Difference between revisions of "ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard"

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
<!-- End "Magic Word" section -->
 
<!-- End "Magic Word" section -->
 
{{Isfdb-general-header}}
 
{{Isfdb-general-header}}
 +
{{Shortcut3|shortcut1=ISFDB:MODNB|link1=ISFDB:MODNB|shortcut2=ISFDB:MODN|link2=ISFDB:MODN|shortcut3=MODN|link3=MODN}}
 
{{Isfdb-moderator-noticeboard-archives}}
 
{{Isfdb-moderator-noticeboard-archives}}
 
{{moderator-availability}}
 
{{moderator-availability}}
  
−
== Lewis and Maniacs ==
+
== SV removal ==
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?137888; I added the 1964 ed. of Two Thousand Maniacs! but trying to link it with editions already on ISFDB didn't work because I never understand exactly how varianting works, so I mentioned this on the boards; mod told me I almost got it right and fixed it so all editions were together. Now I see another mod approved an edit by someone else which separated them again. What's going on? --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:00, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
+
In the USD edition of {{P|290822|Dilvish, the Damned}} Reginald3 is correctly SV'd and numbered. In the {{P|10142|Canadian printing}} it has also been SV'd - wrongly. Could someone remove that and mark it N/A. Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 22:42, 1 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:With no answer within three days I played it safe and merged the titles again. If somebody thinks they should be separated, please tell so (and then maybe a moderator can add a note or do something about it). Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 10:44, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== adding a publication  ==
  
−
== Moderator available to approve a couple submissions? ==
+
Can a publication listing be added before the item is offered for sale? (i.e., I have obtained an ARC with all relevant info, but the book is not scheduled for publication for a couple more weeks) {{unsigned|Fabius}}
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5074862],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5074865],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5074930]. I appreciate it. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:23, 4 September 2021 (EDT)
+
: The short answer is "yes". To quote [[Help:Screen:NewPub]]:
−
:done. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:41, 4 September 2021 (EDT)
+
:* '''Future Publication Dates''' - ISFDB captures records for some publications that have been announced for release in the future.
−
::Just a couple more, please [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075071],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075073],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075074],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075192],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075258],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075275],[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075318].Thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:14, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
:** New publications announced for the near future (within the next 90 days) should be given that future publication date.
 +
:** Do not create records for newly announced publications scheduled for release more than 90 days into the future, as these plans often change.
 +
: [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 11:38, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: One small note to add - if you are working from an ARC, mention it in the notes (when we work from pre-release records, we note the date for example making it obvious that we are adding pre-publication). Things change between ARCs and the actual book occasionally so that will minimize the risk of us ending with two separate records downstream. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 12:42, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::: I have approved the New Award submissions. Just to be on the safe side, is [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/award_details.cgi?71207 this award] not title-based or do we need to create a title record? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:28, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Second set of eyes please. ==
  
−
::::The original publication of that title is in "The British Haiku Society 2020 Anthology". I haven't been able to find enough information to create a record. I submitted an entry to create a title record in the awards overview for the sake of completeness. The other three unprocessed submissions are the original source publications for the last three finalists. After those three are processed , I will submit edits to add the awards to the three titles. The awards will be announced any day now. One of the nominated poets reached out to me and asked that I complete the list. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 13:04, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
I've submitted a publication [[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5709664 deletion]] that I'd rather not self-approve as it involves someone else's entry and PV. Thank you in advance. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] ([[User talk:Holmesd|talk]]) 23:23, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::::: OK, everything has been approved and minor corrections (page numbers/capitalization) have been made. A few questions:
+
: After reviewing the data I agree that [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?483390 record 483390] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?556122 record 556122] apparently describe the same pub. I see that one of them has been verified by you and the other one by [[User:Don Erikson]], who has been inactive for the last 3+ years.
−
:::::: I think ""As soon as I could walk"" in "Cough Syrup Magazine, Spring 2020" should not have been changed.
 
−
:::::* In [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?855320 ''Rune, 2020''], is "How to Tidy the Asterids" spelled that way?
 
−
:::::: No. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075456 This] will fix it.
 
−
:::::* In [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?855321 ''Hallowscream, October 2020''], does "Home Sweet Home" have only one quote? And is "Sppoky Boi" spelled that way?
 
−
::::::Home Sweet Home should have no quote [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075458 Fix]. Yes "Sppoky Boi" is spelled that way.
 
−
::::: [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 17:12, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:::::: The three finalist awards are at the end of my submission queue. Thank you for taking care of this. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 17:43, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
: One way to handle this situation would be for you to delete "your" pub record, then to primary-verify Don's pub, thus keeping both primary verifications. Would that work for you? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 22:58, 4 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: An obvious approach. I reloaded the cover image as well. Will deleting a publication automatically get rid of the associated image? ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] ([[User talk:Holmesd|talk]]) 08:46, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::::::: Thanks for submitting the corrections! I have approved everything. Re: changing "As soon as I could walk" to "As soon As I could walk", [[Template:PublicationFields:Title]] says:
+
::: The only effect deleting the publication has on the wiki page is breaking the link back to the publication. I went ahead and deleted it, mod only function, since you reloaded the image and created a new wiki page. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:23, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
−
:::::::* all later words are capitalized except for "a", "an", "and", "at", "by", "for", "from", "in", "of", "on", "or", "the", "to", and "with"
 
−
::::::: which doesn't include the word "as". Also, I didn't think it was one of those titles that use all-lowercase because it includes two words with a capitalized first letter. Does this match your understanding? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:06, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:::::::: For stand alone titles, our case regularization standards are fine. For untitled poetry, particularly Haiku, Tanka, etc. I believe sentence case (capitalize the first word and proper nouns) is correct. However, most of what I see is to use all lower case. I think that's fine also. I have been thinking of bringing this up in the Rules and Standards Discussion page. The objection I have to the above mentioned title is that we are mixing both. By our present standards,  would it not be "As Soon As I Could Walk"? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:28, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== The Mouser Goes Below ==
  
−
::::::::: Oh, right, I completely missed the forest for the trees there. I'll head back to bed now :-) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:16, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Hello. After a long while, I have released this edit [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5374496] for other moderators to have a look. While Willem agrees it's a Novel rather than a Novella, I am not entirely comfortable with affecting the change. [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::::::::Regardless, I think it reflects well on us that you processed everything so quickly. We have posted the complete results before the SFPA has updated their website! [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:28, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
: Examining the text in my ebook collection, I see that the submitter is correct: it contains over 64.5K words. I would make it a NOVEL and leave a canned message on the primary verifiers' Talk pages. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 08:04, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== Dead User ==
+
PS. Real-life hasn't been nice to me the last couple of months, hence my absence from the site. Not sure when/if I will be back... Regards, [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?12066; he's Budwebster on his user board. --[[User:Username|Username]] 10:01, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
: Sorry to hear about the real life issues! Hopefully things will improve sooner rather than later. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 08:04, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: Done; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 11:19, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
+
:I've approved the change to NOVEL and fixed all the translations to be NOVEL types as well. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 14:37, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== Cold Dead Hands ==
+
== The Hollowing ==
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?324622; I did a major add/fix session a while ago for Robert Aickman's books, and today stumbled on a copy of his 2nd collection, Dark Entries, on Richard Dalby's site, which revealed the month it was published; that allowed me to fix date for the book and several stories in it. I decided to check Aickman's other books and found something odd, the 1993 reprint of Cold Hand in Mine by Lightyear Press. Cover is the same as original  Scribner's edition but didn't list Edward Gorey as cover artist so I added him, thinking I added another Gorey credit here since I added a bunch recently. However, always being suspicious, I looked closer and discovered that if you enlarge the Lightyear cover you can see an "RS" at bottom of spine, so editor just added Scribner's cover without making sure it was the right cover. Problem is they uploaded it to the Wiki so simply deleting it like an Amazon link or something won't work. Checking Lightyear's entries here, most of the covers are missing, many records have notes saying OCLC doesn't mention it, etc. It seems to be tied to Buccaneer Books in some way, so is probably an instant remainder type of publisher. So mods may wish to delete Aickman's image from the Wiki and determine if those records which have cover images also have the wrong cover and delete those, too. Searching for ISBN's on Google Images either brings up nothing or editions that clearly aren't Lightyear, so where the right covers can be found is unknown. --[[User:Username|Username]] 23:59, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Hello Mods. I have a question regarding [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?289319 this] publication. I made a note that the book has an appendix, which is an in-universe folk tale of Ryhope Wood by Goerg Huxley - i.e. it's fictional. The tale has a title and a note before it making it appear as if it is an out of universe (i.e. a 'real world') tale. Should I add this as content ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 02:07, 8 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== Canonical name edit ==
+
:I think your treatment is fine, unless we discover the same story ended up published elsewhere.  You might adjust the note to call out that it's a fictional appendix, and its credited author, "George Huxley" is an in-universe character.  If you did want to make a content entry for it, I think you'd need to title it something like: "<whatever> by George Huxley" and make the author credit be Robert Holdstock. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 07:46, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks. I'll leave it as is and amend the note per your suggestion. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 14:16, 11 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?163545 Jason Mccall] should be Jason McCall. Thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:13, 9 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Who to credit ? ==
−
: Is now. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:18, 9 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Huan Mee ==
+
Hello Mods. The can of worms of cover design vs cover photo opens again with the two Gollancz editions of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?102350 Trillion Year Spree]. I made a note for my trade paperback copy that it states "Jacket design by Don Macpherson (over) Jacket photograph by Peter Letts" on backcover. The hardback credits Macpherson wheres the trade paperback credits Letts. So which one of those two get's the cover art credit ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 15:38, 13 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Macpherson does not get a credit under any circumstances - designers never do. If the hardback only credits "cover: Macpherson", then I'd been inclined to add a "Macpherson  (in error)" credit and pseudonym to Letts thus allowing a variant cover and credits as per the books. As long as Letts photographs are on the cover and not the author photo of course. Alternatively, no credit for anyone and just notes (photographs are a bit of a gray area sometimes as Cover Artists but if you decide to credit -- it should be Letts). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 15:46, 13 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: Thanks Annie. Maybe you could tell Makwood that as I tried to ask him what his hardback copy said (ghaving quoted him what mine said). See [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Markwood#Trillion_Year_Spree here] where he states "So, you're saying the jacket front is a photograph, and not a graphic design? Doesn't appear that way to me". Gonna change the credit. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 00:46, 15 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?854886; I corrected a couple of dates for stories by this author who is actually 2 guys who wrote 100+ years ago; after approval I stumbled on the fact that an editor named Toff entered another story by them for a 2021 anthology, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?854886. Somebody asked him on his board about varianting stories with their original appearances but more than a week has gone by without a response. So if anyone wants to correct Huan Mee's story and variant names or dates...; also, there may be other stories in same anthology that need the same. --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:32, 10 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Brainchild ==
  
−
== Kudos to the moderators ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5716829; I added 2 ID and a note about page count but it insists that I did something with the title which I didn't. Why is that? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:53, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
I felt guilty, making hundreds of submissions while the queues were already piled up in the hundreds over the last couple of weeks. I see the queues are now down to double/single digits this morning. All this without a single plea for mercy, understanding or sympathy. To all the moderators grinding away at the queues, I salute you. (And feel a bit better about submitting another few dozen) ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 11:37, 11 September 2021 (EDT)
+
: Checking the raw database data, I see that the main ANTHOLOGY title has a page number, "|1", associated with it. It wasn't displayed when you edited the publication record because the "Page" field is grayed out and not editable for ANTHOLOGY (and other "container") titles. My first guess was that at one point this publication was a NOVEL or another non-container and the non-container title had "|1" assigned to it. Checking [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?297598 Edit History], I see that this pub did have its title type [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?3992773 changed to ANTHOLOGY on 2018-10-14], which suggests that my guess was correct.
  
−
== Jovanovich ==
+
: Once your submission is approved, the "|1" page number will disappear. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 16:54, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?850823; publisher's page says Jovanovich was added in 1970 and this 1963 book has an ISBN which didn't exist back then, so this is likely a post-60's printing. --[[User:Username|Username]] 15:37, 13 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Change required for variant name: Ren Qing -> Channing Ren ==
  
−
== Farrar ==
+
[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?366142 任青] is listed on the Hugo finalist list with the western name "Ren Qing".  When I added [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?959764 the tp pub that has their story], I noted that various sources reported them as Channing Ren.
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/note_search_results.cgi?OPERATOR=contains&NOTE_VALUE=straus+and+giroux; Publisher section has error wherever Giroux link appears, taking you to Young page instead. --[[User:Username|Username]] 16:59, 13 September 2021 (EDT)
+
I've now bought [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?960977 the ebook pub], and - Sod's Law - it turns out that Channing Ren is how they are listed in the actual antho, see [https://twitter.com/ErsatzCulture/status/1679946416830001154/photo/1 here].
  
−
== Whitney Award ==
+
Could someone update [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?366143 the Ren Qing author record] accordingly please?  Thanks [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 16:37, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
This is a non-genre award that often awards to genre works. You can read more about it here:
+
: Done. Also, as an FYI, changing the author name in the English Title record from "Ren Qing" to "Channing Ren" would have deleted the "Ren Qing" author record and created a new author record for "Channing Ren". The new author record would then need to be turned into an alternate name of "任青", but it could be done by a self-approver. Not a big deal, just something to keep in mind in the future. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
−
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Awards
+
:: Thanks; I did wonder if something like that was doable, but I thought better to just punt it here.
−
*https://whitneyawards.com/
+
:: There's another one coming down the line, which I've put off, because I spent a day trying to get my head round it, and trying to write it up to confirm (a) a consensus for that course of action, and (b) how exactly to tackle it, isn't something I'm relishing.  I don't think many westerners have realized there are 2 different Hugo finalists called [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?344566 杨枫] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?366182 杨枫(I)], and IMHO we probably have the disambiguations the wrong way round, as the former should probably be an alternate name for 天爵, who isn't in the database yet.  Something to look forward too... [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Here's the info for it:
+
== Wolfe - Der fünfte Kopf des Zerberus - novel and novella dating ==
−
*'''Short Name:''' Whitney
 
−
*'''Full Name:''' Whitney Award
 
−
*'''Awarded For:''' Novels by LDS authors
 
−
*'''Awarded By:''' Storymakers Conference
 
−
*'''Poll:''' No
 
−
*'''Covers more than just SF:''' Yes
 
−
*'''Webpages:''' see above
 
  
−
Nominations are from anyone. Once a work receives at least five nominations, the Whitney Awards Committee verifies eligibility and narrowing nominations to no more than five per category. An invitation-only group of authors, bookstore owners/managers, distributors, critics, and other industry professionals, collectively known as the Whitney Award Academy, then vote on the finalists.  
+
Whilst editing two of my own English language pubs of this title I noticed some dating which someone, hopefully, can clarify for me.
−
+
 
−
If the award is added, I will populate it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:31, 14 September 2021 (EDT)
+
There are two novella titles by different translators {{T|1582693|1974-11-00 trans. by Yoma Cap}} and {{T|1699730|1982-05-00 by Eva Malsch}}.
 +
 
 +
The novel {{T|1347139|1974-11-00 trans. by Yoma Cap}} dating looks ok as does the Eva Malsch translation but I don't see a 1974-11-00 Yoma Cap novella publication - only the {{P|414367|1984-04-00}} one as the first instance.
 +
 
 +
The note in the {{T|1957|1972-04-00}} novel title page refers to the German translations but doesn't help me.
 +
 
 +
So, do we treat the novel and the novella as having the same first instance date? Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: The sequence of events as I understand it is as follows:
 +
:* The novella version of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41405 "The Fifth Head of Cerberus"] was published in [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?25103 ''Orbit 10''] on 1972-02-16.
 +
:* The novella version became Part 1 of the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1957 novel version which used the same title], ''The Fifth Head of Cerberus'', and was first published on 1972-04-00.
 +
:* Both the novella version and the novel version were subsequently reprinted by various US/UK publishers.
 +
:* The second part of the novel version was later reprinted as a separate novelette [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?40602 ''"A Story" by John V. Marsch''] in a 1994-07-00 anthology. We have it dated "1994-07-00".
 +
:* Yoma Cap's first German translation of the novel version was published as [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1347139 ''Der fünfte Kopf des Zerberus''] in 1974-11-00.
 +
:* The first part of Yoma Cap's German translation (which corresponds to the novella version of "The Fifth Head of Cerberus") was [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1582693 reprinted in 1984 and then again in 2002]. The title date of this title is currently set to "1974-11-00" and matches the date of the first publication of the German ''novel''.
 +
:* The third (and final) part of the ''English'' novel hasn't been reprinted as a separate novella. However, the third part of Yoma Cap's ''German'' translation was published as [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1570793 "V. R. T.", a separate novella] on 1983-04-00. The title date of this title is currently set to "1983-04-00".
 +
 
 +
: The problem then is that we have an inconsistency. The separate English appearance of the second part, [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?40602 ''"A Story" by John V. Marsch''], is currently dated "1994-07-00" and matches the date of the anthology in which it appeared. Similarly, the separate German appearance of the third part, [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1570793 "V. R. T."], is dated 1983-04-00 and matches the date of the anthology in which it appeared. However, the separate German appearance of the novella version (which is the same as the first part of the novel), is dated "1974-11-00", when the novel translation appeared, as opposed to "1984-04-00", which is when the separate German version appeared.
 +
 
 +
: Based on the above, I would suggest changing the title date of the novella version of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1582693 "Der fünfte Kopf des Zerberus"] from 1974-11-00 to 1984-04-00. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks for taking such a careful look at this and your elegant answer. It resolves my uncertainty about novella/novel treatment and confirms where I thought the problem lay - your 6th bullet point homes in on that. I've submitted the change 1974-11-00 to 1984-04-00 as you've suggested :) Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::: The submission has been approved, thanks. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::Great! Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 19:44, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Mod Bob ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Template:Moderator-availability; Bob should be removed from the list. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 22:58, 15 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: Done, thanks. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 23:04, 15 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Elizabeth Spencer ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?131734; https://www.amazon.co.uk/Elizabeth-Spencer/e/B01MFH59N3; Last 2 stories are by a young lady with the same name. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:27, 15 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: It looks like Stonecreek has already changed their author from "Elizabeth Spencer" to "Elizabeth Spencer (I)". [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Yes, except he added her image to webpage field by mistake, so I've just moved it to the right field, pending approval. Also, the older Spencer has a photo under "Movies, TV and Bio" on Amazon but as usual with "S" URL photos like those ISFDB won't accept them with or without the trailing stuff before .jpg, giving an unsupported message. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:22, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::: Your submission is approved. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 20:08, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Image delete x2 ==
 +
 
 +
Could someone please delete the older images [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:THSHRNKNGM2014.jpg here] and [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:THSHRNKNGB2014.jpg here]. Uploaded by mistake. Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:Deleted as requested. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:36, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks John. Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 20:44, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Dawson ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1968198; I added link to Hodder and created a new record for Crowell, it's W. J. Dawson in both, author name neeeds changing. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:29, 27 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Pawsey ? Hayes ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5719001; I am not entering all of that info again just for a minor publisher name change so if someone knows how to preserve the one sentence in the publisher record then my edit can be un-rejected. Seems to me it would have made more sense to accept the edit and then cut-and-paste the sentence into the publisher record afterwards. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:53, 27 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: I first went to the publisher record and changed the name there.  Then that portion of your submission effectively became a no-up (changing the existing name to the same thing, so no publisher deletion), so I was able to un-reject it and approve it.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 10:05, 25 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Johnsgard ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5718012; I made another edit adding all info except name change, cover artists entered with alternate name for the man so after it's accepted that can be used as the parent, I guess. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:59, 27 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: Change made and submissions approved. Submit an edit to import the cover art credit into the tp and I'll approve it. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:18, 27 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== SJS ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=solomon+j&type=Name; 1 credit each for the last 2 guys, your decision which is parent and which is variant. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 17:23, 27 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
:[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?360672 Done]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:28, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Islands in the Sky cover art ==
 +
 
 +
Entry for cover art for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?652621 this] publication shows two different images, although the spacestation is the same the approaching rocket has been replaced by a boy on the 1984 edition - both images are by Peter Andrew Jones. Should the later edition's image not be seperated out and varianted ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 12:40, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: We variant for  author, title, language and title type (artwork & serials only). We do not variant for a difference in the artwork. It's the same and we merge or it isn't. The same meaning "all or part of one appears in the other". [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 13:47, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Alrighty. I only queried since there is a substantial difference between the one signed 'PAJ 80 Solar Wind' and the one signed 'PAJ 81' --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 15:15, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::: If you think they are different enough, you can unmerge them and add notes on the reasons for it. I think they fall under our "is contained in" or "is part of" rule so they are ok as they are but the rules in that area can be interpreted differently. As John mentioned, they cannot be variants though so the choice is between what we have now and 2 separate unconnected entries. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 15:21, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::It's fine. I made a note in regards to the difference on the publication, plus the difference is obvious when viewing the cover art entry. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 01:52, 29 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Matheson's Musings ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Zapp#Musings; Do mods agree that it should be changed to an essay? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 08:26, 31 July 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Author name change needed ==
 +
 
 +
The spelling for author LJ Cohen is currently "L. J. Cohen" [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?203069 sic]. Would a moderator please change it to her preferred spelling of "LJ Cohen"? That is the spelling she uses on her [https://www.ljcohen.net/ website] and which appears on the titles currently recorded in ISFDB. I think the current spelling is a holdover from old spelling rules. Thanks. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 08:22, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
: The rules are still valid especially because these are initials (so not really old spelling rules) - but they also allow for author's preference to take precedence. I've changed it and added a note on the page so someone does not "fix" it. As you are the only PV of any of her book I saw, consider this also a notification for the changed in your PVd book :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 13:24, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Thank you. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 16:54, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== (Slightly) clashing pending edits for author Juleen Brantingham ==
 +
 
 +
I just submitted [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5730414 5730414], but I get a yellow warning for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5730402 5730402] which makes a similar change.  My edit is a superset of the latter - adds a more details place of birth, obit link and expanded note - so could someone reject 5730402, or at least apply it before my edit 5730414 gets applied, so nothing gets lost?  Thanks [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 13:57, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Approved them in the correct sequence. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 14:22, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: Thanks! [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 15:17, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: Wow, that's a lot of speculative fiction categories for a non-genre award! I guess it just goes to show how popular speculative fiction is these days. (No objections on my side.) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:42, 14 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Horus ==
−
::I think they created them because specfic was overwhelming the regular categories. (^_^) ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:51, 14 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::: [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/awardtype.cgi?93 And done]. In the future, we may want to post proposed additions to the Award Type list on the Community Portal. This one was pretty straightforward, but there may be cases where non-moderators may have additional insight into award eligibility. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 08:30, 16 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5722514; Can someone change the publisher to Horus Publishing? After that's done will that lead to unrejecting my edit? Because I've done hundreds since then and it's kind of hard to remember what I did for a single edit days or weeks ago. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:03, 2 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
: All good now. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:27, 4 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::::Okay, these are all entered through 2020. The 2021 awards haven't been given out yet. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:08, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== The Architecture of Desire ==
  
−
== Fetching the Dead ==
+
Entry for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1518517 this] cover art has combined three entirely different pieces of art by Chris Brown. Note that [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/0/0e/BKTG04149.jpg this] is not the same as [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/e/e5/BKTG04151.jpg this] - there are substanial diferences between the two pieces. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 12:53, 4 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:They are definitely different. I've separated them into the three pieces. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:44, 4 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: Thank you. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 06:23, 6 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
I added cover and fixed dates for stories in this collection, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?289989, since all had the date of the collection but most were actually published in non-genre magazines years earlier. Edit was approved but only the cover is there; dates are the same. No explanation from moderator, and I'm not entering them again, so I'll just mention here that the last story, "Time and Again", was reprinted in a genre magazine, F&SF, under another name which the copyright page doesn't mention, but ISFDB says is "The Sleepwalker". It comes from Tracks (Spring 1978), so "The Sleepwalker" is actually a variant of "Time and Again", not the other way around as it says on ISFDB. So if anyone cares they can fix that. --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:53, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Printing ==
−
: And you look at the note of the update, you will know why the dates were reset. We date variants based on the first time that specific title and author form showed up. In this case it is not clear if the original publication were under the canonical author name (Scott Russell Sanders) or under that form (Scott R. Sanders) - so it is unclear which of the two titles needs a new date (or both if it was published under the variant author name). If you want to try to track down the magazines to see if we can discover which form was used, we can fix the dates in the proper variants (and add the notes where they belong for first publications). As it is, I have it on my list for this afternoon to update the dates up on the canonical titles with notes on where they were first published; the dates of the variants will remain the same as the ones of the publication until we discover otherwise.
 
−
: Careful when collections/anthologies are not under an author's canonical name - you need to account for that when dating stories. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:05, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::Here's something interesting; I was looking for more info about this book online and found an Archive.org link; I checked Open Library earlier and found nothing, which is why I had to get info from the copy on eBay. Turns out there's a Fetching the Dead: Stories by Unknown author and Publisher unknown and no ID #'s except for Open Library and the Archive link. I added page numbers to the stories and a link to Open Library in an edit, awaiting approval. I wonder how many people have looked for this book and couldn't find it because it was hiding on that almost empty page. --[[User:Username|Username]] 16:42, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
+
http://www.cars101.com/firstid.html; I think this would be helpful; I have a pending edit adding a Random House book which starts with 2 in the number line but it's not a 2nd printing, that's how they started their lines for much of their history. Can this be added to Help or something? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:22, 6 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::: 1 story in this collection, "The Fire Woman", comes from an anthology, Cross Fertilization, which is on Google Books, and he's credited as Scott Sanders. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:32, 24 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Reeves-Stevens - Phase II: The Lost Series ==
  
−
== Author delete ==
+
The coverart credit as it stands {{P|32543|here}} is wrong, can we have help from a moderator to sort it out? Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 19:46, 9 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:How is it wrong? Have you contacted [[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] to see what it states on the copyright page? Is there separate art on the front and back covers? If it's a mashup up two pieces of art, each by one of the two credited artists, the listing is correct. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 19:58, 26 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?331896 This author] was created by typo, please delete. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:54, 17 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Jem ==
−
: Authors get deleted automatically when nothing holds them. If it is still there, there is a title somewhere. When it looks like that, it is a review where the author is a "Reviewed author". These do not show up on the author pages - [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/adv_search_results.cgi?USE_1=reviewee&O_1=exact&TERM_1=Zoe.+E.+Whitten&C=AND&USE_2=title_title&O_2=exact&TERM_2=&USE_3=title_title&O_3=exact&TERM_3=&USE_4=title_title&O_4=exact&TERM_4=&USE_5=title_title&O_5=exact&TERM_5=&USE_6=title_title&O_6=exact&TERM_6=&USE_7=title_title&O_7=exact&TERM_7=&USE_8=title_title&O_8=exact&TERM_8=&USE_9=title_title&O_9=exact&TERM_9=&USE_10=title_title&O_10=exact&TERM_10=&ORDERBY=title_title&ACTION=query&START=0&TYPE=Title Advanced Search] finds them though. I fixed the offending record.
 
−
: Next time this happens, keep in mind that moderators can change the name inside of the Author record - so you can ask us to do that instead of changing each title. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 12:11, 17 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Got it. In fact, I just saw it work in another situation. Thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:29, 17 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Accidental deletion ==
+
There seems to be two entries for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?117921 this] publication. The note for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?322056 this] version also has a 1980 printing and a £1.50 price and points to (presumably) the true 1980 printing [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?JMRCPBTPGS1980 here]. Can't determine what the difference between the two entries could possibly be. Thoughts ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 16:36, 11 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Accidently deleted [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5088834 This anthology]. Please process whenever you have a chance. No rush. Thanks,  [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 17:33, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Accidental cover upload ==
−
: Deletion cannot be undone. Rejected submission is easy. :) All sorted. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:21, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Oops! ==
+
Hello Mods I inadvertantly uploaded the hardback cover art for a paperback edition (that'll teah me to look first). Title in question is [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?27997 Return to Eden]. If someone could revert it back to what it was previously that' be great. I have uploaded it to the correct hardback edition. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Reverted. I also approved your submission adding the image to the Grafton hc. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 13:24, 12 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
When I added [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?858281 Plagueborne] to this site, and didn't realize that it was a collection instead of an omnibus until I imported the contents.  Can this be changed by a moderator, or do I have to do it all over again? [[User:MLB|MLB]] 03:44, 21 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Muster of Ghosts ==
−
: Done! It was also my fault. I've overlooked it when i approved the title. Regards Rudolf [[User:Rudam|Rudam]] 07:14, 21 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: I'm pretty sure anyone can do it.  It takes multiple edits, unfortunately, and leads to a bit of transient inconsistency, so it's a little easier for a moderator to do it.  In order to change the publication's type, its contents must include a title of the desired changed-to container type.  So one way:
 
−
::* Edit the '''title''' record and change its type from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION (with a moderator note explaining what's going on).
 
−
::* Once that is accepted, edit the '''publication''' record, changing the publication type from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION.  You cannot do this in parallel -- it needs the title's type change in place.
 
−
:: Another way:
 
−
::* Edit the '''publication''' record, changing the publication type from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION and also adding a new content title of type COLLECTION with the appropriate details (with a suitable note to the moderator).  If you don't add the COLLECTION title, you'll get an error about changing the type.
 
−
::* Remove the old container title from the publication.  This can be submitted in parallel.  I forget if this will delete the title when processed or if then a follow-up deletion is also needed.
 
−
:: This same process applies to changing from any container type (ANTHOLOGY, CHAPBOOK, COLLECTION, OMNIBUS) to any other. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 13:53, 21 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: You need a follow-up deletion. Whoever fixed it did your second plan - I zapped the now empty omnibus this morning. However - why overcomplicate so much when you have a single publication? A single edit fixes both (see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5091586 this cancelled example] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5091587 omnibus to collection one]).  Then all you need is to clear the omnibus contents field and move that into a note instead (because that field is only for Omnibusses). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:01, 21 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: I could have sworn it doesn't let you edit the container title, even if only one one pub.  Obviously, if it lets you do that, a single edit is the way to go.... --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 13:45, 22 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::: I think that there is/was? an iteration where it is a problem - if I ever remember which one, I will post back - that's why I did the tests to make sure these were in the clear before posting :) But collection/omnibus/anthology swaps had been on my list so often lately (juvenile 96/128 pages "novels") that I knew that one works (and still decided to verify). :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:04, 22 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?858307 La città della paura indicibile] I fixed your Chapbook update to a novel. Needed to remove the extra title and move the note about translation.[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] 23:20, 21 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Not a Variant ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:MSTRFGHSTS1924.jpg; My cover doesn't show up but neither does the cover someone else uploaded last year. Can someone get my cover to show up? Also, I made an edit adding editor as cover artist so can you approve that, too. You also may want to check to see if the other person uploaded a cover for the American edition (different title) because there's no cover there, either. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:14, 13 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
The title I changed it to is the correct title as shown in the photo on Fantlab which I referenced in my note; it's not a variant. Why it was changed to a variant is unknown. "Farway House" is the title; "Faraway House" shouldn't be there anymore. --[[User:Username|Username]] 22:23, 23 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== TCASFW Discussion ==
−
:Approved your edit and fixed it to just a name variant.[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] 22:48, 23 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:This is the same case as [[ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Variants.3F|above]]. It was a variant before you edited it. When you edited the pub, you only changed the variant. You also needed to edit the parent. Same title with different author credits is still handled as a variant. If you see "by NAME [as by OTHERNAME]" in a pub listing, the pub contains a variant based on author name. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 09:08, 24 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Publication Record # 647654 ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Mavmaramis#TCASFW; When one of you approves my edit you can discuss with this PV what you'd like to do. I think their final message is that one of their volumes has a dash and one doesn't. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 16:46, 14 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Found Légendes du mythe de Cthulhu 2 (listed in data base as La chose des ténèbres) on NooSFere (https://www.noosfere.org/livres/niourf.asp?numlivre=2146617548)
+
== Adding image credit , please ==
−
There it lists the price as €6.00 and the original English title as Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos. The primary verifier is Hauck, who is listed as no longer active.
 
−
I believe this should be attached to Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos Series Record # 28724, but A) not sure how to go about it and B) don't want to step on toes. [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 16:46, 25 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== "Fixing" My Edits ==
+
Good day,
  
−
I entered a bunch of stuff for Ramsey Campbell books today, and 1 minor edit I made was adding ID # to Jove's edition of The Doll Who Ate His Mother, since some other editor added it to the other Jove Campbell book on ISFDB, Demons By Daylight. Oddly, when a moderator got to my Campbell edits, that one wasn't approved until long after the first few. Since it was just adding an ID and not something that needed to be double-checked, as some moderators bother doing, I looked over the approved edit and it didn't seem exactly right. Then I realized my note, "ID on left side of cover", had been "fixed" to "Catalog ID on the left side of the cover", with a note from moderator, "Clarifying which ID was that about and fixing the language so it reads like a proper English sentence". Besides the fact that none of the many editors and moderators who worked on Demons By Daylight ever entered a note about where the ID came from, unlike me, the fact that there's nothing on the left cover except the ID and the price means there was no reason to enter the word "Catalog", and adding a few "the"'s to my note changes nothing; the way I wrote it (as I've written it for countless other notes) is perfectly acceptable English; when you enter as many edits as I've done, you need to use shorthand where applicable. If y'all want to spell everything out in your edits, fine. Don't tamper with mine. --[[User:Username|Username]] 17:13, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
+
I need help.
−
: Part of the job of the moderators are to make sure that the notes are readable and understandable. We have a lot of different IDs on the screen. Your note was ambiguous so needed fixing. The edits are not "yours" - this is a collaborative project and you do not own the notes -anyone can improve your notes. Had you used "Catalog ID" instead of ID, I would not have fixed the sentence; as I had to fix that anyway, I also made sure that the sentence reads smoothly. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 17:22, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:: Moderators frequently tweak or expand submitted notes as needed. In this case, we support ISBNs (the most commonly used type of book ID these days), "Catalog IDs" and "External IDs". Some parts of our software also also refer to internal record numbers as "IDs", e.g. see http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/rest/getpub_by_internal_ID.cgi?100 . Given this variety of "IDs", it helps to clarify what kind of ID we are talking about.
+
I would like to have an INTERIOR ART CREDIT added for Author record # 269730 ; Carl Lavoie.
  
−
:: Having said that, minor changes to Notes are not a reflection on the quality of the submitting editor's work. Most of the time it's just a case of "four eyes are better than two". Occasionally we get editors who have real trouble explaining what they mean, which can become a significant issue, but minor changes are just a fact of life. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:38, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
+
It’s in the recent
  
−
::: That's all true, except that the ID on the cover of a book wouldn't be related in any way to ISFDB, especially not a book like this one which was published decades before ISFDB existed. So specifying what type of ID it is in a note makes no sense since there's only 1 type of ID that could be there; other types of ID like External are an invention of this site, and if I got ISBN from the cover I would have called it ISBN and not ID. As far as tweaking or expanding notes go, I've done that probably thousands of times, but it's almost always fixing old info that was wrong or adding new info; adding a couple of "the"'s is meaningless and writing a sarcastic note in the new edit about "fixing the language so it reads like a proper English sentence" is just petty, especially since I've had to fix hundreds and hundreds of records entered or approved by the same moderators who complain about my work. This may all be moot soon, anyway, since the way things are going the internet will be shut down and we'll all be living in a "glorious" socialist "paradise". --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:33, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Vastarien: A Literary Journal. Vol. 6, Issue 1
−
::::Collaborative projects necessarily will have various people modifying various other peoples' edits, as has been explained. While we appreciate all that you've done here (and you've added and improved a lot of information), it is helpful to not assume the worst about other editors here. We are all trying to improve things, and every single one of us has had out edits modified in various ways and modified others' edits in various ways. It's just how things work here. The only time that's a problem is if the information was changed to be incorrect somehow (or deleted outright). That's not what happened in this case.
 
−
::::As for your concern about the "ID" issue, we try to make sure there's no possibility for confusion. While you are correct that the book may have only the one item labeled "ID" on it, when it's entered on ISFDB, that clarification is useful to avoid someone other than you being confused by which ID is meant in the notes. That's why the clarification was made. I can guarantee you it wasn't to put you down or attack your contributions in any way. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 19:45, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::: And IDs are added to books daily - external IDs (such as OCLC for example), catalog IDs, ISBNs, some other type of IDs we may start adding in the future. Keeping the notes as unambiguous as possible makes it possible to track down information later and reduces the chance of mistakes and misunderstandings. Almost every record in the DB can be improved in one way or another. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:00, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Canonical name switch ==
+
and it’s the frontispiece illustration, ‘The Evil Eye'.
  
−
Can I get an approval to switch the canonical and alternate name for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?248381 Eugenia M. Triantafyllou]. thanks, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 20:33, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Here’s a link to a sample of the issue, the illustration is right after the cover page:
−
: Oh yes - that one needs reversal.
 
−
: PS: There is a one-edit way to remove all those unneeded parents (advanced search to get the parent and the variant into a merging position, then make sure the Parent ID is left as empty and  the new canonical name is used for the record). If we already talked about that, then this is just a reminder :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:38, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::For some reason, I'm not seeing it (figuratively). I've always done it one at a time. Will you show me the search criteria? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 20:51, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: Reading how I wrote it again, it sounds like you can do multiple titles with one edit which is obviously not the case. It is still one per title but it is faster than breaking a variant and then deleting the old parent. With someone with as little number of titles as hers, I would do a title search for both her names, ordered by title. You get [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/adv_search_results.cgi?USE_1=author_canonical&O_1=exact&TERM_1=Eugenia+M.+Triantafyllou&C=OR&USE_2=author_canonical&O_2=exact&TERM_2=Eugenia+Triantafyllou&USE_3=title_title&O_3=exact&TERM_3=&USE_4=title_title&O_4=exact&TERM_4=&USE_5=title_title&O_5=exact&TERM_5=&USE_6=title_title&O_6=exact&TERM_6=&USE_7=title_title&O_7=exact&TERM_7=&USE_8=title_title&O_8=exact&TERM_8=&USE_9=title_title&O_9=exact&TERM_9=&USE_10=title_title&O_10=exact&TERM_10=&ORDERBY=title_title&ACTION=query&START=0&TYPE=Title this]. Then just start merging the pairs and in each pair, make sure that "title_parent" is set to the empty string (the default will always be the non-empty one) and the correct author form is used. Hope that makes sense. I wish we had a "flip the canonical" one step that takes care of all titles. It had been requested but... not trivial to say the least. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:04, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: That's what I do. Only variants I break are when the title appears as both canonical and alternate ways. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 21:08, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::: As I said - if we had discussed that/you knew that, it was just a reminder. All set then. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:09, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::: Thanks for processing them so fast, I owe you one. At least! [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 21:18, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::::: I am working on a project so between my own edits, I am keeping the queue clear as well :) You need to redo one of those variants - I think you hit the wrong button on the screen - been there, done that. And "Is" is always capitalized so you may want to do something about a couple of titles. Also - the "first published in" notes needs to bubble up on the parent as well on the ones where you varianted. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:20, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Publisher name change request ==
+
https://www.amazon.com/Vastarien-Literary-Journal-vol-issue/dp/B0CBT4B6D1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28D1CYLFVH4XL&keywords=vastarien+literary&qid=1692175645&sprefix=%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-1&asin=B0CBT4B6D1&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
  
−
Since inception, <i>Uncanny Magazine</i> has been published by "Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas". Unfortunately, someone started using [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?51921 Uncanny Magazine] as the publisher and everyone followed suit. The [https://uncannymagazine.com/staff/ Our Staff] page of the magazine's website is quite clear. As this is a moderator only function, I'm asking that the publisher name be changed to the quoted name above. Much more efficient than 41 publication level edit submissions. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:37, 28 September 2021 (EDT)
+
And here’s a link to the publisher, listing the content of the recent issue:
−
: Actually the Our Stuff page is irrelevant - what you need is to see the credit inside of one of the magazines (all of them really in case it changed) (as these are the ebooks, not the webzine records). I will pull out my kindle later and check how the publisher is credited in there. If the publisher is credited as "Uncanny Magazine" there, that's what it needs to say (and I cannot remember off the top of my head). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:59, 28 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Also, I think there may be terminology confusion here. On ISFDB, "Publisher" always refers to the company, not the person/job title (except in cases of self publishing without a publishing company name). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:23, 30 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: Yeah, there is that as well.
 
−
::: Looking at a real magazine:
 
−
::: Copyright is to "Uncanny Magazine" which implies that there is such company.
 
−
::: No publisher credit besides "Publishers/Editors-in-Chief" heading inside of the "Editorial Staff" for Thomas&Thomas which is just naming what people are doing IMO.
 
−
::: I'd keep the publisher as "Uncanny Magazine" under these circumstances, maybe add a note on the magazine level (or the publisher level) explaining the attribution. Any other opinions are welcome. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 13:26, 30 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: The couple also runs the Kickstarter campaigns, at least implying this is their magazine. I'm fine with leaving it, if that's the decision. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:07, 30 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::: Amazon lists publisher for the Kindle editions as "Uncanny Magazine" (e.g., [https://www.amazon.com/Uncanny-Magazine/dp/B00Z8SD1C8 here]).  Since they're alive and well, one could [https://uncannymagazine.com/about/contact-us/ contact them] and explain/ask, and we could preserve their response as documentation.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 12:32, 1 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::: No one argues that they publish the magazine. The question is if there is a company they own they actually do that under. The Copyright page strongly implies that yes, there is one. Or are you saying to ignore the company names of publishers and to use the names of the people who run them for all our publishers? :) After all these people are also called publishers. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 12:53, 1 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::: No, I am saying ask them if it is published by the company or published by them personally.  "Uncanny Magazine" seems right to me, given the copyright statement, but here we could ask instead of making our best assessment.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 15:12, 1 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::::: I was responding to John's comment that it is their magazine - thus the number of : I used. I agree with you that asking them may be the cleanest way based on what I am seeing inside of the magazines. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:56, 1 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::: I have reached out and am awaiting a response. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 17:53, 1 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Cynthia Asquith Collection ==
+
https://grimscribepress.com/issues/
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?216049; added better cover from Fantlab, then noticed contents page photo shows that 1 story, "The Follower", isn't in the book and "In a Nutshell" is on a completely different page. PV, Chavey, hasn't responded to anything in years, so I'm leaving this here in case anyone feels like investigating further. --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:12, 30 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Thank you. And have a wonderful day.
 +
-Carl Lavoie
  
−
== Web API access ==
+
: Thank you for getting interested in our little project. However, it seems as if the issue you refer to hasn't been added yet; the latest one I can find is [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?872536 this] from 2021.
 +
: But before you or someone else becomes active and enters it: this seems to be a general literary journal which then wouldn't be eligible per se to ISFDB (which is devoted to speculative fiction); for such a journal only the speculative fiction items, the artwork illustrating them, and essays referring to speculative fiction would be allowed to be included in the entry (see [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Policy#Definitions these definitions]. Please think about it, and then think if you'd like to get help to add the publication in question. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 06:18, 16 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Hi. I'm wondering if I could be permitted submission access to the Web API. My intention is to automate the clearing out of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/cleanup_report.cgi?300 this cleanup report].
+
== Edmund Frederick, Chambers ==
−
The code I'm intending to run [https://github.com/lokal-profil/isfdb is here] (effectively [https://github.com/lokal-profil/isfdb/blob/f5a2bc41ba0420d95eae01281d9f6adf5cb6c568/add_librisxl.py#L86 <code>add_librisxl_id.py:run()</code>]).
 
  
−
As per the API instructions I'd run 20 records at a time then wait for these to clear moderation before doing the next 20. If desired I could add a particular moderator as holder to effectively move these submissions out of the normal queue. /[[User:Lokal Profil|Lokal]][[Special:Contributions/Lokal Profil|_]][[:User talk:Lokal Profil|Profil]] 06:33, 2 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5746601; I came across Quick Action by Robert W. Chambers and added links (and a Canadian reprint) and then decided to enter links and stuff for other Chambers books illustrated by Frederick. Ran into trouble immediately because Tracer of Lost Persons is as by "R. W. Chambers" so if someone can approve my edit so it can be made a variant and month added to title record. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 18:46, 19 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:Done. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 07:54, 27 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: Sure thing. {{FR|1447}} has been created. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:26, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== MRC ==
  
−
:: Done. Please give it a try and let me know how it goes. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 21:00, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2970668; An Archive.org link was recently upped for his 2014 novel so I added a link then I saw that his recent novel didn't have cover art in both editions so I imported it, then I noticed that the cover artist, who is also the author, didn't have a period added after R so it's a separate record. Since R with a period has bio info that means if I add a period it will erase the info, I think, so if one of you can add it without erasing the info. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 07:56, 23 August 2023 (EDT)
−
::: BTW: The moving the submission part is not really moving - it just makes it untouchable by anyone but the moderator it is held for AND it is not counted in the few places we count how many we have pending. Additionally, the "next submission" link does not work for these so processing them can be a pain as you need to pick then one by one as opposed to going one after the other. So drop them in the real queue - just not all of them at the same time. ;) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:11, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:I fixed it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:04, 23 August 2023 (EDT)
−
::::@Ahasuerus: Thanks. I submitted 3 edits via the API. I've used the publication title as "Subject" as per what I see when I look at the xml of edits done through the normal interface. Don't know how this field is surfaced in the moderation queue so let me know if it can fill a more suitable function.
 
−
::::@Anniemod: Thanks then I won't use the Holder feature. /[[User:Lokal Profil|Lokal]][[Special:Contributions/Lokal Profil|_]][[:User talk:Lokal Profil|Profil]] 08:11, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::: The submissions look fine, no problems that I can see.
+
== Dragon / Grafton / Collins (UK) ==
  
−
::::: As you said, the "Subject" field is what's displayed in the list of submissions; the pub's title is the best choice for Edit Publication submissions. Other types of submissions like New Award or Remove Alternative Name would use other types of values. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 11:43, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
+
I'm editing {{P|178073|Asimov's Extraterrestrials}} and on the title page is stated "Dragon [over] Grafton Books [over] A Division of the Collins Publishing Group". We have [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?27309 Dragon / Grafton / Collins (UK)] but my understanding is that we don't record the owners (Collins) of the publishers (Grafton). If that's correct, the four publications (also 1986) listed in that category should be "Dragon / Grafton" (as imprint / publisher). If moderators agree, that's what I propose using in the Publisher field for my edit (and I could also amend the four other publications to the same). Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 23:40, 26 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:Not hearing any objections, I'll wait another few days and then implement the above. Thanks, Kev.--[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 09:54, 9 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== Canonical name switch - Urlaub ==
+
== With/with ==
  
−
Can I get an approval to switch the canonical and alternate name for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?187345 Patricia Urlaub]? Thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 08:27, 3 October 2021 (EDT)
+
I happened to notice that a mod is correcting "With" to "with" in a lot of records. Is there some way to trawl all the records and automatically correct wrongly capitalized words (or vice versa) with a patch or something? Seems like that would be helpful and save a lot of time. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2023 (EDT)
−
: Yep, go ahead. Seems obvious. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:58, 3 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: This one is done. When it is this obvious, should I go ahead and submit the changes without getting prior moderator's approval? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:52, 3 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: I’d post for a second set of eyes/objections (it was never about an approval really - it is just so people can see it before it happens. That’s why I would always add the author names in the topic name as well).  Sometimes something may seem obvious until someone else takes a look at it. The only case where I would reverse with no post is if there are 2-3 works only and I am about to add a boatload into the pseudonym. Once it has more, I’d post before I switch it around and wait a day or so. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:24, 3 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: Makes sense, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 21:09, 3 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Merging publishers ==
+
== Multiple Archive.org Links ==
  
−
Could someone please merge {{pubr|47426|Kindberg}} and {{pubr|56053|Kindbergs Förlag}}. The first is the name which best fits how other Swedish publishers have been named (i.e. omitting the "Publisher" part of the name). Cheers /[[User:Lokal Profil|Lokal]][[Special:Contributions/Lokal Profil|_]][[:User talk:Lokal Profil|Profil]] 17:47, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5756500; Can a mod approve my edits for Number 87 from the first one linked above and ending with 5756519? I want to know if adding the second Archive.org link which someone added to the title records instead of the Macmillan edition's record will erase the much more recent link, uploaded this year, which I added in my first edit. On a side note, author's collection Thoughts in Prose and Verse also has been linked, no contents, in case anyone cares to read it and enter genre stories. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
−
: So is it "Kindberg" or "Kindbergs"? As there is only one book, editing that book is better than a merge because that will keep the change into the pub record (and if the PV ever comes back, they can figure out what happened). But I need to know which form to use :)  [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:22, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
+
: Does everything look as you intended? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:32, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
−
::sorry for being unclear, "Kindberg" (the "s" is used for the genitiv case in Swedish). I assumed that just modifying the pub would leave the publisher as some sort of ghost in the directory. / [[User:Lokal Profil|Lokal]][[Special:Contributions/Lokal Profil|_]][[:User talk:Lokal Profil|Profil]] 04:27, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::Yeah, I don't know, I've completely confused myself. I see one title record still has old link that I removed and I missed another Macmillan link, so I've removed it again and added new link. I don't even think my note above was correct because the new link is for the UK edition so it wouldn't erase the US link. Forget it, I can't do this stuff anymore, 2 more links to approve when you get a chance, someone else will have to take a look and make sure links are where they're supposed to be along with everything else, I'm done. I've got to get out of here. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 13:03, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
−
::: Nope. Publishers, authors and pub series just disappear when the last thing attached to them is deleted (which also means to be VERY careful to move any data out of them before you submit the request to update the last record carrying them). Series and titles need to be manually deleted when the last title/publication respectively is removed from them. All set now, right? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:20, 8 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Kissing the Coronavirus ==
+
== image delete request ==
  
−
I just want to apologize to the moderator who has to okay the [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08PVT34M9?binding=kindle_edition&ref=dbs_dp_rwt_sb_tukn Kissing the Coronavirus] series that I'm entering to the ISFDB database. I was just sipping some hot tea while browsing these books, then I blacked out, and the books were up for acceptence.  I don't even remember doing them.  At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. There are more, sadly. [[User:MLB|MLB]] 05:14, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
+
Could someone please delete the old (04:13 hrs) image [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:DRKBNDCTNF2015.jpg here]. (edit) See [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:ErsatzCulture#Miller_-_Dark_Benediction this discussion]. Thanks. Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 09:15, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
−
: So you had a Mini-Version of the second part of 2020. No worries. Hope you are feeling well though :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:28, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:Kev, You wish to delete the cover with 'jr' correct? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:43, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
−
:Wow. Thought I'd seen it all, am officially weirded out. :) [[User:PeteYoung|PeteYoung]] 23:28, 11 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::Yes, that's the one. Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
:::Done, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:47, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::Thanks John. Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 16:04, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== Critic => Éditions Critic ==
+
== Nine-Thirty O'Clock in the Morning ==
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?52868 This publisher's name] should be changed from Critic to Éditions Critic.[[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 10:46, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
+
Curious what happened to the usual 5-minute or so delay at 9:30 every morning. It didn't happen today. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:22, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
−
: As we already had both, a rename could not work but a merge does. Done.  [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 00:23, 12 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Signing In ==
+
: The daily backups run between 9:30am and 9:35am. The database is unavailable until they finish.
  
