User talk:Blargg

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Blargg, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins|talk 22:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

As this is all entirely new and different to me I hope that you will be understanding *when* I make a mistake. I do promise to learn from my mistakes. Blargg 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to contribute to the ISFDB as an editor. Adding and updating publication records in the ISFDB is not a simple process. We don't expect all editors to get it right the first time, and we know it may take some time to learn the ins and outs, and all of the tricks. Please be patient with us as we guide you through this process. We will try our best to also be patient, but being human, it may appear that a moderator can be nitpicking, or even overbearing at times. Please be assured that it isn't personal, and we're only trying our best to achieve the quality of data that our users have come to expect. Together we can build a better database. The best piece of advice I can offer is to take some time to read this help page. It has instructions on how to enter each field of a publication record. If you need further assistance, don't hesitate to inquire at the help desk. As a new editor, your first submission was A+. Again, thank you for becoming a vital part of the ISFDB. Mhhutchins|talk 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Date field

I had to reject your submission to update this record's date field to "1985-00-09". We enter dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD, so this is not a valid date. Is there a month of publication stated in the book itself? If September, it should be entered as "1985-09". Mhhutchins|talk 23:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, if a printing is stated, it should be given in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Linking uploaded images to the database record

Thanks for uploading cover images to the ISFDB wiki. The next step is to link those images to the records of the books for which these are the covers. As the instructions (step 6) explain:

Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) If you're adding a cover image to a pub record, this is the URL which you would enter into the pub record's "Image URL" field.

So once you have the image's URL, go back to the pub record (it's linked on the image's wiki page) and then click the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu. This opens up an edit page. Under the Publication Metadata section, there's a field labeled "Image URL:" Enter the URL of the image you uploaded into this field, and then click on the "Submit Data" button at the bottom of the page. Once the submission has been moderated the cover image will be linked to the publication record. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins|talk 01:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Date field

Thank you for correcting me about the date field. I wasn't sure what the formate was and I couldn't find the info. I figured that if I got it wrong you would tell me. LOL Now I know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blargg (talk • contribs) .

It's best to respond under the original post. Just click on the "[edit]" link to the right of the message to which you're responding, then enter your comments. And don't forget to add the four tildes at the end of your post (see the Welcome section above) which will sign your user name and date it.
Still wonder where "1985-00-09" came from. As I asked above, is there a publication date given on the book's copyright page and/or a statement of its printing number? Mhhutchins|talk 03:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I see you've updated the record in a new submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
AH! Ok. I think I'm getting the hang of the messaging. I've never seen this format before. Blargg 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Adding a colon at the start of your response to the number in the previous response makes it easier to follow a discussion.
BTW, about the Date field format: as I mentioned above, this help page is a field-by-field guide to add or update publication records. If you have any questions about any particular field, that is the page that gives you the answer. If you can't find it, then ask at the help desk. Mhhutchins|talk 03:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so add +1 colons in my response. Got it. And I will book mark that link. Thank you for your help and patience. I will get better at this, I promise. I have about 400 books so I'm bound to have some more to add to this database.Blargg 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
That's great. Looking forward to working with you. Mhhutchins|talk 04:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Thank you for all your help. Blargg 04:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Starship Troopers eleventh Berkley Medallion printing

I believe there is already a record for your printing of this title in the database. Berkley's copyright page gives the date of the first printing, but not later printings, only the printing number. I'm not sure what the source is for the date of this printing, but it is consistent with the other printings. If you agree that this is probably your copy, please consider canceling your submission and doing a primary verification of this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think. At the bottom of the publishing page it gives the info: "Berkley Medallion Edition, May, 1968 Eleventh Printing". I'm certain that you've done more of this than I have, but I can only go by what I see in this book. Is it possible that the original editor misread, or misinterpreted their book. If it will help I can scan this page and email it to you.Blargg 05:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not necessary. I've seen enough books published by Berkley to know their method of indicating a printing. If you look at the list of all publications of Starship Troopers, you'll see that the first edition from Berkley was printed in May 1968. So it's not likely that there were eleven printings in the same month. At that time, Berkley would note the date of the first printing, and then note the number of the current printing. But that's two different facts, and shouldn't be conflated. Occasionally they would indicate the date of intermediate printings, but rarely would they give you the date of the current printing, unless it was the first printing, or if there was a new edition. Mhhutchins|talk 06:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will delete mine. I can still contribute by uploading the scan of the cover of my book as that is missing.Blargg 06:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Library of Congress Control Number

Re this record and others: If the Library of Congress Control Number (formerly Card Catalog Number) is given in a publication, it should be entered in the Note field in this format: "LCCN: 55-10142". You also have the option to link it to the record on the Library of Congress website using the following HTML:

LCCN: <a href="http://lccn.loc.gov/55010142">55-10142</a>

The format of the URL remains the same. Only change the control number after the last slash. It should be 8 digits for 2000 and earlier LCCNs and 10 digits for post-2000 LCCNs, adding zeros to fill in for the missing digits for control numbers that are less than six digits.

