Difference between revisions of "User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 4"

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(archive older)
(No difference)

Revision as of 02:01, 8 February 2016

Nihonjoe's Talk Archives

1·2·3·4·5·6·7·8·9·10·11·12

神林長平トリビュート

Before I accept the submission adding this title, can you confirm that all of the contents of this anthology are spec-fic? Also, is the editor as given, Hayakawa Editorial Board, actually stated as such in the publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

All of the authors write only specfic, so yes. And the editor is given as indicated in the submission. They do that in Japan a lot for anthologies or art books or anything else which is edited. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Shortfiction length designations

Re the note you added to this record: the ISFDB standard for designating the length of a story is based on the number of words, not the number of pages. Pages alone should not be used to determine a story's length designation. The note is somewhat misleading to the average user. Mhhutchins|talk 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the description by pages from the help page. Since there's not really a good source for determining number of words for works, pages are often all we can go by. I know it's an approximate range, but the 42 pages is far enough from the "about 50 pages" that it is either not actually a novella or it's at the high end of novelette and was just called a novella. I suppose I could ask him for the word count since I know him personally, but that seems a little extreme. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read my original post. It's about the misleading note, not about using the number of pages to estimate a word count when there are no other means to determine it. Your note says that the ISFDB standard is to use the number of pages. There is nothing in the help pages about using the number of pages to determine the length of a story. You're also incorrect to say "there's not really a good source for determining number of words for works." The best way is to actually count the words. Another way is less accurate but more reliable than the basing it on the number of pages: this word counter. (You may need a Google account to access it.) If you're not working from a primary source, then you should leave the length designation field blank. Mhhutchins|talk 05:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I wrote, so if you misinterpret it that way, there's not much I can do. I've submitted a removal of it. I'll look at the counter and see if it will be helpful. At first glance, it's confusing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on the few pages available in the Amazon Look Inside, a rough estimate of the word count (using the Google spreadsheet) is about 12000 words. Mhhutchins|talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

OMNIBUS vs. COLLECTION

I've changed the type of this publication from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION, since it contains two works of SHORTFICTION by the same author without a NOVEL, COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, or NONFICTION content. Mhhutchins|talk 05:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

戦闘妖精・雪風(改)

Please add the content records for the two NOVEL records which make up this OMNIBUS. If the two works are not presented as individual works within the publication, it must be typed as a NOVEL. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know how it works. I had to have this approved before I could do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it's been submitted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
A submission adding an OMNIBUS record doesn't have to be approved before adding the contents. They can be added in the initial submission. If the content exists, you will then merge the records in a subsequent submission. That avoids the record showing up on an error report (which is how I came upon it) as well as avoiding having to deal moderators cleaning the report. Mhhutchins|talk 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can request a feature allowing entry of the existing record number so it will add and merge them all in one step. That would be useful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Author photograph

Please reload this image at no more than 600 pixels tall. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's already below the size limit of 150k, and I took the picture, so there's not a problem with fair use. Why upload a smaller version? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Framents?

Hi, I think there could be a typo in the title of this entry. Shouldn't it be Fragments ... ? Stonecreek 21:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, typo. Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Diann Thornley

There are a few problems with your submission to update the author data for Diann Thornley.

1) The "Legal Name" field should be in the format "Lastname, Firstname Middlename". You entered it as "Diann Thornley Read".

2) For persons whose names are written in the Latin alphabet, the "Trans. Legal Name" field should remain blank. That field is only used for authors whose legal name is in a different alphabet.

3) The sole purpose of the "Family Name" field is to sort authors for the Author Directory. A user looking for this author would naturally look under "T" for "Thornley", not "R" for "Read".

4) The country should be given in the "Birth Place" field. So "Utah" should be "Utah, USA".

I will accept the submission so that you won't lose the data that was added in the other fields, but ask that you make the changes in the four fields which have errors. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Trans. Legal Name" was just my mind being on autopilot after doing so many Japanese entries. Regarding the Author Directory, they may look for her there now, but she has a new book coming out soon which will be under "Read", so that's why I updated it. I've updated the rest. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
She'll be in the directory twice. Once under "Thornley" and later under "Read" when a publication credited to that name is entered into the database. But "Thornley" should be the "Family Name" for this author credit. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins|talk 05:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Separating a main title from a subtitle

In the case of this publication, there should be a colon separating "Oh My Goddess!" from "First End". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that it would look very strange with a colon after the exclamation point. That's why I didn't include it the first time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a bibliographic standard (and not only for the ISFDB, see the OCLC record), regardless of how strange it may look to some. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins|talk 05:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Betrayer of Trees

You have verified this publication containing Betrayer of Trees as a novelette and this publication containing Betrayer of Trees as a shortstory . Please check this two version and 1) if they are the same, they should be merged under the correct length; or 2) if one is an expansion/abridgment of the other, notes should be added to each title record. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Done and submitted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Price of Allegience

Would you mind double checking the spelling of "allegience" in Price of Allegience from Explaining Cthulhu to Grandma and Other Stories. Is this a database typo or an error in the original publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo. Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tale of the Dead Town

I have changed my verification on this pub from Primary1 to Transient. You may wish to change your Primary2 to Primary1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Jin"

Would you happen to be familiar with this artist-cum-author of light novels? I was looking for his legal name and at first I thought that it was 自然の敵P (Shizen no Teki P). However, it appears to be his nom de theatre. Ahasuerus 14:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. I can't find any more than what you already have. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 02:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlene S. Harmon or Charlene C. Harmon?

