User talk:Anniemod

Archives

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, 2018-part2, 2019-2020, 2021

Company Town

Hi, as the help for entering the date of publications explicitly says to use the publication date stated within a book [For books, to identify the publication date, try to find a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001"], it seems that the date should be changed to 2016-05-00, for your verified publication. Christian Stonecreek 13:36, 12 January 2022 (EST)

No - that date is correct and has a valid secondary source. The book stays as it is. Thanks. If you would like to argue this, please open a discussion about not allowing secondary sources to date books. Annie 13:41, 12 January 2022 (EST)

Two variant questions for "The Very Best of Barry N. Malzberg"

Hi Annie. I'm reading my way through "The Very Best of Barry N. Malzberg". Aside from the issue of needing to update the existing ebook and also add new ebooks for the new ISBN numbers (discussed separately), I have discovered that two of the stories that are currently listed as first published in this book were actually previously published under different names. (There could be more stories like this in here)

1. "The Wooden Grenade" (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1624243) is listed as first published in this book. The Acknowledgements/copyright info in the book notes that it was first published as "The Sense of the Fire" in Escapade, July 1967. "The Sense of the Fire" (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?97954) is listed in ISFDB as first published in Escapade in July 1967, and then reprinted in two editions of Malzberg's "Out from Ganymede" (1974). I have checked with Willem H, the last primary verifier for "Out From Ganymede", and it is the same text as the one I am reading. There is no doubt this is the same story. Next is the question of which is the canonical title? This story has apparently been published 3 times only, first 2 as "The Sense of the Fire" and then reprinted in "The Very Best of..." as "The Wooden Grenade". I lean towards making "The Wooden Grenade" the canonical title, as I assume that Barry N. Malzberg participated in choosing the titles for "The Very Best of". I'd appreciate your opinion and guidance. ThanksDave888 12:42, 13 January 2022 (EST)

As a rule - we always use the FIRST used title unless another title is better known/prevalent. Someone changes a title in a single publication does not make it so usually. The old title is used twice (that we know of), the new one only once - I'd use the original title as the canonical here if I was doing the variant. Annie 13:00, 13 January 2022 (EST)

2. "The Shores of Suitability" (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1624250) is listed as first published in this book. The Acknowledgements/copyright info here state that it was first published in Omni, June 1982. Omni, June 1982 features a story currently titled "Last Word (Omni, June 1982" (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1225970). I checked Internet Archive, and it is the same story and it is correctly titled "Last Word" in the magazine. I lean towards making the title in "The Very Best of..." the canonical title, as I assume again that Barry N. Malzberg chose that title. Once again, I'd appreciate your opinion and guidance. 3. Needless to say, these will both need to be varianted. ThanksDave888 12:42, 13 January 2022 (EST)

Same answer. The idea of the rule exception allowing a later title to become the canonical is to make sure that a story that was published once under 1 name and then 10 times under another do not get stuck under the original name. These two should stay with their original titles IMO - the author and/or an editor may have renamed them later but the new name is in a single publication. IF that ever changes, we can always reverse the direction but my basic rule is to keep it simple - don't use the exception from the rules unless it is really overwhelming. Hope that makes sense. :) Annie 13:00, 13 January 2022 (EST)

That all makes sense to me. I'll take care of this. Thanks.Dave888 14:33, 13 January 2022 (EST)

A question on "The Prentice Hall Anthology of Science Fiction and Fantasy"

Hi Annie.

I just acquired, for eventual reading, another one of the giant (doorstop) anthologies of 20th century SF and fantasy, "The Prentice Hall Anthology of Science Fiction and Fantasy", originally appearing in 2000. (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?36482) I have not checked in detail, but it sure appears the TOC for the two current ISFDB editions are the same, and perhaps one was cloned from the other (I can't tell).

