User talk:Ahasuerus


Jump to: navigation, search

See User talk:Ahasuerus/Archive for discussions prior to 2017.


If you're writing to inform me that you've either added a COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS, please follow THIS LINK and add it to the bottom of the list. A link to the pub record would be appreciated. Once the pub has been reviewed, I'll remove your note from the list. Thanks!


Show link to imported titles in submission page

Hi. When a submission imports existing titles from other records the ids of the imported titles are known when accessing the submission's page. It'd be great if these titles could be rendered as a link in the "Title" column. Jens Hitspacebar 15:35, 12 January 2018 (EST)

I think it's a good idea. Come to think of it, we may want to link all "auto-merged" titles in Clone Pub, Export Content, etc. Ahasuerus 17:25, 12 January 2018 (EST)
That'd be even better. It would make moderating imports and similar submissions easier because you can easily navigate to the existing titles to see if the submission is ok. Jens Hitspacebar 17:53, 12 January 2018 (EST)
OK, FR 1121 has been created. Ahasuerus 18:05, 12 January 2018 (EST)

ISFDB-SFE3 Author Mismatches

Is this report so we can add the links to the author pages, and then click the "Click Once Resolved" link? If not, what is it for? None of the entries have an author listed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:31, 16 January 2018 (EST)

The data for this report was originally generated by scanning SFE3's list of authors. The software then created a subset of SFE3 authors who didn't have an ISFDB entry. For example, SFE3 has an entry for Rudolf Brunngraber, the author of the novel Radium: Roman eines Elements (1936), but we don't have a record for him. Some SFE3 authors may not be eligible on our side, e.g. if their only SF works were in the comics field, hence the "Resolve" links.
The biggest problem with this report is that the data was generated a few years ago and is out of sync with the SFE3 author list. Once the current data has been sorted out, we'll need to add a button to perform "on demand" list reconciliation. Ahasuerus 19:51, 16 January 2018 (EST)
That makes sense. Is there a way to add an explanation of what the report is at the top of the report? For ones like this one, where it's not immediately obvious, it may prove helpful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:14, 16 January 2018 (EST)
Done! Ahasuerus 21:21, 16 January 2018 (EST)

Duplicate Catalog Id

With this submission, there is already a D-537 catalog id in the database. It would be really nice if (when there is no ISBN), the software warned of duplicate catalog ids the way it does with duplicate ISBNs. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Good point, FR 1134 has been created. However, I am not sure the presence of an ISBN should make a difference. Ahasuerus 10:32, 17 January 2018 (EST)
It would have when they both used the same field. Now that they are separate, it shouldn't. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:12, 17 January 2018 (EST)
Done -- see the Community Portal announcement. Ahasuerus 19:51, 30 January 2018 (EST)

The Glory Game by Keith Laumer

Hi. You PV'd this publication in 2007: It's strange that, unlike the listings for the January 1973 first edition ( and the later printings, the record you PV'd does not cite a gutter code, nor does it note "First Edition" on the title page, yet includes the note, "This may be the first edition". I don't think that's correct. Suggest you check for a gutter code on page 186, then move your PV to a record for that printing. I'll also post this note for the other PV of the record you verified, Biomassbob. Thanks. Markwood 19:12, 19 January 2018 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up! Unfortunately, I am not in a position to check this book at the moment -- most of my hardcover Laumers are in boxes. My copy is apparently a later reprint since the pub record says that, unlike the true first edition, it doesn't say "First Edition" on the copyright page. For now, I have updated the record to indicate that it's not the first edition and that the publication date is currently unknown. Ahasuerus 21:06, 19 January 2018 (EST)

Display issue

Greetings in the New Year! Belated but ... I am currently working on an in-depth 'assessment' of Ace books and the varieties therein that I like to refer to as "The Mess". While the current publisher pages are ideal for printing out lists of Ace editions [dated or not] there is one major sidebar to that. Perry Rhodan [US] is listed as a magazine and I can't find any way to display/print the series with ISBNs/dates etc. as is available through the current Ace publisher pages. If there is I'd love to know how. If there isn't, is there a way to temporarily change the series to a form that can be printed with the relevant data? [I'd change it back right away, of course, this isn't about the 'rightness' of the series being a magazine]. Any help would be appreciated!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:31, 24 January 2018 (EST)

