctor Who" and "Star Wars", but only as long as there is a plausible connection to the universe's published component. Thus a book about "Star Trek physics" can be included (because it applies to all types of media including novels) while a book about Star Trek movie outtakes and bloopers should be excluded

I think it is ineligible (only about the movie and the process of making it basically). The author is not above treshold (I think?). So I don't think it belongs -- but I will appreciate another opinion. Thanks! Annie 04:23, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

If it was strictly about making the movie, I'd say ineligible. However, since it was written the novel's author, I'd assume it covers adapting the novel for film and the decisions that were made relative to his writing the novel. If so, I'd say that meets "plausibly linked to published (as defined above) speculative fiction". Especially if he at all discusses writing the novel in the first place. I'd wait for SFJuggler's response and see what the scope is. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2020 (EDT)
Full disclosure: I have inclusionist tendencies. :) While in isolation it ought to be ineligible, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to get it included:
  1. The book on which the movie is based is "in" (and we have a record for it).
  2. This book is by the same author as the "in" book, even though the author may not be above the threshold (but we already have a record for the author)
  3. An editor went to the trouble to assemble and submit the data.
Also, without reading the book, it's hard to know if any of it meets the "Star Trek physics" sort of measure. Imagine, for example, that Star Trek started as books instead of TV shows, was turned into a TV show, and then along came a book Trek to TV: Bringing Star Trek to the Small Screen, and in that book was a discussion about interpreting, visualizing, and rendering the author's "transporter" mechanism. To me, that would meet the physics-discussion bar. If the book in this proposed submission had any discussion of the fantastic elements of the original book and translating them to the screen, I would view that the same way.
So I would have convinced myself to allow it. --MartyD 08:24, 6 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks guys. I posted exactly because of the arguments that Marty cited - it is so close to where we cut the line that it can go any way. I will work with SFJuggler to figure out what we want to do here. Annie 15:17, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

Easy way to switch canonical author name?

Hello. I was wondering if there exists an easy way to switch canonical name, or is it a one by one excercise? Thanks MagicUnk 03:12, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

Depends on the case -- but generally it is one by one with some tricks (the merge of a parent/variant when they were only between the the old and the new canonical for example. If you share which one you are thinking of switching, you can get a better answer. One note - if it is an artist, don't forget to switch all covers which are not credited in the books as well. Annie 03:31, 7 June 2020 (EDT)
This one : Petar Meseldzija. MagicUnk 20:26, 7 June 2020 (EDT)
Yeah... this will be one by one, with the trick above (basically a single edit reversal per title - when you do that, make sure the parent is set to empty). Anything else will end up with comparable or higher number of edits and is more prone to errors (A merge or a rename via a third name and then author change for the few that need the old name will leave the variants needing breaking and deleting for example -- so even worse). As he has some cover art, some of the existing covers under the current canonical name may need author change instead of a variant. Always a pain when converting artists. Annie 13:48, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
Blegh. Not tonight then ;) MagicUnk 14:47, 8 June 2020 (EDT)

Japanese title transliteration change

I think it would be best if a Japanese-facile moderator took a look at this submission. --MartyD 07:19, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

I have left a note on User:Nihonjoe's Talk page. Ahasuerus 12:19, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

Printing number: extra field?

Is it possible to get an extra field in the database for the printing number of a book?
So you can more easily identify the exact book? The year of publication (often unknown) or the ISBN could be the same for different printings. Sometimes we have from 20 till 30 different printings. For instance with books by Philip José Farmer. I'm working to add the printings for The Dark Design. Two books in this case have been added twice, the Berkley 4th and 5th printing. I had to check every book again and again before I noticed this. Even had to print a list of the books to add the printing information on that list, before I can make new entries in the database, or correct the earlier ones.
How to correct the double entries? Just delete one, and let the editor know this? -- Rias -- Zlan52 07:51, 8 June 2020 (EDT)

