User talk:Iansales

Welcome!
Hello,, 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:
 * Help pages
 * Help:Getting Started
 * What the ISFDB Wiki is for
 * ISFDB FAQ
 * Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
 * Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data. 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 (~&#126;); 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! Mhhutchins 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jupiter #28
I'm holding the submission adding this issue to the database. We've never come across a situation where each issue of a magazine is given a different name, so no standard has been established. If you'd like to join the discussion go here. Once that issue's been decided, I'll accept the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Submission was accepted but a few changes were made. Magazine series are created differently than publication series, so I removed the pub. series that you placed it in and created a new series. (Had to disambiguate because we already have a series titled "Jupiter".)  I titled it giving the magazine name, the issue number, the issue name, and the date. Issue-dated magazines should also give the date in their title. According to the publisher's website, this is dated April 2010, so I gave the issue date as 2010-04-00.  The contents would also be dated the same as the issue if they're original to this publications.  If they were previously published we would give the contents the date of the original publication. (See this help page about entering publications, which encompasses magazines as well.) Here's a link to the pub record. Please check it out to see if everything's OK. You can upload an image of the magazine using the link on that page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was guessing when I entered it, given the magazine's titling policy.Iansales 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Interzone title updates
Hi. I've put a couple of your submissions of Interzone updates on hold (the ones that would change the title of to April 2009 and  to August 2009). I took a look at the TTA Press site, and this #221 cover and this #223 cover suggest the issues were two-month as the original titles indicate. What makes you want to change them to single-month? Thanks. --MartyD 13:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interzone has been bimonthly for years, but only a handful of the issues are shown in isfdb as such - most of them have the second month as the publication date. I left a note about this on the magazines discussion page. Iansales 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the title, which should, I would think, show the cover months, and the pub date, which can only be one date, whether it is the first or second month. Note that if a magazine is bimonthly but its cover issues show, say, Jan, March, May, July, Sept, and Nov, those would be I would think the dates used in issue titles, whereas if the covers show Jan-Feb, March-April, etc, then those ought to be used as the titles. Marty can correct me if I am mistaken. See Magazine talk:Interzone Science Fiction and Fantasy‎ for the otjher discussion. -DES Talk 01:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. swfitter has provided several details in that other discussion.  For the title, we use the months shown (usually on the cover).  So here, we can see that #221 listed March and April, but #222 listed only June.  If the publication date is unstated (sometimes the title/copyright page will give an explicit publication date), we usually use the earlier month.  So, now, a follow-up question.  In those two submissions I have on hold, you also propose changing the pub and content dates to the later month.  In light of the other discussion, are those date changes correct, or should they be reverted?  My plan is to accept the submissions so what we want to keep doesn't have to be reentered, but then I'll fix up the parts that should be different (e.g., I will put both months back in the titles and replace "/" with "-" to conform to the current standard).  Thanks, and thanks for working on this set of magazines.  --MartyD 10:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Interzone, July-August 2010 - cover art
It is our policy not to link to online art without permission from the source. We do have permission for these covers although they are no up to date. Another option is to upload your own image. The main advantage to this method is that we have a permanent copy in our database.--swfritter 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Didn't know that. I can download the covers, and then upload them. If permission is required from Andy Cox, I can always email him.Iansales 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Story lengths
You may also want to update the story lengths - short story, novelette, novella, etc. As with any other data you are not required to enter any more data than you wish but I suspect you are probably interested in doing a complete job.--swfritter 14:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it would be guesswork. I could estimate based on the number of pages, and average wordcount per page.Iansales 15:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Something that you can go back to if you want. After rummaging through a number of issues you will probably get a better idea of which stories are less than 7500 words (short story), between 7500 and 17500 (novelette), and between 17500 and 40000 (novella). Usually it is pretty obvious but the borderline cases take a little more work. Definitely do not count on any such designations given within a magazine. Publishers often overstate the lengths of the stories.--swfritter 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