−
Curious why I had to sign in to upload a cover image; I resisted checking the box to keep me signed in since I joined last December until several weeks ago when I got tired of having to sign in constantly and finally checked it, but tonight I had to sign in again for the first time since then. Is something going on behind the scenes? --[[User:Username|Username]] 23:40, 12 October 2021 (EDT)
+
: On 2023-08-30 the backup process was modified to exclude a large and fast growing database table which didn't need to be backed up in the first place. An error was introduced while making the change, which caused the backups to fail on 2023-08-31. The error was corrected the same day and the backups have been running smoothly ever since. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 12:29, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: There have been no recent software changes that would affect the sign-on process. Keep in mind that when you sign in, you actually sign in twice: first on the database side and then, separately, on the Wiki side. The sign-on process adds a "cookie" to your browser which contains your log-in name. It also tells the browser to keep you logged in until the cookie's expiration date. On the database side, the expiration date is set to 2037, so you won't have to worry about it for another 15+ years. On the Wiki side, it is set to a few months and then you have to sign in again. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 00:16, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== Deagol ==
−
:: The Wiki kicks you out now and again - just sign in again and you are good for awhile again. It can be a cookie expiration or it can be your browser deleting the cookie because it did not like its age, while you updated or because something else happened. Permanent sessions are not really liked by modern browsers - they facilitate man in the middle attacks. So browsers can decide to be "helpful" sometimes. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 00:22, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Moderator available? ==
+
https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Deagol; I added my first-ever message to this PV and noticed all messages are in italics or a weird font or something. Probably not important but I thought I'd mention it. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:01, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
:That's bizarre. I can't see anything on that page that would cause everything to be in italics. I can't find any other page that are like that, either. I'm guessing it's something that went funky on the backend. We'd have to have Al or Ahasuerus look at it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:26, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Nevermind, I found it. While it shouldn't have affected the entire page (it should have only affected the part after it), I removed the italics from the page with [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeagol&type=revision&diff=670207&oldid=670204 this edit]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:29, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
:::Here's another page; https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_Talk:Clarkmci. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 13:25, 2 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::Fixed. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:19, 5 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
If a moderator is not too busy, please process these three unmerges. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5119647], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5119651], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5119656]. Thanks, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:15, 14 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== The Pastel City. ==
−
: Done [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:32, 14 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Thank you Annie. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 17:19, 14 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Canonical name switch - Gabriel Silva de Anda ==
+
Hello mods. [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1868818 This] interior art is the same artwork as [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2251327 this] title record. I'd also like to rename the interior art record from "The Great Rebellion [1]" to "CA 440 Minifreighter" (as per art caption in Cowley's Great Space Battles). --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 16:38, 2 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
: If there is a caption (or a title somewhere) in the book, then yes, rename and use that - captions and titles from inside of the books are always used when known instead of the standard [] notation. If the title was coming from a secondary source, we would just add it into the notes but if it is in the book, go ahead and rename. And variant it to the cover :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 12:30, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::You may want to participate at [[Rules_and_standards_discussions#Interior_art_-_do_we_use_artwork_captions_in_the_titling.3F|this Rules and standards discussions]]. As pointed out in that discussion, the current rules do not include using the caption / title (though that has become a common practice) and so far there has not been agreement to change the rules. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 14:00, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::: Will do. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Proposing to switch the canonical name from [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?17514 Gabriel Silva de Anda] to Gabriel S. de Anda. Note, I'm adding 6 more titles under the proposed name. Feedback is appreciated [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:41, 15 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== Steve Duffy, The Faces at Your Shoulder ==
−
: Yep. About time. All his books seem to use it and [http://gabrielsdeanda.com/about-me/ the Author site] also uses it - add it to the correct author record while you are there, please :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:54, 15 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: All records for the full name probably came from Locus (see [http://www.locusmag.com/index/s187.htm#A3873 this]) and the 1993 one is even credited here with the S. One do wonder what the magazines actually said. Hm. But yes - for now, let's reverse, we can investigate that later. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:58, 15 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: A little digging is always fun. I'm entering a serial for him, this will make the variant cleaner. Edits submitted. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:28, 15 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: Bewildering Stories? I knew the name rang a bell from somewhere - I saw him on the schedule there. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 17:06, 15 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Bedlam ==
+
Having read this book at the Toronto Library, I would ask a moderator to add this collection to the (original) Steve Duffy page: (not Steve Duffy (1))
 +
Steve Duffy, The Faces at Your Shoulder (Sarob Press, 2023) 181 pages  38 pounds
 +
Foreword, Duffy
 +
page 1 The Oram County Whoosit (Shades of Darkness, 2008) in isfdb
 +
page 37 The Soul is a Bird (original)
 +
page 71 In the Days Before the Monsters (original)
 +
page 101 The Pyschomanteum (Crooked Houses, 2020, Egaeus Press)  this is NOT an original story, the original publication is not in isfdb
 +
page 123 The Lion's Den (Cern Zoo, 2009) in isfdb
 +
page 155 Futureboro (original)
 +
page 179 Notes on the Stories (uncredited in the book, the Sarob Press website attributes this to Duffy)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?7067; I filled in info for Dead Cats Bouncing using Locusmag.com, which was by Necro on ISFDB but was really by their Bedlam imprint, and I see that Bedlam has lotss of books with a note saying they're an imprint of Necro, so I think they should all be by Bedlam Press / Necro Publications, which is what I changed Dead...'s publisher to. --[[User:Username|Username]] 08:42, 19 October 2021 (EDT)
+
One other unrelated correction:
 +
The review Jean Rhys Revisited (2001) by Alexis Lykiard should be moved from the original Ray Russell page
 +
to the R. B. Russell page (aka Ray Russell (1)) this is actually a chapter in R. B. Russell's Fifty Forgotten Books {{unsigned|RogerSSS}}
  
−
== Son of the Lamb ==
+
== Protocol for working on recently added/changed publications ==
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Inspired_Lamb; Hugh Lamb's son entered some new anthologies recently but made some mistakes; mod tried to help him, then I tried. He responded back in February, then nothing until yesterday when he entered a new anthology, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?863926. I fixed format and made essay dates match book date, plus added book title after Introduction and Afterword. Also, he entered stories with their original dates, except Hodgson's The Phantom Ship for some reason, so I merged that. He still seems to have problems with how to enter things, and I can't remember what exactly I helped him with 8 months ago, so if mods want to check his previous work and see if anything else needs fixing/merging I'm sure he'd appreciate it. --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:42, 19 October 2021 (EDT)
+
There has always been potential for moderators unknowingly working on the same set of submissions. Early on we added the ability to put submissions "on hold" in order to mitigate this problem. Later, we added the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/recent_activity_menu.cgi Recent Activity] page and, even more recently, "Edit History", which helps avoid confusion and cross-approvals.
  
−
: I randomly came across the new anthology again and now I see that Mr. Lamb just entered stories already on ISFDB without merging, so there's many duplicates, and at least 1, Northcote's story, has the wrong date. So this record really needs some help. --[[User:Username|Username]] 08:54, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
+
At the same time, the recent implementation of the "self-approver" system significantly increased the number of editors who can approve submissions. Earlier today we had a [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#Eccentric_Orbits:_An_Anthology_of_Scienc collision] between a moderator working on new submissions and a self-approver who noticed the new publication and tried to improve it while the moderator was still researching it. The result was a [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?970089 mishmash of approvals].
  
−
== Missing King ==
+
What should be the standard for moderators and self-approvers working on recently approved records which the original approver may still be researching? Since we now have Edit History, should it be something like:
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Tjacksonking; added cover to a mag and this guy entered another issue that needed some work so I fixed it; he hasn't been here since 2016 so should probably have one of those no-longer-active notes. --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:54, 20 October 2021 (EDT)
+
* Before correcting/adding data to a publication record, check its Edit History. If the record has been created or modified within the last 24 (12? 48? 72?) hours, check with the last approving moderator to see if the record is still being researched.
  
−
== Length mismatch warning ==
+
? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
: I consider it always a good idea to talk to the editors and moderators that had worked on a record that still need work before changing the work of people -- sometimes they have an edit staying in a browser and never submitted, sometimes they just had not had a chance to get back to the record to fix it (or got distracted) and sometimes it is a misunderstanding of the rules on someone's part - the person trying to improve or the editor who started it or simply a disagreement on how things need to be entered where the rules allow editor's discretion. And especially if the submitter is a new(ish) user and there is no note from the handling moderator on their page yet but I think it is common courtesy in all cases. Asking for 24 hours grace period is a good first step I guess. Adding to that the requirement for communication before the edits are done will be even better - and will also help getting our editors closer to being self-sustaining. I did not think that we need to put that in writing but apparently it is not as self-evident as I always assumed it to be. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 13:18, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
I entered a publication which contained [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2935557 The Girl from the Sea], an English translation of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2379849 La niña que salió en busca del mar]. After submitting [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5126412 this edit] to add the translator template and setting the juvenile flag, I submitted [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5126416] linking the translation. What is the best way to handle the warning regarding length mismatch? The translation is slightly more than 1900 words, a short story. No length is specified for the parent. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 21:02, 20 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::Could we add a flag to each record that gets set when a change is submitted, and then removed 25 hours after the submission is approved (and removed if a submission is declined)? Then the system could display a note on the edit page for any record that has that flag set. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 15:20, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
−
: The length of the original determines the length of all the variants even if any of them wavers across a border. So usually you need to research the original. However at that length of a complete translation there is no way the original to be long enough to be a novelette (7500 words) so we know it is a short story so set the short story length to the parent and we are all set. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:13, 20 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Cover Problem? ==
+
::: Well, if the goal is to display a warning when an editor tries to edit a publication record that has been modified within the last 24 hours, then it can be done without adding new flags. We already have Edit History; it would be easy to modify the  software to check it and display a warning. We'll just need to decide on what the warning should say. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:31, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?6229+3; I see 1 cover and then next row has the other 3. If it's the same for mods, is that OK or is there some formatting problem? --[[User:Username|Username]] 20:41, 21 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:Mountain being made out of a molehill. No need to add bureaucracy and development effort for a problem that rarely happens. This is a collaborative project which means people could occasionally work on the same items, but, in practice, it rarely happens in a short period of time. People should not feel possessive about their edits. An equally valid solution would be for moderators to put edits on hold and do their research prior to accepting the submission. That way they can make the corrections immediately after accepting the submission. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 17:34, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
−
: I am seeing the same. My first thought was that it is because of the numbering (we have 4 and then a few in 10+) but [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?2925+3] does not do that and it is even more weird numberwise. Let me ping our Developer. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:54, 21 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:: It turns out that it's due to the first pub not having mouse-over transliteration while some of the subsequent ones have them. If all pubs have them OR none of the pubs have them, then everything is displayed correctly.
+
:: Let me just clarify that adding a note along the lines of "This Publication was last edited by X and approved by Y on 2023-09-12 at 12:34pm" to EditPub forms affecting recently edited publications would be quite simple. We already have all of the requisite data in a readily accessible location within the database. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 18:22, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:: The easiest way to address the issue would be not to display mouse-over transliterations for covers. Other solutions are presumably possible, but will require more digging. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 21:11, 21 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::: Apparently the definition of possessive, as used in the above comment, is the approving moderator making the necessary changes and/or communicating with the submitting user immediately after approval. Isn't that exactly our responsibility? If not please enlighten me. I don't believe a software solution is necessary. It would surprise me if anyone else would decide to edit a publication immediately after its initial approval. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:49, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
−
::: I vote for dropping the transliterations showing in cover arrays (under publications or in the +3 for pub series. They don't really add anything to the site - you can click on it and go check it if you need to. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:46, 21 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::I agree with Annie. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:45, 22 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::: Done. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:47, 22 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:::: Re: "edit[ing] a publication immediately after its initial approval", I have come close to accidentally colliding with other editors/moderators a few times. I am subscribed to Amazon's automatic notifications for certain authors. When they publish new books, Amazon sends me an email. Sometimes other editors/moderators buy the same books the day they are published and enter them into the database at around the same time. I don't think it has caused any issues yet, especially now that we have additional yellow warnings, but it's been close a few times. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 21:09, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== L'Oeil du Sphinx => L'Œil du Sphinx ==
+
::: It doesn't take a moderator to know we cannot edit submissions, but must approve them and then make corrections. The comment about research before approval is also incorrect. I had identified the changes I wanted to make. However it took me eight minutes to enter the corrections and the notes to moderator , review and post. P.S. I would have promptly replied to a query as to status.[[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:49, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::This proposal is for a 24-hour period. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 07:46, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::: Then propose a shorter window. The last time an editor (sitting on the recent updates queue and jumping as soon as they thought they saw something they MUST update now), made a merge on a story in an anthology of 20 titles or more, most of which required updates in the titles and authors (capitalization and spaces an so on) and follow-up merges and my edit had to be redone from scratch because the merge deleted the title ID - thus making the edit unworkable. I did not raise the question back then - I just redid the edit, posted for the new editor (first edit by them -- and anthologies tend to be... not fun) and then walked away for the day. It was not the first time that had happened. If common courtesy won't regulate that and it does happen more often than once in a blue moon, then we will need to spell out some rules. It is not about being possessive or not doing research before approval - it is about giving a moderator the needed time to do their post-approval edits before losing their time and forcing them to either redo the edit from scratch or look through multiple edits to see if something conflicted somewhere and a second edit is required. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 11:22, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
:::::: The above proposal doesn't address your scenario. A title merge is not a publication edit so wouldn't get the proposed warning. Collisions can happen without people sitting on the recent updates queue & without editing the same pub. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 13:54, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::::::: It does - when the merge is because someone opened the recently created publication and looked for duplicates and decided to "help", that is exactly the issue at hand. Collisions always happen - and we all learn to live with them. But these are easily avoidable with a bit of common courtesy (or with a rule that says not to do it - if nothing else works). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 19:40, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?36844 This Publisher's name] should be changed from L'Oeil du Sphinx to L'Œil du Sphinx. [[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 11:44, 24 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== Standards question has reached an impasse ==
−
: Done. As you are the only active PV on any of the verified books that got changed with this update, no need to leave courtesy notes on editors' pages. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 12:51, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Changes to PVed publications ==
+
Three verifiers cannot reach agreement regarding current standards. The question revolves around the publication pages field and content titles page field. Please help resolve the impasse [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Nihonjoe#1634:_The_Bavarian_Crisis here] Thanks, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 13:38, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
I really don't know how can Zapp be allowed to add data to my notes [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5130978 in this fashion]. First he/she adds ("- No ISBN") without respecting my usual layout ("ISBN = None on book") which is just impolite, but more importantly this is done without having the book. Is it a case of divine prescience? To take the liberty of modifying data pertaining to a PVed publication without any physical evidence and without discussing the matter with the verifier is simply not acceptable. [[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 12:46, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== Lee Mandelo, Revisited ==
−
:I've unverified the publication. Let any questions about it be directed to the person who knows best. [[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 13:04, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::Hello! I've approved this update after some hesitation.
+
Although we view the Lee Mandelo name change as closed, this has not been the case in the general public. In particular, the ISFDB Wikipedia article has recently used Jason Sanford's article about the Lee Mandelo situation as factual evidence of an issue, and I would like to post actual counter evidence of what actually happened. As such, I've been working on two documents. The first is a post-mortem of the situation, which provides a detailed timeline of every submission and communication which is related to the name change. It then summarizes the system issues and potential recommendations. Once the post-mortem is finalized I will post an Open Letter to the SF Community, which will reference that post-mortem.
−
::1. There is no existing policy for the layout of the notes. Everyone can do additional notes in his own way. If they do not correspond to your personal rules, you can change them anytime.
 
−
::2. It's very obvious that it wasn't a divine prescience, since you didn't enter the ISBN field yourself. It can be assumed that you did it deliberately, since you always enter your entries very accurately. Furthermore, all external IDs indicate that the book does not have an ISBN, so without question this addition is helpful as information.
 
−
::3. Nevertheless I agree with you, it would have been more polite to contact you. Everyone makes mistakes, but you don't have to react so harshly. Regards Rudolf [[User:Rudam|Rudam]] 14:05, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Merging alternate names of Jon D. Swartz ==
+
The intention of this two articles is to provide a reference-quality document that can be added as a reference to Wikipedia, if needed. So I'd like the documents to be clean, and not contain large sections of indented discussions. There definitely should be discussions, but not within those documents. The first document is available now at:
  
−
Could the following forms of Jon D. Swartz's name be merged, please?
+
* [[User:Alvonruff/A_Post-Mortem_on_the_Lee_Mandelo_Name_Change]]
  
−
*Jon D. Swartz: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?176983
+
Discussion about the document can occur here. Feel free to directly correct any grammar/spelling errors. Detailed discussions about the potential implementation of the recommendations should take place in the usual locations. [[User:Alvonruff|Alvonruff]] ([[User talk:Alvonruff|talk]]) 10:42, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
−
*Jon D. Swartz, Ph.D.: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?334557
 
−
*Jon Swartz: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?334552
 
  
−
These are all variants used by the author in the fanzine, ''Tightbeam''.--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 14:25, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
+
: Is this discussion only open to moderators?  I appreciate Community Portal can be noisy, but assuming that this discussion is open to all ISFDB stakeholders, maybe have a link on that page here at least?
−
: Nope, they need to be pseudonymed, not merged and works varianted into whoever becomes the canonical. We record author names as used and then use the alternative names system to connect them. Do you want me to do it or do you want me to teach you how? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:28, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
+
: (Super trivial observation: maybe fix the "Revisted" typo in the item title, before there are any links pointing at the wrong title?) [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 14:00, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: Fine with me to move the discussion so that it is open to all. [[User:Alvonruff|Alvonruff]] ([[User talk:Alvonruff|talk]]) 15:08, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::I wouldn't say no to learning how. :) Is it too early to establish a canonical version given that there are still quite a lot of issues of Tightbeam to get through in which he has probably had some contribution or another?--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 15:31, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::: Organizing all of the publicly available data -- submissions, Wiki discussions, etc -- as a timeline sounds like a reasonable idea.
−
::: Jon D. Swartz seems to be the clear winner - he even published a book under that name and has a fancyclopedia entry. So I would call that the canonical - and we can always change it later.
+
::: One thing that we may want to consider is how the ISFDB project communicates with the outside world. Currently, [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:FAQ#What_other_Web_sites_and_social_media_accounts_does_the_ISFDB_use.3F the ISFDB FAQ says]:
−
::: So for each of the other two: Go to their pages -> left menu. Locate "Make/Remove Alternate Name". Using either the ID (176983) or the name (Jon D. Swartz) submit the form. That connects them. Submit also edits on the two alternative names to set the language to English.
+
:::* ''What other Web sites and social media accounts does the ISFDB use?''
−
::: Now that they are connected, you need to get all titles on the canonical page. For each title under one of the other names:
+
:::* ISFDB administrators may post announcements on [http://isfdb.blogspot.com/ this Blogspot] Web page in case of extended unscheduled downtime or connectivity problems. There are no other official or ISFDB-endorsed Web sites, Web pages or social media accounts. Non-ISFDB Web sites and social media accounts maintained by individual ISFDB contributors (editors, moderators and administrators) are independent of the ISFDB and are not endorsed by it.
−
:::* Check if the same title is on the canonical author page as well and if so, get the ID.  
+
::: This policy was originally formulated in part due to the existence of Web sites/Web pages like [https://www.facebook.com/internetspecficdb this Facebook page] which uses the ISFDB name and images without clarifying that it is not affiliated with the ISFDB project.
−
:::* Locate "Make This Title a Variant" (on the title in the alternate name page):
+
::: The policy means that our project is currently a closed system with no Web/social media presence aside from the ISFDB Web site and no official communications with the outside world except by individual ISFDB contributors acting on their own.
−
::::* If you found an ID in the previous step, use that in Option 1. I did not see any that match but I may have missed some.
+
::: If we are to change this approach, we will presumably want to formulate an official communications strategy first. Something like an official social media account, perhaps? (I don't use social media outside of Web/Usenet forums which discuss SF, so I may not be the best person to come up with ideas.)
−
::::* If you did not, use Option 2. Leave ALL fields the same except for the author name where you replace the alternative name with the canonical name. If there are coauthors, leave them as they are.  
+
::: Alternatively, Al could post an "open letter" as an individual. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (EDT)
−
::: All these edits (the pseudonyms and the edits and the variants) can be submitted in parallel. When all of them are approved, you are all set. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:54, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: OK. Done! Thanks for your instruction on that, Annie. :) --[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 16:38, 25 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Hayford ==
+
::::One thing we need to do is try to work with Sanford to correct his information in [https://jasonsanford.substack.com/p/genre-grapevine-for-december-31-2022 his post]. At least based on the timeline Al posted, the first time a concern was posted in one of the public forums here is on Dec 14, 2022 by the author in question, and everything was handled within less than a week. So saying ISFDB "fought against changing Lee Mandelo’s name in the site’s author listing for over a year" is rather a stretch. As noted, we should find a way to make it more clear when we will change a canonical name, but we certainly weren't "fighting" against changing it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:25, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Hayford_Peirce; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?1223. He died last year. --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:15, 27 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::::: A new section, "How does the ISFDB deal with author name changes?", was [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=ISFDB%3AFAQ&type=revision&diff=651853&oldid=651852 added to the ISFDB FAQ] on 2022-12-26 based on this and previous discussions. Can anyone think of additional ways to increase its visibility? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 08:13, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:Updated his talk page. Thanks. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:59, 27 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Hachette ==
+
:::: Additionally, Sanford describes Username as a moderator, which is not and has never been the case. At the very least, his comment was certainly insensitive, but Sanford should do his homework before trying to smear the moderators. Simply checking the list at the top of the Moderator noticeboard would have clarified that point. The "bad publicity" really had nothing to do with us making the change. It was the author posting here and making a request. Once we were made aware there was an issue, we discussed it and quickly made the updates (as noted, within less than a week from being made aware of the issue). The majority of that less-than-a-week was sorting out exactly what needed to be done to make all the changes as it's not a simple thing to do, and things have to be done in a specific order in order to not make it even more difficult to update.
 +
::::I think having an official Twitter/X and/or Facebook account would be good as those are the two largest social media platforms for publishing-related things. The Blogspot site is fine, but no one is going to think of looking there since it's rather obscure. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:25, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?246377; added cover to original American HC, used ISBN to get French cover with no luck, then got it by entering the title (also entered pub. series, which prior editor entered in notes but not in the series field), but got yellow warning about incorrect price entry; whoever entered it didn't do it right, but looking at Hachette's non-series books alone prices are entered many different ways; F before, F after, no F, $, £, decimal/no decimal, etc. So I'm not touching it, but I'm sure mods know what to do. --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:22, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:::::Excuse me, how did I get roped into this nonsense? Some trans activists try to bully this site into changing someone's "dead" name and it's my fault now? What comment are you referring to? I do more edits and leave more messages here than everyone else combined --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:For future reference, the price should be entered "F8.60" per the example at [[Help:List of currency symbols]] (which is linked from the [[:Template:PublicationFields:Price]] page you go to when clicking on the '''?''' icon next to that field). I've fixed the price. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:28, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
: Great; however, what about all the other books' prices? --[[User:Username|Username]] 16:41, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:::::: To clarify: as of last morning, of the 234,773 submissions approved in 2023, 17,359 (7.4%) were created by [[User:Username|Username]]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 09:41, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:: You can submit the changes if you want to clean them up now. If you decide to do that, be careful with the era for the currencies that changed with time (French, UK ones for example) and to adjust the notes where required. The yellow warning is very new - most of those were added long before we had it.
 
−
:: As you had been told a few times, everyone works on their own projects in the DB - people often assist when someone asks for help but we also try to explain and teach people how to finish their own projects when it is a job that does not require a moderator edit to be completed. If you are not interested to fix these now that you know how, then this request will stay here until someone is interested in it or until it becomes irrelevant because these are fixed by other channels.
 
−
:: You cannot expect people to drop everything they are doing and rush to fix things you can fix on your own just because you happened to find them now but do not want to work on them. That's not how the site works. One book (or a few) - sure, we will assist. As Nihonjoe just did - fixed and explained how you can fix the rest. There are a lot of places where an editor can spend days and weeks cleaning up something and all of us have long todo lists as it is. Why would this be more important than any of the other 100+ things in one's list? :) Additionally, we have a big prices cleanup project going on at the moment so at least the ones that have the wrong format for their listed currency  will be resolved while these are being cleaned up. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 17:10, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::: I wasn't asking anyone to fix anything. Editors who occasionally stop by to add a cover image or think adding the word "the" to people's notes is something important can fix something like this at their leisure, but when you add as many edits as I've done every day for nearly a year now you have to offload some of it. I've fixed thousands of other editors' (and moderators') mistakes here, so obviously I have no problem doing that; however, this "foreign prices" issue is one of many I have no interest in or can't figure out (like varianting) because mods who've been editing here for a decade or more can't quite figure out themselves, so I was dropping it here so when someone who wants to/likes to work on that particular topic feels like doing it they'll know it needs doing. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:06, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::::: so mentioning a singular thing I said a long time ago is pointless because I wouldn't remember it, anyway. Quote me what I supposedly said. EDIT: Never mind, Mr. Sanford quoted me on his Substack page where I quite logically inquired as to what would happen if Mandelo decided their transition was a mistake and wanted to transition back; would Mandelo and all the assorted friends bully ISFDB into changing everything back to Brit? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:::: When you come across data quality issues or gaps in our coverage which you are not in a position to address -- perhaps due to lack of time/energy/knowledge/interest -- please feel free to raise them here or on the Community Portal. Sometimes other, better positioned, editors will be able to help right away while other times it may require a new cleanup report. In this case we have a [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/cleanup_report.cgi?100 cleanup report which looks for invalid prices]. A month ago [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#.22Publications_with_Invalid_Prices.22_further_enhanced it was updated] to be more comprehensive. 600 of the 1,680 problem prices identified in late September have been corrected since. Hopefully, the rest will be cleaned up in the coming months. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:10, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:::::: The [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:FAQ#How_does_the_ISFDB_deal_with_author_name_changes.3F current policy] is:
 +
::::::* The name chosen to be the canonical name is the most recognized name for the author within the SF genre.
 +
:::::: Lee Mandelo provided evidence that the "most recognized name within the SF genre" was "Lee Mandelo". Once we confirmed it, we changed the canonical name as per the policy, not because the author requested it. Whether the policy should be changed to account for author preferences is a different issue and fodder for the Rules and Standards page. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:05, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::: And as I've said before, you don't tell me to do anything because this is a volunteer-only website; when you start paying people a salary then you can tell me what to do. You can bully others (and I've read ample evidence of that) but you ain't doing it to me. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:06, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::::: There are countless people online who have said their transition was the result of peer pressure or mental/emotional confusion or bad parents/doctors who encouraged them to transition for their own personal/monetary reasons and, tragically, many of them have already had body parts removed that they'll never be able to replace. Pretending otherwise is choosing not to accept reality. If Mandelo feels like their transition will be permanent and they're happy with that, fine. ISFDB is a gigantic site and highly disorganized; expecting it to run smoothly for one person is unreasonable. The delay in changing the name was due to a complete breakdown in communication, not because of transphobia. I reject terms like "bigoted" and "insensitive" to describe my remark; an apology will suffice. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:::: ISFDB moderators work with editors and explain the rules which all submissions should follow, i.e. they do tell them what to do. We try to be accommodating and professional about it, but sometimes the same points need to be made over and over again until the editor understands and internalizes them. It's the only way to ensure consistent data quality.
+
:::::: To my shame, I didn't say anything publicly when this kicked off originally - instead choosing to walk away from any association with this site for several months - but quite frankly, I feel that this site would be better off without you.  All the edits you do to fix bad data are great in themselves, but I don't think they are worth all the aggravation you cause.  If I recall correctly, at least one moderator refuses to work on your edits, and numerous other moderators and editors have had run-ins with you over your edits and general attitude.  You've promised on numerous occasions that you intend to leave this site, any chance you can fulfill those promises?
 +
:::::: It's one thing when that stuff is kept internal to this wiki, but when it explodes into the public domain, like it did last December, then all of us get tarred with the same brush, which is why I walked away then. I have numerous issues with what "the other side" did last December - e.g. Sanford's apparent lack of any sort of reaching out to get the ISFDB side of the story; the fact that (as IIRC Scifibones also found) 5 minutes of investigation disproved the claim that the deadname wasn't being still being used for publications (although it looks like some/most of them have finally been updated) - but it's hard to defend the ISFDB position when you had utterly poisoned the discourse. If you don't believe the comments you posted were utterly inflammatory, can I suggest you step out of your FoxNews/Daily Wire/Newsmax/whatever bubble, and understand that you can't talk to people that way?
 +
::::::  Maybe I'll get attacked or censured for this comment, but quite frankly, I'd rather that happen, than have been silent on this. [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:::: If you believe that a moderator has not been communicating with you in a professional way, please post a complaint here. Stating that a moderator has been "bullying" editors in passing is not the way to approach grievances. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:10, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::::::: [[User:Username|Username]] has been warned about being abrasive and about personal attacks, e.g. [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Username#Warning_re:_the_last_exchange_with_Willem_H._on_the_Community_Portal here]. However, the ideal outcome is not to drive abrasive editors away, it is to help them improve their ability to communicate with other editors to ensure that the project functions smoothly. If it doesn't work, then [[ISFDB:Policy#Conduct_Policy]], which provides for escalating penalties for misconduct up to and including an indefinite block, comes into play. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 09:52, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:::::I don't understand, why there is no space between F and 8.60?--[[User:Wolfram.winkler|Wolfram.winkler]] 11:59, 7 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::::: To quote [[Help:List of currency symbols]]:
+
(unindent) Re-reading [[User:Alvonruff/A Post-Mortem on the Lee Mandelo Name Change]], I have a few suggestions:
−
::::::* '''F''': Franc (French). Used in France prior to the transition to the euro in 1999-2002. For consistency, prices should be entered as in "F6.50", though the price may be listed on the publication as "FF", "Fr", or just "F".  
+
* "14 December 2022" where it says "Mandelo posts a request to the Moderator Noticeboard". I suggest linking [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard/Archive_31#Records_Correction_-_Name_.26_Profile_Display the Moderator Noticeboard discussion].
−
:::::: Note that there is no space between the "F" and the digit that follows it. This was agreed upon on the Rules and Standards page some years ago. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:44, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
* Same day where it says "A 4-day bibliographic discussion follows with numerous open questions, with responses from Mandelo." I suggest adding that the current standard -- "For authors who publish under multiple names, the canonical name is the most recognized name for that author within the genre" -- was explained to Lee Mandelo who then provided evidence supporting the notion that, as of 2022-12, the "most recognized name" was indeed "Lee Mandelo". That's what triggered the canonical name change.
−
:::::::I can remember me, that between normal letters like DM, F, and so on we must have a space, only symbols dont't have a space like $, € and so on. Look here: When using an alphabetical (non-symbolic) form or abbreviation of the currency (e.g. DM, Lit, Ft), enter a space between it and the numeric amount--[[User:Wolfram.winkler|Wolfram.winkler]] 16:15, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
* The "Recommendations" section of [[User:Alvonruff/A Post-Mortem on the Lee Mandelo Name Change]] suggests the following change to the canonical name policy:
−
::::::: It is not about normal letters vs special characters - the difference is about characters vs abbreviated currency names. F is treated as a character and not as the short version of Franc. Once the community agreed on that, it was added specifically into the rules so there is nothing to understand in that case - we have a spelled out rule. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:38, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
** The Canonical Name of a living author should only be changed at the request of the author in question.
−
::::::::I agree that was what as decided and what was documented in [[Help:List of currency symbols]]. The wording in [[:Template:PublicationFields:Price]] could be improved though, especially for non-English first speakers. It currently states "Do not enter a space when the currency is represented by a symbol (e.g. $, £, €, ¥, ℳ). When using an alphabetical (non-symbolic) form or abbreviation of the currency (e.g. DM, Lit, Ft), enter a space between it and the numeric amount." Symbol is a bit ambiguous, especially since all the examples are non-letters. Since F is also a alphabetical and an abbreviation, that makes it more confusing if you don't realize a single letter can also be used as a symbol. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 16:47, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
* This would be a fairly major policy change which would affect a number of scenarios. For example, we have received canonical author change requests based on authors trying to promote new working names. To quote what I wrote during the 2022-12 discussion:
−
::::::::: That’s true. Any proposals on how to reword it? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:50, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
** It's been occasionally proposed that we make exceptions to our canonical name policy for certain types of scenarios. For example, {{A|Debora Geary}} published ''A Modern Witch'', a series of popular urban fantasies, in 2011-2013. Then, after a painful divorce, she removed all of them from Amazon and restarted her career as Audrey Faye. A few years ago she published a non-fiction account of her recovery after divorce ([https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2835287 Sleeping Solo: One Woman's Journey Into Life After Marriage]) in which she explained why she could no longer be associated with the name "Debora Geary". Another example would be a person converting to another religion and changing his or her name to reflect new beliefs. Changing one's gender would be another scenario which has been discussed a few times, including [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Rules_and_standards_discussions/Archive/Archive16#Canonical_names_for_transgender_authors an extensive Rules and Standards discussion in September 2018].
−
:::::::::: We should generally put a space between the abbreviation and the value. It's simple and logical.--[[User:Wolfram.winkler|Wolfram.winkler]] 17:12, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
** So far these discussions of possible exceptions have failed to lead to a new consensus, in part because of the number of possible scenarios and sub-scenarios. For example, consider {{A|Poppy Z. Brite}}, who has been using the name "Billy Martin" socially since the early 2010s, but whose books continue to be published as by "Poppy Z. Brite".
−
::::::::::: We could add a "Type" column to [[Help:List of currency symbols]]. The value in each row -- "symbol" or "abbreviation" -- would make it clear whether it needs a space. "F", "$", "¥", "ℳ", "A$", etc would be "symbols" while "DM", "Lit", "Ft", etc would be 'abbreviations". We would then update [[Template:PublicationFields:Price]] with an explanation and a link to [[Help:List of currency symbols]]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:58, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
* We will need to discuss the proposed change on the [[Rules and standards discussions]] page.
−
:::::::::::: Sounds like a good idea. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 22:34, 7 November 2021 (EST)
+
[[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:23, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
−
::::::::::: But the point is that it is not an an abbreviation anymore than ℳ is. It just happened to be a letter of the alphabet. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 22:34, 7 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::::::: I don't understand, why we must have a difference between symbols and abbraviations? We can change the rules. --[[User:Wolfram.winkler|Wolfram.winkler]] 16:15, 8 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
::::::::::::: I don't think inserting a space between the dollar/pound/etc sign and the numeric value would be advantageous, but we can certainly restart the discussion on the Rules and Standards page. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:48, 8 November 2021 (EST)
+
: In my opinion, the best part about the current policy is that it is quantitative/qualitative and not subjective.  We did not use "Brit Mandelo" because of someone's whim or someone's views on Mondelo's gender identity or even popular vote.  Technically, the switch from Brit to Lee as canonical was made because the underlying measure of primary identification changed over time and "Lee Mandelo" supplanted "Brit Mandelo".  I don't think we should have a blanket policy that authors or their agents can request changes.  That's another form of whim, and the ISFDB's purpose is not advertising for authors or publishers.  Perhaps one thing we could consider, though, is a policy allowing those entities to request that the ISFDB make a switch ahead of the results of an in-progress publishing world change.  E.g., if "ABC" came to us and said "I changed my name to 'XYZ', and all of my books are being pulled from the shelves and are being reissued using that name.  Could 'XYZ' be configured as my canonical name?" ISFDB could then project the future and perhaps act early. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 14:19, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
(the rest of the discussion has been moved to the [[Rules_and_standards_discussions#Currency|Rules and Standards page]]) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:07, 9 November 2021 (EST)
+
::: Re: "allowing those entities to request that the ISFDB make a switch ahead of the results of an in-progress publishing world change", we ran into an issue in this area back in the late 2010s.
 +
::: In 2015 the author who had published the "Vladimir Tod/Slayer Chronicles" series as {{A|Heather Brewer}} [https://ew.com/article/2015/06/25/heather-brewer-zac-brewer-transgender/ changed the name] to "Zac Brewer". There were plans to republish Brewer's old books under the new name and at least one SF story was indeed published that way. Based on that, an ISFDB editor proposed that we change the canonical name to "Zac Brewer" with the expectation that it would soon become the "most recognized name ... within the genre". At the time we decided to wait and see what would happen in another year or two.
 +
::: As it turned out, the name "Zac Brewer" was used on 2 non-genre novels in 2016-2017, but all new speculative fiction (2 novels and 1 story) appeared as by "Z Brewer". I guess it goes to show that making assumptions about future releases is chancy in the publishing business. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:05, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
== Canonical name switch - Eric T. Marin ==
+
::I agree. Keeping the policy as objective as possible is a good thing. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 14:43, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Proposing to switch the canonical name from [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?139028 Eric T. Marin] to Eric Marin. Feedback is appreciated, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:42, 30 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::: [[User:Alvonruff|Alvonruff]], thanks for a very nice job on the timeline. I'm not sure anything posted on social media ever changed anyone's opinion, but it accurately documents the facts. Sections 3 and 4 are better served as the kickoff to the Rules and Standards discussion and should not be included in the public release. A subsequent post documenting our reasoning and any changes is a better course. Anyone interested can follow and/or participate in the R & S discussions (I anticipate multiple threads). [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]], If you are going to link this thread to the letter, I suggest starting the main thread and moving [[User:MartyD|MartyD's]] & [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe's]] posts there. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:54, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
−
: Writing under one form of the name and editing under the other (with a few slips on the writing side which you may want to recheck by the way) from the looks of it. And I suspect you have more poems coming from him so sounds like switching it over is not a bad idea. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 06:16, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: I was able to verify the Eric T. Marin outliers published in Scifaikuest: Online. Unable to verify the one title from Star*Line, however, the relevant issue is PV'ed. Submitting the switch, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:06, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Editions Métal => Éditions Métal ==
+
:::: I agree that discussions of the current canonical name policy and any proposed changes belong on the Rules and Standards page. I am just waiting for Al to chime in and clarify whether he meant to propose a change. If he did, then we can move the policy part of the discussion there. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 09:00, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?30184 This publisher's name] should be changed to "Éditions Métal".[[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 09:58, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
::::: For Al's postmortem, I think it would be helpful to quote the first paragraph of the '''Canonical Name''' definition from [[Help:Screen:AuthorData]] and to summarize the "enter-name-as-it-appears-in-the-publication" policy and provide links to [[Template:TitleFields:Author]] and [[Template:PublicationFields:Author]] prior to getting into the timeline.  That is the working context for the data present in the system and various events that occurred during the timeline. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 11:32, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:Done! ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:07, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Mikael Bourgouin => Mikaël Bourgouin ==
+
:::::: That's a good point. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:20, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?252811 This artist's name] should be changed to Mikaël Bourgouin as credited on books.[[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 13:05, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== "Review of" ==
−
:Fixed. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 15:32, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?617716 One of the books] that got changed here has a different verifier and the back cover is visible in [https://www.amazon.fr/dp/2226195548 Amazon France] (it is Mikael Bourgouin). I think the publication note there covers the case but I'd leave a note to the PV about the change as it won't show up in their changed notifications and they may want to revise that note to point out the difference between the note and the credit and the reason for it. I've added a note on the author page about the two forms of the name needing to share the same page due to how the software works. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:25, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::I've updated that one so it shows as a variant. See [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=Mikael+Bourgouin&type=Name here]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 19:07, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::This took a bit of work, too. I had to change it to "Mikaal Bourgouin", variant that to "Mikaël Bourgouin", then correct the variant spelling back to "Mikael Bourgouin". This means that "Mikael Bourgouin" and "Mikaël Bourgouin" now [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=Mikael+Bourgouin&type=Name exist simultaneously] in the database. Not sure if this is significant somehow. Ahaseurus should probably look at it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 19:11, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: Ha, that's new - we were unable to do that before (and I had tried it with another author a few years back).
 
−
:::: The question is which one the titles will go to when you type an author and if that won't cause issues elsewhere - because chances are that these may read as the same author in some parts of the code. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:57, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::: Yes, that's very much a concern. Let me try to replicate this sequence of events on the development server. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:37, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?412925; While my editing which ended after Labor Day won't resume full-time until October I did, after a week without any edits, start doing a few handfuls of clean-up edits fixing this or that which lately have been almost entirely related to D. F. Lewis. I just came across an interesting situation which a mod should probably take care of because it's a 2-step process, changing ESSAY to REVIEW and then link review from the menu, which mods can approve instantly instead of me doing one step and then waiting for approval before doing the other step. Nemonymous 3 mentioned in the review in the zine linked above is on ISFDB, titled Gold Coin; the issue of New Genre is also here as is the issue of Gigamesh. The last non-linked review is of a Norwegian novel whose title translates as a ghost story so that book almost certainly is eligible and should be entered here and then the review linked to it. That one may require someone with a knowledge of the language. I tried to figure out how to search for all instances of "review of" in All Hallows issues but I couldn't do it. Maybe someone else knows how or, if not, an issue-by-issue check will be needed. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:07, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:::::: I have replicated the behavior on the development server. It looks like a bug in Edit Author. Investigating. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:53, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Pohl - Gateway ==
  
−
::::::: I believe I have fixed the bug. The following author records will be affected:
+
Has anybody any suggestions how [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Rudam#Pohl_-_Gateway this situation] might be resolved. No progress has been made as the PV is unresponsive. Thanks. Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 12:54, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
−
:::::::* Ed Acuna / Ed Acuña
 
−
:::::::* Edgar Poe / Edgar Poë
 
−
:::::::* P. J. Herault / P. J. Hérault
 
−
:::::::* Mikael Bourgouin / Mikaël Bourgouin
 
−
::::::: Next, I will need to fix similar (but not identical) flaws in Edit Publisher, Edit Series, Edit Publication Series, Edit Award Type and Edit Award Category. Luckily, it looks like no existing records are affected by these bugs. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:49, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::: Fixed by allowing us to use separate authors this way or by closing the loophole allowing them to exist? If we can use the authors that way, will also EditPub and so on honor what you type and get you the correct author? If you closed a loophole, should I go and clean up these 3 (uhm 4 - I cannot type apparently) and warn the PVs on what happened and why? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 17:10, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::::::: I am afraid I wasn't clear. I meant to say that I fixed the bug in the software that allowed these author name pairs to be created. Prior to this fix, if you created a new author record, e.g. "Test", and then used Edit Author to change its canonical name to "Jules Vérne", the software would let you do that. Post-fix, the software will produce an error and explain that you can't do that because we already have "Jules Verne" on file.
+
== Image Deletion ==
−
::::::::: Please note that, since the author name "pairs" listed above are not supported by the software, you may need to change one of the names to something different like "Ed Acuna1" first, fix everything, then change it back. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 17:44, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::::: Thanks. Suspected so - that's why I asked for clarification - I know that e/é and the rest of these pairs are indistinguishable for our software (until we get to Unicode anyway) and we rely on these names being unique in some places of the code so wanted to make sure where we are at. I was having a small hope we can now do these but oh well :)
 
−
:::::::::: Author merge should sort them out as well:) I will fix these, add notes explaining why they need to be together and notify all the PVs (and any other active editors who worked on the titles) involved whose record change due to this. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:04, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:::::::::::: Sure thing. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:11, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
Could a moderator please delete [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:THBKFSTRND2014.jpg this image]. The licensing tag information is incorrect. After the deletion, I will re-upload with correct tag. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 17:47, 21 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Done. You could have edited the tag BTW :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 18:18, 21 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::I didn't realise I could do it myself. Thanks for the image deletion and the heads up re editing the licence tag. I have now figured out how to do it for the future. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
:::::::::::(edit conflict) How difficult would it be to change the software to allow both by switching everything to use UTF-8, and therefore allow different entries such as "Mikael Bourgouin" and "Mikaël Bourgouin"? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:07, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Shutdown ==
  
−
:::::::::::: Full Unicode support is certainly our ultimate goal. Unfortunately, it's one of the biggest tasks on the To Do list. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:10, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
Library of Congress has an ominous red warning about what will happen if the U.S. government shuts down a few days from now. Will anything on this site be affected or will it make no difference? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 22:57, 28 September 2023 (EDT)
−
::::::::::::: (conflict...) I remember asking that 5 years ago - we need that so that small and capital letters in Cyrillic are treated as the same letter from search (the same way A/a a are treated as the same Latin letter) - which makes capitalization of Cyrillic titles more important than anywhere else - because otherwise you cannot find them (unless you search for the transliteration instead - you are still better off searching via google though so that's why there is that secondary google search if the local one does not find something). So I will be the first to say that we really really need that. But I also know it is not trivial :( [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:16, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
:The only effect will be not being able to look up LCCNs. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 11:03, 29 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
(unindent) Edit Publisher, Edit Publication Series, Edit Series, Edit Award Type and Edit Award Category have been updated to prevent editors from accidentally creating duplicate records. The bugs were even worse than in Edit Author, e.g. you could change an arbitrary publisher name to "ACE Books" (note the case.) Hopefully all fixed now. Please let me know if you come across any issues. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:14, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== LOTR Book ==
−
: And unlike the author names, some of these could have been changed by anyone. Thanks or fixing the bug! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:32, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Goodreads ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3078415; Another editor added an archived link to the Canadian edition recently but nobody ever added a link to the USA edition which has been there since 2010 so I just added it. The title is in question because it's written in fancy font on title pages; PV Auric seemed to think Film Book should be 2 words but other editions are Filmbook. So which should it really be, and should Part I be removed from USA title since it's not actually part of the title in the book? PV doesn't respond very often so I thought I'd bring it up here. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:12, 29 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Just a heads up that I tweeted a request on their Twitter asking if ISFDB can use their cover images (many not on Amazon) without having to save and upload to our Wiki; doubt they'll respond/agree but if they do, great. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:23, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Date for Voyage of Mael Duin's Curragh ==
−
:Cool. Let us know if they reply. Thanks! ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:41, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Odd Mods ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49434; I just had my edit adding an archived link and fixing cover artist/adding interior artist but after looking at it I realized dates are off because Locus, https://www.locusmag.com/index/b1.htm, has one of those 2-date things and someone entered book as October but title and cover art are September, with my new interior art credit matching the book's October date. What's the rule? Which date should they all be? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:03, 29 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
:What does it state on the copyright page? If it includes a month, that's what we should use. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 11:04, 29 September 2023 (EDT)
 +
::No, there's no month, if there was that would take precedence over Locus. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:16, 29 September 2023 (EDT)
  
−
So I noticed someone the other day entered some info for an Evergreen (division of Grove) book, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?424, and as usual I check to see what other related books may need entering/fixing, and noticed 1 book had the wrong format, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?286274, so I changed it to TP. Then I got this, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/myrecent.cgi?0+R, where the top rejection --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:51, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Cover art credit removal ==
  
−
: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/myrecent.cgi?0+R shows a list of recently rejected submission for the ''logged-in'' user. For you, it shows your recently rejected submissions, for me it shows my recently rejected submissions, etc. Only you can see that list for your rejected submissions. Please provide a direct link to the rejected submission. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:09, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
As we don't credit designers for coverart, would moderators agree to removing Michniewicz's titles from {{P|129031|here}} and {{P|174091|here}}? Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 18:50, 1 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
:[https://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2000/b5.htm#A119.2 Locus1] credits Michniewicz for the first one's cover.  Since he is PV for both, you could try reaching out to Michael (use the ISFDB to send him mail) and see if he'll respond and offer an opinion. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 08:34, 2 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Unfortunately I can't use the email system (it won't work with my provider, even though Ahasuerus has tried to fix it for me) so the only possibility there is if some kind soul would email him for me.
 +
::As far as I can ascertain from all the pub notes, Michniewicz is credited as designer for a lot of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?168 the series] for the simple graphics. It is only for later issues where Gollancz have incorporated actual artwork that the artists get credit. Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 20:29, 2 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
is from a mod I had problems with months ago when he threw a tantrum because I fixed some info he got wrong and then recently when I did the same again. He's rejected my edits twice recently, once to reject an updated picture of Donald Trump which showed him full-on and happy instead of sideways and sad, adding "No politics on ISFDB!", as if an image is political, --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:51, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
:::Any other help please? Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 00:03, 7 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5140054 The submission in question] would have replaced our current image of {{A|Donald Trump}} from the back cover of a book with a 2024 campaign button pin, which is clearly political in nature. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:17, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
:::: I would leave a note on [[User talk:Mhhutchins]] re: the proposed changes. If there is no response after a week, we can remove the COVERART titles and document the designers in Notes. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
and then rejecting the 1 above, which is a mistake because as can be seen here, http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Template:PublicationFields:PubFormat, the dimensions are clearly those of a trade paperback (and none of the other Evergreen books are PB, either). --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:51, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
:::::I've left a message on his talk page. Thank you for the advice! Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: I have found [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5141519 the submission in question]. The Publication Note field in this [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?286274 primary-verified pub] says "This edition is 17.7 x 10.5 cm". [[Template:PublicationFields:PubFormat]] says:
+
== John Goss ==
  
−
:* pb - paperback. Typically 7" × 4.25" (18 cm × 11 cm) or smaller, though trimming errors can cause them to sometimes be slightly (less than 1/4 extra inch) taller or wider/deeper
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?239252; 2 different guys. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:39, 2 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
:Separated out. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 19:54, 4 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: Since 17.7 is less than 18 and 10.5 is less than 11, the format should be "pb". [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:24, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Goat ==
  
−
I didn't even notice it until now, but the PV for the Evergreen book is this same mod, so it's another case where he doesn't like me fixing his info that needs fixing. I like how this guy doesn't approve any of the other edits I have in the queue but only picks those he can reject, even though neither of them should have been rejected. It's almost as if he's doing it out of spite because he's still angry about our past dealings; nah, that can't be it, that would be childish and unprofessional, right?. On a related note, the first few edits in my queue relating to Shroud Magazine were "put on hold" recently by another mod until I answered a question he had for me, but since then more recent edits about Shroud have been approved while those remain; was the hold really taken off after I answered his question or are they still on hold? --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:51, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?882813; Can a mod take a look at those last 2 edits? I see at least a few problems with ID and web links; maybe I'm wrong but I don't think they should be there. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 13:07, 4 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: Yes, I removed the hold after you answered my questions. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:10, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Shadow Edits ==
  
−
:: There was no Trump image at all until I added 1 a few months ago, then added the current 1 because it seemed to be a rare 1 and was bigger and easier to see; I was never happy with the sideways view and unhappy expression so decided to replace it with a full-view happy photo, and that was the first 1 that came up; no political intent was intended. Since you obviously disagree I will leave it as it is now. The Evergreen books are all TP except for a couple of supposed HC, so I find it hard to believe they switched to PB just for this one (might be a trimming issue as mentioned above); if so then all the other TP should be PB, too. As for my remaining Shroud edits, I'm just going to cancel them and do them again so they'll go to the top of my list since they seem to be lost where they are now. --[[User:Username|Username]] 12:47, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:MOHearn#Return_of_the_Shadow; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5782555; I contacted MOHearn but we have some cross-editing going on so if I can ask one of you to approve my edits (assuming there's no problem with any of them) starting with the one linked above and going through 5782728 (there's 4 non-Shadow edits from 5782649 through 5782652; ignore those) so we can put these behind us. Thanks. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:29, 5 October 2023 (EDT)
−
:::I've grabbed a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg PD image from Wikimedia Commons] that shows him smiling, and put that in place. That should also avoid the problem of using a campaign button. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:48, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::There are two issues here. First the Trump image that is so clearly political, that only a completely blind person would not notice it. I was probably the first moderator to see it, so I was the one who had to reject it, as any moderator would have done. In my opinion there should never have been a picture of that horrible man uploaded, but opinions don't matter here.
+
== El Topo ==
−
::::Second is the submission to change the format of a publication that has a primary verification by an active editor. As has been explained to you again and again, for this kind of change you need to contact the verifier, so start acting like the professional you claim to be. After I rejected your edit, I added the dimensions to the notes, because the Library of Congress has them wrong. On reviewing this pub, I noticed it should have been moved to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?41234 Evergreen Black Cat / Grove Press], when this form of the publisher was entered in ISFDB in 2018. I corrected this now. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 15:35, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::All authors should have a photo if one is legitimately available. To not have one for Trump would be just as political as trying to use a campaign button (just in the opposite way). I'm no fan of the man, but having a picture of him here has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of him or what kind of person he is or isn't. Let's try to keep that in mind. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 15:43, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Just like I said, opinions don't matter here. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 15:48, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::::: As I mentioned on Username's Talk page the other day, political statements are not allowed here and that includes statements posted on the Wiki. There are plenty of other places where people can share their opinions of politics and politicians. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:44, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5784269; HC copy uploaded recently, I'm going to add it (I added that paper edition a while ago) but wanted to get this edit approved first assuming mods agree it should be a chapbook since novelization is only 80-something pages with the rest being non-fiction. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (EDT)
−
:::::::: Point taken. Sorry, won't do it again. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 16:47, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Submission Search implemented ==
+
== Cleaning up English translations of RUR ==
  
−
The "Moderator Links" section in the navigation bar has been updated with a new option -- [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_search.cgi Submission Search]. At this time it lets you enter a user name (case sensitive due to Wiki limitations) and then gives you a list of the most recent approved submissions created by the user. The table layout is the same as what you get on the Recent Approvals page. You can page through the displayed results 200 submissions at a time.
+
Hi all, I'm in the process of cleaning up the English translations of {{A|Karel Čapek|161}}'s {{T|2218756|RUR}}. This has led to a bunch of related edit submissions ([https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5776995 5776995], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791148 5791148], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791149 5791149], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791151 5791151], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791157 5791157], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791159 5791159], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791160 5791160], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5791188 5791188]), several of which will involve follow-up edits.
  
−
If everything looks OK and we don't run into performance/other issues, we can consider adding additional functionality, e.g. the ability to display rejected submissions, limit the search by date, etc. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:38, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
That said, I'm not quite sure how to approach cleaning up one of the existing {{T|1156033|chapbook}} / {{T|1156034|shortfiction}} pairs. There are 3 associated publications: {{P|328124}}, {{P|362654}}, {{P|529466}}.
−
: There is a bug with names that have a space in them: try to search for Scriptor Praesensionium or Scott Latham. And no amount of quotes seems to help. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 11:43, 15 November 2021 (EST)
+
* '''{{P|328124}}''' is an English translation by David Short that I expect is distinct from the other two publications.
 +
* '''{{P|362654}}''' is an English translation by David Wyllie that is currently mapped to the wrong title(s) based on viewing the publication's title page via a reading sample from Amazon (see edit [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5776995 5776995]).
 +
* '''{{P|529466}}''' is a seemingly unknown English translation from Amazon's on-demand (self-)publisher. I haven't been able to find much trace of this particular edition online. I'm guessing this is likely a reprint of the out-of-copyright translation by Paul Selver possibly further adapted by Nigel Playfair.
 +
Do the following actions seem appropriate for this situation?
 +
# Unmerge {{P|328124}} and associate with new variant chapbook and shortfiction titles (distinct translation by David Short)
 +
# Unmerge {{P|362654}} and associate with different variant {{T|1114927|chapbook}} and {{T|1314651|shortfiction}} titles (distinct translation by David Wyllie)
 +
# Leave {{P|529466}} as is, but update associated {{T|1156033|chapbook}} and {{T|1156034|shortfiction}} titles to note that this is an unknown translation.
  
