User talk:Explorer1000

Welcome!

Hello, Explorer1000, 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
• Field-by-field guide to entering new publications into the database
• Help:Getting Started
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• FAQ
• Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
• Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
• Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

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! -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2021 (EDT)

Thanks JLaTondre! Only saw your message now.--Explorer1000 22:21, 2 September 2021 (EDT)

Tightbeam, #280

Hello,

A few minor things:

• With magazines and fanzines, we do not use the series number at all - we leave that empty.
• We build yearly title records so that the author's page is not overwhelmed with hundreds of entries. This is always a second step and I just did that for this one and for the ones approved before
• I moved the link for the whole fanzine up on the series page. Adding it into the title record is not needed :)
• A minor cleanup was required of your html (you are missing an "<" in one of your closing "i"s.
• "From" is never capitalized when not starting a title or subtitle so fixed that. Same for "with". On the other hand "if" is always capitalized. More info here.
• When there are muliple entries on the same page, you can used piped numbers to sort them. See the help page for more information. Let me know if you want to try to do this one or if you want me to do it for you as an example.

The result is here. Technically speaking you should not have page number in the Pages of an ebook (per the rules) but being PDF, we can keep it for now. :) Let me know if you have any questions/concerns.

Hi Annie! Thanks for your message and also for attending to the issues you raised.

• I didn't realize that the series number is not used at all. Having looked into it further, I think it is only added in the Notes field. In the case of Tightbeam #280-#284, however, I had the problem of dealing with issues that were not provided with a publication date. Was I right in using the issue numbers in lieu of a month and year?

• Yes - if there is no month and year to be used, we use whatever identifier is needed. You did that correctly. I was talking about the series Number field (when you are adding a new magazine/fanzine, the 6th one from the top :) That field is used for regular books but not for magazines. Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. Noted!--Explorer1000 17:03, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

• Should I have used the 'publication series' field to build the yearly title records? I had the impression this was only for book series. Or do you mean that the yearly title records can only be created after a new publication has been approved and added to the database?

• Correct - pub series is only for books. The yearly series is build based on the title series, not the pub series. It is always done AFTER approval - during the creation of the fanzine, the title record and the publication get the same name (whatever title you put on it). Once approved, the title record (the one of type EDITOR) is edited to change its name and date (or merged into the existing yearly record if one exists for that year, that magazine and that editor (note the small letters - editor as in author)). Nothing to worry about during submission - it always happens as a second step. Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. Is this a second step I can currently do, or only as a moderator?--Explorer1000 17:03, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Yep - if your approving moderator does not beat you to it (or another editor who sees the magazine and decide to help), you can do it on your own once the first submission is approved. :) Annie 17:11, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

• I note what you say about putting the URL in the series page rather than enter it for each issue.
• I saw the typo of the missing tag component after submitting the entry - I'm glad you were able to fix that. :)

• Partially why we have the two sets of eyes system :) Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

It would be great if we could see how a submitted entry might appear on the Web before submitting, as typos might be spotted and corrected before submission!--Explorer1000 17:03, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Yes... but that is a huge development task. :) Annie 17:11, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

• I agree with you about the capitalization of "from" and "with". Tightbeam had capitalized these words and so I stuck with them on the basis that certain other databases prefer these words to be capitalized in titles (e.g. the Grand Comics Database). Similarly, Goodreads prefers author initials to have no spaces between them but I'm happy to see that the ISFDB uses them!

• There are 3 places where we do NOT do as printed:

• Author names - we regularize - add the missing spaces between initial, add commas before Sr. and so on - the complete rules are here
• We always follow our own capitalization rules unless the author intended it differently OR it is a cartoon' caption (and in a lot of cases for poetry because the argument of "and they meant it so" is stronger
• We semi-regularize publishers - as we cannot put two publishers' lists on the same page, we tend to "fix" publishers so they match a bit better (and add notes)

• For anything else, we copy as it is in the book. Well... mostly. We would correct obvious ISBN typos for example. But not title level typos which the book introduced. :) Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. That all sounds good.--Explorer1000 17:03, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

• I'll check out the piped numbers function and try it out on my next issue submission. If I have problems with that I'll get in touch. Thanks for offering to help. :)

• You can always also use them to update the ones you already added :) Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

• So with respect to the page numbers of PDFs, is their inclusion an accepted breach of the principle with respect to ebooks (which in many cases are not paginated)? Also, what is the rule when the ebook is identical to the print version in terms of pagination?

• Tecnically speaking, the Pages field (not to be mistaken with the Page in front of each entry) is supposed to be left empty for ebooks. Pure PDF publications ARE different so as I said - let's leave it with the number for now. If it was a normal ebook, we would use the pipes - so the printed book will have 10,34,56 for example, the ebook will have |10, |34, |56 (or |1,|2,|3 - does not make a difference really). :) Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Thanks for all your advice! :) --Explorer1000 11:12, 20 October 2021 (EDT) (Greg)

I think I got all the questions above but if I missed anything or you have any other questions, let me know. And welcome again! Annie 14:58, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

