ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 24

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 July - December 2018.

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

Hauck's withdrawal

As per User:Hauck's decision to stop being a moderator and withdraw from the project, the moderator flag has been removed from his account. His account remains active in case he decides to contribute again. Ahasuerus 13:37, 29 June 2018 (EDT)

Sad to see him go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:34, 29 June 2018 (EDT)

Deplorable! Rudam 07:27, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

Agreed, very unfortunate. I hope he will have a change of heart. --MartyD 08:09, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

Yes indeed, sad to see him go... are we privy to know his reason/s? PeteYoung 08:22, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

It's always regrettable when a long-time contributor decides to leave the project. In this case, it was apparently a gradual accumulation of issues. Over time, Hauck became unhappy with Community Portal, Moderator Noticeboard and R&S discussions and processes, which he described as a "charade" and a "kangaroo court", so he stopped participating. In April, there were complaints about the way we guide new editors, at which point he stopped working on that as well.

That left his work on cleanup reports and self-moderating. The former prompted this discussion of his deletion of records accepted by other moderators without discussion or notification. His position was that "If a moderator choose to accept texts that are outside our ROA, these texts are fair game for deletion without notice (the more so if the records are highly visible because of sloppy moderating). There is nothing to discuss in the case of the correction of errors, be they deliberate or not." I pointed out that we can't run this project if moderators delete records accepted by other moderators without communicating with each other and with the submitting editors and that it would have to stop. At that point he changed his moderator status to "self-moderating only", but then changed his mind and decided to withdraw from the project. Ahasuerus 09:11, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

A shame and a great loss, if this turns out to be irrevocable. We will miss his encyclopaedic knowledge of French SF, among other things. Linguist 09:26, 1 July 2018 (EDT).

Yes, it is a shame. If he just would have been able (or will come) to communicate on such vital matters, this just would not have been necessary. But it turned out that several of the publications he deleted turned out to include genre titles, when he was of the one-sided opinion that they were not. There also was no word of regret when he was made aware of these facts. Stonecreek 11:24, 1 July 2018 (EDT)

Communication is typically the most important part of collaborative projects. It can be time-consuming and sometimes frustrating, but if the communication process breaks down, Bad Things (tm) invariably happen to the project. Ahasuerus 11:55, 1 July 2018 (EDT)

I understand his decision completely, I feel similarly, the permanent stress with moderators who manipulate data and tolerate wrong data is unacceptable.

Hauck is one of a few mods that have the perspective.--Wolfram.winkler 03:46, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

If there is an entry that has had data "manipulated" (not sure what that means) or that has wrong data, bring it up on the Rules and Standards or Community page for discussion. We certainly don't want incorrect information here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:43, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

There is no reason for further discussions. Manipulate = change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulate).--Wolfram.winkler 03:11, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

If we (as moderators) don't know where a problem is, we can't fix it. If you know of something that should be fixed, then there is absolutely a reason for further discussion. None of us (as far as I know) are mind readers, so please make a new section and bring up the concern if there is actually something that needs addressing. Playing your cards close to the vest helps no one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:37, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

It has already been discussed enough, without results.--Wolfram.winkler 04:00, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Sansanfeng's submissions "unheld"

I had Sansanfeng's submissions on hold while we were discussing webzine eligibility. Now that they are officially "in", I have removed the hold. Please feel free to approve/massage them if you feel qualified. My Korean is almost as weak as my Venusian, so I am not the best person to handle them. Ahasuerus 20:02, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

I've approved the one that was obviously in (the 14C thingie) and put the others back on hold - verifying is really speculative fiction webzine or just publishes occasional SF story. Annie 10:50, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

Held submissions - changing publisher credits to Orbit (US)

Does anyone have any objections to (or other insights about) my accepting the submissions I have held in the queue for a while that change various Orbit-related publisher credits to "Orbit (US)"? Most of the PVs involved have not responded to my inquiries. I did get two responses, one in favor and one who prefers just "Orbit" as stated in the book. I tried email to Bluesman -- who is involved as PV or a secondary source verifier on many of them -- with no response at all, so I can't tell if the email made it or not. But I've had them held for long enough and want to do something definitive with them. FWIW, the 978-0-316-xxxxx-x ISBN group is assigned to Hatchette Book Group USA, so the change seems correct to me. Thanks. --MartyD 11:45, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

Orbit is one of the special cases where the decision had been made a very long time ago to use the Orbit(US) for the American publisher despite the fact that the books say just Orbit - when there are multiple publishers with the same name, we need the difference so the books can split into proper lists. :) Maybe that second PV should be reminded that and asked again based on this information? Other from that, they look like belonging to the US Orbit indeed. Annie 13:37, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