−
:: Thanks, I'll take a look. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:39, 15 November 2021 (EST)
+
Thanks! --[[User:Riselka|Riselka]] ([[User talk:Riselka|talk]]) 14:03, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Yep - when we know the translators of a specific book, unmerge the chapbook and the story, make them variants and add the translator to the notes of both titles. We had been slowly chipping at the early messes such as this one, created long before we started recording translators on the title level - so thanks for sorting it out. I also tend to add a "This title may contain multiple distinct translations" note or something to that effect to the one with unknown translators - when there is more than one book anyway. If two unknowns are known to be different, we also unmerge them and add as much as we know on their notes to identify what goes where... [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 14:23, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
:: Jules Verne has lots of examples of multiple translations in various languages. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] ([[User talk:Holmesd|talk]]) 17:29, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
::: Thanks, that makes sense. I mainly wanted to check how to handle this particular instance because I expected the translator could be identified if someone checked this particular edition. Jules Verne is a good (although more complex) example that I'll keep in mind when I clean up future translation records. --[[User:Riselka|Riselka]] ([[User talk:Riselka|talk]]) 17:45, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
:::: We are playing catch-up on these -- for a long time, we did not separate or record per translator - so since we started, it had been a never ending game of finding all of them. And the ones translated into English are the most problematic due to the volume - in most other languages, we are mostly done with adding the Translator template which required the messes to be untangled. There are corners of the DB like that - where you will find surprises you would think cannot happen. Jules Verne looks as good as he does because Doug spent months fixing the records. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
::: I believe the bug has been fixed. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_search_results.cgi?submitter_name=Scott+Latham Here] is what we get when searching on "Scott Latham". [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:56, 16 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Old cover image delete ==
  
−
== Artist Chaffe ==
+
Could someone please delete [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:MCKNGBRDPV0000.jpg the old image], Date/Time: - 11:47, 23 February 2014 - to prevent reverting. The new image is identical but larger. Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 16:26, 19 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
: Done. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks Annie! Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Author Record # 27922, Chaffe lists no other information and only one record for cover art Worlds of Tomorrow, May 1967. On Oct 4, 2021 Heritage Auctions sold the art that was used as the cover for that magazine. https://fineart.ha.com/itm/pulp-pulp-like-digests-and-paperback-art/doug-chaffee-american-20th-century-the-throwaway-age-worlds-of-tomorrow-magazine-cover-may-1967-gouache-on-board-17-1-4-x-1/a/8055-71064.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Inventory-BuyNowFromOwner-ThisAuction-120115. They give credit to Douglas Chaffee and he signed the art in the lower right. I think this record should be merged into  Author Record # 26145 and record 27922 be deleted. I have submitted a request to change the artist of Worlds of Tomorrow, May 1967 from Chaffe to Douglas Chaffee [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 17:09, 6 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Invaders by Adelia Saunders ==
−
:We credit as per the publication. I was able to find this issue at Internet Archive and the table of contents has "Cover by Chaffe". I rejected your edit and instead made it an alternate name. Please remember that, for cover artists, we allow the use of secondary sources to add credits (using the canonical name) for uncredited cover art; however, we don't replace credited art using secondary sources. Hope that makes sense. If not, please ask questions. Thanks for finding this. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:08, 7 November 2021 (EST)email
 
−
: The main thing is that Douglas Chaffee got into the record as being the artist. [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 13:58, 7 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== One Against the Legion ==
+
This concerns the cover art shown for Publication Record # 777558, Invaders by Vaughn Heppner
 +
The cover art shows the author to be Adelia Saunders. She did not write a book called Invaders. She did write one called Indelible.
 +
I went over to Brilliance Audio. This is just a generic cover they use. Its the same cover for Invader by C.J. Cherryh, Artemis Invaded by Jane Lindskoid and a number of others including The Spirit of Dorsai, By Gordon R. Dickson [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] ([[User talk:Aardvark7|talk]]) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Hello Mods. I have a copy of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?583668] however although the prices on the back match those of the record the copyright only has "Published in Great Britain by Sphere Books Ltd 1977"
+
: [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?777558 Updated], thanks. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:20, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
−
and not the "Reprinted 1979". How should I enter this publication please ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 12:57, 8 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Captive Universe ==
+
== Derived prices in early Bantam Books ==
  
−
Publication Record # 262970 shows no data of publication. For this ISBN, Goodreads has a date of June 15, 1976 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2835449-captive-universe. ISBN Search also shows a date of 1976 but a month of January. Record show 2 primary verifications: Syzygy last action 2016 and Don Erikson last active 2020 [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 15:51, 8 November 2021 (EST)
+
[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?25 Bantam Books] was founded in 1945 and concentrated on publishing mass market paperbacks. As far as I can tell, early on they didn't display prices on the cover or on the spine. However, some (all?) of them, e.g. [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49073 ''The Unexpected''] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?216693 my verified ''''The Day He Died''], had ad pages in the back with one or more lists of books which you could buy by sending $0.25 plus $0.05 for postage to the publisher's address. I suppose it's likely that the list price was also $0.25, although it's not a guarantee.
  
−
== Resurrecting a rejected NewPub ==
+
Some online sources explicitly state that the list price was "$0.25", but I don't know where their data comes from. Some of our records also display "$0.25" in the price field, e.g. [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49073 ''The Unexpected''], which has the following note:
 +
* No price stated, but ad pages for current releases list $0.25 price.
  
−
As [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?867271 The Apollo Murders] has been deemed OK for inclusion here, does anyone care to unreject [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5106514 my original attempt to submit it] from last month?  I assume the original NewPub (which adds a different UK edition) could be accepted, and then the duplicate title record merged with the existing one - as opposed to having to redo it all as a new AddPub submission? [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] 19:14, 9 November 2021 (EST)
+
Clearly, this situation requires an explanation in the Note field, but what would you enter in the price field? $0.25? Leave it blank? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:11, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
−
: It is still borderline but it does get marked as SF everywhere so... let's keep it for now. Unrejected, approved and merged and I dropped a note to the original moderator so he knows what happened here and why. I have a very vague memory that Fixer actually sent that one in and I did not like it (too borderline that early on) so sent it to wait post-publication - and I had not gone back to the October titles again. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:30, 9 November 2021 (EST)
+
:Seems ok to me to use $0.25 and treat the ad as a secondary source. If we had a book with no printed price on it, found a review (or announcement) contemporaneous with its issuance, and that review stated a price, I think we would normally be happy to use that and cite the review as the source.  The ad situation strikes me as equivalent. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 14:03, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
−
::Everything about this book screams Techno Thriller, but at least his other book[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2035375](ages 3-5) has some spec fic(advanced tech/magic gets cardboard box into space) in it, albeit for toddlers on someone knee.[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] 21:22, 9 November 2021 (EST)
+
:: I agree. As long as there is a note explaining the sourcing of the price, this is not different from finding a price on a publisher site, a contemporary review or any other secondary source. If we ever find a better information that contradicts the price as derived via such a method for that specific book, the note can be adjusted and the price changed if needed. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 14:44, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
−
::: Two editors and one moderator decided that there is something borderline enough to include it. I’d rather err on the side of inclusion. We can always delete it  when someone reads it and we decide it is not ours. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 01:21, 10 November 2021 (EST)
+
:::Thanks to Ahasuerus for following up my discussion with him and getting this cleared up. Here's a list, [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/adv_search_results.cgi?USE_1=pub_title&O_1=exact&TERM_1=&C=AND&USE_2=pub_verifier&O_2=contains&TERM_2=Latham&USE_3=pub_publisher&O_3=contains&TERM_3=Bantam&USE_4=pub_title&O_4=exact&TERM_4=&USE_5=pub_title&O_5=exact&TERM_5=&USE_6=pub_title&O_6=exact&TERM_6=&USE_7=pub_title&O_7=exact&TERM_7=&USE_8=pub_title&O_8=exact&TERM_8=&USE_9=pub_title&O_9=exact&TERM_9=&USE_10=pub_title&O_10=exact&TERM_10=&ORDERBY=pub_year&ACTION=query&START=0&TYPE=Publication], of all Bantam books PV by Scott Latham; he entered prices for all of them and there's a note in the third book that he got the price from Tuck. EDIT: In the 4th book there's a note, "Price from ads in the back, listing other Bantam titles all for 25¢", so it seemed random whether there's no price note or where he got it from if he did leave a note. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 14:56, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
−
:::: Thanks. I actually picked this up yesterday when the ebook was dirt cheap in an Amazon daily sale (which is what prompted me to check if anyone else had added it here).  Unfortunately there are several hundred other books that are prioritized above it in my TBR, so it'll be a long while before I personally get round to seeing how speculative or not it might be... [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] 05:11, 10 November 2021 (EST)
+
:I think this is fine. A note should be included stating where the price was from, but I have no problem sourcing prices that way. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:27, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
−
::::: You know, there is a small part of my brain that is screaming in my head that if it is in space (and set in 1973), it must be ours - even if all they do out there is grow potatoes or kill each other. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:35, 10 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::: At the risk of getting way off-topic for the moderator page, I'm reminded that [https://www.goodreads.com/series/249181 the Patricia Cornwell space-set mysteries] puzzled me due their lack of inclusion. I did wonder whether to submit them - NB: I haven't, and am not likely to ever, read them - but I assumed that they'd maybe been picked up by Fixer and rejected?  Although perhaps Thomas & Mercer isn't an imprint that Fixer watches? [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] 17:48, 10 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::I haven't read them, but the descriptions I've read make them sound like near-future thrillers with some science fictionish elements. So, based on that, I'd consider them on the fence for inclusion. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:33, 10 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Lloyd ==
+
(unindent) Thanks, folks. I have updated the publication record, deleted a duplicate pub and notified the affected verifier. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User:MA_Lloyd; I came across a book with this editor's name and his ISFDB page has a stray comment from someone on the wrong page, in case anyone wants to move it to the right page. --[[User:Username|Username]] 10:21, 13 November 2021 (EST)
+
:Can we have some clarification please because I am confused by this discussion.
 +
:Ahasuerus' initial post implied to me that we are looking at a situation where an unpriced book contains a house ad listing other books for sale from the publisher. All these books are listed with an identical price but the list does NOT contain the title of the book in which it is printed. Call this scenario A.
 +
:However, MartyD and Annie's replies imply to me that they seem to think the list DOES contain the title of the book in which it is printed. Call this scenario B.
 +
:We need to consider these two scenarios separately.
 +
:Scenario A: I do not consider it appropriate to infer the price of a book from other contemporary books. The [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?11582 Ace 1st pb ed of Dune], published in 1967, is priced 95c. It's a fat book for its era. However, Ace pb's in that year were typically priced around 50c. So if, hypothetically, Ace books published in 1967 did not have a cover price then it would be erroneous to infer that Dune was 50c based on a house ad listing other contemporary books at 50c.
 +
:Scenario B: This is not contentious. Record the price in the Price field and add a mandatory pub note stating the source, ie the house ad. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 18:52, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
: Done. Thanks for the heads-up. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:05, 13 November 2021 (EST)
+
:: Sorry, I may not have been clear. The ads in the back of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?216693 my verified ''The Day He Died''] do include ''The Day He Died'' (with the correct catalog ID) in the list of books that you can get for $0.25, so it's "Scenario B" above.
  
−
== Dark Drabble Anthologies or Dark Drabbles Anthologies? ==
+
:: Now that I am thinking about, there may be an additional twist. According to Jon Warren's "Official Price Guide: Paperbacks", some early Bantam paperbacks had 2 versions which shared the ''same'' catalog ID: a regular version and a version in a dust jacket. I don't recall seeing dust-jacketed versions, which are apparently highly prized among collectors. I don't know how they were priced and whether you could get them from the publisher for $0.25. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 19:36, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
:::Ah, all is good then. Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
I'd like to index the third anthology of drabbles in a series edited by D. Kershaw for Black Hare Press. I have a contributors' copy for this volume and the title, as given on the title page, is ''Monsters: A Dark Drabbles Anthology'' (note the plural of 'drabble'). The page after this lists four other titles under the heading 'Dark Drabbles Anthologies' (again note the plural use of 'drabble').
+
== Canonical name out of date? ==
  
−
However, two other titles in the series have been listed on the ISFDB (one of them by a contributor to the book concerned who has provided a primary verification) - [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2602178 Worlds] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2714526 Apocalypse] - with the subtitle of each volume given as 'A Dark Drabble Anthology' (note the singular of 'drabble'). They are together listed in a series called [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?55298 Dark Drabble Anthologies] with 'drabble' in the singular again.
+
[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?79169 G. Arthur Rahman] has about 15 titles under that canonical name, from the 70s and 80s, but he has over 30 under the name Glenn Rahman (and a few under other forms of the name). [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?976477 Here] is my entry of some new 2023 stories in addition to those on that author page. I'm holding off on making them variants to ask: Could his canonical name be changed from G. Arthur Rahman to Glenn Rahman to reflect the majority of bylines? -- [[User:MOHearn|MOHearn]] ([[User talk:MOHearn|talk]]) 10:29, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
:Working on this. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:31, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
Looking up each title on Amazon and using the 'Look Inside' feature, both the [https://www.amazon.co.uk/WORLDS-Science-Microfiction-Anthology-Drabbles-ebook/dp/B07Q5VRCWL/ Worlds] and [https://www.amazon.co.uk/APOCALYPSE-Apocalyptic-Microfiction-Anthology-Drabbles-ebook/dp/B07Z38D57B/ Apocalypse] volumes are subtitled 'A Dark Drabbles Anthology' (i.e. 'drabble' in the plural) on their respective title pages (although Amazon has assigned them a variant subtitle for marketing purposes in its database). Also, the covers of the two books indicate that they are numbered 'Dark Drabbles #1' and 'Dark Drabbles #6', respectively.
+
:: Yes, I'd think so - provided someone sets out to do the transformation. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 12:32, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
 +
::Done! You can see it [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?15307 here]. Let me know if I missed anything as this one was more complicated due to the number of pseudonyms. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:15, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
  
−
My question is this: Should I submit an entry about ''Monsters'' using the subtitle as it appears on the book's title page or should I use the singular form of 'drabble' so as to make this volume conform with the existing entries in the ISFDB? Greg--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 17:47, 13 November 2021 (EST)
+
Thanks, Nihonjoe! I'll put the new stories into their series and look over the older ones. -- [[User:MOHearn|MOHearn]] ([[User talk:MOHearn|talk]]) 13:38, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
−
: Use what the title page says :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:20, 13 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:: Thanks Annie! That's what I thought should be the case. I guess the titles of the other two books in the series and the series title should also be updated before working on the entry for volume #3?--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 19:26, 13 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::  Yep. Ping the PVs. There may be a different copy floating around as well (correction on part of the print run? - these are PODs most likely so easy to do). So we check with the PV even if we can see the book on Amazon now. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:29, 13 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::: OK. That's reasonable.--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 19:43, 13 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Gorman Book and Other Problems ==
+
== Juliana Pinha --> Juliana Pinho ==
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?80385; Did some work on Ed Gorman's Sam McCain series since there was lots of wrong/missing info; this particular book I believe was missing the Carroll & Graf edition, although I'm not 100% sure because by the time someone got around to approving it I'd done a lot of other edits and couldn't remember anymore. However, I wondered why it was approved and yet there was still a pending edit on my list with the same title; when I looked at the record, Gorman's name is there twice. I highly doubt that I did that when I made the edit, so I figured I'd wait until someone approved the remaining edit. Someone just did, and all the info I entered is there now, I think, but Gorman's name is still there twice. I have no idea what happened, but someone might want to take a look and see where the chain broke. Also, while coming here to write this note, I had to log in again after not having to do it for a long time. I've also noticed recently that searching records is taking longer than usual; there seems to be a delay on pages that have more than a couple of entries, and when you go back to a previous page it takes a few seconds for the record link you just clicked to change colors so you know it's been clicked. I don't know if others are experiencing this, but other sites I go to don't seem to have a problem, so I don't think it's my laptop. I logged in again, so that's taken care of, anyway. --[[User:Username|Username]] 12:33, 14 November 2021 (EST)
+
Hello, would it be possible to correct 'Pinha' to 'Pinho' in this entry for INTERZONE #295? Thank you.
−
:Hmm...simply removing the second one doesn't work, so there's something definitely fishy about it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 14:06, 15 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:: It is a kinda known issue - you need to replace one of the two with a different name (I add 1 at the end usually). Approve that. Then you can remove it with a second edit. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:54, 15 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::Yeah, I figured that would work. I wanted to make sure the right people knew about it. :) ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 16:30, 15 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::: Thanks for letting me know! I thought we had a cleanup report for this scenario, but maybe not. Let me take a look... [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:43, 15 November 2021 (EST)
+
190 •  Notes From the Meeting of the First State Feder World Court: Walker Dairy, Freeville, NY, 198 Year One: Jessica Jane Pearson Vs. The Stranger Mr. Jacob Hampton • interior artwork by Juliana Pinha
  
−
::::: A new cleanup report has been deployed. I expect it to find 2 more pubs with duplicate authors when it runs tomorrow morning. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 09:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?977484
  
−
== Serials without Standard Parenthetical Disambiguators ==
+
--[[User:Interzone|Interzone]] ([[User talk:Interzone|talk]]) 14:29, 3 November 2023 (EDT)
  
−
The following titles comply with standards and may be removed this cleanup report
+
: This depends on the way the artist is credited in the issue: we do document the spelling of a name, even if it is mistyped in a given magazine issue (and then do variant it to the canonical name, like in [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3146115 this example]).
−
*Castles in the Sky - 6 titles
+
: Anyway, since "Interzone" #295 is primary verified, it is etiquette to ask / inform the primary verifier. You can reach him [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:MagicUnk here]. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 16:05, 3 November 2023 (EDT)
−
*Creative Destruction - 48 titles
 
−
*Echoes from Dust - 60 titles
 
−
*Keepers of the Ageless One - 20 titles
 
−
*Near Zero - 46 titles
 
−
*The Cavern of Serpents - 5 titles
 
−
*The Night Companion - 9 titles
 
−
*The Voyage of the Princess Ark - 36 titles
 
−
*Trigger Warnings - 9 titles
 
−
Thanks in advance, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:41, 19 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:Done. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 12:15, 19 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:: Here are a few more
 
−
::*The Witches' Bane - 21 titles
 
−
::*My Name Is Daedalus - 6 titles
 
−
::*Murder in New Eden - 22 titles
 
−
:: Apreciate your attention [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:49, 1 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
::: Done. I also fixed a couple capitalization issues ("With" is never capitalized in mid-title) :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 13:40, 2 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
::::A few more which can be removed
+
:: Thanks for the info. It is 'Pinho' in the magazine (on the story cover page, and in the contents page). I'll move this to the primary verifier page, thanks.
−
::::*From the Ashes of Our Fall - 5 titles
 
−
::::*Living Standards - 32 titles
 
−
::::*The Dead Bine - 41 titles
 
−
::::*The Masterful Timepiece - 5 titles
 
−
::::*Volatility Cycles - 19 titles
 
−
::::Apreciate your attention, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 08:37, 15 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::: Just a reminderr [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:27, 22 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::: Worldcon beats pressing Ignore I am afraid :) All done - although "The Dead Bine" was really "The Dead Bin" ;) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:32, 22 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::::: Better to misspell here than the actual title! Thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 20:42, 22 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Condor ==
+
:: --[[User:Interzone|Interzone]] ([[User talk:Interzone|talk]]) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubs_not_in_series.cgi?19977; 70's Condor was a cheap paperback house; 40 years later Condor is not the same publisher. --[[User:Username|Username]] 13:34, 19 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Star Bridge by James E. Gunn, Jack Williamson ==
  
−
== Sixth Month of the Condor ==
+
Publication Record # 31949 states the artist is Ed Valigursky and that there was not any credit in the book. That the credit came from Jack Williamson's Seventy-Five: The Diamond Anniversary of a Science Fiction Pioneer. Heritage Auctions (fineart.ha.com/itm/paintings/gordon-pawelka-american-20th-century-star-bridge-paperback-cover-1963-oil-on-board-20-1-2-x-1/a/8000-71029.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515) has the artist as Gordon Pawelka. Was this a name used by Valigursky or do we have a conflict?? Hey Heritage could be wrong. It sold in 2020 for $3000 {{unsigned|Aardvark7}}
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?254915; Open Library page says June, copyright page of Archive.org copy, https://archive.org/details/waltdisneyproduc0000clar, has a 06 at the end of the page; is that what Scholastic used to denote month of publication? Also, the long-gone PV has a stray message on the wrong page of their board. --[[User:Username|Username]] 16:18, 21 November 2021 (EST)
+
== RUSSWOTHE ==
  
−
== What Happened Here? ==
+
https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User:RUSSWOTHE; I made a minor edit for a book PV by this person and noticed there's a stray message in the wrong place. Is it possible to move it to their discussion page? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 18:40, 7 November 2023 (EST)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?271797; One of the edits I made today was for an ancient Boy Scouts anthology of genre stories, but my edit field has been cleared and that book isn't in my approved edits list. Checking the book's record, my note about where I got info from is there but many of the stories don't have the page #'s I entered and the edit history doesn't credit me at all. What is this? --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:04, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
: Done, thanks. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 17:21, 8 November 2023 (EST)
  
−
:Looks like a system's hiccup (either of our software, or - more likely - of the internet / server connection). This happens very seldom, but it does. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 11:12, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Followup: Crowley and Aziraphale's New Year's resolutions ==
−
: It [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/recent.cgi?0+P errored out]. Happens occasionally - not much anyone can do besides redoing the submission in case it did not get through (as usually part of it goes through and part of it fails). As you can see, it happens less than once a month usually. You just ended up being this month's recipient of the glitch. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 11:39, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:: I am afraid the linked page is moderator-only, so Username can't see it. Here are the dates of the 2020/2021 errored out submissions:
+
Hello. I did not receive a response to my [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Help_desk#Crowley_and_Aziraphale.27s_New_Year.27s_resolutions September 2023 question] about how to catalog a weirdly-published Good Omens short story. So I am repeating the question here, please. [[User:Morebooks|Morebooks]] ([[User talk:Morebooks|talk]]) 14:25, 8 November 2023 (EST)
 +
: Not eligible unless it was downloadable as an ebook - we allow only a limited set of online fiction and "a publisher site" is not amongst them. If it was downloadable as an ebook, it will be added as a chapbook. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 15:08, 8 November 2023 (EST)
  
−
::* 2021-11-22 09:17:07
+
== Wrong tag for L. Sprague de Camp's ''The Hardwood Pile'' ==
−
::* 2021-10-31 08:50:35
 
−
::* 2021-09-03 21:40:09
 
−
::* 2021-08-10 19:21:53
 
−
::* 2021-04-09 19:03:27
 
−
::* 2021-03-19 18:41:44
 
−
::* 2021-03-13 18:45:32
 
−
::* 2020-09-24 15:28:30
 
−
::* 2020-07-02 01:38:06
 
−
::* 2020-06-08 06:48:00
 
−
::* 2020-02-25 01:03:37
 
−
::* 2020-01-16 07:34:40
 
  
−
:: [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 14:03, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
Hello to all. The tag "science fiction" has been wrongly attributed to [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?57951 this story], which is only a fantastic and humorous ghost story. Could a bureaucrat please remove it ? TIA, [[User:Linguist|Linguist]] ([[User talk:Linguist|talk]]) 04:31, 12 November 2023 (EST).
−
::: Thanks for posting these - I totally forgot that this one is not visible. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:30, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::: I re-entered rest of info that got lost, so now it should be complete once approved; I also amended my note with today's date and my name so nobody working on this later (which is likely since almost every name entered on ISFDB is different in the book) doesn't think someone else entered partial page #'s and fixed some names and then I stumbled along and finished it off. --[[User:Username|Username]] 17:17, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Remove non-SF/fantasy/speculative fiction incorrectly attributed to an SF author ==
  
−
::::: Today I clicked on my errored out edits and was surprised to see my edit that's mentioned here; does it go away by itself or can it be deleted, or does it just stay there? --[[User:Username|Username]] 17:34, 19 December 2021 (EST)
+
Hi.
  
−
:::::: My two from 2016 and 2017 are still there, so I suspect they will only go away if there's another glitch of a different sort. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 09:50, 20 December 2021 (EST)
+
I recently read and loved the story "In the Days After..." in Asimov's Science Fiction, November-December 2023 (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3238197). I was curious about this author who was new to me, with a story I really liked, so I checked ISFDB.
  
−
== Author Merge Request ==
+
Most of his work is noted as 1981 and beyond, with a long gap (~28 years) from 1995 to 2023. The Asimov's blurb does note that Frank Ward (William Francis Ward) did take a long time off from writing for "life". https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?11458
  
−
Hi.  
+
There is a 1958 story listed under Frank Ward, "The Dark Corner". I was suspicious of this, as Frank Ward is listed with a 1950 birthdate.
  
−
For F&SF September/October 2019, SFJuggler is the PV.
+
I checked around. Galactic Central does show a substantial mystery body of work by a different Frank Ward, from the 1930s to the 1960s. http://www.philsp.com/homeville/cfi/n00786.htm#A5
  
−
I noticed a title " Films: Love Death + Some Regression", which is an essay noted as by "Karen Lowachee" at http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?738088. I believe the author name is a typo, and the author should be "Karin Lowachee". The Amazon kindle preview notes "Karin Lowachee". "Karen Lowachee" has no other titles in ISFDB, but "Karin Lowachee" does, and they appear in F&SF also, of a similar type.  
+
I confirmed with the current Frank Ward via email that he did not write the mystery story "The Dark Corner", which does show up under the other Frank Ward at Galactic Central.
  
−
I checked with the PV and SFJuggler concurs that a correction to "Karin Lowachee" should be made. I understand that the Authors must be merged, to the "Karin Lowachee" author name. There should be no records left for "Karen Lowachee".
+
Given that "The Dark Corner" here is not by this Frank Ward (William Francis Ward), and that the other Frank Ward who wrote "The Dark Corner" appears to have written mysteries but not SF, fantasy or speculative fiction, I am assuming that I need to delete "The Dark Corner" story from ISFDB. I further assume this is done by the "Delete this title" button.
  
−
My understanding is that a Moderator must do an Author Merge.
+
Please confirm, or let me know what is needed.
  
 
Thanks.
 
Thanks.
−
[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] 13:29, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 13:09, 12 November 2023 (EST)
−
: A merge is needed if there is more than one title under the wrong author name and you do not want to update all records one by one. In the case of just one title, you can simply update the record [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2627436 here] and the mistaken name will get auto-deleted as soon as it is approved. Authors are matched based on the name, not the ID. So:  
+
 
−
:* Check with the PV (there are two of them and both are very active) to make sure
+
:There's an issue with one of Ward's titles, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?914168, the Fantasy Book Index, https://archive.org/search?query=%22the+pegasus+suit%22&sin=TXT&and%5B%5D=year%3A%221983%22, says "Pegasus", there's a contents page scan on AbeBooks, https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Fantasy-Book-February-1982-Third-Issue/30051987897/bd, which probably says the same although it's blurry, only way to be sure is looking at the story's title page which would require a copy of the zine, you may want to ask him if he owns it so he can check. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 13:38, 12 November 2023 (EST)
−
:* If one of them checks the magazine and agrees, submit the edit :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 13:33, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
 
−
: PS: Even if we go for a merge and not an edit, the "check with the PVs" is a mandatory step :) So... start there. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 13:34, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
::I'm not quite clear what the issue is. When I looked at any of the 3 copies of the "An Index to Fantasy Book, Volume 1", at Internet Archive, they all note "The Pegasus Suit". Thanks for the clarification.
−
::Thanks. I'll check with Rtrace also. I already checked w/SFJuggler.[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] 14:13, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
::[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 13:57, 12 November 2023 (EST)
−
:::Rtrace OK obtained, and edit on author name submitted. Thanks for your help.[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] 11:17, 23 November 2021 (EST)
+
 
 +
::: Thanks for checking with the author! I have disambiguated the author name -- see [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?370798 the result here] -- and updated the title record.
 +
 
 +
::: As to whether we want to remove [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2550138 "The Dark Corner"] from the database, it depends on a couple of different factors. The story appeared in the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?569570 anthology ''Bodies and Souls'']. Its dust jacket says "Fourteen Tales of Worldly and Other-Worldly Murder, Mayhem and Mystery", which suggests that it collects both SF and non-SF stories. We currently list one of the stories, "Too Many Coincidences", as "non-genre" while the rest are listed as SF. It's entirely possible that some of them are non-genre; we just don't know one way or the other. Once we know more about these stories, we can decide what to do with the anthology. Since it apparently contains at least some SF stories, we will want to keep the publication record, but if the overwhelming majority of the stories are non-genre, we may end up removing them and documenting them in Notes. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:27, 12 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::My thanks for handling this. I appreciate and concur with the thinking, and I'll try to retain that for the future. Mr. Ward is pleased this has been revised.[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::: ISFDB says "Pegusus" which is obviously a misspelling of "Pegasus" but a look at the header on the story's title page is what's needed because it's entirely possible, as so often in zines, that titles differ from what's on the contents page. Searching for "Pegusus Suit" online finds only ISFDB and a couple of booksellers that obviously copied their info directly from ISFDB so it's likely just a simple mistake by whoever entered the contents here. You said you spoke to him via email so maybe you can ask him if he owns that issue of Fantasy Book to check and if it's wrong it will be fixed to "Pegasus". --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 18:05, 12 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::I have reached out to Frank Ward on this question. I'll circle back when I know, and then correct the title if needed. Thanks.[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::: I have confirmed with Frank Ward by check of his copy of the 1982 Fantasy Book that "Pegasus" is the correct spelling. He thanks us for making the correction. I will submit that now. [[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 19:09, 17 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::: Bodies and Souls is linked at Archive.org in the notes section of its record here so the story can be read to determine if it's genre or not as can the other contents; also, it's much longer than the others in the book and should probably be given novelette length. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::::I checked at Galactic Central. They believe this story ("The Dark Corner") is a novella. I will make that change.[[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::::: Approved, thanks. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:13, 16 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Muster of Ghosts II==
 +
 
 +
[https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=MSTRFGHSTS1924.jpg&wpUploadDescription=%7B%7BCID1%0A%7CTitle%3DA%20Muster%20of%20Ghosts%0A%7CEdition%3DCecil%20Palmer%201924%20hc%0A%7CPub%3DMSTRFGHSTS1924%0A%7CPublisher%3DCecil%20Palmer%0A%7CArtist%3DUnknown%0A%7CSource%3DScanned%20by%20%5B%5BUser%3AUsername%5D%5D%7D%7D]; I was going to upload SFE image but it seemed familiar and it turned out I'd done it already but the image didn't go to the right place; also this old edit, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5740959, has been sitting there for months because without an image the signature couldn't be seen. So can someone get the image fixed and approve the cover artist edit? EDIT: After I entered this message it didn't go to the right place because I'd already written about it, with the same message title, long ago but nobody ever answered; it's up above. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:56, 15 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:The image has been added to the pub & your edit approved. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== MP3 CD price on Amazon note ==
 +
 
 +
Just a heads-up that Amazon is now typically showing the as new price for MP3 CDs whose publisher is "Audible Studios on Brilliance Audio" as $10.02. The list price for these CDs as reported on brilliancepublishing.com is almost always $9.99. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 07:23, 17 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Amazon ==
 +
 
 +
I've noticed that Amazon.com is used frequently to verify a publication date. I just wanted to point out that it's an unreliable source, because any time they don't know the exact date, they use the first of the month.
 +
For example, the publication date of this book: https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?535016 is listed as 2008-11-01, but the data is from Amazon, so I don't know if that's the accurate date, or they just used the first of the month because they didn't know any better. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Clauditorium|Clauditorium]] ([[User talk:Clauditorium|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Clauditorium|contribs]]) .</small>
 +
 
 +
: The quality of Amazon's records varies a great deal. It's not always clear why the bad data is the way it is, but we can make educated guesses, at least in certain cases. For example, Amazon occasionally -- I would say around 5-10% of the time -- lists unrealistically low (14-32) page counts for English e-book editions of Japanese "light novels". It seems to be related to the fact that some light novels have short (4-20 pages) manga sections at the beginning of the book. We don't know why it affects Amazon's page counts, but it's something that editors have to keep in mind when entering light novel records using Amazon's data.
 +
 
 +
: Re: dates, it depends on how old the record is, where the book was originally published and the publisher. For older books, some records have no day/month information, some add arbitrary "-01" or "-01-01" to the end of the month or year, and some have surprisingly accurate dates even for books published in the 1960s/1970s. Our best guess is that "surprisingly accurate dates" come from publishers' catalogs that Amazon has/had access to.
 +
 
 +
: Amazon.com's records for books published in other countries frequently list the "US availability" date as the publication date. There can be a big gap between these two types of dates for books originally published in the UK and especially in Australia/New Zealand, which is why Amazon's dates for these types of books are often wrong.
 +
 
 +
: Also, a note on the terminology. We use Amazon stores -- Amazon.com, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, etc -- as ''sources'' of our data, but we don's use it for ''verification''. We have a number of recognized "secondary verification" sources which you can see if you display a publication record and click on "Verify This Pub" link under "Editing Tools", then scroll down to "Secondary Verifications". Like everything else in this world, these verification sources are not perfect, but their data is, on average, better than Amazon's.
 +
 
 +
: Ultimately, the ISFDB data is only as good as our sources. Even primary verified data can be imperfect due to data entry errors and misunderstandings. That's why it's so important to document exactly where our data comes from. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 11:23, 20 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== US Copyright Office website ==
 +
 
 +
Do you guys ever use the US Copyright Office website? I would think that would be the most reliable source. It often has publication dates down to the day, whereas other sources only have them down to the month.
 +
https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First {{unsigned|Clauditorium}}
 +
 
 +
: We use a variety of secondary sources to determine publication dates as discussed in [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub#Date-SecondarySources this Help section]. The Copyright Catalog can be (and have been) used as a secondary source of information as long as we keep in mind that their "Date of Publication" values and "Registration date" values are often different, so we need to make sure to use their "Date of Publication" values.
 +
 
 +
: Another thing to keep in mind is what [[Help:Screen:NewPub]] calls "Discrepancies Between Stated Date and Reality":
 +
:* Publication date does not always perfectly match the calendar date. For example, a January issue of a magazine is usually available in December of the previous year, and often earlier than that. Books with a January publication date may often be bought in the closing weeks of the prior year; they will show the later year's copyright date, even though that year has not yet started. In these cases, the convention is to use the official publication date rather than to try to identify when a book actually first became available. If there is a large discrepancy -- for example if a book was printed but unexpectedly delayed before release -- then this can be noted in the notes field.
 +
: [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=26&ti=1,26&SEQ=20231120164838&Search%5FArg=crichton%20michael&Search%5FCode=NALL&CNT=25&PID=hderjMf9JaGhuG3tox2UMY1nLcK_&SID=1 This Copyright Catalog record for the first edition of ''Disclosure'', a non-genre novel] by {{A|Michael Crichton}}, is a good example. The "Date of Publication" value is "1993-12-20", but the publication date stated in the physical book is "January 1994". [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 17:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: When it comes to magazines, I'm aware of the disconnect between publication date listed on the copyright site and the date printed on the magazine cover. {{unsigned|Clauditorium}}
 +
 
 +
::: Back when mass market paperbacks took off in the United States, their publishers piggybacked on pre-existing distribution channels and inherited some of the peculiarities of the magazine distribution system. They also had to deal with numerous technical limitations of the printing business as it existed ca. 1950. For example, you could order a paperback with 96 pages or a paperback with 128 pages, but anything in between wasn't viable because of the way mass market paperbacks paperbacks were produced. Sometimes authors and/or editors were able to cut or pad stories to make everything work seamlessly. Other times typesetters had to add empty pages or use other tricks to pad the page count.
 +
 
 +
::: We see similar issues surface even in 2023. Amazon's page count values are often off because publishers create pre-publication records based on estimates. When books are produced, the actual page count is usually different. Not all Amazon records are updated post-publication, so we always take what's there with a grain of salt. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:10, 21 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: As for novels, I've noticed that in several cases, the date listed by isfdb.org is missing the day, but the copyright site will have this info. For example, Misery by Stephen King is listed here as being published on 1987-06-00; on the copyright site, the publication date is indicated as 1987-06-08 (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1513). If I come across such occurrences, should I make a correction, crediting the copyright site? {{unsigned|Clauditorium}}
 +
 
 +
::: Sorry, I didn't quote the most applicable part of [[Help:Screen:NewPub#Date]] earlier. Here is the relevant section:
 +
:::* The base date optionally may be made more precise (e.g., supplying the month or day of publication) using information from a secondary source, if that source's date is otherwise consistent with publication's stated date. The source, and which details of the date were obtained from that source, must be recorded in the publication notes. See Secondary Sources of Dates.
 +
::: So the answer is yes, editors can make the date more precise as long as it is "otherwise consistent with publication's stated date" and the source is documented in Notes. If there is a discrepancy -- as in the case of {{A|Michael Crichton}}'s ''Disclosure'' (see above) which was offered for sale in late December 1993 but the printed publication date says "January 1994" -- then we use the printed date and optionally document what secondary sources like the Copyright Office or Amazon say. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:24, 21 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Captured By the Engines ==
 +
 
 +
Can someone approve my submission 5819033? Because I need to add month to merged art. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:Approved. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 07:18, 25 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== "Pending submissions which will change my primary verified publications" on the New Submissions page ==
 +
 
 +
A new table, "Pending submissions which will change my primary verified publications", has been added to the New Submissions page. It will appear at the top of the page if any pending submissions affect the logged-in moderator's primary verifications. If you run into any issues, please report them here. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:27, 25 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Can Ellen Be Saved ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?291669; I just uploaded new cover but it didn't go to the same Wiki page and replace old cover, it just created a new page. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 21:48, 25 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:I added the new one to the pub and deleted the old one after verifying it was not used in any other pubs. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:02, 26 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== One New Message ==
 +
 
 +
"The following Contents titles have dates after the proposed publication date"; I got this message after submitting an edit for Tor ed. of G. Masterton's Mirror because month was April, not May, and cover art needed fixing in another edit. Is this new? I don't remember seeing that before. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 18:35, 26 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: This warning was [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#New_yellow_warning_when_a_changed_Publication_date_is_before_one_of_the_Title_dates implemented on July 31] as per {{FR|1569}}, "Add a warning when a changed pub date is before one of the title dates". [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Server issue? ==
 +
 
 +
Is there a server problem? I'm getting a 500 Internal Server Error message when trying to submit a Clone Publication. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 09:26, 28 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:Nevermind. I opened a new Clone the Pub tab and was able to submit the request successfully. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 10:10, 28 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Log In ==
 +
 
 +
Why am I not logged in? Is there some new problem now? I see Username when I'm on the Wiki pages but the front page says "You are not logged in". EDIT: I got tired of waiting so I entered "Username" and "password" and that worked but a message popped up saying password was used in a data breach on Google or something like that. I don't know what's going on. Maybe someone can tell me if anyone else got that message or got logged out for no reason. I sincerely hope all of my info and edits and everything else that was there before I re-logged in is still exactly the same and nothing was changed/lost.  --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:45, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Old Edits ==
 +
 
 +
I'm trying to get my edits that have been sitting for months approved. I'll start with this, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5747517, which is just a simple change from a dead Google Drive link to one that works. Can someone approve this? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:46, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:Approved by Nihonjoe. Thanks. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5747546; Just a simple cover image, Rudam said long ago in the thread "Rejected?" on his board that there's no need to ask about covers except for a couple of specific publishers. Can someone approve this? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::Approved by Nihonjoe. Thanks. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5749772; Just an archived link and an obvious format fix. Can someone approve this? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:54, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::::Changing the format is a major change and should not be approved unless the active verifiers have agreed. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:::https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5750346; Just an archived link and an obvious fix of LCCN in the note. Can someone approve this? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:08, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:::::The active verifier has asked that he be contacted through the email system about changes.  No indication in the edit that this was done, or what the response was. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::::https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5750954; Just a simple LCCN ID and cleanup of several misspellings in the note. Can someone approve this? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::::::Moderator note only states "cleaned up sloppy note" without specifying what was changed.  Best to notify the verifier. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:::::https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5757566; Just a simple note about the cover; it's on this page, https://vaultofevil.proboards.com/thread/3786/fred-pickersgill-graves-give. Can someone approve this? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:27, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
:::::::This one is more of a judgement call.  Personally I think it's too much information that is not germane to the publication.  What does the soundtrack artist have to do with the book?  I could have lived with something along the lines of "Cover is from the filmed version of 'The Female of the Species'".  However, other moderators may differ.  At a minimum, if we're going to go into this much detail, it should probably go below a <nowiki>{{BREAK}}</nowiki> tag. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
 +
::::::::Approved by JLaTondre. Thanks. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:33, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Popular Science ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5824080; I did add the archived link and the cover image but I didn't touch those reg. title art and story things so does anyone know why it says I did? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 17:30, 1 December 2023 (EST)
 +
: It is a kinda known issue with the software when titles contains special characters, especially older titles added before some of the latest changes in handling these from the last years (in this case it is the <nowiki><</nowiki> that is throwing the fit. Because of that, the comparison for changes detects a change - even if there is none). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 11:56, 6 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Title change with no PVs ==
 +
 
 +
I was getting ready to add the audiobook and CD editions to Steven Erikson's novel [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2424072 Rejoice] but noticed that the correct title name should be <i>Rejoice, a Knife to the Heart</i> instead of just <i>Rejoice</i>. I looked at WorldCat, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, SFE, and Wikipedia, and in all cases except SFE, that is shown as the correct title. Would there be any objection to me changing the title to <i>Rejoice, a Knife to the Heart</i>? None of the publications have a PV. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 09:17, 5 December 2023 (EST)
 +
:The publisher also refers to it as 'Rejoice, A Knife to the Heart', [https://www.promontorypress.com/books/rejoice-a-knife-to-the-heart/ here]. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:49, 5 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== SF Adventures Yearbook ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5827099; I can never remember which changes to names affect what, so if someone can approve this assuming artist change won't mess anything up with info on his page or whatever. Also, both PV are long-gone so someone may want to check and see if there are any little details that I missed which need correcting. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:27, 5 December 2023 (EST)
 +
:Looks good, submission approved. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:01, 5 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Liam Hogan versus Laim Hogan ==
 +
 
 +
Hi.
 +
 
 +
In working to add the story "Ana" by Liam Hogan in "The Best of British Science Fiction 2016", I need to add it's first publication in Scientific American, as noted in the "Best of British Science Fiction" copyright page and else on the internet at Scientific American.
 +
 
 +
I checked the author's name. There is no "Liam Hogan" currently in ISFDB, but there is a "Laim Hogan", the author of the 2019 short fiction "XX". "XX" is listed as published in "Best Indie Speculative Fiction: Volume Two, November 2019". Upon looking at that "Best Indie..." on Amazon, the preview shows "Liam Hogan" on both the cover and table of contents.
 +
 
 +
Upon checking further, the website https://happyendingnotguaranteed.blogspot.com/p/2014.html for Liam Hogan notes both "XX" and "Ana" as his stories.
 +
 
 +
Therefore, I would appreciate it if a moderator could correct this author's name in ISFDB to "Liam" Hogan. Once that is done, I'll add "Ana" in the Scientific American webzine.
 +
 
 +
Thanks. [[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]]) 19:46, 5 December 2023 (EST)
 +
: We do have [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?180891 Liam Hogan] so I cannot rename [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?336607 Laim Hogan]. Same guy I think? If so, the fastest solution is to just fix the author on the stray story. If not, I will be happy to differentiate them. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 11:52, 6 December 2023 (EST)
 +
::Fixed. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:47, 6 December 2023 (EST)
 +
:::Thanks for fixing the author entry. Looks correct now. I'll go ahead and add the first publication for "Ana" now. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Dave888|Dave888]] ([[User talk:Dave888|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dave888|contribs]]) .</small> 14:03, 6 December 2023‎ (EST)
 +
 
 +
== A SHORTFICTION title incorporated into the body of a NONFICTION title ==
 +
 
 +
I am holding [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5823707 this submission], which would import {{A|Howard Koch}}'s SHORTFICTION title [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?982024 The Invasion from Mars: A Radio Adaptation] into the 2009 NONFICTION book [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?765971 Waging The War of the Worlds: A History of the 1938 Radio Broadcast and Resulting Panic, Including the Original Script]. As the title of the NONFICTION book states, the text includes Koch's script, so normally it would make sense to approve the submission. However, the Notes field explains that:
 +
* Howard Koch's radio script is incorporated into the body of the book's main text, rather than being a separate essay.
 +
 
 +
Would you say that it makes sense to list the SHORTFICTION title as a Contents items in this pub? Or is it better presented as a part of the NONFICTION title? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:44, 7 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: My five cents: I'd say it makes sense if the piece is incorporated as a whole and without interruptions (of explaining notes). In the latter case the piece may only serve as a means to comment on Koch's unique handling (or something similar). [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 06:25, 8 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::If it's contained in its entirety and its content appears in proper order (whether or not contiguously), I am inclined to allow it.  Technically, the work is published in the book.  If it's not contiguous, the situation strikes me as similar to publications of "braided" stories. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 15:49, 8 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::: Thanks, folks. I have approved the submission, notified the inactive primary verifier and updated Notes to clarify the situation. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:32, 9 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Entries disappeared ==
 +
 
 +
At least four of my entries from the last few weeks have disappeared from the database. I looked for the new publication series page, Gruselkabinett, as I was going to add more, and it and the four books I entered in it are gone. They're audio books: <i>Der Bluthund</i> by H.P. Lovecraft, <i>Die Weiden</i> and <i>Das unbewohnte Haus</i> by Algernon Blackwood, and <i>Die Toten sind unersättlich</i> by Leopold Sacher-Masoch. Even a new author entry they generated has vanished, the artist on two of the titles, Johannes Belach. I have no idea if more of my entries have disappeared. -- [[User:MOHearn|MOHearn]] ([[User talk:MOHearn|talk]]) 12:24, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: Checking submission history (a moderator-only menu option), I see the following:
 +
:* [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?981382 Publication ID 981382, ''Der Bluthund''], created on 2023-12-02 16:30:43. Deleted by Stonecreek on 2023-12-06 12:08:08. Reason for deletion: audio play
 +
:* [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?981093 Publication ID 981093, ''Die Weiden''], created on 2023-11-30 18:58:05. Deleted by Stonecreek on 2023-12-06 12:07:37. Reason for deletion: audio play
 +
:* [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?981433 Publication ID 981433, ''Das unbewohnte Haus''], created on 2023-12-02 20:36:31. Deleted by Stonecreek on 2023-12-06 12:07:13. Reason for deletion: audio play
 +
:* I can't find an audio book version of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3248968 Die Toten sind unersättlich] using moderator tools. I could presumably do it using programmer tools, but it would take time.
 +
 
 +
: I assume that Stonecreek deleted the 3 pubs listed above as per [[ISFDB:Policy]], which says:
 +
:* '''Included''': audio books, i.e. readings, but not dramatizations
 +
: I'll ask Stonecreek to join this discussion. We'll need to make sure that we are all on the same page or else we'll be stuck in an endless cycle of some editors adding certain books and other editors deleting them. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:01, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: Yes, I deleted them on the basis of the rule that dramatizations are not to be included. I stumbled over the entry for "Die Weiden" upon reading a review at 'phantastiknews.de' of the play, and found that the other entries for publications fell into the same category. (A good rule of thumbs for a first check is if there are more than one speakers for a piece, it is most likely that it is a dramatization). Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::: Thanks for the explanation. In the future, when you come across publication records for ineligible works (like dramatizations), please use Edit History to identify the original submitter(s) and discuss the issue with them first. That way they will be made aware of what is and is not eligible for inclusion and won't make the same type of mistake in the future. Without an explanation, they'll be either confused and frustrated when the data that they previously submitted disappears or they will continue adding ineligible records. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:39, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
I should leave it at that, since Ahasuerus was a lot more measured than I could be right now over the situation. -- Martin [[User:MOHearn|MOHearn]] ([[User talk:MOHearn|talk]]) 15:53, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: In the past, we didn't have Edit History, so it was hard to tell who did what when. Now that it's been available for [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Development/Archive/2021 almost three years], it should be the default tool used to figure out why something appears to be off and whether a discussion is warranted.
 +
 
 +
: That said, old habits die hard. I still occasionally catch myself making a change, then realizing that I should have checked Edit History first. Hopefully, things will improve going forward. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:03, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: My name was right there in the WorldCat verification on all four of those entries. [[User:MOHearn|MOHearn]] ([[User talk:MOHearn|talk]]) 21:34, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::: My apologies: I stiil have to adapt to making a direct notification: as with this case I came upon this while doing research for another author at the news site, and carried on with this other task after that to get it done in that specific setting.
 +
::: And I didn't recall that the note left in the moderator's field wouldn't be easy to find. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 01:42, 14 December 2023 (EST)
 +
::: (I'd love to add some really good audio plays to the database, but they ''are'' excluded, just like the ones you had added). [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 01:54, 14 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Series Parent Position and Series Num fields ==
 +
 
 +
"Series Num" can have numbering that are not integers (e.g., 2.1, 2.2, etc.), but apparently the "Series Parent Position" field when editing series can only be integers. Can we change the field to allow non-integer numbering? This would allow subseries to be placed in the correct location with a larger series. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 21:40, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: This functionality was requested in {{FR|1403}}, "Allow decimal numbers as Series Parent Position values". Unfortunately, it is much harder to implement than it looks. The way the "Series Number" field works for title records is rather involved; back when I implemented it, it took me weeks to get everything updated and debugged. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 22:41, 13 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::Sounds good. I'm glad it's on the list. Thanks for all your work on the backend of things. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:26, 14 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Bibliographic information for Strange Tales ==
 +
 
 +
For the UK magazine Strange Tales edited by Walter Gillings I believe that the noted second printing of the first issue is just a variant cover. https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?618191
 +
 
 +
In George Locke's Spectrum of Fantasy, volume 1, page 3 he states as such. His examination of the two copies he had was that they were identical with the exception of two different covers. I would find it hard to believe that an attempt of a new publication which was dodging the fact it was a magazine would go into two printings, as there were still paper shortages after the War. The price on both covers is the same, one shilling net on one cover 1/- on the other. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Jwkbooks|Jwkbooks]] ([[User talk:Jwkbooks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jwkbooks|contribs]]) .</small> 17:12, 21 December 2023‎ (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Long time for approval? ==
 +
 
 +
Is it unusual if my relatively minor edits take two weeks or more to be approved? Thanks. [[User:Sfmvnterry|Sfmvnterry]] ([[User talk:Sfmvnterry|talk]]) 22:38, 25 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: Typically, it wouldn't take that long, but unfortunately, the "New Submissions" queue has been very long recently. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 12:51, 26 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: Thanks. [[User:Sfmvnterry|Sfmvnterry]] ([[User talk:Sfmvnterry|talk]]) 00:17, 28 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Missing Clone ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5832571; What happened to the clone? It's not there. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:42, 29 December 2023 (EST)
 +
:The submission failed because one of the titles in the cloned publication, 2439970 (Intelligence and Luck), is no longer present. It appears that the title was merged in [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5816680 this edit] which was submitted on November 21st and approved on December 12.  I'm guessing that your clone submission was submitted within that time frame.  When the merge was done, the other title record was the one that was kept, and 2439970 was deleted.  You should be able to re-clone the container title and pick up the current contents including the merged title of that story.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:11, 29 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Cover art weirdness ==
 +
 
 +
So browsing (as you do). I came across [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1379001 this] cover art entry which seems, to my eye at least, an identical piece to [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?139158 this one]. Any comments ?--[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 06:40, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:To my eye, these look identical.  We would have to research the Maria Carella credit for the French ones.  Likely Herve put on one and then carried that over into the other by cloning.  The Tim Jacobus credit on the ''Doomsday Book'' covers seems clear (from copyright statement on hardcover's jacket flap).  My first guess would be a misinterpretation of some sort of general artist credit on ''Le grand livre'' as referring to the cover instead of to interior artwork. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 09:42, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: (after edit conflict) These are definitely based on the same cover art. The question then is whether the cover artist was really credited as "Maria Carella" in this J'ai Lu edition or whether it's a data entry error in our database. Checking Google, I see that J'ai Lu has used at least two other covers -- https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjbJRjGrF4EtBXromnm4E-mn-bwNjmriUiD9y_zEqCWxOsPAdQkITLtQ-6VzOAKbgq3b4&usqp=CAU and m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61mHPaZVmdL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg  -- and it's possible that one of them was done by Maria Carella. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 09:49, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::I did more research and found some pictures.  In the original Bantam edition, the copyright page has "Book design by Maria Carella" (see [https://postmarkedfromthestars.com/cdn/shop/products/image_37245aad-355d-4ecf-981b-2939ddd31921_grande.jpg?v=1647718644 here]) and the rear flap says "Cover illustration &copy; 1992 by Tim Jacobus" (see [https://postmarkedfromthestars.com/cdn/shop/products/image_7be69af1-7c70-4430-86da-f306440e8119_grande.jpg?v=1647718644 here]).  So I think the book design credit got conflated with cover artistry, either by J'ai Lu or someone else (if Herve did not have the books, his source might have been NooSFere, which credits the cover to Carella).  Unless anyone disagrees, I will change the credit on the French ones and document the discrepancy with French secondary sources and probable source of the confusion. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 10:05, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::: Nice! I also wonder if {{A|Maria Carella}} was the cover artist or the cover designer for the first (1988) edition of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?354512 Science Fiction: The Science Fiction Research Association Anthology]. Our source is [http://www.locusmag.com/index/t203.htm#A12107 the Locus Index], which simply says "cover by Maria Carella". <del>For what it's worth, the Internet Archive has the [https://archive.org/details/visionsofwonders0000unse/page/n5/mode/2up 1996 edition, which has a different cover, on file] and its copyright page says "Design by Lynn Newark"</del> -- '''never mind, it turns out that "Science Fiction: The Science Fiction Research Association Anthology" (1988) and "Visions of Wonder: the Science Fiction Research Association Anthology" (1996) are completely different'''. Even if we keep Maria Carella as the cover artist, we will want to change her working language from French to English. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:41, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::: https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/note_search_results.cgi?OPERATOR=contains&NOTE_VALUE=maria+carella; She's mentioned in 16 notes. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:19, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::: I made these adjustments: Maria Carella language to English.  ''Le grand livre'' cover credit to Jacobus (+ variant to ''Doomsday Book'' cover).  Added note to French cover and to the first of the French pubs about secondary sources crediting Carella but her being credited as book designer (and Jacobus as cover illustrator) in original Bantam edition.  Added note to Bantam hc about the book design credit.  I found some pictures of portions of the interior of that anthology, but they did not include the copyright or credits pages, so I couldn't conclude anything about that.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::::: Data entered exactly as on books [https://isfdb.org/wiki/images/7/74/Grand_livre.jpg 1994 on top, 1995 below, "illustration" having the same meaning in both langages, "de" meaning "by"].[[User:Hauck|Hauck]] ([[User talk:Hauck|talk]]) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::::: Well, that is quite clear, too, then.  Then I guess we should have a "Maria Carella (in error)" as an alternate name then, with the above explanation, and the cover art with that credit as the variant.  And no direct credit to Jacobus in the J'ai Lu editions.  Does that sound correct to everyone? --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 07:28, 31 December 2023 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::Sounds good to me. I have the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?10617 Bantam 1st ed hc] and have checked it against the above discussion and concur. The book also states "Jacket design by Jamie S. Warren Youll" on rear flap which reinforces the statement that Maria Carella was only involved in the book design, not the cover. I have PVd the pub record and submitted [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5847617 this edit] to add extra info and change the source of all the data to the actual book. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 13:34, 2 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::Happy New Year, everyone.  I have made the further adjustments I proposed above, and I accepted the changes to the Bantam edition.  Please correct -- or let me know about -- anything that still is not as it should be.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 07:08, 3 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== New translations of Ursula K. Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness ==
 +
 
