User talk:Kpulliam/Archives04

David Falkayn: Star Trader

I see that you entered a number of introductions in David Falkayn: Star Trader as "short fiction" as opposed to "essays". Was that on purpose? Also, I have merged a number of stories with their pre-existing siblings, but I think "Satan's World" still needs some TLC. Ahasuerus 03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes the introductions as fiction was intentional. They are excerpts from fictional works in the universe the stories are written in and credited as quotes to "—Hloch of the Stormgate Choth The Earth Book of Stormgate" Kevin 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, happens all the time! Do you think we could explain the details in Title Notes? Ahasuerus 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes amended. Kevin 05:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As to the Satan's world conflict.... the copyright page calls out the original Analog publication.... I don't know which version is here in the new Baen Collection. I will do some more research (Maybe ask the folks at Baen) as to which version it is. Kevin 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the "short fiction" version has been now merged with the "novel" version. Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I got both confirmation from the series editor at Baen that it was based on the Doubleday SFBC Edition, and some trivia from some fen with an actual quote illustrating a passage that was censored in the original Analog publication. Kevin 05:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hodgell's God Stalk Chronicles

In your submission to add the contents to this omnibus, you wrote over the first content record which contains the title reference, the link between pub and title. (This is only visible on some pub types, not all.) Remember when you're adding content, never overwrite any existing contents, even if they're wrong. You were changing the record from novel to omnibus, which is correct, but that is done in the upper portion of the pub edit fields. Leave anything in the content fields until the pub has been accepted. Just use the "Add Title" function to add each of the contents that are missing. I'm going to reject the submission (it would take several submissions to reconnect the pub to the title if I let it through), but I'll make the corrections based on the information you provided. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we need a 'preview submission' view for us non-moderators that gives us the same 'view' moderators have but without an accept or reject button. I'm not counting on it happening, but I feel like most of my mistakes are fairly obvious if we can 'see' what is being changed like we do for a merge records submission. Kevin 05:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if you saw it the same way we see the submission, certain errors would jump out, and, thankfully the submission page is designed that way. I like your idea about having a preview of the submission before finalizing it, especially for non-mods. (Personally, it would slow down certain multi-step submissions that mods have to make, so, like you, I don't see it being implemented.) Check out the record now and see if it matches what you had submitted. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Memorial Anthology

You submitted a new edition of this title, but it appears to be the same as this pub, the main difference being the title under which it was published. Does the title page of your copy state the title is The John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology (the title record you submitted under)? This was the British title of the anthology and I assume that Ballantine used the same title as the US first edition, Astounding: The John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology. I want to keep your submission because you add a lot more contents than are in the current record. Once I've heard back from you, I'll determine whether to keep your submission as is and move it to the right title and delete the current record. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DOh! - Yes please change the title of my submission to the American Publication title. I cloned the wrong pub version. (I will still need to go back and cleanup some page numbers but that's fairly easy.) Kevin 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, an editor who frequently checks his talk page! There's not many of you out there. Sometimes we mods leave messages and don't hear back, sometimes hours, sometimes days, sometimes never. I'll go ahead and accept your submission and come back here with the new record number so you can clean it up. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the new pub record. I'll delete the old record. Also when I added a link to the pub's cover, I noticed that the "The" is missing from the title. Is it on the pub's title page? MHHutchins 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Many corrections submitted. A couple more approvals and it will be finished I think. (Then I can merge the ONE variant introduction work I wanted to document in order to finish up something on the David Falkayn collection. (Sigh) Kevin 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Contents for Lackey anthology

In case you were interested, here's a complete listing for contents of this pub. MHHutchins 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