To correct - yes, one of them will need to get deleted.
The field had been asked for multiple times - to be visible both on the book page and in the table of publications for a title. Hopefully one of those days we will get it :) Annie 12:20, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
This issue has been raised a number of times, most recently in December 2019 -- see the subsection which starts with "A little bit of background re: "the printing rank/edition exposed somewhere so we can use it for sorting" mentioned earlier." We have {{FR|794}, "Add a 'printing' field to publication records", which documents various proposals and suggestions.
Personally, I agree that this functionality is desirable and is fairly high priority. The main obstacle preventing it from being implemented is that we have been unable to decide whether the field should be numeric, e.g. "1", "3", "27", or whether it should allow arbitrary text like "first printing of the Dutton edition". My last suggestion during the linked discussion was to start "a separate Community Portal discussion of this FR", but I don't think it has happened yet.
I would recommend starting a Community Portal discussion and copy-pasting all known arguments "pro et contra" from the FR Web page and from previous discussions. That way we can have all of them in the same place and -- hopefully -- be able to reach consensus. Ahasuerus 13:19, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
Who starts this Community Portal discussion? Or does this question ends here? Zlan52 12:34, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
You can if you want. Or I can if you prefer? Annie 13:03, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
I had an idea earlier today and I am about to post it on the Community Portal. Hang on :) Ahasuerus 13:20, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Done. Ahasuerus 14:06, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

Moebius, SF HOF and comics

Anyone with an opinion on this? Do we extend the "above threshold" for an author who was inducted in the SF HOF even if all of his fiction works are comics? I am of two minds on that - on one hand, not including a HOF author's works is a bit weird; on the other - comics are explicitly excluded (except for above treshhold authors) and without the comics he won't be above threshold as I understand the term (or most comics creators will be as well - so it is is the HOF that is different). I am inclined to reject -- or release and let someone else decide - but the latter is really not my style and we need an agreement anyway. So - in or out? If in, I have a LOT of books to catalog! :)Annie 18:59, 8 June 2020 (EDT)

Aah, Moebius! Very famous indeed, but as long we let the rule 'no comics' stand, he should not be in. Being a HOF member is not relevant here. MagicUnk 02:21, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
I don't know exactly about the rules for inclusion in the HOF but it would appear to me that movie directors could also be inducted (and we wouldn't want them automatically considered above the threshold, I'd think). Christian Stonecreek 05:42, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
"no comics" unless you are above threshold - I wish it was a blanket "no comics" despite the fact that I like comics - would have made everyone's life easier. Either that or lift the ban on comics (although with the lack of roles for authors, we are not set for that). :) Yeah, I do not think that HOF makes you above threshold automatically -- but as the list of inductee we do not consider so is extremely low, I came for more opinions. Annie 12:59, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
I don't think the fact that a person is in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame automatically makes him or her "above the threshold" for our purposes. As Christian pointed out above, the Science Fiction Hall of Fame includes movie directors like Douglas Trumbull and Ridley Scott.
That being said, it looks like we have two separate problems here. The first one is that the word "published" in the expression "published works of speculative fiction" as used by ISFDB:Policy#Rules_of_Acquisition can be confusing. It has a very special meaning with many caveats. For example, readings of SF works are considered "published speculative fiction" while dramatizations are not. This kind of hyper-precise language makes sense to linguists, mathematicians and IT standards designers, but it can easily confuse 90% of our users. We may want to think of a better, less confusing, alternative to "published". If we can't think of anything, we should probably add a brief note to the Policy page emphasizing that we use the word "published" in a very special way.
The second problem is that the bullet point which deals with the "threshold" issue in the "Excluded" section of the Policy page says "Works that are not related to speculative fiction by authors who have not published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold. I think it was supposed to be restricted to "published published works either of or about speculative fiction". However, "published published works" sounds bizarre because it repeats the same word twice, so the second instance of "published" got dropped, which made this bullet point ambiguous. For example, Moebius certainly "published works ... of ... speculative fiction" above the threshold, but his SF was of the graphical variety and wasn't "published speculative fiction" in the sense that we use the term. Hence the confusion.
I suggest that we start by rephrasing the "threshold" bullet point to clarify that only works of "published speculative fiction" qualify authors for the "threshold". Ahasuerus 15:25, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for putting your finger on what was bothering me in our definitions but could not verbalize it :). I agree - if we qualify "threshold" to only published SF by our definition (which had always been the intent) then Moebius is out as he has none under our definition. One thought though - that will exclude the non-fiction only authors (or heavily non-fiction ones)-- do we really want to exclude them? Maybe use "published speculative fiction and non-fiction about published speculative fiction"? Or do we really only want the SF ones? Annie 15:41, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
Probably something to discuss on the Rules and Standards page. Another thing to keep in mind is that "magazine/anthology/fanzine editors" may be considered a third category, potentially separate from "fiction authors" and "non-fiction authors". Ahasuerus 15:57, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
For the word "published", why not use "eligible" instead? That won't change the meaning of anything we have and it will remove the "but there is a book" thinking. Plus the word itself means that there is a rule behind it and real-world definitions won't be applied automatically. We may need to redo some of the language but that should clear most of the confusion. Annie 15:41, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

Is there a place in ISFDB for links to online or published archives of magazine content?

