User talk:Kpulliam/Archives02

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Second 15 discussions moved here. Kevin 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Ballantine" to "New York: Ballantine Books"

Thanks for the Ringworld notes, but I can't support that sort of edit to the publisher. Someone (not me) has gone to a lot of effort in organising (still far too many, IMO) Ballantine imprints and not one of them includes the city. If you want to make it Ballantine Books and explain where Ballantine Books were in 1970, that's fine. If Ballantine suits better, add some notes there. If you really want to change all Ballantine Books to include the City, then convince us and we'll do mass updates. (Personally I can't see any reason to add 10 characters to every publication entry when the 10 characters can be entered ONCE on the Wiki page, or on the Publisher Notes if you need it in the database itself.) DO please have a look to see if one of the forms that already exists would do - if there's publisher notes or a Publisher Wiki page then that's an indication of current leanings, although NO publisher is yet fixed. But we've got over 5,000 Ballantine titles so far and changing them one by one is not a good plan. BLongley 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Noting the city may have value, but the place for it is IMO not in individual publication records, excpet where the city name is needed to disambiuguate two or more publishers with otherwise identical or very similar names. -DES Talk 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got no problems going with 'Ballentine Books'. I was just trying to update the publication so I could verify it and be consistent with the discussion above where I've stated that the city is important, and not just wasted ink on the page. kpulliam 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't say that the city is unimportant, but i do say that it is better noted once for each publisher record, not as part of the name of the publisher in each publication record. I also say that secondary bibliographic sources are known to be unreliable on this, and even primary verification from a book may not be as accurate as research into the corporate history of a publisher is. -DES Talk 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add such notes to the Publishers - I'm BEGGING people to add stuff to the publisher pages, or even just adding a note to any Publisher they think is worth keeping. The more info we can gather the faster we'll be able to separate the mixups, e.g. Magnum, and join the inaccurately separated, e.g. maybe Ballantine Del Rey and del Rey? BLongley 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In the case of this book, its a BB, Ballantine Books imprint. Del Rey isn't mentioned anywhere. So lets go with "Ballantine Books" kpulliam 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If I may step into the fray, I'd rather the city not be part of the publication field. There was a discussion awhile back about creating a new field for place of publication, but nothing ever came of it. I would ask kpulliam how he would enter a Bantam Books publication. Every Bantam pub I have show "New York Toronto London Sydney Auckland" as the place of publication. IMHO, only if there are two identical publishers should the city be added to disambiguate. MHHutchins 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'fray' was mostly archived earlier this evening, as a moot point. I seem to be in the minority. But to answer your question..I would probably say "New York, Toronto, London, Sydney, Auckland: Bantam". But to your comment about it being the same, if it's always the same, and it never changes, and if there were a set way to input it... and everyone input it the same way... what would it matter. But if it did change? and everyone was entering it the same way.. that change would immediately jump out.... Like the fact that my copy of Herbert's Hellstrom's Hive has a city line for Bantam of just 'New York, Toronto, London'. Things change. kpulliam 00:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There you've hit upon the crux of the matter. Not everyone is going to enter data from the exact publication in the exact same manner. That's why we've established standards (as nebulous as they may sometime seem.) But feel free to voice your opinion. Sometimes all it takes is one lone voice to make us realize the way things are being done isn't always the best way to do them. Keep us on our toes! MHHutchins 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
What's the line from the guy who argued for Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (instead of Earth Orbit Rendezvous)... "Somewhat as a voice in the wilderness..." (Spoiler: They went with Lunar Rendezvous) Sometimes it works.. sometimes it doesn't. kpulliam 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How long to wait for a response on a Verified Pub?