Reviews should only be entered for works that are valid database entries. See the Policy Page. That means no Graphic Novels, movies, etc. You can either document the reviews of items not in the database in the pub notes or by entering an essay entry instead of a review. What I generally do before entering a review is check and see if the work in question is in the database. If it is not and it passes policy standards I add the work before entering the review. The review section of a magazine can often take more time to do than the rest of the magazine.--swfritter 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You can link titles to reviews manually. For instance, if this review were not linked you could click "Link Review to Title" under "Editing Tools" and enter the record number from this title - in this case 385811 from the end of the web address for the title. Lot's to learn but it will all get easier.--swfritter 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've only added the book reviews individually, on the assumption that any book reviewed in the magazine would be in the database. If I've got the titles wrong, I can easily change them to the canonical version.Iansales 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons we want the reviews is to indicate books that we've missed - so that's not the right assumption. Please do check that the books are here once the magazine edits are approved: and do check that we're linking to the right publications. The ISFDB software often links to a Short Story rather than a Collection with the same name - sometimes even an Essay with the same name as a NONFICTION title. :-/ Stick to the titles as entered in the review, and link to the correct ones if slightly different. For misspelled authors that wouldn't exist otherwise, correct those to the nearest version that already exists and leave a note on the review record. For instance, I correct all Vector reviews of titles by "L. E. Modesitt" to "L. E. Modesitt, Jr." as the former doesn't exist - but it's OK to leave as a reviewee as that exists, no need to change to . BLongley 18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Contining essay series
Like "Ansible Link" in this pub. Essays are usually disambiguated by adding the issue to the title. In this case somebody has merged the essays by year. That is a totally non-standard way of doing essay series; something that should have discussed before so doing. Usually essay series look more like this.--swfritter 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * k. Will get sorted. Thanks.Iansales 15:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a comparatively recent Rules and Standards discussion about that very column if you'd care to join in. BLongley 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page counts
The page counts for magazines should also include the covers. Some magazines give the cover a page number of 1. To get consistent page count entries we also use count the covers for those magazines which do not start the page count with the cover. Hope you are not getting overwhelmed. Good work. For Example, this issue has 160 internal pages but 164 is entered as the page count.--swfritter 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Sorry. Then it seems Interzone has a standard pagecount of 68. Having said that, I did see one issue shown in the database with a pagecount of 64+4...Iansales 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We are a creative lot. And by our standards it should be 68. Contento would use 64++ for a magazine that does not start with page 1 as the cover; he would use 68 for a magazine that does start counting pages with the cover.--swfritter 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gah. Now you've confused me even more :-) For Interzone, page 1 is the generally the contents page, so the cover/inside cover and back cover/inside back cover are not numbered. I'll update the page count to 68.Iansales 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again the deceptive publishers. Some of them try to make you think you are getting more pages than is actually the case. This one had me shaking my head a little at first to. But you've got it right.--swfritter 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction title
I approved your edit of Conflicts, and have one remark. You added the introduction as "Introduction". It is customary to add the pub title in parentheses to this kind of essay, so I changed the title to "Introduction (Conflicts)". The reason for this is, that on the author's summary bibliography there would now be five essays called "introduction", without an easy way to see the difference. --Willem H. 09:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Noted - will remember to do that next time.Iansales 10:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Interzone Numbering
Hello, I rejected your proposed changes of the two last issues of Interzone. I'm in the process (I'm at #34 for now) of specifically inserting the issue number in every title (see why in this discussion), I think that it'll be quite unefficient to have someone erasing this data. Please remember that it is customary to inform the contributors of any modification on the publications they have verified. Thanks. Hauck 16:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have reverted it if I'd known there was a change of policy. Since I'd added the details for the last two years run of Interzone, it would have been nice to have been informed. Iansales 14:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we can only see whose work is being adjusted if they've Verified it - there is no easily accessible Edit history for publications. But if you verify them, then Editors and Moderators can tell whose work is being affected and make sure they're informed of significant changes. BLongley 17:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lyre
I approved the submission but adjusted "Laurence Sutin" to "Lawrence Sutin". If the review really credits him that way, please leave a note in the publication record or the review record - we don't want to create a stray author due to typos. BLongley 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please adjust the settings on your printer or graphic software to limit images to no more than 600 pixels on the longest side and no more than 150kb in size. Exceptions are made for wraparound cover art. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have resized the image and will try again.Iansales 18:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Interzone #234
