User talk:Nihonjoe

Revision as of 15:20, 30 November 2023 by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (→‎Paycheck: fixed)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice: If you're here to tell me of a minor change (image added, additional information added, etc.) to one of my verified publications, you do not need to make a note of it here. Thanks!

Nihonjoe's Talk Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14

1634: The Bavarian Crisis

The Pages field for your verified publication 1634: The Bavarian Crisis currently shows '[x]+690+[3]'. I initially approved a submission removing the brackets from the Roman numeral (subsequently reversed). Per the help, we enter the Roman numeral for the highest numbered page. Hence, brackets can never be correct. However, I own a copy of the first edition, there are no Roman numerals in my copy. In my opinion, the correct entry for Pages is '690+[3]'. Do you agree? If not, why? John Scifibones 16:53, 9 September 2023 (EDT)

Same for The Dreeson Incident and 1635: The Eastern Front.

After looking at all the first printings up through 1636: The China Venture, I think the proper way to account for the maps is an unnumbered Arabic sequence. I'll be glad to verify them after we reach agreement. John Scifibones 17:16, 9 September 2023 (EDT)

For The Dreeson Incident and 1635: The Eastern Front, I removed the brackets as the notes don't indicate anything about the pages being unnumbered but referenced in the table of contents. I think 1634: The Bavarian Crisis should be left as is since it does have a note indicating the pages are unnumbered but referenced in the table of contents. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:37, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
I don't follow your line of reasoning.
  • Publication pages field: Where does the help section support the use of Roman numerals for a publication which has no pages with Roman numerals?
  • Content titles page field: If there are no Roman numerals in the pages field, how can the content titles have a Roman numeral? You mention pub notes referring to the publication's contents page. Wouldn't that contradict this statement from the help? "Caution: Do not use the table of contents to determine the page numbers of a publication's contents."
Here is my analysis of the above two fields for numbers 2-28 (hc except for the 3 only printed in tp) in the 163x series. Note, correct in this analysis is determined by using Bullet point 3 here.
  • "Sometimes a publication will have unnumbered pages before page 1. If there is any material in these pages which needs to be entered as part of the contents of the book, you may record this by entering the count in squared brackets. For example, [6]+320 would be a publication with six unnumbered pages and then 320 numbered pages. There is no need to record these unnumbered pages if they contain no content that needs to be recorded. At times you will need to count backwards from the first numbered page to see which is page 1 and then would count the unnumbered pages that are before this. Likewise, you may record the count of unnumbered pages at the end of a publication. For example, 320+[4]. As before, only do this if there is additional content in these pages that requires the creation of a content record, as when there is an afterword or book excerpt which appears on unnumbered pages."
A couple of your verified publications do use the method I consider correct. Since you, User:Philfreund and I are the only active verifiers, I'll invite him to participate here. Thanks for your time, John Scifibones 16:39, 13 September 2023 (EDT)
I also don't understand your use of Roman numerals where the only place they exist is in the ToC. I agree with John's points above. His second point about the content titles explicitly forbidding the use of the ToC for page numbering surely points for the need to have consistency in the pages field contents, even if not currently explicitly stated. There also definitely needs to be a note in each publication record where this situation exists since it's such an anomaly. The Help for the pages field should be updated to cover this situation. Looking at John's analysis, I need to go back and fix some of the publications where I am sole active PV; I'm not sure how I missed them the first time through. Thanks. Phil (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
If page numbers are given in the TOC, even if the pages themselves aren't numbered, I consider them numbered. There are some books that just don't number things prior to page 1, but I've seen a few (like this one) that have the page numbers given in the TOC but not on the actual pages. Why wouldn't we use the page numbers given in the TOC for that? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:55, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
Perhaps a discussion needs to be opened on the Rules and standards discussions page so this can be sorted out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:56, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
I was about to recommend that when I saw your second post. For now, do you agree with Phil and I correcting the publications which do not comply with present standards? There are 12 more, in the above analysis, that I would like to add my PV. John Scifibones 13:09, 15 September 2023 (EDT)
Let's leave 1634: The Bavarian Crisis alone for now, but any of the others I don't have are fine to correct. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:10, 15 September 2023 (EDT)