About the pipes: "5|1" sorts as "1", not as the first element on page 1. What you want is "5|5.1" aka - sort by using 5.1 which puts it after 5 but before 6 while showing 5 as a page number:) I approved and fixed them -- see here. Also - all sections sort together - so if you have a 2 essays on page 3 and a review at the bottom of the page, the review will be 3|3.3 even if it is the only review on that page (with the two essays being 3|3.1 and 3|3.2). You can also do 3, 3|3.1 for the essays and 3|3.2 for the review - as long as there is a proper order, the numbers themselves do not matter. Think of 3 as 3|3 (no need to enter it that way but that is what it is behind the scenes) - and then think of how all will sort if all the number before | disappear. Hope this makes sense. Annie 16:53, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Oops! I missed that point farther down the instructions about repeating the page number after the pipe and then adding a decimal point before the sorting number. Also, I was wondering after I had submitted that botched sorting if I should have included the essay section sharing a page with the first reviews but you have just explained that. I'll know to include them next time! Thanks for correcting the sorting for me!--Explorer1000 17:03, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Regular titles, Interviews and reviews - they all sort together. And any time! Also- if they manage to cram more than 10 reviews on the same page, make sure you use 5|5.01 and not just 5|5.1 because 5|5.10 will sort between 5|5.1 and 5|5.2 and NOT after 5|5.9. :) You can also just use |1, |2, |3 as additions and so on and make sure you have it on EVERY single entry - we sort on what is behind |. But using the 5|5.x means that if you have a single thing on page 6, you do not need to worry about it so I prefer it in cases like here. :) Plus you do not need to count and figure out who is |28 and who is |29 ;) Annie 17:09, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Tightbeam, #281

A small thing was not cleared when this was approved: we never create coverart records when we do not know the cover artist. So if the cover artist is not known, do not put "uncredited" - just leave it empty. The rule is explained here. I will remove it from the issues you added it in and will fix any capitalization or anything else I see while I am there. Let me know if you have any questions. Annie 07:28, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. That's fine. I should have thought that the rule about not including interior art where there is no artist or caption indicated would apply to cover art as well.--Explorer1000 17:06, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Yep - we have different rules for interior art and for covers. Don't ask me why - it is one of the things from the dawn of time. :) Annie 17:20, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

And there are some reviews that need connecting across all of the issues. Do you know how to do that or would you like some help and/or step by step? :) Thanks! Annie 07:35, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

I'm not entirely certain what you mean here. Are you talking about treating a column as a series in its own right?--Explorer1000 17:06, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Nope. Let's look at 282. Look at the "Teeth" review. See how the title of the book is NOT a link like all the others? This is because the review record could not find a matching record to connect to automatically - either because it was not an exact match (the case here), because there are two titles with the same name (Novel and story for example) or because it just does not exist. When that happens, what you need to do is to connect them manually:

• Go to the author page and find what had been reviewed. For this one, it is [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1234098 this. Grab the ID: 1234098
• Now go back to the issue and click on the word Review in front of the unconnected review. It opens this. Look on the left side. Locate "Link Review to Title" and click on it. Inside of that, use the ID we found earlier. Submit. On approval, they are connected.

So what happens if the reviewed title does not exist yet? :) Someone needs to add the missing book/story AND then connect them once it is approved. While you can leave it for someone else to do, if you are interested, it is always better for an editor to finish their updates :) Annie 17:20, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Oh I see what the problem is. The reviewer left out the subtitle, which can just be worked out from the image of the book provided with his review. I had picked up on another title earlier which had a typo so, seeing that, I submitted a correction which you then moderated. The same reviewer of Teeth: Vampire Tales had left out the author's name for one of the Hugo finalists' pieces he reviewed in Tightbeam, #280, so I had to look that up to add the data accordingly. I'll keep an eye out for similar issues in future, though I suspect I'll be stumped on occasion when dealing with a small press or self-published book about which I can't find any info other than what is contained in a single review. Thanks for explaining the issue regarding Teeth: Vampire Tales. :) --Explorer1000 17:37, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Just to be sure, if I follow the steps you have given, will that preserve Teeth as an alternative title - one without the subtitle? In which case would it be simpler just to update the entry for Tightbeam, #282 by adding the subtitle to the title of the reviewed book?--Explorer1000 17:45, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Yep - not as alternative title though but as the title of the review in your magazine. The title of the "REVIEW" record will remain as Teeth. But it will be linked and will show up at the bottom of the Teeth list of reviews here. If you click on the Locus review, you will see that it also has a shorter title and see how it looks in Locus 607. That's what will happen with yours with the above steps.

Even if you update the title, it won't autoconnect - that happens only when a review is added for the first time. And we want it to be in the magazine as it is printed there - typos, missing/added subtitles and all. There is a bit of oddity about reviewed authors names (see here) but titles should be as is (with capitalization rules applied). :) You just need to connect it. Annie 18:09, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

If you do not connect them, they will show up on an overnight report and sooner or later someone will connect them. A few of them showed up (from some of the other issues) already :) But as I mentioned, it is always better if editors do these - partially because that allows them to learn how the DB works better - and to spot such issues on their own. If you ever see something you do not understand, post in the Help Desk and someone will help/explain :) Annie 18:13, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Oh, I see the point of preserving the title used for the review. I therefore incorrectly updated a title in Tightbeam, #283. I also updated the name of the author of another reviewed book as the reviewer had spelled it incorrectly. The name was given as Nnendi Okorafor when the first name should have been Nnedi. In this case, should it be preserved because that's how it appeared in the review or was I right to correct it?--Explorer1000 18:18, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