Having just submitted (possibly not fully complete) contents for the 3 incomplete issues of Charles Platt's The Patchin Review, I thought to Google it, and found that there is an ebook available containing all 7 issues ([7]). I also recently discovered that there is an online archive of the BSFA's Vector magazine, and many other fanzines, at [8]

Is the Web Page field on a Magazine or Series summary page the place to put such things? --Mjcrossuk 06:06, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

Sorry, just realised that I posted to possibly the wrong board, I meant to post it to the Community Portal.
No worries! And yes, the "Webpages" field of Series records is the best place to enter links to Web pages which include fanzine archives. We already have vector in the database, so just click the "Edit" link on the right and enter the Web page address. Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 10:22, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
In addition, this ebook is eligible for addition as an anthology here so I would not add the link to it on the series level -- instead add the book :) For the Fanac links - you can even add the individual issues links to their respective publications if you want. :) Annie 12:38, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
Yes, I realised after posting that, of course, the collected Patchin Review can be added as a book. I will do that, and check the data we have for the individual issues against it. --Mjcrossuk 12:41, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
One thing leads to another, and on and on... as you probably all know! I looked at the The Patchin Review because one of the items (“Obstacles and Ironies in Science-Fiction Criticism”) in Budrys' Beyond The Outposts was originally published there. --Mjcrossuk 14:37, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
PS If anyone's not familiar with The Patchin Review it's very much worth a look, especially now it's available as a free (+ optional donation to TAFF) ebook. Lots of serious, and often controversial, content from many of the heavy hitters of the SF world, eg Aldiss, Malzberg, Ellison, Shirley, Budrys, Disch, Janet Morris, Bester, Bryant, Silverberg, Pournelle, Lupoff, Benford, Spinrad, Hartwell, Clute, PKD.

Untitled interior art practice

Hello. I recently came across a couple of magazine entries where interior art contents titles were entered as ' uncredited (title-of-the-magazine) ', which I (belatedly) realize might not be according to our standards. What are other moderators' practice in these cases? Do we ask to switch to title-of-the-magazine (optional disambiguator) or let we stand? Thanks! MagicUnk 14:35, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

"uncredited"? Or "untitled"? We have 1332 art records which start with the word untitled although the rules has always been to use the name of the publication so... we may be heading to a R&S discussion to decide if we want to clean these or we want to change the rules and allow both. Most of those don't even have the name of the publication from a quick look at them. Using untitled (magazine name) or just the magazine name does not make much of a difference and serves the same purpose so I am fine with deciding to do either (and because of how we name essays, I find it more intuitive to allow untitled (magazine) personally... The 9 called uncredited probably need fixing (most of them anyway) -- but let's first decide what we want to do really. :) Annie 15:49, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
It's three of the uncredited ones that I was referring to, and yes, untitled is more common. I agree that using magazine, or untitled (magazine) is quite similar, and really does not lead to confusion. Same for untitled. So, I would let pass both uncredited (magazine), and untitled (magazine). But then there's the rule that says magazine (disambiguation). Heading over at R&S? MagicUnk 16:04, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
"Heading over to R&S" - post a thread in R&S to start a discussion. I would not let "uncredited" as a title -- this is our special designation for author name and while not confusing, it is factually incorrect for a title. :) Annie 16:33, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

Pages

Yesterday I posted a question here: "Template talk:PublicationFields:Pages". But given that the last post there was 14 years ago, I'm afraid it isn't monitored.Mike 22:23, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

Question should be asked here and not on the talk pages of the individual help pages - they are indeed not monitored daily while these boards are. I will go look for the question but it may be faster if you restate it here. Annie 22:50, 9 June 2020 (EDT)
The question is now here :) Annie 23:04, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

How do I submit a book that is a collection (omnibus?) of magazines?

I'm trying to submit The Complete Patchin Review ([9]) which is an ebook containing all 7 issues of Charles Platt's The Patchin Review. First I tried it as an ANTHOLOGY but that didn't fit, so then I tried it as an OMNIBUS belonging to the existing series The Patchin Review. That seemed better, but I had issues (pardon the pun :) )

I entered an EDITOR title, as the book is edited by Platt...failed: "Only MAGAZINE and FANZINE publications can contain EDITOR titles", I changed the type to ESSAY

I picked CHAPBOOK is the Title Type for each of the issues... failed: "Multiple CHAPBOOK titles are not allowed", so I change the Type to ANTHOLOGY (which isn't really right). Do we need a Title Type of MAGAZINE?

