User talk:Faustus

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Faustus, 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!Kraang 00:11, 21 May 2022 (EDT)

HTML tags

Hello,

When adding notes in html format, make sure that the ul/li tags are properly arranged: I just approved a few of your later submissions and they are all missing the leading ul tag. :) Annie (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (EST)

To Annie

I'm sorry for all those mistakes. You're probably not used to dealing with someone as bewildered as myself. I didn't know I'd even been adding notes in hmtl format never mind jumbling up the togs whatever they are.

As I don't know my arse from my elbow I am going to knock the entries on the head before an irate mod boots me into touch.

Ps this is a lovely site and the mods and contributors do a very nice job.

All the best from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2022 (EST)

You are doing very well actually - these are normal mistakes when you are not used to the formatting and the way things work around here. You don’t need to use HTML but when an existing note already has html, it may confuse people when adding an extra note. Think of ul tags as brackets - if you open one, it needs to get closed (and if a closing one is there, you need an opening one at the top). The “make me an entry in this tag” li does not need a closing partner. So when you make lists, the tags go ul li li li /ul. If you want to nest lists inside of lists (you had a few of these), they will go ul li li ul li li /ul li /ul for example (with as many li as lines you want). Hope that helps a bit. You also can click edit on a publication where you like the formatting of the notes and copy and change the note from in there. :) Annie (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2022 (EST)

To Annie

Cheers for the ncouragement. You have the patience of a saint. I think I've got an small inkling about some of the stuff I was doing wrong. Having a shufti at the way the experts do it sounds like a good idea. I will print off this page and staple it to the curtains so I can keep an eye on it.

All the best from Gaz Faustus (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2022 (EST)

Dr Faustus: The A- and B- Texts (1604, 1616)

Hello again,

A book of two stories make a collection and not a chapbook unless the second story a bonus short story, poem or short serial installment, but only if the publication's title page lists only the main title and the main title's author(s) (See the help page here. So this one is a collection - both are listed after all :) In addition, when you have a generic title such as introduction, foreword and so on, always add the name of the title it belongs to in brackets. That way when you open someone's page, you won't end up seeing 100 essays called Introduction. I fixed both things in this one - let me know if you have any questions. :) Annie (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (EST)

Mission of Gravity

About your note here: Clone our record and create yours with your ISBN. I think that our record is a faulty mixed up record from Amazon but some more digging needs to be done just in case it is a different printing or something weird like that so just add your book and if you want, once yours is added, add a note in this one explaining the existence of the other record. Annie (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (EST)

The Gunslinger

A few notes about this one:

  • We have an import function. Look at the left menu when you have a publication open.
  • When adding pages, keep in mind that all of them go in order. In this case you had IX|1 and XIX|2 but also 1 in the stories. The result was that the site orders IX|1 and 1 as duplicates (so either can end up first depending on the default order), then the other of them and then XIX|2. In such cases the easiest way is to use |0.1, |0.2 and so on - this will put them at the top of the list :)

Let me know if you have any questions! Annie (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2022 (EST)

The Fabulous Clipjoint

When you add a page number such as "1|2", people tend to get very confused. So instead, use decimals :) i becomes i|0.1 and then the 1 can stand on its own. See how I did it here. I also fixed the introduction (as mentioned above).

PS: About your note: No need to apologize - people learn things by doing them multiple times :) Annie (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2022 (EST)

Cover Image Uploads

When using the "Upload new cover scan" option from a publication page, the software will automatically add an licensing template pre-populated with the publication information. In this case, you do not need to select a license under the "Licensing" pull down on the upload page (as it creates adds a second, incomplete template that needs to be cleaned up). The "Licensing" pull down only needs to be used when using the upload option from the wiki directly. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2023 (EST)

Got it, cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2023 (EST)

Deletion of May's The Golden Torc

Hi Faustus

I'm holding your edit to delete Julian May's The Golden Torc. There are a couple of problems with this edit. The most important one is that you didn't check with the active primary verifier (i.e. me) before attempting to delete the publication. Any substantive edit made to a publication that has active primary verifiers should be discussed with the verifiers before the edit is submitted. The second issue with this submission is why you chose this record, of the two supposed duplicates to delete. This record was created by me on 2020-10-05 by cloning one of the other records. At that time, the other publication record did not specify a printing number. This can be seen examining the edit history. The notes at the time I created the first publication only included "Month from amazon.uk." I suspect this record was originally meant to indicate the 1st Pan printing. It includes the British Library number and we know that the first Pan printing was also 1982 from the note in the 4th printing. Mavmaramis verified the second record in 2015 but did not expand the notes at that time. They ultimately added notes to the second record indicating that it was for the 4th printing on 2022-04-18. So now we have two records indicating a 4th Pan printing and no records for printings 1-3. There's a couple of questions that need to be answered here. Do we know which printing number the July 1982 date from Amazon.uk (which now reports Jan 1, 1982 for this ISBN) refers to? If it refers to the 4th printing, how do we know this? The month is not listed in the book. Depending on that, we can decide who should move their verification to the other record. I'm going to have a discussion with Mavmaramis so we can figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:41, 24 January 2023 (EST)

To Ron - Cheers m8 I'll do that in future. All the best from Gaz

White Jenna

Hi Faustus -

I'm holding your submission to clone Yolen's White Jenna to create a record for the second printing. I have a couple of questions. Your notes include "First mass market edition August 1990. [This Publication Record]." but also include "Second printing by number line." You also have the date as "1990-08-00". I think you should probably remove "[This Publication Record]". While I'm certain that "First mass market edition August 1990" appears on the copyright page, and technically this would be a second printing of the first edition, I think that "[This Publication Record]" will confuse people. My other concern is how you arrive at the date. Is there a notice that the second printing was made August, 1990? If not, we probably can't determine the actual date and it should be entered as "0000-00-00". Please let me know. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:55, 25 January 2023 (EST)

Spot on there mate it should be unknown date for 2nd printing. Cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2023 (EST)

I've approved the edit. You noted that you were planning to add a cover scan. You can make the changes to the date and the note in the same edit. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:20, 26 January 2023 (EST)

To Ron

ok mate I'll have a bash at that next time. Faustus (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2023 (EST)

Star Trek Log Three

I approved this submission. Would you mind double-checking the ISBN? You submitted '0552100459' which is invalid. Might it be '0552100455', which is a valid Corgi ISBN? Also, are you planing on providing a primary verification since you own the book? John Scifibones 14:37, 30 January 2023 (EST)

yes mate the number on the spine its 0 552 10045 9. On the copyright page it says 0 5521 10045 9 ie 11 digits. Does primary verification mean sending in the pictures with the numbers on? Cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2023 (EST)
Ive just seen the number is on the cover as well. Faustus (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2023 (EST)
To verify, go to the publication. Select 'Verify This Pub' from the 'Editing Tools:' navigation bar. In the upper section of the 'Verify Publication' page, the 'Permanent verification' should have the radio button marked. Select 'verify'. Your name will now show on the publication page under Primary Verifications. John Scifibones 15:53, 30 January 2023 (EST)

got it, All the best from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2023 (EST)

I updated your verified publication Star Trek Log Three by correcting the ISBN field. My source was WorldCat, notice I added another external id. I put my source note in the notes to moderator because I thought you would want to add it to pub notes in your own words. John Scifibones 10:53, 8 March 2024 (EST)
ok mate ive done it Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2024 (EST)