That is the kind of typos that you note into the notes of the publication (always add a note in the publication note when you do that) and fix :) Now, if they credit "K. J. Parker" as "Tom Holt" or vice versa, you keep it as is in the magazine because we already have the relationship between the two names. My rule of thumb is that if we do not have the mistyped name already in the DB, we do NOT leave it on the review as is. See Nnendi Okorafor - that name now needs to be connected, varianted and so on. If a book/story was published under that name or she writes a review and someone misspells her name when she is the reviewer, that's what we will do. But if it is her book being reviewed? Just fix it. Hope that makes sense. The help page explains the same essentially: here :)

So to summarize. Titles - always record as they are written and then if needed connect the review manually. Authors: if the mistaken name is already in the DB and looks connected (to stay with your example, if it was "Nnedima Okorafor" for example), leave as is. If it is not, fix it. Annie 18:36, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

283: Review name restored, note added on the Okorafor credit. :) Annie 18:51, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

A question here: I added a note to make sure that noone decides to "fix" the link and point it elsewhere. Is the title in the magazine "The Great Martian War Counterattack" or just "The Great Martian War"? Annie 18:54, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

This is exactly as it is presented in the 'zine: "The Great Martian War Counterattack; by Scott Washburn; Trade Paperback $18.00; e-book $9.99". There isn't even a colon between the series title and the novel title. However, in defense of the reviewer, the novel's title lies beneath the series title on the cover, so one can see how came to represent the book's title.

I've revised the note here a bit. Feel free to rewrite if you want :) Annie 19:25, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

I hope I haven't been making things difficult with my various missteps! I'm sorry if I've given you more work than you might've expected to handle today. --Explorer1000 19:15, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Not at all. :) Magazines/Fanzines are one of the most complicated corners of the DB and even veteran editors get lost in them. As long as you are taking the feedback in the way it is meant and do not get belligerent on being corrected, all is good. Noone is born all-knowing and the editors here work as a team - and we try to nurture new editors as much as we can without scaring (and scarring) them too much (unless they want to run - then we tie them down until they change their minds and decide to stay). :) Annie 19:25, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

LOL! Glad I wasn't being a nuisance. ;) I think the note is fine re: Counterattack. I just did that Teeth: Vampire Tales link re Tightbeam, #282. As for Tightbeam, #284, there are two reviewed titles in which the middle initial of each author has been left out, while one more title has yet to be added to the database (Louise Erdrich's LaRose). I could sub a new entry for the latter based on Goodreads and/or Worldcat data, but I'm not sure how to deal with the other two - just insert the middle initial in each case?--Explorer1000 19:36, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Ryk Spoor already exists because of a single short story so you decide if you want to change it or just leave it as is and just connect the review. "Robert Heinlein" is used a LOT as is so just connect the review. If I were the one entering the magazine, I would leave them as credited and just connect the reviews :) Annie 19:46, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

I tried linking to both Spoor's and Heinlein's works and was informed that the title doesn't exist in both cases!--Explorer1000 20:21, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

What ID did you try? Based on that I can explain what happened and why :) Annie 20:26, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

I think I know what I did wrong. I used the number for the publication records rather than the title records. I'll try again and see if they work.--Explorer1000 20:32, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

(unindent) For new/recent books, the 16 Amazons are also a good place to look for data. However. LaRose is a fine novel but it is not speculative fiction really IMO. Unless you disagree and insist that it is speculative fiction, this needs to be handled differently:

• Add an essay in the place of the review in the publication where the review is. If the review had notes inside of the title record, move the notes to the newly created title.
• Remove the review from the publication that has it. Once ejected, the review need to be deleted.

The rules about that are explained in the Reviews section of this help page which also explains how to name the essay. See also our definition of Speculative fiction. Let me know if you have any questions. :) Annie 19:46, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

I haven't read LaRose, but I've just read over Tom Feller's review and what he says is this: "There are supernatural elements in this novel, but they are not really essential to the story. First, LaRose can see and converse with ghosts. For instance, he still plays with the ghost of Dusty and shares his toys. Second, Maggie Ravich, Dusty’s older sister, can join with the spirit of animals." So while the supernatural aspect of this story is not essential, it does seem to form a part of its social landscape. However, I'm not the best judge of whether or not to regard it as a genre work - I think I would need to read it first. Has there been a discussion about this work before - maybe in the wiki part of the ISFDB? I'm reluctant to enter the fray if some editors feel strongly one way or the other about how to classify this book - and I recall your comment about scars.... :O ;) --Explorer1000 20:21, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

“can see and converse with ghosts” makes it speculative fiction under our definition. It does not need to be essential - if it is there, the books is ours. We are hoarders that way. :) So add the book. :) Annie 20:24, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

LOL OK. But you're sure nobody out there is going to put a hex on me? ;) --Explorer1000 20:32, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

We record speculative fiction. We do not partake. Unless we decide to. ;) More seriously though - add that note about the ghosts in the moderator note - so the handling moderator knows why it is ours and do not need to go digging to figure out why. As you can see, the line may sometimes be very thin - we tend to lean towards inclusion on borderline cases - and that one is not even borderline - it is in. And now I want to read that book - I’ve liked some of her others. :) Annie 20:39, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

Your current project

Hi Greg, I'm glad to see you started on the Tightbeam project. While it's not the easiest way to begin contributing, it appears you are making good progress. Hang in there, only 75 years of issues! John Scifibones 10:25, 22 October 2021 (EDT)