Followed here from this post
I have sympathies with both sides in this discussion.
A) The Nihonjoe camp (use the Roman numeral from the ToC):
The Help statement: "Caution: Do not use the table of contents to determine the page numbers of a publication's contents." is presumably intended to apply to the situation where a page number is stated in the ToC and a different page number is stated (or is derivable by counting forwards / backwards) on the page on which the contents begin. However, the scenario that has been raised with 1634: The Bavarian Crisis is different. Here, a page number is stated in the ToC but the page number on the page on which the contents begin IS NULL (and is not derivable by counting forwards / backwards). Consider a hypothetical situation in which the title of a piece of Shortfiction is stated in the ToC but the publisher completely omits the title on the page on which the contents begin. It would be daft to record this piece of Shortfiction as having a null title (even assuming the ISFDb software permitted it). In such a case we would use the title from a secondary source and using the title from the ToC seems sensible. This analogy supports using a Roman numeral page number stated in the ToC for the scenario under discussion.
B) The Scifibones / Philfreund camp (use Arabic numerals in square brackets):
However, from the other side of the fence, the ISFDb rules already have a method for assigning page numbers to unnumbered pages that are not derivable by counting forwards / backwards, namely, the use of Arabic numerals in square brackets. So we don't need to resort to a secondary source for the page number and my analogy above regarding the null title breaks down. The way Pages are denoted in the ISFDb is already horrendously complicated and if we adopt option A) we introduce further complications and also open other cans of worms. Example 1): Should the Roman numeral be enclosed in square brackets? This is currently not supported in the ISFDb rules but I can envisage someone making a case for it to be introduced if we adopt option A). Example 2) Suppose a map is on an unnumbered page that is derivable by counting backwards (page 4, say) but the ToC lists it on page iv? What do we do? More complications. More Help notes required.
My Conclusion:
Weighing up all the above, I vote for option B) (use Arabic numerals in square brackets). Whichever way it does go, i) the Help notes need updating to clarify what to do and ii) a pub note definitely needs to be added to explain the discrepancy and the Help notes should state this. Teallach (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (EDT)

I think there's some confusion here. As noted at the top of the discussion, "1634: The Bavarian Crisis currently shows '[x]+690+[3]'". What Scifibones and Philfreund are suggesting is that we shouldn't be using the roman numerals at all because the pages themselves don't have any roman numerals. I'm suggesting that we should use the roman numerals as given in the TOC because they are given there (despite not being on the actual pages). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 18 September 2023 (EDT)
I do not understand why you think there is some confusion. I agree with your statement above regarding what topic we are discussing. That is what I addressed in my previous post. In my opinion, we should not use Roman numerals when there are no pages with printed Roman numerals. The fact that the ToC may quote Roman numerals is irrelevant. I explained the reasons for my view in my previous post. I have found and looked at the hardcover of 1634: The Bavarian Crisis on Pages should be [10]+690+[3] and in the Contents section the Start Page of the maps should be [8]. Teallach (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (EDT)
Well, I disagree with that. If we have something in the publication telling us what page number something is, we should use it, especially in cases where there's no other source. Perhaps this needs to be taken to the Rules and standards discussions? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:54, 27 September 2023 (EDT)
We could even incorporate the discussion that's already there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:00, 27 September 2023 (EDT)
I agree it should be moved there but have no idea how that's done so we don't lose what's already been discussed. Phil (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (EDT)
There is no need to move this to the Rules and standards discussion page. The circumstance where the actual pages are unnumbered but numbering (whether Roman or Arabic) is given in the ToC is clearly covered.
As John pointed out in his post above (* Content titles page field:), "Caution: Do not use the table of contents to determine the page numbers of a publication's contents.".
If there is a discrepancy between the actual numbering, or lack of, on the page and that given in the ToC, then that should be recorded in the notes.
Why or how is this not clear? Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2023 (EDT)
If the table of contents is the only source of the page numbers, I think it's fine to use what it says. That cautionary note is because there have been many instances where a ToC hasn't been updated with correct page numbers for content within a book (such as stories or essays), so going with the actual page numbers for those is what should be done. I don't think it was meant to be applied in cases such as this where the pages themselves don't have page numbers on them, but the ToC clearly shows there are page numbers for them. That's why I'm arguing for using those page numbers in this case, and I included a note to that effect in the publication in question. Your interpretation is why I think this needs to be discussed at R&S. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:51, 17 October 2023 (EDT)

You have had over a month to show something in the help section supporting the use of Roman numerals when there are no Roman numerals in a publication.

