ISFDB talk:Data Consistency/Anthology Mismatches

There are a number of these which are inconsistent only because the database hasn't reconciled the fact that occasionally an anthology (or collection) can be reprinted with other anthologies and novels forming an omnibus. (That's why more than a few Ace Doubles are not in good shape as well.) If that's the case, I will indicate these as "N/A" in the "Fixed?" box. Mhhutchins 13:44, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Oh, sure, I fully expected some of these suspected "mismatches" to be legitimate. That's why we need (gentle but firm) human supervision of computer programs :) Ahasuerus 15:11, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

There were actually far fewer than I first suspected. In the process of correcting these, something happened with a series that was also unsuspected. When I change those mismatched Science Fiction Specials to omnibuses, they remained in the series, but show up under Fiction Series instead of Anthology Series on the Anonymous summary page. Another bug, or would that be the natural result of changing them from anthologies to omnibuses, because the system can't separate single author omnibuses from multiple author omnibuses? (Or should that be omnibi?) Mhhutchins 16:59, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

That's right, the software doesn't distinguish between single author omnibuses and multi-author omnibuses at the moment, so the current behavior is the best we can realistically ask of it for now. Ahasuerus 17:57, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

More than thirty pubs in the series remain as anthologies, when they should be omnibuses. Should I go ahead and correct their type as well? Mhhutchins 16:59, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Changing the whole series from Anthologies to Omnibuses has been on my radar screen for a few months, but I didn't want to do it without consulting with other editors first. Also, would we want to change the Omnibus Title from "Anonymous" to the names of the included authors so that they would be visible on their Summary Bibliography pages? Ahasuerus 17:57, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The whole series looks a bit suspect, e.g. 3 sets of page-counts but only one content entry? I think I'd credit the authors/editors rather than use 'Anonymous'. BLongley 06:10, 27 Oct 2007 (CDT)