LOL Thanks John! I'm just focusing on issues 280-300 at the moment. Then, I'll either continue with 301 onwards to bring it up to date or go back and do a chunk up to #279. Decisions, decisions! I should say that Anniemod was very helpful with some of my queries as well as with doing things like correcting links to existing works in the database when a reviewer didn't provide the full or a correct title, and so forth.--Explorer1000 10:29, 22 October 2021 (EDT)

Annie, like most of the moderator group, are willing to teach as well as fix. Try not to repeat mistakes after they have taken the time to explain something. Frequently, they will point you to relevant help pages. Take the time to read and understand them. Some things in the db are counter intuitive. Let's see how long it takes you to get used to 'as' always capitalized in titles. John Scifibones 11:22, 22 October 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, I've experienced different rules at Goodreads and the Grand Comics Database regarding things like capitalization, but I've been perusing the help pages here and, now that I'm more familiar with them, I'm navigating my way a bit better. It seems to be a bit arbitrary to capitalize 'as', but I see that it's not included in the list of title words that are not capitalized. Thanks for the heads up on that. :)

The MLJ Companion: The Complete History of the Archie Super-Heroes

So... why would this be eligible for inclusion? Comics are specifically excluded from our definition of Speculative Fiction as per our ROA so non-fiction about comics superheroes are also ineligible (only non-fiction related to speculative fiction is allowed (plus the above threshold authors but that does not apply here)). The only way for this to be eligible is if it also discussed prose fiction about the same superheroes - which it does not seem to be doing (partially because there isn't that much of it). Am I missing something in this book? Annie 05:28, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

PS: Even though it will be a rejection most likely, you also have the format wrong - "pb" is for mass market paperbacks (the regular type); even the tall mass market paperbacks are "tp". A 8.4 x 11 inches book (per Amazon) will be a tp. You may want to keep an eye on that - I know that it feels like pb is the correct one but unless you are adding old books, 99.9% of the paperbacks will be "tp". Annie 05:31, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Hi Annie. Thanks for your comments. I'll select "tp" in future for modern paperbacks, but I'll consider using "pb" for old (presumably those dating to the 1940s-1960s?) paperbacks instead.

You're right about The MLJ Companion. Although it's possible there might be some coverage of prose fiction, it is more likely that only comics are discussed. I should have mentioned it only in the Pub Note for the issue of Tightbeam in which this book was reviewed, but having listed it as a book review, with two new authors, I felt that I couldn't merely delete the book review as that would leave the new authors orphaned. I thought listing it as a non-genre work might be a workaround. It may be the case that the two new authors (Rik Offenberger and Paul Castiglia) have written prose fiction or non-fiction works about prose fiction elsewhere and that, in time, their author entries will be utilized accordingly.

So, I guess the case here is to reject my proposed entry about this book and I'll update the issue of Tightbeam to include reference to this book in the Pub Note only. Will that work?--Explorer1000 08:54, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Not based on age for the book. Based on paper size. Amazon or OCLC usually have the size. Check the help page for that field. :)

See above where we discussed LaRose what we do with reviews of non genre books - we use an essay in the place of the review. And utilizes is not enough. Above threshold does not mean that we know them. It requires them to be mainly a genre writer. Think Isaac Asimov - we allow all his book because he is a synonym for a SF writer. :) Orwell on the other hand is a major writer for us but he is mainly a non genre one so he is not above treshold. So while these authors may become sf ones one day, I really doubt it. Annie 15:33, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. So what you're saying is that I should render the book review of The MLJ Companion as an essay instead, as opposed to putting information into the Pub Note. This would mean that the book referred to in the essay title would not therefore require a separate entry, right?--Explorer1000 17:25, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Correct and read the reviews section to see how to name the essay. Annie 17:42, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

I've looked for more info about the two new authors. Castiglia is mainly a comic book writer, but he has contributed a short story to this prose anthology: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Power-Rick-L-Phillips-ebook/dp/B00B2C69KU/ (With Great Power, which doesn't seem to have an editor, but involves stories inspired by Amazing Stories #15). Rik Offenberger, on the other hand, appears to have (co-)authored only the one book, despite being a comics journalist. Perhaps I could submit an entry about With Great Power - using the amazon data - so there would now be some reason for his name being in the database at least! What do you think?--Explorer1000 17:25, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

About that book: "It shows how the story influenced the people that come in contact with it and the adventures they have because of its influence.". Does not sound speculative fiction to me - sounds like fandom-related fiction - and that is out of scope. None of the reviews make me think "speculative" either. If someone becomes Spiderman, it will be ours. If someone helped the neighbor cross the road inspired by Spiderman, it is not. Hope that makes sense. Annie 17:42, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Ah, yes! I see your point. It's more like a Chicken Soup for the Soul kind of book which publishes (supposedly) true narrative stories. According to some reviewers, With Great Power mixes essays with short fiction about how the Spider-man character influenced readers of Amazing Stories #15. So the stories are not themselves speculative in nature and, thus, it's not a true genre book. Oh well! Well spotted distinction though. :) --Explorer1000 18:06, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