As is now my habit, I reviewed the TOC and contents to our ISFDB entries and found a few possible discrepancies. These discrepancies include the following: 1. "The Gray Wolf", George McDonald, p 208, (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?923573) does not show up in either TOC. It is in both the TOC and the body of the book in my tp version. 2. "Introduction....", P 1, does not show up in either TOC. It is in my copy in both TOC and the body of the book. 3. A. E. van Vogt's "The Weapons Shop" is listed as such in my copy, both TOC and body of the book and in the copyright info, which does match original publication in Astounding. It is listed as "The Weapon Shop" in the two current editions in ISFDB. I suspect this was a typo by someone on data entry, but could be wrong. 4. A number of the page numbers for stories are off by 1 page in my TOC and body of the book, vs the two ISFDB editions. I am not sure what is going on here. My first suspicion is that whoever did the original ISFDB TOC was perhaps using the page the story title appeared on, and not the page the author bio is on for the story that immediately proceeds the title, which is how the TOC in my paper version is put together. 5. Although minor, the "Index" and "Credits" (detailed copyright info) are not listed in either current ISFDB TOC, nor in the Notes. I assume these should be added to the Notes.

I do have two questions for you.

A. What would be the appropriate ISFDB standard practice for page number of the start of a story - location of actual title, or location of the author bio before the story? B. The two existing editions have primary verifiers, with Markwood for the 2000 edition and MLB for the 2003. They both appear to be still active. The same questions apply to both. I assume I should reach out to both of them - please confirm.

Best wishes.Dave888 19:42, 20 January 2022 (EST)

Yep, talk to both PVs on that one - you can post one the page of one of them and then link to it on the page of the other one so the discussion stays in one place (especially if you are asking about the same elements).

• "The Gray Wolf", George McDonald - check with the PVs. Won't be the first time someone missed a story in a big anthology.
• Introduction: Same as the above
• A. E. van Vogt's "The Weapons Shop" - ditto
• Pages - I hate this question :) It comes down to "what is the contents here"?. I'd argue that you have a combo of an essay and story - we just do not index the essays because they are too short. We allow only one exception to the general rule of "The number of the page on which the content begins" - an illustration preceding the contents. But that help page needs clarification for cases like this one and where the story has a title page ahead of its text and all kinds of things like that... :) Adding that to the list of things we need to discuss...
• Notes - yes. Not mandatory but I like adding them so it is clear we did not miss them

Let me know if I missed something or if something does not make sense. Annie 17:49, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Annie, that all makes sense. On the page numbers, given that it's currently an edge case, I will start by confirming with the PVs where their page numbers came from. Assuming it is what I suspect (the other, less likely by possible situation would be an actual change in page number for a different printing by 1 page for some stories, which is possible), I propose to make a note of this on the Notes page for those stories, and not change the actual page numbers in the TOC. Depending upon how you look at it, it is probably not wrong. Let me know if you have more thoughts on this. Best wishes and thanks.Dave888 11:47, 23 January 2022 (EST)

Notes are always a good thing. Talking with the other PVs too :) So sounds like a good plan. Annie 13:55, 23 January 2022 (EST)

Annie, edits going along well here after input and concurrence from MLB and Markwood (both do not have a copy available, so they told me to go forward). One more question. I have confirmed that the title for the A. E. van Vogt is really "The Weapons Shop", the variant title, and not the original "The Weapon Shop". I think I have confused myself on how to deal with this. I can see myself either a) editing the title listed in the TOC to the correct title, assuming that the DB will attach to the right title record, or delete the TOC entry and re-import the correct title. Let me know if I am missing something. Thanks.Dave888 18:05, 1 February 2022 (EST)

"Remove title" to remove the wrong title from the publication and then Import to import the correct one. DO NOT correct the title inside of the publication (even if it appears that you can - if we do not have another publication with the parent because noone added the original yet, it will look as if you can edit it but that will cause issues because it will change the title record of the parent to be the same as the variant and will lose us the parent's title. Just adding/editing a title will never merge it with its other references - if you just add a title, then you will need to merge later on. :) Annie 18:47, 1 February 2022 (EST)

Thanks. I was leaning that way, but wanted to be sure I had not confused myself into doing it the hard way. Will do, and I'll take note of this for the future.Dave888 19:42, 1 February 2022 (EST)

Annie, thanks for all your help. I think this is done for both versions of the anthology.Dave888 14:12, 2 February 2022 (EST)

Anytime :) Annie 17:13, 2 February 2022 (EST)

Hurray for Titan!