More Than Human

When you uploaded a new image to the previously linked Wiki page, it immediately replaced the prior image. Therefore this submission is not necessary and I rejected it. Let me know if you are satisfied with the result and I'll delete the old image to save space. John Scifibones 15:34, 2 February 2023 (EST)

Sorry mate didn't know that. Yeah go ahead with that. Cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (EST)

The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower

Don't forget to verify The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower since the source of your edit is the book. Thanks, John Scifibones 17:02, 6 February 2023 (EST)

Done it mate. Should I be doing that for every edit that a mod has ok'd as they're all from my own books. Faustus (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2023 (EST)
You should always provide a verification when the source of your edit is the actual book. You can also verify a publication record that you haven't edited if it agrees with your copy. Read this. Notice how we use colons to indent posts to a thread. It makes the threads much easier to follow. Thanks, John Scifibones 18:03, 6 February 2023 (EST)
Got it mate every days a school day. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2023 (EST)

Uploading images

Gaz, I approved your submission adding The Best of Saki. You have been uploading images and then including the links in your new publication submissions. Let me make a suggestion. Create the publication first. After approval, use the 'Upload new cover scan' on the newly created publication. This will automatically create the license tag with the publication information and fair use rationale. I have been adding the tags as I approve your submissions. See the tag information below the cover image?

Here is the related help. You have been using procedure 2 but only the first few steps. I'm asking you to use procedure 1. It will be easier for you and save time for the reviewer. Thanks, John Scifibones 21:01, 7 February 2023 (EST)

sorry mate I'll do that in future. Faustus (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2023 (EST)
No worries. Apologies for the bad link showing you the tag for 'The Best of Saki', it's fixed now. John Scifibones 22:12, 7 February 2023 (EST)

Best SF of the Year 15

Regarding this submission: I mistakenly hit approve on this one. The note has been moved from the pub note field to the title note field. This is because the note is applicable to both publications under that title and is relevant to the variant record. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2023 (EST)

cheers mate for putting that right. Faustus (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2023 (EST)

The Quantum Thief

Hi Faustus -

I approved your addition of The Quantum Thief. Your notes indicate both the first and the fourth printing. I expect you meant the fourth based on the date you supplied. Could you please take a look at the notes and adjust as necessary. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:59, 14 March 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate, done it Faustus (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (EDT)

John Gray o' Middleholm

I approved this submission adding the date of original publication. I massaged the note so it's clear to a casual observer where you got the information. Here is the updated title record. John Scifibones 17:20, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

cheers m8 Faustus (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

Matheson - I Am Legend

Hello Faustus, you uploaded a cover scan for this publication so I'm assuming you have that book. If so, could you please confirm that there is no Introduction or Afterword in it. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

no mate not a sausage Faustus (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2023 (EDT)
Great, no sausages! Thanks. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

The Revenger's Tragedy

Hi, and apologies that it has taken so long for someone to get to your The Revenger's Tragedy submission. I have placed it on hold. Can you explain what makes this speculative fiction? Thanks. --MartyD (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2023 (EDT)

hiya mate its non-supernatural horror if i remember right. The work's already in there under Cyril Tourneur but this book is under middletons name and most of the boffins think that he was the sick pervert responsible Faustus (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2023 (EDT)
Oh, I missed that. Ok, then following precedent, I accepted it. See here. But a chapbook needs to have a shortfiction content record for the actual story (an ISFDB chapbook is sort of like a one-story collection, although it's permitted to have supplementary material such as essay). So I added one and put it on p. 3 -- you'll need to correct that if it's a bad guess. With that much supplementary material, chapbook may be a bit of a stretch, but I don't have a better idea. I also made the Middleton-credited shortfiction title a variant of the Tourneur-credited title. We might want to swap those around at some point, but it doesn't seem clear that Middleton is the definitively accepted author, at least not yet. Feel free to take issue with anything I did and/or to raise discussions of any points on the community portal or moderator notice board. I won't be insulted! Thanks. --MartyD (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2023 (EDT)
cheers mate Ive changed that page number and everything else looks spot on. Ill remember that chapbook content info for next time Faustus (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2023 (EDT)

Paperview WitW

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5657835; Added the art you mentioned in your notes plus the cover by the same artist. --Username (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate i thought I'd knocked that one off back in january Faustus (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

Clean, Bright and Slightly Oiled

Hi Faustus. If this is one long piece of nonfiction than the nonfiction titles(chapter headings) will have to be moved into notes if there just chapter headings. If I make the title and publication both nonfiction it will not display correctly. What I can do is change the pub & title back to nonfiction & move all the chapter headings into notes, this will be quicker as a moderator. If this is what you want let me know. Thanks.Kraang (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2023 (EDT)

Hiya Mate can you not just delete them all as theyr just chapter names. I tried to do at first but it wasnt allowed. If not then im happy to go with your suggestion. Faustus (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2023 (EDT)
Best just put the chapter headings in notes. I'll do it now since I'll be away next week. Thanks.13:31, 20 May 2023 (EDT)
cheers mate Faustus (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2023 (EDT)

Other Worlds

Hello,

I rejected the creation of the variant - if it is approved but a book is not added, the title can be deleted based on the overnight reports (the report does not get worked daily - so sometimes books survive). The better order is to first add the book you want to add and then variant it where it belongs. I made the variant in this case once I approved the book. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks for adding the book. Annie (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

cheers i had a inkling there was summat not rite about that Faustus (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

The Monk

When adding page number to one element, you usually need to add pages to all of them (visible or hidden - the hidden are done by hiding them behind a | (so |10 for example). See this book now - the novel which does not have a page number floats to the top :) Annie (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

Im well flummoxed now Annie theres no poles or numbers in the page number box for the novel. Faustus (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2023 (EDT)
That's the point. If there are none, they go to the top of the list. You need to add a number to send it after the Introduction in the contents list. :) Annie (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2023 (EDT)
cheers you got us there in the end! Faustus (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2023 (EDT)
Things like 1|2 tend to be very confusing to editors and someone down the road will change that to something weird. So instead, use a decimal for the pages before 1 :) See how I did it here: vii|0.1. Achieves the same but without confusion. Thanks for updating it!
PS: If you own the book, you may want to verify it -- the link is on the left. That tells the next editor or visitor who sees the record that the book was updated from the actual book - and links you to the record so if there are questions about the book, people know who to ask. Annie (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (EDT)
thank you i think I have now officially explored every permutation of page numbering cock ups! Faustus (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

Raising the Stones

Hello. I got hold of a copy of this. Rear flap has "Jacket illustration by Mark Posen" - obviously a misprint for Mike (or Mick). Just a heads up incase you wanted to check your copy has the same. --Mavmaramis (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2023 (EDT)

mine's the same mate well spotted. Faustus (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2023 (EDT)

Knock Three-One-Two cover artist

I imported the 1960 Barye Phillips cover art title into the Bruin Books Knock Three-One-Two and added the note: "The cover reprints the Bantam edition's, with the Baryé signature removed." MOHearn (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate Faustus (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2023 (EDT)