Is there a standard of how many months a user is inactive before you can change a verified pub without getting (or waiting on) a response? Thanks! kpulliam 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, I'd think a couple of weeks should be enough time for a response. If you've had no answer, and if you're editing from a pub in hand, you can submit the changes, and append a note to your original post about the edits you've made. There's nothing firm about this, but a simple explanation to a moderator should do the trick. MHHutchins 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I often just edit the page and leave the original verifier a note about what I fixed. If I'm adding additional data and am certain I have the same edition/printing as the verified copy. I try to document every single thing I'm changing so that if needed, the verifier can revert my changes. This is easier for moderators to do as the approval pages show a color coded before/after thing that shows the changes.
If I intend to "change" information rather than adding additional data then I proceed more cautiously though recently I updated a publication, notified the verifier, and in the ensuing discussion we discovered there were two different editions that we probably never would have spotted without a conversation as the first printing was a photographic reprint with blank pages between the stories and in a later printing they kept the page numbers exactly the same but added illustrations on the blank pages. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the verifier in this case is User:Unapersson who has not posted to the wiki since April, IIRC. Does that affect peopel's views of proper procedure? -DES Talk 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it would not change how I would handle it. There is no "proper procedure" but my thinking it's ok to update a verified publication record. Just leave a note on the verifier's talk page. Let's say the original verifier was correct and either the person updating the record has a different publication, misunderstood, something or made an error. In that case someone else will eventually come along, update the record, and hopefully when they go to leave a note they will see there already is one. I believe Al's working on a wiki-history like thing for publication records but until then we use the verifier's talk page. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My own take, if adding additional data or correcting very obvious errors there is no need for prior notification. I might note that the Help wiki might be a good place for such discussions. Since more people are likely to be watching that page it is likely that the responses will be quicker and also the information will be more accessible to editors that might have the same questions.--swfritter 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Making changes in a pub's content records

I noticed a submission that you made earlier today to this pub in which you changed the title or author credit for several of the stories within the anthology. I was going to place the submission on hold, but when I got back to it, I saw that another moderator, Marc Kupper, was working on it. It seems he accepted it, but had to revert most the changes that you made in order to maintain the integrity of the individual title records. This always tends to be a major stumbling block for new editors, so take a few moments to read this explanation of how you should go about editing a pub's contents. Perhaps when Marc gets a chance, he'll be able to explain the steps he had to go through to bring the pub back into shape. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - If it wasn't for bumping into things I wouldn't be sure I was going anywhere kpulliam 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The help you pointed me at talk about different titles. Is this also the correct method for 'unmasking' a pseudonym? Also, several of the 'edits' to titles are still there, such as the added dash in re-animator and the new 'The' in Seventh Victem. Did Marc maybe partially fix it, (did you?) or are there some edits that still need to be reverted? Also The Boehm seems to be broken as that pseudonym now links to nothing, even though it is showing up in the book bibliography and in Varley's bibliography (but not in the list of 'other names' at the top of his listing). kpulliam 03:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
He must have stopped in the middle of fixing it, because I can see several things that need to be corrected. Maybe it got late, or he some real life to attend to. Check back tomorrow to see if it's back in shape. The help page I pointed you to was only on how to make changes in a pub's contents. Making variants is another matter. I can't understand what happened to the Herb Boehm page. It should have pointed you back to John Varley's summary page, but it's mysteriously blank. Sheesh. Time to call out the CSI:ISFDB team! MHHutchins 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, it's time for me to call it a night too... and work awaits in not too many hours. All (most?) of my notes for that pub are in the Bib Notes, so I'll give it a few days to settle down and take another look at it. On a different note; is there anything other than the publisher change (which I think is settled above) holding up the Ringworld update? kpulliam 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bill Longley's placed a hold on the submission, so he must still have questions about the other changes. About the unnumbered pages, I don't think the ISFDB disallows their entry, but because your note points to something on one of the unnumbered pages, it doesn't hurt to include them in this case. The other change of "First Ballantine Printing" to "First Edition", is that how it's stated on the copyright page? Other than those two points, I don't see any other reason for Bill holding the submission. (Except that he's in the UK, and must have been in bed hours ago!) MHHutchins 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - we had dinner and a couple other interruptions and it turns out one of kpulliam's modifications brought up that ISFDB has the wrong data. Unfortunately, while kpulliam's update would have corrected the data it's possible publications have been verified using the wrong data meaning that needs to get sorted out. See ISFDB:Community_Portal#Who Goes There?. Other than Who Goes There? I believe Reel Future has been fixed up. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dancer from Atlantis

I approved your update to 167191 to change the pagination from 183 to [8]+183. That update reminds me that ISFDB's help is silent on this issue. Template:PublicationFields:Pages mentions roman+decimal but not the format you used. Do you know of of a bibliographic reference that defines/describes the pagination description formats? I've seen [8]+183 and generally understand it to mean there's eight unnumbered pages of material and that the story then starts on page 1 though sometimes the first few pages are not numbered and you need to count backwards to find page 1.

