ISFDB:Community Portal


Jump to: navigation, search

ISFDB Discussion Pages and Noticeboards
Before posting to this page, consider whether one of the other discussion pages or noticeboards might suit your needs better.
Help desk
Questions about doing a specific task, or how to correct information when the solution is not immediately obvious.
• New post • Archives
Verification requests
Help with bibliographic, image credit, and other questions which require a physical check of the work in question.
• New post • Archives
Rules and standards
Discussions about the rules and standards, as well as questions about interpretation and application of those rules.
• New post • Rules changelog • Archives
Community Portal
General discussion about anything not covered by the more specialized noticeboards to the left.
• New post • Archives
Moderator noticeboard
Get the attention of moderators regarding submission questions.
• New post • Archives • Cancel submission
Roadmap: For the original discussion of Roadmap 2017 see this archived section. For the current implementation status, see What's New#Roadmap 2017.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Community Portal.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48


Component works as Variant titles

What is our criterion for handling component works as variants, as we do for The Ring Sets Out --the first half of the usual first volume of The Lord of the Rings by JRRT-- and its sibling "novels"? The Ring Sets Out is the first listing in series The Lord of the Rings, which handles the famous novel as a trilogy comprising three novels.

Do we, or should we, sometimes handle "fix-up" novels that way? One for which we do not is The Ship Who Sang (T5537, 1969) by Anne McCaffrey. See series The Ship Who ... where the six stories that constitute the novel, with revisions and perhaps supplement, are not affiliated with the fix-up novel in our database structure, only in the 1969 novel title note. --Pwendt|talk 20:18, 1 February 2020 (EST)

I don't know where/if it is documented, but I believe our practice is that if the work was first published as a single book and then was later published split across multiple volumes but otherwise unchanged -- a practice particularly common in some of the European markets -- we variant the split-into pieces to the original single title. But if some, or all, the pieces were published separately first, or if the later publication-as-pieces included non-trivial changes, then we treat the later publications as derivative works and do not make them variants of the original. --MartyD 10:34, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Likely novella candidates: works by del Rey, Knight and Niven

It appears from the copies I have that del Rey's Badge of Infamy, Knight's The Sun Saboteurs and Niven's The Magic Goes Away are all not novels but novellas. Our note for The Sun Saboteurs does also supposes this. The Niven title appears to be a novel per page count, but is in fact heavily illustrated (half of the space is not text). So, I think it's time to correct our entries. Stonecreek 02:29, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Badge of Infamy is available from Project Gutenberg (transcription of the Ace double version). It is just over 31k characters so definitely a novella. It also shows the Ace version has "A shorter and earlier version of this story appeared in Satellite Science Fiction for June, 1957." so the original was even shorter. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks for the input! I wanted to wait for a few days anyways, but it appears that I could begin with 'Badge of Infamy' first (Tuesday or so). Thanks, Stonecreek 10:55, 2 February 2020 (EST)
Estimated wordcount for The Magic Goes Away (from The Best of Larry Niven) is 25.000 to 30.000. The Sun Saboteurs is around 35.000 words, so both well in the novella range. It might be useful to put these numbers in the title notes. --Willem 13:29, 2 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks! Will do so. Christian Stonecreek 13:46, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Del Rey's The Sky Is Falling also seems to be of novella length. Christian Stonecreek 06:29, 6 March 2020 (EST)

Hello? Is this a forum? Seeking help from an author

Hello ISFDB Community,

My name is Dr. Jared Buss. I am a professor of history and the published author of a biography of science writer Willy Ley, who was quite prolific with Galaxy and in general with the Space Race. If you would like to check me out, here is a link to my first book:

If this link doesn't work, the book is called Willy Ley: Prophet of the Space Age.

I come to this place, not only because this site assisted me greatly in my first book research (and I credited it) but also because I am brainstorming my second book. I am looking for experts on the pulps, because the field of SF studies is outside of my scope. So I need some help navigating the history of SF pulps. I am trying to expand my bio of Willy Ley into a broader circle of SF authors, science writers, scientific journalists, etc. The period is from the 1930s through the 1970s, and most of my material so far is Astounding/Analog. I am focused not on the SF of the mags, but the science content, the editorials, and the reader letters.

Astounding/Analog makes the most sense to me at the moment because it had so many different science experts and writers, while Galaxy had Ley and the Asimov stuff had Asimov, unless you all think I need to look at the various writers of IF or other mags.

Basic question: Is there a way that I can ask questions of this educated community?

I would like to seek guidance on my second book project. I am happy to give credit to the community here.

All my best,

Jared Buss

PS Wiki confuses the hell out of me. I'm not sure if anyone will ever see this message.

Hello, Professor Buss! Your note hasn't gone by unnoticed.
I do think that many of the persons active here are willing to help you. If you have general questions it'd be best to post them at our Help Desk. If you do have specific questions about a publication the best way is to consult one of the primary verifiers, which are listed at the bottom of the respective publication's entry. The ones who were last active in 2020 are likely to respond in good time.
I hope that this can open a gate or two for your research.
Thanks for approaching us! Stonecreek 03:38, 3 February 2020 (EST)
If you live near Chicago, I would recommend attending the Windy City Pulp & Paper Convention, April 17-19, 2020, where you can connect with a lot people in the field. There’s more detail on the Con’s Facebook Page.Rkihara 15:21, 3 February 2020 (EST)
Re: "the science content, the editorials, and the reader letters" in mid-20th century SF magazines, that's a very big can of worms. Different magazines had different angles. Sometimes the editorial contents of a magazine changed over time, e.g. Startling Stories was very juvenile in the early 1940s, but became much more serious and polished in the second half of the decade. Astounding went from a fairly straightforward adventure mag under Harry Bates (1930-1934) to a more thoughtful "what if?" place under F. Orlin Tremaine (1933-1937) to the gold standard of American SF during the Golden Age under John W. Campbell, Jr. (1938-1949) to a place where pseudoscience flourished as Campbell began his long decline (1950-1960+). And that's just two magazines! Ahasuerus 12:58, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Who stops Stonecreek?

Again Stonecreek changes my PV data here, here, here and another pubs with his own not verified data and without source. The bad thing is, that he even changes wording, even if the data is correct. Who stops Stonecreek? I wish a statement from an administrator whether this behavior is correct or not! If this behavior is tolerated, I can save myself more time wasting on working here. My advice: clear his moderator flag. Stonecreek behaves like a berserk, destroying and changing a lot of data from PVed pubs (asks Rudam, C1, Willem, Magicunk, Annie). It is terrifying that a moderator is allowed to riot, all under the pretext of troubleshooting. Please don't ask me for further information, everyone knows his behavior and I have no time, to repeat the facts, read the associated threads.--Wolfram.winkler 01:59, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Editors can change primary-verified data for various reasons as long as they notify the primary verifiers. Common reasons include:
In addition, approving moderators commonly change submitted data to bring it in compliance with the ISFDB data entry standards. On your Talk page you write "Since non-compliance with rules is common here, I also take the liberty to use a meaningful definition of the page number" ("Da das Nichtbefolgen von Regeln hier üblich ist, nehme ich mir auch die Freiheit heraus eine sinnvolle Definition der Seitenzahl zu benutzen"), but that's not how the ISFDB operates. If a submission is not in compliance with the current data entry standards, the non-compliant data will be corrected by the approving moderator. Editors are encouraged to learn from these corrections and to adjust their future submissions accordingly.
If you believe that the approving moderator is interpreting one or more standards incorrectly -- which is always possible since no one is perfect -- please post the specifics on the Moderator Noticeboard and other moderators will review the situation. You write "Please don't ask me for further information", but other moderators can't help without knowing what had been submitted, how it was changed by the approving moderator and what you believe the problem with the change was.
If you would like to propose a change to the data entry standards, please post on the Rules and standards discussions page. You wrote on your page that "Discussion is superfluous, since no result is achieved anyway", but discussions do result in changes. For example, just three weeks ago we changed the data entry standards as well as the ISFDB software based on a Rules and Standards discussion -- see the last two entries on the Rules and standards changelog page.
The steps listed immediately above are the standard ISFDB data entry and appeals process. Please follow it in the future. Ahasuerus 10:48, 6 February 2020 (EST)
I do change them as for applying the ISFDB standard: correcting the faulty English to correct use, correcting the erroneous page count and format. You had plenty of time to do this on your own, and were offered help from various moderators. If you were asked about what is stated in a given publication verified by you, you never answered the respective question but kept evading any answer.
Plus: you openly concede that you don't care for ISFDB standards (for example about indexing the correct page count). At the end of this argument you state that you set your own standard of giving the page count. Cleverly, you did this in German, obviously your chosen language of hiding. Stonecreek 02:47, 6 February 2020 (EST)
I don't know what Wolfram's intent was, but it reinforces the point that I made during that discussion:
  • The reason that we use English as the language of all Wiki pages, including Talk pages, is that we want all editors and moderators to be able to understand all Wiki-based discussions. Using other languages would make it difficult or impossible for others to contribute to discussions. It would make it difficult for moderators who do not know the submitting editor's preferred language to work with his or her submissions because they would have no way to review previous discussions. Ahasuerus 10:51, 6 February 2020 (EST)
Every single one of your primary verified publications that I encountered has been faulty: either in language, in page count, or in missing information (since you tried to revert to stub notes in the recent past).
If you keep your personal attacks, you will be blocked for a short time of posting your insults. This time will be prolonged after any further such attempt that is not stating what is wrong with a given publication record (and if so, I am afraid, you might be asked to prove your case). If you think something is missing, please submit it (but you'll have to use a correct form of English; if this seems to be difficult, don't hesitate to ask).
Wolfram, you might want to become a respected editor, but you have to change your attitude by following the ISFDB standard and getting cooperative. Stonecreek 02:47, 6 February 2020 (EST)
Calling other editors "berserk" is close to a personal attack and should be avoided. However, there is also another issue here. If an editor consciously decides not to use the ISFDB data entry standards, it greatly increases the amount of work that the approving moderators have to do in order to bring his submissions in compliance with the standards. It also frustrates both the moderators and the submitting editor as seen above. That way lies burnout.
In order to avoid these types of issues in the future, I ask Wolfram to commit himself to trying to follow the ISFDB data entry policies and procedures. (I say "trying" because, as I wrote earlier, no one is perfect and mistakes will happen.) It's a basic prerequisite for being an ISFDB editor. Ahasuerus 11:44, 6 February 2020 (EST)
Let me add that to correct erroneous phrasings & statements is only logical in the light of the fads & fallacies you, Wolfram, provided: The initial notes (now corrected) for this publication - provided by you - stated something like 'Version: 9th German printing'. There was no note that it was only the ninth printing of this edition, and that as far as we know all the novel's German editions print the same version.
You, Wolfram, also cheated and hoaxed on us. The fact that you tried everything to avoid answering simple questions is also well documented here: you would have needed only to take one simple look on the copyright page of the debated publication to answer Annie's question. This is the same argument where you pretended not to know that the German 'Originalausgabe' means 'first edition', a fact that you knew perfectly well about here. Christian Stonecreek 05:56, 9 February 2020 (EST)
Now I'm here for a short time, to look what is happened: I see, nothing new.
@ Ahasuerus: where are the sources from Stonecreek in my pv pub?. The data shown are not mine. You can talk and talk about new rules, but Stonecreek doesn't stick to them.
That is lying and I am not participating. In future I will only delete my pv status from manipulated pubs, I will no longer be an editor. Fact is, that Stonecreek delete pv data and replace it with his own non pv data. If you don't see that, then I feel sorry for you. Who stops Stonecreek? (Google).--Wolfram.winkler 05:14, 24 February 2020 (EST)
I don't know how many edits have been done on Wolfram's PV'd pub since this discussion started (quite a few I'd say), but someone added the statement The page count may actually be higher: DNB states one of 399 for this edition / ISBN. that wasn't there before. As that statement isn't rephrasing or correcting errors of what was already in the notes (which are allowed afaic), it should at least have been dated (and signed) to make it clear that it did not originate from the original PV-er as per the instructions on how to update a publication (last but one bullet). MagicUnk 12:38, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Also, the way it is phrased is not really neutral as it may give the impression that the PV-er has done a 'bad' job. The phrasing should have preferably been DNB has 399 pages for this edition / ISBN.
@Wolfram: Rephrasing notes to make them clearer or for correcting erroneous English, without changing the contents/meaning, of a PV'd publication IS allowed. If on the contrary someone has made a change that changes the contents or meaning of the notes and is incorrect, then (as has been requested before) please notify the moderators by providing 1) the before and after, and 2) why the correction/addition is wrong. For your example you could confirm that the last numbered page is, indeed, 397 (and not 399). If so, the phrase The page count may actually be higher must be deleted, but only if the last numbered page is 397. MagicUnk 13:17, 24 February 2020 (EST)
I have run a few database queries and created a list of submissions which have affected this publication record since it was originally created. Please note that the list is limited to Publication Update submissions. There may have been other types of submissions, e.g. Import/Export, which I haven't found yet:
  • 2019-12-26: 4523628 - New Publication by Wolfram.winkler which created this record
  • 2019-12-27: 4524877 - Update by Stonecreek to change multiple field values, including Notes
  • 2019-12-27: 4525530 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to change the cover scan back, approved by Stonecreek
  • 2020-01-01: 4534622 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to change the title to "Buch 1", rejected by Rudam -- see this discussion for details
  • 2020-01-05: 4539944 - Update by Dirk P Broer to change the Title record
  • 2020-01-13: 4548378 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to change the publication title and to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-01-20: 4555714 - Update by Stonecreek to change the titles of the pub record, the main title record and the COVERART title record; also edited the Note field
  • 2020-01-22: 4557265 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-01-27: 4561082 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-01-30: 4563592 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-01-31: 4564437 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-02-04: 4568181 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-02-04: 4568181 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
  • 2020-02-06: 4569226 - Update by Wolfram.winkler to delete the notes added by Stonecreek earlier; rejected by Stonecreek
Based on this history, we can tell that this publication record was originally created and then edited in December 2019, i.e. before the current rule re: adding information to primary verified publications was added on January 12. To quote Rules_and_standards_changelog:
  • 2020-01-12: When updating a primary verified publication with data from a secondary source, the editor must specify what information is from that secondary source in the "Pub Note" field
Now that the new rule is in place, we should check with the primary verifier to see what is stated in his verified copy of the book and what comes from secondary sources. We should then update the Notes field accordingly. Ahasuerus 14:00, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Update: I have asked Stonecreek to update the Notes field to indicate where the data that was not submitted by the primary verifier comes from. Ahasuerus 13:05, 25 February 2020 (EST)
P.S. And I really really need to improve the "Edit History" feature which I added a few months ago. Ahasuerus 14:04, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Thank you Ahasuerus. I see that my statement of having to add a date was not warranted as it was added before the update to the rules. (And yes, you really should :)...) -MagicUnk 14:23, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Edit History enhancements are high on my list of things to do, but I have been trying to get Phase 1 of the new Amazon interface implemented. It has turned out to be more of a challenge than I originally expected, so everything else kind of got stuck in the queue. I'll see if I can reshuffle things a bit. Ahasuerus 18:04, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks for all the work that you have put into this Edit History, Ahasuerus!
As requested, I have added additions to the changed notes. Stonecreek 00:04, 26 February 2020 (EST)
@Ahasuerus: I wrote in my notes here: "Version: 6th printing". What is wrong with this note? Stonecreek changes this in: "Stated sixth printing". Is that more understandable? Never. And this is only one example for his senseless changes in many of my PVed submissions.There is nothing wrong with data being corrected or expanded, but changing the wording is a cheek!--Wolfram.winkler 02:01, 26 February 2020 (EST)
Well, it counters the general - and here even the specific - understanding of 'version': what version should it be of, when the copyright states something like '1. Auflage 2017 (2.0)' - meaning version 2.0 - or '4. Auflage 2019 (3.2)' - meaning version 3.2? The use of 'version' means that something in the text was changed (like with a revision): it's unusual for different printings of the same edition to change the text of a novel, but it seems it has happened here. Hope that makes things more clear for you. Stonecreek 02:29, 26 February 2020 (EST)
"Stated" and "assumed" are standard bibliographic terms used by the ISFDB and other bibliographies. "Stated" means that the listed information -- in this case the printing number -- is explicitly mentioned in the publication. "Assumed" means that the information is not explicitly mentioned in the publication, but there is circumstantial evidence that is sufficient to update the record. It's similar to the way OCLC and other catalogs use square brackets. To quote Help:Using Worldcat data:
  • Data listed in brackets such as "[First Ed.]" is by convention inferred rather than stated in the publication.
Sometimes "stated" information can be incorrect or misleading. For example, the third printing of a book may state that it's the second printing because the publisher forgot to update the copyright page. Alternatively, a publication may state that it was published in 1943, but the actual publication date was 1944. Another example would be the US publisher Ace, which reset its printing numbers at some point around 1980, so a "stated fourth printing" may actually be the sixth printing of the Ace edition. When something like that happens, we explain what is "stated" in the publication as well as what the actual situation is.
Re: "printing" vs. "version". "Printing" is another standard bibliographic term and refers to multiple printings of the same "edition". Different printings of an edition may have different publication dates, prices and cover art. It's uncommon for other information to be different between printings of the same edition.
The term "version" is something that I have seen used in POD (print on demand) publications lately. It is occasionally used to indicate the file number of the computer file which was used to print the book. It's usually a string of characters with printing information encoded in some fashion, e.g. "2018.v102". There doesn't appear to be a pattern shared across multiple POD publishers and authors. Ahasuerus 09:16, 26 February 2020 (EST)

ISFDB downtime -- 2020-03-05

The ISFDB server will be down for maintenance between 1:30pm and 1:40pm server (Eastern Standard) time. It will affect both the database and the Wiki. Ahasuerus 13:16, 5 March 2020 (EST)

We are back. Ahasuerus 13:41, 5 March 2020 (EST)

ISFDB downtime -- 2020-03-06 (Friday)

The ISFDB server will be down for maintenance between 12pm and 12:20pm server (Eastern Standard) time. The downtime will affect both the database and the Wiki. Publication Edit History pages will be updated to include "Edit Publication" submissions. Ahasuerus 11:13, 6 March 2020 (EST)

We are back. Sorry about the delay. The main ISFDB server is normally faster than the development server. However, it unexpectedly took a long time to run the database conversion which was needed for the new Edit History functionality to work. Here is an example of what the page looks like now. Ahasuerus 12:38, 6 March 2020 (EST)
"The submission which created this publication is displayed for publications created after 2019-12-01." - I can see things from 2018 as well (at least). Was that supposed to be 2017? Annie 12:39, 6 March 2020 (EST)
Oops! Sorry, the correct date is "2016-10-24". 2019-12-01 is the date of a later patch. Should be fixed now. Ahasuerus 13:20, 6 March 2020 (EST)

Scope of Nonfiction Books

I'm holding four newpubs for nonfiction works:

From my perspective, these are non-genre books by authors below the threshold, but I'd like a second opinion. Especially given as the submitter has other books ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) like these recently approved.