 +
A few days ago I posted 2 records for a 1981 and a 2002 edition of ''Pimeduse ahem käsi''. the Estonian translation of ''The Left Hand of Darkness'', and 2 images for their respective book covers. I realize it's the holiday season and that there's a backlog... I have a Bulgarian translation as well and I'd like to upload that, though I worry that I'm not doing it right. Also if there are any editors or moderators here with a particular interest in Le Guin I'd like to make your acquaintance. Cheers, [[User:Evertype|Evertype]] ([[User talk:Evertype|talk]]) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: Hello and a happy new year, Evertype! I do think that I do fall into the category, as Le Guin is in the top three of my favourite authors. I have to admit that most of the copies I own contain German translations (and [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Hitspacebar Jens]' German collection seems to be even more complete, but nowadays he isn't so often around). I know there are lots of translations of her work missing (with Dutch, French & German seemingly well-covered). If you have any questions that you think I might be able to help in, just ping me on my talk page. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 08:16, 2 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== External ID: PPN ==
 +
 
 +
It seems that the Dutch National Library has changed its www address. [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Template:PublicationFields:ExternalIDs Here] it is "picarta.pica.nl/DB=3.9/" but doesn't work any more. The new one seems to be "picarta.oclc.org/psi/xslt/DB=3.9". Please have a look on that. Thank You. --[[User:Zapp|Zapp]] ([[User talk:Zapp|talk]]) 13:35, 22 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: Thanks, I'll take a look. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:58, 27 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:: It should be fixed now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:42, 27 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::: The "PPN" template has been updated as well. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:48, 28 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Charles Williams ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5873365; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5873368; Can I get these 2 edits approved? I was going to add the other book by the author mentioned in the F&SF essay but online photo says Charles Williams on title page; checking further revealed that it's the same for Rolling Pin. There's already a famous novelist of that name and an artist on ISFDB so what do you think this guy should be known as, maybe (I)? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:37, 27 January 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Pages of deceased users ==
 +
 
 +
Would it be helpful or useful to block the user pages and talk pages of deceased users, so no edits or submissions can be made any more? Ahasuerus told me these pages viewed as something like memorials, so they should be left untouched. --[[User:Zapp|Zapp]] ([[User talk:Zapp|talk]]) 14:40, 27 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Generally, we put the [[:Template:Deceased user|Deceased user]] template at the top of their pages so people know not to post comments or questions there. So far, I haven't seen a huge problem with simply leaving them as they are. If problems do occur, we can always lock the pages so only admins can edit them. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:49, 27 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:: Locking the Talk pages will cause confusion to newer editors who are directed to post on the PV's pages and if the first few they hit are ones of the ones we had lost - asking them to post there while they cannot will either make them never post anywhere or just get frustrated. Plus the pages that we want to preserve are the User pages, not the Talk pages. I'd argue that User pages should be locked for Admin and the user they belong to at all times but that will make life harder and we do not have too many issues so I never raised that up as a proposal. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 12:41, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::I was only suggesting locking the pages if we ran into problems where someone was editing them maliciously and we needed a way to stop it. Pages can be locked from editing for a brief period of time, too, which is generally the only kind of locking that's needed. Only in extreme cases would a page need to be locked for more than a week or so. I do like the idea of locking the user page of deceased editors, though. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:13, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::: We are in agreement -- I was just mentioning that locking the Talk pages is going to cause other possible issues downstream (unlike User pages which can be safely locked without side effects). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::::Sounds good. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 19:07, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Add link at the bottom of "Author Merge Update" ==
 +
 
 +
After two or more authors are merged, can we please add a link to the resulting record on the confirmation page (post approval). Now you need to either keep a record open or look for it again once the merge completes. (the script in question is cgi-bin/mod/aa_merge.cgi). Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 12:29, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
: {{FR|1591}} has been created and implemented. Thanks for reporting the issue. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:22, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:: Now, that's quick fix - less than an hour between reporting and getting it live on the server ;) Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 13:24, 6 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Lost Safari ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?648417; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5884004; PV used wrong cover so I uploaded right one from recent archived copy but they also added wrong uploaded wraparound image in the notes. Can someone approve my edit and then move the note over to the other edition? The record number doesn't make a difference to where the image points, I assume. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2024 (EST)
 +
: The note has been moved to the correct publication. Is the interior art the same for both publications? If so, merge the two tile records. If not, we need a note on each and a do not merge warning. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:33, 16 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Shattered Lens ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5892580; After checking further it turns out the correct title I fixed "Tears" to was used for the story's reprint in a magazine a few years later. After approval will the titles merge on their own or will it need to be done manually? If manual, can someone approve this so I can merge before I forget? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:04, 16 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:Approved. You need to merge them. Submit and I'll approve. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:13, 16 February 2024 (EST)
 +
::Merged. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:16, 16 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::All done. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:19, 16 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Roman Numerals ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Username#The_Year.27s_Best_Horror_Stories:_XIX; It won't make much difference to my PV because I only have about 50 but I can foresee trouble with others if he starts adding Roman where they don't belong. This is a common problem with other editors, too, where they add Roman even though the numbering goes straight from Roman to non-Roman. A LOT of DAW Books, for example, have unnecessary numbers entered. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:38, 22 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:From the help, bullet point 2 under [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub#Pages Pages]:
 +
:* "When a book has a section with Roman numeral page numbers for introductory material, followed by Arabic numerals for the main text of the book, enter both sets of numbers. For example, a book with a page count field of "viii+320" has "viii" as the highest numbered page with a Roman numeral. (Note that there are no spaces in the page count.) Pages without numbers that fall between the two types of page numbering can be ignored. Note that you should include the enumeration of the pages in Roman numerals even if there is no material that requires a separate content record (such as an introduction or preface) in those pages. This is in contrast with the situation with unnumbered pages prior to page 1; see the following bullet point for what to do in that case."
 +
:[https://www.ebay.com/itm/296164887458 This ebay.com listing] shows Roman numerals as [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5897763 this submission] suggests. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:06, 22 February 2024 (EST)
 +
::If I understand that correctly then I disagree and you can find many instances on the boards here where mods tell editors to enter Roman only if the book doesn't continue the numbering straight into the Arabic. That's the way I enter Roman (except possibly for my early edits where I wasn't sure what I was doing) and so do many others. This has led to a lot of confusion. For example, this record's notes, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?629077, mention this situation and only Arabic were entered while the notes here, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?979406, are similar but both Roman and Arabic were entered. I'm sure there are countless other examples. So nobody seems sure what the right way to do it is but if one has really been decided on then that would entail fixing thousands and thousands of records where they were entered the other way. That would be a huge task. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:23, 22 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::For my own understanding's sake: The situation being discussed here is a contiguous set of pages, ending on Arabic-numeral'ed '''''366''''', but where the first fourteen pages are Roman-numeral'ed '''''i - xiv''''' and the remaining three hundred fifty-two are Arabic-numeral'ed '''''15 - 366'''''?  If that is the case, I don't think the help covers this scenario.  While the second bullet does seem to call for entering the highest Roman numeral plus the highest Arabic numeral, the third bullet also talks about counting backwards from the first "numbered page to see which is page 1".  That would technically mean page i is also page 1, and there is no introductory material before page 1.  The second bullet seems to assume the numbering of the pages for introductory material does not overlap the numbering of the pages for the main text, which is not the case here.  Recording xiv+366 would record the numbering accurately but would completely distort the page count, which is that the Pages field is all about.  I would record this as Pages = 366 with a note that the main text starts on p. 15 and the pages prior to that are numbered i - xiv, just as I would record it with Pages = 366 and a note that the text starts on numbered p. 15 if there were no numbered pages before it with any relevant content. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 14:32, 22 February 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::::Ah. Pages. My favourite subject. :-)
 +
::::I agree that the Help Notes do not cover this scenario adequately. I doubt the scenario was considered when the Notes were written. Consequently, past editors have just done what they think best at the time. As Username correctly states, no matter what we decide here, there is a legacy problem of all the existing inconsistent records which will be almost impossible to reconcile. I also agree that an explanatory pub note in this situation should be mandatory.
 +
::::However, that is where my "agreements" end.  In this example, Pages should be recorded as xiv+366. Under the [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub#Pages Help for Pages], the bullet point starting "When a book has a section with Roman numeral page numbers" unambiguously states that both Roman and Arabic Numerals should be entered. The following bullet point, starting "Sometimes a publication will have unnumbered pages before page 1" is not applicable to this scenario because there are no unnumbered pages before page 1.
 +
::::Although xiv+366 does distort the page count, this argument does not hold water because it is existing ISFDb policy that we do distort the page count. See this [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:How_to_determine_the_value_for_the_%22Pages%22_field_in_a_book#Some_examples_about_page_count_accuracy How To] under the bullet point starting "Approximation:"
 +
::::Another feature I like about using xiv+366 occurs in the situation where there is recordable content in the Roman Numeral pages. Suppose there is a map on page vi. Then vi would be entered as the start page of the map in the Contents section. It would look really illogical and inconsistent if the Pages field for the publication merely contained 366. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::::This discussion has stalled. There have been no comments for more than three weeks and there is no consensus.  The current tally is 2 (Scifibones, Teallach) in favour of specifying Pages as Roman+Arabic (xiv+366 in this example) versus 2 (MartyD, Username) in favour of specifying Pages as just Arabic (366 in this example). This issue was initiated by Faustus [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Username#The_Year.27s_Best_Horror_Stories:_XIX here] but he appears to be abstaining.
 +
:::::Does anyone else have an opinion on this subject so that we can establish a consensus and form a rule?
 +
:::::There is an alternative option which is to deliberately not have a rule at all and just leave the specification of Pages in this situation at the discretion of the first PVer of the publication. This is not my preferred solution but I have some sympathy with this approach. If we establish a rule then, whichever way it goes, there will be a legacy issue. It will result in potentially thousands of historic records that were created "wrongly" and which cannot be systematically detected or corrected. However, if we just live with the inconsistency then there is no legacy issue. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::I agree with Scifibones and Teallach that the page count should be xiv+366 along with a note indicating that there is a switch from Roman to Arabic numbers with  the last Roman number as "--" and the first Arabic number as "nn". I doubt that there are really a huge number of historic records that fit this exact edge case - but of course I could be guessing wrong. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 22:29, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Sorry, I haven't changed my opinion, but one other note: There is a sort of precedent in the Magazine page numbering bullet, where if the page numbering is continuous across issues, the printed page numbers are relegated to the notes and the actual page count is used in Pages.  Granted, it is not the identical situation, but the spirit of the example is not to have Pages = 384 where the pub has only 192 pages.  380 vs. 366 is not so extreme, but to me 380 is still misleading. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 08:37, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::::MartyD, I do not see the relevance of your point. It only applies to magazines. The ISFDb treats the Pages field differently for books and magazines. This is well established in this [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:How_to_determine_the_value_for_the_%22Pages%22_field_in_a_book howto] which starts:
 +
::::::::"Important notes"
 +
::::::::"1. Please note that this howto is for '''books only''' (hardcovers, paperbacks, trade paperbacks), not for other types like magazines."
 +
::::::::and goes on to specify much information and examples that only apply to the Pages field for books. This includes the bullet point starting "Approximation:" which is very relevant to this discussion as it confirms that the value that goes in the Pages field for books is not necessarily the same as the number of pages you would get by manual counting. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::Yes, I am aware of all of that.  I am only pointing out that one of the rules already accounts for a situation where using the printed page numbers as a basis would grossly misrepresent the number of pages in the publication.  Regardless of our personal opinions, probably the best thing to do for this non-magazine situation is to figure out what other bibliographic sources do and, if there is a consensus, have that be the ISFDB standard.  But THAT is a discussion for the R&S page.  The conclusion I draw from the discussion here is that two different methods are used, with many instances of each, and the help is unclear.  To me that means if a current pub was entered using either scheme, that scheme should not be changed to the other scheme until a single scheme is settled on and the help is clarified. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 08:19, 17 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::I am surprised by your suggestion. Firstly, the numbering method we are discussing is unusual. So other bibliographic sources that denote page numbering are unlikely to specifically address this situation. Secondly, all aspects of a system need to integrate and be internally consistent. So it will probably not be possible to extract one aspect of a foreign system and adopt in into the different ISFDb system.
 +
::::::::::Nevertheless, there is of course no harm in looking at what other bibliographic sources do. So if you think this is the right way to go, please investigate and report back with your findings.
 +
::::::::::I agree that where this situation occurs in existing ISFDb pub records, the scheme should not be changed until we have decided on the rule we are going to use. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 19:45, 19 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
[unindent] Stalled again, but here's my two cents; reading the relevant rules text, there's mention of page ''''count'''' - so, clearly the intent is to record the number of pages. In the example used above, this would lead to a count of 15 + 366, instead of the correct count of 366 (disregarding possibility to clarify in the notes for the moment). Now, we have two conflicting requirements, and those are
 +
1) use the field to record the page ''''count''', and
 +
2) use the field to record whether pages are roman, latin, or unnumbered.
 +
It is clear from preceding discussion that in certain circumstances both usages are in conflict with each other. Since the rules' intent is to record count, in this case the 'correct' entry would be 366, while relegating the extra info that numbering starts with roman numerals and continues with arabic numerals to the notes field. For me this would be the preferred way as it adheres closest to the intent of the rules. Not sure on how to rewrite the rules to make this clear (if we ever reach a consensus, that is...) [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 10:59, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:my twopennorth (2d not -/2). I dont think it matters which way you decide to do it so long as everybodys singing from the same hymn sheet, the help page instructions are nice and clear with a instruction saying that you have to put a explanation in the notes. - Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 14:50, 30 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Following my own suggestion, I decided to see what other bibliographic sources use for page count.  In this example:
 +
::* LoC: '''''366''' p''
 +
::* Locus1: '''''366'''pp''
 +
::* WorldCat: '''''366''' pages''
 +
::And some other sites:
 +
::* Amazon: '''''368''' pages'' (marching to its own drummer... -MD)
 +
::* Fantlab: ''Страниц: '''366'''''
 +
::* Google Books: ''Page count: '''366'''''
 +
::I randomly picked [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?296802 an example] where we have Roman + Arabic numerals and [https://archive.org/details/101sciencefictio0000unse/page/n19/mode/2up can see] the Arabic section starts at "1".  In this example, the prefatory material ends on page numbered '''xvii''', and the main text is on pages numbered 1 - '''651'''.  For that:
 +
::* LoC: '''''xvii, 651''' p''
 +
::* Locus1: '''''651'''pp''
 +
::* WorldCat: '''''xvii, 651''' pages''
 +
::And some other sites:
 +
::* Amazon: '''''651''' pages'' (note: probably seller-entered, not from publisher. -MD)
 +
::* Fantlab: ''Страниц: '''668'''''
 +
::* Google Books: ''Page count: '''651'''''
 +
::I grant that two data points do not prove anything, but this does suggest that common practice is to ignore Roman-vs.-Arabic for page count purposes unless that page count does not already incorporate the Roman-numbered pages. That seems like common sense to me. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 09:04, 31 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::MartyD: When you stated in your post 2024-03-17 that in your opinion "the best thing to do for this non-magazine situation is to figure out what other bibliographic sources do" I was expecting you to examine other bibliographic sources for their policy statements regarding how they handle this numbering method. In my reply 2024-03-19 I stated "... the numbering method we are discussing is unusual. So other bibliographic sources that denote page numbering are unlikely to specifically address this situation". Without a specific policy statement, records in other bibliographic sources have probably been entered inconsistently, exactly as has happened in the ISFDb. Consequently, plucking examples of records from other bibliographic sources has no value. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 18:40, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Pandemic ==
 +
 
 +
Since the CDC officially ended its Covid-19 declaration in May of 2023 the note on our front page about forthcoming books possibly being delayed by the pandemic should be removed. Any delays now are due to other reasons. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 08:03, 29 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:There are still some businesses that are operating with pandemic restrictions in place, though through their own choice rather than a government mandate. I agree that there are only a few of those, however. It would probably be good to drop the notification. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:41, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:: Good points. Annie, who does a great deal of work on Forthcoming Books, reports that things are still not as stable as they used to be, so perhaps we should change the note to something like "Information based on pre-publication data and subject to change". [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::: I like the new wording. Even though Forthcoming Books should be self-explanatory, having it spelled out does not hurt. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 12:28, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::That wording is definitely better, and will be less likely to need changing in the future. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:58, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::: Done. The [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/stats.cgi?24 Top Forthcoming] note will be updated on Sunday morning when the weekly reports run. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:49, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Hound Dog ==
 +
 
 +
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5909601; Can someone approve this if they agree all my additions/changes are correct? Whoever entered author info spelled legal first name wrong so it needs fixing and I'm not sure if the info will be there with the name change per book's title page or if a mod has to do it from the author's record or something or other. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:Done.  I moved the info from the old author record to the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?376213 new record], correcting that spelling error. I also fixed the review to refer to the M.-less name, so the old record went away due to no further references.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 12:48, 7 March 2024 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== George W. Barlow ==
 +
 
 +
Bonjour, je vous contacte pour l'article concernant mon père George W. Barlow
 +
Il y a quelques corrections et compléments qu'il voudrait apporter :
 +
Concernant sa biographie :
 +
il est né à Le Havre en Seine Maritime et non à Grenoble (où il vit)
 +
il a fréquenté l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de la rue d'Ulm et en est sorti Agrégé d'Anglais
 +
Vous trouverez ces données biographique en quatrième de couverture dans l'ouvrage que vous citez :
 +
La Science-Fiction (1987) (avec ANDREVON Jean-Pierre et GUIOT Denis)
 +
M.A. Editions, Le monde de... n° 39, 1987.
 +
Concernant sa bibliographie :
 +
-vous pouvez rajouter le roman « Antéros » publié en 2012 chez EONS collection Fantasy n°140
 +
et republié ensuite à compte d'auteur chez The BookEdition sous le titre « Antéros et chimères »
 +
 
 +
Je me tiens à votre disposition pour tout complément d'informations et vous saurais gré de me tenir informée de la suite que vous donnez à mon courrier.
 +
 
 +
Très cordialement.
 +
 
 +
Catherine Matheron/Barlow <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Catalpa|Catalpa]] ([[User talk:Catalpa|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Catalpa|contribs]]) .</small>
 +
 
 +
== Series ordering help ==
 +
 
 +
Hi all.  I could use some help with [[User_talk:Piedro01#Mary_Stewart_Merlin_.2F_Arthurian_Saga_series_ordering|this discussion]] about ordering within one specific [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?12110 title series].  The publisher, and other sources, refer to each title's place relative to the others using the publication order. Our current series ordering reflects that.  The editor feels rather strongly that the series ordering should instead reflect the internal chronology of the stories.  I am afraid I may be biased, so I could use some other opinions (or even more definitive guidance, if I have misinterpreted something).  Thanks. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
: I prefer publication order (except for some prequels that can go at 0 or novellas and stories that fall in between novels to get in their places)... We have it like that in [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?689 Foundation] for example - with the two prequels at the end of the list even if they are chronologically first. If an editor insists on doing something else and they are willing to document and show sources where that other order is used and it is the common way the series is numbered online/in sources, I would consider it. But if the publisher and most other sources refer to the order in a different way, it just confuses things. As we cannot show two different sorting ways, editors are welcome to add Notes on the series page with the chronological order if they want...
 +
: In this case, I am with you - leave it at publication order, add a note for the chronological order - mainly because this is the order that people usually use outside of our DB. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 17:18, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::I agree with Annie, for the same reasons given by Annie. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:33, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::If current policy is not changed, there is no basis for rejecting [[User talk:Piedro01|Piedro01's]] two submissions. However, I also favor changing policy along the lines [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] spelled out. That's what I have always used, not realizing I could be outside policy. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 13:29, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::: Out of curiosity - which policy do you think that the current order of that series (and Foundation) contradict and needs changing for them to be "in policy"? If you are saying that we technically do not have a policy and either way can be considered correct (so the submissions are approvable because of that), then the overall policy of ISFDB (we document what we see/find, we do not invent) is in favor of leaving them as they are based on almost all other sources using the current order. Plus I also favor "first editor decision stands within reason" in ambiguous situation because nothing prevents another editor from changing them back next week and that will also have to be approved if this one is approved if it does not contradict policy (with both being correct, that process can happen a lot of time). If I am misreading what you are saying, can you clarify? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::I do notice upon further review that the section of help cited goes on to say this: '''''Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error.''' Any series with this sort of ambiguity in internal ordering should have the sequence worked out on the Community Portal. This includes prequels, which can be listed first in the series, before the main entries; or listed after the main entries; ...'' So I suppose what ordering to use for this series should be brought up for debate on the Community Portal.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 13:51, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::: The first line of the applicable help clearly states a precedence for reading order. Look at the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?25203 Assiti Shards (1632)] series. Compare the current publication based order to the suggested reading order (1632.org link in series record). Remove the implied precedence from the help and I'm fine. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:13, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::: Reading order is not the same as chronological order though - I'd argue that for most series, including this one, publishing order is the reading order (mainly because of spoilers and what's not that tend to creep into later novels publishing-wise which are set earlier on a chronology). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
(unindent) First, let me copy the relevant part of [[Template:TitleFields:SeriesNum]] here so that we would all be on the same page:
 +
 
 +
* '''Series Number''' - If you know the order in which the titles in the series are supposed to be read, you can number them starting with 1. You can use decimal numbers like 4.5 to place a title between the titles numbered 4 and 5. No Roman numerals (like I or IV) or letters (like "1a" or "A") are allowed. Please note that some series are very linear (e.g. Harry Potter) and it's easy to tell how to assign series number to individual entries. Other series can have multiple possible numbering schemes reflecting the series' publication order, internal chronological order, intended publication order, "author recommended" order, etc. Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error. Any series with this sort of ambiguity in internal ordering should have the sequence worked out on the Community Portal. This includes prequels, which can be listed first in the series, before the main entries; or listed after the main entries; or even split into a separate series which then becomes a subseries in a superseries comprising both the original series and the prequels.
 +
 
 +
When Scifibones wrote that "the first line of the applicable help clearly states a precedence for reading order" he presumably meant:
 +
 
 +
* If you know the order in which the titles in the series are supposed to be read, you can number them starting with 1.
 +
 
 +
That being said, as others have said, "reading order" can be ambiguous. One of the better known examples is {{A|Neal Asher}}'s Polity universe. The author's [https://www.nealasher.co.uk/where-do-i-start-updated/ Web page says]:
 +
 
 +
* The consensus of opinion I have gleaned from social media, is that you should start either right at the beginning with Prador Moon and then follow through chronologically, or you should read the first two series I wrote.
 +
 
 +
In this case even the author wasn't sure what the best reading order would be and had to consult his fans to come up with possible paths. This ambiguity is already addressed in the Help language above where it says that:
 +
 
 +
* series can have multiple possible numbering schemes reflecting the series' publication order, internal chronological order, intended publication order, "author recommended" order, etc. Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error.
 +
 
 +
So the first sentence of [[Template:TitleFields:SeriesNum]] privileges "reading order" compared to other possible numbering schemes, but the section quoted immediately above effectively takes it back. We should probably clarify Help, which will require a Rules and Standards discussion.
 +
 
 +
Also, this Help template doesn't inform editors that prequels can be entered either using "0.1", "0.5", etc or as separate sub-series.
 +
 
 +
For now, I would suggest a Community Portal discussion as per the Help section that Marty quoted. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 17:00, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Thanks for all of the feedback.  I have made that suggestion to the editor and have also offered to make the post if he is not comfortable doing so. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 08:22, 17 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Worlds of If confusion ==
 +
 
 +
There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding magazines in this series, such as the title, who should be listed as an editor, and so on. Please see these submissions:
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5917004]
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5918476]
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5918288]
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5919125]
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5918813]
 +
 
 +
There's also these entries where people are complaining about the order of author names in our listings. Perhaps we should add a FAQ entry for this so we can point to it in the future? I know we often change the order (I think it's alphabetical?), but I can't find any documentation about it.
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5919203]
 +
*[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5919574]
 +
 
 +
Thoughts? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:07, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
: Re: author ordering, [[Help:Screen:NewPub]] says:
 +
:* ''Collaborations''. If a work has multiple authors, it doesn't matter in which order you enter them. The ISFDB does not record author order regardless of how the authors are entered.
 +
: Changing the database layout to support author ordering would be a massive undertaking. We would also need to do a fair amount of preliminary design work to figure out how different types of collaborations are to be ordered.
 +
: If this is a commonly asked question, we could add it to [[ISFDB:FAQ]]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::I knew it was somewhere. Thanks! I think that might be a good idea, especially since we have a few different editors here asking about the name order. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 15:33, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::: [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:FAQ#In_what_order_does_the_ISFDB_display_names_of_co-authors.2Fco-editors.3F Done!] [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::In my opinion, These are the necessary changes.
 +
::*Publication title - "Worlds of If, February 2024" is correct.
 +
::*Editor: I would only credit 'Justin T. O'Conor Sloane' who is the editor-in-chief. This is how I credit all the other periodicals they publish. Judging by the some of the notes to mod, they don't understand why we have changed.
 +
::*The date is wrong - should be 2024-02. See how to date periodicals.
 +
::*Format - (5.5 x 0.2 x 8.5 inches) is tp if perfect-bound or octavo if saddle-stapled.
 +
::*Notes - The ISSN does not belong in the publication record, it is for the magazine. I put it in the series record. I would remove the note re: the exact date. FWIW, it was available 2024-02-21 from Amazon. Not sure what date Jean-Paul L. Garnier is citing. Regardless, the exact date is irrelevant to how we date periodicals.
 +
::*Missing ASIN - B0CW3LM95L
 +
::*Both "From the Editors" titles are lacking the proper disambiguation. I don't let the fact that there are two of these influence how we credit the Editor. We have periodicals with more than one editorial, but the issue is credited to the editor-in-chief only.
 +
::*Incorrect author attribution - 'A J Dalton' s/b A. J. Dalton.
 +
::*Remove weblink from title record.
 +
::*Title record date s/b 2024. This is the 'rollup record for all 2024 issues.
 +
::I'll be glad to take care of this if you like. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:25, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::If you'd like to, that's fine. It almost seems like several people who know each other are all submitting "corrections" for the same thing. And it may be good to clarify which editors get listed. At least one person is stating they list deputy or assistant editors, which I've never done myself (and you've never done, given your comments), so there is apparently some confusion over that, too. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 15:33, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::: We could also document assistant editors, associate editors, department editors, and any other people related to the magazine on the magazine's Series page or on a linked Wiki page. Consider [[Series:Air Wonder Stories]], which lists a variety of people: publisher, president, secretary, treasurer, members of an academic "advisory panel", etc. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::: I thought we didn't want to create wiki pages, but instead try to incorporate all relevant information in the DB itself? John did a good job if you ask me, obsoleting need for additional wiki page? [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 17:00, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::: You can still use ISFDB Wiki pages, but you need to explicitly link to them from the database side using the "Web Page(s)" field. They are typically used when the editor wants to use images, e.g. photos of the copyright page, and/or an elaborate page layout. In the case of [[Series:Air Wonder Stories]] there is so much information that a separate Wiki page may be a better option than cluttering the database-side Series page. The main downside is that Wiki pages are not a part of the public backups. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 17:47, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::: Here are  the updated [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?72856 Series record] , [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?999601 Publication record] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3292544 Title record]. I was going to reject the pending submissions referring to this conversation, but you are holding them. I incorporated a couple changes referred to in these edits. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 16:51, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::I've rejected them with a note referring to this discussion. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 17:59, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::: I did the initial review & accepted the submission & corrected some of the most obvious mistakes & errors at about the same time John did some updates. Some thoughts (top of my head, so may be mistaken - haven't been very much involved last two years...):
 +
::::::*Can agree with most of above, except for whom to credit as editor(s). Not unambiguously stated that deputy editor can't be listed as co-editor? Would clarify in rules if majority deems that useful
 +
::::::*Currently, I classified the pub as Worlds of If (relaunch), subseries of the original. We may want/need to revisit?
 +
::::::*Agree, to clarify order of authors is irrelevant
 +
::::::*We may want to revisit how we name art - I recall there was a discussion a while back on the rules forum to clarify about same. I have recently accepted a number of publications where art was entered with title as it appeared in the pub, not sure at all that is correct in all cases...
 +
:::::: [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 16:58, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Review of Contemporary Fiction vs The Review of Contemporary Fiction ==
 +
 
 +
The magazine title [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?67217 Review of Contemporary Fiction] is the same magazine as [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?33638 The Review of Contemporary Fiction]. I don't know which version should be considered the "canonical" title; the cover art for various issues appears to usually have the title "The Review" ([https://www.cbsd.com/9781564780997/edmund-whitesamuel-delany-vol-16-no-3/ Fall 1996], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?904229 Summer 2002], etc), but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20210922035851/http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/product/journal-review-of-contemporary-fiction/ archived magazine publisher website at Dalkey Archive] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_of_Contemporary_Fiction Wikipedia] title the magazine "Review." [https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/0276-0045 The ISSN Portal includes both Review and The Review]. Either way, I'm hoping there's a way to merge the magazine titles and their related records rather than needing to change each publication record individually. —[[User:Morebooks|Morebooks]] ([[User talk:Morebooks|talk]]) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:We should go with whatever is used on the masthead. If that's not available, then whatever is used on the cover. It's okay to have slightly different titles within the same series, too. You can see that [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?28967 here], where the magazine changed their title a few times over the years. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:18, 20 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:: I don't have the magazine issue(s) at hand to check their masthead. Since the 2 issues we have catalogued so far both have "The Review" on their cover, and since there doesn't appear to be a way to merge series, I'm going to change the series title to The Review on the non-matching publication. Since it's a  non-genre publication, I'm also changing the editor name from Editors of Review of Contemporary Fiction to Editors of The Review of Contemporary Fiction--but I'm putting that in a separate submission, so it can be rejected if it's the wrong move. [[User:Morebooks|Morebooks]] ([[User talk:Morebooks|talk]]) 23:35, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Stonecreek's Self-Approver Status ==
 +
 
 +
[[User:Stonecreek]] was made a moderator on 2011-09-28. After a number of issues with his moderation of other editors' submissions, e.g. [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek/Archive4#Changing_dates_of_variant_art_titles this incident in November 2019], Stonecreek was [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard/Archive_27#What_is_the_matter_with_Stonecreek.3F asked to limit his activities to self-moderation] in April 2020 (we didn't have the current self-approver system in place at the time.) He agreed to it, although he [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard/Archive_29#Abusive_Regularization didn't always abide by the terms of the agreement], which he was [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#Follow-up_from_the_Moderator_Noticeboard_discussion warned about]:
 +
 
 +
:Please do not change the data in recently added/edited records without discussing it with the moderator who approved the submission. Doing so effectively circumvents the agreement and leaves both the approving moderator and the submitting user out of the loop.
 +
:These issues have been occurring for a long time now. Please make sure that they do not re-occur or else I will have to take administrative action.
 +
 
 +
Stoncreek's moderation privileges were revoked on 2021-03-07 after [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#La_trama_celeste this discussion], which revealed a pattern of adding unsubstantiated first edition statements to publication records.
 +
 
 +
When the current self-approver system was implemented in April 2021, [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard/Archive_29#Bottleneck_at_moderation_level Stonecreek wrote]:
 +
 +
: I know that my impatience did get the better part of me, but this April has taught ma to be patient by having to wait for the approvals. I'd either only concentrate on correcting my faults & 'my' publications or if there'd be more allowed I'll definitely not reject any submissions or 'better' others without communication.
 +
: I have gone wrong in not recognizing or even hurting some peoples feelings.
 +
 
 +
Based on these promises, Stonecreek was made a self-approver on 2021-04-13.
 +
 +
Stonecreek's self-approver privileges were [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal/Archive/Archive52#MZB.27s_.27Falcons_of_Narabedla.27 revoked in June 2022] after he had changed data against a previously reached agreement, which caused a major disturbance. In September 2022 he [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal/Archive/Archive53#Applying_for_self-moderating asked to have his self-approver privileges restored and  promised]:
 +
 +
: I have also learned my lesson and will not repeat my fads & fallacies of earlier. There also will be more communication upon planned actions from my side.
 +
 
 +
and:
 +
 
 +
: I've been somewhat short-tempered (and even unfair & wrong to you) before. Apparently I've been a hothead regarding some things that didn't work out the way I thought they should.
 +
 
 +
The consensus was to give Stonecreek another chance and his self-approver privileges were restored.
  
−
== Black and Blue question ==
+
In May 2023 I [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#Artist_attribution_correction warned Stonecreek about changing primary verified pubs without notifying the primary verifier]. In December 2023 he [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Entries_disappeared deleted multiple pubs entered by another editor without contacting that editor]. He was right to delete the pubs because they were out of scope for the project (audio dramatizations), but I once again had to explain that he needed to communicate with other editors
 +
: Without an explanation, they'll be either confused and frustrated when the data that they previously submitted disappears or they will continue adding ineligible records.
 +
:: I explained about that: stumbling over a review of those title being audio plays I remembered to have seen the publications in question, researched even more to find this was right and deleted them, but missed out to check who added them (and who aproved it). [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Publication Record # 460949 is an ebook for Black and Blue by Gena Showalter. The record shows it has an ISBN of 978-1-4516-7162-9. The record also states from Amazon a KINDLE page count of 401.
+
Between 2024-03-18 and 2024-03-20 the following issues were documented on Stonecreek's Talk page:
−
Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/23692680-black-and-blue shows both an ebook with ISBN 978-1-4516-7162-9 AND a Kindle version with an ASIN of B00BSB2AMG, the same ASIN that Amazon shows for the Kindle version. Aren't these two different books rather than what looks like one in the DB?? Audible also mentions the Kindle version and links to the Amazon page. Barnes and Noble https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/black-and-blue-gena-showalter/1114818769?ean=9781451671629 mentions an ebook (Nook) with the ISBN. Curious in Indy [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 14:44, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
: It is the same book available in 2 formats. We don’t separate the ebook formats as separate records unless the publisher does with a separate isbn/cover/something else. There are a few publishers that issue separate ISBNs per format. For all the rest the ISBN is for all eBooks essentially - some stores use it, some (Amazon since last year) don’t. Until last year, the ASIN record in Amazon also carried the ISBN (and until a coupe of years ago, they were also visible on the Amazon page). :)  [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:56, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:: Many Goodreads records come from the Amazon database as it existed at a certain point in time. In a way, it's similar to our database since many of our records also come from the Amazon database as it existed at a certain point in time. The result is that our data and Goodreads data can vary -- even when the original source is Amazon's core database -- because we took snapshots at different times. Throw in the fact that our data entry rules differ and it can get confusing. It's one of the reasons why it's important to include the "snapshot date" when recording where our data comes from. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 15:33, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
2024-03-18: [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#No_Time_to_Spare Changing a primary-verified publication without consulting its active primary verifier].
 +
:: According to the editor in question that was cheerfully resolved (as I took that an audio book wouldn't have a separate title page: none of the ones I own does have one). [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)  
  
−
:: Annie from what I am hearing from you, unless the cover is different, treat Kindle & ebooks as the same book, right?? [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 16:31, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
2024-03-19: [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#Corey_Fah_Does_Social_Mobility Adding an invalid "Assumed first printing" statement without checking even basic resources like Amazon UK].
−
::: Or unless there is a "EPUB ISBN" and "MOBI/Kindle ISBN" and "PDF ISBN" printed in there which are different or there is an extra story in one of them or extra excerpt or something along these lines. Officially each format is supposed to have its own ISBN but that's expensive and only a few (mainly children books) publishers do that. So everyone has an eISBN instead (which in theory does not exist but in practice does) and if there is a publisher site, they contain links to Amazon (with ASIN), B&N (based on the ISBN), Apple, Kobo and so on. See [https://www.harpercollins.com/products/amari-and-the-night-brothers-b-b-alston?variant=32218749599778 this one] for example (I was just working on editions of this book so I had it handy). Look at "Product details" and the link on the right. The Amazon link is transformed into an ASIN link if you click on it because this is what Amazon wants these days :) But it is the same book even if Amazon does not show the ISBN anywhere on the product page anymore. Goodreads have two records for this one though: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54376171-amari-and-the-night-brothers ASIN based] and [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50357469-amari-and-the-night-brothers ISBN based] - just like for the one we started the conversation with. It is how they do things these days - not very consistent but that is a somewhat common pattern with eBooks - they keep Kindle and eBooks separate for the most part. We don't. :)
 
−
::: Small publishers can be trickier (no site very often) but they are similar. Not all Kindle books have ISBNs (you don't need one if you are exclusively Amazon) of course.
 
−
::: Take for another example [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?868181 this one] - I looked at the three available formats from my library (epub, mobi/Kindle and the Overdrive ebook (which is not sold - it is a library format)) - looked as in "downloaded all 3 and checked to see if they are the same). It is the same book inside. Hope all this helps.  [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 17:19, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Nathalia Sullen ==
+
:: I will not do that again. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Nathalia Sullen artist record 264974 is the same person as Nathália Suellen artist record 177821. All books in the data base are listed under Nathália Suellen except for the 7 books listed under "The Dark Queen" series. Bio information and websites are listed under Nathália Suellen. I am trying to check "Look Inside" for any books on Amazon to see how the name is listed in the book. I would say  Nathália Suellen is her legal name.    I have been able to check Black and Blue, Coral and Bone there and they show Nathalia Sullen. The Gathering Dark, Last Kiss Goodbye and Splintered either do not show the cover artist or there is no Look Inside. The artwork for these 3 can be found at https://www.kaifineart.com/nathaliasuellen and https://coverart.nathaliasuellen.com. I will see what I can find about the others. Dark Descendant uses Nathália Suellen  [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 16:28, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
2024-03-20: [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#The_Spider_Vs._the_Empire_State:_The_Complete_Black_Police_Trilogy Removing valid data recently entered by an active editor without consulting the editor].
  
−
:: Part 2. All books in data base looked at on Amazon "Look Inside"    Dark Descendant, Unhinged, Untamed, Ensnared, Roseblood, Odd & True show Nathália Suellen.  Jinn & Juice, Illusionarium don't give cover artist. Wolf at the Door does not have database version on Amazon. All others show Nathalia Sullen [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 16:59, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
:: Which was caused by missing notes from where the price information does stem: Another reason I am all in favor of giving the sources. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
n
 +
2024-03-20: [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#Dating_rules_for_novels  Changing the date of a NOVEL title recently entered by another editor in contravention of how SERIAL/NOVEL dating is supposed to work as per Help and without discussing it with the editor who entered the data]. His defense was that "it was in line with the bulk of other titles of the series".
  
−
::: I would submit a request to merge these two records together but I am not sure how to go about it. As you can see from what I have found, books have used both versions of her name and some books that are under Nathália Suellen used Nathalia Sullen for her name. [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 09:08, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
:: These titles are more likely NOVELLAs than NOVELs (nobody has done a word count or an estimate for them upon adding them; I'll do that for a sample as soon as I have the copies) and the original dates are stated in the publication in question (and the dating of other titles in the series were of no concern when moderators previously edited publications with titles of the series). [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::: Since the spelling is different (Sullen vs. Suellen), we would not merge these.  We would pick one of the two as "canonical" -- usually the one she is better known by or has more credits as -- and make the other an alternate name/pseudonym. For any art record credited to the alternate name, we would make a variant title credited to the canonical name. Once all of that is complete, the alternate name's bibliography would appear empty and would point people to the canonical name, and the canonical name's bibliography would show the combined results, with anything credited to the alternate name tagged with a form of "as by xxx" ("only as by xxx" or "also as by xxx").
+
These are the same types of issues that I warned Stonecreek about [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Stonecreek#Follow-up_from_the_Moderator_Noticeboard_discussion in March 2021] as quoted above:
  
−
:::: Any records we have not using the name as given in the publication should be corrected (and then variant made, if applicable).
+
:Please do not change the data in recently added/edited records without discussing it with the moderator who approved the submission. [It] leaves both the approving moderator and the submitting user out of the loop. ... These issues have been occurring for a long time now.
  
−
:::: If there is no explicit credit in the publication and credit comes from a secondary source, we generally would use whatever form of name the secondary source used (again, making a variant, if applicable), except we would NOT create another alternate name just to accommodate a variation used by the source but not any publication. In that case, we would use the canonical name and note the secondary source's form of the name.  For example, suppose a secondary source called her "Nat Sullen".  We would not use that as a credit, rather we would use whichever of "Nathália Suellen" or "Nathalia Sullen" we decide is canonical and record in the publication notes that the artwork is uncredited, but XYZ credits the art to "Nat Sullen".
+
Based on this recurring pattern, I have revoked Stonecreek's self-approver privileges. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 18:11, 21 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::: --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 11:58, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
:: All in all, I do think that the quality of our database still has to improve, especially in the areas of determining the actual length (NOVELLA vs. NOVEL) of texts that may be either one with a certain likelihood: our standard is quite clear, but many publishers do advertise novels when the published are of considerable shorter length. For instance, I was working massively on the works of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?893 R. L. Stine] whose majority of texts are NOVELLAs but got indexed as NOVELs. I have begun with his 'Goosebumps' series and would like to work further on the whole author page (but I do think that's rather not handable without self-approver privileges).
 +
:: I see that I do have to improve my carefulness: being myself not too touched by erroneous alterings of my edited or PVed publications, I do tend towards thinking that others are thinking the same way. After all, new knowledge leads to the need of adapting the existing records: that's how ISFDB works (and is intended I think). Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
::::: Marty, I am finding her name spelled 4 ways. I believe Nathália Suellen is her proper name. If you go to the "about" section of her website https://gallery.nathaliasuellen.com/about. it shows Nathália Suellen
+
== User pages: how do we define "advertising"? ==
  
−
::::: All of the books listed under the Nathalia Sullen listing, show Nathalia Sullen in the text shown in the Amazon Look Inside. However I know that this person is Nathália Suellen as the artwork for these books can be found on her website at https://coverart.nathaliasuellen.com/page/5. These are the only books I have found so far with the spelling Sullen
+
Earlier today [[User:Username]] added a large political campaign button to his User page. [[Help:Wiki Conventions]] has the following to say about User pages:
  
−
::::: All of the books under the Nathália Suellen listing have one of 3 configurations shown in the Look Inside: Black & Blue has Nathalia Suelle, 7 of them show Nathalia Suellen, 8 show Nathália Suellen (Stain shows nothing in the English version but Nathália Suellen in the Spanish). (NOTE a vs á) 3 others do not state the artist in the Look Inside. The books Wolf at the Door and Coral & Bone shown on Amazon are different printing. I have a list of who is who. The art for these books can be traced back to her websites https://nathaliasuellen.com and/or https://www.deviantart.com/lady-symphonia listed under the Nathália Suellen record.
+
* Users are generally free to place almost anything on a user page or user page subpage, subject to [[Help:Contents/Purpose#What_the_ISFDB_Wiki_is_not|What the ISFDB Wiki is not]], and the general rule that "The Wiki is a support tool for the ISFDB, and should not be used for anything that is not appropriate for that purpose."
 +
* While a user page may, indeed often will, describe a user's off site activities, including the user's professional activities, it should not be used for anything that seems like advertising.
  
−
::::: I agree with the "canonical" vs alternate name/pseudonym solution. I guess I am putting in my 2 cents for Nathália Suellen to be canonical with Nathalia Suellen, Nathalia Sullen and Nathalia Suelle being alternates. [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 17:29, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
[[Help:Contents/Purpose#What_the_ISFDB_Wiki_is_not|What the ISFDB Wiki is not]] says:
  
−
:::::: Yes, that seems fine, although I am pretty sure the software will consider Nathália Suellen and Nathalia Suellen to be the same and will not produce a second record based just on the differing diacritical.  If that proves to be true, you would need to note it appears as "Nathalia". --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 10:02, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
* The ISFDB Wiki ... should not be used to publish advertisements or announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions.
  
−
:::::::I am willing to try to link all of the books to the name listed in them using Nathália Suellen as canonical. What I don't know is how to link alternate name Nathalia Sullen to Nathália Suellen. After the names are linked, would those 7 books also show under Nathália Suellen?  (Are those the "also as bys?) For those books showing Nathalia Suellen as the artist, (currently are all listed under Nathália Suellen), it is easy to make a note that they state the artist as Nathalia Suellen. I assume nothing else would need to be done since you think Nathalia Suellen would not be set up as seperate from Nathália Suellen.
+
I am thinking that political campaign buttons fall under the "anything that seems like advertising" clause and thus should not appear on User pages. Thoughts? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 21:26, 27 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:::::::: Actually there is a lot of work done when you create a pseudonym. The titles won't show up on the canonical author page automatically - you need to create new parents for each of them (Make Variant, Option 2, all remains the same except for the author where you put the canonical name). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:17, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
:I'd agree with that. I'd even suggest adding something along the lines of "no political campaigning or promotion". I'm sure better wording than that could be created, though. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 01:17, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::I added that because the previous image I added long ago went down and was replaced by some fake spyware site so I looked for a replacement; first one was much too big, stretching across several screens, so I replaced it with the nicely-sized button. If it offends your left-wing sensibilities so greatly I'll find another one that won't trigger you. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::Done. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 08:57, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::You know nothing about my sensibilities. I'd think the same thing if it was a button for Biden, that guy in Argentina (I can never remember how to spell his name), Macron, Trudeau, Putin, or anyone else. My opinion has nothing to do with any specific political party or belief in any specific country. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 09:48, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::::::: Well I am missing something or not understanding. The names Nathália Suellen and Nathalia Sullen currently exist. If Nathália Suellen is canonical, how do I go about making Nathalia Sullen a pseudonym of Nathália Suellen? (This is the cover artist not the book author) Am I understanding that I would take the 7 books listed under Nathalia Sullen and reenter them using Nathália Suellen? The would I take the books under Nathalia Sullen and make them variants of the books under Nathália Suellen? And if that is the case, the book Black & Blue is already listed under Nathália Suellen. I would need to make a version where the artist is Nathalia Suelle and make this a variant of the book under Nathália Suellen? Or am I completly out in left field here?? [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 22:06, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
:::: The issue at hand is whether images of political campaign buttons -- or campaign T-shirts, mugs, etc -- count as "advertising" for the purposes of the ISFDB Wiki. As mentioned above, [[Help:Contents/Purpose#What_the_ISFDB_Wiki_is_not|What the ISFDB Wiki is not]] says:
−
:::::::::: No - nothing new needs to be entered except for the parents at the end. We just need to connect the existing records. Two steps needed: make a pseudonym (starting form the to-be-pseudonym record, look in the left menu and locate “Make/remove alternate name”. Follow the prompts there. This will make the second author form an alternate/pseudonym for the first. The second step (can be submitted at the same time and is technically multiple steps) is for each title in the pseudonym page, to create a parent record (Open the title record, look in the left menu and locate Make variant, Option 2, change only the author name). let me know if you would like me to do this one so you can see the steps or if you want to try. Or I can give you a step by step with links so you can do it while following them. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 22:29, 3 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::::: I gave it a try. It seemed pretty straight forward. Once I got in I think I also saw by what you ment by Option 2. Hopefully I did right. [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 16:54, 4 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::Black & Blue is the only book having Nathalia Suelle. It is currently listed under Nathália Suellen. Would one delete the current record then reenter it under Nathalia Suelle? Then Nathalia Suelle would also need to be linked under Nathália Suellen as an alternate name. Or instead of deleting the record can you just change the artist name to Nathalia Suelle? [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 15:01, 3 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::: No need to delete anything - just update the book (or the title record)'s author field to what it needs to be. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:17, 3 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::: PS: And yes - Nathália/Nathalia will be treated as the same name due to how the DB is setup. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:20, 3 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::::::::I will at least go into the books where Nathalia is shown as the artist in the Look Insides and make a note in the Pub Notes that the book shows Nathalia Sullen. All of these books are currently listed under Nathália Suellen. I don't want to mess with Black & Blue until I understand what is going on to get that name as a pseudonym of Nathália Suellen.  [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 22:06, 3 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::::::: I didn't see a way to change the artist on Black & Blue so I made a note in the Pub field. This is the only book I can find using Nathalia Suelle and it's a note from the author thanking her for the wonderful cover. I also made notes for the books where for name was spelled Nathalia instead of Nathália [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 16:54, 4 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
::::::::::Annie I have to apologize, I screwed up. I did a wrong cut and paste. On the books where I state "Book text credits Natalia Suellen for cover art", it should read "Nathalia Suellen". I thought I checked and double checked, but I missed it. Fortunately I always check everything one last time after it goes through you folks. I will be fixing these and I again apologize for the extra work I put on you folks. I will now go stand in the corner. [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 19:32, 6 December 2021 (EST)
+
::::* The ISFDB Wiki ... should not be used to publish advertisements or announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions.
−
::::::::::: The only people who do not make mistakes are the ones doing nothing. Let me know if you need me to fix something - if not, submit the changes you need, add a moderator note explaining that you are correcting a copy/paste mishap and we are all set. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:37, 6 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Syzygy ==
+
:::: My take on it is that if a politician or a public official had an ISFDB User page, an informational statement like "Governor of Freedonia. Running for re-election in 2024." would be OK, but a campaign button or announcements of fundraisers would be too close to "advertising" to be acceptable. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 09:28, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::I agree. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 09:48, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::: I also agree. I also think that endorsing anyone is effectively advertisement as well so any "vote for XXX" or anything in that vein (as an image or as text) is against the policy. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 19:16, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Look, people, I wasn't trying to endorse anyone, my old image which had been there for a while was broken for some reason so I replaced it with one that was much too big leading to me adding the button because the size was just right. I have now replaced that with a simple T-shirt. Let it go. There are currently 207 pending non-held edits of which nearly 150 are mine. Approving them is what's important. I don't remember ever seeing a photo on anyone else's page so I doubt most people care enough to add one, endorsement or not. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Syzygy; added issues of Crank from Archive.org and this PV did #4 but entered a couple of titles wrong; I fixed them and then got nervous because I anticipated the usual complaining about not checking with PV first before changing anything. I was relieved to see the PV hasn't responded since 5 years ago, but now that I think about it they should probably have 1 of those "no longer active" things on their board, right? --[[User:Username|Username]] 21:22, 23 November 2021 (EST)
+
:::::::: Buttons, t-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, yard signs -- they are all standard advertising tools commonly used by political campaigns. Our current policy doesn't allow "advertisements or announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions", which political advertising counts as.
 +
:::::::: If we allow advertising associated with one political campaign appear on User pages, there will be nothing stopping other users from displaying political images associated with other election or issues-oriented campaigns. We could end up with User pages supporting or opposing different sides in international wars, religious/social/ethnic movements and so on. It would cause nothing but damage to the project. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Francois Roca => François Roca ==
+
::::::::: I think there should be a distinction between a User page and the rest of the Wiki. It's not codified, but to me a User page is the place where a member of the ISFDB community presents oneself to the rest of the community.  It's reasonable for that content to include references to non-bibliographic/non-spec-fic interests, where "references" might be not just text but images, links to other sites, etc.  Granted, there's a line there somewhere, where providing additional material about oneself and one's interests would cross over into "advertising" in the sense of promoting those things, but I think the ISFDB policy ought to be lenient on where that line lies.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 14:27, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?35172 This author's name] should be changed from "Francois Roca" to "François Roca" (see [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Roca here for example]).[[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 04:06, 24 November 2021 (EST)
+
:::::::::: Would you say that the current [[Help:Wiki Conventions]] language quoted above:
−
: That one is a bit more complicated because of the English editions - no argument that this is the guy's name but we need to find out how he was credited (and if it does not have "ç" on the credits somewhere, we will need notes and so on...) I'll work on that in the next days. Meanwhile I added a legal name so we at least have it there. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:44, 6 December 2021 (EST)
+
::::::::::* While a user page may, indeed often will, describe a user's off site activities, including the user's professional activities, it should not be used for anything that seems like advertising.
−
:: Notes added. Name changed. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 23:59, 6 December 2021 (EST)
+
:::::::::: covers what you are describing or do you think it should be expanded/amended? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::: I think there needs to be a tie-in to the individual. It's one thing to say you're Vegan, a bit more to have a link to a Vegan site you participate in or a Vegan recipe site you have enjoyed and quite another to link to a site showing abattoirs (unless it's one you worked in?). That said, would a Nike logo be over the line if you wore them? ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] ([[User talk:Holmesd|talk]]) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Fake ==
+
::::::::::::A slippery slope is that "seems like advertising" is subjective. "Seems like advertising" to whom, and what is "advertising"?  FWIW, I looked at all of the revisions of the page cited at the top, and "advertising" didn't even cross my mind; I just saw them as a graphic illustrating/emphasizing some of the self-description provided.  In fact, the T-shirt one made me chuckle and seemed somewhat apropos for a bibliographic site, although I do have a warped sense of humor....  On my own [[User:MartyD|User page]], I have had for 14 years now a link to another site that interests me and I'm happy to try to socialize.  Taking a harsh view, my posting of that link seems to be much closer advertising/promotion than the inclusion of any of those images, yet no one has ever complained about it despite ample time to do so.  So what's the difference? --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Verification_requests; Saw a couple of rare entries on this board, but they don't seem legit. --[[User:Username|Username]] 07:36, 24 November 2021 (EST)
+
::::::::::::In the greater scheme of things, I don't particularly care what people post on their main User page (legal and common decency considerations aside). I am in no way obligated to visit a User page during the course of any ISFDB-related activities.  If I happen to visit one with material that bothers me, then I would not return to it.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:Thanks for your open eyes. I have deleted the two spam entries. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 08:17, 24 November 2021 (EST)
+
::::::::::::: I have been thinking about these points for the last few days. They seem to raise a couple of separate issues.
 +
::::::::::::: The first one is "What is advertising?" The current Help language disallows "announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions". It may be taken as disallowing links to SF convention sites, which does seem excessive. Thinking back to the mid-late 2000s, I ''think'' (emphasis on "think") that the main goal of the Help language above was to prevent ISFDB users from turning their User pages into collections of links to commercial sites, which is, apparently, a common spamming trick. Spammers first incorporate links to third party sites into obscure Web pages on legitimate sites (like ours) and then use them as part of whatever spam activities they perform. [[ISFDB:Policy]] already bans this type of behavior:
 +
:::::::::::::* Spamming commercial information (gambling, porn, links, etc) will result in an immediate indefinite blocking of the user
 +
::::::::::::: so perhaps the "no advertising on User pages" rule is not needed.
 +
::::::::::::: The second issue is "legal and common decency considerations". [[ISFDB:Policy]] already disallows "obscenities", but "decency" is a trickier issue. To pick a random obscure example, Suriname and Guyana have been at loggerheads over [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigri_Area the Tigri Area] for generations. Should we prevent users from using their User pages to promote their chosen side's cause? If not, then at what point does issue advocacy violate "common decency considerations"? Something like "Death to X" is presumably a step too far, but where do we draw the line?
 +
::::::::::::: I think the larger issue, as mentioned earlier, is that the world has always been full of territorial, ethnic, political, religious and ideological conflicts, which can easily invade ISFDB User pages and cause tensions between editors. I would like to see some way to prevent it from happening, but perhaps the currently existing "advertising" language is not the best way to do it.
 +
::::::::::::: In any event, perhaps this is something that we may need to discuss on the Rules and Standards page as opposed to the Moderator Noticeboard. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:40, 5 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:I blocked the account, too. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:56, 24 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Complicated magazine addition: Shall I cancel and redo in smaller pieces? ==
  