Here's further instructions on constructing a link. This is not required, but the format of "LCCN: 12-34567" should be used. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for the correction. I'll go back through my previous verifications and correct them.Blargg 01:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cloning vs. Adding

It would have been better to clone a record for a previous printing of this work rather than using the "Add" function. Now you'll have to import the contents. When you're creating a record for a COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY, and there's a record for another printing of the same work, use the "Clone" function which will copy the contents and you can avoid a second submission to add or import them. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do! Would it be acceptable for me to delete my book and then clone? Blargg 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
No. You should import the contents from this record. Are you familiar with importing? Mhhutchins|talk 17:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I've not imported anything. Can you help me or point me to the directions on how to do it? Blargg 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Go to the publication into which you want to import contents. Click on the link "Import Content" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next page, enter the record number of the record from which you want to import contents. (In this case: 172381) You have the option of keeping the page numbers with a check box. Then click the "Import Content" button. On the next page, you can change page numbers, and you can add new content records, but you can't change any of the metadata of the record. Then click the "Submit Data" button at the bottom. Mhhutchins|talk 18:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get that done. Blargg 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Imprint / Publisher

Can you look at the title page of this book and see if both imprint and publisher is given. For most of its existence Signet was an imprint of New American Library. If that is stated in your copy (and other books in your collection), please update the record's publisher as "Signet / New American Library". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

On the back cover "NEW AMERICAN LIBRARY PUBLISHES SIGNET, MENTOR, CLASSIC, PLUME & MERIDIAN BOOKS". On the copy right page "Signet, Signet Classics, Mentor, Plume, Meridian and NAL Books are published by The New American Library, Inc., 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019". Signet is used alone everywhere else (front cover, spine, copy right page). I've seen similar on many other books but the second company name is almost never referred to. It's no issue at all to change this but why is Signet different? Blargg 00:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying it doesn't appear on the title page. (That's the only page that I asked you to check.) If not, we'll leave the record as entered. Signet isn't different from any other imprint. In most cases, we just try to give the publisher as stated on the title page. And it has been my experience that books published under the Signet imprint usually give the publisher as "A Signet Book" over "New American Library". In this case, Signet is the imprint and New American Library is the publisher. So it is entered into the ISFDB record as "Signet / New American Library". There are hundreds of imprints entered this way, e.g. "Del Rey / Ballantine", "William Morrow / HarperCollins", etc, and thousands of records in the db using the "Imprint / Publisher" format. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins|talk 04:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! The title page is the one page that I overlooked (DOH!)"A SIGNET BOOK from NEW AMERICAN LIBRARY" (and under that "TIMES MIRROR") Blargg 06:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Fatal Revenant