It is not the "true" part, it is the stories themselves. There are a lot of "superhero" books where the superhero's power is not really a power but being a nice person or reading superhero books or... you get the idea. They sell. So they multiply. They don't need to be true stories but they are not really speculative fiction either - see our definition of speculative in the ROA. It is a thin line sometimes. Just like speculative horror (in) vs non-speculative horror (out) - or as I tend to explain it: "a vampire/ghost killing you (or just being there) is ours; your friend with a big knife is not even if both are horror". So when I see superhero books, I tend to take a second look to make sure it is our kind of superhero. Annie 18:16, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, I understand your point. I presume that in the case of horror stories/poetry where its supernatural nature is ambiguous they are given the benefit of the doubt for inclusion, or are they excluded?--Explorer1000 18:26, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

We tend to always lean towards inclusion (better to have it wrongly than miss one of ours) but for horror, it needs to be at least a 50/50 chance and not just a maybe - there is just too much non-genre horror out there - if it talks about about the dark in people's hearts, it usually is not ours for example; haunted houses and other Gothic stuff can be trickier - in most modern ones the "speculative" part is explained rationally in the novel. Annie 18:42, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

HOWEVER: If the story/poem is printed in a speculative Fanzine/Magazine, it is ALWAYS included even if it has nothing do with speculative fiction (a story about a guy doing laundry will be eligible...). Its reprints may not be eligible but that printing is. Annie 18:42, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Also, I understood that some of the content of The MLJ Companion was fictional - just not genre fictional.--Explorer1000 18:35, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Correct. Not by ISFDB-definition anyway. Annie 18:42, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Oops! I meant With Great Power when I said that, but the point stands anyway.

All right, I'm going to edit Tightbeam, May 2018 to remove the offending review of The MLJ Companion and include it instead as an essay based on the example used in the "What to Include" section of the Help page on new subs. Incidentally, once you reject my proposed entry on The MLJ Companion, you'll also be preventing the creation of two new orphaned artist entries!--Explorer1000 18:35, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Technically you can self-reject - no need to wait for me to do it. :) Annie 18:42, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Good point! :) By the way, the reviewer concerned (Tom McGovern) usually gives titles to his reviews. In this edition of Tightbeam, I listed his review (of comics) simply by the title he used and added no review entry. But for the other two reviews (one of which is The MLJ Companion), I added only a review but didn't enter the title the reviewer used for the review as a regular title. In subsequent issues of Tightbeam, I've given both the review title used by this reviewer as an essay and also added a review. Is this the correct approach? Regarding The MLJ Companion review, the reviewer's title is simply "Mighty Crusaders Through History". I presume that I use this title for the essay and add explanatory info in the Pub Note about the book review concerned?--Explorer1000 19:01, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Yep - you name it as it is named in the book and you can add a note explaining what it is reviewing for the MLJ book.

Generally yes for the other. The rule is that if there is anything besides the review in the article, we list both an essay and a review; if it is just a review, we just add the review. You can add any extra notes (title used and so on) in the record note and if needed in the review record. It is a bit blurry for reviews with own names but think of how it will look on the screen/listing - if the book reviewed is nowhere to be seen, it will be very confusing. :) Annie 19:07, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Removing titles

You cannot remove titles via PubEdit. You need to use RemoveTitles. Go to the publication. Look on the left and locate "Remove Titles From This Pub". Should be self-explanatory from there. :) Annie 15:43, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Ohhh! I thought I had removed them when I did the edit. Then I found they hadn't been removed so tried removing them again. Now I understand what had happened! And I've used that function now. :) Thanks for pointing that out. --Explorer1000 15:48, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Also, I was about to merge Tightbeam, December 2018 with Tightbeam - 2018 but stopped when I realized that this issue has new editors. Does this mean a new series group for 2018 has to be created, or can this issue be added to the year 2018 as is?

You need a separate yearly record. Authors MUST match for them to share a title - otherwise you have different authors on the publication and the reference title - and that is not allowed. You can have multiple yearly records for the same year when the editors change. :) Annie 16:00, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. That makes sense. Thanks for confirming that! :) The thing is, how do you create a year title such as Tightbeam - 2018? --Explorer1000 16:10, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Open the EDITOR title record (the one that stays at the top of the contains section when you open the magazine) and Press Edit on the top right. Change the name, the date and add series if needed. That’s it. :) Annie 16:18, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Just to be sure - do you mean go to the title record for Tightbeam, December 2018 (which shows Type: EDITOR) - http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2937593 - and click on Edit to make those changes?

Yes. Annie 17:01, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

OK. I hope I've done the right thing! --Explorer1000 17:06, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Yep. Approved. And now you know how to do that for the next year’s records. Annie 20:07, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Yes. Thank you! :) --Explorer1000 20:41, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Teach a man to fish and all that ;) Annie 20:52, 25 October 2021 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up

I probably wouldn't have noticed it for a bit, thank you for alerting me to this. John Scifibones 22:08, 27 October 2021 (EDT)

You're welcome, John! :) --Explorer1000 23:33, 27 October 2021 (EDT)

Wolves.Gay

So... is this about werewolves or just wolves or anthropomorphic wolves or what? The first will be in. The latter - depends... We need speculative elements and the descriptions I see on the site do not make it clear if there are any. As you have the PDF, I am asking you :)Annie 23:25, 2 November 2021 (EDT)

Hi Annie :) The book only came out last month so I haven't read it fully. But I can say for certain that the essay pertains to werewolves, one story is set on an orbiting space station and involves anthropomorphic wolves, two of the three poems deal with werewolves (the third a haiku about gay wolves), and almost all the art work also deals with anthropomorphic wolves. It is essentially a furry anthology with a lupine theme. Here is the publisher's description, if this helps:

"The zine's aim is simple- to explore lgbtq experiences in an open-ended manner themed around wolves. The wolf is a recurring character in myth, folk-lore, legend, natural studies, popular culture and online subcultures. Humans have always harbored a fascination with wolves and view themselves through the lens of all things wolves represent- whether true or part of the huge mythos surrounding these animals. Wolves have a history in a variety of cultures that is as rich and complex and storied as our queer histories, so the meeting of the two just feels right.