What I'd like to do is to update the help so that it mentions the [#]+# format but ideally that help would be based on an existing bibliographic reference rather than us inventing when [#]+# should be used. If you don't know of a reference that's fine and we'll just plow ahead with inventing our own rules. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I recall doing a google search on MARC tags several months ago and finding something that mentioned this form, and also that things like [1st Ed.] mean that it was deduced or infered that the pub was a First Edition, while 1st Ed. without the brackets meant that it was stated, and that in general things in brackets were in some sense "not explictly stated in the pub". I'll try to find that reference again. -DES Talk 18:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On a quick search, the best that I found was ISBD(G): General International Standard Bibliographic Description, where section 0.4.8 says "Square brackets enclose information found outside the prescribed sources of information and interpolations in the description (see 0.6, 0.10, 0.11)." -DES Talk 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm at work now and will look when I get home. But I swear I saw if HERE at ISFDB in a refernce to 'thats the way the LOC lists them' or something like that. kpulliam 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend a google search for "bracket unnumbered pages" I got numerous refernces and the gist is: each catlogue decides. kpulliam 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A CATALOGUE OF THE CORVEY MICROFICHE EDITION IN ENGLISH says "...full body-text pages are recorded in arabic. Any other paginated matter occurring within the text, such as prefaces, introductions, subscription lists, dedications, and so forth, are given in lower-case roman numerals. Whenever misnumbering has occurred or pages are unnumbered, the pagination is given in square <[ ]> brackets."
  • Query: Correct way to list pages in bibliography says "While "239 [11]" is not confusing in itself, I still think it imprecise, and we should, I think, put precision before concision. Suppose, for example, that there were a short book which had 52 numbered pages followed by 54 unnumbered - this, if given as "52 [54]", might confuse a reader into thinking that there was just one additional page, which has been misnumbered here 54 rather than 53. So, I would say that "52 [53-106]" is clearer .... I suggest that square brackets, used consistently, are better, because they are clearer and, once the rule that square brackets are always used for inferred/interpolated data (and nothing else) is understood (while italics are, obviously, used for other purposes, including the quasi-facsimile transcription of italics), there can be no confusion."
  • Maine InfoNet: Minerva Cataloging Manual: Chapter 8: Physical Description Area - MARC 300 Field says "Unnumbered pages containing significant information (for example an unnumbered index) are counted and the total given in square brackets. Disregard unnumbered sequences of inessential matter such as advertising, blank pages, etc."
  • "Physical Description Area" says "5B8.1. If unnumbered pages or leaves (printed, manuscript or blank) are not included in a sequence of pagination or foliation, count them according to the terms used to describe the rest of the music, or the part of the music, with which they are associated. In ambiguous cases count them as leaves when notation appears on one side only; otherwise count them as pages. Use arabic numerals within square brackets." (this seems to be a very music-specific set of cataloguing rules)
  • Canadian Children's Books:How to Interpret the Entries in this Catalogue says "If there is a sequential notation on any of the pages of a sequence, even if not on its first and last pages, the printed or hypothetical first and last page numbers are recorded without the use of brackets. Thus if the printed page numbers of a sequence begin with 9 and end with 276 but there are eight unnumbered pages preceding page 9 and one following page 276 (the first and final of these bearing a printed image of some kind), the pagination is recorded as '1-277'. If no printed sequential notation appears on any page of a sequence, the hypothetical pagination including the first and final printed pages is recorded in lower-case roman numerals in brackets, e.g. '[i- iii]'."
  • Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science says "unnumbered : A page or leaf (printed, manuscript, or blank) not included in a sequence of pagination or foliation. In library cataloging, unnumbered sequences are disregarded unless they constitute the whole or a substantial part of the publication, or unless the sequence includes pages or leaves referred to in a note. If the number of unnumbered pages or leaves is readily ascertainable, they are counted by the method used to describe the rest of the item and the exact number is recorded in the physical description area of the bibliographic record as an interpolation inside square brackets (example: [65] leaves). If the number is not readily ascertainable, the estimated number is given in arabic numerals preceded by ca. without square brackets (example: ca. 250 leaves). Unnumbered sequences of inessential matter (advertising, blank pages, etc.) are disregarded."
