User talk:Vornoff/Archive/2015

Review in SF Chronicle, October 1985

Can you provide additional information for the work Night Creatures reviewed on page 42 of this publication? I want to add a publication for it to the database in order to link it, but I have to determine first whether the work is eligible. Any information about the work would be very helpful. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

With some research I found what I believe is the work that is being reviewed. Because the book wasn't eligible for the database, I changed the review into an essay. If this wasn't the right title, please respond here to let me know and we can make the corrections. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer states the most recent edition of the Time-Life series concentrates on the darker, violent side of magic. Tales of vampires, werewolves, demons and other creatures. Designed to be coffee table book. "...the individual articles continue to be retellings of stories or very superficial discussions that aren't even worth browsing through." Hope this helps a little. Doug / Vornoff 21:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe the publication should be in the database (and your description makes it borderline, thus eligible), add a publication record for it using secondary sources, add the content record for the review back to the publication, and then remove and delete the ESSAY record. Your call. Mhhutchins 05:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it as you've entered it. Apparently it is part of a whole Time-Life series called "Enchanted World Series". "Night Creatures" seems to consist of uncredited mythic or fairy-tale type stories. Also none of the other series seems to have made it into the ISFDB and I don't see any reason for me to start to add one. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Rejected submission

I mistakenly rejected your submission to change the publication date of this record. I thought you were changing the date of the editor title record. So I've gone back and changed its date as well as all of the its contents (which should match the same date as the publication record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd noticed that that particular pub ended up in the "no month" column of the grid and to make the grid look better I changed the pub date to add the month number, hoping that would solve it. I confess I didn't realize all the contents dates would have to be changed as well. Live and learn. Thanks for changing those. Doug / Vornoff 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Science Fiction Chronicle editorials

Do the titles in this series include "Editorial" as published or was that previously added to the titles as an indication of a column title? In most cases, we don't include the name of the column in the title itself, thus the reason to create a series for it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The heading of the column/department says "Editorial", then the line below states the title of the editorial. I'd been thinking of that as I noticed the way you handle that is not to enter "Editorial" but just the title and then use a series. I can eliminate the "Editorial: " from the title if that's preferred - I can see where that would look a lot better. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would look much "cleaner". Sometimes I think all of the detail we add to titles just gets in the way, like being unable to see the forest because of too many trees! Thanks. Mhhutchins

William Rotsler in SFR #57?

Hi Doug, if you're the editor who added to the database Science Fiction Review #57, Winter 1985 (still unverified but I see you uploaded the cover), could you check the spelling of that issue's contributor "Willian Rotsler". I wonder if it ought to be William, as it looks like one of those typos that are repeated by auto-fill. Thanks for checking. PeteYoung 14:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I checked out the issue and it looks like a case of cut and paste gone wild. Looks like all the Rotsler credits are for his interior art contributions, usually very small and usually omitted but they're in here. He is credited as William Rotsler once in the ToC for all his art. He's also credited for a letter in which his name is spelled correctly. Hope this helps. Doug / Vornoff 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the corrections earlier today. PeteYoung 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to OCLC

Re this publication record: When linking to an OCLC record, you should provide the number of the OCLC record and use the permalink.

In this record you linked to http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ClassifyDemo?owi=43165819 which is displayed as

OCLC 43165819

I'm not sure what Classify actually is, but it touts itself as "an experimental classification web service". I'm not sure if we should be using it to link to OCLC records.

You should have linked to http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/9565276 which appears in the records as

OCLC: 9565276

Be sure to use the colon as it can be useful in converting these numbers in a universal change, if we ever decide to create a field dedicated to other databases' catalog numbers.

Here's a help page about how to use OCLC/Worldcat with a section on linking to their records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

One other thing: according to OCLC this publication is 20 cm tall which makes it trade paperback size, but at 31 pages it would probably be closer in description to "ph" (pamphlet) than "tp". (But surely not "pb".) Mhhutchins 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Michael. Doug / Vornoff 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You replaced the OCLC link as http://www.worldcat.org/title/constructing-scientifiction-fantasy/oclc/9565276 instead of the one I gave above. That simpler link is obtained by clicking on the "Permlink" button at the top right of all OCLC records. I'll fix the link. Mhhutchins 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I missed the pamphlet correction. I remember reading one of the sites calling it a pb, but the size looks right for a pamphlet. I'll try to get that OCLC stuff down better, but I usually don't bother with those links. The only reason I put it in this time was that there was so much unknown info about it. Actually the only reason I added the pub at all was to link the review of it in the To The Stars mag I added. Doug / Vornoff 01:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The only time I link to the OCLC record is when it is the source for the data AND the publication has no ISBN (that's what the ISFDB software uses to autolink to Worldcat.) I don't understand why some editors provide an OCLC link for primary verified records. That makes absolutely no sense to me and just a waste of time. To each his own... Mhhutchins 01:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the way to go to me. Doug / Vornoff 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Updating the title field of a title record

I had to reject your submission to change the title of this record. Any changes to a title record is reflected in every publication in which that title appears. This should then be done only when you're certain that the change applies to every appearance. In this case, based on this Google Books scan, the "The" wasn't part of the title when it was reprinted in the collection. The publications will have to be unmerged, then the title for the magazine appearance can be corrected, and then a variant relationship should be created. I assume that the author's preferred title was the one in the collection, so it should probably be considered the parent title. Do you want to attempt the submissions to fix this title? If so, I can step you through the submissions. It's a somewhat advanced fix, but if you hang around here long enough, you'll want to know how to do it. It's up to you. Mhhutchins 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. After checking the help, I'm guessing I go to the "Death of a Respectable Man" title page first, where it shows the 2 pubs. Then click the unmerge link, then click the 2 pubs listed for that title.

Just check the pub which has the wrong title. In this case, the Pirate Writings issue. Mhhutchins 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Next, go the "Death of a Respectable Man" content in the magazine and add the "The".

You can do that or just go to the title record and add the "The". Mhhutchins 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Then go to that (new) title "The Death of a Respectable Man" and variant it to the "the-less" title. Each step after approval obviously. Am I close? Also, I'm in the middle of editing the Pirate Writing #17 mag now so I won't finish until approval of the unmerge so I can change the title at the same time I do the other changes. ??

Yes. Do NOT make simultaneous changes in a publication record or its contents until each submission has been moderated. The consequences are sometimes quite drastic if you attempt to do otherwise. Mhhutchins 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That brings up another question: I have 2 issues of Pirate Writings. According to ISFDB the title of the mag should be taken preferably from the indicia usually located below the ToC. If this is true, both issues I have show the title as "Pirate Writings Magazine". Should anything happen here? I only have these 2 mags to look at. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 21:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would leave it as is for now. There seems to be different forms of the title throughout the magazine's history. You can always give the exact title in the Note field if it differs from the standard title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pirate Writings #17 cover variant

Hi. I have on hold your submission wanting to make a variant for "Cover: Pirate Writings, #17, 1999". The proposed variant looks identical to the existing title to me, and I was not able to figure out what you intended. Would you take a look and either correct or tell me what I am missing? Thanks. --MartyD 16:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marty. What I was going for was to variant the cover of Pirate Writiings #17 from 1999 to The Best of Pirate Writings from 1998. Obviously I did something wrong. I thought of merging but I thought that was only if the titles were the same. Thanks for any help in seeing what I did. Doug / Vornoff 16:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok, maybe you pushed the wrong button and created a new parent instead of making it a variant of an existing parent? Cancel your submission. Go here and click on the Cover link. That will show you the 1998 pub's cover's ID is 1626987. Use that as the parent ID when you try to make the variant. If that's not enough to go on, or if you have trouble, let me know. --MartyD 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I did what you said this time and, after somehow failing again earlier and canceling I just tried now and it seems to have gone thru okay. I have no idea what I was doing wrong before but looks okay to me now. Thanks for the help, Marty. Doug / Vornoff 04:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The "make variant" entry page actually contains two variations of this function, each with their own submit button. The one at the top is used to variant a title record to one already existing in the database. The one at the bottom creates a new parent record. If you enter a number in the parent record field at the top, but hit the submit button at the bottom (which is likely what happened), it will appear to the moderator that you're making a new parent record which is identical to variant. Mhhutchins 02:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see -that's probably what I did all right. Thanks for the explanation. Doug / Vornoff 02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Magic Cornfield

This is not a NOVEL, but a CHAPTERBOOK. Although your source (OCLC) doesn't give the page count, the description field explains that it is "1 volume (unpaged)". That's usually a good sign that it's a picture book. The Amazon listing shows that it's 48 pages. Also, another problem: the ISBN given in the record of this 1997 publication is an ISBN-13. That must be wrong since the ISBN-13 wasn't created until 2005 and not mandated until 2007. If you look at your source (OCLC), you'll see both ISBNs given in the ISBN field, but the ISBN-10 is given first. This is OCLC's method of presenting ISBNs: the first would be the one stated, the second being the one derived. When creating a publication record using OCLC as a secondary source, always give the first ISBN stated in the OCLC record.

If you would like to fix the problems with this record, please proceed. That would mean 1) changing the Pub Type field of the publication record to CHAPTERBOOK, 2) changing the Entry Type field of the Content reference title record to SHORTFICTION, adding a Content record for the CHAPTERBOOK, and correcting the ISBN. This can all be done in one submission. Or let me know and I can do it for you. (These problems should have been caught by the moderator who handled the submission, but must have slipped by him.)

BTW, you can also give the page count as "[48]" and change all of the date fields to 1997-04-01, sourcing Amazon for both. You can also add a content record for the INTERIORART credited to Nancy Willard, and link the cover image file using this URL: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61GGZAB1B1L.jpg. Mhhutchins 07:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've submitted the changes above, I think. I'm still a little confused about #2 - I'm assuming the first content record (already there) is the content reference title which I changed to SHORTFICTION. Then I added a new content record (without pg number) as a CHAPTERBOOK, completing, I hope, #2 above (as well as changing the ISBN). I don't usually enter any publications I don't have - the only reason I did this one was to provide a record for a review item I entered for Pirate Writings #16. Sorry I keep messing these things up. But I do learn a little each time. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 23:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No one can ask more than that, which is exactly how most of us learned how to edit the database. Submission was accepted and everything looks fine. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily, when converting a NOVEL to a CHAPTERBOOK, the editor would change the title reference to CHAPTERBOOK and add a SHORTFICTION content record. But since the title reference was already linked to a review, the opposite was necessary. (Because reviews are linked to the story content of a chapterbook and not the book itself.) Mhhutchins 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that seemed backwards somehow but now I see why. Very good. Thanks. Doug / Vornoff 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Science Fiction Chronicle

Re. your SFC indexing, I've just acquired a substantial run of SFC from #3 to #226 from Dave Langford, who couldn't find a use for them any more and wanted to free up some shelf space. I have 151 issues in total. Do you wish to enter all issues as your own project, or would you like to share the work? PeteYoung 23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I'd be glad to take on half but I don't know what kind of time limits you'd expect. If we share duties we should probably come up with some kind of standards for some of the departments. For example, I've just been reconsidering how I've been inputting the Obituaries column. Things like that. How would we proceed? Doug / Vornoff 01:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Time limit? What's a time limit around here? ;) I'll have a look at a few issues you've done already and follow the format you've already set for various departments and discuss as we go along. I've also seen your conversation re. Obituaries and agree it's more useful that they be individually listed where possible. I'll ask Albinoflea to add any thoughts he may have as he's PV of issue #134. PeteYoung 07:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have issues 75 thru 104 with 2 missing. As to Obituaries, after reading Michael's comments I was thinking about eliminating the column itself and entering any obits from that column as the name only by uncredited, or if occasionally credited, the author, with a series similar to what Locus does "Science Fiction Chronicle Obituary". I'm not sure if ALL the names should be entered or only if their names already existed in ISFDB. Many of them are film people and other non-literary people. I could go either way on that. If there are "appreciations" written outside the SFC obituaries, they could be titled Name, an appreciation with no series. Check out p.68 and 69 of Locus 326 for an example. So, as I said, let me know how you want to get the ball rolling on the project. Doug / Vornoff 20:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I based my initial entry of #134 off of the general convention that Michael adopted for Locus... I think I actually entered in 3 or 4 issues of Locus myself, and really appreciated the way Michael had organized things. With a sample size of a single issue at the time I entered it, I didn't really have a sense of the recurring structure of the magazine, so the series I created for departments might need to be changed. I suspect like Locus some of the departments might change as the magazine evolved, so Pete's suggestion to discuss as the records are infilled is probably wise.

