ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard


Jump to: navigation, search

ISFDB Noticeboards
Before posting to this page, consider whether one of the other 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 Moderator noticeboard.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23

Expanded archive listing

Moderator Availability (edit)
Moderator Current Availability Time Zone
AhasuerusTalk Daily. Mostly working on automated submissions and the software. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Steve Fernie: Albinoflea - Talk Typically late afternoon or late evenings. US Eastern (UTC-4)
Annie Yotova: Annie - Talk Most days, at all kinds of hours. US Mountain/AZ (UTC-7)
Bill: Bluesman - Talk Now retired, so more time; still going to be intermittent. CDN Mountain (UTC-7)
Darrah Chavey: Chavey - Talk Usually a quick visit during the week; a few hours on Saturday. US Central (UTC-6)
Chris Jensen: Chris J - Talk Available sometime everyday. Pacific (UTC+12)
J. Clark: Clarkmci - Talk Intermittent. Most likely day-time (Australian time) Mon. - Fri. Pacific (UTC+10)
Desmond Warzel: Dwarzel - Talk Most days, wildly varying hours. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Dirk P Broer: Dirk P Broer - Talk Daily, during impossible hours. Netherlands (UTC+2)
Jens: Hitspacebar - Talk Sporadically, a few hours per month, mostly on weekends. Germany (UTC+2)
JLaTondre - Talk Intermittent, mainly evenings. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Kevin Pulliam: Kpulliam - Talk Often missing for weeks and months - Best to email US Central (UTC-6)
Kraang - Talk Most evenings CDN Eastern (UTC-5)
Dominique Fournier: Linguist - Talk Off and on most days, with occasional blackouts (like now); can help on French or other outlandish titles. France (UTC+1)
Marc Kupper: Marc KupperTalk Low but not quite zero US Pacific (UTC-8)
MartyD - Talk Limited. Computer problems. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Mhhutchins - Talk Self-moderating only US Eastern (UTC-5)
Nihonjoe - Talk Most days, various times US Mountain (UTC-7/UTC-6)
Pete Young: PeteYoung - Talk Most days, although time zone frequently varies. Thailand (UTC+7)
Ron Kihara: Rkihara - Talk Too busy to do much editing, but I try to check the boards daily. US Pacific (UTC-8)
Ron Maas Rtrace - Talk Off to Worldcon. Limited access until 8/22. US Eastern (UTC-5)
Rudolf: Rudam - Talk Intermittent, mostly on weekends. Germany (UTC+2)
Christian Steinbacher: Stonecreek - Talk Sporadically from Mid-July on (vacation). Germany (UTC+2)
Tpi - Talk Intermittent, mostly evenings. EET (UTC+2)
Willem Hettinga: Willem H. - Talk Vacation. Back on September 8 Netherlands (UTC+2)
Currently unavailable


Adding an Introduction an author wrote to his record

Hi, I am new at this and am trying to add the Introduction "In the Night-Garden of Dowling Delights" (pages 11-14) that Danel Olson wrote for _The Night Shop: Tales for the Lonely Hours_ by Terry Dowling (hardback, Cemetery Dance, 2017, ISBN 978-1-58767-532-4). I see how to edit/correct works under "essays" that are already at Danel Olson's bibliography, but I do not see what to click to add essays like this Introduction. Could somebody help? Thanks, Seekbeauty

Hello, you should go to the publication record that correspond to the book where is the text to add. Then use the "edit This Pub" link on the left of the screen (under "Editing Tools"). A new screen will open where you'll be able to enter the introduction by clicking on the "Add Title" button that is located in the "Regular Titles" section. Remember to select the ESSAY type and disambiguate it if its title is generic (along the lines of Introduction (The Night Shop: Tales for the Lonely Hours)). Hauck 11:36, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

Moderation process complaint

Earlier this month I received an e-mail complaint about our moderation process. After reviewing recent discussions with new editors, it looks like the vast majority of them are fine, but there are times when we do not follow what is stated in Moderator Qualifications:

  • A moderator will often have to explain to an editor why an edit is incorrect or needs to be changed in some way. Doing this in a supportive and friendly way is critical to making the ISFDB a successful cooperative venture. Moderators should be able to manage these communications without offending editors, particularly newcomers.

Granted, occasionally we get contributors who can be difficult to deal with for various reasons. However, I'd like to emphasize that we need to communicate with all editors in a supportive manner as described above. If an editor becomes abusive (thankfully, it has only happened a few times in the last 12 years), please post on the Moderator Noticeboard and disciplinary action will be taken based on our blocking policy.

As a great philosopher once said, "With great power comes great responsibility" :-) Ahasuerus 12:49, 12 April 2018 (EDT)

Meghan McCarron

There are two author records for Meghan McCarron, except one is misspelled. The correct entry is here; the incorrect entry is here. The only proof I have is that I have the ebook Feeling Very Strange, and could send a screenshot which shows the correct-name attribution. Could these be merged, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XtinaS (talkcontribs) .