  • K-State Libraries: Cataloging & Serials: Monographs says "Edition statement (250) may or may not appear on a book. Look for the edition statement on the title page, title page verso, any page preceding the title page, the cover, or in the colophon. You may also find a statement of the edition somewhere else in the book. In this case, it must be in brackets in the 250 field." and "Imprint (260) information should be as shown on the title page, title page verso, any page preceding the title page, the cover, or in the colophon of the book. If imprint information is found elsewhere, it may still appear in the 260 field, but must be in brackets." and "Record [references to] unnumbered pages or leaves within brackets". However, this source does not support using square brackets in the actual page count field.
Additional sources support the bracket convention for various specific purposes, but several suggest that blank or insignificant unnumbered pages should be simply ignored, and there is some indication that at least some newer, computer-based standards, prefer a label such as "unnumbered" to the use of brackets.
In short, we can find reasonable support for using or not using this convention, and if we use it, creating our own precise guidelines for its use. -DES Talk 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is how I do it (and I don't contend in any way that it's the standard, whether here on the ISFDB or any other source). If a book is completely unpaginated, and the number of pages can be counted then the total number of pages is placed in brackets, such as this record. If a portion (containing pertinent material) of the book is unpaginated, then only the unpaginated part is in brackets, as in this record. I would have approved kpulliam's edit of a previous record only if the text started with page 1 and there is pertinent information to be recorded on unpaginated pages preceding page 1. Otherwise it appears that the book is actually 350 pages long. If the first numbered page is 9, then the editor would simply count backwards to find the page on which the pertinent material appears, such as I did in this record. It appears that the only reason kpulliam added these pages was so that he could note the page of the copyright notice in the pub's bibliographic comments page. If the unpaginated pages are part of the total 342 pages, then it's not a sufficient reason in my opinion. I would also note the librarians on OCLC (pretty much sticklers when it comes to things like this) all give the total page count for all Ballantine editions as 342. MHHutchins 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I did it for 'Dancer' was because I thought I saw something here that said I should, (and the text started on page 1). I admit there was nothing pertinent on the prior pages except perhaps the dedication and of course the title page. On Niven's Ringworld, there is pertinent information (in relation to identifying a first edition) and I think it should stay there. I'm happy to follow any standard, if a standard is defined. I would hope that the standard would allow some way to identify unnumbered pages, and I have ZERO problems with a standard that says 'Only do this if there is a reason to list this added information. BTW, My note above wasn't intedned to ask anyone to replicate the google search here. I was working form my cell phone and a little screen and a little keyboard made a more detailed response difficult (and doing it on a smoke break impossible). kpulliam 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I just realized I left a question unanswered. Nivens Ringworld.. the text of the story begins on page 1. The information on the pages [2] and [4] appears on an unnumbered page not included in the 342 count. I have seen paperbacks done both ways. kpulliam 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Taking into account your rationale for adding the unpaginated page count, I don't feel there is a compelling reason to do so. Calling attention to important information on the copyright page (or, in bibliographic terms, the title verso) doesn't warrant a designated page number. Just mention it in the notes, as that's what we've been doing (regarding printing and edition statements). If we follow that example, there are several thousand pub records that would have to be amended to conform to this precedent setting standard. And if the standard is added, I personally don't feel like responding to queries as to why my verified pubs don't include the unpaginated page count. :) MHHutchins 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I found it here Rules_and_standards_discussions#Unpaginated_pages_in_page_count kpulliam 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Devil Makes the Law