−
== Editing My Edits ==
+
Hi, folks—I have a pending [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5887356 submission of a new magazine entry] for an issue of ''The Little Magazine'', but my submission had a whole bunch of uncertainties in it, which I suspect is why it hasn’t been approved. I was looking at that submission again, and it occurred to me that I could cancel that submission and instead enter that magazine issue as a few separate submissions that would be less of a mess and easier to review—for example, I could start by talking with the verifiers about changing the existing listing for the Russ story (“Old Pictures”) from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION, and then after that’s resolved, I could enter the magazine issue with just the Russ and Delany pieces, and then after that I could add ask y’all for advice on how to handle the reviews, and so on. Would that be a better approach? Or would it be best to leave the submission as-is? (I considered just going ahead and canceling it and redoing it in smaller steps, but I don’t know whether someone is in the midst of reviewing the submission, and if they are, I don’t want to waste anyone’s work.) …Either way, sorry for the complicated submission, and next time I’ll know that I should talk with verifiers ahead of time about changes, and should ask moderators ahead of time about how to handle various things (like the reviews in that issue) rather than just guessing and adding a moderator note. —[[User:Elysdir|Elysdir]] ([[User talk:Elysdir|talk]]) 20:34, 5 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?29309; Can any of you explain to me why, after I discovered there's a recently added Archive copy of Joseph Payne Brennan's rare 1963 collection Scream At Midnight and added it here, and then discovered there's another story in the book at the end that's not on the contents page for some reason and was never entered here until I added it, someone approved the edit of some other editor who entered the missing story again for some reason, removed my note about the handwritten dedication at the front with a 1963 date, and removed my note about the missing story and then slightly rewrote it and entered it as his own note? It's not like he owns a copy; he used Google Books as his source. Can someone remove the duplicated story and reinstate my note about the dedication and my note about the missing story? Didn't the mod who approved this guy's edit notice any of this? --[[User:Username|Username]] 23:32, 24 November 2021 (EST)
+
:I can't say if anyone is in the middle of reviewing it. There is a pretty big backlog, so delays abound, but I can tell you that we generally try to avoid "bad" data getting into the database. That affects moderating submissions in two primary ways: (1) A moderator has to figure out whether the submission is ok and has followed proper verifier notification procedures. (2) There is no way for a moderator to alter a submission before accepting it, so if something is wrong in the submission, the moderator's choices are mainly to reject the submission and request that it be redone or to accept the submission and then do some further edit(s) to address the issues, then notify the submitter of the fix-ups.  Rejection is usually a last resort -- especially of big/complicated submissions -- because no one likes to throw away work.  Any submission where it's apparent #1 and/or #2 are going to require significant time or effort often get passed over due to lack of dedicated time or due to reluctance to do work the submitter could (or should) have done. Magazines are also a little extra-complicated, and some moderators are not comfortable handling submissions for new magazines.  With all of that as background, I think you would get faster turnaround with smaller submissions and with having worked out issues you're aware of in advance.  Something as simple as a note-to-the-modifier that says "I worked this out with the active PVs" or "Per the discussion on the Community Portal" or even "I plan to address XYZ after this is approved" can work wonders. I am firmly in the don't-throw-away-work camp, so I am not advising you to cancel and redo, nor can I promise you'd see any quicker action if decide to cancel and redo in steps. Maybe some others will chime in and give you a little more input to weigh. --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] ([[User talk:MartyD|talk]]) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:Done. It might be that this just was a coincidence of simultaneous approaches. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 12:52, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
== External ID The British Library has changed ==
−
:: Was my approval and my mistake. With hundreds of edits to approve there are a few that slip through. With no PV only the edit history is there to refer to.  I'll remove the extra story.[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] 13:12, 27 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== "Omnibus" of magazine/comic issues ==
+
I noticed several weeks ago the external ID of BL doesn't work any more. Now I discovered the changed www address. [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?249689 The Dinosaur Planet Omnibus] in ISBDB calls the ID "https://www.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&vl(freeText0)=9781841490304" that failes. [https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma990067453670100000&context=L&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=LibraryCatalog&query=any,contains,184149030X&offset=0 this link here] shows the title in a right way. So I don't know how to adapt this to the ISFDB database. Maybe some moderator knows? --[[User:Zapp|Zapp]] ([[User talk:Zapp|talk]]) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:When I went to the site that is called by the ISFDB lookup, the following notice appeared: "We're continuing to experience a major technology outage as a result of a cyber-attack. Our buildings are open as usual, however, the outage is still affecting our website, online systems and services, as well as some onsite services.  This is a temporary website, with limited content, which outlines the services that are currently available, as well as what's on at the Library.". So this may be a temporary situation while the BL is recovering from the cyber attack. Depending on how extensive the effects of the attack were, that kind of recovery can take a long time. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 17:04, 7 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Looking for some moderatorial opinions on handling of a submission that is for a book collecting a three-issue Marvel Comics series of H. P. Lovecraft adaptations. Each of the issues featured one short story and two poems by Lovecraft. The issues contained a new graphical/comics-style adaptation of Lovecraft's works and also reprinted the original works.
+
:: Thanks for digging! Their [https://www.bl.uk/cyber-incident/ online summary] links to a PDF file which describes what happened in October 2023 and how they plan to recover over the course of 2024 and early 2025. Some of their systems were very old and not up to modern security requirements. They won't be restored and will need to be replaced, which will take a long time. In the meantime, I will look into the temporary Web search service that they have set up and see if we can leverage it for the time being. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
1. It seems to me the original issues, while technically comics, should be "in", since they reprint the Lovecraft works. Would they be MAGAZINE?
+
::: I have updated the way ISFDB Publication pages link to the British Library catalog. We will be using BL's temporary Web site until their main Web site is restored. [https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?415703 This publication] is an example of how it works now. Thanks for reporting the problem! [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:48, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
2. Would we make this new publication an OMNIBUS?  If the originals were ANTHOLOGY, I believe we would, but if they're MAGAZINE?
+
== Request: Yang Feng canonical name ==
  
−
3. If we made this new publication ANTHOLOGY, would we still want to include the the titles of the three original publications?
+
[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?366182 杨枫(I)] no longer needs the parenthesized "(I)" for disambiguation, could someone with appropriate privileges please remove that?
  
−
I think there's also an issue with MAGAZINE/EDITOR and wanting to include that title record in another publication. Does anyone know?
+
Background: there are two completely different people in the Chinese SF scene using the name "杨枫" (Yang Feng).  [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?377617 The person who had been added to the database first] (a) also uses a couple of other names, both of which are more widely used than Yang Feng, and (b) is probably lower profile than the person who had the disambiguated "杨枫(I)", certainly using that particular name.
  
−
Thanks, --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 12:14, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
I have just added a few new titles that means that [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?377617 天爵] (Tianjue) is now the appropriate canonical name for the original "杨枫" (Yang Feng), so I've switched over the titles that were using the latter to use the former.  This seems to have automagically removed the original 杨枫 author record, which is the right thing to do now that there are no titles using it, although I was expecting to have to do that manually.
  
−
: I would guess that the original Marvel issues should be entered as MAGAZINEs. Reprints of MAGAZINE issues are typically entered as ANTHOLOGY pubs, e.g. see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/adv_search_results.cgi?USE_1=title_title&O_1=starts_with&TERM_1=Astounding&C=AND&USE_2=title_ttype&O_2=exact&TERM_2=ANTHOLOGY&USE_3=title_title&O_3=exact&TERM_3=&USE_4=title_title&O_4=exact&TERM_4=&USE_5=title_title&O_5=exact&TERM_5=&USE_6=title_title&O_6=exact&TERM_6=&USE_7=title_title&O_7=exact&TERM_7=&USE_8=title_title&O_8=exact&TERM_8=&USE_9=title_title&O_9=exact&TERM_9=&USE_10=title_title&O_10=exact&TERM_10=&ORDERBY=title_title&ACTION=query&START=0&TYPE=Title these ''Astounding'' reprints]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:03, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
Once [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?366182 杨枫(I)] is switched to be just "杨枫", I think there'll be a couple of award records that will need appropriate updates, but I'll take care of that.
−
: I’d add the reprints as anthologies - as the originals are magazines, we cannot import them so we cannot make an omnibus. The old comics are non-genre Magazines - just like newspapers are magazines in the dB IMO.  My 2 cents. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 20:42, 27 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::Are we going to start adding comic books?  I thought they were always out of scope.  For an author like Gaiman, this would add quite a bit of new material. [[User:Taweiss|TAWeiss]] 08:51, 28 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::: These particular comic book issues were a special case -- they contained not only comics but also reprints of the stories/poems which the comics were based on. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 10:09, 28 November 2021 (EST)
+
I'm not sure if I've explained this particularly clearly, if anyone wants/needs further details, let me know. Thanks! [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 16:17, 9 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
::::: I was the one who submitted this. Please note this is a hardback book with ISBN. Do magazines or comics have an ISBN?? [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 11:08, 28 November 2021 (EST)
+
: Done. If the other author never used that name, it does not get an author record here. If they later do, then they can get the (I). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::::: Normally, magazine issues do not have unique ISBNs. Instead, the whole magazine run is assigned an [https://www.issn.org/understanding-the-issn/what-is-an-issn/ ISSN]. Occasionally, when a magazine issue is sold as a standalone publication, it may be assigned an ISBN.
+
:: Thanks; I've updated the award records, so everything should be clean now.
−
:::::: Comic books follow the same paradigm. To quote [https://docs.comics.org/wiki/Comic_Index_Discussion Comics.org]:
+
:: The other author does/did use the Yang Feng name, but none of the publications containing titles using that name were ever entered. If they ever do get entered, I'll use a (I) name as you suggest.  [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 19:02, 9 April 2024 (EDT)
−
::::::* There is no single identifier standard, today, for comic books. ISBNs are used for '''some''' trade paperbacks, original graphic novels and specials. ISSNs are used to identify some series but do not identify specific issues (generally the ISSN is used in conjunction with a publication date).
 
−
:::::: (emphasis added.) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:00, 28 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::::: Also let me note I am not advocating entering the 3 comic books that make up this hardback, only the hardback itself. I agree with the person about comics, they don't belong in the database. This hardback kind of reminds me of record 2556723 Stan Lee Presents the Marvel Comics Illustrated Version of Blade Runner [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 13:07, 28 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::::::I was thinking this would be a collection like [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?18611 this].
 
−
::::::::Yeah, like that... [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 22:24, 28 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::::::::Sorry, I have been having cable problems....  This is definitely not a normal "comics" situation.  Since the three issues printed the original Lovecraft works, they would be "in".  So what I was thinking when I asked about this is what happens if/when someone decides to enter those three issues?  Do we care to represent that this compilation collects those published subsets (and, if so, how exactly), or do we want to ignore that and only have the compilation linked to the three issues by common content?  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 15:39, 1 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Worlds of If, February 2024 Part Deux ==
−
::::::::::We could list the comics and publications in the title description, and links to something like [https://www.comics.org/issue/529641/ GCD]
 
  
−
:::::::::: I agree with Annie's comment above -- I would enter them as non-genre magazine issues. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 17:35, 1 December 2021 (EST)
+
The {{P|999601|Worlds of If, February 2024}} editor issue is back. The conclusion of [[ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Worlds_of_If_confusion|the above discussion]] seems to be only the editor-in-chief should be credited. However, the publication was verified a few weeks after that and edited to restore the deputy-editor-in-chief credit. The rationale given in the pub notes is "The editorials beginning respectively on pp. 2 & 6 emphasize that Sloane and Garnier did edit this issue in partnership (though with somewhat different preferences)." Now, we are getting a number of other new accounts trying to change it back.
−
::::::::::: We have a similar problem with an omnibus including a previously published omnibus - you cannot have an omnibus inside of an omnibus per the rules here - you import the contents of it only instead (boxsets are prone to that). The only way to indicate the connection is via the notes - so that's the only thing we can do here when magazine issues are collected in an anthology... [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 13:32, 2 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:(unindent) So what are the rules for comic books?  If they reprint text stories/poems from other publications, then they are in?  Do we add in all of the comics written by over the threshold writers.  Are these in now, or only if they are reprinted elsewhere? Should we add all of the Sandman series for example since #19 won a World Fantasy Award ?  I'm just trying to clarify the exclusion rules. [[User:Taweiss|TAWeiss]] 10:16, 4 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:: Think of comics as non-genre magazines.  See [[Help:Entering_non-genre_magazines]]. If an issue publishes a work that is "in", then we would create a record for that issue, but we would only create content records for the "in" content.  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 16:01, 5 December 2021 (EST)
+
This all raises some questions in my mind:
−
::: We actually do have a bit of a loophole here. For above threshold authors, everything is eligible except "non-genre (...) non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book." (thus us not indexing articles in random magazines which are non-genre even from Isaac Asimov). We had always had an informal rule not to allow single issues/floppies of comics even from the above threshold authors (kinda on the same premise) but if you read the ROA, they are not explicitly forbidden - they are not considered speculative fiction (so we are in the clear for non-above the treshold authors) but they are fiction so technically speaking they are as eligible as their collected variants and GNs are(which had been allowed so far)... We can get that clarified in the ROA and close the loophole completely by changing:
+
*Is the verification sufficient to override the prior consensus on crediting established above?
−
:::* "This includes any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book."
+
*At what point does this type of editing start becoming considered disruptive?
−
::: to
 
−
:::* "This includes any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes non-genre non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book or a genre publication and graphic stories in non-genre magazines".
 
−
::: Or something like that. That covers it all because comics floppies and the UK/Japanese magazines are non-genre magazines under our definitions so we are all set. That also closes another loophole - if you parse that sentence in ROA in a certain way, that makes even genre non-fiction ineligible if it is not in a standalone book or genre publication (NYTRB and any other newspaper magazine with interviews and reviews and articles only and no fiction for example will be completely out which is not how we want to read line - and not how we had been reading it). Time for a R&S thread so we can hash out the wording? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:50, 5 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::: Sounds good. I am thinking we should further sub-divide paragraph 4, e.g.:
+
I will point the verifier and approving moderator to this discussion. I will also leave responses on the pages of the new editors letting them know our policies on verification and discussing edits with verifiers. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:::: Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise published works either of or about speculative fiction over a ''certain threshold'' (see below). Specifically:
+
:My opinion is still the same: only the editor-in-chief gets credit (at least until we get around to adding the option of adding all sorts of different types of contributors). The rest go in the notes. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 19:58, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
−
::::* ''Included'': non-genre fiction and non-fiction published as a standalone publication
+
:Also, it's already disruptive. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:03, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
−
::::* ''Included'': non-genre short fiction
 
−
::::* ''Excluded'': non-genre non-fiction which was not published as a standalone publication or in a genre publication
 
−
::::* ''Excluded'': graphic stories in non-genre publications
 
−
:::: We can discuss the details on the R&S page once the discussion has been moved there. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 11:32, 6 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Moonsinger's Friends - inactive PV ==
+
:: Re: "Is the verification sufficient to override the prior consensus on crediting". Primary verifiers confirm that the data entered into the database reflects what's in the publication according to existing ISFDB data entry rules, which are described in Help and Policy. If a primary verifier would like to suggest a change to the rules, he or she can start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Until the rules are changed, the current rules are in effect. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
I need to make changes to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?257128 Moonsinger's Friends] based on the copy I own. Once I make the changes, I'll PV it. The sole current PV is [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Bluesman Bluesman] who is apparently inactive so I can't get his consent. Along with needing additional titles and notes, it also needs to have the title changed to "Moonsinger's Friends: An Anthology in Honor of Andre Norton" to match what's on my copy's title page. I believe that should also be the canonical title. I asked the PV of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?347485 this pub] to check her copy and she has submitted a title change to correct the title on that pub as well. Since my corrected title matches the title for the hardcover edition of the same date that doesn't have a PV, is there any objection to me making the same change to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?34454 this] title record as well as the pub record? [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] 22:39, 27 November 2021 (EST)
+
::: Hello! Sorry, I hadn't be aware of the discussion mentioned above. I had only found the passus ''For MAGAZINEs and FANZINEs, credit the issue editor as the "author" of the publication.'' from which I took to credit the actual editor(s) of a given issue of a magazine (provided there is a credit within the issue). Usually, I also would have credited only the editor-in-chief, but it follows from the editorials that the items were chosen (and edited) by both, Sloane and Garnier, in concordance. It thus seems to be right to credit them both. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 02:52, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::: I wouldn't call the crediting of Garnier disruptive in the least, as the credit for only the editor-in-chief doesn't seem to be the (sole) standard we have in the database. John (Lochhas) for example has added hundreds (if not thousands) of magazine issues that credit the deputy editor, see [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?764182 Schattenreich magazine] (Thannisch being the editor-in-chief, Kappel the deputy one), [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?717485 John Sinclair] (Steffan only being the deputy editor) or [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?740142 Professor Zamorra] (Schönenbröcher only being the deputy editor). There are numerous other magazines like [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?451593 Foundation], where the same set of mind seems to have been used. Likely the reasoning behind that is that the deputy editors do the main body of work editing those issues. Anyway, I will ping John to state his view on the topic. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 05:55, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::To clarify, what I was asking about being disruptive was the use of multiple accounts to try to push through an edit. So far, ISFDB has not really had to deal with this issue (at least to my knowledge). But the use of multiple accounts (either by one person or multiple people working in concert) has caused problems on other collaborative projects and has been banned. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 13:21, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yes. This. It may be time to clarify point four at our [[ISFDB:Policy#Conduct Policy|Conduct Policy]], which currently states "Behavior that is otherwise non-constructive or disruptive will be dealt with on a case by case basis." The use of multiple accounts here working in concert to push a specific point of view is, in my opinion, "non-constructive or disruptive". ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:26, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::Do we have evidence that multiple accounts have been created/work in concert? Or is it just coincidence? Just curious... [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 14:38, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:Since it has been about 5 days since I posed this question and there are no objections, can I reasonable go ahead and make the changes? [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] 17:07, 1 December 2021 (EST)
+
::::::: As JLaTondre wrote above, other online projects have run into problems with what is usually called "sockpuppetry/socking" and "meatpuppetry". Here is what [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Wikipedia has to say about this issue]:
 +
:::::::* On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.
 +
:::::::* Sockpuppetry takes various forms:
 +
:::::::** Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
 +
:::::::** Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
 +
:::::::** Using another person's account (piggybacking)
 +
:::::::** Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
 +
:::::::** Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)
 +
::::::: Some of it doesn't apply in our context, e.g. we don't allow edits unless you are logged in, but creating and using multiple accounts is certainly a possibility.
 +
::::::: Wikipedia has a special [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Quick_CheckUser_requests set of instructions] for reporting suspected sockpuppetry and technical tools like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser CheckUser] that facilitate investigations. At this time we don't have either, but we could look into what it would take to implement a level of protection against sockpuppets. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Languishing submission ==
+
(unindent) Going back to the issue that started this discussion, I think it highlights a problem with our Help: we don't have an explicit definition or even guidance re: what types of magazine editors should be entered in the Author/Editor field and what types should be entered in Notes (e.g., assistant editors, associate editors, department editors, etc). [[Template:PublicationFields:Author]] currently says:
 +
* ''Editors, authors, translators, etc.'' ...  For MAGAZINEs and FANZINEs, credit the '''issue editor''' [bolding added] as the "author" of the publication. (Note that for non-genre MAGAZINEs/FANZINEs, "Editors of PERIODICAL NAME" may be used instead of some or all editor names if they are unknown or unclear or not of genre interest -- see Help:Entering non-genre periodicals for details.)
 +
Note the bolded part of the text, i.e. "issue editor", which is somewhat helpful, but is not very specific. [[Template:TitleFields:Author]] doesn't seem to say anything relevant either.
 +
I am thinking that we should start a Rules and Standards discussion and make our current de-facto rules explicit in the affected Help templates. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:58, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Can someone approve [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5160433 this submission] that is languishing in the queue for two days. It'll allow me to continue my work on this issue.[[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 03:11, 28 November 2021 (EST)
+
: Just let me note one other problem with crediting only the editor-in-chief that came to my mind during the last night: from time to time several magazines have allowed guest editors to edit one single issue: their respective stamp on the issue would be lost if we go strict by 'the only credit the editor-in-chief' policy. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 02:15, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:: Also, for non-genre magazines it says ..."Editor<b>s</b>...". Just sayin' ;). There exist co-editors (that are not department editors), so I would allow for them. But then the question is, can we come up with an unambiguous (set of) rules... [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 09:54, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
: No problem, looks good. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, sometimes the quantity of submissions overwhelms us [poor unpaid] moderators! ;) [[User:PeteYoung|PeteYoung]] 07:14, 28 November 2021 (EST)
+
: As a researcher I would want to easily identify who shaped / influenced the content of a publication. Christian (Stonecreek) mentioned some German magazines in his posting where only the primary editor (credited 'Redakteur') who did all the editing is currently stated - but not the editor in chief. It sounded right when I captured the resp. items - but I do appreciate that the credited editor in chief influences a magazine a consequently should have been added as well and needs to be amended. To me that's a nice and simple rule - take who is credited, i.e. editor in chief plus however else is properly stated. Everything else (text editors, writers of plot outlines and whatever else may come to mind) should be in the notes and nowhere else. Best, John - [[User:JLochhas|JLochhas]] ([[User talk:JLochhas|talk]]) 02:43, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Mars Manual ==
+
:: It does seem that the 'credit-only-the-editor-in-chief' rule does work for most of the big genre-defining magazines like 'Astounding/Analog', 'Amazing' 'The Twilight Zone Magazine' or 'MFSF': at least there seems nothing to be known of the other credited editors in choosing the contents.
 +
:: On the other hand it does seem to me that many other magazines that are nearer to being published non-professionally are often to be found as edited by joined forces (like the newly issued "Worlds of If" or the German [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?951542 Exodus]).
 +
:: The other cited German magazines are found to be edited by one 'deputy' editor, and the editor-in-chief mostly supervising (and occasionally adding ideas or vetoing) the first one's efforts: take a look for example at the author page of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?309011 Ute Müller] which shows only the genre ''magazines'', but she also is the editor-in-chief for even more nongenre magazines / chapbooks and other genre chapbook series like "Die UFO-Akten" and "Gespenster-Krimi". Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 10:14, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
https://archive.org/details/TheMarsOneCrewManual; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?21494; Not sure this belongs on ISFDB, except for the reviews, since it seems like non-fiction, not a novel. --[[User:Username|Username]] 00:03, 30 November 2021 (EST)
+
: Dear ISFDB peeps, thank you for inviting me to this discussion as it is most interesting to read the behind the scenes conversations. I notice that [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] is basing his push to include the deputy editor on a supposition of what the duties of a chief and deputy editor may or may not be in a given publication. One cannot draw such a conclusion with any degree of confidence as the dynamics of each publication are unique. I think that co-billing editors is a slippery and problematic slope, assigning responsibilities and weight of credit to job titles where a knowledge of such is not actually known or qualified in writing anywhere. The point of my edit submission and notes was why begin experimenting with conjecture and interpretation now? I also see that he says it's "joined forces." I have read the magazine and I think he is mistaken on that point as well. So I don't agree with the liberties that Stonecreek has taken with this one. Also, and I don't recall if I put this in my notes or just thought about it, but why is the new magazine listed as a relaunch when Clifford Hong's 1986 issue was not? Just seems like lots of irregularities and confusion over something that should be straightforward. Thanks, Jan ExplorerOne ([[User talk:ExplorerOne|talk]]) 01:16, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:Well, it is described at Amazon as a flight manual for a fictional trip to Mars, and this would make it eligible and is correctly entried as fiction: it is written like a piece of nonfiction, but that's just a masquerade. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 04:33, 30 November 2021 (EST)
+
:: I have copied the rules-related part of this discussion to [[Rules_and_standards_discussions#Crediting_magazine_editors|the Rules and Standards board]]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Author Link Error ==
+
::: Would it be better to answer to ExplorerOne's remarks concerning the editing of the new "Worlds of If" here or over at 'Rules and Standards'? Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?732|; That error occurs when you click the link on this page, http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User:Gengelcox, so something's wrong there. They made a rare edit on Community Portal recently, which is why I noticed. --[[User:Username|Username]] 21:57, 30 November 2021 (EST)
+
:::: Since this will ultimately affect what our Rules/Help pages say, I think it would be best to have the discussion on the Rules and Standards page. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
−
: Just a bad code on the user’s page - a | at the end of the link. The author page is fine: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?732
 
−
: I’ll drop a note to the editor. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 22:13, 30 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:: And fixed. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 22:18, 30 November 2021 (EST)
+
: The ISFDB is a time consuming learning curve -- I was not able to respond to the conversation on the Rules & Standards page, then the database did one of its error things. Anyway, you guys will do what you do. I have long used the ISFDB as a go-to resource but have some reservations now that I see the level of interpretation involved -- and this is at the very heart of why I am spending time here. Christian responded there to my comments by asking questions about the editorials. One that I got a chuckle out of asked if the editors stated which pieces of work they had gotten or some such. That's just not how it works with an editorial team -- numbering their acquisitions. No interpretation is necessary when there is a masthead. Adding more than one editor is fine ultimately, if it's consistent. But I don't see consistency. Based on comments I saw, Sloane of Amazing should then also be listed with Gernsback and while you're at it, might as well list him first as you state that author order is irrelevant -- something with which I firmly disagree and is not in keeping with proper rules of attribution. I actually looked through the edits and saw that the entry was originally submitted in the proper order by Garnier, but was then changed. Which doesn't make any sense and is out of order with the notes, the order of editorials, and the masthead. Your listings need to make sense. And they need to be consistent. Interpretations are like opinions. Further, if you start with that now, do all previous entries need an interpretation? Is this the policy moving forward? I'd keep it simple. Thanks, Jan ExplorerOne ([[User talk:ExplorerOne|talk]]) 0900, 25 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Links to file sharing websites ==
+
:: Hi, if you're really only able to answer here, please do it, and we'll paste & copy or move it to the other page! I'll keep it more simple and reduce it to just three questions (by taking two out of the bundle, and adding a third one): 1) Who of the editors is actually credited within the editorials for choosing contents? 2) Who of the editors is writing about curating contents? 3) Who of the editors is credited for insisting on the final format of the magazine? Just write down the name here (since it's only one, and it is not Sloane). Do you really think this other editor's work is not worth to be credited at ISFDB?
 +
:: Otherwise I do concur with your wish for consistency: this is what we are discussing over at 'Rules and Standards'. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 05:54, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:: On your remarks for the order of editors: as Ahasuerus said elsewhere: it would be a highly time-consuming task to ensure that a ranking of editors would be displayable, and we do have the improvement that the display ain't ordered by chance anymore like it was a couple of years ago, it is now by alphabet (so Gernsback would in fact be displayed before Sloane for 'Amazing'): in all relevant cases the best we can do is to add the stated ranking in the notes. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 06:46, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Should we have links to files on file sharing websites like [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?836079 here]? [[User:Taweiss|TAWeiss]] 17:27, 1 December 2021 (EST)
+
::: Re: "if you start with that now, do all previous entries need an interpretation? Is this the policy moving forward?"
 +
::: [[ISFDB:Policy]] is the Wiki page that defines project scope, i.e. what is considered "speculative fiction" for the purposes of this project, as well as some other high level issues. [[Help:Contents|Help Menu]] is the central Wiki portal for Help pages, which are also linked from each edit form on the database side. Help pages are much more detailed and explain what should be entered in each field.
 +
::: Occasionally [[ISFDB:Policy]] and/or Help pages are clarified or expanded based on a new consensus reached on the [[Rules and standards discussions|Rules and standards]] page. [[Rules and standards changelog]] lists all Policy and Help changes going back to at least 2016.
 +
::: If a newly agreed upon data entry standard requires changes to existing records, there are three ways to modify the data:
 +
:::* A special database script is written and executed against the ISFDB database
 +
:::* A new cleanup report is created
 +
:::* ISFDB editors use Advanced Search features to find no-longer-compliant records and edit them
 +
::: The "magazine editors" case that you brought up is an example of our Help language which seemed unambiguous to the people who wrote the original standard -- "For MAGAZINEs and FANZINEs, credit the issue editor" -- and then it turned out that different editors and moderators interpreted it differently.
 +
::: When we identify an ambiguity in our Policy and/or Help language, we start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page in order to determine what the scope of the issue is, how different ISFDB editors have been entering data, etc. Ultimately a new consensus is reached, although it may take a few iterations. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 15:41, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
: It's a very good question. There are quite a few archival sites out there and their legal status is all over the place. Some, like Project Gutenberg, research the copyright status of each file ahead of time. Others, like archive.org, cover so much ground that they can't realistically contact every rights holder; they make things available first and take them down if the copyright owner asks them to. Then there are sites like the LibGen.* family of projects, which claim to comply with relevant copyright laws, but have been in and out of legal trouble for years -- see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis#Legal_issues this Wikipedia discussion]. We certainly wouldn't want to link to the last type of archival sites.
+
== Ian Daniels vs. Ian D. Daniels. ==
  
−
: In this case all I can find is the [https://annarchive.com/ following note] by the site maintainer:
+
There's a listing for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?110854 Ian Daniels] as cover artist to some Severn House publicatons and also [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?26292 Ian D. Daniels] as cover artist to other Severn House publications. I believe they are one and the same person. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 12:02, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:* please direct all inquiries & legal threats to collectfruit at gmail dot com!
+
:I agree. The art style is exactly the same between them. I've merged them to [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?110854 Ian Daniels]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:19, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
−
: [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:07, 1 December 2021 (EST)
+
::Thank you. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:: Since I'm the 1 who added it, I can say that since it's just a PDF I don't see a problem; anything that required signing up or something similar I would never add. As I've written here a few times, a site like Archive.org is more problematic because they add anything and everything, which is why they get complaints so often and have to take stuff down, so that's why I usually add an Open Library ID but not the actual Archive link; if people go to the OL page and decide to click the link that's their choice. A funny thing happened earlier this year where someone uploaded a 1984 issue of S.D. Schiff's Whispers Magazine (most issues of Whispers are very hard to find) to the Archive but when I went back to it a little while later it was gone with the usual notice about being taken down possibly because of complaints, etc. However, recently I saw the same issue again and pounced on it immediately, since it was not in the preview section but was 1 of those full PDF's; there are still several stories in that issue which have never been reprinted, at least not anywhere I know of, so I have several downloaded stories in my printed-out pile waiting to be read (along with countless others). It seems the only difference between the original URL for that issue and the URL there now was a single dash, which made all the difference. There's this message on Annarchive: "ABOUT ⒶNNARCHIVE: though many of the files hosted in these archives were donated or scanned by myself, many more were collected from file-sharing websites, some of which no longer exist. i don't take credit for these files nor do i in many cases know the identities of the original scanners - i'm just trying to make sure these files continue to be available." Since the last issue of Dragon came out in 2007, I doubt anyone complained about their hosting a PDF or it wouldn't still be there. The only reason I noticed this issue was because I got on a run of adding/fixing stuff for books with hologram covers and saw that Amazon's cover image actually displayed the hologram better than the other cover image, so I replaced it and then found the other stuff. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:46, 1 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Chris Moore credit for a Bob Eggleton image. ==
  
−
== Converting NOVEL to NOVELLA / CHAPBOOK (plus more) ==
+
So I noticed that [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?233333 this] book has cover artist credited as Chris Moore but it is exactly the same image as [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?14241 this] which is a variant of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?12603 this] credited to Bob Eggleton. Something is not right. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 16:35, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?870860 Les chevaux de Soulimane]: one would think that it's unlikely that this publication holds a novel — looking at the page count: even at 300 words per page (which seems not very common for a text aimed at adults, and quite unlikely for a juvenile) this would well be under the threshold of 40,000 words. So it seems more likely that it's a CHAPBOOK containing a novella.
+
: Curious. [https://www.reddit.com/r/ImaginaryStarships/comments/gq3843/eternity_by_bob_eggleton_book_cover_for_greg/ This Reddit post] created 3 years ago has the original art done by Bob Eggleton for ''Eternity''. It uses http://www.bobeggleton.com/ as its source. Unfortunately, that site is gone and the Wayback Machine only has a few cover scans preserved.
 +
: The primary verifiers on [https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?233333 the Millennium / Victor Gollancz edition] of ''Forever Free'' have been inactive since the mid-2010s, so we can't ask them. [https://search.worldcat.org/title/44484728?oclcNum=44484728 The OCLC record] and [https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/search?isn=9781857989311&rn=1 Library Hub Discover] do not mention the cover artist. Amazon UK uses the Ace cover, which is completely different.
 +
: I wonder if the following Notes line:
 +
:* Back cover states "Cover design © blacksheep" and "Illustration: Chris Moore @ Artist Partners"
 +
: may mean that Chris Moore did the art for the back cover only? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::That is entirely possible. I don't have a copy of the book in question, however, so I can't say. I'd be minded to change the credit to Eggleton since it's definately his artwork. Amend the note re "Illustration: Chis Moore" to state it does not refer to the cover but asssumed to refer to an (as yet unseen) image on the back cover. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 12:04, 16 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
In addition, shouldn't the publisher be the commonly known Albin Michel? It ''is'' according to the OCLC entry I linked to (and according to the ISBN range 2-226-). Also, there's the question what the source for the note that it's not the first printing is: the copyright date is not sufficient when there's no other earlier publication to be found (or is there?) It still ''might'' be the first, and the note should reflect this.
+
:::: There is actually a semi-standard convention for credit errors -- append "(in error)" to the name and variant it to the actual artist/author. I don't think it's documented in Help, but we have [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=%28in+erro&type=Name 147 erroneous credits documented that way]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 12:40, 16 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Unfortunately the entering & veryfying editor doesn't respond to my questions, posted [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:AlainLeBris#Les_chevaux_de_Soulimane here]. So, how shall we proceed? [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 07:37, 2 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Changing a piece from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION? ==
−
:As I don't want to contredict such a specialist of french publishing and a specialist of "first editions", I've unverified the publication. Do as you want, I strictly don't care. If [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] without the book is better placed than me to determine what is exactly its publisher, so be it, it's not the first that he meddles with data (I remember something along the lines of "first printing"). Hail to your bibliographic genius that transcends time and distance... Note that I do not dare to answer to such luminaries lest I be eclipsed. On a more positive note, even a dimwit could have found [https://www.noosfere.org/livres/niourf.asp?NumLivre=-326824 this 1987 book that is the mythic 1st printing]. [[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 12:22, 2 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:: A few quick notes:
 
−
::* The French "Dépôt Légal" is not the same as the Copyright date in English editions. It belongs to the book, not the text and as such can be used safely for dating of French books.
 
−
::* A lot of publishers use the same ISBN block for all their imprints. The fact that we had not seen this imprint yet can mean one of three things: either someone was standardizing (we had seen that a lot) OR it is a rare one in our books OR there is a mistake in the record. [https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb34934525s BNF] has the publisher as "A. Michel, 1987" (incidentally confirming an existing 1987 printing and that 1988 is a later printing). OCLC has Albin Michel with holding libraries in Canada and France (via BNF); if you look at OCLC's [https://www.worldcat.org/title/chevaux-de-soulimane/oclc/70396224/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true other editions], the 1987 ones with the same ISBN are also there so it also confirms that this is NOT a first printing. None of these exclude the possibility of it being out from an imprint. If a verifier says that is how the publisher is credited, I'd note a difference with the sources but won't destroy their data
 
−
:::FYI: The OCLC entry under 1987 with a Canadian library - the Canadian library in question actually lists this as the (c)1987, 1988 printing. The French library lists theirs as 1987. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 14:40, 2 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::: Yes but being a French book, I kinda trust the French record more than the Canadian one (which probably should be up on the 1988 record and not on this one but...) :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:53, 2 December 2021 (EST)
 
−
::* The only somewhat valid issue I can see here is the length. However - being a 1987/1988 book, I am not sure of the density of the print (we still have 90-100-pages novels at this point because of small and dense prints). Alain, can you count the words on a page? Just to see where the estimate is going? Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 12:46, 2 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
::: Alain, in your comment you totally missed out on the question that triggered the thread, and that is the length of the fictional text. Even a 'dimwit' like me is able to do a little bit of calculating, and while it's possible that there are about 350 or more words on every page, I strongly do think that this is unlikely for a juvenile at that time of publication, and that's why I asked about a word count or an estimate of it. The other questions arose while looking at the thing (and it was WorldCat that had put just Albin Michel as the publisher). So, please stay friendly in tone, and remember: it's highly ethical to answer questions when asked. Thanks in advance, Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 13:35, 2 December 2021 (EST)
+
Hi, all—I’d like to change a specific work from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION, but the relevant primary verifiers are unavailable, so I thought I would ask here.
  
−
== Kipling: Above the threshold? ==
+
I’m looking at Joanna Russ’s story “[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?118819 Old Pictures],” which appeared in her collection ''The Hidden Side of the Moon''.
  
−
Hi, I just searched for his novel "Kim", which seems to be nongenre, but I would have considered Kipling above-the-threshold. I'd estimate he'd be similar to H. G. Wells in the proportions of genre / nongenre works. Any input would be welcome. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 11:46, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
That piece is listed in ISFDB as being of type ESSAY, but I would like to change its type to SHORTFICTION.
−
:I'd consider him ATT. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:06, 3 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:: Kipling was all over the place. He wrote a [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?19024 couple hundred pages worth of science fiction stories], another collection worth of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?301162 supernatural stories], animal/children's fantasy stories like ''Just So Stories'' and ''The Jungle Books'', some "weird fiction", horror, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, his popular novels -- ''Kim'', ''Captains Courageous'', ''The Light that Failed'' -- were not speculative. He also wrote a lot of realistic stories, but then again, some of them had at least borderline speculative elements, e.g. the "Boots" trilogy was narrated by a dog. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:56, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
The book doesn’t indicate that that piece is nonfiction. It *could* be nonfiction (in that it’s written in first person and nothing clearly impossible happens in it), but it’s not labeled as such, and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?41483 everything else in the book] is fiction, and the title page of the book says “Stories by Joanna Russ.”
  
−
::: I take it from the answers that it'd be okay to add his nongenre works (?). I'll wait for the weekend to pass, and then add ''Kim'' if there's no massive contradiction. Thanks for your input so far! Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 01:14, 4 December 2021 (EST)
+
There are three publications of the book listed in ISFDB (hc, tp, and pb), with three different primary verifiers. [[User_talk:Chavey|One has, sadly, passed away]]; [[User_talk:Bluesman|one hasn’t been active since 2018]]; and I emailed the third (as [[User_talk:Mhhutchins|requested on their talk page]]) but haven’t received a response.
  
−
== Aberrant Dreams ==
+
(I’m not sure who originally labeled the story as ESSAY; it [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?41483 looks like that was done when the hc publication record was created].)
  
−
"A Shogun's Weapon" entered by PV, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?270300, but "A Shogun's Welcome" here, http://www.philsp.com/homeville/fmi/k/k00006.htm#A18, and here, http://darrkenium.blogspot.com/2006/01/some-publications-im-in.html. PV doesn't respond to messages, so what's to be done? --[[User:Username|Username]] 13:37, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
So is it OK for me to submit an edit that changes the type of “Old Pictures” to SHORTFICTION? —[[User:Elysdir|Elysdir]] ([[User talk:Elysdir|talk]]) 15:55, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:Well, that seems to have changed. He last answered to a question in November, and is occasionally around (mostly at weekends, I think). So just try to question him about the piece. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 13:57, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
: After reading the piece in question, I agree that it's a literary, non-SF, short story as opposed to an essay. It was first published in the literary magazine ''The Little Magazine'' in February 1973, which specialized in [https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00078 "new poetry and short fiction"], so it makes sense. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, the magazine was then published by {{A|David G. Hartwell}}, who later became a prominent SF editor. I am going to update the record -- thanks for identifying the issue! [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 13:52, 15 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:: Well, I questioned him, but I see that a question I asked back in February was never answered so I'm not holding my breath for this one. However, I found this, https://web.archive.org/web/20060630044423/http://www.hd-image.com/aberrant_dreams/stories/spring_2006/a_shoguns_welcome.htm, so I think it's clear what the real title is. --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:13, 3 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Audible ASIN cleanup report. ==
  
−
::: So, the best you / we can (or should) do is: wait for the weekend to pass, and then act (if there's no answer and you don't wanna do it on your own, just give me a reminder on Monday). Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 01:09, 4 December 2021 (EST)
+
I'm posting this first to the moderator board as it involves a cleanup report.  We can move to the Community Portal or Rules and Standards if folks feel that's needed.
  
−
:::: I'm just going to change it to the correct title and add that archived link. If PV ever responds and somehow the title really was Weapon in the zine I can always change it back, although I doubt that will be needed. --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:36, 4 December 2021 (EST)
+
We have a cleanup report for "Pubs without an ISBN and with an Audible ASIN which is an ISBN-10".  However, there are instances where I'm not sure whether we can assume a linkage between the Audible ASIN and an ISBN.  There are cases with audio books where the publisher changes the cover over time.  Recorded Books, Brilliance and the various Audible publishers are especially prone to this.  While this is usually just an update to the trade dress, sometimes the cover changes to a completely new piece of artwork. In these cases Audible and Amazon do not update their ASIN numbers, nor do they update the published release date. If the Audible-ASIN in these cases is an ISBN-10, I will use it for the ISBN on the initial publication.  However, I'm not certain that the same ISBN is applicable for subsequent publications where the cover has changed.  Certainly the release date which does not change is not appropriate for reissues.  When entering these reissues, I will generally narrow the date as much as I can though a combination of my own copy and consulting the Audible pages on the Wayback Machine at archive.org.  Being unsure whether the publisher issued a new ISBN for the new issue with the new cover, I will generally blank the ISBN, which, of course, causes it to appear on the cleanup report.  Am I looking at this incorrectly and should we assume that the ISBN of audio books are immutable through changes in cover?  Or, if the way I've been entering these is correct, should we have an ignore button for this report?  As an example {{P|1000496|this publication}} was reissued sometime between 2019-04-26 and 2024-03-20 with an {{P|1000497|altered cover}} whereas neither the Audible-ASIN nor the release date have changed between an archive of the publication's page in 2019 or it's current page. Thoughts?  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:54, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== The Future is missing ==
+
: I believe Annie has a significant amount of experience with Audible, but she will be mostly unavailable until later in the week. I will leave a note on her Talk page and ask to take a look when she returns. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 07:09, 15 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:: Audible had changed its policies in the last couple of years - they do not use ISBN10 as an ASIN anymore (or I had not seen one in probably more than a year). Some of the old ones still exist though and for them, they are reliably ISBNs (and if you catch them before an reissue, the ISBN is also foundable on publisher sites or on Kobo USA (which is pretty good for both list prices and for ISBNs for audiobooks)). Once they are reissued, if the record does not change (which does not always happen), it is unclear what the status is.
 +
:: I'd say that if the Audible ASIN is numeric, we can treat it as a de-facto ISBN even across changed covers. But if we decide instead of stick to only the original issues with the ISBNs, I am fine with that as well. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Hi, it seems one specific magazine issue is missing, according to [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Rosab618#You_Better_Come_Home_with_Me this thread]. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 04:56, 4 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Translation of translation ==
−
: Not missing - just hiding between other things on the board. It had been found, brought to the light and approved. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 05:35, 4 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== The Problem ==
+
hello, I hope this is the right board for this question! (I checked the Help:howto and Help:screen pages, but no illumination came). I would like to add an Italian book by a Spanish author (Xavier Domingo) not yet in ISFDB. The Italian version is the translation of the French version (titled le grand verrat), not of the Spanish original (titled jabali). A complication is that all the internet secondary sources I could find say that the first Spanish edition is the 1983 one (easily found in many places), but the Italian book was printed in 1970 and the French one (also easily found) in 1969 - however I also found one biography of the author that gives 1968 as the year for Jabali, which would be perfect. This means that I have really minimal info to create the parent record: title, author, date, and nothing for the Publication Data and Cover sections.
 +
Should I leave the Publication blank or use the 1983 edition as Publication? or as parent record? If I directly used the Italian book as Publication the language would be wrong. What is the correct approach and sequence of submissions? thanks!  --[[User:Fantagufo|Fantagufo]] ([[User talk:Fantagufo|talk]]) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5170361, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5170358; mod apparently needs to change publisher to preserve notes, so someone can do that if they wish. --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:09, 10 December 2021 (EST)
+
: A couple of thoughts. First, [https://elpais.com/diario/1996/05/14/sociedad/832024813_850215.html this obituary] claims that Xavier Domingo lived and worked in Paris between 1956 and 1976. The [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Domingo Spanish language Wikipedia] lists a number of French language works that he published circa 1970. Apparently the 1969 French translation of this novel (''Le grand verrat'') [https://www.livre-rare-book.com/book/5472637/11407 was done by Henri Sylvestre]. It's possible, even likely, that Domingo wrote the novel in 1968, but the Spanish language original did not appear until 1983, perhaps due to the political changes that happened in Spain in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I would suggest adding title-level notes explaining what we know.
−
:I've done a bit more research and I can find Publisher Update submissions by non-moderators in the recent approvals. Are you certain that you are not able to update the name in the publisher record?  @[[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]], Is there a list of edits/fields within edits that are only available to Moderators?  I know that an author merge is usually requested on this board, but am not sure what other functions require higher privileges.  Are there any edits where fields are locked except for Mods?  That seems to be the issue that [[User:Username|Username]] may be experiencing. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 12:32, 12 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:: As far as I know, we don't have a list of fields which are only editable by moderators. It's supposed to be covered in field-specific mouse-over and Wiki-based Help pages. In this case, the mouse-over Help reads "Only moderators can edit publisher names" and [[Help:Screen:EditPublisher]] says "Note that only moderators can edit this field once the publisher record has been created."
+
: Second, [[Help:How to enter translations]] has a bullet point which explains that:
 +
:* If a work was written in one language, but a foreign language translation was published first, then the original language title should be considered the canonical title and the translated title should be considered variant title. The year of the canonical (i.e. parent) title should be set to publication year of the canonical title, not to the year of the translation (though the latter one was released earlier).
 +
: In this case it means that ''Jabali'' (1983) should be the parent title while ''Le grand verrat'' (1969) and ''[title of the Italian translation]'' (1970) should be its variants -- please note the years.
 +
: Hope this makes sense! [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:: The other frequently used field which can only be edited by moderators is "Canonical Name" in Author Editor. Also, in Advanced Search, Author and Publisher merges can only be done by moderators. (The ability to edit Award Categories used to be restricted to moderators, but the restriction was lifted a couple of years ago.) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 13:08, 12 December 2021 (EST)
+
:: Thank you Ahasuerus! Yes this makes sense; actually the Italian books gives the 1969 French publisher as copyright owner, and a note that says that the Italian translation was revised against "the original Spanish text" could well be referencing the manuscript used to prepare the French version. So, the sequence of submissions has to be: 1> create the parent title with the 1983 Spanish for publication data; 2> edit the (automatically generated?) author record to add birthdate etc; 3> create the records for French and Italian titles; 4> Make them variants. Thanks again... --[[User:Fantagufo|Fantagufo]] ([[User talk:Fantagufo|talk]]) 03:42, 17 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::Thanks. That explains it.  I've updated [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?31340 the publisher] per [[User:Username|Username]]'s original edits. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:07, 12 December 2021 (EST)
+
::: Just one question / remark: is it ensured that ''Jabali'' is the right original Spanish title? Wikipedia.es has it listed under 'ensayos' / 'essay(s)' (but Wikipedia has its errors too). [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 09:13, 17 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Brazzaville ==
+
::: The proposed sequence of submissions looks fine, but you can create submissions for the three publications -- Spanish (1983), French (1969) and Italian (1970) -- in any order. Once approved, each submission will automatically create a pair of records: a title record with information about the text (language, date of its first appearance, etc) and a publication record with information about the edition (publisher, format, price, ISBN, etc). The submission approval process will also automatically create author records for any authors, publishers or series that do not already exist in the database. You will then be able to create submissions to turn the French and Italian titles into variants of the Spanish title as well as a submission to edit the newly created author record.
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?253751; This book got confused with another William Morrow book, and the 600 pages was actually 300+; I fixed that and other stuff but screwed up replacing the old cover image with what I thought was a better one because I forgot to delete the stuff between the dots; the old image seems to be gone from Amazon, so I found what I think is the only image online that shows the entire cover, front and spine, clearly and uploaded that to the Wiki, so whoever approves the 1st edit, ignore the yellow warning because next edit fixes that. --[[User:Username|Username]] 15:41, 11 December 2021 (EST)
+
::: That's how we typically enter data into the database -- create publication records first, then link and/or edit the resulting author and title records. In certain cases there are shortcuts that you can take, but they require an in-depth understanding of the database layout and, in some cases, moderator privileges. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
: Approved and done. --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:37, 13 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Nick Rodgers / Nicholas Rodgers ==
+
:::: That's a justified doubt, Stonecreek! Actually, some bookselling sites classified it as a cooking book (Domingo wrote some of them) and Google books classifies it as music criticism (nowhere reported to be one of Domingo's interests!). Yet, I am quite confident that it is the one. the biography https://www.mcnbiografias.com/app-bio/do/show?key=domingo-xavier says it is a narrative fiction work; the book page https://www.todocoleccion.net/libros-segunda-mano-literatura/jabali-xavier-domingo-envio-gratis~x99477143 starts with the words "in this novel the man is a hunter and his prey is a boar" and the allegory hunter/boar (jabali) is the surreal lead through the narrative. --[[User:Fantagufo|Fantagufo]] ([[User talk:Fantagufo|talk]]) 11:18, 17 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
or
 +
::::: Thanks! I also do think that the two sites you mention are more reliable than a shot-from-the-hip categorization! [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 01:59, 18 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Does anyone know whether [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?58481 Nick Rodgers] is the ssme artist as [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?53421 Nicholas Rodgers] ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 04:53, 12 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Sirens - image delete request ==
  
−
:Judging by a gallery on his [https://www.nicksart.co.uk/gallery#5d276be869149 website] I would say yes, and Nicholas should be a pseudonym of Nick. Do you want to do this? I added the link to his (as Nick) author page. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 05:34, 12 December 2021 (EST)
+
Could someone please delete the old [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:THSRNSFTTB0000.jpg image here], dated 09:47, 17 December 2013. Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
: As requested, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:14, 21 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks John, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 14:20, 21 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:: Could I leave that to you please ? --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 12:28, 13 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Luminist ==
  
−
::: Ok, and done. No problem. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 14:17, 13 December 2021 (EST)
+
Has anyone decided yet about Luminist links? Because I have 6 that are being held for a while now because there was some disagreement about the server they're on or something. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:That discussion is [[Rules_and_standards_discussions#Linking_to_third_party_Web_pages_--_defining_.22legally_posted.22|here]]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:25, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Puffin Plus ==
+
:: Thanks for the link. I was going to starts a new Rules and Standards discussion to talk about the proposed clarification/expansion of the Help language. Currently it says "legally posted" and the proposed clarification was:
 +
::* texts known to be under copyright protection and made available without the copyright owner's permission
 +
:: I was waiting for other R&S discussions to be wrapped up and then it got lost in the shuffle. Let me post it now. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 21:50, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubs_not_in_series.cgi?855; (UK) part prevents these 2 from being part of the other Puffin Plus series books; also this, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?27275. Puffin Plus wasn't the publisher, just a series. --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:36, 13 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Stryker's Children ==
  
−
== Dragondoom by Dennis L. McKiernan Title Record # 943551 ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5947003; Can someone get rid of the old cover on the Wiki because long-gone mod uploaded PB cover to HC record many years ago and never got rid of it and then uploaded it to the correct PB record. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:58, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Please share links to the old cover as well as the correct cover. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:24, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::Link is provided in my submission, the Wiki URL, there's my correct image of HC and then image of PB from years ago that nobody erased when the same editor added it on the same day to the PB record, which I also have a PENDING edit for adding archived link. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:15, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:STRKRSCHLD1984.jpg. My edits for this book have now been approved but the PB image is still in the HC wiki. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:46, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::Fixed. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:55, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
In my search for art by Richard Bober, I can across a cover by him not in the data base. The cover scan I have, came from xigallery but a small version can be found at  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38408653-dragondoom  They show this as being a mass market book printed in 1990 at 454 pages but they have no ISBN number. On the cover I can read "In US $5.50 (In Canada $6.50) A Bantam Spectra Book" and the book number 28837-6 which does not match the Publication Record # 276425 book with no cover. At a quandary as to what to do or how to proceed. Any suggestions?? [[User:Aardvark7|aardvark7]] 10:25, 17 December 2021 (EST)
+
== Dirk P. Broer directed me to you about removing my age in the entry for Keby Boyer, Bee House Rising ==
  
−
:Well, for the years 1990 & 1991 OCLC as well as Amazon seem to have only the one ISBN that we have in the database. The variant cover might have been scheduled but never got published (or might have been published in a totally different - later - year. As Goodreads doesn't source their data, and has often found to be unreliable (even more than Amazon), my best guess is that this was in fact not published. [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 12:40, 17 December 2021 (EST)
+
Dear Moderator,
  
−
== J. Turner ==
+
I heard back from Dirk Broer about my request to have my birthday information removed. He directed me to you. I was laid off from my Sr. Creative Sourcer position at Blizzard Entertainment, and I have to find another job. Unfortunately, my birth year is listed on my entry. Can you please remove my birth year? I'm very good at what I do, but there's a lot of ageism out there making it difficult to find a position. I can't start applying for jobs until this information comes down.  
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=mythos+in+h&type=All+Titles; James Turner at bottom should have a (I), and essay merged with other essay. EDIT: Also, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?80501; art credits probably belong to a separate James Turner. --[[User:Username|Username]] 16:52, 18 December 2021 (EST)
+
Thanks in advance for your help, I really appreciate it!!!!
  