Moore - Bring the Jubilee

Hello, I'm letting you know I'm adding the publisher Orion to your PV here. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (EDT)

rightho mate

Atomised

Hi Faustus

I'm about to approve your edit adding Houellebecq's Atomised. Regarding your question in the moderator notes, it is true that we can't make a title a variant of another variant. What you want to do here is to make your new title a variant of the parent title of the other variant, i.e. this title. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:46, 5 October 2023 (EDT)

cheers Ron will do it later on

Piped page number sort

Hi Faustus -

I've noticed that you have submitted a number of edits where you are adding a piped sort number to the page number field. e.g. here. That isn't necessary when the normal order of the page numbers will have things in the correct order, as it would have in the example given. Your edits will still display things in the correct order, but, aside from being unnecessary, could cause problems if new content needed to be added later, i.e. adding something between the two items you added in the example would require adjusting the existing item's page numbers. The piped sorts are useful when we have multiple items on the same page (1|1.1, 1|1.2), or when items appear in a region of unnumbered paged or when the page numbers restart in the middle of a book. I'm not going to correct the ones you've added, but you should refrain from using the piped sorts, except when it is necessary. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:14, 7 December 2023 (EST)

cheers ron the reason i did it was i thought it would actually make it easier if new stuff was added as if that was out of order they would all have to be piped anyway and if they were already piped then you could lube up the new one and slip it in with a decimal point number if itwas between n and n+1. Prob not making much sense but the upshot is ill follow your instructions as your the gaffer and you know what your talking about unlike yours truly. cheers mate from Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (EST)
I'm still seeing your edits added after the above discussion with piped sorts. The thing is that when the content has page numbers, there is no need for the piped sort operators. The software will put the items in page number order. You only need to add piped sorts if the items being added have no page numbers, or if the page numbering is restarted in the publication record. Neither of these apply to the magazines you've been working on. Going forward, please refrain from adding the piped sorts (unless it is actually needed). Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:10, 4 January 2024 (EST)
ok anything with a page number dont pipe, got that. the other bit about "if the page numbering is restarted in the publication record" havent a scooby what that means. best just to refrain totally presumably. Do you want me to delete the ones wating to be checked? Faustus (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2024 (EST)
An example of a publication that restarts the numbering would be this which has 3 volumes each numbered individually. Thus the contents in the first volume just have regular numbers without any piped sort. For the pages in volume 2, piped sorts are used to add 2000 to the page number i.e. page 3 in volume 2 is entered as "3|2003". Thus everything in volume 2 appears after the contents in volume 1, but also shows the page number as it appears in the book. No need to delete your pending edits. With the piped sorts, things do appear in the correct order. It just makes future edits more difficult as any content inserted has to take the piped sort into account, which would not ordinarily need to be done. The existing (and pending) piped sorts can be removed the next time those records are touched (if ever). Thanks and let me know if I can explain further. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:02, 4 January 2024 (EST)
cheers mate appreciate you explaining in detail this for us non-boffins. Ill have a good study of that before risking it again. "If in doubt leave the piping out" will be my watchword henceforth. Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2024 (EST)

Steel Magic

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?935566; All other credits on ISFDB for the artist are as Robin Jacques including several for other editions of this book with the same art. Is it really Jaques in your copy in which case a variant is needed or is it Jacques in which case a merge is needed? --Username (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (EST)

cheers mate - schoolboy mistake missing the C off, thanks for spotting it -you couldnt give us some more tips on how to fix it could you i don't want to make a horlix of it and get the mods twitchy Faustus (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (EST)
Ask on the moderator board, they'll help you, it'll be good to learn in case you have to do it again sometime. Also, I'd advise you to do so without the fake Cockney slang or whatever that is you're doing because people are having trouble figuring out what you're saying. I think it's horlicks, not horlix. --Username (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2023 (EST)
crikey your a little charmer no wonder your so popular with the mods. Says a lot about you that you didnt want to help with the edit but only too happy to lecture us on posting style. Incidentally born and bred in the durham coalfield (fake cockney lol)
Mods would better be able to explain the specifics of variants and merges than I would as a non-mod. I've fixed thousands and thousands of other editors' edits, both current ones and those who left long ago, so I have no problem helping. The problem is I can barely understand what you're saying and, as with one of your other responses to another editor that I saw recently, https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Hifrommike65#The_Year.27s_Best_Science_Fiction:_Volume_2, your rude reply calling them "lazy" and such caused them to remove their reply to you which is why your name is now in that message twice with nothing in between. You may really be from the UK but many of us are not so you should try to answer in plain English so we can understand you. You should also use proper capitalization, grammar, punctuation, and remember to sign your replies as you forgot to do for your last one. As I've said before, popularity doesn't matter; this isn't high school. --Username (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2023 (EST)
that chap deleted his post cos it was embarrasing. he read my polite request and then waited a fortnight before replying by saying he had 17 edits (gosh so many!) waiting for approval and he wasnt going to lift a finger until they were signed off. after i told him to stop behaving like a spoilt schoolboy he deleted his post and his pv. A back seat moderator whingeing about the backlog - remind you of anyone? Faustus (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (EST)
I tried to help you twice. Do whatever you want. --Username (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (EST)

Milton! Thou Shouldst Be Living at This Hour

I rejected this submission because I had already made the same edit when I came across your first submission regarding this title. That's also why you see a "forced" rejection for your edit removing the incorrect title. Your original note to mod didn't spur me to look at the submission queue for these two subsequent edits. Sorry. John Scifibones 13:08, 12 January 2024 (EST)

cheers mate thanks for explaining - Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2024 (EST)

Variants and flags

Hello,

When changing one of the flags (juvenile, non-genre, novelization, graphic) on a title such as here and the title has variants and/or parents, they all need to be changed manually. We do not do it automatically so that we do not propagate a mistake when one is made - that allows a second set of eyes while setting the remainder. I fixed the parent on this one but wanted to drop you a note for the future.

PS: Horror can be particularly hard to figure out until someone reads the book - and when someone adds from a list, we get a few non-genres. Thanks for updating this one. You may want to add a summary (you could not because you were updating the variant) or a note up on the parent level so people know why it is non-genre. Annie (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (EST)