As Feeling Very Strange is verified by an active editor, I will point that editor to this discussion. We credit per the publication so need to double check if it is a typo in the database (likely since you say the ebook uses Meghan) or it is that way in the publication (not unheard of for publishers to make corrections between different formats). Thanks for pointing this out. By the way, when adding a new topic, please use the "+" at the top of a wiki page which will allow you to add a new heading. You should also sign your posts by clicking the signature button (next to last above the edit window) or typing --~~~~. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2018 (EDT)
Just a typo, fixed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 12:32, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

The Hacker and the Ants

I have a copy of Rudy Rucker's The Hacker and the Ants that was verified by an inactive user. My copy is printed in Canada, there is no reference in the existing entry to printing location. My plan is to submit a transient verification and add a note to the existing publication stating the situation. ../Doug H 10:45, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future, Volume IV

I have a copy verified by an inactive user. Cannot find any reference to it being published in 1989 instead of 1988. Maybe not such a big deal, still bothers me tho. --Spacecow 05:14, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

What does your book say with regard to dates? Locus says Jun '88, so if the book says nothing, we could certainly use that and cite Locus as the source. --MartyD 07:06, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
Locus says Jun 1988 for the US (Bridge) edition. The link (and this question) is for the New Era (UK) edition... In Locus, the New Era is under it and says (Dec ’90, reprint). Looking at the history of the series, the New Era ones are later than the US ones - sometimes by a few years. Either this specific PV was really bad with his dates or they were entering later printings or something else is up here... Annie 12:41, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I cannot find any year except for a "Copyright © 1988 by Bridge Publications, Inc", which... refers to the Bridge edition? and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the New Era edition? --Spacecow 17:22, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
So why do you think it is actually a 1988 edition? Copyright statements for first editions are not exactly meaningful for reprint dates. WorldCat does not give a date (the ©1988 is just the copyright), Locus puts it all the way into late 1990. ISFDB seems to be the only source for a 1989 date (and noone seems to have a 1988 one). Looking at the series as a whole, I cannot find anyone giving an early date. Even Interzone's received books does not list it until March 1991 (as received in late Nov 1990) - which may not mean that much but with all the other data available, I am not even sure that this book made it out during 1989 at all (let alone 1988).
Are there any advertisements and/or notices in that book to help us try to date it? I hope that someone from the other side of the pond will also chime in but as the things stand, a date of 1988 sounds almost impossible. I do not think that any of the early volumes had their New Era editions in the same year as the Bridge editions (but I may be wrong). Feel free to edit the Notes to add all that information about the date if you want to :) Annie 18:16, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I wasn't really speaking for it being a 1988 edition, more questioning it being a 1989 edition. I did as Annie said and looked through the advertisements at the end of the book and there is one interesting one speaking of "L. Ron Hubbard's Illustrators of the Future Contest" which at the bottom has a "Copyright © 1990 L. Ron Hubbard Library. All rights reserved" - does that imply both 1988 and 1989 is impossible? Thanks for the constructive feedback. I am still very new to this and I realise you guys are far better than me at hunting down stuff like this. I wasn't even aware of Locus. --Spacecow 15:34, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
Your initial message was talking about it being a 1988 edition - thus me asking why :)
Now, technically that © 1990 in an advertisement may mean a very late 1989 printing (if it is for a planned but not yet out book or something like that) but considering the rest of the data we seem to uncover, it points to a proper 1990 (or later) printing for me. If you decide to reset the date to 1990, I am not going to object. The month may be in question (Locus says December, Interzone got the book in November (but we go by publishing date and not by when the book may have been actually out) - I'd say that it still can be December but in any case 1990-00-00 is still better than what we have; or you can do 1990-12-00 and add a note explaining the credit (Locus1), we will be all set). What do you think? Annie 16:04, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
I agree. The combination of the 1990 on the ad and Locus' Dec 1990 is sufficient for a 1990-12-00 citing Locus as the source (and I'd include a note about the copyright date on the ad). --MartyD 18:27, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Crimson Fairy Tale submission

In this submission, the warnings pointed out that 13 digit ISBN and pre-2005 date. There is no indication of printing on the copyright page, so I when I submit the image I will update the date to 0000-00-00 and add a note regarding the date in the Notes. ../Doug H 11:10, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Need a volunteer

I will be away for a week starting tomorrow night and it seems like the 5 holds I have won't get resolved before that (I had been staying away from anything that looked prolonged this week but these turned out to be longer than I expected). Any moderator that is willing to take over so they do not need to wait until next Sunday for me to come back? Or I can just release them of course and let someone else just handle but thought I would ask first Annie 22:58, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

If you and I can coordinate, I can take them. I have another one on hold for verifier-checking, too. A few more talk pages to monitor will fit right in. I'm in U.S. Eastern time and am at work as I write this. I can check back in +2.5 hours (~ noon) and again later this afternoon (say +7.5 hours, around 17:00). Or let me know another specific time (but I might not see your note until +2.5 hours). --MartyD 09:43, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
I am around for the next hour or so so ping me when you are here and I will release them for you. And I will be around later as well :) Thanks Marty! Annie 12:02, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
Have a good vacation. Hope you enjoy. --Vasha 18:01, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
10 pm, Annie. And I do hope you enjoy your vacation, too. :-) --MartyD 18:26, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
10 pm it is then. And thanks both - I am planning to.:) Annie 18:40, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