We used to allow books like these even if by non-genre authors when they were reviewed in genre magazine. Lately, the move (at least from what I have observed) has been away from that and changing that case to essays. What is the current community opinion on handling of these types of books? -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2020 (EST)

The question of "speculative non-fiction" -- UFOs, cryptids, ghosts, etc -- has come up a few times over the years. To the best of my recollection the answer has always been that they are out of scope as per ISFDB:Policy. We treat them the way we treat non-speculative fiction and non-fiction, i.e. we only include them if the author is "above the threshold".
Re: non-genre and non-fiction books reviewed in genre magazines, yes, they used to be included. The policy was changed to enter them as essays a number of years ago. Ahasuerus 13:51, 6 March 2020 (EST)
(After resolving a conflict) I would kick them out if I see them... The acquisition rules have a single line about non-fiction: "Works about speculative fiction." followed by an exclusion "Works that are not related to speculative fiction by authors who have not published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold." - if anything we allow too much non-ficiton related to movies/series in the bigger universes if you ask me but that at least some relation to the books inside as well. These clearly are not SF or about SF. Ergo - out they go. Someone told me when I was newish that ghosts and UFOs and so on books are eligible only if they are fiction OR non-fiction about fiction on the topic. Straight non-fiction on these topics is out - we really do not want all the lunacy cases here. Same for alternate history - fiction is in, non-fiction "What IF" are out.  :) Annie 13:54, 6 March 2020 (EST)
We might want to create a new maintenance report then - non-eligible books and/or publications.--Dirk P Broer 15:21, 6 March 2020 (EST)
But how will the algorithm know that a non-fiction book is ineligible? Annie 15:47, 6 March 2020 (EST)
A title is suspect when the author of the non-fiction work hasn't written fiction -in our database. It is up to the moderator that handles the report whether a title is "above the threshold", but we may want to narrow the definition of that threshold a bit.--Dirk P Broer 17:12, 6 March 2020 (EST)
Most of the eligible for inclusion non-fiction is written by authors who are either not in the DB or are only here for NON-FICTION in my experience. It has nothing to do with tresholds and non-fiction about speculative fiction (research, analysis, comparisons and so on) is always eligible.
People writing about fiction are rarely the ones writing fiction as well - while there are some that do, most are either one or the other... This report will flag most of our non-fiction titles. We probably need it to deal with existing records but we also need the approving moderators to look a bit more into eligibility when approving new Pubs. :) Annie 17:34, 6 March 2020 (EST)
We might do something with tags for those cases that are clearly within isfdb because of the content -and using other tags to mark publications that are doubtful.--Dirk P Broer 19:48, 6 March 2020 (EST)
I rejected the additions & removed the other ones. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2020 (EST)

Publication Edit History - Import/Export submissions added

The Publication Edit History page has been modified to display Import/Export submissions. Ahasuerus 17:34, 7 March 2020 (EST)

The Publication Edit History page has been further modified to include Remove Title submissions. Most of them cannot be displayed correctly because the removed title(s) are no longer associated with the publication record. However, the very fact that one or more titles have been removed from the publication record is good to know when trying to figure out what has happened. In addition, you can view the submission's XML if you want to see the raw data. The format is not pretty, but it's better than nothing. Ahasuerus 18:57, 7 March 2020 (EST)

8 new cleanup reports

The following 8 new cleanup reports have been added to the menagerie:

  • Anthology Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Collection Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Chapbook Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Magazine Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Fanzine Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Nonfiction Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Novel Publications with Invalid Title Types
  • Omnibus Publications with Invalid Title Types

The majority of type mismatches are NONFICTION titles which need to be converted to ESSAYs. Some other mismatches are debatable, e.g. SERIALs in NOVEL pubs. We can discuss what we want to do with them once we process the low-hanging fruit. The data should be available by 1:30am server (US Eastern) time. Ahasuerus 20:17, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

We are not flagging anthologies and collections inside of Magazines (because of the good old Italian practices (among others) - allowing the proper anthologies and collections to be connected when published in their entirety inside of a magazine). Shall we do the same for fanzines (for the same reasons)? We seem to have at least one of those in the report now. Annie 10:59, 11 March 2020 (EDT)
To quote what I wrote on the primary verifier's Talk page:
  • According to this AbeBooks listing, "A special section of verse is a semi-distinct anthology titled Lays Without Tunes and Bardic Runes including Frank Belknap Long, Richard Tierney, Walter Shedlovsky and others." It looks like what they (and the publication?) call an "anthology" is really just a distinct section of this fanzine issue. If so, then I doubt we want to create a separate ANTHOLOGY title record for this grouping of poems.
Ahasuerus 13:09, 11 March 2020 (EDT)
Yeah, we probably do not need an exception for that then (for now...). Thanks for digging this out :) Annie 13:48, 11 March 2020 (EDT)
Dirk P Broer brought to my attention this pub, which I've verified showing up on the Nonfiction Publications with Invalid Title Types report. I intentionally entered it as NONFICTION and included both a NOVEL and a SHORTFICTION item in the contents. The book has a preface and three chapters of nonfiction matter. The fourth chapter is a heavily annotated copy of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. After the novel, there are three appendices: An excerpt from another Baum novel with commentary, William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech and an essay on the Quantity Theory of Money. I really do feel that this book is nonfiction that contains a novel. Even the title page mentions Baum only in the subtitle and gives the editor the main credit for the book. I can certainly convert this to a novel, if folks disagree. If they don't, maybe we need an ignore feature for that report. Thoughts? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:29, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

A couple awards to add

Can we add these awards:

I'll be happy to populate them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:07, 12 March 2020 (EDT)

I am reading the rules and it looks like the first two are contests rather than awards: "Write a short story of no more than 8,000 words".
The last one is an award, but its scope appears to be limited to "the best story in a book published by this publisher". Here is how the 2016 winner is described: "Fans chose from the table of contents of The Year’s Best Military and Adventure SF, Volume 3".
I am not sure they count as award types or award categories as we use the terms. Perhaps we could enter this information in the Title Note field? Something like "As per <Web page>, this story was selected by readers as the best one in <publication>." Ahasuerus 13:47, 12 March 2020 (EDT)

The Kitschies Award

Sorry to hijack someone else's item, but I was going to raise a similar question: ErsatzCulture 22:38, 13 March 2020 (EDT)

No worries, I have created a separate section for the Kitschies award. Ahasuerus 15:38, 15 March 2020 (EDT)

could we add the British award The Kitschies? This is a panel judged award that's run for a decade - with one year skipped - and has (IMHO) a similar feel to the Clarke, but with three categories: Novel, Debut Novel, and Cover Art. (There were some other categories awarded before 2016, but they appear to have been dropped.) I'd be happy to populate them if this receives the OK. EDIT: although I'm working on other personal projects at the moment, so I might not be able to get around to doing any updates for a few weeks ErsatzCulture 22:38, 13 March 2020 (EDT)

Done. It's a straightforward genre award listed by the Science Fiction Awards Database -- see the results. Ahasuerus 16:16, 15 March 2020 (EDT)
Awesome, thanks. I'll see if I can find time to start populating it this week. ErsatzCulture 20:06, 15 March 2020 (EDT)

"Title Edit History" implemented

A new Web page, "Title Edit History", has been implemented. It's similar to the Publication Edit History page and is currently limited to "Edit Title" submissions. See this page for an example. Ahasuerus 16:23, 12 March 2020 (EDT)

ISFDB on social media

A recent discussion on my Talk page made me compile a list of social media Web pages related to our project. Let's see if we can sort them out:

  • Blogspot. Our official blog used to post notifications when the ISFDB server suddenly becomes unavailable. Last update on 2016-05-05. Luckily, we haven't had many unexpected downtimes since 2016.
  • LiveJournal. Maintained by Bill Longley, one of our moderators, in 2010-2013. Inactive and inaccessible since Bill's death in 2014.
  • Facebook. Maintained by ?. Last update on 2020-02-05.
  • Reddit. Created by user "widermind" ca. 2017. No posts.

Note that is/was the Twitter presence of the apparently defunct "Indian Short Film Database". I am unaware of a Twitter account related to our project.

Are there any other social media sites that we should be aware of? Do we know who maintains the Facebook page? Should we create a Twitter account for downtime announcements (planned and unplanned) to make it easier to notify users? Ahasuerus 13:19, 25 March 2020 (EDT)

See ISFDB:Community Portal/Archive/Archive45#Facebook page -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
Ah, so the Facebook page is being maintained by User:Nihonjoe. Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:00, 25 March 2020 (EDT)

Difficulty with login

I have been away from isfdb for some time and lost my bookmarks and login info. Unable to remember my password, I attempted to have a new password created, but I am not receiving said password. The only solution open to me was to creat a new account. That said, I found a grave difficulty while trying to contact isfdb. In the help pages there is instruction to post to the community pages if you are having difficulty with logins. Well, you cannot post to the community pages if you are not logged in. There does need to be a way to contact isfdb, but after spending quite some time searching, I found absolutely none whatsoever.

Anyway, right now I would like a password sent to me so that I may continue with my former (real) name of Thomcomstock as opposed to Cantlogin.

I will wait to receive that email.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cantlogin (talkcontribs) .

Sorry to hear that the standard Wiki-based password reset process didn't work for you! The automated email notification may have gotten stuck in some spam filter between our server and your email system.
I have manually reset your account password and sent the new password to the email address associated with the Thomcomstock ISFDB account. Please change it to a password of your choosing once you log in. Also, please keep in mind that you may need to log in using the new password twice: once on the Wiki side and again on the database side. Hope this resolves the problem! Ahasuerus 20:25, 25 March 2020 (EDT)

Literary Lives: two different pub series, or just one?

Earlier today/yesterday, I added an Adam Roberts book on HG Wells, that is part of a "Literary Lives" series published by Palgrave Macmillan, which appears to have a few more titles that are of relevance to ISFDB.

I see that we already have a Literary Lives pub series, with one entry, but that is currently associated with St. Martin's Press (NB: both are Macmillan imprints, I believe).

The Mary Shelley book we do have seems to be credited to both publishers e.g. a Kirkus review (you'll need to scroll down has it as St. Martin's Press, but it's also claimed by Palgrave Macmillan, with the same ISBN (well, one is ISBN-10, the other ISBN-13).

Before I start adding any others in this series, any thoughts on whether the Palgrave Macmillan volumes - which seem to be much better documented online than the St. Martins Press ones - should go under a new pub series, or the existing one? The closest prior example I can think of are the two (or is it three?) SF Masterworks series by Millenium and Gollancz, although those series seem to be split by design more than publisher/imprint. ErsatzCulture 23:50, 25 March 2020 (EDT)

I'd think they do belong to the same pub. series since the publishers are basically the same (or are stituated under a common roof). Stonecreek 07:24, 26 March 2020 (EDT)
Or maybe this should be in fact a title series? This would be the case if the volumes were written for the publisher(s). Stonecreek 11:06, 26 March 2020 (EDT)

Tubb's Cap Kennedy

This appears to be a series of NOVELLAs rather than a series of NOVELs (the respective word counts are estimated to take place in the 28,000 - 34,000 range). A cross-reading of the German novella-length publications comes to the same result, and there were no major abridgments found with them. Are there any other countings? Christian Stonecreek 01:37, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Looking at all the 1973 DAW books we have, these are decidedly shorter than any other in the year. We seem to have quite a lot of verifiers on most of the DAW editions - some of them still active. Maybe someone can pull one of the books and count a page? At 120-130 pages per book, we need a rather dense text (I’ve 300 words per page on each page) to push it to 40K. Not that it is impossible but it should be obvious when a book is checked. Annie 01:58, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Are calendars on-topic, and if so, how should they be categorized?

Whilst trawling through a publisher website, I came across this Discworld calendar due to be published later this year. It's from a genre publisher, is created to a writer and artist already in ISFDB, and has an ISBN, but it's debatable if it's a book, so should it, and things like it, get added here?

I did a search for titles containing "calendar", and the only (relevant) result I found was this 2008 Vallejo/Bell calendar, which is categorized as CHAPBOOK. Most artbooks - which strike me to be a close relative of calendars - that I've checked are categorized as NONFICTION.

Note: I'm not planning on submitting loads of calendars; rather, I'm working on vaguely Fixer-like data acquisition, and I'm gauging what I might need to do if I pick this sort of thing up, or how annoyed mods might get if I submit them, etc. ErsatzCulture 09:09, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

If the images were only in the calendar - then no. If they are either reprints of covers or used for covers - sure. :) It should be non-fiction - yes. We talked about calendars a few months ago as well - let me find the old discussion (just so people do not need to type again) :) Annie 09:42, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Here it is. Apparently noone posted besides me but I am too lazy to type it all again so check it there :) Annie 09:45, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for digging that Help Desk item out (which doesn't show up in a Wiki search for "calendar" - sigh...). I think a problem I might have is that any submissions coming from me will be based on stuff I've uncovered online - I won't own the calendars myself, and am unlikely to know if all the artworks are reprints. I vaguely recall reading articles and/or artist tweets that implied that Game of Thrones/ASOIAF calendars are all original/commissioned art, so I guess would not be eligible based on the above comment. ErsatzCulture 10:38, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Annie's rule of the thumb on those - if it is iffy, skip it especially if it is not fiction or a genre magazine/fanzine. If someone cares enough, they will get added. We are primarily a fiction DB - the rest is just supporting stuff. If you care about it, submit it - if you convince a moderator, it is in (for now...)
PS: Can you please press "Edit" next to the title of the item you are responding to and not at the top of the page when responding? That way people can click on the link in their watch list (or from history and get to the correct item instead of scrolling around like crazy. And when I am working from my phone, it is even crazier. :) Annie 11:23, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Sorry about that - I *think* it was actually because I edited the summary line, rather than me editing the entire page. I did that, because I had the wiki nag at me when editing some other pages recently, for not providing an edit summary, so I thought I'd pre-empt it complaining at me, guess that was the wrong thing to do :-( ErsatzCulture 11:35, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
No worries :) Yep, if you removed the thing between the stars that is already there, it will do that as well. You can add a summary (and it is a good practice to) but do not remove what is already in the summary line - just add after it. What is there by default is what makes the anchor to get you to the correct part of the page. Always fun with learning how different wikis behave. :) Annie 11:38, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Punch magazine 1974

It's a long shot I know, but has anyone got any of the 1974 copies of Punch magazine? I'm researching some genre material in one of that year's issues but, so far, haven't been able to establish which issue. Anyone? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 23:08, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

If no one here has a copy, I suggest contacting the folks at SFE3 as they are UK-based and may have copies (or know someone who does). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:08, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

Star Ka'at - convert to novellas

These are not novels. Between the number of pages in the originals and the fact that the latest reprint clocks 4 of them together at just over 300 pages (even less in the ebook version...) kinda makes it almost obvious. Anyone disagreeing with converting these to novellas? We have a few active verifiers so I will ping them for a quick count if they do not see this but these really do not look long enough. Annie 17:14, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

Checking my verified copy of the first title in the series, I calculate that each page has at most 250 words. There are 118 numbered pages, but 20 of them are either blank or have full-page illustrations. 250 times 98 is 24.5K words, but the actual count is probably lower. Which makes them novellas, possibly even novelettes. Ahasuerus 19:51, 7 April 2020 (EDT)
And the other 3 look to be either shorter or about the same. Thanks for tracking down that book! I also found a note by Bluesman in one of his verified books of the series that it is too short to be a novel... Novellas it is then -- I will downgrade them all this evening. Annie 19:56, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

Cover Image Data Templates

I have have consolidated the Cover Image Data, Cover Image Data1-2, and Cover Image Data1-3 cover image templates and updated the consolidated version ({{Cover Image Data}}) so it now handles up to five artists (we have a few pubs with more than that, but this seemed a good limit to not overly complicate the template). The two deprecated templates now redirect to the consolidated version and will continue to work. I have also cleaned up the documentation. Hopefully, this makes it a little easier as people don't have to deal with multiple templates based on the number of artists. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2020 (EDT)

Yes, that should be enough, I'd think. Thanks for this work! Stonecreek 04:22, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

Fancyclopedia 3 migrating from Wikidot to its own domain

Fancyclopedia 3 has migrated from to The former location maintains a mirror of all Fancyclopedia articles, but it will be taken down in the near future.

We have 50 author records, 2 publisher records and 5 series records still linking to Calling for volunteers to update the affected records. In most cases we just need to replace "" with ".org", but we also need to confirm that the new URLs are working as expected. Ahasuerus 12:21, 8 April 2020 (EDT)

There are 3 more in notes. I will clear them all today. Annie 13:14, 8 April 2020 (EDT)
PS: And it is a bit more than just replacements if the name has a space - there are missing/added dots and - is replaced by _ ( / for example) :) Annie 13:19, 8 April 2020 (EDT)
All fixed. Annie 14:49, 8 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 14:52, 8 April 2020 (EDT)

Paper books and ASINs


Just heads up: a lot of the new self-published US books (starting in December/January) are now carrying 979- ISBNs. That means that they do not have a valid ISBN-10 anymore and Amazon assigns them a standard B* ASIN. As these cannot be calculated and Amazon uses these as identifiers, we now have valid new paper books with ISBNs and ASINs. Example: here.

These are not the first 979- books we are seeing but we will get a lot more of them now that the self-published range had moved there so just heads up. Annie 11:20, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

PS: Just a clarification: The Amazon link with the ISBN13 works but sends you to this for my example above and not the exact edition page. It is the ASIN link that always drops you into the exact edition (and as ASIN=ISBN10 before, our ISBN-based link was using that). That is why adding the ASIN for these books makes sense (and why ISBN links for ebooks never works properly to Amazon - their ASIN is never ISBN10). Annie 18:07, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

National Portuguese Library

Hello, everyone! I wonder if it's possible to add an external identifier to the National Portuguese Library? All publications have a unique number in their persistent link, like this: The last number will work as identifier. It can be obtained by clicking in the "Link persistente deste registo", the second right under the publication information. Thanks--Wolland 11:56, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

From what I can find, this indeed seems like a real ID so I support the proposal. Annie 12:13, 9 April 2020 (EDT)
Sounds reasonable. FR 1338 has been created. Ahasuerus 13:42, 9 April 2020 (EDT)
That's great.Thanks!--Wolland 16:33, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) PORBASE has been added as an External ID and as a Notes template. Help:Using Templates and HTML in Note Fields has been updated. Ahasuerus 21:02, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

New cleanup report -- VT length mismatches

A new cleanup report, "Variant Title Length Mismatches", has been implemented as per FR 1339. The data will become available in a couple of hours. Ahasuerus 23:21, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

I Completed the first 300 titles. Most are pretty straightforward, but it's not always easy to determine the real length of a story (for example up to 20 variants, evenly divided between short story and novelette for some Edgar Allan Poe titles). Sometimes I can use a Gutenberg copy for a real wordcount, sometimes I use my own copy of a story for an estimated wordcount. So far I encountered only one really interesting case, Riverworld, which has three different versions. The second version of the novella was only "slightly expanded", but the third almost tripled the wordcount. I think it was a mistake to put all of there under one titlerecord, and I will separate the third version from the other two. The PJF international bibliography has a neat indication which version was included in which publication. --Willem 15:54, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for working on these! Ahasuerus 18:06, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Sunni K Brock

The whole point of the "add a period after initials" is so we do not have this kind of pseudonyms. Is there a special reason for this one? If not, I will merge the two author names under the properly formatted one. If there is a reason to have both, we need a note explaining the reason. Annie 15:39, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

I think it relates back to this discussion. One of the authors discussed in that discussion (Steven H Silver) has the same issue (version with a period is entered as alternate name). I'm not sure we ever came to a clean conclusion. Per Ahasuerus' comment at the top, the current rules should be interpreted that if an author doesn't use the period, it should be entered without a period. The rest of the discussion did it's typical meandering. Given that, it would seem that Brock is correctly entered per the current rules (assuming the author does not use a period). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
Silver is an exception because H is his full middle name, not because he does not use a dot in his name - which is consistent with the policies because it is not an initial - so the "always add a dot after an initial" does not apply. If we have the same situation here, this needs to be documented (as it was done for Silver). If it is not, then we should be following our own rules and not making up new ones on the fly. Annie 17:18, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
Except the current help states "However, when it is clearly the author's choice to omit the period, or when the author has a single letter name that is not an initial (e.g. "Harry S Truman") the period should be omitted". Preference is sufficient; it does not need to be that it doesn't legally stand for anything. Personally, I would find it easier if we always used periods, but that's not what the rules actually say. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
In which case there should be a note on the author page explaining why the . is missing for this author (so the next editors know where this is coming from). Especially for an author who has only short pieces so the editors/publishers have as much a say in that as the author. Otherwise we should just abandon the whole rule and pretend that what is printed is what the author wants and be done. As this stands now there is no indication of preference here, there is nothing I can find online on the topic and it is a clear violation of our own policies. :) Annie 18:19, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
All of the author's shortfiction is available in pubs with Amazon Look Inside. In each case, the ToC shows other authors with initials and periods. That's pretty clear it's not an editor's choice. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
The same help page also says "Such non-standard forms should be mentioned in a publication or title note.". I do not see any notes anywhere - either in the publications/titles or on the author page. Or am I missing them somewhere? I have no issues with author wishes but we need to document these somewhere or we look inconsistent (and it makes it almost impossible to actually follow any rules). Annie 21:03, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
Well, the current version of Help was created back when an author consciously using an initial without a period following it was still rare and needed to be documented.
Keep in mind that -- for the longest time -- a missing period was something that hyperactive art editors did on a whim. No one who came across "r a lafferty" on the title page of a story expected the name to appear that way in an SF bibliography. There were exceptions outside of SF, e.g. e e cummings's works were sometimes cataloged as by "e e cummings" as opposed to by "E. E. Cummings", but SF bibliographers generally didn't have to worry about it.
Then, about 10 years ago (?), things began to change. Some authors began consistently using period-less initials. Some began dropping the space between the initials. At this point when an ISFDB user comes across CJ Rutherford, who uses this spelling of his name consistently for all of his books, he or she will expect it to be spelled "CJ Rutherford" and not "C. J. Rutherford". Given this scenario I doubt it would be useful to add a note to every pub/title record associated with this author. Perhaps we could update Help to say that Notes should document any spelling of the author's name which is the same as the spelling of the canonical name except for different punctuation characters, i.e. spaces and periods? (I am not sure it's the best way to address the issue, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment.) Ahasuerus 18:02, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
Considering that our policy is to add dots and spaces, documenting on the author level anyone that does not follow the policy makes more sense to me than anything else (and reduces the clutter in the pubs/titles notes) - making sure that an editor can determine if this is a mistake OR this is how the canonical is supposed to be. Annie 18:47, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
I see. Yes, adding Author level notes is probably a better idea.
Also, after rereading the current Help text ("clearly the author's choice") it occurs to me that it's rather subjective and that it may be possible to make the rule more objective. The main problem with subjective criteria is that it's hard to be sure what the author's choice is/was. For example, according to Lawrence Watt-Evans -- whose legal name is "Lawrence Watt Evans" -- he originally wanted to be credited as "Lawrence Evans". However, the name was already taken and his editor, Lester del Rey, insisted on using a hyphenated version of the full name. It wasn't Lawrence's preference, but he was a young author and didn't have much say in the matter. And then he was stuck with it. For all we know, "CJ Rutherford" would also prefer to be credited differently. Something like "used intentionally" would be a more objective way of saying the same thing. Ahasuerus 12:31, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

