User talk:DESiegel60

Important! This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here. If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please: post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.

This is my talk page. Leave any ISFDB messages for me here. To keep discussions together in one place, easy to follow for their participants as well as others,

please use this procedure:

If you ask anything of me, create a new section at the bottom,
and watch this page for my reply.

If I ask anything of you, I'll write at your talk page; please reply there.

And when reverting spam, make sure you don't delete anything; thank you. -DES ^Talk 10:22, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Welcome!

Hello, DESiegel60, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Help pages
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• ISFDB FAQ
• Help: How_to
• Help:Screen:EditPub#General contents - Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Rkihara 15:42, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Another techie! Welcome.--swfritter 16:51, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Doctor to the Stars

Added a cover image[1] is it correct? Thanks.Kraang 13:56, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, that is the cover on my edition. -DES ^Talk 14:33, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

In Search of Wonder

I approved your submission. There was a small error in the page count entry, which should be of the form roman+arabic numerals. For example, xxi+350.-Rkihara 12:05, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Took another look at it and noticed that "Parnassus" needs to capitalized and "Pratt's" name is missing a "t" (entry for p.158)--Rkihara 12:14, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Is the publication in question the 1967-03-00 version of In Search of Wonder? If so, then the price field could benefit from a dollar sign, i.e. "$7.00" as opposed to just "7.00".

Also, keep in mind that, as per the Help pages, we capture printing-specific (as opposed to edition-specific) data in Publication records. This is necessary so that we could record the printing-specific data elements like price, catalog ID and even cover art. It looks like this record may be for the 4th (1974-11-00) printing of the second edition, but the Year field is set to 1967-03-00, presumably the publication date of the first printing of the second edition. Ahasuerus 12:46, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

I will correct the typos and entry errors mentioned above.

On the question of the date, yes, I am working from the 4th trade paper printing of the 2nd edition. Currently, we have only one publication listed. The title record lists the date of the 1st edition. If I change the date of this publication. we will lose the (IMO more important) date of the initial publication of the second edition. (Note that in this particular case I have good reason to think that there is no textual difference except price between different printings of the 2nd edition.) Should I clone the publication so that we have an entry for the first printing with the correct initial publication date, even though i do not have a copy to hand? Also, the copyright page lists a separate ISBN for the hc binding: should i create a publication record for the HC even though i don't have a copy to hand? If I close the pub, should i wait until AFTER I have entered all the detailed review records? Also, should I create an entry for the (further expanded) 3rd edition, which is listed on the publisher's web site with its contents, but which i do not have a copy of? -DES ^Talk 13:11, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Sorry, I have to run right now, so I can't give a detailed answer, but let me quote from a recent discussion that ran along similar lines:

That's right. To quote our Help pages:

For books, to identify the year, try to spot a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001"; the copyright date is often misleading, since works can be reprinted. Look out for signs that this is a reprint; indications often include a series of numbers (e.g. "3 4 5 6 7 8 9") at the bottom of the verso of the title page; this particular string indicates that this is a third printing. If you know you are holding a reprint, and there is no way to date that particular publication, leave the year field as 0000-00-00. It is sometimes possible to find dates of reprints from subsequent printings which list all printings and their associated dates; if you enter a date from a source like this, include a note explaining your deduction. Note that we are interested in recording each different reprint of a publication, since there can be some significant differences between them, such as cover art, or price.

Not only do later printings can use a different price and different cover art, they can also use a different ISBN, a different introduction or, in many British cases, even a different imprint (!), so we really have little choice but to capture all data at the printing level as opposed to the edition level.

Admittedly, "0000-00-00" looks pretty ugly and messes up the display order on the Title page, so there have been some attempted workarounds, but no better standard has emerged so far. As Marc indicated above, what we really need is a new field for "printing number", but Al's ISFDB time has been very limited lately :( Luckily, there are various ways of identifying the date when an undated printing appeared, e.g. later printings will sometimes list the dates of all earlier printings. Ahasuerus 10:39, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

OK, but for me it makes the data less useful. I'm not really interested in the dates of the printings (as usually they are not stated anyway and most of the dates I see in ISFDB are IMHO edition's dates); I'm more interested in recent editions and their contents. And having the edition's date displayed on the Title page (if the stated printing date is missing) and printing info in the note field is more useful for me. (BTW I believe even single printing can have multiple cover versions.) --Roglo 11:24, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Granted, in many cases printings can be almost indistinguishable, but consider these two printings of Alexei Panshin's Star Well. The first one appeared in October 1968, the catalog ID was G-756, the price was $0.50, the page count was 157 and the cover was done by Frank Kelly Freas. The second one was published in August 1978, it used an ISBN (0-441-78405-4) instead of an old style catalog ID, the price was $1.75, the page count was viii+211 and the cover was done by Vincent Di Fate. So here we have two books that are as different as any two paperbacks can be, yet according to the publisher they are two printings of the same edition!

When dealing with a later printing of an edition that we don't have on file, we usually create two separate Publication records. The first record is for the actual printing that you are verifying and it should be dated 0000-00-00 if you don't know that printing's publication date. The second record is for the first printing of the edition and is created based on the publication information found in the later printing, with the source of information clearly stated in the Notes field and the record left unverified. That way we capture as much information as possible and our users can get a pretty good idea of the history of that edition. Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work too well when the imprint was (deviously) changed in between printings, so it's not a rule but rather a guideline of limited applicability :) Ahasuerus 12:24, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

More when I come back, unless somebody else steps in in the meantime :) Ahasuerus 13:41, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Creating series "In Search of Wonder (Critical reviews)"

I'm looking at your submissions placing the Damon Knight essays into a new series titled "In Search of Wonder (Critical reviews)" I'm not understanding the reasoning behind creating the series, but as I'm not familiar with the previous incarnations of these essays (or further reprintings of them), I may not be the best person to handle them. (Perhaps just having them grouped together on Knight's author summary page might be a sufficient reason.) In any circumstance, naming the series simply "In Search of Wonder" should be fine. We only use extensions in series names if there's a possibility of a duplicate or to avoid confusion. If you decide the simpler name would be better, it would be easy to rename the series without having to change each entry. I'll go ahead and approve the submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:59, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

The main reason for the series was to group them together on Knight's author page. Given the number of separately published essays that are listed for Knight, this seemed worth while. I am relatively new to ISFDB editing, and the parenthetical was just to try to make it clearer to people seeing the "series" just what these were -- confusion is unlikely. I will remove the parenthetical. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 16:04, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Great! Does the publication credit the original appearances of these essays, or are they mashups of several reviews published in various periodicals? Mhhutchins 16:08, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

See my recent comments at ISFDB:Community_Portal#Damon_Knight. Some of the essays/chapters are pretty clearly mashups. Others probably appeared pretty much unchanged in previous publications, and some are stated to have been written explicitly for book publication. Those previously published have, in some cases, been revised, either for the initial book publication or for the second edition. There are some indications of which chapters are based on previously published content, but there is not detailed previous publication info in my copy at least. -DES ^Talk 16:15, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Oh, well. There goes my plan to wrap everything up in a nice package and tie a ribbon around it. Thanks! Mhhutchins 20:04, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

On further examinatuion, there are detailed previous publication info available -- 2 pages worth. Every line begins either "Portions of chapter nn originally appeared in..." or "Portions of chapters nn, mm, jj, ... originally appeared in...", and many chapters are listed in multiple lines, clearly indicating that they are mashups. -DES ^Talk 20:15, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

In Search of Wonder variant titles

I see that you would like to create a variant title for In Search of Wonder and the proposed variant is In Search of Wonder: Essays on Modern Science Fiction. As far as I can tell, the latter title record doesn't exist, so I assume you will add a Publication record to the new Title once it has been approved. Is that the plan? Thanks! Ahasuerus 21:02, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, I think so. To be more specific, the physical copy I have carries this as a sub-title. I wasn't absolutely sure if I should create a variant title, or change the main title record. (On checking, the cover image on the publisher's web site shows the same sub-title, so perhaps the title record should be changed instead. See <http://www.nesfa.org/press/Books/Advent/Knight-1.htm>.) Please advise on the best way to handle this situation. -DES ^Talk 02:51, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

We generally enter subtitles in the Title field unless they are trivial, e.g. "Mars: A novel" would be entered as "Mars", or designate the series that the book belongs to, e.g. "Breakaway: A Cassandra Kresnov Novel" would be entered as "Breakaway". In this case a quick OCLC search (are you familiar with our Sources of Bibliographic Information page?) suggests that Advent used the same subtitle as early as 1960, so it looks like there is no need for a variant title after all. I have deleted the variant title and changed the main title to In Search of Wonder: Essays on Modern Science Fiction, but left the publication titles alone for now so that you could practice on them :) Ahasuerus 16:45, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

By changing the title record's title, all twelve reviews that were linked to this title disappeared. Well, not the reviews, but the links to them. I can't count the number of hours I've spent when entering reviews to make sure that they match EXACTLY the existing ISFDB title. And all it takes is the change of one character to wipe it away. When can we expect a better way of linking reviews to titles? Until then, should I even be concerned about matching titles under review, or just enter them as they're recorded in the publication (often wrongly) and forget about them? Mhhutchins 17:25, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

Oops, sorry about the reviews! I knew something looked vaguely different after the change, but I couldn't figure out what it was :( I guess we should change it back for now and document the subtitle in the Notes field.

As far as proper linkage of reviews and serials goes, it's item 3.2 on Al's list. As you know, Al's ISFDB time was very limited in the second half of 2007 due to the move to Texas and other RL issues, but he seems to be much more available now and I see software changes occurring at least every week. My guess is that if his current level availability stays the same in the foreseeable future, he will get to 3.2 in a couple of months. Al is a very faster coder, it's just a question of finding enough time to do the work.

Once the software has been changed to link reviews directly, it will be trivial to create a list of all unmatched reviews and go from there, so I tend not to spend too much time on matching reviews at the moment. Of course, I rarely enter the kinds of review heavy magazines that you often work on... Ahasuerus 18:01, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

Great news! I'll hold off on entering more review 'zines until that change is implemented. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:06, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

I might note that this change broke about a dozen lexical links from magazine reviews of the book. Once the changes are instituted that will not be significant.--swfritter 16:54, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

I am adding yet another review of the book and I notice that I did not notice that somebody had discussed the same issue. I am going to do as was suggested above and revert the title while leaving a note about the subtitle.--swfritter 15:20, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)

There's No Fool . . .

I am not sure what title data existed when you made this submission. There is a publication for this title. Currently it is an orphan. It should be OK to put incomplete data in the pub as long as you make a comment in notes saying data hasn't been completely entered. Placing the title in the pub will require that it be merged with the orphan. It looks as though the collection title should have an "!". Also, ellipsis should be entered with spaces. If you want, I can quickly rectify.--swfritter 16:23, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

So I suspect this has something to do with your lost edit. I've got the "Parodies tossed" story on hold because if you get the anthology entered we may not need it. Another vote for Firefox. I have lost virtually no data since I have been using it.--swfritter 18:17, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, both of these were entered while the lost edit was in progress. The varients are those used in "Takeoff too!". -DES ^Talk 22:27, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

Takeoff Too!

I have approved the Takeoff Too! submission and then changed "Into My parlor" to "Into My Parlor". Just to be on the safe side, is it "Ballade for Convention Lovers" or "Ballad for Convention Lovers"? Both are legitimate words, but typos have been known to happen :) Also, there was no length designation for "Psicopath". Is it a novelette? TIA! Ahasuerus 07:02, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks. It is "Ballade", not "Ballad" I will check the length of Psicopath, I suspect it is a novelette, probably near the border with shortstory. -DES ^Talk 10:26, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Norman Matson's Enchanted Beggar/Flecker's Magic

I have approved the addition of the Flecker's Magic variant title, but rejected the proposed new publication for this title since it would have been added to Enchanted Beggar as opposed to Flecker's Magic. Unfortunately, once a new title has been submitted, we have to wait for it to be approved before we can add Publications to it :( Fortunately, OCLC had reasonably detailed information about the 1926 edition of Flecker's Magic, so I added it after the new Title was created. Thanks! Ahasuerus 07:28, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

I see I didn't understand that detail. I will refrain from trying to add pubs to a title or varient that has not yet been approved in future. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 10:28, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Reviews in In Search of Wonder

I have approved the addition of 5 reviews to the [ second edition of In Search of Wonder], but I wonder if the title of the Howard piece is The Coming of Conan, or just The Coming of Conan and whether the Matson novel is Enchanted Begger or Enchanted Beggar? TIA! Ahasuerus 07:33, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thank you -- typos corrected. -DES ^Talk 10:35, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Typo corrections approved. I've taken the liberty of also correcting "inital" to "initial" in the notes. Can I interest you in a browser with a built-in spell-checker? It certainly helps me, as American is not my native language - it won't save us from problems like 'Kjwalll'kje'k'koothailll'kje'k, but every little help I can get is welcome! BLongley 16:46, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

I am not untested in foxfire, for multiple reasons. However i will make a point of using the ieSpell plugin which i do have installed.

I will also mentions something about your wiki posting which bugs me a little bit. When you edit a section, the edit summery is filled in by default with /* Section Title */. I notice that you often replace the text with a summary of your own, but leave the /* */ markers. When an edit is displays (in page history or the recent changes list or similar places) if the /* */ markup is present, the software assumes that this is a section title and generates a link which will take the viewer directly to the relevant section. If you replace the text, the like still looks valid, but goes nowhere useful. The best practice is to add a comment after the default summary, as I am doing in this post. Second best is to replace the entire summary, including the markup -- in such a case no link is generated. This choice is optimal for edits that start by editing a section, but add an additional section, or that affect multiple sections. Thank you -DES ^Talk 17:04, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

I'm always willing to learn! I have no Wikipedia experience and picked up the few Wiki skills I have from practices HERE rather than there. Yes, I have been replacing the text when we're off the original topic: it seems to generate useful information in the recent changes list. (Although people might be generating such in a different way that is more useful.) I can't see what you did in your post though that makes a difference - the "recent changes" entry still just takes me to your main page and I have to find this section. Or is that a follow-up problem from my practice? (Deliberately does NOT change the default in this case.) BLongley 17:25, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

I've tried a couple more Wiki edits since - adding the reasons AFTER the default /* */ seems to be the answer? (I guessed I needed the "-" too, but as it's come out "- -" I probably don't need that, right?) Is there a simple way to get the useful "->" link on new sections too? BLongley 18:32, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

(after edit conflict) So am I. If I know wikis a bit (I'm an admin over on Wikipedia) I don't know the ISFDB well yet. Replacing the text does give useful info in the changes list, but it can be even more useful if you add the text on the end instead: that indicates both what you were saying/doing, and which section the changes can be found in. In the recent changes list, there is a little arrow before many of the summaries: that is the link to a section heading. Note that it depends on a lexical match (Just as our review links now do) and so it can fail if the section title is changed, or if the section is deleted or archived off the page. Wiki markup in the section title can mess it up also, and I think that is what did it this time. But look in the recent changes list for my contribution of 19:23 today (just a few minutes ago) the one that is on User talk:Swfritter. Note the slightly different font between "Varient title from Takeoff Too!" and "ok" The first is the section title, the 2nd is a note indicating what I was saying in that section this time. Click the small arrow just before the section title and it will take you to the proper section. I hope the above is clear and helpful. -DES ^Talk 18:37, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

On new sections if you use the little "+" tab at the top, it will let you enter a new section (at the page end) and section title, adn the default summery will be filled in and you don't need to edit the whole page. Or you can paste in teh section title surrounded by /* */, just copy exactly, except for wiki markup not displayed. 18:37, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

And you are correct, the "-" is not required, and adding text AFTER the /* section title */ is excatly what I was trying to suggest above. Sorry for not being fully clear. -DES ^Talk 18:38, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks for the help! We have got a few bad practices here - one that bugs me is duplicate section titles, for instance. Feel free to advise on using this place better! (Although you may have to be patient, we're definitely not as active as Wikipedia on the Wiki side - but they don't have a database to maintain first!). BLongley 15:18, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Of course the wiki is primarily a support tool here, while it is the main object in a place like Wikipedia. The DB is the main point here. Duplicate section titles can be a problem with the wiki software, even though they are legitimate and even pretty much required in some cases. The main problem is that a section-level link goes to the first instance of the section title (It does a lexical match, not a true link). The only way to avoid the problem is to make each section title unique within a page. -DES ^Talk 15:28, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ursula LeGuin

I rejected your submission to make Ursula LeGuin a pseudonym of Ursula K. Le Guin, but I may have been too hasty. I saw that the name Ursula LeGuin exists in the database, but there are not records under that name, which IMHO makes it pointless to create a pseudonym in order to link it back to the summary page for Ursula K. Le Guin. Are you in the process of entering a pub with a title which has Ursula LeGuin as the author? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhhutchins (talk • contribs) .

I recently entered a review of a work by Le Guin (in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, Winter 1977) which gave her name as LeGuin (no space). That is how the name was spelled in the publication, twice. So that is how i recored it, but the pesud is needed to make the review link work, i think. -DES ^Talk 19:21, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Reviews are handled differently than pubs, in that corrections can be made when it's obvious that the reviewer provided the wrong title and/or author's name as part of the review. You can note the misspelling in the pub's note field, but provide the correct spelling and/or canonical name in the content field. I admire your attempt to make the review link to the pub, but let the pub be the anchor and the review be changed to link to it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:25, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ok will do. I thought I recalled seeing her name spelled without a space elsewhere, but it seems there is no such in any pub recorded in the ISFDB. -DES ^Talk 20:44, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

There are at least four authors whose names I've learned to spell the same way regardless of how they appear in publications:

1. Ursula K. Le Guin (note that the "L" and "G" are capitalized and the space in the last name)
2. A. E. van Vogt (note that the first "v" is uncapitalized and the space in the last name)
3. L. Sprague de Camp (note that the "d" is uncapitalized and the space in the last name)
4. Lester del Rey (note that the "d" is uncapitalized and the space in the last name)

You'll find different permutations of capitalization and spacing but spelled the same. (Of course, if the spelling is different, you should create a variant.) Mhhutchins 20:57, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Pardon me, but unless I am misreading all the valid ISFDB records use "Le Guin" with a space and both caps. Are you sure that you said what you meant to above?

By the way, i have corrected the review entry. -DES ^Talk 21:01, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, you're correct, there is a space. Blame on a case of temporary insanity. I've corrected my original posting just in case some unwary visitor sees that without reading this. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:20, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

29,273 edits and you claim temporary insanity?! Ahasuerus 21:25, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yeah, what sane person would do all that without some kind of monetary reward?! Mhhutchins 21:41, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

And by the way there are a couple of early stories in Fantastic which use LeGuin. I was wavering between leaving it that way or using the legitimate name for the same reason that we enter "Merwin, Jr." whenever we see "Merwin Jr.". But when I changed the name to Le Guin the LeGuin record did not go away - it haunts me like the Furies. Now I may wish to join Jack as he attempts to make his way back to the island.--swfritter 21:46, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

(unindent) I think we should disregard any variation caused by the lack of a space or capitalization. I seem to recall that the system disregards capitalization. Also imagine the variants for DeCamp, De Camp, Del Rey, Van Vogt, etc. etc. And remember the hundreds of lines of discussion about the spaces between ellipses? Mhhutchins 21:54, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

I guess we could make Ms. LeGuin go away my giving her the name of somebody we intend to add to the system. I'll bet there weren't too many editors who left out the space after she became famous.--swfritter 21:58, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Unlike Series records, Author records disappear automagically once the last associated Title/Publication record has been deleted or reassigned to another author, so there is no need to do anything special about Ms. LeGuin :) Ahasuerus 22:47, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

She is out there without any titles assigned to her. I had also assumed the record would disappear when I reassigned the titles. But I did set up and remove a variant title relationship initially. This is probably similar to the case with Verification records. Even if you remove a verification from a pub the system still thinks there is one. Possibly the system checks for null data in other fields just to make sure it doesn't delete a record with valid data?--swfritter 18:29, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Seemingly title-less author records usually appear when there is a Review record that misspells that author's name. I can check to see what's up with this record later tonight. Ahasuerus 19:01, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

It turns out that this misspelling is of very recent vintage. The last Author ID in the Sunday backup file is 109673 and the "LeGuin" one is 109697, so I can't check it until next Sunday night. Ahasuerus 23:09, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

I presume it was created when I entered the review in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, Winter 1977. That review used this spelling at least 4 times. -DES ^Talk 10:42, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Placing an essay into a fiction series

I'm holding your submission to place this essay into this series. I don't believe it will display properly or if it does, it will display two series on the author's summary page, one for fiction and one for essays. I'll do more investigating and get back with you. Mhhutchins 19:08, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Just as I suspected. The essay will not be displayed under the fiction series on the author's summary page, and an essay series will be created but will have no entries. I'll reject the submission. If you feel these should be displayed together you can present your case to Al, who might be able to explain the database's design and the limitations on series displaying. Mhhutchins 19:14, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Hardly a must-have item. It would be nice, when an essay is about a fictional series, particualrly when it is by the author, to be able to lsit it in the series in some way, but hardly essential, nor, i should think, a top coding priority. -DES ^Talk 19:28, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

FWIW, the software tries to group related fiction and non-fiction titles (e.g. Star Wars non-fiction) together, but it doesn't do a very good job of it yet. I am sure Al will revisit this area at some point, but, as you say, it's not at the top of the list of priorities. Ahasuerus 19:35, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Hoskins - The Future Now

Thanks for prompting me to relook at this book. The title page is indeed as you stated "The Future Now: Saving Tomorrow". And in fact each of these entries are prefaced by a 1 or 2 page introduction by the individual authors. I'll likely need to consult one of the moderators on how best to fix this. TFRANK 23:21, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Well, if they are 1-2 pages long, then they fall under the following section of the Help pages:

Forewords, introductions, prefaces, afterwords, endnotes, etc. These should all be included; enter them as ESSAYs.

so ideally we would like to see these introductory pieces captured in some way. Do they have separate titles, by any chance, or are they completely untitled? Ahasuerus 23:41, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Grantville Gazette

I am assuming you meant to remove all page numbers. I know consecutive numbers as placeholders are discouraged for hardcopy books but I wonder if we should think about using them for ebooks. That was the only way I was able to keep the artwork together with the correct story in Jim Baen's Universe. No artwork here so it is not a big issue in this case.--swfritter 16:50, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

I was following what i understood to be current policy, not placing page numbers where none are included. If there is good reason to use placeholder page numbers in such cases, I have no objection. -DES ^Talk 09:01, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

I think the consensus is not to use placeholder page numbers for paper based publications (we discussed it extensively when some editors tried to get creative with Ace Doubles), but I am not sure whether we have talked about the impact of this decision on e-books yet. Speaking of Grantville Gazette, you submitted a change to "Preface (Grantville Gazette II)" from Collection to Anthology. I have changed it to an Essay instead since I figured "Anthology" was just an accident. Is that right? Ahasuerus 18:21, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, that should be an essay. I think you will find a later submission from me changing it to an essay.

Yes, I ran into it shortly thereafter. All fixed now, thanks! Ahasuerus 19:02, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

As to page numbers, I don't feel strongly, but perhaps "page numbers' that are really section numbers (with a proper note) would be sensible for ebooks. I won't insert any until there is something approaching a consensus in favor, however.

I note that on Eric Flint's bibliography page, the Grantville Gazette volumes show up in a different place from the 163x novels, even though on the series page all are grouped together. This seems odd to me, I presume it is just how series work at present?-DES ^Talk 18:39, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, that's how it works for now. The display logic for the Summary Bibliography page has been Al's primary development area, so in many ways it's more advanced than other pages' display logic, but on the other hand it can be a little flaky because it's on the bleeding edge of technology -- such as it is in our case :)

In other news, I have approved Grantville Gazette III, but I wasn't sure if the Note field was complete and whether "Submissions to the magazine (Grantville Gazette III)" was an Essay or Short Fiction (and whether "magazine" needed to be capitalized). Similarly, there seems to be a quote missing in the Note field for Grantville Gazette V. And going back to Grantville Gazette II, does the title of Enrico M. Toro's serial consist of all capitals since Episodes 2 and 3 are not capitalized the same way? I have also changed the price of Grantville Gazette VI from "$6" to "$6.00" and capitalized "is" in "Grantville is Different". Thanks for all the submissions! Ahasuerus 19:02, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks for the corrections. i will double check and adjust any that still need it, as several probably still do. (for one thing they all need the series data entered, as that can't be done when entering a new or cloned pub.) The title of the serial as printed was in ALL CAPS, but it probably should be regularized as there seems no particular reason for it to have ben so -- I enterd it by copy and paste.-DES ^Talk 21:32, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

"Submissions to the Magazine" is an essay explaining what a would-be writer must do (and avoid) to make a submission th the Grantvilel Gazette and have a reasonable chance of its being accepted, including Flint's strictures on the use of characters. It now appears in every issue of the gazette, apparently in identical words. i will adjust accordingly. -DES ^Talk 21:32, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

If there were a default secondary sort by title when there are no page numbers I would not have used page numbers for Jim Baen's Universe. It really is not necessary unless there is a reason - and the reason for doing it should be documented as I did on the Wiki page. Sometimes stories are grouped by theme or for some other reason.--swfritter 19:11, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks. The only reason here would be to preserve the order from the original ebook, which is perhaps valid. -DES ^Talk 21:32, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

Grantville Gazette VI is showing a bad checksum on the ISBN: is it really an ISBN shown on the pub? The Baen site says "DOI:1011250016" but I don't know what a DOI is. BLongley 14:15, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

the downloaded copy I have says "ISBN-10: 1011250016" on the copyright "page". Several of my downloaded ebooks show a "DOI" number insted, which i think stands for "DOcument Identifieer" -- no according to doi.org that is a "Digital object Identifier". It appears to be a system like the ISBN system, but for any and every digital object. Baased on what is said at doi.org, and the other GG books, 10.1125/0016 has the form of a valid DOI, but doi.org says that that DOI is not registered. (All DOIs start with "10." and include a slash.) DOI's do not have the same kind of invariable checksum that ISBN's do. There is a lot in the doi.org FAQ comparing DOIs to ISBNs -- it might be worth reading, particualrly if other ebooks start using DOIs. In the man time., I am going to change this to #1011250016 since it isn't a data entry error, isn't a valid ISBN, and apparent;y isn't a valid DOI either -DES ^Talk 17:37, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks for checking! I'll read up on it (eventually), but you might want to make this new problem more widely known at the Community Portal - a whole new STANDARD classification is going to confuse a lot of us that don't do e-books. :-/ BLongley 18:10, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

The worst of it is that at least some of the numbers Baen is using with the label DOI appear not to be valid, registered DOIs. There is apparently a fee for registering a DOI, it appears to depend on what sort of DOI is registered for what purpose. doi.org explictly suggests that ISBNs or ISSNs could be used as parts of DOIs. ARRGH! -DES ^Talk 18:16, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

When something gets too awkward, take a break and do something different. Avoid the complexities and just go find cover-art for your books, have a stab at one of the bibliographic projects, or a data clean-up project, verify some books you're sure about, go bug an editor that's doing something wrong, or even switch off the computer and READ a book for once! Life's too short to get het-up over some issues, we'll fix them eventually. We've had too many editors burn out, I'd rather see some chill-out for a bit and come back! BLongley 18:32, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Understand, and will do. The rest of my response was on cover art, so i am starting a topic on your talk page. -DES ^Talk 18:42, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

In Grantville Gazette VII should the Assistant Editor's Preface be an Essay instead of Shortfiction? Dana Carson 04:21, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes that was an error. i have submitted a fix. Thanks. 10:16, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

Ian Fleming

Just a reminder that the binding code for hardcovers is "hc" as opposed to "hb". As far as LCCNs go, we generally enter them in the Note field. The Catalog ID field, when there no ISBN was used, is reserved for the catalog ID that appear on the cover and was usually found on paperbacks in the pre-ISBN era. No worries, I have already made the changes :) Ahasuerus 00:18, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Field of Dishonor

I know it's only an excerpt, but surely it's David Weber (single 'b') in this pub? BLongley 14:59, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

SDorry. Thanbks for catching this. fix submitted. i guess I just wanted to grtill the man. ;) -DES ^Talk 15:05, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

No problem, thanks for fixing it! I'm not a big fan of excerpts on unnumbered pages (they seem too much like the adverts that often follow) but there are known exceptions: e.g. here I haven't found all the remaining chapters. So if they're there, I like them to be correct rather than creating Stray Authors. BLongley 16:07, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Obviously, stray authors are a Bad Thing^TM, as are typos in data entry. I thought that the policy was that excerpts were to be entered. I will gladly entre or not enter them in future, i don't greatly care. Is ther any consensus on this? Note that the previous, unverified, version of this pub had a page count that was too high, even counting the unnumbered pages. i suspect it came from publisher or amazon data. -DES ^Talk 16:11, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

The policy was questioned: see here. Like many other policy discussions, it petered out unresolved. :-/ I currently record pagination for the main work, and add a "+n" suffix to pagecount if there's anything after the main work I feel is worth recording: which is rare. Apart from "Starfleet: Year One" the only other examples I can think of are when the excerpt turned out to be a complete short story from a forthcoming Collection, and when the excerpt was from something we wouldn't normally have the full version of, as it's Non-Genre. Feel free to restart the discussion though! BLongley 16:33, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Magic's Pawn

I had your submission of the fourth printing of Mercedes Lackey's Magic's Pawn on hold for a couple of hours while I was researching the book's history. According to the Locus Index, you were quite right and the first printing appeared in 1989-06-00 as opposed to 1989-04-00 and I have corrected the Title record accordingly. However, your comment that "copyright page says "First Printing June 1989" but the number line indicates that this is the 4th printing" raises another question. Publishers often leave the date of the first printing on the copyright page when they reprint books, so there is no contradiction between that statement and the number line and it's OK to simply state "4th printing as per the number line". Also, the Locus Index lists the fourth printing as published in 1990-07-00, so I have incorporated that information in the record as well. When you get a chance, could you please a look at the end result and verify it? Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:33, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

I have verified, but added a note indicating that this copy is a source for the date of the first pub of this edition. I also added a note indicating an additional catalog number that appears on the cover. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 18:55, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks, approved. DAW is one of those annoying publishers that don't provide the information that we want, e.g. the dates when their later printings appeared, but add the data that we could do without, e.g. multiple catalog IDs to confuse everybody. Oh well, we just have to do out best to capture each individual publisher's insanity :) Ahasuerus 19:05, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

Variant title dates on Lord Dunsany stories

Approve a few of them but realized that you might not be aware that the parent and variant titles for short fiction should all have the first date of publication. I often clean them up after I have linked them so that may also be your plan. I have some on hold temporarily.--swfritter 20:35, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

I created the first set, and failed to set the individual dates of the shortfiction items, because I hadn't yet done the research to fix them. The second set was created via the clone tool, which doesn't let me set dates. After that I thought it was better to make the vt links first. i wasn't sure if that would authomatically set the varients to the same dates as that of the parenrs (and i was careful to set as parent the record wioth the correct original date, as far as i could). If further clean up is needed, I will do it as soon as the vt links are approved. is that an acceptable way to proceed? -DES ^Talk 22:41, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

An autofix would be nice but any implementation would probably take a fair amount of testing. Maybe someday. Will approve. Your strategy should resolve the dates.--swfritter 23:16, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks. -DES ^Talk 23:36, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

The Gods of Pegana

I have approved the project Gutenberg version of The Gods of Pegana, but I wonder if it would have been faster to clone the pre-existing publication? That way we wouldn't have to merge 20+ Title records. Or did the Project Gutenberg folks use so many variant titles that it would be a nightmare to sort them out vis a vis the original publication? Thanks! Ahasuerus 14:09, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

No, I missed the pre-existing publication. I looked thorough the Dunsany bibliography page for titles that were in PG and not in the ISFDB. I missed The Gods of Pegana because it was not under "novels" but instead in the series section. I should have checked more carefully. No harm done, but it would have saved some work on entry, plus saving the merges -- all 32 of them if every short work has a pre-existing version. Ah well, enter and learn. -DES ^Talk 14:31, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

Ah, I see! Yes, it's easy to miss a Title hidden deep inside a series, especially if the author is prolific. That's why I usually use the browser's Search functionality to look for a (likely) unique substring. That way I am not thwarted by minor misspellings, missing articles, etc. Ahasuerus 14:48, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

In future, I will either do that, or use the advanced search dialog.