Artist Terry Maloney / Jose Rubios / Jarr

I've been pointed to documentation that New Worlds/Nova Publications cover artists Terry Maloney and Jose Rubios are one and the same, specifically:

  • Mike Ashley's Transformations: The Story of the Science-fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970 has an entry on Terry Maloney where the link is made;
  • Phil Stephensen-Payne here (see under "TERRY");
  • As a contemporary reference, in Science Fantasy #43 (1960), in an article on 'The First Decade' of the magazine, Kenneth Johns (Ken Bulmer and John Newman) says: "... Jose Rubios, the name used on fantasy work by New Worlds cover artist Terry.";
  • Also, in a completely irrelevant if oddly coincidental detail, there's a Spanish heavy metal band called Jose Rubio's Nova Era, not that I'm suggesting this as a bibliographic source. ;)

Also that Terry Maloney and the artist Jarr are similarly connected:

  • again, Mike Ashley and PSP as above,
  • that Kenneth Johns piece talks about "an intriguing painting by the new team signing themselves "Jarr"" but doesn't identify who that "team" might be.

Based on this information I propose making Jose Rubios a pseudonym of Maloney, but I'll exercise caution about doing the same for 'Jarr' unless other editors have more knowledge to share. Input appreciated! PeteYoung 20:06, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

Our standard for pseudonym disclosure is "publicly available sources". Ashley, Stephensen-Payne and Science Fantasy all count as publicly available sources, so we can use them safely. The pseudonym is also mentioned in Strange Highways: Reading Science Fantasy, 1950-1967 by John Boston and ‎Damien Broderick.
For Jarr, I would suggest adding a note to the author record with the Science Fantasy tidbit. Boston and Broderick are not sure who the members of the "team" were either. Ahasuerus 20:51, 10 May 2018 (EDT)
Interesting. You noticed that Jarr ~ JR ~ Jose Rubios ? But then, Jarr might be Sydney Jordan and Jose Rubios (J and R). Horzel 17:04, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

Fixer's AddPubs - 2018-05-16

Fixer has submitted a few dozen AddPubs for April 2018. Almost all of them are indie books, which means that the publisher name will often be blank in the submission. Please check Look Inside before approving them. TIA. Ahasuerus 21:53, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

Martin J. Gidron vs. Martin Berman-Gorvine

Looking for a volunteer moderator to change Martin J. Gidron's canonical name to Martin Berman-Gorvine and swap his VTs. Ahasuerus 10:42, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

I will change it. It is one of the easy ones so should not take that long. Annie 12:34, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
Done. I left the awards where they were (they go to the title they are awarded to, not to whatever parent it may have). All data and titles are shifted. Annie 12:47, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:52, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Magazine cover date reminder

Three times in the past few months I've found newly-added magazine using Amazon's publication date instead of the cover date. It's a mistake that the moderator(s) who approved those submissions could have spotted--so, just a reminder to be watching for that. --Vasha 14:23, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

{Contento1} and other linking templates

Please see my last hour's submission (for reference only) Cancelled/Rejected #3830699.

Concerning {Contento1}, there must be some clerical error (mine, or in our documentation of linking templates) or coding error. --Pwendt|talk 15:49, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
(oops, provide adequate link) --Pwendt|talk 17:21, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

It is just {{Contento}}. (see this one Looks like a help page error :) Annie 17:25, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Can't edit 'Valley of the Pretenders'

re: I uploaded image VLLFPRTNDR1942.jpg and tried to add image URL to the chapbook record, but when submit the edit get 'Error: Invalid Publication Type.' even though I didn't edit the pub type. To confirm, I tried submitting an edit with absolutely no changes, but got same error. The Pub Type, 'Chapbook', looks OK to me. Any ideas? Thx. Markwood 22:36, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

I created a submission with no edits a minute ago and it went through without any issues. Could you please try a full page reload (usually Control-F5), when on the Edit Pub page? Ahasuerus 23:09, 31 May 2018 (EDT)

I recently started listing the ebook version of this book, but because the contents are woefully incomplete I didn't notice it. I would like to delete its contents, and then when I done listing all 120 stories from the ebook and then just import the contents to the softcover, without having to retype everything. Good idea, bad idea? MLB 21:55, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

100 Word Horrors: An Anthology of Horror Drabbles

I recently started listing the ebook version of 100 Word Horrors, but because the contents are woefully incomplete I didn't notice it. I would like to delete its contents, and then when I done listing all 120 stories from the ebook and then just import the contents to the softcover, without having to retype everything. Good idea, bad idea? MLB 21:58, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