Re this publication: is the date of the printing stated in the publication? If not, do you have a secondary source, or perhaps a sales receipt indicating a purchase date? Mhhutchins|talk 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The date of the printing of this second edition is not given. BUT, on the editing page the popup flag is asking for the publishing date. So now I'm confused; what am I supposed to be supplying? Blargg 19:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You must enter something into the Date field, yes. And it is the publication date of the printing for which you're creating a record. But, if the date isn't given in the publication, and you can't find a secondary source for it, then enter "0000" which displays as "unknown". That is explained on the help page linked in the Welcome section above. Here is the specific section of that help page. It's a good idea to look over that page, which is a field-by-field guide to entering new records and updating existing ones. Almost everything you need to know to edit an ISFDB record is on that single page. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, just to be clear (and hopefully not annoyingly redundant) second, third, fourth, etc, editions unless they are specifically dated on the copyright page should be dated 0000-00-00, even though the date field specifies "date of publication". Blargg 23:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. To clarify, when there is no stated date of publication, then the date of publication is "0000", because that four-digit number is interpreted by the software as "date unknown" and that is exactly how it is displayed in the publication record. (Look at this third Gollancz printing of the same title.) So when you enter "0000" in the field, you're making the following statement: The date of publication is not stated in the publication, and the date of publication is unknown by the editor who created this record.
But, if there is an outside source for the data (we call it a "secondary source" since the data is not "primary", i.e. in the publication itself), you can enter that date in the publication date field and you must give the source for the date in the record's Note field.
The date of publication field must always be filled. There are other unusual circumstances that may arise which require other four digit codes to be entered into that field. If a book was announced but never published, enter "8888" in the field. This is displayed as "unpublished". Since this is a databases of published works, please use this option sparingly. And provide ample notes to explain why the record should be part of the database. If a work is scheduled for publication beyond the 90-day window which the standards allow for eligibility, use "9999" which is displayed as "forthcoming". And again, use this sparingly as well. So many things can happen to a publisher's schedule that having records for books beyond 90 days can create problems if anything changes: date of publication, ISBN, price, cover artist, etc. Mhhutchins|talk 01:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL Yeah, that didn't help. Ok. This edition in my hand is the second edition. There is no date given for it's printing. However, on the copyright page there is a date given when the first edition was published and printed. So even though the EditPub page is asking for the publishing date, I'm only supposed to enter the date for the edition that's in my hand. In which case my second edition doesn't have a printing date so I am to enter "0000-00-00".
I think what may be confusing me is that the words "publish" and "print (edition)" are being used interchangeably. Where the first edition is published AND printed the same date, isn't the second edition published the same date as the first printing, but printed at a later date? Or are "publish" and "print" the same thing (in this case)? Please tell me that some of that made sense. (Am I over thinking this?) Blargg 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, yes. If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd figure out that for ISFDB purposes, printing date and publication date are the same thing, as far as the "date of publication" field of an ISFDB publication record is concerned. I think you're confusing "publication" to be the first time a work is published. I think you're also confusing "edition" with "printing". An edition is when a publisher creates a new presentation of a work. A printing is when the same publisher reprints that same version. The date a work is first published is recorded in its title record. A work (the results of an author's efforts, e.g. Frank Herbert's Dune) is not the same thing as a publication (the object created by a publisher, e.g. Berkley Books' 35th printing of Frank Herbert's work). That's why a work can be re-published multiple times, while an ISFDB publication record represents only one of those times, even if one of those is a reprinting of an earlier edition of the work.
So let's go back to your statement: second, third, fourth, etc, editions unless they are specifically dated on the copyright page should be dated 0000-00-00, even though the date field specifies "date of publication".' First, I think you meant "printings" instead of "editions". So I explained the circumstances when that statement is true, (when the publication/printing date is unstated and there is no secondary source for the date) and other circumstances when it is not (when the publication/printing date is not stated, but there is a secondary source for it.) In the first case, you enter "0000", in the second case you enter the date given by the secondary source. Mhhutchins|talk 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I think I've got my brain wrapped around it now. Thank you for your patience. Blargg 03:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

If you've done a primary verification of this record, you need to adjust the source given in the Note field. Unless not of the data is from the actual publication and all of it comes from Amazon, which is quite unlikely. Mhhutchins|talk 05:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks! Blargg 05:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, you made two submissions, back-to-back, adding notes to the Note field, without waiting for the first one to be moderated. In doing this, only the last submission's changes were accepted. In the future, wait until a submission has been moderated before going back and changing it again. If you make another submission while the first one is sitting in the queue, both of them pull the data from the original record. You'll need to add the missing note again (something about the artist credit, if I recall correctly.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ack! Yes I did. I didn't know that it was a bad thing or I wouldn't have done it. Newbie mistake. Blargg 06:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional information added

I have just added more detailed content information to this record (may not be visible if it hasn't been approved yet). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

File size limits

Please keep uploads of cover image files to 150 KB or less. You should have received a warning of the five or so files which you recently uploaded that exceed that size. The warning is there for a reason. Thanks for cooperating. Mhhutchins|talk 07:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd seen some that were over 150k so I thought it was more of a suggestion, but I did try to keep it very close to the 150k. And I've seen more than a few that were over 600 pixels long. If you want I can resize them again. I still have the original scans so it wouldn't be any trouble to do. Blargg 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The only ones over 150 KB which I've seen are for wraparound art, for which we make an exception. If there any that are not wraparound that just means I've missed them. I really shouldn't even have to look for them. We expect that once an editor is informed of the standards they should follow them. There is no pop-up warning for the image size, but there is one for the file size, and it shouldn't be ignored except for wraparound art. I will resize the ones over 150 KB. Mhhutchins|talk 14:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind redoing the work since I was the one that did it wrong. Just let me know. Blargg 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's all done. Kept my fingers busy while my ears were listening to a podcast. Mhhutchins|talk 04:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Blargg 16:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Replacing cover art files

