User talk:Fsfo

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Fsfo, 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:

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! -DES Talk 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Oceanopia!

You have submitted an edit creating a variant of Welcome to Oceanopia!. The variant appears to be identical to the existing record, and thus has no point. Am I missing something?

The submitted edit is:

Column Make Variant [Record #871053] Variant of [New Title]
Title Welcome to Oceanopia! Welcome to Oceanopia!
Year 2007-12-00 2007-12-00
TitleType SHORTFICTION SHORTFICTION
Authors Katharine Sparrow Katherine Sparrow

Did you perhaps hit enter before changing the author or title? What was your intent here? I have this edit on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The author name is actually different: Kath_a_rine Sparrow vs. Kath_e_rine Sparrow; this is why I made the former an alternate name in the previous edit. I checked her homepage, this is in fact the same person. So it's apparently a typo in the Aeon Twelve ToC.Fsfo 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am the one who let the the initial author pseudonym attribution go through and I am also the verifier of Aeon 12. At that time I double-checked and the Aeon 12 attribution is indeed spelled incorrectly in the pub. It's generally good protocol to inform the verifier of a pub when a change is being made that will affect one of the pubs they have verified or even check with them before you make the change. Glad you noticed the variant spelling. Glad to have your eagle eye at the ISFDB.--swfritter 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that I should inform the verifier first, I'll do that in the future! Fsfo 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't notice the "e" vs "a" difference in author names. I have now approved the variant. -DES Talk 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As to notifying a verifier, it is a good idea. If a change involved adding a cover image, or adding to the the notes, such as addign an OCLC number, or filling in a field left blank, you can generally notify the verifier at the same time (just before or just after) you make your edit. If the change seems major, and in particular if it involves removing or altering any info in the existing record, it is a good idea to ask the verifier first, and wait for a response. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. Some verifiers have notes at the tops of their talk pages indicating the kinds of changes the do and do not wish to be notified of, and/or linking to a special page for such notifications. -DES Talk 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Flurb

I don't know if you were planning on entering more issues of Flurb but, if you are, I would suggest waiting. As you will see on the Policy page there are only three webzines that are currently authorized. The Flurb entries were entered under the radar. Also, I looked at their website and noticed that their back issues are not organized on an issue by issue basis which makes it impossible to verify them. We are gradually working towards webzine policies and there are some other webzines that would probably be acceptable if someone were willing to do the work.--swfritter 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't plan to actually add the other issues, just came across these three issues without a Wiki page. I agree that other webzines should have higher priority anyway. Fsfo 19:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Without past issues being in issue format it would have been difficult to do anyway. Now we know they are there. I will probably put a note on the wiki page saying that no more issues should be entered. Always nice to have a fresh set of eyes looking at the data.--swfritter 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Princess and the Lord of Night

I approved your edit changing this from a NOVEL to a CHAPTERBOOK, and changing the fiction title from a NOVEL to SHORTFICTION. However, the 2nd edit changing the fiction title to a CHAPTERBOOK would not have had the correct result, and i am about to reject it. I did add a CHAPTERBOOK title record. The result is here.

In general a CHAPTERBOOK publication will have three records associated with it. The first is the CHAPTERBOOK type publication record. This represents the actual publication, and includes details like the publication date, price, ISBN, publisher, page count, etc. The second is the SHORTFICTION type title record. This represents the text of the fiction, and will be associated with every publication of this text, whether in a "chapterbook", collection, anthology, or whereever. The third is the CHAPTERBOOK type title record. This stores title-level fields like series info. It will be associated with every "chapterbook" publication of the fiction, but not with other publications.

When converting a NOVEL to a CHAPTERBOOK one must convert the NOVEL publication record to a CHAPTERBOOK, and the NOVEL title record to SHORTFICTION. One must then edit the publication and ADD a new title record of type CHAPTERBOOK. Chapterbooks are in many ways like one-item collections. Collections also have a COLLECTION title and a COLLECTION publication record, and several SHORTFICTION title records (and possibly essay or interiorart records also). See ISFDB:Chapterbook cleanup for more examples, before & after. -DES Talk 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see - Thanks for the info (I was looking for instructions like these, but didn't find anything...) -Fsfo 08:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope I got it right this time (for John Crowley's Conversation Hearts); so basically for changing a Novel to a Chapterbook, I have to make all three changes as described above in the same dialog (editPub), is that correct? Thanks -Fsfo 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your edits to Conversation Hearts look correct. You do need to make all three changes. You do not have to make them all in the same edit. If a novel has multiple publications, its type cannot be changed from the editPub dialog, but must be changed from an EditTitle dialog instead. The addition of the CHAPTERBOOK title record can be done at the same time, or in a subsequent edit.
I was going to hold your edit because it had been primary verified, but I see you notified the verifier, and that he hasn't posted to the wiki since August, so i don't see any point in asking you to wait for his response. However, in future, when making major changes (and a change from novel to chapterbook pretty clearly is major) to a verified pub, it is generally a good idea to ask and get a response (or wait for several days with no response) before proceeding. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. Also it is helpful if when notifing a verifier (or asking one for permission to make a change) that you include a link to the relevant publication record. Template {{P}} can be used for this purpose.
I have approved your edit to Conversation Hearts. -DES Talk 17:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Royale?