I have since acquired two other issues (143, 159) sitting around that I haven't entered yet, I'm happy to work on those; two fewer issues for Pete to deal with. At least for the three issues I have the Obituaries are mostly uncredited with a few exceptions, and some of them are quite brief. I think adopting a similar convention to what Michael has done with Locus, and which Doug outlines above, to create Essay records with the person's name as the title, and then add those records to a series, makes sense. As for the notability/inclusivity question, the issues I have list individual names then a "Other Obituaries" section at the end. I would just create entries for the first group regardless, since there are only a few per issue, and attempting to discriminate between who deserves entry and who doesn't seems like it would waste a fair amount of energy (and introduce an opportunity for editors to quibble, which is pretty much a given regardless, but what can you do...), although I would not be opposed to an effort to be more selective. The inclusion in the ISFDB seems like a good place to start, but there are new entries for people all the time, and it is likely that someone who wouldn't make the cut at one point in time might make it later, so I'm not sure that using that as the criteria for meriting an individual entry would be as useful as we would want it to be.

Regardless, I'm glad to see this magazine get some attention, and if there's anything I can do, or anything you'd like me to change in the issue I've entered so far, please let me know. Albinoflea 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad you're jumping on board with this. I'd been thinking about the same concerns you bring up about obituary names and more or less came to your conclusion - not to be in the business of choosing who is 'worthy' of being included. Unless there are objections, I'll go over the issues I did and put in the names and then enter series for them. Are we agreed on "Science Fiction Chronicle Obituary" for the series name for those names that are actually entered into the Obituary column? Also, should we delete the column and leave it as Michael does it in Locus? I'm away Saturday but could start these changes on Sunday if you are in agreement. I'll try to go over the rest of any differences between Albinoflea's entry and mine and we can talk about them. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Science Fiction Chronicle Obituary" works as a series name for me, and I see no harm in deleting the column. Thanks, Albinoflea 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I went over the issues I entered and entered what we discussed. Also fixed a few other things so #73 - 79 should be pretty much done. Doug / Vornoff 03:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] When you remove a content title from a publication which appears in no other publication, you should then go back and delete it from the database. This isn't done automatically. Otherwise, these "orphan" titles (titles without pubs) will remain in the database. I'm deleting the orphaned titles of the SFC obituary column now. Mhhutchins 02:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And deleting the series "Obituaries (Science Fiction Chronicle)" also, since the series name was changed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think somehow in the back of my head I knew I had to do that, but it didn't settle in properly. It's not getting better as I slip further into senility. Though I do think that indexing forestalls it a bit. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added SFC #81, using your 'template' for contents inclusion. A few points for our consideration:

• At the moment we have ESSAYS entered that don't actually exist – they are just column headers, eg. 'Random Factors - Letters' and 'Reviews'. There is no actual essay (credited or otherwise) attached to each of these entries, in all the issues I have at hand. For letters, it would be simpler to just add something like "Letters appear under the heading 'Random Factors - Letters'" in the Note field, and delete the essay records.
• As the reviews are uncredited on the pages they appear, I have added to the Note field "Don D'Ammassa is credited as the "Book Reviewer" on the editorial page".
• We could improve the issue grid by adding the issue number in the title field, eg. "Science Fiction Chronicle, #81 May 1986". This will be more informative than just the months repeating beneath each 'month' column.
• We ought to make a series out of Stephen Jones & Jo Fletcher's 'London Report', as it's a regular column. And let's keep an eye on things like John-Henri Holmberg's occasional 'Letter from Sweden' which has appeared in #74 and #81 and may crop up as a more regular series.
• I'm including the small cartoons and fillos that occasionally appear as INTERIOR ART.

Your thoughts and input would be appreciated! PeteYoung 23:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

ESSAYS that don't actually exist... I could go either way with this. I wish ISFDB had a mechanism to indicate content headers so that they could be included without generating standard content entries, but I think as you indicate, if we are including all of the content in other entries, this becomes redundant. Would we do the same for Don D'Ammassa's review column in that case?

I agree that the issue grid is far more useful with the issue number, so we should probably adopt that convention.

I entered #143 in a few days ago; I agree that the London Report should probably be a series. Albinoflea 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see your point on Letter Columns, especially with such a nondescript title, so I have no objection to getting rid of those. The same is done for letters in Locus. But...the review columns are given their own content entry, i.e. "Locus Looks at Books" by Miller or others and "Locus Looks at More Books" by Chow and Notkin or others. The reviews are listed separately as reviews. Sometimes there may be prefatory remarks by the reviewer but like as not they start off with the first review. ESSAYS is sort of generic catch-all, it seems to me, to include not only an 'essay' but encompasses other things like calendars, book lists and the like that have no essay-type material. Then there are columns like "Events" and "Fandom" which are comprised of several related items, occasionally credited. I know you guys know all this, I'm just thinking out loud for myself. I'd leave this type of column name as a Content record by "various" and credit any individual article which has a byline. This would work for "Publishers" also. I would still leave in the columns like "(month) Releases" and "Conventions" that are uncredited lists. As to the news items in the front, I would enter any that are credited and only enter an occasional uncredited one that could be considered a big deal news items (use your discretion). Bottom Line for me - I'm okay with getting rid of Letters content entry and on the fence about the Review content entry but could go either way.

Agree on adding issue number.

Agree on series for London Report

I have no problem with the art as there aren't that many

Pete, #81 should be June, not May as you have it, I think. Also there are two obits for Wellman, one by Ralph Roberts and one by de la Ree. The Roberts one is missing. One thing I'm not sure about but was told by others (I think) that on int illos you should use the canonical name rather than any short versions or initials, if known. Have you heard of that? I would have added, on p.44 "Judy-Lynn Del Rey Memorial Sevice Held" by Moshe Feder since it's credited to Feder. As to "Reviews" I would have credited it to Dammassa instead of "uncredited" because he is credited after the last review and is credited for all of them in the contents.

Pete - Are you doing any of the ones after #81 - I wouldn't want to duplicate any you're doing. So, do we have some kind of consensus now? Thanks, Doug /

It looks like we have established some good guidelines to continue... Albinoflea, any further thoughts? I'll try to do #82–86 within the next couple of weeks, and thanks for pointing out the corrections and omissions. PeteYoung 05:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re. your two other points:

1) On occasions where regular features like a letter or review column do have prefatory remarks, then technically there is an essay to record however the remarks may or may not be substantial enough to create a record for. I think it's probably best for each editor to exercise their own discretion.

2) Your query about the correct way to credit Interior Art isn't covered in the Help, but the standard we have adopted is that if the only visible credit to a fillo/illo is the visible signature or initials, use the canonical name (as with Alan Hunter's fillo on p.24 of #81). If the artwork is credited using another name (eg. "Taral" on p.3 and "Arthur Thomson" on p.34 of #81), use the supplied name and make the variant. A further point (which you're probably already aware of, but it doesn't hurt to restate), we never enter book covers as Interior Art records, even when SFC habitually (and admirably) credits the cover artist alongside. But as with everything it's not always so black and white: eg. on p.4 of #81 there's an unadorned Michael Kaluta cover illustration reproduced as a small 2" square b/w filler – things like this hardly seem worth the trouble adding a record for (to me), but again, depending on the illustration and its use and size, exercise your own discretion (but always feel free to query). PeteYoung 06:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the illo author explanation. I still have one minor question, though. I get credits for Hunter. "Taral" is the only credit visible on his art so ok, credit him as "Taral". But the "Arthur Thomson" art also has his signature "ATom" which is his canonical name. Does the printed credit alongside the art take precedence over the signature in every case, even if the sig is canonical? Also, in the case of covers within a pub, as, let's say, an article on some artist where it shows several of his covers within the article. These covers would not be entered at all as interior art and varianted to their original covers? Is that what you meant? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 07:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Taral Wayne's signature is actually visible on that piece of interior art – barely, in the lower right corner with"'85" alongside. But because we can't always rely on a scrawl being a recognisable signature of a recognised artist, it's safer to use the name it's credited to if a credit appears. So despite the signature, as it's credited to "Taral" and even though I know it's by Taral Wayne, I've used "Taral", just as I would when crediting a book cover illustration correctly. This does leave us plagued with variants occasionally where none would seem strictly necessary, but there are as many different signing conventions as there are artists and some have used more than one signature which particular editors may not be aware of – editors occasionally post scans of signatures on the Help page to see if anyone recognises them. And if a piece of artwork appears uncredited with no visible signature, simply use "uncredited"; otherwise use the credited form of the name.

