Difference between revisions of "ISFDB talk:Help desk"

Revision as of 12:29, 27 October 2008

Help Desk Category - Is the Help Desk, a Help Page?

A question has been brought up about including (paraphrased) 'Non HELP: namespace' pages in Category:ISFDB_Help. Should pages without the 'HELP:' prefix be excluded from the Help Category? In most cases, that's an accurate line for 'In or out' decisions, but the purpose of Category:Categories in general is to guide people to the appropriate page. The first line on ISFDB:Help_desk is "This page is for questions about how to do something, either in the ISFDB or the ISFDB Wiki." If that's not a help page, then I don't know what is and I believe it should be included in Category:ISFDB_Help and now that I read it involves Wiki help, I think it should also be included in Category:Wiki_Help. Kevin 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This page is indeed for giving help to people, but to me a "help page" means a documentation or manual page, not an interactive page such as this one. I think the newly created Category:ISFDB_Help (which i agree is a good thing) should be limited to those pages in the Help namespace that explain how to work with the database proper. -DES ^Talk 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to create a Template:HelpHeader along the lines of Template:BioHeader (or Template:PublisherHeader) to provide a standard header for all such pages, and at the same time put them into this category (which would mean that the category name could be changed by one change in one place, if that ever seemed desirable.) -DES ^Talk 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here. The Help Desk should not be placed into the Help Pages category, for the very reason that he cites. If it must be categorized, then create a Community Portal category and place it along with the other pages linked from that page: moderator notification page, rules and standards discussions page, verification requests. In other words, areas for discussion. MHHutchins 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:ISFDB_Help is for getting people to the help. and as you said above "This page is indeed for giving help to people,..." As far as I can tell, your objection is that this page is not a static Help page. Do you also object to the link I added to the text of Category:ISFDB_Help that points directly at the Help Desk (with a brief explanation of what it is for)? Both objections (and I am assuming the second objection in addition to the first) are equivalent to objecting to having 911 or 999 mentioned in the phone book, since it's not a normal phone number. :D Kevin 18:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A category is for grouping things of the same sort together. The help desk is already linked from the Moderator noticeboard, and from at least two existing help pages. I think i would put a link to it from my proposed Template:HelpHeader so that it would be directly linked to from every static help page in Category:ISFDB_Help. But although this page is inded for giving help to people, it is a different sort of page from the help pages, and it gives peiople help in a different sort of way. That distintion is enough, IMO, to guide people to it by a different route. -DES ^Talk 22:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that static (mostly) help pages should be distinct from dynamic conversation pages. An INDEX to all the help pages could say "as a last resort, go and ask for new help on the Help desk" - but doing such probably reveals a fault in the help pages. Of which we have many, don't get me wrong - and they're poorly indexed, and "Category:" pages probably won't help anybody that goes to our main Wiki page and looks for help anyway. BLongley 22:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now created, and am in the process of applying Template:HelpHeader. Let me know what you think. I tend to agree that a mosre structured set of help indicies is probably more useful than catefories, but the categories can be useful, and cost little time or effort. -DES ^Talk 23:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I have no objections to putting a link on every page of the help section, with a disclaimer that you should read the help first. Also no objections to a Help Template. (As opposed to putting it once in a list and once at the top of that list with a disclaimer that you should read the help first). You guys do understand that you argued against including it, (I believe) for fear of overwhelming the page with lazy users (who will ask before reading), and now, you are putting it EVERYWHERE in ISFDB_Help... except the automatically generated list of help pages? I'm fine with your decision... anyone is welcome to revert my change, as long as you understand that you went from 2 links in my solution to 80 links in your solution. Kevin 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern was not to prevent people finding the Help desk, nor to avoid "overwhelming the page with lazy users", but to try to make the difference between the Help desk and the static manual-type help pages clearer. Perhaps this is not the way to do that. Nothing is grsven in stone. -DES ^Talk 01:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:HelpHeader for my comments there on the Header.Kevin 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :::::::See [[Template_talk:HelpHeader]] for my comments there on the Header.[[User:Kpulliam|Kevin]] 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
-== Ballantine Books --Forecast of Paperbacks ==
-I just acquired a copy of Chocky by John Wyndham. It had a folded page in the front with this. Ballantine Books (over) news of (in red border) (over) a review from a trade publication.... (over) Forecast of Paperbacks (over) (message body of) Science-Fiction (over) and Fantasy (over) February 26 (over) Chocky. John Wyndham. Ballantine (over) Books Original, $.75 (over) body of review not credited (review is newspaper size clip)(over) Publishers Weekly (spacing) January 29, 1968 (over) (new data which appears as done on typewriter) Chocky (over) John Wyndham (over) Publication date(colon) February 26, 1968 (over) Book Length(colon) 224 pp. (over) Price(colon) Paperbound Original - 75 cent symbol (over) No hardbound edition available.  (end of full typing paper message).