By changing the author(in title record) this will also change the author title in the Doubleday omnibus. The existing variant adds a bit more of a complication. Was the first appearance in the magazine Unknown authored as Anson MacDonald? Thanks.Kraang 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This title originally appeared under MacDonald. See a short discussion with Bill about this here. kpulliam 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll approve and fix the Doubleday omnibus that Bill refered to. Thanks!Kraang 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
DOH! I saw that, but it just didn't sink in that I needed to go fix that too... - Thanks! Kevin 02:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I approved the name change but the title is still a bit wrong. I'm going to leave it as it is and when Bill looks at the old backup he might see how it got into this state. It needs some unraveling and resorting.Kraang 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Uneasy Freehold by Macardle

I believe you were the submitter of this pub. (The reference to Bleiler78 was my clue.) If so, you may have missed this edition, which appears to be the same edition (and that I just verified through Tuck). MHHutchins 04:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me they are the same edition. Not sure why I didn't update the one that was already there... Feel free to merge the two Peter Davies editions. Looks like the only difference is your has price, and mine has note details. Kevin 04:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted a change to update the first Pub with my notes, and a second submission to delte the duplicate listing. Kevin 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. MHHutchins 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cover artist for Astounding Jan 1930

I rejected a couple of the Wesso 'make pseudonym' entries as per our discussion about determining canonical names. In this issue: does the credit include the artist's initials or only his last name? Also I changed the month to 1 in the same issue for both the mag and the contents. When the data was initially entered into the system for the magazines it was entered without the month data and often without defined story lengths. It has been a total pain which is made even worse because the variant title also has to be updated to be in sync with its pair. In this case I had to update the Meek variant with the pub date and the short story length. I might also note that, at least for Astounding/Analog, we have leaving out 'Editorial:' in the title part. The fact that it is an editorial can be indicated by adding the essay to the Editorial series for the magazine. See this issue for an example. I would also like to make sure that Bates actually signs the editorial as credited. If you have any questions let me know.--swfritter 14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's still up for discussion, please cancel my other two 'Make Psuedo' edits as well.Kevin 14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The contents pages for Vol. 1, No. 1. is uploaded here as Image:KWP_Example008.png. Wesso is credited as 'H. W. Wessolowski'. The Editorial Page is uploaded here as Image:KWP_Example009.png. The editorial page is signed by "--The Editor." So Bates does not put his name on the editorial, but he is on the masthead as 'Editor'. Thanks for catching those other errors. I was thinking of verifying the Feb. Issue this weekend so I will watch out for those same kinds of problems.Kevin 14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The editorial should be as signed on the page - The Editor. If you are absolutely positive that he wrote the editorial, which is probably true, The Editor should be treated as though it were a psuedonym. At the very least the notes should be modified to indicate that the editorial was signed by 'The Editor'.--swfritter 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

** Can Someone please reject my last three edits? **

I goofed I think in submitting the revised dates on Weird Tales. Kevin 22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Such a request is perhaps most likely to be noticved promptly on the Moderator noticeboard. -DES Talk 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! (And Noted) Kevin 02:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

JWCampbell Letters

I'm going to approve your edit adding contents to this pub, but have to change two of the content records that you listed the type as NONFICTION. They should typed as ESSAY. NONFICTION is used for long-form works, such as this book itself. Any contents are regarded as ESSAYS (unless they're stories!) The only time NONFICTION would be used as a content is if a nonfiction book is part of an omnibus with other works (whether fiction or nonfiction). Thanks. MHHutchins 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I just made a couple more changes. The "References" essay was removed because it's really just footnotes to the essay by Chapdelaine and Hay. I noted the extent of these references in the notes field. Also I added the credits for the interior art (one for each artist.) MHHutchins 04:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I know we had discussed adding the interior art credits, but when I did further reseach, only one of those artists had any prior reference in the ISFDB. Based on the Editpub help it said "If artwork illustrates a particular story, it should be included. If it does not, but is a significant piece of artwork, or is signed by or credited to a well known sf artist, then it should be included." And since frankly some of those bits of art are just doodles (though some could be considered significant, most appeared to be fanzine level work at best) I was going to sleep on it for a bit. But if you are ok with them being in I've got no complaints. Kevin 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ben Bova's Laugh Lines