Ever seen anything like this before?

[1] (Screengrab, as I imagine you won't be able to properly see that Amazon UK page without a VPN)

Kobo GB does have it available to purchase and download now, as does Google Play Books, so I'm inclined to forget I saw that preorder date... ErsatzCulture 14:31, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Oh yes - that's one of Amazon's weirdnesses sometimes - rarely but happens now and then making me scratch my head. Usually means that the book is out but Amazon will get copies a bit later for one reason or another - or something like that. Second source to confirm one of those dates and all is good. :) Annie 14:55, 21 January 2022 (EST)

I'm now very glad I didn't make a statement on the discussion about pub dates asserting that I'd never seen any issues with vendors reporting ebook dates...

I've submitted edits to correct the tp and ebook pubs, but could you have a look at the audiobook on Amazon.com? There are no (UK) audio listings for this on Kobo or Google Play, nor on B&N (although I dunno if they do audio downloads?), and whilst Amazon UK has Dec 14th, which matches the US tp and ebook, I'd rather get confirmation from a second source, esp. for a messy case like this. Thanks ErsatzCulture 17:18, 21 January 2022 (EST)

If the date does not get rescheduled, they tend to be ok. When they start moving... I play "follow the clues and whack-a-mole". It settles down once the book is out - but in the meantime, it can be a bit... funny. :)

Well, it is on Audible UK :) And Apple have it... here. Not all books are available on Google Play - I usually check the big 4 for audiobooks in English: Audible (US and/or UK - different records), Google Play, Kobo and Apple. Some books are exclusive to one of them. Some are excluded from one or more of them. It's... annoying. And there is another platform gearing up which never shares with Amazon/Audible which I never need to worry about with Fixer because all from Fixer is Amazon's first so they never show up - but if someone wants to chase them...

Add to that that Blackstone's audiobooks can be missing from their site (like this one) - they MAY appear at one point but... it is one of those weird things. Unless they also have the physical disks. Then it gets easier. :)

I fixed this audiobook. Annie 17:48, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Cyrillic vs transliterated titles

Back at the Asimov and I've a question. As I run across some Russian titles in sources (e.g. OCLC), they only have transliterated titles, such as "Kratkaja istorija chimii: razvitie idej i predstavlenij v chimii". Based on other editions, I'm guessing this is "Краткая история химии: Развитие идей и представлений в химии" but it is a guess, may not always be available and is putting 'words' into the sources mouth (I do credit them carefully). Would it be acceptable to just put in the transliterated title as the Pub Title for these unverified publications? (Where both forms exist from one or more sources, I'll put them both in.). ../Doug H 14:15, 25 January 2022 (EST)

How about running them by me before adding them? If you put them latinized, they will ping on a report anyway so I will fix them when I get around to that report but I am around most days and I will be happy to transliterate back. This one is indeed "Краткая история химии: Развитие идей и представлений в химии". :) Annie 14:20, 25 January 2022 (EST)

Luces del norte

I was just going to post to Community Portal asking for anyone with Spanish skills to confirm that edit was indeed correct... ErsatzCulture 16:25, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Already caught it and doing a surgery on it :) Annie 16:26, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Thanks - I'm spending more time than I'd like trying to sort out a load of missing UK pubs of this trilogy, all of which have annoyingly inconsistent details across the vendor sites, and I didn't want to burn even more effort on versions in a language I don't know at all ;-) ErsatzCulture 16:34, 26 January 2022 (EST)