163x

Surely we can find a better name for this series. I find it hard to believe that anyone looking through the database would do a search for "163x". Thanks. MHHutchins 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called Assiti Shards on Wikipedia. Was there any particular reason for changing it here on the ISFDB? MHHutchins 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you're still working on the series and subseries. I'll get back to you when you've finished. MHHutchins 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... this is a fairly complex series, and I'm trying to shape the series bibliography so its not quite so 'breathtaking' while still making sure that everything makes sense to people familiar with the series, and still findable yet comprehensible in smaller chunks by folks looking for it for the first time. I'm still working out some kinks. Check back in a week or so. Kevin 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that this universe is metastasizing, e.g. 1632 Fiction is not a sub-series under Assiti Shards and neither is Assiti Shards (1632). Keep in mind that the only way to merge two series is to manually move all Titles from one series to the other until the first one is empty. Once a series is empty, it doesn't disappear and hangs around forever, so we usually rename it to something with the word "delete" in the title and re-use it later.

Anyway, do you have a secret master plan to herd all of these series back under the same roof or would you like some help? Ahasuerus 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

AHA - That part about them not disappearing explains the collision I just had (I was trying to combine two series). The reason it was 'metastasizing' was because I was trying to break them apart, and then build them back together WIHTOUT having to change the series name on all the short fiction that was already in a series. The Goal organization is as below.

Assiti Shards
- Assiti Shards (1632)
  - 163x
  - Ring of Fire
  - Grantville Gazette
  - 1632 Fact
  - 1632 Fiction
- Assiti Shards (Other)

Kevin 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Well, you are getting close, the only outstanding issue is to organize all "1632 Fiction" stories into one series. Since we can't merge series directly, the easiest way to get there would be to do the following:

move the 27 stories that are currently under "1632 Fiction" to "1632 Fiction (TEMPORARY)"
change the Parent Series of "The Anne Jefferson Stories" to "1632 Fiction (TEMPORARY)"
rename "1632 Fiction" to something like "1632 Fiction (Delete)"
rename "1632 Fiction (TEMPORARY)" to "1632 Fiction"

Not pretty, but it beats the alternative, i.e. moving all "1632 Fiction (TEMPORARY)" stories to "1632 Fiction"... Ahasuerus 05:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately - One of the goals of this reorganization was to get the hundreds of fiction short stories 'below' everything else. There are only about 100 items in TEMPORARY right now. Once I get done updating the Grantville Gazettes and adding issues 9 through 22 I think the short fiction titles will total about 200+ and frankly that many items NEED to be at the bottom of the bibliography. Most folks visiting the series are going to be interested in the Novels and Anthologies themselves and scrolling through 5 pages of short stories is pushing it.Kevin 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but your dedication is quite admirable! Ahasuerus 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing that should be mentioned is that although sub-series are currently ordered within their parent series by internal number, i.e. in the order that they were originally created, this is more of an accident than a conscious design decision. We have requested the addition of a new field that would be used for sub-series ordering, but it's not at the top of the list of priorities and who knows how/when it will be implemented. Ahasuerus 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured that out, during my 'metastasizing' phase of reorganization. SO what I'm going to end up doing (to make use of that function) is move the 163x items to Fiction TEMPORARY (and then rename as needed), and move the Grantville Gazettes to the OLD 163x (and then rename as needed) in order to swap those two items in the display order, then I'm going to rename the last empty category after the musical chairs to 1632 TEMPORARY HOLDING-DO NOT DELETE and unlink it from the bibliography. That way if I ever need another category at the same level as 1632 fiction, I will have a category number on hold, that is older and displays above 1632 fiction. Kevin 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Grantville Gazette III