I changed your submission for this pub to an omnibus, as it contains two full-length novels according to Amazon. MHHutchins 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct! The moment I saw what you wrote I remembered Bova saying that it had two novels in addition to several shorter works from when I read the preface, but I think this is a borderline case. It is not an omnibus of a series, nor is it an omnibus that limits itself to novel (or collection) length works, because it also includes 6 additional short fiction works. I belive it truely was intended as a 'Humor Collection' as opposed to an omnibus format. From the book introduction "So here's a hatful of stories that look at the funny side of the future: two full-length novels and six shorter works of science fiction. Most of these stories are based on people and situations that I have personally known, although the circumstances have obviously been altered." (I only have the ebook version, so I can't put page numbers in either). I can live with Omnibus if you still feel that way. Kevin 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
How About we put it as an O/2N/6SF? Can we mark Short Fiction with the Omnibus code?Kevin 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's going a bit too far, but it's possible to label the omnibus as "2N/6SF". In fact, I think you can place practically anything in that space. I'm not sure what you mean by "marking Short Fiction with the Omnibus code". Explain further please. MHHutchins 16:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is an example of O/1,2 and O/1N/2C in the EditPub Help. I was wondering if, since this Omnibus is a collection of 2 Novels and 6 short fiction items (Which if in a series display as [SF], like Collections display as [C]) would the omnibus code of "O/2N/6SF" be correct?Kevin 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it couldn't be done. I personally don't go to that extent when displaying an omnibus. Because the Help Page doesn't specifically frown upon that display, feel free to make the submission and I'll approve it. MHHutchins 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, 'The Great Moon Hoax or A Princess From Mars' appears as the short fiction title in the html version from Baen in both the TOC and on the story page. (I can't speak to the paper copy)Kevin 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I took my info from the OCLC record which didn't record the story with the subtitle, but they could be wrong. Maybe someone with a hardcopy will come along soon. MHHutchins 16:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would consider the ebook versions acceptable for everything except page numbers and Primary verification of the paper copy. Knowing now that your data came from a secondary source, I'm inclined to change the title to match the ebook. Kevin 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right. OCLC is a secondary source, but then so is the ebook. And I did state that OCLC could be wrong. Perhaps if we know that the ebook was scanned from the printed book then we can modify the printed book's record. (I'm so unfamiliar with ebooks that I might as well be living in the middle ages when monks copied books!) MHHutchins 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out the Baen website where the title has a subtitle. I guess the OCLC librarians were just lazy. I'll correct the listing. MHHutchins 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree as to the Ebook being a truely secondary source (at least the ones from Baen). They are produced at the same time, from the same electronic files which are used to generate the printed book. There might be minor differences between the print and the HTML (For instance, the HTML version has a TOC included, while the RTF version does not, so I cannot speak about the TOC in the print edition. I believe that the TOC is generated during the post processing 'after' these works separate in the workflow. But the texts themselves, outside of Title Page Layout and TOC should be exactly what goes to print. I would consider a Baen ebook as a 'primary' secondary source or perhaps a half-bother/cousin primary source. The only way that I would generally accept that the Ebook is incorrect would be to have a primary verification show something different. Any other source of information is an additional full step removed from the printed work.Kevin 21:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now, ebooks are a little to fluid in the publics mind for 'editions', and Baens (WONDERFUL) practice of providing 5 different electronic version at the same time (actually 2-3 weeks prior) to the printed version would overwhelm our sensibilities here. Otherwise I would feel just fine indexing every Book Baen has put out in the last 8 years with an additional 5 electonic publications, one for each format. I've been considering bringing up the issue of indexing a singular 'multiformat' publication for all those Baen works... but I Hadn't gotten around to it yet. The only sticking point is that these electronic editions share the ISBN with the HC edition (Or TP, or PB, whichever Baen printed first after December 1999). Thoughts? Kevin 21:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm so out of the loop when it comes to ebooks that I wouldn't be the person to ask. Post a comment on the Community Portal and see what kind of response you get. MHHutchins 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, when I purchase a baen ebook, I routinely enter it as a separate edition/printing of the title here, and mark it as primary verified. Look through the various baen books and you will find several done that way, for example 850998, GRNTVLLGZT2004, WHNTHTDRSC2008, and others. -DES Talk 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I invriably make one entry for all the Baen formats, just as I do for all the Project Gutenberg formats, of a given text. I didn't used to annotate the avaialble formats -- now I normally do. In fact most of the standards and practices noted on Publisher:Project Gutenberg I also apply to baen ebooks, except that I don't normally include a link to the Baen web site. I was entering the DOI for Baen ebooks in place of or in addition to the ISBN, but Baen stopped using it (and apparently never used it properly). -DES Talk 06:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

An exception to the add and drop method of changing contents

I forgot to mention (and perhaps it's on the help page, I'll check), but there is one exception to the add and drop method for changing contents in a pub. If you're absolutely certain that there are no other printings of this title you can change the title directly from the pub's edit page. In the case of the submission to change this pub, you can be certain that the reviews haven't been reprinted, so you could have changed those titles using the pub edit method. I'll go ahead and drop the incorrect titles from that issue. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just being safe after the fun with Reel Future.Kevin 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, better safe than sorry. MHHutchins 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Taylor's One Day on Mars