cheers annie I Should have noticed that. I had a go at a synopsis once for a novel on LT and it ended up nearly as long as the book... Gaz Faustus (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2024 (EST)
Been there, done that with the summary. If not a summary, a note similar to what you had in the moderator note or with some other details to help understand why the flag was set. Also PV-ing (if you had not yet) the copy that you read is also useful so it is clear who can be asked for details eventually. Neither of these are mandatory of course - if you rather not, we are good. :) Annie (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2024 (EST)
ive done a quick note Annie hope thats sufficinet Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2024 (EST)
Oh theres another edit (5886294) with the pub details and I was going to pv it after that was signed off chhers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2024 (EST)
Approved both and edited the note a bit - technically being in the book does not make it eligible - it explains why it is added but the reason we keep it and mark is non-genre as opposed to just deleting it is because the author has a metric ton of genre stories (or so it seems) - so can be considered above threshold (if you squint really hard anyway). Keeping the "too close to call until read" in the DB makes sense but if you check the Rules of Acquisition, they are actually out unless they squeeze in under the threshold rule or the "published in a genre magazine" rule.
PS: I know you have a lot of pending - we had been somewhat short handed in the last months. I will see if I can get your queue cleared a bit tomorrow. Annie (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (EST)
got it. might be an idea to have a default setting of "undetermined" alongside genre and non-genre cos of the stacks of stories like that chaps currently labelled as genre which aren't because nobodys read them. annie mate dont worry about my pending pile I dont want to jump any queues - I partiularly don't want to be associated with certain elements here who whine about the backlog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faustus (talk • contribs) .
I "whine" about the backlog because most of the time the majority of the queue is made up of edits by me. The only time it's gone down to just a few hundred edits in recent memory is when I went on a "vacation" for a few weeks last fall and the mods were able to sort of catch up. It's easy to wait around for the mods to approve your edits when you only have a few handfuls of them pending but when, as of tonight, I have 1,600 of the 2,200 current edits in the queue, nearly 3 times all the other editors on this site combined, it starts to get annoying. But no worries, mate, checking the Top Contributors section, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/topcontrib.cgi, I see that I currently sit at 68,000+ edits approved (which doesn't include my first few weeks here when I would send in a lot of info but didn't know I was supposed to enter it myself so mods made their own edits based off of my info until one of them set me straight and I started doing my own, nor does it include the several hundred edits at least made based off of my messages on the boards to other editors who got credit because I had no interest in making those particular edits myself) in just a little over 3 years of editing which, as I've probably mentioned before, makes me the most prolific active living non-mod/non-self-approver editor in the nearly 20 years this site has been open to the public, not counting Fixer because that's a robot. The only one who may surpass me one day if they remain active is Swfritter but even that is unlikely because they don't seem to do much editing anymore. Not bad for someone with no bibliographic credentials at all who just stumbled on the fact, after using this site for years, that they let anyone edit here and started doing it as a way to pass the time productively during the pandemic. Probably the main reason I've kept forcing myself to keep going despite the backlogs and the unpleasantness from others here is because I know that after I'm gone for good it's very unlikely that anyone will take up the slack and do nearly as many edits as I do, specifically for older print books which are what I mostly edit since the majority of the editors, both new ones and ones who have been here for years, seem to not care much about those anymore and spend their time editing e-books and other ephemeral formats even though there is clearly a huge need for more editors working on print books judging by the fact that I have edited here nearly every day for more than 3 years and never run out of things to edit. I can only imagine how many thousands of edits more I would have done if I had ever campaigned to be a self-moderator and could approve the less complicated edits myself immediately without having to wait for mods to come back from vacation/get out of hospital/finish unpacking after a move/etc. but that would entail the kind of embarrassing sucking-up in order to get that status that I've seen way too many times and I'm not willing to do that. Many of the people who have been approved clearly should not have been based on the quality of their editing. I am a bit heartened by the fact that, after our recent chat, you do seem to have dropped some of the Brit slang and your messages are now mostly comprehensible to us Yanks but I still must remind you that if you ever hope to be a self-approver one day, which I'm guessing you do, you really need to improve your language skills. In your last message there are several words that should be capitalized, lots of missing punctuation, and at least one misspelled word. You also forgot to sign your message which you've been told to do but keep forgetting. If this was some social media site or something it wouldn't matter but the whole point of ISFDB is entering information accurately and I've had to do way too many edits cleaning up other editors' shoddy notes or wrong info they entered into a record. I may not always follow/understand the rules here about how exactly to enter things because many of the people who have been here much longer than me don't always, either, since so much of it is unclear, but one thing I know is I rarely see anyone correcting one of my edits for language-related reasons because I actually take pride in entering things properly and take the time to look over my edits after they're done to make sure everything looks right. OK, I think I've said more than enough so I'll sign off now. God Save the King. --Username (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2024 (EST)
Re: "language skills", some ISFDB editors use their smartphones to respond to Wiki messages. Unfortunately, smartphones still make typing long sentences challenging and their "autocorrect" features leave much to be desired. One of these days the technology will (hopefully) get there.
Re: becoming a self-approver, we have a list of Moderator Qualifications, but at this time we don't have a list of self-approver qualifications. Presumably it's a subset of Moderator Qualifications, but the specifics haven't been spelled out yet. Nominations are currently handled on a case-by-case basis. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2024 (EST)
Re: working on "older print books" vs. "editing e-books", different editors have different priorities and it's hard to tell which activities are more important. For example, back when the ISFDB database was converted from 1.0 to 2.0 (2004-2006), I had to make tens of thousands of edits to delete non-genre and non-fiction entries like comics, RPG games and other items which an early generation of ISFDB robots had carelessly added to the database before we had a moderation system in place. Was it more important than adding new content? It's hard to tell since both types of edits were important.
At the time, ebooks were still new and -- we thought -- too ephemeral to include in a bibliographic database. Over time it became clear that ebooks were here to stay and they slowly grew to be an important part of the field. The same things then happened with downloadable audio books and other formats. We had to constantly adjust our Project Scope Policy to reflect the changes and decide what was included and what was excluded, e.g. we decided that "readings, but not dramatizations" were included. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2024 (EST)

(unindent) The DB is slanted towards inclusion - if we are not sure it is ours, we add it and then deal with it when we know more. Undecided/undetermined sounds like a great idea but it will open the door for a lot more misreadings (as it is, we get enough submissions from people who think that the non-genre flag allows pretty much anything). So we keep it simple and just clean whatever needs cleaning. No worries about the rest and thanks for the understanding! Annie (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2024 (EST)

yes i can see the genre/non-genre issue is a tricky one. oh can you tell the gaffer that the zx81 keyboard is to blame for dodgy language skills not autocorrect. caps lock started playing up in 1987 and apostrophe is hit and hope at the best of times. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2024 (EST)

Impressions of Africa

About this one: If I approve it with the 0000-00-00 date, I will also have to add a 2011 book - because we do know that there is at least one there and 0000 titles are never fun. And Dalkey is a bit peculiar with their dating so your book is indistinguishable from the 2011 one - which makes it a bit of a problem for the DB. So how about I approve that one, change its date to 2011-00-00 with a source in Amazon.com and Amazon UK (different dates in both Amazons so using only the year) and Worldcat and leave your note that the book itself does not have a date. If it turns out that a real first edition has a date, we untangle these later. Any concerns with this approach? Annie (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2024 (EST)

its a while back but I think the plan was to have the title date as 2011 which is the date of the translation but i couldnt see how to do that seperately from the publication until its approved. also I never know what to enter for these print on demand books. do you put 0000-00-00 for the pub date or when it first becomes available ie 2011 for this one? Either way im happy with whatever you think is the right way to do it. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (EST)
Unless we know that the 2011 book was not POD, we simply use the first known date and add a note that it is a POD and unknown printing. Otherwise we need to date half the DB as 0000 :) Otherwise we add two records - one for the POD and one for the non-POD (Tor.com used to do that a lot on their novellas for example), with the POD one being 0000 and the other one carrying the actual date. I will approve it and adjust the date and the note. Annie (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2024 (EST)
And done. One more note - the translator can be added to the publication note but is always needed in the title note - I copied it there. That way we do not need to open each book separately to figure out which is which. I will let you make the parent here - let me know if you need assistance. Meanwhile the book is here. Annie (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2024 (EST)
sorry Annie I need assistance re "make the parent", not sure what I need to do ie make what the parent of what?
Go to the title record here and look at the left menu. Click on "Make This Title a Variant". Scroll to Option 2. Fill in the French title (Impressions d'Afrique), the French date (1910-00-00), change the language to French and I would also copy the note on the publication in the Notes field ("Originally published as Impressions d'Afrique by Alphonse Lemerre, Paris, in 1910"). Then submit. When approved, the French text will show up in the author list. We cannot use Alphonse Lemerre for the parent (if I understand your note correctly?) because all parents carry the canonical name. However, if you want to find the French book in BNF for example and add it, it will go under Alphonse Lemerre and then we will pseudonym and variant. Let me know if you would like to try or if you want me to. Annie (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2024 (EST)
got it. sorry that alphonse lemerre was the original publisher which is stated in the book, Ill change that so its not misleading. Faustus (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (EST)
Ah, that makes sense. So ignore the part about the author above (well, remember it for when you get an author with a pseudonym or where their name is different across languages). :) If the title was already here, we would have used Option 1 with its ID number. As it does not, you basically are creating it with Option 2 - then if you want to add the original edition from somewhere (BNF for example), you can do addPub. The other way, if you were adding the French book, would be to add both books and then connect the two titles. Technically, both ways work and require the same number of submissions and waiting times. Let me know if I can assist further and thanks for adding it again. :) Annie (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2024 (EST)