Re. book covers displayed alongside articles, that's right, as a rule we don't index them. It wouldn't add anything of value to a publication record, and in many instances it would needlessly double the length of a pub record if we did. However if an original piece of cover artwork is used without the typography that appears on its cover, then the title of the original cover (or the different title if it's not the same as that of the original cover) is used for the record and varianted to the original cover credit. See for example Journeyman: The Art of Chris Moore for how this appears. The same applies when the artwork's appearance is in magazines. PeteYoung 08:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

CHAPTERBOOKs

Think of them as a one-story collection. That means you have to add a content record for the story. It's missing from this record. Also, I would advise not to use Amazon as the source for a publication more than 10 years old. Their data for older publications is from unreliable sources (their "partners" who just want you to buy the book, not provide you with reliable data.) I would recommend OCLC as a good place to start, This record, for example. You'll note that the page count is given in brackets. This is the same method used by the ISFDB to indicate an unpaginated book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You added another record for the CHAPTERBOOK. That's automatically created when you use the "Add New Chapterbook" function. You should have added a content record for the story, typed as SHORTFICTION (just as you would for a collection of stories, as noted above.) I'll fix it. Mhhutchins 22:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the never-ending help. Doug / Vornoff 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Leiber reviews in his Locus column

Are you certain these are actual reviews? I don't know how I could have missed them, unless they're only casually mentioned in the body of the column. His columns which contained reviews included bibliographic data of the reviewed title in the heading of the piece. (My copies of Locus are packed away, so I'd rather not pull them out if you have them at hand. Thanks.) Mhhutchins 06:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He starts right off with the reviews - no astrological stuff. Starts with "I've just finished reading three new books that demonstrate the wide variety of fictions which can be called fantasy or horror." He devotes about 4 column inches to EACH review. Then at end he devotes a mere 3 column inches to the astrology. So, almost the whole column is reviews. Doug / Vornoff 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just checked - he does include bibliographic data. Doug / Vornoff 06:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. That means I must have overlooked them. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 07:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Locus #297

Re this issue: The credit of Anne Elizabeth Zeek is for the Sara Jane Campbell obituary, something we both missed. Also, I looked at the interview for Michael Blaine in #295, and figured I must have just overlooked it. Maybe because it's looks more like an uncredited news item. I'll add it to the record. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 23:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I read too far ahead on that one. Doug / Vornoff 23:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SFC #88

Re this record: You dated it as January 1988, which I assume is incorrect based on the issue numbering. If it should be 1987-01 enter that into the metadata section date field and blank the date fields of every content record. The system will automatically change their dates to the one given in the metadata section of the record. Mhhutchins 00:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Too many "88"s on the brain. Doug / Vornoff 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization in author credits

I accepted the submission to remove contents in this record, but one of them was unnecessary. The system doesn't distinguish capitalization when entering names into an author field. So "Daniel DeFoe" will be displayed as "Daniel Defoe" because that is the canonical form of the name. We don't make variants based on capitalization. A work titled "a story" by "sam smith" should be merged with "A Story" by "Sam Smith" regardless of how it's displayed in the actual publication. Mhhutchins 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's good to know, thanks. Doug / Vornoff 00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Magazine of Horror, April 1965

Hello, I've put your submission to update this magazine on hold. As per ISFDB etiquette, please clear the matter of authorship change with the PV2 (PV1 is inactive). Thanks. Hauck 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've already asked Prof Beard's permission for this - please see here . I'm trying to correct the situation posed here. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 18:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your discussion with Prof Beard but it didn't mention any change of authorship. Please notify him.Hauck 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified him of this now. Sorry, new to all this and didn't know this had to be done. Still learning. Doug / Vornoff 07:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, submission approved. I confess that the PV(s) notification process can sometimes be quite burdensome. We must stick to it particularly when changing data (when visibly wrongly entered) as most of editors are likely to have their own personal databases where such changes can be valuably translated. Just FYI, there seems to be talks of automating it. Hauck 09:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That should be interesting. Thanks for the help. Doug / Vornoff 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How to write wiki stuff so that it gets printed with a monospaced font

Hi. A while ago you asked this question on the Help Desk page about page numbering. The question appears to have been answered by Chavey, but there was also a technical problem involved: How to get the wiki to correctly display something like the diagram in the question. I know of two possible ways how to achieve this:

1. If a line starts with a leading space it will be rendered with a monospaced font and a box around it, just like this:

line 1
line 2
[...]

2. If there more than a couple of lines it can get annoying to precede each line with an extra space. For that I surround the whole text with the HTML element "pre" , like this:

<pre>
line 1
line 2
[...]
</pre>

If you ever see something in the wiki that is neatly formatted and you would like to know how it was done, you can simply click the "Edit" link to see the so-called "markup" behind the rendered text. If you click the "Edit" link at the beginning of the section you will see only the markup for that section. If you click the "Edit" link at the top of the page you will get the markup for the entire page. Hope that helps for the future. Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's simple when you know how :) Thanks for taking the time to help me out, Patrick. Doug / Vornoff 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pirate Writings #16

Can you confirm the author credit for the poem on page 48 of this record? We have a Nancy Mortensen in the db. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it shows exactly as "Nancy Nortensen" with an N. Doug / Vornoff 00:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Credit based on the artist's signature

Re this publication: If the credit for an illustration is based on a visible artist's signature, you should credit the work to the canonical form of the artist's name and then note it. I've done that for "Sewell" based on your Note to Moderator in the update submission. Is "Doolin" based on a printed credit or the artist's signature? Mhhutchins 00:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sewell illo has "Illustration by Sewell" at the top-left of the illo w/ signature "Amos Sewell" which I can barely make out. The Doolin illo has "Illustration by Doolin" top-left of illo, w a very small signature which almost looks like "Joseph Doolin". I wouldn't have deciphered it without the credit given. Doug / Vornoff 01:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I misunderstood your Note. I'll change it back to "Sewell", create a pseudonym, and variant the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have been clearer in my note. Doug / Vornoff 02:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My SFC collection

Just in case you're missing an issue of Science Fiction Chronicle, here are the ones I've been able to find in my collection. (There may be a few more stragglers in other boxes.)

1984: February, March

1985: March, April

1986: March, July, October - December

1987: January - September

Let me know if you want me to enter any of these issues. Mhhutchins 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I only have issues from October 1985 thru May 1988 as far as I can tell, with a couple missing in that range. As for your issues:

1984/1985 - These can be done - I don't have them.

1986 - March, July, December are done, Pete Young says he's going to do Oct, November.

1987 - Jan & Feb are done. I'll start from October and leave the others open for you. I'll work on the ones I have up thru May 1988 and we can see where we stand then. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 01:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I happen to have June/July 1995 (which includes 100 reviews!) and October/November 1995 sitting right next to me. Ahasuerus 01:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good Sunday morning's work, with some coffee and pastries! Doug / Vornoff 02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Forced rejection caused by bad character

Please see this post for the reason why I had to reject (after I accepted it!) the submission adding this record to the database. Unfortunately, you'll have to update the record to add all reviews past the first two (starting with Phaid the Gambler by Farren). Sorry. Mhhutchins 03:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to report that I have been able to recreate the bug on the development server, so your pain and suffering won't be in vain :) Ahasuerus 03:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought something was a little off but had no idea that big of a deal was happening. When I submitted it I noticed that author came up as "new" even tho he wasn't. I cancelled the submission then re-submitted after re-entering the name again, but had the same result. I figured it would sort itself out somehow. Guess again. The funny thing was that was one of the issues I was saving for Michael to do and I entered it by mistake! Michael, I don't know if you still want to do any of those, but I don't have #90 for sure. Doug / Vornoff 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no telling when I'll be able to enter those issues of SFC. Hopefully within the next few weeks. Mhhutchins 03:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing author credit in a publication record

When you change the author credit of a publication record, you must also change the author field of its title (reference) record. I've done that for you in this title record. Remember: the author field of a publication record must match exactly the author field of a title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that when I added St. John to the pub I should have added it to the titlle record, too. I see that now, thanks. I see that as of right now it hasn't been changed by you on the title record. Did you want me to do it? Or have I misunderstood something? Doug / Vornoff 15:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you're right. I forgot to edit it. But at least it let you see what I was talking about. Now you're aware that it will take more than one submission to correct author data. (Exception: if it's a NOVEL-typed publication record which is the only pub under a title, you can do it in a single submission, because the title reference is visible as a content record and editable in a pub update. Again, this can only be done if there is only one pub record for a title.) When you become more adept at certain functions, I'll just point out something to be fixed and assume that you'll go ahead and do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Still tons to learn here. I'll probably run out of stuff to edit in the not too distant future, though. I do hav a lot of books, but 99% are done and verified two or three times. That's a little way off, though. Doug / Vornoff 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wally's World

I'm not sure if this publication comfortably qualifies for the database, but in a case where there's some tenuous connection we err on the side of inclusion. I'm assuming "Wally" is Wallace Wood who has a large number of art credits in the database. Also, according to OCLC, the title is Wally's World: The Brilliant Life and Tragic Death of Wally Wood, the World's Second-Best Comic Book Artist. Can you check the title page of your copy? Thanks. (BTW, who's the "world's best comic book artist"?) Mhhutchins 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's basically why I included it, because of all the art he's done, not only in comics, but in many of the science fiction magazines and books over the years. Yes, I screwed up the title when I typed it from the title page. I'm assuming I can fix it by correcting the content title record and the title record. I'll just do one at a time in case there's a problem there doing both at once. As to who's the best comics artist, I don't remember what the book has to say about it. There are certainly a lot of candidates. Wood was always one of my favorites - his style was unmistakeable. Doug / Vornoff 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

SFC – for future reference

Doug, yesterday I added SFC #64. A couple of things you may need to know:

• I created the series The Silverberg Papers (Science Fiction Chronicle) to disambiguate from The Silverberg Papers that first appeared in Starship several years before.
• There is a series of reprinted essays titled 'The Writers' that may appear in some of your issues. When entered as a series, they cause problems with display in their original publication: see this discussion for the background. I've added a note to SFC #64 to cover this point.

Cheers. PeteYoung 03:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Pete. I read the discussion and it looks like you've done the best thing under the circumstances. Question: Assuming the Silverberg Papers in Starship were by Robert Silverberg, what would you think about a parent series "Silverberg Papers" encompassing Silverberg Papers (Starship) and Silverberg Papers (Science Fiction Chronicle) series? Does that make any sense at all? Doug / Vornoff 05:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to separate them into two series? It wasn't done for his "Reflections" column when it went from one periodical to another. The same is true of other personal columns that changed magazines, e.g. Ted White's "My Column". Mhhutchins

I really don't have an answer for that. Pete? Doug / Vornoff 03:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a brain fart. Just trying to be too thorough. ;) Will correct. PeteYoung 05:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see where a column/ essay by in this case Silverberg, when changing periodicals would need only one series for it, but retaining its periodical source via the name and issue after it in parentheses, because its subject matter is not dependent on the magazine it's in. Same would be if Richard Curtis had moved his column Agent's Corner to another mag. Vornoff 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why I used the term "personal column". Mhhutchins 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

However, it seems to me that if the essay series pertains to the mag itself, it should stay with that mag's name, regardless of whether that same author wrote a same-titled essay series in another mag, such as here. It would look chaotic if they were under one series alone. BTW I'd like to change a couple of the other Lowndes' series to look more like it, such as Down to Earth and The Reckoning. Thoughts? Does that need verifier permission? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree there will be exceptions, especially if a column runs in contemporaneous issues of different periodicals, like Lowndes' did. As for your request, it's not necessary to obtain verifier permission if you're making one series into a subseries of another one. You're manipulating series, not records. The series into which the records have been placed will not change. Mhhutchins 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. Doug / Vornoff 19:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Obituary vs. reminiscence, tribute, or appreciation

Are you certain that it is correct to consider this piece to be an obituary? There is a definite distinction between an obituary ("just the facts, ma'am") and an appreciation. Also, is the title given as it appears in the publication or have you disambiguated it to provide further data? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I was never sure what the distinction was; I just assumed if the piece wasn't under some sort of heading saying "Appreciation" or wasn't in the title of the piece, it was an obituary. SFC seems to put everything under their column header "Obituaries" and that's why I entered them as such. But by what you're saying, if the article goes on to a lot of personal memories, feelings, etc., then it is an appreciation, not an obituary. That's ok by me - I'll just have to make a value judgment. In this case, then, "Alfie" would definitely be an appreciation. I put the (Alfred Bester) after the title "Alfie" just to inform others that that's who was being talked about - it's not in the title itself. I've seen you use parentheses to provide more info on titles, such as adding dates to various conventions and suchlike that don't have them, so I've started doing that on some of the contents I've added in this same issue of SFC. Hope I'm doing them right. When changing "Alfie" to "Alfie (Alfred Bester appreciation)", how would that affect the Series - would it stay the same? Or would you delete the series, even though it's beneath the column header "Obituaries"? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 00:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As you say, often it can be a judgement call. Without actually reading the piece, I couldn't say if it were truly an obituary, but based on your description, it doesn't appear to be. I then wouldn't place it under that series, especially if there is another "official" obituary in the same issue. Look at issues of Locus to see how I've handled it there. For example, in the February 2015 issue there are five pieces about Alice Turner, all of which appear under the "Obituary" heading, but only one of which I've entered into the Locus Obituary series. The purpose of creating the series was so that an ISFDB user can search easily for a particular author's death notice in Locus. Having more than one record listed under the same series would be unnecessary and made the list needlessly long (even longer than it already is!)

