User talk:Deagol

BLongley 23:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Warbots
You can enter the artwork for as contents of type "INTERIORART" rather than leave the details in notes. BLongley 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ISBN formatting
Hi. The software automatically formats ISBNs, so correcting hyphenation by editing won't do anything. You can't actually force an ISBN to look like what's printed in the book. But, what do you think is wrong with the hyphenation in ? (I'm responsible for most of the ISBN formatting and search handling, so I'm happy to take a look at it if it's incorrect). There are only two ISBN groups where we deliberately do not format correctly (according to the ISBN definition) due to widespread mis-formatting by Tor: 0-765-x (should be 0-765x-) and 0-812-x (should be 0-812x-). Thanks. --MartyD 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Playboy Press books I have give the ISBN as 0-872-x rather than the 0-872xx- given here. Deagol 11:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, see this discussion, which has some links to places providing ISBN information. I checked, and it does not look like 872 is a group.  If it were, only one publisher would use it (or a series of publishers, if one bought another). 87216 is Playboy. 87223 began life as Fawcett (?), then Seaview, then Playboy, then Wideview -- don't know went on with that one. 87220 is Hackett. 87226 is Bedrick. 87232 is Pendulum. 87249 is University of South Carolina. 87286 is City Lights. 87287 is Libraries Unlimited.  We have publications by all of those in our database.  Unlike the Tor cases above, where we either had no other publishers or the only other publisher likewise mis-formatted the ISBN on its publications, here if we were to deliberately misformat 872 as a group, the affects would be pretty widespread.  Do you have a lot of the Playboy pubs?  If so, is the 0-872- formatting consistent?  --MartyD 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I only have about a dozen, so I think it is probably best to leave things as they are. It wouldn't be the first time a publisher has introduced errors into their publishing details. Deagol 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian publications of At the Narrow Passage
Hi again. A question/comment about one of the notes in each of and :  Are you citing a series the books appear in? If so, you can use the "Pub. Series" field to record that information (Pub Series is for a series set up by the publisher for a set of otherwise unrelated books; Title Series is for works that have some sort of connection. You would expect a "title series" to remain the same no matter who the publisher is, while you would expect the pub series to change/go away if the book were published by another publisher). --MartyD 11:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a series. I was following the convention used for other books in the series. All sorted now.  Deagol 12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Publisher series is a relatively new feature. The only option previously was to record it in the notes.  That's probably what you are seeing.  --MartyD 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like many comparatively new features, our documentation improvement is lagging behind the software improvements. :-/ Sorry for the chaotic nature of advice at present. BLongley 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Spiegl's Science Fiction Stories
Hello, Deagol. I am a German collector and stumbled over your edit of this pub. Here in Germany the publishing series is considered to be either Ullstein 2000 or Ullstein Science Fiction (which one remains to be seen when I get a grip tomorrow on my copies: I don't have 'Science Fiction Stories 84' but others from that publishing period (e.g. #80)). Would it be okay for you if I'd change your edit in that regard? Stonecreek 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Stonecreek. There is a publishing series under the Ullstein 2000 imprint called Science Fiction Stories. It contains at least 92 books. See this website. I am new to ISFDB, but it looks like all books from the various Ullstein imprints are listed under Ullstein. It may be that they could be better arranged by separating into the various imprints, but I think that one of the moderators would be best placed to make that decision.  Not sure where it is, but there must be somewhere here to put the question to them. Deagol 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Most moderators monitor the recent changes page, so discussions like this will always draw some attention. The easiest way to question all moderators is the moderator noticeboard, one of the subpages of the community portal.
 * About Ullstein 2000 vs Science Fiction Stories, Stonecreek is right. We have two kinds of series, as MartyD explained above. Ullstein 2000 would be the publisher's series (can only be published by Ullstein Verlag). "Science Fiction Stories" could be a title series, where you connect the title records. Take care to check the series title though, it must be unique and we already have a series called Science Fiction Stories. I would recommend "Science Fiction Stories (Ullstein)" or "Science Fiction Stories (Ullstein 2000)" for the title series. --Willem H. 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, makes sense. Help yourself Stonecreek. Deagol 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Most moderators" may be an over-statement. All Moderators are encouraged to put the Moderator Noticeboard on their watchlist, but there is no requirement that they do so, or even if they do, to act on anything they see there. Sometimes an Editor is just so good at his/her own submissions that it's easier to let him/her approve their own submissions. As we improve our coverage of "foreign" titles and the software we are going to need even more moderators with new areas of expertise - I may be a prolific contributor and moderator and coder (no stats available for the last) but I can foresee the day where I think "ISFDB doesn't need me any more" - I really can't deal with foreign languages at the same level that a native could. But it will need people like you, so keep on editing! BLongley 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of foreign titles is limited as well, but I thought it worthwhile for the sake of completeness to add the few translations of Richard Meredith's writings that have been made. There are a couple of printings of an Italian translation of The Sky Is Filled With Ships still to add (and possibly a couple in Russian, but I don't know anything about them yet other than the titles). Deagol 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your participation. I'll change the pub. series to 'Ullstein Science Fiction' after looking at SF Stories 80. Ullstein restarted their SF line in 1980 with a new, continuous numeration (31...) and the 'Ullstein 2000' label seems only to be a moderative statement, soon to be lost from around #31037.

