User talk:Faustus

Welcome!

Hello, Faustus, 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!Kraang 00:11, 21 May 2022 (EDT)

HTML tags

Hello,

When adding notes in html format, make sure that the ul/li tags are properly arranged: I just approved a few of your later submissions and they are all missing the leading ul tag. :) Annie (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (EST)

To Annie

I'm sorry for all those mistakes. You're probably not used to dealing with someone as bewildered as myself. I didn't know I'd even been adding notes in hmtl format never mind jumbling up the togs whatever they are.

As I don't know my arse from my elbow I am going to knock the entries on the head before an irate mod boots me into touch.

Ps this is a lovely site and the mods and contributors do a very nice job.

All the best from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2022 (EST)

You are doing very well actually - these are normal mistakes when you are not used to the formatting and the way things work around here. You don’t need to use HTML but when an existing note already has html, it may confuse people when adding an extra note. Think of ul tags as brackets - if you open one, it needs to get closed (and if a closing one is there, you need an opening one at the top). The “make me an entry in this tag” li does not need a closing partner. So when you make lists, the tags go ul li li li /ul. If you want to nest lists inside of lists (you had a few of these), they will go ul li li ul li li /ul li /ul for example (with as many li as lines you want). Hope that helps a bit. You also can click edit on a publication where you like the formatting of the notes and copy and change the note from in there. :) Annie (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2022 (EST)

To Annie

Cheers for the ncouragement. You have the patience of a saint. I think I've got an small inkling about some of the stuff I was doing wrong. Having a shufti at the way the experts do it sounds like a good idea. I will print off this page and staple it to the curtains so I can keep an eye on it.

All the best from Gaz Faustus (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2022 (EST)

Dr Faustus: The A- and B- Texts (1604, 1616)

Hello again,

A book of two stories make a collection and not a chapbook unless the second story a bonus short story, poem or short serial installment, but only if the publication's title page lists only the main title and the main title's author(s) (See the help page here. So this one is a collection - both are listed after all :) In addition, when you have a generic title such as introduction, foreword and so on, always add the name of the title it belongs to in brackets. That way when you open someone's page, you won't end up seeing 100 essays called Introduction. I fixed both things in this one - let me know if you have any questions. :) Annie (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (EST)

Mission of Gravity

About your note here: Clone our record and create yours with your ISBN. I think that our record is a faulty mixed up record from Amazon but some more digging needs to be done just in case it is a different printing or something weird like that so just add your book and if you want, once yours is added, add a note in this one explaining the existence of the other record. Annie (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (EST)

The Gunslinger

A few notes about this one:

• We have an import function. Look at the left menu when you have a publication open.
• When adding pages, keep in mind that all of them go in order. In this case you had IX|1 and XIX|2 but also 1 in the stories. The result was that the site orders IX|1 and 1 as duplicates (so either can end up first depending on the default order), then the other of them and then XIX|2. In such cases the easiest way is to use |0.1, |0.2 and so on - this will put them at the top of the list :)

Let me know if you have any questions! Annie (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2022 (EST)

The Fabulous Clipjoint

When you add a page number such as "1|2", people tend to get very confused. So instead, use decimals :) i becomes i|0.1 and then the 1 can stand on its own. See how I did it here. I also fixed the introduction (as mentioned above).

PS: About your note: No need to apologize - people learn things by doing them multiple times :) Annie (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2022 (EST)

Cover Image Uploads

When using the "Upload new cover scan" option from a publication page, the software will automatically add an licensing template pre-populated with the publication information. In this case, you do not need to select a license under the "Licensing" pull down on the upload page (as it creates adds a second, incomplete template that needs to be cleaned up). The "Licensing" pull down only needs to be used when using the upload option from the wiki directly. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2023 (EST)

Got it, cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2023 (EST)