(indent) I came across another one: Sammy HK Smith. He also has an entry as Sammy H. K. Smith (printed as Sammy H.K Smith - no space, no period after the 'K'- on the contents page of the publication the story appeared in - which he published himself btw). He is also the creative director of Grimbold Books where he is just known as Sammy Smith ( by Creative Director Sammy Smith and Editorial Director Zoë Harris.). Currently I have submissions on hold that wants to update the editor of the British Fantasy Awards Best Independent Press award for Grimbold Books to Sammy HK Smith, whereas it should just be Sammy Smith if taken from the publisher's website here. So not much evidence of the author's preference to be found, it seems, except his facebook page. So, what should we do in such a case? I'm inclined to normalize, make a note as to the different appearances of his name, and use the variant Sammy Smith as editor to update the award records - until such time we learn of the author/editor's preference. Thoughts? MagicUnk 13:52, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

I would consider an author's personnel Facebook page a pretty strong indication of the author's preference on their name. They choose the page name after all and they could have done it with or without the periods. As for the award entry, untitled awards should be entered with the author's canonical name (see Help:Screen:EditAward) so Sammy Smith would not be correct there even if that is how the award was given (a note on the award entry could be used to document the difference if desired). -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

2 new cleanup reports -- invalid page counts and invalid page numbers

2 new cleanup reports have been deployed. They look for invalid page counts and invalid page numbers respectively. The data will become available tomorrow morning.

Once we take care of the low-hanging fruit, we will want to re-evaluate whether the selection logic is too strict and/or whether we want to the add the ability to "ignore" records". Ahasuerus 21:56, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

The first cleanup report has been adjusted to allow commas in the page count field. Ahasuerus 16:30, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Cleaning up ineligible NONFICTION titles which exist due to reviews

(Based on this discussion and this followup discussion.)

Many SF magazines -- going back to the middle of the 20th century -- have a habit of reviewing popular science books. Our original policy was to enter reviews of non-fiction books, non-genre fiction, and other ineligible titles as REVIEWs. We then created title records for reviewed books. The result was the creation of hundreds of NONFICTION titles that wouldn't have been eligible otherwise.

Much later we changed the policy to enter reviews of ineligible works as ESSAYs as opposed to REVIEWs:

  • Reviews of ... books that are not eligible for inclusion in the database (graphic novels, nongenre novels by authors that are below the threshold, nonassociational nonfiction works), should not be entered into the "Reviews" section of the data entry form. A record should be created in the "Regular Titles" section typed as ESSAY.

As I recall, we were going to go back, convert pre-existing REVIEWs to ESSAYs and delete the ineligible title records, but we never did.

We already have a cleanup report that looks for "reviews of CHAPBOOK, COVERART, INTERIORART, INTERVIEW and REVIEW records". I think we need another one for "reviews of NONFICTION". I could easily create one, but please note that we have almost 5,500 reviewed NONFICTION titles and a bit over 9,500 reviews of NONFICTION titles. Reviewing 9,500+ reviews and their associated NONFICTION titles is likely to be time-consuming, so I would like to gauge the interest first. We may also need to limit access to the report to moderators because each change would require multiple steps. Ahasuerus 16:47, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

We need to clean them -- as long as we have an ignore so that we can mark checked ones as "that one is good", having the report is better than not having it -- I would chip in and clean some here and there if we have the report. Annie 17:26, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
Oh sure, "ignore" will be supported. Ahasuerus 18:03, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
I will probably be able to help now and then. --Willem 04:36, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
What is our etiquette going to be for this? Obviously converting the reviews to essays will need to have a moderator note with the explanation. But how will we handle deletions of verified publications? We should notify the verifier, but do we want to give them a chance to reply first to make an argument for inclusion? Notifying them after the fact seems like it could raise some issues. And then how long do we wait for editors that are only semi-active? If we are going to wait, then it would be nice if the report had a hold option that allowed someone to say they are working that review (or maybe simply a remove option that deleted it from the report without ignoring and this report is only generated weekly or whatever period we pick). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
That's a very good point. Let's start by defining the scope of the problem. At this point we have 2,034 reviewed NONFICTION titles with primary-verified publications. Spot checking them suggests that the vast majority are either related to SF or written by authors "above the threshold". It probably means that we are looking at a few hundred affected primary verified publications at most.
Next, there are a couple of things that we can do at the software level. First, "Delete Publication" can be modified to require a Moderator Note for primary verified publications. It would be similar to the way we require a Moderator Note when editing a primary verified publication.
Second, we can enable "Edit History" for deleted publications. When trying to access a publication which no longer exists in the database, you would get a message and a link to the standard "Edit History" page with a list of submissions associated with the deleted pub record. Having the ability to view originally submitted data would make it easier to recreate the deleted publication if needed and mitigate the frustration associated with finding your primary verified data deleted. (To clarify, this functionality would be available for all deleted publications going back to 2006.) Ahasuerus 09:28, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
How about listing the delete on "My Changed Primary Verifications" also? -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
Unfortunately, we can't do it retroactively, but it can be done going forward. I've added it to the To Do list. Thanks. Ahasuerus 11:09, 18 April 2020 (EDT)
Looking at this from a non-moderator-submitter point of view, I'd like to see, before I start work on a NONFICTION submission, an indication whether the title has/has not been through the genre/non-genre culling process. I don't know what is practicable but something like -
  • At title level or author level (or both) a 'designated' place (new field?) with wording to indicate whether or not it has been reviewed. Something like "Genre reviewed N/Y". If a new field is created at title level it could start defaulted to "N". Obviously, it will only be switched (Moderator access only) to "Y" if it has survived. Giving an indication at author level would be trickier as there are two category areas to contend with - "Nonfiction" and "Non-Genre Titles".
  • If there was an N/Y switch/indicator, this would need to be a visible flag to the submission moderator - yet more to evaluate :(
That all sounds a bit detailed, and I don't know what is possible, but you get the general idea I hope. Kev. BanjoKev 16:06, 23 April 2020 (EDT)
A new manually set flag at the title level would be a major departure from the way we handle cleanup reports. I don't think it would be feasible. Ahasuerus 18:13, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) FR 1345, "Cleanup report to find NONFICTION not about SF", has been created. I'll wait for this discussion of non-fiction about media SF to be concluded before I start working on it. Ahasuerus 09:10, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

Now that ISFDB:Policy has been updated to limit "published non-fiction works about speculative fiction" to works "which can be plausibly linked to published speculative fiction", I can start working on the proposed cleanup report. Ahasuerus 15:49, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
The new cleanup report has been coded and deployed. The data will become available tomorrow morning. As per the discussion above, only moderators will be able to access it. The ability to "ignore" records is supported; I suspect that it will be used extensively. Ahasuerus 16:52, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Split novel: Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genon Sverige

Under our rules, split novels need to be varianted under their complete ones. Any idea why these are separate:

and not under Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genon Sverige? If we count this as 2 novels (as initially published), why isn't the combination an omnibus - even if presented as one novel, it does not sound like it is different text? There is a Portuguese translation coming in (done based on the English 2 volume edition) and I am trying to untangle what we have here first without adding more messes.

Any opionions/ideas here? Annie 18:43, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

Looking at the English versions, both volumes are a series of stories. They seem independent. The OCLC record for the Swedish version says it was published in two volumes. I would recommend converting the individual volumes (and their English translations) into collections and 1774223 into an omnibus. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

New cleanup report - Cleanup report to find CHAPBOOKs with multiple fiction titles

A new cleanup report, "CHAPBOOKs with Multiple Fiction Titles", has been deployed. The data will become available tomorrow morning. I expect that the report will flag approximately 280 CHAPBOOK publications. At this time it doesn't let you "Ignore" publication records. Once we take care of the low-hanging fruit, I will add the "Ignore" functionality for excerpts. Ahasuerus 09:12, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

I started working this, but ran into a couple of situations that I think require community input:
  • There are several cases where one edition of a chapbook contains a bonus story. That edition will still be entered as a chapbook and merged with single story editions (example). Is that what we want? I would say yes since it groups them together and reduces clutter.
  • There are quite a few cases with German publications that are entered as chapbooks, but contain multiple works (example). Technically, by rule, these are anthologies ("publication containing fiction by more than one author, not written in collaboration"). In these cases, though, there is a main story for which the actual publication was titled and author credit given. The second story could be considered a bonus story also. Not sure how these should be addressed. Leaving them as is might be the best solution.
In addition to excerpts, there are also cases with in universe supplementary material (glossary, synopsis, etc.) that would need to be ignored. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
I have completed the first run through the report and corrected the obvious cases. It would be good to have the ignore function so we can remove the majority of the remaining that are valid cases and leave the rest for discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
I'd also think it'd be best of leaving those cases as CHAPBOOKs. They may appear technically as ANTHOLOGIES or COLLECTIONS, but they seem to be titled and intended as CHAPBOOKs. The bonus material was published only because there was printing space to fill the normed page count of 64 pages (or 68 with cover pages). Stonecreek 13:12, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
Chapbooks are an ISFDB term describing a collection of 1 work of fiction - it is not a chapter book and it is not defined by its length - it is defined by what is inside. If it has 2 stories, it is a collection. A book cannot have been intended as something that is not a standard publishing term. Glossaries, essays, second stories that are essentially non fiction but are fictitious and excerpts are fine but if we are talking about two separate pieces of fiction, these are not chapbooks anymore for me. Annie 14:35, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
We have a rule for novels with an additional story by the same author ('A single story is a judgment call, it is often preferred to class the publication as a novel with a "Bonus story" rather than a 2-item collection or omnibus.') I.m.o. this rule could be extended to chapbooks. If there are pieces of fiction by different authors, it should be an anthology. --Willem 14:48, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
So how do we determine if a collection/anthology of 2 stories is the regular type or a chapbook? Will all novella+story combos become chapbooks? :) Who makes a decision when it is a bonus story and when it is just 2 stories? I am fine with extending the rule but we need to make sure that we do not extend it to effectively mean that 2 stories can always mean a chapbook. PS: In the German examples which started this discussion, most of the second stories are from a different author. Annie 14:57, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
That's the fun of a judgment call. For me, an additional story should be a lot shorter than the main story. Earth would look ridiculous as a collection. --Willem 16:06, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
Agree. But Earth is a novel and I am not arguing converting those to collections or anthologies. I am strictly talking 2 short fiction affairs :) Annie 16:10, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
Just my opinion. A 120 page novella with a 5 page short story would have the same effect. The Stephen King example above (2 novellas) should definitely be a collection. --Willem 16:17, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

(outdent) How are these publications credited for title and author in the actual publication? From the ISFDB entries, I've interpreted that the publication title page has the title of the main story and the author of the main story's name. Is that correct? Anthologies are supposed to be credited to the editor per ISFDB rules. It would seem odd, to me, for the publication to have the story title and the editor's name. That would be rather confusing and user unfriendly (especially from a search point of view). -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

That’s actually a very good point - and probably exactly what I was looking for in terms of finding the line. Annie 19:38, 26 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for bringing up this point! It's a clean and fool-proof rule. JLochhas 01:24, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Yes, for those German digest publications on the title page (and the cover) there's only a credit for one piece of shortfiction and it's author(s): the long or lead one. Christian Stonecreek 04:15, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) Let me see if my understanding of the proposed language is correct:

A publication should be entered as a CHAPBOOK if it contains a single SHORTFICTION, POEM or SERIAL title. For the purposes of this rule, the following types of SHORTFICTION titles are not counted when deciding whether the publication is a CHAPBOOK:

  • Excerpts
  • Synopses, fictionalized essays and other types of supporting material
  • Up to one bonus short story if the publication's title page lists only the title and the author of the main SHORTFICTION title

Is this about right? Ahasuerus 14:29, 28 April 2020 (EDT)

Why restricting to only SHORTFICTION for the third rule? Poems and Serials can also end up in that situation. Annie 14:55, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
That's a good point. I have crossed out the word "SHORTFICTION". Ahasuerus 15:20, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
How about changing "Up to one bonus short story" to " Up to one bonus short story, poem or serial". That allows for the permutations and allows for serials being printed to fill the pages in a novella series for example. Annie 15:29, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
I can see how adding "up to one bonus serial" would work. However, I am not sure about poems. What if a CHAPBOOK publication contained a novella plus two very short poems on the last page? Would the poems be considered "supporting material in a CHAPBOOK" as per the second rule above? Or would it turn the publication into a COLLECTION? Ahasuerus 09:02, 29 April 2020 (EDT)
Looks like what was discussed above. I agree. --Willem 14:54, 28 April 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) OK, I have cleaned up the proposed Help language a bit and posted it on the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus 19:39, 1 May 2020 (EDT)

José Rodrigues dos Santos

Is there a Portuguese or Brazilian editor or anyone else that can have a look at the works of José Rodrigues dos Santos, more specifically "O sétimo selo. - Lisboa : Gradiva, 2007", and "A fórmula de Deus. - Lisboa : Gradiva, cop. 2006". From the synopses of the Dutch translations, it looks like these contain spec-fic elements, but I can't be sure, and would like a second pair of eyes. Thanks! MagicUnk 14:08, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

Sorting of unnumbered series?

I sometimes wish it would be possible to use the piping symbol to sort unnumbered entries in a series. For example, this series, per the notes, is displayed in the wrong order. It should be displayed as first Tenderlion then Club Cain then What Lurks Behind Real. However the latter two are actually shown interchanged. Even though it's a minor thing, would it be possible/easy to add a piping sort to the Series num field? Thanks! MagicUnk 18:52, 28 April 2020 (EDT)

Unnumbered series entries are sorted using title dates. In this case the title dates of Club Cain and What Lurks Behind Real are the same (2019-08-06), which is rather unusual. Are they really the same? Ahasuerus 22:43, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
There is probably a missing edition or 3 for these books - I suspect that MLB is still working on the author. However - the ability to sort series without having numbers can come handy for other cases - ordering omnibuses that are published on the same date, ordering subseries and stories where there is order but numbers may be undesired and so on. Annie 23:29, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
OK, I can certainly see how it would be useful when displaying omnibuses published on the same date. Unfortunately, adding support for "pipes" to the series number field is not a trivial proposition. Unlike page numbers, regular series numbers are stored in two separate database fields, one for the whole number and the other for the fractional number. There is a fair amount of complexity associated with it.
In addition, I am a bit worried that using the "pipe" functionality to force a certain title order for unnumbered titles may confuse our users. Perhaps I am overstating the danger.
Re: ordering sub-series within a series, it's a separate field in a separate table, so it's a different can of worms. Ahasuerus 08:50, 29 April 2020 (EDT)
Ah, OK. Nevermind then, if it's not an easy thing to do then it's not worth it. As for the danger, users are (should be) accustomed to using the pipe symbol when sorting page numbers, so I don't think that using it for sorting other records will be confusing to them. MagicUnk 09:53, 29 April 2020 (EDT)
Oh, I wasn't referring to editors. I am sure our editors wouldn't have a problem with pipes. I was referring to ISFDB users who are not editors. When viewing the Contents section of a publication record, a user expects to see the constituent titles appear in the order in which they appear in the book regardless of whether they are explicitly numbered. On the other hand, a series page which lists unnumbered titles in a non-chronological order may be harder to figure out. Ahasuerus 12:16, 29 April 2020 (EDT)
As an aside, it sounds to me a bit overcomplicated, having two fields for a single attribute? I don't know how you've coded it, but my gut feel says series and subseries could be implemented recursively. That would require just one table, and one sorting function, right? Disclaimer: I haven't written code in over 15 years (and I was never particularly good at it), so what I'm saying might just be bollocks :) MagicUnk 09:53, 29 April 2020 (EDT)
Originally, title records had a single integer field for series numbers. What it meant was that while you could enter series numbers like 1, 4 or 87, you couldn't enter "2.5" or "10.7". That design made it impossible to slot shorter works in between novels even when it was clearly the best way to organize a series. At that point my options were to:
  • change the type of the "series number" field from integer to "float", or
  • add a new field for the decimal component
Each approach had its advantages and disadvantages given the technology that we use. In the end I opted for the second approach. Ahasuerus 12:25, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

The Man of (the) Year Million, H. G. Wells

We have this satirical essay by H. G. Wells in the database as both ESSAY 1155512 and SHORTFICTION 98591, with a German translation of each, and a Japanese translation of the latter. Multiple PVerified publications of both.

The submission queue contains TitleUpdate for the ESSAY and PubUpdate for its one English-language publication. The amended title (insert "the") fits both 1893 and 2009 publications. The submitted essay title Notes are pertinent. Here is shortcut to one bibliographical source at --Pwendt|talk 00:33, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

King Kong / Millennium Prize / Harland Award

I'd like to try my hand at entering a Dutch award for spec fic. First awarded in 1976 as King Kong Award, later briefly renamed (in 1996) as Millennium Prize, and is known since 2003 as Paul Harland Award - see here. I have two questions. 1) How would this award be entered in the database to make sure these change of names are correctly reflected, and 2) can this (these) award(s) be created? Thanks! MagicUnk 14:58, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

I am afraid the ISFDB software doesn't support "variant award type names". I can think of three ways to handle this scenario:
  1. Create a single award type record with a "Short Name" like "Paul Harland" and a slash-delimited "Full Name" like "King Kong Award / Millennium Prize / Paul Harland Award". It would be similar to the way we currently have the Ditmar Award entered: the "Short Name" is "Ditmar" while the "Full Name" is "Ditmar Award / Australian Science Fiction Achievement Award".
  2. Create a single award type record with a slash-delimited "Short Name" like "King Kong / Millennium / Paul Harland" and a slash-delimited "Full Name" like "King Kong Award / Millennium Prize / Paul Harland Award".
  3. Create three separate award types: one for "King Kong Award", one for "Millennium Prize" and one for "Paul Harland Award". Document the relationship in the Note field.
Which approach would you say is the best representation of the way the award has evolved? Ahasuerus 21:08, 2 May 2020 (EDT)
I have a preference for 1. The second option would work as well, but the short name is a bit long-winded. Option 3. would not really represent reality afaic. I would therefore have it as: Short Name: "Harland Award", and Full Name: "King Kong Award / Paul Harland Prijs / Millenniumprijs / Harland Award" (there are actually four different names, not three...).
The prize is awarded by a jury to the best Dutch short story out of submissions by authors (it's basically a short story contest) - as a result, there's a 'shortlist' of about 100 stories each year - see here for example (should these all be entered?). Recently (2015), there's also a category for best original Dutch novel too (5 nominated novels).
The short story contest has different categories. Besides best original Dutch story, there's also the 'Feniksprijs' and 'Debuutprijs', for the author who made the most progress since the previous year, and the author that competed for the first time, respectively (there might be other categories during its 40+ year existence, need to do some more digging).
A possible challenge I'm seeing is that all (most?) stories have not been published. How to enter these awards then? MagicUnk 08:29, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
Oh, I see. Sorry, I missed the part about it being a contest as opposed to an after-the-fact award. We don't do it very often, but there is precedent for entering contest results as awards. The James White Award is like that. Its Note field says:
  • An annual short story competition open to non-professional writers with the winner chosen by a panel of judges made up of professional authors and editors. Stories entered into the competition must be original and previously unpublished. ... Many non-winning nominees have not been published, and hence are listed by ISFDB without links.
I guess we could handle the Paul Harland Award the same way. Ahasuerus 11:29, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
Yup, that is perfect copy-paste material :) As far as I know the Harland Awards are the most prestigious/important SF&F awards in the Dutch-speaking parts of the world (primarily The Netherlands & Flanders) - so to me it makes sense to try to add these into the ISFDB. I'm willking to add these, but will need some guidance/advice, as I'm not all that familiar with the DB structure & how to enter Awards into the DB. And as I'm learning more, it's likely I will need more categories and perhaps award levels? Cheers! MagicUnk 13:18, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
OK, the new award type has been created. I set it up as a "poll" in order to let us captures second, third, etc places. Moderators should be able to edit the new record and/or to add new award categories. To add a new category, display the award type and click "Add New Award Category to This Award Type" under "Editing Tools" on the left.
Once this award type has one or more categories associated with it -- is there more than one? -- editors can start entering award records. I recommend reading Help:Screen:AddAward first. It explains the differences between "title-based" awards and awards that are not associated with title records. Awards given to unpublished stories fall into the second category. Ahasuerus 16:11, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Ahasuerus! I'll have a go at it. Pray I don't make a mess of it :) MagicUnk 16:29, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm delighted to discover this site. Other sites have a "Help Forum" to aid in recalling authors or titles of works; does ISFDB?