And a happy belated New Year to you too! If I understand the goal correctly, you'd like to generate a list of every Ace-published Perry Rhodan paperback with the stipulation that the list should use the standard publication table format, right? If so, then the following Advanced Publication Search may be helpful: Publication Type is exactly MAGAZINE, Author's Name contains Ackerman, Sort Results by Date. It takes a few seconds to compile, but it seems to include all eligible pubs. Is it sufficient for your purposes? Ahasuerus 20:56, 24 January 2018 (EST)
Most appreciated! It seemed that no matter what I chose in Advanced Search just couldn't come up with "Magazine" to start with. But since you did it I knew it just had to be there [unless you were hiding something ... less said the better ...]. Sub-menus drive me crazy! Unless you know where to start you can't get there from here [there's more than a few jokes about that line]. All printed, back to the abyss. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:35, 24 January 2018 (EST)
I wonder if you may have tried Advanced Title Search instead of Advanced Publication Search? Either that or you forgot to sacrifice a goat to Cthulhu this morning, but that's too scary to contemplate. Cheers! Ahasuerus 21:50, 24 January 2018 (EST)
It takes goats!!¿¿!! The farm next door has a herd ................  :-))))) --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:53, 24 January 2018 (EST)

What's the best way to submit corrections for author names?

On January 7, I posted to the moderator noticeboard pointing out that the author name "Jodi Renee Lester" should be corrected to "Jodi Renée Lester." On January 20, I posted again, with a reminder. The change has STILL not been made. Such neglect is quite usual: numerous author name corrections that I've requested have been made only after a reminder, or never. Clearly, the moderator noticeboard isn't the right place to post them. But where should I do it then? --Vasha 16:02, 31 January 2018 (EST)

I have changed "Renee" to "Renée", but I am afraid I can't think of a better place to post these types of requests :-( Between Fixer and software changes, I haven't been following the Moderator Noticeboard closely lately, so I am somewhat out of the loop. As a general rule, author name changes can take some time if there are verified publications involved, but this was a straightforward case. Ahasuerus 16:11, 31 January 2018 (EST)
Thanks! Two more straightforward fixes: "Mandem" to "MANDEM" (verified only by me); "Julián Diez" to "Julián Díez" (no verified publications). BTW, if there are verified publications I do ask the verifier how the name is spelled in the pub before I post to the moderator noticeboard (although I don't always get an answer, of course). --Vasha 16:15, 31 January 2018 (EST)
OK, "Mandem" has been changed. Ordinarily, we set up house names and collaborative credits like Ilona Andrews as pseudonyms because individual contributors can also create works on their own. However, in this case I am not sure if we know whether all three members of the "MANDEM" trio are responsible for all of the titles that we have on file. Would you happen to know?
It turns out that the earlier works were by only two of them. OK, I will work on changing that, then. --Vasha 17:09, 31 January 2018 (EST)
As far as "Julián Díez" goes, his review of "Los Tejedores de Cabellos" was published in a verified publication. The rule is that we enter reviewer/interviewer names as specified in the pub and then create a variant if needed. We use canonical names for reviewees/interviewees because the software doesn't support variants for revieews/interviewees. Ahasuerus 16:48, 31 January 2018 (EST)
Oh, sorry, I don't know how I overlooked that verification (I've left the verifier a note now). But if I am going to be entering publications for the Ignotus awards, there will be a ton of magazine issues and anthologies edited by Díez (with the name diacritic-ed). --Vasha 16:54, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Award years for Ignotus

Confusing! Here's what happened, turns out. The 1992 awards were indeed for work published in 1992 (so, that cover art). BUT there were no awards in 1993. And when they reorganized in 1994, they started giving them for work in the previous calendar year!

In sum: 1991 pub.=1991 award; 1992 pub=1992 award; 1993 pub=1994 award; 1994 pub=1995 award; etc. --Vasha 19:27, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Aha! Now it all makes sense. I have added a note to the award type description -- does it look OK? Ahasuerus 19:38, 31 January 2018 (EST)
Yep! --Vasha 19:41, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Translation data at La Tercera Fondación

I noticed that La Tercera Fondación (who list much the same amount of data about the works they catalog as we do, and also have verifiers) has solved the problem of how to credit translators: they have a title type Translation, with the translator as author. With the way they display data, it isn't confusing (or not very). See here for a publication record containing translated stories, here for a translation title record, and here for a master title record ("ficha") of a work that has translations. I wonder if some version of that would work for us? Although I find the Tercera Fundación site hard to read, the basic idea of a translation title type seems like a good one. You've no doubt considered it already! --Vasha 14:38, 1 February 2018 (EST)