Submission for this new issue was accepted, but I made a few changes. The review of One More Unfortunate was changed to an essay, because there is no record of the novel in the db as it appears to be a mystery novel. If you can confirm that there is a fantasy or sf-nal element in the novel, I can create a pub record and link it to the review here. There were a couple more books that weren't in the database so they didn't link automatically. I created records for Smallworld and Faking It, and then linked them to the reviews. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ask: is the review for Keith Brooke's "Faking It" for the story or the collection of the same title? If it's for the story, I'll have to relink the review. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Both Faking It (a collection) and One More Unfortunate are new ebooks published by infinity plus.Iansales 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The question remains, does One More Unfortunate contain any sf-nal element? If so, I will create a record for the db. If not, the review will remain an essay. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've not read it but the review does describe it as a "somewhat earnest crime novel". But if the review is marked as an essay, what about the other ebooks mentioned which are certainly science fiction?Iansales 08:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the record. They're all reviews that have been linked to the reviewed book's title pages. Mhhutchins 12:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. See what you mean. I was afraid you meant you'd turn the entire combined review into an essay.Iansales 12:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

British Fantasy Society Journal, Summer 2011
I accepted and corrected a few typoed names for you. I also changed the NONFICTION contents to ESSAY - NONFICTION is for entire publications only, not contents. Please check, and if you can find the missing review titles that would help. Thanks for editing! BLongley 16:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Wasn't sure how to categorise news columns or colophons. Would have ignored the latter but the New Horizons section didn't have an editorial. Iansales 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm ashamed to say I didn't even know what a "colophon" was. Still not sure now, to be honest. Ah well, this is as much a learning process for me as it is for you, carry on editing! BLongley 01:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Submissions for non-speculative fiction novels
I have two submissions on hold: creating two new records for Fourth Day by Zoë Sharp, and The Holmes Affair by Graham Moore. Neither work appears to be spec-fic, and neither of the authors are in the db with spec-fic work, which is usually one of the criteria for including non-spec-fic work, if the author's reputation is within the genre. I see you've created these records only to link them to reviews in a genre publication. Although the line that separates the inclusion/exclusion of such items drifts occasionally, I can't see a clear cut case for including these records. Some editors believe that non-linked reviews may be persona non grata, but aren't really errors. Others, including myself, remedy the situation by changing the reviews into individual ESSAY type records. For an example, look at the entries on pages 25 (review of a graphic novel) and 51 (review of an audio dramatization) in this issue of Locus. You will notice that they are essay records only. They do not link to a title record, nor do they link to the author/artist/creator of the work. Mhhutchins 02:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just jumping in here because I saw the other discussion... I think Bill suggested that these were borderline items, and that he might have included them. Kevin 03:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, he didn't suggest...he said if they were borderline. And I agree.  These submissions sat in the queue quite some time and at least two hours after Bill's comment and my placing them on hold. If he truly felt they were borderline he would have accepted the submissions. Mhhutchins 15:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the reviews in the issue of BFS Journal, and the Sharp is a crime novel about an ex-Army soldier turned mercenary extracting someone from a cult; and the Moore is set in the present-day and Victorian London, and features Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker. So I'm guessing no spec-fic content. The same is likely true of the other missing titles which were reviewed, but I will double-check.Iansales 06:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They all appear to be crime novels, so I've converted them to "Review of Title by Author" ESSAY as suggested above.Iansales 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Submission accepted and the reviews removed and deleted. You can cancel the submissions that are being held. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I must look into an easier way to convert unwanted reviews to ESSAY type - it should be possible to do it in one step rather than add, remove and delete. BLongley 17:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The three missing books reviewed in this issue are definitely spec-fic, so I'll dig up details and add them.Iansales 18:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vivisepulture
Your submission adding this publication was accepted, but a few changes were made. First, the link to cover image on the publisher's website was removed. We need explicit permission from the website in order to deeplink to an image on their server. You can upload the a copy of the image file to the ISFDB server if you're unable to obtain permission. The binding was made "ebook". The dates of the publication and stories were changed from 0000-00-00 (unknown) to 2011-12-20, based on information from the publisher's website. Also, were you aware that there is another similar record for this title? The only difference is the price and ISBN. Are these two different publications? We also need you to update the record you added giving the source of your info. If you have a copy of the book, you should do a primary verification of the record without having to source the data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't spotted the duplicate. I took my data from the actual ebook itself. According to the colophon, it has a separate ISBN for each available format: PDF, epub and mobi.Iansales 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you know which contents, if any, are reprints? As Plastipak(TM) Limited looks rather like Plastipak™ Limited to me. BLongley 22:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'd assumed the contents were all original. Copyright for all contents is given as 2011.Iansales 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Monster Book for Girls