A Storm of Swords: One: Steel and Snow

Greetings, Are you planning on adding the titles mentioned in this note? 'Unnumbered pages before the start of the novel includes "A Note on Chronology" by the author and four maps signed by "R.G."' If not, there is no need for [12]. John Scifibones 15:16, 16 February 2024 (EST)

yes mate i'll add those bits and bobs. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2024 (EST)

Souvenir Playboy Book

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?959619; A few points about this. The blue-covered copy on this page, https://archive.org/search?query=playboy-book+suspense&sort=-addeddate, is the Souvenir edition and it has 405 pages, not 406, as does the original 1966 HC Playboy Press edition of which there are 2 copies on that page. Cover you added is actually the 1968 Playboy PB, seen on that page, which has a US price on it; this seems to be the right cover, https://www.biblio.com/book/playboy-book-crime-suspense/d/619855434, which is the same as the US HC judging from a photo on this page, https://reachareader.com/products/humor-and-satire-playboy-press. --Username (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2024 (EST)

dunno where the blue marbled boards come from, my copy has black boards with the playboy indetation at the bottom right the same as the third one. Youre right about the cover though - go ahead and change it Faustus (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2024 (EST)

The Nonborn King

Gaz, I approved this submission with this result. You don't put brackets around the content page numbers. From the help section under Regular Titles

  • Pages without a printed page number - For contents starting on pages which do not have a printed page number, the following rules apply.
  • Unnumbered pages within a range of numbered pages - Quite often in book publications and occasionally in magazines, the publisher/designer chooses not to print a number on the page on which a story, artwork, or essay begins. If the page is not numbered, and is within a range of numbered pages (i.e. the pages which follow the first numbered page within a publication), its page number can be derived from the nearest numbered page.

The only time you use brackets around a content title page number is when it falls in a range of unnumbered pages before page one. Let me know when you submit a correction and I'll approve it. Thanks, John Scifibones 13:54, 19 February 2024 (EST)

sorry john i just saw a couple of other pubs on that page that did it that way and went off that instead of having a proper read of the help page. Ill redo that one and remember for future jobs. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2024 (EST)
No apologies necessary. Whenever you see this problem, fix it or point it out. John Scifibones 14:58, 19 February 2024 (EST)
John i've been swotting up on the pages mullarkey and I think i redid that edit wrong again. Am i right in saying that the pages field should still have had the brackets ie 388+[5] with the page numbers of the extra content unbracketed? Faustus (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2024 (EST)
Yes, if 389 is the highest numbered page. I missed your change when I approved the initial correction. John Scifibones 17:33, 19 February 2024 (EST)
cheers mate i'll do it again. Faustus (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2024 (EST)

Continent

Gaz, Best First Novel for Continent? I approved the submission because it is listed here. You need to add an explanation or someone is sure to delete the note. John Scifibones 15:24, 21 February 2024 (EST)

sorry John, what do i need to do, say the whitbread award later changed its name to the Costa?
Explain why the award for 'Best First Novel' was awarded to a COLLECTION. John Scifibones 15:45, 21 February 2024 (EST)
got it mate, i'll bung something in about the judges not knowing their arses from their elbows (just kidding!)
Approved, John Scifibones 16:34, 21 February 2024 (EST)

The Claw of the Conciliator

Gaz, I'm holding this submission. You only need the "+[1]" if there is a title record for the "About the Author". John Scifibones 19:33, 23 February 2024 (EST)

sorry John i was led up the garden path by the existing note, that "about the author" page is neither here nor there the pages field should be just 301. ive cancelled it and will redo it cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2024 (EST)

Demons and Dreams: The Best Fantasy and Horror 1

Re: the note to moderator here. I recommend either of the following

  • A pub note "Published simultaneously with the hardcover".
  • Date change to 1989-04-13 and a pub note "Date from Amazon.co.uk 2024-02-25". (use the date you submit the edit) EDIT: or a different secondary source.

John Scifibones 12:23, 25 February 2024 (EST)

hiya John ive looked it up on locus and it says apr89 so I'll bung that in the notes. Faustus (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (EST)

Best New Horror 3

Gaz, I'm holding this edit to your verified publication Best New Horror 3. We don't throw away data unless it contradicts the publication. While the publication doesn't state the month, at least one secondary source does. Redo the submission. leave the month and add a note stating that the month of publication is from Amazon.co.uk. Cheers, John Scifibones 15:58, 1 March 2024 (EST)

And this one. Cite Locus if you prefer. John Scifibones 16:34, 1 March 2024 (EST)

No probs John i didn't know about that rule. theres probanly a few more in the queue so if you see them just chuck them in the bin and i'll redo them from there. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2024 (EST)
I'll hold any others I see, cancel them as you resubmit. The applicable help is the 3rd bullet point under General Publication Date Policy here.
  • "The base date optionally may be made more precise (e.g., supplying the month or day of publication) using information from a secondary source, if that source's date is otherwise consistent with publication's stated date. The source, and which details of the date were obtained from that source, must be recorded in the publication notes. See Secondary Sources of Dates.". John Scifibones 11:49, 2 March 2024 (EST)
i think theres something i'm not understanding here mate cos I only changed ones i was the only pv for, had no secondary verification and had nothing in the notes about the month. That being the case how can the existing date entry be valid? cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2024 (EST)

(unindent)
Example: Best New Horror 3 - resubmit this edit without changing the month and adding "Month of publication from Locus1" to your proposed notes.

  • Here is where Locus1 shows the October publishing date for the Robinson edition.

Does this help? John Scifibones 13:22, 2 March 2024 (EST)

i wasnt denying that locus or anywhere else might have the date just that as it stood I thought that pub date was invalid because whoever entered it didn't prvide any verification. I already redid the edit yesterday and just left the date unchanged ie with the month intact and month not stated in the notes. I'll try and find any more in the pile and tweak them in the same way. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2024 (EST)
Sorry, now I understand. I approved your new submission and tweaked the note. Now anyone who looks at this record knows Faustus verified everything except the month of publication. You will find many records where sources are not properly documented. Whenever you work on one, correct the fault. I'm not criticizing you. You're an active participant so I'm trying to make your edits as complete as possible. John Scifibones 14:03, 2 March 2024 (EST)
no probs mate the best way of learning stuff is thru criticism. I can read those help pages till the cows come home without it sticking but a ticking off from a mod can work wonders. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (EST)

A Game of Thrones

Re A Game of Thrones.