There was a science fiction short story with various plot points about one spaceship crew member from a reptilian species who interacted with and lived with humans to the point of a human woman falling in love with him; he eventually became her Significant Other and really wasn't all that taken with her, but she was with him to the point of bragging about her relationship. He thought he was sort of alone [I think it was a Gilligan's Island sitch?] and cut off from his own species, but when a female of his kind turned up, he ditched the human quick and hard. The whole effect was pitiful ... and comedic. It seems like it was in an anthology. At the time 20-30 years ago, I read quite a bit of Larry Niven and Stephen King, so perhaps either was the author, but I do not recall exactly.

Thanks for any help,


I am afraid we rarely get ID requests since our area of expertise is bibliography, a hippogriff of a different color. There is ISFDB:Help desk, but I would recommend trying forums that specialize in IDs, e.g. What's That Book or Tip of My Tongue. Ahasuerus 14:21, 3 May 2020 (EDT)


FYI: Last tuesday/wednesday night (april 28/29 2020) fire largely destroyd the ground floor of my house. As a result, I will be away from my collection at least until august (the c-19 virus slows everything down unfortunately). Most of the collection can probably be saved, but some parts will be damaged. I will not be able to answer many questions until then, but will remain active from the temporary (recreational) home we moved in on thursday. The good news is, my wife, me and the cats got out of the house unharmed, only shaken. --Willem 16:13, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Sorry to hear about the fire and congratulations on escaping unharmed! It can be a harrowing experience even if few possessions get damaged. It makes you paranoid about anything remotely suspicious, especially at night -- sounds, smells, flashes of light, etc. In my experience, it does get better with time, but it can take years to relax completely. Hopefully it's less traumatizing for cats :) Ahasuerus 17:26, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Le Petit Prince

I'd like to enquire if there's any objection to update the Saint-Exupéry's Le petit prince from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK? Thanks!MagicUnk 14:24, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

According to Project Gutenberg Australia, the original French text contains a bit over 14,000 words, so it's a novelette. Ahasuerus 16:20, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
I hope you have time for that - this will be a few hundred edits. Need a hand? :) Annie 02:11, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
I'd like to offer help on the German title / publications (and maybe some other translations). Just say: start. Christian Stonecreek 03:52, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Start! :D MagicUnk 15:31, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
BTW, I'll be going on backburner again, as Real-Life is interfering again (had a couple days off earlier this week..)MagicUnk 15:32, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
As you started already, I will just finish it later today -- as at the moment the entry is in a really bad shape... Or are you saying you are working on it? And we need to fix that Dutch one you added (but we can discuss that on your page).Annie 16:13, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

I was actually referring to Christian's comment - I am not working on it, so feel free :) MagicUnk 14:33, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

I think I got them all. The reports overnight will highlight anything I may have missed. Just a little over 120 edits so not too bad :) Christian, it was easier to just go straight through than to leave German behind. Annie 15:35, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for the transformation! That sure was a load of work to do! Christian Stonecreek 11:19, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

History of deleted publications

The software has been updated to let users access the Edit History page for deleted publications. Here is an example. Ahasuerus 20:13, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Verifier notification template?

We have templates for many things - would it make sense to have one for basic clear, polite boilerplate used when notifying a primary verifier of changes? Details of the change would have to follow. ../Doug H 12:57, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Some people have preference on what kind of changes need to be notifier where (by setting up a new page and so on for example). It is not a bad idea to have an example if not a template (will help new editors) - or even a template I guess... Annie 17:59, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

History of deleted titles

The software has been updated to let users access the Edit History page for deleted titles. Ahasuerus 13:17, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Will that show only manual deletions or will it also show deletions because of a merge? Annie 13:59, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Manual deletions only for now. We have FR 140, "Redirect deleted titles when merging", which would be non-trivial to implement. I'll think about it once I finish the current crop of FRs. Ahasuerus 17:38, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
P.S. The Title Edit History page has been updated to display Make Variant submissions. Note that it only works for "varianted", i.e. child, title records. Ahasuerus 18:07, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Argentinian Sci-Fi magazine PROXIMA online

I am told that:

If anyone is interested in entering these issues, now would be a good time to download them. Ahasuerus 17:48, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Text expansion on our variants pages

At the moment, on every variant page, we have the following text next to the link for the parent:

  • may list more publications, awards, reviews, votes and covers

I propose to change it and add "web sites and notes" to the list of things as well:

  • may list more publications, awards, reviews, votes, covers, web sites and notes

It is obvious for someone who understands the DB but it may not be obvious for a new user that we do not just show the same notes in all places for example. Thoughts? Annie 02:40, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

I don't see why not... MagicUnk 05:55, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
The revision looks good to me.
However, I think that with an ever-present text, such as this, which is non-indicative and which relies on going through the link to check, even seasoned users might miss relevant information by not following through (is that a reasonable assumption?) let alone those new users.
Annie's pointed out elsewhere that "Having a specific indicator that there is something [in the parent record] will either mean a DB update on all parents OR checks in real time (which will kill the server)and are major changes." but it seems to me that there may be a third possibility.
A logic query run on the parent title's Note: field - but only when variant titles are created. To cut to the chase, and please excuse my complete ignorance of how the DB's software works, something along the lines of:
  • If content 'Parent Title Note: field' = true, then content 'Variant Title Note: field = "See notes in parent title.", else coffee and wait for the next one
  • Re DB update on all parents - could the large number of existing parents be run in batches to clear backlog?
  • If the query only runs when varianting occurs - not on existing records - this wouldn't kill the server? Kev. BanjoKev 12:13, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
We can get the text updated in 5 minutes probably; changing the saving process to update the children that they need to show something is a much more complicated change. Plus - most parents will have additional information anyway so I Am not sure if it is is worth all the effort. And it is not only in varianting. It is every time when a new book is added to the parent or one of the variants - because they all show up on the parent. Plus every time the parent is edited. And at the end no one will pay attention if the text is there or not anyway :) Annie 12:39, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Question marks next to covers

If you look very carefully in the list of covers under a title, every time when the title of the cover has a transliteration, there is a small question mark at the bottom right corner. That works beautifully when you have a very limited number of covers (hover over it here and you will see the transliteration but when you have a lot, it either does not render or renders where I cannot see it: see here - the last one has it but no matter where my mouse is, I cannot see the transliteration). Is it just me? Does anyone see the transliteration when hovering over the question mark on the second link? Annie 04:53, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Works perfectly fine for me. I'm using W10/Chrome and a large screen (24 inch). Don't think the screen size has anything to do with it (but it may), but rather the OS/browser combination... MagicUnk 05:53, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
Chrome on Chromebook, both Chrome and Firefox on Windows 10 - same problem. But I use smallish screens. Oh well - if it works for everyone, no worries. Annie 06:05, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
I tried the second link using Vivaldi on Linux on a 1280x1024 monitor, and worked OK for me, even when I made the window a lot smaller. A couple of questions:
* Does the transliteration popup appear for you on the other version of that cover on that page (the 12th image)?
* Whereabouts on the page does that final cover appear, near the end of a row, or further left? It feels like it could be something where the popup appears off the right edge of the screen.
About to look at the code to see how this is implemented, maybe that will give some clues... ErsatzCulture 11:34, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
EDIT: something else you could try:
1. Open up the browser dev tools, key combination should be something like Ctrl-Shift-I or Ctrl-Shift-J, but it will vary across operating systems. **NOTE** You should never do this if some random person on the internet tells you to, unless you know what you're doing, as this can easily be abused to leak private info etc. I won't be offended if you consider me too random to be trusted ;-)
2. In the console tab, enter the following:
    document.querySelectorAll('.tooltiptext').forEach((el) => { = "visible"; });
This will make all the tooltips on the page visible, which may be useful info if they are appearing in the wrong place for some reason, as opposed to the hover interactivity not working for some reason.) (The code implies they should appear directly after the the image/question mark, but it's possible some page layout craziness is happening; can't think why that might be off the top of my head.) ErsatzCulture 11:55, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
If everyone else sees them, I am fine. I suspect an edge of screen issue but won't spend time on time -- I just wanted to make sure it is just me. I know how to troubleshoot once I isolate it to just me. :) Annie 13:05, 11 May 2020 (EDT)

Sammy HK Smith vs. Sammy H. K. Smith

Hello fellow editors. Can you have a look at my reply here, and comment on whether we should allow Sammy HK Smith over standardizing to Sammy H. K. Smith? I have a few submissions on hold pending the outcome of your feedback. Thanks! MagicUnk 08:00, 10 May 2020 (EDT) (my comment copied below)
((indent) I came across another one: Sammy HK Smith. He also has an entry as Sammy H. K. Smith (printed as Sammy H.K Smith - no space, no period after the 'K'- on the contents page of the publication the story appeared in - which he published himself btw). He is also the creative director of Grimbold Books where he is just known as Sammy Smith ( by Creative Director Sammy Smith and Editorial Director Zoë Harris.). Currently I have submissions on hold that wants to update the editor of the British Fantasy Awards Best Independent Press award for Grimbold Books to Sammy HK Smith, whereas it should just be Sammy Smith if taken from the publisher's website here. So not much evidence of the author's preference to be found, it seems, except his facebook page. So, what should we do in such a case? I'm inclined to normalize, make a note as to the different appearances of his name, and use the variant Sammy Smith as editor to update the award records - until such time we learn of the author/editor's preference. Thoughts? MagicUnk 13:52, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

MagicUnk 08:00, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello all. This one got a bit lost. Any advice on this one? Thanks! MagicUnk 15:08, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
Gave my feedback over there. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

Deletion of Primary-Verified Publications

"Delete Publication" has been modified to require a "Note to Moderator" when attempting to delete a publication which has been primary-verified by another editor. Ahasuerus 17:46, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Verifying Project Gutenberg

Is it possible/permissible/reasonable/meaningful/kosher/... to do a primary verification of a Project Gutenberg title? Does viewing it suffice or is downloading a copy necessary? And is Project Gutenberg any different than other online sources of 'scanned' books? ../Doug H 22:53, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

A permanent primary verification means that you own a copy of the publication and can check it again if necessary. A transient primary verification means that you have checked the publication, but may not be able to do so again, e.g. if it was a borrowed copy.
Suppose the Project Gutenberg site shuts down tomorrow. If you don't have a copy saved locally, you won't be able to check the data anymore, so it would be safer to do a transient verification. Ahasuerus 11:46, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
You've pointed out that the difference between permanent and transient is having a copy to hand, presumably for future reference. Permanent verifiers may be mistaken in their claim, no longer in possession of said publication, be unable to access said publication, or simply be inactive. None of these circumstances affect the entry itself. All of them prevent the querying person from finding out anything further about the publication. I'm not sure I see the difference to finding a publication online or in my library. ../Doug H 17:00, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Technically, if you do not have access to a publication anymore, you should change your verification to Transient - some editors are better at doing that than others. Delays because of books in storage and so on are fine - as long as you technically can get to the book. In reality, as we know, life happens. That's why we have multiple verifiers - hopefully at least one is still around and can get to the book. Annie 17:16, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
So to Ahasuerus's point, permanent is good until Project Gutenberg goes down, then you change it to transient. ../Doug H 19:30, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Technically? Yes. But people won't check a site all the time or remember to change them here. With online records (webzines and Gutenberg and so on), there is very little difference anyway - if the site is alive, anyone could look and you do not need to find the PV for questions (it serves more to note who worked on the record although now with the edit history, that is easier) so I would use Transient if I do not have a local copy and reserve Permanent for the case where I actually can look it up no matter what happens to the original site. Just my 2 cents. Annie 19:54, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Agreed. If you are going to verify Project Gutenberg, permanent means you kept a copy and transient means you didn't. As for the "is Project Gutenberg any different than other online sources of 'scanned' books?" part, the biggest difference is that a Project Gutenberg version is its own work and not a scanned version. They transcribe the work vs. a site like Internet Archive which hosts an actual scan. Verification based on scans has mixed opinions. I know some editors do it. I will occasionally, especially when I've used a scan to fix a record whose verifiers are no longer active. I believe there is a future request to add scans as a secondary verification source. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
And how is transcription different than a scan? What if the Gutenberg edition is scanned using OCR to generate the text instead of Internet Archives generating an image? If the Gutenberg edition is considered a separate publication from the edition it was taken from, why would a scan not be a publication in its own right? If I own a book and scan it, and then get rid of the original, what should happen to my verification? I'm guessing these are not new questions, but I hope they are considered when the future request for scans as a secondary source is addressed. ../Doug H 17:00, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Scans are tricky - you have the text but what if you do not notice if a book is sewn or glued (POD vs first run for some publishers)? Having the book makes it easier to see that; having a scan - not that much. I would not do a permanent verification from a scan (transient is a different story - some editors do, some don't, I don't see why not if it is a full scan -- but I had not had the chance to do one). As long as it is clear what is verified (notes work like a charm), I am fine with a transient for that. Annie 17:16, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
A number of rare books I've marked as transient have been library copies - in some cases rebound. And scanned copies from libraries have records that specify such things. ../Doug H 19:30, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Yes - which was my point :) Annie 19:54, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
My point was that real books don't always have the information you say scans lack, and that catalogue information can tell you what you need to know about a scan. So we agree a real book is best, and anything less requires care? ../Doug H 20:48, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Scanned copies from libraries may have the information we need or they may not (libraries differ) :) Or it may be something we do care about and the library did not record. And not all scans come from libraries. But as I said - yes - we do agree on "real book is best but if it is not there, a scan is useful if properly handled and documented". Annie 21:02, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Project Gutenberg texts usually begin as OCR of a scanned version, but they are manually checked, edited, proofed, etc. and converted to multiple formats (Distributed Proofreaders is a collaborative site that processes many of them if you want to see the amount of work that goes into creating one). They come with their own copyright, publisher statement, etc. They are not the same work as the original. A scan is simply a scan. If I copy a scan and send it to you, do we know have two separate editions we should add? We need to draw the line somewhere. A good place to do that is "was it published?". Taking a scan, slapping a new cover and copyright page on it and selling it on Amazon (which happens to many public domain works) is publishing it. Taking an original scan and sending the file to someone new is not. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (EDT)

I started this when I ran across a primary verification of a Gutenberg publication - 1 out of 40+ Jules Verne publications. No vested interest, just interest. ../Doug H 17:00, 11 May 2020 (EDT)

Different people use the system differently - and had used it through the years - some because they do not know better, some because they believe this is how it should be. So there will always be weirdness out there. And sometimes it may be either a slip of the finger (meant to do transient) or an old record (from when we could have 5 permanent and only 1 transient). Who knows. Looking at it (search link in case someone wonders how I found it) , I would say old standards - I do not even know if Transient was possible back in 2008 :) Annie 17:16, 11 May 2020 (EDT)
Nope, it wasn't. Ahasuerus 20:36, 11 May 2020 (EDT)

"Unreject" functionality added

Moderators can now "unreject" submissions. When displaying rejected submissions, submission tables now display an "Unreject" column if the logged-in user is a moderator. This should make it easier to recover after accidental or erroneous submission rejections. Ahasuerus 17:44, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

Awesome! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:11, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

Amazon e-books and audiobooks and ASINs

A few conversations in the last few weeks had made me wonder if we have a slight misunderstanding of Amazon's ebook practices from moderators and editors who do not work with Amazon often -- it seems like there is a belief that Amazon never deletes an ASIN and that if an e-book is not there, the ASIN is invalid for it(for example. While ASINs started as Amazon-only identifiers and were irrelevant outside Amazon, in the last years, with Kindle-publishing becoming an easy way to get books out for both authors and small publishers, they had turned into de-facto identifiers for ebooks - they are printed on copyright pages occasionally (more often since ~2105 in my experience but I had seen them as early as 2011) and they are referenced when the book is discussed and cataloged (both LibraryThing and Goodreads have support for ASINs; so does Collectorz for example).

In addition, Amazon is not keeping records for e-books that are not available anymore on the site(s) thus making the ASIN invalid on Amazon (but still valid in a bibliography - so a book should not be rejected, deleted or has its ASIN deleted if Amazon (none of the 16) cannot find it). Goodreads had turned into the best place to find most of those lost ASINs if we do not catch the book while it is live on the site. While there are some not real entries there, ebooks with covers, dates and details are indeed safe-ish (as long as GR is mentioned as a source).

Ahasuerus had an interesting idea up in the thread I linked - add Goodreads to the list of links we now carry for ASINs (we have 16 now, 1 more won't hurt). That way we have a direct connection to a copy of the book even when the Amazon copy disappears.

