Difference between revisions of "ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 04"

Latest revision as of 13:31, 6 August 2016

This is an archive page for the Moderator noticeboard. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from September - December 2008.

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

Incomplete Help Page Help:Screen:MakePseudonym left over from 2006

I found Help:Screen:MakePseudonymlisted on the sitemap. I then confirmed that it is a live help page linking from the 'Make Pseudonym' screen in the ISFDB. I went ahead and added link for it to the Help:screen page a few days ago, and put a comment on the talk page that it needed a moderators attention. I think it has rolled off most peoples recent change page at this point and wanted to bring it to someones attention. I don't feel confident that enough in my use of the database yet to write this page up. - Thanks Kevin 22:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened is that the coding for this area was never finished. For example, while you can delete a variant title by setting the parent # to 0 you can't do that with a pseudonym. Part of the reason delete is hard is that an name can be a pseudonym for multiple authors meaning the delete function needs to allow you to choose which one to delete. Thus for now we are stuck with the backwards relationships when they happen. The help just needs to make it extra clear that you do the "Make This Author a Pseudonym" thing from the name that will become the pseudonym or house name. I believe the wording used to say "Make Pseudonym" and people really got confused.

Rumor has it that Al was working on the pseudonym editor before life grabbed him. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not---The Warlock in Spite of Himself (image)

Checking to add a new publication to the title. I checked this entry mismatch. [1] . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that is obviuously wrong, and you can safely remove it without furthenr question. If you have a reasonable looking image, i think you can safely add it and norify the verifier afterwards. -DES ^Talk 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Brin1 verified THLSTWRLDS1982 4 minutes after THWRLCKNSP1974 and so must have had the wrong image URL in the copy/paste buffer. I deleted the image from THWRLCKNSP1974 and sent a note to Brin1. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no image, I was looking for possible information on the book. I was afraid it might have been spam or a trojan. Thanks for fixing it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My Submission "Mavels and Mysteries"

Please amend my submission for the Richard Marsh collection 'Mavels and Mysteries' and add an 'R' to the title so it reads 'Marvels and Mysteries'. Thanks Kevin 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OBE Kevin 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eando Binder Project

As part of my ongoing project to update the date information for various magazines, the stories in them. and variant titles attached to them. I am also cleaning up the Eando Binder titles. Most of them were written by Otto Binder alone but most of our entries are for Otto and Earl. I suspect this data has been thrashed and trashed multiple times before by editors without access to Day or Contento. Please verify any Binder pseudonym entries before accepting them. I am tracking my progress on the Eando Binder bibliography page.--swfritter 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Chapterbooks for Dummies

We've got an editor using Chapterbooks to enter some mp3 publications, after advice here. And it all looks good at first: see Stephen_Eley. The minor problem is that CHAPTERBOOK content entries still show up alongside the contents we're interested in. BLongley 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The MAJOR problem is that people are trying to FIX this without really understanding what the limitations on editing CHAPTERBOOK title types means. I personally think the entries look fine, but as soon as you edit one of them (e.g. to put a title into a series, or add INTERIORART to a title), you'll break it. So the options are 1) wait till Al fixes the software, or 2) convert all those records to something we CAN work with safely. The current suggestion is to make them all magazines, which seems to be fine for new entries but is going to be tricky for existing entries. IF (and please do check whether this is actually desirable rather than waiting for Al, before attempting to edit the entries so far), I think I have a process that will do it. But it's multi-step, breaks important links at times, and so should probably only be attempted by a Mod that can make sure all the steps are carried through. So I offer this guide and examples of each stage, so you can decide if a) I've got the final desired result right, b) you want to try this yourself, and c) things you can try BEFORE attempting it. BLongley 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All stages are visible at BLTESTCH1 - the overall page is a mess but look for the stage 1, 2, 3 and 4 titles and I think you'll understand why 1 looks good, but 4 might be desirable if 1 is unmaintainable. 2 and 3 look awful. BLongley 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How to create such a Stage 1 title:
1) Start with a New Anthology, add your SHORTFICTION, and BEFORE submitting the edit change the Pub Type to CHAPTERBOOK. See BLTESTCH1 and BLTESTCH1 SF1 content display nicely, with "Chapterbooks" and "Shortfiction" entries. (There are other methods of creating such but I won't recommend them for now.)

How to convert them:
1) Display the pub. Notice how the CHAPTERBOOK entry shows up alongside the SHORTFICTION. Ideally it should be hidden, that will take software changes.
2) Edit the pub. The Pub Type is allowed to stay as CHAPTERBOOK but we won't do that. Notice how the CHAPTERBOOK content entry is now ANTHOLOGY - ISFDB is forcing a change. It won't let us keep CHAPTERBOOK for the content, but won't let us change it to EDITOR either. Still, we can ADD an EDITOR record - copy the details from the ANTHOLOGY entry. And to match, change the Pub Type to MAGAZINE. We can't do anything about the CHAPTERBOOK content record at the moment. (Except possibly mark it with a page number of "NA" or something to indicate we are going to remove it later.) See BLTESTCH2 in "Magazine Editor", "Anthologies" (forced on us) and BLTESTCH1 SF2 in Shortfiction.
3) Find the publication record either via the duff Anthology title or the Magazine Editor title. View it and "Remove Titles From This Pub". Remove the ANTHOLOGY record. See BLTESTCH3 in "Magazine Editor", "Anthologies" (forced on us) and BLTESTCH3 SF3 in "Shortfiction". But we still have a stray anthology title record.
4) Delete the stray anthology record. See BLTESTCH4 in "Magazine Editor", and BLTESTCH4 SF4 in "Shortfiction".

I'd appreciate feedback on whether Stages 1 or 4 look right to you. I really like Stage 1 (when the CHAPTERBOOK content entry can be hidden and edits don't change it). Stage 4 looks quite reasonable as a workaround for something that isn't a normal magazine. There are other options if people want the workaround to be ANTHOLOGY or COLLECTION instead, but I really hope people don't think stages 2 and 3 look OK. BLongley 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE don't experiment with the original pubs or titles (the creator and I like them as they are!), or the ones I've provided as examples. If you still want to experiment and my creation of such initial entries isn't clear enough for you to create your own tests, ask for extra information about how to create them in other ways. BLongley 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Checking again before I go sleep - 4 isn't great in my opinion either, but it seems to be the way Magazines work here? I like my pubs to link back to titles, and titles to show all pubs. Corrections/additions REALLY ARE welcome still - but I don't want to mess with additional Magazine entries that might be satisfactory for Magazine Editors, if they aren't intuitive to everyone else. I'll do some more experiments if required. (All I need is a brain sample, a ~~quarter-pounder~~100 grams of your intellect will do. ;-) BLongley 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the stage 1 CHAPBOOKs which the software incorrectly names chapterbooks. For now we'd just need to document how to create and edit these. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you CAN'T edit the pub or the title after entry without it triggering a type change. You can edit and merge the contents though, you just can't add any more or adjust notes or put the title in a series. As it stands the only instructions needed are for creation, and that's the example I gave above. BLongley 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've forgotten exactly why Al disabled chapbooks. It may have been by accident with the only flaws being that it's called chapterbook and is missing from some of the dropdown lists on the edit title and publication displays.

I am thinking that once we get back to coding that the chapterbook/chapbook stuff be renamed to "Standalone Work" which I'll refer to as SW in the bullets.