Yes, their solution is fairly close to what we discussed during the last brainstorming session. We really need a new TRANSLATION title type -- if nothing else in order to support awards give to translations. Our software challenges will likely be twofold: support for translator pseudonyms (including house names, joint pseudonyms, etc) and unified support for other roles like "single author collection editor".
That said, the way they have their data organized is not quite what I had in mind. I will have to think about it. Thanks for pointing me in that direction! Ahasuerus 17:07, 1 February 2018 (EST)

Spanish books with prices in dollars

I found a bunch of unverified books which, although published in Spain, had prices listed in dollars (all sorts of odd amounts). Since there were no sources named for the data, I simply deleted the price. (Presumably it happened because people entered the data, including the price, from, but shouldn't moderators have noticed that?) Could you generate a list of books which have a language of Spanish and a price in US dollars to find more of these? Thanks. --Vasha 23:03, 1 February 2018 (EST)

On second thought, never mind-- I'm busy with other stuff and this is relatively minor. Sounds like the kind of thing that might get a regular though. --Vasha 09:22, 2 February 2018 (EST)
The challenge with our Spanish language pubs is that some of them were actually published in the US. Also, some older pubs were created by robots before the moderator review process was put into place.
As near as I can tell, the easiest way to find these problematic pubs is to run Advanced Publication Search using the following search criteria:
  • ISBN starts with 8 (Spain is 84, Brazil is 85, etc) or 6 (Mexico is 607, Peru is 621) or 9 (Argentina is 950, Chile is 956, Colombia is 958, etc) or 9788/9786/9789
  • Price starts with $
It's not perfect since some non-US currency signs start with "$", but I think it's as close as we can get. Ahasuerus 11:15, 2 February 2018 (EST)

Invalid Record URLs in Notes

In this report, what is the issue with the two Title Notes? The links in their respective notes field work. Is the report having false positive because of the links to awards? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2018 (EST)

This cleanup report recognizes a limited set of ISFDB links: title, pl, ea, publisher, etc. It recognizes award_details and award_category, but not awardtype. I'll try to fix it tomorrow. Ahasuerus 23:12, 6 February 2018 (EST)
Fixed! Ahasuerus 14:28, 7 February 2018 (EST)

Editing 'anomaly'?

[This] publication record was on my list of Changed Primary Verifications this morning. Dirk has corrected a typo. I attempted to move the OCLC # out of the notes but get a warning message re: 'When editing publications, the Regular Titles subsection of the Content section must contain one title whose type matches the publication type' and the edit won't go through. I backed out of the page then retried a submission but made NO changes and got the same message. The Title type is Novel, the only content is Novel. Then tried it with the other edition of the same title with the same result. Bug/gremlin?? At the moment no edits seem possible. --~ Bill, Bluesman 12:19, 7 February 2018 (EST)

Oops! It looks like the last patch introduced a new bug. Investigating... Ahasuerus 12:40, 7 February 2018 (EST)
The immediate bug has been fixed. Some types of pop-up validation are currently unavailable, but it shouldn't prevent editors from creating submissions. Working on it... Ahasuerus 12:55, 7 February 2018 (EST)
OK, the pop-up validation should be fixed now. Sorry about that! Ahasuerus 13:53, 7 February 2018 (EST)
All seems 'normal' ... famous last words ... Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:56, 7 February 2018 (EST)

(unindent) Another patch? The pop-up warnings are at it again. "No artists were entered, but other cover data was specified. At least one artist must be entered. See Help for details." --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:32, 9 February 2018 (EST)

OK, the F-5 whammy seems to have worked, for now. ;-))) --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:40, 9 February 2018 (EST)
Hopefully it was the last behind the scenes patch. I am starting to work on something that should be actually visible for a change! Ahasuerus 16:00, 9 February 2018 (EST)
You mean you're taking off the mask??¿¿?? Will my keyboard go up in smoke? --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:02, 9 February 2018 (EST)
Have no fear! Any collateral damage should be negligible, well under a gigaton. Ahasuerus 16:13, 9 February 2018 (EST)


Hi! Curious about the title for your verified Skyworlds v1 #1 - you've left out the the date in the title, which you've given in the date field. It makes the grid look a little wonky. Was that on purpose? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:49, 9 February 2018 (EST)