Deletion of May's The Golden Torc

Hi Faustus

I'm holding your edit to delete Julian May's The Golden Torc. There are a couple of problems with this edit. The most important one is that you didn't check with the active primary verifier (i.e. me) before attempting to delete the publication. Any substantive edit made to a publication that has active primary verifiers should be discussed with the verifiers before the edit is submitted. The second issue with this submission is why you chose this record, of the two supposed duplicates to delete. This record was created by me on 2020-10-05 by cloning one of the other records. At that time, the other publication record did not specify a printing number. This can be seen examining the edit history. The notes at the time I created the first publication only included "Month from amazon.uk." I suspect this record was originally meant to indicate the 1st Pan printing. It includes the British Library number and we know that the first Pan printing was also 1982 from the note in the 4th printing. Mavmaramis verified the second record in 2015 but did not expand the notes at that time. They ultimately added notes to the second record indicating that it was for the 4th printing on 2022-04-18. So now we have two records indicating a 4th Pan printing and no records for printings 1-3. There's a couple of questions that need to be answered here. Do we know which printing number the July 1982 date from Amazon.uk (which now reports Jan 1, 1982 for this ISBN) refers to? If it refers to the 4th printing, how do we know this? The month is not listed in the book. Depending on that, we can decide who should move their verification to the other record. I'm going to have a discussion with Mavmaramis so we can figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 18:41, 24 January 2023 (EST)

To Ron - Cheers m8 I'll do that in future. All the best from Gaz

White Jenna

Hi Faustus -

I'm holding your submission to clone Yolen's White Jenna to create a record for the second printing. I have a couple of questions. Your notes include "First mass market edition August 1990. [This Publication Record]." but also include "Second printing by number line." You also have the date as "1990-08-00". I think you should probably remove "[This Publication Record]". While I'm certain that "First mass market edition August 1990" appears on the copyright page, and technically this would be a second printing of the first edition, I think that "[This Publication Record]" will confuse people. My other concern is how you arrive at the date. Is there a notice that the second printing was made August, 1990? If not, we probably can't determine the actual date and it should be entered as "0000-00-00". Please let me know. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 09:55, 25 January 2023 (EST)

Spot on there mate it should be unknown date for 2nd printing. Cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2023 (EST)

I've approved the edit. You noted that you were planning to add a cover scan. You can make the changes to the date and the note in the same edit. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 07:20, 26 January 2023 (EST)

To Ron

ok mate I'll have a bash at that next time. Faustus (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2023 (EST)

Star Trek Log Three

I approved this submission. Would you mind double-checking the ISBN? You submitted '0552100459' which is invalid. Might it be '0552100455', which is a valid Corgi ISBN? Also, are you planing on providing a primary verification since you own the book? John Scifibones 14:37, 30 January 2023 (EST)

yes mate the number on the spine its 0 552 10045 9. On the copyright page it says 0 5521 10045 9 ie 11 digits. Does primary verification mean sending in the pictures with the numbers on? Cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2023 (EST)

Ive just seen the number is on the cover as well. Faustus (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2023 (EST)

To verify, go to the publication. Select 'Verify This Pub' from the 'Editing Tools:' navigation bar. In the upper section of the 'Verify Publication' page, the 'Permanent verification' should have the radio button marked. Select 'verify'. Your name will now show on the publication page under Primary Verifications. John Scifibones 15:53, 30 January 2023 (EST)

got it, All the best from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2023 (EST)

More Than Human

When you uploaded a new image to the previously linked Wiki page, it immediately replaced the prior image. Therefore this submission is not necessary and I rejected it. Let me know if you are satisfied with the result and I'll delete the old image to save space. John Scifibones 15:34, 2 February 2023 (EST)

Sorry mate didn't know that. Yeah go ahead with that. Cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (EST)

The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower

Don't forget to verify The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower since the source of your edit is the book. Thanks, John Scifibones 17:02, 6 February 2023 (EST)

Done it mate. Should I be doing that for every edit that a mod has ok'd as they're all from my own books. Faustus (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2023 (EST)

You should always provide a verification when the source of your edit is the actual book. You can also verify a publication record that you haven't edited if it agrees with your copy. Read this. Notice how we use colons to indent posts to a thread. It makes the threads much easier to follow. Thanks, John Scifibones 18:03, 6 February 2023 (EST)

Got it mate every days a school day. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2023 (EST)

Uploading images

Gaz, I approved your submission adding The Best of Saki. You have been uploading images and then including the links in your new publication submissions. Let me make a suggestion. Create the publication first. After approval, use the 'Upload new cover scan' on the newly created publication. This will automatically create the license tag with the publication information and fair use rationale. I have been adding the tags as I approve your submissions. See the tag information below the cover image?