As for disambiguation, I try only to do that when there's a possibility of there being two different works with the same title by the same author. If you come across any of my titles which are needlessly disambiguated, please let me know. In the case of "Alfie", if you feel it is necessary for the subject of the piece to be more clearly identified, you can use the title record's Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. Doug / Vornoff 03:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But you kept both the series name and the disambiguation, and added the note to the publication record and not the title record. Oh, well...never mind. Mhhutchins 04:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess I didn't understand. I tried again. Doug / Vornoff 04:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Shadow Court

Changed the publication date of this record from 1987 (where did that come from?) to 2007. Mhhutchins 02:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hah! I had too many Locus's and SFC's on the brain and that date got stuck in there! Doug / Vornoff 03:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

SFC #100

Can you confirm that the pieces by Vincent DiFate in this issue aren't credited as "Vincent Di Fate"? If they're correctly entered, they'll have to be varianted to the canonical form of the author's name. Also, the review of American Fantasy probably should have been entered as an ESSAY, since the EDITOR record is for the entire year and not just one issue. In most cases, reviews of periodicals shouldn't be entered as REVIEWS, as explained here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The pieces are entered as "DiFate" - I will submit variants. I misread the American Fantasy as American Fantasy for the whole 1987 year. Will fix. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

La legione di Videssos

I had to reject your submission to make this record into a variant of a new record which was identical. Maybe you meant to make it into a variant of an existing record and clicked the bottom button instead of the top one? Mhhutchins 05:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that this cover was the same cover as this one, which has the record number 1250000. Since the title of the first cover was foreign, I figured you had to variant that cover to the second, earlier cover (in English) because the titles were different, instead of merging them. I went to the Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work on the first title, entered 1250000 in the Parent # box and hit "Link to Existing Parent". At least that's what I thought I did. Were my procedures correct? Was my thinking right in doing this in the first place? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what you enter into the Parent # field, if you don't click the button below it, but instead the one at the bottom, you create a new parent record which is identical to the first. Try again, and be sure to click the "Link to Existing Parent" button. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, looks right this time...hopefully. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Using links to Amazon images as source for artist credit

You must be careful when using the Amazon images of one ISFDB record as a source for the cover art credit of another ISFDB record. Quite often Amazon will use later (or even earlier) printings or even change them after an image is first linked to an ISFDB record. So just because the linked images are identical you can't really know if the cover art is the same unless it can be confirmed by a primary verifier. If there is no primary verifier, I suggest that you leave the cover art credit as found until it can be confirmed, either primarily or by a reliable secondary source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point - I hadn't thought of it that way. In the future, I'll only reference verifired ISFDB cover art/ credits. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 01:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Should those covers still be merged? Doug / Vornoff 01:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Records with identical titles and credits should be merged. Mhhutchins 02:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Vertex - April 1973

In your verified copy of this publication, the title for the interview of Ray Bradbury is 'Ray Bradbury: Interview'. In my copy the title reads as 'Interview with Ray Bradbury'. Can you confirm this with your copy? Also, (not that I'm doubting you) but how did you identify Di Fate as the illustrator for 'The Deadly Invasion', I could not find a sig? John Syzygy 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, John. Well, I hope I've gotten better since I did this one. You're right about the Bradbury interview. After scouring over the mag, there is no credit or sig for Di Fate that I could find. It does look like his work but that's not enough. I'm guessing I added to the info already there but that's no excuse. Just missed it. Please make corrections as you see fit. Another thing I noticed: the cover artist is actually credited to "Vincent DeFate". Should that be corrected also? It would be a new iteration of his name if so. Thanks for finding these. Doug / Vornoff 04:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the submission to update this record. Hah! I probably looked at that credit for the cover art half a dozen times and never saw the misspelling. Good catch. I made a mention of it in the notes. Now moving on to the second issue... John Syzygy 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Vertex - June 1973

For this publication, on page 2 in the essay title, the word 'Life' should be 'Earth'; On page 35, the interview title should be 'An Interview with Robert Silverberg', also, I'm not sure if photographs get the same treatment as interiorart, so the start page might be 35 instead of 34. I'll put the question to the help desk. On page 46 in the essay title, the word 'is' should be capitalized as per the guidelines under case; As for the signature on page 64, if I squint at just right I might see the name "Walker" but I think it's a good idea to let that one lie. It needs more research. One other thing, the volume number is spelled out in the notes as it does on the cover but on the editorial page where the magazine's info is printed, they give the numeral. I think this is where that information should be taken from. If you agree with this after checking your copy, go ahead and make the changes. John Syzygy 22:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Doug, I got the answer from help desk, no need to change interview title page, just the title. Syzygy 00:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes submitted, John. Plus a couple of other things I noted, i.e. Benford is credited as "Dr. Gregory Benford". And I added the intro on p.95 to Ackerman's one-letter story on the next page. Thanks for catching these. Doug Vornoff 02:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also going through the Feb 1974 issue (last one I have) and am correcting the same kind of mistakes. Doug / Vornoff 02:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have put your submission on hold: You stated that it's Dr. Gregory Benford on the title page. What is the title page in this case (the page with the table of contents)? Or, to rephrase the problem, what is the credit in the essay's heading? Stonecreek 04:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Another case of my terminology doing me in. It's listed as "Dr. Gregory Benford" on the essay's heading (as well as in the ToC). Doug / Vornoff 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, submission approved. Christian Stonecreek 05:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Shadow's Lost T.V. Pilot" and "Who Wrote the Phantom Detective"

Earlier today I noticed that two of Will Murray's essays, "The Shadow's Lost T.V. Pilot" and "Who Wrote the Phantom Detective", were listed as "[year] unknown" (0000-00-00). I changed the database values to match the years when the essays were published in Fantasy Mongers Quarterly, but then I realized that these two issues were verified by you in 2014-09. Would you happen to remember why they were entered as "0000-00-00"? Is there any indication that they may be reprints? Ahasuerus 00:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have noted it somewhere, but at the end of "The Shadow's Lost T.V. Pilot" is a note saying "reprinted from Collector's World" and for "Who Wrote the Phantom Detective" a note saying "Reprinted by permission of the author". I guess I'm still a little confused about dating reprints in the contents titles. Some people say they should be dated the same as the publication they occur in, others have the original dates of publication. I knew these were not original to the publications and couldn't find out the original dates so I left it as unknown. What is your take on that? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking! It turns out that "Who Wrote the Phantom Detective" first appeared in 1985 -- I have updated the title record with the details and the source of information. "The Shadow's Lost T.V. Pilot" is still a mystery, so I have changed the date back to 0000 and added a note to the title record. Ahasuerus 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Doug / Vornoff 00:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of audiobook is the same as review of printed book or ebook

Re this record: the review of Psycho should have been entered as a REVIEW instead of ESSAY. If the title being reviewed is eligible for the database, then it doesn't matter which format in which the book was published. Mhhutchins 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll change it. Doug / Vornoff 01:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

SFC, July 1987

Re this publication: Can you confirm that the fourth part of My Heart Leaps Up was reviewed? That publication didn't appear until the following year, and it's not likely that a reviewer would have received a copy so far in advance. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 01:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not really much of a review but the work/works is/are listed as "MY HEART LEAPS UP, (CHAPTERS 3 & 4). Seeing that they were two works, I listed them separately. I can delete #4 and note that he lists it but it hadn't come out yet, if that's better. Doug / Vornoff 01:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

We normally don't record a listing as a REVIEW. Is there any commentary at all about the publication? Mhhutchins 02:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a one-sentence review, so it's a bit more than a listing, and he doesn't mention either of the Chapter #'s. Doug / Vornoff 03:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I get it now. He's not reviewing Parts 3 & 4, he's reviewing Part 2 which is Chapters 3 & 4. I'll remove the second review and change the title and link to My Heart Leaps Up (Part 2 of 5). Thanks for the clarification. Mhhutchins 04:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I kept the title as it appears in the review, but linked it to the correct publication. Mhhutchins 04:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Got my chapters and parts mixed up. Thanks for catching that. Doug / Vornoff 06:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

SFC #95

Re this record: the work of Mike McQuay's reviewed on page 52 has the same name as the work by Patricia McKillip reviewed on the same page. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 01:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for catching that. Fix submitted. Doug / Vornoff 01:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed I've got a duplicated review I'll have to fix. Doug / Vornoff 01:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Typo entered reviews

Thanks for spotting the typo. However, once a review is entered and the link wasn't established, the only way to establish it is to link it manually via the 'Link Review to Title' tool, which works similar to other functions: you have to enter the title' cgi. Christian Stonecreek 03:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Correction submitted. Thanks for the tip, Christian. Good to know. Doug / Vornoff 03:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Island of the Mighty and others

I approved of Island of the Mighty before I realised that at its page count it might actually be a CHAPBOOK, just as the other ones I have put intermittently on hold. Some of them were entered as CHAPBOOKs but with no content (for a CHAPBOOK the SHORTFICTION should also be entered), or was there a special reason? Christian Stonecreek 03:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I didn't catch that before I entered it (that it was a chapbook). I'm still a little confused about chapbooks but you're saying there has to be a shortfiction content record (in these cases the same as the chapbook title) before it can be accepted, I think. I hadn't realized it, not having done that. How can that be corrected without eliminating the entries that I have so far? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, submissions are accepted, please add the content (but wahat's with the ones that were added as NOVELs?) Christian Stonecreek 04:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll submit corrections on the NOVELs. I started submitting them that way before I realized they should have been CHAPBOOKS. I'm still trying to figure all this out and am still learning. The one that is a COLLECTION, I believe is accurate. I will also submit the shortfiction contents. Thanks a lot for your patience and your help! Doug / Vornoff 04:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Varianting titles by pseudonyms