Can you confirm the credit for this work? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to check when I get home. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Had my wife check. She said it is "C" as the initial, so I submitted a correction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Stasheff - "The Secular Wizard"

I've replaced the Amazon image for The Secular Wizard" with a scan. Doug 21:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Japanese publication series

When you have a free moment, could you please take a look at this discussion on the Community Portal? TIA! Ahasuerus 17:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Marianna Roberg

You created duplicate titles records for this author which will have to be merged. In the future, it's best to wait until one of the submissions adding a new title has been moderated, then use the "Add Pub to This Title" function. This will avoid the duplication of titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 08:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Typos

Would you mind double checking these possible typos?

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating interior art...

...should be done as follows: The first piece isn't disambiguated. The second (and subsequent) pieces are given a number based on their order of appearance in the publication. The number should be in squared brackets, e.g. "A Work of Art [2]".

The works must be identically titled in order to be disambiguated. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is based on several entries in this record. Mhhutchins|talk 20:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, if the art illustrating a story (or essay) appears before the title page of the story, then it is also considered the starting page of the story. For example, "A Witch's Christmas" starts on page 22, and "Loyalty" starts on page 30. Mhhutchins|talk 20:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's another record which contains the wrong disambiguation for the interior art records. Also, the title of the serial should be given in the format "Title (Part x of y)". The serial records will also have to be varianted to a parent record of either NOVEL or SHORTFICTION type. Most likely you'll have to create a new parent record. Can you determine the combined length of the parts to see why type the parent record should be? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Those were already fixed (the other records), and they've been approved. As for the serial records, I don't have issues 4-5, so I don't know if there are 3 or 4 parts to it. The editor of issue 3 noted in an essay that it looked like it might go for 4 parts, but since I don't have those issues, I can't see for sure. Once I have copies of those issues, I'll fix them all to "part x of y" so they all match. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the length designation of "novelette" from this SERIAL title. Records typed as SERIAL don't have a length designation. Mhhutchins|talk 08:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
When the number of parts of a serial aren't isn't known, use "Title (Part 1 of ?)" until the number of parts can be determined. I've changed the title of the two parts currently in the database, and have varianted them to a SHORTFICTION title. If it is determined that the total word count is more than 40K, the type can be changed to NOVEL. Mhhutchins|talk 08:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbering magazine editor records

We usually don't number the editor records for magazines. Even for magazines which prominently number their issues, such as Interzone. Is there any reason why an exception should be made for The Leading Edge? What will you do when an editor record is an annual merging of issues, like this one? Mhhutchins|talk 02:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why those are merged because they shouldn't be. I don't know who entered those, but that's a weird way of doing it. It doesn't make sense to list them like that because they title pages don't have that on them. They should be separate issues, not annually-combined listings. And I don't know what you mean my "number the editor records" as I haven't done anything with editor records like that (other than entering a specific issue and listing the editor on the title record). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Look in the series number field of this EDITOR record. To my knowledge, we've never numbered EDITOR records for magazines (as I said above.) And repeating my question, how are you going to number this EDITOR record, even if you do unmerge the two pubs from each other? Mhhutchins|talk 04:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, those are two separate issues there: 20/21 and 22. They shouldn't have been merged in the first place. The first one would be 20,21 or 20/21, and the second would be 22. The first one is a double-sized issue, and is numbered that way. As for the numbering showing up on the editor page, I wouldn't know about other magazines since this is the only one I've entered. Looking at this entry, I don't see a problem with it. I'm fine either way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
When you say "They shouldn't have been merged in the first place." you're incorrect. It is ISFDB standard to merge EDITOR records in annual groupings. I admit that when less than four issues per year are published, there is no strong reason to merge them. But then again, there are no rules saying they shouldn't be merged either.
This publication is exceptional only because of the infrequency with which it's published. But is that enough reason to treat it differently than other publications which publish at the same frequency? If you'll look at the example I gave you for periodicals which number their issues, you'll see that as a standard, the issue number isn't given in the EDITOR record. Would you suggest that a periodical like Interzone be handled similarly to the way you're handling Leading Edge? Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why handling this publication should be different from other magazines, you should remove the number from the series number field. Or if you want to change the standard, start a discussion on the Rules & Standards discussion page. Mhhutchins|talk 06:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I already removed them. To me, the grouping by year seems completely arbitrary and pointless. What function is supposed to serve? All it does is make people have to dig through another layer in order to find the issue they want. It would make more sense if these "combined year" titles were treated as series, so you could still see the issues indented below them. Only in that case would I not take issue with it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Another problem: see how the issues you've changed the title of are displayed in the magazine series grid. The software is written to display only the issue date or number by disregarding the title of the magazine if it appears before the first comma. That's why most magazines are in the format "Title of Magazine, Date" or "Title of Magazine, Issue Number". Mhhutchins|talk 02:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've addressed this last problem with the queued submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Varianting and pseudonyms