[...]

Gay wolves, trans wolves, bisexual wolves and more. Wolves in love. Werewolves. Anthro wolves. Online roleplay. Wolves in space and beyond. Wolves at the supermarket."

Perhaps I could add an edited-down version of that text to the Publication Note? Also, I could read through the text fully to confirm that all contributions are to some degree speculative. I'm guessing that anthropomorphism is not strong enough on its own for a furry story to be seen as fantasy. If some stories are found wanting in this respect, maybe those could be removed and a note added that there is non-speculative fiction in the anthology as well.--Explorer1000 23:52, 2 November 2021 (EDT)

That's enough for me to approve it. I am making sure because deleting all these stories after they are created is not fun so double checking. I saw the part before the [...] above - did not see the latter. It was the latter that I need :) Here you go.:) Annie 00:04, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

Thanks Annie! :) Do you think I should update it with the second part of the quoted text to clarify the book's nature? Greg--Explorer1000 00:06, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

Well, I like notes and details. The more, the better. If you copy text into the Summary on the title level of the anthology (where this needs to go, not in the publication note), make sure you credit the source and add a date and so on - look at the help page for the Summary field for details :) Annie 00:14, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

OK, noted. I'll deal with that now. Thanks for your help, Annie. :) Greg--Explorer1000 00:21, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

I've submitted the update in the title synopsis giving a more complete quote, plus the URL of the source and the date it was accessed. Is this what is needed for a date, or is the Web page's launch date needed also?--Explorer1000 00:42, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

The date you copied it on - it basically says - this site said this on this day. You do not need to date a quote from a book/back cover/flaps (just qualify the book so someone can look it up there). online sources are not permanent though and can be changed at any time. So any notes referring to them get dates. :) That way if they change the site, there is a record of when we got the citation/data - which may help finding an archived copy or just be used for information and cross checks. Annie 00:47, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

OK. that's fine. :) I checked earlier and found that both sites used by the publisher/editor are already archived on Archive.org. This particular book, I guess as an ebook, doesn't have a back cover blurb or any other kind of description, hence the reliance on the publisher's site. However, I take your point with respect to paperbacks/hardbacks.

I was just explaining why we need dates for online sources but not that much for paper ones. the first printing of the 2016 DAW mass market paperback of a book is the same book in 2016 and in 2024. A website? Well… :) That’s all. Annie 01:08, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

Also, I need to add the publisher name to the publication entry. This is a self-published work, as the publisher is the editor (Dobes Crusher). I think it is preferable to give this than to use their Web site address (based on my reading of the NewPub help screen). Am I right? Greg--Explorer1000 01:00, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

Yep. For self published books, use the author name unless they use something else inside of the book as publisher. :) Annie 01:08, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

OK. Thanks again, Annie! :) Greg--Explorer1000 01:20, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

Lana M. 'Rochel

Greg, At the time I'm writing this, the entry to correct Lana M'Rochel here has not yet been processed. (The question you posed on my talk page). I see you entered the Dwarf Stars 2021 anthology with the correct authors name. When the above entry is processed, you will have 2 title records for 'on a pirate ship" here. You will need to merge the two titles. If this doesn't make sense, ask me. The way to avoid the duplication is to import the existing title into your publication. Correct it before or after, makes no difference. John Scifibones 20:16, 9 November 2021 (EST)

John seems to have that at hand so I will leave you two to discuss details if needed but so that this whole thing makes sense if they look at the titles involved: the change is now processed and I did the merge while I was there. Let me know if anyone needs further help and/or explanations and/or holiday cheer (nah, I am short of that). Thanks for working on these! :) Annie 20:25, 9 November 2021 (EST)

Thanks John and Annie! :) --Explorer1000 20:31, 9 November 2021 (EST)

Changing titles

When changing the book title, don't forget that the TITLE record also needs changing - once created they are separate entities. :) Also - if there is any contents deriving its name from the publication title (introductions, covers, interior art, they also need to be changed). See how I fixed this one. :) Annie 20:03, 14 November 2021 (EST)

Oops! That's a very good point! Thanks for catching that, Annie! :) --Explorer1000 20:16, 14 November 2021 (EST)

LaRose

Time to learn a few new tricks. :) This was your original submission. This is how it should have looked like.