Hello, I've moderating some of your submissions for American Fantasy. Taking this publication as an example, you'll see that there are some items that are still solely attributed to pseudonyms (Bob Garcia, Robert Garcia, Donald Wollheim). All these appears on our daily cleanup report. Please remember that in such case (when the given author is a pseudonym), you should variant the title to the canonical author (here Robert T. Garcia -twice-, Donald A. Wollheim). This will "transfer" all the titles by an author and its pseudonyms to the same page. It will also save us moderators some work ^_^. Thanks. Hauck 14:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about that. I've been waiting for the pseudonym submissions to clear and then sometimes I forget to do that. Do you have to wait for the pseudonym submissions to clear or can you do the varianting before the pseudonym connection is made? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 15:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually, the connection between pseudonym and canonical name is already established. If not, I've got to wait for it. Hauck 15:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So then most of the time I only have to wait for the actual new content to show up as approved and then variant it. I'll watch more closely for that. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Hauck 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed when I started another American Fantasy that I missed the fact that the main editing credit is "Robert T. Garcia" (as listed in the main credit column), not "Robert Garcia", and then Nancy. These were all inputted by others and I just missed it. They've been varianted and so I suppose they should be un-varianted and the proper editor name put in. I'll try to figure out how to do that in the instructions. Doug / Vornoff 22:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I know what to do here: This title record shows it has a variant record with "Robert Garcia" as the variant. I think I would go to that variant, put a zero in the record number and submit it. Then after approval go back and delete that variant title. Am I Missing something there? Doug / Vornoff 00:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's more complicated, alas: 1) go to the variant, break the varianting link (0 in record number) you've now got two titles, one with "Robert T. Garcia" as editor which is publess, the other with "Robert Garcia" which has the publications attached; 2) change the editor of the second title to "Robert T. Garcia", you've now got two titles with "Robert T. Garcia" as editor (one publess, the other "pubful"); 3) either delete the publess record or merge the two; 4) don't forget to change at every publication level "Robert Garcia" to ""Robert T. Garcia"". I've done the 1986 issue, I'll let practice on the 1988 one!Hauck 10:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Won't be able to get to it today but will try it tomorrow. Doug / Vornoff 14:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice job ^_^.Hauck 17:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Couldn't have done it without the guidance! Doug / Vornoff 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating annual editor records

We only merge editor records into annual groupings in order to streamline an author's summary page. (Imagine John W. Campbell's summary page if we didn't merge the editor records for Astounding/Analog into annual records!) If there is only 1 or 2 issues published in any given year it's not necessary to merge them into an annual grouping. I rejected your submission to change the title of this record from "Eerie Country, #1" to "Eerie Country - 1976". Leaving the titles of this periodical as is makes the frequency of its publication apparent. Changing them to years might lead a user to believe there were more issues than there actually were. This is a value judgement, of course, but I personally don't merge editor records unless there are at least three issues in a given year. Mhhutchins 04:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Shall I try it for the 1982 issues - there are four of them? I've copied your instructions you gave another editor on how to do it so I should be able to stumble through it. This is a big piece of the puzzle for me as I never knew how those records magically appeared. Doug / Vornoff 04:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything in those instructions apply, except that the retitling is only done if one chooses to merge editor records into a single annual record. You have the option to merge the 1982 issues of Eerie Country, but they're display as individual issues looks more aesthetically pleasing to my eye. Which begs the question what role did aesthetics ever play in a database? I'll leave that decision to you. Mhhutchins 05:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, gathering all the data and manipulating it so it does what you want is the hard-core part of the db. How you display it is where the aesthetics comes in for me. So I'd have to agree that listing one yearly editor record with the individuals, like it would be in this case, would sort of not look right. So I'll leave it, but I did submit a change in #9 to look like the others.

Over in ERB-dom, however, it looks like it should be done, as it is a monthly. Complicating it, though, is the fact that the editor record is varianted. I'm guessing I'll have to change the variant editor title to match whatever the main editor title changes to. Doug / Vornoff 05:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

ERB-dom

Submission changing the title of this editor record was accepted. I'm assuming there are going to be other issues added for this year and you'll be merging them into a single annual editor record. Also, don't forget to change the title of the variant to match this one. Mhhutchins 02:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you asked about this in the previous message. Sorry I missed that. Mhhutchins 02:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I also see that there are two other issues from this same year. Next step is to merge all three of these into a single record, retaining the title of the annual record. And then you do the same for the variant records. For that you'll have to go to the pseudonym's page and click on the "Show All Records" link. Then check the merge button for the three 1971 records. Mhhutchins 02:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So that's how you handle the variants - I was wondering. I've submitted the variant editor title change and the regular title merge. Waiting for the variant change to merge them. It seems every time I edit something here I come up with "Why this? How is it done?" So, still learning. Just when I've learned enough to be competent, I'll have run out of books/magazines to enter! Doug / Vornoff 03:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that was quick. Variant merge submitted. Thanks again for the help! Doug / Vornoff 03:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the best way to learn how to do something on the ISFDB is to just do it. Glad you're feeling more comfortable editing here...and hope that you find some great bargains in your book-hunting. Mhhutchins 05:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just finished reading through the 28 pages of ads in ERB-dom's Fantasy Collector (from 1971) - now THAT'S when I should have been buying books! Doug / Vornoff 05:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of years back, when I was entering issues of Grant Thiessen's Science Fiction Collector, I came across an ad that I remembered seeing back in the late 1970s. Someone was selling their collection of almost every title published by Shasta, Gnome Press and FPCI for just a few thousand bucks. If only I had that much money to blow back then, can you imagine what an investment it would have been? Mhhutchins 05:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, woulda-coulda-shoulda. A couple thousand bucks back then was fairly substantial, but not a total deal-breaker. You need to send a tachyon message back to yourself to tell you all the stuff you should have latched onto. Doug / Vornoff 06:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ERB-dom #50

I'm holding a submission to add a record for this issue, but an earlier submission was already accepted adding this record to the database. A double submission or a glitch in the database, perhaps? Mhhutchins 01:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I submitted the pub. Then I noiced I had one of the cover artists names wrong. Usually I delete the submission, fix it, then reenter it. This time I noticed the submission had been accepted by you in about 10 seconds! So I figured I'd upload a cover and fix the name at the same time. First I made the wraparound cover too large and had to reload it. That done, I hit edit on the pub, inserted the image location and fixed the author name and resubmitted. I have no idea what happened with this. Thanks for checking it out. Doug / Vornoff 01:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's better that I reject the submission. Otherwise, it's going to taken dozens of submissions, literally, to clean it up (merging or deleting the duplicate records, etc.) I'm not sure how your edit of the record created by your first submission turned into a submission to add a new record. Please try again to edit the existing record and we'll see if the glitch happens again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I resubmitted. The original cover artist I added in error was Norm MacDonald, a stand-up comic, not Neal MacDonald, the artist. Saw him the other day and his name stuck in my so-called brain, I guess. Doug / Vornoff 02:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. Instead of editing the new record, I may have backed up the browser window from the first submission to the original record, put in the cover address and fixed the author then resubmitted the SAME RECORD! Obviously a no-no, if that's what I did. Doug / Vornoff 02:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspected that may have been what happened. We live and learn. :) Mhhutchins 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, this may not have come up before, but when two artists are credited for a single work of art, it's better to enter only one of their names on the first submission. Then update the cover art title record to add the second artist credit. If you look at the record now, you'll see that it shows two credits for two covers. The software was written that way for publications like Ace Doubles which have two different covers, but causes a problem for collaborative works. In order to correct the record for this issue, you'll have to update the publication to remove the credit for one of the artists. Wait for that submission to be accepted. Then update the cover art title record adding the second artist credit. Keep this in mind when adding a publication with a single cover credited to two different artists. Mhhutchins 02:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I just read your note that the cover is two different works combined, so the record's cover credit is fine. Sorry about that. Mhhutchins 02:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew that was a problem but didn't know exactly how to do it. Problem I had with this one was determining whether it was a collaboration or two separate works. Each artist worked on his own art but both were coordinated into one wraparound cover with the signatures of both on the main drawing, not on each individual one. I just picked the collaborative method but am easily swayed to the individual covers as shown now. But that's good information to know - Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 02:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Author variant/parent mismatch

Please check the credit for this record. The author of the parent and variant records don't match. Mhhutchins 06:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Typo. Correction submitted, thanks. Doug / Vornoff 13:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating multiple artwork by the same artist in the same publication with the same title

Re the three pieces by Pete Poplaski in this publication: The ISFDB standard is to use disambiguation on the second and later such INTERIORART content records. So the first would be "ERB-dom #52", the second "ERB-dom #52 [2]", and so forth. Any description of the location within the publication should be used sparingly since there's always a possibility that the work could be reprinted. The page numbering is sufficient to indicate the location of the work within the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay - that's good to know. For whatever reason I thought putting a location for back cover, inside front cover, etc. was disambiguation enough as that's how I thought I'd seen them done. I'll stick to the numbering in the future and eliminate any refernces to cover locations. I'll resubmit. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 00:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be able to find that disambiguation used on some records in the db. Some things slip through without the moderator catching them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Updates to primary verified records

If you want to make a change to a primary verified record, you must first post a message on the verifying editor's talk page. (This policy is linked in the Welcome section when you first started editing here.) Many editors have a message on their talk pages explaining how they want to be notified. You should not make a submission that changes a primary verified publication unless you have first notified the primary verifying editor of the change so that they can either make the change themselves or ask that you do it. If the editor is inactive, post a message on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard. I'm holding your submissions to change several title and pub records by Virgil Finlay until you've had a chance to discuss these changes with the primary verifying editor. Mhhutchins 05:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm accepting those submission which just add a note to the title records. Mhhutchins 05:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw Bob's response to your request about the Finlay duplicates and his problems and thought I'd give him a hand. He's told me before to just go ahead and make changes on his stuff and let him know. I was going to get a few of those changes submitted then tell him about it to lessen his burden. I'll tell him about the couple of records I changed to disambiguate. On the note changes, I've been manually checking each duplicate record on the books that I have to make sure they are indeed different artwork and so far I haven't found one pair that was an actual duplicate. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. Since you and he are in discussions I will accept the submissions. Mhhutchins 17:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A problem with the first submission: now both titles (one of which you disambiguated) are variant to the same parent title. Are the two records in Fourth Book of Finlay (pages 3 and 36) the same work of art? Mhhutchins 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what's happening but don't know how to handle it. As Bob says, the art on p.3 is the right hand side of the art on p.36, so yes it's the same work of art but different sections of it. Both refer to the same artwork they are varianted to in Fantastic Adventures, August 1952. Doug / Vornoff 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Variant of a reprinted artwork