When you make a title record into a variant based on a difference in author credit, you should determine if a pseudonym has been created for the author. You don't have to wait until the submission creating the variant has been accepted to make an immediate submission to create the pseudonym. I did that for you for this record's author. Mhhutchins|talk 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Leading Edge, 1990

Hi. Would you explain a little more about your proposed unmerge of the two issues from The Leading Edge - 1990? It's normal treatment of magazines to have all of a year's issues merged to a single, year-based title, even though the issues themselves are distinct publications with different contents, as long as the publisher and editor(s) are the same. The two issues associated with that 1990 title appear to meet those criteria, so I am trying to understand why they should be separated. Thanks. --MartyD 12:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That policy doesn't make sense. Why would you merge multiple titles that are not the same into a year-based title? For this magazine, which has (at most) three issues a year, there's no reason to do that. It makes it hard to find each issue (well, harder, anyway) because people have to keep digging through multiple layers to try to find what they are looking for. And then when you do it for a single issue, it makes even less sense. I'm trying to understand why they should be kept together (or, in the case of the years that have only one issue, having the title changed to something that makes no sense). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't argue with you. I only work here, and it is a practice that predates my tenure with the ISFDB. I believe it has to do with cutting down on clutter on the editor summary pages. There is a one-step way to see all of the issues: Click on the "View Issue Grid" link. That will show you: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/seriesgrid.cgi?28967 . When recording the issues, if you put a comma before the issue number, the number will be shown in the grid. For example, see http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/seriesgrid.cgi?25495 . --MartyD 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that part out. I started a discussion on the Rules and standards page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mistborn sub-series

Hi. Please see, and respond to, this note, as the proposed change affects one of your verified pubs. Thanks. --MartyD 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Leslie Perdew or Pardew

Can you confirm the art credit for the story "Loyalty" in this publication? There's another artist with a similar name which is very likely the same person. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That is how the name is spelled. Because it is such an unusual spelling, I double and triple checked when I entered it. It may still be the other person you mentioned, however. Perhaps a pseudonym? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
More likely a typo on the publisher's part. Mhhutchins|talk 02:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Very possible. If so, they did it at least twice in the issue. I will do some checking with people who worked on that issue (I know a bunch of them) and see what I can find. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Todd Hestor or Nestor

Can you confirm the two credits by these artists? Todd Hestor and Todd Nestor. The two works are published in consecutive issues of Leading Edge which you primary verified. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Corrected Nestor to Hestor. The first couple issues of the magazine were typewritten instead of done on a computer, and the name was a little blurred. I checked in another location in the magazine and it was written "Hestor". I've submitted a correction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Serialized novelette = SERIAL

This work should be typed as SERIAL, and the length designation should be removed. Then the record should be varianted to a new one typed as SHORTFICTION which includes the length designation. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed and submitted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It still needs to be varianted to a SHORTFICTION title (as explained in the original post.) Mhhutchins|talk 08:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, submitted one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I accepted it before I realized the variant was reversed. So I deleted the one you created, and made the SERIAL into a variant of a new SHORTFICTION record. Mhhutchins|talk 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That works, thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Title confirmation

Can you confirm the spelling of the titles given in this publication? Is "Magicians's" correct? If so, it's oddly ungrammatical. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, just a typo. Submitted corrections. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fiction River

Are you certain that the contents you've added to these publication records are eligible for the database? The pub record may be eligible because of the editor being "above the threshold", but that doesn't mean the contents would be eligible unless they're spec-fic or by an author who is "above the threshold". Mhhutchins|talk 01:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. All of the issues I added have specfic content. I didn't add contents of one issue because they seemed to be all mysteries, and since I don't have that issue, I can't read the stories to find out if any are specfic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Book of Amber

I wouldn't have rejected the first submission to add this if you hadn't given it the same publication date as another record. And since you had to clone that original record, it was relatively easy to create a new record. Sorry that you had to make so much effort to get it right this time. Mhhutchins|talk 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have been easier to simply accept it and have me correct the date. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I will repeat: I thought it was already in the database. Why would I have accepted a submission believing it was a duplicate? Mhhutchins|talk 23:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps put it on hold and ask? It's not any harder than rejecting it. Regardless, this isn't going anywhere, and the water is long gone under the bridge, so let's move on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_4&oldid=416949"