Any thoughts against the idea? Annie 00:59, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

PS: Same applies to audiobooks (both as practice by Amazon and as an idea for the ASIN link and not the Audible-ASIN link). :)Annie 01:02, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

I've always interpreted the External ID's as being permanent (testimony to that are the permalinks that we are using for the majority of the majority of the external bibliographical sites). Clearly, this isn't the case for Amazon anymore (if it ever was-seems to me the only ones that are not permanent are Amazon's). When sticking to that interpretation, we should move non-functional links to the notes. Now, that might not be the best of options, but we need to consider what to do with temporary External ID's vs. 'permanent' External IDs. I, for one, don't see much added value in ASIN (and Audible-ASIN), so I wouldn't mind to see them disappear ;) However, I suspect this be a minority point of view, and I have to concede they come in handy when wanting to order that particular ebook from Amazon (and providing for part of the hosting of the ISFDB of course). So, that begs the question, what to do with them? I am still in favour of moving inactive 'permanent' External ID's to the notes. A compromise can be to keep the ASIN External ID, and to add a note clarifying the link has become inactive.
Next to that, adding Goodreads to the links could be done additionally.
All this doesn't solve the 'issue' with temporary and permanent External ID's of course... Just my ramblings... MagicUnk 14:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
Except if you read above, ASIN is a de-facto permanent ID - even if Amazon loses it. All the external IDs are considered permanent ones - if we do not have permanent ones, we do not create an external ID for it. And no - just because Amazon cannot find something anymore, we do not move the ID out - that is the whole point. We are a bibliography site, not a "what is available now" site.
I "personally" do not see much value in adding PPN - should we disappear that one as well? Or should we maybe try to see other people's perspective and what they use. :) ASIN and Audible-ASIN identify the books uniquely in the same way ISBN does - at least the ebooks and e-audio market. And as explained above, they are not just some ephemeral strings that are valid only on Amazon - ASINs are printed on the copyright pages on e-books (unlike PPN for example). So which is more permanent? The one written in the book or the one that is not? :) Annie 14:41, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
PS: And one more point. The ASIN External ID carries 16 different links. For most books, only a few of them will work (some will have all of them working but that is rare) - this is how Amazon operates. And it won't always be the one you expect - for some Dutch books, the Amazon DE link will work while Amazon NL won't (don't ask me why - Amazon is weird that way). This is expected -- and adding GR in there will make it possible for always having a working link. Which will mean that the ASIN links always connect somewhere. :). Annie 14:53, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
Not that I get the impression that ASINs are in any danger of being deprecated, but one other use-case for ASINs that I personally have, is to uncover pubs that aren't in ISFDB. A few people are aware of this already, but I have a browser extension that highlights all URLs containing an ISBN or ASIN that isn't in ISFDB example, which makes it much easier for me to submit edits for stuff that Fixer has missed; without the ASIN information, finding these gaps would be much harder, and I'd be submitting much less. (Some might think that would be preferable, of course ;-)
If anything, I'd like to see the ASIN functionality extended so that it's more formally tagged when multiple ASINs are used for the same pub across particular branches of Amazon - Titan Books do this a lot, but I've also noticed a few lately from Orbit as well. Currently this can only be indicated by adding some text to the note. NB: I don't expect this to be considered a high priority request by any means. ErsatzCulture 14:51, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
Careful with Orbit - unlike Titan, they are actually separate companies on both sides of the pond (which is why we have Orbit and Orbit (US) in the DB unlike Titan and Angry Robots for example. So things are even murkier with Orbit - especially when they use the same cover on both sides of the pond (when they do separate covers, it is very easy to sort what is what) :)
ASINs at this point are stable (even after Amazon removes them, they are in the books often) -- the point of the question above was "does anyone oppose to adding GR to the list of ASIN links and if so why?". In real ISFDB fashion, the question was ignored and we went onto someone's pet peeve tangent that talks about the same IDs :) I really would love to hear anyone actually answering the question I asked... :) Annie 15:07, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
Sorry, re. linking to the GR search page with an ASIN parameter, I personally don't have any objections, beyond a couple of minor technical observations:
(i) Do GR actively or tacitly approve of external sites linking to their search results page? e.g. could they decide to block anything with a Refer(r)er of, or change the URL, etc. Of course, if they did either of those, it wouldn't really be a big deal, but better to keep on their good side rather than risk antagonizing them unnecessarily? (A slight aside: it might be worth having rel="noreferrer nofollow" on all links to external sites, for what slight difference it might make.)
(ii) I note GR's API has a couple of methods for doing lookups via ISBN, but no similar support for ASIN lookups, which is mildly ironic when you consider who owns them. My guess is that this is an oversight, or something that they don't consider worth the dev/support overhead, but potentially there might be reasons why they don't want to expose them to external entities in the same way? I can't think of any good reason why that might be the case, but corporates have weird thought processes sometimes. ErsatzCulture 15:45, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
I suspect that (ii) is mostly historical - they did not start as an Amazon company and when they started ASIN was just an Amazon thing. Pretty much why we don't have the same level of support for ISBN and ASIN - old sites catch up differently. Who knows :) But yes - it always made me smile considering who owns them now.
It is a good point about the search link but we probably won't generate thousands of requests per day let alone per hour (how often will someone click on the link - they are good to have if needed but outside of verifying or getting to it, I am not sure we have a lot of people clicking) - I usually have a few hundred ASIN, ISBN and titles searches per night (manually) when I am working on an author... We have a few other searches like that in the Other sites and I think in some of the external IDs. Annie 16:08, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
I have been unable to find any information about Goodreads' policies re: deep-linking to their search pages. I note that they add search information to their URLs -- "from_search=true", "from_srp=true", "qid=[value]", "rank=[number]" -- but it appears to be optional. Ahasuerus 16:55, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
Re. Annie's comment about number of requests: I was thinking more about crawlers like Yandex and BingBot, that have been quite abusive on some of the sites I've worked on in day jobs, whilst seemingly never actually sending us any genuine traffic that might actually justify them crawling us.
Ah, yes the dark crawlies of the internet. I forgot about them for a second here. Annie 17:47, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
Re. GR policies, I just did a search on their GR Developers group, but couldn't find anything either - the closest was a question from 2016 asking about search by ASIN in their API, and someone who seemed to be a GR employee replying that they don't have it in their own app, and suggesting the original poster use one of the Amazon APIs, not sure if it's one that Fixer already uses. (TBH, it was surprising an "official" person answered; most of the present-day questions in that group never get any sort of official response.) ErsatzCulture 17:25, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
Yep - I looked at this a few months ago while trying to figure out a better way than my current copy/paste system when working with GR on long lists of old books... Now - there is one crucial difference between 2016 and now though - back on 2016, Amazon was removing ASINs a lot less - they will be inactive but mostly there. That changed in the last years - now as soon as an ebook is not available for sale anymore, it is gone (except for some special cases having to do with other markets availability) - so I wonder if that won't change GR's mind at some point. This is also why we want to be able to link to them via GR :) Who knows. Annie 17:47, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

"Title Dates after Publication Dates" updated

The cleanup report "Title Dates after Publication Dates" has been updated. In the past, it was limited to publications which contained title records whose months of publication were after the month of the publication record. The new version also checks publication/month days. In other words, the old version would have ignored a publication published on 2020-04-05 which contained a 2020-04-20 title, but the new version of the reports will flag the record.

The new data will be available in the morning. There are roughly 2,360 matching title records, but the report is limited to the first 1,000. Ahasuerus 14:24, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

This excludes any 00 dates (so 2020-04-05 and 2020-04-00 will not be listed on the report), right? We never decided what is before what with these so no point trying to sort them out until we do. Annie 14:29, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
That's right. Records with 8888-00-00, 0000-00-00, YYYY-00-00 and YYYY-MM-00 dates are ignored by this cleanup report. Ahasuerus 14:35, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

2020-05-21 performance issues

I am aware of the performance issues that we are currently experiencing. It looks like a runaway robot trying to screen-scrape our data. I am looking into it. Ahasuerus 13:18, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

Re-creating submission requests

If a submission request is incorrect or invalid, there are a number of ways to deal it. If the error is caught immediately, while the submission confirmation screen is available, an editor can use the browser's back function and fix the error and re-submit (remembering to cancel the first submission). This approach fails in two cases, if the confirmation screen is no longer available or if additional entries (e.g. content, authors) were generated, as these will be lost. In these cases, I have sometimes gone back to the request and viewed the raw XML to determine things that are difficult to recall (e.g. precise wording of notes).

Given that the raw XML contains all of the information being submitted, would the system be able to re-create the submission? For the moment, I'll leave aside the desirability and functionality questions. ../Doug H 10:40, 24 May 2020 (EDT)

Harper Voyager (UK) and HarperVoyager

A conversation today made me do some digging. We have 3 separate publishers for the UK side of the operation (the 978-0-00 ISBNs since 2007):

Which is 2 too many :) HarperVoyager (no space) is how the publisher is styled on the title pages Look Inside on Amazon UK, on Wikipedia and anywhere else I can think of (Their site including). The last one is based on our standards but it is too long (and I would rather not have the parent in the full name if I can work around it...) but I can live with it id we decide this is what we want -- it is what is on the books after all. To quote Wiki:

  • HarperVoyager, formerly Voyager, HarperCollins’s worldwide sf & fantasy imprint, combining the UK imprint HarperCollins Science Fiction & Fantasy (which had inherited the sf & fantasy list of Collins’s Grafton Books and its predecessors (Granada, Panther), as well as J. R. R. Tolkien's books from the acquisition of George Allen & Unwin) and the US imprint Eos (from the acquisition of Avon Books, which incorporated the former Harper Prism).

Based on our own notes here, Voyager became Harper Voyager (UK) in 2007 so this is when HarperVoyager also was born technically. Before I go and clean Voyager from its too new books. Any input from anyone? Any reason not to merge these 3? Any preference on the name for the UK side? If we drop the space, we do not need the (UK) :) Annie 15:37, 26 May 2020 (EDT)

Well, whatever you choose I would want to make sure that HarperVoyager is clearly distinct from Harper Voyager, just to ensure that people would not confuse UK books with the US ones. Or you want to rename the latter to Harper Voyager (US) perhaps... And I'm slightly favouring HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers over HarperVoyager (UK), if only because it's the most correct. As for the cleanup of the Voyager ones, they seem to be a mix of the US & UK ones. And those ebooks are a pain in the back, both 978-1 and 978-0 ISBN's too. No idea how to assign these. MagicUnk 17:08, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
I do cleanup of "ex-publishers" and "split publishers" pretty often - we have records that just escape weirdly during moderation. They can be very annoying indeed. :) I just had not go tot Voyager yet.
I would prefer not to add US/UK anywhere if unneeded - I know why we need it for cases like Orbit but when the names are different, I really dislike it. Although I can see how the missing space may not appear visually different enough. But I can live with either name(s) as long as we get all books from the same publisher to live together - these 3 being separate just make no sense. It is kinda funny how both the US and UK site call it a "global brand" but UK misses a space while US has it...  :) Annie 17:26, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
Given that it's well over a month since this item was last updated, can the lack of any objections being raised be taken as an indicator that people are OK with the basic idea of merging these pubs (or at least settling on one to use going forward), and that there don't seem to be any strong opinions on which particular one is chosen?
I know whilst this item has lain dormant, I've been adding loads of new & historical "Harper Voyager (UK)" pubs, whereas new pubs coming from Fixer uses one of the other variants. Whilst I personally prefer the "(UK)" one - mainly on the grounds of it being more visually "obvious", albeit less "correct" - I'll happily go with whatever is decided - *if* something is decided. ErsatzCulture 11:54, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
It is vacation time, most people are not around -- I am letting it stay for the next few weeks (months?) - the numbers won't matter as we will do a merge (so noone will need to update every book) - which will be very hard to reverse though - so better to do it when people have a chance to see it. I am collecting a few like that for a post in early September with proposed names :) Annie 11:59, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

New Member in Series

I just added a new item Pulp Vault Pulp Reprint No. 1. I tried to put it into the series Pulp Vault - 1992, but I apparently created a new series instead. How do I get the two 1992 pubs into the same sub-series? Bob 21:19, 26 May 2020 (EDT)

EDITOR title = Pulp Vault - 1992; Series = Pulp Vault :) You cannot merge series but you can fix the series of your record. However... shouldn't reprints of magazines be added as anthologies? Annie 21:23, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
It's not a reprint of an existing Pulp Vault, but a reprint of a Henry Kuttner story from a pulp. I admit it's kind of strange, and appears to be unique. I suppose it could be a chapbook. Thanks for the help, got it fixed. Bob 14:21, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Ah, okey then. if it looks like a magazine, it is a magazine. I was working on some reprints the other day so it was just fresh in my mind so had to ask. :) Annie 14:23, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

A very strange book

Not sure of this isthe right forum or not for this but here goes anyway

I was using Yandex reverse mage search to find some info when I came across this book listed on a Russain website here

It's a very strange book published by Melor, 1997. Seemingly by Eric Frank Russell and Desmond Begley titles "The Flaming Universe" but the text then goes on to say that it is infact three novels by Andre Norton - The Burning Universe; The Cage and Last Chance.

None of those "novels" appear under the listing for Norton.

What's going on ??--Mavmaramis 04:37, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

1997 in the ex-Soviet republics? It can be anything. Let me see what I can find out :) Annie 04:57, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
That turned to be much easier than I thought. FantLab to the rescue. Noone knows why these two authors were added on the cover. Not unusual for the times in Eastern Europe (you should have seen some of the editions in my first library...).
In fact it is an omnibus of 3 Norton novels: "Moon of Three Rings", "Iron Cage" and "Yurth Burden" - under somewhat creative Russian names. I will add the book to our DB in the morning now that we mentioned it :)
If you find anything else weird on a site in an Eastern or Central European language, feel free to post on my Talk page (or here) - I can do some digging pretty easily. :) Annie 05:06, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks (and apologies for sticking it on the wrong thread). --Mavmaramis 09:35, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
No worries - things get displaced sometimes. :) Annie 14:25, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

Banner art

The page on Banner Art names Alvonruff as a contact for submitting new art. He seems to be incommunicado. Is anyone else able to deal with this? ../Doug H 16:42, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

First we would need to create an image like this one. We currently have 10 of them and they are rotated nightly. I could add a new image to the daily rotation, but someone else will need to create it first. I am colorblind and my art skills are close to non-existent, so I am useless on the art front.
We'll also want to make sure that we don't violate anyone's copyright. Another collage of low-quality images like what the ISFDB is currently using should be fine, but a high-definition photo of a copyrighted image would be problematic. Ahasuerus 17:01, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Banner has been created, just working on the associated links. It's from the Argosy magazines (20's and 30's). Where to I put it and who do I tell? ../Doug H 18:58, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Why don't we start by uploading it to this Wiki using the Upload file link on the left? That way other editors will be able to preview it and check that everything looks OK. Oh, and it needs to be a JPG file, hopefully under 140Kb in size. Ahasuerus 20:25, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Argosy Banner ../Doug H 21:57, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Banner Art Credit page layout:


Looks good to me! Ahasuerus 00:12, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
If there are no objections, I will add the new banner tomorrow. Ahasuerus 10:09, 31 May 2020 (EDT)
If there are no objections, and anyone can point me to cover images, I'm willing to make some more, now that I have the tools in place. ../Doug H 14:38, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) The Argosy banner has been added to the rotation. Thanks for putting it together! Ahasuerus 08:50, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

I'd put the notes above into the Banner Art Credits page, but don't know where the image ended up. ../Doug H 08:55, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
The Argosy image can be found here. Ahasuerus 10:27, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
Credits updated. ../Doug H 11:20, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
That one is a really nice addition to the rotation! Christian Stonecreek 10:11, 2 June 2020 (EDT)


We have another one of those double publishers:

with no rhyme or reason on different usage. Does anyone see a reason not to merge these? From the sheer numbers and PV'd pubs, we should probably merge into the longer name but any opinions are welcome. The only PV'd record under the short name is from a new editor who just added the book earlier this month and was editing today (which is why I looked - I was pretty sure we use the long name for this publisher). Any thoughts? Annie 15:36, 28 May 2020 (EDT)

The series under Mondadori are for the most part exclusive to Mondadori - this may signify that these were (at one time) published under an abbreviated publisher name of Mondadori. Just a thought you may want to check. MagicUnk 13:20, 29 May 2020 (EDT)
We have 1 or 2 books per series only there. I do not think this can be used as an argument for two reasons - we do not have enough books and most we have under the short name are added via secondary sources which are known to abbreviate the publisher names (or pick up weird versions of -- OCLC on international titles is one of them). The rest of the Oscar series are under the long name. The "Chrysalide" is clearly shared...
If you start looking at the books one by one under the short name, you see things like [6] where even the cited source puts it under "Arnoldo Mondadori Editore"... this one is also from NILF and when you find it, there, it also uses the long name. It is really good old Worldcat that uses the short name - and it uses it for a lot of the books we have under the long name. If I go through all the "short name" ones and clear the ones that are foundable via NILF, we will probably be left with a handful.
If we had PVs in the short name, I would buy your argument but without them and with the clear discrepancies, I really cannot see what purpose splitting these serves. Annie 13:42, 29 May 2020 (EDT)
Well, pretty convincing arguments if you ask me :) MagicUnk 15:27, 29 May 2020 (EDT)
Yep, I did not just ask because of the similar names - I looked through all the books :) Just did not type the whole story. I will give it a few more days, clear the ones that are wrongly there (Spanish Mondadori is a different entity) and merge if noone else has something to say :) Annie 17:04, 29 May 2020 (EDT)

A Clockwork Orange - should this have two title/variant entries?

I noticed this title record recently created , which reminded me of something that crossed my mind a few days ago - should A Clockwork Orange have 2 title entries, to reflect the fact the earlier US editions removed the final chapter? I've submitted an edit to the title notes with the relevant text from Wikipedia - - but I don't know if that's enough?

I did have a look around on the Wiki for any guidance on what constitutes enough of a content change to justify a second and/or variant title, but didn't find anything. None of , or address this particular area - although based on The Race example at the start of this comment, maybe the variant functionality isn't how this should be recorded anyway? ErsatzCulture 09:09, 30 May 2020 (EDT)

How did you manage to catch this one in the middle of me trying to figure out the best way to get The Race differences recorded while looking at both books? :)
There's a 10-hour time difference between the various edits on this title/pubs showing on the Recent Edits list page, and I was being nosey about why there was so much activity on a not-particularly-recent book ;-)
Little thing called sleep :) Left it alone last night to finish this morning. Woke up with a new idea so was just tinkering with it again today. As of why now - found my copies of the books. :) Annie 10:34, 30 May 2020 (EDT)
Usually a missing chapter, unless it is a significant part of the novel in volume will not mean a separate title. Variants are not for textual differences - they are for differences in language, author or title. Annie 10:08, 30 May 2020 (EDT)
Is "significant" in terms of the proportion of the overall text affected - 1/21 chapters in this case, so probably not - or meaning/importance, which does seem to be the case here, based on the Wikipedia section I linked. (NB: at the risk of provoking howls of outrage at my ignorance, I confess I haven't actually read this one; it's sat untouched in my TBR for a couple of years. On the plus side, I finally did open it up this morning, and found there's a bunch of supplementary material in my copy that wasn't previously recorded here, so at least some useful edit submissions have ensued from my random musing.) ErsatzCulture
That’s the big question isn’t it. I would say size - I can think of a dozen novels where adding a single sentence can change the and of the story. I would not make separate titles for that missing chapter but it may be a good idea to add notes somewhere so it is clear which edition misses it. Annie 10:34, 30 May 2020 (EDT)
Another (not quite definitive) wiki ruling on this is "Some minor variations are permitted -- for example the addition of an introduction to a novel does not make it a new title. For a more detailed discussion of the variations, see the help page for adding a new book, which describes just how to determine a title." from the definition of Canonical Title. The link doesn't help though. ../Doug H 12:14, 30 May 2020 (EDT)

Tagging CHAPBOOKs vs novellas

I just finished Adrian Tchaikovsky's Walking to Aldebaran, and went to look at adding a few more tags to the ones I'd added to it a couple of days ago. Initially I was a bit nonplussed to find that apparently everything I'd added had been lost. Clicking around on my tag page highlighted the problem - my earlier set of tags had been applied to the CHAPBOOK record , whereas the page I'd opened was the SHORTFICTION/novella record . This isn't too terrible for managing your own personal tags, and if you understand how CHAPBOOKs/novellas have two records in the titles table, but feels a bit bad for discoverability by casual users?

I have a vague recollection of some discussion a few months ago about how/where tags get applied, but I had a look through the most recent set of archived Community Portal discussions, and didn't spot anything. (Was that maybe about titles vs pubs?)

Assuming this hasn't already been discussed to death, any thoughts on how this could be improved? (e.g. Disallow tagging of CHAPBOOKs? Show the tags of the child titles on a CHAPBOOK page, similar to how author pages aggregate the tags of the author's books?) I realize that tagging is perhaps an aspect of ISFDB that is relatively underused, so anything that might involve a s/w change probably isn't going to get prioritized very high. ErsatzCulture 17:52, 30 May 2020 (EDT)

The European Library - link changed

The links to "The European Library" from "Other Links" on a publication cannot work anymore as their site moved with no forwarded for old links. Can we figure out if the search can succeed on the new site and change the link? Thanks! Annie 17:48, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

I have run a number of searches using Europeana and I am not getting almost any hits. For example, a search on "Pierre Barbet" found 0 matches. Anyone having better luck? Ahasuerus 19:01, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
Well, Jules Verne works but that is not very useful. Looking for the word ISBN finds 3,291 results but then it cannot find any of those ISBNs (or I cannot figure out how). So we may want to add that to a list of resources somewhere (full text in multiple languages of multiple old authors can get handy) but it may be toast as ISBN related search... Pierre Barbet returns 15 for me but I cannot see how we can look for those based on ISBN. Annie 19:24, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
I think the 15 Barbet hits are based on Bibliothèque nationale de France's (as opposed to the European Library) data. They also let you view the first 25-30 pages of each book, which can be useful. Ahasuerus 22:29, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
14 are. The 15th is "Bibliothèque de l'INHA" - which again is BNF of course :) The European Library was always supposed to be a gateway to the other European Libraries and not a single library (or such was my understanding) so this is what is expected I think. Except that old interface allowed search by ISBN into the member libraries... I think. Annie 22:35, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
Searching by title ""Option zéro" seems to work but considering what this collects, the titles can be weird and I do not think it is that useful for that either...
PS: I could not work out the ISBN search at all - thus posting without the research details... I was hoping I was just missing something. Annie 19:24, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

Nook ISBN and ebook editions

Hello all. As an excercise, I entered all the different editions I could find of Serial Killer Princess. While doing so, I noticed that (apparently) Nook Edition ebooks have an ISBN starting with 294-..., which I haven't encountered before, and for which I can't find additional information on the internet - Wikipedia mentions 978 and 979 as only valid prefixes. Does anyone have additional insights into what this ISBN is about (it did pass the check without issues)?

