User talk:Thync

From ISFDB
Revision as of 15:18, 20 December 2014 by Thync (talk | contribs) (→‎t and p)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Thync, 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:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ahasuerus 22:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bromius Phenomenon

Thanks for submitting The Bromius Phenomenon! Comparing it to the other editions that we have on file, it would appear that it may be the same as this record. The only difference that I can see is that the existing record has "#08145" as the catalog ID while your submission lists "0441081452" as the ISBN. Did you derive the ISBN from what's printed on the spine, by chance? And does it say "08145" on the cover of your copy? If so, then we can just update the current record, explaining what is printed where in the Note field. Ahasuerus 22:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ahasuerus, thanks for the welcome and for your query. The ISBN10 was derived from the spine of the book and verified against the following records:
http://www.amazon.com/BROMIUS-PHENOMENON-Dag-Fletcher-Galactic/dp/B000UGZ4DW/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
http://books.google.co.za/books/about/The_Bromius_Phenomenon.html?id=uKVXPwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
It does say "08145" on the cover, but when I looked the record up on ISFDB, there was no corresponding record for John Rankine relating to a August 1973 edition, which is why I added the record. But you are absolutely correct - it should be annotated to the record that you cited. I have no idea why it didn't turn up in my search originally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thync (talk • contribs) .
Makes sense! I will reject the submission and wait for you to create a new one to update the current record. When you do, could you please update the Note field to indicate exactly what's stated on the spine and on the cover? Sometimes publishers printed a partial ISBN in conjunction with the book's price, so the result doesn't always look like an ISBN. TIA! Ahasuerus 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent submissions

You recently submitted a collection of publication updates, primarily to add links to the WorldCat (OCLC) link, which I'm about to approve. However, these publications have been Primary Verified. When you add or change data on a verified pub, it is the custom here to notify the original verifier. In a couple of these cases, the primary verifier is no longer active, so the custom is to notify the Primary2 verifier. For the books you updated, you should notify the following people: (1) For The Strange World of Planet X, add a note to User talk:Prof beard; (2) For Code Three and for Trapped, notify User talk:Hauck; (3) For Floating Worlds, contact User talk:Willem H., who lists a special link for editors that are adding notes to his verified books. Nobody needs to be notified for Redbeard, because the primary verifier is no longer active, and you have just become the primary verifier! (Although you're still listed as Primary2.) (If you go to that user's page, you'll see that the directions there ask you to post notices about changes to notes, but this is a small enough change that I don't think it's necessary.) In addition, you should also notify User talk:Marc Kupper that you are replacing his Amazon cover image with a better image that you, presumably, scanned.

One more thing I'll mention: You posted the WorldCat links using links like "www.worldcat.org/title/strange-world-of-planet-x/oclc/18827393". It's simpler, and just as correct, to delete everything between ".org" and "oclc", so that this link would be named "www.worldcat.org/oclc/18827393". There's a slight advantage to this for the database storage costs, but more importantly is that this can often make it easier for someone else who's reading/editing your notes to work their way through things. Also, please be aware that our standard for listing OCLC links includes a colon after OCLC, e.g. so it reads "OCLC: 18827393" (with the link, of course).

Thank you for your contributions. - Chavey 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) 

  @Chavey, thanks for the guidance - I have notified the relevant people, and will be sure to continue to do so in future. Also, noted, re. the Worldcat links ;) - --Thync 17:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking the time to do that, I saw your notifications, and appreciate your quickly catching on to things like linking to the publications. Glad to have you join us! Chavey 21:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Shattered Stars

What is the source for the month of publication which you wish to add to this publication record? If it is not stated in the actual publication, you should give the secondary source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhutchins, thanks for pointing that out. Resubmitted my edit to reflect the pub date as per Locus1--Thync 21:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You should not link to a listing in the Locus database because they have "floating" anchors, which means they shift when new data is added. So in a year, the listing may be pushed forward to the next page. I'll remove the link. In the future, it's sufficient to state "Month of publication from Locus1". Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but how does one know whether it's a floating anchor?--Thync 22:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even sure if "floating" is the correct term. Let's call them "non-stable". You really wouldn't know they weren't stable unless you copied the URL and then came back a few months later to discover that it no longer linked to the section of the database you first intended. That's how I discovered that the links to Locus1 aren't stable. So how would one know whether a website's anchors are stable? I have no idea, other than learning from those who have made mistakes and discovered how to avoid them. Mhhutchins 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
So, to summarize: Locus1 verification is unreliable? I ask because I want to learn! --Thync 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No one said the Locus1 is unreliable. Its data is unimpeachable, and it is one of the best sources on the internet. I only said "You should not link to a listing in the Locus database". And that's only because the link isn't stable. That's nothing to do with the data itself. I said you should give Locus1 as the source. You can even click on the ISFDB verification slot for Locus1. Why would the ISFDB give it so prominently as a source? Reliability of data has nothing to do with how one should cite a source. Mhhutchins 20:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

t and p

Thank you for your note at User talk:Marc Kupper#User talk:Marc Kupper. You had used {{T|2587113|name=The Gentle Giants of Ganymede}} to link to the publication. {{T}} is used to link to title records and {{P}} is for publication records. The record number you used, 2587113, was the submission record (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/dumpxml.cgi?2587113) and in this case we wanted the publication record # which is 264598. {{p|264598|The Gentle Giants of Ganymede}} will generate The Gentle Giants of Ganymede. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I thought that was what I had done (but evidently didn't!) --Thync 19:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Thync&oldid=372657"