-Is this of use? Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-: let's see
-::{| border=1
-| align=center|Ballantine Books<br><span style="border: medium solid red">news of</span><br>a review from a trade publication....<br>Forecast of Paperbacks<br>(message body of) Science-Fiction<br>and Fantasy<br>February 26<br>Chocky. John Wyndham. Ballantine<br>Books Original, $.75<br>body of review not credited (review is newspaper size clip)<br>Publishers Weekly (spacing) January 29, 1968<br><font face="Courier">Chocky<br>John Wyndham<br>Publication date: February 26, 1968<br>Book Length: 224 pp.<br>Price: Paperbound Original - 75¢<br>No hardbound edition available.</font>
-|}
-:What I'd do is to edit this if needed and to copy/paste it into the Bibliographic comments for the publication.  From a bibliophile view it's interesting in that it shows how the advertising was done and also mentions what's probably the on-sale-by date and not the "publication" date. I assume your book is at {{p|CHOCKY1968}} and the bibliographic comments page is at [[Publication:CHOCKY1968]]. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 06:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
-::I lost my thoughts on this. I will do as you say. I do have a very 'Wild' thought. I wondered if this type of material was gathered into the old 'Microfiche' systems. I used a supply system that was still updating that kind of information ten years ago. Has the ISFDB contacted publishers for past information on publications that they may have stored? Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-== Temeraire Vol 1-3 Box Set With Bonus Poster (Mass Market Paperback) ==
-This [http://www.amazon.com/Temeraire-Vol-1-3-Bonus-Poster/dp/0345489241/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224417055&sr=8-2]  . I have no idea what this would really be called. Secondly does it have an ISFDB status. I have it, and was going to enter it by each book, as each has separate ISBN, the number lines are sequential and different, so they are for the book publications not the Box set. The set has a separate ISBN. Is this a variation of an omnibus. What do I do? Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 12:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-: I'd enter each book and an Omnibus for the Box set. If the box doesn't name the set, call it what you will: although as the Temeraire series continues, I'd probably keep some variation of "Vols 1-3" as part of the name in case 4-6 come out in the same way. The "Bonus Poster" I wouldn't mention but if you want to, leave it in notes. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 12:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-::While I wouldn't object to Bill's suggestion above, [[Help:Screen:EditPub#PubType]] does say:
-::<blockquote> ''A boxed set will typically contain books that have their own ISBNs. In such cases the boxed set is not of interest, as it is only a form of packaging; a note can be made in note field for the books contained in the boxed set, but the boxed set itself does not need a separate entity. If a boxed set or other packaging format does not have separately identifiable publications, however, then the whole package is an omnibus, anthology, or collection, as appropriate.''</blockquote>
-::Should we revise that? -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::Thanks greatly, I will enter the books separately and then note that each was connected by the ISBN & Box set presentation. Then if the issue comes up and the ISBN/Box set needs creation it will be easy. I would have thought it was more an issue for collectors than for this db. I appreciate the commentary as I now see this as clearly. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-::: I think I'd quite like to have an ISBN that really ''was'' used for SF content of some sort to be recorded here as an individual entry, even if the contents also have their own ISBNs. If the box has no ISBN (e.g. was just a shop assembling latest title with some other related titles they wanted to clear), I'm not interested in it. I'm not an expert in boxed sets by any means (I think I've acquired one in all my years) and I know that I've deleted "ISBN"ed items here that are actually display stands, mixed cases of variable books, etc, so I don't want people to let such stand unchallenged. But if an editor really has the books in an ISBNed case, and the case has a different ISBN to any of the contents, I think I'm in favour. I just don't trust many of our current entries for such - but if the only way I can get one of the contents is to buy the box-set, I'd occasionally be willing to do so, in which case such an ISBN might be useful. Not a big issue for me though as it's not yet happened. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 20:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::I have already added the contents, two were initials and one printing matched a verification by DES. I made no changes to that one, but did a Transient verification. The one thing that I learned was that the printings were not unique to the box set. Since the ISBN panel is printed, and not a glue on, I see no reason not to enter it and let it be evaluated for current practice. I bought the box set because Amazon gave a good discount. I will enter it in the morning. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::Well the box set is sitting awaiting your pleasure. I may have missed something as I got rushed at the end. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::: As I said elsewhere, it's possibly TOO much info! It's just a box, although as you point out, sometimes buying the box is a good idea. For the boxes, I'd be interested in changes of official price, maybe even in changes of art on the box. For the contents - I think you'll find them filled with any combination of printings they have to hand. After all, many box sets are of a set of books that came out over several months or years - so there may be a 17th printing of book 1, a 12th of book 2, a 3rd of book 3, a 1st of book 4: but as there's no guarantee of how they will ''fill'' them I don't think it's useful to say exactly which printings of each title was in it. If the constituent titles DO change (e.g. if they start putting books 2-5 in instead of 1-4) then we've probably proved the reason NOT to record such boxes - but I've not yet seen that with an ''ISBNed'' box. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::: I think help should change in the meantime, to capture the useful ISBNs: we just have to make sure that we're not entering "A random selection of four of Nora Roberts finest!" or such. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-== The Day It Rained Forever ==
-This. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?THDTRNDFRV1967]. Here is the first problem I match except 'Published in Penguin Books 1963'. Usuall format and Tuck's agrees 1963. Do I clone, in order to leave the possibility of a reprint 1967 (which Publication:THDTRNDFRV1967 (1967 date) supports),  or take it over. If I leave it, do I remove the firt printing? [[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-: I'd clone, and as the 1967 Penguin isn't verified and presumably you CAN verify the 1963 Penguin, I'd remove the "first printing" note from the 1967. Maybe poke Mike Hutchins as he Tuck-verified a 1967 I can't see in Tuck that should be there if it exists - but Tuck isn't perfect. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-Second problem, 'Dark they were, and Golden-Eyed'. Mine has no 'comma'. Do I delete the entry, re-enter it without the comma, and create a variant title? I lean to not, but noting it instead. [[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-: We have verified pubs with the comma. So it's fine to add the title without the comma (but it's still "They Were" rather than "they were" according to regularisation rules). If you suspect that they should ''all'' be without comma, call for a check on the verified ones before creating the variant - the comma-less one might be the canonical one. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-Third problem, 'The Smile', reads 'The Smile • [The Time Vault]' . The Time Vault is a Perry Rhodan magazine printing series. This reflects in other anthologies, collections. Also (Shock Short) from the same magazine series is doing that also. The Perry Rhodan series does NOT predate this story/collection and both come of as appearing ODD to me. Check this to see further complications. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?65AST1997]  . Look at page references 24, 36, 106, 139, 183, 232, & 298. Might have missed some.