You do not need to remove them - as long as they are merged successfully, they won’t get reimported when you import from the ebook. But if you would rather not worry about the merges(you may need to worry about delete in this case though), go ahead and do what you are proposing - just make sure you add a moderator note explaining what you are doing on all submissions. The only problem will be if one of the authors have no other titles and you do the delete before the adding - we will lose the data from the author page.
What I would do in your shoes is to add the ones in the ebook, do the merges and then import to bring in the missing titles. But up to you. Annie 22:15, 1 June 2018 (EDT)
If I was you I would not delete anything. Merging will combine all information from both records, and also show any differences in case you need to recheck anything. Note that when you are viewing the publication record you can click "Check for duplicate titles" in the left-hand menu and it will give you all the duplicates in the book at once. --Vasha 22:45, 1 June 2018 (EDT)
Or find a friendly moderator to do the merges. :) Annie 22:48, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

The Nightmare Reader Volume One

I'd like to change the cover artist of this from Ian Miller to Alan Lee. Alan Lee is credited here (just cancel the shockwave download). I have no idea where the Ian Miller credit comes from, it's not Ian Miller's style. Horzel 16:25, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

Need merge not variant? (One-eye)

As I understand our guidelines the variant "Little One-eye", etc T2040785, should be merged into the parent title. The two titles do not show up in the Check for duplicates, probably because I am missing something or because the variant relationship interferes with that. --Pwendt|talk 21:36, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Was this taken care of already? (the link is dead) Annie 14:55, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

Response to Data Blanking

It saddens me to have to ask this, but I need to request a response to a moderator who has taken it upon himself to blank data added by others. The data in question is catalog numbers from secondary sources (Reginald, Bleiler, etc.). The editor in question objected to my and others addition of such data back in 2015. At that time, I started an R&S discussion which ultimately suggested a compromise of adding this data below the {{BREAK}} tag. There was no consensus to prohibit this data. Now, that editor has taken it upon himself to delete this data when he finds it. Upon discovering that an edit of mine had been blanked, I began a a new discussion again asking whether such data should be disallowed. After waiting a week in which there was but one response, and again no consensus to prohibit the data, I left a note on this moderator's talk page notifying him of my intention to restore the data. I also suggested that if he still felt the data should be prohibited that he get a consensus to that effect from the community before blanking any more data. Unfortunately, he ignored my advice and has blanked data on at least three publications ([1], [2] and [3]). I don't know why he feels his judgement supersedes policy and consensus. Our Blocking Policy specifically calls out data blanking as one of the behaviors that is considered vandalism and results in a block. I don't think the intent of the data blanking is vandalism, but I do think that disagreements with consensus cannot be handled by editors ignoring the consensus. Especially when doing so results in the destruction of the edits of others. It's not that I want this editor blocked, but he needs to be convinced that he can't delete data merely because he doesn't like it. I've tried handling this through discussion which clearly hasn't worked. I'd like to ask the other moderators and especially the administrators to step in and help resolve this. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:49, 13 June 2018 (EDT)

I see two aspects here. The first one is substantive, i.e. whether these numbers and IDs should be kept. Personally, I don't feel strongly about them, but I agree that in certain cases they can be of value. Some of them have a meaning beyond a simple sequential number. For example, Reginald adds special characters to his IDs under certain circumstances: "15841A" for a retitled version of "15841" and so on.
Ideally, we would move these IDs to a separate field. Unfortunately, the recently added External ID field is not a good match because it was specifically tailored to link to external Web side, which doesn't apply in these types of cases. Perhaps at some point we'll create a different field for them.
The second aspect is procedural. Whatever our personal opinions of the value of certain bibliographical elements are, it's very important to be extra careful when deleting any kind of data that other editors feel strongly about. Very few things make people as upset as the destruction of the fruits of their labor. If we let this happen on a regular basis, contributors will simply stop contributing and the project will become dormant. We don't want that to happen, so we need to make sure that previously entered data is not deleted unless we have very solid policy reasons to zap it. Ahasuerus 22:28, 13 June 2018 (EDT)
I second this second. I have no opinion about where these specific examples fall on the spectrum of clutter to high-value, but I do think we should not be deleting anything human-entered and factually correct unless policy says the data is out/not to be captured, the data is redundant, or policy explicitly permits the deletion (as is the case with certain author data). Moderators should not do it, and moderators should not accept non-moderator submissions that do it. --MartyD 11:32, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
I agree with Marty and Ahasuerus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:55, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
I obviously agree here as well (as I was the person that responded in the other thread). I am not particularly attached to these numbers but if someone bothers to add them, deleting them is just uncalled for. It actually always made me wonder why the secondary verifications are just radio-boxes and do not have a field next to them for IDs, notes and what's not - we have the real estate there, it will be out of the way and it will be a lot more useful that seeing that someone "verified" something for some editors). Annie 17:02, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
The main problem is our secondary verification sources vary quite a bit. Some, e.g. Reginald and Bleier, have stable IDs. Some, e.g. Locus 1, have unstable URLs which change over time. Some, e.g. Tuck and the Clutes, do not have IDs. (Not to mention that the Clutes do not include publication details except for "US/UK/etc".) Ahasuerus 10:10, 21 June 2018 (EDT)
I don't like removing data - if it is not offensive, illegal, out of policy or an advertisement and someone bothers to add it to the book, then it is important for them - we do not control the format of notes or the contents of them and there is always the good old BREAK if the things get too long. And in this case we had judged that these sources are important enough (so we have secondary verifications for them) so having some information (page numbers, IDs and so on) so a new editor can find them easily in the book sounds like a good idea to me. Annie 17:02, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
I'm going to re-add the data that was blanked and and leave a note referencing this discussion. Hopefully that will be the enough to stop it from being deleted again. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:58, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Deletion of Non-genre titles