I rejected your submission to make one of these titles a variant of the other. At the moment, when titles are exactly the same, it's best to handle the variations at the pub level and not the title level. Just place notes in each of the pubs about the difference. You can also record it in the notes of the title record, once you've merged the two titles into one record. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Volume I has one essay that appears in only the electronic version. Volume II Has one added story in Paper, and the complete serial that appears in volume II and III electronically. Volume three has one more story in paper than in electronic, while the paper loses the second half of the serial that appears in the electronic version. Volume IV gains one added story. Volumes I-IV all have different introductions. Volume V (Scheduled at Amazon for August this year) will include stories and articles published in multiple electronic issues (Electronic volumes V through probably X will all donate stories to Paper Volume V). I imagine that Volume VI (Planned but not scheduled) will include stories from Volumes XI through XVI. The electronic edition is publishing 6 issues a year now, while the paper is taking about 14 months per issue. I would Welcome a better way to document this... but I just don't think a 'note' will be sufficient. I was thinking of having them be variants and appending to either paper or electronic an explanation like so...'Grantville Gazette ## (Magazine)' or 'Grantville Gazette xx (Print)'... but I dislike the second option because there is an ebook of the print edition. Volumes 1-IV could probably be handled by notes somewhat, but Volume 5 is going to be beyond the capabilities of a note to document whats going on in a coherent fashion. I'm open to suggestion...really! - Any ideas? Kevin 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reel Future

I see from the notes you left that you verified Reel Future but did not mark it as "verified"

I have a copy with the dust jacket though am undecided if I have a book club or retail edition. Mine looks retail in every aspect except for no price and that the copyright page is rather plain. It has a number line but no printing date. I suspect what I'll do is to verify the BCE record and note there is no book club #. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That was one of my very first edits / attempts at verification here at the ISFDB, it's not surprising that I never got back around to actually marking it verified. Does your dustjacket have any cover art, or cover artist identified?Kevin 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a cover image from Amazon. It's a series of photos with the back jacket flap listing the copyright owners which are film studios. I'll be double checking the page numbers and such and will update your notes at the same time. I think what I'll do is to document the copyright page, back cover bar code, etc. so that if someone comes along with a confirmed SFBD or trade edition that that can update the notes to indicate either their publication matches or how it's different. I don't think I have any other "Barnes & Noble" books and so have no idea if they stated a price when originally sold. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Von Neumann's War

Last night you created a submission that would have changed the hardcover edition of Ringo/Taylor's Von Neumann's War to an e-book. Since OCLC shows that the hardcover edition exists and uses this ISBN, I assumed that you meant to Clone Pub instead of Edit Pub, so I rejected the submission and created a new publication record instead. Could you please double check whether it matches your data? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I had intended to update HC with cover artist and clone for an ebook... and apparently I tried to combine the steps. I went back and updated the HC, and reformatted the notes. Thanks again!Kevin 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Miles, Mutants and Microbes

I see that you would like to move this omnibus from "Barrayar" to "Quaddies". As far as I can tell, only one of the three novels in the book is in the "Quaddies" series while the other two are Miles novels. Given this ratio, would you say that we want the Omnibus Title to remain under the Barrayar super-series? Ahasuerus 07:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This omnibus collects all three stories (2 novels, 1 short fiction) with Quaddies as primary characters. The last sentence of the authors introduction states "But most of all, this omnibus, haunted as it is by the ghosts of books unwritten, never to be written, collects the quaddies in all their charm". So the intent of this omnibus was to collect (and identify) the Quaddie related material (even that material which may normally be classed in the other Barrayar sub-series). Kevin 07:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, interesting! I suppose the most logical way to handle this situation would be to put the two affected Miles novels in both sub-series, but, unfortunately, our software doesn't support that. If we moved the Omnibus to the Quaddies sub-series, then the fact that 2/3 of its contents is in another sub-series would be confusing. Perhaps leave it in Barrayar and add a Note to the Omnibus Title? Ahasuerus 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The title (with "Miles") clues anyone looking for Miles Vorkosigan material that the volume has content related to him, but only the subtle hint of 'mutants' in the title clues folks looking for stories related to the Quaddies. By putting it in the Quaddie sub series, we flag it from the outset as quaddie related material. Folks looking for material concerning Miles literally cannot help but to trip over it throughout the Barrayar universe, but material related to the Quaddies is not so labelled elsewhere. Another way to look at is is that 2/3 titles contain fiction related to Miles, while 3/3 or 100% of the fiction is related to the Quaddies sub plot / story arc... in fact this collection tells that whole story arc as complete as it's going to get, while anyone looking for Miles material 'might' at most not stumble upon one novel and one short fiction work. Kevin 05:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the approach seems logical, but it's rather unusual, so perhaps we should bring it up on the Standards board to see what other folks think? Ahasuerus 06:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Rules_and_standards_discussions#Multiple_Sub_Series_Omnibus Kevin 17:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Search for the Star Stones

