User talk:RLCalvin
Welcome!
Hello, RLCalvin, 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:
- Help pages
- What the ISFDB Wiki is for
- ISFDB FAQ
- Help:Screen:EditPub#General contents - Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents
- Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
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! -DES Talk 16:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Dates
FYI, Dates in the ISFDB must always be entered in the form YYYY-MM-DD. A form such as "2009 Winter" will not work, and will be saved as "0000-00-00". Our convention is that unknown days and months are entered as "00", and unknown years as "0000". Thus "2009 Winter" would be entered as "2009-00-00" or perhaps as, say "2009-11-00" if a month can be definately deternmined from other sources (which should be noted, if possible).
Our software and help is not always as obvious as we would like, it is entirely volunteer created. But see Help:Screen:EditPub for more on the formats various data fields require in our software. Thanks for your contributions. -DES Talk 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Publication notes
FYI, the "Publication:" pages on the wiki are generally used for notes on a specific publication, that is a specific printing of a book, or a specific issue of a magazine. Notes on magazines in general are placed on our "Magazine:" pages, and are linked to from the page Magazines which serves as an index to these pages. I have edited Publication:SFRRVWJPNH2006 so that it links to Magazine:SFRA Review where the relevant information is recorded. -DES Talk 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sixty Days and Counting
Are you entering from paper copies of SFRA review or the online ones? As the Rockwood review of "Sixty Days and Counting" seems to appear in 280 and 281 online. We'd want to record that fact, but the paper copies may differ? BLongley 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Dates again
I have four of your submissions temporarily on hold for the reasons listed above. I will try to fix them up for you so you will have examples to work from.--swfritter 15:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Issue #270
Applied the date 2004-10-00 to the publication. When the catalog ID is not an ISBN there needs to be an indication. Note that I have changed the value to "ISSN: 1068-395X". Reviews automatically link to the titles being reviewed if their is a lexical match between the title and the authors. When there is a difference the reviews have to be manually linked to the titles. Once we get some communication going that process can be discussed. Also, if you do not need the price you do not need to enter "N/A". A blank field presumes that the price is not known.--swfritter 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the price issue. There is a notation on the magazine wiki page that the issues are not for sale. We may also want to think about making such a notation in the publication notes for each issue. Such a notation could go in the price field but I think it is preferable to have valid prices in the price field.--swfritter 17:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Issue #269 fixed
See here.--swfritter 16:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
SFRA Review #250 rejected for a little while
I have rejected this submission and place the address of this talk page in the rejection hoping you will get here. Not to worry. I will re-enter the data and approve it. Thanks.--swfritter 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Various
Thanks for the welcomes.
In starting the entries for the SFRA Review, I followed the entry created by BLongley. S/He seems to be a moderator, so I tried to follow the example from the one entry for SFRA Review already created by BLongley. I will take note of the comments here on the talk page.
For all the issues I have entered so far, #250-287, I am working from a hard copy, not the online versions. I will be trying to get my hands on, even if only temporarily, issues prior to #250, which is as far back as I currently possess.
On Sixty Days and Counting, the exact same review DOES, in fact, appear in two consecutive issues of the Review. I wasn't sure if I should enter it twice.
Beginning Jan 2009, when the editorship of the Review was taken over by Karen Hellekson and Craig Jacobsen, they changed the dating system, not longer using the months (which, as you can see from the history, vary widely) to using the seasons. I will make the adjustments for all future issues. —The preceding unsigned comment added by RLCalvin (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 June 2009
- Welcome to the Wiki.
- BLongley (Bill) is indeed a moderator, and a fairly experienced one. Following his examples is not a bad idea, but when a bunch of entries for a given magazine is made, issues often become apparent that were not before.
- Please remember to sign your comments on wiki discussion pages, such as this one, with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert this to your user ID and a timestamp, or your prefered signature and a timestamp, if you set a signature in your wiuki preferences.
- If a review or indeed a story or other content appears in two or more publications, it should be entered in each. For fiction, a merge would be done, i'm not sure if reviews ought to be merged. See Help: How to merge titles for more on merges. -DES Talk 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Too late in this case, I've merged the reviews as they appeared to be identical (although I haven't done a word-for-word comparison.). It's not always safe to do so based on title and reviewer alone, one might be a mini-review and a fuller one comes later. But there are entire books of reviews that state they came from certain magazine columns and those are generally merged. BLongley 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Serendipitously, just this morning I encountered a review of the same title by the same reviewer published in consecutive issues of Fantasy Review. They are identical and I intend to merge them. I can't imagine any logical reason for not doing so. I've seen titles reviewed twice by the same author, but published in different publications, which I've chosen not to merge, as I wasn't in a position to compare the texts. MHHutchins 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- After two edit conflicts as the above entries were made. Looks like you are getting the grand welcome. Glad to hear from you. I have a number of your entries on Hold. I have starting fixing up some of your previously accepted entries. See what you think of what I have done to this pub. Again, welcome.--swfritter 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Serendipitously, just this morning I encountered a review of the same title by the same reviewer published in consecutive issues of Fantasy Review. They are identical and I intend to merge them. I can't imagine any logical reason for not doing so. I've seen titles reviewed twice by the same author, but published in different publications, which I've chosen not to merge, as I wasn't in a position to compare the texts. MHHutchins 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Too late in this case, I've merged the reviews as they appeared to be identical (although I haven't done a word-for-word comparison.). It's not always safe to do so based on title and reviewer alone, one might be a mini-review and a fuller one comes later. But there are entire books of reviews that state they came from certain magazine columns and those are generally merged. BLongley 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
All SFRA submitted issues are in the system
Unfortunately the ones I approved today are all dated 0000-00-00 and some of the reviews did not automatically link. I don't know how much of the clean-up, spruce-up work you want to do on these but I will give you the first shot. It will give you the chance to get a little editing practice. Thanks.--swfritter 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- The dates and links are all corrected and the pubs should be fairly consistent in content.--swfritter 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)