SWs would be used to deal with independent publication of a short work, it could be an essay, poem, or shortfiction, on any media (chapbook, pamphlet, electronic, dramatic performance, smoke signaled, etc.) with the publication binding field being used to explain the nature of the media. SWs could be used to handle things such as the sale of cover art paintings (original or reproduction). In other words, if it's specfict, is something that can be bought/sold, and for whatever reason it does not fall neatly into a novel, omnibus, collection, anthology, nonfiction, or nongenre then use SW.
A SW publication would be like a omnibus, collection or anthology in that its contents will contain one or more shortfiction, poem, interiorart, etc. titles.
Ideally an SW publication only contains one work or perhaps a shortfiction and an illustration as the focus is on "standalone". If we find ourselves abusing SW to implement longer works then we should consider a new title type.
Should the first implementation of SW include sub-types or multiple title types to cover print (pamphlet, chapbook, loose-leaf, etc.), electronic (digital or analog), art (painting, illustration, sculpture, music), etc? I believe this will be possible either by overloading the title-description field into an XML blob or by adding a new field. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent} As discussions have restarted, I've added BLTESTCH5 as an example of converting to an ANTHOLOGY rather than a MAGAZINE. It's a one-step process: edit the Chapterbook and the Content CHAPTERBOOK record will automatically be changed to ANTHOLOGY type. Change the PUBLICATION type to ANTHOLOGY as well before you submit it and then the edit will switch the title and publication records consistently to ANTHOLOGY. You can also add other content, change the existing SHORTFICTION content, etc, in the same pass. MUCH simpler! BLongley 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluesman on the wiki

User:Bluesman has found the wiki, and has responded to multiple queries and comments on User talk:Bluesman. If you have left msgs for Bluesman in the past, or if you have submissions by him on hold, check his page. i have already been able to approve one held submission. -DES ^Talk 17:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Great news! Although he doesn't seem to have responded to me. :-/ Was it something I said? BLongley 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When I finally found the wiki there were so many duplicate "observations/questions/STOP!" that I tried to answer/explain/apologize for one of each. Seems I missed the one I think you are referring to: Space Pioneer? Frankly, this one baffles me as I do not remember editing it.--Bluesman 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well he did have a lot of messages to answer all at once. We'll see how he responds going foreward. -DES ^Talk 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The BEMs we call gods smile once again in their mysterious ways. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Publisher changes

I know we're getting more activity in this area, and more discussion, but I'm pretty sure that one or more Moderators are making changes that affect publications VERIFIED by active editors. I see several of my verifications are now for publishers that I would NOT enter that way. Please, remember the common courtesy of asking an active editor about a proposed change if you want to make a change to his verifications - the Publisher tools are POWERFUL, so shouldn't be used without checking even more carefully than usual. Yes, the Publisher displays are poor and the "by year" display sometimes makes 10 books take 5 checks, but MAKE those checks please! BLongley 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't change verified pubs but you should be able to track down who made the changes by looking at http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/recent.cgi?0+I Do you have a specific pub you can point to?

Did see a verified pub the other night and thought about asking the person to change it. It's one of the things that triggered my recent list of publisher field proposals. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I make a habit of checking all the years involved in a publication and will query an active moderator before I make any changes or merge anything. Over 90% of what I've change or merged have had no verifiers and 90% of the time the name I go with has been verified by most of the active moderators.Kraang 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did do some regularising. Specifically i changed "Ballantine Del Rey", "Ballantine/Del Rey", and "Ballantine / Del Rey" to "Del Rey / Ballantine", and merged the resulting records. In no case did I change anything entered as just "Del Rey" or as just "Ballantine". There is, as far as I know, no way to edit and merge publiaher records that affects only non-verified records. No information is lost in any of the changes above, the strings "Ballantine" and "Del Rey" remain present, the only change is the order of the strings, the presence of a slash, and spaces around the slash. If changes on that level may not be done to verified pubs, we might as well turn off the publisher name edit feature, for it is useless. If one must examine each and every pub involved, check if it is verified, and ask each verifier about each pub, again we might as well turn off the publisher name edit feature, for it would be quicker and easier to change the pubs one at a time by pub updates. If people really think that what I did was wrong, that I won't do any more publisher edits until there is a different consensus. But does anyone really argue that the difference between "Ballantine Del Rey", "Ballantine/Del Rey", and "Ballantine / Del Rey" and "Del Rey / Ballantine" is meaningful? Does anyone disagree that all these should be under one publisher record, by whatever name, sooner or later? -DES ^Talk 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to fairly quickly check for verified publications by going to the publisher's page, Ballantine Del Rey for example, and then look at each year for verified publications. BDR has none but BDR (Canada) does for nearly every publication. The only changes I could see doing unasked is "Ballantine/Del Rey" -> "Ballantine / Del Rey" and for anything else, including the 100% unverified BDR, consensus needs to be developed, especially if someone's verified a publication. I would not automatically flip a "wrong" Publisher / Imprint either. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think DES has apologised enough, we can move forward. But it looks as though it's going to have to be tiny steps. "Spaces around the slash" seems to be mostly agreed, when we concentrate on that alone. When we discuss anything more the threads get long and we have so many disagreements on all the other stuff we can't tell when we HAVE agreed on something! Changing verified pubs still looks like a major no-no to me if people are going to point at what we HAVE now as evidence - I'm pretty sure that I had verified some "Ballantine Del Rey" which is why I got so heated about them being turned into "Del Rey / Ballantine" without consultation. Are we agreed that messing with verified pubs is NOT acceptable practice? As if it IS acceptable, pointing at what HAS been verified as evidence for a change is no use anymore. BLongley 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I had honestly assumed that publisher regularization, for cases where the actual entity was obviously the same, and no useful information was being lost, was a case where the "don't mess with verified publications" did not apply, just as I presume it does not apply to changing the data on an author linked to from verified publications. Since I gather that presumption was incorrect, i will probably not do any further publisher edits, except to insert psaces around a slash, until we have consensus on what kinds of publisher edits are acceptable to do without checking with individual verifiers. -DES ^Talk 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is we have not determined what is "obviously the same" other than the space around the slashes part much less defined what sort "sameness" we are looking for. By the latter part I mean things like Ace. Is "Ace Books, Inc." the "same" as "Ace Books, an imprint of Charter Communications" much less the when G.P. Putnam swallows Charter and then a succession publishing groups swallow up and spit out G.P. Putnam. Are they all the "same" since they all say "Ace" and use 0-441 ISBNs? Are Ace Star, Ace Tempo, etc. the "same" as Ace as they also use 0-441 ISBNs? In 1986 DAW Books dropped the DAW=SF logo and switched to the overlapping D-A-W that they use to this day. The announcement was sung from rooftops of New York as The New DAW!!! though the only structural change in the company was Betsy Wollheim replaced Don as president and chief editor with Don keeping the "Publisher" title. Was the DAW of 1985 the "same" as 1987?">Marc Kupper (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly i can't see how anyone could seriously entertain the idea tha a change of logo and of chief editor would make a "different" publisher. The very thought seems perverse to me. As to your first quation, I am not 100% sure, but I would be willing to call all those variation the "same" Ace. Still ther i might discuss a bit first. -DES ^Talk 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No fear - I do have some coding in the works such as to set up a mapping table where we can define A maps to B. If you enter "A" then the software will mention "We have standardized on 'B'" and give the choices of "Yes, switch to 'B'" or, "No, I'd rather use 'A'". If you enter a brand new name then the moderators get alerted and we can then decide if the name should be mapped to an existing name or if it should be added as a new name along with the wiki pages, etc. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be very useful IMO, when and if it is online. -DES ^Talk 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, December 2002