On a related subject to the last discussion... Currently there is no real agreement as to whether to include all stories in an anthology that's only partly genre contents. See Including nongenre titles in partial contents for an inconclusive discussion. I'm not going to reopen that discussion here, because the issues are multiple and if we wanted to treat "genre" anthologies differently from "non-genre" ones, there'd be a whole lot of hard-to-classify ones. What I did want to comment on was the fact that, due to differing opinions on this subject, there are anthologies currently in the database which some people would want to include all the contents of, and other people not. And there are cases where contents have been deleted even though it isn't at all clear that policy supports doing so. (An example I can reference is Tricks and Treats, whose complete contents I had verified; I later found that all non-genre contents had been deleted, without notifying me.)

I'm certainly not opposed to deleting non-genre titles, and I've done a lot of it. I try to be a good citizen and not just consult verifiers, but also consult people who added unverified anthologies if I know who they are; and if the situation is doubtful, post a query on the boards. In the past, I thought that it was standard practice to not include any nongenre titles that weren't by "above the threshold" authors, even if published in an otherwise genre anthology. I still don't put them in when adding new anthologies, but in the past I also deleted some that were in existing publications--I stopped doing that when I learned that it's not clear whether or not that's standard policy, and I apologize to the people whose work I deleted then. My point is that I hope other people will also be conservative about removing content until (if ever) we have clear guidelines. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 17:34, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Editing submitted notes for clarity

I'd like to revisit the issue of Notes clarity which I raised a few months ago.

Ours is a multilingual project which uses English in Notes and Synopsis fields. Given the nature of what we do here, we can't expect flawless grammar in Notes, but we can try to aim for precision and clarity. Some submissions that I have seen over the last year were clearly well intentioned, but the results were almost incomprehensible.

I would like to encourage all moderators to review submitted Notes for clarity. If you find that they are wordy, imprecise or opaque, please don't hesitate to ask the submitter for clarification, break up long sentences, edit for clarity, etc. We don't want to hurt our editors' egos unnecessarily, but if we were to let our Notes become so tangled that they couldn't be readily parsed, it would be even worse. Ahasuerus 23:28, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

I completely agree, notes should be structured and understandable, but apparently some mods disagree.--Wolfram.winkler 04:04, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
Clarity and "being structured" are two different things though - and in a lot of cases strictly structured notes end up being a mess (by having too many irrelevant fields and/or requiring too much clarifications). Every editor has their own style and that's one of the strengths of the project. Enforcing a certain way to write the notes is just a bad idea. Ensuring that someone that does not use the same template can understand them is important (and what we are talking about here); enforcing or requiring a structure is counterproductive. Annie 13:48, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
I try to make all of mine understandable. I think all notes should be as clear as possible. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:40, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
Structured and understandable belong together. I wish everyone (mod) would be so tolerant to allow an own style, but that's not the case.--Wolfram.winkler 04:40, 6 July 2018 (EDT)
It would be helpful to give an example of an incomprehensible note.--Wolfram.winkler 03:43, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Hauck's withdrawal

As per User:Hauck's decision to stop being a moderator and withdraw from the project, the moderator flag has been removed from his account. His account remains active in case he decides to contribute again. Ahasuerus 13:37, 29 June 2018 (EDT)