Concerning the editing of 'SF-Stories' into a title series: I can't recommend it at this point. Because there'd be conflicting title series and overall incongruency, since this wasn't a pure series of originally edited anthologies but there were issues of 'World's Best SF' by Wollheim/Carr (which already is a title series) and even collections (e.g. by Bradbury or Clarke). Maybe a later addition to the software would make it possible to distinguish between title series in different languages, but at this point this is not possible, I think. But because of the fuzziness of this series I can live as well with the status quo.Stonecreek 10:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At looking at the entry of #84 I found a possible typo: I guess it has to be Rob Chilson or Robert Chilson instead of Walter Spiegl as author of one of the stories? Could you please take a look? Stonecreek 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strange. Not sure how that happened. It was definitely correct when I first added it. Fixed now, pending approval. Deagol 17:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect the "Walter Spiegl" came about due to a bug or several in Unmerges. I've coded an improvement, but that may take some time to pass testing - I would recommend NOT using Unmerge on content titles till that's put in. Sorry about the mess. BLongley 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pagination in The Timeliner Trilogy
Rather than using 1,2,3 in, you could use a real page count and put the numbers in brackets. E.g., [10], [210], [410]. This indicates a derived page number. They should then sort correctly. --MartyD 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re-edit done. It still looks a little artificial, but a better solution than mine. Deagol 17:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But now the 3 volumes display in the wrong order. grrrrr. OCD is kicking in. I think no square brackets and an explanation in Notes is better than the volumes in the wrong order. Deagol 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that. Leave them alone for the moment, and let me see if I can fix the sorting.  They should come out in the right order.  If I can't fix the software, I'll let you know.  --MartyD 10:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Urania
I've accepted the submissions adding Urania #540 and Urania #894, but made some changes to conform to ISFDB standards. Any time a novel is published in a magazine, its publication type is SERIAL. If the novel is published complete in one issue we add "(Complete)" to the title. I have updated the title record for Il Cielo Era Pieno Di Navi to these standards. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 01:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Galaxie
Hello, I've updated your record for Galaxie #99 and brought it in line with ISFDB practice. I've also uploaded a cover scan and changed the title to Galaxie (2ème série) to avoid further confusion with the first incarnation of the magazine. Hauck 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am still learning ISFDB ways of doing things and it takes me a few edits to get things right. By the way, the Kalker signature on page 5 is just readable in my copy. I see you have a library of french magazines.  If you happen across any stories by Richard C. Meredith or Philip E. High I would love to hear about them.  Thanks again. Deagol 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After a quick search, I'm afraid you found the only text by those two authors translated in french. Hauck 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

''These Savage Futurians"
I accepted the submission adding this new publication to the database, but from looking at the author's summary page (here) you'll see that the title is now listed twice. Whenever you're adding a new publication you should first see if the title is in the database. If not, use the "Add New..." (Novel, Collection, etc.) function. If it is, go to the database title record (here in this case) and click on "Add Publication to This Title" function. This will prevent having two title records for the same work, and will avoid having to merge them together as one. Now that you've done it the titles will have to be merged. Are you familiar with this function? If not, just ask and I can step you through it. Also, I'm not certain that we need to create "Dobson Science Fiction" as a publication series, unless you're certain that they published other spec-fic books that were not labeled as (and not included in the series) "Dobson Science Fiction." (Please do a primary verification of the record when you get a chance.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been a while since I added a new publication and I clicked the wrong link - realised afterwards. Will tidy up the duplication today.  As for the "Dobson Science Fiction", I hadn't considered it that way around.  All the Dobson books I have are in the series, so perhaps best if I remove the reference to the series.  Deagol 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Updating verified records
Whenever you're updating records that have been primary verified, ISFDB etiquette asks that you notify the verifier about the changes you want to make it the record. Editors differ in the levels of notification, and most of them have posted that in a highlighted message at the top of their talk page. Dirk P Broer doesn't have a notification message posted on his, so it's best to let him know in a new message on his talk page that you want to add notes to this verified record. I'm going to accept the submission so that you and he can discuss any further changes in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks I am aware. I had noticed that others had informed Dirk on his talk page about adding notes etc and was just waiting for edit to be approved so he could see them. Deagol 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He would not see that the record was changed unless the editor who submits the change has posted a message on his talk page. Verifiers are not automatically notified of changes to verified records. If it's a minor change (adding notes or cover image) moderators will accept the submission after checking to see that the verifier has been notified.  If you want to make a change in any other field of a primary verified record, you should post a message before you make a submission to change it. Of course, this only works if the verifier is currently active. If he's not, you can proceed to submit the change, and the moderator will make the decision to accept or reject the submission. We will always accept the change if you have already done a primary verification of the record. You can also write in the submission's "Note to the Moderator" field that you are working from an actual copy of the book and will be doing a primary verification after acceptance of the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have made it clearer. I was waiting for the edit to the _record_ to appear before posting on Dirk's talk page, so he wouldn't have a message about a change he couldn't see. Will post the message first in future. Thanks for the explanations. Deagol 20:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Updating a non-primary verified record
If you're updating a record that hasn't been primary verified, please record in the "Note to the Moderator" field that you are working from a copy of the book. Or you can do a primary verification of the record before the submission to update it, and the moderator knows automatically that you have the book and will accept the change (unless he has further questions). If you are not working from the book, record the source of your data in the record's "Note" field. The first field ("Note") becomes a permanent part of the record. The latter field ("Note to the Moderator") does not. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

date for Speaking of Dinosaurs
Hi. I accepted your update to and saw your note about the unknown source of publication date. I checked Locus1 (since it was Locus1-verified), and that has the January 2001 date. Whether it originally came from there, who knows, but I adjusted the note to reflect that as the source. --MartyD 10:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Best of Philip E. High
Replaced the amazon scan for your verified here. Hauck 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)