I edited this magazine yesterday (added reviews, corrected one or mistakes, added some contents and cover). I was going to add series information, but it seems there have been some sort of glitch somewhere. It looks like this. I wonder what went wrong? Tpi 14:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of duplicated and triplicated entries show up when I go into editing mode. I'm going to remove some of those and see if that fixes things.--Rkihara 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the duplicate book reviews fixed the problem, but I also went through and took out the rest of the superfluous entries. Some of the book reviews need to be relinked.--Rkihara 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously been cleaned up, since clicking on your link takes me to reasonable-looking data. I've managed to get duplicated data, myself, in the past by adding data, clicking on submit, clicking back (back into editor), doing anything (or nothing), then clicking submit again. No idea whether this is what you were seeing. -- Dave (davecat) 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice wanted

Please take a look at User talk:Dragoondelight#Changing contents: "Hell-Bound Train". Harry seems upset by the situatuion, and I want help in avoiding misunderstandings. -DES ^Talk 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation seems fine - there just seems to be some confusion on the submitters side about the definition of variant titles. We assume, unless there is evidence otherwise, that it is the same story published under a different title. I am a little bothered that an editor would submit a modification that they think is likely to be rejected without first asking advice.--swfritter 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Subb

Please reject Subb submission. I crossed my 'copy' wires and did not put the image in. I put the ISFDB address for it in instead. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. BLongley 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Moderator

I am currently going through my collection and comparing/editing the database and have come across a couple of discrepancies/additions to some of Scott Latham's Verified pubs. I have left notes on his talk page but then saw here that he hasn't been on in over a year. I am hesitant about editing verified pubs without feedback from the verifier. Only one significant one so far, but then I have a long way to go.--Bluesman 15:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions are no problem - depending on the data it may not even be necessary to notify. Errors or discrepancies - since the moderator is not active it is perfectly alright to go ahead and make the changes and make notations on the verifiers talk page - even if they are not active the changes are documented. Just make sure that the changes are consistent with the standards.--swfritter 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reprimanded (nicely) for editing verified pubs without letting the verifier know, even when just adding alternate prices (being Canadian, most of my books have dual pricing). Better safe than castigated (nicely, of course). Plus any edits still have to be seen by an active Mod....Thanks!--Bluesman 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better safe than sorry with active editors - sometimes it's a matter of how the data is entered rather than the content. I might also note that inactive editors will occasionally take a look at their talk pages. The editors working mostly in magazines are somewhat braver when it comes to changing verified magazines with data that is not entered according to standards or inconsistently - with notifications to the verifier, of course, and prior discussions if a lot of data will be affected or a standard should be questioned.--swfritter 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are speaking about the msg from me, i didn't intend it as a reprimand, nor as a rule against adding anything without checking first. I was, IIRC, letting you know that the verifier should be notified (after the fact can be fine) of additions, and usually ask first for actual changes, particularly significant ones. Fixing obvious typos (such as "Sated First Edition" for "Stated First Edition") should not need advance permission. If a verifier is inactive, notification after the fact is fine, as stated above. Some verifiers may give carte blanc to make additions without even notification to particular editors. -DES ^Talk 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret DES, the "reprimand" comment was strictly tongue-in-cheek!--Bluesman 18:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Active Editors can always let you know when to stop bothering them - for instance, Bluesman, you can stop notifying me when you're merely adding prices. Other errors and omissions - please point them out to me! Inactive Editors (or non-communicative editors) are a different matter... there's no hard-and-fast rule about when you can give up trying to talk to them. I know I stopped trying to communicate with YOU after a while. Scott is apparently still alive and editing, if not moderating anyone else's work: some editors like "A Librarian" and "Brin1" worked furiously for a bit and never really communicated. I'm not sure how we can progress this though. When to despair? Is Unapersson another example? BLongley 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one down and how many to go?? Must have left maybe 75 price addition notes already and would welcome as many whoas as possible! Still have half a collection to go... and have to go back through 95% of the first half to look at things I didn't know about the first time through.--Bluesman 18:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluesman, what you are doing with the Canadian pricing is fine. One option is when leaving the note is to ask if the person wants to be notified for each update. In my case, the answer is yes as I also use my talk page as one of the "list of things to do" meaning your notes would be a reminder to me to start adding the Canadian prices as I believe they are a good idea. I suspect you should still continue to notify people as we may find a publication some day that got reprinted with the same USA price and a new Canadian price. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, when the moderator is active, but I don't think any of you want 100 notices of price additions on your talk pages. Speaking of which, is there a 'stale date' on entries on the talk pages? There must be some point at which ancient conversations or concluded business becomes clutter. Otherwise these pages could each get to be ridiculously long.--Bluesman 17:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Most Talk pages get archived from time to time, usually at least once a year. For example, see my Talk page at User talk:Ahasuerus. It's a fairly straightforward process discussed on the Wikipedia Help page which covers this area. Or ask here and somebody will do it for you quickly. Ahasuerus 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have set up archives for several user's wiki pages. "Siegel's Archive Service, Reasonable Rates" :) -DES ^Talk 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alien Love

Just added this title to the database, but realized (split-second after hitting 'submit data', of course) that I put in the binding as HC when it should have been TP. The length of this one and also RIVER OF OUR DESTINY [144pp & 136pp] (both by Alan Rodgers) made me hesitate on whether to put them both as CHAPTERBOOKS, but most of the 'novels' from the early days barely topped 150 pages (40s, 50s, even into the 60s). Where is the line drawn? A hardcover at 9x6 or a trade paperback at 8x5 can have a lot more story in the same number of pages than a paperback at 7x4.--Bluesman 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Approved and adjusted. However, OCLC finds only two libraries that have ever had this book and their respective catalogs are either missing the record or are not accessible at the moment. Nothing in the the Locus Index either. I wonder if it was vaporware? Ahasuerus 17:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

it is currently for sale in three editions on Amazon.com & .ca... pretty good for an invisible book! By adjusted, you mean they are chap books?--Bluesman 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A little more googling finds it for sale from a variety of vendors. I guess libraries don't carry many print-on-demand books and Locus must have missed it. The only think that I adjusted was the binding code, everything else is still the same. Ahasuerus 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Publisher problem

The publication record of DNTTTHFTND2008 lists the publisher as Robert J. Sawyer Books. Amazon does the same, which I'm pretty sure is where this data comes from. Aside from other discrepancies common to pre-release data, there is no mention of RJS Books except in the back of the book : "Rob Sawyer edits the RJS Books imprint for Fitzhenry & Whiteside, a line of cutting-edge thematically rich science-fiction books, including:......" then lists the ten titles published under that imprint. None of Sawyer's own books are included in that list. I have two of the ones from the list and they do have the RJS Books imprint. This title does not. The copyright page lists the publisher as "Red Deer Press; A Fitzhenry & Whiteside Company", as does his other collection "Iterations". Though there is a connectivity, what is the correct way to list it in the publisher field? Should I just overwrite the whole entry? The data for the HC & TP editions are similarly off. (Checked Red Deer Press website and even their info is wrong on the page count [some overworked data-entry person and I'm beginning to understand that...lol!! entered 386 instead of 286]. Any input would be appreciated.--Bluesman 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Red Deer Press" is an OK imprint to use, we've been regularising to that format. "Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited" is here too, but I don't approve of that "Limited" suffix. As usual, any discussion of approved imprints/publishers is probably futile, but in general you'll get less hassle if you stick with one we've already got. BLongley 19:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pride of Monsters

Submitted an edit of PRDMNST1973 that included a catalog #: it should read #02486 (think I forgot the '8').--Bluesman 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Approed adn corrected as per your note. -DES ^Talk 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New/Different pub or not?

How 'different' does a book have to be to warrant a separate pub record? Popular books can have many printings without a single change other than the number line 'progressing' each time.--Bluesman 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We have been doing a separate publication record for each printing as it allows people to verify that a particular printing exists. At times you will see publication records that indicate they are for a span of otherwise identical printings. I suppose if someone owns copies of every single printing in a span they could verify that record. Currently the layering is Author / Title / Publication. I've thought about a fourth layer, Printing, to handle the case you brought up where there are a series of publications that are identical except for the printing #.