Sad to see him go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:34, 29 June 2018 (EDT)
Deplorable! Rudam 07:27, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
Agreed, very unfortunate. I hope he will have a change of heart. --MartyD 08:09, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
Yes indeed, sad to see him go... are we privy to know his reason/s? PeteYoung 08:22, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
It's always regrettable when a long-time contributor decides to leave the project. In this case, it was apparently a gradual accumulation of issues. Over time, Hauck became unhappy with Community Portal, Moderator Noticeboard and R&S discussions and processes, which he described as a "charade" and a "kangaroo court", so he stopped participating. In April, there were complaints about the way we guide new editors, at which point he stopped working on that as well.
That left his work on cleanup reports and self-moderating. The former prompted this discussion of his deletion of records accepted by other moderators without discussion or notification. His position was that "If a moderator choose to accept texts that are outside our ROA, these texts are fair game for deletion without notice (the more so if the records are highly visible because of sloppy moderating). There is nothing to discuss in the case of the correction of errors, be they deliberate or not." I pointed out that we can't run this project if moderators delete records accepted by other moderators without communicating with each other and with the submitting editors and that it would have to stop. At that point he changed his moderator status to "self-moderating only", but then changed his mind and decided to withdraw from the project. Ahasuerus 09:11, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
A shame and a great loss, if this turns out to be irrevocable. We will miss his encyclopaedic knowledge of French SF, among other things. Linguist 09:26, 1 July 2018 (EDT).
Yes, it is a shame. If he just would have been able (or will come) to communicate on such vital matters, this just would not have been necessary. But it turned out that several of the publications he deleted turned out to include genre titles, when he was of the one-sided opinion that they were not. There also was no word of regret when he was made aware of these facts. Stonecreek 11:24, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
Communication is typically the most important part of collaborative projects. It can be time-consuming and sometimes frustrating, but if the communication process breaks down, Bad Things (tm) invariably happen to the project. Ahasuerus 11:55, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
I understand his decision completely, I feel similarly, the permanent stress with moderators who manipulate data and tolerate wrong data is unacceptable.
Hauck is one of a few mods that have the perspective.--Wolfram.winkler 03:46, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
If there is an entry that has had data "manipulated" (not sure what that means) or that has wrong data, bring it up on the Rules and Standards or Community page for discussion. We certainly don't want incorrect information here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:43, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
There is no reason for further discussions. Manipulate = change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose (source: 03:11, 6 July 2018 (EDT)
If we (as moderators) don't know where a problem is, we can't fix it. If you know of something that should be fixed, then there is absolutely a reason for further discussion. None of us (as far as I know) are mind readers, so please make a new section and bring up the concern if there is actually something that needs addressing. Playing your cards close to the vest helps no one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:37, 6 July 2018 (EDT)
It has already been discussed enough, without results.--Wolfram.winkler 04:00, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Sansanfeng's submissions "unheld"

I had Sansanfeng's submissions on hold while we were discussing webzine eligibility. Now that they are officially "in", I have removed the hold. Please feel free to approve/massage them if you feel qualified. My Korean is almost as weak as my Venusian, so I am not the best person to handle them. Ahasuerus 20:02, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

I've approved the one that was obviously in (the 14C thingie) and put the others back on hold - verifying is really speculative fiction webzine or just publishes occasional SF story. Annie 10:50, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

Held submissions - changing publisher credits to Orbit (US)

Does anyone have any objections to (or other insights about) my accepting the submissions I have held in the queue for a while that change various Orbit-related publisher credits to "Orbit (US)"? Most of the PVs involved have not responded to my inquiries. I did get two responses, one in favor and one who prefers just "Orbit" as stated in the book. I tried email to Bluesman -- who is involved as PV or a secondary source verifier on many of them -- with no response at all, so I can't tell if the email made it or not. But I've had them held for long enough and want to do something definitive with them. FWIW, the 978-0-316-xxxxx-x ISBN group is assigned to Hatchette Book Group USA, so the change seems correct to me. Thanks. --MartyD 11:45, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

Orbit is one of the special cases where the decision had been made a very long time ago to use the Orbit(US) for the American publisher despite the fact that the books say just Orbit - when there are multiple publishers with the same name, we need the difference so the books can split into proper lists. :) Maybe that second PV should be reminded that and asked again based on this information? Other from that, they look like belonging to the US Orbit indeed. Annie 13:37, 8 July 2018 (EDT)
No, it'll be ok. He didn't object, just expressed a preference based on what's in the book. I do not expect any an issue there with a "Orbit (US)" decision. --MartyD 13:55, 8 July 2018 (EDT)
As long as the primary verifiers have been notified and they do not object, I think it would be OK to accept the submissions. If a currently inactive verifier comes back later and wants to change it back to "Orbit", the breadcrumb trail will still be available. Ahasuerus 14:45, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

Submission of novel

My fantasy novel, Bumpy Night on the Walk of Fame, was just released as an e-book by Uncial Press of Oregon. How do I go about submitting it to get it listed in ISFDB, other than getting permission from my publisher? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lorwish (talkcontribs) . 20:19, 11 July 2018 (EST)

Help:How to enter a new novel should help you out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:26, 11 July 2018 (EDT)

Andre Norton - Forerunners Universe

As I was unable to find a decent cataloging or timeline for Norton's FORERUNNERS UNIVERSE here, (Goodreads doesn't have it either. ) I made one myself. I did consult Andre Norton Books but that was done in 1995 and Maureen O'Brien tried to shoehorn almost everything Norton wrote up to then in a single timeline. She didn't explain where she gets the majority of the dates she sticks to the listed books and apparently has not responded to contact requests for many years. That timeline just isn't very realistic imo and there are many things I don't agree with.

I have just uploaded my Timeline and Reading order for Andre Norton's FORERUNNERS UNIVERSE. I finished it yesterday and submitted to BAEN in case they would be interested. I joined 57 titles in this timeline, many of which ISFDB has listed as separate series or stand-alone novels. Most of the series that are listed here I agree with, some I don't. The titles that belong in the Space Age / Forerunners Universe should imo also be grouped together under that header.

I've included my reasoning and documentation so you can verify that I've done my homework on this. You can see the graphic timeline HERE.