-Ackermanthology is at least partially, maybe totally, derived from the Perry Rhodan printing but I chose it to show the greatest effect. When Perry Rhodan series is 'fixed' this format will predominate for this collection. I am fairly positive that this was not the intent of the editor. It might be good for Ackermanthology, but I question the format reference for 'The Day It Rained Forever'. [[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-: That does look wrong to me, and I can't see why "The Time Vault" series should exist. If a title can be in only one series (as is the current situation), that is not one I'd choose. Same with "Shock Short" - if somebody wants to create such series, please justify them on the Bibliographical Notes pages for such. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-::Yup, I ran into this issue a few day ago and was going to leave Bob a message. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?24685 "The Time Vault"] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?24668 "Shock Short"] are reprint series and were created by [User:Hall3730|Bob Hall] when he was working on ''Perry Rhodan''. They are essentially what we call "Publication series": the only reason they are even vaguely related is that Ackerman chose to reprint them in the same magazine. Putting them in the same series works well for magazine Essays, since they are rarely reprinted, but it doesn't work for reprinted fiction. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
-Not a problem, but please check for agreement that the 'Short story title' and 'Novel title' for "The Day It Rained Forever" seems to work perfectly. I did not expect that. Great work as far as I could see.
-: They work for me, if you mean that we haven't confused it with the novel by "Robert C. Lee". [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-Please advise to any other possible problems. Apologies and Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
-: My copy arrived today so I've taken the liberty of entering it {{P|THDTRNDFRV1963|name=here}}. I haven't created the variants yet, I'd like you to confirm that there's a hyphen in "Ice-Cream" in this edition. (You don't mention that difference above.) [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
-::I cloned it this morning, I was away yesterday. My clone is on hold and probably will mix everything up. I have 'The Wonderful Ice-Cream Suit' on contents page and page 37. The Tuck reference says Ice Cream on page 63. I missed that this morning. I only 'lucked' into this copy a week ago and will gladly transient this one. I left a message with Mike Hutchins this morning also. I am not a Bradbury fan, but $.025 is always a good pick up. My copy also has a 1 inch gouge chipped out on bottom spine. I was wondering if the Penguin number reprinted there. It also has nice little personal signature (not Bradbury) and September 1963, so I assume it was a gift. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
-::: Your Clone isn't actually on hold, it's just that as I've entered one copy and you've entered another it might be better to get a <b>third</b> view. Approving yours won't mix anything up, if the other moderators know that there are two versions to look at. We'll end up with one eventually, with the best of both submissions. And maybe others - I'm sure there's not just two copies in existence. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::I just do not want my entry to 'gum' things up. I actually love the idea of several people working on something as it is a 'more eyes' the better as far as I am concerned. More the Merrier. I love the visualization of the best product possible and care not a whit about verification coups. I still retain the wish we had multiple verifications, to provide greater cross coverage. I appreciate your help on this and everything else. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 22:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::Mike Hutchins deleted the 1967 version ( check information at his site under same header). His analysis is clear, but I can not transmit it clearly into a 'game plan' for working on the other issues of this book. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 13:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::::OK, added your notes to my edition {{P|THDTRNDFRV1963|name=here}}, created the variants, and verified it. I suppose the <i>dates</i> of the variants can still be argued about, as can the series entries. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Excellent job. I think it will get attention when later editions and variations turn up, but it should serve as an excellent base line, which is the primary need for the older versions to be. As for arguing the date thing, I understand I must accept 'work arounds', but if I do not object then people will think I agree with the situation. The 'series' entries I will get back to when I re-start my Perry Rhodan verifications. There are more than one issue with the 'mix-bag' PR magazine and translation novels that need airing. They do serve as a good lesson in being 'wary' of such creations. I believe only the 'Time Vault' still is there. I transient(v) it so if somewone has problems I can be in on the discussion. Thanks, greatly. Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::::: I've confirmed that Dark They Were has variants as I also own {{P|SSFRSPCDQC1972|S is for Space}}. It might be worth challenging  some of the verified variants, same with "Ice-Cream" versus "Ice Cream". I'm not keen on variants for mere punctuation differences but I must live with them for now. But my biggest issue is over Em-Dash versus En-Dash and such, the presence of a comma versus its absence might be useful so I live with that. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::::: Aside: "Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed" (maybe without a comma) was a major SF and film bookshop in London that I really miss - "Forbidden Planet" never really had the same "feel" about it, and I always feel a little bit teary when I get a book with a "Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed" price sticker on it. I really should go read the story sometime! [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::I have Classic Stories 2. This. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?CLSSCSTRSN0000]  . There is no dash in Ice Cream therefore the Ice-Cream is a variant in 'The Day it Rained Forever'. Obviously there is a comma in 'Dark They were, and Golden-Eyed'. I double checked both.