  • Excerpt from moderator qualifications. "Good intentions. A moderator must be someone who is willing to work to improve the ISFDB, and comply with the consensus gained on the ISFDB Wiki on the resolution of various bibliographic debates.".

Since everyone disagrees with you, it's time for you to relent. I'd like to correct and verify the publications identified in the above analysis. John Scifibones 18:10, 17 October 2023 (EDT)

    • This needs to be brought up on R&S as this is obviously unclear in the help or policies. For this kind of thing, any discussion making such a decision which isn't clearly spelled out in policy needs to have a discussion there. And please don't try to browbeat me by pretending I'm somehow being a bad moderator by disagreeing with you. The clarification discussion needs to be held in order to determine what we should generally do in situations like this. Some of the most prolific people here haven't even commented here. I've created a discussion here, so let's have any further discussion there and keep it to the topic. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
I'm not trying to browbeat or disrespect you. In fact, I've waited over a month for others to participate and you to provide support for your position. I included the above statement as a reminder that one person can't delay resolution because they don't like the consensus. John Scifibones 20:13, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
And I'm saying that we can't clarify policy based on a discussion on my user talk page. The correct place to do that is on the R&S page, which is why I created the discussion there. I'll be fine with whatever the outcome is there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:04, 18 October 2023 (EDT)

Terri Karsten / Terri Karston

Hi, Joe! It may be that the two authors are one and the same person. Since you are the sole verifier for a publication featuring the latter: could you take a look if there's a hint for the relation? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2023 (EDT)

Fixed. Just a typo. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:53, 26 September 2023 (EDT)

Donald Trump Anthology; You entered the title incorrectly; there's no comma after Walls. --Username (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2023 (EDT)

Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:06, 25 September 2023 (EDT)

Maurice Sendak: A Celebration of the Artist and His Work

Does Maurice Sendak: A Celebration of the Artist and His Work really have two covers? There is nothing in the notes and the second title makes its sound like interior art? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2023 (EDT)

IIRC, it's the back cover, which is a completely different work than the front cover. I can check it when I get home, if you want. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:15, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
Also, I remember the titles of the pieces being given within the book. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:46, 17 October 2023 (EDT)
Updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:58, 18 October 2023 (EDT)
Back cover artwork is entered as interior art with a page number of "bc" (see Template:TitleFields:Title, "Artwork" section). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2023 (EDT)
I'd forgotten about that. Updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:17, 23 October 2023 (EDT)

Brotherhood of Mt. Shasta; Japanese translation of this novel,, in case you want to enter it. --Username (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2023 (EDT)

Done! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:44, 17 October 2023 (EDT)

Kay/Kat Heckenbach

Hi, Joe! The cover of 'Etherea Magazine #10' for this story gives Kat Heckenbach (not Kay). Could you take a second look? Christian Stonecreek (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2023 (EDT)

Just a typo. All fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:34, 2 November 2023 (EDT)

Marisa W.; Should this be by Marisa Wolf? --Username (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Yes, fixed. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:00, 15 November 2023 (EST)

Two authors: same person?

Hi! If one searches for Alfred Gen two authors are turned out: Alfred Genesson & Alfred Genneson, which I tend to think are one and the same person. Can you take a look into the corresponding publications "MAGA 2020 & Beyond" (2017) and the anthology "Earth" (2018) to find out if they are indeed the same (and if so, what should be the canonical name)? Thanks in advance, Christian Stonecreek (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2023 (EST)

I'll check my copies. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:10, 28 November 2023 (EST)
Updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:35, 29 November 2023 (EST)

Paycheck; Publisher should be Citadel + Kensington like the other edition; also, cover art has a 01 added which differs from this edition's date. --Username (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2023 (EST)

I'll check my copy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 28 November 2023 (EST)
I've updated it per what appears on the title page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:32, 29 November 2023 (EST)
OK, except the other 18 ISFDB books from them have Corp. at the end of the publisher's name, as does Paycheck, so yours is by itself instead of merged with the others. --Username (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2023 (EST)
I fixed that, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:20, 30 November 2023 (EST)