User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 2009

Year's Best Fantasy & Horror 2007

Can you verify that the story "The Lineaments of Gratified Desire" on page 386 of this pub is by Ysabeau Wilce or Ysabeau S. Wilce? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll double check. It's a library book, so it may take me a couple of days. -- JLaTondre 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Ysabeau S. Wilce. Sorry about that. Can you fix it? --JLaTondre 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for double checking. MHHutchins 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy: The Best of the Year, 2007 Edition

I accepted your submission updating this pub, but had to revert the author credit for "The Lineaments of Gratified Desire" back to Ysabeau S. Wilce. You had removed the middle initial. Even if there is no middle initial in this one publication, you're changing every pub in which that story is published if you change the content record here. (And based on the above discussion about the same story, the "S." is used in all other publications.) Check out this page for help in changing a story in a collection or anthology. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The modifying of a collection resulting in modifications to all other records keeps confusing me. I'll try to keep that in mind.

I double checked this one and the index (which is what I was going by) says "Ysabeau Wilce", but then I just looked at the first page of the story and it says "Ysabeau S. Wilce". How are cases like that handled? Does the index or title page have supremacy? --JLaTondre 02:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The title page trumps any other credits: table of contents, dustjacket, book spine. That makes it easier since all of the other pubs have the middle initial, so we don't have to create a variant title. I'll change it. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've double checked it again and verified it. --JLaTondre 14:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Year's Best Fantasy & Horror 2007 minor changes

I corrected the page count for the Roman numbered pages, and added the Canadian price for this pub. Thanks. --Rtrace 12:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Year's Best Fantasy & Horror 2008

I had to reject the submission updating this pub because of an error which occurred when a content record belonging to the pub was changed between the time of the submission and the time of acceptance. This is a common mistake for new editors. It is best to wait for a pub update to be accepted before attempting to change any of the content records. You'll need to make another submission updating the pub. Sorry for the double work. MHHutchins 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error?

Hi, I suspect that cover artist Scott Altman here should be Scott Altmann Could you plese check? Cheers Jonschaper 05:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. It should be "Altmann". I've submitted an update. Thanks. --JLaTondre 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover merge - The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year Volume 2/Two

Hi, I've put on hold your submission to merge 874807 and 1062187. The covers themselves do not seem to have the same artwork, even though they are by the same artist. See THBSTSCNCF2008 and THBSTSCNCB2008. Would you explain a little more what you're trying to do with these? Thanks. --MartyD 13:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't think that through. I've canceled that submission & made another that just changes 874807 from "2" to "Two". --JLaTondre 13:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Date of "Xandulu"