Also, on the cover it looks like the title is "Sky Worlds" (with a space). It's referred to as both on websites. Is it one word on the title page? Doug / Vornoff 19:55, 9 February 2018 (EST)
Let me see if I can find my copy... Ahasuerus 11:05, 10 February 2018 (EST)
Unfortunately, I am unable to get to this issue at the moment. A couple of years ago my house sustained a moderate amount of damage, which resulted in thousands of books getting displaced. Most of them are still boxed or otherwise unavailable :-( Ahasuerus 17:21, 10 February 2018 (EST)
That’s not fun. Sounds like a Project is in order. I have a lot of my digest sf stacked in big cardboard boxes and if I have to get at one on the bottom - yikes! Doug / Vornoff 20:01, 10 February 2018 (EST)

Linking to the Internet Archive

Have you had any interaction with the Internet Archive about hot-linking? I was working on a clean-up report and came across The Twilight Land, for which I found a nice page on LibriVox. There they have a download link for the cover image, which is hosted on I was wondering about linking to it, rather than downloading it. I looked at their FAQs, and they seem eager to have references/attribution. But the only explicit mention I see of linking is in the Wayback Machine section, where they do grant permission. It's not clear to me if that covers everything or just What do you think? --MartyD 10:56, 10 February 2018 (EST)

To the best of my knowledge, this question hasn't come up before. I am not sure how to interpret their FAQs either -- perhaps we could ask them directly?
Another thing to consider is that the data that they host is not owned by them, so it's more likely to be taken down due to copyright issues. I don't know how many images may be affected, but it's something to keep in mind. Ahasuerus 11:32, 10 February 2018 (EST)
I'll send a request and see what they say. Thanks. --MartyD 11:49, 10 February 2018 (EST)

The Unholy City

Hi. You are one of two who verified the 1968 Pyramid edition P243345. If I understand correctly, [1] the publication type should be OMNIBUS if the title story is indeed a novel; [2] the novella title should be "The Magician out of Manchuria" rather than "Out of" (we now have "Out of" and "Out Of"). --Pwendt|talk 16:45, 21 February 2018 (EST)

I agree re: [2]. Re: [1], Help is ambiguous on the subject. Here is what is says:
  • OMNIBUS. A publication may be classified as an omnibus if it contains multiple works that have previously been published independently, and at least one of them is a NOVEL, ANTHOLOGY, COLLECTION, or NONFICTION. However, generally this category should not be used unless the other categories do not seem appropriate. For example, if a publication contains stories that have previously been published independently in pamphlet form, this should be classified as an anthology. A collection such as Robert Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" should be categorized as a collection, although one of the works is a novel. "Omnibus" is appropriate for such publications as the Science Fiction Book Club's collections of three independent novels by different authors under one set of covers; or for a single-volume edition of all the Amber novels by Roger Zelazny. If none of the contents have been published before, the inclination should be to classify the publication as an anthology, rather than an omnibus, but this does not have to be an absolute rule. The distinction between "Omnibus" and the other types is somewhat subjective and may require discussion and consensus on the publication biblio wiki page.
(Note the bolded sentence.) There have been multiple attempts to reach consensus re: what should and shouldn't be entered as an omnibus, but we have been unsuccessful so far. If you think that you can come up with a definition that would lead to consensus, please post it on the Rules and Standards page. Hopefully we will slay this beast one of these days! :-) Ahasuerus 17:27, 21 February 2018 (EST)

"Black author" tag

Hello, I'm voicing here my concern about this tag. Here (in France) we're quite touchy about questions of privacy and of data gathering. In a nutshell, to enter and/or to store and/or to give public access to data about the racial characteristics of an individual (or his/her sexual orientation or political opinion) is simply illegal and may be severely punished. I know we're not a french-law-abiding outfit but, to be frank, I'm quite ashamed to be associated with such an endeavour. Why not add such tags as "Muslim", "Leftist", "Gay", "Have cancer", "Of short heigth", "Redhead" etc... (I spare you the Godwin point "To be eliminated") It is the same for Afro-american and even the fact of passing the tag to "private" is not enough (for me and the french law, perhaps the european one), it's the simple constitution of a database with names that is illegal without it being declared. I was already quite worried about our forays into gender typification, but this is worse. Hauck 04:20, 23 February 2018 (EST)