No, it'll be ok. He didn't object, just expressed a preference based on what's in the book. I do not expect any an issue there with a "Orbit (US)" decision. --MartyD 13:55, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

As long as the primary verifiers have been notified and they do not object, I think it would be OK to accept the submissions. If a currently inactive verifier comes back later and wants to change it back to "Orbit", the breadcrumb trail will still be available. Ahasuerus 14:45, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

Submission of novel

My fantasy novel, Bumpy Night on the Walk of Fame, was just released as an e-book by Uncial Press of Oregon. How do I go about submitting it to get it listed in ISFDB, other than getting permission from my publisher? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lorwish (talk • contribs) . 20:19, 11 July 2018 (EST)

Help:How to enter a new novel should help you out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:26, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Andre Norton - Forerunners Universe

As I was unable to find a decent cataloging or timeline for Norton's FORERUNNERS UNIVERSE here, (Goodreads doesn't have it either. ) I made one myself. I did consult Andre Norton Books but that was done in 1995 and Maureen O'Brien tried to shoehorn almost everything Norton wrote up to then in a single timeline. She didn't explain where she gets the majority of the dates she sticks to the listed books and apparently has not responded to contact requests for many years. That timeline just isn't very realistic imo and there are many things I don't agree with.

I have just uploaded my Timeline and Reading order for Andre Norton's FORERUNNERS UNIVERSE. I finished it yesterday and submitted to BAEN in case they would be interested. I joined 57 titles in this timeline, many of which ISFDB has listed as separate series or stand-alone novels. Most of the series that are listed here I agree with, some I don't. The titles that belong in the Space Age / Forerunners Universe should imo also be grouped together under that header.

I've included my reasoning and documentation so you can verify that I've done my homework on this. You can see the graphic timeline HERE.

If the moderators think this makes sense, please use this to update the Andre Norton page. Thank you. SF&F-fan 16:40, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

One technical thing here: can you please not add /* */ around the title - the system uses these for the summaries that allow someone to jump to a specific topic from the history/watch lists and when you have them as well, it messes up that capability a bit.

If you mailed Baen, should we give them a few days to see if they respond? And in the meantime, that will give everyone a few days/weeks to look at that and see if we can spot an issue in that series? Anniemod 16:47, July 18, 2018

How about we try to crowd-source it? Ask on Usenet, Goodreads and Reddit to see if there are any objections to the proposed timeline?

My immediate concern is with the standalones. Some of them have certain elements which arguably make them a part of the same universe. However, if I recall correctly (which I may not since it's been a long time), the hints were subtle. Ahasuerus 11:34, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

I am all for crowd-sourcing. Someone needs to take lead on that so I guess we need a volunteer? Annie 13:23, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

I have posted queries on rec.arts.sf.written and /r/printSF, but I don't have a Goodreads account. Ahasuerus 16:07, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) The feedback has been limited so far.

Reddit:

There always seemed to be too many little odd inconsistencies and unique aspects for them to actually be in the same universe. Similar ones, yes, but they didn’t seem to be in the same one.

Usenet:

I don't think that her post-apocalyptic novels can fit into the Solar Queen's past. While that past certainly did have atomic wars, they didn't destroy civilization to that extent. There simply isn't enough time to recover to that level.

Ahasuerus 11:01, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

Another comment by Joe Bernstein:

[snip] <Warlock>, 1960-1973, first compiled as such 2002
[snip] <Ice Crown>, 1970, <Forerunner>, 1981, and <Forerunner: The Second Venture>, 1985

[snip] My <Locus> / Contento indices claim that the six books listed above form the "Forerunner" series. Clute in the EoSF almost agrees, omitting <Ice Crown>. Neither is correct. Each of these books (like many others by Norton) has a single protagonist. <Forerunner> and <Forerunner: The Second Venture> share theirs, Simsa. <Storm over Warlock>'s Shann Lantee meets <Ordeal in Otherwhere>'s Charis Nordholm during the latter book. A character in <Forerunner Foray> (not its protagonist, Ziantha) seems to be their son. Simsa's two share no close link with the <Warlock> three, nor has any of the five much to do with <Ice Crown> (protagonist Roane Hulme). What does link them all is actually a common (extremely vague) future history, which according to Clute pervades Norton's science fiction. Thus while <Ice Crown> refers to "Forerunner"s, <Forerunner> itself, in a cover blurb, names <The Time Traders>, 1958, and <Galactic Derelict>, 1959, as its predecessors. Much of <Forerunner Foray> is set in a place whose name <Locus> / Contento give to a series consisting of <Catseye>, 1961, <Judgment on Janus>, 1963, and <Night of Masks>, 1964, but not including <Victory on Janus>, 1966, which apparently shares its protagonist with <Judgment> ... You get the idea.