My Spanish is... non-existent but I am good at chasing data in it occasionally. All sorted - as much as possible for a 1997 publication anyway :) Annie 16:36, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Title Regularization

It seems that the Talk page is the sole repository of rules, rather than the page. Which doesn't really matter, since the only link is to the Talk page and it's buried in an archive. Less of a skeleton and more of a dust bunny (accreting material but hiding in the shadows). ../Doug H 15:36, 27 January 2022 (EST)

A few attempts to get people to contribute failed on deaf ears so... I am letting it lie calm for a bit before I try again. :) The basic rule is - ask a language speaker and "most languages are not English and use Sentence case and not Title case" and if you are not sure, post in Community. :) Annie 15:40, 27 January 2022 (EST)

Gwendy's Final Task

I see you've just worked on the US pub of this. A couple of comments/questions:

• The UK pubs are advertised in various places as the third in a trilogy, and that's also how it's listed on Goodreads. I asked the PV's of the (allegedly) earlier stories if they had any thoughts/objections re. putting them in a subseries of "Castle Rock". I've yet to hear back here or here, so I'd held off submitting the UK pubs for the time being. Do you have any thoughts?
• I'm bemused the Cemetery Dance pub is claiming to be "World's 1st Edition" when the UK pub has the same pub date - I dunno if that statement might need qualifying in our note? (FWIW, it looks like there's AU/Commonwealth export edition, but not until a week later.) ErsatzCulture 14:34, 28 January 2022 (EST)

Amazon.com claims it, it is my only source so... no clarification needed. And as both are on the same date, it is kinda correct so I left it there. :) I saw your note - I think we need to pull the 3 Gwendies in their own subseries under Castle Rock but I put it on my todo list for now - trying to make some inroads into the Fixer's queues after all the delays in the last months. Both of the PVs are not around much so I will give them time. Annie 14:42, 28 January 2022 (EST)

OK, thanks. I've just submitted the UK hc, will do the ebook after the weekend when I've resynced with the next database dump. ErsatzCulture 16:39, 28 January 2022 (EST)

Approved and have fun. I'll probably have all February known titles in the system by mid-next week. :) Annie 16:51, 28 January 2022 (EST)

Are these different titles?

Under A for Asimov - Fantlab entries 653, 622 and 138926 have the same titles, but different translators - I think. Which makes them different TITLE records, nyet? I think I can avoid the 'unknown' translator if I assume a match to the same publisher's earlier and later editions. ../Doug H 15:35, 31 January 2022 (EST)

Different title records because of the different translators, yes. Careful with the translator names - don't copy from the linked pages (as these are not in the nominative: they are З. Гельман, В. Абашкин and Ольга Стихова (or О. Стихова if you prefer but using just the initial is the Fantlab policy; the books more often than not have the full names) respectively). If you click on the title record, you get this which also tells you that they are the same book in English. Annie 15:46, 31 January 2022 (EST)