Just a note that I have approved your changes to Search for the Star Stones, but had to massage the publication afterward. First, I changed the Search for the Star Stones Title, which you had marked "remove", to Omnibus since we need to have an Omnibus Title in Omnibus Publication -- this is a very common mistake when changing types. Second, I merged the added The Zero Stone and Uncharted Stars with their pre-existent counterparts, keepng the old Novel type instead of Short Fiction. Finally, I put the Omnibus Title for Search for the Star Stones in the Jern Murdoc series as "/1,2". We seem to be all set now :) Ahasuerus 07:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the series update in another submission (which you can now cancel), and the merge had to wait until after the edit was accepted. I'll make a note to remember that when correcting a novel to an omnibus I should change the titled content of the publication to Omnibus in the future. Thanks! Kevin 07:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Question - Would my submitted (but not processed) edit of the Title record where I changed the title type to Omnibus and added the series information have been equal to your changing of the title record to omnibus on the pub edit, and then the edit of the title to add the series data? (Still two edits, still two moderator approvals?) The reason I ask is I just converted another novel to an omnibus (also an Andre Norton) and I expect to have several more as I clean up the last 10 years of Baen pubs. Thanks Kevin 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing a Title records in the Contents section of a publication is 100% equivalent to changing the same Title record via "Title Edit". The only difference is that the "Title Edit" screen lets you edit more fields, including series fields, while editing Titles in the Contents section limits you to changing their date, type and the ss/nt/nv value for short fiction. Also, there are a few minor bugs with editing Titles through Contents, e.g. under some circumstances Omnibuses have the word "None" (a Python default for some things) inserted in the Storylen field, but nothing major.

The biggest concern with editing Titles via Contents is forgetting that it changes the underlying Title record and not just the Title's appearance in one publication. It happens a lot to new editors, so we have requested a change to the edit screen, but who knows when it may be implemented... Ahasuerus 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So in other words.. the more proper way to submit this is to 1. Add novels and change Pub to Omnibus, 2. Change Title to Omnibus and Add Series, and 3. Submit title merges X times for X novels added (Which is what I did, steps, 1, 2, and then 3 was handled immediately by you before I could submit this change). The only misstep I took was to mark the title record as remove. - Thanks - Kevin 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That would work except that I would probably change the original Title record to Omnibus when making the first edit. That way the approving moderator will immediately realize what you are trying to accomplish :) Ahasuerus 06:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pohl's Annals of the Heechee

I noticed after accepting your submission for this printing that there appears to be an identical verified copy already in the db. MHHutchins 07:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I see now that the other one was printed in Canada. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pournelle's A Step Farther Out

Do the pieces that you list in the notes of this pub appear as chapters within the book itself? If so, are the chapters numbered or titled? If they're titled, they can be entered as contents so that each will have their own title record. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are sections with the same or similar titles, but there is other material added, and I think the 'Substantially different' comment lends it to being a non0fiction fix-up. I was planning on following the general fix-up guideline of linking to the original works in the notes but not making variants of the articles. I need to make lots of links, and then reformat the paragraphs into a list.. but my first stab at linking from the notes is pending approval now. Let me know what you recommend. Thanks Kevin 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If they're the same titles that were used in the Galaxy column, I see no reason why they shouldn't be entered as content records and merged with the original title records with a note explaining that they were revised for book publication. We have hundreds of titles already in the database of works that were revised in subsequent publications. Unfortunately at the moment there's no way to represent the relationship between works of the same title by the same author, something I've been hoping for from almost the first week I started here on the ISFDB. We've had to resort in some cases by appending to the title explanations like "revised", "expanded", "rewritten", etc. If you want to go to the effort of writing the HTML links to the original records, perhaps it would be better to place them in the title record notes where they will be more visible, just like we currently do for fix-up novels. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dag nabbit I think you talked me into it...I'll come back and put in contents later this week. Kevin 04:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevin 18:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing contents rather than unmerging