I am doing the needed merges even now. Some of them are actually VTs anyway, which would have been a bit of a pain after a clone (add, make vt, drop). -DES ^Talk 14:58, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks, everything has been approved! And yes, when an edition of a collection has a lot of vts, it's often easier to manually enter a new pub as opposed to cloning and going through the motions to get everything right. Ahasuerus 15:31, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

"Droozle"

I have approved the addition of PG's version of "Droozle", but then I had to remove the cover image URL:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23148/23148-page-images/p070.png

because I was getting a big yellow "Please do not inline Project Gutenberg images" warning that overlay the publication record. I assume directly linking to PG's images is a no-no? Ahasuerus 15:28, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

P.S. Ditto Beck's "Vanishing Point" and

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23868/23868-h/images/001.png

Ahasuerus 15:30, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

I thought that was ok. I did it in another recent case -- oh I seee you caught that one too. I won't do it again unless I check and confirm with PG and with you or other mods that it is OK. -DES ^Talk 15:34, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

Introduction (The Gods of Pegana)

The Introduction (The Gods of Pegana) is a fictionalized intro? One of the ones where the author explains how the manuscript came into his possession or such? Dana Carson 16:44, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, sort of. It reads, in full:

Before there stood gods upon Olympus, or ever Allah was Allah, had wrought and rested MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI.

There are in Pegana Mung and Sish and Kib, and the maker of all small gods, who is MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI. Moreover, we have a faith in Roon and Slid.

And it has been said of old that all things that have been were wrought by the small gods, excepting only MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI, who made the gods and hath thereafter rested.

And none may pray to MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI but only the gods whom he hath made.

But at the Last will MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI forget to rest, and will make again new gods and other worlds, and will destroy the gods whom he hath made.

And the gods and the worlds shall depart, and there shall be only MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI.

I would call that fictionalized. The "preface" is in a similar vein. -DES ^Talk 16:57, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

And yet again an author stands on the line between definitions. Fiction makes sense although it could be called otherwise. Thanks. Dana Carson 04:33, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)

Tales of War

In Tales of War, are there two essays called Anglo-Saxon Tyranny? Dana Carson 04:30, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)

No, that was an entry error, The second one should have been an essay "Memories". I haave submited a fix. Thanks for catching this. -DES ^Talk 08:58, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)

Dunsany's Tales of Wonder eBook

I'm holding your submission updating this pub, because of the use of numbers as story placement. I believe there were discussions in the past about this subject and that the final decision was that they not be used. But this being an eBook makes a difference. Since the "pages" aren't numbered to begin with, I can see the advantage of placeholders. Any other editors or moderators out there have an opinion on the matter? I'll start a discussion on the community page. Mhhutchins 10:49, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)

I was under the imperssion thst they were discouraged, but allowed when there seemed good reason. Might I suggest that the best place for this discusion is at Publisher:Project Gutenberg#Pages fields or at Publisher talk:Project Gutenberg? -DES ^Talk 13:17, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)

Manybooks

It wasn't really germane to the discussion but the guy who runs Manybooks seems to have a particular interest in sf. When generating the tags I check both the blogs for both sources and have yet to see a Project Gutenberg sf title that didn't appear with in a few hours on Manybooks - and they are usually easier to spot on the Manybooks blog because cover art is commonly a part of the entry. I don't know what platform you use to read them but Manybooks certainly has a plethora of formats. I generally use mobipocket on my Palm T/X. Plucker just isn't as usable. Nice to have Gutenberg titles entered in a more formal manner than just the use of tags.--swfritter 15:44, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks to you both for the pointers, discussions, etc. I think PG books as separate entries is a good idea, so we may get a general guideline on that sorted out. As I'm running out of space in this house I may have to resort to e-books for a while myself, it's nice to know where to go for them! It'll give me something to read while waiting for all the OTHER issues to get resolved. :-/ BLongley 16:01, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Alternatively, you could get another house! Ahasuerus 16:15, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

I don't actually own THIS one... and as the lease expires in 4 days, I may have to sort out more space rather sooner than I want. :-( BLongley 16:59, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

Ouch! Just remember what they say in the military: "Three moves equals one fire", so make sure you have plenty of empty boxes and enough time to fill them! Ahasuerus 17:10, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

I have seen that remark credited to Samual Pepys, who surely was in a position to know the disruptions created by both. Good luck with your move. -DES ^Talk 17:23, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

I've not yet lost a book in a move - OK, I've misplaced a few temporarily (for a few years), but never totally lost one (that I recall). I don't actually intend to move but it might be forced on me. If so, then I'll panic for 28 days or so or whatever the eviction process actually takes. My sister and her husband have a 5-bedroom house for the two of them, maybe they'd like a 2-bedroom 3-library house for a while? BLongley 17:52, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

• I wasn't aware that manybooks specifically concentrated on PG's SF output. I still think that the stability, including mirroring, and accessibility of PG merits direct inclusion. I normally use either the ASCII or HTML format from PG, either read online or downloaded to a PC. I don't personally use a pocket reader or similar device, although many people do. Some but not all of the newer PG editions are including indications of the page numbers in their HTML versions -- i entered one into the db yesterday. I agree that the current discussion is a good thing. -DES ^Talk 17:02, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Milton Rothman

FYI, the contents of Rothman's Heavy Planet and Other Science Fiction Stories is available in the 2004 Locus Index :) Ahasuerus 16:09, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks, contents entered. -DES ^Talk 17:01, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

Roy Rockwood and Co.

I see that you have been entering the "Roy Rockwood" titles, something that I have been planning to do for some time, but my Rockwood collection (1910s-1920s reprints for the most part, no first editions) is incomplete and hard to get to. I'll verify my copies at some point, but probably not until I take a break from my travels.

For now, keep in mind that there was a sporadic edit war on the Stratemeyer Syndicate-related Wikipedia pages a couple of years ago, apparently an extension of an earlier flame war on some Yahoo Group. I remember undoing lots of POV edits that eventually deteriorated into straight vandalism from IP editors or, more likely, one editor using some kind of IP anonymizer. I haven't checked the state of those pages in a couple of years, but it's possible that some of that vandalism still persists. Sometimes I check the pages that I created or expanded in the early years of Wikipedia and sigh when I see how much they have deteriorated :( Ahasuerus 20:51, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

I have been entering entirely from Project Gutenberg, and worldcat/OCLC data, I have no physical copies of his work at all. I have not been taking any position on which works attributed to this name were actually written by which human beings, which i assume is the most contentious issue. The current Wikipedia page seems to be in reasonable shape. Thanks for the heads up. -DES ^Talk 21:06, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

I seem to recall that the edit war was at a higher level than pseudonym attribution. Something to do with what sub-series (Tom Swift Jr. or Tom Swift IV?) belonged to what series and whether certain external links should be included or omitted. The Roy Rockwood page does seem to be OK, though. Ahasuerus 21:12, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Ah I see. Well I've only been including series info from PG or OCLC, mostly PG. I saw mention of a bunch of external links alleged to be spam. that is not likely to be a problem here, i think -- the wiki doesn't have the readership for anyone to bother, and links in ISFDB entries would need moderator approval, which is unlikely for spam. -DES ^Talk 21:15, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Gulliver of Mars

BTW, in case you missed the discussion on Al's Talk page, your Gulliver of Mars submission is still on hold because an attempt to approve it results in an error and a new partially filed record. Hopefully, Al will sort it out in the foreseeable future. Ahasuerus 23:16, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, I had noticed that, thank you. It isn't causing me any problem. If the best way is to reject it and start over, so be it. -DES ^Talk 23:20, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Well, Al hasn't commented on it yet, so I am not sure if he still needs the data to investigate the problem. I have just reported another Python error, so perhaps he will comment on them en masse. Ahasuerus 23:29, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Tom Shippey

I have approved the addition of Tom Shippey's picture since it is hosted by his academic site and I doubt that it will cause Saint Louis University bandwidth problems :) Still, if we are going to link to some types of sites without first securing their explicit permission (which I assume we don't have in this case), we probably want to update our policy. I wonder if it is safe to say that all .edu and .gov sites are OK? Ahasuerus 14:32, 24 Feb 2008 (CST)

I assumed that an author's picture, hosted by that author's site, would be normally permissible, as it would be unlikely to cause bandwith problems, and that explicit permission was more important when a site would be the source for multiple images. But if you think better, I won't insert such a url again without seeking explicit permission from the site. -DES ^Talk 16:01, 24 Feb 2008 (CST)

I think we got burned with Wikipedia images a while back -- we had no idea what the WP policy was and were quite surprised when the issue came up -- so we may have overreacted a bit by requiring that we get explicit permission from all sites that we link to. Let me post this on the Standard board and see where the discussion may lead us. Ahasuerus 19:53, 24 Feb 2008 (CST)

Brin1

Just an FYI that User:Brin1 has been unavailable for months now. I don't have any Intezones in my collection (well, hardly any), but perhaps somebody else over on the Verification page may have a copy. Ahasuerus 12:21, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)

Fine, i will ask there. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 12:51, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)

Anne McCaffrey's "Talents"

Just a note that I accepted your additions to Anne McCaffrey's "Talents" universe this morning, but then I had to go back and make some changes. It turned out that we had two similarly named series, "Talent" by McCaffrey (part of the "Talents Universe") and "Talents" by Douglas Hill. Since your changes assigned a number of McCaffrey titles to "Talents", I moved them to "Talent", then changed the name of Douglas Hills' series to "Poisoner" (the preferred name according to his Wikipedia article) and then changed the name of McCaffrey's series to "Talents".

No worries, this is a fairly common problem with identically or similarly named series. I have been trying to come up with a script that would help us search for suspect "mixed up" series, but haven't had much luck. There are so many shared worlds today that a series consisting of 6 books by 4 different authors is no longer unusual... Ahasuerus 23:54, 17 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Thanks. I will try to be careful about such matters in future. ARRGH. -DES ^Talk 01:04, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

"Cross Children Walk"/"The Dead"

Just double checking that it wasn't a typo and you really meant to make "The Dead" (1992) by Esther M. Friesner into a variant title of "Cross Children Walk" (1999) by M. John Harrison and Simon Ings? Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:26, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Uh no, I meant to make Cross Children Walk by Esther M. Friesner a variant of Cross CHILDREN Walk by Esther M. Friesner (which should probably be listed as being by "Esther Friesner") I must have made an error somewhere in clicking and/or copying IDs. -DES ^Talk 01:56, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

That's what I figured :) It's rejected now, so we can try again. Ahasuerus 08:51, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Done. -DES ^Talk 09:59, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Looks much better, thanks! Ahasuerus 14:03, 18 Mar 2008 (CDT)

isfdb.moderators mail

Hi David - If you'd like to be added to the isfdb.moderator's mailing list then please shoot me an e-mail via my Google home page. Originally the mailing list was set up during the last spammer attack as a mechanism for non-moderators to contact the moderators when they got locked out of the wiki. More recently it's been used with ISFDB was down. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:24, 19 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Responded by email. -DES ^Talk 07:51, 19 Mar 2008 (CDT)

His Majesty's Dragon

BTW - if you have a publication I assume you know about primary verification? Marc Kupper (talk) 16:20, 19 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I was waiting until the submission was approved to verify. If you will chack, you will find I am primary verifier on soemthing over 100 records -- not much by the standards of those who have been on longer, of course. -DES ^Talk 16:58, 19 Mar 2008 (CDT)

The Gland Men of the Island

Just a heads up that we have 4 different records for "The Gland Men of the Island" at the moment. The 2 "Max Afford" variant title records can be presumably merged, but the first two are both canonical titles and we will need to pick one of then as the "real" canonical title:

The Gland Men of the Island 	SHORTFICTION 	1931 	Malcolm R. Afford
The Gland Men of the Island 	SHORTFICTION 	1931 	Malcolm Afford
The Gland Men of the Island 	SHORTFICTION 	1931 	Max Afford
The Gland Men of the Island 	SHORTFICTION 	1931 	Max Afford

Ahasuerus 17:03, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I was attempting to establish "Max Afford" as the canonical name of this author -- my research indicates that most of his work was published under this name. However, this particular work appears to be attributed in one publication to "Malcolm R. Afford" and in another to "Malcolm Afford". I do not know of any actual publication of this particular work attributed to "Max Afford". I understand that all variants ought to link to a single canonical author/title. I am not sure what the best way to handle this particular case is. We could make the "Max Afford" variant (which may never have had an actual publication) canonical and make the other two variants of it -- there is some precedent for this. But perhaps another way would be better. i solicit your advice. -DES ^Talk 17:29, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

We seem to have got two "Malcolm R. Afford"s recorded as variant names of "Max Afford" already - I'm not sure how easy that will be to fix. :-/ Generally, I think capturing more verified data before deciding on a Canonical name is better - e.g. I'm leaning towards one Dave/David [B.] Mattingly at the moment, but even with around 100 titles recorded for one variant and 200 for another I'm not keen to make the decision too early. BLongley 19:38, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

There is the difference that Mattingly is still alive and can produce more work. There is alo the difference that the number of works by him within our rules of inclusion is much higher. That said, what would you advise doing at the moment? -DES ^Talk 19:46, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Record everything you know about Max/Malcolm [R.] Afford and his publications you can. THEN we can sort out the canonical name, and then the titles. Deciding these too early is often a pain to undo - but fortunately, as you point out, Afford is unlikely to complain if we get it wrong. ;-/ But having such a mix-up when we have only four titles recorded strikes me as over-zealous variant-recording at the moment. BLongley 20:01, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I believe the key thing to remember is that we can undo a Variant Title relationship with a few clicks while we can't undo a Pseudonym relationship at all at this time (although there is an outstanding request for this capability). Once we have set up a Pseudonym relationship, we are pretty much stuck with it unless we want to make that Author's page fairly ugly. This is why some of the pseudonyms look as strange as they do, e.g. A. R. Long's bibliography should be clearly moved to Amelia Reynolds Long as soon as we can do it cleanly. Hence Bill's preference for doing a lot of research before we dig ourselves into a hole :)

As far as Malcolm/Max Afford goes, the "Max" record is already slightly messed up since "Malcolm R. Afford" is listed twice as a pseudonym, something we can't change at this time as per the comments above. To answer your specific question, if we decide to make "Max Afford" his canonical name -- and a quick OCLC search found 39 records for "Max" vs. almost nothing for the other versions, so it's a pretty safe assumption -- then it would be fine to use the canonical name for the canonical title even though the story in question may have never appeared that way. After all, it's the only way to keep everything written by the author on the same page. There are a couple of minor display issue with some variant title permutations, but, thankfully, nothing serious. Ahasuerus 20:49, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I see. I didn't realize that pseudonyms were so intractable, i presumed that any time that there was a valid variant title due to an alternate form of an author's name, it was a good idea to create a corresponding pseudonym record. it seems that this is not so. I will keep this in mind in future. -DES ^Talk 01:16, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

The only ISFDB records that can't be undone at this point are Pseudonyms and Series. The latter can be emptied and rendered effectively inactive, but they can't be deleted. Also, once a series has become a part of a superseries, it can be moved to another superseries, but it can't be turned back into a standalone series. We can get around these limitations by using dummy series names like "Bogus Series Name - to be deleted" and dummy superseries that contain only one series, but it's a pain and I hope Al beefs up these areas at the first opportunity. Ahasuerus 01:55, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

"Triggerman"

Just checking that the 1989 appearance of "Triggerman" was credited to "Jesse F. Bone" (as per the Locus Index) as opposed to the submitted "Jesse. F. Bone". Thanks! Ahasuerus 21:16, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Yes the extra period is a typo, I have submitted a correction. -DES ^Talk 01:13, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Looks like Marc approved it right away, so we should be in good shape :) Ahasuerus 01:56, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I have now submitted the changes to put the varient into the relevant publication. -DES ^Talk 02:01, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for calling this to my attention. -DES ^Talk 02:02, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Sure thing! I approved the last couple of submissions, but then I noticed that we had two "Jesse F. Bone" Author records one file. The first record had one space between "F." and "Bone" while the second one had two spaces. These cases are particularly hard to detect since proportionate fonts tend to compress multiple spaces into one for display purposes. I went ahead and merged the two Author records using Advanced Search, then set up a Pseudonym relationship between "J. F. Bone" and "Jesse F. Bone". I think we should be all set for now.

P.S. It may feel like the more you learn about the ISFDB application, the more quirks you find, but you are actually getting close to the bottom of the barrel :) and at this rate you should be getting close to self-sufficiency in a few weeks. Again, thanks for all the work on the data and the Wiki! Ahasuerus 02:14, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I actualy think that I am getting the hang of it. I have been using the Moderator link to look at my submisisons, and other people's, as thy look to moderators, but not, of course, to approve any. I have rejected a couple of my owm submssisons when I noticed data entry errors of my own. Thanks again. -DES ^Talk 02:42, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Submitting CHAPTERBOOKS

One thing to keep in mind is that there are two ways to create a CHAPTERBOOK Publication record. If the story in question already exists in the ISFDB, then you can simply use "Add Publication" to its title. If the story doesn't exist in the ISFDB, then it gets tricker since there is no "New Chapterbook" navbar option. If you use the "New Novel" option and change the Pub Type to CHAPTERBOOK, the software will create a CHAPTERBOOK Publication records and an associated CHAPTERBOOK Title record. The former is OK, but the latter is a known bug since Title records are not supposed to be CHAPTERBOOKS. It's not a big deal since I regularly search for CHAPTERBOOK Titles and change them to SHORTFICTION, but it's something to keep in mind :) Ahasuerus 01:42, 23 Mar 2008 (CDT)

What then is the proper way to add a chapter book for a work not previously listed. Is it to start with a novel, change type, and then after the submission is approved to change the type of the content record to shortfiction? Or is there a better route? -DES ^Talk 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid there is no better way at the moment :( Just keep in mind that it will have to be a two step process regardless of how you do it. Multi-step processes tend to be prone to error and confusion, especially when you can't approve your own submissions, so it may be safer to add a quick note explaining what you are doing. That way the approving moderator won't be wondering why you are submitting a 45 page "novel" :) Ahasuerus 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Masters of the Fist

Your update to publication 21682 is puzzling.

• The date is 1989-02-00 and you did not change that.
• You changed the note from

First Baen Printing: February 1982"

"Printed in the untited States of America"

"A Baen Books original"

No number line present, no other printing date shown; Appears to be first printing; Cash register reciept shows purchase in May 1989

to

"First Baen Printing: February 1982"

"Printed in the untited States of America"

"A Baen Books original"

No number line present, no other printing date shown; Appears to be first printing; Cash register reciept shows purchase in May 1982

Did you intend to also change the publication's date or what's the source of 1989-02-00 other than Amazon.com?

• Is that "First Baen Printing: February 1982" statement correct? I just did a search on AbeBooks for Masters of the Fist 1982 and found nothing. It seems to be a 1989 publication which also fits in better with the author's publication history on ISFDB.
• I added a cover image from Amazon though have no idea if it's correct.
• Did you edit the publication key at some point? "89MastersofFist" is a hand created key and usually we only hand-edit them for magazines. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:00, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)

DES dropped me a note on my talk page and my response is along the same lines as yours[2].Kraang 19:47, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Thank you - I went ahead and approved the submission and re-edited the record to change the name of this country from "untited" to "United" (though it does not always seem that way) and also fixed the spelling of "reciept." David - you'll still need to edit the publication as I believe the "1982" dates should be "1989" (nearly all of the stories first appeared after 1982 too) but presumably you had reason for changing the date you noted for the receipt from 1989 to 1982 in the edit that was on hold for a while.

Do you use Firefox? That has a spell checker built in and will underline things in red and save you from obvious typos and the need to re-edit things. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:31, 26 Mar 2008 (CDT)

• I must habve been working too late on this one. T he correct date is 1989, as everythign syas, the 9 somehow changed to a 2 in my head. it was not a typo so much as a "thinko" I somehow gor the wrong though imn my head and it stcuk there. Thanks for querying this. I have submitted the correction. -DES ^Talk 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays"

I tried approving "The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays", but it caused a Python error, so I will drop Al a line. Also, is "Foreward" really spelled that way on page 1? Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Argh, another python error. I will check the spelling. -DES ^Talk 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Lady or the Tiger"

Unfortunately, one of your submissions is currently broken and will have to be resubmitted -- I must have merged its parent title before I got to it :( You can see the XML here because, as a moderator, you have access to the dumpxml.cgi script. Everything else looked good except for one other submission, which was missing a ">" in the HTML in the Notes field and wouldn't display correctly, but I was able to fix it manually.

I also fixed a bunch of typos in Notes, but as long as they are limited to Notes and stay out of the data fields, it's not a big deal. I had a harder time with our Francophone contributor, whose Notes were in Franglais. I assume we will eventually get submissions in Swahili, Surzhyk, etc :) Ahasuerus 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

old submission rejected, new one made. Thanks for alerting me. -DES ^Talk 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that submission 963418 is on hold, and on looking at it I see the error, it has type "anthology" rather than type "chapterbook". I will correct this. -DES ^Talk 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted a revised version of the publication entry. Should i reject the incorrect one, or is that not done when you have it "on hold"? -DES ^Talk 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done! :) "Anthology" is the default choice when Adding Publications and in a few other forms, which causes occasional issues :( Ahasuerus 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes - only this week I had to fix two pubs: an occasional search for Title "Introduction", Title-Type 'ANTHOLOGY' seems worthwhile as it catches a lot of people not changing the first entry's type. BLongley 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as "On Hold" goes, it's just a flag indicating that a moderator is investigating the submission or communicating with the submitting editor, so it shouldn't be approved by other moderators. Sometimes a moderator notices a problem submission (or a bunch of submissions), but doesn't have time to massage it and/or communicate with the submitting editor, so he puts them on hold and leaves a message on the Moderator Noticeboard so that other moderators could clean them up. On rare occasions a moderator will see something unusual in another moderator's submission (if it stays in the queue long enough) and put it on hold as a kind of "Hm, maybe we should talk about this first" kind of message. Finally, if the submitting editor hasn't found the Wiki yet and one of his submissions needs to be rejected, then it's important to include a link to the editor's Talk page in the rejection message, which will, hopefully, point the editor in the right direction. Ahasuerus 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

R, Clayton as Pete Bogg - submissions on hold

Do you know of any source that credits this pseudonym? I can't find it in Rock, Robinson, Tuck, Day, AKA, or either of the bibliographic comments for the authors. I presume that you are working on the variant project and did not make the original assignment.--swfritter 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct, i have been simply accepting the relationships already existing in the database. From the bibliographies, the relationship looked plausible -- the two authors both wrote primarily science essays, on a similar range of subjects, published in the same set of magazines, at about the same time. That is not, of course, proof of a relationship. Since these are all essay titles, Worldcat or other general bibliographic titles are unlikely to help.

Should I do more research before creating variants in such cases in future? Thanks for catching this issue. -DES ^Talk 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it right now. Hopefully some current editor has some information. I will put something out in Verification. Probably a good idea when doing pseudonyms in the project to check whatever references you might have access to - aka always being available. Unfortunately, if the original assignment is in error we have no way of removing it.--swfritter 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok will do. For me that pretty much mean refs available online. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to approve and make an entry in bibliographic notes stating that the source of the attribution is unknown. If this were a more significant author it might be worth a little more investigation.--swfritter 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I Think that is what was done, but the submisison has not been on hold for several weeks. -DES ^Talk 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Approved the submissions and noted in bibliographic notes for both names that the source is unknown. But, of course, these submissions bring up another issue that is quite common in magazines. When the magazines were first added the month was usually set to 00. When a variant is created the date will carry over. Eventually someone will edit the magazine and change the date to a form with the correct month which means the variant pair titles will be out of sync. I usually try to remember to change the dates before doing the pseudonym thing. The web API (hurray!, hurray!) could be used to resynchronize such titles but there are cases where variant titles should have unique dates - an example being a story that is republished in a significantly different form but in that case there should be some kind of modifier in the title to indicate that it is abridged, lengthened, etc. I think we would be safe in doing an update of variant pair titles with exactly the same titles and the same year. The web API might also be of use in fixing up the mags that have a 00 month. Please don't shy away from the magazines. These data inconsistencies will likely be resolved in some sort of batch mode.--swfritter 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not been shying away from magazines -- i have done several issues of Whspers, one Galleio, and a couple of Asaimov's. My personal collection is rather light on mags, so i haev mostly concentrated elsewhere, that is all. -DES ^Talk 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Flight of the Bat

I've put this on hold, have a look, I think you will see an obvious error. :-)Kraang 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for spotting this. I have rejected it and re-submitted, more correctly this time. -DES ^Talk 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Moderator?

Your bibliographic prowess has attracted the attention of the ISFDB moderators, and they have decided to ask you if you would like to become a moderator. Would you like to become a moderator? If so reply here, and we will begin the nomination process. There is a Moderator Qualifications page. Alvonruff 20:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Moderator Qualifications page again just now (I first read it some time ago). I think that i can handle the requirements at least reasonably well, and can make a positive contribution to the project as a moderator. Yes, I would like to become a moderator, and I hope that the various users will agree that I would be an asset in that role. Thank you for considering me.

Note that in order to grant me admin privileges on the wiki my mod flag was actually turned on some time ago, with the understanding and agreement that I would not use it to approve submissions until and unless confirmed as a moderator, and I have not. However, i have reviewed what submissions on the moderator page look like, and when I spotted an error in my own submissions (and once when a mod spotted an error), i have rejected them and re-submitted in corrected form. I think that this will enable me to start working as a moderator with less to learn than I otherwise might have had. -DES ^Talk 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Magic

I see that I you verified Mountain Magic a few days ago, so I wonder if you may be able to double check something. Diamonds are Forever is currently listed as written by Ryk E. Spoor, but wasn't Eric Flint a co-conspirator? Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite correct, I don't know how I overlooked that when verifiiung. I have submitted a fix. -DES ^Talk 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Whispers #23-24, October 1987

Just an FYI that I have approved this submission and then changed "Jor R, Lands" to "Joe R. Lansdale" and "Carl Kacobu" to "Carl Jacobi" as per the Locus Index. Ahasuerus 09:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was my last submission of the evening, and I should have stopped sooner. I'm about to finish the pub. I have several other issues of Whispers to enter, also. -DES ^Talk 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting my post

That's what I get for doing something five minutes before bedtime.--swfritter 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As the section above shows, I've done some foolish things when i was at the end of my day too. In any case, I'm not sure it matters -- I don't think the user in question has found the wiki at all. -DES ^Talk 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the above after my post. Anything I do before a cup of coffee in the morning is also questionable. It's going to be interesting communicating with people who submit via the web API.--swfritter 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the web API will be used mostly by publishers sending advance info and/or info about recently published books (Baen books wanted to do that a while ago) or by people who already have their libraries cataloged, and want to send us the data more or less en masse. Maybe we should start insisting that anyone who submits register an email address that the mods, at least, can send to? I'm getting more than a little frustrated with Rhschu‎, and I gather that other users have had similar issues in the past. -DES ^Talk 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Baen discussion ended up with a standard for downloadable ezines - Baen was trying to add their webzine rather than their ezine, I think mostly because they would prefer users to use the webzine where they push their other products. As for non-responders: Throughout the system you will see the name of one who made some excellent contributions; they made sporadic responses on their talk page indicating that they knew how to use it. I started rejecting rather than accepting and fixing in hopes of getting a response. Unfortunately, they stopped editing rather than responding. Maybe the Web API will allow our little friend, Dissembler, to do a little less work.--swfritter 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should say that just as I was about to post about the new Web API on the ISFDB:Community Portal :) Ahasuerus 23:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing to Rick Boatright

split off from previous topic

There was the comment by Rick Boatright on Talk:Data Submission Formats where he says "We would PREFER to have an automated submission...". If anyone has his email, i think it would be a good idea to let him know that the Web API is now available. -DES ^Talk 04:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as Jim Baen's Universe goes - it's a quick job to do manually and my manual entries are probably more complete than what they would do with an API submission; a fairly quick cut and paste from the HTML download every couple of months. As far as books - I suspect we might want to do a little more testing but since they have shown an interest in the process they might make a good beta candidate if we are going in the direction asking publishers to make submissions. I corresponded a little bit with Rick Boatright and likely have his email on my system - I think it is probably available on their site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swfritter (talk • contribs) .