Once we have printing # support in the database this will be a little less messy as at present many of these printings are also dated 0000-00-00. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems with the advent of the number line the old practice of listing all the printing dates has been forgotten, and it was SO handy for filling in dates!--Bluesman 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When I find details of prior printings, I'll either note them like here or if there's only a few I'll create stub entries from the copy I own. The aim is to not swamp the title page with loads of slightly suspect entries. It's also quite difficult to tell how much information can safely be copied back to prior printings: price can't, ISBN you might be able to if you verify the first date of use for that ISBN, but with some publishers you can't be sure the earlier editions will even have the same publisher name on. (E.g. Grafton would include all prior Granada, Panther, Panther Triad, Granada Triad and Grafton editions in their "previously published in Grafton" lists.) When I do own two printings of the same book I'll enter and verify them, even if they're identical in every other way - e.g. some early "Man From Uncle" books were reprinted 3 times a month, but only dated to the month so are identical in all but priniting number. BLongley 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with the above, but when i have a 2nd printing that is less than 6 months after the initial printing, on a book known to have been popular, i will in some cases assume that it was reprinted due to demand and not to a price change, and fill in the price along with other data for the first printing, with a note about the source of the data. -DES ^Talk 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you are also adding notes giving sources for the data you added and the assumptions you made. -Marc Kupper|talk 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am now. It is possible that early in my work on the ISFDB I failed to do so, but I would now never add any data from a source other than the book itself wiothout a note of where & how I got it. Didn't i say "with a note..." above. In such a case the note might be as short as "Price assumed same as second printing of <date>. (DES)" but no shorter. -DES ^Talk 21:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubly Verified pubs

TFCFTWTRS1991 and BKTG16212 pub records, both verified by separate editors/moderators, seem to be of the exact same book, other than the publisher being Bantam in the first and Bantam Spectra in the second. Should both stay or one go or should they be merged and if so what happens with the two Verifications? The note in the first entry is mistaken, as the HC and Limited Editions were published simultaneously, the paperback a year later (from the copyright page of the PB).--Bluesman 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My vote is

Ask Mhhutchins if he missed the TFCFTWTRS1991 record or why he verified a separate record.
- If he missed TFCFTWTRS1991 then edit it to a note "Also primary-verified by Mhhutchins on 2007-04-01 09:57:31" and delete BKTG16212.
Ask Scott Latham why he has the note "Hardcover and paperback issued simultaneously." Is this something stated in the publication and is it an accurate transcription? Mhhutchins may be able to shed light on this. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed it. Even though mine has the correct publisher name, and doesn't have an erroneous note, I'll delete it. Good luck contacting Scott. MHHutchins 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Shores of Wonder

Just did an edit of MLO2032 and the first edition I have has a different ISBN than the pub I edited (it IS the same pub). The ISBN I entered is on the copyright page, but when I ran a search using that ISBN it came up with "Planets of Wonder", also published by Thomas Nelson in 1976. The original ISBN is the correct one: 0-8407-6525-8. On the back cover of the jacket is the sequence 6525-8 without the first five digits. Most strange... --Bluesman 13:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as I can't tell from reading what you posted and what's on the publication what ISBNs/codes are on your publication. To add to the confusion, you titled this notice Shores of Wonder but linked to a pub record for The Shores of Tomorrow. In any case, the publication record should reflect what's stated in the publication. If a ISFDB record seems to be for my publication but has wrong information then I'd note the old/original information in the notes.

Okay: firstly, the title is "Shores of Tomorrow". (kind of mixed the two books together...); secondly: the ISBN on the copyright page is 0-8407-6526-6, but on the back cover of the jacket there is just the sequence 6525-8. I ran the first ISBN on ABEBOOKS and came up with Planets of Wonder, then ran it with the second sequence from the back cover (0-8407-6525-8) and got the Silverberg title... does anyone have a copy of Planets of Wonder to check what is actually on the copyright page?--Bluesman 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe in this case the publisher screwed up and used 0-8407-6526-6 on both The Shores of Tomorrow and Planets of Wonder or at least Bill Contento two both books with the same ISBN.

The Shores of Tomorrow Robert Silverberg collection (Thomas Nelson 0-8407-6526-6, 1976, 0-8407-6526-6, $6.95pp, hc)
Planets of Wonder: A Treasury of Space Opera ed. Terry Carr anthology (Thomas Nelson 0-8407-6526-6, 1976, $6.95, 189pp, hc)

I checked AbeBooks for Shores of Wonder (the title you used to start this thread) and found

3 records with ISBN 0-8407-6525-8 (none of the three listing inspire confidence that the dealer was attempting to accurately describe the publication but rather looked up the ISBN in another database)
2 records with ISBN 0-8407-6526-6 (one of these is an advance reader copy)
1 records with ISBN 3-442-23312-7 (published by Goldmann. Goldmann-Science-fiction with this pub available in Germany)

Anyway - let's sort out what book you actually have. :-) -Marc Kupper|talk 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First edition Thomas Nelson hc,'76. --Bluesman 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Earth Book of Stormgate

This record is the one being worked on. [2] This statement is in Notes. Each Story is prefaced by an UNNAMED introductory story that is totally fiction OR The Earthbook of Stormgate on page 1, which precedes Wings of Victory, is split into introductory statements for each story. Page 434 ends the story of the story of how the book was fictionally produced. I am posting it here to promote caution in changing this odd presentation without full discussion. If I have been unclear, please put this on hold for discussion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, fixed the unbalanced li / ul here for now. I understand this is a big problem book - I know, it has taken several attempts to actually acquire the three split UK volumes, I kept getting the wrong ones - but I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Being more detailed about introductory essays maybe? BLongley 22:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at my versions, it might be a good time to ask who S / B as cover artist is as well. BLongley 22:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Solved. It's Stephen Bradbury. BLongley 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Having meditated on it. I think 'The Earth Book of Stormgate' is actually a short story of presentation segments, each separately put before each short story. This is reasoned from 'The Earth Book of Stormgate' being used on page 7, but each segment reinforces that 'Hloch' wrote the commentary and put the stories in between it. The easy glance would be that the first two pages were the whole short story introduction for the series of stories. Also each of the fictional introduction segments are not titled. Hloch chose this real fictional event to place here and here, but Poul Anderson did not separately do so. LOL. Anyone with greater clarity is completely welcome to change it. Happy Holidays this can not be a 'novel' way to introduce stories, but my description seems clumsy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for fixing the errors. My problem is whether to create a title entry for 'The Earth Book of Stormgate' and how to convey to the reader that it might be inter-mixed with the other stories. I hope the note gets the message through to users. I am still torn about the issue though. I see it as a 'continuing introduction' with the added fillup of being writing as fiction. So it would be a short story not an essay introduction. I verified it, so anyone wishing to 'chastise' me for not entering a 'titled' element of a book is welcome to do so. Possibly they have a clearer vision of this type of fictional introduction.