Ahasuerus 18:15, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

11/30/2018 update:

Thank you all for the follow-up. Sorry for not responding earlier.

I did hear back from Baen shortly after I posted this, they seemed to like it, but also said that it ( = Andre Norton ? ) doesn't fit in their publication schedule at this time. However, I do think it indicates some measure of approval that they shared the link to my timeline on their facebook page twice (August 14 and August 20) Baen books Facebook post

I did make considerable changes since the first draft, mostly by moving the war stories forward in the timeline, -- motivation detailed in the arguments pages -- and there are much fewer internal inconsistencies that way. If interested, you might review it again.

Ahasuerus, About the remark of 'predecessors' It is obvious that the 2 oldest novels (Star Guard & Star Rangers; aka 'Central Control' series) are precursors or forerunners (pun intended) to the Forerunner-themed books, but they also have many inconsistencies with the later books. I have clearly listed these inconsistencies for each reader's consideration and shown where the titles might fit in the timeline if one decides to overlook these inconsistencies or just wants to read them to follow Norton's evolution as a writer. I also think that despite the inconsistencies in the later titles, Andre Norton stuck to the A.D. 2000 - 8000 timeline laid out in those first 2 novels as shown in the timeline picture. The inconsistencies still do not mean these early novels cannot be acknowledged as what they are: the earliest forerunners of the forerunner books and as such they deserve to be considered as part of the developmental context of Norton's Forerunners works. The same 'precursor' argumentation would also be valid for the Time Traders series, but I find that series much less compatible with the Forerunners universe than the 2 "Central Control' novels.

It is as you quoted: "What does link them all is actually a common (extremely vague) future history, which according to Clute pervades Norton's science fiction."

YES, this future history remains frustratingly vague when compared to e.g. Asimov, the political environment very ill-defined and there are so few time references that is impossible to order a dozen or so books even relative to each other on a timeline. But there is no denying that the common elements are there to see for anyone willing to spend the time reading through the books.

That vagueness, so very different from the very well-defined timeline in Asimov's Foundation / Robots Universe, is imo the very reason that to date this part of Norton's work has not ever been acknowledged as a valid future history. Asimov did a good job at tying all his stories together, but not many authors are acknowledged geniuses like he either.

The arguments of 'different protagonists and locations have imo little value here. Just look at Jack Vance's Gaean Reach Ursula K. Le Guin's Hainish cycle, and to some extent even Poul Anderson's Future History. All of those have these 'stand-alone' novels and small series / trilogies that have little or no connection between each other besides the author's statement that they do belong together. Compared to those three acknowledged Future Histories, the Forerunners Universe themes and the variable socio-political contexts are a lot more consistent. In a universe without instantaneous communication or transportation, such differences are likely to develop. A mere 50 books that span a time period of 6,000 years in a universe of hundreds of thousands of planets can only be eye-blinks in the totality of human history.

The very limited amount of specific time references certainly made it very difficult to get this organized. The fact that Norton never published a timeline or even left notes only means that that was not a priority for her. I still think that a body of more than 45 novels with forerunners as a common theme deserves to be acknowledged as such.

I acknowledged many small (and some big) internal inconsistencies in Norton's Space Age books. Consider for a moment what is going on in our own archaeology. There are so many gaps in our knowledge that we have lost entire peoples, empires that we don't even have names for. We know only generalizations of how people lived before written records. Are there inconsistencies in our interpretation? Just look at how the 'experts' even today disagree about how / when the Americas were populated. Look at the bible as a historical document, and see the inconsistencies between various 'editions' of the same books, or between the 4 gospels.

Now look for a moment at Norton's books as if you were a history student in the far future looking at these fragmentary historical documents. We wouldn't expect 100% consistency in every detail between records that span over 6000 years in a universe of hundreds of thousands of colonized planets? Discrepancies can easily be attributed to the historic telephone game: details change in the retelling. By looking at Norton as a 'collector of ancient stories' all these inconsistencies become irrelevant as long as the common Forerunners Universe elements are identifiable.

In response to the comment quoted by Ahasuerus from Usenet: "I don't think that her post-apocalyptic novels can fit into the Solar Queen's past. .../... There simply isn't enough time to recover to that level."