I'm assuming this work is reprinted from the 1939 publication of the story under discussion, and not simply illustrating the essay itself. If you agree, then the title would be the same as the original publication, and thus eligible for merging. If you can make a case for keeping the title as is, I'll accept the submission to variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right - they are reprints of the original artwork (it's the same for The Lightning Men). Don't know why I didn't enter that way. I cancelled that one and resubmitted both titles. I can merge them tomorrow or you can if you want to, if I've submitted the titles properly. Another lesson learned. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 08:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you check your copy of ERB-dom, #56 March 1972 and verify the spelling of the artist name for "Beyond the Farthest Star: War Propaganda or Not!" by Robert Kudlay? Does the credit state "Motiochiro" (the I and the O swapped in the middle) or "Motoichiro"? Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's credited as Motiochiro. I've done a pseudonym for that name to Motoichiro and a variant for that article. Hope that helps. Doug / Vornoff 04:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, and wanted to make sure it was actually printed that way. Thanks for checking. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Doug / Vornoff 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Science Fiction Chronicle - Series project

Hi Doug! I see that you entered quite a few issues of SFC. I reviewed your talk page and was wondering if you and Pete Young are still active in this project. I have a substantial amount of issues (about 190) and was wondering if you could use some help on this. I already updated issue 189 from just the reviews that existed there. - John Syzygy 20:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, John! Alas, I have run out of SFC issues to index. I'm glad I was able to contribute, along with Pete and Albinoflea, to kickstarting this mag into the database. I looked over 189 and it looks good. Feel free to copy any of our notes if you feel they are helpful. We'd discussed whether or not to have "Random Factors" entered as a separate column and the consensus was to just enter the letters (if qualified) and omit the header, since there was never any (or enough) separate content to merit its inclusion. I notice that you've not entered any letters and that's probably why the header is entered. Of course, this is up to your discretion. I know it's a lot of work to enter these, especially the seemingly never-ending reviews. I remember having to find info for the odd genre review whose title that wasn't in the database and had to be entered and accepted before the publication could be submitted. Of course, this is easier if you're a moderator. Anyway, thanks for jumping into this - I'll be looking forward to the new entries. Only wish I could help out. Doug / Vornoff 05:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You will be able to help out. As this project progresses, we will need your input. I will post on Pete Young's page and see where he is at with this. I know what you mean about all the reviews and the research involved, I seem to stray from my intended task when checking on titles and authors:) - John Syzygy 12:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying (have been in the wilds of southern Thailand, or thereabouts, where the wifi is crap or non-existent). Yes, the reviews are a pain in the ass, especially when they're misspelled/miscredited. I've been adding the line "Several corrections have been made to erroneously attributed authors and titles" to the Notes (e.g.). No, I haven't added any issues for the last few months – simply not enough spare time, lately. Will try to address this – I still have plenty of issues not yet indexed, and I'll look out for any new issues being added. Cheers. PeteYoung 14:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Editorial(s) in Realms of Fantasy, August 2000

Are they two similarly titled editorials in this issue? Mhhutchins 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to create separate content records for the letters then you should remove and delete the content record for the column. Mhhutchins 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The overall, longer Editorial title (uncredited on page but by Shawna McCarthy per content, which I'm planning on varianting to her) expresses sadness at the death of Science Fiction Age and then she introduces the guest editorial by Mary Helen titled (within the main body of the overall editorial) "Putting the Magic Back into Life". The bulk of the column is the second editorial so I struggled whether to add the amount written by McCarthy at all but it's about 5 column inches. I suppose, strictly speaking, you could use the main title (the longer one) as the title for both. Or delete the one by McCarthy and use the main title. ??

I'll take care of the Letters column head. Doug / Vornoff 15:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a question about the p.68 essay content. It is actually a question and answer interview of Windsor-Smith. Should this have been entered as an interview by the primary editor? I know interviews show up at the top of an author's page. What happens if this is also a part of a series? (Gallery (Realms of Fantasy)) - Is a series allowed to be attached to an interview? Doug / Vornoff 16:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Look at the series and you'll see several interviews already included. If the essay is presented in the form of an interview, you'll have to remove it from the record, delete the title record from the database, and create a new INTERVIEW-typed record. An ESSAY record can't be changed to an INTERVIEW. Mhhutchins 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I will do that. Shall I leave the editorials as is, then? Doug / Vornoff 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If they are two distinct works written by two different authors, then yes. Mhhutchins 17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I've run out of Realms of Fantasy to check over so this is my last one of those. Thanks for your help on this and others, Michael. Doug / Vornoff 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Entry standard for subtitles

Re this record: the colon separating a title from a subtitle is entered immediately after the title, followed by a single space before the subtitle. Mhhutchins 01:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 01:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget. Changing the title field of a publication record doesn't automatically change the title field of the title record. That will also have to be manually corrected. Mhhutchins 02:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. So many details to remember, even if I had a young brain! Doug / Vornoff 02:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Which function to use to add a new publication

Re this record: You shouldn't use the "Add Publication to This Title" function if either the title or author credit doesn't match. You should have used the appropriate "Add New Data" function. If it's determined to be the same as another book, with a different title and/or author credit, then you make the title a new variant of the existing one. If you're certain that this publication is credited to "Frank Belknap Long, Jr." (as the OCLC record indicates), you'll have to unmerge it from its present title and correct the author field of both the publication record and the new title record. Then variant it to the original title. Mhhutchins 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I just added a cover image. After that gets approved I'll make the changes. I wasn't sure about the Jr. credit (I missed the 'Responsibility' field of the OCLC record - good lesson) since I couldn't see the title page. I still have a question about how the 1935 and the 1949 pubs are handled since, according to Wikipedia, the contents are different. If that's enough evidence, shouldn't the 1949 pub have a different title record? Doug / Vornoff 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Price in Ptas

I accepted your submission to add a price of 30 Pesetas to Planetas Morales. However I then changed the form from "30 ptas" to "Ptas 30" in line with our current policies that text codes for currencies should precede the numerical value and be separated by a space. I also capitalized Ptas, as that is how it is shown used on the Wikipedia Pesetas entry. If you feel it should be more properly lower case, or you feel that one of the other Pesetas text codes (Pt, Pta, or Pts) shown on Wikipedia would be more appropriate, I leave that for you to decide and submit edits as needed. Thanks - Kevin 23:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, Kevin. I read that section but not well enough, it seems. Good to know. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 23:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

E. Lynn Linton

I went ahead and varianted the content titles you created in this publication. Mhhutchins 03:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I've been on and off the computer and would have gotten to it at some point but thanks for the help. Doug / Vornoff 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Default display of non-English translations

When you get a chance, could you please review this discussion? The proposal basically boils down to changing the behavior of the Summary Bibliography when the viewing user is not logged in. Currently only English translations are displayed for unauthenticated users. The proposal would change it to displaying all translations. The downside is that the Summary page could get longer and harder to navigate.

I am trying to get a sense of how widespread the support for this change is. TIA! Ahasuerus 01:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"artist unknown"

There are two such credits in this publication. If the artist isn't credited, and there's a specific statement that the publisher/editor doesn't know whose work it is, then it would be credited to simply "unknown". If it's simply not credited, it should be credited to "uncredited". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. I did some searching and saw this, which got me thinking that you took the exact wording and made it into a variant of "unknown". Simpler your way. I deleted my two submissions you referenced and submitted the pub again with "unknown" as the two artists. In the case of one of these, though, I actually found who the artist is. Should I variant the "unknown" artist credit to the record with the actual artist? The "unknown" art on p.108 is actually from this cover. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In the case of "Author Unknown", that is exactly how the work is credited in the publication (look at the titles attributed to this pseudonym). Are you saying here that the two works are not credited but with an explicit acknowledgment by the publisher/editor that the artists are unknown? (Not just simply uncredited.) If so, and you've been able to identify them, by something other than a visible signature, then do a variant to the parent title record. Mhhutchins|talk 14:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you recall when you received your copy of this issue? According to Amazon, it won't be published until January 2016 with a list price of $10.00. Is there a stated date and price in your copy? Mhhutchins|talk 15:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The first work, p.108, is specifically credited "artist unknown" (no caps) below the artwork. The second work, p.124, is credited "Artist Unknown" (with caps), also below the artwork. I guess I was trying to credit them exactly as shown and then variant them to the generic "unknown" in the db. Then I identified the work on p.108 and, per your suggestion, will variant it to the above link. I think I see your distinction between a work that is actually credited to "author unknown" and this case, where it looks like the editor just didn't know who the artist was. My only question is, since I've identified the one artwork, should I change its credit to "uncredited" before varianting, or leave it as "unknown"? Vornoff 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a classroom example of when you should use "unknown" as the publication credit. And since you've discovered the author, then you variant the "unknown" to the credited title. But do not make "unknown" into a pseudonym of the artist. Mhhutchins|talk 20:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I will variant the one I found out. Doug / Vornoff 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As to the magazine itself, I ordered it a week ago and received it day before yesterday. Price on cover is $6.95 and the stated date is Spring 2015. Ordered it from AbeBooks. So much for Amazon data on this one.Vornoff 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've ordered a copy from Darrell Schweitzer in an eBay listing, only because it contains the first reprint in English of a Michael Bishop story first published in F&SF back in the early 1970s. Mhhutchins|talk 20:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed he was in there and am looking forward to that one. Doug / Vornoff 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Since I have you here, I've been vacillating on what the title of the mag should be. These were already in the db as "Allen K's Inhuman Magazine" in most cases, two verified by MLB. That title is seen on the cover, spine and ToC. The indicia in all cases (I have them all) shows either "Inhuman" or "Inhuman!", so going by the ISFDB help, I've titled a couple of the unverified issues as the latter (with explanatory note), but some are titled the former. The title reference is the former. So the rules state "Inhuman" but "Allen K's Inhuman Magazine" is plastered every place else except the indicia and the page headers, which also say "Inhuman". Which title do you suggest? I've asked MLB but didn't get a very detailed response from him where I would feel comfortable changing his verified title. Advice? Thanks for your help. Doug / Vornoff 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the title should remain, since it is so prominently used on the cover. The rule about using the indicia title is too esoteric in my opinion. That was hidden in the standards when I first arrived here, but I don't recall ever looking at an indicia or masthead to get the "official" title of a periodical in the hundreds of records I've created. Running headers/footers are almost always abbreviated so that's inconsequential. Mhhutchins|talk 20:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, another case of veering off the stated rules. Okay with me, just so I know about it. You know, maybe there should be a help page on common practices versus the rules, since it's so hard to change them. :) Doug / Vornoff 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Updating titles in a publication edit

If a title is only contained in a single publication, it is OK to edit it during a publication edit. In fact, it is recommended when you're updating more than one title in a publication record. For example, changing all of the INTERIORART titles in Inhuman #4 could have been done in a single submission editing the publication. Mhhutchins|talk 03:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I see that procedure couldn't be done in this case, since you were changing their parent records. Sorry. BTW, are they explicitly credited to "Allen K." or is it based on the artist's signature? Mhhutchins|talk 03:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was based on signatures. A blanket art credit to "Allen K." is given in the indicia (see note). I used this for any art not explicitly credited to him as "Allen Koszowski" as occurs in several of the stories. I also see I missed a couple - I'll get those now. Doug / Vornoff 05:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