I spent 20 minutes looking though the JBU, Grantville Gazette, and Baen Books sites, and could not find his email. He is a registered user here, but I suspect he has not visited since he asked about XML formats and we were not ready with a helpful response. I think it would be a good idea to let him know that the xml formats are now well documanted and the web API is available. -DES ^Talk 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Found an entry for him with edress on the 1632 site [3] Dana Carson 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A search through my unorganizable email brought up Rick@1632.org. We really don't have a protocol for communicating from Planet ISFDB to Planet Earth. It would be kind of nice if we had a way of documenting such communications - an email cc address perhaps or a wiki page where we document all such correspondence. In this case I am concerned that Rick Boatright is going to get the impression that we are now officially accepting submissions for webzines and I do not want to create a misunderstanding which will waste more of his time - his time is worth money; ours isn't.--swfritter 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the only zines that he is involved with, as far as I know, are Jim Baen's Universe and the Grantville Gazette, both of which we do accept (since both are downloadable) I don't think that such a misunderstanding is a major worry.

I agree that an official emali address wuld be a good idea. Since we now own isfdb.org, would it be possible to set up contacts@isfdb.org or mods@isfdb.org or something of the sort? Failing that, anyone could create a wikli page where copies of offical correspondance is supposed to be posted. -DES ^Talk 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Misenchanted Sword

David, I'm curious as to why you have this pub listed a a Novel when it contains the novel and a short story too. Shouldn't it be a Collection, or am I missing something?CoachPaul 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a sort of grey area, abut in a number of cases, where a novel was published with a single work of (often related) short fiction, and the title of the publication is the same as that of the novel, we label the short fiction a "Bonus story" and leave it as a novel type. I didn't invent this practice, but I have followed it on several occasions. In particular,you will notice With a single Spell, The Unwilling Warlord, The Blood of a Dragon, and the rest of the Wildside editions of the Ethshar novels. See also this edition of The Enemy Stars, Tides of light, this ed of Fahrenheit 451, Sir Lancelot Where Are You?, Terminal Velocity, The Prometheus Project , Voyage of the Shadowmoon, The Face That Must Die , this ed of An Enemy of the State, this ed of Something M.Y.T.H. Inc, The Jennifer Morgue, and others listed in Data Consistency/Short Fiction-Novel Mismatches

I think this is partly because a collection with only two items, and those very much different in size, looks rather lame, and this puts the various publications of the novel together. (For the matter of that, the letter of the rules would probably call these omnibuses.) We should probably document this practice better. -DES ^Talk 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd Wiki Edit

Yep, it was a goof. Just got a new iMac and was hacking away at Safari for the first time. Not everything I did apparently worked as I thought or wanted. I should be "all better" now.
--Dsorgen 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. No problem. -DES ^Talk 01:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding links to my notes

I left them out on purpose, because it drives me crazy when I read older subjects and the links lead nowhere because they've either been deleted or merged. However since they're now there, I can see that they may be useful.CoachPaul 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I won't do that again -- add links to your notes, i mean. Particularly when working with a relatively new contributor, i think such links have significant value, enough to overcome any later possible issues with broken links, so i will add them in my own notes. The template links do reduce the chance of broken links a trifle, as if we change hosts or domains, they will work correctly when links coded as URLs will not. But if the db record is merged or deleted, obviously the links will go nowhere. -DES ^Talk 15:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If I've left them out, and you feel that they are useful, go ahead and put them in. I'm curious about these Template Links that you talk about. All of the links in the conversation about The Misenchanted Sword we had above seem to be URL Links, but maybe they're not. How do I do Template Links?CoachPaul 15:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:P takes as an argument a pub tag or pub record number, and builds a url that links to a db pub record. Template:T does the same for a title record number. Template:A takes as an argument an author's name, and builds a url that linsks to the author record. The advantage of these is that if the base form of the URL ever changes (for example if we change domains, as we did when we left TAMU) one change to each template will fix all the links that use the template. Another advantage is that the wiki-code is shorter. (edt the section above to see lots of such links in place.) But the end result is much the same. (The author template now automatically inserts underscores as needed, so all you need to know is the name.) -DES ^Talk 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd get in touch direct...

... as we seem to be the only participants in a very long discussion where we obviously are pulling in different directions at times, and I'd like to make sure you understand it's nothing personal. The ISFDB project is growing and I can already see some new schisms coming up, but we seem to have overcome (for instance) the Magazine/Book editor disagreements mostly, and the Database/Wiki ones should be solvable too. Thanks for being a fellow "disruptive challenger" (as my current employers like to term it) in general, and still continue to show the helpful attitude to new editors specifically. And keep those Wiki tips coming - I know you know I consider a lot of it transient, but there's no reason it can't be well-presented in the meantime - "transient" here can mean years. BLongley 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that -- I just saved an edit in the more public discussion where i try to make that clear. I think our overall goals are the same, we at most disagree on tactics and tools. I am more of a prescriptivist than a descriptivist at times (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Process is important an essay I drafted and am still quite proud of). I am not so much an exclusionist as a person who thinks that clear lines should be drawn as to what is included, if possible, and then followed fairly strictly. I am comparatively new as an editor on this project (although I have been a regular user of the ISFDB for at least 6 years, and I did submit a number of corrections/entries by email back in the ISFDB1 days, indeed in the pre-TAMU period)

I read some of the article you point at. I like the "In a small group there is little need for structure or process" bit best. ;-) BLongley 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

True enough, and the regular editors of the ISFDB are still in that small-group phase, although IMO we are nearing the edge of being big enough that this starts to change -- look at the amount of convention if not process I am having to explain to dragoondelight, and he is very well intentioned and willing to listen.

And that essay was written for and about Wikipedia, which is (and was when i wrote it) already far larger than the ISFDB is likely to get.

But the large group that includes people who come here for a single edit or to enter works on a single author, often themselves, is a different matter already. It isn't the size of Wikipedia, but it is big enough that a few traffic rules are, I think, needed. -DES ^Talk 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff on the wiki is and should be transient -- indeed the majority probably is. I simply don't think that means that anything on the wiki is automatically transient, and in fact I think the Bio pages, and possibly the Publisher pages, are some of the least transient things we have on the wiki yet. Also, some of the magazine pages are better organized indices to the various issues than anything we yet have in the db, but they may possibly migrate there in time. -DES ^Talk 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The magazine pages do tend to get looked after well, but as you say it's mainly because they make a better job of displaying the data. There is some good meta-data there too though, so if you come to an incomplete magazine there's good pointers as to what still needs doing. Most of the real data is already in the database though and I've never missed the Wiki aspect while working with the ISFDB offline. All I can really think to add to the database is an indication of whether it's complete, and there's no entity to record that on really. The use of 'EDITOR' records needs a bit of a clean-up too, but even if/when we get that the display issues would probably mean the Wiki pages should stay there, pretty much frozen. BLongley 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless people stop publishing SF (which i hope they won't) the ISFDB will never be complete, and the wiki pages (or whatever new tech eventually replaces them) will never be truly frozen, i should think.

The Bio and Author pages currently have pretty slim pickings, although as you point out we're getting them hit rather more often now. The Publisher pages I really hope CAN be mostly transient - our usage of them initially led to more database fields being added, and I can stop having to hand-create Wikipedia and Web-page links there. Lots of Wiki redirects probably led to Publisher Rename and Merge capabilities (unfortunately no Publisher hierarchies yet). But I'm not satisfied with publisher notes, so I'm stretching the use of the Publisher Wiki pages to stress the importance of some more changes to the database. I want Publication Series: I want Start and End dates so we can use them for sanity checks on entries: I want ISBN ranges and/or details of serial number formats used, again for sanity checks: some people want Addresses, details of the abbreviations used in Library catalogs, whether it's a known paperback-only or hardcover-only publisher, date-ranges for use of a particular logo, etc. To get some order in place, I'm actually creating DISorder on the Wiki side so that we can look at the mess and think "that should be in the database instead" and put the processes and order THERE, and reduce the need to dump everything into the Wiki. Some bits will never move as not enough people want them, but I hope some will. And I definitely want much moved before we see Publisher Wiki pages being regulated heavily - a lot of the Wiki pages are the sandbox for the database changes yet to come. I'm not actually too fussed over the Bio pages themselves, but I don't want to rush into heavy Wiki-Moderation too soon. I think the closer we get to Wikipedia the less attraction we have here for editors - I want to enjoy the "in at the start, when you could get things changed for the better" for a while yet. So far I can claim "Primary (Transient)" as my idea, I'd like to get some Publisher improvements credited to me too - after all, we are ALL transient in the end and only the "firsts" stay recorded. Al is effectively immortalised already - that doesn't stop him being overtaken by others in all the "Top thingummy" categories we mods can see now. BLongley 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 80 non-empty Bio: pages in the wiki, some quite slim, some rather extensive. There are about 750 non-empty Author: pages in the wiki.

I agree that much of what is now in the publisher pages could and perhaps should move into the db proper. The magazine pages, with their arrays of links, may do better staying on the wiki more or less permanently, and so may some parts of the publisher pages, but that depends on just how we choose to expand the db. Even when there is stuff that could be put into the db, there may be performance issues. I agree that much of the data you identify for publishers ought to be captured and would be helpful, and that in at least some cases the db proper would be the ultimate best place. I am not looking to have the wiki take over from the db, nor to get into "heavy Wiki-Moderation" for it's own sake.

I see a specific problem: self-publishing is on the rise, and author, self-published authors in particular, are being taught to use every possible web avenue to self-promote. People in general are becoming more aware of the web as a means of advertising and promotion. And as the ISFDB becomes larger, more stable, and more widely used, it becomes more visible, and moves up on the various search engines rank lists. Because of this, we are steadily becoming a more tempting target. And with the Bio links, we have left an open door. We must put a lock on that door, or a receptionist armed with a clear notion of who may enter and the power to enforce that notion. If we don't, we may soon be home to huge numbers of "biographies" about would-be writers. This would both harm our reputation, and burden our hosting and backup processes. The proposals were a specific response to this perceived problem, and were explicitly intended to apply only to the Bio: pages -- everything else would stay as it is, and regulars who don't work with Bio pages need not be affected at all. -DES ^Talk 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we will shortly need to either regulate the Bio pages, or withdraw the invitation to use them implicit in the Bio link on every author db page.

Did you see my newly created Template:BioHeader? What did you think of it? Look at Bio:Test Author 2 for an example of it's use. -DES ^Talk 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ISFDB talk:Data Entropy

Thanks for the comments! I've probably messed up the page a lot with long responses, so here's the quick summary:

• Prices: Yes, we'll probably never find them all. I think we can probably find almost all the prices for new publications though, so the percentage of publications without prices should continue to drop, although zero is an impossible final goal.
• Verification: "Percentage of publications verified" is good, although we will often distort that with secondary data unless we add "this physical book confirms existence of these prior editions/printings" verification. "Percentage of titles with at least one verified publication" is a Can of Worms, but I've posted about that already.
• Publishers: yes, the one-offs are probably worth looking at, but would still probably overwhelm a stats page. If I had more confidence that people are working in this area I'd add such a page for the cleaners - but it is still a big task and it's easier to go clean than post about what needs cleaning. For now. BLongley 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Always glad to talk, probably too glad.

• Prices: I agree with you in general, but feel that the usefulness of the entropy statistics is reduced (and the pattern of change over time distorted) by older pubs. Go back far enough, and books simply didn't really have cover prices in the modern sense. That's why i thought that price-entropy stats for pubs later than a specified year might be meanighful and useful.
• Verification: I tend to agree with you, but even with your can of worms, I think there is some value in this info, adn would be more for this info as it changes over time.
• Publishers: I wasn't asking for a list -- i agree that at this point a list would probably be too long to be worth compiling and posting -- and that would fall under Cleanup projects, not Data Entropy anyway. I was suggesting simple count: something like "As of 11 July, there are 2089 publisher names with a single publication attributed to them; 1072 with anywhere for 2 to 10 attributed pubs; 968 with 11 to 20; ... and 46 with over 200 attributed pubs". Just the data for a frequency histogram. Changes in the histogram over time would say soemthing about the progress of cleanup, particularly any reduction in one-offs and low-count names. -DES ^Talk 22:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done about 6 of the 27(A-D,X,Y) letters in the alphabet and other randomly found names, so it would be pointless to start making lists until I've finished with a first pass of all the obvious errors. One area I've mostly ignored is the British publishers since Bill is doing them and has better access to the books and is more familiar with their history. The other area is the large publishing names like HarperCollins and all their imprints and variant names before and after different merges. An example of an easy one to fix is Constable and Robinson which merged in 1999 but many of their publications before they were merged(pre 1999) have the merged name not the pre merge names of Robinson or Constable. Once the others are in better shape these can be looked at and figured out.Kraang 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious. I've said at least twice before this in this discussion that I wasn't asking for a list and that a list would not be useful at this time. Why have two different people told me of reasons for not posting a list? Am I being unclear? What I suggested was a count, broken down by a range of number of pubs. Seeing such counts change would be one measure of what efforts like Kraang's are achieving, i should think. The section I am thinking of would be a table. Column headings would be # of pubs (1, 2-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200, etc) Row headings would be dates when the query was run, or of the backup sets on which it was run. In each cell would be a single number: the number of publisher names in the db that fell into that range of publications on that date. Now maybe no one else thinks that such a table would offer useful info -- or at least not enough useful info to run and report on the queries. But the (quite valid) arguments against a list IMO don't at all apply to this quite different beast. -DES ^Talk 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The chart you are suggesting sounds interesting but as someone who is actively working in this area I don't think it would be of much use to me. The only value that I attach to the number of publications under any publishers name is to guide me in the choice of a name. This list you are suggesting will not give use a measure of good verses bad data unlike the price & page count list. What I have noticed is the verified pubs have far less problems associated with their names, the unverified pubs and the stuff that was picked up from book sellers lists has the vast majority of bad data. It's been awhile since I've had this much to say. :-)Kraang 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's two different things here: the Histograms can be generated, e.g. current figures are

1		4306
2-10		3060
11-100		1055
101-1000	176
>1000		16

I'm just not sure that changes over time tell us much, except that the singleton count should probably be a LOT lower. For cleanup purposes though, we need to know who those 4,306 singleton publishers ARE, which is the list currently too big to be usefully published. Those of us with offline SQL capabilities could usefully run a query like:

SELECT p.publisher_name, count(*)
from publishers p, pubs pb
where pb.publisher_id = p.publisher_id
group by publisher_name
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1

to find them, but we might as well clean/regularise them as we find them rather than post the results for everyone else. The number of singletons might be a useful measure in the short term, maybe publishers with just 2 or 3 pubs too. I'm not sure where the ranges could be set to be useful after that. BLongley 09:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The latest publisher histogram looks like this: does the change indicate much to you?

1		4219
2-10		3034
11-100		1049
101-1000	182
1000		16

BLongley 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It indicates *something* at least. Specifically, it shows that overall cleanup efforts are progressing, as shown by the significant decrease in 1-publication publishers. Presumably this is due to merges, not new pubs being found to convert these to 2-10 title publishers. This is supported by the slight decrease in publishers with 2-10 titles, and by the decrease in total publisher count from 8613 to 8500. The only increase is in the 101-1000 range. In short, this shows progress in the merging of variant forms of publisher names into fewer names with larger numbers of pubs. i think this is a good thing, and this time series seems as useful to me as most of the ones on the data entropy page -- after all, the reduction in pubs without pages doesn't tell you which pubs still need pages entered, but it does show progress towards the goal. Whether anyone else would find these figures of interest I can't say -- certainly they are far from vital. -DES ^Talk 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More Dup candidates?

Hi,

I've suggested to merge another title (this time interiorart) and I hope I didn't make a mistake this time... (But it is by making mistakes that you learn!).

This artist, Orban, has quite a lot of Dup candidates on his page ([4]), that seem to really be such (same title, year, type; I checked one to see if there were notes or such inside the records and there weren't...). As I was not quite sure for the one I had found, I didn't do anything about those.

Thanks for telling me if I've made a mistake, if you say it's OK I can also merge the other ones if you like.

Jessica 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with interior art (and also with cover art) is telling whether the actual art is identical. It is not unheard of for the same artist to do different illustrations for the same story on different occasions. Because of that, many editors don't worry much about trying to merge art records. That said, most of these look as if they probably are unmerged duplicates. If you want to merge them, from the dups page ([5]), you can simply check both boxes in a set, and click "merge selected records" You can also click on the link to each title to see where it was published, which may give a clue about whether the art is reprinted or different. The dates may also give clues. In the case of the merge you actually suggested, the notes in the reprint pub make me feel comfortable in approving the merge. Note that when you submit an edit some moderator is always going to look it over (until and unless you become a mod yourself), and if there is a question about it, the reviewing mod will post a msg on your user page. -DES ^Talk 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging art is a complicated issue, we've just finished a long discussion about that here. In general, it's not done. Cartoons can be merged if you know they are identical. The problem arises from the way in which we identify art. If there are multiple illustrations, you have the choice of listing only one, or all of them. If only one illustration is identified, then the first illustration is tagged with the title of the story. If you are listing all, then [number] is attached to each replication of the title to distinguish them. The problem with merging duplicate "interiorart" titles arise from the reprinting of either the art or the story, in which sometimes all of the art is not reprinted, or it's been scaled, cropped, or redrawn by a contemporary artist. In the first case, multiple illustrations cannot be matched up properly, and in the others, the art is not completely identical, or is new. For now we've been labeling reprinted art as reprinted, to distinguish it from the original publication without merging. An example of how we've been dealing with this can be found here.--Rkihara 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More Dup candidates? Bis

I've got another one and I don't know how to deal with it.

There are two records for Asimov's "Escape!". One [6] has nothing in it but the header is different from the other one [7] (the series heading is different and both are accurate). As well, in the second one there's no variant title, whereas it figures in the first one ("Paradoxical Escape").

What do we do in such a case ? Thanks for telling me.

Jessica 11:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This was a tricky one. First there was a variant title: "Escape!" was initially published as "Paradoxical Escape", and the "empty" title record was present to record that variant, listing "Paradoxical Escape" as the primary or canonical title. But there was a separate entry for "Escape!" that showed no variant. In addition, these two entries showed different series, and one limitation of the ISFDB is that one title can belong to only one series, although sometimes works legitimately belong to multiple series, as in this case. (Had I been doing the entry i might not have created the Susan Calvin stories and the Donavon stories as separate series, but that is a judgment call.) Normally, we take the first published title as the canonical title, but in this case all reprints of this often reprinted story are under the title of "Escape!", and Asimov is on record as disliking the editor-imposed title of "Paradoxical Escape". So I first broke the existing variant relationship (which is done by going to the "child" record, clicking "make variant", and making it a variant of record number 0 (zero). Then i merged the two title records for "Escape!" and then made "Paradoxical Escape" a variant of "Escape!" In the process I made all records have the same series, and made the two robot series part of the same super-series [8]. Altogether this took some 8 different edits to fix, most of which could not be done until the previous edit was approved. Definitely a job for a moderator. A very good catch, thanks! -DES ^Talk 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Is there a place where the choice of what title should be parent and what title should be child is discussed? Do we choose on the author's preference, the first publication's title, the better known title? For when I suggested to make Matheson's "The waker dreams" a variant of "When the waker sleeps", thinking that the last one is the title people usually know the story under, somebody said that I should have done the reverse, as the other title is the one given to the first publication. Jessica 10:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Our most common default is to use the title that a work was first publsihed under as its cannonical title. There can be exceptions. I decided to make "Escape!" an exception largely because it is much better known under the later title, because all appearences except the first have been under the title "Escape!". The author's known wishes are also a factor, but a lesser one. If a work is reasoanbly well known under the inital title, that is the one that should be used.

A choice of title need not be discussed, if your are confident. In any case a choice later thought to be unwise can be reversed fairly easily (unlike an assignment of pseudonym status for an author, which currently can not be reversed, and so must be done with more care). If you wish to discuss it, there are several possibilities. My preference would be on the relevant author page, in this case Author:Isaac Asimov. However, people may not look at author pages that much, so i would post a brief (1-2 line) on the Community Portal, with a link to the post on the author page. Alternatively, such a question could simply be posted on the Community Portal directly. Either would be acceptable. I hope that is helpful. -DES ^Talk 15:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jack Gaughn"?

Dave, does Asimov's Mag Aug 3 1981 really give the artist for "Basic Genesis" as Jack Gaughn (not Gaughan)? Thanks. Dave (davecat) 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll double check tonight, but 90-to-1 this is my typo. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

All Story Magazine

Oops! Looks like you may have entered a few with a ',' after the month and before the year. As per Help pages for general-fiction: looking good but I don't think we have a standard for entering magazines with months and days. I have been entering in the format 'Magname, March 12, 1922' which is probably the way the most Americans would enter it and most of our similar standards are American-centric. '12 March 1922' is probably the way the rest of the world would enter it and has the advantage of looking OK without a comma.--swfritter 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If "Magname, March 12, 1922" is the format for a magazine with a spcific date, why isn't "Magname, March, 1922" the format for a monthly when no spcific day of the month is known? If you prefer "Magname, March 1922" I can change them. i can't see that it matters much as long as the format is consistant within any one magazine.

Help says "please note that the title should be of the form Magazine Title, Date, such as Asimov's Science Fiction, June 2004". The format should be consistent throughout the entire system. If we require some new formatting options for non-genre pubs then they should be documented in the the pubs Help. In this particular case the All-Story Magazine issues for 1912 are monthly issues and the double commas are totally inconsistent with existing standards. By the way, thanks for creating the Help template for Letters. I was about to do that when I noticed there were other sections in NewPubs, EditPubs which should be shared and decided to do a quick copy and paste for now. Also, Fictionmags index lists the title as The All-Story while Contento lists it as All-Story.--swfritter 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will change the dates on those issues, and mention the standard format on the help page.

Changes done. -DES ^Talk 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On the actual name of the magazine, the sources that I used (OCLC, and the notes from the anthology Under the Moons of Mars by Moskowitz) both used the form "All-Story Magazine" so that is what I used. But then there is this site, which refers to the publication as "All-Story Magazine", but most if not all of the cover scans show the name on the magazine cover to have been simply "The All-Story" during the period in question. However, that does not indicate what may have been on the title page or masthead. The Wikipedia article on Argosy uses the form "All-Story Magazine", and i have seen other secondary sites that do so. (There is currently no Wikipedia article on All-Story.) Argosy's own history of its early years simply uses the name "All-Story". I'll be happy to change the name if you really think it advisable. -DES ^Talk 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Magazine title is definitely going to be tricky - my biggest concern is that we could end up with duplicate entries/multiple series for the same issues/mags. We might to decide on a canonical mag title and do some misdirection to lead to a common series. Note the way Fantastic is done. At one time there were actually three different wiki pages for Fantastic. Somebody had just copied the data to each page. I only noticed when Rkihara and I were using different wiki pages to add the same issues.--swfritter 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The new help page does not attempt to define a format, it quite specifically says "If other issues of the same magazine are on file, try to use the same form of the name and date format as they used...". If we know (from facsimiles or the like) the foramt thatr the magazien in question actually used, I would favor that, but i don't think it is a matter of much importance, so long as there is consistancy. -DES ^Talk 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for "The Rest of the World" (in the absence of anyone else) '12 March 1922' does not look right. '12th March 1922' maybe. '12th March, 1922' probably. But if you're nitpicking over date formats in titles you're missing the only important thing - is the date in the date field right? BLongley 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In my personal writing, i happen to prefer the format "12 March 1922". it is not the most usual format in the US. I think it is fairly common in some parts of Europe, and it was recommended in Strunk & White's Elements of Style IIRC. But I was not attempting to suggest the use of that format particularly in creating magazine entries, indeed the non-genre entries I have created for All-Story Magazine all use the format "Magname, March, 1922", while I gather that Swfritter would prefer "Magname, March 1922", if I understand him correctly. If anyone thinks that the way the help page is written mandates or strongly suggest a particular format, and wants this changed, please say so. -DES ^Talk 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Suite Mentale

Per long discussion here, I'm changing your PG pub Suite Mentale. (Actually, it's a title within the pub that's changing.) The artwork title will now be "Suite Mentale (reprint)", & its date the date of the PG pub. I've checked that this artwork hasn't been merged with the underlying magazine's artwork title, & is included only in this one pub. If you have a problem with this, let me know & I'll change it back, of course. -- Dave (davecat) 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I probably wouldn't have done this, but i have no objection to you doing it, and if consensus develops on this as a standard, I'm fine with it. -DES ^Talk 01:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing the same thing with "The Measure of a Man". Any further of the same type I'll just list here as well. Dave (davecat) 01:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make any such change (changing an interior art entry from "Name" to "Name (reprint)" without notification. -DES ^Talk 12:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Publisher Timelines?

I've been watching your publisher updates (as it seems like my Bleiler submissions are triggering you to take a look at some of the old houses I am inputting). I was wondering if you could add a timeline or a year to year list for the changing names of these houses to your Wiki entries. This would make it much easier for me (and I'll assume other editors) to make sure the book they have belongs to this publishing house. What i'm thinking of is something like the below example ... and something like this will maintain the printed publishing house name through the publisher merges.

• House Names by Year
  • 1795 - 1826 - Archibald Constable (Abbreviated sometimes as 'A. Constable', and 'Constable')
  • 1827 - 1893 - Archibald Constable [I'm unsure if there was a name change between 1826 and 1827]
  • 1893 - T. & A. Constable
  • 1893 - 1999 - Constable & Co.
  • 1999 merged with Robinson Publishing Ltd. to form Constable & Robinson.

To some extant that is true, but I am particualrly motivated to get rid of publisher entries in the form "London: Publisher anme""., moving the location into the notes, when i see one in a submisison i am approving. Once I do this, i also try to merge as many publisher records as i resonably can (I got 12 down to 3 for the Constable). I also create wiki pages with as much relevant data as I have on hand. The sources I had didnot proide sufficient clear data for a timeline, which i agree would be a very good thing. For example, they did not make it clar whether "Constable & Co." was also used before 1893, nor when "T. & A. Constable" ceased being used, and there was some indication of "Archibald Constable & Co." somewhere in the 1827 - 1893 period. Did you have any sources beyond the ones I listed in the wiki pages? You are, of course, free to add a timeline to any wiki apge yourself. I would like to have such a timeline on any publisher wiki pafe -- I agree with you on its value. But I am reluctant to add one without better data than i have for Constable, as such a timeline will tend to look authoritative, even though in this case it isn't very. How about a "List of names used by this firm" with notes on datign when we have them, to be converted into a timelinw when there is solid evidence? -DES ^Talk 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

List added to Publisher:Constable & Co.. What do you think? -DES ^Talk 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User_talk:Kpulliam/fakedata for another take on this. What I'm looking for is two things... #1, an easy reference chart to make sure I am adding the correct publisher (based on name changes, mergers, and secondary source abbreviations), and #2 a way to document and not lose the information that this publisher once published at Westminster (and when I find something that says Westminster instead of london... it's still the same company). This example I think also lends itself to 'building' the data of what a completed timeline should be. PS - The third generation (Thomas's son Archibald) becoming partner in 1865 is from the 1910 EB Kevin 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Found This - Dictionary of Printers and Printing 1839 - Has a nice write up of the first Archibald in a obituary on page 902.

I don't quite understand the distinction you make between "as indexed for" and "as printed for"". By the phrase "names used by or for this firm" I intended to indicate that the list included both names found on printed books -- "names used by the firm" -- and names used in bibliographic sources, even if they were never actually used on books printed by the firm. Those latter are the "names used for the firm" -- by others. In the case of Constable, for example, i suspect that "A. Constable" was neve used by the fim, and is only a librarian's or bibliographer's abbreviation of "Archibald Constable".

As for your examples, something like your table would be a good idea, IMO, but only after there is enough data, or a reliable source or sources that cover the firm's history in some detail. IMO creating such a table incorrectly would be worse than not creating it at all, because people finding books that do not fit might well incorrectly assume that they were by a different publisher. The form in the lower part of your example page looks better, but if you are assuming that you can get all, most, or even many of the editors to update it each time that a book is entered, I rather suspect you are mistaken. Ask Bill Longley what his views are, for example. (By the way, on the dating of the "T. & A. Constable" form, the 1911 EB article says: "Archibald Constable's son, Thomas (1812-1881), was appointed in 1839 printer and publisher in Edinburgh to Queen Victoria, and issued, among other notable series, Constable's Educational Series, and Constable's Foreign Miscellany. In 1865 his son Archibald became a partner, and when he retired in 1893 the firm continued under the name of T. & A. Constable." I read that to indicate that this form was not used until after Archibald's retirement in 1893, although that is not absolutely clear. it might have been the name from 1865 onward.) But using something like this form is not a bad idea. not that you do NOT need may or anyone's approval to add such a section to any or indeed any publisher wiki page you choose. -DES ^Talk 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I Agree.... I don't need anyones permission to let me add this information to the Wiki pages, but when you blanket change data that editors have entered which shows the data needed to put that information into a table, you remove my capability to ever come back and USE that data to create that table. (Especially when you are sweeping up the detritus minutes after my NewPubs get accepted). Which is one of the reasons I was not asking you to stop, but to just add more information to the Wiki in the process of merging publishers. I personally have been using this form in a few places (See Publisher:Cassell, Publisher:Tinsley Brothers, Publisher:Bart House, and Publisher:Isbister), but I haven't come back to clean up much of the Bleiler inputs yet. Kevin 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A solution: When you merge... if you just look at the years of use for the various publishers name, and transfer this to the wiki (even when the years overlap on the various names), 95% of my concerns are satisfied. You can just copy and paste from the publisher page as I just did for Publisher: C. W. Daniel as an example.Kevin 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the formatting in Publisher: C. W. Daniel adds anything, the info is just as well conveyed by "1911, 1937" in a lot less space. Or is this meant to be an intermediate form? -DES ^Talk 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This would be an intermediate form. I proposed it as the least effort (on your part) addition to your wok on merging publishers. That formatting (the bottom example) is what you get when you literally, copy and paste the html table from the publisher screen. (2 seconds effort per publisher and no formatting effort)It may not be pretty, but it's readable and can be cleaned up later. When/If I come to a publisher page like that, I would happily reformat it to the prettier in progress style format of 'Year-Year, Year, Year' etc. I admit... MUCH of the data is suspect on non verified works, but on these older works I think we will be able to eventually clean it up as more and more older works get scanned and available without spending thousands of dollars per volume.Kevin 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see youa re trying to make things easy for me. Thanks. I'll think about this before doign any further publisher merges. I agree that when digitized copies become avaialable the issue can be solved much more easily, but I don't think our current entries an in any but a very few cases, the equivalent of such data. Specifically, often an entery is entered from a secondary source, and such sorces more often than not abbreviate or alter a publisher name (in at least some cases adding a city that is simply wrong). Then a primary verifier comes along. Generrally the title, authro, price, page count, and ISBN are fairly carefully checked. But if the publisher nae is a rough match, say if the book showed "Archibald Constable & Co" and the existign entry showed "A. Constable" the verifier often says to himself "close enough, it shows the right publisher" and makes no change. The thing is, carefully collecting and summerizing suspect data doesn't make it any more relaible, but it does make it look more reliable, and hides the weak basis on which it stood. Doing that may actually be worse than erasign the entire dataset and starting over from more reliable basises. -DES ^Talk 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between 'as printed' and 'as indexed in 2ndary' was meant to (if possible) separate out just the kind of example you point out, where you don't believe it was ever printed as 'A. Constable' but you can see from my examples that I haven't gone to that level of detail so far. Kevin 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. (Note that User_talk:Kpulliam/fakedata does not currently use the term "2ndary" or anything similar.) That distinction is worth making, if we have evidence on which to make it, which i don't think we do, in the Constable case.