I'm holding a submission in which you wish to unmerge a pub (Cities in Space) from a content title (The Endless Frontier). This is possible but it can cause several software bugs to rear their ugly heads. The page number for the content entry of the unmerged pub will disappear. Sometimes the name of the content's title record changes to the title of the pub. The best approach would be to remove the content entry (the essay "The Endless Frontier") from the pub (Cities in Space) using the "Remove Titles from This Pub" editing tool. Then add the new content entry (if that was your intention) even if the content entry has the same name. This would create an entirely new content title record. The unmerge edit is best used to remove a pub from it's title reference record, thereby creating a new title record with the same name as the pub removed, leaving all other pubs "linked" to the previous title record. Perhaps if you would explain the purpose of your submission we can determine the best way to accomplish your goal. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. My intention was to 'unmerge' the two essays sharing the same title. It appears that the best way to do that is to follow your suggestion of removing the essay form the Cities in Space collection, and then add a new content entry (this time with a parenthetical identifier to prevent someone from merging it again). Please reject my submission. Thanks Kevin 06:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Starship: Pirate/Starship: Mutiny merges

"Appendix Two: The Layout of the Birthright Universe", "Appendix Three: Chronology of the Birthright Universe", "About the Author". In all three merges the later date is chosen rather than the early date. Is this what you intended?--swfritter 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No it was not my intent. The 2005 date should have been selected. Thanks for catching my mistake. Please either amend my my submission, or reject it an I will resubmit. Thanks Kevin 01:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You did them right. Guess I was in a bit of a hurry.--swfritter 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Star

I approved the addition of the second printing of Dana Stabenow's Second Star, but then I checked the Locus Index and it has a different price listed for the second printing. Also, something seems to be fishy with the cover art credit:

* *Second Star (Ace 0-441-75722-7, Jun ’91 [May ’91], $3.95, 202pp, pb, cover by Martin Andrews) [Star Svensdotter] Sf novel of a frontier space colony in danger from “flatlanders”, first book of a series. A first novel.
* _Second Star (Ace 0-441-75722-7, Nov ’94 [Oct ’94], $4.50, 202pp, pb, cover by David Cherry) [Star Svensdotter] Reissue (Ace 1991) SF novel; second printing.

Could you please check the price and the cover art credit in your copy? TIA! Ahasuerus 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The price was in error (my cloning mistake), but the cover artist is confirmed (per the copyright page). I have only ever seen the one cover art for this title. Even the authors own website shows this cover art (which is why I assigned the same cover artist to the first printing, since I assume that her copy is from the first printing in 1991, not the 3 year later re-issue). I believe the listing in Locus is probably wrong for the first printing cover artist, but we will need someone to verify that eventually. Thanks for noticing my fumble. An updated submission is in the Queue. Kevin 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More research and a submission to change the cover art link and the notes for the First is in the Queue now as well. Note the Cover Art is the same, but the line immediately under the name is different... indicating that the same artwork was used for both 1st and second printings. Thanks Kevin 23:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spindrift

Kevin, FYI, we usually just put the title for interior art (rather than "Illustration (Spindrift)"), expect maps or ... (I can't think of another example at the moment). It's no big deal, & I'll fix. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew that felt funny, but the obvious solution didn't float to the surface. Thanks - Kevin 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonomicon - Avon HC 3rd printing

Not sure if you missed changing the publication date in a clone, but if the copyright page states "First Avon Books printing: May 1999", and then indicates that it is the 3rd printing, then the publication date of the 3rd printing is unlikely to be 1999-05-00. Unless there's some other evidence of the date for the 3rd printing, need to indicate that the date is unknown - put 0000-00-00. (A quick look in Locus 1 didn't resolve anything.) Your submission is on hold for now. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 10:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I missed changing the date. By the time I got to the bottom I must have been thinking I had already typed it in. Either amend my submission or approve it and I will go back and change it. - Thanks Kevin 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

fixed --j_clark 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Industrial Revolution