• Goodreads is one of our external IDs so the ID goes into that section. Check the list when you have a source - we have quite a lot of them.
• The description for what the novel is as opposed to what the book itself is as an object is goes to the title page. Think of it this way: if this novel is translated or published by another publisher or in another format, is the note still valid for that copy as well? If yes - the note belongs to the Title Note. If not, then it is the pub note. Any notes about the eligibility of a novel go to the Title note. So the note goes here instead of the pub note. When you are adding a new book, the Title note is the one high on the page. I suspect you are confused because you started with magazines where the TITLE record is the yearly so you cannot use it for individual notes. Books are different (in more than one way as you are learning).
• While Goodreads is not a bad source for some data, they do not carry prices so it is always a good idea to see if you can actually find some additional data. For new books, the Amazon in the local country where the book was published is a good call or the publisher's page if it still exists. I added both price and cover while I was around anyway :)

Let me know if you have any questions. Annie 18:31, 15 November 2021 (EST)

Hi Annie. Thanks for bringing me back to how I should have handled that book! I've been learning about the other things you mention since I did that entry. I now add Goodreads and Amazon links with the External IDs function so I normally no longer add an additional link in a publication note. And it was you who pointed out that I should use the title synopsis for providing information about the title as opposed to putting it in the publication note (that said, I saw your change with respect to the pub. note re: Lovecraftiana, Halloween 2021, about showing the ASIN for the link concerned). I liked your explanation for the different purposes between the title note and the publication one, as this makes it clear why there are two different note categories, so thank you for that. :)

I take your point about using Amazon for providing prices for books/magazines, which I have been doing since I started covering commercial publications (of which Tightbeam is not), but I find that Amazon is very unreliable for titles and subtitles. This was the case for Lovecraftiana, Halloween 2021 (where it uses that title for the print format and uses the volume and part number for the Kindle format, but then gives the wrong volume number in the process!). For the title of the anthology Worth 1,000 Words, Amazon's entry omits the first half of the sub-title ("A Flash Fiction Anthology") but leaves in the second half ("101 Flash Fiction Stories by 101 Authors"). And (lastly), for Monsters: A Dark Drabbles Anthology we get a substituted sub-title ("A Horror Microfiction Anthology (Dark Drabbles Book 3)"). Of course, Amazon is a bookseller so it makes these kinds of alterations as a marketing technique - it's not a library catalogue. Goodreads isn't perfect either since anybody can become a "Goodreads librarian" and can then add/edit books without needing a moderator approval. This means the quality of the data input there can vary (you probably know this already though).

I very much appreciate all the help you have so willingly given me. :) Greg --Explorer1000 20:49, 15 November 2021 (EST)

Most new books on Amazon have Look Inside. You do not rely on them for the title - you look at it yourself. GR starts from Amazon data. How much they clean it up depends on the book and on who works on it. Some are better. Some are worse than Amazon. And there is a substantial difference between data for an anthology from a small publisher and a novel by a major one. The Amazon data is only as good as it is entered. Small presses entries tend to be interesting until you get used to how a certain publisher is handled. Don’t try to find one source that has it all or to apply what you learn with one type of books to others. :) Annie 00:03, 16 November 2021 (EST)

PS: And you are making part of my case for me: that’s why you check more than one source. :) None is always reliable. So you check all available ones. :) Annie 00:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)

I agree with you that more sources should be consulted so data can be corroborated. :) Amazon's Look Inside feature is useful for a publication's table of contents and I have used it for some entries already. However, in cases where a publication's table of contents omits illustrations, then the only way to check where these appear or what titles (if any) they have, is to examine an actual copy of the publication. But I guess some details can be left blank for somebody who has a copy to fill in later on. Re: GR, the programs that automatically add content from Amazon (onix firebrand/ingram and amazon_kcw) can be a nuisance because they include incorrect data (e.g. a publisher's pre-publication expected pagination which is not met when the book concerned is published) or data that is not used for GR entries (e.g. adding the pagination of excerpts of other books included at the end of a book to the book's overall page number). I've added a lot of books there that are not listed on Amazon but they were always books that I possessed so it was easy to check the details. Anyway, I think we're largely in agreement here. :) Greg--Explorer1000 16:56, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Yep. Books do not need to be on Amazon. But when they are, ignoring Amazon is a bad idea :) And Amazons' (note the plural - the 16 of them are not mirror images, they are separate sites and sometimes a Look Inside will be elsewhere) Look Inside is very useful for titles and subtitles and publishers - when you make sure the Look Inside is the edition is the one you think it is. And to my point - different sources are good for different things. Illustrations - you will need to find scans and/or the book usually. Other things - Look Inside in Amazon or the publisher site may be good enough. Goodreads, OCLC and others have their uses as well. As long as the sources are documented and it is indicated what comes from where, we are good. :) Annie 17:00, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Trembling with Fear, December 9, 2018

A few things here:

• Capitalization: we use our own house style. With is not capitalized unless it is the first word in a title or subtitle.