I do see your point about data lost in the merges. I didn't try to collect it before merging because I'm not convinced that any of it means anything, particularly not from records not primary verified. Secondary sources freely abbreviate and mangle publisher names. But even primary verified records are not highly relaibel for this purpose, because people enter and check publisher names rather carelessly. Frankly i trust forms given in articles about a publisher rather more than any of our existing records, even primary verified ones. But I'll try to collct such in my next set of publisher merges, and see how onerous it is, and how valuable the result is (i rather suspect the answers are "fairly" and "not very"). Note that the lsit of names used and possible dates for them that I put in the constable wiki page were derived exclusively from the linked articles, not from the ISFDB records, because that is where I felt that the more reliable data was. -DES ^Talk 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a try. I think that the cut n paste method described above) will not be too onerous. Post me a talk when you do a merge and I'll try to follow behind and reformat and clean up the year tables if you want. Kevin 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will. But my concern is not so much with the work, as with the value of the resulting data, and indeed with the risk of makign bad data look good, which is worse than doing nothing. See my comments above. -DES ^Talk 23:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I agree that we need to find out and record which forms of a publisher's name were in use at what times, so that people doign entry have a useful cross-check. I am not sure what the best way to achieve this goal is. -DES ^Talk 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe mark those tables based on 'old suspect' data as such, and having a second table listed as 'Verified Names'? Does that satisfy your concerns? See Publisher:Schocken which was the very first table I put in for an example, one table with mixed data. This was on a book I was updating to do a second Primary on. Kevin 23:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image verification procedure

I am somewhat befuddled trying to find the best technique to put an image to someone else's verification. I find them (images) when researching to do a verification. I am glad they are verified by someone else, but the image could well be key to a complete similarity. Twice the message I left have disappeared. Once with Hal3730?(bad memory) the message disappeared, but the image was entered. No problem there. With Mgpb the message disappeared with no input of the image. Have I blundered. I bracketed the http and checked to make sure it would not enlarge. I also left a message with Rsch with no response. You caught that and had me correct the image explosion. Still, I did not receive a response, but the image and price have still not been corrected. How do messages disappear? I think of this as housekeeping, but think most think of it as a bother. I do not mind someone monitoring my actions, I just need to know what approach will create less ill will and the images do give users a treat. I have a special personal db for my entries to keep track. I can easily keep track of things such as this. I have five that I have not approached Kraang with. These images can come and go, and it seems there should be an easier way to 'housekeep' them. A page with say title,verifier, date left there, and image address would do wonders. If the images are wrong the ISFDB might be able to find a different printing/image out of it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the history of User talk:Mgpb that shows that you ever edited it -- is it possible that the save didn't go through? This does sometimes happen, and used to happen more often. If that is not what happened, i have no idea what the problem was.

I do see your msg to User:Rhschu on 9 July 2008 and that he never respoded. If (as appears to be the case) more than one msg was waiting for him when he next logged on, he could have missed your msg. He hasn't been active recntly (no wiki edits in just over a month). in an case like this, you have two choices. Since you have notified the origianl verifier and gotten no resposne after waiting 2-3 weeks, you would be IMO justified in just going ahead if you are reasonably confident. Or, if you really need or want the verirfier's imput, send a little reminder msg. Your choice which tack to take in any given situation.

As to wh msgs disappear, the normal way is whith a wiki-edit that removes them, or moves them to an archive page. But that leaves a record in the history. In the case of User:Mgpb, I eould advise re-sending your msg, as i can't verify that it was ever where he could see it. If a msg is delted after being acted on, it probably means that however acted saw no reaso to leave the msg sittign around. Not my prefernce, but within the limits of reasonable action. -DES ^Talk 23:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am very sure of the Rhschu input and I will send Mgpb a new message. I have noticed some oddness at ISFDB when doing messages or looking for help, etc. I am on, then off, and it is possible that the jump from the DB item screen to the other area is my problem. I will keep an eye cocked for such. Thank greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When you go from a bd screen to a wiki screen sometimes it transfers you to a page without the "www" in the domain name. Thius is actualy an alternate name fior the same page, but if you wewre logged in to the wiki from a www page, the login cookie will not match and you will be treated as not logged in. In such a cse you ca either log in again, or alter the url by inserting "www." just before "ISFDB". You must always look at the upper part of a wiki page when coming to it from the db to make sure that you are logged in. -DES ^Talk 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had to log in more frequently, but I have a new system myself and put it down to that. Thinking about it thought, ISFDB has full right to get confused by my actions as I jump from one screen to another to check things before submission. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A Separate Star

A few questions re: your verified A Separate Star: A Science Fiction Tribute to Rudyard Kipling:

1. Is the cover artist credited as "Stephen Hickman" or "Steve Hickman"? My copy says "Steve" on the copyright page, but perhaps there is another attribution that I am missing.
   • So does mine, and I find no other attributiuon, don't know why i entered it that way.
2. Would you happen to know why the Title record (but not the Pub record) lists Steven Miesel as a co-editor?
   • No such name on the title page. I think it must be an entry error, don't know whose.
3. Does the title of Anderson's essay on page 1 end with an ellipsis?
   • Yes it does. i will correct this.
4. Would you say that de Camp's "Of Kipling and Me" could be subtitled "(Introduction to Ghost Ships)"?
   • It could be, but only by placement. It never mentions "Ghost Ships", nor any of the Kipling poes on which "Ghost Ships" is most obviously modeled. In the context of the anthology, it serves as an intro to "Ghost Ships", but then it contains perhaps twice as many words as does "Ghost Ships", so... I would not be incliend to change the title, when there seems no need.
5. Is it likely that the introductions that are currently dated "1987" (presumably because of the copyright dates) first appeared in this book, thus making them "1988-05-00"?
   • Yes it is. All list copyright notes but no prior places of publication, which the various reprinted stories do list.
6. Do we want to change "Introduction: The Long Watch" from shortfiction to an essay?
   • Yes!

Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at my shelves, and the book isn't where it should be. I'll try to find it and answer the above. To the 5th point: probably. To the 6th, I'm pretty confident the answer is yes. -DES ^Talk 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No hurry! :) Ahasuerus 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it, answers above inline. -DES ^Talk 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -DES ^Talk 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sig Image Data

Please see Image:Jack Faragasso signature.jpg.

1. What's the business about "Error creating thumbnail?"

   Because Al has not installed the "Image Magic" library for the wiki, the wiki cannot automatically scale images up and down (nor do some other image-related things). If you upload an image whose largest dimension is over 600 pixels, the wiki software tries to create a "thumbnail" -- a version of the image for the display page scaled down so that the largest dimension is under 600 pixels (it may also try to scale up very small images, I'm not sure). This calls the "image Magic" routine, and fails because this isn't installed. The actual image is still there, at http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/1/13/Jack_Faragasso_signature.jpg which you can get to by clicking "full resolution" from Image:Jack Faragasso signature.jpg. This problem can be solved by a) accepting the need to click "full resolution"; b) uploading a smaller image; or c) getting Al to install the Image Magic library. But IIRC he said that this library demanded several other libraries, each of which would need to be installed and tested, and he expected the process would require a full day of his time.

   Thanks - I'll see if I can work out a way to clone the ISFDB server as then stuff like this can be tested off line and then rolled onto the production server as a package. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is there a way to convert the artist name into Jack_Faragasso? I tried that directly in the name field but it broke the thing to construct the Artist:Jack Faragasso Images link.

   Good idea. I will change the template to do this automatically. (there wouldn't be an easy way to do this without changing the template).

3. Can a category for artist signatures get added based on the use of this template? Marc Kupper (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Easily. I will do so.

Responses above in-line. -DES ^Talk 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template changes made, see what you think. -DES ^Talk 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect and thank you very much. Category:Artist Signature Images was a fun one to look over. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I noticed, when adjusting some old images that you'd added templates to, that this page shows "Unknown" for publication. As there IS a magazine here with that title, maybe the "Unknowns" in the templates could be expanded a bit more clearly? It currently looks as though the image might be from a magazine cover, and it certainly wasn't. BLongley 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Point noted, and, in that case at least, dealt with. Of course, if you were to indicat what pub this cam from the problem wouldn't arise. -DES ^Talk 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True: but if you didn't try to organise it all the problem wouldn't arise either. ;-)

Still, I can't remember exactly where it came from (it was one of several possible samples) and we didn't particularly CARE at the time it was uploaded (well, I certainly didn't and nobody else complained). In this case, the usefulness has gone, but I'm aware it will leave a hole in a Wiki page (or several) somewhere. I'm told "There are no pages that link to this file" but I don't believe that - it probably means there are no pages that link to it via approved Wiki linking and plain copy'n'paste was used for the link. Maybe we could use a "TEMP" area for images that get deleted after a few days/weeks/whatever satisfies the "must cover our backsides" people? Before we had image uploads here I used to host the images I was questioning on my own domain, and although I don't mind that bandwidth loss it might affect other users that don't want several 100K downloads. If a clean-up is desired or needed I'm fine with that, I suspect nobody thinks my special "Dorsai" magazine is worth all the images. :-/ BLongley 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True enough, and this is not a huge deal, IMO. I am willing to live with it the way it now is if you are. It is possible (although unlikely) that someone might want to compare against this sig in future. Indeed we might eventually build up something of a gallery of artist's sigs, for use as a sort of "field guide" to unidentified signatures, and the category is a way of starting that gallery, IMO. You are probably correct about the link: when a link is made via a raw url the wiki doesn't recognize it as an internal link. -DES ^Talk 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think an artist sig library is a GOOD idea. That's actually where I started from - but uploading KNOWN sigs is easy and the UNKNOWN ones are the difficult ones. If people want to add more known variations of definite sigs, fine. Where do we work on unknown ones though, when we can't even be sure of an initial letter? BLongley 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit tricky. If we record the title and perhaps pub tag of the sources, we can organize by that, but I'm not sure how helpful that is. Organizing by publisher might be of some limited help, as some artists worked mostly for one or two publishers. But many did not. When part, particularly the start, of the name is readable, we can index by that. There just isn't any good way to index images not associated with any known text, not that I know of. Uploading know examples gives something to compare against, even if the unknown is never uploaded, and once it is identified, even tentatively, it can be indexed. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed here is, I'm trying to provide possibly useful tools, and alter or improve them when anyone has a good idea. -DES ^Talk 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At present when I have an unknown signature I try to figure out as many letters as possible and use advanced search for title type COVERART and use MySql wildcards. The character _ matches one character and % matchs zero or more characters. Also, ISFDB puts a % in front of your string and another after it. Thus when you search for Ga%an it's actually searching for %Ga%an% and will match any name that had the letters "ga" and then later the letters "an" anywhere in the name. If you have a signature where the unidentifiable part looks like one letter then use _ (underscore) and a search for ga_an will match Gahan_Wilson, Igor_Galanin, and Dennis_Galant.

Image:Unknown Sig.jpg looks like TAJ_ but that does not match anything. Searching for t_j though with Waldo_Tejada being a possibility but the original publication was 1977 and Waldo's work is in the late 1990s. Let's look for a T and a Z which seems to be the last letter. That first letter could be a I and a T but T%IAJ and I%TAJ found nothing. For those with SQL access an option would be to pull up cover artists that worked in 1977 and have the letter J for example. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That turned out to be "PAJ" with a two-digit year after it. It's Peter A. Jones. It would be useful to be able to rename the file after identification, I can see a lot of "Unknowns" being cleared up over time - although I can't help with your latest enquiry. BLongley 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Under MediaWiki, IIRC, image files cannot be moved. However, you can upload a copy under a different name, and delete the original after fixing links. If you haven't saved the original, it can be downloaded to be re-uplaoded. -DES ^Talk 18:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And there's the problem - "after fixing links". The page says "There are no pages that link to this file." That's obviously not true - THIS one does for a start. Yes, I can create the image under the correct initials (and maybe under the incorrect ones we thought too?). But how can I tell when it's safe to remove the old one if MediaWiki is lying to us? BLongley 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pages that link to this file" would be more accurately described as "Pages that display this image". Pages that link without displaying, as this one does, are listed in "what links here" on the sidebar, and it appears that thsi is the only such page. of coruse if you have created an external link -- one using a full url starting with HTTP -- mediawiki can't detect that or report on it. But failing that, there should be no real problem here. -DES ^Talk 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can understand "Pages that link to this file" actually excluding "Pages that link to Pages that use this file" - seems a bit lawyerish to me though. And I guess I can understand software not understanding "external" links that are actually internal if it's trying to enforce use of approved "internal" ones. But I fixed ISFDB:Help_desk#Illegible_signature_-_help.21 which used the full link, to use the approved style, and that still doesn't show up as a "what links here" entry? Yes, I know it now appears in "Pages that link to this file" but surely we don't have to check TWO places before we can be sure it's safe to delete? BLongley 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear we do have to check two places. The list under "links" on the image description page includes, i think, all (and only) those pages that use an internal wiki-link to display the image. the regualr "what links here" includes all thsoe pages that link to the display page without displaying the file. You will note that the links section of Image:Unknown Sig.jpg now says: "The following pages link to this file: ISFDB:Help desk" This is probably poor desiugn, and certianly it is poorly labeled. I didn't design it. -DES ^Talk 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A Google search of isfdb.org for "Unknown Sig.jpg" reveals no other maches, but I'm not sure which namespaces google indexes. Still I think you are safe in this case. -DES ^Talk 21:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Vegetables image

Here you go. [9]. Found it when checking mine. Don't think this book will have a reprint. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG! - I have got to own/read that book. heheheheKevin 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It has some fun stories. I have possesion of a copy, but it is a loan from a friend, otherwise I'd offer to loan it to you. It really ought to include a version of the "Beware of the Sentient Chili" filksong, perhaps they couldn't get the rights. -DES ^Talk 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can that AutoWikiBot....

Add a category to all pages in Publisher:? I was thinking of cutting and pasting some more tonight during the republican speeches, but I won't do that if the bot can take care of that chore. Kevin 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Never Mind. Take a look at Category:Publishers. I think it's ready to replace Publishers. Kevin 03:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, it can indeed do that sort of thing. However, for the moment, on this wiki, one must first manually construct a file of pages to be worekd on. This can be done with cut&paste from Special:Allpages or a search result, or a catefory page, or whatever. It can then insert any fixed text at the top or bottom of each such page, skipping pages where a specified string is or is not presnt, if destired. It can also do simple or complex find&replace operations, using regex syntax if desired. And more.

As to the category, I think it may be compate enough. But I am inlinced to think that putting all the rest of the contents of Publishers into it may not be the best approach.

Well, we'll see. -DES ^Talk 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Year's Best Fantasy and Horror 2007

I wasn't attempting to create a new record. I was attempting to add the stories to the existing one. I thought I followed the directions to do that (other than mistakenly hitting save after entering the first story & then having to do a second edit for the remainder of the stories). Can you tell me how I should have done it? I used the "Edit this Pub" link. Thanks. --JLaTondre 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding on your page, to keepmthe thread together. -DES ^Talk 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval of Bluesman's submission

I forgot to place the submission for Bluesman's updating of this pub on hold, when I went to ask him why his info differs from Locus. (Knowing full well that he's not yet found his talk page!) I see that you approved it. Do you have any source that verifies the change? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. The change was small, and most of his edits seem to be from physical copies, so I assumed it was OK. I didn't think to check the Locus source, and I didn't see your note until after I had approved his edit. (I wish we could manage to point him to the wiki successfully -- I don't know what else to try, he obviously hasn't read his rejection notices.) I'm sorry not to have checked more carefully. And the hold system isn't perfect. If one mod places a submission on hold, but another is working from a "New Submissions" page last renewed before the hold was applied, the hold can be missed. -DES ^Talk 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Having checked further, neither ISBNdb.com, nor amazon, nor OCLC lists a month, just the year. I know that the Locus data is based on "Books received" and in some cases this means a date a month later than the actual publication date, but I have no way to asses whether this applies to the pub in question. -DES ^Talk 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Foud a vendor's entry on Alibris (from Art Vaughan's Used Books, PA, USA) which says: "Edition: 1st 03/2000 Binding: Hardback Book Club Edition Publisher: SFBC Date Published: 2000 ISBN-13: 9780739408858 ISBN: 0739408852 Description: Very Good: BOMC stamp on bottom. Hardback Book Club Edition: SFBC: 06988: 1st 03/2000: Very Good: BOMC stamp on bottom of book. Dust Jacket has 1/2 inch tear on bottom front edge: Dust Jacket: Cover Artist: di Fate, Vincent." This provides at least some evidence for the march date. -DES ^Talk 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Book club editions never include a date of publication (at least they didn't when I was a member). When Locus receives a book before the publisher's date of publication they usually note the received month in parentheses. No big deal. I'd rather have Bluesman communicating with us through the wiki. There's been a couple of snide remarks placed in the notes field of some of his submissions that I've seen, so there's probably been more that I've not caught. The one today about "how can an audio cd show a bibliographic warning because it doesn't have a page count" was particularly irritating. If he'd actually read the help pages, he'd realize those are blanket warnings and don't point out actual errors. I rejected the submission and told him that such remarks don't belong in the pub record and to use to wiki. I doubt it'll do much good. Another note last week chided us for not having a program that automatically deletes duplicate entries. Another mod responded to that one. Even if he doesn't read the wiki, you'd think he'd look at his rejection list at least once. MHHutchins 02:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how the vendor derived his date, or Bluesman his. But I assume that if the actual pub date was in late March, Locus might not receive it until early April.

I agree about Bluesman. I guess he is just not following links such as to his reject list or he various help screens. I don't know how better to inform him except via a code change. -DES ^Talk 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref not working

Please take a look at Publisher:Charter Communications, Inc.. The ref tags are not working for me. I even tried simple <ref>. TIA. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see at Special:Version, the Cite.php extension is not installed on this wiki. Without that extension, the <ref> tag is not supported. WE will have to use the older methods of footnoting until/unless Al installs the Cite extension. -DES ^Talk 16:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the MediaWiki parser functions[10] are not installed either meaning the {{ref...}} stuff does not work either. I'll see if I can do it without the #if, etc. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know, I've missed IF in creating some of the linking and image templates. Note that ther is no rule that says we need fancy reference templstes, a simple paren with source info and link would do. -DES ^Talk 18:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I figured standards like <ref> and {{ref ...}} would be more familiar with people. I'm working up a way to do the citations for a verified publisher name project and believe the stripped down {{ref ...}} and {{note ...}} I added will do for now. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually i suspect that you and I (and maybe Kevin) are the only editors here who have ever used the <ref> syntax on wikipedia. I remember using the ref tempalte before cite.php came along -- it was rather fragile, although that will be less of a problem here than it was on wuikipedia, becaue the editing volume is far less. But if you are willing to take the time to make them work without an IF, and then properly dovument them, i don't object. If you really need an IF, it should be possible to dig up the code for the old tricky nested-template version. That works just like #if, at the cost of more aserver calls. This was unacceptabel for wikipedia, given their load issues, but should not bbe such a problem fopr us, and #if is a drop-in replacemwnt that we can use if the load issue ever becoems big enough to get Al to install ParserFunctions. -DES ^Talk 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If the verified publishers projects ever gets popular then everyone will know about ref. :-)

Possibly true, but circular reasoning. The question is what would make documentign sources easier for editors, and adding the ref machinery may or may not conduce to that end. The verified publisher project could be constructed to suggest other means of documentign sources than use of ref. Not that ref is a bad thing, the only question is whether other editors will find it helpful or confusing. -DES ^Talk 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Marking a page as "patrolled"

One of my biggest complaints with MediaWiki is there seems to be no way to remove a page from my watchlist other than 1) Unwatch it or 2) edit it the page and use hide-own-edits on the watchlist. This of course put the page on everyone else's watchlist.

Is there a way to flag a page as "yep, I've reviewed it" so that it does not show on the watchlist until the next time someone edit the thing? Marc Kupper (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to do that automatically. The "Patrolled" feature is different, it has nothing to do with the watchlist feature. If patrolling is turned on (a wiki can have it on or off) then those who have patrolling rights (by default Sysops, which on the ISFDB, means mods) can mark any given edit as "patrolled", meaning checked and not a problem. Then the "recent changes" display can be used to see only unpatrolled edits. Note that if anyone marks an edit as patrolled, it is patrolled for everyone. The feature is intended for cooperative vandalism patrolling, such as Wikipedia needs, or for implementing after-the-fact moderation, or for any situation where a group of sysops wants to cooperate in checking over every change. What you want is for the watchlist to work something like msg notification, so that once you look at a page, the latest change to it isn't bolded on the changes list or shown on the watchlist until another change occurs. I don't know of a way to do that. There are scripts for bulk editing of watchlists (done in java-script) available on Wikipedia, i think, but those still take pages off completely, they just make it easier to do this with groups of pages at once. -DES ^Talk 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "message notification" which to me is that thing that happens if someone edits my talk page I'd explain it as I want an unread page list and a way to mark pages as read or unread. For example, I've read Publisher_talk:Arrow_Books and there's no reason for it to be on the watchlist view until someone makes an edit at some point. The same concept could apply to the global recent-changes too. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, that is more or less what I meant. Mind you, when i was more actively editing Wikipedia, i found that the way the watchlist currently works was useful to me, but the kind of feature you describe would also be useful. To the best of my knowledge, there is no feature in the MediaWiki software which would offer this functionality. The Patrolled edits feature certainly does not, nor doe the classic use of the watchlist.

If you are interested only in pages you yourself have edited, the "My contributions shows a list, with the note "top" in bold when your edit is the most recent to a page. You could, when you view a page you want to follow, make a trivial minor edit, then use "My contributions" to look for edits that are no longer the top. But that is rather clumsy.

You could try the "enhanced" recent changes. You can see this by going to your preferences, clicking on the "Recent changes" tab, and clicking the "Enhanced recent changes" checkbox, and saving. This changes the way in which the "recent changes" page appears, grouping multiple edits to a given page into a single display line. It again isn't really what you want, but you might (or might not) find it helpful. Ultimately, I think the only way to get to kind of feature you want is to put in a feature request for Mediawiki at Bugzilla, and hope someone implements it, and that Al then installs it here. Don't hold your breath. See the following pages for more information on this and related topics:

• http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tracking_changes
• http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Watchlist
• http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Watchlist
• http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgEnotifWatchlist

There is an available extension "Enotif" (e-notify) that sends an email to your registered email address when a page on your watchlist has changed. I don't know if this would help you, and in any case Al would have to install it. On further looking it seems that all that Al would need to do is set the configuration variable "$wgEnotifWatchlist" to true. This would allow any user to specify in his or her preferences a request for email notification any time a page on that user's watch list is edited. See the 4th link above.

I hope some of this info is of use to you, beyond "you can't have that wish". Sorry. -DES ^Talk 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Chapterbook edits

OK, you've started from a different position than I've experimented with so far, but what you've done isn't working the way Tpi or I want and I don't think you CAN get to where we want with ANY editing whatsoever currently. I'll explain further - thanks for holding off on further edits for now though.

"What I have done with number 12 is to start from the included work of short fiction, "Clean Up Your Room!". I then added a new publication, Escapepod EP012. Since this is a publication, and is not a title, it of course does not appear on title searches."

Incorrect. Publications DO have titles, and Titles have titles too. "Escapepod EP012" should appear on a simple title search. So should "Clean Up Your Room". Keeping the pairs of Publication title/type and Title title/type in sync gets a bit awkward at times though, which is what we have here.BLongley

"This makes the publication display correct, there is no odd-looking title record for "Escapepod EP012" because "Escapepod EP012" is not a title, merely a publication."

That's not odd, it's the way it SHOULD work. BLongley 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"I could, and was about to, change all the other Escapepod instances to work in this same way, and add a series of which they were all elements. I think that would be the ideal way to deal with this, but it would have the effect that "Escapepod" would not be a searchable title string."

Exactly the point - it SHOULD be searchable. Why hide all "Escapepod" entries when that's what our users might want to search for? BLongley 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Alternatively, I could edit number 12 so that it acts as the others are now acting: visible on a title search, but with an inappropriate listing in the contents area."

No, you CAN'T. It's an appropriate display for temporary edits where a moderator is fixing things - same as when an ANTHOLOGY or COLLECTION suddenly appears due to a Title type that doesn't allow contents and a Pub type does. The CHAPTERBOOK entry should be hidden when everything else works - that's the software fix we need. But while we can't keep CHAPTERBOOK Title types and Pub title types in step on any edit, ANY edit ruins things. When you look at a title, should you be able to see all the publications? Yes. When you look at a publication, should you be able to see the titles it appeared in? Again, Yes. LOOK at some of the examples: this DOES give a publication. So should link back. It doesn't, it goes to a SHORTFICTION title. CHAPTERBOOKS aren't "one work of SHORTFICTION" and even if current ISFDB help suggests it CAN be used for such, it doesn't mean we can lose the CHAPTERBOOK title entry and break all the links. When you look at a pub, it should link back to the pub title. When you look at a title it should offer all the pubs as options. BLongley 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"As a third option, all of the Escapepod instances could be converted to anthologies or collections with a single content item. This is not usual, but would work for this situation. The more usual chap(ter)book situation has the publication carrying the same title as the work of short fiction, which avoids the issue with title searches. While I think the first option is better, the second is IMO acceptable. I strongly urge not going with the "magazine" solution, although that could, i suppose, be done also."

Tpi likes the way that the current entries are displayed and so do I. It illustrates the way I want all the "Novel" books that "length" rules currently forbid should be displayed. If we HAVE to change them rather than wait for Al, then Magazine or Anthology or Collection will do for now. But I really suspect most moderators, and no editors, even know how to start an acceptable conversion. I've experimented a lot, posted my latest experiments for everyone to see, and if "MAGAZINE" is acceptable to magazine mods I can live with that. I freely admit that I prefer CHAPTERBOOK to work, and it does (mostly, apart from the extra content entry being displayed) but is not sustainable through any later edits - so I'll support a workaround for now, and tell people how to accomplish such. ANTHOLOGY is the default we get if we're inattentive on edits. I'd rather raise the awareness of the problem than accept the default, particularly if the Magazine Mods will help. But I really do think this is a case of "Moderators don't know everything and shouldn't meddle if they don't understand". BLongley 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for any Wiki conventions I've messed with by moving this to your page. In "Preview", it looks nothing like I intended. But I have to be at the doctor's in 9 hours, I'm not going to stay up and make it prettier/clearer. :-/ BLongley 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review this situation in detail and I have to run, but let me just briefly note that the ability to go from a Title to its Publications and from a Publication to its master Title is a very important feature. There are a few permutations that break this connection, e.g. if you put an Essay in a Chapterbook (or it did last I played with it), but generally a missing Publication-to-master-Title link indicates that something is not quite right with the pub. Ahasuerus 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ahasuerus. Chapterbooks are the most annoying type to work with, even beyond magazines I think, due to the half-disabling in the software. And my example of converting the problem pubs to magazines is probably going to still cause headaches: in hindsight I should probably have started with an example of converting them to ANTHOLOGY - after all, that's what the broken editing starts to give us. And it's easier to that explain all "ANTHOLOGY" pubs have "ANTHOLOGY" titles than jump to "MAGAZINE" pubs have "EDITOR" titles - I think I've just tried to explain how to deal with pubs that need an IQ of 150 to work with by converting them to a type that only needs an IQ of 140 or so. :-( I usually start with explaining "Novel" and work up: e.g. on Talk:Database_Schema (that really should get moved somewhere more visible, even I still find it useful at times when I forget how I figured something out). BLongley 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies and question

I had to edit ISFDB_Feature_List to correct the duplicate Feature number so I could respond to the other request separately, but got carried away and also corrected the typos in the text - which is of course interference in what YOU wrote and therefore something I don't usually do. Rather than immediately rollback the edit and make the ONE change that's justified, I thought I'd ask you (as you seem to be pretty active this time of day/night) whether you MIND such small corrections in the wiki? I know I've done it to some general help pages you created which I presume you monitor, but I don't usually mess with anything people have SIGNED. I've left my mistake for you to review - don't worry, I haven't changed it to British spelling or anything so drastic (well, not intentionally) - so feel free to rollback immediately and scold me. I'll change it back myself if I don't hear from you before my bedtime. BLongley 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are sure that the text is a typo, feel free to correct it, or to leave me a msg that there are typos in a particular page/section, and I'll fix them myself, which ever you prefer. I don't usually correct typos in other people's signed comments (help pages are different, there I would feel free to do so without question), but I do often correct other people's wiki markup, particularly when newcomers get indentation in threaded discussion wrong. I know that I am a poor typist. Sorry if i failed to correct the feature number -- I used cut&paste but I thought I had altered the copy. -DES ^Talk 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Wiki posts contain so many typos that it can take some time to figure out what the author meant to write and I have gotten into the habit of correcting them before replying as a public service :) It's very easy to do with Firefox and I figure that over time it will save everybody many man-hours better spent on editing the database. Now if I could teach Firefox to warn me when I type "abut" instead of "about" and "of" instead of "if", I would be all set... Ahasuerus 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My need to use a US dictionary rather than a British one here is a bit of a pain, but as I don't do a tenth as much typing on any other site I survive. BLongley 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've been correcting Dave's wiki posts without notice when I'm replying. I got started for the reason Ahasuerus mentioned (had to figure out what was meant, sometimes), & after I'd noticed him doing it. I try to make sure it's clearly a typo. I've probably gone on to other people's posts without thinking. I guess I take that caution at the bottom of the screen ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.") to be a license to do this; but I'd hate to misrepresent anything anyone meant to say. -- Dave (davecat) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem for me -- I need to remember to use the built-in spellcheck before saving more often. I'm sorry. I would object to anyone editing my discussion posts to change the meaning, or even to change my words in an attempt to clarify my meaning, but not at all to the correction of typos or spelling errors. Notification of such corrections is not needed -- I usually see them in recent changes anyway. -DES ^Talk 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the original edit that sparked this discussion, and think I'm OK: but "visible indicator" might have been meant to be "visible indication". BLongley 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam filtered

Why do you think the spam filter is bothered by <span style="line-height:">? Replace the first &< with a < and you can't save the page. A smaller sample that's flagged is >span style line height:>. I tested this at ISFDB:Sandbox. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This means that the text quoted matches one of the regexen in the $wgSpamRegex variable, which is stored in the LocalSettings.php file. Only Al or someone with file-system access to our server can even see what is in that file, much less change it, although a copy might be in the source for installing a local copy of the ISFDB.