The 3 post-apocalyptic titles are imo fairly consistent in the history line. While large areas of Earth have been devastated, the protagonists go searching for surviving cities or centers of scientific/technological knowledge. Even though they were unknown when Norton wrote these novels, short-half-life atomic weapons that destroy life without damaging structures are now a reality, so 1000 years to First Contact is not really 'short.' Also, 'Solar Queen' comes after contact with a more advanced Galactic civilization. Technology would have taken a quantum leap after First Contact.

Whether or not to include the pre- and/or post-history novels together with the core titles is not the important issue here. I have left that open to personal interpretation. But the 45 core-titles that specifically refer to forerunners are imo a body of work that deserves to be acknowledged as a future history in its own right, similar to those of so many other authors.

Ahasuerus, I do disagree with some of the 'series' that are listed on the internet, including on ISFDB and Goodreads. That is how this very project got started. If you would review my timeline, you'll see I have split that so-called 'Forerunner series' mentioned in your quote into two separate ones: the Warlock / Lantee series which takes place contemporary with the Dipple books, and the unrelated 'Forerunner Simsa' series which cannot be dated at all. And indeed, 'Ice Crown' does not belong with either of those two. I have included that one in a new 'Criminal Minds' series, together with 'Android at Arms,' the other so-called psychocrat novel and the Perilous Dreams SSC.

On the other hand, there are 10 books that are solidly linked together in a period of about 50 years. I called this the The Warlock - Korwar connection. (erroneously labeled Warlock / Dipple connection in the picture)

After all the shuffling, there are still more than a dozen 'stand-alone' titles with the common Forerunners Universe themes, that cannot be dated with any measure of confidence. That is why I have opted for a thematic grouping of those stories, rather than a chronological one, hence 4 new series: Lost Worlds, Alien Encounters, Forerunner Planets, and Criminal Minds.

I have meticulously done my homework on this and have provided the references for review in the documentation that goes with the timeline. I would request that anyone who has not actually read these stories RECENTLY with the same intent as I have, i.e. to specifically verify these internal connections, would at least read through my extensive reference listings, before commenting negatively.

I don't expect agreement with every interpretation, but for anyone who's willing to bother checking, the multitude of internal references that link this body of - depending on interpretation - 45 to 57 titles together to the common Forerunner theme is undeniable.

Thank you all for your time reviewing this.

[Image:]

SF&F-fan 14:23, 30 November 2018 (EST)

Format Column

About a week ago while I was submitting books I started to get stange things coming up in the format column after I had submitted books and was checking the data. One time I had all the info from the roll over button. After a time things came right except for the format type, it now extends into the next column. Could someone check please. It needs to be made to fit the column --Chris J 18:51, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

I suspect it may have to do with changing the way mouse-over bubbles work. Do you happen to have an example? Which browser are you using? (Firefox seems to have more trouble with formatting tables than other browsers.) Ahasuerus 13:38, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

I'm using chrome. See if this link shows anything on your computer Out of the Aeons --Chris J 18:13, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

Everything looks OK on my end under Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer. Can anyone else see anything unusual with this title? Ahasuerus 18:54, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

Looks ok on Firefox, Chrome and IE 11 on my Windows laptop and on Safari on iPhone. Chris, can you do a screenshot and upload it in the wiki so we can see what you are seeing and try to figure out what is wrong? Annie 19:29, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

I think the problem is because I have the screen size zoomed up as my eyes aren't what they used to be. When I go back to normal size everything is alright --Chris J 21:39, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

The reason for the format value extending into the next column instead of being wrapped is the "display: inline-block;" in the "tooltip" CSS class. It can be removed from the class and the tooltip will work without it. Jens Hitspacebar 03:59, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Ahasuerus 06:57, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Fixed, thanks! Chris, could you please confirm that formats now wrap on your end? Ahasuerus 07:25, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

(undent) Pages that have a transliteration are now not displaying correctly. See 674484, 228522 or even the main page. It is inserting a break after the question mark (at least on Chrome). -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

I also noticed a few minutes ago the appearance of breaks after the question marks : am I the only one to see a display problem here or here ? Linguist 09:42, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

I'm seeing the same thing. I just described it badly. For titles, it is putting a break after the question mark. For names, it is putting a break before the name. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Ok, then the solution is to put the "display" property back into the "tooltip" CSS class, but with a different value: "display: inline;" (not "inline-block"). I just checked this with the examples mentioned above on Firefox, and with that value they look good. Jens Hitspacebar 10:19, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Firefox and Chrome appear to handle the current layout differently. Investigating... Ahasuerus 11:05, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

There seems to be some progress as far as the display is concerned ! But the transliteration bubble now covers the name or the title, so that you can't click on it ! Linguist 12:07, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

