EditBug:10091 Type field dropdown is inconsistent and EDITOR entries vanish

• EditBug:10091 Type field dropdown is inconsistent and EDITOR entries vanish OPEN From edit-pub when you do an [Add Title] the type field included EDITOR among the options. This type is not available if you just do an edit-pub and look at an existing content record. I had added contents to an anthology which happens to have two introductions. Usually for fields like the Type I hit the first letter and then look meaning on the first introduction I hit E, got ESSAY, and moved on to the second introduction where I hit E and did not look up meaning I did not notice it was on EDITOR instead of the assumed ESSAY. I entered the remaining titles, saved the publication and noticed the second introduction was missing. I still had the browser window open and so hit –back- so I could see if in fact I had entered the inro. Yep, but… in the Type field it says ANTHOLOGY. Hmm, that seems like an odd typo/mistake and so I hit –forward- to see the original XML blob where I see <cType>EDITOR</cType> which explained to me how I made the error.

I fiddled with the pubs Type field to get the missing title record to display without luck and eventually dealt with it via a title-search and from there doing an edit-title and changing the type.

The bug report would be that the type field dropdown contents are inconsistent. I’ll leave to you to decide if EDITOR should be added or removed. There may be a second bug in that the system allows you to enter EDITOR records but it’s then not clear where they get used in ISFDB. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:13, 20 Jan 2007 (CST)

Well, the logic works like this: There is no need for an EDITOR option on new publications, as it is automatically generated for magazines and shouldn't be used for other types of pubs (and in fact it was specifically removed as an option for new pubs as it generated confusion and served no useful purpose). I've left it on editpub because I actually use it quite a bit. Not every magazine has an EDITOR title record - these records were generated by hand in ISFDB1, so they didn't exist for the conversion to ISFDB2 (this forgetfullness is the primary reason that the records are now autogenerated).

We could do a database update, and insert EDITOR records for all magazines that don't currently have one, but that would still leave us with the case where it would be possible to delete an errant record (through rmtitles), but unable to add a record that was mistakenly deleted (or had its type changed).

I think the things that's missing is that one can change an existing title from an EDITOR to something else, but not the reverse (as indicated above). Alvonruff 05:52, 24 Jan 2007 (CST)