The same is valid for 'African author' and likely some others. In addition to the things Hervé wrote, these labels totally ignore that tags are for titles, and not for authors: it may be okay to have 'Black protagonist', but no thing in this vein to stigmatize authors. Stonecreek 05:08, 23 February 2018 (EST)
I hear your concerns. I started that project last year because of the #BlackSpecFic report. People there were tracking where black authors got published and I wanted to help them. (I was thinking of contributing to Wole Talabi's list of African spec fix also but I never did much with that.) So you think it is not appropriate to do that tracking in a public manner? --Vasha 08:18, 23 February 2018 (EST)
I think it's totally contra-productive. It really smears all relevant information on thematical issues for an author like Samuel R. Delany to have 153 times characterized him as 'Black Author' (who would have thought that?). It has next to no thematic relevance, and I think this is the case for most authors characterized so or in a similar way. Who wants his works issued by color of his skin? Stonecreek 08:39, 23 February 2018 (EST)
The idea is not to tag the author but rather to get an idea of where and when works by black authors have been published--would it sound better to you to change that tag to "work by Black author"? Also, I am in touch with a couple of the people involved in #BlackSpecFic and if you like I could ask them whether they think it is useful or appropriate to use the database in this way.
I would also like to ask Darrah because of her experience trying to use the database to study women Writers. And I know she's given a lot of thought to privacy concerns. Unfortunately she's not around now. --Vasha 08:46, 23 February 2018 (EST)
No, this is a meaningless tag for our purposes. I really think it has to be deleted, or, if that's not possible, to mark it as 'Private'. You really seem to do some things without thinking them through: that's called actionism. A title tag has not to be misused as an author tag: and these examples seem to be a kind of putting authors into a drawing-box, and nobody has asked them if they want to be put in there. Stonecreek 09:03, 23 February 2018 (EST)

2016 #BlackSpecFic report. See surrounding discussion for why it is unfortunately necessary to talk about writers' race. It is not at all irrelevant to their chances of being published; it is the publishing industry that puts people into boxes. --Vasha 09:17, 23 February 2018 (EST)

We're not here to record the plight of black writers. Such tags attached to persons are simply unacceptable and may even be libelous. As for Darrah (who's a he), this page is IMHO already borderline. Both of you can make all the lists of black or feminine or transgenre or martian writers you want but you simply can NOT use the ISFDB which is a public space. Hauck 10:35, 23 February 2018 (EST)
This conclusion has been proven false, if not dangerous. Opening trenches between black / white or Jewish / Arian or any other thought-of dividing line between people has been never a tremendously good idea. You need to talk about the issues & sources of racism, and that what's literature for (foremost I think). But this can only be adressed in works, not by hammering differences into heads by showing this is the most important thing for a given author.
Also, you seem to flea the basic fault of the misuse of tags. Stonecreek 10:20, 23 February 2018 (EST)

(unindent) It looks like there are a number of issues here, including:

  1. The legality of certain tags
  2. The ISFDB software design which currently lets users add tags without moderator approval/oversight (potential accuracy issues)
  3. The ISFDB policy which determines which tags are made "Private" by moderators
  4. The feasibility of using title-level tags to enter author-specific data ("female author", "indie author", "Finnish author", etc)

As previously discussed, the laws that we have to abide by are the laws of the jurisdiction where the ISFDB server is currently located. (It's the same for projects like Project Gutenberg whose servers host different works depending on the country where each server is located.) There may be libel laws that we have to abide by, e.g. "written by a thief and a murderer" could be an issue, but at this time our data entry policies are not legally constrained otherwise.

The rest of the raised issues are related to the way the software is currently written as well as to our data entry/moderation policies, so we may want to move the discussion to the Community Portal. Ahasuerus 10:41, 23 February 2018 (EST)

Author update: Julián Díez

Hi, could you please correct Julián Diez to "Julián Díez"? There's only one publication on that page that wasn't added by me, and that one's verified by an inactive user. --Vasha 17:32, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Sure thing. The spelling of the canonical name has been changed and the verifier has been notified. Ahasuerus 17:39, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Plataforma Neo books

Here's a list of the ISBNs of the few YA fantasy and YA magical realism books that Plataforma Neo offers. If it's too much trouble automatically importing books in languages other than English, ignore this. --Vasha 21:03, 6 March 2018 (EST)

978-84-15577-52-2 978-84-15750-23-9 978-84-15750-24-6 978-84-15750-71-0 978-84-15880-43-1 978-84-15880-74-5 978-84-15880-94-3 978-84-16096-64-0 978-84-16256-32-7 978-84-16256-42-6 978-84-16429-37-0 978-84-16429-53-0 978-84-16429-70-7 978-84-16620-43-2 978-84-16620-53-1 978-84-16620-98-2 978-84-16820-16-0 978-84-16820-86-3 978-84-17002-26-8 978-84-17114-20-6