Here is the related help. You have been using procedure 2 but only the first few steps. I'm asking you to use procedure 1. It will be easier for you and save time for the reviewer. Thanks, John Scifibones 21:01, 7 February 2023 (EST)

sorry mate I'll do that in future. Faustus (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2023 (EST)

No worries. Apologies for the bad link showing you the tag for 'The Best of Saki', it's fixed now. John Scifibones 22:12, 7 February 2023 (EST)

Best SF of the Year 15

Regarding this submission: I mistakenly hit approve on this one. The note has been moved from the pub note field to the title note field. This is because the note is applicable to both publications under that title and is relevant to the variant record. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2023 (EST)

cheers mate for putting that right. Faustus (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2023 (EST)

The Quantum Thief

Hi Faustus -

I approved your addition of The Quantum Thief. Your notes indicate both the first and the fourth printing. I expect you meant the fourth based on the date you supplied. Could you please take a look at the notes and adjust as necessary. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 11:59, 14 March 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate, done it Faustus (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (EDT)

John Gray o' Middleholm

I approved this submission adding the date of original publication. I massaged the note so it's clear to a casual observer where you got the information. Here is the updated title record. John Scifibones 17:20, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

cheers m8 Faustus (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

Matheson - I Am Legend

Hello Faustus, you uploaded a cover scan for this publication so I'm assuming you have that book. If so, could you please confirm that there is no Introduction or Afterword in it. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

no mate not a sausage Faustus (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

Great, no sausages! Thanks. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

The Revenger's Tragedy

Hi, and apologies that it has taken so long for someone to get to your The Revenger's Tragedy submission. I have placed it on hold. Can you explain what makes this speculative fiction? Thanks. --MartyD (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2023 (EDT)

hiya mate its non-supernatural horror if i remember right. The work's already in there under Cyril Tourneur but this book is under middletons name and most of the boffins think that he was the sick pervert responsible Faustus (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2023 (EDT)

Oh, I missed that. Ok, then following precedent, I accepted it. See here. But a chapbook needs to have a shortfiction content record for the actual story (an ISFDB chapbook is sort of like a one-story collection, although it's permitted to have supplementary material such as essay). So I added one and put it on p. 3 -- you'll need to correct that if it's a bad guess. With that much supplementary material, chapbook may be a bit of a stretch, but I don't have a better idea. I also made the Middleton-credited shortfiction title a variant of the Tourneur-credited title. We might want to swap those around at some point, but it doesn't seem clear that Middleton is the definitively accepted author, at least not yet. Feel free to take issue with anything I did and/or to raise discussions of any points on the community portal or moderator notice board. I won't be insulted! Thanks. --MartyD (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate Ive changed that page number and everything else looks spot on. Ill remember that chapbook content info for next time Faustus (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2023 (EDT)

Paperview WitW

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5657835; Added the art you mentioned in your notes plus the cover by the same artist. --Username (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate i thought I'd knocked that one off back in january Faustus (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2023 (EDT)

Clean, Bright and Slightly Oiled

Hi Faustus. If this is one long piece of nonfiction than the nonfiction titles(chapter headings) will have to be moved into notes if there just chapter headings. If I make the title and publication both nonfiction it will not display correctly. What I can do is change the pub & title back to nonfiction & move all the chapter headings into notes, this will be quicker as a moderator. If this is what you want let me know. Thanks.Kraang (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2023 (EDT)

Hiya Mate can you not just delete them all as theyr just chapter names. I tried to do at first but it wasnt allowed. If not then im happy to go with your suggestion. Faustus (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2023 (EDT)

Best just put the chapter headings in notes. I'll do it now since I'll be away next week. Thanks.13:31, 20 May 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate Faustus (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2023 (EDT)

Other Worlds

Hello,

I rejected the creation of the variant - if it is approved but a book is not added, the title can be deleted based on the overnight reports (the report does not get worked daily - so sometimes books survive). The better order is to first add the book you want to add and then variant it where it belongs. I made the variant in this case once I approved the book. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks for adding the book. Annie (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

cheers i had a inkling there was summat not rite about that Faustus (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

The Monk

When adding page number to one element, you usually need to add pages to all of them (visible or hidden - the hidden are done by hiding them behind a | (so |10 for example). See this book now - the novel which does not have a page number floats to the top :) Annie (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

Im well flummoxed now Annie theres no poles or numbers in the page number box for the novel. Faustus (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

That's the point. If there are none, they go to the top of the list. You need to add a number to send it after the Introduction in the contents list. :) Annie (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

cheers you got us there in the end! Faustus (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

Things like 1|2 tend to be very confusing to editors and someone down the road will change that to something weird. So instead, use a decimal for the pages before 1 :) See how I did it here: vii|0.1. Achieves the same but without confusion. Thanks for updating it!