These are called Barnes & Noble IDs and this is what the "BN" external ID is for - the 294-pseudo ISBNs of B&N. :) Annie 16:34, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
Aha! That's clear. Didn't know that - corrected. MagicUnk 16:48, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

In addition, this excercise, in conjunction with an earlier observation, makes me wonder if we don't have to take more care in distinguishing between ebook editions - apparently, the Nook, Kindle (and also Smashwords) ebook Editions are often (?) different in one or more aspects. The other day, for example, I noticed that the copyright page of the Smashwords Edition of Inn The Laughing Dragon had an ISBN number, while the Kindle Edition had none (LookInside) (they were otherwise the same as far as I could tell). To me this observation implies they are to be considered different editions. This is also corroborated by this piece of information from the ISBN wikipedia entry : If a book exists in one or more digital (e-book) formats, each of those formats must have its own ISBN. In other words, each of the three separate EPUB, Amazon Kindle, and PDF formats of a particular book will have its own specific ISBN. They should not share the ISBN of the paper version, and there is no generic "eISBN" which encompasses all the e-book formats for a title. See also this earlier discussion. Thoughts? MagicUnk 16:26, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

Yup - eISBNs are... complicated. If they have different ISBNs, they ARE different editions for this DB :) Annie 16:34, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
It's not only if they have different ISBN's I'd say, there's also the format to consider (according to the Wiki article). Or do we limit ourselves to 'publisher' only ? I.e. Amazon/Kindle, B&N/Nook, Smashwords/format x? Should we start a discussion over at R&S? MagicUnk 16:48, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
The format and the publisher are often tied together. Amazon's format is their own (few formats based on the kindle generation), B&N's Nook are ePub basically, Smashwords is a "consolidator" so they often will have different formats - including producing the Kindle and ePub book for the B&N and others see this. So there is a point at which we need to stop and say "do we want 1000 different books" and when do we really split? Thus my comment for the ISBNs. By all means, start a discussion :) Annie 16:54, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
If you are curious, see this one I just added. All 3 services have the same ebook (Look inside, Free Sample and Preview have matching first pages so it is definitely the same book), none have the ISBN inside of them (they have the printed one as they have the printed book copyright page) but the ISBN is in range for the publisher and the book (one off from the print) and appears valid on all ISBN-able ebook platforms (Amazon finds it via the site search only as usual these days for eISBNs). So just because it is not printed in Amazon's copy does not mean it was not assigned to it. Ebooks are complicated... and despite what Wiki says, most publishers don't burn multiple ISBNs for the different ebook formats and go for eISBN instead) :) Have a headache yet? :) Annie 18:20, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Yup, nice headache allright :) Nicely done by the way. I guess my main issue is that I really haven't figured out a protocol for myself how to deal with ebooks, and when to decide two (or more) records are warranted (different ISBN's is easy )), or not. MagicUnk 06:20, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

Algis Budrys error: Review columns appearing as Poem Series

On Algis Budrys' Summary Bibliography page (, the list of F&SF review columns appears under a sub-heading of 'Poem Series'. On the other hand, the list of Galaxy Bookshelf review columns correctly appears under a sub-heading of 'Essay Series'.

Curiously, the individual columns, as listed, have a '[ES]' suffix, but the Galaxy Bookshelf columns do not have a suffix. --Mjcrossuk 08:44, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Indeed, that was irritating! I have cautionary removed the title series for the October 1989 column, since it was not a book review but a poem per title note (and that was what caused the mix-up, since only one poem or one fiction title sets the title type for the whole series). Does anyone else have an idea how to deal with this case? I think it's pretty obvious that one title should not set the tone for the whole series if it does completely differ from the other ones, as here. Stonecreek 09:24, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for fixing it so quickly! As you say, v strange that one outlier entry in the series has caused the problem, it's not even the first in the series. Mjcrossuk 11:42, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
"Summary" pages display series lists in the following order:
  • "Fiction" series, which include novel, collection, and omnibus titles
  • Magazine/fanzine series, which include EDITOR titles
  • Anthology series
  • Nonfiction series
  • Short fiction series
  • Poem series
  • Essay series
  • Cover art series
  • Interior art series
  • Review series
  • Interview series
If a Summary page contains a series which includes titles of different types, it is classified based on the highest ranked title type. For example, a series with one novel and 10 short fiction titles is a "Fiction Series". A series with two short fiction titles and 40 poems is a "Short Fiction Series". A series with one essay and 50 reviews is an "Review[Edit: Essay] Series". Ahasuerus 12:00, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Wait. 1 essay and 50 reviews will be an essay series, won’t it? Not a review one as the essay has priority Annie 12:29, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Oops! Right, it would be an essay series. Fixed. Ahasuerus 12:54, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
With chapbooks showing more and more often, I wonder if we should not discuss a change in order -- send the NONFICTION after SHORT FICTION and POEM. While the original order makes sense (books first, parts of books next), we have a lot of series that are short stories only now and the first NONFICTION sends the series in a weird place. Annie 13:29, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Sure, we can move nonfiction series two positions down and see how it goes. It would effectively mean adopting a "fiction first" approach. Ahasuerus 14:01, 5 June 2020 (EDT)
Considering the name of our DB, that won't be a very surprising approach :) Annie 14:11, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Second pair of eyes for these horror anthologies - in or out?

Can you have a look at this and this one (and their James Ward Kirk Publishing brethren)? I'm inclined to include them, but not entirely sure. Thanks! MagicUnk 11:03, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

The ghost stories in the second one are certainly eligible from what I am reading about them. So it will be a non-genre anthology with only the speculative contents added as most of the first part won’t be.
The first - unless you find a story that is eligible, then it is out; otherwise it is the same as above. I do not see anything in the description that hints that there may be any. Annie 15:24, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

"Printing Number" field -- an alternative approach

Over the years, we have had multiple requests to add a "Printing Number" field to publication records. The last one was just a couple of days ago.

Adding a new field wouldn't be hard to do, but we have been unable to agree whether it should be numeric, i.e. allow values like "1", "3" and "27", or whether it should allow arbitrary text like "stated fourth Ace printing but actually at least the 6th printing because Ace reset its printing numbers at some point" -- see the comments area in FR 794. The first, numeric, option could be used for sorting publications on Title pages, in Advanced Search, etc. The second option would be more informative, but arbitrary text would be hard to use for sorting. It would also make displayed tables (like the one on the Title page) unwieldy if the displayed value contained more than a couple of words.

Earlier today it occurred to me that we may be able to "have our cake and eat it too". What if we were to create two fields? The first field would be called "Printing Number" and would be numeric, allowing values like "1", "3", and "27". The second field would be called something like "Printing Number Details" and allow arbitrary text like "stated fourth Ace printing but actually at least the 6th printing because Ace reset its printing numbers at some point" above. We would display the numeric value entered in the "Printing Number" field in a new column in Publication tables and we would display the arbitrary value in the "Printing Number Details" (if entered) as mouse-over text. It would be similar to other values displayed as mouse-over text (transliterations, formats, etc.)

Would this work? Ahasuerus 14:04, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

I think that last time we floated the idea of using pipes for exactly the same reasons just before the discussion died. :)
Two fields work for me. One note though - we need a way to sort same-numbered editions -- if you have 14th Ace printing and 14th Bragelonne one, both of them with 0000-00-00, the order does not matter but the first Ace and the first Bragelonne at the top of the table for example, both with a date of 2010-00-00 probably should have a way to sort the original before the translation even if both carry "1". Annie 14:16, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
How about using optional pipes? Ahasuerus 14:40, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Works for me -- plus we are used to using them. One request though - make their value visible on the "mouse-over" as well so you do not need to open each edition to find out whatever pattern is used for them for this set of publications. Annie 14:48, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
We could expand the printing number information in the mouse-over bubble. For example, "1|2" would be displayed as "Printing Number: 1. Sort order within this printing number: 2". Ahasuerus 09:17, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
And they should work differently - in a publication, you can do things like 1|3 and 3|1 easily enough (essentially making a non-piped N the same as a N|N number). Here they should come into play ONLY if the number before them matches - or someone will send a 14th printing at #2 by mistake for example. :) Annie 14:48, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
I see. So the number to the right of the "pipe" character would be the sort position within the printing number specified to the left of the "pipe" character. Makes sense. Ahasuerus 09:14, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
This is what I was thinking - thus making sure that you do not need to check every single publication to figure out the sorting order. But that will mean that the sorting of the 0000-00-00 will be printing number first (not grouping per publisher) which may not be desirable - unless this sorting is ignored for 0000-00-00 and we go publisher first, number second there. And we won't be able to reorder differently dated ones. It almost sounds like a need for an in-number sorting and an absolute sorting (which overrides everything). Or maybe just a single checkbox "First Edition" to be used for the absolute first edition for a title - aka "what stays at the top of the table" - because the rest of the table can fall any way it wants really as long as there is a structure... Annie 13:32, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
I like this idea. If the 0000-00-00 (or same dated) editions then can be sorted by publisher / printing number it would make the publication table a lot clearer. --Willem 14:55, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
So if you have two Ace 0000-00-00 (printing 3 and 9) and 2 Barkley (printing 3 and 7), do you want them to be Ace, Ace, Barkley, Barkley or based on the printing number first? Maybe we really need to make a difference between dated and undated editions
  • Dated with the same date get sorted based on printing number with pipes to fix the order where needed . If we go publisher first for these, we will get a lot of cleanup to do as we have a lot of books with the same year or year-month dates only and the wrong ones will come up on top based on the publisher name.
  • 0000-00-00 get sorted based on Publisher, then printing inside of that publisher.
Or am I overthinking it? :) Annie 15:10, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
PS: And if we are talking about reordering the table anyway (inevitable when we talk about showing printing numbers), we may want to look at a way to sort this one correctly - the Serbian is definitely not the one that should lead this table. Pipe only printing number? But then when does it overwrite a date sort? If we want to split the "ordering" from the "show printing order" discussion, I can split that out in a separate thread but I think they are related... Annie 15:19, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
The sorting needs, indeed, some attention. Iirc, during our last discussion there was a proposal to sort on printing number only within the same publisher. On the top of my head I thought the sorting proposal was something like, sort by date, publisher, printing number. That would effectively mean that printing number sorting would only be relevant for same-date, same-publisher publications, in practice, that would only be for the 0000-00-00 dates. This only holds if we want to continue displaying in order of publication date. Not 100% sure, but I guess an optional piping could override default sorting on, say publisher, to get the result Annie illustrated. Sorting could then be something like, first on date, then on optional piping, then publisher, then printing nr. It would not solve the Serbian case though (I think) (disclaimer: didn't think this through very thoroughly yet). As for the proposal of having the rank + optional detail, and only displaying rank, with mouseover detail, that would work. MagicUnk 15:25, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
My preferences: 1) The value to be entered should be based on the publication, not research or authority. (If a listed number doesn't match my copy, I'll either miss it or be back to reading all the publications to find a match. Notes are for research and sources.) 2) The value should be standardized and reduced, not entered exactly as provided in the publication. (To fit on the Title Summary, to my mind the main reason for this. E.g. no number lines or "Thirteenth" - use an integer. Other language scenarios might give something other than an integer, e.g. [4] for Russian implied printings) 3) Controlling the sort using piping is too complicated for the benefits. (piping for pages is easy because it's all done in the same edit, reordering pubs involves multiple edits. If sort order includes publisher any sort on printings helps - even 1, 10, 11, 2 beats not knowing. Besides a mix of dated and undated pubs messes up the order anyway.) 4) Using the piping to provide mouse-over text for the printing number sounds really useful for non-standard cases. (E.g. "CN 1 | 1st Canadian", "1 | 1st US", "Sp 1 | 1st Special Edition") ../Doug H 15:31, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
The challenge with allowing random strings in the "small" field is the length of this field (and enforcing standards). If we keep this strictly numerical (with pipes to assist), we don't have a 3-line line in the pub table to accomodate someone writing something weird or a distorted table. And you do not end up with "1 CN", "1 Russian", "12 Special Ace", "Ace 12" and so on in the same column. That's the point in the double field -- numerical only for the table; add whatever you want for the mouseover. Annie 01:38, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
That's not incompatible with my preferences, just with my example. If 2) "standardized" means numeric, my example could have been "1 | 1st Canadian", "1 | 1st US", "1 | 1st Special Edition". And the Russian implied printing "4 | 4th unnumbered (10,000-20,000)". These can be done with two fields (numeric/text) or using piping with a rule of numeric/text, don't care. I presume mouse-over could be done using either approach. ../Doug H 11:49, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Ah, ok. I misread your previous post to mean that you would like the first/visible number to be free text :) Annie 13:32, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Basically 1) from the pub 2) not verbatim, need a standard interpretation and short representation 3) no sorting control 4) mouse-over = good. ../Doug H 13:53, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) Concerning sorting, the one that would be 'mandatory' would be sorting for same date, same publisher. More specifically, having multiple unknown date printings of one book, would have to be sorted to not create a mess if you ask me. That would not even require 'pipe sorting'. MagicUnk 15:02, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Sorting is a nice extension to displaying the printing number, but hardly mandatory. It's already a mess, this would just show you why. If the design incorporates sorting that usually works, all the better, but don't hold off displaying because you can't sort. ../Doug H 15:10, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
I agree and that is why I mentioned that we may want to split the sorting question from the displaying one - while they are related, just adding the "display" will be already a huge step ahead when dealing with often reprinted books. Although if we split them, we may need to later retrace some of the work to adjust for sorting but still - if we have an agreement on display, I would say to go ahead and plan for it/implement -- and deal with sorting as a separate matter if we cannot agree on it quickly... Annie 15:15, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Agree, that's why 'mandatory' was between quotes :) However, what'd you say if we ask Ahasuerus if sorting on date, then publisher, then rank is doable? That would at least reduce the 0000-00-00 mess. Could we agree on adding this sorting requirement (provided it is easy to do - if not, I'm wholly fine to only have the rank/details field(s)) MagicUnk 15:25, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
It's certainly doable. However, I would be hesitant to add new functionality -- in this case pipe-based sorting -- before we reach consensus re: how exactly it should be used. I am thinking that Annie's idea, i.e. implementing two new fields without "pipe" support, may be our best bet for now. Once the new fields are in place, we'll be in a better position to decide what we want to do about the sorting issue. Ahasuerus 15:43, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Ah, but I'm not talking about pipe sorting. That wouldn't be needed. The desired sorting could be achieved just using the date, publisher, and rank values (blanks could be treated as 'blank' or '0' for example (depending on data type) - or am I missing something here? MagicUnk 15:46, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Oh, I see. Once the proposed two fields have been implemented, we'll need to decide how the software should use them when building the Publication table. Currently the pubs in the Publication table are sorted by date with 0000-00-00 dates displayed last. We could easily change it to "by date, then by publisher name, then by printing number". Ahasuerus 15:59, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
But this will leave the top of the table in a mess (original on 2020-03-00, translations on 2020-00-00 for example). Sending the 00 at the bottom of the pile will cause the (original in 1960-00-00, translation in 1960-12-00) to sort weirdly. Thus the "third" field that marks a "first edition" and which when set overwrites any sorting and parks this at the top of the list. This is what I was trying to do with the pipes mainly - order the top of the table. The flag will keep the whole printing fields thing much cleaner. And it will need to be set ONLY if the order is messed up (although I am not sure how to make sure people do not misuse it...) Then lower in the table, we can go date/publisher/printing easily indeed and not worry about anything else... Annie 16:12, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Switching from "sorting by date" to "sorting by date, publisher, printing number" wouldn't make things worse than they currently are, would it?
Re: adding a "first edition" flag, one thing to keep in mind is that it's not always a straightforward determination. To quote
  • Modern books are often published in different countries around the world for distribution in that country or region. Faber & Faber may get rights to print the first UK edition of a book, and G. P. Putnam may print the first US edition of that same book. Often, both of those books may be released for sale at more or less the exact same moment. Collectors tend to value the edition of the book published in the author's native country, and booksellers may refer to that version as the "True First" to help guide buyers. That is a general rule, but plenty of exceptions exist there.
Ahasuerus 16:35, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
"Show this edition at the top of the list"? I am not proposing for us to try to find the real first edition, just to find a way for the original, when published earlier than the translations, to show up at the top regardless of how the incomplete dates are entered. The problem is only there for the editions in the first year of publication where one or more of the books have incomplete dates - but we get more and more translations in the same year and non-US sources lack dates very often.
This will allow us to have a translation at the top (if it came out first) and the actual original work otherwise. Or we can leave it as is now - although it does look ugly on some pages. Annie 16:55, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Keep in mind that a "first edition" flag would be added to publication records while it's the title page that has the display problem. Getting the two aligned for multi-title publications may not be easy.
I agree that this is a problem, but I am not sure that any of the solutions proposed so far would work too well :-\ We probably need to think about it some more and address it as a separate issue. Ahasuerus 19:37, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
That is a good point - I was concentrating mainly on novels -- with stories, omnibuses and so on, that becomes... complicated. So if we ignore this, then date/publisher/printing Number order of sorting sounds like the best option? It also keeps in simple enough for everyone... Annie 19:47, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
It's probably the best we can do for now. Ahasuerus 19:59, 11 June 2020 (EDT)


FR 794 has been updated to reflect the two-field approach. Thanks to everyone who participated in this lively discussion! Ahasuerus 13:33, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Super! May I be so bold as to ask when we may expect this feature? MagicUnk 13:55, 15 June 2020 (EDT)
The addition of this functionality -- in one form or another -- has been requested multiple times, which makes it a fairly high priority. Now that we have a workable design, it's just a matter of freeing up enough man-hours. I have been sick the last few days; I will revisit the issue when I am once again functional. Ahasuerus 18:01, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Variant / Translation Content Listing Formatting

When a canonical title and a variant title are the same (i.e. only the author differs), the publication content will not show the canonical publication date like it does when the variant title differs from the canonical title (see this example which shows no dates for the contents even though they were originally published well before 2013). When I brought this up to Ahasuerus, it turned into a more general discussion of improving the contents display. Ahasuerus' suggestion was to use a two line display (similar to how Tercera Fundacion does it) to separate out the canonical title from the version in the publication. After thinking about this awhile, I believe this is a good idea. Therefore, I'm proposing we adopt it.