  1. I added pipes to the maps to put them in their proper position, the softwire interprets 1 & [1] as the same value.
  2. For content before page 1, you count the total number of pages starting from the beginning of the book. For example: If there are 6 pages before page 1, the pages field would be [6]+835+[19] and the maps would be [4] & [5].

The pipes would not change. No need "to retire...". You have the content after the last numbered pages down pat. Now you will have the content before page 1 handled properly. Without a doubt, this is one of the most mishacled concepts in the database. John Scifibones 12:18, 11 March 2024 (EDT)

Same here. If I come across more, I won't list them. Review subsequent approvals for the same problem. Thanks, John Scifibones 12:28, 11 March 2024 (EDT)
cheers John i'll sift thru the pending pile and try and catch any more and redo them. Ta for clarifying Re pt 2 i think that is something that could be cleared up in the help sections. The "counting additional content" only deals with stuff at the end of the book and it would be better if it had cases for the start as well. The "pages" section is a bit iffy as well where it says "There is no need to record these unnumbered pages if they contain no content that needs to be recorded" which could (and was by me) interpreted to mean dont include them in the number of pages as well as the content. Have unloaded the webley cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2024 (EDT)

The Waste Lands (interior art)

A whole pub interior art title takes it name from the publication. On the surface this submission is correct (variant's date is wrong). The problem is Linguist included the series in the publication title which flowed to both the cover art and interior art titles. However, the publication still uses the canonical NOVEL title record which doesn't include the series! I would contact him and ask if you can correct the publication title, cover art and author's note titles. Then you can delete your variant submission and just merge.

Project: This is not the only publication which should be changed. Take a look at the canonical NOVEL title record. Notice there are are many pubs using 'The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands'. I suspect they will have cover art and/or other content titles which will need to be changed. John Scifibones 18:54, 11 March 2024 (EDT)

ok mate i think ive got it, i'll give linguist a shout. i noticed that the int art entries are a right dogs breakfast - is it safe to assume that the int art is the same for all editions of the title? Cheers for suggesting that as a project (reloads the webley) - Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (EDT)
I approved your three submissions. You missed the cover art title, I changed it for you. You could have edited all four titles at once while editing the publication. Whenever a title record is only associated with one publication it can be edited from 'edit publication'. Merge as necessary and ping me. Let me know if you want to clean them all up, I have a couple suggestions. John Scifibones 16:22, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
every days a school day on here. Right i've merged the essays and int arts. The bob warner cover art has the same name as another one but theyre different works as can be seen from the cover scans so they cant be merged. This begs the question which i mentioned earlier re the interior art - how do we know if it's the same set of drawings in two different editions? I'll have a go at cleaning them up so long as you dont mind facepalming your way thru the submissions. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
Interior art is always the hardest. Subsequent printing can safely be merged. Different formats of the same edition can be merged. Checking with active verifiers can help. If you aren't reasonably sure, don't merge. Future/other editors may be able to shed some light.

(unindent) Project:

  1. You don't need to contact all the active verifiers. These are "housekeeping" edits. Just put "Removed series from publication and title records" in the note to mod field. Now when the PV's get a change notification, they won't have to hunt to see what you actually changed. Submit all your edits, ping me and I'll approve.
  2. Now submit your merges. Ping me and I'll approve.
  3. Identify any records which need "Do Not Merge" warnings. I'll help.

After we finish with this title, decide if you want to continue with the other titles in the series. Thanks for cleaning this up, John Scifibones 17:47, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

Brill - not having to ask the pvs makes it a lot easier, most of them are sweeties like linguist but you get the odd mr grumpypants... When you say ping you do you mean just leave a message here or on your page or summat else? Faustus (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
Here, I'm monitoring your talk page. John Scifibones 18:11, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
done "The waste Land" titles - none of the contents needed changing. Gaz Faustus (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
You missed the COVERART titles again. Changing the publication title doesn't flow to the publication type or cover art tittles. The only time they are connected is when creating a new publication. After they are created , you have to edit them separately. As I said above, if only one pub is associated you can change it in the edit pub screen, but you must scroll down and physically change it. Hope that makes sense. I went ahead and removed the series from the cover art titles. Go ahead and do step 2 and 3 above. John Scifibones 08:06, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
sorry mate I just forgot about the covers. Gaz Faustus (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
ive just seen some of the reviews have the series in the name - should I just leave those alone? Gaz Faustus (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
From the help section Reviews:
  • "Title - The title of the work being reviewed. If the review uses a non-canonical title which is already recorded in the ISFDB as a variant of the canonical title for this work, simply enter the title used in the review. If the review uses a title which differs from any of the known titles for this book, but which still serves to unambiguously identify the book (e.g. if the review has a misprint, or abbreviates the name of the book), then enter a corrected title, but make a note in the notes field for the publication that the review title was spelled incorrectly, and give the form of the title actually used in the review"
Remove the series from the reviews as well. John Scifibones 08:54, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
got it. here's another one - when you've got a case like the bob warner covers ie 2 different covers with the same name should you add a (1) and a (2) to the names to distinguish them? Faustus (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
Nope, we only do that with "generic" titles. This situation is number 3 above. We disambiguate real titles with notes. Take a look at what I did with the Bob Warner COVERART titles. John Scifibones 09:59, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
its a little goldmine this thread i'm printing all this off for reference. Theres the last review to be signed off and then I think that's the lot for this book? the others in the series should be a piece of piss after this (nervous chuckle) cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
Re: the reviews. Extracted from the above help "...but make a note in the notes field for the publication". Remember for future reference. You can let these stand as is. Well Done! John Scifibones 10:32, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
cheers mate i'm disgruntled I missed that, still its all grist to the mill Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2024 (EDT)

(undented) John Ive just done all the books for the first in the series (plus the coverart for a couple that were only in that pub). I thought i'd submit them to you before cracking on with the int art , reviews merging etc.

The Dark Tower

The Gunslinger

I have approved your publication level submissions. Go ahead with the title corrections. John Scifibones 07:42, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
John i thought i'd better have a chat about this before ploughing in. I'm trying to sort out Michael whelan's cover art for the gunslinger ie remove the series name. There's more than one which'll need the do not merge. that's ok but the earliest one - https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?381381 - has got a load of interior art variants with different names. do these need a name change as well. one of them with '88 in the name could be a variant of the other cover which was first seen on the 1988 editions and maybe should be moved to that title? Faustus (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
Don't rename any INTERIORART variants of a COVERART title. They are individual works usually titled as in the publication. Whole publication INTERIORART titles should have the series removed. When the variant is linked to the wrong parent title move it. 'Use Make this title a variant' and substitute the correct title number in section 1. John Scifibones 14:02, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
John I thinks thats the gunslinger ones done. i left the interiorart that may be variant of the wrong coverart as there isn't any proof. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
Approved, Well done Gaz. John Scifibones 12:07, 17 March 2024 (EDT)
cheers mate Faustus (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (EDT)

The Drawing of the Three

Easy one John, just 3 covers and a review to take the series out. Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2024 (EDT)

oops forgot about the actual book names, done them now Faustus (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (EDT)

Approved, John Scifibones 08:35, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Wizard and Glass

this one and the calla one done mate -Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Approved. John Scifibones 19:11, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Wolves of the Calla

Approved. John Scifibones 19:11, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Song of Susannah

just 6 more book names for the last 2 in the series - I think thats the lot mate Faustus (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (EDT)

Horror: 100 Best Books

Gaz, I'm holding this submission because you are trying to add REVIEW titles for non-genre titles. Non-genre titles are entered as ESSAY type. I usually spell out the reason in the title, although it is not mandatory. Some examples:

  • Review of the non-genre novel "title" by author.
  • Review of the film "title" by director.