I entered Charles Platt as the Author for each of the issue titles, because an Author is mandatory, but he's not the Author, he's the Editor. Can this be fixed once the titles are linekd to thwe individual issues already in the database?

Submission: [10]

TIA --Mjcrossuk 19:06, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

You add it as an anthology and import the contents from each of the magazines, without the EDITOR records. EDITOR and CHAPBOOK are special containers and they never get imported into other containers. So you do not import the issues themselves, you import only their contents. And for anthologies and magazines, as soon as it is approved, the "author" shows up as an editor :) Annie 19:09, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
PS: It won't be an omnibus because an omnibus requires previously published books - and the magazines don't count. So we make it an anthology and we write a lot of notes to explain what that is. :) Annie 19:11, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
I just rejected the submission as it would have created the empty anthologies which then would have needed to be removed from the publication and deleted one by one. So let's try that again:
Add a new anthology only with the new contents (that was not in the old magazines). Add a note inside of the pub note (and the title note) that this collects the 7 issues and additional material. Use | to order the different items in the ebook. (with 7 issues and if all the extra contents is on the last pages, I would use |8001, |8002 and so on for the new contents page numbers. Once approved, import each of the issues (again with |numbers for the page numbers - |1000, |1001 for issues 1 and so on)). Annie 19:16, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for the v quick responses! I was just going to ask if I should cancel the submission, but you beat me to it :) --Mjcrossuk 19:19, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Will this work if I start as a NONFICTION, as that's what the content of the magazines is? --Mjcrossuk 19:24, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
If the magazines contain ONLY nonfiction, then yes - I would start as NONFICTION, instead of Anthology; the rest of the advice remains the same. Plus we can always swap the type later if that is mistaken :) Annie 19:31, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Does the Import create a copy of all the titles in the issues? If so, the contents of the 7 issues needs to be complete (and thus never change in the future) before importing into the Complete book? (Some of the issues aren't complete yet) --Mjcrossuk 19:35, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
It imports what is there during the import process. So if the book you import from is incomplete, it won't be complete either. And it does not create a copy, just a link to that contents (that's the point of the import - the essay will be a single record, referenced by both publications). So if the original issues still need work, do NOT do the imports now but later, when the individual ones are done and complete. Annie 19:48, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
There will be a similar problem with my other submission, A Budrys Miscellany, which, among normal content like essays & reviews, contains 2 issues of a fanzine (which isn't yet in the database) --Mjcrossuk 19:37, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Same solution - you cannot add the fanzines, you add the contents and you explain in the notes what these are. You do not need to do all imports at the start if the contents are not ready for it. Add {{incomplete}} to the publication notes when you create the book or on a later edit. That will notify anyone looking that this still need work. Then when you are happy with the contents of a single issue, import it into the big book. Rinse and repeat until you have everything and then remove the incomplete template. :) Annie 19:48, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for your help, & patience. It's 1am here, time I stopped typing :) --Mjcrossuk 19:59, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

Problem with newly-uploaded image

I've just uploaded the cover image for Algis Budrys A Budrys Miscellany, and whee the image would normally appear after a successful upload, there is a grey rectangle, and the message:

"Error creating thumbnail: /var/www/html/wiki//bin/ulimit4.sh: line 4: /usr/local/bin/convert: No such file or directory"

Image link is [11]

The link to the full resolution version of the image works, so the image file has uploaded and is a valid jpg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjcrossuk (talkcontribs) .

See the size of the Image - it is 756 Pixels on one of the sides. The preview works up to 600 pixels on the longest side - which is why we have the requirement for images not to exceed that. Annie 11:45, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
I've resized the image, and uploaded it successfully. Sorry for not thinking that might be the problem, and not noticing the text on the upload page that mentions the 600 limit :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjcrossuk (talkcontribs) .
No worries - I am so used to this being the problem that this is the first thing I looked at :) Don't forget to sign your messages when posting ;) Annie 13:22, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
PS: We also have the Help Desk -- so "why" and "how to" may be better off there -- non-moderators rarely look at the Moderator board so you may get a faster answer in the Help Desk. Just FYI :) Annie 13:24, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Soviet Space Graphics

I picked up a copy of this publication. Also here. I was wondering whether it qualifies for inclusion as it contains c.250 space-race graphics. --Mavmaramis 09:11, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