The $wgSpamRegex is used to block patterns that might indicate spam. An example provided by WediaWiki (see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgSpamRegex and http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:LocalSettings.php) includes the pattern "height\s*:\s*[0-4]px|". According to their notes, this is included because "This matches against height:0px (most CSS hidden spam) (regardless of whitespace on either side of the colon)". It may well be that our spam-filter-regex-set includes some variant of this pattern also intended to block text set to zero or very small line heights. (I might add that I had to remove the span tag from your signature above, or else it combined with your 2nd example to make this page not save due to the spam filter.) Such small line heights, that effectively hide text, can be used to hide spam or malicious HTML or CSS code.

The manual on $wgSpamRegex says:

Avoiding false positives is the real challenge here,.... See how easy it is to make this kind of mistake? Be careful with your regexp setting. You want to stop spammers without inconveniencing your users....Regular expressions are very powerful. $wgSpamRegex matching is applied to all text added by a user while they are editing a page on your wiki, not just URLs. This gives you the power to block anything you don't like, if you can work out a good regexp to match it (be as specific as possible to avoid false positives).

Until Al is able to examine and fix the regex, I urge you not to use an explicit lineheight style. Such styles are often a bad idea anyway. I have generally found that the <small> tag will do all that I want in this regard. I don't know what you were trying to do, of course. -DES ^Talk 19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran into the spam filter as I was documenting Eos vs. EOS on the Eos article and as part of that had grabbed an example from the Eos web site. Thank you for chasing down why it's considered spam. I suspect that filter is not needed for ISFDB but suspect it does not fire that often either. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can check what's in LocalSettings.php tomorrow morning and post it here. Assuming the spam filter lets me post the string, that is... Ahasuerus 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what LocalSettings.php has to say about spambusting:

## Spam prevention:
... 
$wgSpamRegex = "/\<.*style.*?(display|position|overflow|visibility|height)\s*:.*?>/i";

Only Al can change this file, but at least we know what it says... Ahasuerus 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That one looks safe enough to leave enabled and it unlikely to trip someone up unless they are doing something they probably don't need to do. It is also easy to defeat as HTML allows elements to be broken across multiple lines and this rule only works if the stuff is on one line. It trips if you have a < followed later by "style" followed later by one or more of "display|position|overflow|visibility|height" followed by a colon and followed later by a > Marc Kupper (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you been changing the publisher on my Verified publications?

I see most of my verified Del Rey books are now "Del Rey / Ballantine" and I definitely don't want them entered that way. I may have verified some entered that way originally, but I'm pretty sure that the only way that they're almost ALL in that state now is that someone has been regularising. I'm asking, rather than accusing - there's several other mods that want it that way, so it's quite possible someone less vocal is doing it, but I see you've been presuming an outcome to REJECT changes to a non-canonical version of a publisher name: have you been making changes to "publishers" that affect verified pubs? BLongley 22:48, 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? Marc Kupper (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes are at least a few days old, as they're in the last backup I loaded, so would take some searching for. BLongley 14:00, 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. -DES ^Talk 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You can check if any pubs in a given YEAR for a publisher are verified, and if any pub for any year are verified then I leave the bulk edits alone. There have been many opportunities to use the bulk tools safely, but yes, a lot need to be done on a pub by pub basis, or the consensus on what to change to should be reached and then the changes made. It looks like we might reach some consensus on certain types of regularisation soon, though. BLongley 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think they should end up under one name, yes. What annoys me is that I've now got 37 verified pubs making it look as if I SUPPORT the "Del Rey / Ballantine" format. Over-riding verified pubs means loss of the data about what the Verifier approved of as a publisher name at the time of verification: which may be irrelevant if it was done before we attempted to regularise and people didn't care, but is actually quite important for those of us trying to make sure even our past verifications are now up to scratch. BLongley 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I did not reject any edites based on publisher name, nor sugges such. I did accept one edit that changed both a publisher name (by removing a slash) and other data, and then did a re-edit to change the publisher name back. -DES ^Talk 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy Angels

I was confused earlier tonight and left Bluesman a question about a submission that you currently have on hold. Hopefully, it was the same question that you were going to ask anyway :) Ahasuerus 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

yes it was. -DES ^Talk 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Got used to "C" template now

I hope you're still working on the common templates, as now I want an "R" for "Reference". Not one of Marc's "Verified Thingummy" templates (unless one of those is actually what I need), but something I can remember rather than adding a "Source: (P Template entry)" to a publisher page in the meantime. Just a pointer to the Publication I found some extra data in that somebody might want to check: e.g. Addresses in Publisher:Sphere or suchlike. The "C" Template saves me typing "name=" but if I want to copy and paste such to some other Wiki page it would be quicker to just change "C" to "R" than add "Source: " and go back to a "P" template. BLongley 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to create {{R}} for you. Is all you want "Source: " followed by the same functionality as {{P}}? -DES ^Talk 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine by me: minimal copy/paste and typing. (Which is what I think templates should be for.) The presentation could be improved though, and I think Marc managed that at times. I just can't recall where (not surprising at 2AM I suppose.) BLongley 00:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like it as a super-script, since this is in a sense a footnote? Would you like it in parens? Any other text, options, or features you want? I'll have to check, but I think Marc's 'verified" templates all link to wiki pages, not db records. -DES ^Talk 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Better check with Marc, and/or anyone else trying to improve Publisher Wiki data: I like the superscripts for "proof of dates" I've seen at times, but am not fond of having to enter something to reference a footnote that I'll ALSO have to enter. I think "ref" and "note" pairs came into it, and "refp" might have been what I want. But none of those have stuck in my mind so far. BLongley 00:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things about {{refp}}.

• I have found a superscripted^[date] to be confusing to some people who are used to that a superscripted linked number in square brackets points to footnotes and so have moved away from using refp and instead use {{ref}} and {{note}} for now.
• The original thinking behind refp was that once <ref> support is added to the ISFDB wiki that we only need to change the template and the pages using it would then get automatic, and correctly done, references. We'd need to add a <references/> to each page that uses refp but that's a small amount of work compared to cleaning up the ref/note pairs. Bill, suspect you are not familiar with <ref> but the way it works is you do "<ref>some text that can include links and any other wikitext</ref>" in the body of your article. At the bottom you add a == References == section that has a single "<references/>". It gives you an automagic sequentially numbered reference list constructed from the <ref> tags on the page. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for the official article on <ref>.
• While superscripted^[date] seems confusing it's possible that superscripted^{(date in parentheses)} will work. Bill, you can always experiment with look and feel in the wiki such as this^(Oct-2008) example and once you have things nailed to copy/paste it into a template. I have no problems with the existing refp template getting updated to use parentheses though note that it points to the wiki page and not directly to the publication record which is what you want.
• While refp was created as part of the verified names thing it is independent of that and can be used anywhere. However, a better name, that that fits in with existing MediaWiki/Wikipedia usage, would be {{cite p}} to cite a publication record. The Wikipedia Wikipedia:Citation templates are intended to be used ref/note style and assume that <ref> support has been added to the wiki. We can add, and start using a cite p now that works like refp and once <ref> gets added the switch is to footnoted reference lists is easy.

One comment related to this - I don't think one letter template names are a good idea. {{P}} and {{T}} are used extensively and regularly but {{C}} is only used on uploaded cover image pages by one person and not throughout the wiki. The less widely used templates should have longer names - I'd suggest {{Image cover}} given this only appears on upload pages though {{icv}} (Cover Image) or even {{ic}} would work too. While the syntax seems "backwards" {{Image cover}} is better than {{Cover image}} as it will allow for creating a large set of {{Image}} related templates such as {{Image sig}} that all have a common function though may be confusing to some people as thinking they are related to using images on wiki pages. I see that Template:Image exists on Wikipedia but that seems to only exist as part of page cleanup tagging.

I've been putting nearly all of my attention on a work related project recently and have not had time to move forwards on setting up a test ISFDB system. The end is coming in sight on that project and so hopefully I'll be doing some ISFDB improvements this month which will include MediaWiki updates that'll allow for #if conditionals in templates and the <ref> stuff. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you in general about single letter template names in general, that is the only way i could get Bill to use a proper (well, semi proper) cover template. It is actually an alias for {{Cover Image Data2}}, which is a simplified variant of {{Cover Image Data}}, which has name parallels with {{Author Image Data}}, {{Logo Image Data}}, and others, all of them part of Category:Image License Tags. So I think they can be easily enough found, and there is no need to "reverse" the naming pattern. Perhaps the other pattern would have been better, but I don't see that much advantage in it. -DES ^Talk 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Help:List of ISFDB Templates. -DES ^Talk 21:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Any template that doesn't add any data useful to me or save me any time is one I'll ignore. DES persuaded me into "C" as it saves me typing "name=". All I use it for is a link to where it's used. There's no obvious link back, and I doubt many people will ever visit the details on the image page anyway - I add them to my watch list and it's only DES updating them via AWB that ever triggers that. Covers are "use once and forget" I think, which is why I can live with his edits making them look worse (IMNSHO) - as I doubt anybody will ever see them. If I thought they did, I'd be arguing even harder for removal of all those pink and blue highlights as the only thing on the page worth using is the link to the pub, which is harder to find when DES edits them to "semi proper". BLongley 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If "C" being used only by one editor bothers anyone then feel free to take it back for a better use if there is one. I don't see any clamour for one yet though (and am I not using "C" enough yet to avoid it being called "less widely used"?). Likewise if "R" has a better use than the one I've asked for, use it for that. I'd like the templates to stay consistent in parameter requirements and orders though, the more often I can use the same text with single-letter changes the more often I'll use them. BLongley

"Author Image Data" is one I've tried and probably won't bother with again. "Logo Image Data" I might still use in future Publisher edits, but that's on hold as the whole Publisher regularisation (for what's in ISFDB rather than in the Wiki) seems to have stalled and so I'll often not know where to use it. "Sig Image Data" is about the only one long-winded one I'm still using where I think and hope people will work on the Wiki page. BLongley 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think my "R" request is probably closest to "refp" as I don't like the "ref" and "note" pairs I've tried. I have used them for extra address details but editing the separate sections of the publisher page doesn't show up clearly in the recent edits. (Bill changed "References"? Which one?) But yes, "R" should link to the Publication, not to Wiki Notes that need more typing and add a further level for possible mistakes. BLongley 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If the parserfunctions extension gets installed on the production ISFDB wiki, so that the IF construct and related features are available, that would be very helpful to me. It would allow a reworking of {{Cover Image Data}} that would significantly improve it. While you are at it, the ImageMagic library would be helpful, but the IF feature would be far more valuable, IMO. -DES ^Talk 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Harlequin's Moon

Added $C price to BLDNGHRLQN2005 .--Bluesman 17:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, i should have noted it myself. Thnaks. -DES ^Talk 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ND

I think we were working on different N. D. Hansen-Hill titles earlier this morning and collided at some point. I think we are OK, but we may want to take another look. Norah is quite prolific, with over 30 novels and a bunch of series to her credit, so it will take some time to set all of them up tomorrow... Ahasuerus 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and we crossed msgs, too. I wanted to hold In Trysts as out-of-scope. Unless I see multiple publications by major publishers, I would want to delete any non-genre works. -DES ^Talk 06:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a really good example for the Standards page, but I'll wait until after the sunrise -- it's getting late :) Ahasuerus 06:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here, signing off for the night. -DES ^Talk 06:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am finally done entering her books from the National Library of New Zealand and reconciling them with OCLC. Some are kind of funky, e.g. Parade Books' (her self-publishing company) original ISBN range was spent on numerous versions of a single e-book -- see Vision -- and there are various reprints, e-books, etc. I don't think we have permission to deep-link to FictionWise, so we may have to clean that up in the next couple of days.

As far as entering the "Melody Knight" books goes, the pseudonym itself is definitely "in" since she used it to publish Of Dragons, a fantasy romance novel, earlier this year. The eligibility of the non-genre stuff is less certain if we use your proposed standard since only one of her books, ErRatic, has been published by a borderline professional house, "Five Star", so far.

However, I am not sure that we want to get in the inherently dicey business of determining which publishers are "major". Back when I was writing the last "other non-fiction works" proposal, which attempted to quantify the "certain threshold", I briefly toyed with the idea and then abandoned it due to potential for conflict. Ahasuerus 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ameshavkin's submissions

I was reviewing all "held" submissions and noticed that you had 3 author-related submissions by User:Ameshavkin on hold due to deep linking issues. I also noticed that all three were using the wrong Legal Name format, so I re-entered the submitted data manually in the three Author's records to avoid problems in the future. Would you say that 3+ months is long enough and we can reject these submissions after leaving a note on the editor's page? Ahasuerus 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. As long as we preserve all the non-problematic info that the submitter had provided. I trust that you agree with me about having held the subs on those grounds. These days, if an invalid deep link on a book cover is provided, I usually simply download a copy from the site listed, upload it to our wiki, and link to that. -DES ^Talk 15:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! :) Ahasuerus 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. I have rejected the submisisons on hold, with notes pointing to the talk page, in case this editor returns and looks at his reject list. -DES ^Talk 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

His Majesty's Dragon again

I cloned from you and Ahasuerus has questions. I invite you to my page for your perceptions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC) It is under Naomi Novik's "From the Sketchbook of Sir Edward Howe" which is in 'His Majesty's Dragon. Sorry for the muddlement, I left the note just before I closed down for the day and rushed it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I will double check my copy and respond there as soon as possible. -DES ^Talk 15:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This. [11] . After the newest submissions, reflects my opinion of the correct crediting of the contents for my edition. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It doe not reflect my understanding. I think that the "in-universe" essays and art ought to be indexed. One might debate just how they should be entered, But I think that simply ignoring them is not acceptable. -DES ^Talk 17:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to disambiguate this section DES, or archive the earlier "His Majesty's Dragon" section. BLongley 19:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

section title changed for difference. -DES ^Talk 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, I'll import it then. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -DES ^Talk 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a Primary Verifier

DES, this is just to let you know I fixed a few typos in this new section you added to the "Verify" Help. ... clarkmci / --j_clark 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. -DES ^Talk 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Shores of Tomorrow

I think we put this submission on Hold at the same time, but you followed up with User:Bluesman first. I haven't followed the subsequent discussion closely, but I just wanted to make sure that when the time is right to reject/approve the submission, you don't hesitate on the account that it's "officially" held by me :) Ahasuerus 00:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Autumn Angels

Hi! Just looked at the update I submitted (Ellison's intro) for Arthur Byron Cover's Autumn Angels that you reviewed. Nice to see that you could enter the Greek letters as they should be. Unfortunately, you got the first two reversed. The way it currently reads, it's "<psi> <phi> <omega>" and it should be "<phi> <psi> <omega>". I did double-check at Wikipedia just to make sure I wasn't mixing it up (my Greek alphabet is rusty :-)). Jayembee 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Jayembee

It just occurred to me to wonder if "Psi Phi" would constitute a Freudianesque slip. :-) Jayembee 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Jayembee

Or could Ellison's aversion to the sci-fi label have made him confused as to the order as well? MHHutchins 04:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I had the order correct. Please do correct my error promptly. -DES ^Talk 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nongenre" question

I'm asking you here since you commented on the issue with regard to Alan Brennert on my Talk Page. I would assume that Madeleine L'Engle qualifies as an author with a "significant body of SF work" such that her non-genre work is allowed. I have just about all of her fiction, SF and non-, in several different editions, and would be happy to update existing records and add new titles, but I thought I'd check first if I should exclude her non-SF (there's already one non-SF novel in her summary bibliography) or limit the amount included.

At the very least I think the non-SF titles in her Austin Family series should be included, since other titles in the series are SF, but of the roughly three dozen fiction titles by her, it's about half-and-half SF and non-SF. Jayembee 06:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Jayembee

Indeed, i think L'Engle qualifies. This provision is actually fairly flexible. The intent is to exclude: a) the author with say two or three SF works from having non-genre works listed, and perhaps more importantly, b) to exclude the mainstream works of authors most of whose output-was non-SF, even though the author had several works of SF or proto-SF. For example, Kipling wrote several stories that are clearly science fiction ("With the Night Mail" and "As Easy as ABC" in particular) and several that are ghost stories, and so count as speculative fiction. But we don't want to include his hundreds of non-SF works (except for the cases where his verse has appeared in SF anthologies). Many popular authors have written one or two works that are SF, or are arguably SF. We don't want to include all the non-genre work of such authors. But when a majority, or even a large minority of an author's work is IN as SF, then the rest may reasonably be entered as non-genre. In the case where a series includes both SF and non-SF works, the entire series should clearly be in, although the non-genre books may not display as part of the series list. -DES ^Talk 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Witch Queen of Mongo

I see you approved a PubUpdate and a TitleUpdate from Gloinson changing the author. The first is fine pending further updates, the second might properly lead to a bit more investigation? E.g. I clearly left a note on this edition. Now we have some "Stray Publications" to fix too. "Carson" versus "Carston" can be sorted out I'm sure, but BOTH are probably pseudonyms. See "Con Steffanson" and "Ron Goulart" for the same series. BLongley 23:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks as if I failed to check things throughly enough. I did do several online searches, and found multiple references to "Carson" and none for "Carston", bot as author of this book and for other books, including at ABE and fantasticfiction.com. (I didn't check OCLC, and i probably should have.) It looked to me like a simple typo in data entry, but somehow I failed to spot that there were other pubs, one verified, of this title in our records. My apologies. However, i don't quite see "stray publications", just two cases where the pub author now does not match the author in the title record. Or am I missing soemthing else? If we can verify that one pub is by "Carson" while another is by "Carston" i presume that an unmerge and the creation of a variant title link is the way to proceed. Do you agree? Unfortunately, the new editor has not yet posted to the wiki. -DES ^Talk 23:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The strays show up under the Carston entry (sorry, bit too late at night for me to do proper wiki-links}. If the new editor verifies a "Carson" then we can unmerge for sure, how we create variants can be left a while - as I say, I suspect both are pseudonyms. BLongley 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, I didn't know about that effect. What do you suggest doing pending a response from the new editor? Unmerge anyway on the strength of "Carson" listings at multiple online vendors? Wait? Somethign else? -DES ^Talk 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am going to just go sleep on it. I guess that counts as a "wait" vote. Good Night! BLongley 23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chantry Guild-Canada pricing

This. [12] . I am submitting a note of Canada pricing C$5.95. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Here is a cover image. [13] . I did not submit the price change or this. I hate doing that without direct approval, so here they are for you to approve/disapprove. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Jack Gaughn"

If Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, August 3, 1981 really credits the art for "Basic Genesis" to "Jack Gaughn" that's probably worth a note. Or is it your typo rather than theirs? BLongley 19:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Silverberg's Stepsons of Terra

Locus #199 (February 1977) gives the date of publication for your verified edition of this title as February 1977. Is there a 1976 stated publication date in your copy or is that perhaps a copyright, maybe for the new introduction? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same edition and Silverberg's introduction is signed "Oakland, California, April 1976", which also happens to be the only date in the book. David has been AWOL for a number of weeks now, so I think it's safe to change the record based on what Locus says and leave this discussion here for him to review when he comes back. Ahasuerus 03:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ace reprinted several titles of early Silverberg that month, each having new introductions. David may be gafiating, but hopefully only through the holidays. MHHutchins 05:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regan's Planet

Added a cover image to RGNSPLNT1964. Where you been hiding, young fellow? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The cover image matches my memory of my copy -- not right at hand, but it is either identical or very similar. -DES ^Talk 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette VIII

I added (Grantville Gazette VIII) to the Assistant Editors Preface of Grantville Gazette VIII since the editor has written this same titled regular editorial in multiple issues. Please let me know if this causes you any heartburn and I will make a variant title in a clone publication and change your title back. Thanks - Kevin 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor to the Stars (reprised)

Added a cover image[14] is it correct? Thanks.Kraang 13:56, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, that is the cover on my edition. -DES ^Talk 14:33, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

User:Bluesman updated the notes on your verified Doctor to the Stars. Old notes were

• Cover art is signed but I cannot read the sig. It is a different cover from the 1964 ed.
• Cover lists catalog number T2367
• Title page shows a sub-title: "Three Novelettes of the Interstellar Medical Service"
• OCLC: 850870

and the new notes are

• Stated second printing.
• Cover art is signed but I cannot read the sig. It is a different cover from the 1964 ed.
• Cover lists catalog number T2367
• Title page shows a sub-title: "Three Novelettes of the Interstellar Medical Service"
• OCLC: 850870 --Marc Kupper|talk 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stepsons of Terra

Added a cover image to STPSNSFT1976 ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When the Tide Rises Price

Your verified pub WHNTHTDRSC2008 lists the price as $5.00, but I show it as $6.00. I wasn't aware that Arnold ever changed prices after something was published. Can you check your records and reconfirm this? (I also am updating the note to give a link to the book, format information, and an ISBN note.) Thanks Kevin 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor to the Stars cover

Added a cover image (old had a broken link to Amazon). Ok? Tpi 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the cover on my copy, thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Slippage

Added a cover image to SLPPGNKNFM1998 and notes about the publication date. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image looks good. Would need to check notes, but doubt there is a problem. -DES ^Talk 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette (Your Verified Pub)

I added the original Rubens cover to the first issue of The Grantville Gazette. Do you still have a copy of the original download file? Can you please check and see if it actually had an ISBN Assigned, or perhaps a DOI Instead? I believe this work was published originally electronically only without an ISBN, and the ISBN was only assigned later when the paperback, and expanded ebook of the paperback came out. (Unfortunately Baen has replaced all downloadable copies of the first issue with the ebook of the paperback and I appear to have overwritten my copy with the paperback ebook). Thanks Kevin 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The copy I have has the Rubens image, and the copyright page says 'Cover illustration by Pieter Rubens, done in the 1630s, entitled "Venus in Fur-Coat."'. It also says "DOI: 10.1125/0004" and "First electronic release, October 2003". The Rubens image actually appears on two 'pages': the "co ver"/copyright page, and the "Editor's Preface", listed as chapter zero in the URL. The "DOI" listed above is not, apparently, a valid DOI. No ISBN appears on the copyright page. Perhaps we need to record two printings of the ebook edition. -DES ^Talk 22:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Two 'printings' was the direction I was leaning towards myself. but I didn't have the documentation to back it up yet. Kevin 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the doc I supplied above sufficient in your view? What else do you think is needed? I can send you the full files if you really want. -DES ^Talk 22:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your notes above are sufficient documentation for me, though it may be a day or a week until I feel like working on Baen ebooks (I have a digital stack of Baen stuff I need to do I have been putting off). If you could though, I would love to have a copy of the file I overwrote though. My email is kevin.pulliam@gmail.com - Thanks! Kevin 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sent. -DES ^Talk 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for 'all' the emails. I truly do appreciate the effort involved Kevin 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

Added artist credit to your verified 2nd printing of Pournelle's HIGH JUSTICE as I can read the signature.Don Erikson 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette Prefaces (And Afterwords)

Please visit my talkpage at User_talk:Kpulliam#Grantville_Gazette_Prefaces_.28And_Afterwords.29 to weigh in on this issue. You verified most of the pubs that I am proposing a change to to standardize the Gazettes. Thanks Kevin 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Host Sites template

Hi, I added a sub-bullet to the Amazon section of Template:Image_Host_Sites explaining how to construct an image URL from the LOOK INSIDE images. I figured I should let someone know for review purposes and also confirm that it was ok to do that sort of thing. I see you did the extraction and most recent work with that template, so I thought I'd come to you. If I should have followed some other procedure, please let me know. Thanks! --MartyD 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

David is our Master of Templates, but he hasn't been seen in a number of months -- we are somewhat worried about his abrupt disappearance -- and I am not sure we have any other template gurus. Ahasuerus 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of the Master, let me know if you think the addition isn't appropriate, and I'll roll it back. --MartyD 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't nitpick every line, but I reviewed your change based on this post and didn't see any earth shattering problems with it. I also recently discovered how to extract cover art from 'Look inside' and while not exactly the same, my technique uses the same url hacking. (I just right click, and 'view image' in firefox on the main publication page which takes me to the small 'look inside image' and then I subtract the ending to arrive at the larger unadulterated version). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kpulliam (talk • contribs) .

Looks like a good addition! Ahasuerus 23:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -DES ^Talk 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agent of Byzantium

I added cover art for your verified pub GNTFBZNTML1994 - Thanks Kevin 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. That image matchs my copy. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sharp End-- added notation

Wake up DES! This. [15] . I added notation, especially cover artist signature and C pricing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Millrer

I presume the "Millrer" in this title was typoed? BLongley 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Must have been. Sorry. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Jungle with Clash By Night--Found Cover artist signature

Afternoon. This. [16] . I found the artist signature "Roger Loveless" at the left bottom front cover. I deleted the note about it not being visible and added the above. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hammer's Slammers-- added cover image/notation

Wake up!. This. [17] . I found a cover match to my copy matching your ver. I added notation and changed one page number. Time to boil me in oil! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. That image matchs my copy. I will need to check the notes. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Hawk G-538 -- cover image

I added this image to your verified SHDWHWKLKF1960. I stumbled onto it while searching for an image for a later printing. --MartyD 11:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. I think that image matchs my copy, but will check. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sporting Chance

I added cover art to Sporting Chance - Thanks Kevin 01:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. That image matchs my copy. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Last Starfighter---- added cover/notation

Get remotivated! This. [18]. I added a cover image and notation as my copy matched your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. That image matchs my copy, to the best of my memory. Will need to check notes, but they look plausible. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistress Masham's Repose

I added a cover image to your verified pub MSTRSSMSHM1979. Thanks. --Rtrace 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. That image matchs my copy. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of Their Minds

I added a cover image to your verified pub TFTHRMNDS311983. Thanks. --Rtrace 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. That image matchs my copy. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back...

I've seen your submissions and approvals for a few days now, and I just wanted to welcome you back! Kevin 23:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I also am delighted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to be back. I'm sorry that RL got badly in the way for the past several months. -DES ^Talk 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I had my own hiatus of several months. RL happens, we all understand it, and while we're often glad for the variety, we're also glad when things settle back down again. There is absolutely no need to apologize! - Cheers Kevin 22:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he is alive! We were starting to get worried! Welcome back!! Ahasuerus 01:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the hiatus. Will try not to let it happen again, at least not without communication. -DES ^Talk 15:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we are just glad you are alive and well! :) Ahasuerus 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you're back too, despite what other threads may suggest. I like a good argument. :-) I'm alive but unwell, which gives me more time here than you may want, but I'm trying to become a coder rather than a moderator. Hoping to live on in CVS history rather than ISFDB "Top Moderators" or "Top Contributors". BLongley 00:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back - I checked the obits and while a DES had died I figured it was not you. RL keeps me occupied and so have been checking ISFDB intermittently. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add - I no longer have time to keep up on the watchlist and pending addition of talk-back please drop a TB or some other signal on my talk page if you need my attention. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Hot -- changed tp to pb

Morning DES! This. [19] . I changed it from tp to pb, which my copy is. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct, TP must have been an error on my part. THANKS. -DES ^Talk 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit ordering question

Hi. I noticed you made A Bostonian a pseudonym for Edgar Allan Poe for me. Thank you (and thanks for the approvals). Would it have been better had I made the pseudonym first, then changed the authorship of Tamerlane instead of changing the authorship first, intending to make the new author a pseudonym afterward? --MartyD 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter which order it is done in, as long as the mod understands where you are going (or if you are self-approving). The link to source data you provided made everything quite clear, or I might have held the sub.

BTW, you should, if you haven't already, crate a pub for this title under the cannonical author's name (Edgar Allan Poe), and make this a varient of that, so that the publication will show up on Poe's author summary page. The same applies for the various poems credited to A Bostonian.