Well, we've used "title (reprised #n)" suffixes before when a story is split around other stories, e.g. Festival Moon, but in this case there's the added complication that they're sort of credited to a fictional character. (If you take the name from within the text, rather than assume that any text not credited at start page gets the author name from title page.) I think it'd be better to credit to Anderson rather than Hloch if you want to go this way, but mention Hloch in notes too. If we start crediting all the fictional authors then some of the pieces currently credited to Anderson could get credited to "Fluoch of Mistwood" for instance. And they sometimes have fictional translators. BLongley 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the "reprised" language was in the ToCs and story title pages of the various Merovingin Nights books (I have them and could check) and not something we invented. -DES ^Talk 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but we do seem to have invented the "#n" bit. "Final Reprise" is in the title of the last though. BLongley 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Earth Book of Stormgatehas no such language, nor does it have any particular indications, as I recall, that the various introductory essays are parts of a single longer work. Had "Hloch" (spelling from memory) been a real person, rather than a fictional character, I am pretty sure that each of the essay's would be credited as "Introduction (Story Title)" -- at least that is how I would do it. i have read EBoS several times, I first bought my copy back in the late 1970s (from the SFBC) and i recall the intros well. By the way, I think that at least one of the intros has been reprinted along with the story it introduces in a more recent Anderson collection. In short, whatever we do about these intros, i would favor treating them as separate short works. i can see three options. a) Just ignore them, as blurbs are ignored; b) call them "essays" but note their in-universe PoV; or c) call them separate works of short fiction. Since they do mention characters not in the stories being introduced, there is an argument for this. This also avoids the problems with the split vols, which obviously have some but not all of the "intros". -DES ^Talk 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Which do you think are missing? Even volume 2, otherwise the same as "War of the Wing-Men", has such an intro. I guess that's a plus point for inclusion - "hey, there's 150 words more in this version!" BLongley 20:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that any single volume of the split editions would obviously not have all of the intros from the full book -- I assume that split volumes together include all of them. But if we treat the intros as parts of a single story, we would need some way to deal with a volume that contained part but not all of that story -- as if one of the Cherryh split stories had been split across multiple volumes of the anthology series (I'm glad it wasn't). Probably we would deal with that by creating a new title, as we do with (revised) or (expanded) works, but that would conceal the fact that we have the same set of words (or I think we do) arranged in different volumes. I can see how what I wrote was unclear -- why didn't you turn on your mind-reading browser? :) -DES ^Talk 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would create a slight problems for the split volumes - if you didn't have all the prior ones then you could never confirm the numbering of the reprised sections. Fortunately I have them all so could confirm one printing of each at least. BLongley 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside. Parted out into pieces of story collections are notoriously tough to collect without getting burned by the vendors. I finally went hc to collect 'Before The Golden Age'(still cheated me on the dust jacket). I have a couple of vol 1 (American paperback editions) which were sold as the complete volume. I really became confused when I tumbled on volume 4, which turned out to be that Great Britain got the treat of the book cut into four segments. Still, I am slowly being persuaded that the short story may be the best place to see the true talent of an author. Thanks for the rescue. Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the British 'Before The Golden Age' is even worse than that, see the title notes. I have volume 1 of 4, 2 of 4, 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 - and volume 3 of 3. Because Orbit printed it in 4 volumes and reprinted it in 3. I also have "The Best of A. E. van Vogt" in one volume, and in two volumes, and they're still both different in content to the US one. BLongley 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

City

Just finished editing CTLTGTGHLP1954 and it presents the same problems as "Earth Book of Stormgate" (see directly above). There is an "Editor's Preface" and eight "notes" preceding each of the eight tales, all written as if the stories are of a real/mythological past history. In adding these to the contents I left the assignation at shortfiction, ignored the length for now and credited Simak as author. Plus this title is listed as a collection, but called a novel on both covers of the two editions I have (first PERMA & first ACE pbs). Both copyright pages state that: "City is based [my italics] on material originally copyrighted by Street & Smith...". Been keeping an eye on the "Earth...." discussion, but still not sure what to do with this?--Bluesman 17:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As you discovered, Simak's City is one of those beasts that straddle the fence between a collection of linked stories and a fix-up novel. It's further complicated by the fact that Simak wrote another City story after Campbell's death, which has been included in some (but not all) post-1972 reprints of the book. As far as we know, the stories themselves were not modified vis a vis their original magazine appearances, so keeping City as a collection enables our users to quickly jump to their other appearances, which are often numerous -- see, e.g., "Huddling Place". Ahasuerus 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what do the "notes" before each tale get classified as? Just edited the first Ace pub and all had been lumped as "Author's note" which isn't particularly accurate. As with the Perma pub I just listed them as they fell and didn't classify them beyond the shortfiction designation.--Bluesman 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "shortfiction" is what we typically use for "in-universe essays", so what you did looks OK. However, I have checked and the rest of the verified pubs do not list individual introductions/notes individually since they are only about a page long. I don't think it's a huge deal either way, but we will presumably want to stay consistent across pubs. Also, if we decide to keep individual "notes" Titles, we'll want to add them to the "City" series. 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stapledon

Just added a publication to Stapledon's biblio and think I did it wrong. Should it have gone under OMNIBUS? The title was not exactly the same as another similar pub from the same year (Last and First Men/Star Maker) from the same publisher (Dover), but a different binding and price.--Bluesman 03:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it's actually an Omnibus rather than an anthology and, as far as I can tell, you also did it via "Add Publication to This Title" for the *novel* Last and First Men, so we would have an Anthology Pub linked to a Novel Title, generally a bad idea. I have the submission on hold and could redo it manually, but it would probably be best if you resubmitted it as a New Omnibus -- since you have the book handy -- and then merge the Titles. No worries, just the usual growing pains :) Ahasuerus 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will re-submit tomorrow, when my brain is fresh. With all these "pains" I should be nine feet tall by now! :) --Bluesman 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have approved and reshuffled the original submission based on my copy. The Title record for this omnibus has been merged with the pre-existing record and Stapledon's introductions/prefaces have been added. Also, the date has been changed to 0000-00-00 since we have an earlier $2.00 printing of the Dover edition on file. Hopefully, the results match your copy. Ahasuerus 05:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check it out! Apologies for not getting to this but have had no time/energy to get back on here and catch up. Busting my butt to finish a job before major surgery in about nine days. May be off here for a couple of months.--Bluesman 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's not going anywhere! Good luck with the surgery -- they are never fun, but as we get older, they become even less so... Ahasuerus 18:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! My first, other than having a broken arm set, since I had my tonsils out at 12...! Don't worry, I'll be back to bug you with strange edits before you even miss me!!! ;) --Bluesman 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Edward S. Hudson pseudonym of Robert E. Vardeman

Since it asks for no explanation here it is. Alien Death Fleet when searched at Fantastic Fiction has the Hudson edition, but also a 2008 release of the same story by Robert E. Vardeman. Checking with Amazon and reading the bits of storyline made the books identical, ergo they are the same. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have approved the pseudonym submission and created a Variant Title for the novel. It says "Star Frontier Trilogy" on the cover, but no other "Edward S. Hunter" books ever appeared, at least not according to the Locus Index and OCLC. Checking OCLC, I see that the cover of the 2008 reprint still advertises it as book 1 in a trilogy, so perhaps Vardeman will wrap it up yet :) Ahasuerus 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Vardeman's forte seems to be triplets. I hope you meant that was 'Edward S. Hudson'. As I may be confusing, I had best retire for the day. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, make it "Hudson", sorry! Ahasuerus 05:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I Dare

Here is the problem, you see two introductions, one has no page number. That is the original, which did not give the introduction correct title. I entered the correct title, so my thinking is to delete the incorrect one after acceptance. I hope this the problem with it's acceptance. If not, please give a ring. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like DES put this submission on hold on Wednesday, so he will probably chime in shortly :) Ahasuerus 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just now indicated my concerns with this submission on Harry's talk page. As indicated there, I have now rejected the submission after entering some of the data from it separately. My apologies for the delay in following up. -DES ^Talk 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a possible miscommunication brewing on this issue, any other active moderator please take a look at Harry's talk page if you think you might be able to help out. -DES ^Talk 02:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Giant Anthology of Science Fiction (unorthodox data acquisition)

This. [3] . I think this wandered over to this spot. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry, This is a review of the Giant Anthology os Science Fiction. No title search working on this today. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the only title for "The Giant Anthology of Science Fiction", the others are just "Giant Anthology of Science Fiction". BLongley 18:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it know, as it was initially submitted without the 'The' then I got loopy because a review from another source put it in correctly. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Partial Artist Signature

On the cover of Tevis' "The Man Who Fell To Earth" (there is no photo with the pub record) I have found a partial signature '..illon' and assume that it would be 'Dillon" but my copy cuts off the beginning of the signature. The verifier (RUDAM) has not been on his/her talk page for over a year (I did leave a note about this) so I'm wondering if anyone else out there has a copy? Don't want to touch the Verified record with just a partial... THMNWHFLLT1963 --Bluesman 00:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest thatr the Verification requests page is designed for exactly this kind of query? It doesn't matter that much, but non-mod editors are more likely to look at that page, and people doing verifications later may be mopre likely to look at it also. -DES ^Talk 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the other page and will use it in future for this kind of post. A question that might belong here: has something changed with the log-in process? Up until three days ago I could log in once and jump from different talk pages to check on posts and add to them but now every different page requires a separate log-in (when editing)--Bluesman 02:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)...???