A new patch was installed as 12:01pm server time. Could you please force a full page reload (Control-F5 in most browsers) and see what happens? If it's still not working right, could you link to the problematic record? Ahasuerus 12:11, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Here, for instance, but I think the problem is the same everywhere. Linguist 12:16, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

I have tried the publication page that you linked using Chrome, Firefox and IE 11. The mouseover bubbles appear to the right of each link and the links are clickable. Which browser are you using (including the version) and what is the zoom level, please? Ahasuerus 12:30, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

The problem seems to have solved itself after I switched the computer off and on again (although it hadn't disappeared after my reloading the page). Sorry about the hassle. My browser (Firefox, 16.0.2) is certainly getting a bit old… Thanks for your concern. Linguist 15:18, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

Spoke too fast. It seems to have come back… Linguist 15:30, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

Ouch! Considering the fact that the current version of Firefox is 61, Firefox 16, which is 6 years old at this point, will have issues with all kinds of things out there. For example, the security framework which we added recently only works with Firefox 23 and above. And it's not just the ISFDB software -- the whole Web increasingly relies on the same security framework. Any chance that you may be able to upgrade? Ahasuerus 15:48, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

[unindent] I suppose I'll have to eventually. I kept putting it off as, not being very technically-minded, I found it a pain in the… neck rather than anything else. Linguist 15:55, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

The good news is that upgrading Firefox is not as painful as it could be in the past. Some, if not all, of the add-ons may need to be updated, but otherwise browser upgrades are fairly straightforward these days. I would still recommend exporting your bookmarks as HTML prior to the upgrade -- better safe than sorry :) Ahasuerus 16:10, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

P.S. Once Firefox is up to date, you can simply tell it to keep itself current. That way you will be getting all security and other updates automatically. I also recommend the security add-on NoScript, but it may be a tad challenging for non-technical people. Ahasuerus 16:12, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

My problem is fixed. Thanks --Chris J 17:01, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Great! Ahasuerus 17:31, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Nightmares & Dreamscapes and Night Shift

When the audio books/audible books were published for these 2 Stephen King collections, they were both split into 3 (N&D vol 1-3 and Gray Matter/Graveyard Shift/The Lawnmower Man) -- each audible / audio collection only contained about 1/2 of the stories from the original collection.

My question is should they be varianted from the original collection or listed as their own collections, since they're not just variants of the originals.. Susan O'Fearna 16:34, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

When a novel is split into 2 volumes, we variant both parts under the novel itself. So I'd say that the same applies to these collections - they are not new collections but a split one - just add notes to the titles so it is clear that the collection is split. Annie 17:05, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks Susan O'Fearna 03:02, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Audible adaptation of Locke & Key

Should I try to add the full-cast adaptation of Joe Hill's Locke & Key ? Susan O'Fearna 03:02, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Nope. Someone reading a story is ok; full cast drama is a bit out of scope. I remember asking the same awhile ago around Doctor Who and I still think that this is a good distinction. :) Annie 04:00, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

That's right, full cast adaptations are currently not eligible for inclusion. Ahasuerus 14:24, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Do we have a standard definition of "full cast"? I've seen a couple audiobooks where there are two or three narrators who either take turns reading or each take a few of the characters and read them. They are not done as a drama, just read that way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:12, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

I don't recall a discussion of this issue, but I rarely work on audio books. All I know is that ISFDB:Policy says "Included: ... audio books, i.e. readings, but not dramatizations". Hopefully other moderators are more familiar with this area. Ahasuerus 20:30, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

If it contains the word "adaptation", it is not the original text but an adaptation:) 2 or more people reading the novel is a proper audio-book; this one is a real adaptation. Annie 20:51, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

Title type mismatches

Based on a recent discussion on my Talk page, I have compiled the following list of title type mismatches between VTs and their parent titles which appear to be invalid:

Calling for volunteers to reconcile the affected titles.

I will create a separate post on the Community Portal to discuss the 11 mismatches that seem to be legitimate based on the current rules. Ahasuerus 14:23, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

How do I update my entry?

Greetings. I have just discovered that I have an entry here, and I'd like to make a couple of changes to it. How do I go about doing this? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alsirois (talk • contribs) .

Go to your author page & click the edit link to the upper right of the listing. See Help:Screen:AuthorData for a description of the fields and desired content. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

'Salem's Lot

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?555137 needs to be a variant of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1380238 (see contents) not just the novel ... how to fid ? Susan O'Fearna 18:09, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Step 1: Change the type of the publication to collection and add a new reference title from the Collection type

Step 2 - variant the new title to this one.