−
== Author email ==
+
Thanks - Keby
  
−
You may have published a book by Nancy Macon, 703 how I lost a ton and gained a like. I just wished to tell her how much her book meant to me and how difficult it may have been to write it.  She is a courageous successful woman.
+
: The link on your ISFDB page, kebyboyer.net, is not currently online and Archive.org only finds 2 pages from 2013, an error page and "robots.txt", so would you mind if it was removed? Also, your novel seems to have been a very limited release because there's no WorldCat or Library of Congress records; there are, however, old posts on a SFF workshop site where you're referred to as Keby Thompson-Boyer while discussing the crafting and eventual release of your novel. Is that your legal name? There seems to be only one other current site with that version of your name, smartbackgroundchecks.com, which just collects people's names from the web and is not specific to you. Do you have a current site that can be linked to? Can you provide details about your novel like accurate page count (Amazon is very often wrong about that), cover artist/designer, address of the publisher, etc.? Your novel seems to have been Watermoon's one-and-done release. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:37, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Sincerely
+
::Hi!
−
Edna Smith,
 
−
Hamilton, Ont.
 
−
ednajsmith@gmail.com <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Ednachristy|Ednachristy]] ([[User talk:Ednachristy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ednachristy|contribs]]) .</small>
 
−
:The ISFDB is not a publisher. We are a bibliographic site that indexes speculative fiction (science fiction, fantasy, & horror) works. It seems likely a web query has led you astray somehow. I'm sorry, but we are unable to help you with your request. If you search the author via Google, she may have a social media site via which you can reach out to her. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 09:03, 19 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Languishing submission (2) ==
+
::"The link on your ISFDB page, kebyboyer.net, is not currently online and Archive.org only finds 2 pages from 2013, an error page and "robots.txt", so would you mind if it was removed?" - it can definitely be removed! My legal name is  Keby Thompson Boyer. BHR was a limited release. I don't currently have a site, but I'm working on that. "Watermoon Press" is my publishing company, and it's currently shuttered, but the address was Watermoon Press, 6680 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, CA  94553. Info about the book: 401 pgs., artwork and graphic design created by Patrick Boyer. The first paragraph in my acknowledgments reads: They say it takes a village to raise a child, and I think that's also true for writing a book. Many friends and family contributed to the birth of this novel, and I want to take a moment to thank them. Hopefully, this is enough information for you to remove my age from my entry. Thanks in advance for your help! - K  P.S. Thank you so much for removing my age.
  
−
Can someone approve [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5175443 this submission] that is sitting in the queue since 2021-12-17 05:36:44 and will not disappear by itself? The ISBN entered is as on book.[[User:AlainLeBris|AlainLeBris]] 03:31, 21 December 2021 (EST)
+
::Thanks so much for your response. {{unsigned|Keby Boyer}}
−
:The ISBN seems to have a bad checksum. Will you verify it's correct (see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?872872 here])? I've approved the submission. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 13:30, 21 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Dick Smith? ==
+
:::OK, I removed the dead link, added a link to your Linkedin page which has a photo of you, and entered your legal name; the edit should be approved soon. I'll also make 2 more edits adding info to your book and address to the publisher. By the way, IMDB has a 1993 credit for a short film, Alone in the Dark, written by you and directed by Donald W. Thompson; I assume that is your husband? It sounds like horror but seems to have been an anti-drunk driving educational film. He wouldn't happen to be the same person as this man, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?125216, would he? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 08:22, 23 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
[https://image.isu.pub/161206145801-aa1f4abecee97bd011fcf68875aa5054/jpg/page_1.jpg]; Exorcist makeup guy, not SF fan guy, added (make-up artist) to his name in an edit, PV'd by someone I don't wish to contact, it's at the top of my edit list with nearly 150 edits in front of it, so can someone approve this, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5179291, before the others? --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:03, 22 December 2021 (EST)
+
(unindent) Re: removing the date of birth, here is what [[ISFDB:Policy#Data_Deletion_Policy]] says about removing biographical (as opposed to bibliographic) data:
 +
* If a living author (or their authorized representative) requests that the ISFDB remove the author's detailed biographical information, the ISFDB will comply after confirming the requester's identity. The ISFDB will remove as much biographical data as needed in order to accommodate legitimate privacy concerns while preserving, to the extent possible, the work of the editors who have compiled the data. A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why.  
  
−
== Happy Holidays to the Moderators ==
+
Normally, we confirm the requester's identity by asking for an email message sent from an email account publicly associated with the author. It can be an email address posted on the author's LinkedIn/Facebook/Twitter/etc page or the author's Web page. Would you happen to have a publicly available email address like that? If you do, please send your request to ahasuerus@email.com. Thanks. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 08:34, 23 April 2024 (EDT)
−
As I know from past experience it is a laborious avocation. Thank you.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 19:19, 24 December 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Heaven ==
+
== Men like - image delete request ==
  
−
Can 1 of you un-reject this, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5179360, since it IS the same art; you can see the girl's head in the hole of the Pocket cover; it's a step-back cover, and opening it reveals exactly the same art, just like the several other foreign Andrews reprints I added edits for recently. Here's a copy: https://archive.org/details/isbn_0671525425. --[[User:Username|Username]] 20:10, 24 December 2021 (EST)
+
Please delete the old image [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:MNLKGDSBPP1976.jpg here] dated 06:07, 30 May 2014. Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 13:35, 25 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:I unrejected & approved it. Please add a moderator note in cases like that. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:09, 25 December 2021 (EST)
+
:{{done}} Done! ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 15:18, 25 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::Thanks Joe, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Jumbled Covers ==
+
== The Anubis Gates ==
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisheryear.cgi?6199+1972+1; I remember this disarrangement happening once before, so I'm sure mods will know how to fix it again. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:07, 26 December 2021 (EST)
+
Hello mods. Regarding [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?955548 this].
−
:I'm not sure what disarrangement you are referring to. Can you be more specific? You have selected the "View covers for this year" for the books published by [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?6199 Record] in [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisheryear.cgi?6199+1972 1972]. The three images match up to the covers for those three books. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 20:04, 26 December 2021 (EST)
+
Rear cover of my physical copy states Richard Carr is the cover designer not the cover artist, thus should not be credeited. I can't delete this title since it relates to two publications published at different dates. I've let Rtrace know about that - he being the only other PV for either edition. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 09:28, 26 April 2024 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 15:42, 26 April 2024


ISFDB Discussion Pages and Noticeboards
Before posting to this page, consider whether one of the other discussion pages or noticeboards might suit your needs better.
If you're looking for help remembering a book title, check out the resources in our FAQ.
Please also see our Help pages.
Help desk
Questions about doing a specific task, or how to correct information when the solution is not immediately obvious.
• New post • Archives 		Research Assistance
Help with bibliographic projects.
• New post • Archives 		Rules and standards
Discussions about the rules and standards, as well as questions about interpretation and application of those rules.
• New post • Rules changelog • Archives 		Community Portal
General discussion about anything not covered by the more specialized noticeboards to the left.
• New post • Archives 		Moderator noticeboard
Get the attention of moderators regarding submission questions.
 
• New post • Archives • Cancel submission
Roadmap: For the original discussion of Roadmap 2017 see this archived section. For the current implementation status, see What's New#Roadmap 2017.



Shortcuts
ISFDB:MODNB
ISFDB:MODN
MODN

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Moderator noticeboard.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32

Expanded archive listing


Moderator Availability (edit)
Moderator Current Availability Time Zone
Ahasuerus – Talk Daily. Mostly working on automated submissions and the software. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Alvonruff – Talk Daily. Working on a major overhaul of the isfdb infrastructure, staged at isfdb2.org. Self-moderating only. US Central (UTC-6)
Annie Yotova: Annie - Talk Most days, wildly varying hours. Working mainly on Fixer and international titles but available for questions. US Mountain/AZ (UTC-7)
Chris Jensen: Chris J - Talk Available sometime everyday. Pacific (UTC+12)
Desmond Warzel: Dwarzel - Talk Most days, wildly varying hours. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Dirk P Broer: Dirk P Broer - Talk Self-moderating only. Netherlands (UTC+2)
Jens: Hitspacebar - Talk Self-moderating only. Germany (UTC+2)
JLaTondre - Talk Intermittent, mainly evenings. US Eastern (UTC-5)
John: JLochhas - Talk Intermittent, mainly evenings and weekends. Germany (UTC+2)
Kevin Pulliam: Kpulliam - Talk Often missing for weeks and months - Best to email US Central (UTC-6)
Kraang - Talk Most evenings CDN Eastern (UTC-5)
Dominique Fournier: Linguist - Talk Off and on most days, with occasional blackouts (like now); can help on French or other outlandish titles. France (UTC+1)
Marc Kupper: Marc Kupper – Talk Low but not quite zero US Pacific (UTC-8)
MagicUnk - Talk Intermittent. Occasionally going into an editing frenzy. Belgium (UTC+2)
MartyD - Talk Sporadic, but most days. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Mhhutchins - Talk Self-moderating only US Eastern (UTC-5)
Nihonjoe - Talk Weekdays. Sometimes evenings. US Mountain (UTC-6/-7)
Pete Young: PeteYoung - Talk Most days, although time zone frequently varies. UK (UTC)
Ron Maas Rtrace - Talk Most mornings and evenings. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Rudolf: Rudam - Talk intermittent Germany (UTC+2)
John: Scifibones - Talk Most days, some evenings. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Willem Hettinga: Willem H. - Talk Most days, unpredictable hours. Netherlands (UTC+2)
Currently unavailable

SV removal

In the USD edition of Dilvish, the Damned Reginald3 is correctly SV'd and numbered. In the Canadian printing it has also been SV'd - wrongly. Could someone remove that and mark it N/A. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2023 (EDT)

adding a publication

Can a publication listing be added before the item is offered for sale? (i.e., I have obtained an ARC with all relevant info, but the book is not scheduled for publication for a couple more weeks) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabius (talk • contribs) .

The short answer is "yes". To quote Help:Screen:NewPub:
  • Future Publication Dates - ISFDB captures records for some publications that have been announced for release in the future.
    • New publications announced for the near future (within the next 90 days) should be given that future publication date.
    • Do not create records for newly announced publications scheduled for release more than 90 days into the future, as these plans often change.
Ahasuerus (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
One small note to add - if you are working from an ARC, mention it in the notes (when we work from pre-release records, we note the date for example making it obvious that we are adding pre-publication). Things change between ARCs and the actual book occasionally so that will minimize the risk of us ending with two separate records downstream. Annie (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2023 (EDT)

Second set of eyes please.

I've submitted a publication [deletion] that I'd rather not self-approve as it involves someone else's entry and PV. Thank you in advance. ../Doug H (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2023 (EDT)

After reviewing the data I agree that record 483390 and record 556122 apparently describe the same pub. I see that one of them has been verified by you and the other one by User:Don Erikson, who has been inactive for the last 3+ years.
One way to handle this situation would be for you to delete "your" pub record, then to primary-verify Don's pub, thus keeping both primary verifications. Would that work for you? Ahasuerus (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2023 (EDT)
An obvious approach. I reloaded the cover image as well. Will deleting a publication automatically get rid of the associated image? ../Doug H (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
The only effect deleting the publication has on the wiki page is breaking the link back to the publication. I went ahead and deleted it, mod only function, since you reloaded the image and created a new wiki page. John Scifibones 09:23, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

The Mouser Goes Below

Hello. After a long while, I have released this edit [1] for other moderators to have a look. While Willem agrees it's a Novel rather than a Novella, I am not entirely comfortable with affecting the change. MagicUnk (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

Examining the text in my ebook collection, I see that the submitter is correct: it contains over 64.5K words. I would make it a NOVEL and leave a canned message on the primary verifiers' Talk pages. Ahasuerus (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

PS. Real-life hasn't been nice to me the last couple of months, hence my absence from the site. Not sure when/if I will be back... Regards, MagicUnk (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

Sorry to hear about the real life issues! Hopefully things will improve sooner rather than later. Ahasuerus (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2023 (EDT)
I've approved the change to NOVEL and fixed all the translations to be NOVEL types as well. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:37, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

The Hollowing

Hello Mods. I have a question regarding this publication. I made a note that the book has an appendix, which is an in-universe folk tale of Ryhope Wood by Goerg Huxley - i.e. it's fictional. The tale has a title and a note before it making it appear as if it is an out of universe (i.e. a 'real world') tale. Should I add this as content ? --Mavmaramis (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2023 (EDT)

I think your treatment is fine, unless we discover the same story ended up published elsewhere. You might adjust the note to call out that it's a fictional appendix, and its credited author, "George Huxley" is an in-universe character. If you did want to make a content entry for it, I think you'd need to title it something like: "<whatever> by George Huxley" and make the author credit be Robert Holdstock. --MartyD (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
Thanks. I'll leave it as is and amend the note per your suggestion. --Mavmaramis (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2023 (EDT)

Who to credit ?

Hello Mods. The can of worms of cover design vs cover photo opens again with the two Gollancz editions of Trillion Year Spree. I made a note for my trade paperback copy that it states "Jacket design by Don Macpherson (over) Jacket photograph by Peter Letts" on backcover. The hardback credits Macpherson wheres the trade paperback credits Letts. So which one of those two get's the cover art credit ? --Mavmaramis (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2023 (EDT)

Macpherson does not get a credit under any circumstances - designers never do. If the hardback only credits "cover: Macpherson", then I'd been inclined to add a "Macpherson (in error)" credit and pseudonym to Letts thus allowing a variant cover and credits as per the books. As long as Letts photographs are on the cover and not the author photo of course. Alternatively, no credit for anyone and just notes (photographs are a bit of a gray area sometimes as Cover Artists but if you decide to credit -- it should be Letts). Annie (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2023 (EDT)
Thanks Annie. Maybe you could tell Makwood that as I tried to ask him what his hardback copy said (ghaving quoted him what mine said). See here where he states "So, you're saying the jacket front is a photograph, and not a graphic design? Doesn't appear that way to me". Gonna change the credit. --Mavmaramis (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2023 (EDT)

Brainchild

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5716829; I added 2 ID and a note about page count but it insists that I did something with the title which I didn't. Why is that? --Username (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2023 (EDT)

Checking the raw database data, I see that the main ANTHOLOGY title has a page number, "|1", associated with it. It wasn't displayed when you edited the publication record because the "Page" field is grayed out and not editable for ANTHOLOGY (and other "container") titles. My first guess was that at one point this publication was a NOVEL or another non-container and the non-container title had "|1" assigned to it. Checking Edit History, I see that this pub did have its title type changed to ANTHOLOGY on 2018-10-14, which suggests that my guess was correct.
Once your submission is approved, the "|1" page number will disappear. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2023 (EDT)

Change required for variant name: Ren Qing -> Channing Ren

任青 is listed on the Hugo finalist list with the western name "Ren Qing". When I added the tp pub that has their story, I noted that various sources reported them as Channing Ren.

I've now bought the ebook pub, and - Sod's Law - it turns out that Channing Ren is how they are listed in the actual antho, see here.

Could someone update the Ren Qing author record accordingly please? Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2023 (EDT)

Done. Also, as an FYI, changing the author name in the English Title record from "Ren Qing" to "Channing Ren" would have deleted the "Ren Qing" author record and created a new author record for "Channing Ren". The new author record would then need to be turned into an alternate name of "任青", but it could be done by a self-approver. Not a big deal, just something to keep in mind in the future. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Thanks; I did wonder if something like that was doable, but I thought better to just punt it here.
There's another one coming down the line, which I've put off, because I spent a day trying to get my head round it, and trying to write it up to confirm (a) a consensus for that course of action, and (b) how exactly to tackle it, isn't something I'm relishing. I don't think many westerners have realized there are 2 different Hugo finalists called 杨枫 and 杨枫(I), and IMHO we probably have the disambiguations the wrong way round, as the former should probably be an alternate name for 天爵, who isn't in the database yet. Something to look forward too... ErsatzCulture (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

Wolfe - Der fünfte Kopf des Zerberus - novel and novella dating

Whilst editing two of my own English language pubs of this title I noticed some dating which someone, hopefully, can clarify for me.

There are two novella titles by different translators 1974-11-00 trans. by Yoma Cap and 1982-05-00 by Eva Malsch.

The novel 1974-11-00 trans. by Yoma Cap dating looks ok as does the Eva Malsch translation but I don't see a 1974-11-00 Yoma Cap novella publication - only the 1984-04-00 one as the first instance.

The note in the 1972-04-00 novel title page refers to the German translations but doesn't help me.

So, do we treat the novel and the novella as having the same first instance date? Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (EDT)

The sequence of events as I understand it is as follows:
  • The novella version of "The Fifth Head of Cerberus" was published in Orbit 10 on 1972-02-16.
  • The novella version became Part 1 of the novel version which used the same title, The Fifth Head of Cerberus, and was first published on 1972-04-00.
  • Both the novella version and the novel version were subsequently reprinted by various US/UK publishers.
  • The second part of the novel version was later reprinted as a separate novelette "A Story" by John V. Marsch in a 1994-07-00 anthology. We have it dated "1994-07-00".
  • Yoma Cap's first German translation of the novel version was published as Der fünfte Kopf des Zerberus in 1974-11-00.
  • The first part of Yoma Cap's German translation (which corresponds to the novella version of "The Fifth Head of Cerberus") was reprinted in 1984 and then again in 2002. The title date of this title is currently set to "1974-11-00" and matches the date of the first publication of the German novel.
  • The third (and final) part of the English novel hasn't been reprinted as a separate novella. However, the third part of Yoma Cap's German translation was published as "V. R. T.", a separate novella on 1983-04-00. The title date of this title is currently set to "1983-04-00".
The problem then is that we have an inconsistency. The separate English appearance of the second part, "A Story" by John V. Marsch, is currently dated "1994-07-00" and matches the date of the anthology in which it appeared. Similarly, the separate German appearance of the third part, "V. R. T.", is dated 1983-04-00 and matches the date of the anthology in which it appeared. However, the separate German appearance of the novella version (which is the same as the first part of the novel), is dated "1974-11-00", when the novel translation appeared, as opposed to "1984-04-00", which is when the separate German version appeared.
Based on the above, I would suggest changing the title date of the novella version of "Der fünfte Kopf des Zerberus" from 1974-11-00 to 1984-04-00. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Thanks for taking such a careful look at this and your elegant answer. It resolves my uncertainty about novella/novel treatment and confirms where I thought the problem lay - your 6th bullet point homes in on that. I've submitted the change 1974-11-00 to 1984-04-00 as you've suggested :) Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
The submission has been approved, thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Great! Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

Mod Bob

https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Template:Moderator-availability; Bob should be removed from the list. --Username (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2023 (EDT)

Done, thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2023 (EDT)

Elizabeth Spencer

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?131734; https://www.amazon.co.uk/Elizabeth-Spencer/e/B01MFH59N3; Last 2 stories are by a young lady with the same name. --Username (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2023 (EDT)

It looks like Stonecreek has already changed their author from "Elizabeth Spencer" to "Elizabeth Spencer (I)". Ahasuerus (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Yes, except he added her image to webpage field by mistake, so I've just moved it to the right field, pending approval. Also, the older Spencer has a photo under "Movies, TV and Bio" on Amazon but as usual with "S" URL photos like those ISFDB won't accept them with or without the trailing stuff before .jpg, giving an unsupported message. --Username (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2023 (EDT)
Your submission is approved. John Scifibones 20:08, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

Image delete x2

Could someone please delete the older images here and here. Uploaded by mistake. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (EDT)

Deleted as requested. John Scifibones 18:36, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
Thanks John. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2023 (EDT)

Dawson

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1968198; I added link to Hodder and created a new record for Crowell, it's W. J. Dawson in both, author name neeeds changing. --Username (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2023 (EDT)

Pawsey ? Hayes

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5719001; I am not entering all of that info again just for a minor publisher name change so if someone knows how to preserve the one sentence in the publisher record then my edit can be un-rejected. Seems to me it would have made more sense to accept the edit and then cut-and-paste the sentence into the publisher record afterwards. --Username (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2023 (EDT)

I first went to the publisher record and changed the name there. Then that portion of your submission effectively became a no-up (changing the existing name to the same thing, so no publisher deletion), so I was able to un-reject it and approve it. --MartyD (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2023 (EDT)

Johnsgard

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5718012; I made another edit adding all info except name change, cover artists entered with alternate name for the man so after it's accepted that can be used as the parent, I guess. --Username (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2023 (EDT)

Change made and submissions approved. Submit an edit to import the cover art credit into the tp and I'll approve it. John Scifibones 10:18, 27 July 2023 (EDT)

SJS

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=solomon+j&type=Name; 1 credit each for the last 2 guys, your decision which is parent and which is variant. --Username (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2023 (EDT)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:28, 28 July 2023 (EDT)

Islands in the Sky cover art

Entry for cover art for this publication shows two different images, although the spacestation is the same the approaching rocket has been replaced by a boy on the 1984 edition - both images are by Peter Andrew Jones. Should the later edition's image not be seperated out and varianted ? --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2023 (EDT)

We variant for author, title, language and title type (artwork & serials only). We do not variant for a difference in the artwork. It's the same and we merge or it isn't. The same meaning "all or part of one appears in the other". John Scifibones 13:47, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
Alrighty. I only queried since there is a substantial difference between the one signed 'PAJ 80 Solar Wind' and the one signed 'PAJ 81' --Mavmaramis (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
If you think they are different enough, you can unmerge them and add notes on the reasons for it. I think they fall under our "is contained in" or "is part of" rule so they are ok as they are but the rules in that area can be interpreted differently. As John mentioned, they cannot be variants though so the choice is between what we have now and 2 separate unconnected entries. Annie (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2023 (EDT)
It's fine. I made a note in regards to the difference on the publication, plus the difference is obvious when viewing the cover art entry. --Mavmaramis (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2023 (EDT)

Matheson's Musings

https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Zapp#Musings; Do mods agree that it should be changed to an essay? --Username (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2023 (EDT)

Author name change needed

The spelling for author LJ Cohen is currently "L. J. Cohen" sic. Would a moderator please change it to her preferred spelling of "LJ Cohen"? That is the spelling she uses on her website and which appears on the titles currently recorded in ISFDB. I think the current spelling is a holdover from old spelling rules. Thanks. Phil (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2023 (EDT)

The rules are still valid especially because these are initials (so not really old spelling rules) - but they also allow for author's preference to take precedence. I've changed it and added a note on the page so someone does not "fix" it. As you are the only PV of any of her book I saw, consider this also a notification for the changed in your PVd book :) Annie (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
Thank you. Phil (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2023 (EDT)

(Slightly) clashing pending edits for author Juleen Brantingham

I just submitted 5730414, but I get a yellow warning for 5730402 which makes a similar change. My edit is a superset of the latter - adds a more details place of birth, obit link and expanded note - so could someone reject 5730402, or at least apply it before my edit 5730414 gets applied, so nothing gets lost? Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2023 (EDT)

Approved them in the correct sequence. :) Annie (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2023 (EDT)
Thanks! ErsatzCulture (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2023 (EDT)

Horus

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5722514; Can someone change the publisher to Horus Publishing? After that's done will that lead to unrejecting my edit? Because I've done hundreds since then and it's kind of hard to remember what I did for a single edit days or weeks ago. --Username (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2023 (EDT)

All good now. John Scifibones 15:27, 4 August 2023 (EDT)

The Architecture of Desire

Entry for this cover art has combined three entirely different pieces of art by Chris Brown. Note that this is not the same as this - there are substanial diferences between the two pieces. --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2023 (EDT)

They are definitely different. I've separated them into the three pieces. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:44, 4 August 2023 (EDT)
Thank you. --Mavmaramis (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2023 (EDT)

Printing

http://www.cars101.com/firstid.html; I think this would be helpful; I have a pending edit adding a Random House book which starts with 2 in the number line but it's not a 2nd printing, that's how they started their lines for much of their history. Can this be added to Help or something? --Username (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2023 (EDT)

Reeves-Stevens - Phase II: The Lost Series

The coverart credit as it stands here is wrong, can we have help from a moderator to sort it out? Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2023 (EDT)

How is it wrong? Have you contacted Mavmaramis to see what it states on the copyright page? Is there separate art on the front and back covers? If it's a mashup up two pieces of art, each by one of the two credited artists, the listing is correct. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 26 September 2023 (EDT)

Jem

There seems to be two entries for this publication. The note for this version also has a 1980 printing and a £1.50 price and points to (presumably) the true 1980 printing here. Can't determine what the difference between the two entries could possibly be. Thoughts ? --Mavmaramis (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2023 (EDT)

Accidental cover upload

Hello Mods I inadvertantly uploaded the hardback cover art for a paperback edition (that'll teah me to look first). Title in question is Return to Eden. If someone could revert it back to what it was previously that' be great. I have uploaded it to the correct hardback edition. --Mavmaramis (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (EDT)

Reverted. I also approved your submission adding the image to the Grafton hc. John Scifibones 13:24, 12 August 2023 (EDT)

Muster of Ghosts

https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:MSTRFGHSTS1924.jpg; My cover doesn't show up but neither does the cover someone else uploaded last year. Can someone get my cover to show up? Also, I made an edit adding editor as cover artist so can you approve that, too. You also may want to check to see if the other person uploaded a cover for the American edition (different title) because there's no cover there, either. --Username (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2023 (EDT)

TCASFW Discussion

https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Mavmaramis#TCASFW; When one of you approves my edit you can discuss with this PV what you'd like to do. I think their final message is that one of their volumes has a dash and one doesn't. --Username (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2023 (EDT)

Adding image credit , please

Good day,

I need help.

I would like to have an INTERIOR ART CREDIT added for Author record # 269730 ; Carl Lavoie.

It’s in the recent

Vastarien: A Literary Journal. Vol. 6, Issue 1

and it’s the frontispiece illustration, ‘The Evil Eye'.

Here’s a link to a sample of the issue, the illustration is right after the cover page:

https://www.amazon.com/Vastarien-Literary-Journal-vol-issue/dp/B0CBT4B6D1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28D1CYLFVH4XL&keywords=vastarien+literary&qid=1692175645&sprefix=%2Caps%2C152&sr=8-1&asin=B0CBT4B6D1&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

And here’s a link to the publisher, listing the content of the recent issue:

https://grimscribepress.com/issues/

Thank you. And have a wonderful day. -Carl Lavoie

Thank you for getting interested in our little project. However, it seems as if the issue you refer to hasn't been added yet; the latest one I can find is this from 2021.
But before you or someone else becomes active and enters it: this seems to be a general literary journal which then wouldn't be eligible per se to ISFDB (which is devoted to speculative fiction); for such a journal only the speculative fiction items, the artwork illustrating them, and essays referring to speculative fiction would be allowed to be included in the entry (see these definitions. Please think about it, and then think if you'd like to get help to add the publication in question. Stonecreek (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2023 (EDT)

Edmund Frederick, Chambers

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5746601; I came across Quick Action by Robert W. Chambers and added links (and a Canadian reprint) and then decided to enter links and stuff for other Chambers books illustrated by Frederick. Ran into trouble immediately because Tracer of Lost Persons is as by "R. W. Chambers" so if someone can approve my edit so it can be made a variant and month added to title record. --Username (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2023 (EDT)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2023 (EDT)

MRC

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2970668; An Archive.org link was recently upped for his 2014 novel so I added a link then I saw that his recent novel didn't have cover art in both editions so I imported it, then I noticed that the cover artist, who is also the author, didn't have a period added after R so it's a separate record. Since R with a period has bio info that means if I add a period it will erase the info, I think, so if one of you can add it without erasing the info. --Username (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2023 (EDT)

I fixed it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:04, 23 August 2023 (EDT)

Dragon / Grafton / Collins (UK)

I'm editing Asimov's Extraterrestrials and on the title page is stated "Dragon [over] Grafton Books [over] A Division of the Collins Publishing Group". We have Dragon / Grafton / Collins (UK) but my understanding is that we don't record the owners (Collins) of the publishers (Grafton). If that's correct, the four publications (also 1986) listed in that category should be "Dragon / Grafton" (as imprint / publisher). If moderators agree, that's what I propose using in the Publisher field for my edit (and I could also amend the four other publications to the same). Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2023 (EDT)

Not hearing any objections, I'll wait another few days and then implement the above. Thanks, Kev.--BanjoKev (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2023 (EDT)

With/with

I happened to notice that a mod is correcting "With" to "with" in a lot of records. Is there some way to trawl all the records and automatically correct wrongly capitalized words (or vice versa) with a patch or something? Seems like that would be helpful and save a lot of time. --Username (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2023 (EDT)

Multiple Archive.org Links

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5756500; Can a mod approve my edits for Number 87 from the first one linked above and ending with 5756519? I want to know if adding the second Archive.org link which someone added to the title records instead of the Macmillan edition's record will erase the much more recent link, uploaded this year, which I added in my first edit. On a side note, author's collection Thoughts in Prose and Verse also has been linked, no contents, in case anyone cares to read it and enter genre stories. --Username (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (EDT)

Does everything look as you intended? John Scifibones 12:32, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't know, I've completely confused myself. I see one title record still has old link that I removed and I missed another Macmillan link, so I've removed it again and added new link. I don't even think my note above was correct because the new link is for the UK edition so it wouldn't erase the US link. Forget it, I can't do this stuff anymore, 2 more links to approve when you get a chance, someone else will have to take a look and make sure links are where they're supposed to be along with everything else, I'm done. I've got to get out of here. --Username (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2023 (EDT)

image delete request

Could someone please delete the old (04:13 hrs) image here. (edit) See this discussion. Thanks. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

Kev, You wish to delete the cover with 'jr' correct? John Scifibones 09:43, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
Yes, that's the one. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
Done, John Scifibones 14:47, 31 August 2023 (EDT)
Thanks John. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

Nine-Thirty O'Clock in the Morning

Curious what happened to the usual 5-minute or so delay at 9:30 every morning. It didn't happen today. --Username (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2023 (EDT)

The daily backups run between 9:30am and 9:35am. The database is unavailable until they finish.
On 2023-08-30 the backup process was modified to exclude a large and fast growing database table which didn't need to be backed up in the first place. An error was introduced while making the change, which caused the backups to fail on 2023-08-31. The error was corrected the same day and the backups have been running smoothly ever since. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

Deagol

https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Deagol; I added my first-ever message to this PV and noticed all messages are in italics or a weird font or something. Probably not important but I thought I'd mention it. --Username (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2023 (EDT)

That's bizarre. I can't see anything on that page that would cause everything to be in italics. I can't find any other page that are like that, either. I'm guessing it's something that went funky on the backend. We'd have to have Al or Ahasuerus look at it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:26, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
Nevermind, I found it. While it shouldn't have affected the entire page (it should have only affected the part after it), I removed the italics from the page with this edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:29, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
Here's another page; https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_Talk:Clarkmci. --Username (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2023 (EDT)
Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:19, 5 September 2023 (EDT)

The Pastel City.

Hello mods. This interior art is the same artwork as this title record. I'd also like to rename the interior art record from "The Great Rebellion [1]" to "CA 440 Minifreighter" (as per art caption in Cowley's Great Space Battles). --Mavmaramis (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2023 (EDT)

If there is a caption (or a title somewhere) in the book, then yes, rename and use that - captions and titles from inside of the books are always used when known instead of the standard [] notation. If the title was coming from a secondary source, we would just add it into the notes but if it is in the book, go ahead and rename. And variant it to the cover :) Annie (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
You may want to participate at this Rules and standards discussions. As pointed out in that discussion, the current rules do not include using the caption / title (though that has become a common practice) and so far there has not been agreement to change the rules. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
Will do. Annie (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2023 (EDT)

Steve Duffy, The Faces at Your Shoulder

Having read this book at the Toronto Library, I would ask a moderator to add this collection to the (original) Steve Duffy page: (not Steve Duffy (1)) Steve Duffy, The Faces at Your Shoulder (Sarob Press, 2023) 181 pages 38 pounds Foreword, Duffy page 1 The Oram County Whoosit (Shades of Darkness, 2008) in isfdb page 37 The Soul is a Bird (original) page 71 In the Days Before the Monsters (original) page 101 The Pyschomanteum (Crooked Houses, 2020, Egaeus Press) this is NOT an original story, the original publication is not in isfdb page 123 The Lion's Den (Cern Zoo, 2009) in isfdb page 155 Futureboro (original) page 179 Notes on the Stories (uncredited in the book, the Sarob Press website attributes this to Duffy)

One other unrelated correction: The review Jean Rhys Revisited (2001) by Alexis Lykiard should be moved from the original Ray Russell page to the R. B. Russell page (aka Ray Russell (1)) this is actually a chapter in R. B. Russell's Fifty Forgotten Books —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerSSS (talk • contribs) .

Protocol for working on recently added/changed publications

There has always been potential for moderators unknowingly working on the same set of submissions. Early on we added the ability to put submissions "on hold" in order to mitigate this problem. Later, we added the Recent Activity page and, even more recently, "Edit History", which helps avoid confusion and cross-approvals.

At the same time, the recent implementation of the "self-approver" system significantly increased the number of editors who can approve submissions. Earlier today we had a collision between a moderator working on new submissions and a self-approver who noticed the new publication and tried to improve it while the moderator was still researching it. The result was a mishmash of approvals.

What should be the standard for moderators and self-approvers working on recently approved records which the original approver may still be researching? Since we now have Edit History, should it be something like:

  • Before correcting/adding data to a publication record, check its Edit History. If the record has been created or modified within the last 24 (12? 48? 72?) hours, check with the last approving moderator to see if the record is still being researched.

? Ahasuerus (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (EDT)

I consider it always a good idea to talk to the editors and moderators that had worked on a record that still need work before changing the work of people -- sometimes they have an edit staying in a browser and never submitted, sometimes they just had not had a chance to get back to the record to fix it (or got distracted) and sometimes it is a misunderstanding of the rules on someone's part - the person trying to improve or the editor who started it or simply a disagreement on how things need to be entered where the rules allow editor's discretion. And especially if the submitter is a new(ish) user and there is no note from the handling moderator on their page yet but I think it is common courtesy in all cases. Asking for 24 hours grace period is a good first step I guess. Adding to that the requirement for communication before the edits are done will be even better - and will also help getting our editors closer to being self-sustaining. I did not think that we need to put that in writing but apparently it is not as self-evident as I always assumed it to be. Annie (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
Could we add a flag to each record that gets set when a change is submitted, and then removed 25 hours after the submission is approved (and removed if a submission is declined)? Then the system could display a note on the edit page for any record that has that flag set. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:20, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
Well, if the goal is to display a warning when an editor tries to edit a publication record that has been modified within the last 24 hours, then it can be done without adding new flags. We already have Edit History; it would be easy to modify the software to check it and display a warning. We'll just need to decide on what the warning should say. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
Mountain being made out of a molehill. No need to add bureaucracy and development effort for a problem that rarely happens. This is a collaborative project which means people could occasionally work on the same items, but, in practice, it rarely happens in a short period of time. People should not feel possessive about their edits. An equally valid solution would be for moderators to put edits on hold and do their research prior to accepting the submission. That way they can make the corrections immediately after accepting the submission. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
Let me just clarify that adding a note along the lines of "This Publication was last edited by X and approved by Y on 2023-09-12 at 12:34pm" to EditPub forms affecting recently edited publications would be quite simple. We already have all of the requisite data in a readily accessible location within the database. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
Apparently the definition of possessive, as used in the above comment, is the approving moderator making the necessary changes and/or communicating with the submitting user immediately after approval. Isn't that exactly our responsibility? If not please enlighten me. I don't believe a software solution is necessary. It would surprise me if anyone else would decide to edit a publication immediately after its initial approval. John Scifibones 19:49, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
Re: "edit[ing] a publication immediately after its initial approval", I have come close to accidentally colliding with other editors/moderators a few times. I am subscribed to Amazon's automatic notifications for certain authors. When they publish new books, Amazon sends me an email. Sometimes other editors/moderators buy the same books the day they are published and enter them into the database at around the same time. I don't think it has caused any issues yet, especially now that we have additional yellow warnings, but it's been close a few times. Ahasuerus (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
It doesn't take a moderator to know we cannot edit submissions, but must approve them and then make corrections. The comment about research before approval is also incorrect. I had identified the changes I wanted to make. However it took me eight minutes to enter the corrections and the notes to moderator , review and post. P.S. I would have promptly replied to a query as to status.John Scifibones 19:49, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
This proposal is for a 24-hour period. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
Then propose a shorter window. The last time an editor (sitting on the recent updates queue and jumping as soon as they thought they saw something they MUST update now), made a merge on a story in an anthology of 20 titles or more, most of which required updates in the titles and authors (capitalization and spaces an so on) and follow-up merges and my edit had to be redone from scratch because the merge deleted the title ID - thus making the edit unworkable. I did not raise the question back then - I just redid the edit, posted for the new editor (first edit by them -- and anthologies tend to be... not fun) and then walked away for the day. It was not the first time that had happened. If common courtesy won't regulate that and it does happen more often than once in a blue moon, then we will need to spell out some rules. It is not about being possessive or not doing research before approval - it is about giving a moderator the needed time to do their post-approval edits before losing their time and forcing them to either redo the edit from scratch or look through multiple edits to see if something conflicted somewhere and a second edit is required. Annie (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
The above proposal doesn't address your scenario. A title merge is not a publication edit so wouldn't get the proposed warning. Collisions can happen without people sitting on the recent updates queue & without editing the same pub. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
It does - when the merge is because someone opened the recently created publication and looked for duplicates and decided to "help", that is exactly the issue at hand. Collisions always happen - and we all learn to live with them. But these are easily avoidable with a bit of common courtesy (or with a rule that says not to do it - if nothing else works). Annie (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2023 (EDT)

Standards question has reached an impasse

Three verifiers cannot reach agreement regarding current standards. The question revolves around the publication pages field and content titles page field. Please help resolve the impasse here Thanks, John Scifibones 13:38, 15 September 2023 (EDT)

Lee Mandelo, Revisited

Although we view the Lee Mandelo name change as closed, this has not been the case in the general public. In particular, the ISFDB Wikipedia article has recently used Jason Sanford's article about the Lee Mandelo situation as factual evidence of an issue, and I would like to post actual counter evidence of what actually happened. As such, I've been working on two documents. The first is a post-mortem of the situation, which provides a detailed timeline of every submission and communication which is related to the name change. It then summarizes the system issues and potential recommendations. Once the post-mortem is finalized I will post an Open Letter to the SF Community, which will reference that post-mortem.

The intention of this two articles is to provide a reference-quality document that can be added as a reference to Wikipedia, if needed. So I'd like the documents to be clean, and not contain large sections of indented discussions. There definitely should be discussions, but not within those documents. The first document is available now at:

Discussion about the document can occur here. Feel free to directly correct any grammar/spelling errors. Detailed discussions about the potential implementation of the recommendations should take place in the usual locations. Alvonruff (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

Is this discussion only open to moderators? I appreciate Community Portal can be noisy, but assuming that this discussion is open to all ISFDB stakeholders, maybe have a link on that page here at least?
(Super trivial observation: maybe fix the "Revisted" typo in the item title, before there are any links pointing at the wrong title?) ErsatzCulture (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
Fine with me to move the discussion so that it is open to all. Alvonruff (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2023 (EDT)
Organizing all of the publicly available data -- submissions, Wiki discussions, etc -- as a timeline sounds like a reasonable idea.
One thing that we may want to consider is how the ISFDB project communicates with the outside world. Currently, the ISFDB FAQ says:
  • What other Web sites and social media accounts does the ISFDB use?
  • ISFDB administrators may post announcements on this Blogspot Web page in case of extended unscheduled downtime or connectivity problems. There are no other official or ISFDB-endorsed Web sites, Web pages or social media accounts. Non-ISFDB Web sites and social media accounts maintained by individual ISFDB contributors (editors, moderators and administrators) are independent of the ISFDB and are not endorsed by it.
This policy was originally formulated in part due to the existence of Web sites/Web pages like this Facebook page which uses the ISFDB name and images without clarifying that it is not affiliated with the ISFDB project.
The policy means that our project is currently a closed system with no Web/social media presence aside from the ISFDB Web site and no official communications with the outside world except by individual ISFDB contributors acting on their own.
If we are to change this approach, we will presumably want to formulate an official communications strategy first. Something like an official social media account, perhaps? (I don't use social media outside of Web/Usenet forums which discuss SF, so I may not be the best person to come up with ideas.)
Alternatively, Al could post an "open letter" as an individual. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (EDT)
One thing we need to do is try to work with Sanford to correct his information in his post. At least based on the timeline Al posted, the first time a concern was posted in one of the public forums here is on Dec 14, 2022 by the author in question, and everything was handled within less than a week. So saying ISFDB "fought against changing Lee Mandelo’s name in the site’s author listing for over a year" is rather a stretch. As noted, we should find a way to make it more clear when we will change a canonical name, but we certainly weren't "fighting" against changing it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:25, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
A new section, "How does the ISFDB deal with author name changes?", was added to the ISFDB FAQ on 2022-12-26 based on this and previous discussions. Can anyone think of additional ways to increase its visibility? Ahasuerus (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
Additionally, Sanford describes Username as a moderator, which is not and has never been the case. At the very least, his comment was certainly insensitive, but Sanford should do his homework before trying to smear the moderators. Simply checking the list at the top of the Moderator noticeboard would have clarified that point. The "bad publicity" really had nothing to do with us making the change. It was the author posting here and making a request. Once we were made aware there was an issue, we discussed it and quickly made the updates (as noted, within less than a week from being made aware of the issue). The majority of that less-than-a-week was sorting out exactly what needed to be done to make all the changes as it's not a simple thing to do, and things have to be done in a specific order in order to not make it even more difficult to update.
I think having an official Twitter/X and/or Facebook account would be good as those are the two largest social media platforms for publishing-related things. The Blogspot site is fine, but no one is going to think of looking there since it's rather obscure. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:25, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
Excuse me, how did I get roped into this nonsense? Some trans activists try to bully this site into changing someone's "dead" name and it's my fault now? What comment are you referring to? I do more edits and leave more messages here than everyone else combined --Username (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
To clarify: as of last morning, of the 234,773 submissions approved in 2023, 17,359 (7.4%) were created by Username. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
so mentioning a singular thing I said a long time ago is pointless because I wouldn't remember it, anyway. Quote me what I supposedly said. EDIT: Never mind, Mr. Sanford quoted me on his Substack page where I quite logically inquired as to what would happen if Mandelo decided their transition was a mistake and wanted to transition back; would Mandelo and all the assorted friends bully ISFDB into changing everything back to Brit? --Username (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
The current policy is:
  • The name chosen to be the canonical name is the most recognized name for the author within the SF genre.
Lee Mandelo provided evidence that the "most recognized name within the SF genre" was "Lee Mandelo". Once we confirmed it, we changed the canonical name as per the policy, not because the author requested it. Whether the policy should be changed to account for author preferences is a different issue and fodder for the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
There are countless people online who have said their transition was the result of peer pressure or mental/emotional confusion or bad parents/doctors who encouraged them to transition for their own personal/monetary reasons and, tragically, many of them have already had body parts removed that they'll never be able to replace. Pretending otherwise is choosing not to accept reality. If Mandelo feels like their transition will be permanent and they're happy with that, fine. ISFDB is a gigantic site and highly disorganized; expecting it to run smoothly for one person is unreasonable. The delay in changing the name was due to a complete breakdown in communication, not because of transphobia. I reject terms like "bigoted" and "insensitive" to describe my remark; an apology will suffice. --Username (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
To my shame, I didn't say anything publicly when this kicked off originally - instead choosing to walk away from any association with this site for several months - but quite frankly, I feel that this site would be better off without you. All the edits you do to fix bad data are great in themselves, but I don't think they are worth all the aggravation you cause. If I recall correctly, at least one moderator refuses to work on your edits, and numerous other moderators and editors have had run-ins with you over your edits and general attitude. You've promised on numerous occasions that you intend to leave this site, any chance you can fulfill those promises?
It's one thing when that stuff is kept internal to this wiki, but when it explodes into the public domain, like it did last December, then all of us get tarred with the same brush, which is why I walked away then. I have numerous issues with what "the other side" did last December - e.g. Sanford's apparent lack of any sort of reaching out to get the ISFDB side of the story; the fact that (as IIRC Scifibones also found) 5 minutes of investigation disproved the claim that the deadname wasn't being still being used for publications (although it looks like some/most of them have finally been updated) - but it's hard to defend the ISFDB position when you had utterly poisoned the discourse. If you don't believe the comments you posted were utterly inflammatory, can I suggest you step out of your FoxNews/Daily Wire/Newsmax/whatever bubble, and understand that you can't talk to people that way?
Maybe I'll get attacked or censured for this comment, but quite frankly, I'd rather that happen, than have been silent on this. ErsatzCulture (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
Username has been warned about being abrasive and about personal attacks, e.g. here. However, the ideal outcome is not to drive abrasive editors away, it is to help them improve their ability to communicate with other editors to ensure that the project functions smoothly. If it doesn't work, then ISFDB:Policy#Conduct_Policy, which provides for escalating penalties for misconduct up to and including an indefinite block, comes into play. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

(unindent) Re-reading User:Alvonruff/A Post-Mortem on the Lee Mandelo Name Change, I have a few suggestions:

  • "14 December 2022" where it says "Mandelo posts a request to the Moderator Noticeboard". I suggest linking the Moderator Noticeboard discussion.
  • Same day where it says "A 4-day bibliographic discussion follows with numerous open questions, with responses from Mandelo." I suggest adding that the current standard -- "For authors who publish under multiple names, the canonical name is the most recognized name for that author within the genre" -- was explained to Lee Mandelo who then provided evidence supporting the notion that, as of 2022-12, the "most recognized name" was indeed "Lee Mandelo". That's what triggered the canonical name change.
  • The "Recommendations" section of User:Alvonruff/A Post-Mortem on the Lee Mandelo Name Change suggests the following change to the canonical name policy:
    • The Canonical Name of a living author should only be changed at the request of the author in question.
  • This would be a fairly major policy change which would affect a number of scenarios. For example, we have received canonical author change requests based on authors trying to promote new working names. To quote what I wrote during the 2022-12 discussion:
    • It's been occasionally proposed that we make exceptions to our canonical name policy for certain types of scenarios. For example, Debora Geary published A Modern Witch, a series of popular urban fantasies, in 2011-2013. Then, after a painful divorce, she removed all of them from Amazon and restarted her career as Audrey Faye. A few years ago she published a non-fiction account of her recovery after divorce (Sleeping Solo: One Woman's Journey Into Life After Marriage) in which she explained why she could no longer be associated with the name "Debora Geary". Another example would be a person converting to another religion and changing his or her name to reflect new beliefs. Changing one's gender would be another scenario which has been discussed a few times, including an extensive Rules and Standards discussion in September 2018.
    • So far these discussions of possible exceptions have failed to lead to a new consensus, in part because of the number of possible scenarios and sub-scenarios. For example, consider Poppy Z. Brite, who has been using the name "Billy Martin" socially since the early 2010s, but whose books continue to be published as by "Poppy Z. Brite".
  • We will need to discuss the proposed change on the Rules and standards discussions page.

Ahasuerus (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

In my opinion, the best part about the current policy is that it is quantitative/qualitative and not subjective. We did not use "Brit Mandelo" because of someone's whim or someone's views on Mondelo's gender identity or even popular vote. Technically, the switch from Brit to Lee as canonical was made because the underlying measure of primary identification changed over time and "Lee Mandelo" supplanted "Brit Mandelo". I don't think we should have a blanket policy that authors or their agents can request changes. That's another form of whim, and the ISFDB's purpose is not advertising for authors or publishers. Perhaps one thing we could consider, though, is a policy allowing those entities to request that the ISFDB make a switch ahead of the results of an in-progress publishing world change. E.g., if "ABC" came to us and said "I changed my name to 'XYZ', and all of my books are being pulled from the shelves and are being reissued using that name. Could 'XYZ' be configured as my canonical name?" ISFDB could then project the future and perhaps act early. --MartyD (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
Re: "allowing those entities to request that the ISFDB make a switch ahead of the results of an in-progress publishing world change", we ran into an issue in this area back in the late 2010s.
In 2015 the author who had published the "Vladimir Tod/Slayer Chronicles" series as Heather Brewer changed the name to "Zac Brewer". There were plans to republish Brewer's old books under the new name and at least one SF story was indeed published that way. Based on that, an ISFDB editor proposed that we change the canonical name to "Zac Brewer" with the expectation that it would soon become the "most recognized name ... within the genre". At the time we decided to wait and see what would happen in another year or two.
As it turned out, the name "Zac Brewer" was used on 2 non-genre novels in 2016-2017, but all new speculative fiction (2 novels and 1 story) appeared as by "Z Brewer". I guess it goes to show that making assumptions about future releases is chancy in the publishing business. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
I agree. Keeping the policy as objective as possible is a good thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:43, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
Alvonruff, thanks for a very nice job on the timeline. I'm not sure anything posted on social media ever changed anyone's opinion, but it accurately documents the facts. Sections 3 and 4 are better served as the kickoff to the Rules and Standards discussion and should not be included in the public release. A subsequent post documenting our reasoning and any changes is a better course. Anyone interested can follow and/or participate in the R & S discussions (I anticipate multiple threads). Ahasuerus, If you are going to link this thread to the letter, I suggest starting the main thread and moving MartyD's & Nihonjoe's posts there. John Scifibones 19:54, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
I agree that discussions of the current canonical name policy and any proposed changes belong on the Rules and Standards page. I am just waiting for Al to chime in and clarify whether he meant to propose a change. If he did, then we can move the policy part of the discussion there. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
For Al's postmortem, I think it would be helpful to quote the first paragraph of the Canonical Name definition from Help:Screen:AuthorData and to summarize the "enter-name-as-it-appears-in-the-publication" policy and provide links to Template:TitleFields:Author and Template:PublicationFields:Author prior to getting into the timeline. That is the working context for the data present in the system and various events that occurred during the timeline. --MartyD (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2023 (EDT)
That's a good point. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

"Review of"

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?412925; While my editing which ended after Labor Day won't resume full-time until October I did, after a week without any edits, start doing a few handfuls of clean-up edits fixing this or that which lately have been almost entirely related to D. F. Lewis. I just came across an interesting situation which a mod should probably take care of because it's a 2-step process, changing ESSAY to REVIEW and then link review from the menu, which mods can approve instantly instead of me doing one step and then waiting for approval before doing the other step. Nemonymous 3 mentioned in the review in the zine linked above is on ISFDB, titled Gold Coin; the issue of New Genre is also here as is the issue of Gigamesh. The last non-linked review is of a Norwegian novel whose title translates as a ghost story so that book almost certainly is eligible and should be entered here and then the review linked to it. That one may require someone with a knowledge of the language. I tried to figure out how to search for all instances of "review of" in All Hallows issues but I couldn't do it. Maybe someone else knows how or, if not, an issue-by-issue check will be needed. --Username (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

Pohl - Gateway

Has anybody any suggestions how this situation might be resolved. No progress has been made as the PV is unresponsive. Thanks. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2023 (EDT)

Image Deletion

Could a moderator please delete this image. The licensing tag information is incorrect. After the deletion, I will re-upload with correct tag. Teallach (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2023 (EDT)

Done. You could have edited the tag BTW :) Annie (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2023 (EDT)
I didn't realise I could do it myself. Thanks for the image deletion and the heads up re editing the licence tag. I have now figured out how to do it for the future. Teallach (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (EDT)

Shutdown

Library of Congress has an ominous red warning about what will happen if the U.S. government shuts down a few days from now. Will anything on this site be affected or will it make no difference? --Username (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2023 (EDT)

The only effect will be not being able to look up LCCNs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:03, 29 September 2023 (EDT)

LOTR Book

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3078415; Another editor added an archived link to the Canadian edition recently but nobody ever added a link to the USA edition which has been there since 2010 so I just added it. The title is in question because it's written in fancy font on title pages; PV Auric seemed to think Film Book should be 2 words but other editions are Filmbook. So which should it really be, and should Part I be removed from USA title since it's not actually part of the title in the book? PV doesn't respond very often so I thought I'd bring it up here. --Username (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2023 (EDT)

Date for Voyage of Mael Duin's Curragh

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49434; I just had my edit adding an archived link and fixing cover artist/adding interior artist but after looking at it I realized dates are off because Locus, https://www.locusmag.com/index/b1.htm, has one of those 2-date things and someone entered book as October but title and cover art are September, with my new interior art credit matching the book's October date. What's the rule? Which date should they all be? --Username (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2023 (EDT)

What does it state on the copyright page? If it includes a month, that's what we should use. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:04, 29 September 2023 (EDT)
No, there's no month, if there was that would take precedence over Locus. --Username (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2023 (EDT)

Cover art credit removal

As we don't credit designers for coverart, would moderators agree to removing Michniewicz's titles from here and here? Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2023 (EDT)

Locus1 credits Michniewicz for the first one's cover. Since he is PV for both, you could try reaching out to Michael (use the ISFDB to send him mail) and see if he'll respond and offer an opinion. --MartyD (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2023 (EDT)
Unfortunately I can't use the email system (it won't work with my provider, even though Ahasuerus has tried to fix it for me) so the only possibility there is if some kind soul would email him for me.
As far as I can ascertain from all the pub notes, Michniewicz is credited as designer for a lot of the series for the simple graphics. It is only for later issues where Gollancz have incorporated actual artwork that the artists get credit. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2023 (EDT)
Any other help please? Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2023 (EDT)
I would leave a note on User talk:Mhhutchins re: the proposed changes. If there is no response after a week, we can remove the COVERART titles and document the designers in Notes. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (EDT)
I've left a message on his talk page. Thank you for the advice! Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (EDT)

John Goss

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?239252; 2 different guys. --Username (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2023 (EDT)

Separated out. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2023 (EDT)

Goat

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?882813; Can a mod take a look at those last 2 edits? I see at least a few problems with ID and web links; maybe I'm wrong but I don't think they should be there. --Username (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2023 (EDT)

Shadow Edits

https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:MOHearn#Return_of_the_Shadow; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5782555; I contacted MOHearn but we have some cross-editing going on so if I can ask one of you to approve my edits (assuming there's no problem with any of them) starting with the one linked above and going through 5782728 (there's 4 non-Shadow edits from 5782649 through 5782652; ignore those) so we can put these behind us. Thanks. --Username (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2023 (EDT)

El Topo

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5784269; HC copy uploaded recently, I'm going to add it (I added that paper edition a while ago) but wanted to get this edit approved first assuming mods agree it should be a chapbook since novelization is only 80-something pages with the rest being non-fiction. --Username (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (EDT)

Cleaning up English translations of RUR

Hi all, I'm in the process of cleaning up the English translations of Karel Čapek's RUR. This has led to a bunch of related edit submissions (5776995, 5791148, 5791149, 5791151, 5791157, 5791159, 5791160, 5791188), several of which will involve follow-up edits.