If the moderators think this makes sense, please use this to update the Andre Norton page. Thank you. SF&F-fan 16:40, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

One technical thing here: can you please not add /* */ around the title - the system uses these for the summaries that allow someone to jump to a specific topic from the history/watch lists and when you have them as well, it messes up that capability a bit.
If you mailed Baen, should we give them a few days to see if they respond? And in the meantime, that will give everyone a few days/weeks to look at that and see if we can spot an issue in that series? Anniemod 16:47, July 18, 2018
How about we try to crowd-source it? Ask on Usenet, Goodreads and Reddit to see if there are any objections to the proposed timeline?
My immediate concern is with the standalones. Some of them have certain elements which arguably make them a part of the same universe. However, if I recall correctly (which I may not since it's been a long time), the hints were subtle. Ahasuerus 11:34, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
I am all for crowd-sourcing. Someone needs to take lead on that so I guess we need a volunteer? Annie 13:23, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
I have posted queries on rec.arts.sf.written and /r/printSF, but I don't have a Goodreads account. Ahasuerus 16:07, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) The feedback has been limited so far.


  • There always seemed to be too many little odd inconsistencies and unique aspects for them to actually be in the same universe. Similar ones, yes, but they didn’t seem to be in the same one.


  • I don't think that her post-apocalyptic novels can fit into the Solar Queen's past. While that past certainly did have atomic wars, they didn't destroy civilization to that extent. There simply isn't enough time to recover to that level.

Ahasuerus 11:01, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

Another comment by Joe Bernstein:

  • [snip] <Warlock>, 1960-1973, first compiled as such 2002
  • [snip] <Ice Crown>, 1970, <Forerunner>, 1981, and <Forerunner: The Second Venture>, 1985

[snip] My <Locus> / Contento indices claim that the six books listed above form the "Forerunner" series. Clute in the EoSF almost agrees, omitting <Ice Crown>. Neither is correct. Each of these books (like many others by Norton) has a single protagonist. <Forerunner> and <Forerunner: The Second Venture> share theirs, Simsa. <Storm over Warlock>'s Shann Lantee meets <Ordeal in Otherwhere>'s Charis Nordholm during the latter book. A character in <Forerunner Foray> (not its protagonist, Ziantha) seems to be their son. Simsa's two share no close link with the <Warlock> three, nor has any of the five much to do with <Ice Crown> (protagonist Roane Hulme). What does link them all is actually a common (extremely vague) future history, which according to Clute pervades Norton's science fiction. Thus while <Ice Crown> refers to "Forerunner"s, <Forerunner> itself, in a cover blurb, names <The Time Traders>, 1958, and <Galactic Derelict>, 1959, as its predecessors. Much of <Forerunner Foray> is set in a place whose name <Locus> / Contento give to a series consisting of <Catseye>, 1961, <Judgment on Janus>, 1963, and <Night of Masks>, 1964, but not including <Victory on Janus>, 1966, which apparently shares its protagonist with <Judgment> ... You get the idea.

Ahasuerus 18:15, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

Format Column

About a week ago while I was submitting books I started to get stange things coming up in the format column after I had submitted books and was checking the data. One time I had all the info from the roll over button. After a time things came right except for the format type, it now extends into the next column. Could someone check please. It needs to be made to fit the column --Chris J 18:51, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

I suspect it may have to do with changing the way mouse-over bubbles work. Do you happen to have an example? Which browser are you using? (Firefox seems to have more trouble with formatting tables than other browsers.) Ahasuerus 13:38, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
I'm using chrome. See if this link shows anything on your computer Out of the Aeons --Chris J 18:13, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
Everything looks OK on my end under Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer. Can anyone else see anything unusual with this title? Ahasuerus 18:54, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
Looks ok on Firefox, Chrome and IE 11 on my Windows laptop and on Safari on iPhone. Chris, can you do a screenshot and upload it in the wiki so we can see what you are seeing and try to figure out what is wrong? Annie 19:29, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
I think the problem is because I have the screen size zoomed up as my eyes aren't what they used to be. When I go back to normal size everything is alright --Chris J 21:39, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
The reason for the format value extending into the next column instead of being wrapped is the "display: inline-block;" in the "tooltip" CSS class. It can be removed from the class and the tooltip will work without it. Jens Hitspacebar 03:59, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
Thanks, I'll take a look. Ahasuerus 06:57, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
Fixed, thanks! Chris, could you please confirm that formats now wrap on your end? Ahasuerus 07:25, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

(undent) Pages that have a transliteration are now not displaying correctly. See 674484, 228522 or even the main page. It is inserting a break after the question mark (at least on Chrome). -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

