User talk:Deagol

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Deagol, 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:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

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! BLongley 23:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Warbots

You can enter the artwork for Body Armor: 2000 as contents of type "INTERIORART" rather than leave the details in notes. BLongley 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ISBN formatting

Hi. The software automatically formats ISBNs, so correcting hyphenation by editing won't do anything. You can't actually force an ISBN to look like what's printed in the book. But, what do you think is wrong with the hyphenation in No Brother, No Friend? (I'm responsible for most of the ISBN formatting and search handling, so I'm happy to take a look at it if it's incorrect). There are only two ISBN groups where we deliberately do not format correctly (according to the ISBN definition) due to widespread mis-formatting by Tor: 0-765-x (should be 0-765x-) and 0-812-x (should be 0-812x-). Thanks. --MartyD 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Playboy Press books I have give the ISBN as 0-872-x rather than the 0-872xx- given here. Deagol 11:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're interested, see this discussion, which has some links to places providing ISBN information. I checked, and it does not look like 872 is a group. If it were, only one publisher would use it (or a series of publishers, if one bought another). 87216 is Playboy. 87223 began life as Fawcett (?), then Seaview, then Playboy, then Wideview -- don't know went on with that one. 87220 is Hackett. 87226 is Bedrick. 87232 is Pendulum. 87249 is University of South Carolina. 87286 is City Lights. 87287 is Libraries Unlimited. We have publications by all of those in our database. Unlike the Tor cases above, where we either had no other publishers or the only other publisher likewise mis-formatted the ISBN on its publications, here if we were to deliberately misformat 872 as a group, the affects would be pretty widespread. Do you have a lot of the Playboy pubs? If so, is the 0-872- formatting consistent? --MartyD 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I only have about a dozen, so I think it is probably best to leave things as they are. It wouldn't be the first time a publisher has introduced errors into their publishing details. Deagol 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian publications of At the Narrow Passage

Hi again. A question/comment about one of the notes in each of Mercenari Del Tempo and I Mercenari Del Tempo: Are you citing a series the books appear in? If so, you can use the "Pub. Series" field to record that information (Pub Series is for a series set up by the publisher for a set of otherwise unrelated books; Title Series is for works that have some sort of connection. You would expect a "title series" to remain the same no matter who the publisher is, while you would expect the pub series to change/go away if the book were published by another publisher). --MartyD 11:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a series. I was following the convention used for other books in the series. All sorted now. Deagol 12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Publisher series is a relatively new feature. The only option previously was to record it in the notes. That's probably what you are seeing. --MartyD 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Like many comparatively new features, our documentation improvement is lagging behind the software improvements. :-/ Sorry for the chaotic nature of advice at present. BLongley 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Spiegl's Science Fiction Stories

Hello, Deagol. I am a German collector and stumbled over your edit of this pub. Here in Germany the publishing series is considered to be either Ullstein 2000 or Ullstein Science Fiction (which one remains to be seen when I get a grip tomorrow on my copies: I don't have 'Science Fiction Stories 84' but others from that publishing period (e.g. #80)). Would it be okay for you if I'd change your edit in that regard? Stonecreek 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Stonecreek. There is a publishing series under the Ullstein 2000 imprint called Science Fiction Stories. It contains at least 92 books. See this website. I am new to ISFDB, but it looks like all books from the various Ullstein imprints are listed under Ullstein. It may be that they could be better arranged by separating into the various imprints, but I think that one of the moderators would be best placed to make that decision. Not sure where it is, but there must be somewhere here to put the question to them. Deagol 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Most moderators monitor the recent changes page, so discussions like this will always draw some attention. The easiest way to question all moderators is the moderator noticeboard, one of the subpages of the community portal.
About Ullstein 2000 vs Science Fiction Stories, Stonecreek is right. We have two kinds of series, as MartyD explained above. Ullstein 2000 would be the publisher's series (can only be published by Ullstein Verlag). "Science Fiction Stories" could be a title series, where you connect the title records. Take care to check the series title though, it must be unique and we already have a series called Science Fiction Stories. I would recommend "Science Fiction Stories (Ullstein)" or "Science Fiction Stories (Ullstein 2000)" for the title series. --Willem H. 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense. Help yourself Stonecreek. Deagol 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"Most moderators" may be an over-statement. All Moderators are encouraged to put the Moderator Noticeboard on their watchlist, but there is no requirement that they do so, or even if they do, to act on anything they see there. Sometimes an Editor is just so good at his/her own submissions that it's easier to let him/her approve their own submissions. As we improve our coverage of "foreign" titles and the software we are going to need even more moderators with new areas of expertise - I may be a prolific contributor and moderator and coder (no stats available for the last) but I can foresee the day where I think "ISFDB doesn't need me any more" - I really can't deal with foreign languages at the same level that a native could. But it will need people like you, so keep on editing! BLongley 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your participation. I'll change the pub. series to 'Ullstein Science Fiction' after looking at SF Stories 80. Ullstein restarted their SF line in 1980 with a new, continuous numeration (31...) and the 'Ullstein 2000' label seems only to be a moderative statement, soon to be lost from around #31037.

Concerning the editing of 'SF-Stories' into a title series: I can't recommend it at this point. Because there'd be conflicting title series and overall incongruency, since this wasn't a pure series of originally edited anthologies but there were issues of 'World's Best SF' by Wollheim/Carr (which already is a title series) and even collections (e.g. by Bradbury or Clarke). Maybe a later addition to the software would make it possible to distinguish between title series in different languages, but at this point this is not possible, I think. But because of the fuzziness of this series I can live as well with the status quo.Stonecreek 10:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

At looking at the entry of #84 I found a possible typo: I guess it has to be Rob Chilson or Robert Chilson instead of Walter Spiegl as author of one of the stories? Could you please take a look? Stonecreek 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange. Not sure how that happened. It was definitely correct when I first added it. Fixed now, pending approval. Deagol 17:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Deagol&oldid=239661"