Thanks for the detailed Poe work. -DES ^Talk 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting there. Work intervenes at times. :-) I submitted the variants of all of the poems and essays and changed the Tamerlane title to A Bostonian. Once that's approved I'll make a new variant title for it under Edgar Allan Poe. --MartyD 16:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. For me too. :( I have approved all your varients for the poems and essays. But for the collection, your change would have made the existing record the one under the "A Bostonian" credit. Instead I unmerged the pub, which created a new title refcord, and then made that a varient of the existing record. See 38719 for the result. So i am going to reject your change of author. Your method would have worked also, just been slightlky more akward IMO. Thanks again. -DES ^Talk 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks. --MartyD 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Saber and Shadow or Saber & Shadow (mine)

Afternoon. This. [20] . I picked this book up very recently and it is (or was) a good copy until I read your description. My first problem is the copyright (not numbered) is opposite page 1. So the pages must have been pulled as I have no dedication or poem. That irks. It was a master job as it was 'perfectly excised'. The cover matches, but every title I have is 'Saber & Shadow' on title page, copyright page, header, front cover, spine and back cover. If yours is Saber 'and' Shadow then there is two printings. Please check. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will double check, it is possible that I mentally converted "&" to "and". obviously it was "&" on the cover. This was the period when Baen ued poor glue, so a page can fall out rather than having been excised intentionaly. -DES ^Talk 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The "and" was an error, which i have corrected to "&". Thanks for spotting this. -DES ^Talk 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We all, especially me, miss things, so no prob. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-genre magazines

This mechanism is really coming in handy for me as I process data from Blieler's Science-Fiction, The Early Years. The book has nearly 2500 plot summaries for fiction published before 1930, many of them short pieces or serials from a variety of magazines. At two pages a day it is going to take me nearly two years to get them all in. Good idea.--swfritter 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. I don't think the idea was originally mine, although I did draft the help page, with lots of input from others. -DES ^Talk 12:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I was the squeaky wheel last summer, User_talk:Kpulliam/Archives01#Argosy_.28and_similar_Magazines.29.3F but since I was a complete newbie DES, BLongley, MHHutchins, and you were much more instrumental in making it happen Rules_and_standards_discussions#Partial_entries_for_non-genre_magazines. Kevin 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast in the Ruins

Hey, David. Since you are 'on' tonight: [This] gives me a problem that I'm not sure how to fix. The novel in the title data is already in the db under its' '72 release [here]. The omnibus that is the only pub entered under the '94 record is obviously already a variant. The '94 title should not have a separate entry as a novel. How do I get rid of it? ~BIll, --Bluesman 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. These are not varients, because, unless I have mis-read, neither title nor author has changed, they are simply pubs of the same title incorrectly recorded as two different titles. All that is needed is a merge. Either go to advanced search and do a title search on "Breakfast in the Ruins" or go to Michael Moorcock and click "dup candidates". Select the items that should be merged -- the ones that are different title entries for the same novel -- and clcik "merge". There is also a 1975 title 348791 with a sub-title. It could be merged but since it has two verifed pubs it should probably be made a varient of the 1972 title, unless the verifiers agree to a merge 9which would lose the sub-title). -DES ^Talk 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge done. Thanks! ~Bill --Bluesman 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Google

I'm afraid you still haven't convinced me that Google knows our database well enough to be a replacement for improving our own searches, but please do go ahead and create help pages for such searches - they certainly make searching our Wiki pages easier at least. And maybe you could consider guidance for other search engines? We don't all use Google, same as we don't always browse via Firefox. (Those are my preferences, but I know they're not universal. If somebody wants to "Bing" via "IE8" that should be OK too.) BLongley 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Google is, or should be, a replacement for searches of our own, but I do think that it is a) a very useful supplement, and b) a way in which people searching the general net may find info from our db and/or wiki. I think we ought to take the possibility of people finding our data this way into account, and do what we can to facilitate it when it doesn't get in the way of our primary mission. I suspect that many of the pubs Google fails to find are due to delay in crawling our db -- Google indicies are always somewhat out of date, and they tend to crawl the more popular sites more often, as I understand things. But I haven't tested this idea at all.

I'll be happy to prepare a help page or pages (I think a single page will do it) on how to search the ISFDB via Google. It can't possibly hurt anything, and it may help someone some time. I know Google much better than any other search engine, and i know that it has specific features suitable for restricting a search to a given site, such as ours. But I will at least mention other search engines. The general principles should apply to all search engines -- their interfaces are rather similar one to another. -DES ^Talk 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's various practices we can and maybe should encourage to help search engines get people back into the database proper - e.g. the database creates links to even non-existent wiki-pages, when they're created it would be nice to link back to the most logical database page. Unless you know of a way to make a URL to a Wiki page include default text for the new page, I guess this has to be via help guidance. BLongley 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge that would require changes to the MediaWiki software. That is open source so it is in theory possible, but a far bigger can of worms than the ISFDB software. But I'm not sure I understand what you have in mind -- wiki author, bio, publication, or publisher pages which are linked to from the database whether they exist or not? What would the ideal software do about them, in your view? -DES ^Talk 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Do it with Category Footers? - Just like the image wiki pages auto link back to the publication. There's no reason teh same logic can't at least be used to quickly add links from publication wiki pages to the DB. Authors and Publishers would take some hand crafting but there are significantly fewer of those. Kevin 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As best as i understand Bill's desire above, the problem he wants fixed is this: Publication, Author, and Publisher records in the DB automatically display a link to a corresponding wiki page (two pages for authors) but in the majority of cases this page does not actually exist. When a user clicks this link for a page that does not exist, the use sees an edit box if logged into the wiki, or a notice that to edit the page the user must log in. Bill I think would like to make these pages automatically include a link back to the relevant DB page. We can create a template or category header that does this ({{BioHeader}} now does it for Biography pages) but such a template will not be on the page unless someone puts it there, and that can't be done automatically, as far as i know. neither will a new page be in a category unless someone puts it there. It would, i suppose, be possible to use ISFDB:AutoWikiBrowser to patrol such pages and add such a template. Or we could, in theory, copy and adjust one of the scripts from Wikipedia for this purpose. But someone would still have to run AWB or the relevant script. -DES ^Talk 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now created {{PubHeader}} to serve as a header with a link to the proper DB record on Publication: pages. We already have {{BioHeader}} and {{PublisherHeader}} for those cases. Does that help with the matter? -DES ^Talk 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This url test opens a wiki page and preloads it with a Blank publication record with pubheader already entered. It's not a huge stretch of the code to automate this, so when the page doesn't exist, it preloads it with the proper header template. That might be a nice feature to add to all blank wiki links from the db (authors, pubs, etc). We just can't make the html click save for us. Kevin 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. It might be better with the Pub Title included too, but it's good. The lack of a save is no worry, presumably we're clicking so we can add some extra text anyway - we don't want to save just yet. Have you got a test for existing pages yet? BLongley 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, as I understand it, already code in place to detect whether the wiki page being linked to exists, and signal with a diffreence in link color, but that is IMO far too subtle a signal to be useful. But that code can I think, be used together with this preload function that Kevin discovered, and that I didn't know existed. We already have headers for most if not all of the wiki page types that are linked to from the db. -DES ^Talk 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we appear to have FIVE "SQLwikiLinkExists" functions. They deal with the namespaces 'Author', 'Bio', 'Fanzine', 'Magazine', 'Publication', 'Publisher' and 'Series'. BLongley 21:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And we have {{BioHeader}}, {{PubHeader}}, {{Magazine}}, and {{PublisherHeader}} already created, and i will create headers for Author and Series tomorrow if possible -- it shouldn't take long. "Magazine" is a special case becaue the template is a skeleton rather than a fixed header, it should be applied with "subst:", but that is just the addition of 6 characters to the preload text. -DES ^Talk 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From what display do we generate "Magazine" links? I cant find one. Unless you mean the link to the single fixed magazine index page. That doesn't need a preload because it already exists and there is only one such page ever. -DES ^Talk 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's used yet, but the check exists. I can find definite uses of 'Author', 'Bio', 'Publication' and 'Publisher'. Kev appears to be the one working in this area at the moment and might explain future expansion plans better. [User:BLongley|BLongley]] 21:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion Plans... 'We don't need to steeenkin plans!'. Honestly I am just stumbling from fix to fix, and learning my way around Python. The more I work on a file or an area the more comfortable I feel. Kevin 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As to color of the 'empty' wiki link - That is standard in wiki's that an empty link has that (or similar color). While it may be too subtle for your tastes, it seems to work just fine for the WikiMedia Worldwide Ginormous Consortium (c), and seems a reasonable standard to me. Kevin 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, on a wiki such as Wikipedia, where most people know and the rest rapidly learn that a "red" link means empty, and where the vast majority of links are blue. Inded i think it works well enough on the ISFDB wiki proper. But on a database page, many people have not been exposed to the wiki standard, adn simply seeing a blue link is not IMO enough of a clue tom say "There is useful information behind this link". Moreover, the color difference between "empty" and "non-empty" links in the DB displays is not, IMO as large or obvious as the on-wiki difference. I might be wroing about that, but I think that in any case we need a more obvious indicatior. I also refer you to this discussion where swfritter wrote "Very helpful although I would also wish there were some kind of graphic symbol that appears only when there are bibliographic notes attached. It might be more obvious to the casual user and people as unobservant as I am." and Marc Kupper responded "How about if you develop the graphic and send it to Al as part of a feature request? The code is already there to change the link color and so I'd imagine adding a graphic would be very little extra work." So at least three mods think this is a good idea. -DES ^Talk 04:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we need to learn how to add graphic (i.e. binary) files in CVS at some point, and standardise use of such in the code. Much simpler just to change the text of the create/view (maybe add "edit"?) link for now though. BLongley 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Different text would solve the issue I was concerned with -- indeed it might be better than a graphic that could be misinterpreted. -DES ^Talk 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wiki Preloader also offers somefunctionality, and even if our version of the wiki doesn't support it, we can replicate it through the above url example, to preload all wiki links from the database. (But we can only have one file to preload per 'type' of link... one preload for author pages, one preload for publisher pages, one preload for publication pages, etc) Kevin 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new magazine wiki page section

Looks great!--swfritter 16:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. i am not a magazine specialist, so please feel free to expand it or correct anything that needs improvement. -DES ^Talk 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What most needs expanding is my wiki skills. Glad you've got 'em.--swfritter 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Award Stories Nine

I added a cover image to your verified pub NBLWRDSTRD1978. Thanks. --Rtrace 12:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Issue at Hand: Studies in Contemporary Magazine Scinece Fiction

I was testing one of the bug fixes and noticed that "William Atheling, Jr."'s review of Asimov's The Currents of Space was entered as The Currrents of Space. I changed the spelling to "Currents" so that I could proceed with the testing. Ahasuerus 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless a typo -- these entries were soem of tjhe first zi made on the ISFDB. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug 2813063

It looks like bug 2813063 was addressed by r2009-05. Could you please confirm and let me know if it's ready to be closed? TIA! Ahasuerus 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll check. -DES ^Talk 05:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fixed to me. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 05:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed, thanks! Ahasuerus 05:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ACE DBL 42900

Artist credit for [this] has the Carter side as by Freas, yet OCLC and ACE Image Library have it as Jeff Jones. ??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember, order among co-authors (or co-artists) is NOT preserved as entered by the software. I should have made a note which artist did which cover, you can't safely assume that the order of the artist credits now matches the order of the titles in the record, even if i entered them that way. I'll check this when i can -- some of my books are not readily available at the moment. In the meantime, feel free to add a note that reports what secondary sources say about who has which credit. -DES ^Talk 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't questioning the Shoenherr side, which OCLC and ACE Image Library agree with. With no book in hand I won't quote a secondary source for an artist for a verified pub. That's what our talk pages are for!! Added the OCLC numbers, the artist clarification can wait until that box comes to the top! Been there, am there, will be there.... :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood, i thought the sources suggested switching the artists. Now i see that they suggest replacing one. I will recheck asap. (At least I'll look.) Although even if I confirm, a note indicating that secondary sources differ, if only so this doesn't have to come up again, may be a good idea. it may also point to a different printing with partly different art, who knows. Thanks for pointing this out. -DES ^Talk 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Martin photo

The photo is mine, I took it of myself, when Dreadcentral said they needed one. Whe I get a chance, I'll put it up in the wiki commons. UcleBob 04:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied it from Wikipedia to this wiki, retaining the cc license. Thanks for your prompt response. -DES ^Talk 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication series

With your background and knowledge in Wiki writing, I was wondering if you could create a category for Publication Series (at your convenience, of course). Currently the database proper doesn't handle this type of series, so the Wiki seems to be the next best solution. While you were away, we started this page just so that the lists wouldn't be lost. At the moment they're scattered throughout the Wiki in various configurations. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. MHHutchins 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a category is easy enough. I could also create a header template for such pages. The tricky think is finding any already existing pages that would fit in such a category. That, unfortunately, has to be done by humans, as judgment is required, although searches can help. -DES ^Talk 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the series that are on the list are contained on pages that can be placed directly into the category. There are some that are included on other pages. These lists will have to be extracted and new pages created which can be placed into the category. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That can all be done, and none of it is hard. But in some ways a list page may be better, because it can point to pages planned but not yet created, and can include annotations, while a category page only includes the actual page names. The big advantage of a category page is that if you add the category link to the relevant page (either directly or via a template ) it is automatically added to the category page, correctly sorted -- there is no need to edit a separate page, as there is with a list page. The disadvantages are that it can't include entries for pages not yet creates, nor any annotation of a particular link beyond the page title, and that the category link must be applied to the target page. -DES ^Talk 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We can keep this list page as a sort of clearing house for those series that are planned or are in progress. From your description of how category pages work, we can't manually link this page to the category page, but does the category page have its own talk page so that we can link it with the planned and in-progress list? MHHutchins 19:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A category page does have a talk page. Most of the time such pages aren't used, but they can be. However, we can link from the existing list page to the category page. I'll set up a category and see if you like it. -DES ^Talk 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created Category:Publication Series and {{PubSeriesHeader}}. I have put most of the pages linked from Publication Series, except for some where a new page should probably be created, to avoid placing an entire publisher page into a category where only one section belongs. (You can't place only a section of a page in a cat, I'm afraid.) -DES ^Talk 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good except I'm not sure about the wording of the header: "This is an ISFDB Bibliographic Comments page for the Publication series ..." Comments makes it sound more like a talk/discussion page than the actual content page. Can you think of something less ambiguous? Or maybe it should just say "This is an ISFDB Wiki page for the Publication series..."? Thanks for writing this and placing the finished pages into the category. I'll try to make some time to create pages for the remaining lists. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add about the header note: doesn't the part about "or discussion on how to organize and/or record the works in the series" contradict the later statement that discussion should take place on the talk page? MHHutchins 00:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change the wordinfg to anything that seems better, i used "comments" because our links to Author: pages and Series: pages say "Bibliogrphic comments". -DES ^Talk 01:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that those lists which appear on publisher pages are not all in the category yet, as they may be best on new separate pages with a link from the publisher page. -DES ^Talk 01:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The bit about the talk page is intended to indicate that meta discussion, i.e discussion about whether content belongs on the Publication series page (as opposed to somewhere else) or how it should be formatted (e.g. bulleted list vs wiki table) or the like belongs on the publication series pages talk page. Such discussion will, I hope, be rare. -DES ^Talk 01:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication series - naming

I saw the Publication series stuff and it bothered me a little as I usually think of those as "Publisher series." Are we making a distinction between publisher series Publisher series? At present 310 wiki pages refer to publisher series, 69 use publication series, and 27 pages reference both forms. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had only recalled the term "publication series". I had no intent to change our existing terms. The page I was pointed at to work from was Publication series. If the template and category should have their wording, or indeed their names, changed that is easy enough to do. Perhaps the wording should include both terms? -DES ^Talk 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When Bill Longley and I brought these lists together, he suggested "publication series" because there were cases where a series carried over from one publisher to another. One that stood out was the SF Masterworks series. It was originally published by Millennium but switched to Gollancz. Another reason for the naming was to distinguish it from "author series", i.e. books that are part of a series "based on their content". This meaning refers to how "series" is used in the database. If we could get rid of the word "series" entirely, coming up with a better term, the whole issue would be resolved. If the database could handle these series "based on packaging and marketing" then the wiki pages would be unnecessary. MHHutchins 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The template and category solution i have provided can use any name that we can devise, just by changing the text of the template, and the title of the category (and perhaps the name of the template). Pick a name, any name. Handling these in the db would be better, but would i think require a significant design extension, since only some specific pubs of a title would belong to a publisher or publication series or whatever we wind up calling such a thing. Myself, i think I like "Publication series" to mean a series consisting of specific publications, whether by a particular publisher or not. Or "Publication set" or "publication group" or even "marketing series" or "Marketing group" on the grounds that such series are a form of marketing. Or they could be called "lines", perhaps, or "publication lines". I don't feel at all strongly about what you call them. If you come up with an agreed name and want help changing the template and category, just say so, but please do have an agreed name that will be somewhat stable so these needn't be reworked too often. -DES ^Talk 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been several different uses, but basically they're all to bring a set of related publications together where we can't use the titles alone, or some other method. BLongley 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If we'd come to some agreement on Publisher regularisation we may not have needed so many, but with some people wanting to distinguish imprints by owning publisher then we couldn't use "Venture SF" as a publisher to group that series, as somebody might split it into "Venture SF / Arrow" and "Venture SF / Hamlyn" which would defeat the point. Likewise "Ballantine Adult Fantasy" is vulnerable to somebody deciding they're just "Ballantine". (And I think there were Del Rey versions of some.) BLongley 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems for me is that although sometimes these are single-publication specials (easy), there are several that go through several reprints, or that have hardcover and softcover versions, and we have to put lots of pubs into the series. I can't see any easy way round this though, unless we develop an "Edition" level between Title and Publication. Which we may have to do at some point to make the Publication displays usable for our most popular titles, but I'd wait for "Printing Number" support first. And even that might not be enough - for things like the "Corgi SF Collector's Library", Corgi have published editions that are part of the Library and other editions that aren't. And they're all still in the same overall printing number order... :-( BLongley 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, "Publication Series" works for me. Definitely for the "Publication" part as we don't have "Edition". "Series" might be the wrong word, but "Set", "Group" and "Line" don't really appeal. BLongley 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Analog May 1976 submission

To save you some research. As is stated on the magazine wiki page: Science Fact is not used in the title - the essay should be place in the Science Fact series; The Reference Library entry, which obviously should be an essay, should have a format similar to other entries in the series. I do have this issue and the sub-title is "From the Beginning". The editorial, which every newbie enters as an EDITOR record, should look like this. Also, the Kelly Freas is credited as the cover artist, not Frank Kelly Freas. The submitting editor has no obligation to do enter all data or change existing entries, but there are also Reference Library, In Times to Come, and Brass Tacks columns.--swfritter 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. One question I would still particularly like an answer to: If I approve the edit as it stands, intending to fix the errors in it afterwards, will the extra EDITOR record cause a problem, or can I just change the type back to essay, and add it to the proper series? That is the thing I was most afraid of. -DES ^Talk 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've done one of those but that should work although the change will have to be made at the title level of the essay since it will not appear in the pub.--swfritter 14:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -DES ^Talk 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to do the work on this and any other submissions the editor might make in the near future. I own the specific pub that has been updated and might own others that the editor might enter. In any case, we too often deluge new editors with multiple viewpoints and conflicting opinions and perhaps we can avoid that in this case.--swfritter 18:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend letting Swfritter take this on and the rest of us can watch and learn. The most important thing may be to give a fast response - if we give the impression we take days to approve things then that must surely be off-putting. I know that's one reason I don't bother fixing Amazon UK data very often now, for instance. BLongley 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

After Swfritter 's comments above I felt comfortable with this -- I was going to tackle it within the next few minutes. You really feel I should pass it over to him? -DES ^Talk 22:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a Yes or No answer, so I will leave it to you rather than leaving the submission out there any longer. I would suggest that you be the primary contact, at least for a little while. If I have any comments to make I will leave them on your talk page. The data entry standards for many of the regular features are well documented on the Analog wiki page and by example. A number of different editors have worked together to make sure that the data for the magazine has been entered in a consistent manner.--swfritter 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Approved and corrected. Please see the result and the submitter's talk page. Any comments or corrections are welcome. -DES ^Talk 15:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Monument

Added some notes to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Brothers of Earth

Added a couple of notes to [this] --Bluesman 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Engdahl's This Star Shall Abide

Locus #221 (May 1979) states that your verified pub of this title was published in April 1979, and was the first softcover edition of the title. I had created a new record when I saw your edition dated 1972, the year of the first hardcover edition. If you believe the listing refers to your edition, please feel free to delete the one I just created. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will check my copy, this evening if possible. -DES ^Talk 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't be sure. My edition is a softcover tp. I remember reading the HC edition in a library prior to 1979, and it had the same cover and interior art. My copy has the words "First Aladdin edition" on the copyright page, and the only date on that page is 1972, but it isn't clear if this is a date of publication. OCLC dates this edition, or AN edition with this ISBN, as 1972, for what that's worth. I think I bought this copy in 1976 or 77, but it could have been in 1979 or 80. Locus may be right, or there may have been a reprint in 1979 that failed to remove the "first edition" slug. -DES ^Talk 04:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The author's web site gives 1972 as the date of the first HC editon, and says there was a TP edition but gives no date. -DES ^Talk 04:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1972 Atheneum first edition had the same cover and interior illustrations as your tp edition. It's possible, as you suggest, that when it came time to print a softcover edition, they may have used the same plates as the hc edition and the date may refer to either the first edition or the year of copyright. OCLC "reads 'em as it sees 'em" and its record reflects that. MHHutchins 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is possible. Was the 1972 HC part of Atheneum's Aladdin line/imprint? My TP has the Aladdin "Lamp" logo on cover and spine, and has "First Aladdin Edition" on the copyright page. What suprises me is that OCLC has, apparently, no record for the HC, unless the HC and TP had the same ISBN. Given that the original HC was marketed primarily to libraries, this seems odd. -DES ^Talk 12:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly I've now, via first search, found OCLC record OCLC: 220458460. This is for, it says, a 1974 edition, with the same page count and illustrator as the 1972 edition, but with a different ISBN than my copy, yet it says "Edition: [1st ed.]" Of course being in brackets means that it is assumed or deduced by the cataloger, not explicitly stated, so it could be first ed/2nd printing. But the different ISBN should mena that this is not identical to the copy I have. Whew. -DES ^Talk 12:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aladdin was created in 1967 as an imprint of Atheneum to reprint their hardcover originals in soft covers. The imprint was never used on hardcovers to my knowledge. When Atheneum was purchased by Macmillan (in the 80s), it kept the imprint for their juvenile titles (which used to be printed under the Collier Books imprint). In 1994 Simon & Schuster purchased the Atheneum division from Macmillan, along with the Aladdin imprint. So you'll find Aladdin paperbacks from three publishers Atheneum (1967-1987), Macmillan (1988-1993), and Simon & Schuster (1994-present).

I believe the 1972 first edition of The Stars Shall Abide may not have had an ISBN, but that the third printing in 1974 did (this is the one recorded by OCLC record 220458460). Atheneum's ISBN range for their juvenile books started at 0-689-300XX-X. But no Abebooks.com dealers with first editions/first printings give an ISBN. Those with third printings give 0-689-30026-3. The Aladdin books ISBN range began at 0-689-700XX-X. I found this Aladdin pub that has an ISBN before your copy;s number published in 1978. And here's another one with an ISBN just after yours which shows a 1979 publication date. MHHutchins 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Credit for Tim Kirk drawing in Wandering Stars

I was updating my copy of this title (the British edition) and noticed that I'd fail to make an entry for Tim Kirk's drawing on the last page of the book. Since it was immediately following Ellison's story, I assumed it illustrated that story and named it so. It's not credited anywhere in the book, but I noticed that in the record of your copy of the US version it's titled "Evise, the Zsouchmoid". If it's given that title in the book, I'll need to create a variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no caption or title on the illustration itself. However, on page 215, at the end of the story intro by Dann, it says ""...Tim Kirk has drawn the hero, Evsise, the Zsouchmoid." on page 240, in "Ellison's Grammatical Guide and Glossary for Goyim" the entry for "Evsise" ends "(See illustration)". So does the entry for "Zsouchmoid" on page 243. The illustration (on page 244) is signed "TK". This was a relatively early entry of mine, and apparently i used the statement from page 215 as a title. This may not be justified, but the connection of the illo with the story, and its central character Evsise, seems established. -DES ^Talk 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for me. I'm going to merge mine into that record and not make it a variant. But I'll change all records from "Evise" to "Evsise". Thanks. MHHutchins 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK by me. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 19:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Template Request - Cover Data

I find myself uploading more cover art lately, and I usually know the cover artist. I would like to easily document that, but without all the parameter's required for CID. Could you whip up a CID3 or something similar, that only requires the pub tag, and the artists name, but that can also take the title of the publication as an optional (last) argument? I'm thinking that might be the happy medium of documentation between the kitchen sink and just the bare minimum. Thoughts? Kevin 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure I can do that. I'll let you know. -DES ^Talk 16:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. See {{Cover Image Data3}}, aka {{CID3}}. -DES ^Talk 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Works Great. Thanks! - Kevin 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Conitnuum Magazine wiki

Shouldn't this be most recent first? People sometimes get a little confused that we do it that way but might be even more confused if we do it inconsistently. Yet another magazine I did not know about. We need about ten more editors.--swfritter 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that convention. I don't think which way we do it matters, as long as we are consistent. i haven't done many magazine pages, i did this one because a new editor started it in a stub fashion, with nothing but the URL. I'll fix it. -DES ^Talk 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Common practice standard with the logic, if I remember correctly, that the user is more likely to be interested in the most recent issue; probably not documented anywhere.--swfritter 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Now it is, see Magazines#Creating a new magazine wiki page. -DES ^Talk 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New template

The "{{C3}}" is great, but it does pose a question: multiple artists.... I don't know squat about programming language but I'd bet that there's no way to split an entry so it goes to both artists. What would you suggest? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Swearing is allowed! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I can add optional parameters Artist2 and Artist3 for the purpose. Or the relevant categories can be manually added (as I did in this edit), if this is very rare. Let me do some tests and get back to you. -DES ^Talk 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The coding would be a bit simpler if I used separate templates, say {{C3A}} for the 2-author case, and {{C3B}} for the three author case. I can make it fully flexible, but this will complicate the code a bit. How much trouble would remembering and using different templates based on number of authors be? and what names would you prefer if this is done? -DES ^Talk 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The double artist is pretty rare as things go, probably way less than 1-2%. If a C3A could be implemented, that would be easiest, and of course a C3B for that one in a million. Would that entail two separate splits, as in C3A|artist 1|artist 2|title? That would be the simplest and easiest to remember. Or maybe a C32 for two artists and C33 for three and so on? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot: if the artist or artists are new to the DB, is a record automatically produced (like it is for a new author)? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a new db record is automatically created when you add a cover art credit or an interiorart credit to an artist not previously in the db, just as a new record is created for an author when a pub or title is entered. -DES ^Talk 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Cover Image Data3-2}}, alias {{CID3-2}} alias {{C3-2}} created. what do you think? -DES ^Talk 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Cover Image Data3-3}}, alias {{CID3-3}} alias {{C3-3}} created. what do you think? -DES ^Talk 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OCR software

Were you ever able to dig up the OCR software? I have another long/complicated copyright page. Two different number lines, printed in the EU but for the USA/Canada market, different UK and USA ISBNs, and it's all in a smallish font that causes pain for me. TIA! --Marc Kupper|talk 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found the CD, will see about sending it to you ASAP. -DES ^Talk 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog 1

Can you check the author credit for the story "Prologue to an Analogue" in your copy of this anthology? I'm holding a submission that wants to credit it to be Walt and Leigh Richmond, who probably co-wrote it. I'm just trying to make sure Walt wasn't credited in your copy. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I will check, tonight if possible. i remember the story well, but not the author credit with enough certainty to make an approval decision. -DES ^Talk 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's a memorable story. Michael, for what it's worth, I've got an earlier printing of this edition (apparently the one which is in the db verified by Dgeiser13, states "First Printing: June, 1964" & has cover pictured there), & it gives Leigh only, everywhere: back of title page, TOC, title on first page of story. (There are no running page-heading titles.) Just one more data point for you. -- Dave (davecat) 18:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the physical book. "Leigh Richmond" on the back cover, in the ToC, on the copyright page, and on the story title page. No mention of Walt anywhere. On style, I could believe that Walt had a hand, but he is not credited in this pub. -DES ^Talk 02:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog 2 - No Jr. and some other fixes

I just massaged Analog 2 to match my copy in hand. No Jr. for Campbell on title page or the preface. No M in William Lee. I also moved the entire pub to a new variant title for No Jr. Thanks Kevin 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

E-mail?

Is the e-mail address listed in your Wiki profile current? Does it block mail.com/e-mail.com, perchance? Ahasuerus 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just opened email, got your msg, will read and respond -DES ^Talk 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Response sent. -DES ^Talk 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

C vs. CID2

You have a note on Template:Cover Image Data2 that mentions {{CID2}} is a shortcut. I've been using {{C}}. Is C depreciated? --Marc Kupper|talk 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I created CID2 first. I preferred that. Someone (I think BLongly or maybe Bluesman) requested a yet shorter alias, and indicated that it would be much more used with a shorter alias. So I created {{C}}. I probably should document that on Template:Cover Image Data2/Doc -- its already documented in Help:List of ISFDB Templates. Neither form is deprecated, and there effects are identical, both as simply aliases (redirects) for (to) Template:Cover Image Data2.

I would like to urge you, when the cover artist is known, to use Template:Cover Image Data3, alias {{CID3}} alias {{C3}}. The call is just like C, except the parameters are Tag|Artist|Title in that order. A C call can be converted to a C3 just by inserting the 3 and the artist. The advantage is that the image will be placed in the proper artist category, and once the category is linked, be findable via Category:Artist Images, which now lists close to 500 artist-specific image categories. -DES ^Talk 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd been using C as it's easy to remember but then realized today that it was not linking to the artists and so looked at the other templates which is why I saw that the "recommended" shortcut was CID2. I'm cleaning up my uploaded images to use CID1 as it has little extra work over CID3. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Some think the added work more than they care for, Bill (Bluesman) in particular favors CID3. I actually created CID1-2 and CID2-2 in preparation for the proposed "load image" button. -DES ^Talk 05:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cover images without publication links includes mostly early uses of CIF with teh Pub Parameter not specified. Category:Covers without Artist category is mostly images using C or CID3. Category:Cover images includes every cover that uses any version of CID. -DES ^Talk 05:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alpha One

Scanned in an image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK, I approved the edit. Thanks for the scan and upload of cover iamge. -DES ^Talk 02:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A Slight Detour - title difference?

Morning! This. [21]. My title page says "A Slight Detour" with a subtitle of "Book Three of Starship Troupers", otherwise I have a 100% match . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I will double-check. If I were entering this today, I would omit a subtitle or title prefix that only gave the series name and number (or list it only in notes). -DES ^Talk 15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Euterpe - three part serial?