I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject your edit of this pub because you changed the title record to which the pub is "connected" and added a new title record content. Check out the "Title Reference" link in this pub's listing and you'll see it's already linked to the title by "Travis S. Taylor", which I think is what you were trying to do. Changing the author of the pub record doesn't change the author of the title record itself. Strange sounding, but that's how the database is structured. You can also change the title of the pub record without changing the title of the title record. Stranger sounding still. You can submit another edit of the pub, changing the title of the pub, changing the author of the pub, adding the cover artist and new cover image, but don't change the "Content" listing as it appears to be correct. If you wish, I can duplicate your rejected submission with these changes, and save you from doing it again. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: when linking to Amazon images remove "_SS500_" from the URL, leaving only one period before "jpg", otherwise the image has a white frame, making our thumbnail image even smaller. MHHutchins 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and No Thanks. I prefer to muddle through doing it right so I remember to (and how-to) do it correctly next time. Kevin 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Approved second submission. Looked fine. MHHutchins 18:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding Contents to an Anthology

I just approved your edit to Transhuman, but had to do some little fix-ups because of a "gotcha" in the ISFDB interface. I want you to know about it for future reference.

When you edit the publication record for an anthology (or collection) that has no contents recorded at all. There will usually be displayed a single group of fields in the "contents" section with the title and author blank, and the type of "Anthology". This is actually a placeholder for the record that links the publication to the proper title record, and i wish it either didn't display at all, or displayed with the title and author fields properly filled in, to help indicate what it is. In any case, you should not do anything with this sub-record. Leave it in the state you found it. Changing the type can mess up the pub-title link. Simply putting in an author and title will have no effect -- that info simply disappears for all practical purposes.

It is very tempting to enter the first content record -- often an introduction or other essay -- in that slot. Don't do it, click "add title" one more time instead. This is what you did, and it caused the data for the introduction to vanish. i have restored it. The results are here. Please double check them, and add page numbers if you can. Thanks again. -DES Talk 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's perfectly safe to use the blank record for an essay, it's NOT the one for the overall Anthology. (Unless Publication type and Title Type have got out of step, in which case call an expert.) What IS important is that you set the type to the proper one and not LEAVE it as Anthology which is what happened here:
<ContentTitle>
<cTitle>Introduction (Transhuman)</cTitle>
<cAuthors>Mark L. Van Name</cAuthors>
<cDate>2008-02-05</cDate>
<cType>ANTHOLOGY</cType>
</ContentTitle>
BLongley 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
My error, I thought doing that would cause problems also. I thought I remembered encountering such problems, but probably i was mixed up about what was actually going on. Thanks for your better info, Bill. -DES Talk 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for spotting, correcting, and showing me my error! Kevin 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wesso Make Psuedonyms

I rejected the two Wessolowski entries at the same time made [1] modified the specific works in question since the association may be lost otherwise. I did use Make Pseudonym since that cannot be reversed while making individual titles psuedonymous can be reversed.--swfritter 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Beholder's Eye and ebook pubs generally

You submited an edit to a pub of Beholder's Eye in an ebook format. The notes say "Although the eBooks seem to be created/distributed by eReader and/or Palm they are using a DAW ISBN." I rahter doubt that this was created by DAW. If in fact it was created by another firm, usinng a scan of the DAW pb, I would prefer to list as the publisher whoever created or published the ebook, just as we list PG as the publisher of their various ebooks. But I don't have the info to change this with accuracy? Do you? Do you agree with my general idea here? -DES Talk 14:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not review any details of this listing other than the change submitted where I sttampted to standardize the database entries for 'ebook' If I submitted an update here it was because it previously had 'eBook', 'e-book', 'e-Book' or something similar. I only updated the binding to 'ebook'. I can't speak to anything else on this work. But I agree that this pub is in error and your ideas above make sense. Kevin 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Unfortunately, I am not sure enough of the facts to make a change one way or the other. -DES Talk 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link to the ebook in question at ereader, the publisher/'Electronic Imprint' mentioned in the note. Ereader's site states DAW was the Publisher. Both the Ereader site, and Fictionwise (A sister company) routinely list the original publisher as the electronic publisher. This is a situation where an 'imprint' field would be mighty handy. Kevin 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)