I don't think we have had any software changes in the last few days. Wiki "sessions" can be flaky, though, and their duration can depend on your browser settings, internal timeouts and the current phase of the moons on Mars. Sometimes I stay logged in for months at a time and sometimes I have to log in 3 times a day. Clearly, we need to sacrifice more goats to the Wiki gods... Ahasuerus 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Strictly speaking that question probably belongs on the Help desk but I will answer it here. To the best of my knowledge nothing has changed on the site, and i am now doing the kind of thing you describe with no problems. I do know that staying logged in depends on a cookie being set and retained. Weather (and from what sites) to accept cookies and retain them is a browser setting, and it is possible that your browser settings have changed. If you are using IE, check the "privacy" tab under Tools -> Internet options. On other browsers, the setting may be elsewhere. -DES ^Talk 02:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite correct, David. Looking over this page, I see it has strayed far afield from its original purpose. The message below from Gloinson is one of the few posts here that adhere to the page's raison d'etre. MHHutchins 04:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't approve

Please do not approve my edit of The Star Road by Gordon R. Dickson. The information was added under the wrong publication. Correct publication info is already there. I apologize for the error --Gloinson 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, per your request. MHHutchins 04:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Away and Beyond

Just did an edit of WYNDBYND19XX and moved the LCCCN to the notes from the ISBN/Catalog # field. Did this because I haven't seen it put in the field very often, usually in the notes. Is this the standard practice? --Bluesman 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If a book has an LCCN, but does not have an ISBN, nor a publisher's catalog number of any sort, then IMO the LCCN could go either in the notes or in the ISBN/Catalog # field. If there is either an ISBN or a catalog number, then Those should take priority, which means the LCCN will usually be in the notes. Perhaps then it should always be in notes, to avoid having to look for it in two places. It it is put in the ISBN/Catalog # field, it should be identified, as "#LCCN 99-123456", at least IMO.

Oh and for the future, this kind of "how do i...?" question really belongs at the Help desk. -DES ^Talk 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This question comes up from time to time, so we may want to make a more formal decision and add it to Help. Historically, I have been telling editors to add LCCNs to Notes since they are quite different from publishers' catalog IDs. My primary concern was that if allowed LCCNs in the Catalog/ISBN field, we would be overloading that long suffering field even more, with 3 different data elements uneasily sharing the same bed, er, field :) Ahasuerus 01:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with Ahasuerus here. Let's not give this field another purpose. I wouldn't even mind catalog numbers and ISBNs having their own fields, if I didn't have to go back and update my verified pubs! Anyway, LCCNs are assigned by the Library of Congress, not by the publisher. They have no purpose similar to that of publisher's catalog numbers, which can used to narrow down publication dates. LCCNs can be assigned to books many months, even a year or more before the actual publication. Use the notes field, if you must. MHHutchins 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

LCCNs are useful -- they are a key lookup field at the Library of Congress Online Catalog. In fact, they almost became a universal identifier such as the ISBN now is. They are also a useful lookup key at OCLC in many cases. But I now agree with Ahasuerus and Mhhutchins: keep them in the notes. I also think that ideally we should split the ISBN and Publisher's cat # into separate fields, and i would think a script could populate those (anything starting with # or that has neither 10 nor 13 digits goes into the cat # field). But who knows when such a change might be implemented. -DES ^Talk 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

LCCN should be a Title field not a Pub field if it is a field since it is per work not per edition/printing. Dana Carson 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? The 1948 edition of Beyond This Horizon is LCCN 48007765 while the 1981 Gregg Press edition is LCCN 80026888. Similarly, the 1957 edition of Citizen of the Galaxy is LCCN 57010008 while the 1987 edition is LCCN 86026172. Ahasuerus 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

According to LCCN Permalink Frequently Asked Questions:

The Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) is the number associated with the bibliographic record created by the Library of Congress or another library for a given book. Strictly speaking the LCCN is the control number for the bibliographic record, not the book. In the past, the printed card in a card catalog was the most popular format for displaying the bibliographic record and consequently the number associated with the record was commonly referred to as the Library of Congress Card Number. Other formats, however, were also used to display and distribute catalog records such as: book catalogs, microform catalogs, and online catalogs. As the most popular format for displaying and distributing bibliographic records is now the online automated system, it is more accurate to use the term "Library of Congress Control Number" rather than "Library of Congress Card Number".

According to Preassigned Card Number Program:

A Library of Congress catalog card number is a unique identification number that the Library of Congress assigns to the catalog record created for each book in its cataloged collections. Librarians use it to locate a specific Library of Congress catalog record in the national databases and to order catalog cards from the Library of Congress or from commercial suppliers. The Library of Congress assigns this number while the book is being cataloged. Under certain circumstances, however, a card number can be assigned before the book is published through the Preassigned Card Number Program.

I take the above to mean that a new edition of a book is likely to hve a new LCCN, and a new printing could have a new LCCN if the LoC decides to aquire and catalog the new printing. I als take it that it is not assured that a book published in the US will have an LCCN at all, but it is likley for books published by major publishers, and by small presses who participate in the either the free Cataloging in Publication program or the Preassigned Card Number Program.

From all this i conclude that the LCCN should probably stay as pub-level data, until/unless we develop an edition level record type. -DES ^Talk 04:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I've seen so many books with LCCN numbers that are years older than the book that I'd assumed it was per title. I guess it's reprints that were not cataloged other than the original edition. Dana Carson 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Moderating submissions without access to the original pub record

I don't know why this just occurred to me, but it doesn't happen very often that a non-moderated editor submits an edit to drop titles. (Or at least in my experience as a moderator.) How do we know which pub record is being edited when there are multiple pubs of the same title? Check out this submission which I have placed on hold until I hear back from the editor. There is no indication in the submission about which pub is having titles dropped. I do a search for the novel (His Majesty's Dragon) and there are six pubs. Three of them have the title record which is being dropped. And two of them are VERIFIED. How would any of you other mods handle this? MHHutchins 05:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would assume in this case that it was the non-verified pub, since the "verified" warning does not appear. But i'd need to experiment on a test pub to be sure that the verified warnign wpuild appear. And I wonder what is going on here, because I have a copy of that title and the record represents an element that is indeed present in my copy. I wonder if Harry is planning to change the type (the "notebook" is mostly sketches, and could arguably have type INTERIORART) and is dropping the existing record before addign the new one. Hold and ask seems reasonable, as well as file an enhancement request to get the pub record number displayed as it is on most (all other?) edit types. -DES ^Talk 16:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See ISFDB Feature List (Feature 90166). -DES ^Talk 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This. [4] . The deletions wished are the generic interior art and the Sketchbook one which appears as an essay. The generic interior art, only interior art, is after the 'Sketchbook' title page. It is two pages with 5 dragons. New entry will read From The Sketchbook of Sir Edward Howe as interiorart of 'Gayle Marquez'. There is no sketchbook essay, but there is fictional short story described in historical text form after the sketches. It has a separate title and is quite convincing on a quick look, as it is in an essay format. Frankly, I am ignoring that fictional essay, because it is confusing, no such research texts exist and yet as a story it only serves as a 'mood' setter for the novel series.