You have verified the issue with part 1. It looks like there are three parts. Baen handles serials the same weird way in Baen's Universe.--swfritter 14:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the later parts i think, I'll have to verify them/ "EUTERPE, Episode 1" is a direct copy & paste from the ebook. -DES ^Talk 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And how about Dr. Phil?--swfritter 14:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I'll have tom check, but I'm pretty sure that was as printed. -DES ^Talk 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what I am doing with the Baen's Universe titles. If the serial ever ends I will then be able to figure out how many parts there are. It may not matter that much because it is unlikely that they will ever be printed as novels. Some of the "serials" in Baen's Universe are actually self-contained short stories which should more properly be defined as such and placed in a series.--swfritter 15:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. I am willing to call things "stories" that have "Part" in their names. -DES ^Talk 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Exiles of the Stars

Scanned in an image for [this] ~BIll, --Bluesman 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct image. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Space Infantry - author difference

Morning!. This. [22]. I checked my copy against your ver. My copy does not show "Jerry E. Pournelle" on title story page or ToC. Only on acknowledgments page is the the E. present. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agent of the Terran Empire

Expanded the notes for [this] and finally linked the image properly. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Minster West"

When you get a chance, could you please check whether it's "Minster West" or "Minister West" in your verified Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, Fall 1977? It's listed as "Minister West" in Asimov's Choice: Astronauts & Androids (currently not verified), so I wonder if we need to merge the two titles or create a VT. TIA! Ahasuerus 16:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I will check. -DES ^Talk 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My verified entry was correct, it is Minster West, with only one "i" (the cyclops title) on both title page and in the ToC (and also in the running page footers). Either there is a data entry error in the Asimov's Choice anthology, or there is a variant, I can't say which. If there is a variant, i suspect it is a printer's/publisher's error. I suppose it might even be a different story, but I doubt it. Gene Wolfe might play with titles like that, but most author's wouldn't. -DES ^Talk 14:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I Just Contento-verified Asimov's Choice: Astronauts & Androids. According to Contento, the title there is "Minister West", and Contento says it is a reprint from IASFM Fall 1977, so I guess this is a vt. I wish I could check how the character's name is spelled in the body of the story in the anthology. -DES ^Talk 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy either, but we could post a verification request. For now, a VT sounds like the way to go -- we can always change it later if new information comes to light. Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

VT Created, on the strength of Contento. -DES ^Talk 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue at Hand

Can you re-check to see if the title under review is "Gravy Planet" or "The Space Merchants" in this collection? I'm moving the serial title records as variants of the parent title, and this title record will be deleted. The review won't have a linking title record unless we move it to one of the serial title records or the parent title record. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Will check. Thanks for the heads up. -DES ^Talk 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember this. "Atheling", reviewing a magazine issue, says something like "If it weren't for 'Gravy Planet', we'd have all gone to sleep." There's a footnote saying that this was the sound of Atheling falling asleep, & identifying "Gravy Planet" as The Space Merchants & making a brief positive comment. (If I were doing this, I'd count it as a review of "Gravy Planet"; but it could be argued either way, if my memory is right. Not that much of a review, in any case, again IIRC. At any rate, I'm sure DES will get back on it.) -- Dave (davecat) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your memory is basically correct. I have linked the review to the installment of "Gravy Planet" in the issue he was apparently discussing (part 3 of 3). Since he also makes some 10-years-later comments on The Space Merchants and anti-utopias in general, I have added a review link to The Space Merchants as well. -DES ^Talk 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DES. I've deleted the orphan title record. MHHutchins 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, August 3, 1981

Both you and Mhhutchins verified Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, August 3, 1981 with

• 42 • Basic Genesis • interior artwork by Jack Gaughn

Should that be Jack Gaughan? --Marc Kupper|talk 04:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I guess one of us made a typo and the other failed to notice it. But it is possible there was an error in the magazine's credit. I'll check and correct the entry, or add a note if the error is in the magazine. -DES ^Talk 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked my copy and it's credited to "Gaughan". I'm not as diligent as I should be when doing a second verification, especially on the contents (so much to do, so little time!) Good catch though. I've gone ahead and corrected the record. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of the Cradle

Hey Des! [This] pub lists two artists as authors. I didn't change that, though I think it should be changed. Thing is all three get credit on the title page, but as you noted only Hartmann gets credit for the text. Added all three for interior art to the contents. Thoughts? And while I'm here: is a month long enough to wait for Mr. Erikson to respond to the edit for [this]? I expected the hold, just not quite so long.....it's got moss growing on it!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On Out of the Cradle, I seem to recall a previous discussion suggesting that in this case the art was so much of the content, and had been so co-ordinated with the text, that the artists should have co-author credit. I don't feel strongly about the mater, one way or the other. Also, your interior art listings seem to imply that each artist contributed separate art to the book. Is that correct? Or is some or all of the art actually joint works? In the latter case perhaps a single joint credit would be better. -DES ^Talk 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Each painting is quite separately credited, which is why I put the individual credit/content. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then they are entered properly. -DES ^Talk 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On Where Do We Go from Here? I just looked at User talk:Don Erikson and I don't find the msg that I thought I had posted for him. The issue was the proposal to delete a number of short fiction records, and replace them with different variants. I will post to User talk:Don Erikson right away, and try to get this matter cleared up for you. My apologies for the delay. -DES ^Talk 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the Variants (thanks for merging them!) and was thinking more of all the essays that were added. All's well that ends well! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -DES ^Talk 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have approved the edit to Where Do We Go from Here?, after User talk:Don Erikson very promptly responded to my query. I have also done the required follow-up merges on the short story content records added in the edit. Thanks for your patience with me. -DES ^Talk 19:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tales from Galvagan's Bar - added cover

Afternoon! This. [23]. I added a cover image, [24], after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That cover appears correct for my copy. -DES ^Talk 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Urania wiki page

I had some spare time tonight to work on the Magazine:Urania wiki page. I created links to the 1955 issues, but only got around to inputing half the tags before the server decided to take a nap. Feel free to finish adding the tags, or I can get to them sometime tomorrow. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wandering Stars - Geo. or George

Your verified pub. Geo. Alec Effinger? If Mhhutchins is Geo. it looks like there could be a single change since this anthology and reprints are the only place it appears. I have a different gutter code on page 242.--swfritter 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will check. -DES ^Talk 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also check H. L. Gold - mine is Horace L. Gold as are others.--swfritter 13:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Immigrant to Desert World" vs "Immigrant to Desert-World"

Hi, could you check if hyphenation was used in Ruth Berman's poem here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?104278 Whatever the outcome, it would probably be safe to assume the title here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?109433 would be identical. Thanks Jonschaper 01:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FR 2815481 & new upload link

I am trying to recreate the problem described in FR 2815481, but not having much luck. I wonder if it was fixed in an earlier patch or whether I am doing something wrong? Ahasuerus 03:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been corrected by some recent change. At least I can't reproduce it now. However I now see the opposite problem: the corresponding field when editing an anthology now shows "Author1" rather than "Editor1". This is purely a display issue, there is no compromise of functionality. Should I log a separate FR? -DES ^Talk 15:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's closer to a bug than to a FR, so we may want to close 2815481 and create a new Bug for Anthologies. Also, have you had a chance to review the new semi-automated way of uploading images? Does it match what you had in mind? Once we adjust it to everyone's satisfaction, I can add the same link to the post-submission screen for New Pubs so that editors could easily upload images after creating an ISFDB record for new pubs. Ahasuerus 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do.

FR 2815481 closed. Bug 2866834 logged. -DES ^Talk 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the new upload mechanism -- that is I have clicked the link from a publication for which I did not have a cover image, and looked at the resulting wiki text, but not saved it. On a quick inspection, it looks quit good to me, and pretty much what I had in mind. It might be more readable to users in the wiki edit form if the different parameters were set off from each other by newlines, causing each to display as a separate line when edited. This has no effect on the appearance of the rendered wiki text, it only makes a difference when editing, much like newlines in the notes field of a publication. It is not a huge matter, either, IMO.

Such an additional link might be useful. Judging from Bluesman's comments, he at least would like a link from the edit form itself, while editing. However, that raises the problem of pulling possibly edited contents from displayed fields, and the operational issue of a tendency to click before all relevant data has been entered, which may lead to exactly the sort of needless repeated work this feature is intended to avoid. So I would be cautious in even considering such an added link.

Once this is stable, we will need to document it in the help, of course. -DES ^Talk 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Making the text more readable is certainly a good idea; I'll implement it tonight. As far as using data from the populated fields in the Pub Edit form (while it's still being edited) goes, I share your concerns. I hope that making this capability available in the post-submission screen will accomplish the same goal without the risks that you mentioned. Besides, I know very little about Javascript, which would be needed to do this, although I hope to learn more about it soon. The good news is that constantly learning new things keeps the mind agile :) Ahasuerus 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing Chapterbooks

I see you've been trying to explain the process to some editors recently, so I though I'd have a stab at a more pictorial guide: http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Fixing_Chapterbooks

Already I'm thinking I shouldn't have mentioned the merges that might be needed afterwards, and there should probably be a How NOT to Fix Chapterbooks page too, and it's not linked into the help in general etc. But I'd like opinions on whether this is a useful start or just extra confusion. BLongley 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't be sure until we try it on an editor who needs the info, but it looks pretty good form my point of view. If you can do so, you might want to put an arrow pointing to the added title link, or draw a line around it. You might also want to consider an "after" screen shot of a clone-this-pub display -- that is just about the only display that actually shows both the shortfiction and chapterbook title records. But those are just suggestions. Thanks a lot for trying to explain this issue. My most permanent attempt at explanation is probably the lead paragraph on ISFDB:Chapterbook cleanup. I'd like to link to Help:Fixing Chapterbooks there, maybe change it's name to Help:How to fix Chapterbook records to fit in with the "How-to" list. What do you think? -DES ^Talk 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much in the way of image-editing software here, hence plain screen-dumps. But I think more images are needed, text just isn't doing it for some new (and not so new) editors. Feel free to improve. Thanks for the comments! BLongley 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Grafton PB, The Lord of the Rings, Omni

Hi David. I noticed that you've been holding my edit of this pub for some days. Is there a problem with this one? Maybe I can can help clarifying things. Thanks. --Phileas 07:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have addressed this earlier. The issue is the separate entries for the appendices. In all our many entries for LOTR in the past, no one has seen fit to make separate entries for these. I will be posting a community msg on this issue today, to get wider input. I apologize for the delay. -DES ^Talk 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See ISFDB:Community Portal#LotR Appendicies -DES ^Talk 21:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Memory (SS ?) - A Memory (Poem) by H. P. Lovecraft

In ISFDB : A Memory (Poem) as part of Fungi from Yuggoth and Memory' (Poem).

Memory (first publication in ""The United Co-operative, June 1919 The H. P. Lovecraft Archive or [as by Lewis Theobald], (pm) The United Co-Operative Jun 1919 Anthology and Collection list by Contento or The National Amateur, May 1923 Miskatronic) is not a poem, it's a very short story (somebody refer to this as prose poem), you can read the text in the H. P. Lovecraft Archive.

The problem is now to determine if all publications listed in title Memory are linked really to Memory (error on title type ?) or if some must be linked to A Memory (error on date and a initial ommited).

The writing date of the most recent Fungi from Yuggoth : 27 December 1929-4 January 30 from (The H. P. Lovecraft Archive) can't be used, all publications is more recent.

Beyond the Wall of Sleep have a link to A Memory" (page 400). The link to Memory (page 3) is good.

Dreams and Fancies is listed as A Memory (poem) at the Anthology and Collection list by Contento. Wikipedia link to Memory (SS published in 1923). RisingShadow.net link to Memory (Poem). No content listed on LCCN : 62-2916.

The Doom That Came to Sarnath and Other Stories is listed as Memory at The H. P. Lovecraft Archive and in Wikipedia. For the publication of October 1990, Locus give this 52 · A Memory · pm Beyond the Wall of Sleep, Arkham, 1943. There is the table of contents from Amazon.

Miscellaneous Writings is listed as Memory at The H. P. Lovecraft Archive and in Wikipedia.

The Transition of H. P. Lovecraft: The Road to Madness is listed as Memory at The H. P. Lovecraft Archive, in the table of content from Amazon and in table of content from Barne & Noble.

Collected Public Domain Works of H. P. Lovecraft, the text (link to Wikipedia from LibriVox) is this of Memory.

I'm very confuse with the notion of Poem in prose that I found later in my search. In french we use Poème for poem with verse and rhymes and vers libres with only rhymes. I hope that can be helpful. Thanks for reading.--ChanurBe 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Toe Tags response

Yes, Oonah V Joslin is correct. There is no period after the "V".

I have no issue with changing T.J. to T. J.

The date is correct, unless you would rather change it to just the month and year. That was the exact day that it was open to be purchased to the public.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dagon99 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 1 October 2009 .

Response posted on User talk:Dagon99 where this thread started. -DES ^Talk 15:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony Gleeson's page

Hi David: thanks for your nice "intro note" to me after I established some data for my own ISFDB page. I appreciate your stylistic revisions-- which on afterthought I had actually gone back to make similar changes you had already done-- but I have one very niggling point. According to my style manuals, if a word ending in S has more than one syllable you do NOT make a possessive out of it by adding 's but rather by simply appending an apostrophe. So "Neal Adams' Continuity Studios"-- my employer for close to nine years-- would be correct and not "Neal Adams's Continuity Studios." I'm not only an artist but a published writer so I DO consult the style manuals that apparently a lot of print journalists in my area have thrown away (though I admit I do commit typos and oversights). I shall leave it up to you if you think that should be corrected. It's such a small thing that I'm not overly concerned (it's not like it said "ART Adams' Continuity Studios," etc.). But my inner pedant needed free range. Thanks, Tony Gleeson —The preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Gleeson (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 October 2009

• The Elements of Style by Strunk and White: Rule 1: "Form the possessive of singular nouns by adding apostrophe-S: Charles's Books not Charles' Books." See this site

The s' form is IMO properly used only for possessives of plural nouns. I think Chicago Manual of Style follows the same rule, but I'd have to check. I know Fowler does. But in any case of dispute I stick with Stunk and White ("The Little Book").

It is a niggling point, and many people do -- IMO incorrectly -- use the form "John Jones' products" instead of the correct "John Jones's products" .

• Wikipedia says:

"If a singular noun ends with an /s/ or a /z/ sound (spelled with -s, -se, -z, -ce, for example), practice varies as to whether to add 's or the apostrophe alone. A widely accepted practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged better: the boss's shoes, Mrs Jones' hat (or Mrs Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms differ between writers."

• grammarbook.com says:

"Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred."

• grammar.ccc.commnet.edu suggests the form "Charles's car" but then goes on to discuss the option of omitting the final s and when and how it might be used, citing Strunk & White andf the New York Public Library's Guide to Style and Usage, and advocating a somewhat flexible view.
• Lynch's Guide to Grammer and Style says:

"There's also the opposite case: when a singular noun ends in s. That's a little trickier. Most style guides prefer s's: James's house. Plain old s-apostrophe (as in James' house) is common in journalism, but most other publishers prefer James's. It's a matter of house style."

• The University of Madison's Frequently Asked Questions About Grammar and Style says:

"According to the Chicago Manual of Style, when the singular noun taking the possessive form already ends in an “s,” the same rule generally applies:"

Brooks’s essay

Texas’s flag

Kirk Douglas’s films

"However, this is not the case in journalism and some other fields."

I trust the above cited sources establish that the form "John Adams's deeds" is at least defensible, if not mandatory, surely not simply an error. Thank you for your note. All of this is, of course, pretty much off-topic for the ISFDB, but it hit my button as an amateur student of language and proud pedant. In Bio sketches a somewhat formal tone should, IMO be aimed at, thus supporting the older possessive form, IMO. -DES ^Talk 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Challenge from Beyond

In 1935, Fantasy Magazine for it's 3rd anniversary, asked two groups of five authors to produce a story each around the title "the Challenge From Beyond". In the supernatural index, the difference is made with an add to the title : The Challenge from Beyond (science fiction) by Stanley G. Weinbaum, Donald Wandrei, Edward E. Smith, Harl Vincent and Murray Leinster and The Challenge from Beyond (weird fantasy) by C. L. Moore, Abraham Merritt, H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and Frank Belknap Long Jr. In Beyond the Wall of Sleep and in The Challenge from Beyond, this is the weird fantasy story. The last, The Challenge from Beyond contain the two stories (weird fantasy and science fiction). What can we do to clarify this ? --ChanurBe 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the authors are different, I don't see any need to add a parenthetical comment to the titles. You can add a title tag "Science Fiction" or "Fantasy" to each of the title records. You could also add a title-level note describing the connection between the two stories, perhaps even with a link from one to the other. -DES ^Talk 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Birth of Fire

Scanned in an image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that image is correct. -DES ^Talk 16:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

George MacDonald

The entries of MacDonald. George MacDonald. should probably be moved to MacDonald George MacDonald? There is also a stray publication for MacDonald,_M.A. George MacDonald, M.A., which I guess will disappear if this author is made a pseudonym? Thanks -Fsfo 14:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Exzactly correct. The period was obvuisly a copy&paste error, probably by me. i have fixed it, and merged the resulting duplicate of Lilith. I have also created the pseudonym relatiuonship. Thank you very much for alerting me to this situstion. -DES ^Talk 15:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bardic Voices: Book I:The Lark and the Wren

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks correct, thank you. -DES ^Talk 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Computer world

Added a cover image (not great, not terrible) to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think my cover is different, I'll check. -DES ^Talk 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My memory was incorrect. This cover is right, i'm about to approve it. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Gallagher's Glacier/Positive Charge

Added cover images to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Star Trek Adventures"

I see you've noticed the new series already, is there some Wiki-magic you can do with the existing data to make it look as organised as Avon SF Rediscovery for instance? I'm going to go try and find physical copies of the rest, but that will take some time, and if things can be done without creating extra thumbnails I'd like to know how. BLongley 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Minds Think Alike. I'm working on an edit to try to improve its looks now. Unfortunately the wiki's auto-thumbnail feature ("Image magic") isn't installed, which may limit what can be done without explicitly creating and uploading down-scaled versions of the cover images. But that can be done if need be. -DES ^Talk 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Star Trek Adventures now. Not as nice as the Avon SF Rediscovery page, but I think it is all I can do without creating explicit thumbnail images at a uniform size -- I'll try that later. -DES ^Talk 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping there was some sort of "display the image, but this size" option I'd missed. Still, the author links are an improvement. And it's prettier than this. BLongley 23:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The wiki software has that option, but Al never installed the required support package -- it is the same package that would produce a thumbnail on the image description page if the image is over 600 pixels. Al once estimated that it would take him a full day to install the required package and the other packages that it required. -DES ^Talk 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnails created and used. -DES ^Talk 14:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapterbook cleanup overlapping work

Hi David. I've started to work on this project and you appear to have done most of parts 1-5, to avoid overlaps I thought it would be better to start at the middle, part 26 for example. I did a few in part 6 but realised we might be working on things at the same time, so I'll start halfway down the list. :-)Kraang 02:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want to mark a part as one you are working on in the main list, I won't work that part. Thanks for joining in. -DES ^Talk 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow Lies in Ambush

Afternoon, Des. Added a cover image for [this] from the ACE Image Library and their listing makes note of an interior sketch by "WALDMAN" but there is no mention of this in the contents or notes. I don't have this one to check. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The cover is, according to my memory, correct. I'll check on the sketch asap, as soon as I can find that book. -DES ^Talk 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Artist pages to Artist Category links?

I recall you using some sort of Bot to create multiple pages, and I'm wondering if it would be possible to use such to link Artist's Biography or Bibliography pages to the comparatively new "Artist Category" page. E.g. there's no link from Gary_Ruddell's pages to his images and it might be useful now that people are actively searching for examples of an artist's work. BLongley 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of automated link to the relevant sample signature(s) too would be good, but I suspect we haven't regularised those enough yet to be automated? BLongley 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the intent of Artist categories correctly, they let you quickly access all images by a given artist. If that's all they do, we should be able to recreate this functionality on the ISFDB side fairly easily. Ahasuerus 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Program-wise, I think we can do even better - I've already got scripts that find artists' coverart work that has been verified, which with a recent enough verification probably means there's an image to go with it. I use such to generate a Wiki-page I can preview although I rarely save such as they're bandwidth-heavy and it seems we can't easily produce a thumbnail or even slightly larger preview, but I use it to see if we can produce a useful "here is the artist's style with examples" page easily. BLongley 21:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What I had in mind was a new link next to the "Cover Art" section header which would say something like "View publications with cover images". It would take the user to a new page that would display a list of all Publications with cover art URLs. Display changes are typically easy to implement, so it would only take a few hours to do. Ahasuerus 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With programming, it's easy to generate such examples but the design issues of "which images - ISFDB ones, Amazon ones, Verified Amazon ones?" for example are very open for discussion. I've gone back to moderating a bit more than usual to rediscover some of the problems we have, and have identified a few more "quick wins" or "low-hanging fruit" we can accomplish, and there's probably even more we can do easily if we go back to "what does a new editor see?" and revisit our earliest pains. Wiki improvements aren't one of my priorities but I think they might be more easily accomplished than some of my desired DB changes - so while I'm now wishing for "VERIFIED" against a title when at least one pub has been verified, or a little icon against any pub that has got a good Coverart record attached, I'm willing to see what the Wiki can do for us in the meantime. BLongley 21:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Our Wiki handles a number of areas that we can't easily handle on the ISFDB side, e.g. structured discussions and image upload. We will presumably continue to use the Wiki in these areas indefinitely, but there also areas where we are using it as a temporary arrangement until we have beefed them up in ISFDB proper.

"Publisher (aka Publication) Series" or "complete list of issues for a magazine" would be examples of areas where we will need to migrate Wiki-side information to the core ISFDB application once we have added proper support for them. I'd hate to see us spending a lot of time/effort on the Wiki side only to have to re-do it on the ISFDB side. In some cases it's unavoidable, but Artist Categories seems to be something that we could quickly address on the ISFDB side and avoid the need for the extra work. Ahasuerus 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) It seems Herzbube wasn't the only enquirer, Dragoondelight wants more Signature Samples too. There's probably a few quick wins here while the library is comparatively small, but I'm thinking a "Sig Sample Request" area might be nice, and we want to cross-reference our current examples a bit more. Do you fancy the work? BLongley 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate artist listings

I was checking some cover art and came across several listings that may be the same person. The art is very similar, however, I have no current means to verify anything. ISFDB has Enric and Enrich listed in the database. I have art by Enrich Torres, who did many covers for Vampirella magazine. At http://www.vampilore.co.uk/artists/torresE.html He is listed as both Enrich Torres and Enric. Other links show him as Enrique Torres. Is there anyone in this community that can resolve this issue as to whether this is one artist or not? Thanks, Brian —The preceding unsigned comment added by Sfbooks52 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 October 2009

This is a not uncommon situation, particularly for artists. Artist credits are based on listings in publications (books and magazines) and these were sometimes printed rather carelessly. Credits are also based on various secondary sources, and these are sometimes in error also. Credits are also based on signatures, which are often stylized and hard to read. Then too, many artists are known by various forms of their names. For example, Ed Emshwiller is also known as "EMSH". When art is credited based on a signature, it is not always clear what form of the name should be used. In part because of this, we have often been more reluctant to set one canonical name and set up pseudonym relationships for artists than for authors.

In the specific case of Enric and Enrich, I have no personal knowledge. the askart site says that "Enrique Torres is primarily known as Enrich Torres" but does not mention the name "Enric". This auction site lists "Enric (Enrique Torres Prat)" as the creator of work that seems to be the same as that listed on the Vampirella site you list above. This site lists the artist's birth year as 1938. www.enrictorres.net lists the artist's name as "Enric Torres-Prat." and says "Enric signs his gallery works, 'Torres-Prat,' and his illustration works, 'Enric,'...". this auction site lists the artist as "Enrique Torres (Enric)".

It looks to me as if these are the same artist, but I will ask some others here for an opinion. -DES ^Talk 22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See ISFDB:Community Portal#Enric vs Enrich -- same artist? where I have asked for additional input into this question. -DES ^Talk 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctor to the Stars 2

I think I have identified the cover artist for this pub as Peter Bramley. Can you agree? Style and signature are i.m.o. identical to this cover, which is also not credited, but the signature is much clearer. Thanks, Willem H. 16:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The style certainly appears similar. I'll have to compare the sigs -- I actually have that ed of The Shape of Space I think -- to give an opinion on those. But it's probably a good catch. -DES ^Talk 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alpha 5

Scanned in a cover image and added a note about no artist to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is correct, and I've approved the edit. But please in future don't change the standard abbreviation LCCN for the library of Congress Control number (formerly card number) to the very non-standard LCCCN. "LCCN" is the abbreviation used by the LOC itself, by OCLC and other libraries, and by most publishers. It is almost as well known in the book world as "ISBN". It is really the best term to standardize on, IMO. -DES ^Talk 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that we will have a new field in the Pub record for LCCNs and OCLC numbers in the next 3-4 months (fingers crossed.) At that point we will need to run a conversion script since we have 2,497 pubs with LCCNs and 9,360 pubs with OCLC numbers. Ahasuerus 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I believe I have the same printing as you, but there's a few problems: George Alec Effinger should be Geo. Alec Effinger, Gardner Dozois should be Gardner R. Dozois, and "Baby, You Were Great" shouldn't have an exclamation mark. It doesn't appear to be a lazy "details from ToC" problem as the copyrights and ToC agree with the content title pages. Can you double-check? BLongley 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Magazine covers

I found a site, http://www.philsp.com/lists/s_magazines.html, that shows a lot of the SF magazine covers. Is it okay to upload them here, if missing? I do not possess them personally, but I assume the information is correct.

Sfbooks52 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The site is better known as Galactic Central, and we do have permission to link to his images.--Rkihara 01:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Unending Night by Smith

This pub is a pirated book published by Priory. Most of their books didn't show a publication date, containing only a copyright date, which is ironic because they failed to respect the copyright at all, by printing the books in Israel and distributing them in the US and UK without payments to the authors. (At least, this is what I've read about them.) Can you check to see if your copy actually has a publication date? The price would indicate a printing in the seventies, not 1964, which is the date of the first edition by Monarch. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams, Sweet Princes

I have added three excerpts to your verified edition of Sweet Dreams, Sweet Princes. Also, my copy credits Michael Banks rather than Michael A. Banks. Could you please check yours when you get a chance? TIA! Ahasuerus 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have changed "Michael A. Banks" to "Michael Banks" and made other changes in Joe Mauser Mercenary from Tomorrow as per this discussions with Mike. It looks like we may need to set up a separate sub-series for the Banks rewrites since they don't match the original series exactly. Ahasuerus 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Computer World

I have added the following notes to your verified Computer World:

• Cover art not credited and there is no visible signature.
• "An Original Novel" on the cover.
• "Complete and Unabridged" on the back cover.

Ahasuerus 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Home Sweet Home: 2010 A.D.

Changed Ing's name from "Dean C. Ing" to "Dean Ing" (Pub only) and added the following notes:

• Price in Canada C$3.75.
• "Dell/Emerald" on the cover.
• Cover art not credited and there is no identifiable signature.

Ahasuerus 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue at Hand

In my tp edition of July 1974 I read:
Second edition: September 1973
Clothbound Printing: April 1974
Paperbound Printings: September 1973, July 1974
In your verified entry you said: February 1974 for Clothbound Printing.--ErnestoVeg 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a typo in title: The Issue at Hand: Studies in Contemporary Magazine Scinece Fiction--ErnestoVeg 12:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Road to Middle-Earth: Revised and Expanded Edition

This title record has a note ("subtitle on cover page" etc.) that, in my opinion, relates to a publication, not the title itself. I am writing this on your page because currently you are the only one who has verified a pub for the title, so I assume that you created the title record. Do you think we could move the note to your verified pub? Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 14:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Since I already have your attention :-) could you please check whether the book you have is by "T. A. Shippey" (the current state of the pub record), or by "Tom Shippey"? Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Queue cleanup

Just a note that I have processed your held submissions to clean up the queue. Submitter feedback was fairly straightforward, so everything went reasonably smoothly. (And hope you are OK since you haven't been seen in the ISFDB-land in over 6 weeks!) Ahasuerus 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hammer and the Cross

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Friday - cover image added

Morning! This. [25]. I added a cover image from the 2nd printing previously loaded in ISFDB after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Puppet Masters - added cover artist credit/notation

Morning! This. [26]. Upon visually checking your cover art with my January 1990 edition, which credits the cover artist, I added the artist and a note referring to the source. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pournelle's High Justice

I've added the publication date to this second printing based on the listing in Locus #230 (February 1980). Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Preface of Tales of Wonder

It's a problem with your verified pub : Tales of Wonder.

I just entry this day Tales of Wonder (title of english edition) and I compared the Preface of Tale of Wonder (1917, 2nd edition) and the Foreword of The Last Book of Wonder (title of american edition) (1916, 1st edition], they are different. I looked to Gutenberg EBook and the text of the preface in Gutenberg EBook is the same as the the text of Foreword of The Last Book of Wonder. The order of content is also this of The Last Book of Wonder. The preface of third english edition of Tales of Wonder is the same as the second edition.

It's just for info. I don't know if something must be changed in ISFDB. Thanks. ChanurBe 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Forlorn Hope

Added a new cover scan and notes to The Forlorn Hope. Dana Carson 08:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Police your Planet

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 14:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Scatterbrain

Updated page number and content on your verified here. Hauck 19:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

:-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to be back, life has been rather disrupted of late, since I first was over burdened a work and now am between jobs. I have entered a few books from time to time, mostly library verifications. -DES ^Talk 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! Not a whole lot has changed policy-wise lately, but there have been a number of software changes/additions, including magazine grids, publication series, improvements to self-moderation, moderator warnings, "Check for Duplicates" improvements, Forthcoming Books improvements, Author Directory improvements, submission cancellations, magazine searches, improved tagging, etc. All changes are listed over on Development/Archive/2009 and Development/Recent Patches, although many are trivial. Ahasuerus 05:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've seen the self-mod changes already, ans the fields for publication series. I'll look into the other changes. -DES ^Talk 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And a belated "welcome back" from me too. I'm between jobs too, and have spent far too much time here since.... BLongley 01:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha'Penny

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"id" vs "pub" parameter name for fair use templates

I added a new template, Template:Miscellaneous Publication Content using Template:Table of Contents as the base, and was surprised in testing that it did not link back to the publication.

It turns out that when we click on "Upload new cover scan" for a publication that the code is dropping "Pub=<pub-tag>" onto the wiki page and not "Id=<pub-tag>". I have been using the "Upload new cover scan" link to create the stub upload pages for artist signatures, publisher logos, etc. scanned from publications by clicking and then changing the template name while using the parameters provided by the "Upload new cover scan" link.