I rejected this one. Cancel the held submission and resubmit without adding the REVIEW tiles. John Scifibones 10:34, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

ah that explains it. Ive cancelled the other one and ill redo it with just the page numbering. cheers from gaz Faustus (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
John should i change the titles the way you suggested? Faustus (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
If you look at the edit histories, you'll see that submissions changing to REVIEW type were allowed and then corrected, name changes were allowed and reverted (also in other pubs in this title). Let's leave it. John Scifibones 10:55, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

Content title page numbers

I saw this note to mod in one of your submissions. "extra content on unnumbered p567, scifibones said i should correct any case where the page numbers of content are bracketed except when they're at the start of the book." Your edit was correct and I approved it. Your explanation was not correct. The only time you have a bracketed page number, for for a content title, is when it occurs in an unnumbered section before page 1. You might have a novel which begin on page 13 with a content title beginning 5 pages earlier. The content page number 8 would be unbracketed because it is part of the main series. John Scifibones 12:43, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

P.S. In the submission referred to above, I suggest this note to mod "no bracket is necessary since the page number is a continuation of the main sequence" John Scifibones 13:02, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
ok mate, thats another one to print off. Faustus (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

Lort of the Flies review

Hi. I have your submission on hold because it's not clear to me what you want to achieve; do you mean to say that the review is wrongly attributed in your "Horror: 100 Best Books" publication, and should have been attributed to Joe Haldeman? If so, then you should change the review author into "Richard Christian Matheson (in error)" and variant that to Joe Haldeman (assuming Haldeman is the actual author?). And it should only be your publication record - unless you are 100% sure it pertains to all publications.
Or conversely, do you imply that it is a typo in the DB, and that Haldeman is correctly attributed as reviewer in the publication(s)? Either way, are you sure that the other publications have the same issue as your copy? I recommend checking with Rtrace & Mavmaramis - both contributors are active, so you should not have any trouble getting their input. Regards, MagicUnk (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2024 (EDT)

sorry for not being clearer about this. the db records are wrong and my edit is correcting it for the pub that i pv'd. The 53rd review (p117) is of "Lord of the Flies" and its written by joe haldeman not richard christian matheson. the 54th entry (p119) is of "I am legend" by Richard Matheson and that one is written by matheson jr. 2 of the publications have LOTF wrongly attributed and another 2 have the wrong LOTF and miss out the "i am legend " altogether. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (EDT)
There may be differences between the different editions. Hence, I've posted a request on the PV's of the other books to check & comment here. MagicUnk (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
Pointed to this discussion via my talk page so chiming in here. Can confirm 53red review (p.117) William Golding Lord of the Flies is by Joe Haldeman and 54th review (p.119) Richard Matheson I am Legend is by Richard Christian Matheson. Hope that helps. --Mavmaramis (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
The Credits in the 1998 Carroll & Graf are as Mavmaramis describes above for the limited Xanadu edition. I'm still confused as how the reviewers are credited in the Xanadu trade edition. If all copies have the reviewer of Lord of the Flies as Haldeman, then Gaz's edit is correct. If any of them credit the reviewer as Matheson, we're going to need variants. Also if any of them credit the reviewer of I Am Legend as "Richard Matheson, Jr." then we will need variants for that title. I too, hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:38, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
sorry chaps for any confusion when i said matheson jr was the reviewer of IAL - i didn't mean that's how it is in the book. "Richard Christian Matheson" is the name used in the bog standard xanadu edition. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

Vathek

I have both of your submissions [1], [2] on hold; could you confirm that the five title records you're adding are titled in the book exactly as you've submitted them here? ie each repeating "Appendix 1: Prefaces to Vathek"? If not, can you explain exactly how they are printed in the book? Thanks! MagicUnk (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2024 (EDT)

hiya mate yeah i wasn't sure how to do these (4 added 1 removed). In the book it has at the start of the section "Appendix I". underneath that it has "Prefaces to Vathek". underneath that it has "Henley's English translation, 1786" followed by the essay. after that it has "The French edition published at Lausanne, 1786" followed by that essay and the same format for the other two. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2024 (EDT)
I was afraid you'd say that. Don't know myself, so let's keep them as you submitted them for now, and add your explanation to the notes. Result here. MagicUnk (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
righto mate i'm happy. Faustus (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

Magazines yearly records

Hello,

When building a yearly record for a magazine, don't forget to change the date of the record to be just the year. I fixed it here post approval. Thanks for moving these specific issues notes down into the publication notes where they belong! :) Annie (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

hiya annie i just realised i'd forgotten to do that when your message popped up. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
No worries. It takes awhile for the pure muscle memory to start working well :) Annie (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
Gaz, you only need to rename and change the date for one editor title per year. Then merge the remaining titles into that one. I approved this submission for 1908. Now use advanced title search like this. Cancel the other three title edits before you complete this merge, otherwise they will become forced rejects. Repeat for the other years. Ask if you have questions. John Scifibones 17:57, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
cheers mate i had an inkling theres a better way but never thought of that. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
John for 1910 mergeing "Gunters" and "The New Magazine" gives a conflict for title and authors/editors. does this mean they have to be kept seperate? - Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
Don't merge the different titles. Merge the five 1910 "Gunter's Magazine" titles. I don't know these magazines. Why are you using the same series name for both? After you explain, I'll give you my recomendation. John Scifibones 18:47, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
same mag with changed names the gunter's mag series notes has all the palaver and a pending series edit puts the 3 differnet names together. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
Okay, merge the titles separately under Gunter's Magazine. After you have them all entered, we can revisit and see if one or more sub-series would be better.. John Scifibones 19:00, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
ive just had a shufti at the Astounding Analog change in 1960 and theyre merged as two seperate groups for the same year under the same series name so im thinking I can do the same for these? - Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2024 (EDT)

(unindent)
I have all the related submissions on hold. That was my initial thought. However, I'm now leaning towards a parent "Gunter's Magazine/The New Magazine/New Story Magazine" with 3 sub-series "Gunter's Magazine", "The New Magazine" & "New Story Magazine"? I'm okay with whichever you prefer. John Scifibones 19:33, 2 April 2024 (EDT)

ok mate Ill go down the subseries path. should we keep the series update as the top of the pyramid and cancel the others on hold and redo them? - Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
The easiest & cleanest method.
  1. Cancel the series update & and the two title updates.
  2. Edit Gunter's Magazine - Parent "Gunter's Magazine/The New Magazine/New Story Magazine"; Series Parent Position 1.
  3. Move the note to the new parent.
  4. Change the series for "The New Magazine" editor titles to "The New Magazine".
  5. Link the new series to the parent and put it in position 2.
  6. Link New Story Magazine to the parent in position 3.
I'll stay online if you're doing now. John Scifibones 20:15, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
I'm leaving it till tomorrow mate when i'm fresh and raring to go. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
If I'm not around, get a mod to approve #2 so you can submit all the rest except #5. See ya, John Scifibones 20:25, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
done step 2 mate - Gaz Faustus (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
Approved. John Scifibones 08:42, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
3 & 4 done. Theres a unrelated series called "The New Magazine" (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?28816) so will having 2 series with the same name cause problems. It only has one issue listed and it and its story arent on GC. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
Approved. I disambiguated the other series with the publisher. If these are non-genre pubs, don't forget to set the flag in the title records. John Scifibones 09:46, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
thats 5 & 6 done John. Good experience for me (printed it off for future reference). I will now give you a rest by focusing on adding new zealand prices to 70s paperbacks notes for a while. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2024 (EDT)