You have a "Make Pseudonym - unknown" submission and then a "Remove Psuedonym - unknown" following it. From the Moderators end it is sometimes difficult to determine intent.--swfritter 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's currently the wrong way around (compared to other pseudonyms used by 'unknown'): Richard Royale is the only pseudonym appearing as 'Used As Alternate Name By' under unknown, where it should appear as 'Used These Alternate Names'. -Fsfo 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You can blame the dummy who verified the pub and either created the error or did not notice it. Another reason I held this was so to remind myself to check the source of the pseudonym attribution. Not Contento, Strauss or Tuck; the only source I have is McGhan who credits Metcalf. I have documented in Royale's Bibliographic Comments page, something we should do more often. Don't be hesitant to harass me with any questionable entries in my verified pubs. Thanks. --swfritter 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Santoro

Have two edits on hold. The first wants to make a variant title of a story that only exists (at least on the database) in one publication. The reason for the variant seems to be that the story, as currently recorded is credited to Lawrence Santoro minus the "P.". If, in this publication, the author's name does have the "P." then it should simply be updated, not made into a variant. The same applies to the creation of the pseudonym (second edit). If the one story's authorship is simply entered incorrectly (I am hoping you have the book), that does not mean there is a pseudonym. This is the only story that is credited to Santoro with no 'P.' Sounds like it might just need to be edited/corrected. Thanks for editing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book myself, unfortunately. The Locus index has the author as "Lawrence Santoro" without the "P.", therefore I haven't corrected the author. Thanks -Fsfo 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Locus is probably the source of the record in the first place. Will approve the edits and if someone eventually has the book then it can be looked at again. Thanks for editing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Disassembly

Greetings! Do you happen to have [this] issue? Since it is unverified, it is possible the entry was a typo from it's original creation in the DB, which would make the variant you submitted unnecessary. I see in the record that in the Barrett essay "Sciense" is in the title when one would expect "Science", so if that is a typo then another one for the M[a]cDonald story wouldn't be a stretch. I've asked Mike Hutchins to check what Locus has, as he has the CD with all their magazine listings, otherwise I don't know where else to check. However, Mike's availability is quite low at the moment so there might not be a response for a few days. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems the entry was a typo, see [this] discussion, so I just edited the name in the magazine record. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Amount to Carry, by Carter Scholz

I added a cover image, from Amazon, for your verified copy of this book. Chavey 11:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nature

I changed the date of this issue (and the McIntyre story) to 2008-07-10, based on the date you gave in the title. The date field should match the date if explicitly given in the title. It's OK to enter these nonfiction, nongenre magazines as long as you follow the guidelines. This one looked good, so you can proceed to add any other issues that have spec-fic content. (Just remember the thing about the date field.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do it like that for further issues. What about the Series Bibliography - should I add further years there as well, and would that automatically add the respective issues to the 'Issue Grid' or how is that done? Fsfo 20:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not automatic. It must be done through a manual submission. You go to the editor's page, and then update the editor record by adding the series (Nature) in the appropriate field. Because of the number of issues involved, in this case, it's better to merge all the issue of any given year into one record. Please ask if you need instructions on how to merge editor records.
Also, as I said above, the story's date should be the same date as the issue. If you leave the date blank, the system automatically dates all content entries with the same date given in the pub record. All of the submissions today are giving the story's date as "2009-00-00", while the issues are day-dated. Unless you're certain that these stories are reprints leave the date field blank in the content section of the submission. Mhhutchins 23:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the part about the story date. I'll just leave it blank, then. Thanks Fsfo 09:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the merging of the issues, I'd do it via "Show All Titles" of [Editors of Nature], and then via checkboxing all the issues to merge, plus "Nature - 2009" (in this case), using the latter as the merge title/date etc. - Would that be correct? Thanks Fsfo 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be right. BLongley 16:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fourth Invasion

I can't find any other corroboration that Henry Josephs was really Robert Lowndes on The Fourth Invasion. I do see that Project Gutenberg listing, but I'd prefer to see some other academic sort of citation. I have the submission on hold for the moment, while I keep looking. --MartyD 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahasuerus found Tuck lists Josephs as a Lowndes pseudonym. In it goes, sorry about the delay. --MartyD 02:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Conjunctions 39

You and Don Erikson have verified separate publications of Conjunctions 39: Erikson's, yours. These publications have the same ISBN, price, & page count and similar content, but different subtitles and editors. Would you mind checking with Don to see if these are the same publication with database discrepancies or if it's truly two different versions? I will post this at Don's talk page as well. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Contact me on my wiki page and we'll reconcile this problem.Don Erikson 19:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to remove my entry as a duplicate. If you want I'll added the two items to the contents. And add Straub as a co-editor.Don Erikson 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

ebook editions of Fantasy Magazine

I've accepted the submission to add this record to the database. You asked a question in the Note to Moderator field about dating. (We suggest that you ask questions before making submissions on the ISFDB:Help desk, which may save you time and effort. Questions asked in a submission can not be answered directly and may be overlooked.)