Spite

So after several days or weeks of some of my edits sitting there without anyone touching them, now you suddenly feel the need to reject 3 of them and ask me an unnecessary question about the 4th? Wouldn't have anything to do with our earlier discussion about SFE, would it (which turned out to be a discovery by me, that none of the mods here were apparently aware of, that covers on SFE are actually usable now without uploading)? I do hundreds of these edits a week, so I'll try to recall for you now the specifics of these 4: 1) The Skin of the Soul cover already has a HC cover on ISFDB which someone uploaded that is very bright and clear, while the TP cover was just taken from Amazon and has a note about some confusion with the cover, so after finding that OL has copies of both the TP and the PB from Pocket I replaced both of those covers; the Pocket cover was better than the old one here, and the TP cover is obviously taken from an actual copy someone added to Archive.org and thus that's how the cover actually looks; whether you like the old one better is irrelevant, so please un-reject and use the cover from the actual copy. 2) Why would I ask PV's about the Swann note when it isn't actually in the book? Someone obviously had info they felt was important about the shoddy typesetting and unrelated cover of this edition of Will-o-the-Wisp and added it to Wikipedia; I thought people here would like to know in case they read the book and wonder why the cover has nothing to do with the content. If you don't want people to know about it that's on you. 3) John Richards has many Corgi covers on ISFDB and the signature looks the same as the 1 "Richards" cover on ISFDB, so unless there was some other artist named Richards doing 1950's Corgi covers who signed their name exactly the same way it's obvious who it really is. Now that you made me look at this again, I've discovered that the 1960 Corgi edition, with a different cover, also has "Richards" on the lower left corner, even though "Bluesman" wrote a note here saying there's no visible signature, so John Richards actually did at least 2 Corgi covers for this title. 4) The Tomorrow Log essay is only in 1 later edition of Meisha Merlin on ISFDB but wasn't imported into the original; I think that's why I did that, but it's been so long I can't remember. I think I've answered everything, so now it's up to you what to do about all these various things. Also, MagicUnk has been holding The Bus for days now; you 2 had a discussion about it, with you saying it's not genre, which begs the question of why it's still here. --Username 19:28, 4 February 2022 (EST)

I found them on the board, I processed them. That's how it works. That's it. Me helping you today about your question about SFE has nothing to do with any of these (none of these were SFE covers). Stop looking for conspiracies everywhere - people really do not care about you as much as you think they do and noone is trying to get you or whatever you think may be happening around the site. The reason why these were not processed earlier is most likely because people wanted to let someone else look at them because they wanted a second set of eyes before rejecting.

1) The cover you were proposing to add is worse than the one we have already. No point replacing a better cover with a worse one. Both ARE the same cover - and unless you have the book, you cannot say which lightning makes it look closer to reality - so we keep the one which is clearer.

2) It is called common courtesy. And the note implies things about what is IN the book - so get someone with the book to verify that what Wikipedia says is correct before adding the note.

3) Even if it is this Richards, if the credit in the book was "Richards", that's what we record and then we variant. And we do need a proof that it is his - the signature explanation will be enough to establish that but that will mean a variant, not replacing the name in the book - we record AS CREDITED. If your implication is that the credit is only by signature, then we will use the canonical name but a better note needs to be added explaining the attribution.

4) Then find a proof and/or add a note explaining why the essay is added here. As it is, I will have to reject that one as well.

The Bus is moderated by another moderator and you can ask him about it. You can also just submit the deletion. Not everyone is here 24/7 or works the queue every day - we are all volunteers. Annie 19:38, 4 February 2022 (EST)

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense; you're editing almost every day but just happened to notice 4 of my edits, 1 of which was sitting there for 3 weeks, on the same day that I disagreed with you about SFE's policies; yeah, right. As far as thinking people here care about me, this is the internet; nobody can see me or knows anything about me, so why you think I think total strangers on a virtual website care is bizarre bordering on paranoia. As for my edits, often images on OL don't match the actual cover on the Archive.org copy, but in this case they're exactly the same, with the back cover also having the same shadowy tint appropriate to a horror collection, so that is how the actual book looks. The editor who uploaded the beautiful HC cover took care of that edition, and I took care of the TP. You thinking some random cover from Amazon is better than an actual copy's cover makes no sense, but whatever. The Swann note is correct because that cover has nothing to do with the novel, which is readable in the 2 Fantastic issues on Archive.org where it first appeared, but I'll let that one go since anyone reading Wikipedia can find the note. The Richards thing is hilarious, since I've probably seen thousands of records here where countless editors entered the artist's name based on a signature on the cover regardless of whether the artist is credited anywhere in the book. These old PB's very often didn't have credits for artists and so a signature is often the only proof there is of who did the art. You thinking a cover artist can't be entered because they're not explicitly mentioned in the book is ridiculous. Also, the fact that I just discovered Richards did a new cover for the later Corgi edition, notwithstanding previous editor's note who apparently didn't see the signature on the cover in exactly the same spot as the one on the old cover, is a good find, and I suggest you don't let it go to waste. The Tomorrow Log thing is so unimportant I really don't care if it's rejected. As for The Bus, MagicUnk approved some of my edits recently and so is obviously around, so I think they just forgot about it. I'll just let it sit there until they finally remember to delete it, assuming they know that's what they're supposed to do based on your assertion that it doesn't really belong here in the first place. Whatever personal problems you're having, I'm not your scapegoat. All the edits and important discoveries I've made here over the last year plus, and you only seem to pop up when you can find something of mine to reject. --Username 20:30, 4 February 2022 (EST)