To help (hopefully) facilitate the discussion, I installed my own local version of the software and created two fake publications that show examples of how the software currently displays what I believe to be every possible variant. These possibilities are as follows:

Case Language Author Title Title Dates
1 -- canonical canonical canonical
2 -- canonical variant title same as canonical
3 -- canonical variant title different from canonical
4 -- alternate name same as canonical same as canonical
5 -- alternate name same as canonical different from canonical
6 -- alternate name variant title same as canonical
7 -- alternate name variant title different from canonical
8 translation canonical same as canonical same as canonical
9 translation canonical same as canonical different from canonical
10 translation canonical variant title same as canonical
11 translation canonical variant title different from canonical
12 translation alternate name same as canonical same as canonical
13 translation alternate name same as canonical different from canonical
14 translation alternate name variant title same as canonical
15 translation alternate name variant title different from canonical

The following figure shows how these are currently displayed (where the page numbers equate to the cases in the table above):


If we adopt the two line display, we have plenty of options how to do it (only do for translations, do for variants as well as translations, do for translations and variants with different titles, etc.). There are also different ways it could be layed out. But assuming we did it for all cases, here is one possible idea (where page numbers correspond to the cases in the table above):

1 • Canonical Title 1 • [Series Name • 1] • short fiction by Canonical Name
2 • Alternate Title 2 • [Series Name • 2] • short fiction by Canonical Name
  • variant of: Canonical Title 2 • short fiction by Canonical Name
3 • Alternate Title 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction by Canonical Name
  • variant of: Canonical Title 3 • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name
4 • Canonical Title 1 • [Series Name • 1] • short fiction as by Alternate Name
  • variant of: Canonical Title 1 • short fiction by Canonical Name
5 • Canonical Title 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction as by Alternate Name
  • variant of: Canonical Title 3 • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name
6 • Alternate Title 2 • [Series Name • 2] • short fiction as by Alternate Name
  • variant of: Canonical Title 2 • short fiction by Canonical Name
7 • Alternate Title 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction as by Alternate Name
  • variant of: Canonical Title 3 • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name
8 • Canonical Title 1 • [Series Name • 1] • short fiction by Canonical Name
  • translation of: Canonical Title 1 • [English] • short fiction by Canonical Name
9 • Canonical Title 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction by Canonical Name
  • translation of: Canonical Title 3 • [English] • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name
10 • Κανονικός τίτλος 1 • [Series Name • 1] • short fiction by Canonical Name
  • translation of: Canonical Title 1 • [English] • short fiction by Canonical Name
11 • Κανονικός τίτλος 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction by Canonical Name
  • translation of: Canonical Title 3 • [English] • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name
12 • Canonical Title 1 • [Series Name • 1] • short fiction as by Κανονικό όνομα
  • translation of: Canonical Title 1 • [English] • short fiction by Canonical Name
13 • Canonical Title 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction as by Κανονικό όνομα
  • translation of: Canonical Title 3 • [English] • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name
14 • Κανονικός τίτλος 1 • [Series Name • 1] • short fiction as by Κανονικό όνομα
  • translation of: Canonical Title 1 • [English] • short fiction by Canonical Name
15 • Κανονικός τίτλος 3 • [Series Name • 3] • short fiction as by Κανονικό όνομα
  • translation of: Canonical Title 3 • [English] • (2000) • short fiction by Canonical Name

One large benefit of the two line approach for translations is that it allows for additional information. Above, I included the original language, but it also leaves room for two feature requests:

  • series at the translation level as well as the canonical titles (i.e. foreign language series names)
  • displaying name(s) of the translator(s)

Does anybody have thoughts on this? Other suggestions? -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

I like the two lines approach because it makes it easier to read and understand what you are looking at (especially with different alphabets involved). And as you noted, it allows us to add more elements one day that are relevant for that specific title.
Maybe we need an exception for interior art though - the "author name as used" should not be all the way at the end of the line and the date should always be shown on the parent for them as well but maybe keeping them in a single line makes more sense. If we decide it will be cleaner to go to two lines for everything, I can live with that as well.
Coverart can follow a similar idea as the other art - 2 lines up there won't make sense and leaving the cover as the only one showing differently does not make much sense.
How about container titles? Do we want two lines there as well? Annie 19:29, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
I've no problem with the idea. Variants and Translations should be the same type as the Canonical, so repeating it on the second line shouldn't be necessary should it? ../Doug H 22:12, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Serial / novel, interiorart / coverart are two cases where the types are allowed to be different. In the examples above, I took the easy way out & didn't set a story length. If I had then it should show the lengths, like the software does today. By having both, it makes it easier to see disconnects in the lengths or other places where someone has done something non-standard (or just made a mistake). -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Why does it have to be two lines? I like JLaTondre's proposal as it conveys more precise information, but keep it on one line. MagicUnk 22:16, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Much easier to read on two lines (and opens space for pulling different data into the line (localized series names for example) and having the line break in weird places on smaller screens. Annie 01:34, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
On the contrary. It will be more difficult to read, and way too much scrolling to be done. I don't like it. It should be one title, one line. And there's no avoiding line wraps on small screens anyway as that will always happen, no matter what (for lengthy titles, for example). Neither on large screens for that matter. And as for the different data, we don't have it (yet). I say, implement this proposal on one line now. The proposal to put the info on two lines can always be revisited once we have translator, translated series etc. Easy enough to do it then if needed, just not now. MagicUnk 02:23, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
I am already scrolling like crazy anyway - moving to two lines will at least make it more manageable and easier for anyone to make any sense of the line. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. :) Annie 02:29, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
I'm also for the two line approach: like in notes (publications' or titles') it's more pleasing to the eye. Stonecreek 02:51, 11 June 2020 (EDT)
Aaaaaaargh, I'm outnumbered ... :) MagicUnk 15:04, 11 June 2020 (EDT)


FR 1359 has been created. Ahasuerus 14:06, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

Two new Narrator-centric cleanup reports

The following new cleanup reports have been implemented:

  • Suspected Invalid Uses of the Narrator Template. It looks for non-audio publications with the Narrator template in the Note field.
  • Audio Books without the Narrator Template. It's limited to the first 1,000 pubs since we currently have over 8,000 matches on file.

The first report lets moderators "ignore" records. The second one doesn't, at least for now. The data will become available tomorrow morning. Ahasuerus 12:38, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Piper / Pan or how many of these do we really need?

At the moment we have (the text after the link is extract from the note on the publisher so it is all here in one place):

  • Pan Piper - "Piper is a Children's Imprint of Pan (now Pan MacMillan)".
    • 13 books, 1 PV-ed, 1988-1993, UK prices
  • Piper - "Children's Imprint of Pan (now Pan MacMillan)."
    • 18 books, 1 PV-ed, 1988-1994, UK prices
  • Piper / Pan Macmillan Children's Books
    • 2 books, 2 PV-ed, 1991-1994, UK prices
  • Piper / Pan UK
    • 5 books, 5 PV-ed, 1989-1991, UK prices

Unless we have immediate (or any) plans to allow for publisher variants or something like these, these 4 need to be merged really. There is one more:

Which may or may not need to go with them. That may also be able to release the name Piper from a defunct imprint so the German major publisher Piper can use it (but that is secondary). So... anyone see any reason to keep all 4 (or 5?) as they are? And if we merge, "Piper / Pan" is probably the best name... Annie 19:10, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

I think you can safely merge the first four ones. Since [Pan] became wholly owned by Macmillan in 1987. (see Wikipedia), I would suggest to consolidate under Piper / Pan MacMillan. this to distinguish frm the last one which has to remain Piper / Pan Books —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagicUnk (talkcontribs) .
Yeah, that's why I left the older one alone. I am not sure I like "Piper / Pan MacMillan" (too long and just "Piper / Pan" won't be confusing but either way works. Annie 15:55, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
My preference is to stick as much as possible to the imprint / publisher rule, and to be as precise as possible (but then again, without proliferating too much). I do know it is allowed by the rules to use well-known 'shortcuts', but still. Using more systematically the imprint / publisher format conveys (at least partial) information around successive ownership of an imprint. Hence my proposal. And yes, the drawback is that it is long(er), but since publishers can be looked-up, I don't think that's not too bad. Just my 2c... MagicUnk 16:17, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
Oh, I agree in principle but the situation here is a double imprint: Piper / Pan / Pan Macmillan or even a triple one Piper / Pan / Pan Macmillan / Macmillan Publishers) technically. I would rather not skip the direct parent and having all of that will be an overkill... I know that the mother company became Pan Macmillan but Pan itself, where Piper nests under, is on the same level as say Picador (see see the publisher site and I do not think of my Pan books with the double name (see this as well. Once I sort out the Pipers, I am sorting out the Pans (here - as we have duplicates there as well, the rest of the imprints and going up to the parent. Always fun with imprints... Annie 17:20, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
I will go talk to some of the PVs and see HOW exactly the credit runs in the real books for Piper... Annie 17:27, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

Play/drama template

As there does not seem to be support for splitting the plays/dramas into their own type (either under Shortfiction or alongside it), can we get a Notes template ({{Play}} for example - Producing "A play" or "This is a play" or whatever) to be used to mark publications and titles which are actually plays.

I had been trying to clean some of the plays we already have before adding some more but it is a hard work finding the ones I do not know to specifically look for. Plus this will get as an idea of how many we actually have - which will help next time we decide to think on the types. Annie 15:51, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

It's certainly doable. Even if we don't do anything with it, it would be harmless. My only concern is the wording. Something like "A play" would work for individual plays but not for collections/anthologies of plays. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better solution. Ahasuerus 13:23, 20 June 2020 (EDT)
Some synonyms are drama, theater, performance, script. Would the template be extended to scripts? ../Doug H 19:44, 20 June 2020 (EDT)
Yes. Scripts and plays are two sides of the same coin and almost indistinguishable in the modern drama publishing. And “this text is in a script format” may be a good way to say that. Annie 20:41, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

Thank you for today

I hadn't logged into ISFDB until a few minutes ago. On doing so, I saved the entire "Authors born or died today" page and sent the doc to an old friend who shares a love of reading.

I've no idea if the site does this daily. If do so on Juneteenth was VERY classy indeed.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trekkist (talkcontribs) .

Glad you found the lists useful! They are a permanent part of the ISFDB front page. That said, there have been complaints that they are getting too long, so we have been considering moving things around, especially now that we have an SF Calendar page. Ahasuerus 10:30, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

Move a primary verification or not? That's the question...

An editor submitted a deletion of a PV'd record that is a duplicate of another, also PV'd record. Said editor stated: ' Reason for deletion: There's no evidence of a separate US edition, and no current PV. I've got the multi-verified UK edition, and can confirm its copyright page says printed in UK, but also has prices for USA & Canada on its dust jacket. ' Not wanting to lose the data, I put the submission on hold and asked Ahasuerus if he could/would move the PV form the first to the second record, so as to preserve this user's PV (even though he's no longer active) once the duplicate gets deleted. See here for an example.

Below Ahasuerus' response:

It's possible, but I try not to make manual database changes because they can be dangerous. I am also not sure that the primary verifier would be happy to see his verification linked to a pub which may or may not be identical to the one that he originally verified.
We may want to have a Community Portal discussion of different ways to address this issue. Some options that come to mind:
  • Create a bureaucrat-only option which would let bureaucrats move a primary verification to a different publication record as requested above
  • Make a policy decision re: this type of scenarios without changing the software. For example:
    • Add a line to the Note field indicating that the record is a likely a duplicate of another record and link to the latter
    • Delete the likely duplicate record and leave a note on the primary verifier(s)' Talk page, including a copy of what was deleted
Ahasuerus 20:37, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

For me there's yet another option - even though Ahasuerus is not in favor. I wonder if manually moving the PV to the 2nd record could be a valid option, as it would only be needed in very rare occasions anyway? That would preserve the information, as well as result in a clean entry that does not show duplicate records.

So, the question is, which option do we prefer? I myself am not advocating to update the software since this use case is going to be very rarely encountered. For the policy cases, I would not delete the likely duplicate, as that would effectively remove information from the database (as it would be hidden on the talk page of the editor). So, that leaves the 1st policy option to leave the record as-is, and add notes to clarify, or, have the PV manually moved from one record to the other (and add notes). What do you think? Regards, MagicUnk 12:34, 24 June 2020 (EDT)

Where is the submission? Is it the Richard Powers book? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:40, 24 June 2020 (EDT)
Also, perhaps contact the publisher and ask them about it (if it's the Powers book)? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:44, 24 June 2020 (EDT)
Yep - if the publisher is still around, more research is better than just deleting based on "unlikely". Annie 12:48, 24 June 2020 (EDT)
It is indeed the Powers book. Here's the submission. I've queried the publisher. MagicUnk 14:46, 24 June 2020 (EDT)
Answer from the publisher: ' I have looked at our records, and it appears ‘The Art of Richard Powers’ was distributed in the US, however a co-edition was not published – meaning the only edition printed was the UK C&B edition. '
I keep a record (pub ID) for my verifications in my book catalog and pub ID (unlike title ID) had historically been stable so chances are that these had been linked in a lot of places (kind of why we try not to delete an older publication if an editor tries to add a new one, even when it has more details). If we allow PV to be moved, we are opening a Pandora box of never knowing if this is indeed the book the PV verified. I would rather lose the PV than get it moved to a pub record I had never seen personally - so I am in favor of deleting and adding a note on the PV page (or leave it there and add a note to link them) and letting the PV decide if they want to reverify (and if they are not around anymore, as the other book has other PVs, adding one more does not really give us anything). Maybe I am overthinking it but as one of the very little things an editors can do without approval, changing them needs to be considered seriously before we go that way.
PS: The information removed with a deletion will be a duplicate of the information in the other one anyway; if there is relevant and valid information not in the other record yet, it can be copied there before deleting. So we will not be losing anything besides the note that this editor had seen the book. Annie 12:48, 24 June 2020 (EDT)
The answer from the publisher at least confirms we have duplicate records for the Powers case. Anyone else that wants to chime in with suggestion how we would treat this case? Thanks! MagicUnk 12:54, 26 June 2020 (EDT)
Aaaaaargh... I discovered I still have the delete submission on hold - it's not me, blame SARS-CoV-2 instead!
If there are no objections, I will accept the delete submission within a day or two and leave a note on the PV's talk page to explain what happened. MagicUnk 10:03, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Jules Verne series

I propose to do a clean-up of the 20 or so title and publication series for Jules Verne. I have set up a wiki page with my proposals and reasoning under Jules Verne Series. It is my hope that this approach will organize the discussion and avoid dangling conversational threads. It is a large undertaking and I could use some help in understanding the problems and refining the proposal before starting. Your input is appreciated. ../Doug H 15:08, 26 June 2020 (EDT)

Do you want people to leave notes directly into the page or into the discussion page for it? I’d think the latter - and then it all can stay so everyone can see how we got to the decision. But up to you. Annie 20:54, 26 June 2020 (EDT)
New territory, it depends on how much and what type of discussion there is. Probably best to use the discussion page and update the page with the results of the discussion. Thanks for asking. ../Doug H 21:54, 26 June 2020 (EDT)


I am tagging the 1994 story Fan by Geoff Ryman as postpunk. This is a newly coined subgenre so I want to point out that it is after cyberpunk, where here public is much more helpless with the given technology, but not as socialized yet as in for example Ian Banks' The Culture series. Also it only has the early stirrings of an advanced space age. I myself have written a story like this titled The Lights Off Tension Way. Anyone who wants to publish it should let me know. Maybrick 19:48, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Posts linking to ISFDB are blocked by Reddit

I've already contacted Ahasuerus about this - not that I think there's anything he can do about it personally - but maybe it's worth flagging up more widely: at some point, seemingly fairly recently, posts on Reddit that contain links to ISFDB get shadowblocked.

This link documents the symptoms of this blocking, and this link documents that ISFDB is one of the sites affected. Comments in the latter seem to imply that ISFDB can be whitelisted by moderators of a Reddit sub, but as I've just had a post to /r/scifi blocked, seemingly for linking here, that tweak seemingly hasn't been widely implemented by subs that might want to link here.

Like I said, I don't know that there's anything anyone here can do about it, other than being very careful about posting links here. (If you're not a Reddit user, this is a non-issue for you personally.) ErsatzCulture 13:07, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

EDIT: I posted about this Reddit issue on Twitter, and have been told that this also affects Facebook posts that link to ISFDB. I don't use FB personally; can anyone corroborate? ErsatzCulture 13:22, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Facebook is a known issue - it is because of the way they add their IDs at the end of every link and how we build ids. So not blocked, simply don’t work. Annie 14:05, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
A bit of digging around has found a <20 line config file fix for the FB issue - annoyingly, the person who posted it seems to have done so about 2 weeks after Ahasuerus did an investigation, judging by what's in the archived discussion when that first came up. I'll forward him the details to see what he thinks. ErsatzCulture 18:32, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Happy Birthday Pierre-Jean (or Pierre Jean)

While looking at today's birthdays, I noticed the both Pierre-Jean Brouillaud and Pierre Jean Brouillaud have birthdays today! I suspect that one of the names is spelled "wrong". Sjmathis 16:04, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Not wrong per se - just alternative spelling (those names with hyphens are often weird that way) :) From the looks of it, the Romanian publications omitted the "-" and when the variants were created, noone connected the dots to reconcile the two names. I've pseudonymed the two versions now and got all the records together. Annie 16:30, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

New Amazon URLs

FYI, Amazon-hosted image URLs appear to be in the process of changing. For example, J. K. Rowling's main author image is now at "".

The ISFDB software that generates post-submission yellow warnings and drives the nightly cleanup reports has been adjusted to allow the new URL format. It may require further tweaks if and when Amazon implements additional formats. If you encounter anything unusual, please let me know. Ahasuerus 15:43, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

re: inconsistent date(s) in notes to "the left hand of darkness" (ursula k. le guin) ace books undated second mmpb printing

in item The Left Hand of Darkness

the notes give the third printing as being dated november 1972;

the circular cover flash announcing its hugo and nebula awards as requiring this second printing as being after august 1970;

the two advertising end pages numbered 7, 18 as requiring this second printing as being no earlier than november 1978;

this last date of 11/1978 is not consistent with this second ace printing being between 8/1970 and 11/1972.

- should it not read "november 1970" to be temporally possible without resort to a tardis, and not require this second printing to have been the same month and year as the third printing?

- love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 06:36, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

Fixed your link above :) You are right, this last paragraph does not sound right - if you replace 1978 with 1970 or 1971, it will make a lot more sense. Let me ping some of the active verifiers and see if they have an idea if 1970 or 1971 is the correct year. Either is possible as either of them leaves at least 2 years possible so we cannot set the year properly. Thanks for finding this! Annie 07:30, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

Klingon as a language for original works

Klingon is not currently available as a language tag for adding new original works into ISFDB. Can this be added to the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russell Hume (talkcontribs) .

At this time, the list of languages supported by the ISFDB is a subset of the ISO 639-2 list. Since the latter includes "Klingon" (ISO 639-2 code "tlh"), we should be to add it to our list. What would be an example of an SF work written in Klingon or translated into Klingon? Ahasuerus 08:10, 11 August 2020 (EDT)
I'd think this submission might be intended. Stonecreek 14:30, 11 August 2020 (EDT)
I see, thanks! If there are no objections, I will add "Klingon" as a supported language tomorrow. Ahasuerus 17:42, 11 August 2020 (EDT)
The Klingon language has been added to the list of supported languages. Ahasuerus 14:47, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

Dating Ace publications

There are a few tricks to dating Ace publications that don't include a publication date (assuming you can trust the one they provide). These generally involve ads or the publisher's address. I've run across references to spreadsheets that collate this information but never run across one in the public domain. Is there any interest among the editors in referencing, collecting and analyzing this information? ../Doug H 14:45, 11 August 2020 (EDT)

Revised translations

I would appreciate some enlightenment about how to manage revised translations. Take this example: a story first translated in 1969, and then again by the same translator in 2008, both with the same title but the text has major modifications, almost as a new translation made for a different person. Should this two titles be merged and just mention in the notes that the later is a revised and altered version of the first, or should they be kept as different titles?