Novel titles in a periodical

Submission 1 and submission 2 each enter an issue of a periodical. Each issue contains the reprint of a novel. For some reason you treated the same situation differently between the two. #1 is correct and was approved. #2 is wrong and I'm holding it. Your notes to mod imply some doubt as to whether they are novels or novellas. If we treat them as novels in the ISFDB you must treat them the same in all situations. If you can show a title should be changed, then do so. FWIW, the Project Gutenberg Australia copy of "The Fourth Plague" was 56k+ on my word counter. John Scifibones 13:26, 4 April 2024 (EDT)

it wasn't done on a whim mate i just went off the help page where it says "typically you should enter SHORTFICTION for anything you are not certain is a novel." and i wasnt certain it was a novel. I could see it was on here as a novel but that doesn't mean what the mag printed was. It wasn't the same situation to me because Galactic central called this one a novella and the other one a novel. More than happy to cancel it and redo it because i wasn't sure if either of them were valid tbh. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2024 (EDT)
Wasn't banging on you. The help you cite would apply to a new title, these titles already exist. My point is we have to treat a given title consistently throughout the db. If FictionMags (GC) only printed part of the novel we would treat it as an excerpt; appending (excerpt) to the title and no length to the shortfiction. Sorry if I wasn't clear. P.S. I didn't want tot just reject the submission. John Scifibones 14:02, 4 April 2024 (EDT)
no probs mate i learn something new on here every day. cheers - Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2024 (EDT)
John do these "(Complete Novel)" serial title jobbies then have to be varianted to the novel title? Gaz Faustus (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2024 (EDT)
Absolutely, all SERIAL titles must be variants. John Scifibones 10:01, 5 April 2024 (EDT)

Burroughs / (A) Princess of Mars

I am editing and PVing A Princess of Mars and propose to:
1) Change title to "Princess of Mars" as per title page and do the varianting
2) Create coverart record "Princess of Mars" by Bruce Pennington (already credited in notes) and variant it to the existing coverart record "A Princess of Mars" by Bruce Pennington
3) Change the note "Nine digit ISBN" to "ISBN derived from 9 digit SBN". The current note gives the impression that the book is stating an invalid ISBN
4) Add a note that the Foreword on page 5 is "in universe" fiction and forms part of the novel (and thus should not appear in the Contents).
5) Add other minor pub notes; some minor corrections of typos
Is all this ok with you? Teallach (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (EDT)

I'm happy with all that mate but a bit puzzled abot number 4 as there's no foreword in the contents. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2024 (EDT)
Sorry that I was unclear about point 4. The clause in parenthesis was just to explain to you that the reason I want to add the pub note is to stop some editor coming along in the future and adding the Foreword to the Contents because he does not realise it is fictional. The actual wording of the pub note I intend to add is:
'Although the Foreword on pages 5-7 is signed by Burroughs, it is "in universe" fiction and forms part of the novel'.
Teallach (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
thats ok mate, i'm happy with all the changes. Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2024 (EDT)

Clone of A Song for Ella Grey

Hi Gaz -

I'm holding this submission which clones this publication record. While you've provided more detail, I don't really see a difference between the existing publication and your newly created one, i.e. same publisher, ISBN, date. Perhaps you intended to update the existing record rather than cloning, or am I missing something. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:45, 19 April 2024 (EDT)

hiya Ron i've seen a few ones like this where ive got hold of the book and it looks like might be the same as the one that somebodys got off amazon but the cover is different. Cos of that i didnt feel happy about just tampering with the one already there. is there a rule of thumb for cases like this? - Gaz Faustus (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2024 (EDT)
The current Amazon.uk image for this book is different than the one we have. If that image matches your copy, then I think you just update the record with the proper image in addition to your other changes. If yours is a third cover, then we can go ahead and create a new record. However, that would suggest that the existing record is likely for a reprint, and I would recommend changing the date of that one to 0000-00-00 and adding something like "assumed later printing as the cover does not match the first printing". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:42, 19 April 2024 (EDT)
that current cover u mention is the same as the one that i entered seperately for 1003565 for 8 quid. isn't the one already there likley to be the first printing picked up by that fixer thingy or whatever and the one i sent in a later printing?. i dont mind either way but useful to know for future editss. cheers - Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2024 (EDT)
another thought - could the original one be from before the book was published and when it came out it had a different cover. the cover from the book I was using has the same design but the colours are different and it has a different newspaper quote. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
I'm not sure. I've found this sale listing which describes the book as "first UK edition B Format (130 x 198 mm) paperback" and with a different cover than the one we have (color of the author's name, blurb from the Guardian vs the Independent). The notes in the edit for your copy also state that it's a first printing. Is yours perhaps a different size? Were there multiple TP editions? That seems unlikely as they all have the same ISBN. My current thoughts are that I'm highly suspicious of the cover with the Independent blurb and the author's name in white. A Google image search ("A Song for Ella Grey" "David Almond" Hodder) does not yield this cover. I'm going to update the image to one matching the one in that sale listing. I'll go ahead and approve your edit, but I'd recommend that you add notes to both records indicating that we're not sure which record is for the first printing. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:31, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
I also found this listing on eBay which has images of the back cover and copyright page. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:35, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
the books back in the library but i scanned the fc to add and its that one with the grauniad quote and red author name. i didnt measure it but it was the same size as most of the library books ie approx 200x130. I'll do the notes like you said. cheers mate - Gaz Faustus (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
mate Ive just seen that you added the guardian cover to the original book. doesnt that mean that theyre now duplicate entries? couuldnt that one be deleted and just put the cover in the new one and a note with the amazon date? Faustus (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
Sorry, I was confused. I was under the impression that your copy had the light blue cover that is the current Amazon cover (identical to your 10th printing). Yes those are now duplicates. I'll move the notes from the other record to your transient verification and delete the old record. I'm also going to go with the more exact date from Amazon. We generally do this as long as it doesn't conflict with the date listed in the book. I think that should make things correct. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:57, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
sorry Ron the confusion was prob due to my garbled posts last night after imbibing several jars of Batemans XXXB and therfore even more incoherent than ususal. cheers for sorting it out. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2024 (EDT)

Dent -> J. M. Dent

Hello Gaz, the title page for this pub might state the publisher as J. M Dent, not just as Dent. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2024 (EDT)

cheers mate, it just said "Dent" on the title page and i didnt know any better at the time. its actually J. M. Dent & Sons (44591) on the copyright page so ive changed it for that. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustus&oldid=684555"