If you're replacing a cover art file with a better scan, it's better to go that file's wiki page (click on the "ISFDB" link under the thumbnail image), and use the "Upload a new version of this file" function at the bottom of the page. (You will get a warning that the file exists, but you have the option to ignore the warning.) That way you don't have to update the publication record because the link to the cover image file remains the same. Be sure to clear your browser's cache (hit F5 on most keyboards) after uploading the new file. Otherwise you'll only see the old file and think it's not been replaced. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 19:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I had seen that and was at a loss as to what to do. So I had just started opting not to replace any more for fear of screwing up again. Thanks for the info! Blargg 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ISBN

Re this publication: You should give the form of the ISBN which is stated in the publication. If both are stated, only enter the ISBN-13. The system automatically displays both ISBNs based on the single ISBN which is entered, whether it is the ISBN-10 or the ISBN-13. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Same situation with this record. If you've entered both ISBNs in other records, please go back and correct them. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Done! I had seen other editions of the same book done that way so I was following suit, assuming [doh!] that that was common practice. Blargg 10:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, they're never "done that way", but they are displayed that way. If you look at the raw data (click on the "edit" link), you'll see that only one ISBN is given in the entry form. The system then creates the other ISBN and displays both. The first ISBN displayed is the stated one, and the second ISBN has been derived, thus it's bracketed. Mhhutchins|talk 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
AH HA! LOL Like I said...DOH! Blargg 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutron Star

I accepted the submission adding this record, but had to change the publisher to conform with ISFDB standards for this publisher. Also, you should have cloned another record which had the contents. Now you'll have to import the contents from another record (this one for example.) Keep this in mind when adding records for collections and anthologies for which there are already records having content records. Cloning will save you much time in these cases. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I TOTALLY forgot about cloning; I recall (now) bumping into that previously. I haven't been doing this for several months for health reasons so I've forgotten some things. Thanks for keeping me straight. I'm trying to get as many of my books done before my next surgery; I'll be out of pocket for 3 - 6 months with that one.Blargg 23:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish you a happy outcome for your surgery. And look forward to your return. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins|talk 23:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Page count field format

When giving a page count which included multiple forms of page numbering, don't leave spaces. So a page with 18 roman-numbered pages and 437 numbered pages would be entered as "xviii+437". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! Blargg 04:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Mote in God's Eye

I reused the cover scan that you uploaded for "The Mote in God's Eye" for one of my own pubs, thanks a lot! While working on this, I noticed that in this pub record that you verified you have a pub note that says "Cover art by Lee MacLeod". Did you know that there is dedicated database support for recording cover artists? Just edit the pub record and you will see a section titled "Cover art" slightly below the main bulk of the data entry fields. You should enter the name of the artist in this section, then remove the pub note. If you are unsure, check out my pub record of the same book to see how this is supposed to look. I'm not a moderator, by the way, just a fellow editor that tries to spread a bit of knowledge :-). Cheers & have fun editing, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I, uh...I knew that. (derp) Stupid mistake on my part. LOL Thanks for the heads up! Blargg 22:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Double star

Are you shure that the cover artist of this pub is really Vincent di Fate? Because in this pub the artist is not credited but the same cover. --Zapp 22:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because at the bottom edge of the cover, near the right corner, you can see (on the printed copy) "©V.DI FATE". As a point of comparison have a look at Revolt in 2100 and you will see identical artistic style. It's the same artist. Blargg 23:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Revolt in 2100", by Robert Heinlein

I added a cover artist to your verified publication, by comparison to other covers with the same art which had artist attributions. Chavey 01:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Blargg 02:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Conan of Aquilonia

Hi, I've imported content for your verified copy of Conan of Aquilonia.--Dirk P Broer 12:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just added a scan of that book cover if you are interested. Blargg 20:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Eldest

Hi, I filled in a couple of items in the TOC for this pub, if it's OK with you as primary verifier. Thanks. gzuckier 05:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fine, but you didn't state which pub you edited. Blargg 18:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Day after Tomorrow

Your entry http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?542273 is a possible duplication of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?308063. --Spacecow 16:40, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Blargg&oldid=588227"