Let me know if you want me to do it? Annie 18:25, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

HTML support when rejecting a submission

As per FR 77, the "Rejection Reason" field has been modified to support HTML. Ahasuerus 21:09, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume Four

I believe this listing http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?46544 needs corrections, but the PV http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Phileas is no longer active. I've got a copy of the book as described except the publisher is "Book Club Associates". On its copyright page is "by arrangement with Victor Gollancz". OK if I correct the listing … or should I leave it alone and create a new listing for the title? Thx Markwood 20:05, 18 August 2018 (EDT)

He's not completely inactive (his last activity date is 2 weeks ago). You could try leaving him a note and also using the Wiki's mail-sending feature to contact him about it. Given the uncertain note about possible book club edition, I'd think he would have noticed a "Book Club Associates". So if you don't hear from him, I'd err on the side of caution and make a separate record, adding cross-reference notes to both. --MartyD 06:53, 19 August 2018 (EDT)

Kyell Gold/Tim Susman

I have just found out that furry author Kyell Gold and author Tim Susman are the same person, so I’m going to enter Gold as the canonical author, as this name has the majority of entries on this site. Not sure how to handle the interviews though. MLB 19:50, 1 September 2018 (EDT)

Updated. Thanks for digging!

As far as interviews go, as per Help:Screen:NewPub, the rules are as follows:

Interviewee - The canonical name of the person being interviewed, whether or not it matches the form(s) of the name used in the interview. This is done so that the interview is displayed on the interviewee's summary bibliography page.
Interviewer - The name of the interviewer. This name should not be corrected if mis-spelled, or given in a variant form; it follows the same rules as the rules for author name in a content record.

Ahasuerus 13:39, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Submission for Science Fiction Chronicle - new author notifications.

My submission noted two new authors - even though I had checked (using cut and paste to avoid typing errors) that both Brian W. Aldiss and Richard S. MacEnroe were in the database. I've a couple edits to do (image etc.) so please let me know if there's anything I did incorrectly that I can address. Thanks. ../Doug H 12:16, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

It's a spelling issue:

Brian W. Aldiss as opposed to Brian W. Aldis
Richard S. McEnroe as opposed to Richard S. MacEnroe

Is that how their names are spelled in the publication? Ahasuerus 13:33, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Just to close off - I skipped checking Aldiss as too well-known to check and MacEnroe is how the name was entered. Problem is I checked the author (cut and paste), didn't find it so searched for the title. Found it an noticed the S. was missing but missed the Mac/Mc. Both fixed now (entered McEnroe as such and noted misspelling). ../Doug H 08:09, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

Looks good, thanks for the update! Ahasuerus 18:18, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

Author: Andy Heizeler

Hello. I am writing to suggest that two author records be merged or that one of the records should be marked as a pseudonym of the other. Here is the situation as best as I can describe it:

Andy Heizeler (the correct spelling) has been credited with eight stories beginning in February 2008. Most of these stories were published in Ray Gun Revival. On page 36 of the January 2009 issue of that same magazine, it was revealed that Heizeler is the pen name of David Bridgette and that this author also published "The Broken Hourglass" in Cosmos Magazine.

Andy Heizler (incorrect spelling) is credited in the ITTDB as the author of "The Broken Hourglass" from the December 2008 / January 2009 issue of Cosmos. This same incorrect spelling is listed on three other sites: futurismic.com, archive.org, and full-english-books.net. This leads me to believe that the Cosmos publication probably used the incorrect name Heizler. However, I also note that philsp.com credits "The Broken Hourglass" to the correct spelling of Heizeler.

The Cosmos issue in question is no longer available on their website, so I cannot check the original source. I am, however, attempting to contact Heizeler, and will update if I receive more information.

Thank you for your help on this.

All good things,

--Michael Main 17:05, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

The Wayback Machine has the original Cosmo's page archived (see here) which shows the credit to have been Heizler. I will make the pseudonym. Thanks for finding this. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

Very nice find in the Wayback Machine! Thank you, JLaTondre! --Michael Main 21:53, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

Private Games not spec fic?

I've been looking for a spec fic element in Private Games. I couldn't find it. Delete ? (I've also posted this on Bluesman's talk page, but not sure whether he'll ever read it) MagicUnk 17:28, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

According to reviews, it's a thriller. Patterson has (co-)written a lot of books, most of them with no speculative elements.

Re: Bill Bluesman, he tends to be very busy during certain seasons, so he's been known to disappear for months at a time. Hopefully he is OK and will return in the foreseeable future.