I am afraid Fixer is currently monolingual :-( Ahasuerus 21:29, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Two author updates

Carlos Ortin should be Carlos Ortín and Andre Brink should be André Brink. Thanks! --Vasha 12:37, 13 March 2018 (EDT)

Done! Ahasuerus 12:40, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
Thank you --Vasha 12:56, 13 March 2018 (EDT)

My Pending Edits

Good morning (kinda... let's call it morning) :)

I thought that "My Pending Edits" is for the edits I had submitted. Why do I see a "The current number of pending edits by all editors (not held by a moderator) is 0." line at the top of it? I do not think I had ever seen it before although I may have just missed it :) Thanks! Annie 13:53, 13 March 2018 (EDT)

The count of all pending edits was added 6 weeks ago -- see FR 1125. The idea was that if editors knew the number of outstanding submissions, they would be better positioned to estimate how long the moderator review process would take. Or at least that was the theory :-) Ahasuerus 19:20, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, I blinked and missed it and as I rarely open the page, I did not see it until now. I did not even think that it is not a moderator function but is for the editors. Thanks! Annie 19:33, 13 March 2018 (EDT)

Double PV from the same user at the same time

Good evening,

Can you look at this. How did someone manage to PV the same book twice at the same second? I suspect something in some old code but if it can be cleaned (in case some other code relies on one PV per user per book) :) Annie 18:23, 14 March 2018 (EDT)

Let me take a look...
Well, the bad news is that we have 88 pubs with duplicate primary verifiers. The good news is that:
  • it doesn't seem to affect the rest of the software
  • it's fairly easy to fix
  • all but one duplicates were created prior to 2017-04 when the verification system was last revamped
The only exception is this pub which was transient-verified on 2017-06-25. I suspect a Web server hiccup; we used to see them relatively often. I'll see what I can do to clean up the mess -- thanks for identifying the issue! Ahasuerus 18:57, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
Why do I hear sinister laughter out of nowhere when I see/hear a developer saying "it doesn't seem to affect the rest of the software"? :) Annie 19:20, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
What could possibly go wrong?! :) Ahasuerus 19:30, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for looking into it. I almost asked Don if he likes this book so much that he has two identical copies before my mind reminded me that he cannot do that on purpose - so I rerouted the question to you instead.  :) Annie 19:20, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
After restoring an old backup file and running a few queries I think I know what's going on. The old design had separate verification slots for "Primary1" through "Primary5" as well as "Transient". It allowed a single verifier to (inadvertently) claim multiple primary verification slots. When we converted to the new system, we ended up with the previously mentioned 88 duplicates. Now to fix them... Ahasuerus 18:34, 15 March 2018 (EDT)
This makes sense - thanks for tracking it down! Annie 18:55, 15 March 2018 (EDT)
Fixed! Ahasuerus 12:56, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Author corrections

Two more author name corrections, a bit trickier. 1. Azorin is Azorín in Spanish (including the publication I just added); I have no way of checking how the name is printed in the English and Romanian publications. 2. Angel Torres Quesada is properly Ángel Torres Quesada. It's true that a number of book covers show the name without an accent over the A, but that's because accents on capital letters are sometimes omitted for stylistic reasons. --Vasha 12:23, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I am in the middle of a number of things at the moment, so I'll have to copy this request to the Moderator Noticeboard. Ahasuerus 12:54, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
No need to do so, I'll take over. Stonecreek 13:00, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
Thanks! --Vasha 13:04, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Language to add: Asturian

Adolfo Camilo Díaz has written a number of speculative works in Asturian. --Vasha 22:49, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

The Asturian language recognized by ISO 639-2, the standard that we use, so adding it shouldn't present any problems. The only question is whether we should call it "Asturian", "Bable" (as per the linked document) or perhaps "Asturian/Babel". We may want to post it on the Community Portal and see what our Romance experts think. Ahasuerus 00:10, 17 March 2018 (EDT)
Well, the English-language article in Wikipedia says that "Bable" was a former designation, and the Asturian-language article says that although "Bable" was sometimes used to refer to the language as a whole in the past, it is now restricted to one of the local variants. But I've posted on the CP to see if anyone has heard the term used. --Vasha 00:33, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Author name fixes, 2018-03-21

G. De La Ree --> G. de la Ree; Leland De La Durantaye --> Leland de la Durantaye. Vasha 22:59, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Done! Ahasuerus 23:27, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
Personal tools