I also noticed a few minutes ago the appearance of breaks after the question marks : am I the only one to see a display problem here or here ? Linguist 09:42, 21 July 2018 (EDT).
I'm seeing the same thing. I just described it badly. For titles, it is putting a break after the question mark. For names, it is putting a break before the name. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
Ok, then the solution is to put the "display" property back into the "tooltip" CSS class, but with a different value: "display: inline;" (not "inline-block"). I just checked this with the examples mentioned above on Firefox, and with that value they look good. Jens Hitspacebar 10:19, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
Firefox and Chrome appear to handle the current layout differently. Investigating... Ahasuerus 11:05, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
There seems to be some progress as far as the display is concerned ! But the transliteration bubble now covers the name or the title, so that you can't click on it ! Linguist 12:07, 21 July 2018 (EDT).
A new patch was installed as 12:01pm server time. Could you please force a full page reload (Control-F5 in most browsers) and see what happens? If it's still not working right, could you link to the problematic record? Ahasuerus 12:11, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
Here, for instance, but I think the problem is the same everywhere. Linguist 12:16, 21 July 2018 (EDT).
I have tried the publication page that you linked using Chrome, Firefox and IE 11. The mouseover bubbles appear to the right of each link and the links are clickable. Which browser are you using (including the version) and what is the zoom level, please? Ahasuerus 12:30, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
The problem seems to have solved itself after I switched the computer off and on again (although it hadn't disappeared after my reloading the page). Sorry about the hassle. My browser (Firefox, 16.0.2) is certainly getting a bit old… Thanks for your concern. Linguist 15:18, 21 July 2018 (EDT).
Spoke too fast. It seems to have come back… Linguist 15:30, 21 July 2018 (EDT).
Ouch! Considering the fact that the current version of Firefox is 61, Firefox 16, which is 6 years old at this point, will have issues with all kinds of things out there. For example, the security framework which we added recently only works with Firefox 23 and above. And it's not just the ISFDB software -- the whole Web increasingly relies on the same security framework. Any chance that you may be able to upgrade? Ahasuerus 15:48, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

[unindent] I suppose I'll have to eventually. I kept putting it off as, not being very technically-minded, I found it a pain in the… neck rather than anything else. Linguist 15:55, 21 July 2018 (EDT).

The good news is that upgrading Firefox is not as painful as it could be in the past. Some, if not all, of the add-ons may need to be updated, but otherwise browser upgrades are fairly straightforward these days. I would still recommend exporting your bookmarks as HTML prior to the upgrade -- better safe than sorry :) Ahasuerus 16:10, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
P.S. Once Firefox is up to date, you can simply tell it to keep itself current. That way you will be getting all security and other updates automatically. I also recommend the security add-on NoScript, but it may be a tad challenging for non-technical people. Ahasuerus 16:12, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
My problem is fixed. Thanks --Chris J 17:01, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
Great! Ahasuerus 17:31, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Nightmares & Dreamscapes and Night Shift

When the audio books/audible books were published for these 2 Stephen King collections, they were both split into 3 (N&D vol 1-3 and Gray Matter/Graveyard Shift/The Lawnmower Man) -- each audible / audio collection only contained about 1/2 of the stories from the original collection.

My question is should they be varianted from the original collection or listed as their own collections, since they're not just variants of the originals.. Susan O'Fearna 16:34, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

When a novel is split into 2 volumes, we variant both parts under the novel itself. So I'd say that the same applies to these collections - they are not new collections but a split one - just add notes to the titles so it is clear that the collection is split. Annie 17:05, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
Thanks Susan O'Fearna 03:02, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Audible adaptation of Locke & Key

Should I try to add the full-cast adaptation of Joe Hill's Locke & Key ? Susan O'Fearna 03:02, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Nope. Someone reading a story is ok; full cast drama is a bit out of scope. I remember asking the same awhile ago around Doctor Who and I still think that this is a good distinction. :) Annie 04:00, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
That's right, full cast adaptations are currently not eligible for inclusion. Ahasuerus 14:24, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Title type mismatches

Based on a recent discussion on my Talk page, I have compiled the following list of title type mismatches between VTs and their parent titles which appear to be invalid:

Calling for volunteers to reconcile the affected titles.

I will create a separate post on the Community Portal to discuss the 11 mismatches that seem to be legitimate based on the current rules. Ahasuerus 14:23, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

How do I update my entry?

Greetings. I have just discovered that I have an entry here, and I'd like to make a couple of changes to it. How do I go about doing this? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alsirois (talkcontribs) .

Go to your author page & click the edit link to the upper right of the listing. See Help:Screen:AuthorData for a description of the fields and desired content. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

'Salem's Lot needs to be a variant of (see contents) not just the novel ... how to fid ? Susan O'Fearna 18:09, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Step 1: Change the type of the publication to collection and add a new reference title from the Collection type
Step 2 - variant the new title to this one.
Let me know if you want me to do it? Annie 18:25, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

HTML support when rejecting a submission

As per FR 77, the "Rejection Reason" field has been modified to support HTML. Ahasuerus 21:09, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume Four

I believe this listing needs corrections, but the PV is no longer active. I've got a copy of the book as described except the publisher is "Book Club Associates". On its copyright page is "by arrangement with Victor Gollancz". OK if I correct the listing … or should I leave it alone and create a new listing for the title? Thx Markwood 20:05, 18 August 2018 (EDT)

He's not completely inactive (his last activity date is 2 weeks ago). You could try leaving him a note and also using the Wiki's mail-sending feature to contact him about it. Given the uncertain note about possible book club edition, I'd think he would have noticed a "Book Club Associates". So if you don't hear from him, I'd err on the side of caution and make a separate record, adding cross-reference notes to both. --MartyD 06:53, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Personal tools