For now, we may want to set the "non-genre" flag on the title record and let Bill know about the change. Once he comes back, we can discuss deleting the publication/title pair. Ahasuerus 18:26, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

Good idea. I'll set the non-spec flag then and make a note to remind myself to check with Bill when/if he's back. Thanks! MagicUnk 18:45, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

BTW, I suspect that Mark Sullivan the co-author of this book is not the same person as the 1980s artist Mark Sullivan, so we may want to add "(I)" to his name. Ahasuerus 17:29, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

Xeelee series: title sequence tidying up?

I noticed that the ISFDB has Stephen Baxter's Xeelee series numbered up to 8, and includes two short fiction pieces (6 & 7). The recently published Xeelee: Redemption has (Xeelee 8) in it's title on Amazon UK. I guess removing the numbering from the SF stories Reality Dust and Riding the Rock, renumbering Xeelee: Vengeance to number 7 in the series, and numbering the collection Xeelee:Endurance as number 6 would make more sense to me; it'd make Xeelee: Redemption effectively 8th in the series. Can I do that, or is there anyone that disagrees? Thanks! MagicUnk 16:54, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

I haven't looked into the Xeelee continuity since the 1990s, but I can offer a few general observations:

Series numbering can be highly subjective, especially if prequels and nested series are involved: release order vs. author-suggested reading order (which can change over time) vs. third party order
Amazon's series numbering is a relatively recent addition and can be all over the place, ranging from perfectly reasonable to bizarre. Sometimes they split series or have gaps in their numbering scheme due to what appear to be data entry inconsistencies.
Sometimes our short fiction entries (especially novellas) are assigned whole numbers and other times they are assigned decimal numbers. This too can change over time as more volumes are published.

Ahasuerus 17:28, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

The Xeelee series is currently ordered in first publication order, so at least for this case I think it's clear that numbering order is to be by date.

I could add fractional numbering to the novellas, but that would become ugly quickly, and as some of the novellas published as chapbook have been given a number, some have not (e.g. Starfall), it makes more sense to remove numbering from these novellas, treating all novellas equal.

And renumbering as I proposed, incidentally results in Xeelee: Redemption being number 8 in the series...:-)

What do you think? --MagicUnk 17:48, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

Well, not all novellas and other short fiction works are created equal. Some are effectively standalone stories set in the same universe and can be read in any order. They are best left unnumbered. Others may take place between volume N and N+1 and it's important to record them as N.5. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this universe (I may have sampled the first volume back when it came out), so I can't comment on the specifics. Ahasuerus 18:07, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

(am I actually posting this on the right board? MagicUnk 17:54, 7 September 2018 (EDT))

Sure, here is fine. Ahasuerus 18:07, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

According to Stephen Baxter, the Xeelee sequence timeline is a bit complicated... So I decided to stick to publication date instead. MagicUnk 17:09, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Sounds like a plan! Ahasuerus 18:30, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Der Feuergürtel

Hello, because I don't saw the preview of the cover I uploaded it three times. Please delete the two old covers and maybe repair the preview. Thanks Henna 14:44, 27 September 2018 (EDT)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2018 (EDT)

Thanks to Ahasuerus

My thanks to Ahasuerus for doing transliterations, variants, and so on, on the Russian Merlin's Ring omnibus after I went offline--especially for catching the mistake in noun case that I'd made on one of the names when I pasted it in from FantLab. MOHearn 09:19, 10 October 2018 (EDT)

Hey, processing Cyrillic submissions is a great way to relax after entering a few dozen Japanese authors :-) Thanks for submitting the data! Ahasuerus 09:41, 10 October 2018 (EDT)

I find the Japanese authors relaxing. (^_^) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:41, 10 October 2018 (EDT)

Remove Alternate Name - post-approval page

The post-approval page for Remove Alternate Name submissions has been enhanced as follows:

"Alternate name" is used instead of "pseudonym"
Both the former canonical name and the former alternate name are now linked
Error messages for previously broken alternate-canonical associations have been enhanced to clarify that it's the link that no longer exists, not the alternate name itself

Ahasuerus 13:16, 18 October 2018 (EDT)

Infinite Stars: Dark Frontiers

My understanding is that we do not add books until we are reasonably sure they will make it - so 90 days earlier or so unless we have a review and so on to make it a bit early. So how was this one added and approved? No ISBN, no projected date, not even a link to the source. Looking around internet, the date seems to be September 2019 (the link is Facebook in case someone would not rather click on it) - which makes it so out of policy that it is not even funny. If there is a definition of a possible vaporware in a dictionary, that book will probably be the example - a year from now, who knows what will happen. Am I missing something and why shouldn't we just delete this book and all those stories that are technically not published yet? I understand that someone did some work to add it but it sets a precedent that can lead to a lot of those being added by authors... Annie 14:36, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