I'm sure a lot of Democrats thought Goldwater's ideas were fiction, but is the introduction to this pub? :) MHHutchins 03:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

HA! - Thanks for making my night! I submitted a correction. A question - Is there anyway to make a the core work here, show alongside the introduction? Did I miss a particular trick? - Thanks again! Kevin 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That's in the software. A publication typed as NONFICTION will not show the title reference link in its contents. Same thing with ANTHOLOGY, OMNIBUS and COLLECTION. Only a NOVEL will contain a title link, but then only if there are other contents added (fiction or not). I think it's designed that way so that if the book contains essays or other pieces (fiction or not) (like A Step Farther Out) the record will display only the contents. At the moment there's not a way to designate that a NONFICTION pub is one work or a collection of individual works. MHHutchins 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Checklist of Science-Fiction and Supernatural Fiction

I added a cover image to THCHCKLSTB1978 --Rtrace 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ooohhh I see you have a copy of the 1948 edition. Cool! - Now if I need to find out if a listing changed between 48 and 78 I know who to come bug (Chuckle) - Thanks again. Kevin 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I'd be happy to look up differences. I've got a couple dozen bibliographies and checklists sitting next to my desk. I've noticed that other editors will list sources to which they have access. I may do so myself, so my name will stop showing up as red. I enjoy this sort of thing way too much.--Rtrace 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Baen Free Library

I noticed that you added Jeffery A. Carver titles. Are you going to keep an eye out for any new releases? If so, have at it. I just finished off the pre-2008 releases. Of course, we all have different ideas of how things should appear. The unpaginated issue is still unresolved - an issue that has as many solutions as there are editors. Also, my own inclination is to be sparing with the HTML formatting primarily for portability reasons but also because it makes it more difficult for editors with less knowledge of HTML to make changes. It looks like the Analog issues for February and March were entered - but they had not been linked on the wiki page!--swfritter 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I plan on keeping an eye out for new Baen free library releases. In fact I've been considering duplicate entries (one with a price and priginal pub date and one without on the Baen Free library release date) for the books that are Baen releases that then got 'converted' to a free book later (To document the fact that some people pay for them, and others have not). As for the html formatting, I previously limited myself to <P> and HREF links. I expanded that to include <ul> Unnumbered Lists and <li> List Items but I always make sure it's limited to a single html command per line (That way a newbie can realistically figure it out without great effort, and it is still easily readable in plain text). And I knew that Tpi had been working the Analogs so I was never in great doubt on that front. If they ever decide to stop policing those new issues I'm happy to jump in, but until then, I'm fine with a single cook in that kitchen. Cheers - Kevin 23:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Good idea on the duplicates. The HTML you are doing is easy to copy and paste for new paragraphs and lines.--swfritter 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Series troubles

Just a note that once created, a Series record doesn't disappear when the series is emptied and the record can't be deleted. This behavior is due to the difficulty that the software has with determining whether a series is truly empty or whether it contains nested sub-sub-sub-(etc)-series, so the auto-delete code which automatically deletes Author records with no Titles/Pubs doesn't work for Series. Even more annoyingly, once a series has been assigned to a parent series, you can change, but can't blank out the latter, so the former is doomed to remain a sub-series of some other series.

However, Series records can be renamed/reused and their parent series can be changed to some other (usually placeholder) series. In the case of the Posleen series, I changed the top-level series ("DELETE") to "Posleen Universe", linked all bottom-level sub-series to it and renamed/re-pointed the intermediate series to a "to be deleted" series. Not pretty, but I think it looks reasonable now and we can adjust individual series/sub-series names as needed.

Oh, and careful with apostrophes in sub-series names: sometimes the software doesn't process them properly and creates a new Series record. Overall, our series support leaves much to be desired... Ahasuerus 02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)