-::::::::Tuck, page 63, Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed ("The Naming of Names") is NOT the same story. I do not even think 'The Naming etc' is the basis, unless 'Dark They,etc' was a major re-write. I read 'The Naming' and skim read 'Dark They' to establish a non-relationship. Problem is this checking is going to create another help topic over "The Martian Chronicles" and you are knee-deep in it. You have created a variant title Bradbury avalanche. LOL
-::::::::Aside. Every time I see your British cover art I wish I could walk British streets. Your comment gave me a time displacement as I have a similar memory spurred when I open a paperback and see it stamped with Petaluma, California. I focus on the Petaluma immediately and travel thirty years back to an old corner book store stuffed with treasures. What memories. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
-== Excising a portion of a novel then publishing the excised portion as a novel ==
-The problem is this. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?QCKSLVRTHB2006] . creates this. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?927881]  . and it is an excisement of book 1 in volume 1 this. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?33345]  . The publisher has removed the book 1 kept the title added book 1 in this specifically (and in the seven following books of the three volumes of the series). My mind is roiling with when is a novel a novel. Is it just when a publisher says so or what?
-What I want to do is is change the contents line date for the excised 'new novel' to the original publication that the volume 1 had. 2003. This I am sure will raise a 'fuss' without some warning. As the paperback excisement retains the original copyright of 2003 then the material has not changed significantly, but it's presentation has. By adding the publication I get my needed title creation page and date for the excised novel, but if I leave the content at 2006 then it does not go back to the mother publication. (remember there are 7 more excisement novels not entered yet into the db, so the solution needs to work for all 8).
-My next 'fix-up' of this ugly drama is to make the current series 'The Baroque Cycle' into 'The Baroque Cycle (Volume presentations). This would allow me to create a new sub-series 'The Baroque Cycle (Book presentations) for the eight excised paperbacks.
-Upon knowing the approved method for this situation. I then wish to enter the seven other 'books' using the Amazon data and then trust it will then be understandable by future users. I am sure you have rules established to handle this but my mind has not been able to twist other things I have done to get this to reflect the facts. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 13:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
-== The Martian Chronicles / The Silver Locusts title variants ==
-In checking for verification 'The Martian Chronicles' and 'The Day It Rained Forever' for the possibility that one story was a variant of another I found a possible Variant Title avalanche awaiting. This concerns the headline titles. My copy of 'The Martian Chronicles' which I was checking to verify yesterday could/should easily be variant named with a date such as 2004-2005: The Naming of Names as was done here.  [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?THSLVRLCST0000]  . In fact except for the 'Prefactory Note' which I do not have it is the same. Mine is the 101st printing of 'The Martian Chronicles'. My inclination is to delete all the titles and import 'The Silver Locust' titles. Then delete the 'Prefactory note'. Page numbers may differ slightly. How say yea all. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 14:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Difference between revisions of "ISFDB talk:Help desk"

Revision as of 12:29, 27 October 2008

Archive

Help Desk Category - Is the Help Desk, a Help Page?

Navigation menu

Search