This is a mistake of the first verifier, who was cloned and then I cloned from that. Thus a mistake gets cloned, just as freely as the good data. The intent of the deletions and the revised new addition is to correct the cloning sequence and show the correct presentation. Of course, someone with additional insight may also posit a different solution than ignoring the fictional historical text essay that follows the sketchbook, but it still 'cooks' my brain. Sorry for the confusions, but it does show that cloning has added hazards. If I had not cloned, I am sure it would have been pointed out that I should have. It is hard to point out a continuing mistake in a sequentially dominated process. And now it should be obvious that correcting that mistake is just as time demanding in any case. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Shadow Steed- please reject

I made an entry error submission before I was through. Please reject it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done! Ahasuerus 16:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cities in Flight

Please reject as I have made a spelling error in a new title. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Bill has that submission on hold. I see that you have already discussed this issue with Bill, so he will probably get back to you tomorrow after work (UK time). Ahasuerus 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Automated submissions - review requested

As some of you may have noticed, I have been playing with automated submissions for the last few days. Amazon.com is the first victim on my target list and in another day or two I will start flooding the submission queue with Amazon data, but for now I have created 9 semi-random Amazon-derived submissions to serve as guinea pigs.

All 9 submissions were created using my user ID between 17:55:51 and 17:55:55 ISFDB time and are currently sitting in the moderator queue, so they should be easy to find. The first two (Anatomy for the Artist and The Great Gatsby) are clearly not SF and were misfiled my Amazon. However, the other 7 are all legitimate SF books and we didn't have them in the database as of the time when I installed the last backup locally. 70%+ is not a bad ratio and if we can keep it up, the approval process shouldn't be too onerous (hopefully).

Once you review the submissions, you will see that they are very similar to Dissembler's with one major difference: I list the reasons used by the automated import program to determine whether the book is SF. They also link back to the Amazon.com page that the data originally came from. I hope this information will be helpful when moderating automated submissions, but please let me know if I missed anything -- or even added too much! The downside of this approach is that the approving moderator will need to remember to delete everything after the words "MODERATOR NOTES", but I figure all automated submissions require a fair amount of massaging/merging, so I hope that the trade-off is reasonable. Ahasuerus 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Two immediate thoughts: 1) submit them under a separate ID or people will "recognise them as a fellow-moderator's submissions" and leave them alone. (I use "Data Thief" for my test automated submissions for example.) BLongley 00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I have had User:Fixer reserved for this purpose for a few months. The only reason I submitted the first batch under my own user ID was to make sure that they didn't get accidentally approved :) Ahasuerus 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

2) Even most newbie editors manage to "Add publication to this title" rather than create an entirely new publication (even if they add them under the wrong variant at times). Can this be improved easily? As it'll lead to a lot more merging activity otherwise. BLongley 00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way to add this ability would be to teach the software how to determine that, e.g., "Spook Country (Thorndike Press Large Print Mystery Series)" is the same as "Spook Country". The basic algorithm could be implemented fairly easily, but I am not sure what the error rate would be especially when you throw middle initials and such into the mix. I'll see if I can give it a shot in the next 24 hours. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Found a Python bug when submitting apostrophe-enabled titles using the Web interface. I'll wait for Al to address it on his end while I am polishing anti-comic/game code. Ahasuerus 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Al has explained the intricacies of the Web API to me (translation: don't do stupid things and it will work fine!) and I have finished a number of changes on my side, so I am ready to start creating submissions via User:Fixer. Feel free to approve/reject them as needed, but if you find systemic issues (as I am sure you will), e.g. certain types of non-genre books or RPG items getting through, please let me know. Ahasuerus 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Fixer has been activated and three submissions are now sitting in the queue. We'll see how many we can process on a daily basis... Ahasuerus 06:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A number of minor fixes were implemented earlier today, but nothing earth-shattering. I will work on using "Add Pub" instead of "New Pub" tomorrow, but for now there are about 20 Fixer entries in the queue. Keep in mind that all of this data comes from Amazon.com and its quality varies a great deal. Some Amazon pages have incorrect "Look Inside" links and in some cases mundane books are labeled "SF" for no apparent reason. Caveat moderator! Ahasuerus 04:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Of the first 270 records processed so far, over 30 were rejected by Fixer because they were comic books, had no SF subjects or browse nodes or otherwise looked funny. Another 82 were rejected by moderators because they were non-genre. In other words, about 65% of the submissions have been actually SF so far, but I expect this number to fluctuate as we go through different segments of the 289,639 records that are currently on file. I couldn't make any major changes to the code for technical reasons today (although I found and fixed the "comic fantasy" browse node which Amazon cleverly called "Comic"), but hope to rewrite and improve some areas tomorrow or early next week. I doubt I will be able to filter out many more non-genre books, though, since there is no way to tell that Random Title No. 345 is non-SF if Amazon labels it SF :( Ahasuerus 05:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The bulk of the Amazon.com data has been captured. Of the 290,762 records that I have downloaded, 189,827 have legitimate ISBNs that we do not have on file. I will work on improving my code over the weekend assuming we don't have any unscheduled disasters until then... Ahasuerus 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are a bit confusing. The conclusion is that there's almost 101k legitimate ISBNs we DO have on file, or there's illegitimate ISBNs in that download. As we only have about 92k ISBNS between '000' and '998' (I'm pretty sure the '999' ones are duff) it sounds like the latter. Just how dirty is that data? BLongley 19:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of their recent (i.e. <10 year old) ISBNs are legitimate, but anything prior to the 1990s is likely to be fake, e.g. "BK00004567", and there are quite a few of them. Older records also tend to have relatively few useful fields and what is there is fairly dirty, so I figured we'd tackle them last. I did see a few very rare pre-1980 SF books that we didn't have on that list, though, so it's not a 100% lost cause. Ahasuerus 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicles of the Round Table-differences

Pardon. This anthology had only three matches with the contents of other examples with that title. Rather than import and delete so many titles, I added each title as shown on the title story page. I believe the other examples used a table of contents listing to enter the titles. I also opened one title field in error and blanked the data. I then entered it as an interview. The dates in the content fields are the same as those I did not import from and those dates check with the Acknowledgments pages, except for The Fight for The Queen which read "First published in The Book of Romance edited by Andrew Lang(London:Longmans, Green, 1902); copyright expired in 1962." This showed a 1997 date and that example was followed. Humble opinion. The titles in the other examples are probably wrong as this DB enters them. Awaiting commentary on my page. In all cases of the knight name edition, they will be variants of the original title (IMO). Messy, be warned. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry entered on wrong page, after log in required second time. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I approved the edit earlier today and posted on Rules and standards discussions before I had a chance to read this note. Since it's a standards issue, it's probably best to continue the discussion there. Ahasuerus 02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gilgamesh's submissions

I am afraid I am not feeling well and can't do justice to Gilgamesh's recent submissions, i.e. "The Robot and the Man" and "The Mixed Men: An Interstellar Adventure". If someone else could handle the corrections and the communications with Gilgamesh, I would greatly appreciate it. TIA! Ahasuerus 02:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Explorers