Hi. I approved your merge of Xandulu, but it lost the month of publication. The lost date of 1934-05-00 seems to have come from the last installment of the serial (it was first published in three parts in Wonder Stories March - May 1934). This situation was recently discussed somewhere (which I now can't find), but no conclusion was reached about which date to use. Locus lists the first publication date as Mar 1934(+2), so I updated the title to use 1934-03-00 -- may as well match Locus -- instead of 1934-00-00 as your merge made it. Mostly FYI, although please let me know if you don't agree with this. Thanks. --MartyD 19:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The one pub had 1934-05 and the other 1934-00. I picked the -00 one as the -05 seemed "wrong" given there was a record for March. --JLaTondre 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I see several of your merges preserve later dates. Those are probably not the right ones to keep (although apologies in advance for a sweeping statement before investigating fully). In general, the variant titles should use the original publication date, not the date of the first publication in which the variant spelling/wording originally appeared. See the Date section of this help entry -- that thinking applies when choosing which date to keep when merging, too. Your merge of Wicker Wonderland kept the 1965 date and lost the 1964-03-00 date; I restored the earlier date (and added a note to the title about the source of the date). --MartyD 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Same related note. 'Fixed'/reversed the dates on six other submissions that wanted to merge to a later date. Dates in the same year, stick with the 'fuller' one. All the stories involved were from the 50s/60s when their original issue would have been in a magazine, so having the month is pretty standard. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in most of these cases, I was combing a variant title with an additional publication of that variant and I picked the date from the variant record. I was under the impression, based on the ISFDB's actual data, that a variant's date should be the first time the variant title was used. MartyD's link says otherwise. However, actual practice doesn't match that link. Looking at Keith Laumer, the majority of the variant titles (22 to 9) have a date later than the original. A sampling of other authors shows the same. I would note that Help:Screen:Title says, that for variants, the Title screen will list "the date of first publication under that variant title." To do that, the variant date would need be entered. So, the two help screens contradict each other and the ISFDB's standard practice doesn't match the direction you guys are giving me. Needless to say, I am confused... --JLaTondre 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The one case that was different, the one I mentioned on my talk page, was going to merge two pubs that turned out to be the same publication. "SF Published in 1968". One record had been made a variant but another record of the same pub existed. Instead of merging them with the later date and then having to delete one I deleted the unverified duplicate first and then made the verified one a variant. Seemed it was one less step, and to do it in the direction of the submission might have lost the verification (I'm not sure about that, which is why I went the way I did so that wouldn't disappear). Nothing done differently, or wrong, on your part, just one of those things that comes up when researching an edit. Keep asking questions! I've found (and been) fresh eyes see areas that need clarifying. The software/database has changed a lot in the last year and not all parts of it are on the same page, literally and figuratively. Hang in there, and we'll all help it get better. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's rather confusing. The original rationale for the "Variant Titles do not have separate dates" rule was the way the Publication Listing screen worked at the time. Consider, for example, this anthology. It reprints Richard Matheson's story which first appeared in 1951 as "Drink My Red Blood . . .". The anthology editors decided to use the title "Drink My Blood", a VT first used in 1968. The way the software works now, both 1951 and 1968 are displayed for the respective titles, so things are reasonably clear. However, back before this functionality was added, the date of the canonical title (which appears in parentheses) was not displayed, so the only date listed for the story was 1968, which was clearly misleading.

Thankfully, the software was changed earlier this year and I think one could argue that we should change Help to allow VTs to have separate dates. If we decide to do this, it wouldn't be hard to change all VT dates to match the date of the first Publication that they appeared in. Ahasuerus 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"VT" in Ahasuerus' comment above means "variant title". Took me a while to learn that bit of jargon.... :-) --MartyD 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To echo, yes, it is confusing. I've done exactly the same thing! Many others have been down this path.... What Bill and I have described to you here is the way it is currently supposed to be done most of the time: The date should be the first date of publication under any title. See, for example, this Help Desk entry. There are several reasons why practice deviates from this: (1) It's not obvious -- recording date of variation makes perfectly good sense. (2) Titles are created by the system when new publications are created, and those titles get the date of that publication; someone has to recognize the date should be something else, and a lot of times that research doesn't get done or doesn't turn up the earlier date. (3) Sometimes people just don't do what's supposed to be done, and no one notices. So one usually should be inclined when merging to keep the older or more precise date, unless there's evidence it is inappropriate or incorrect. Does that help any? --MartyD 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things extra murky, there are two times under current practice when the date of variation might be used: (1) For a novel-length work, the main title's date is the date of first BOOK publication. If the work was also published as a magazine serial, the variants representing the serial installments get their date of publication, even though they are then variants of the differently-dated title. (2) If there are also variations in the body of the work, THOSE variants should get the date of variation. Unfortunately, unless it's something like a translation from one language to another, it's often impossible to tell if that has occurred without having access to both publications. How's that for confusing? :-) --MartyD 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On a tangent from the details of dating above, I must say I should have started this whole section off by first thanking you for researching and doing all of those merges. All help cleaning up data is both sorely needed and greatly appreciated! --MartyD 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll switch to using the earlier date for variants. Thanks for the feedback. --JLaTondre 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Drowning City

Approved the submission creating [this] pub. A couple of tips/FYI. A map is entered as "Interiorart", available on the pull-down menu in the first field right of the date in the contents section. 99.9% of the time, the map is untitled, so the correct way to enter it is "Title of Book" (map), without the quotation marks. Sometimes, if there is a table of contents, there may be a listing titled "Map" in which case the way you entered it would be correct. I've adjusted the record so you can look at it. Just an FYI! Thanks for editing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

capitalization changes in The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year Volume One"