Now, to your question. It's OK to use the original publication date of the issues, but it would be a good idea to also add the actual publication of the ebook edition (November 2013) in the Note field. And noting the formats of the ebook is also suggested. (Look at the section for "Electronic books and periodicals" here.) Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 18:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ok - I'll continue with submissions of further Issues, then, including the additional information as suggested. Fsfo 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Subterranean

Thanks for adding the latest issues of this title. I've changed the editor credit of this record and made appropriate changes in the Note field. A question: where did you get the publication date? According to the guest editor's blog, this issue didn't appear until after the first of the year. Also, where did you find the cover art credit? I downloaded the ebook of that issue and it wasn't credited. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue was either published in late December, or early January. There is a blog post from Greg Egan dated December 31st here (sidebar), so it may have been already out by then. I tracked down the cover artist via Google image search, see e.g. here. Fsfo 21:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It is ISFDB policy to record the source for all unstated data in the Note field of the publication record. Appreciate it. Mhhutchins 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed the type of this record from NONGENRE to SHORTFICTION with a novella length. The NONGENRE type is limited to novel-length work. Have you read the story or have a reliable source to confirm that it is not sf? If so, you can add that to the Note field of the title record. Mhhutchins 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

ok, I didn't know that. I have read the story, it's a cold war era spy thriller; see also e.g. here. I added a note as suggested. Fsfo 21:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Lavie Tid(h)ar and Painting Walls in the Town of N

I rejected your varianting of a title Lavie Tidar to Lavie Tidhar. The entry was likely entered as a typo and I changed the author to Tidhar.

The data is from the publisher's website, and the author is given as 'Tidar' there. So it's a typo by the publisher - Shouldn't it be listed as such in that case? Fsfo 18:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, if it actually was published under the false name. But as the publication isn't verified we really don't know, we only know that it was falsely put onto a webpage. The best thing is to note the possible typo in the publication's entry (which I'll do).

I also have put your submission for a variant of Painting Walls in the Town of N on hold. What's your reasoning behind this submission, since there's no title with your proposed variant? Stonecreek 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That was the title of the story as published on the web (see here), and it seems to be the preferred title (see the author's webpage). I probably should have added a 'note to moderator'. Fsfo 18:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
From the look of the publisher's webpage in this case the shortfiction appears to actually have been published under your proposed variant title. So I rejected your submission (somewhat paradoxically, because you seem to be right in your intention), and retitled the entry instead. Thanks for finding this. Stonecreek 11:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization rules

I changed the title of this record to "A Game of Self Deceit". The capitalization rules are given under the "case" subsection in these instructions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. I made that submission via the web API, and I'd like to submit further issues of this magazine in the same way, because that's much faster (and at the same time hopefully less error-prone) than using the browser-based form. I'll post batches of about 20 submissions, as suggested here; is there anything else to consider when using the web API? Fsfo 22:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You should post that question on the Community Portal. I know absolutely nothing about API. Sorry. Mhhutchins 23:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Spec-fic stories in Nature

Are you certain that you're only creating records for spec-fic stories? Mhhutchins 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I only include the 'Futures' section, there is one story per issue. 'Futures' is labelled as "Nature's Science-Fiction column", so the content should actually be SF, and fiction as well (see e.g. here). Is there a specific entry you're not sure about? Some of them may be by authors not listed yet in the ISFDB, but I don't think they should be excluded for that reason. Fsfo 22:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The link you provided to their website makes it clear that the stories are science fiction. Thanks.
BTW, I'm uncertain what you mean by "SF, and fiction as well..." All spec-fic is fiction. All fiction isn't spec-fic. Fiction about science and scientists isn't necessarily science fiction. We only document speculative fiction. The author not being in the database has never been a factor for inclusion. Otherwise they'd never be any new authors entered into the database! Mhhutchins 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, that didn't make much sense ... I guess I meant to say that the 'Futures' content is always fiction, as opposed to e.g. future-oriented essays ('Speculative Non-Fiction'?). Fsfo 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it. :) Mhhutchins 19:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Nature magazine format

Looking at photos of issues of this periodical, and the OCLC listing showing it to be 26-28 centimeters, it seems to indicate that it is "quarto" format (approximately 8.5 x 11"). Because it is based in the UK, it could also be classified as "A4", but that would indicate a larger size (29-30 cm).Mhhutchins 19:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Only two issues have been verified, and both were entered as "quarto". Mhhutchins 19:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
"Quarto" seems to be correct: The 'Futures' stories are often available as PDFs, which apparently show the actual page from the respective issue, see e.g. here. The PDF file properties indicate a page size of 8.27" x 10.87". Based on all this, should I go ahead and enter further issues as "quarto"? Fsfo 20:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're up to it, to round out the project, I would suggest linking their title records to the online publication of each story. (There's a webpage link field for titles.) That's your call. Mhhutchins 20:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll think about it ... I'd do it immediately if there was a way to add links for stories directly when submitting a new publication (instead of having to add the link via "Edit Title Data"). Fsfo 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Fsfo&oldid=342945"