That said, I'm not quite sure how to approach cleaning up one of the existing chapbook / shortfiction pairs. There are 3 associated publications: 328124, 362654, 529466.

  • 328124 is an English translation by David Short that I expect is distinct from the other two publications.
  • 362654 is an English translation by David Wyllie that is currently mapped to the wrong title(s) based on viewing the publication's title page via a reading sample from Amazon (see edit 5776995).
  • 529466 is a seemingly unknown English translation from Amazon's on-demand (self-)publisher. I haven't been able to find much trace of this particular edition online. I'm guessing this is likely a reprint of the out-of-copyright translation by Paul Selver possibly further adapted by Nigel Playfair.

Do the following actions seem appropriate for this situation?

  1. Unmerge 328124 and associate with new variant chapbook and shortfiction titles (distinct translation by David Short)
  2. Unmerge 362654 and associate with different variant chapbook and shortfiction titles (distinct translation by David Wyllie)
  3. Leave 529466 as is, but update associated chapbook and shortfiction titles to note that this is an unknown translation.

Thanks! --Riselka (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2023 (EDT)

Yep - when we know the translators of a specific book, unmerge the chapbook and the story, make them variants and add the translator to the notes of both titles. We had been slowly chipping at the early messes such as this one, created long before we started recording translators on the title level - so thanks for sorting it out. I also tend to add a "This title may contain multiple distinct translations" note or something to that effect to the one with unknown translators - when there is more than one book anyway. If two unknowns are known to be different, we also unmerge them and add as much as we know on their notes to identify what goes where... Annie (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
Jules Verne has lots of examples of multiple translations in various languages. ../Doug H (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
Thanks, that makes sense. I mainly wanted to check how to handle this particular instance because I expected the translator could be identified if someone checked this particular edition. Jules Verne is a good (although more complex) example that I'll keep in mind when I clean up future translation records. --Riselka (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
We are playing catch-up on these -- for a long time, we did not separate or record per translator - so since we started, it had been a never ending game of finding all of them. And the ones translated into English are the most problematic due to the volume - in most other languages, we are mostly done with adding the Translator template which required the messes to be untangled. There are corners of the DB like that - where you will find surprises you would think cannot happen. Jules Verne looks as good as he does because Doug spent months fixing the records. :) Annie (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (EDT)

Old cover image delete

Could someone please delete the old image, Date/Time: - 11:47, 23 February 2014 - to prevent reverting. The new image is identical but larger. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2023 (EDT)

Done. Annie (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (EDT)
Thanks Annie! Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (EDT)

Invaders by Adelia Saunders

This concerns the cover art shown for Publication Record # 777558, Invaders by Vaughn Heppner The cover art shows the author to be Adelia Saunders. She did not write a book called Invaders. She did write one called Indelible. I went over to Brilliance Audio. This is just a generic cover they use. Its the same cover for Invader by C.J. Cherryh, Artemis Invaded by Jane Lindskoid and a number of others including The Spirit of Dorsai, By Gordon R. Dickson aardvark7 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (EDT)

Updated, thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2023 (EDT)

Derived prices in early Bantam Books

Bantam Books was founded in 1945 and concentrated on publishing mass market paperbacks. As far as I can tell, early on they didn't display prices on the cover or on the spine. However, some (all?) of them, e.g. The Unexpected and my verified ''The Day He Died, had ad pages in the back with one or more lists of books which you could buy by sending $0.25 plus $0.05 for postage to the publisher's address. I suppose it's likely that the list price was also $0.25, although it's not a guarantee.

Some online sources explicitly state that the list price was "$0.25", but I don't know where their data comes from. Some of our records also display "$0.25" in the price field, e.g. The Unexpected, which has the following note:

  • No price stated, but ad pages for current releases list $0.25 price.

Clearly, this situation requires an explanation in the Note field, but what would you enter in the price field? $0.25? Leave it blank? Ahasuerus (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2023 (EDT)

Seems ok to me to use $0.25 and treat the ad as a secondary source. If we had a book with no printed price on it, found a review (or announcement) contemporaneous with its issuance, and that review stated a price, I think we would normally be happy to use that and cite the review as the source. The ad situation strikes me as equivalent. --MartyD (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
I agree. As long as there is a note explaining the sourcing of the price, this is not different from finding a price on a publisher site, a contemporary review or any other secondary source. If we ever find a better information that contradicts the price as derived via such a method for that specific book, the note can be adjusted and the price changed if needed. Annie (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
Thanks to Ahasuerus for following up my discussion with him and getting this cleared up. Here's a list, [2], of all Bantam books PV by Scott Latham; he entered prices for all of them and there's a note in the third book that he got the price from Tuck. EDIT: In the 4th book there's a note, "Price from ads in the back, listing other Bantam titles all for 25¢", so it seemed random whether there's no price note or where he got it from if he did leave a note. --Username (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2023 (EDT)
I think this is fine. A note should be included stating where the price was from, but I have no problem sourcing prices that way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 20 October 2023 (EDT)

(unindent) Thanks, folks. I have updated the publication record, deleted a duplicate pub and notified the affected verifier. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (EDT)

Can we have some clarification please because I am confused by this discussion.
Ahasuerus' initial post implied to me that we are looking at a situation where an unpriced book contains a house ad listing other books for sale from the publisher. All these books are listed with an identical price but the list does NOT contain the title of the book in which it is printed. Call this scenario A.
However, MartyD and Annie's replies imply to me that they seem to think the list DOES contain the title of the book in which it is printed. Call this scenario B.
We need to consider these two scenarios separately.
Scenario A: I do not consider it appropriate to infer the price of a book from other contemporary books. The Ace 1st pb ed of Dune, published in 1967, is priced 95c. It's a fat book for its era. However, Ace pb's in that year were typically priced around 50c. So if, hypothetically, Ace books published in 1967 did not have a cover price then it would be erroneous to infer that Dune was 50c based on a house ad listing other contemporary books at 50c.
Scenario B: This is not contentious. Record the price in the Price field and add a mandatory pub note stating the source, ie the house ad. Teallach (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
Sorry, I may not have been clear. The ads in the back of my verified The Day He Died do include The Day He Died (with the correct catalog ID) in the list of books that you can get for $0.25, so it's "Scenario B" above.
Now that I am thinking about, there may be an additional twist. According to Jon Warren's "Official Price Guide: Paperbacks", some early Bantam paperbacks had 2 versions which shared the same catalog ID: a regular version and a version in a dust jacket. I don't recall seeing dust-jacketed versions, which are apparently highly prized among collectors. I don't know how they were priced and whether you could get them from the publisher for $0.25. Ahasuerus (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
Ah, all is good then. Thank you for the clarification. Teallach (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (EDT)

Canonical name out of date?

G. Arthur Rahman has about 15 titles under that canonical name, from the 70s and 80s, but he has over 30 under the name Glenn Rahman (and a few under other forms of the name). Here is my entry of some new 2023 stories in addition to those on that author page. I'm holding off on making them variants to ask: Could his canonical name be changed from G. Arthur Rahman to Glenn Rahman to reflect the majority of bylines? -- MOHearn (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2023 (EDT)

Working on this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:31, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
Yes, I'd think so - provided someone sets out to do the transformation. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2023 (EDT)
Done! You can see it here. Let me know if I missed anything as this one was more complicated due to the number of pseudonyms. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:15, 26 October 2023 (EDT)

Thanks, Nihonjoe! I'll put the new stories into their series and look over the older ones. -- MOHearn (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2023 (EDT)

Juliana Pinha --> Juliana Pinho

Hello, would it be possible to correct 'Pinha' to 'Pinho' in this entry for INTERZONE #295? Thank you.

190 •  Notes From the Meeting of the First State Feder World Court: Walker Dairy, Freeville, NY, 198 Year One: Jessica Jane Pearson Vs. The Stranger Mr. Jacob Hampton • interior artwork by Juliana Pinha

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?977484

--Interzone (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2023 (EDT)

This depends on the way the artist is credited in the issue: we do document the spelling of a name, even if it is mistyped in a given magazine issue (and then do variant it to the canonical name, like in this example).
Anyway, since "Interzone" #295 is primary verified, it is etiquette to ask / inform the primary verifier. You can reach him here. Stonecreek (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2023 (EDT)
Thanks for the info. It is 'Pinho' in the magazine (on the story cover page, and in the contents page). I'll move this to the primary verifier page, thanks.
--Interzone (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (EDT)

Star Bridge by James E. Gunn, Jack Williamson

Publication Record # 31949 states the artist is Ed Valigursky and that there was not any credit in the book. That the credit came from Jack Williamson's Seventy-Five: The Diamond Anniversary of a Science Fiction Pioneer. Heritage Auctions (fineart.ha.com/itm/paintings/gordon-pawelka-american-20th-century-star-bridge-paperback-cover-1963-oil-on-board-20-1-2-x-1/a/8000-71029.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515) has the artist as Gordon Pawelka. Was this a name used by Valigursky or do we have a conflict?? Hey Heritage could be wrong. It sold in 2020 for $3000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardvark7 (talk • contribs) .

RUSSWOTHE

https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User:RUSSWOTHE; I made a minor edit for a book PV by this person and noticed there's a stray message in the wrong place. Is it possible to move it to their discussion page? --Username (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2023 (EST)

Done, thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2023 (EST)

Followup: Crowley and Aziraphale's New Year's resolutions

Hello. I did not receive a response to my September 2023 question about how to catalog a weirdly-published Good Omens short story. So I am repeating the question here, please. Morebooks (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2023 (EST)

Not eligible unless it was downloadable as an ebook - we allow only a limited set of online fiction and "a publisher site" is not amongst them. If it was downloadable as an ebook, it will be added as a chapbook. Annie (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2023 (EST)

Wrong tag for L. Sprague de Camp's The Hardwood Pile

Hello to all. The tag "science fiction" has been wrongly attributed to this story, which is only a fantastic and humorous ghost story. Could a bureaucrat please remove it ? TIA, Linguist (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2023 (EST).

Remove non-SF/fantasy/speculative fiction incorrectly attributed to an SF author

Hi.

I recently read and loved the story "In the Days After..." in Asimov's Science Fiction, November-December 2023 (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3238197). I was curious about this author who was new to me, with a story I really liked, so I checked ISFDB.

Most of his work is noted as 1981 and beyond, with a long gap (~28 years) from 1995 to 2023. The Asimov's blurb does note that Frank Ward (William Francis Ward) did take a long time off from writing for "life". https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?11458

There is a 1958 story listed under Frank Ward, "The Dark Corner". I was suspicious of this, as Frank Ward is listed with a 1950 birthdate.

I checked around. Galactic Central does show a substantial mystery body of work by a different Frank Ward, from the 1930s to the 1960s. http://www.philsp.com/homeville/cfi/n00786.htm#A5

I confirmed with the current Frank Ward via email that he did not write the mystery story "The Dark Corner", which does show up under the other Frank Ward at Galactic Central.

Given that "The Dark Corner" here is not by this Frank Ward (William Francis Ward), and that the other Frank Ward who wrote "The Dark Corner" appears to have written mysteries but not SF, fantasy or speculative fiction, I am assuming that I need to delete "The Dark Corner" story from ISFDB. I further assume this is done by the "Delete this title" button.

Please confirm, or let me know what is needed.

Thanks. Dave888 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2023 (EST)

There's an issue with one of Ward's titles, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?914168, the Fantasy Book Index, https://archive.org/search?query=%22the+pegasus+suit%22&sin=TXT&and%5B%5D=year%3A%221983%22, says "Pegasus", there's a contents page scan on AbeBooks, https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Fantasy-Book-February-1982-Third-Issue/30051987897/bd, which probably says the same although it's blurry, only way to be sure is looking at the story's title page which would require a copy of the zine, you may want to ask him if he owns it so he can check. --Username (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2023 (EST)
I'm not quite clear what the issue is. When I looked at any of the 3 copies of the "An Index to Fantasy Book, Volume 1", at Internet Archive, they all note "The Pegasus Suit". Thanks for the clarification.
Dave888 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2023 (EST)
Thanks for checking with the author! I have disambiguated the author name -- see the result here -- and updated the title record.
As to whether we want to remove "The Dark Corner" from the database, it depends on a couple of different factors. The story appeared in the anthology Bodies and Souls. Its dust jacket says "Fourteen Tales of Worldly and Other-Worldly Murder, Mayhem and Mystery", which suggests that it collects both SF and non-SF stories. We currently list one of the stories, "Too Many Coincidences", as "non-genre" while the rest are listed as SF. It's entirely possible that some of them are non-genre; we just don't know one way or the other. Once we know more about these stories, we can decide what to do with the anthology. Since it apparently contains at least some SF stories, we will want to keep the publication record, but if the overwhelming majority of the stories are non-genre, we may end up removing them and documenting them in Notes. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2023 (EST)
My thanks for handling this. I appreciate and concur with the thinking, and I'll try to retain that for the future. Mr. Ward is pleased this has been revised.Dave888 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (EST)
ISFDB says "Pegusus" which is obviously a misspelling of "Pegasus" but a look at the header on the story's title page is what's needed because it's entirely possible, as so often in zines, that titles differ from what's on the contents page. Searching for "Pegusus Suit" online finds only ISFDB and a couple of booksellers that obviously copied their info directly from ISFDB so it's likely just a simple mistake by whoever entered the contents here. You said you spoke to him via email so maybe you can ask him if he owns that issue of Fantasy Book to check and if it's wrong it will be fixed to "Pegasus". --Username (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2023 (EST)
I have reached out to Frank Ward on this question. I'll circle back when I know, and then correct the title if needed. Thanks.Dave888 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (EST)
I have confirmed with Frank Ward by check of his copy of the 1982 Fantasy Book that "Pegasus" is the correct spelling. He thanks us for making the correction. I will submit that now. Dave888 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2023 (EST)
Bodies and Souls is linked at Archive.org in the notes section of its record here so the story can be read to determine if it's genre or not as can the other contents; also, it's much longer than the others in the book and should probably be given novelette length. --Username (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (EST)
I checked at Galactic Central. They believe this story ("The Dark Corner") is a novella. I will make that change.Dave888 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (EST)
Approved, thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2023 (EST)

Muster of Ghosts II

[3]; I was going to upload SFE image but it seemed familiar and it turned out I'd done it already but the image didn't go to the right place; also this old edit, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5740959, has been sitting there for months because without an image the signature couldn't be seen. So can someone get the image fixed and approve the cover artist edit? EDIT: After I entered this message it didn't go to the right place because I'd already written about it, with the same message title, long ago but nobody ever answered; it's up above. --Username (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2023 (EST)

The image has been added to the pub & your edit approved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (EST)

MP3 CD price on Amazon note

Just a heads-up that Amazon is now typically showing the as new price for MP3 CDs whose publisher is "Audible Studios on Brilliance Audio" as $10.02. The list price for these CDs as reported on brilliancepublishing.com is almost always $9.99. Phil (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Amazon

I've noticed that Amazon.com is used frequently to verify a publication date. I just wanted to point out that it's an unreliable source, because any time they don't know the exact date, they use the first of the month. For example, the publication date of this book: https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?535016 is listed as 2008-11-01, but the data is from Amazon, so I don't know if that's the accurate date, or they just used the first of the month because they didn't know any better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clauditorium (talk • contribs) .

The quality of Amazon's records varies a great deal. It's not always clear why the bad data is the way it is, but we can make educated guesses, at least in certain cases. For example, Amazon occasionally -- I would say around 5-10% of the time -- lists unrealistically low (14-32) page counts for English e-book editions of Japanese "light novels". It seems to be related to the fact that some light novels have short (4-20 pages) manga sections at the beginning of the book. We don't know why it affects Amazon's page counts, but it's something that editors have to keep in mind when entering light novel records using Amazon's data.
Re: dates, it depends on how old the record is, where the book was originally published and the publisher. For older books, some records have no day/month information, some add arbitrary "-01" or "-01-01" to the end of the month or year, and some have surprisingly accurate dates even for books published in the 1960s/1970s. Our best guess is that "surprisingly accurate dates" come from publishers' catalogs that Amazon has/had access to.
Amazon.com's records for books published in other countries frequently list the "US availability" date as the publication date. There can be a big gap between these two types of dates for books originally published in the UK and especially in Australia/New Zealand, which is why Amazon's dates for these types of books are often wrong.
Also, a note on the terminology. We use Amazon stores -- Amazon.com, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, etc -- as sources of our data, but we don's use it for verification. We have a number of recognized "secondary verification" sources which you can see if you display a publication record and click on "Verify This Pub" link under "Editing Tools", then scroll down to "Secondary Verifications". Like everything else in this world, these verification sources are not perfect, but their data is, on average, better than Amazon's.
Ultimately, the ISFDB data is only as good as our sources. Even primary verified data can be imperfect due to data entry errors and misunderstandings. That's why it's so important to document exactly where our data comes from. Ahasuerus (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2023 (EST)

US Copyright Office website

Do you guys ever use the US Copyright Office website? I would think that would be the most reliable source. It often has publication dates down to the day, whereas other sources only have them down to the month. https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clauditorium (talk • contribs) .

We use a variety of secondary sources to determine publication dates as discussed in this Help section. The Copyright Catalog can be (and have been) used as a secondary source of information as long as we keep in mind that their "Date of Publication" values and "Registration date" values are often different, so we need to make sure to use their "Date of Publication" values.
Another thing to keep in mind is what Help:Screen:NewPub calls "Discrepancies Between Stated Date and Reality":
  • Publication date does not always perfectly match the calendar date. For example, a January issue of a magazine is usually available in December of the previous year, and often earlier than that. Books with a January publication date may often be bought in the closing weeks of the prior year; they will show the later year's copyright date, even though that year has not yet started. In these cases, the convention is to use the official publication date rather than to try to identify when a book actually first became available. If there is a large discrepancy -- for example if a book was printed but unexpectedly delayed before release -- then this can be noted in the notes field.
This Copyright Catalog record for the first edition of Disclosure, a non-genre novel by Michael Crichton, is a good example. The "Date of Publication" value is "1993-12-20", but the publication date stated in the physical book is "January 1994". Ahasuerus (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)
When it comes to magazines, I'm aware of the disconnect between publication date listed on the copyright site and the date printed on the magazine cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clauditorium (talk • contribs) .
Back when mass market paperbacks took off in the United States, their publishers piggybacked on pre-existing distribution channels and inherited some of the peculiarities of the magazine distribution system. They also had to deal with numerous technical limitations of the printing business as it existed ca. 1950. For example, you could order a paperback with 96 pages or a paperback with 128 pages, but anything in between wasn't viable because of the way mass market paperbacks paperbacks were produced. Sometimes authors and/or editors were able to cut or pad stories to make everything work seamlessly. Other times typesetters had to add empty pages or use other tricks to pad the page count.
We see similar issues surface even in 2023. Amazon's page count values are often off because publishers create pre-publication records based on estimates. When books are produced, the actual page count is usually different. Not all Amazon records are updated post-publication, so we always take what's there with a grain of salt. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2023 (EST)
As for novels, I've noticed that in several cases, the date listed by isfdb.org is missing the day, but the copyright site will have this info. For example, Misery by Stephen King is listed here as being published on 1987-06-00; on the copyright site, the publication date is indicated as 1987-06-08 (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1513). If I come across such occurrences, should I make a correction, crediting the copyright site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clauditorium (talk • contribs) .
Sorry, I didn't quote the most applicable part of Help:Screen:NewPub#Date earlier. Here is the relevant section:
  • The base date optionally may be made more precise (e.g., supplying the month or day of publication) using information from a secondary source, if that source's date is otherwise consistent with publication's stated date. The source, and which details of the date were obtained from that source, must be recorded in the publication notes. See Secondary Sources of Dates.
So the answer is yes, editors can make the date more precise as long as it is "otherwise consistent with publication's stated date" and the source is documented in Notes. If there is a discrepancy -- as in the case of Michael Crichton's Disclosure (see above) which was offered for sale in late December 1993 but the printed publication date says "January 1994" -- then we use the printed date and optionally document what secondary sources like the Copyright Office or Amazon say. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2023 (EST)

Captured By the Engines

Can someone approve my submission 5819033? Because I need to add month to merged art. --Username (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (EST)

Approved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2023 (EST)

"Pending submissions which will change my primary verified publications" on the New Submissions page

A new table, "Pending submissions which will change my primary verified publications", has been added to the New Submissions page. It will appear at the top of the page if any pending submissions affect the logged-in moderator's primary verifications. If you run into any issues, please report them here. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2023 (EST)

Can Ellen Be Saved

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?291669; I just uploaded new cover but it didn't go to the same Wiki page and replace old cover, it just created a new page. --Username (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2023 (EST)

I added the new one to the pub and deleted the old one after verifying it was not used in any other pubs. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2023 (EST)

One New Message

"The following Contents titles have dates after the proposed publication date"; I got this message after submitting an edit for Tor ed. of G. Masterton's Mirror because month was April, not May, and cover art needed fixing in another edit. Is this new? I don't remember seeing that before. --Username (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2023 (EST)

This warning was implemented on July 31 as per FR 1569, "Add a warning when a changed pub date is before one of the title dates". Ahasuerus (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (EST)

Server issue?

Is there a server problem? I'm getting a 500 Internal Server Error message when trying to submit a Clone Publication. Phil (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2023 (EST)

Nevermind. I opened a new Clone the Pub tab and was able to submit the request successfully. Phil (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2023 (EST)

Log In

Why am I not logged in? Is there some new problem now? I see Username when I'm on the Wiki pages but the front page says "You are not logged in". EDIT: I got tired of waiting so I entered "Username" and "password" and that worked but a message popped up saying password was used in a data breach on Google or something like that. I don't know what's going on. Maybe someone can tell me if anyone else got that message or got logged out for no reason. I sincerely hope all of my info and edits and everything else that was there before I re-logged in is still exactly the same and nothing was changed/lost. --Username (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2023 (EST)

Old Edits

I'm trying to get my edits that have been sitting for months approved. I'll start with this, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5747517, which is just a simple change from a dead Google Drive link to one that works. Can someone approve this? --Username (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2023 (EST)

Approved by Nihonjoe. Thanks. --Username (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5747546; Just a simple cover image, Rudam said long ago in the thread "Rejected?" on his board that there's no need to ask about covers except for a couple of specific publishers. Can someone approve this? --Username (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (EST)
Approved by Nihonjoe. Thanks. --Username (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5749772; Just an archived link and an obvious format fix. Can someone approve this? --Username (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2023 (EST)
Changing the format is a major change and should not be approved unless the active verifiers have agreed. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5750346; Just an archived link and an obvious fix of LCCN in the note. Can someone approve this? --Username (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2023 (EST)
The active verifier has asked that he be contacted through the email system about changes. No indication in the edit that this was done, or what the response was. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5750954; Just a simple LCCN ID and cleanup of several misspellings in the note. Can someone approve this? --Username (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (EST)
Moderator note only states "cleaned up sloppy note" without specifying what was changed. Best to notify the verifier. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5757566; Just a simple note about the cover; it's on this page, https://vaultofevil.proboards.com/thread/3786/fred-pickersgill-graves-give. Can someone approve this? --Username (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2023 (EST)
This one is more of a judgement call. Personally I think it's too much information that is not germane to the publication. What does the soundtrack artist have to do with the book? I could have lived with something along the lines of "Cover is from the filmed version of 'The Female of the Species'". However, other moderators may differ. At a minimum, if we're going to go into this much detail, it should probably go below a {{BREAK}} tag. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:43, 29 November 2023 (EST)
Approved by JLaTondre. Thanks. --Username (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2023 (EST)

Popular Science

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5824080; I did add the archived link and the cover image but I didn't touch those reg. title art and story things so does anyone know why it says I did? --Username (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2023 (EST)

It is a kinda known issue with the software when titles contains special characters, especially older titles added before some of the latest changes in handling these from the last years (in this case it is the < that is throwing the fit. Because of that, the comparison for changes detects a change - even if there is none). Annie (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2023 (EST)

Title change with no PVs

I was getting ready to add the audiobook and CD editions to Steven Erikson's novel Rejoice but noticed that the correct title name should be Rejoice, a Knife to the Heart instead of just Rejoice. I looked at WorldCat, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, SFE, and Wikipedia, and in all cases except SFE, that is shown as the correct title. Would there be any objection to me changing the title to Rejoice, a Knife to the Heart? None of the publications have a PV. Phil (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2023 (EST)

The publisher also refers to it as 'Rejoice, A Knife to the Heart', here. John Scifibones 10:49, 5 December 2023 (EST)

SF Adventures Yearbook

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5827099; I can never remember which changes to names affect what, so if someone can approve this assuming artist change won't mess anything up with info on his page or whatever. Also, both PV are long-gone so someone may want to check and see if there are any little details that I missed which need correcting. --Username (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2023 (EST)

Looks good, submission approved. John Scifibones 11:01, 5 December 2023 (EST)

Liam Hogan versus Laim Hogan

Hi.

In working to add the story "Ana" by Liam Hogan in "The Best of British Science Fiction 2016", I need to add it's first publication in Scientific American, as noted in the "Best of British Science Fiction" copyright page and else on the internet at Scientific American.

I checked the author's name. There is no "Liam Hogan" currently in ISFDB, but there is a "Laim Hogan", the author of the 2019 short fiction "XX". "XX" is listed as published in "Best Indie Speculative Fiction: Volume Two, November 2019". Upon looking at that "Best Indie..." on Amazon, the preview shows "Liam Hogan" on both the cover and table of contents.

Upon checking further, the website https://happyendingnotguaranteed.blogspot.com/p/2014.html for Liam Hogan notes both "XX" and "Ana" as his stories.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if a moderator could correct this author's name in ISFDB to "Liam" Hogan. Once that is done, I'll add "Ana" in the Scientific American webzine.

Thanks. Dave888 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2023 (EST)

We do have Liam Hogan so I cannot rename Laim Hogan. Same guy I think? If so, the fastest solution is to just fix the author on the stray story. If not, I will be happy to differentiate them. Annie (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2023 (EST)
Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:47, 6 December 2023 (EST)
Thanks for fixing the author entry. Looks correct now. I'll go ahead and add the first publication for "Ana" now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave888 (talk • contribs) . 14:03, 6 December 2023‎ (EST)

A SHORTFICTION title incorporated into the body of a NONFICTION title

I am holding this submission, which would import Howard Koch's SHORTFICTION title The Invasion from Mars: A Radio Adaptation into the 2009 NONFICTION book Waging The War of the Worlds: A History of the 1938 Radio Broadcast and Resulting Panic, Including the Original Script. As the title of the NONFICTION book states, the text includes Koch's script, so normally it would make sense to approve the submission. However, the Notes field explains that:

  • Howard Koch's radio script is incorporated into the body of the book's main text, rather than being a separate essay.

Would you say that it makes sense to list the SHORTFICTION title as a Contents items in this pub? Or is it better presented as a part of the NONFICTION title? Ahasuerus (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2023 (EST)

My five cents: I'd say it makes sense if the piece is incorporated as a whole and without interruptions (of explaining notes). In the latter case the piece may only serve as a means to comment on Koch's unique handling (or something similar). Stonecreek (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2023 (EST)
If it's contained in its entirety and its content appears in proper order (whether or not contiguously), I am inclined to allow it. Technically, the work is published in the book. If it's not contiguous, the situation strikes me as similar to publications of "braided" stories. --MartyD (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2023 (EST)
Thanks, folks. I have approved the submission, notified the inactive primary verifier and updated Notes to clarify the situation. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2023 (EST)

Entries disappeared

At least four of my entries from the last few weeks have disappeared from the database. I looked for the new publication series page, Gruselkabinett, as I was going to add more, and it and the four books I entered in it are gone. They're audio books: Der Bluthund by H.P. Lovecraft, Die Weiden and Das unbewohnte Haus by Algernon Blackwood, and Die Toten sind unersättlich by Leopold Sacher-Masoch. Even a new author entry they generated has vanished, the artist on two of the titles, Johannes Belach. I have no idea if more of my entries have disappeared. -- MOHearn (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2023 (EST)

Checking submission history (a moderator-only menu option), I see the following:
I assume that Stonecreek deleted the 3 pubs listed above as per ISFDB:Policy, which says:
  • Included: audio books, i.e. readings, but not dramatizations
I'll ask Stonecreek to join this discussion. We'll need to make sure that we are all on the same page or else we'll be stuck in an endless cycle of some editors adding certain books and other editors deleting them. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2023 (EST)
Yes, I deleted them on the basis of the rule that dramatizations are not to be included. I stumbled over the entry for "Die Weiden" upon reading a review at 'phantastiknews.de' of the play, and found that the other entries for publications fell into the same category. (A good rule of thumbs for a first check is if there are more than one speakers for a piece, it is most likely that it is a dramatization). Christian Stonecreek (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (EST)
Thanks for the explanation. In the future, when you come across publication records for ineligible works (like dramatizations), please use Edit History to identify the original submitter(s) and discuss the issue with them first. That way they will be made aware of what is and is not eligible for inclusion and won't make the same type of mistake in the future. Without an explanation, they'll be either confused and frustrated when the data that they previously submitted disappears or they will continue adding ineligible records. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2023 (EST)

I should leave it at that, since Ahasuerus was a lot more measured than I could be right now over the situation. -- Martin MOHearn (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2023 (EST)

In the past, we didn't have Edit History, so it was hard to tell who did what when. Now that it's been available for almost three years, it should be the default tool used to figure out why something appears to be off and whether a discussion is warranted.
That said, old habits die hard. I still occasionally catch myself making a change, then realizing that I should have checked Edit History first. Hopefully, things will improve going forward. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2023 (EST)
My name was right there in the WorldCat verification on all four of those entries. MOHearn (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2023 (EST)
My apologies: I stiil have to adapt to making a direct notification: as with this case I came upon this while doing research for another author at the news site, and carried on with this other task after that to get it done in that specific setting.
And I didn't recall that the note left in the moderator's field wouldn't be easy to find. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2023 (EST)
(I'd love to add some really good audio plays to the database, but they are excluded, just like the ones you had added). Stonecreek (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2023 (EST)

Series Parent Position and Series Num fields

"Series Num" can have numbering that are not integers (e.g., 2.1, 2.2, etc.), but apparently the "Series Parent Position" field when editing series can only be integers. Can we change the field to allow non-integer numbering? This would allow subseries to be placed in the correct location with a larger series. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:40, 13 December 2023 (EST)

This functionality was requested in FR 1403, "Allow decimal numbers as Series Parent Position values". Unfortunately, it is much harder to implement than it looks. The way the "Series Number" field works for title records is rather involved; back when I implemented it, it took me weeks to get everything updated and debugged. Ahasuerus (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2023 (EST)
Sounds good. I'm glad it's on the list. Thanks for all your work on the backend of things. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:26, 14 December 2023 (EST)

Bibliographic information for Strange Tales

For the UK magazine Strange Tales edited by Walter Gillings I believe that the noted second printing of the first issue is just a variant cover. https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?618191

In George Locke's Spectrum of Fantasy, volume 1, page 3 he states as such. His examination of the two copies he had was that they were identical with the exception of two different covers. I would find it hard to believe that an attempt of a new publication which was dodging the fact it was a magazine would go into two printings, as there were still paper shortages after the War. The price on both covers is the same, one shilling net on one cover 1/- on the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwkbooks (talk • contribs) . 17:12, 21 December 2023‎ (EST)

Long time for approval?

Is it unusual if my relatively minor edits take two weeks or more to be approved? Thanks. Sfmvnterry (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2023 (EST)

Typically, it wouldn't take that long, but unfortunately, the "New Submissions" queue has been very long recently. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2023 (EST)
Thanks. Sfmvnterry (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2023 (EST)

Missing Clone

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5832571; What happened to the clone? It's not there. --Username (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2023 (EST)

The submission failed because one of the titles in the cloned publication, 2439970 (Intelligence and Luck), is no longer present. It appears that the title was merged in this edit which was submitted on November 21st and approved on December 12. I'm guessing that your clone submission was submitted within that time frame. When the merge was done, the other title record was the one that was kept, and 2439970 was deleted. You should be able to re-clone the container title and pick up the current contents including the merged title of that story. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:11, 29 December 2023 (EST)

Cover art weirdness

So browsing (as you do). I came across this cover art entry which seems, to my eye at least, an identical piece to this one. Any comments ?--Mavmaramis (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2023 (EST)

To my eye, these look identical. We would have to research the Maria Carella credit for the French ones. Likely Herve put on one and then carried that over into the other by cloning. The Tim Jacobus credit on the Doomsday Book covers seems clear (from copyright statement on hardcover's jacket flap). My first guess would be a misinterpretation of some sort of general artist credit on Le grand livre as referring to the cover instead of to interior artwork. --MartyD (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2023 (EST)
(after edit conflict) These are definitely based on the same cover art. The question then is whether the cover artist was really credited as "Maria Carella" in this J'ai Lu edition or whether it's a data entry error in our database. Checking Google, I see that J'ai Lu has used at least two other covers -- https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjbJRjGrF4EtBXromnm4E-mn-bwNjmriUiD9y_zEqCWxOsPAdQkITLtQ-6VzOAKbgq3b4&usqp=CAU and m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61mHPaZVmdL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg -- and it's possible that one of them was done by Maria Carella. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2023 (EST)
I did more research and found some pictures. In the original Bantam edition, the copyright page has "Book design by Maria Carella" (see here) and the rear flap says "Cover illustration © 1992 by Tim Jacobus" (see here). So I think the book design credit got conflated with cover artistry, either by J'ai Lu or someone else (if Herve did not have the books, his source might have been NooSFere, which credits the cover to Carella). Unless anyone disagrees, I will change the credit on the French ones and document the discrepancy with French secondary sources and probable source of the confusion. --MartyD (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2023 (EST)
Nice! I also wonder if Maria Carella was the cover artist or the cover designer for the first (1988) edition of Science Fiction: The Science Fiction Research Association Anthology. Our source is the Locus Index, which simply says "cover by Maria Carella". For what it's worth, the Internet Archive has the 1996 edition, which has a different cover, on file and its copyright page says "Design by Lynn Newark" -- never mind, it turns out that "Science Fiction: The Science Fiction Research Association Anthology" (1988) and "Visions of Wonder: the Science Fiction Research Association Anthology" (1996) are completely different. Even if we keep Maria Carella as the cover artist, we will want to change her working language from French to English. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2023 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/note_search_results.cgi?OPERATOR=contains&NOTE_VALUE=maria+carella; She's mentioned in 16 notes. --Username (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2023 (EST)
I made these adjustments: Maria Carella language to English. Le grand livre cover credit to Jacobus (+ variant to Doomsday Book cover). Added note to French cover and to the first of the French pubs about secondary sources crediting Carella but her being credited as book designer (and Jacobus as cover illustrator) in original Bantam edition. Added note to Bantam hc about the book design credit. I found some pictures of portions of the interior of that anthology, but they did not include the copyright or credits pages, so I couldn't conclude anything about that. --MartyD (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (EST)
Data entered exactly as on books 1994 on top, 1995 below, "illustration" having the same meaning in both langages, "de" meaning "by".Hauck (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (EST)
Well, that is quite clear, too, then. Then I guess we should have a "Maria Carella (in error)" as an alternate name then, with the above explanation, and the cover art with that credit as the variant. And no direct credit to Jacobus in the J'ai Lu editions. Does that sound correct to everyone? --MartyD (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2023 (EST)
Sounds good to me. I have the Bantam 1st ed hc and have checked it against the above discussion and concur. The book also states "Jacket design by Jamie S. Warren Youll" on rear flap which reinforces the statement that Maria Carella was only involved in the book design, not the cover. I have PVd the pub record and submitted this edit to add extra info and change the source of all the data to the actual book. Teallach (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2024 (EST)
Happy New Year, everyone. I have made the further adjustments I proposed above, and I accepted the changes to the Bantam edition. Please correct -- or let me know about -- anything that still is not as it should be. --MartyD (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2024 (EST)

New translations of Ursula K. Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness

A few days ago I posted 2 records for a 1981 and a 2002 edition of Pimeduse ahem käsi. the Estonian translation of The Left Hand of Darkness, and 2 images for their respective book covers. I realize it's the holiday season and that there's a backlog... I have a Bulgarian translation as well and I'd like to upload that, though I worry that I'm not doing it right. Also if there are any editors or moderators here with a particular interest in Le Guin I'd like to make your acquaintance. Cheers, Evertype (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (EST)

Hello and a happy new year, Evertype! I do think that I do fall into the category, as Le Guin is in the top three of my favourite authors. I have to admit that most of the copies I own contain German translations (and Jens' German collection seems to be even more complete, but nowadays he isn't so often around). I know there are lots of translations of her work missing (with Dutch, French & German seemingly well-covered). If you have any questions that you think I might be able to help in, just ping me on my talk page. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2024 (EST)

External ID: PPN

It seems that the Dutch National Library has changed its www address. Here it is "picarta.pica.nl/DB=3.9/" but doesn't work any more. The new one seems to be "picarta.oclc.org/psi/xslt/DB=3.9". Please have a look on that. Thank You. --Zapp (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2024 (EST)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2024 (EST)
It should be fixed now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2024 (EST)
The "PPN" template has been updated as well. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2024 (EST)

Charles Williams

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5873365; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5873368; Can I get these 2 edits approved? I was going to add the other book by the author mentioned in the F&SF essay but online photo says Charles Williams on title page; checking further revealed that it's the same for Rolling Pin. There's already a famous novelist of that name and an artist on ISFDB so what do you think this guy should be known as, maybe (I)? --Username (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2024 (EST)

Pages of deceased users

Would it be helpful or useful to block the user pages and talk pages of deceased users, so no edits or submissions can be made any more? Ahasuerus told me these pages viewed as something like memorials, so they should be left untouched. --Zapp (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2024 (EST)

Generally, we put the Deceased user template at the top of their pages so people know not to post comments or questions there. So far, I haven't seen a huge problem with simply leaving them as they are. If problems do occur, we can always lock the pages so only admins can edit them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:49, 27 January 2024 (EST)
Locking the Talk pages will cause confusion to newer editors who are directed to post on the PV's pages and if the first few they hit are ones of the ones we had lost - asking them to post there while they cannot will either make them never post anywhere or just get frustrated. Plus the pages that we want to preserve are the User pages, not the Talk pages. I'd argue that User pages should be locked for Admin and the user they belong to at all times but that will make life harder and we do not have too many issues so I never raised that up as a proposal. Annie (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2024 (EST)
I was only suggesting locking the pages if we ran into problems where someone was editing them maliciously and we needed a way to stop it. Pages can be locked from editing for a brief period of time, too, which is generally the only kind of locking that's needed. Only in extreme cases would a page need to be locked for more than a week or so. I do like the idea of locking the user page of deceased editors, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:13, 6 February 2024 (EST)
We are in agreement -- I was just mentioning that locking the Talk pages is going to cause other possible issues downstream (unlike User pages which can be safely locked without side effects). Annie (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2024 (EST)
Sounds good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:07, 6 February 2024 (EST)

Add link at the bottom of "Author Merge Update"

After two or more authors are merged, can we please add a link to the resulting record on the confirmation page (post approval). Now you need to either keep a record open or look for it again once the merge completes. (the script in question is cgi-bin/mod/aa_merge.cgi). Thanks! Annie (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2024 (EST)

FR 1591 has been created and implemented. Thanks for reporting the issue. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2024 (EST)
Now, that's quick fix - less than an hour between reporting and getting it live on the server ;) Thanks! Annie (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2024 (EST)

Lost Safari

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?648417; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5884004; PV used wrong cover so I uploaded right one from recent archived copy but they also added wrong uploaded wraparound image in the notes. Can someone approve my edit and then move the note over to the other edition? The record number doesn't make a difference to where the image points, I assume. --Username (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2024 (EST)

The note has been moved to the correct publication. Is the interior art the same for both publications? If so, merge the two tile records. If not, we need a note on each and a do not merge warning. John Scifibones 11:33, 16 February 2024 (EST)

Shattered Lens

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5892580; After checking further it turns out the correct title I fixed "Tears" to was used for the story's reprint in a magazine a few years later. After approval will the titles merge on their own or will it need to be done manually? If manual, can someone approve this so I can merge before I forget? --Username (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2024 (EST)

Approved. You need to merge them. Submit and I'll approve. John Scifibones 11:13, 16 February 2024 (EST)
Merged. --Username (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2024 (EST)
All done. John Scifibones 11:19, 16 February 2024 (EST)

Roman Numerals

https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Username#The_Year.27s_Best_Horror_Stories:_XIX; It won't make much difference to my PV because I only have about 50 but I can foresee trouble with others if he starts adding Roman where they don't belong. This is a common problem with other editors, too, where they add Roman even though the numbering goes straight from Roman to non-Roman. A LOT of DAW Books, for example, have unnecessary numbers entered. --Username (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2024 (EST)

From the help, bullet point 2 under Pages:
  • "When a book has a section with Roman numeral page numbers for introductory material, followed by Arabic numerals for the main text of the book, enter both sets of numbers. For example, a book with a page count field of "viii+320" has "viii" as the highest numbered page with a Roman numeral. (Note that there are no spaces in the page count.) Pages without numbers that fall between the two types of page numbering can be ignored. Note that you should include the enumeration of the pages in Roman numerals even if there is no material that requires a separate content record (such as an introduction or preface) in those pages. This is in contrast with the situation with unnumbered pages prior to page 1; see the following bullet point for what to do in that case."
This ebay.com listing shows Roman numerals as this submission suggests. John Scifibones 10:06, 22 February 2024 (EST)
If I understand that correctly then I disagree and you can find many instances on the boards here where mods tell editors to enter Roman only if the book doesn't continue the numbering straight into the Arabic. That's the way I enter Roman (except possibly for my early edits where I wasn't sure what I was doing) and so do many others. This has led to a lot of confusion. For example, this record's notes, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?629077, mention this situation and only Arabic were entered while the notes here, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?979406, are similar but both Roman and Arabic were entered. I'm sure there are countless other examples. So nobody seems sure what the right way to do it is but if one has really been decided on then that would entail fixing thousands and thousands of records where they were entered the other way. That would be a huge task. --Username (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2024 (EST)
For my own understanding's sake: The situation being discussed here is a contiguous set of pages, ending on Arabic-numeral'ed 366, but where the first fourteen pages are Roman-numeral'ed i - xiv and the remaining three hundred fifty-two are Arabic-numeral'ed 15 - 366? If that is the case, I don't think the help covers this scenario. While the second bullet does seem to call for entering the highest Roman numeral plus the highest Arabic numeral, the third bullet also talks about counting backwards from the first "numbered page to see which is page 1". That would technically mean page i is also page 1, and there is no introductory material before page 1. The second bullet seems to assume the numbering of the pages for introductory material does not overlap the numbering of the pages for the main text, which is not the case here. Recording xiv+366 would record the numbering accurately but would completely distort the page count, which is that the Pages field is all about. I would record this as Pages = 366 with a note that the main text starts on p. 15 and the pages prior to that are numbered i - xiv, just as I would record it with Pages = 366 and a note that the text starts on numbered p. 15 if there were no numbered pages before it with any relevant content. --MartyD (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2024 (EST)
Ah. Pages. My favourite subject. :-)
I agree that the Help Notes do not cover this scenario adequately. I doubt the scenario was considered when the Notes were written. Consequently, past editors have just done what they think best at the time. As Username correctly states, no matter what we decide here, there is a legacy problem of all the existing inconsistent records which will be almost impossible to reconcile. I also agree that an explanatory pub note in this situation should be mandatory.
However, that is where my "agreements" end. In this example, Pages should be recorded as xiv+366. Under the Help for Pages, the bullet point starting "When a book has a section with Roman numeral page numbers" unambiguously states that both Roman and Arabic Numerals should be entered. The following bullet point, starting "Sometimes a publication will have unnumbered pages before page 1" is not applicable to this scenario because there are no unnumbered pages before page 1.
Although xiv+366 does distort the page count, this argument does not hold water because it is existing ISFDb policy that we do distort the page count. See this How To under the bullet point starting "Approximation:"
Another feature I like about using xiv+366 occurs in the situation where there is recordable content in the Roman Numeral pages. Suppose there is a map on page vi. Then vi would be entered as the start page of the map in the Contents section. It would look really illogical and inconsistent if the Pages field for the publication merely contained 366. Teallach (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (EST)
This discussion has stalled. There have been no comments for more than three weeks and there is no consensus. The current tally is 2 (Scifibones, Teallach) in favour of specifying Pages as Roman+Arabic (xiv+366 in this example) versus 2 (MartyD, Username) in favour of specifying Pages as just Arabic (366 in this example). This issue was initiated by Faustus here but he appears to be abstaining.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this subject so that we can establish a consensus and form a rule?
There is an alternative option which is to deliberately not have a rule at all and just leave the specification of Pages in this situation at the discretion of the first PVer of the publication. This is not my preferred solution but I have some sympathy with this approach. If we establish a rule then, whichever way it goes, there will be a legacy issue. It will result in potentially thousands of historic records that were created "wrongly" and which cannot be systematically detected or corrected. However, if we just live with the inconsistency then there is no legacy issue. Teallach (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Scifibones and Teallach that the page count should be xiv+366 along with a note indicating that there is a switch from Roman to Arabic numbers with the last Roman number as "--" and the first Arabic number as "nn". I doubt that there are really a huge number of historic records that fit this exact edge case - but of course I could be guessing wrong. Phil (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
Sorry, I haven't changed my opinion, but one other note: There is a sort of precedent in the Magazine page numbering bullet, where if the page numbering is continuous across issues, the printed page numbers are relegated to the notes and the actual page count is used in Pages. Granted, it is not the identical situation, but the spirit of the example is not to have Pages = 384 where the pub has only 192 pages. 380 vs. 366 is not so extreme, but to me 380 is still misleading. --MartyD (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
MartyD, I do not see the relevance of your point. It only applies to magazines. The ISFDb treats the Pages field differently for books and magazines. This is well established in this howto which starts:
"Important notes"
"1. Please note that this howto is for books only (hardcovers, paperbacks, trade paperbacks), not for other types like magazines."
and goes on to specify much information and examples that only apply to the Pages field for books. This includes the bullet point starting "Approximation:" which is very relevant to this discussion as it confirms that the value that goes in the Pages field for books is not necessarily the same as the number of pages you would get by manual counting. Teallach (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (EDT)
Yes, I am aware of all of that. I am only pointing out that one of the rules already accounts for a situation where using the printed page numbers as a basis would grossly misrepresent the number of pages in the publication. Regardless of our personal opinions, probably the best thing to do for this non-magazine situation is to figure out what other bibliographic sources do and, if there is a consensus, have that be the ISFDB standard. But THAT is a discussion for the R&S page. The conclusion I draw from the discussion here is that two different methods are used, with many instances of each, and the help is unclear. To me that means if a current pub was entered using either scheme, that scheme should not be changed to the other scheme until a single scheme is settled on and the help is clarified. --MartyD (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2024 (EDT)
I am surprised by your suggestion. Firstly, the numbering method we are discussing is unusual. So other bibliographic sources that denote page numbering are unlikely to specifically address this situation. Secondly, all aspects of a system need to integrate and be internally consistent. So it will probably not be possible to extract one aspect of a foreign system and adopt in into the different ISFDb system.
Nevertheless, there is of course no harm in looking at what other bibliographic sources do. So if you think this is the right way to go, please investigate and report back with your findings.
I agree that where this situation occurs in existing ISFDb pub records, the scheme should not be changed until we have decided on the rule we are going to use. Teallach (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2024 (EDT)

[unindent] Stalled again, but here's my two cents; reading the relevant rules text, there's mention of page 'count' - so, clearly the intent is to record the number of pages. In the example used above, this would lead to a count of 15 + 366, instead of the correct count of 366 (disregarding possibility to clarify in the notes for the moment). Now, we have two conflicting requirements, and those are 1) use the field to record the page 'count, and 2) use the field to record whether pages are roman, latin, or unnumbered. It is clear from preceding discussion that in certain circumstances both usages are in conflict with each other. Since the rules' intent is to record count, in this case the 'correct' entry would be 366, while relegating the extra info that numbering starts with roman numerals and continues with arabic numerals to the notes field. For me this would be the preferred way as it adheres closest to the intent of the rules. Not sure on how to rewrite the rules to make this clear (if we ever reach a consensus, that is...) MagicUnk (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

my twopennorth (2d not -/2). I dont think it matters which way you decide to do it so long as everybodys singing from the same hymn sheet, the help page instructions are nice and clear with a instruction saying that you have to put a explanation in the notes. - Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2024 (EDT)
Following my own suggestion, I decided to see what other bibliographic sources use for page count. In this example:
  • LoC: 366 p
  • Locus1: 366pp
  • WorldCat: 366 pages
And some other sites:
  • Amazon: 368 pages (marching to its own drummer... -MD)
  • Fantlab: Страниц: 366
  • Google Books: Page count: 366
I randomly picked an example where we have Roman + Arabic numerals and can see the Arabic section starts at "1". In this example, the prefatory material ends on page numbered xvii, and the main text is on pages numbered 1 - 651. For that:
  • LoC: xvii, 651 p
  • Locus1: 651pp
  • WorldCat: xvii, 651 pages
And some other sites:
  • Amazon: 651 pages (note: probably seller-entered, not from publisher. -MD)
  • Fantlab: Страниц: 668
  • Google Books: Page count: 651
I grant that two data points do not prove anything, but this does suggest that common practice is to ignore Roman-vs.-Arabic for page count purposes unless that page count does not already incorporate the Roman-numbered pages. That seems like common sense to me. --MartyD (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2024 (EDT)
MartyD: When you stated in your post 2024-03-17 that in your opinion "the best thing to do for this non-magazine situation is to figure out what other bibliographic sources do" I was expecting you to examine other bibliographic sources for their policy statements regarding how they handle this numbering method. In my reply 2024-03-19 I stated "... the numbering method we are discussing is unusual. So other bibliographic sources that denote page numbering are unlikely to specifically address this situation". Without a specific policy statement, records in other bibliographic sources have probably been entered inconsistently, exactly as has happened in the ISFDb. Consequently, plucking examples of records from other bibliographic sources has no value. Teallach (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2024 (EDT)

Pandemic

Since the CDC officially ended its Covid-19 declaration in May of 2023 the note on our front page about forthcoming books possibly being delayed by the pandemic should be removed. Any delays now are due to other reasons. --Username (talk) 08:03, 29 February 2024 (EST)

There are still some businesses that are operating with pandemic restrictions in place, though through their own choice rather than a government mandate. I agree that there are only a few of those, however. It would probably be good to drop the notification. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:41, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
Good points. Annie, who does a great deal of work on Forthcoming Books, reports that things are still not as stable as they used to be, so perhaps we should change the note to something like "Information based on pre-publication data and subject to change". Ahasuerus (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
I like the new wording. Even though Forthcoming Books should be self-explanatory, having it spelled out does not hurt. Annie (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
That wording is definitely better, and will be less likely to need changing in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:58, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
Done. The Top Forthcoming note will be updated on Sunday morning when the weekly reports run. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2024 (EDT)

Hound Dog

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5909601; Can someone approve this if they agree all my additions/changes are correct? Whoever entered author info spelled legal first name wrong so it needs fixing and I'm not sure if the info will be there with the name change per book's title page or if a mod has to do it from the author's record or something or other. --Username (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (EST)

Done. I moved the info from the old author record to the new record, correcting that spelling error. I also fixed the review to refer to the M.-less name, so the old record went away due to no further references. --MartyD (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2024 (EST)

George W. Barlow

Bonjour, je vous contacte pour l'article concernant mon père George W. Barlow Il y a quelques corrections et compléments qu'il voudrait apporter : Concernant sa biographie : il est né à Le Havre en Seine Maritime et non à Grenoble (où il vit) il a fréquenté l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de la rue d'Ulm et en est sorti Agrégé d'Anglais Vous trouverez ces données biographique en quatrième de couverture dans l'ouvrage que vous citez : La Science-Fiction (1987) (avec ANDREVON Jean-Pierre et GUIOT Denis) M.A. Editions, Le monde de... n° 39, 1987. Concernant sa bibliographie : -vous pouvez rajouter le roman « Antéros » publié en 2012 chez EONS collection Fantasy n°140 et republié ensuite à compte d'auteur chez The BookEdition sous le titre « Antéros et chimères »

Je me tiens à votre disposition pour tout complément d'informations et vous saurais gré de me tenir informée de la suite que vous donnez à mon courrier.