Hi. I regularlized the capitalization of your verified The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year Volume One (downcasing "and", "of", and "the") to match the title record. I made a matching change to the parenthetical on the introduction. Noticed it because someone cloned it. Looks like someone had adjusted the title record and just never did the same to the publication record.... No other changes to the data or contents. Thanks. --MartyD 13:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Serials should not be merged

Bicycle Built for Brew. From Help: "Serial installments of a work are always given the date of the magazine in which they appear even if the work has been published previously in book or serial form." Which would preclude merging the serial installments and would also mean that the dates of the serial in the UK versions should be changed. I actually think it makes sense to merge serials when it is highly likely that they are nearly verbatim reprints. If we do so in this case it needs to be profusely documented that a standard is being broken.--swfritter 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that. In this case, the page lengths are the same and the UK publication notes state "This is a reprint of most of the Nov. 1958 (US edition)" so I think they are indeed the same thing. However, I went ahead and self-canceled the submissions. --JLaTondre 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are probably identical or nearly so. I don't mind breaking the occasional rule; the only problem is that someone might follow such an example in an inappropriate situation. Thanks.--swfritter 15:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Simple Way - story length

Approved your merge including the change of the length from short story to novelette after checking the length in one of my pubs (about 9000 words). It is also important that all the canonical title and various variants match so I changed them. A number of the pubs in which the story appears are verified which complicates things a little. Most editors do not think the change significant enough to warrant pre-notification. I put a notice on the Community Portal.--swfritter 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --JLaTondre 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Story length of Seat of Judgment

Novelette was the story length you selected in the merge. All the other entries were short story and Contento so lists the story but your surmise was correct. Changed the title notes to so indicate. Normally when there are multiple other title entries with a different length it is probably best to go with them unless the change can be justified by an actual word count. I use a spreadsheet which I can use to select a fairly valid scientific sample. My sample count was actually 8700.--swfritter 16:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. --JLaTondre 17:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

HEMEAC as a variant of Hemeac

I am going to ask around and see if this should be a merge with HEMEAC as the title.--swfritter 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Both versions are in verified pubs. I did some web searching before submitting the variant and other sources also show the two publications having different capitalization. --JLaTondre 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

When you come to a decision on that one, here's another one to look at: .zipped vs. .ZIPPED. The same rationale should probably be applied to that one. --JLaTondre 17:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Contento lists it in uppercase in his mag index but lower case in his anthology index. I will merge it is uppercase because I have to assume there must have been a reason for Contento to have entered it that way; he may have fallen asleep when doing the anthology entry.--swfritter 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Date for The Art of Dying

Your submission changes the date of this story to 2007-10-00. Perhaps you meant to enter 1997?--swfritter 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Yes, 1997 was what I intended. I canceled it and resubmitted. Thanks for catching that. --JLaTondre 16:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a Christmas miracle! I don't know what prompted me to double-check.--swfritter 16:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Black-Out" v. "Blackout" in Planet Stories, Winter 1943

I'm holding your submission deleting "Black-Out" from this pub. The only source I have (Donald Day's index) lists the story as "Black-Out". What source gives the title as "Blackout"? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I based it on this. If you want to go with Day's index instead, that's fine with me. However, it shouldn't be in the publication as both "Black-Out" and "Blackout" as it is currently. --JLaTondre 20:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Until someone can verify the pub, we should go with a reliable source. In this case, Day seems to be more reliable of the two. I'll reject the submission and remove "Blackout" instead. Thanks for finding the error. MHHutchins 20:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wizards' World

I accepted the submission which replaced the note that I entered earlier today for this pub record ("Info from Locus1") with the more explicit info from the pub itself. Can I assume you have a copy of this pub, and that you will be marking it as primary verified? Thanks. MHHutchins 23:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I made another update to the notes and when that goes through, I'll verify it. --JLaTondre 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates for stories in SFWA European Hall of Fame

If these are the first English translations of the stories this pub the date should be the date this anthology was published. You can then create parent records of the original titles and their dates of publication. The English versions would not be considered reprints because this would be their first publication as such. The rules concerning dating a story from its original publication do not apply for first publications in English. For examples of how English translations of originally non-English titles, see how some of the stories are handled on one of the authors' summary page (Dunyach). I accepted the submission changing the dates, and will allow you to determine if parent records should be created. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll set them back. --JLaTondre 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)