Oops! I have read the list of non-capitalised words so I should've picked up on that. I probably just copied and pasted that title without checking the capitalisation. Will keep an eye on that in future.--Explorer1000 16:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)

• Synopsis is for a synopsys/summary of the text/title. What you have there is really a description of the magazine and it needs to go on the series level, not in the editor. I moved it there. I also moved the link

OK. So that data can only be added once the series title is created. I'll take note of that in future with respect to new submitted series.--Explorer1000 16:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Yep. Annie 16:26, 16 November 2021 (EST)

• Inside of a publication there is a field called "Web Page 1" just above the notes. That's where links to the issue (in this case) go. You use links inside of the notes only when you reference them for something; if they belong to the book/title/series/whatever, they go into Web Pages unless they are one of the external IDs and you are in a publication (in any other notes these will be using their matching templates :)

I have done that with respect to the URLs for specific issues of Tightbeam before. I just need to be more consistent about this. :) --Explorer1000 16:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)

• When an essay is untitled, we use the title "untitled". And as that counts as a generic title, we disambiguate it after that with the pub name. :)

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. The Help page wasn't very clear with respect to editorials/introductions and the like. And while I understand that using an undifferentiated phrase like "untitled" for an untitled essay is the established norm at the ISFDB, it's a pity that a more specific designation like "untitled editorial" or "untitled foreword" is not used instead. But changing that standard now would mean having to apply it to all the existing entries, which would be an enormous undertaking, so... I guess that won't ever happen! :) --Explorer1000 16:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Any untitled title is called "untitled" except for interior art which is named after the publication or title it illustrates. Then you disambiguate with the name of the book you are adding it into. That way you do not have people disagreeing if something is an editorial or an introduction or a welcome message or whatever :) Annie 16:26, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Ohhh! I see. It sounds like at one time people were arguing over the proper designation of untitled essays and the principle of just saying 'untitled' was adopted to resolve this problem. On that basis, it makes sense - stick to the lowest common denominator to keeps things simple.--Explorer1000 17:24, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Before my time but people argue over everything. That is also why we have a single Essay type and not different ones depending on what the essay is (or we could have had editorial, introduction, foreword and so on where the stories have their novella/short story designation but... this can be subjective unlike the length of the stories which are objective). So keep it simple had been adopted. :) Annie 17:39, 16 November 2021 (EST)

• No need for a price for webzines.

OK. Noted. :) --Explorer1000 16:12, 16 November 2021 (EST)

It is not wrong to have it so I won't fix it if it was only that - but the bibliographic warnings had been tweaked and do not look for a price for webzines as most are free. But there is no need to add it unless you want to use it to indicate that it is a US/UK/Canadian webzine and so on. So that part was mostly informational. :) Annie 16:26, 16 November 2021 (EST)

The result is here. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for adding it. Annie 05:24, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Just started indexing another issue of Trembling with Fear and I noticed that the three shorter stories published after the first one were preceded by a heading: "Enter the Drabble" (which appears as an image). Just so I'm clear on this, should this be treated as an essay (as per letters and review columns) with the magazine's editor as the author?--Explorer1000 17:54, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Is there anything else besides the stories under that heading? If not - then you can note it in the notes but that is about it - it is like a section in a collection - which we do not index. Columns in magazines are different - the main title is there for any pieces that are not part of the main or to form a series. Essays requires words - sounds like your thing here does not have words so... no essay. Annie 18:09, 16 November 2021 (EST)

OK. But as this is a magazine, which publishes drabbles regularly under this section heading, does this section constitute a series? --Explorer1000 18:41, 16 November 2021 (EST)

I also want to be sure about the way the editorial is described. I have treated it as a single co-authored piece. However, this essay is subdivided into an opening part written by the editor (Stephanie Ellis) and a closing part written by the publisher (Stuart Conover), with each part signed separately. Therefore, they could be seen as separate, untitled, essays but it seems to make sense that they are merely separately written parts of the same essay (or editorial). Have I followed the preferred method of dealing with this (single, co-authored, editorial)?--Explorer1000 18:04, 16 November 2021 (EST)

That depends on how it reads. If it reads as one unified piece, you enter is as one. If it reads as separate pieces, each goes separately (so if one day it is reprinted, we have its entry). I'd enter these as separate essays if I am entering this; you may chose to combine and explain in the notes the exact format. Annie 18:09, 16 November 2021 (EST)

The stories of 2018 from this webzine were collected in an anthology edited by the publisher (Stuart Conover) and the webzine's editor (Stephanie Ellis) - in that order - but the zine's editorials/introductions were not reprinted. It seems unlikely that they would be IMO as they are somewhat ephemeral in nature. Also, looking at what the two writers say in that editorial, it is clear that the text of each portion is somewhat interdependent. In the issue for December 9, 2018, the editor talks a little about the stories appearing in that issue as well as publication news about previous contributors. The publisher's section largely repeats what he said in the previous issue about the kinds of stories that are being sought for the magazine - with an explanation for what Trembling with Fear is and what will be happening in January 2019 - but otherwise briefly applauds the editor for something she does. Therefore, I think treating it as one piece makes the most sense, but I agree with you that there should be a note saying that the untitled essay is divided into separately signed sections.--Explorer1000 18:41, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Naming untitled interior art

Please review this help page. We have rules on how to name art when it has no individual title and "Lovecraftiana, Halloween 2021 (interior art #1)" is not it. It is "Lovecraftiana, Halloween 2021", then "Lovecraftiana, Halloween 2021 [2]" and so on. I fixed these here. When you see something like that for the first time, a check of the help page is usually very useful. :) Annie 14:21, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Mea culpa! I have consulted the help pages many times at this stage, and in other cases I have applied the usual rule here. I think I was just tired when I was disambiguating those pieces of interior art. Sigh! It's something I'll need to keep aware of in future. Thanks for catching that! :) --Explorer1000 15:52, 16 November 2021 (EST)

Some of the rules are a bit... eccentric compared to each other. :) Annie 16:07, 16 November 2021 (EST)