BLood 'n' Thunder #41

The page count for this record doesn't follow the norm. A periodical entered as "quarto" should have a page count that is a multiple of four. Your description makes it appear that the publication should be typed as "tp". (Perfect-bound publications don't have to have multiples of four.) In either case, you count every page in the publication, including the covers, even if those pages are blank. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 16:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I can change the pages back to 108 (that would include the one blank page at the end, before the back cover). "tp" isn't a choice on the Print Magazines selections, and this is definitely a periodical, though somewhat irregular. MLB has chosen "bedsheet" for the ones he's verified - maybe that would be more appropriate if "quarto" isn't right. Bedsheet is fairly close to the size (8.5 x 11.25 vs 8 x 10) and the note states "If a magazine is between the sizes of these categories, use the one with the closest description, and add a note in the record. Small variations do not need to be noted." Also, I was wondering how "quarto" is taken to mean in ISFDB. Originally it referred to a method of how the book leaves were made but has evolved into a rough idea of the size, as Wikipedia states: "Folio, quarto, and so on may also refer to the size of the finished book, based on the size of sheet that an early paper maker could conveniently turn out with a manual press. Paper sizes could vary considerably, and the finished size was also affected by how the pages were trimmed, so the sizes given are rough values only." Interesting. So, if you go by that, the closest size to my pub would be quarto, 8.5 x 11, but not by much. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 16:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quarto" was taken from Locus1 which defines it as "8½" x 11" saddle-stapled". So that means that a printed 11" x 17" sheet is folded in half, and then stapled down the center fold. That's why every quarto publication has four pages. Because of the relatively recent phenomenon of print-on-demand periodicals, many of which are perfect bound (sheets cut to the same size and either side-stapled or glued), there should be an option under magazines for "tp". If it weren't a periodical, it would obviously be considered "tp". You'll note that we allow "digest" under books, and "pb" under magazines, each which are usually in the other category. So why not "tp" under magazines?

When I suggested a while back that we add "tp" as an option for periodicals, there was some resistance and the discussion never went anywhere. Nevertheless, you'll find that some editors have been using "tp" for magazine-typed publications. I believe "bedsheet" is an archaic form, and was created to distinguish it from pulp magazines during the early-to-mid 20th century. Its usage for current publications seems to me to be wrong, but then that's just me. But as I said, regardless of how you type it, all records typed a MAGAZINE must include the covers in their page count, or have an explanation in the Note field to explain the exception. Mhhutchins|talk 17:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on "bedsheet" - I've seen them and pubs like the one I've just added just don't match up with them. Somehow, I missed the fact that "tp" WAS available as a choice. Once again, live and learn. I've submitted change to "tp". Thanks for the help. Doug / Vornoff 19:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the subject back to my attention. A search of the database shows that there are almost 700 records for magazines entered as "tp". As it appears to be a viable option, I have updated the help documentation and reported it on the Community Portal. Thanks again. Mhhutchins|talk 19:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Always a good thing to add a little more clarity. Doug / Vornoff 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Publication series

The data you gave as the publication series in this record is merely the publisher and its catalog number. Is there a reason for repeating it as a series? Mhhutchins|talk 01:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also advise against ever using Flickr or Pinterest as bibliographic sources. Mhhutchins|talk 02:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with it not being a series. I'm still a little vague on what actually constitutes a publishing series. I'll go ahead and remove it if you think that's better. I see what you mean about Flickr and Pinterest. I can search out other sources because I did run across them. I ran into a couple of publess Boucher titles for some reason and thought I'd find some pubs to attach to them. The other one is here. Doug / Vornoff 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add a pub or two to publess titles when you run across them, preferably the first edition.

This Help page explains the differences between a title series and a publication series. In most cases the catalog number is not a publication series number. (European publishers and one major US publisher are exceptions.) Most of the time a publication series isn't even numbered. They almost always have either similar graphic designs, (look at this series and this one), or give the publication series name on the cover (like the banner on this one). Publication series for hardcovers are not as common as they are for softcovers for some reason, but there are plenty of them, like this one. Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish a publication series from an imprint (like this one), and there are two or three cases where a publication series became an actual imprint. If you keep working on the database, you'll develop a sixth sense about publication series, titles series, and imprints. Mhhutchins|talk 03:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the Popular Library books have no common theme to tie them together so I've submitted a deletion of that data. Those are some very interesting examples you've shown - that should help me. I'm probably still going to have trouble with imprints and pub series but that will have to come with time. Thanks for spending the time showing me the examples. Doug / Vornoff 04:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ERB PUZZELS: I - Pellucidar Crossword Quiz

Hello, I've approved your submission for this title. Can you just confirm the "PUZZELS" part (PUZZLES?). Thanks. Hauck 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Herve! It's that way in the title. I mentioned that in one of the notes. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur: Two of a Kind

Re this publication record: I made some changes based on data from your source. I removed Mary Hogan as the co-author, since she isn't credited in the OCLC record. I added Justin Wyatt as the illustrator.

I also changed the page count field from "48" to "[48]" because the book is not paginated according to OCLC.

One last thing: when using HTML to link to another website there shouldn't be spaces at the beginning and end of the anchor name. For example in this Note field you entered:

www.worldcat.org/oclc/48038538"> 48038538 </a>

when it should have been

www.worldcat.org/oclc/48038538">48038538</a>

Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 19:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been slowly going through the Titles Without Pubs list from the end and knocking off whatever I can figure out. Thanks for the HTML link tip - for some reason I thought I remembered it not linking when I didn't use spaces. I actually thought about both the pages note and the artist note but didn't pull the trigger for some reason. I guess I thought someone with an actual copy would enter it but you're right, it was in the OCLC and I should have entered it. Again, live and learn.

By the way, do you have any answer to my query about Utopia Island on the help desk. Looks like it got passed by. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. It got lost in the mix. I've answered there. Mhhutchins|talk 05:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ISBN-13

A 2000 publication wouldn't have an ISBN-13 since they weren't conceived until years later. If you use OCLC as a source, they will give both ISBN and ISBN-13, but the first one listed is the one stated in the publication. Mhhutchins|talk 05:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I keep forgetting the changeover year from 10 to 13 was 2007. Correction submitted, along with cover image and publication series data. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom Swift

The problem with this publication was that you entered it under the wrong title record (the one crediting Mitchell). Because there was no record of it in the db as published by "Victor Appleton" you should have used the "Add New Novel" function (instead of "Add Publication to This Title" function) and then varianted the new title record to the title crediting Mitchell. By entering it under the Mitchell title, the publication became credited to Mitchell (you don't have the option to change the author credit when using the "Add Publication" function), instead of the published credit "Victor Appleton". I've cleaned it up (it took four additional submissions), so now it's OK. Mhhutchins|talk 08:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I realized that that's what I'd done wrong by comparing that work with another that was done correctly. I just couldn't figure out exactly how to back it up to set it right. Thanks a lot for fixing it for me. And still another lesson learned! Doug / Vornoff 08:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding publications to titles without pubs

Thanks for taking the time to work on the clean-up script that finds titles which don't have publications. If you come across a non-genre title by a non-genre author, it's very likely because of a review in a magazine. If you've determined that a work is non-genre and by an author who is not "above the threshold" (either from your own research or from advice on the Help Desk), you should add an ESSAY record to the publication for the review before deleting the REVIEW record and the title record for the reviewed work. You may also come across science books being reviewed in sf magazines like Analog which are written by scientists and not science fiction authors. They should be handled the same way. Here is the policy about how to handle reviews of works which are not eligible for the database. (See the subsection on "Reviews".) This policy has evolved over the years which is why you will still find REVIEW-typed records for works which are not eligible for the database. If I stumble upon them, I will convert them to essays, but I don't go looking for them.

Thanks again. Mhhutchins|talk 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay - that's good to know. It's obvious when you bring it to my attention but don't know if I would have thought about making the essay records first. I didn't know anyone noticed that I've been working thru the publess title list (from the back, mostly) - I appreciate the acknowledgment. I still hesitate a little about deleting possible non-specfic titles on my own; that's why I've been asking questions on the Help Desk. Doug / Vornoff 22:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Bracketed page count

We use brackets in the page count field to indicate unnumbered pages. Is there reason to believe that this publication isn't paginated? Mhhutchins|talk 05:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OCLC says the pages are unnumbered, though I saw no mention of it in Amazon or other sites. Doug / Vornoff 06:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll add that to the note field. I also changed the publisher to "Viking UK". (It was published by Simon & Schuster in the US under a different title.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Doug / Vornoff 22:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The New Ordeal

According to most sources (SFE and the OCLC record you cite), this book was anonymously published as "by the author of The Battle of Dorking". Mhhutchins|talk 06:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I missed that! Should I change the author in the publication to "The Author of The Battle of Dorking" and then use Add a Variant Title to the title record using that same author? Kind of confused about this. (and also make a pseudonym?) Doug / Vornoff 06:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This kind of credit happened a lot in the 18th and 19th centuries, probably more often than you could imagine. In most cases, we credit the publication as "Anonymous" and then variant it to a parent record crediting the actual author. I'll do it for you, since it's going to take several intermediate steps to clean up. Mhhutchins|talk 06:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Fiction Business"

Is there an indication in the publication itself that this is an excerpt? If not, it shouldn't be given in the title, just added to the Note field. We only disambiguate a title if there is an existing record which has the same title and author credit, or if it is clearly published as an excerpt from another work. Mhhutchins|talk 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you added another record for a reprint of the entire work. I had to type it as ESSAY (see below). Please add a note to that title record about it being the complete contents of the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this message. Yes, there is a note from the editor that the work was an excerpt of the complete work, which was to be published later. I've just added a note to the complete work that it was the omplete work. Doug / Vornoff 00:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

NONFICTION vs. ESSAY

NONFICTION is a publication type used only for book publications of nonfiction. Any work of nonfiction contained in another publication (periodical or book) is typed as ESSAY. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. Doug / Vornoff 01:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deriving a pub format/binding

According to your sources, this is a paperback (Amazon) and 21 cm (OCLC), which makes it a trade paperback. I have changed the record from "unknown" to "tp". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm never too sure about those cm. sizes on OCLC so I left it out. Doug / Vornoff 06:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's 18 cm or less, that makes it mass-market paperback height. Anything greater makes it a trade paperback. You can always give OCLC the credit (or blame) if you're not sure that their data is correct. Mhhutchins|talk 07:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, works for me. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 14:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Multivolume publications of a single work

Re this publication: Feel free to add the page count for each volume in the Page Count field. I've done that for you here. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 18:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating pseudonyms

When you variant a title to another author, you must make a subsequent submission that makes the stated author into a pseudonym of the canonical author. It's not done automatically. You don't have to wait for the submission to be accepted to do this. I have made "By the Author of 'Friends in Council'" into a pseudonym. Mhhutchins|talk 20:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I knew that but I obviously missed that one. How many times does it take!? Jeez. Some of these publess titles I've been doing are so complicated to me, I'm bound to keep screwing up on something. Doug / Vornoff 21:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove variant for Nemica occulta

You don't have to remove the variant relationship of a child title before deleting it. It can simply be deleted in one edit. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 20:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron, I wasn't sure about that from reading the Delete help. Thanks for clarifying. Doug / Vornoff 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

French or English?