PS: If you own the book, you may want to verify it -- the link is on the left. That tells the next editor or visitor who sees the record that the book was updated from the actual book - and links you to the record so if there are questions about the book, people know who to ask. Annie (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

thank you i think I have now officially explored every permutation of page numbering cock ups! Faustus (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2023 (EDT)

Raising the Stones

Hello. I got hold of a copy of this. Rear flap has "Jacket illustration by Mark Posen" - obviously a misprint for Mike (or Mick). Just a heads up incase you wanted to check your copy has the same. --Mavmaramis (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2023 (EDT)

mine's the same mate well spotted. Faustus (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2023 (EDT)

Knock Three-One-Two cover artist

I imported the 1960 Barye Phillips cover art title into the Bruin Books Knock Three-One-Two and added the note: "The cover reprints the Bantam edition's, with the Baryé signature removed." MOHearn (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2023 (EDT)

cheers mate Faustus (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2023 (EDT)

Moore - Bring the Jubilee

Hello, I'm letting you know I'm adding the publisher Orion to your PV here. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (EDT)

rightho mate

Atomised

Hi Faustus

I'm about to approve your edit adding Houellebecq's Atomised. Regarding your question in the moderator notes, it is true that we can't make a title a variant of another variant. What you want to do here is to make your new title a variant of the parent title of the other variant, i.e. this title. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 09:46, 5 October 2023 (EDT)

cheers Ron will do it later on

Piped page number sort

Hi Faustus -

I've noticed that you have submitted a number of edits where you are adding a piped sort number to the page number field. e.g. here. That isn't necessary when the normal order of the page numbers will have things in the correct order, as it would have in the example given. Your edits will still display things in the correct order, but, aside from being unnecessary, could cause problems if new content needed to be added later, i.e. adding something between the two items you added in the example would require adjusting the existing item's page numbers. The piped sorts are useful when we have multiple items on the same page (1|1.1, 1|1.2), or when items appear in a region of unnumbered paged or when the page numbers restart in the middle of a book. I'm not going to correct the ones you've added, but you should refrain from using the piped sorts, except when it is necessary. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:14, 7 December 2023 (EST)

cheers ron the reason i did it was i thought it would actually make it easier if new stuff was added as if that was out of order they would all have to be piped anyway and if they were already piped then you could lube up the new one and slip it in with a decimal point number if itwas between n and n+1. Prob not making much sense but the upshot is ill follow your instructions as your the gaffer and you know what your talking about unlike yours truly. cheers mate from Gaz Faustus (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (EST)

I'm still seeing your edits added after the above discussion with piped sorts. The thing is that when the content has page numbers, there is no need for the piped sort operators. The software will put the items in page number order. You only need to add piped sorts if the items being added have no page numbers, or if the page numbering is restarted in the publication record. Neither of these apply to the magazines you've been working on. Going forward, please refrain from adding the piped sorts (unless it is actually needed). Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:10, 4 January 2024 (EST)

ok anything with a page number dont pipe, got that. the other bit about "if the page numbering is restarted in the publication record" havent a scooby what that means. best just to refrain totally presumably. Do you want me to delete the ones wating to be checked? Faustus (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2024 (EST)

An example of a publication that restarts the numbering would be this which has 3 volumes each numbered individually. Thus the contents in the first volume just have regular numbers without any piped sort. For the pages in volume 2, piped sorts are used to add 2000 to the page number i.e. page 3 in volume 2 is entered as "3|2003". Thus everything in volume 2 appears after the contents in volume 1, but also shows the page number as it appears in the book. No need to delete your pending edits. With the piped sorts, things do appear in the correct order. It just makes future edits more difficult as any content inserted has to take the piped sort into account, which would not ordinarily need to be done. The existing (and pending) piped sorts can be removed the next time those records are touched (if ever). Thanks and let me know if I can explain further. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 14:02, 4 January 2024 (EST)

cheers mate appreciate you explaining in detail this for us non-boffins. Ill have a good study of that before risking it again. "If in doubt leave the piping out" will be my watchword henceforth. Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2024 (EST)

