User talk:RandyStafford

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

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

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 02:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

War and the Weird

Hello, and thanks for submitting this item. I have put it on hold, since it seems to me that Forbes Phillips is the editor for this item, which we rather would categorize as a COLLECTION instead of as an ANTHOLOGY (see the definition of publication types). If he is the editor, we would attribute the publication (and the corresponding title) only to Hopkins. Waiting for your answer ... Stonecreek 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at this earlier, but didn't have time to complete it. I had the same confusion, but check out the Project Gutenberg edition. The title page is "BY FORBES PHILLIPS AND R. THURSTON HOPKINS" so the submitted credit is correct. The introduction is actually 7 separate essays. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will approve of the submission immediately. Many thanks! Stonecreek 19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
By ISFDB standards this should be classified as a COLLECTION, credited only to Hopkins. It has a 38 page introduction by Forbes Phillips and five stories by R. Thurston Hopkins totaling 133 pages. How could it possibly be considered an ANTHOLOGY ("A publication containing fiction by more than one author")? And the title of the introduction should be disambiguated. The notes are also too personal "I own etc." and contain a non-linked URL. Mhhutchins 05:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't fit our definition of a COLLECTION or an ANTHOLOGY. I don't care which, but I don't think we should be tossing away our principle of crediting works as they are credited in the publication. You're right the notes need cleaning up. I updated those, standardized the publisher, fixed the introduction title, added the cover image, and added the Project Gutenberg edition. Since the notes state one tale is non-genre, that should be removed, but not sure which one. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
How does it not fit our definition of COLLECTION? This publication clearly contains "two or more works of SHORTFICTION or POEMs by a single author or authors writing in collaboration..." Also, by the "title page principle" you cite, we should credit editors as authors of COLLECTIONs in publications which credit them on the title page. And we clearly don't. Mhhutchins 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a combination non-fiction & fiction book (Phillips' essays, though lumped under the heading "Introduction", are not an introduction to the stories, but rather a discussion of supernatural & war.). Phillips is a co-author of the book. Whether one (or both) of them edited it or a third party edited it is unknown, but Phillips' credit is as an author. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] It can't be both, and the standards state: "A book of fiction (NOVEL, COLLECTION, or ANTHOLOGY) containing a generous, but not predominate, amount of non-fiction, such as introductions, essays, and other non-fiction works, should not be typed as NONFICTION." It has a 38-page introduction (that's exactly what it is titled; whether it is or not is inconsequential) and 133 pages of fiction. That leaves COLLECTION as the only choice under the current standards. One thing it isn't is an ANTHOLOGY, because the fiction is by a single author. If you wish to further debate the standards this discussion should be on a community page and not this unfortunate newcomer's talk page. I'm out of here. Mhhutchins 00:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Er, I said I was fine with it being marked a collection. Nor was I debating the standards. I was making a comment about what the book was since you asked the question. Not debating how it fit into our classification scheme (which is inherently imperfect since it would be overwhelming to handle every combination). I assumed you would make the change since you were advocating for it. However, I will do it. You don't need to be so quick to jump to assumptions of conflict. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Expiration Date

Thank you very much for adding the contents of this anthology! Only Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens should have been entered as two separate authors Judith Reeves-Stevens and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, which I corrected for you. Thanks again! Stonecreek 03:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:RandyStafford&oldid=402996"