You are an interesting person - you complain when your edits are not handled, then you complain when they are handled. Yes, I did just notice them because they were between entries I am working on and because I looked for records which had been missed. Normal practice. Things get missed, skipped over and so on - moderators can skip entries they do not want to handle for one reason or another and those need to get handled sooner or later.

You disagreed with me in the SFE discussion? I did not notice that there was a disagreement there - not sure where you saw disagreement but whatever rocks your boat, that's fine. Although even if there was a disagreement, it would not have meant anything about any other submission or conversation. As I said - stop looking for conspiracies and what's not.

• Just as a FYI: The policy in question is in the help page: "The URL entered in this field should always point directly to the image, not to the Web page that contains the image. If the external site hosting the image requires you to link to the Web page that contains the image (e.g. SFE3 -- see below), then append the "pipe" character ("|") and the Web page's URL at the end of the URL of the image.". If the software needs an update to remind people of it, it needs an update but editors are supposed to read and follow the help pages. Which is why Ahasuerus is now checking with SFE to see what we need to change - the policy, the software, the warning or a combination of them. We may need to fix all the covers you added not following the policy at some point - if SFE still require that format, all of the covers you added without it, even if there was no warning will need to be fixed by someone (or replaced by covers from elsewhere).

As for the rest - you have your explanations on what was wrong with these, you can follow the advice on what needs to be done or ignore it but they cannot be accepted in the form you submitted them. Annie 20:43, 4 February 2022 (EST)

PS: Editing every day and moderating the queue every day are two very different things. Dealing with the passed over and delayed submissions in the queue is a third thing altogether sometimes. Moderators are editors first - and we all work on our own projects as well. And even when working the queue, easy and clear and well-documented submissions are always handled faster. Annie 20:56, 4 February 2022 (EST)

As always, these arguments are very boring and I could have done dozens of new edits in the time it's taken to check into your rejections and then respond here, so I'll end with these comments: the Skin of the Soul cover you rejected is what the actual print cover looks like and should have been accepted, the Swann note from Wikipedia is correct on both the typesetting issue and the unrelated cover and should have been accepted, the Richards cover is by John Richards and should have been accepted and the other Richards cover I discovered just now should also be entered as such, the Tomorrow Log essay should have been imported into the original edition where it first appeared, and The Bus should have been deleted right after you told the mod who held it that it doesn't belong on ISFDB. The way things are now, anyone searching will find an overly bright facsimile of the original Skin cover, will be confused when the Swann book they're reading has nothing to do with the cover of the book and has a synopsis inside that doesn't belong there, people searching for John Richards SF covers will not find 2 of them, the Tomorrow Log essay will continue to have a slightly wrong date, and people who stumbled on The Bus' ISFDB record will wonder why it was ever entered here in the first place when it's not a genre book. As for SFE, my accidentally finding out that SFE covers are now usable is something that none of you moderators had a clue about, obviously, and I wonder how long it would have taken for someone else to find that out or if anyone would ever have known about it without my help. You're welcome, everyone. Now back to what I do best. --Username 23:35, 4 February 2022 (EST)

Requesting feedback

Please see here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:21, 8 February 2022 (EST)