I'm thinking 1) Update the templates to support both "pub" and "id" (I'm not sure if it matters which we give precedence to) 2) Convert the existing "id" based templates to use "pub" plus references to them. We could ask Ahasuerus to fix "Upload new cover scan" to use "id" if you have a strong preference for that name.

I see that Template:Cover Image Data uses "pub" and Template:Cover Image Data2 uses "id".

• Image License Tag templates that use "pub" - Author Image Data, Cover Image Data, Cover Image Data-PD Old, Cover Image Data-PD Renew, Cover Image Data1-2, Cover Image Data1-3, Illustration Image Data, Logo Image Data, Miscellaneous Publication Content, Sig Image Data, and Sig Image Data-Int

• Image License Tag templates that use "id" - Cover Image Data2, Cover Image Data3, Cover Image Data3-2, Cover Image Data3-3, and Table of Contents.

--Marc Kupper|talk 00:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked Template:Table of Contents and it appears that one is never used with named parameters meaning it should be safe to convert to using "pub" rather than "id". --Marc Kupper|talk 00:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these were ever inconsistent. The "Upload new cover scan" feature has drastically reduced the usage of and need for {{Cover Image Data2}} in particular. (By the way {{tl}} is very hand for linking to templates in a wiki discussion like this.)

Consistency seems good, and the templates are easier and quicker to change than the DB code. i suggest aht we change all of them to accept either "Pub" or "id". Sine it would be unlikely that any call used both, the order of precedence won't matter at all. I propose making "Pub" primary because of the larger number of calls that use that, so this will have a very slight positive performance impact. Any objections or further thoughts?

Oh I noticed that in your one call to {{Miscellaneous Publication Content}} you used parameters that the template never uses. This does no harm, but it does no particular good either, unless you are planning to add them -- values for unused parameters are simply hidden unless viewed in edit mode. -DES ^Talk 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"pub" and then "id" sounds good. I had not though about the larger number of calls for "pub" but that makes sense. I've used {{tl}} a lot but somehow was not thinking about that one earlier today.

The reason for the extra parameters on Image:DSRBDNCS3E1991 copyright page.gif was because I used the "Upload new cover scan" method which gives me the parameters for {{CID1}}. I was was concentrating on testing the new template and forgot to edit out irrelevant parameters. I just removed ARTIST but left the others in just in case someone later expands the miscellaneous template to be more like the ones for covers. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up {{Miscellaneous Publication Content}} to accept either pub or id but there's one minor bug in that if I have an unnamed first parameter and specify the title by name that it's messing up the display. You can see that here. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Solution

I discovered the issue with that call -- an aspect of mediaWiki template language I did not know. Apparently unnammed parameters are not ment to be used in vertical style, some when a call goes

{{Fake template |Unnamed |Parm=value }}

a use of the first (unnamed) parameter inside the template will display as "Unnamed<CR>" (where <CR> stands for a carriage return character) and this breaks the external link syntax that {{P}} uses. The only fix seems to be "don't do that" i.e. don't use an unnamed parameter immediatly followd by a line-end, isnted it must be followd by a pipe (|) or the template call close (}}). See User:DESiegel/MPCtest for a demonstration. I hope this helps. -DES ^Talk 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for hunting that down. I did some testing and see that:

• You can't split an internal or external link over two lines. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Links is silent on this but when I tried to split then the left "[" or "[[" becomes visible an the link content must be handled like ordinary wikitext. This makes sense as they would not want the parser to keep scanning for the end of a link forever should there be a "[" on a page.
• Anonymous, numbered, and named parameters can contain embedded newlines (<CR>) and they are part of the parameter value. Apparently leading and trailing newlines are stripped (or changed to spaces) for numbered and named parameters but not anonymous parameters. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates is silent on this and I did not test it on newer versions of MW to see if it's been fixed.

As you noted, the solution is "don't do that." --Marc Kupper|talk 04:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This turns out to be documented in Help:Template# Parameters and in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template#Parameter_definition_with_explicit_or_implicit_parameter_name -DES ^Talk 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Oh I'd like to change the wording on your template slightly to use the following wording: "... Typically, Miscellaneous Publication Content images would include scans of a title page, copyright page, copyright acknowledgments, table of contents, and similar material from a specific publication. In this case the scan is from the from the publication..."

Your previous wording seems to imply that the current publication is "typical" which is obviously not what is intended. -DES ^Talk 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense and so I fixed the wording. Thank you for the help. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Isn't scanning in interior material rather close to copyright infringement? --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in my view. In fact it is actually less problematic than scanning covers. First, a book cover is arguably a separate piece of art, a separate work, and so a scan captures the whole of it. But a table of contents or a copyright page is clearly only a very small percentage of a book, so that branch of the fair use test favors the interior content more than it does the covers. Second, a book cover is, normally, a work of original art. But here is no significant originality to the arrangement of text on a copyright page or a table of contents, so an image is not protected if a transcription would not be -- that is if the information can be quoted, an image can be displayed. That covers the "nature of the work" branch of the fair use test. Third, a table of contents or a copyright page or similar page has no financial value standing on its own, and reproducing it in no way harms the market for the original, which is another branch of the fair use test. Fourth, the reproduction is done for scholarly and informational purposes, which also favors fair use. Fifth no profit is made, indeed no income is derived, which also favors fair use. I am fully confident that posting a scan of a single page or a small number of pages from a book, which do not include any of the actual text of the book, but only front or back matter, would be so clear cut a case of fair use that no one would ever take the matter to court, and if anyone did, it would be tossed out promptly. Of course i am not a lawyer. But I have studied copyright and fair use law fairly extensively for a non-lawyer: I have read both the copyright act and several court decisions under it, and several books by lawyers analyzing this subject. -DES ^Talk 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Maltzberg

Hi, I assume the credit for Maltzberg here is a typo. Otherwise it looks like it should be made a variant for Malzberg. Cheers Jonschaper 05:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes it was a data entry error, either by me or that I failed to catch when verifying. I have corrected it and done the needed title merge. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 06:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Credo by Onions

I own a recent volume in which "Credo" is included. I've read it, and it's most definitely an essay. Best, BrendanMoody 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:BrendanMoody. -DES ^Talk 03:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bloodline

Added an image to [this], was there a Canadian price on the pub? --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but I almost always enter a Canadian price if one is present. -DES ^Talk 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There was, I've added it, and the image is correct for my pub. thanks. -DES ^Talk 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chantry Guild

User:Dsorgen has uploaded a new cover image for this verified pub I am about to approve the pub edit. --Willem H. 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

covers for Pournelle pubs

Dsorgen has added a cover to your verified Blood and Iron. --MartyD 10:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And likewise, Call to Battle. --MartyD 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And Armageddon. --MartyD 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Covers are correct, thank you. -DES ^Talk 15:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pub date for verified pub Police!!! by Robert W. Chambers

2006-06-06 for this pub?--swfritter 16:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. Obviously i didn't change the pub date when cloning. Sorry. -DES ^Talk 20:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stockton's The Lady or the Tiger and Other Stories

Should the afterword by Jane Yolen in this book be shortfiction? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall off-hand. May well be an error. I'll check. -DES ^Talk 14:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing review in a verified Asimov's?

You are the verifier for the Winter 1977 issue of Asimov's SF Magazine, so I'll make this suggestion to you. On p. 119, along with the review of Tiptree's 10,000 Light Years From Home, Charles Brown also reviews Dozois's booklet The Fiction of James Tiptree, Jr.. This was included within the book, but as Charles Brown points out, is also available independently. Thus it seems that this should be listed as another review. —The preceding unsigned comment added by Chavey (talk • contribs) 13:16, 13 October 2010

That makes sense. I will see to the matter. thanks. -DES ^Talk 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Witch Queen of Lochlann

I just wanted to let you know that I intend to edit the December 1969 entry which you verified. I have the book in front of me and I believe that the signature of the cover artist is not Kassim but rather Kossin which would be Sanford Kossin. Rhschu. 1 November, 2010

Thank you for letting me know. i will double check my copy, but you may well be correct. -DES ^Talk 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alpha 5

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette Holds

Are you going to do something with those? It's a a bit embarrassing to have them on the queue so long. BLongley 01:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Not sure what you've done there, but the welcome for Bjgallersmith seems to be signed by Mike Christie although you're the most recent changer. Probably was accurate at the time, but as Mike is mostly inactive now this might not be a wise move. BLongley 01:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The change to User talk:Bjgallersmith actually made no change in its appearance. Mike Christie welcomed him back in 2006, and the timestamp still shows that. What I did was apply "subst" to the welcome template, so that future changes to welcome don't affect the page, and so that an edit of the welcome section does not make it easy for the user to edit the template itself. -DES ^Talk 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to use subst.... Thanks for cleaning up after me. --MartyD 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what happened, just saw that the Revision history showed DES doing something but there was no new text from him visible. Did this trigger a new message for Bjgallersmith? (No real big problem here, just thought I'd point out how much it confuses the Wiki-Incompetents like me.) BLongley 01:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki templates, e.g., "{{Welcome}}" generate text in the page dynamically (essentially, each time the page is viewed, although it's a little more clever and caches the results). So if whatever text the template would produce changes, the next time the page using the template is viewed, that page's contents are different. To have the benefit of template text without incurring the possibility of page contents shifting, there's the "subst" function, which extracts the template's current contents and embeds it in the page (as if you had typed it). "{{subst:Welcome}}". All DES did was replace an instance of the former usage of the template with the latter. Because the welcome template has not changed, the visible text of each version of the page is identical. The underlying wikitext producing the visible text, however, is different. As for notification of messages, I believe it would have triggered such a notification, as it is a new revision of the page. --MartyD 11:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Saki's "Down Pens"

You verified this book and this Project Gutenberg ebook. The book lists the title 'Down Pens' where as the ebook lists the title Down Pens. However, when I look at the Project Gutenberg ebook, I see it listed as "Down Pens". Am I missing something or should the second version be changed from 'Down Pens' to "Down Pens"? Also, it looks like the first one should be made a variant of the second one? --JLaTondre 22:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Murray Leinster's "The Grandfather's War"

As a primary verifier of a publication containing The Grandfather's War , you input on this discussion is requested. A question has been raised about the proper location of the apostrophe. Thanks. --JLaTondre 00:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

cover for Boundary

User:AndonSage has uploaded a cover for your verified Boundary, replacing a broken Amazon link. I approved it while approving a second cover upload, but I had no original to compare it to. --MartyD 12:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dtardon's submissions of Grantville Gazette"

Just a note that I have taken Dtardon's submissions off hold. I hope everything is OK on your end and your hiatus is not due to Bad Things (tm) happening. Ahasuerus 07:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also did a hard reject on the Miss Mapp submission. Ahasuerus 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

House of Zeor cover artist

You are the primary verifier for the 1981 edition of House of Zeor, bu Jacqueline Lichtenberg. The cover artist is credited as "Paul Alexander", and in the notes you (presumably) write "No visible signatiure on cover. Source of cover credit is unknown (although it does look like Alexander's style) and cover credit is not verifed by DES.". In looking at my copy of this book, I see the signature at the bottom right corner of the cover, aligned vertically. I made a closeup scan of that signature on my web site if you want to see it. I'm updating the notes to reflect this. Chavey 03:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Omnitopia Dawn

I restructured the notes for Omnitopia Dawn plus added more. Generally I would not have done a wholesale slash but you had things like:

"Jacket cover images by permission of Getty (tree) and Shutterstock" (copyrt pg & back DJ flap)

However, it turned out the the copyright and back DJ statements were not the same as "quoted" as they are:

"Jacket cover images by permission of Getty and Shutterstock." (copyrt pg)

"Photos by Getty (tree) and Shutterstock" (back DJ flap)

I thought about continuing your "(copyrt pg)/(back DJ flap)" postfix style but that was getting messy as I added more detail such as "1 2 ... 8 9", "Printed in the U.S.A." etc. and so I did the restructure. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Artist for Doctor to the Stars

I added Peter Bramley (from the signature) as cover artist to this verified pub. Also adapted the notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 11:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Issue at Hand

A few questions about your verified pub The Issue at Hand:

1. Could you double check the title of "One Way Trup". Chalker & Owings have it listed as "One Way Trip" for the first edition.
2. You have the pub record listed under the Atheling pseudonym, but have that pub record attached to the Blish title record. I think it should be attached to the Atherling variant title.
3. I also wanted to ask about the handful of titles in the contents that are credited to Blish. All these questions came up as I was working the first edition (from secondary sources). I assume that these few pieces are credited (directly) to Blish in the book. Chalker & Owings made no distinction, so I went ahead and entered them under the Atheling variant for the first edition.

Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

C. J. Cherryh's "Paladin"

I added a note to your verified edition of this book. The book claims to be a 2nd printing, but according to our records is at least the 4th printing. I added the note: The copyright page says "Second printing, January 2002", and says the first printing was July, 1988. According to our list of editions, though, this is (at least) the 4th paperback Baen printing, counting that 1988 edition as the 1st printing. Chavey 06:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dune Appendix titles

Hi. In this publication of Dune you have added this title. In a publication of the novel that I own, this title appears with two spelling differences: I have "Almanak en-Ashraf", whereas your title says "Almanaken-Ashraf" (no space after Almanak). In addition I have "Noble" instead of your "Nobel". Another title appears in my book as "Cartographic Notes for Map", in contrast to just "Cartographic Notes" in your pub. Could you please check that in your publication both titles appear exactly as in the ISFDB title records, including spelling mistakes? Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 20:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Kar Kaballa/Tower of the Medusa

New images, changes one artist credit [signature doesn't match interior credit] and added notes to [Kar Kaballa/Tower of the Medusa] --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

J. S. Le Fanu's Ghostly Tales, Volume 4

I'm splitting Le Fanu's grouping of stories, "Ghost Stories of Chapelizod" into its constituent parts including the appearance in your verified copy of this ebook. It looks like you haven't posted to the wiki in a while, so I'm going to proceed with this without waiting for a response. Give a holler if you have any issues with the change. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Gottlief -> Bob Gottlieb in The Grantville Gazette

I changed Gottlief to Gottlieb on "They Have Bread Mold..." in your verified The Grantville Gazette, adding a note. Based on this discussion with a print-edition verifier and evidence on the Grantville Gazette site. --MartyD 10:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

and Robert to Bob, based on the further follow-up. --MartyD 11:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ring of Fire

While adding notes to the Ring of Fire hardcover edition, I noticed you had asked Scott Latham some questions which he doesn't appear to have answered. I can answer them...

• For "The Three Rs": The table of contents does not use an apostrophe, but the title of the story on page 351 does. I don't know which one should be considered correct.
• Virginia DeMarce is the correct spelling.

AndonSage 22:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DES seems to be even more inactive than Scott, who seems to still edit but without Wiki discussion. To answer your implied question - Title Page of a short story trumps ToC entry. BLongley 18:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

New Destinies 6

Added scan for your verified here. Hauck 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Short Stories by Saki

Hi, in this verified pub I have changed the publisher "Everyman's Library / J. M. Dent" to "J. M. Dent" and added "Everyman's Library" as pub series. Thanks! P-Brane 06:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Cryoburn

Replaced amazon scan (which was slightly different) and added note for your verified here. Hauck 10:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The enemy papers

Replaced the amazon scan (which was different) for your verified here. Hauck 10:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Unincorporated Man

I updated your Primary (transient) verified pub The Unincorporated Man - Commercial based on my Primary verification of the The unincorporated Man - SFBC Edition. I changed the name of the photographer / cover artist in the database and the text note from your entry of "Chief Baker" to match my copy in hand which states "Chad Baker". Seems like a simple typo or misread in bad lighting, but if you recall that your copy definitely had Chief we can investigate further. Thanks Kevin 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Saber & Shadow - notes

I corrected spelling errors in the notes, and removed the "First printing by number line" note because there isn't any number line in the book, for your verified Saber & Shadow. AndonSage 08:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Magic (Kuttner version)

I added a note to Mountain Magic (Kuttner version) and I also added the contents of the 'collection' included in this anthology. (It's a weird construct). Because of this, the contents now list 'Old Nathan' a collection... and also list the 5 pieces of fiction that are contained in Old Nathan. I think this best describes the contents when viewed in the database, and also helps people find a copy of those short stories if they are looking at a story bibliography. When you return and review this, feel free to open a discussion on this solution if you have any issues with it. Thanks Kevin 23:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I scanned and entered a new cover for this publication. The new one has a little better resolution and won't disappear when Amazon deletes their image. Hope you like it. Sjmathis 03:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Emlyn Wil[l]iams

I hope someday you'll be back and be able to check this one out. In your verified Short Stories by Saki, you cited Emlyn "Wiliams" with one "l". This seemed to be a typo from what I could find here, here, and here. So I changed the spelling on the title and in the notes. Apologies if the intended correction is in error. --MartyD 11:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Brother Death - notes

I added to and reformatted the notes for your verified Brother Death. AndonSage 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

David Drake - Space Infantry

I updated your verified pub Space Infantry by correcting the author of His Truth Goes Marching On from Jerry E. Pournelle which was listed on the copyright notice, to simply Jerry Pournelle which appeared on the title page. This deleted the variant title (as by) from the database since this was the only occurrence. Thanks Kevin 16:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

David Drake - Hammer's Slammers - Table of Organization and Equipment

I corrected the spelling of Table of Organization and Equipment, Hammer's Regiment. Previously it used the word Orginization, and I've corrected this to Organization. This matches the spelling in the three publications I own where it appears. When you get a chance, you might want to double check your verified publication, but I suspect this typo has been haunting the database for several years. I verified all 3 pubs with the wrong spelling, and only caught it when I was editing something else later. - Thanks - Kevin 06:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette II - edition?

Can you verify which e-book edition of Grantville Gazette II that you have, please? You have verified the March 2006 edition, but two things don't match up... 1) "An Invisible War" is a complete story in this edition, not just Part 1, and 2) "Electronic version by WebWrights http://www.webwrights.com" which you have in the notes does not occur anywhere in the March 2006 e-book. It might be in the March 2004 edition. Thanks. AndonSage 08:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the Amazon cover image with the cover image from the e-book, and modified and added notes, to your verified Grantville Gazette II. After these are approved, I will be fixing the contents. AndonSage 04:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"moderately good with CSS"

... is better than most of us claim! Have you got a local ISFDB working at the moment? As we could do with those skills, if you can develop and test them. BLongley 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And welcome back! I'll let you work through your talk-page, there have been many questions since your last disappearance. BLongley 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but setting up a local copy is high on my to do list -- I may be able to learn some skills, provide a public demo of same, and do some good for the site. I plan to set up such a local copy -- or at least start doing so, within the next week. -DES ^Talk 23:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! It's an interesting exercise in itself, and we are short of testers. And if you're trying it on anything other than Windows XP, our instructions could do with updating. And even for the ones we are pretty sure of, screenshots of the process might be nice. We're getting more and more people that would like more hand-holding through anything even vaguely technical. BLongley 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do so. -DES ^Talk 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we currently have a backlog of changes that have been committed but haven't been tested/installed yet. If you grab the latest copy of the ISFDB software from SourceForge, it will include everything that has been committed. You will probably want to pick a few Python scripts that haven't been modified lately as your test cases. That way you will avoid collision with the recently scripts that may be changed in the next few weeks as I go through the backlog. Ahasuerus 04:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind, thanks. -DES ^Talk 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Such changes are probably my fault. :-/ (I seem to have been the major pest for Ahasuerus in the last few months.) I think most of the outstanding changes are correctly recorded in Development#Outstanding_changes but if not, let us know.BLongley 05:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A few were missing, but I added them last week when I was reconciling the new development server with CVS and the live server. The process took hours and it occurs to me that we may want to come up with some way of downloading what's installed on the live server. A new tag, perhaps? Ahasuerus 05:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you can tell us how to use CVS better, that might make things simpler for people to download the current live version rather than the development version. (If you're feeling REALLY masochistic, I can send you the changes I haven't committed yet!) BLongley 05:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will see if I can suggest CVS usage changes after I do a test install. I will also wait on any uncommitted changes until I have a version up and running, then we'll see. I suspect it is better to have too much development work than too little, :). -DES ^Talk 05:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're a bit ahead on the development work (I think it's about five months now) which is why I'm asking for testers. I think I've got about 25 modules that need testing that aren't committed yet. Only on about three areas though, so maybe we will catch up. BLongley 05:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unending Night

Scanned in an image for [this]. Welcome back! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Preface (The Gods of Pegāna)

A new editor, Mvhetzel, pointed out that Preface (The Gods of Pegāna) is an in-universe essay, so we may want to change its type to "Shortfiction". Since it appears in 3 verified pubs and you are one of the verifiers, I am leaving this message on your page to see if you agree. TIA! Ahasuerus 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Icerigger Alan Dean Foster 1981

Added cover art for this pub BarDenis 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sheepfarmer's Daughter", by Elizabeth Moon

I added a month of publication to your verified edition of this pub, based on the data listed in the 4th printing. Chavey 07:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The War God's Own

I uploaded a cover scan for http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49533 The War God's Own. Bob 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fortune's Fool", by Mercedes Lackey

I've raised a discussion about books published by "Luna", suggesting we change this to "Luna / Harlequin". This includes your verified Fortune's Fool. If you can, please visit this discussion. Chavey 15:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Science-Fiction Handbook, Revised: A Guide to Writing Imaginative Literature

Added scan for your verified here. Hauck 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

The map in this pub is the same as that in the earlier volume in the series, "Beguilement". In that volume, it is credited to Lois McMaster Bujold. You may want to change both the date and the author for this item in http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?146871 Legacy. Bob 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Passage

This pub, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?250055 Passage, does not show the map (same map as in Legacy and Beguilemant) in the contents. You may want to include it. Bob 13:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Hastur Cycle

I'm converting the Cthulhu Cycle series into a publication series and you have the first book in the series, The Hastur Cycle. A publication series makes more sense to me as at least two of the titles in the series have earlier publications not by Chaosium. I'm also only placing the first printings and editions in this series. Chaosium seems to have an overarching publication series Call of Cthulhu Fiction. I've seen notes that Chaosium has abandoned the Cthulhu Cycle numbering, though I'm not certain exactly when that occurred. In any case, if you agree, I'd like to make this change to The Hastur Cycle. I'll also try to track down an image at the same time. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 00:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've acquired a copy of this book and I'm going ahead with the changes above. I'm also going to add Tierney poem on page i and correct the page number for the Campbell story. Lastly I'm going to re-work the Carter titles. I'm going to remove the group titles Tatters of the King and Litany to Hastur and mention the groupings in the notes. The four individual poems are already in Carter's bibliography. Lastly, I'm going to change The King in Yellow to be a variant of the title by Carter and Price as just by Carter as it is credited on the title page. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Price of Spring

I added some words to the notes for http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?278965 The Price of Spring. I also uploaded a new image and corrected the spelling of the map artist's name (Aher, not Aber). Bob 23:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jodi4O

Just a note that User:Jodi4O is a "link spam" account. Spammers use user name generators and after a while you learn to recognize them, e.g. see "Marco95", "Louanne70", "RicoKS", "Bell3E", etc in the Deletion log. They also frequently start their posts with "Not much to tell about myself", "I am impressed with this site", "Glad to be a part of this Wiki" and so on followed by a link to the site that they are paid to promote.

P.S. And welcome back! :) Ahasuerus 15:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. I did more or less suspect linkspam but didn't realize this fit a pattern of generated account names. I had hoped it was someone genuinely interested but also trying to self-promote, as some do. I did delete the link -- should I block? -DES ^Talk 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to be back, probably will be off and on. -DES ^Talk 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, block away! Ahasuerus 15:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

AuthorHeader

You created a new Author page (here) but removed the autoloaded template, despite the warning not to. Mhhutchins 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

oops. Corrected. I truly failed to notice the auto-loaded template, but I presume it was there. This is embarrassing since I created that template, and even if I wiped out the auto-load, i should have added it back myself. Thanks for pointing this out. -DES ^Talk 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the ways this can happen by accident is to attempt to create an Author page when you're logged in to ISFDB, but not logged in to the wiki. The wiki then asks you to login, you do so, and the wiki takes you back to the page you were working on -- but with that template deleted! (Bug Report 3403688.) So it may not really have been your fault. Chavey 17:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall that happening, but perhaps it did. But even if there had been no autoloaded template for whatever reason, I should have remembered to add it. Anyway its there now. (I suspect that in the sequence you mention its not so much that the autoloaded template is deleted per se, as that the autoload never happens because the normal sequence is interrupted.) -DES ^Talk 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that way and I've never found a solution. BLongley 18:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaiman's Neverwhere

Can you confirm that the bonus story (on page 373) is identified correctly in this record? I have an advance reading copy of the paperback and it gives the title of the story as "Smoke and Mirrors", the collection from which the story was reprinted. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try to locate the book and confirm these details. -DES ^Talk 15:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the book now in hand. On page 372 is an intro/blurb for the collection, which says, in part:

"Smoke and Mirrors is a mesmerizing collection of haunting and sophisticated short stories, several of which have never before been published. The story that follows: "We Can Get Them for You Wholesale", makes it clear why Stephan King calls him 'a treasure house of story'."

Then on page 373 the story starts with the title on that page being just "Smoke and Mirrors". It seems clear I took the title from this note. How do you think the record should read? -DES ^Talk 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My copy has the same note on page 372. When I created this record, I followed ISFDB policy by giving the title that is stated on the piece's title page. Ultimately, it's your decision on how your record should be entered. You could use the "obvious error" exception as a defense. Mhhutchins 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dragons of Light

Added an image to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that image matches my pub. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 00:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zelerod's Doom

I've corrected the interior art credit for your verified pub from "Gain Bennett" to Gail Bennett: it's barely visible in 4pt type, but it's there. Also notifying Chavey (P2). Cheers. PeteYoung 17:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu #27 - Untold Tales by Clark Ashton Smith

I'm going to cancel the submission on this one. Michael made the same point you did. I'm going to submit another edit to the pub, naming Price as the editor. He is credited as editor on the back cover of the pub ("Cryptic Publications/Robert M. Price, Editor"). No one else is credited as editor in the pub itself. So ISFDB standard would be that Price should be the editor in the basic entry.

However, "Editorial Shards" in Crypt 26 contains the following: (1)"...reports by Steve Behrends, CAS scholar and editor of 'Untold Tales'." and (2)in a discussion concerning one story "The Brahmin's Wisdom", "Behrends had not intended to include it, and now he and Roy A. Squires have set your meddlesome editor straight." I conclude from this the both Price and Behrends edited Cthulhu #27 (Behrends gathering the material and writing the Introduction, and Price assembling his input for publication), and after approval of the new edit that names Price as editor, make the title a variant with the above information in the notes, and both men as editors. I would like to change the title in the same variant to "Crypt of Cthulhu #27, Hallomas 1984 - Untold Tales by Clark Ashton Smith", but I don't want to do that without concurrence of the primary verifier. Bob 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Non Genre Magazine Discussion

Please take a look at this discussion. We would value your opinions and I probably should have invited you earlier. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

John Conway's "Suburbia"

DES, you haven't posted in a couple of weeks, so I earlier today decided to review the Fixer submissions that you had put on hold. The first one, John Conway's Suburbia, turned out to be SF. According to the author's Web site:

• 'Book 3,' or rather 'Suburbia' is finally with us. This time I've changed genres from 'satire' to 'science fiction.' It may be set in the 'same universe' (a phrase I keep hearing when people talk about Prometheus in relation to Alien) as Obsession, Voyeur and Icons, but their universe has suddenly got a lot more scary.

Based on this statement, I approved the submission and added notes to the Title record. I'll take a look at the other one later today. Ahasuerus 21:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Ditto Stein and Candle Detective Agency, Vol. 2: Cold Wars although it required some additional TLC. Ahasuerus 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. I also rejected the change that would have affected "Wednesday’s Night in Widdershin" by Robin Spriggs due to lack of response and added a note to the title record. Ahasuerus 19:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Demolished Man

I added a brief note that the price was from Locus, on your verified pub The Demolished Man. - Thanks Kevin 02:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I. Asimov: A Memoir

David, a minor thing worth checking on your verified pub I. Asimov: my 4th printing has roman numerals to page xii, with Asimov's introduction starting on the unnumbered page xi, whereas your 2nd printing has roman numerals only to page x – that's where the Contents finish. Cheers. PeteYoung 08:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dune

Re: Dune
Adding LCCN to notes.--Astromath 23:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Phases

Added a Canadian cover price to your verified pb. Thanks. PeteYoung 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Silent Invaders

Re [27] Don Ivan Punchatz's original painting for this title is for sale here [28] Welshgriffin 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Issue at Hand

David, I've corrected a typo in the title of your verified pub The Issue at Hand: the subtitle's spelling of the word "science" was "scinece". PeteYoung 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Karig's Zotz!

I've added notes to Karig's Zotz! noting and linking secondary sources. I've also added the price from Tuck and noted its source. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 11:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"His Majesty's Dragon", by Naomi Novik

Your verified publication includes the "in-universe essay" titled "From the Sketchbook of Sir Edward Howe". This was listed as an essay, but following ISFDB standards, I have changed this to "shortfiction" and added a note on its title page that is an in-universe essay. Chavey 00:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Far Side of Time

Because you did all of the hard work, I'm notifing you that I have added a cover image and the OCLC and LCCN links to The Far Side of Time that was edited by Roger Elwood. MLB 11:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A Boy and His Tank

I added words to the the notes for A Boy and His Tank. Bob 16:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Wing

I added a cover scan and some words to the notes for The Dark Wing and to The Dark Path. I also added words to the notes for The Dark Ascent and The Dark Crusade. Bob 15:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to user rights

Just to let you know that as per Moderator Policy, a moderator who hasn't been active for a over a year has his moderator flag removed. When this policy was adopted, the rationale was that an inactive moderator would have a hard time keeping up with all the policy and software changes that we have been going through.

Since you haven't been active since mid-2012, I have turned your "moderator" flag off, so when you come back, you won't be able to approve submissions. No need to panic, though :) as we have a list of Moderator Qualifications and you can reclaim the ability to approve submissions once you go through the process. Hope to see you again when you have time for the ISFDB! Ahasuerus 04:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Empire of Ivory cover

I replaced a broken Amazon cover link on your verified Empire of Ivory. --MartyD 14:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)