I just submitted two additions to EXPLORERS2000, when I was almost completed the first my computer decided to shut down and instead of typing all that in again finished the submission as a separate entry. These can be merged?? (I hate WINDOWS.....never have this problem with my MAC)--Bluesman 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Just had to remove a second "Exploring Fossil Canyon", the rest was automatic. BLongley 20:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The shut-down happened so fast I could just get to 'submit' and then couldn't remember if I had finished entering 'Fossil..." so just started over with it.--Bluesman 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ultra-Gash Inferno"

You may not have read the news about it, but the Internet Watch Foundation seem to have started recommending certain Wikipedia pages get blocked for "Pictorial Child Abuse" reasons (Google "Virgin Killer Scorpions" for the news, and if you're brave, the sites that may get you arrested) and there's new legislation about "Extreme Porn" being banned in the UK as well. So it's probably not wise for me to investigate such titles for inclusion or exclusion here, but as I stumbled across this already I think it can be deleted on "Manga" grounds, but someone in a less repressive regime might want to go investigate and delete related titles. Or be a bit braver than me and ADD such, if it's really SF. BLongley 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that someone bought a bunch of Virgin Killer sleeves and then brought the picture to the attention of the Internet Watch Foundation to create interest in the cover and to drive its price up - pump and dump. As far as Ultra Gash Inferno goes - Non-photographic images of children have never been illegal to possess in the UK meaning it should be safe to collect Lolicon to see what would be applicable to ISFDB. Should we ban books like Firefly which is rumored to espouse pedophilia? --Marc Kupper|talk 04:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, people have already been prosecuted for possession of "an indecent pseudo-photograph" in the UK. And the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 makes the definition even woollier - it doesn't have to be a photograph or a pseudo-photograph, but a "tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)". Frankly, nobody really knows what it covers any more but I personally don't want to be the first to find out. Don't censor anything on my account, this is just a tip-off that I'm not happy dealing with such at the moment. I'd rather be called a wimp by the rest of you than a paedophile by anyone in authority. BLongley 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My visualization of the first is that it is manga. My visualization of 'Firefly' is that it has been around for almost twenty years. The problem with banning is when do you stop. I recently read the Founder by Christoper Rowley. It is fairly hard to get and I wondered if it was because one of the plot lines has "Moslem" desert chieftain descendants financing and brutally taking over the ship being built. If you bow to one group, I feel you will bow to every group which will find it offensive to their religion, etc. Novels and their authors frequently explore fringe topics. Michael Moorcock, who has lead efforts to ban Gor books, wrote a very graphic beastality sequence in the Runestaff series. It could be taken as an expression of the decadence of that culture, but if it was widely known it would probably be banned. The point is a supposed, self-proclaimed moralist lashes out at out at what he finds offensive, but does not apply those rules to himself. If you follow Moorcock you delete all Norman, and then you take the next step and start banning covers, because of Moorcocks statements about Wolheim being a sado-masochistic voyeur. Whips and Chains and where/when would you stop. Personally Manga, is not considered anything but quick thrill material in Japan. It always skirts into child images and often they are racially based. The title 'Ultra Gash' is a clear clue of the manga's intent and even if this one is not offensive, it will always be driven by the Japanese manga market and soon will become quite extreme. So ban manga type material as it's fiction schemes are just a guise for at best soft porn. At the same time, make anyone wishing to ban material be very specific as to the what and why. Make them submit a detail specific analysis of what is wrong with the material. Then be realistic, as this site does not advocate anything, why should it start censoring. You get my drift. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

To swerve this back on topic - Apparently Bill found what looks like a manga title but did not think it was safe to research himself. The publisher, Creation Books, seems to do specfict along with a number of other genre such as "wet angels" but makes up for that with an "SF Porn" section (not UK safe - sorry Bill, no peeking). However, the Wikipedia article, Creation Books, seems UK safe. I believe Ulra Gash is their only manga work on ISFDB. Two of the authors are only in ISFDB because of Ultra Gash. The third author, James Havoc, seems to write surrealist edgy "cyperpunk" specfict with Creation Books being his main publisher. Ultra-Gash has a number of Amazon reviews. It's not clear if Ultra Gash is specfict as it leans towards surrealist horror. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Update - there's an article at wikipedia:James Havoc which says "He was a head of Creation Books, Creation Records book division" which explains why many of his books were published by Creation Books though an oddity is that neither the Creation Records wiki article nor web site mention Havoc at all. It also seems, given the explanation of his "death," that this is a pseudonym. May he live happily in Panama. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1980 Annual World's Best SF

Just submitted two edits on the pub THNNLWRLDS1980, but the first one was a mistake. Hit return instead of shift. Just so you don't think I'm out of my mind...though some days that 'may' be true......Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Ahasuerus 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Midwich Cuckoos

Just put in an edit of TMDWCHCKS1959 where I changed the publishing date from 1959 to 1958 to agree with Currey, but the Ballantine db has it as 1959 with two lower numbered verified pubs. Should have checked that first. I think the notes are still valid, but please reject the date change. Cheers! ~bill, --Bluesman 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved and changed back to 1959. Ahasuerus 23:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Now & Beyond

Just submitted two edits on NWNDBYND1965, the second because of a text error in the notes and I found some more information. Please reject the first submission and use the second. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Ahasuerus 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Infinity One

I just posted two edits to the pub record of ANCL00221. The second was to correct a minor punctuation error in the first. Please reject the first entry and use the second. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Ahasuerus 16:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Selections From Beyond Human Ken

Have submitted two (three, actually, as I forgot to put the correct page count in on the first edit) edits for what turns out to be the same book. BNDHMNKNXP1954 and SLCTMNKN861954. The first was/is listed under "Beyond Human Ken", though the title page clearly states "Selections From...". Submitted a change to that only to find the correct pub 10 minutes later. The two pubs should be merged? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I decided to delete SLCTMNKN861954 as it was a duplicate of BNDHMNKNXP1954 though moved one note over about the stated first Pendant printing. We don't a way to merge publications meaning we eyeball-diff the metadata and can use diff-pub to check the contents. I did merge the extra coverart title record that deleting the publication left behind. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hilary (author) to Hilary Evans

I made an author title change, Hilary to Hilary Evans. I have Beyond The Gaslight and he was incorrectly entered in the contents areas. Of course, there is probably a merge function that I am missing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's an Author Merge. Which needed to be done between the new Hilary Evans you created and the existing one. Sorted now. BLongley 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can you confirm the other Evans too please? We have "Dik Evans" in contents but "Dick Evans" for the main title. BLongley 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Everest help. "Dik Evans is a science teacher whose specialist knowledge supplies a contemporary context for those stories in which scientific hypothesis were exploited." From the back inner flap and apparently his total biography. I submitted the change to make it Dik Evans. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, approved. Thanks! BLongley 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #5: the Vegan Sector -Please delete

Entered under wrong title record. Please delete. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. BLongley 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 Here is the problem, you see two introductions, one has no page number. That is the original, which did not give the introduction correct title. I entered the correct title, so my thinking is to delete the incorrect one after acceptance. I hope this the problem with it's acceptance. If not, please give a ring. Thanks, Harry. --[[User:Dragoondelight|Dragoondelight]] 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
-:It looks like  put this submission on hold on Wednesday, so he will probably chime in shortly :) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
+:It looks like DES put this submission on hold on Wednesday, so he will probably chime in shortly :) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 ::I have just now indicated my concerns with this submission on [[User talk:Dragoondelight#I Dare|Harry's talk page]]. As indicated there, I have now rejected the submission after entering some of the data from it separately. My apologies for the delay in following up. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 :::There seems to be a possible miscommunication brewing on this issue, any other active moderator please take a look at [[User talk:Dragoondelight#I Dare|Harry's talk page]] if you think you might be able to help out. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 02:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)