Très cordialement.

Catherine Matheron/Barlow —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catalpa (talk • contribs) .

Series ordering help

Hi all. I could use some help with this discussion about ordering within one specific title series. The publisher, and other sources, refer to each title's place relative to the others using the publication order. Our current series ordering reflects that. The editor feels rather strongly that the series ordering should instead reflect the internal chronology of the stories. I am afraid I may be biased, so I could use some other opinions (or even more definitive guidance, if I have misinterpreted something). Thanks. --MartyD (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

I prefer publication order (except for some prequels that can go at 0 or novellas and stories that fall in between novels to get in their places)... We have it like that in Foundation for example - with the two prequels at the end of the list even if they are chronologically first. If an editor insists on doing something else and they are willing to document and show sources where that other order is used and it is the common way the series is numbered online/in sources, I would consider it. But if the publisher and most other sources refer to the order in a different way, it just confuses things. As we cannot show two different sorting ways, editors are welcome to add Notes on the series page with the chronological order if they want...
In this case, I am with you - leave it at publication order, add a note for the chronological order - mainly because this is the order that people usually use outside of our DB. Annie (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Annie, for the same reasons given by Annie. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
If current policy is not changed, there is no basis for rejecting Piedro01's two submissions. However, I also favor changing policy along the lines Annie spelled out. That's what I have always used, not realizing I could be outside policy. John Scifibones 13:29, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
Out of curiosity - which policy do you think that the current order of that series (and Foundation) contradict and needs changing for them to be "in policy"? If you are saying that we technically do not have a policy and either way can be considered correct (so the submissions are approvable because of that), then the overall policy of ISFDB (we document what we see/find, we do not invent) is in favor of leaving them as they are based on almost all other sources using the current order. Plus I also favor "first editor decision stands within reason" in ambiguous situation because nothing prevents another editor from changing them back next week and that will also have to be approved if this one is approved if it does not contradict policy (with both being correct, that process can happen a lot of time). If I am misreading what you are saying, can you clarify? Annie (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
I do notice upon further review that the section of help cited goes on to say this: Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error. Any series with this sort of ambiguity in internal ordering should have the sequence worked out on the Community Portal. This includes prequels, which can be listed first in the series, before the main entries; or listed after the main entries; ... So I suppose what ordering to use for this series should be brought up for debate on the Community Portal. --MartyD (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
The first line of the applicable help clearly states a precedence for reading order. Look at the Assiti Shards (1632) series. Compare the current publication based order to the suggested reading order (1632.org link in series record). Remove the implied precedence from the help and I'm fine. John Scifibones 14:13, 13 March 2024 (EDT)
Reading order is not the same as chronological order though - I'd argue that for most series, including this one, publishing order is the reading order (mainly because of spoilers and what's not that tend to creep into later novels publishing-wise which are set earlier on a chronology). Annie (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (EDT)

(unindent) First, let me copy the relevant part of Template:TitleFields:SeriesNum here so that we would all be on the same page:

  • Series Number - If you know the order in which the titles in the series are supposed to be read, you can number them starting with 1. You can use decimal numbers like 4.5 to place a title between the titles numbered 4 and 5. No Roman numerals (like I or IV) or letters (like "1a" or "A") are allowed. Please note that some series are very linear (e.g. Harry Potter) and it's easy to tell how to assign series number to individual entries. Other series can have multiple possible numbering schemes reflecting the series' publication order, internal chronological order, intended publication order, "author recommended" order, etc. Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error. Any series with this sort of ambiguity in internal ordering should have the sequence worked out on the Community Portal. This includes prequels, which can be listed first in the series, before the main entries; or listed after the main entries; or even split into a separate series which then becomes a subseries in a superseries comprising both the original series and the prequels.

When Scifibones wrote that "the first line of the applicable help clearly states a precedence for reading order" he presumably meant:

  • If you know the order in which the titles in the series are supposed to be read, you can number them starting with 1.

That being said, as others have said, "reading order" can be ambiguous. One of the better known examples is Neal Asher's Polity universe. The author's Web page says:

  • The consensus of opinion I have gleaned from social media, is that you should start either right at the beginning with Prador Moon and then follow through chronologically, or you should read the first two series I wrote.

In this case even the author wasn't sure what the best reading order would be and had to consult his fans to come up with possible paths. This ambiguity is already addressed in the Help language above where it says that:

  • series can have multiple possible numbering schemes reflecting the series' publication order, internal chronological order, intended publication order, "author recommended" order, etc. Please don't change pre-existing numbering schemes unless you are sure that they are in error.

So the first sentence of Template:TitleFields:SeriesNum privileges "reading order" compared to other possible numbering schemes, but the section quoted immediately above effectively takes it back. We should probably clarify Help, which will require a Rules and Standards discussion.

Also, this Help template doesn't inform editors that prequels can be entered either using "0.1", "0.5", etc or as separate sub-series.

For now, I would suggest a Community Portal discussion as per the Help section that Marty quoted. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2024 (EDT)

Thanks for all of the feedback. I have made that suggestion to the editor and have also offered to make the post if he is not comfortable doing so. --MartyD (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2024 (EDT)

Worlds of If confusion

There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding magazines in this series, such as the title, who should be listed as an editor, and so on. Please see these submissions:

There's also these entries where people are complaining about the order of author names in our listings. Perhaps we should add a FAQ entry for this so we can point to it in the future? I know we often change the order (I think it's alphabetical?), but I can't find any documentation about it.

Thoughts? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:07, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Re: author ordering, Help:Screen:NewPub says:
  • Collaborations. If a work has multiple authors, it doesn't matter in which order you enter them. The ISFDB does not record author order regardless of how the authors are entered.
Changing the database layout to support author ordering would be a massive undertaking. We would also need to do a fair amount of preliminary design work to figure out how different types of collaborations are to be ordered.
If this is a commonly asked question, we could add it to ISFDB:FAQ. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
I knew it was somewhere. Thanks! I think that might be a good idea, especially since we have a few different editors here asking about the name order. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:33, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
Done! Ahasuerus (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
In my opinion, These are the necessary changes.
  • Publication title - "Worlds of If, February 2024" is correct.
  • Editor: I would only credit 'Justin T. O'Conor Sloane' who is the editor-in-chief. This is how I credit all the other periodicals they publish. Judging by the some of the notes to mod, they don't understand why we have changed.
  • The date is wrong - should be 2024-02. See how to date periodicals.
  • Format - (5.5 x 0.2 x 8.5 inches) is tp if perfect-bound or octavo if saddle-stapled.
  • Notes - The ISSN does not belong in the publication record, it is for the magazine. I put it in the series record. I would remove the note re: the exact date. FWIW, it was available 2024-02-21 from Amazon. Not sure what date Jean-Paul L. Garnier is citing. Regardless, the exact date is irrelevant to how we date periodicals.
  • Missing ASIN - B0CW3LM95L
  • Both "From the Editors" titles are lacking the proper disambiguation. I don't let the fact that there are two of these influence how we credit the Editor. We have periodicals with more than one editorial, but the issue is credited to the editor-in-chief only.
  • Incorrect author attribution - 'A J Dalton' s/b A. J. Dalton.
  • Remove weblink from title record.
  • Title record date s/b 2024. This is the 'rollup record for all 2024 issues.
I'll be glad to take care of this if you like. John Scifibones 15:25, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
If you'd like to, that's fine. It almost seems like several people who know each other are all submitting "corrections" for the same thing. And it may be good to clarify which editors get listed. At least one person is stating they list deputy or assistant editors, which I've never done myself (and you've never done, given your comments), so there is apparently some confusion over that, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:33, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
We could also document assistant editors, associate editors, department editors, and any other people related to the magazine on the magazine's Series page or on a linked Wiki page. Consider Series:Air Wonder Stories, which lists a variety of people: publisher, president, secretary, treasurer, members of an academic "advisory panel", etc. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
I thought we didn't want to create wiki pages, but instead try to incorporate all relevant information in the DB itself? John did a good job if you ask me, obsoleting need for additional wiki page? MagicUnk (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
You can still use ISFDB Wiki pages, but you need to explicitly link to them from the database side using the "Web Page(s)" field. They are typically used when the editor wants to use images, e.g. photos of the copyright page, and/or an elaborate page layout. In the case of Series:Air Wonder Stories there is so much information that a separate Wiki page may be a better option than cluttering the database-side Series page. The main downside is that Wiki pages are not a part of the public backups. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
Here are the updated Series record , Publication record and Title record. I was going to reject the pending submissions referring to this conversation, but you are holding them. I incorporated a couple changes referred to in these edits. John Scifibones 16:51, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
I've rejected them with a note referring to this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:59, 18 March 2024 (EDT)
I did the initial review & accepted the submission & corrected some of the most obvious mistakes & errors at about the same time John did some updates. Some thoughts (top of my head, so may be mistaken - haven't been very much involved last two years...):
  • Can agree with most of above, except for whom to credit as editor(s). Not unambiguously stated that deputy editor can't be listed as co-editor? Would clarify in rules if majority deems that useful
  • Currently, I classified the pub as Worlds of If (relaunch), subseries of the original. We may want/need to revisit?
  • Agree, to clarify order of authors is irrelevant
  • We may want to revisit how we name art - I recall there was a discussion a while back on the rules forum to clarify about same. I have recently accepted a number of publications where art was entered with title as it appeared in the pub, not sure at all that is correct in all cases...
MagicUnk (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2024 (EDT)

Review of Contemporary Fiction vs The Review of Contemporary Fiction

The magazine title Review of Contemporary Fiction is the same magazine as The Review of Contemporary Fiction. I don't know which version should be considered the "canonical" title; the cover art for various issues appears to usually have the title "The Review" (Fall 1996, Summer 2002, etc), but the archived magazine publisher website at Dalkey Archive and Wikipedia title the magazine "Review." The ISSN Portal includes both Review and The Review. Either way, I'm hoping there's a way to merge the magazine titles and their related records rather than needing to change each publication record individually. —Morebooks (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (EDT)

We should go with whatever is used on the masthead. If that's not available, then whatever is used on the cover. It's okay to have slightly different titles within the same series, too. You can see that here, where the magazine changed their title a few times over the years. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:18, 20 March 2024 (EDT)
I don't have the magazine issue(s) at hand to check their masthead. Since the 2 issues we have catalogued so far both have "The Review" on their cover, and since there doesn't appear to be a way to merge series, I'm going to change the series title to The Review on the non-matching publication. Since it's a non-genre publication, I'm also changing the editor name from Editors of Review of Contemporary Fiction to Editors of The Review of Contemporary Fiction--but I'm putting that in a separate submission, so it can be rejected if it's the wrong move. Morebooks (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2024 (EDT)

Stonecreek's Self-Approver Status

User:Stonecreek was made a moderator on 2011-09-28. After a number of issues with his moderation of other editors' submissions, e.g. this incident in November 2019, Stonecreek was asked to limit his activities to self-moderation in April 2020 (we didn't have the current self-approver system in place at the time.) He agreed to it, although he didn't always abide by the terms of the agreement, which he was warned about:

Please do not change the data in recently added/edited records without discussing it with the moderator who approved the submission. Doing so effectively circumvents the agreement and leaves both the approving moderator and the submitting user out of the loop.
These issues have been occurring for a long time now. Please make sure that they do not re-occur or else I will have to take administrative action.

Stoncreek's moderation privileges were revoked on 2021-03-07 after this discussion, which revealed a pattern of adding unsubstantiated first edition statements to publication records.

When the current self-approver system was implemented in April 2021, Stonecreek wrote:

I know that my impatience did get the better part of me, but this April has taught ma to be patient by having to wait for the approvals. I'd either only concentrate on correcting my faults & 'my' publications or if there'd be more allowed I'll definitely not reject any submissions or 'better' others without communication.
I have gone wrong in not recognizing or even hurting some peoples feelings.

Based on these promises, Stonecreek was made a self-approver on 2021-04-13.

Stonecreek's self-approver privileges were revoked in June 2022 after he had changed data against a previously reached agreement, which caused a major disturbance. In September 2022 he asked to have his self-approver privileges restored and promised:

I have also learned my lesson and will not repeat my fads & fallacies of earlier. There also will be more communication upon planned actions from my side.

and:

I've been somewhat short-tempered (and even unfair & wrong to you) before. Apparently I've been a hothead regarding some things that didn't work out the way I thought they should.

The consensus was to give Stonecreek another chance and his self-approver privileges were restored.

In May 2023 I warned Stonecreek about changing primary verified pubs without notifying the primary verifier. In December 2023 he deleted multiple pubs entered by another editor without contacting that editor. He was right to delete the pubs because they were out of scope for the project (audio dramatizations), but I once again had to explain that he needed to communicate with other editors

Without an explanation, they'll be either confused and frustrated when the data that they previously submitted disappears or they will continue adding ineligible records.
I explained about that: stumbling over a review of those title being audio plays I remembered to have seen the publications in question, researched even more to find this was right and deleted them, but missed out to check who added them (and who aproved it). Stonecreek (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

Between 2024-03-18 and 2024-03-20 the following issues were documented on Stonecreek's Talk page:

2024-03-18: Changing a primary-verified publication without consulting its active primary verifier.

According to the editor in question that was cheerfully resolved (as I took that an audio book wouldn't have a separate title page: none of the ones I own does have one). Stonecreek (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

2024-03-19: Adding an invalid "Assumed first printing" statement without checking even basic resources like Amazon UK.

I will not do that again. Stonecreek (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

2024-03-20: Removing valid data recently entered by an active editor without consulting the editor.

Which was caused by missing notes from where the price information does stem: Another reason I am all in favor of giving the sources. Stonecreek (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

n 2024-03-20: Changing the date of a NOVEL title recently entered by another editor in contravention of how SERIAL/NOVEL dating is supposed to work as per Help and without discussing it with the editor who entered the data. His defense was that "it was in line with the bulk of other titles of the series".

These titles are more likely NOVELLAs than NOVELs (nobody has done a word count or an estimate for them upon adding them; I'll do that for a sample as soon as I have the copies) and the original dates are stated in the publication in question (and the dating of other titles in the series were of no concern when moderators previously edited publications with titles of the series). Stonecreek (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

These are the same types of issues that I warned Stonecreek about in March 2021 as quoted above:

Please do not change the data in recently added/edited records without discussing it with the moderator who approved the submission. [It] leaves both the approving moderator and the submitting user out of the loop. ... These issues have been occurring for a long time now.

Based on this recurring pattern, I have revoked Stonecreek's self-approver privileges. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2024 (EDT)

All in all, I do think that the quality of our database still has to improve, especially in the areas of determining the actual length (NOVELLA vs. NOVEL) of texts that may be either one with a certain likelihood: our standard is quite clear, but many publishers do advertise novels when the published are of considerable shorter length. For instance, I was working massively on the works of R. L. Stine whose majority of texts are NOVELLAs but got indexed as NOVELs. I have begun with his 'Goosebumps' series and would like to work further on the whole author page (but I do think that's rather not handable without self-approver privileges).
I see that I do have to improve my carefulness: being myself not too touched by erroneous alterings of my edited or PVed publications, I do tend towards thinking that others are thinking the same way. After all, new knowledge leads to the need of adapting the existing records: that's how ISFDB works (and is intended I think). Christian Stonecreek (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (EDT)

User pages: how do we define "advertising"?

Earlier today User:Username added a large political campaign button to his User page. Help:Wiki Conventions has the following to say about User pages:

  • Users are generally free to place almost anything on a user page or user page subpage, subject to What the ISFDB Wiki is not, and the general rule that "The Wiki is a support tool for the ISFDB, and should not be used for anything that is not appropriate for that purpose."
  • While a user page may, indeed often will, describe a user's off site activities, including the user's professional activities, it should not be used for anything that seems like advertising.

What the ISFDB Wiki is not says:

  • The ISFDB Wiki ... should not be used to publish advertisements or announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions.

I am thinking that political campaign buttons fall under the "anything that seems like advertising" clause and thus should not appear on User pages. Thoughts? Ahasuerus (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2024 (EDT)

I'd agree with that. I'd even suggest adding something along the lines of "no political campaigning or promotion". I'm sure better wording than that could be created, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:17, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
I added that because the previous image I added long ago went down and was replaced by some fake spyware site so I looked for a replacement; first one was much too big, stretching across several screens, so I replaced it with the nicely-sized button. If it offends your left-wing sensibilities so greatly I'll find another one that won't trigger you. --Username (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
Done. --Username (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
You know nothing about my sensibilities. I'd think the same thing if it was a button for Biden, that guy in Argentina (I can never remember how to spell his name), Macron, Trudeau, Putin, or anyone else. My opinion has nothing to do with any specific political party or belief in any specific country. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:48, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
The issue at hand is whether images of political campaign buttons -- or campaign T-shirts, mugs, etc -- count as "advertising" for the purposes of the ISFDB Wiki. As mentioned above, What the ISFDB Wiki is not says:
  • The ISFDB Wiki ... should not be used to publish advertisements or announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions.
My take on it is that if a politician or a public official had an ISFDB User page, an informational statement like "Governor of Freedonia. Running for re-election in 2024." would be OK, but a campaign button or announcements of fundraisers would be too close to "advertising" to be acceptable. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
I agree. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:48, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
I also agree. I also think that endorsing anyone is effectively advertisement as well so any "vote for XXX" or anything in that vein (as an image or as text) is against the policy. Annie (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
Look, people, I wasn't trying to endorse anyone, my old image which had been there for a while was broken for some reason so I replaced it with one that was much too big leading to me adding the button because the size was just right. I have now replaced that with a simple T-shirt. Let it go. There are currently 207 pending non-held edits of which nearly 150 are mine. Approving them is what's important. I don't remember ever seeing a photo on anyone else's page so I doubt most people care enough to add one, endorsement or not. --Username (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
Buttons, t-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, yard signs -- they are all standard advertising tools commonly used by political campaigns. Our current policy doesn't allow "advertisements or announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions", which political advertising counts as.
If we allow advertising associated with one political campaign appear on User pages, there will be nothing stopping other users from displaying political images associated with other election or issues-oriented campaigns. We could end up with User pages supporting or opposing different sides in international wars, religious/social/ethnic movements and so on. It would cause nothing but damage to the project. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
I think there should be a distinction between a User page and the rest of the Wiki. It's not codified, but to me a User page is the place where a member of the ISFDB community presents oneself to the rest of the community. It's reasonable for that content to include references to non-bibliographic/non-spec-fic interests, where "references" might be not just text but images, links to other sites, etc. Granted, there's a line there somewhere, where providing additional material about oneself and one's interests would cross over into "advertising" in the sense of promoting those things, but I think the ISFDB policy ought to be lenient on where that line lies. --MartyD (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
Would you say that the current Help:Wiki Conventions language quoted above:
  • While a user page may, indeed often will, describe a user's off site activities, including the user's professional activities, it should not be used for anything that seems like advertising.
covers what you are describing or do you think it should be expanded/amended? Ahasuerus (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
I think there needs to be a tie-in to the individual. It's one thing to say you're Vegan, a bit more to have a link to a Vegan site you participate in or a Vegan recipe site you have enjoyed and quite another to link to a site showing abattoirs (unless it's one you worked in?). That said, would a Nike logo be over the line if you wore them? ../Doug H (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (EDT)
A slippery slope is that "seems like advertising" is subjective. "Seems like advertising" to whom, and what is "advertising"? FWIW, I looked at all of the revisions of the page cited at the top, and "advertising" didn't even cross my mind; I just saw them as a graphic illustrating/emphasizing some of the self-description provided. In fact, the T-shirt one made me chuckle and seemed somewhat apropos for a bibliographic site, although I do have a warped sense of humor.... On my own User page, I have had for 14 years now a link to another site that interests me and I'm happy to try to socialize. Taking a harsh view, my posting of that link seems to be much closer advertising/promotion than the inclusion of any of those images, yet no one has ever complained about it despite ample time to do so. So what's the difference? --MartyD (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
In the greater scheme of things, I don't particularly care what people post on their main User page (legal and common decency considerations aside). I am in no way obligated to visit a User page during the course of any ISFDB-related activities. If I happen to visit one with material that bothers me, then I would not return to it. --MartyD (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (EDT)
I have been thinking about these points for the last few days. They seem to raise a couple of separate issues.
The first one is "What is advertising?" The current Help language disallows "announcements of events, even if SF-related, such as conventions". It may be taken as disallowing links to SF convention sites, which does seem excessive. Thinking back to the mid-late 2000s, I think (emphasis on "think") that the main goal of the Help language above was to prevent ISFDB users from turning their User pages into collections of links to commercial sites, which is, apparently, a common spamming trick. Spammers first incorporate links to third party sites into obscure Web pages on legitimate sites (like ours) and then use them as part of whatever spam activities they perform. ISFDB:Policy already bans this type of behavior:
  • Spamming commercial information (gambling, porn, links, etc) will result in an immediate indefinite blocking of the user
so perhaps the "no advertising on User pages" rule is not needed.
The second issue is "legal and common decency considerations". ISFDB:Policy already disallows "obscenities", but "decency" is a trickier issue. To pick a random obscure example, Suriname and Guyana have been at loggerheads over the Tigri Area for generations. Should we prevent users from using their User pages to promote their chosen side's cause? If not, then at what point does issue advocacy violate "common decency considerations"? Something like "Death to X" is presumably a step too far, but where do we draw the line?
I think the larger issue, as mentioned earlier, is that the world has always been full of territorial, ethnic, political, religious and ideological conflicts, which can easily invade ISFDB User pages and cause tensions between editors. I would like to see some way to prevent it from happening, but perhaps the currently existing "advertising" language is not the best way to do it.
In any event, perhaps this is something that we may need to discuss on the Rules and Standards page as opposed to the Moderator Noticeboard. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2024 (EDT)

Complicated magazine addition: Shall I cancel and redo in smaller pieces?

Hi, folks—I have a pending submission of a new magazine entry for an issue of The Little Magazine, but my submission had a whole bunch of uncertainties in it, which I suspect is why it hasn’t been approved. I was looking at that submission again, and it occurred to me that I could cancel that submission and instead enter that magazine issue as a few separate submissions that would be less of a mess and easier to review—for example, I could start by talking with the verifiers about changing the existing listing for the Russ story (“Old Pictures”) from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION, and then after that’s resolved, I could enter the magazine issue with just the Russ and Delany pieces, and then after that I could add ask y’all for advice on how to handle the reviews, and so on. Would that be a better approach? Or would it be best to leave the submission as-is? (I considered just going ahead and canceling it and redoing it in smaller steps, but I don’t know whether someone is in the midst of reviewing the submission, and if they are, I don’t want to waste anyone’s work.) …Either way, sorry for the complicated submission, and next time I’ll know that I should talk with verifiers ahead of time about changes, and should ask moderators ahead of time about how to handle various things (like the reviews in that issue) rather than just guessing and adding a moderator note. —Elysdir (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2024 (EDT)

I can't say if anyone is in the middle of reviewing it. There is a pretty big backlog, so delays abound, but I can tell you that we generally try to avoid "bad" data getting into the database. That affects moderating submissions in two primary ways: (1) A moderator has to figure out whether the submission is ok and has followed proper verifier notification procedures. (2) There is no way for a moderator to alter a submission before accepting it, so if something is wrong in the submission, the moderator's choices are mainly to reject the submission and request that it be redone or to accept the submission and then do some further edit(s) to address the issues, then notify the submitter of the fix-ups. Rejection is usually a last resort -- especially of big/complicated submissions -- because no one likes to throw away work. Any submission where it's apparent #1 and/or #2 are going to require significant time or effort often get passed over due to lack of dedicated time or due to reluctance to do work the submitter could (or should) have done. Magazines are also a little extra-complicated, and some moderators are not comfortable handling submissions for new magazines. With all of that as background, I think you would get faster turnaround with smaller submissions and with having worked out issues you're aware of in advance. Something as simple as a note-to-the-modifier that says "I worked this out with the active PVs" or "Per the discussion on the Community Portal" or even "I plan to address XYZ after this is approved" can work wonders. I am firmly in the don't-throw-away-work camp, so I am not advising you to cancel and redo, nor can I promise you'd see any quicker action if decide to cancel and redo in steps. Maybe some others will chime in and give you a little more input to weigh. --MartyD (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (EDT)

External ID The British Library has changed

I noticed several weeks ago the external ID of BL doesn't work any more. Now I discovered the changed www address. The Dinosaur Planet Omnibus in ISBDB calls the ID "https://www.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&vl(freeText0)=9781841490304" that failes. this link here shows the title in a right way. So I don't know how to adapt this to the ISFDB database. Maybe some moderator knows? --Zapp (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (EDT)

When I went to the site that is called by the ISFDB lookup, the following notice appeared: "We're continuing to experience a major technology outage as a result of a cyber-attack. Our buildings are open as usual, however, the outage is still affecting our website, online systems and services, as well as some onsite services. This is a temporary website, with limited content, which outlines the services that are currently available, as well as what's on at the Library.". So this may be a temporary situation while the BL is recovering from the cyber attack. Depending on how extensive the effects of the attack were, that kind of recovery can take a long time. Phil (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2024 (EDT)
Thanks for digging! Their online summary links to a PDF file which describes what happened in October 2023 and how they plan to recover over the course of 2024 and early 2025. Some of their systems were very old and not up to modern security requirements. They won't be restored and will need to be replaced, which will take a long time. In the meantime, I will look into the temporary Web search service that they have set up and see if we can leverage it for the time being. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (EDT)
I have updated the way ISFDB Publication pages link to the British Library catalog. We will be using BL's temporary Web site until their main Web site is restored. This publication is an example of how it works now. Thanks for reporting the problem! Ahasuerus (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2024 (EDT)

Request: Yang Feng canonical name

杨枫(I) no longer needs the parenthesized "(I)" for disambiguation, could someone with appropriate privileges please remove that?

Background: there are two completely different people in the Chinese SF scene using the name "杨枫" (Yang Feng). The person who had been added to the database first (a) also uses a couple of other names, both of which are more widely used than Yang Feng, and (b) is probably lower profile than the person who had the disambiguated "杨枫(I)", certainly using that particular name.

I have just added a few new titles that means that 天爵 (Tianjue) is now the appropriate canonical name for the original "杨枫" (Yang Feng), so I've switched over the titles that were using the latter to use the former. This seems to have automagically removed the original 杨枫 author record, which is the right thing to do now that there are no titles using it, although I was expecting to have to do that manually.

Once 杨枫(I) is switched to be just "杨枫", I think there'll be a couple of award records that will need appropriate updates, but I'll take care of that.

I'm not sure if I've explained this particularly clearly, if anyone wants/needs further details, let me know. Thanks! ErsatzCulture (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2024 (EDT)

Done. If the other author never used that name, it does not get an author record here. If they later do, then they can get the (I). Annie (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (EDT)
Thanks; I've updated the award records, so everything should be clean now.
The other author does/did use the Yang Feng name, but none of the publications containing titles using that name were ever entered. If they ever do get entered, I'll use a (I) name as you suggest. ErsatzCulture (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2024 (EDT)

Worlds of If, February 2024 Part Deux

The Worlds of If, February 2024 editor issue is back. The conclusion of the above discussion seems to be only the editor-in-chief should be credited. However, the publication was verified a few weeks after that and edited to restore the deputy-editor-in-chief credit. The rationale given in the pub notes is "The editorials beginning respectively on pp. 2 & 6 emphasize that Sloane and Garnier did edit this issue in partnership (though with somewhat different preferences)." Now, we are getting a number of other new accounts trying to change it back.

This all raises some questions in my mind:

  • Is the verification sufficient to override the prior consensus on crediting established above?
  • At what point does this type of editing start becoming considered disruptive?

I will point the verifier and approving moderator to this discussion. I will also leave responses on the pages of the new editors letting them know our policies on verification and discussing edits with verifiers. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (EDT)

My opinion is still the same: only the editor-in-chief gets credit (at least until we get around to adding the option of adding all sorts of different types of contributors). The rest go in the notes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
Also, it's already disruptive. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:03, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
Re: "Is the verification sufficient to override the prior consensus on crediting". Primary verifiers confirm that the data entered into the database reflects what's in the publication according to existing ISFDB data entry rules, which are described in Help and Policy. If a primary verifier would like to suggest a change to the rules, he or she can start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Until the rules are changed, the current rules are in effect. Ahasuerus (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
Hello! Sorry, I hadn't be aware of the discussion mentioned above. I had only found the passus For MAGAZINEs and FANZINEs, credit the issue editor as the "author" of the publication. from which I took to credit the actual editor(s) of a given issue of a magazine (provided there is a credit within the issue). Usually, I also would have credited only the editor-in-chief, but it follows from the editorials that the items were chosen (and edited) by both, Sloane and Garnier, in concordance. It thus seems to be right to credit them both. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
I wouldn't call the crediting of Garnier disruptive in the least, as the credit for only the editor-in-chief doesn't seem to be the (sole) standard we have in the database. John (Lochhas) for example has added hundreds (if not thousands) of magazine issues that credit the deputy editor, see Schattenreich magazine (Thannisch being the editor-in-chief, Kappel the deputy one), John Sinclair (Steffan only being the deputy editor) or Professor Zamorra (Schönenbröcher only being the deputy editor). There are numerous other magazines like Foundation, where the same set of mind seems to have been used. Likely the reasoning behind that is that the deputy editors do the main body of work editing those issues. Anyway, I will ping John to state his view on the topic. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
To clarify, what I was asking about being disruptive was the use of multiple accounts to try to push through an edit. So far, ISFDB has not really had to deal with this issue (at least to my knowledge). But the use of multiple accounts (either by one person or multiple people working in concert) has caused problems on other collaborative projects and has been banned. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
Yes. This. It may be time to clarify point four at our Conduct Policy, which currently states "Behavior that is otherwise non-constructive or disruptive will be dealt with on a case by case basis." The use of multiple accounts here working in concert to push a specific point of view is, in my opinion, "non-constructive or disruptive". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:26, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
Do we have evidence that multiple accounts have been created/work in concert? Or is it just coincidence? Just curious... MagicUnk (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
As JLaTondre wrote above, other online projects have run into problems with what is usually called "sockpuppetry/socking" and "meatpuppetry". Here is what Wikipedia has to say about this issue:
  • On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.
  • Sockpuppetry takes various forms:
    • Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
    • Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
    • Using another person's account (piggybacking)
    • Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
    • Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)
Some of it doesn't apply in our context, e.g. we don't allow edits unless you are logged in, but creating and using multiple accounts is certainly a possibility.
Wikipedia has a special set of instructions for reporting suspected sockpuppetry and technical tools like CheckUser that facilitate investigations. At this time we don't have either, but we could look into what it would take to implement a level of protection against sockpuppets. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (EDT)

(unindent) Going back to the issue that started this discussion, I think it highlights a problem with our Help: we don't have an explicit definition or even guidance re: what types of magazine editors should be entered in the Author/Editor field and what types should be entered in Notes (e.g., assistant editors, associate editors, department editors, etc). Template:PublicationFields:Author currently says:

  • Editors, authors, translators, etc. ... For MAGAZINEs and FANZINEs, credit the issue editor [bolding added] as the "author" of the publication. (Note that for non-genre MAGAZINEs/FANZINEs, "Editors of PERIODICAL NAME" may be used instead of some or all editor names if they are unknown or unclear or not of genre interest -- see Help:Entering non-genre periodicals for details.)

Note the bolded part of the text, i.e. "issue editor", which is somewhat helpful, but is not very specific. Template:TitleFields:Author doesn't seem to say anything relevant either. I am thinking that we should start a Rules and Standards discussion and make our current de-facto rules explicit in the affected Help templates. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2024 (EDT)

Just let me note one other problem with crediting only the editor-in-chief that came to my mind during the last night: from time to time several magazines have allowed guest editors to edit one single issue: their respective stamp on the issue would be lost if we go strict by 'the only credit the editor-in-chief' policy. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
Also, for non-genre magazines it says ..."Editors...". Just sayin' ;). There exist co-editors (that are not department editors), so I would allow for them. But then the question is, can we come up with an unambiguous (set of) rules... MagicUnk (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
As a researcher I would want to easily identify who shaped / influenced the content of a publication. Christian (Stonecreek) mentioned some German magazines in his posting where only the primary editor (credited 'Redakteur') who did all the editing is currently stated - but not the editor in chief. It sounded right when I captured the resp. items - but I do appreciate that the credited editor in chief influences a magazine a consequently should have been added as well and needs to be amended. To me that's a nice and simple rule - take who is credited, i.e. editor in chief plus however else is properly stated. Everything else (text editors, writers of plot outlines and whatever else may come to mind) should be in the notes and nowhere else. Best, John - JLochhas (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
It does seem that the 'credit-only-the-editor-in-chief' rule does work for most of the big genre-defining magazines like 'Astounding/Analog', 'Amazing' 'The Twilight Zone Magazine' or 'MFSF': at least there seems nothing to be known of the other credited editors in choosing the contents.
On the other hand it does seem to me that many other magazines that are nearer to being published non-professionally are often to be found as edited by joined forces (like the newly issued "Worlds of If" or the German Exodus).
The other cited German magazines are found to be edited by one 'deputy' editor, and the editor-in-chief mostly supervising (and occasionally adding ideas or vetoing) the first one's efforts: take a look for example at the author page of Ute Müller which shows only the genre magazines, but she also is the editor-in-chief for even more nongenre magazines / chapbooks and other genre chapbook series like "Die UFO-Akten" and "Gespenster-Krimi". Christian Stonecreek (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
Dear ISFDB peeps, thank you for inviting me to this discussion as it is most interesting to read the behind the scenes conversations. I notice that Stonecreek is basing his push to include the deputy editor on a supposition of what the duties of a chief and deputy editor may or may not be in a given publication. One cannot draw such a conclusion with any degree of confidence as the dynamics of each publication are unique. I think that co-billing editors is a slippery and problematic slope, assigning responsibilities and weight of credit to job titles where a knowledge of such is not actually known or qualified in writing anywhere. The point of my edit submission and notes was why begin experimenting with conjecture and interpretation now? I also see that he says it's "joined forces." I have read the magazine and I think he is mistaken on that point as well. So I don't agree with the liberties that Stonecreek has taken with this one. Also, and I don't recall if I put this in my notes or just thought about it, but why is the new magazine listed as a relaunch when Clifford Hong's 1986 issue was not? Just seems like lots of irregularities and confusion over something that should be straightforward. Thanks, Jan ExplorerOne (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
I have copied the rules-related part of this discussion to the Rules and Standards board. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
Would it be better to answer to ExplorerOne's remarks concerning the editing of the new "Worlds of If" here or over at 'Rules and Standards'? Christian Stonecreek (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
Since this will ultimately affect what our Rules/Help pages say, I think it would be best to have the discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
The ISFDB is a time consuming learning curve -- I was not able to respond to the conversation on the Rules & Standards page, then the database did one of its error things. Anyway, you guys will do what you do. I have long used the ISFDB as a go-to resource but have some reservations now that I see the level of interpretation involved -- and this is at the very heart of why I am spending time here. Christian responded there to my comments by asking questions about the editorials. One that I got a chuckle out of asked if the editors stated which pieces of work they had gotten or some such. That's just not how it works with an editorial team -- numbering their acquisitions. No interpretation is necessary when there is a masthead. Adding more than one editor is fine ultimately, if it's consistent. But I don't see consistency. Based on comments I saw, Sloane of Amazing should then also be listed with Gernsback and while you're at it, might as well list him first as you state that author order is irrelevant -- something with which I firmly disagree and is not in keeping with proper rules of attribution. I actually looked through the edits and saw that the entry was originally submitted in the proper order by Garnier, but was then changed. Which doesn't make any sense and is out of order with the notes, the order of editorials, and the masthead. Your listings need to make sense. And they need to be consistent. Interpretations are like opinions. Further, if you start with that now, do all previous entries need an interpretation? Is this the policy moving forward? I'd keep it simple. Thanks, Jan ExplorerOne (talk) 0900, 25 April 2024 (EDT)
Hi, if you're really only able to answer here, please do it, and we'll paste & copy or move it to the other page! I'll keep it more simple and reduce it to just three questions (by taking two out of the bundle, and adding a third one): 1) Who of the editors is actually credited within the editorials for choosing contents? 2) Who of the editors is writing about curating contents? 3) Who of the editors is credited for insisting on the final format of the magazine? Just write down the name here (since it's only one, and it is not Sloane). Do you really think this other editor's work is not worth to be credited at ISFDB?
Otherwise I do concur with your wish for consistency: this is what we are discussing over at 'Rules and Standards'. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
On your remarks for the order of editors: as Ahasuerus said elsewhere: it would be a highly time-consuming task to ensure that a ranking of editors would be displayable, and we do have the improvement that the display ain't ordered by chance anymore like it was a couple of years ago, it is now by alphabet (so Gernsback would in fact be displayed before Sloane for 'Amazing'): in all relevant cases the best we can do is to add the stated ranking in the notes. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
Re: "if you start with that now, do all previous entries need an interpretation? Is this the policy moving forward?"
ISFDB:Policy is the Wiki page that defines project scope, i.e. what is considered "speculative fiction" for the purposes of this project, as well as some other high level issues. Help Menu is the central Wiki portal for Help pages, which are also linked from each edit form on the database side. Help pages are much more detailed and explain what should be entered in each field.
Occasionally ISFDB:Policy and/or Help pages are clarified or expanded based on a new consensus reached on the Rules and standards page. Rules and standards changelog lists all Policy and Help changes going back to at least 2016.
If a newly agreed upon data entry standard requires changes to existing records, there are three ways to modify the data:
  • A special database script is written and executed against the ISFDB database
  • A new cleanup report is created
  • ISFDB editors use Advanced Search features to find no-longer-compliant records and edit them
The "magazine editors" case that you brought up is an example of our Help language which seemed unambiguous to the people who wrote the original standard -- "For MAGAZINEs and FANZINEs, credit the issue editor" -- and then it turned out that different editors and moderators interpreted it differently.
When we identify an ambiguity in our Policy and/or Help language, we start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page in order to determine what the scope of the issue is, how different ISFDB editors have been entering data, etc. Ultimately a new consensus is reached, although it may take a few iterations. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2024 (EDT)

Ian Daniels vs. Ian D. Daniels.

There's a listing for Ian Daniels as cover artist to some Severn House publicatons and also Ian D. Daniels as cover artist to other Severn House publications. I believe they are one and the same person. --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

I agree. The art style is exactly the same between them. I've merged them to Ian Daniels. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:19, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
Thank you. --Mavmaramis (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

Chris Moore credit for a Bob Eggleton image.

So I noticed that this book has cover artist credited as Chris Moore but it is exactly the same image as this which is a variant of this credited to Bob Eggleton. Something is not right. --Mavmaramis (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

Curious. This Reddit post created 3 years ago has the original art done by Bob Eggleton for Eternity. It uses http://www.bobeggleton.com/ as its source. Unfortunately, that site is gone and the Wayback Machine only has a few cover scans preserved.
The primary verifiers on the Millennium / Victor Gollancz edition of Forever Free have been inactive since the mid-2010s, so we can't ask them. The OCLC record and Library Hub Discover do not mention the cover artist. Amazon UK uses the Ace cover, which is completely different.
I wonder if the following Notes line:
  • Back cover states "Cover design © blacksheep" and "Illustration: Chris Moore @ Artist Partners"
may mean that Chris Moore did the art for the back cover only? Ahasuerus (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (EDT)
That is entirely possible. I don't have a copy of the book in question, however, so I can't say. I'd be minded to change the credit to Eggleton since it's definately his artwork. Amend the note re "Illustration: Chis Moore" to state it does not refer to the cover but asssumed to refer to an (as yet unseen) image on the back cover. --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2024 (EDT)
There is actually a semi-standard convention for credit errors -- append "(in error)" to the name and variant it to the actual artist/author. I don't think it's documented in Help, but we have 147 erroneous credits documented that way. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2024 (EDT)

Changing a piece from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION?

Hi, all—I’d like to change a specific work from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION, but the relevant primary verifiers are unavailable, so I thought I would ask here.

I’m looking at Joanna Russ’s story “Old Pictures,” which appeared in her collection The Hidden Side of the Moon.

That piece is listed in ISFDB as being of type ESSAY, but I would like to change its type to SHORTFICTION.

The book doesn’t indicate that that piece is nonfiction. It *could* be nonfiction (in that it’s written in first person and nothing clearly impossible happens in it), but it’s not labeled as such, and everything else in the book is fiction, and the title page of the book says “Stories by Joanna Russ.”

There are three publications of the book listed in ISFDB (hc, tp, and pb), with three different primary verifiers. One has, sadly, passed away; one hasn’t been active since 2018; and I emailed the third (as requested on their talk page) but haven’t received a response.

(I’m not sure who originally labeled the story as ESSAY; it looks like that was done when the hc publication record was created.)

So is it OK for me to submit an edit that changes the type of “Old Pictures” to SHORTFICTION? —Elysdir (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

After reading the piece in question, I agree that it's a literary, non-SF, short story as opposed to an essay. It was first published in the literary magazine The Little Magazine in February 1973, which specialized in "new poetry and short fiction", so it makes sense. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, the magazine was then published by David G. Hartwell, who later became a prominent SF editor. I am going to update the record -- thanks for identifying the issue! Ahasuerus (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2024 (EDT)

Audible ASIN cleanup report.

I'm posting this first to the moderator board as it involves a cleanup report. We can move to the Community Portal or Rules and Standards if folks feel that's needed.

We have a cleanup report for "Pubs without an ISBN and with an Audible ASIN which is an ISBN-10". However, there are instances where I'm not sure whether we can assume a linkage between the Audible ASIN and an ISBN. There are cases with audio books where the publisher changes the cover over time. Recorded Books, Brilliance and the various Audible publishers are especially prone to this. While this is usually just an update to the trade dress, sometimes the cover changes to a completely new piece of artwork. In these cases Audible and Amazon do not update their ASIN numbers, nor do they update the published release date. If the Audible-ASIN in these cases is an ISBN-10, I will use it for the ISBN on the initial publication. However, I'm not certain that the same ISBN is applicable for subsequent publications where the cover has changed. Certainly the release date which does not change is not appropriate for reissues. When entering these reissues, I will generally narrow the date as much as I can though a combination of my own copy and consulting the Audible pages on the Wayback Machine at archive.org. Being unsure whether the publisher issued a new ISBN for the new issue with the new cover, I will generally blank the ISBN, which, of course, causes it to appear on the cleanup report. Am I looking at this incorrectly and should we assume that the ISBN of audio books are immutable through changes in cover? Or, if the way I've been entering these is correct, should we have an ignore button for this report? As an example this publication was reissued sometime between 2019-04-26 and 2024-03-20 with an altered cover whereas neither the Audible-ASIN nor the release date have changed between an archive of the publication's page in 2019 or it's current page. Thoughts? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:54, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

I believe Annie has a significant amount of experience with Audible, but she will be mostly unavailable until later in the week. I will leave a note on her Talk page and ask to take a look when she returns. Ahasuerus (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2024 (EDT)
Audible had changed its policies in the last couple of years - they do not use ISBN10 as an ASIN anymore (or I had not seen one in probably more than a year). Some of the old ones still exist though and for them, they are reliably ISBNs (and if you catch them before an reissue, the ISBN is also foundable on publisher sites or on Kobo USA (which is pretty good for both list prices and for ISBNs for audiobooks)). Once they are reissued, if the record does not change (which does not always happen), it is unclear what the status is.
I'd say that if the Audible ASIN is numeric, we can treat it as a de-facto ISBN even across changed covers. But if we decide instead of stick to only the original issues with the ISBNs, I am fine with that as well. Annie (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (EDT)

Translation of translation

hello, I hope this is the right board for this question! (I checked the Help:howto and Help:screen pages, but no illumination came). I would like to add an Italian book by a Spanish author (Xavier Domingo) not yet in ISFDB. The Italian version is the translation of the French version (titled le grand verrat), not of the Spanish original (titled jabali). A complication is that all the internet secondary sources I could find say that the first Spanish edition is the 1983 one (easily found in many places), but the Italian book was printed in 1970 and the French one (also easily found) in 1969 - however I also found one biography of the author that gives 1968 as the year for Jabali, which would be perfect. This means that I have really minimal info to create the parent record: title, author, date, and nothing for the Publication Data and Cover sections. Should I leave the Publication blank or use the 1983 edition as Publication? or as parent record? If I directly used the Italian book as Publication the language would be wrong. What is the correct approach and sequence of submissions? thanks! --Fantagufo (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (EDT)

A couple of thoughts. First, this obituary claims that Xavier Domingo lived and worked in Paris between 1956 and 1976. The Spanish language Wikipedia lists a number of French language works that he published circa 1970. Apparently the 1969 French translation of this novel (Le grand verrat) was done by Henri Sylvestre. It's possible, even likely, that Domingo wrote the novel in 1968, but the Spanish language original did not appear until 1983, perhaps due to the political changes that happened in Spain in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I would suggest adding title-level notes explaining what we know.
Second, Help:How to enter translations has a bullet point which explains that:
  • If a work was written in one language, but a foreign language translation was published first, then the original language title should be considered the canonical title and the translated title should be considered variant title. The year of the canonical (i.e. parent) title should be set to publication year of the canonical title, not to the year of the translation (though the latter one was released earlier).
In this case it means that Jabali (1983) should be the parent title while Le grand verrat (1969) and [title of the Italian translation] (1970) should be its variants -- please note the years.
Hope this makes sense! Ahasuerus (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (EDT)
Thank you Ahasuerus! Yes this makes sense; actually the Italian books gives the 1969 French publisher as copyright owner, and a note that says that the Italian translation was revised against "the original Spanish text" could well be referencing the manuscript used to prepare the French version. So, the sequence of submissions has to be: 1> create the parent title with the 1983 Spanish for publication data; 2> edit the (automatically generated?) author record to add birthdate etc; 3> create the records for French and Italian titles; 4> Make them variants. Thanks again... --Fantagufo (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2024 (EDT)
Just one question / remark: is it ensured that Jabali is the right original Spanish title? Wikipedia.es has it listed under 'ensayos' / 'essay(s)' (but Wikipedia has its errors too). Stonecreek (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2024 (EDT)
The proposed sequence of submissions looks fine, but you can create submissions for the three publications -- Spanish (1983), French (1969) and Italian (1970) -- in any order. Once approved, each submission will automatically create a pair of records: a title record with information about the text (language, date of its first appearance, etc) and a publication record with information about the edition (publisher, format, price, ISBN, etc). The submission approval process will also automatically create author records for any authors, publishers or series that do not already exist in the database. You will then be able to create submissions to turn the French and Italian titles into variants of the Spanish title as well as a submission to edit the newly created author record.
That's how we typically enter data into the database -- create publication records first, then link and/or edit the resulting author and title records. In certain cases there are shortcuts that you can take, but they require an in-depth understanding of the database layout and, in some cases, moderator privileges. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (EDT)


That's a justified doubt, Stonecreek! Actually, some bookselling sites classified it as a cooking book (Domingo wrote some of them) and Google books classifies it as music criticism (nowhere reported to be one of Domingo's interests!). Yet, I am quite confident that it is the one. the biography https://www.mcnbiografias.com/app-bio/do/show?key=domingo-xavier says it is a narrative fiction work; the book page https://www.todocoleccion.net/libros-segunda-mano-literatura/jabali-xavier-domingo-envio-gratis~x99477143 starts with the words "in this novel the man is a hunter and his prey is a boar" and the allegory hunter/boar (jabali) is the surreal lead through the narrative. --Fantagufo (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2024 (EDT)

or

Thanks! I also do think that the two sites you mention are more reliable than a shot-from-the-hip categorization! Stonecreek (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2024 (EDT)

Sirens - image delete request

Could someone please delete the old image here, dated 09:47, 17 December 2013. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (EDT)

As requested, John Scifibones 14:14, 21 April 2024 (EDT)
Thanks John, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2024 (EDT)

Luminist

Has anyone decided yet about Luminist links? Because I have 6 that are being held for a while now because there was some disagreement about the server they're on or something. --Username (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

That discussion is here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:25, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
Thanks for the link. I was going to starts a new Rules and Standards discussion to talk about the proposed clarification/expansion of the Help language. Currently it says "legally posted" and the proposed clarification was:
  • texts known to be under copyright protection and made available without the copyright owner's permission
I was waiting for other R&S discussions to be wrapped up and then it got lost in the shuffle. Let me post it now. Ahasuerus (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

Stryker's Children

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5947003; Can someone get rid of the old cover on the Wiki because long-gone mod uploaded PB cover to HC record many years ago and never got rid of it and then uploaded it to the correct PB record. --Username (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

Please share links to the old cover as well as the correct cover. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
Link is provided in my submission, the Wiki URL, there's my correct image of HC and then image of PB from years ago that nobody erased when the same editor added it on the same day to the PB record, which I also have a PENDING edit for adding archived link. --Username (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/File:STRKRSCHLD1984.jpg. My edits for this book have now been approved but the PB image is still in the HC wiki. --Username (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:55, 26 April 2024 (EDT)

Dirk P. Broer directed me to you about removing my age in the entry for Keby Boyer, Bee House Rising

Dear Moderator,

I heard back from Dirk Broer about my request to have my birthday information removed. He directed me to you. I was laid off from my Sr. Creative Sourcer position at Blizzard Entertainment, and I have to find another job. Unfortunately, my birth year is listed on my entry. Can you please remove my birth year? I'm very good at what I do, but there's a lot of ageism out there making it difficult to find a position. I can't start applying for jobs until this information comes down.

Thanks in advance for your help, I really appreciate it!!!!

Thanks - Keby

The link on your ISFDB page, kebyboyer.net, is not currently online and Archive.org only finds 2 pages from 2013, an error page and "robots.txt", so would you mind if it was removed? Also, your novel seems to have been a very limited release because there's no WorldCat or Library of Congress records; there are, however, old posts on a SFF workshop site where you're referred to as Keby Thompson-Boyer while discussing the crafting and eventual release of your novel. Is that your legal name? There seems to be only one other current site with that version of your name, smartbackgroundchecks.com, which just collects people's names from the web and is not specific to you. Do you have a current site that can be linked to? Can you provide details about your novel like accurate page count (Amazon is very often wrong about that), cover artist/designer, address of the publisher, etc.? Your novel seems to have been Watermoon's one-and-done release. --Username (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
Hi!
"The link on your ISFDB page, kebyboyer.net, is not currently online and Archive.org only finds 2 pages from 2013, an error page and "robots.txt", so would you mind if it was removed?" - it can definitely be removed! My legal name is Keby Thompson Boyer. BHR was a limited release. I don't currently have a site, but I'm working on that. "Watermoon Press" is my publishing company, and it's currently shuttered, but the address was Watermoon Press, 6680 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, CA 94553. Info about the book: 401 pgs., artwork and graphic design created by Patrick Boyer. The first paragraph in my acknowledgments reads: They say it takes a village to raise a child, and I think that's also true for writing a book. Many friends and family contributed to the birth of this novel, and I want to take a moment to thank them. Hopefully, this is enough information for you to remove my age from my entry. Thanks in advance for your help! - K P.S. Thank you so much for removing my age.
Thanks so much for your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keby Boyer (talk • contribs) .
OK, I removed the dead link, added a link to your Linkedin page which has a photo of you, and entered your legal name; the edit should be approved soon. I'll also make 2 more edits adding info to your book and address to the publisher. By the way, IMDB has a 1993 credit for a short film, Alone in the Dark, written by you and directed by Donald W. Thompson; I assume that is your husband? It sounds like horror but seems to have been an anti-drunk driving educational film. He wouldn't happen to be the same person as this man, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?125216, would he? --Username (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2024 (EDT)

(unindent) Re: removing the date of birth, here is what ISFDB:Policy#Data_Deletion_Policy says about removing biographical (as opposed to bibliographic) data:

  • If a living author (or their authorized representative) requests that the ISFDB remove the author's detailed biographical information, the ISFDB will comply after confirming the requester's identity. The ISFDB will remove as much biographical data as needed in order to accommodate legitimate privacy concerns while preserving, to the extent possible, the work of the editors who have compiled the data. A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why.

Normally, we confirm the requester's identity by asking for an email message sent from an email account publicly associated with the author. It can be an email address posted on the author's LinkedIn/Facebook/Twitter/etc page or the author's Web page. Would you happen to have a publicly available email address like that? If you do, please send your request to ahasuerus@email.com. Thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2024 (EDT)

Men like - image delete request

Please delete the old image here dated 06:07, 30 May 2014. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2024 (EDT)

✓ Done! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:18, 25 April 2024 (EDT)
Thanks Joe, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (EDT)

The Anubis Gates

Hello mods. Regarding this. Rear cover of my physical copy states Richard Carr is the cover designer not the cover artist, thus should not be credeited. I can't delete this title since it relates to two publications published at different dates. I've let Rtrace know about that - he being the only other PV for either edition. --Mavmaramis (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2024 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard&oldid=685040"