Steel Magic

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?935566; All other credits on ISFDB for the artist are as Robin Jacques including several for other editions of this book with the same art. Is it really Jaques in your copy in which case a variant is needed or is it Jacques in which case a merge is needed? --Username (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (EST)

cheers mate - schoolboy mistake missing the C off, thanks for spotting it -you couldnt give us some more tips on how to fix it could you i don't want to make a horlix of it and get the mods twitchy Faustus (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (EST)

Ask on the moderator board, they'll help you, it'll be good to learn in case you have to do it again sometime. Also, I'd advise you to do so without the fake Cockney slang or whatever that is you're doing because people are having trouble figuring out what you're saying. I think it's horlicks, not horlix. --Username (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2023 (EST)

crikey your a little charmer no wonder your so popular with the mods. Says a lot about you that you didnt want to help with the edit but only too happy to lecture us on posting style. Incidentally born and bred in the durham coalfield (fake cockney lol)

Mods would better be able to explain the specifics of variants and merges than I would as a non-mod. I've fixed thousands and thousands of other editors' edits, both current ones and those who left long ago, so I have no problem helping. The problem is I can barely understand what you're saying and, as with one of your other responses to another editor that I saw recently, https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Hifrommike65#The_Year.27s_Best_Science_Fiction:_Volume_2, your rude reply calling them "lazy" and such caused them to remove their reply to you which is why your name is now in that message twice with nothing in between. You may really be from the UK but many of us are not so you should try to answer in plain English so we can understand you. You should also use proper capitalization, grammar, punctuation, and remember to sign your replies as you forgot to do for your last one. As I've said before, popularity doesn't matter; this isn't high school. --Username (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2023 (EST)

that chap deleted his post cos it was embarrasing. he read my polite request and then waited a fortnight before replying by saying he had 17 edits (gosh so many!) waiting for approval and he wasnt going to lift a finger until they were signed off. after i told him to stop behaving like a spoilt schoolboy he deleted his post and his pv. A back seat moderator whingeing about the backlog - remind you of anyone? Faustus (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (EST)

I tried to help you twice. Do whatever you want. --Username (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (EST)

Milton! Thou Shouldst Be Living at This Hour

I rejected this submission because I had already made the same edit when I came across your first submission regarding this title. That's also why you see a "forced" rejection for your edit removing the incorrect title. Your original note to mod didn't spur me to look at the submission queue for these two subsequent edits. Sorry. John Scifibones 13:08, 12 January 2024 (EST)

cheers mate thanks for explaining - Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2024 (EST)

Variants and flags

Hello,

When changing one of the flags (juvenile, non-genre, novelization, graphic) on a title such as here and the title has variants and/or parents, they all need to be changed manually. We do not do it automatically so that we do not propagate a mistake when one is made - that allows a second set of eyes while setting the remainder. I fixed the parent on this one but wanted to drop you a note for the future.

PS: Horror can be particularly hard to figure out until someone reads the book - and when someone adds from a list, we get a few non-genres. Thanks for updating this one. You may want to add a summary (you could not because you were updating the variant) or a note up on the parent level so people know why it is non-genre. Annie (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (EST)

cheers annie I Should have noticed that. I had a go at a synopsis once for a novel on LT and it ended up nearly as long as the book... Gaz Faustus (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2024 (EST)

Been there, done that with the summary. If not a summary, a note similar to what you had in the moderator note or with some other details to help understand why the flag was set. Also PV-ing (if you had not yet) the copy that you read is also useful so it is clear who can be asked for details eventually. Neither of these are mandatory of course - if you rather not, we are good. :) Annie (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2024 (EST)

ive done a quick note Annie hope thats sufficinet Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2024 (EST)

Oh theres another edit (5886294) with the pub details and I was going to pv it after that was signed off chhers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2024 (EST)

Approved both and edited the note a bit - technically being in the book does not make it eligible - it explains why it is added but the reason we keep it and mark is non-genre as opposed to just deleting it is because the author has a metric ton of genre stories (or so it seems) - so can be considered above threshold (if you squint really hard anyway). Keeping the "too close to call until read" in the DB makes sense but if you check the Rules of Acquisition, they are actually out unless they squeeze in under the threshold rule or the "published in a genre magazine" rule.