The submission adding this record was accepted, but there are a few things that need to be corrected in an update. The binding "trade paperback" should be changed to "tp", and the ISBN given is missing a digit. Can you please recheck that number in the book? Also the "Foreword" should be disambiguated by adding the title of the book parenthetically. And when you get a chance, if you have a copy of the book, please do a primary verification of the record. If you don't have a copy, please record the source of your data in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies. The checksum digit appears to have dropped off the ISBN. Have added it. Have also added book title, in brackets, to Foreword, and changed binding as requested. I own a copy of the book, took the data from there, and have so verified it.Iansales 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rocket Science
What is the binding "demy"? Mhhutchins 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Adrift on the Sea of Rains
I accepted the submission adding this book, but rejected the second submission adding a new publication of the same title. It's better in cases like this to wait until the first record is in the database, and then clone the existing one to create a record for the second state of the edition. (Which I did. This avoids the process of merging the duplicate records which are created when you another book of the same title.) I removed the links to the cover image on another server. We don't have permission to link to that server. You can upload an image file to the ISFDB server. Just follow the link "Upload cover scan". Once it's uploaded to our server, copy its URL and then paste it into both records of the book. I also removed the data for a publication series titled "Apollo Quartet", which appears to be a title series, not a publication series. I've place the title record of Adrift on the Sea of Rains into a title series of that name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Didn't realise that about adding two editions of the same book. On the cover. Yes, you did have permission. I created the cover art, and I linked to the file I'd posted to my own blog :-)Iansales 20:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploading cover images
Please use the "Upload cover scan" link on the publication record, and follow directions. After it's on the ISFDB server, copy its URL and then paste that URL in an edit update of the record. Mhhutchins 18:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hardcover edition of Heliotrope
I changed the unknown binding 'hb' (unknown to the software) to the standard 'hc'. If the contents for this edition are the same as for previous/other editions, you might have used the 'Clone publication' function. This way you wouldn't have to import them in a second step. But thanks for your submissions anyway! Stonecreek 14:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I realised as soon as I'd submitted it that I'd inadvertently put hb instead of hc - but I hoped it'd be caught and corrected :-)Iansales 16:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Gah. Have just realised. By putting the contents' dates as the collection's date, it's double her short fiction. Will correct dates. Iansales 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed CHAPTERBOOK to SHORTFICTION changes
Hi. I have your two submissions proposing to change a couple of CHAPTERBOOKs to SHORTFICTION on hold. What are you trying to do there? A CHAPTERBOOK is a "container", much like a COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY, used for the standalone publication of a shorter-than-novel-length work. There should always be a corresponding SHORTFICTION title record to go along with the CHAPTERBOOK record (because the CHAPTERBOOK publications will then have the SHORTFICTION as contents, just like a one-work collection). In your submissions:


 * The publications of the Adrift on the Sea of Rains CHAPTERBOOK contain the Adrift on the Sea of Rains novella (SHORTFICTION).
 * The publications of the The Eye with Which the Universe Beholds Itself CHAPTERBOOK contain the The Eye with Which the Universe Beholds Itself novella (SHORTFICTION).

So what you've submitted isn't an appropriate change, but I don't understand what you're trying to do. If you provide some more details, I'll be better able to help. Thanks. --MartyD 13:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I noticed that each title was down twice - once as a chapbook and once as shortfiction, which meant that only one format showed the award, and the two reviews were split evenly across the two formats. It seemed to me the titles had been duplicated somewhere.Iansales 07:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These stand-alone publications of SHORTFICTION have always been a dilemma (read: problem), so the CHAPTERBOOK type was created. One record is for the book itself (CHAPTERBOOK), and the other record is for the book's content (SHORTFICTION). The story (SHORTFICTION record) won the award, not the book (CHAPTERBOOK record). So the award is correctly linked to the first. The reviews were of the book, so I'll fix that. Mhhutchins 18:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) Iansales 07:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, got side-tracked by a work calamity. Thanks, both of you.  I've rejected the two submissions I had on hold.  --MartyD 00:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)