The text is hard to read, but it looks like the vast majority of the art illustrates popular science articles. I see only one illustration linked to a SF story, so I guess the book is out of scope. Ahasuerus 18:13, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
More details (and images) here but after that if you say it's "out of scope" then I shall mutter ancient curses under my breath but abide by your (or other moderatros) ruling. --Mavmaramis 10:06, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Interesting book but unfortunately I agree it is out of scope unless we can tie it to fiction - all our Non-fiction and art is here as support for the fiction and not on its own :(
Now... it may turn out that some of those DO illustrate the science fiction stories in some magazines which will make them eligible and if we can get enough, we can claim the whole book is so... can you please keep that handy on your desk? :) Does it have an index/bibliography of when and where each picture was published first and can you scan that so I can chase them down and see if any of them are from SF stories? From the ones posted in that link, most seem to be illustrating the science articles (so no help there) but who knows. It is most likely ineligible but... we can at least check. Annie 15:37, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
It has an index and biography for the publications and artists featured. Of the 10 publications listed Iskayel (Seeker); Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) and Zemlya i Vselennaya (Earth and Universe) are noted to contain speculative fiction material. Each image in the book has it's own caption giving details of the magazine it appeared on (or in). I think I shall have to accept the images are wonderful but sadly the publication itself ineligable. Thus I will retire gracefully. --Mavmaramis 22:27, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Yeah - these are like Nature (before they ejected the fiction) - contain 1 or 2 stories; non-genre science magazines. Annie 00:28, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Move and delete Author Bio pages, yes?

To be absolutely sure: the intent is to gradually move all data from author's bio pages into the database, yes? MagicUnk 14:09, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Yes - with the data going where it belongs and not just being dumped into the Notes field. Thus the report. That may mean adding some books to the DB btw -- if we have a full list of eligible titles or notes on first editions in the wiki but they are not in the DB, moving the data will mean adding and/or updating the books. :) Annie 14:23, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification Annie. I'll start with the easy ones. Pray I don't mess up :) MagicUnk 14:50, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Nothing that cannot be undone. I cleaned up all the fanzines, magazines and almost all the series a few years back (so we could remove the links allowing more to be created...) - had been chipping at the rest now and then... Some help is certainly appreciated :)
PS: as you are a moderator, you can just delete the page when you are done - no need to use good old "page transferred" - it is there for the non-moderators (as they cannot delete wiki pages) and is essentially "todo" for a moderator later on. :) Annie 15:28, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Yeah, I know - but just wanted to be on the safe side, and go back in and delete later. Once you've had a look at my handywork and give me a stamp of approval :) MagicUnk 16:20, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Nothing deleted from wiki cannot be undeleted (well... until the archive is here) so don't worry and just delete them. Annie 17:06, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Kana transliterations (Japanese)

Please see this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:58, 18 June 2020 (EDT)

Do we index Tor.com non-fiction (review) articles as webzine?

I have a submission on hold which wants to adds this non-fiction Tor.com article (which, as it turns out, happens to be flagged as Short Fiction...). I explained the submitter that only Tor.com fiction contents is indexed in our DB as webzine, but I'd like confirmation that this, in fact, correct. Thanks! MagicUnk 14:42, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

Nope. Just the fiction as a pseudo Fiction webzine (due to awards and so on, it is eligible, otherwise it would not have been as they do not do issues technically). Until we change our rules of acquisition again, the non fiction is not eligible. Annie 14:46, 21 June 2020 (EDT)
Thought so:). Thanks Annie! MagicUnk 15:23, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

Andre Norton - Breed to Come

The information regarding the cover artist for this is wrong. I was contacted by a poster of 70s sci-fi art who had been messaged by Barlowe himself to state he was not resposnible for the artwork, As for where the information that is was Barlowe came from is unknown since no one has verified a copu (yet). I wanted to make the Mods aware of this before editing the record to rempve information. --Mavmaramis 23:57, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

See this edition which says the source is andre-norton-books.com. That site has "(1973) Published by ACE, PB, 0-441-07895-8, $1.25, 288pg ~ cover by unknown ~ Later covers by Wayne Barlowe ~ 07897-4 1980 $1.95, 07898-2 1981 $2.25, 5th & 6th printing $2.25 in 1982?, 07899 1983 $2.50, 07900-8 1985 $2.50 US $2.95 Canadian" which is pretty non-specific. I will remove the cover credit and update the notes. Thanks for finding this. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Thank you. --Mavmaramis 12:47, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Personal tools