If there are major changes, add it as a new title, DO NOT merge and make sure you have a note explaining that it is heavily revised and should stay alone :) Annie 12:16, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

Also, this particular case:this title and this title are one of the cases that I mentioned above, although the author name is spelled differently in both publications. I guess this detail make the titles impossible to merge, am I right? Thanks!--Wolland 11:44, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

And yes - if the author is different, we cannot merge - you can specify in the note which translation matches what. Annie 12:16, 12 August 2020 (EDT)
Enlightened! Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolland (talkcontribs) .
Any time. Think of it not in terms of "who translated" but "is this the same text (or with minor revisions), same author form, same title, same language". We use the translator as an easy way to indicate it is the same text but when it is a re-translation or severe revision, it does not matter that it is the same person, treat it as if it was someone else. Annie 14:59, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

A Dança dos Ossos

Hello. I have this submission on hold, as I couldn't figure out whether these stories contain speculative fiction elements or not, so a second pair of eyes would be welcome - is there anyone out there that is fluent enough in Portuguese to figure out if these gothic stories are not merely 'regular' horror, but do contain spec fic elements ? (ghosts, levitation, supernatural monsters,...). I've also left the same question on submitter's talk page. Thanks! MagicUnk 06:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

If you look through the few authors that we already have in the DB, the stories listed in this book are already in our DB. So chances are that the whole thing is at least partially in scope. I'd let it through in these circumstances (and if someone who speaks the language does not say something else). Most of these titles will need case adjustment as well :) Annie 07:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
Re: case adjustment. The editor Vampiregrave mentioned that titles in European Portuguese capitalize all words. I seem to remember that Zapp was converting some Portuguese works to sentence captizalization (or was that another language? can't remember). And honestly, when looking at all Portuguese titles currently in the database, there's really no standard capitalization that has been applied (yet). Is there anyone out there that can shed some light to what the capitalization rules are for Portuguese? Thanks! MagicUnk 05:53, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
I will find the links to the discussions when I am on a proper computer but Portuguese is sentence case. And yes - the old records are a mess - the same way the Italian are (and the Spanish and Dutch were before the major cleanup and adjustments there in the last years). Annie 11:49, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Here are the relevant links, I think:
Reading through the standards discussion I find the following:
Alas, it is not so easy in Portuguese. In many people's opinion, Portuguese orthography is still governed by the Acordo Ortográfico de 1945, which prescribed that like in English, Portuguese titles would have some words capitalized and others lowercase (somewhat different words than in English); see Base XLIV on this page for the wording of the rules in the Acordo. Naturally there is widespread uncertainty over which exact words to capitalize; the rules are only 3 sentences long, but not entirely easy to understand. However, there is also a sizeable portion of Portuguese-users who write titles in sentence case -- like any sensible language :-). Here is one forum commenter who summarizes some differences in usage -- in oversimplified form. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 21:27, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
MagicUnk 12:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Which is why we agreed at one point that the ISFDB standard for Portuguese is going to be sentence case - we cannot have it every each way because then you have messes in the same books. And the few active Portuguese editors agreed with that approach. We are not an academic institution and we simplify a lot of the rules - when it makes sense. These links are the tip of the iceberg -- there are a lot more of them (usually on the Portuguese editors pages) :) Annie 13:13, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Ah, is it? I didn't read the material through thorougly, but I didn't see the statement that we'd do sentence case. Is that decision buried somewhere in the standards discussion then?... MagicUnk 16:51, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
While some of the changes introduced by the forementioned ortographic agreement are still subject of debate in Portugal, I might add that, regarding book titles, the vast majority of portuguese publishers, magazines and newspapers follow the old rules (titles in italic, with each word capitalized). The same applies in Wikipedia’s portuguese articles. Vampiregrave 18:22, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Keep in mind that our Portuguese language is both for the European and the Brazilian variety and the Brazilians seem to be going in the other direction (or so had been indicated by the editors). :) The National Library of Portugal does not seem to capitalize later words in it its lists either (their individual entries are all caps but for anything else they use sentence case) (and I would take a library standard any day compared to Wiki's; however if all (most?) books use "capitalize all words" that can trump a library standard in most cases (capitalization is where we diverge the most from title pages basically)). As you said - there is a debate and things are changing so we need to decide on a standard for here -- if one day another one develops, we can convert easily (well, easy enough anyway). Let me see if any of the other editors had been around lately so they can also share an opinion. Annie 18:33, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Linking permission from

The author Yasser Bahjatt, who is a new editor here as Ybahjatt, has given written permission in a reply on his Talk page for the ISFDB to deep-link images from the site, which he owns. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:14, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll take care of it. Ahasuerus 18:39, 29 August 2020 (EDT)
Done! Ahasuerus 19:21, 29 August 2020 (EDT)
Template:Image Host Sites has been updated. Ahasuerus 10:21, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Padgett bibliography?

I just noticed that the Summary Bibliography page for Lewis Padgett lists only one story. The other stories published under the Padgett name, such as The Twonky, list Author as Lewis Padgett, but if you click the author name on those stories, it takes you to the Summary Bibliography page that only lists “Mimsy Were the Borogoves.” I would be happy to fix this, but I’m not sure how to go about doing so—is it a matter of manually adding all of the Padgett stories to the Summary Bibliography page? Is there a way to get that page to automatically populate with the stories that ISFDB already has Padgett listed as the Author for? —Elysdir 00:41, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

As "Lewis Padgett" is a pseudonym, the stories will appear under the actual writers' name - that is why they are not visible here - that's just how the site works. The one that is there now is not processed yet - it will disappear as well. If you want to see the stories - they will be in the lists of Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore. If you want to see all titles by Padgett, you can click on the link that is there now and it will show you this list (which is what you are looking for). Hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any other questions and/or concerns. Annie 00:50, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Север Гансовский

Hello, where he was born?

Help is very welcome. Thanks Henna 13:12, 8 September 2020 (EDT)

After some investigations in the pre internet era I have found the following informations:

I think there is no credible source. Maybe someone can delete the birthplace and explain the mess in the notes. Thanks again Henna 13:59, 8 September 2020 (EDT)

I have updated the Note field -- thanks! Ahasuerus 17:22, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
Hello Ahasuerus, perfect, thank you very much Henna 05:53, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

Advanced Search Question:

Hi. I have been trying to perform a search for a specific author in a specific publication (magazine). So far, I have not been successful. I keep thinking this should be possible from Advanced Search, but it's not working for me.

I assume that this should be possible, and I'm hoping somebody who knows can help me out.

I love ISFDB and I appreciate your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave888 (talkcontribs) .

You are looking to search by magazine title and author within the magazine? Unfortunately, I don't believe that is possible. Our publication search will search by information about the publication, but not about the contents of the publication. And our title search will search by information about a title, but not about the publications it appeared in. We don't have a search option that combines the types (though that would be a nice feature request). However, if you let me know what you are looking for, I can do a search of a database dump to find that information. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2020 (EDT)

Asimov's The Rest of the Robots

I would like to suggest some changes regarding Asimov's The Rest of the Robots. I'm posting here because of the large number of verifiers of affected publications. My understanding of the publication history is that in 1964, Doubleday published a book containing Asimov's first two Elije Bailey novels and eight positronic robot stories. In 1966, Pyramid published a subset of the first book containing only the stories with the title Eight Stories from The Rest of the Robots. Beginning in 1968, Panther and subsequently others published the subset collection containing only the stories, but with the original title. We have all of these as publications of the original title There are also several translations, all of which contain only the stories, but are variants of either title. I'd like to propose that the original 1964 book be reclassified as an OMNIBUS since it contains two previously published novels. Doing so will create a problem for those publications currently under that title that have only the stories. I'd recommend that those titles be made into a variant of Eight Stories from The Rest of the Robots. I'm going direct active verifiers of the affected publications here. Of course, anyone else who has an opinion should feel free to weigh in. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:18, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

No problem with me. This seems to be a good improvement, as the 1964 pub is indeed an OMNIBUS. Linguist 04:10, 16 September 2020 (EDT).
Same here. ../Doug H 08:12, 16 September 2020 (EDT)
This is the exact reason why I really dislike the practice of merging and/or varianting collections/anthologies/omnibuses with different contents - if the list of FICTION stories/titles does not match exactly (plus minus an excerpt or three), split them into a separate title and all is good again. Using the split novels rules outside of the novel category is a misuse of the rule (that's not how we ended up with this mess here but the whole "oh, a few stories difference, let's pretend it is the same" comes from that rule exactly) and makes it impossible to make any sense of our collections organization (and then someone helpfully imports contents from another book which has a slightly different contentx and makes it even worse). So yes - the "two novels+stories" is an omnibus, the stories only is a collection. If the list of the two sets of stories match, import the collection in the omnibus and you still will keep a connection between them. Sorry for the rant :) Annie 18:10, 16 September 2020 (EDT)
I have gone ahead and made this change. It wasn't as many edits as I had feared. I did not include the 1966 collection as part of the omnibus as doing so would necessitate back dating it to 1964 before it had appeared separately or indeed under its title. I'll next add a note to both parent records describing the relationship between them. Let me know if anything looks amiss. Thanks.Rtrace
Looks like common sense to me.--Dirk P Broer 07:39, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

Dan O'Driscoll canonical name

I think it is about time to switch the canonical name here. If no objections are voiced in the next few days, I will swap them. Annie 17:47, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

Looks like a no-brainer to me :) MagicUnk 02:23, 28 September 2020 (EDT)
Related, I can't remember if there is a feature request to automate switching canonical names? It could let you select from the alternate names, and then automatically make all the changes needed to switch them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:45, 28 September 2020 (EDT)
I am not sure we can fully automate -- think of cases like artists being credited based on signature or non-credited COVERART artists in translations (where we would use the cannonical but only notes will tell you if it needs switching or it is a real credit and so on) - you need a human reading the notes - but doing the bulk of the switching automatically would be nice. The non-art titles are much easier to work through... :)Annie 12:54, 28 September 2020 (EDT)
This question has come up a number of times. I think we all agree that an automated way of swapping canonical names would save a lot of time. Unfortunately, back when I investigated what it would take to implement this functionality, I found a number of complexities which made it unfeasible.
That said, it's been a number of years since I looked into it and the rules have changed. For example, all variant titles have separate dates now, which wasn't the case in the past. Perhaps some kind of semi-automated approach may be feasible given the current state of the software and the data entry rules. I'd have to take a closer look. Ahasuerus 15:25, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

The Epic of Gilgamesh

The Epic of Gilgamesh is currently entered as a single title record with an author of uncredited and a language of Akkadian. As described in the title notes & based on what research I've done (definitely not exhaustive), there are two different versions of this epic:

  1. The earlier Old Babylonian version for which the authors are not known
  2. The later Akkadian version which was credited to Sîn-lēqi-unninni on the tablets

Most current translations (but not necessarily all) are based primarily on the Akkadian version, but with portions from the Old Babylonian version to fill in gaps in the Akkadian tablets. So combining these into a single record would make sense.

However, some translations credit Sîn-lēqi-unninni on their title page. Ele que o abismo viu is one of these (with the added complication that it is a Portuguese publication that uses Sin-léqi-unnínni). I'm currently holding this edit which would add bibliographic information to Sin-léqi-unnínni. As currently entered, though, Sin-léqi-unnínni would need to made an alternate name to uncredited (which is bit unusual) and we don't normally enter bibliographic information for alternate names. Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

For me would be ok to move the bibliographical info to Sîn-lēqi-unninni and make "Sin-léqi-unnínni" just as an alternate name. As a note, the Akkadian-Brazilian Portuguese translator Jacyntho Lins Brandão, in the introduction of Ele que o abismo viu, states that his translation sole uses the Akkadian version without filling the gaps with the early version, because that would be "offering the reader a text that never existed at any time or anywhere." (1) - but acknowledges that some translators did exactly that. Here is an example of a English translation from the Old Babylonian version. Thanks, ErickSoares3 10:59, 30 September 2020 (EDT)
Edit: because the mixing of the Old Babylonian and Akkadian versions would be "offering the reader a text that never existed at any time or anywhere." ErickSoares3 11:08, 30 September 2020 (EDT)
As currently entered, uncredited is the parent record. There is no Sîn-lēqi-unninni entry and the software does not allow for alternate names of alternate names. Given no one has weighed in to change the current grouping of both versions into one entry (which does have advantages as reliably splitting the different editions would be hard), I've made Sin-léqi-unnínni an alternate name to uncredited and accepted the submission adding the bibliographic information. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2020 (EDT)
Kind of related: would be interesting to make possible to make the "release" date of ancient works as "circa" one or two periods (years, centuries, millennium BCE/ACE) - that also could apply for author's birthday when the only data the we know is "circa". For the Title statistics, would be interesting for an algorithm to acknowledge public domain works by jurisdiction (U.S. law, 70 years since the author death, worldwide...). ErickSoares3 17:21, 1 October 2020 (EDT)

Clarkesworld (again)

Are there any objections to merging these two series:

Both are incomplete, we don't keep them synced and technically we also have webzine format now so we can add these as well. Which will make even more of a mess. So any objections to getting all Clarkesworlds in one neat series? If no objections are voiced in a week or so, I will proceed with the merge. Annie 16:57, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

The Clarkesworld Magazine series contains webzines from 2006-2010 and then ebooks from 2010 on. If we are going to combine the same issue in multiple formats, it would be nice if the magazine grid would show all the formats or at least add the ebook format (it currently shows '[webzine]' for webzine ones). But that's a nice to have and not an objection to merging them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2020 (EDT)
That is what I am trying to achieve - get all issues in the same grid :) The way the grid works now is that the format will be shown as the format of the majority of issues and for every issue that does not have that format, the format is added to the issue view (like here). So we can see at a glance what we have and do not have in the DB (and if/when all back issues are filled in, what was published and available).
We can do the same with nested series but it is clunkier and harder to read.
We have a similar problem with other magazines but I guess we will be solving them one by one. And if we combine them, we can add a history of what was published when in the series (plus we can add notes on differences in format - Lightspeed's additional novella in the ebook edition for example when we get to that). Annie 19:20, 4 October 2020 (EDT)
Ah, I've only ever seen the '[webzine]'. Thanks for the info on how it works. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2020 (EDT)
It got changed awhile back - a year ago maybe? Makes it easier to spot anomalies in magazine runs (so they can be corrected) and much easier to figure out what we actually have with the multi format magazines. Considering that Clarksworld had been a webzine through its entire run, once we merge the series and do all the back-filling, I expect that the main format will become webzine and then the tp and ebook versions will get their format indicated on the line. Which is why the grid works the way it does -- the data determines the format so we do not need to update it based on manual counts. :) Annie 19:55, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

Amazon-mandated changes implemented

As we discussed in October 2019, the FTC updated its e-commerce disclosure rules a while back. Since our ISBN/ASIN-based links to Amazon "product" pages make us money, we were required to implement certain software changes in order to comply. As I wrote last year:

  • The money that we get is typically in the $5-$15/month range and goes to partially offset server costs. In the grand scheme of things it's inconsequential and we could easily live without it. However, having programmatic access to the Amazon database is a big deal since it enables Fixer to create automatic submissions. They make it much easier to keep up with (at least English-language) new books. If we stop embedding ISFDB IDs in Amazon URLs, we will stop making money for Amazon and they will revoke our access to their database.

The last discussion resulted in the creation of FR 1322, "Display changes requested by Amazon". Earlier this month I received an e-mail from Amazon reminding me about this requirement. I have now implemented the requested changes. As the body of the FR says:

  • The phrasing that we ended up using was "(paid link)" next to ASIN/ISBN links and "As an Amazon Associate ISFDB earns from qualifying purchases” at the bottom of Publication pages.

Our "Amazon Associate" statement also explains why we have a relationship with Amazon. If you think there is a better way to phrase what we are trying to say here, please post your suggestions below. Ahasuerus 21:08, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

I'm not a big fan of "paid link" as that implies they are paying us to have the link. I'd prefer "commissions earned". -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
The language of the Amazon requirement is as follows:
  • A clear disclosure could be as simple as “(paid link)”, “#ad” or “#CommissionsEarned”.
I can certainly change "paid link" to "commissions earned" if the consensus is that it looks better. Ahasuerus 18:04, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Are commissions only earned on US/UK links or the FTC directions only apply to US/UK links? The comment that it only applies to those two is a little ambiguous. If commissions are earned on all, the statement could go above the links (within the Amazon box) to avoid making the left bar wider. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
We only embed ISFDB-specific codes within US and UK URLs at this time. Ahasuerus 18:07, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
For the page bottom statement, I think "ISFDB is an Amazon Associate in order to have access to Amazon's product data. As a result, the ISFDB earns a commission from qualifying purchases." would be better as it states the true priority. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Unfortunately, Amazon is very explicit about the language of this particular disclosure:
  • [t]he Operating Agreement requires that the following statement clearly and conspicuously appears on your Site: “As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.”
The most I could do was change "I" to "ISFDB" and append a clarifying sentence. Ahasuerus 18:09, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
You could still change the order: "ISFDB is an Amazon Associate in order to have access to Amazon's product data. As an Amazon Associate ISFDB earns from qualifying purchases." -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
That's a very good idea! Ahasuerus 20:51, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
The placement of the text when there are multiple ASINs (Amazon does have different ASIN for the same book in some cases - usually cross languages or cross-countries (UK/US) but sometimes even inside of the same Amazon) is also a bit weird (see this one which is a bit of an extreme but still). Annie 00:49, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
That's a very good point. I'll make sure to consolidate duplicate instances. Ahasuerus 18:16, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Maybe for the External ID links, move the notice to the bottom of that section, just after the "Cover art supplied by" part? So it would state "Cover art supplied by ISFDB is an Amazon Associate in order to have access to Amazon's product data. As a result, the ISFDB earns a commission from qualifying purchases." there if there are external IDs or ISBNs. This would make sure that text was prominent (one of the FTC requirements) and very visible on every applicable page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:23, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
It's my understanding that the FTC's visibility requirement means that the disclosure needs to be on the same page as the sponsored link. The requirement was added because some sites used to put their disclosure language on a single page and then link other pages to it. Ahasuerus 18:19, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
That's what I understand, too. My suggestion does that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:33, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Keep in mind that our Publication pages display Amazon-mandated disclosures in three places:
* On the ASIN line (displayed if the pub has an ASIN)
* In the "Amazon Links" drop-down list (displayed if the pub has an ISBN)
* At the bottom of all publication pages even if the pub doesn't have an ASIN or an ISBN
I think that displaying the same long sentence in the ASIN section and the ISBN section would be excessive. Ahasuerus 20:56, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

2020-10-13 changes

Based on the feedback above, I have changed "(paid link)" to "(commissions earned)". I have also changed the statement at the bottom of Publication pages to read "ISFDB is an Amazon Associate in order to have access to Amazon's product data. As an Amazon Associate ISFDB earns from qualifying purchases."

Annie's comment about pubs with multiple ASINs like this one raised a larger issue. The original design didn't account for External IDs with a dozen+ associated Web sites. I'll need to change the software to display them on separate lines. Ahasuerus 13:02, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

A new cleanup report - Suspect Captilization of English titles

A new cleanup report, "Titles with Suspect English Capitalization", has been deployed. It looks for English language title records which capitalize the "always lower case" words listed in Template:PublicationFields:Title:

  • "and", "or", "the", "a", "an", "for", "of", "in", "on", "by", "at", "from", "with", and "to"

The report logic ignores title record which capitalize these words after colons, periods, semicolons and exclamation points, but there are many other scenarios which it can't account for. For this reason the report lets moderators "ignore" title records.

The data, limited to the first 1,000 matches out of 18,000+, will become available tomorrow morning. Once things look stable, I will create a similar cleanup report for publication records. Ahasuerus 17:55, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Yay! This always bugs me, technical editor that I am. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:34, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Would it make sense to ignore words after " or, "? Or run that as a separate report for a faster,specialized review? (Assuming many will be ignored). ../Doug H 11:12, 17 October 2020 (EDT) (p.s. can we put the "always lower case" words in alphabetical order in Template:PublicationFields:Title?)

The Unshakable Winter Blossom Princess - dupe ebook pubs?

Light novels definitely aren't my thing, but I'm struggling to spot what any meaningful difference is between the two ebook pubs for this title - the pub date, publisher, ISBN and ASIN are the same between both. Reported page count in the pub note is different, but that just might be down to the vagaries of ebooks and/or Amazon updating their product description.

What *might* be a contributing factor - and what tipped me off there might be something amiss with these pubs - is that there seem to be 2 different ASINs associated with this pub: B07QT8HN4P and B07QC86NTP, although only the latter is in the database. (Maybe the former is for non-US Amazons?)

The edit history for both of these pubs shows several people with much more ISFDB expertise than me have worked on these, so I'm reluctant to submit edits to delete one and incorporate any additional notes into the other, in case there's some subtlety here that I'm unaware of. ErsatzCulture 16:43, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

It is the same one. The first one was added without ISBN so Fixer served the second one as a new and unknown ISBN a few months later despite the existing ASIN (because the ISBN is missing). The processing moderator did not notice the existing one so we had a duplicate at that point - everyone tries to be careful for things like that but they do slip in now and then. Then later on, Fixer found the ISBN match for the first one and the handling moderator did not notice/act on the duplicate either and simply approved. (this is one of the things moderators should be looking out for when handling these pubUpdates). One of them needs deleting. Annie 17:09, 13 October 2020 (EDT)
BTW: ASIN B07QT8HN4P belongs to a totally different book: Redefining the META at VRMMO Academy Vol. 1. Which does not mean that Amazon had not them mixed up once upon a time. Annie 17:12, 13 October 2020 (EDT)
Personal tools