User talk:Spineofsnow

Kraang 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Machinery of Light question and comment
Hi, and welcome! I approved your submission of, and I have a comment and a question for you.

First, the comment: Your submission included a link to Random House's cover image. Because the cover image link causes a hit on the linked-to site's web server whenever the publication's details are viewed, ISFDB only uses links to sites explicitly granting permission for such linking. See ISFDB:Image_linking_permissions for the list of such sites and more details. I changed the link you submitted to this image I found on Amazon.com, to which we do have permission to link.

Now, the question: In researching the above, I see the copy of The Machinery of Light Amazon lists is scheduled for publication 2010-05-25, and your submission used 0000-00-00 (the "unknown" date). Do you have a copy of the book, or were you entering information for something as yet unpublished? If the latter, it's certainly ok to provide dates that are in the future. These will show up correctly, and in certain cases they will be displayed with a "forthcoming" label. So we could use the May, 2010 date and include in the notes that the source of the date is Amazon and/or Random House. Once the book comes out and someone has a copy, they can adjust the date based on the actual publication date.

You can respond to the above question right here: edit this section, and cause your comments to be indented by adding a leading colon (':') -- each colon indents one level. "Sign" your entry with four tildes ( ~ ), or use the signature button at the top of the editor to insert that (the system will replace it with your username and a timestamp). People asking questions on your talk page will watch it for your answers. Welcome again, and thanks for the submission. --MartyD 11:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi MartyD, Thanks for the tips. I'm just getting started here so the help is appreciated. I thought I had entered the the full publication date (the same one you found) under 'Year'; if the formatting is incorrect does it default back to 0000-00-00? Also, all three of the books by David J. Williams are part of "The Autumn Rain Trilogy." How does one group books under a series name? Spineofsnow 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be that a date that won't parse gets set to zero. That would explain it.  You can edit the publication to provide the date (click on that link at the top of this section and Edit This Pub from the menu on the left).  Note there will be TWO places to change the date: once near the top, for the publication itself, and once lower down for the title record.  The way the ISFDB is organized, there is one title, and then potentially many publications of that title.  The title is given the date of first publication, while the publications get their actual publication date.  Here, for a first publication, both dates would be the same.


 * As for the grouping of the titles, we have something called a "Series" for this. Titles (not publications) are in a series.  To make one, you edit the title record and type in the Series name -- the first instance of a series name causes the series to be created.  Note you could also edit the title's date here, too.  You can make the same edit to the other titles listed in Williams' bibliography.  Once the submissions are approved, the titles will be grouped under the series name.  --MartyD 19:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One other little thing Marty neglected to mention (possibly to avoid information overload) is that prices need a currency symbol. I presume this publication is actually $15.00? (US Dollars that is - we have Australian and Canadian prices too, but US ones get the simple sign.) Apologies if this makes you feel put upon, but a little guidance early on can save a lot of rework later - you wouldn't believe how much rework I've done in my years here. Welcome aboard! BLongley 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps Mr. Detail-Oriented just missed it. :-) Anyway, the changes have been approved, so you can see how it all looks now.  Sorry about the extra edit.  --MartyD 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)