Please confirm the language of this title. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Submitted correction. Doug / Vornoff 03:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviews and title/author credits

When linking a review to a title, we don't recognize any variant in spelling in either the title of the work or the author credited in the review. So when an editor creates a review record and the system is unable to find an exact match in author and title sometimes it becomes necessary to correct either and do a manual link to the proper title record. For example, if a review for Lucian's True History credits "Lucian of Samosata", and there is no record for the combination in the database, you can manually link it to the canonical title record for the work. You may even need to correct the credit and/or title that is given in the review. We should not create variant titles or pseudonyms based on how a work is titled or credited in a review. For example, a publication has a review of The Fondation Trilogy by "Isaac Azimov", we're going to correct the spelling of both and manually link it to the canonical title. We're not going to create a pseudonym for "Azimov" and a variant title for "Fondation". If the variant and pseudonym already exists in the database, because that was the way it was published, then the system would automatically link it at the time the review record is created. Hope this helps concerning your submission about Lucian. You may come across an unpubbed title which could have been created based on a misspelling in a review. Those titles should be deleted and the review should be re-linked to the correct title. For the documentation of this standard see "Author" and "Title" under the Review section of the Help pages. Mhhutchins|talk 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Lucian, my thoughts were that since the reviews were linked to the unpubbed Lucian of Samosata title, I was trying to get them off that title and on to the 1902 Lucian title (I suppose maybe I should have linked them to the canonical title) so that I could delete the unpubbed Lucian of Samosata title because this author does not appear on the work it references, merely Lucian. I see this has now happened and I'll go ahead and submit that the Lucian of Samosata title be deleted. Thanks for the explanation. Doug / Vornoff 19:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate record

How is this record different from this one which was already in the database? There's no reason that I can see that you shouldn't have updated and verified that record. I'll delete it from the database once you've read this message. Be sure to check all publication under a title before creating what may be a possible duplicate. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I recall, I went to the $25.99 pub and imported all the contents from another pub that had them. To my knowledge I never added a publication. I removed two titles whose authors didn't match what was on my copy's title page and replaced them, merging one and varianting another. I added some notes and that was it. I really don't know how that other pub showed up. On My Recent Edits there is no Add New Pub entry. Doug / Vornoff 06:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I assumed, mistakenly, that you'd cloned the record with contents. In either case, there are now two records for the same publication. I'll delete the non-verified one. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 07:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

i can only assume that the duplicate record had been there all the time and I didn't notice it when I started working on one of them. Thanks for seeing that and for deleting it. Doug / Vornoff 15:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

French capitalization

Hello, when you enter titles in french, please use the french capitalization rules : Only the first word and proper nouns should have their first letter capitalized. Thanks. Hauck 20:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Herve, I wondered about that and I just took the titles from the fr.wikipedia.org site. As you can see, they're different from the ones you changed. I'll remember that for the future. Thanks for catching those. Should this be changed also? Doug / Vornoff 20:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

L'oiseau de feu

You didn't have to relink the award to another title record, and then delete the original title record. Merging the two titles (while reconciling the differences) would automatically re-link the award to the merged title and automatically delete the duplicate one. When merging title records, everything that was part of those separate records including awards, reviews, series data, etc. will be transferred to the new merged record. Mhhutchins|talk 23:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahh - okay, thanks for that. I thought otherwise as I must have misconstrued something you corrected that I did like that with reviews from before. I can't remember what it was offhand, but the circumstances must have been different. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 23:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Gerania

What makes this spec-fic?? Seems just to be a book about pygmies ..... ??--~ Bill, Bluesman 23:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question. Wikipedia has a quote describing it: "Robert Ignatius Letellier considers Gerania, a work of prose fiction, to have been part of an emerging type of adventure novels. A type featuring "the imaginary voyage into alien or fictional regions". So, I suppose it's an adventure story. Feel free to reject my submission and delete the existing unpubbed title "Gerania". Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 00:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There had to be a reason it was included here in the first place. I'll check a little more before deleting anything. Just thought you might have read it?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Downloaded a PDF of the text and no way is this spec-fic, though the bias in the writing is definitely WAY out there .... ;-))) Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill - saves me the trouble of going thru it! Doug / Vornoff 00:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Demain, les étoiles

It's possible that this is a novel composed of nine stories, which still makes it a NOVEL by ISFDB standards. Now if any of the individual stories were previously published, and then brought together as a novel, we'd call it a "fix-up", but still consider it a NOVEL. It's possible the nine works could just be numbered as chapters. What's important is to see if the nine pieces have separate titles, if the book has a table of contents, and, most importantly, whether each could stand on its own as a separate work. Then it would lean toward the ISFDB definition of COLLECTION. Perhaps you can do more research to see if this is possible? I'll hold your submission in the meantime. Thanks for adding records to these unpubbed titles. Mhhutchins|talk 05:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. I'll try to look some more and see what I can find but I'm not getting my hopes up. I'm away tomorrow so I'll look Sunday. If I can't get anything definitive I'll cancel my submission and resubmit leaving it as a novel but supplying the salient fields. Someone may have to come up with a book to get the final answer. As for the unpubbed titles, I've seen the list shrink from around 170 titles to 50. It's a lot of research but I'm learning a lot so it's worth it. Bringing order to chaos always feels good. There is going to eventually be a hard-core group that I may not be able to figure out. We'll see. Doug / Vornoff 05:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Every little bit helps. I may start working on that list soon. In the past month I've been working occasionally on the clean-up report for "Reviews Not Linked to Titles" (which is not accessible to non-moderators.) It started with more than 300 unlinked reviews and last night I did the last one. That meant adding not only titles in order to link the reviews but adding publication records as well. Otherwise, adding just the titles would have placed them on the report you're working on! Mhhutchins|talk 06:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an amazing amount of work. In a way, though, I'm a little surprised that there weren't more unpubbed tiles and unlinked reviews, considering the size of the db. Everybody seems to be quite conscientious. It's the older titles that really seem to take a lot of work for me. Doug / Vornoff 06:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Early in the db's existence, the founders dumped a lot of titles into the database, usually from secondary sources. Back then it was easy to add titles without publication records. Since it became publicly editable, and with upgrades to the software, an editor has no choice but to add a publication record to get a title into the db. Or at least that's what we tell new users. In fact, there is a backdoor method to add titles now, and I could explain it to you in one sentence, but then I'd have to kill you. :) Also, many of the unpubbed titles for novels, (you know the clean-up is limited to NOVELs, imagine if it included SHORTFICTION!) were added through the award function, which is fairly recent, maybe 3-4 years ago. So that's a second way to add titles without pubs. Also, some editors knowing the first method used it to add titles just to link reviews to and never bothered to add a publication to that review. Have you noticed how many records you've added are for titles which have either awards or reviews attached to them?

I just removed four titles from the list, two by adding pubs, and two by deleting them from the db. They were English translated titles for publications that never existed. Mhhutchins|talk 06:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed notice that most of the publess titles had awards or reviews and figured they were being added that way. I'd inadvertently done that myself with reviews before I knew better but have never added an award before. I figured something similar was going on there, especially with all the French titles. If you've a mind to work on any other titles, how about starting at the bottom of the list - I've skipped over them for now because of one sticky problem or another. I still feel a little reluctant to delete titles, especially for those you mention: English translated titles for pubs than never existed. I'm always thinking maybe I just couldn't find it. My plan was to work my way up to the top of the list and do the ones I could, then zero in again from the bottom and see if I could resolve the tougher (for me) ones. Doug / Vornoff 16:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good plan. I'll start working from the bottom (all but one that I've cleared were from the bottom, with the assumption that you were working from the top.) Mhhutchins|talk 17:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) About the submittal you have on hold for me, "Demain, les étoiles", if I had to choose, I'd call it a collection with a character that shows up in most, if not all, of the stories. http://www.noosfere.org/icarus/livres/niourf.asp?numlivre=-317661 gives a description and includes the names of the stories with page numbers. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Trudel calls it a collection (recueil). One story, La premiere cicatriz exists in the db as a publess shortfiction work with an award. If you agree with making it a collection, I'll add the story contents, if not leave it as a novel and I'll add the details as such. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'll accept the submission. Thanks for doing further research on the matter. Mhhutchins|talk 03:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-genre magazines

There are special instructions for entering non-genre magazines, so I've applied those to the records of Redpath's Weekly which you submitted.

For this record and this one: I added the issue date to the title field (this is actually required for all periodical publications), changed the editor credit to conform with the non-genre rules, and added a space after the first initial in the publisher's name. There was also no closing for the HTML link in the Note field. I also changed the date of the SERIAL records to the date of their publication in the periodical (from 1882 to October 1883). Mhhutchins|talk 15:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have varianted the SERIAL records to the original French parent record, and then deleted the NOVEL record with the title. If we find a book publication under that title it can always be added as a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 15:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I certainly made a mess out of that one. Very valuable lessons learned. I guess don't do this stuff when you're tired. As to the date in the title field, flunk me, I certainly have done enough of those to know better! Didn't realize publisher names needed space between initials. Got that now. As to the wrong date, I misread the instruction on dates in the Serial help file. Yes, yet another humbling and embarrassing editing experience but AT LEAST I got the general idea right and we got rid of another publess title. I can't believe how much time it took me to get to the info on some of these! Now, if we could only find out what's up with the elusive Wack-A-Doom-Doom-Wow :) Thanks for all the above. Doug / Vornoff 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Smith's Fire in the Heavens

I'm holding your submission to add a Spanish language version of this work. You probably didn't meant to add it to the English title record. If I accept the submission, you'll have to 1) edit the publication record and give the correct title, 2) unmerge the publication record from the English title record, and 3) edit the new title record to correct the language, and 4) variant the new Spanish title to the original English title. Or you can cancel the submission and start all over using the "Add New Novel" function, instead of "Add Publication to This Title" function. Mhhutchins|talk 23:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't thinking about that one. I will cancel and resubmit. Thanks / Doug / Vornoff 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Noting a record number from a secondary source

When adding a record number from a secondary source such as OCLC, LCCN, Reginald1, etc, it should be in the format "OCLC: 1234567". Adding the colon makes it clear that it's a record number and would ease the automatic populating of dedicated fields for such records when/if we ever get around to creating them. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I realized that the record you updated didn't have the colon originally. If you come across any that aren't in the correct format, (but only when you're editing a record), please add the colon. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've really tried to do that when I'm adding my own OCLC's but I'll try to catch those others if I run into them. Doug / Vornoff 04:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)