PS: I know you have a lot of pending - we had been somewhat short handed in the last months. I will see if I can get your queue cleared a bit tomorrow. Annie (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (EST)

got it. might be an idea to have a default setting of "undetermined" alongside genre and non-genre cos of the stacks of stories like that chaps currently labelled as genre which aren't because nobodys read them. annie mate dont worry about my pending pile I dont want to jump any queues - I partiularly don't want to be associated with certain elements here who whine about the backlog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faustus (talk • contribs) .

I "whine" about the backlog because most of the time the majority of the queue is made up of edits by me. The only time it's gone down to just a few hundred edits in recent memory is when I went on a "vacation" for a few weeks last fall and the mods were able to sort of catch up. It's easy to wait around for the mods to approve your edits when you only have a few handfuls of them pending but when, as of tonight, I have 1,600 of the 2,200 current edits in the queue, nearly 3 times all the other editors on this site combined, it starts to get annoying. But no worries, mate, checking the Top Contributors section, https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/topcontrib.cgi, I see that I currently sit at 68,000+ edits approved (which doesn't include my first few weeks here when I would send in a lot of info but didn't know I was supposed to enter it myself so mods made their own edits based off of my info until one of them set me straight and I started doing my own, nor does it include the several hundred edits at least made based off of my messages on the boards to other editors who got credit because I had no interest in making those particular edits myself) in just a little over 3 years of editing which, as I've probably mentioned before, makes me the most prolific active living non-mod/non-self-approver editor in the nearly 20 years this site has been open to the public, not counting Fixer because that's a robot. The only one who may surpass me one day if they remain active is Swfritter but even that is unlikely because they don't seem to do much editing anymore. Not bad for someone with no bibliographic credentials at all who just stumbled on the fact, after using this site for years, that they let anyone edit here and started doing it as a way to pass the time productively during the pandemic. Probably the main reason I've kept forcing myself to keep going despite the backlogs and the unpleasantness from others here is because I know that after I'm gone for good it's very unlikely that anyone will take up the slack and do nearly as many edits as I do, specifically for older print books which are what I mostly edit since the majority of the editors, both new ones and ones who have been here for years, seem to not care much about those anymore and spend their time editing e-books and other ephemeral formats even though there is clearly a huge need for more editors working on print books judging by the fact that I have edited here nearly every day for more than 3 years and never run out of things to edit. I can only imagine how many thousands of edits more I would have done if I had ever campaigned to be a self-moderator and could approve the less complicated edits myself immediately without having to wait for mods to come back from vacation/get out of hospital/finish unpacking after a move/etc. but that would entail the kind of embarrassing sucking-up in order to get that status that I've seen way too many times and I'm not willing to do that. Many of the people who have been approved clearly should not have been based on the quality of their editing. I am a bit heartened by the fact that, after our recent chat, you do seem to have dropped some of the Brit slang and your messages are now mostly comprehensible to us Yanks but I still must remind you that if you ever hope to be a self-approver one day, which I'm guessing you do, you really need to improve your language skills. In your last message there are several words that should be capitalized, lots of missing punctuation, and at least one misspelled word. You also forgot to sign your message which you've been told to do but keep forgetting. If this was some social media site or something it wouldn't matter but the whole point of ISFDB is entering information accurately and I've had to do way too many edits cleaning up other editors' shoddy notes or wrong info they entered into a record. I may not always follow/understand the rules here about how exactly to enter things because many of the people who have been here much longer than me don't always, either, since so much of it is unclear, but one thing I know is I rarely see anyone correcting one of my edits for language-related reasons because I actually take pride in entering things properly and take the time to look over my edits after they're done to make sure everything looks right. OK, I think I've said more than enough so I'll sign off now. God Save the King. --Username (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2024 (EST)

(unindent) The DB is slanted towards inclusion - if we are not sure it is ours, we add it and then deal with it when we know more. Undecided/undetermined sounds like a great idea but it will open the door for a lot more misreadings (as it is, we get enough submissions from people who think that the non-genre flag allows pretty much anything). So we keep it simple and just clean whatever needs cleaning. No worries about the rest and thanks for the understanding! Annie (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2024 (EST)