I know the editor, and he just turned in the book. He also posted the table of contents when he announced turning it in. That said, it's not due out for almost a year, so it shouldn't have been added this early. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Oh, I am sure that if the publisher does not fold (I know it is Titan but... we live in interesting times - it can be bought, it can collapse or it can get new management that sends the book to a later date) and if something bad does not happen, the book will be out some time next autumn. But it is just way too early... Annie 15:03, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

I wish there was a way to put this back on hold or something, in order to preserve the time spent entering it. Any way we can add a feature to unapprove a submission so it could be placed on hold? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:08, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

I am afraid it's not possible given the way the ISFDB software works. If we want to preserve the entered data, we should move it to a Wiki page and check again when the book is about to be published. Ahasuerus 15:45, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Okay. I've done that. I've deleted it. Hopefully, whoever submitted it won't be upset. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:08, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

I think we should find the original submitter and explain why it was deleted - especially if we are working with a new editor. Ahasuerus, can you run a query to find the editor? Based on the Pub ID, we are looking for a record some time last week - and there are a lot of records to go through if someone tries to page through the Recent Approvals. Annie 16:25, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

On it. Parenthetically, now that submission bodies are publicly available, I should probably implement FR 927 "Add the ability to search submissions". Ahasuerus 17:27, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Looks like it was submitted by BryanThomasS, who is likely the editor. I'll ask him about it. It was approved by Dirk P Broer. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:39, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Bryan (the editor) is okay with it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:47, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Simplifying Divergent series

I've been in a discussion with Dirk & Annie on simplifying current Divergent series hierarchy (in fact, get rid of the hierarchy as per the sequence found here, as suggested by Dirk P. Broer). I can't approve myself, so if you're reading this, can you approve my submissions so as not to loose track, and we can see how it looks like? MagicUnk 15:44, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

No patience these days... Give me a few minutes, I am working through them :) Annie 16:06, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

Hehe :) Thanks Annie! MagicUnk 16:41, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

Re-migrate LCCN in verified record

Our records P177309 and 293661, for A Maze of Death in 1971/1973 1st/2nd US printings from (Warner) Paperback Library, both display:

External IDs:

LCCN: 70-111158

OCLC/WorldCat: ...

where the Library of Congress record is that of the 1970 Doubleday 1st ed. and the WorldCat record fits the publication at hand. The second record includes 4th of 4 bullet points "LCCN: 70-111158 on copyright page.", from which I infer the mistake probably happened during migration of linked external IDs from Notes to the new dedicated field. That explanation doesn't fit the first record, which lacks any related Note.

The first record has two primary verifiers, both now inactive. The second has one primary verifier Willem H., whom I notified last week, with recommendation that we should at a minimum augment his note as "LCCN: 70-111158 on copyright page is that of the 1st ed." (see User talk:Willem H.#A Maze of Death).

1. Verifier Scott Latham is inactive 3 years, with the familiar User talk notice "Important!" that directs people here if he is the sole verifier --or all verifiers are inactive, presumably. Bluesman is inactive 4 months with no such User talk notice. Thus a first question is whether it's now appropriate or premature to come here concerning some modifications of Bluesman-verified publication records.

2. Second question:
Is amendment of a verified record such as this --re-migration of External ID, with explanation in a Note-- one that should simply be submitted for approval, relying on the verifier's log of "My Changed Primary Verifications", rather than talk-page communication? That is how we implemented the migration of linked External IDs from Notes to the new dedicated field, i understand.
That is: Submission 4023198. For illustration I did simply submit for approval in this instance. --Pwendt|talk 19:00, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

If you find an external ID that does not belong to the edition but belongs to a different edition of the same title, feel free to move it and add a note in the note on what it belongs to. A lot of the ones moved early were just moved (if it was there, it got moved - full stop.). Even now some slip through the cracks. We are all human - that is why we check and recheck. And yes - if all you are doing is moving it around, not notifying is fine - as long as you are not changing the notes considerably but just adding a clarification that it belongs to another edition). And if you find an external ID that just does not belong, feel free to remove it - between typos and what's not, we have some... interesting mistakes.

If the value ended up in the field during the migration, it was there in the record before that. If the line in the original record was just "LCCN: something", it was removed when moving; the one where it stayed was because of the note that it was ON the copyright page (removing this line would have lost that information) - and it is very likely both were links. Annie 15:53, 11 November 2018 (EST)