User talk:Kpulliam/Archives06

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Grantville Gazette Prefaces (And Afterwords)

I am inviting both DCarson and DESiegel (And anyone else interested) to weigh in on a complication of the Grantville Gazettes going from Magazine to print. I'm looking to generate consensus as to what to call the different prefaces. As it stands... the magazines generally have a preface by Either Eric or 'The Staff' in later issues. In the first couple of issues the magazine seems to call it 'Editors Preface', while the print edition is just labelled 'Preface'. Yet in Volume 1, for the print edition, it is actually titled 'Preface to the paperback edition' since it was a first time transition. What do you two think about standardizing the magazine edition preface as "Editors Preface (Grantville Gazette Magazine)" and the Print Edition Preface as "Preface (Grantville Gazette Print Edition)" even in the ebooks of the print editions. This would of course have an exception for the first volume 1 preface because it si self titled and identified as 'different' from the magazine preface. When afterwords appear, or otehr articles with noted differences between e-zine and print publications, the same (TAG) as offered above could be used. Thoughts? Suggestions? ALternatives? Implimenting both of these will require at least one change to a pub verified by one of you, so yes your opinion matters. I have input updated version of some of the other editions (and I'm in the process of cloning them and updating the various printings (ebook, HC, and PB as appropriate)) so here are some easy links to the 4 titles involved. I, II, III, and IV. We are going to have an even bigger snafu when Volume V comes out in print, because volume V print is going to use stories from Volumes V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX so that is going to be even more difficult to explain the differences in titles. Thanks - Kevin 00:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will reveiw these and respond shortly. I would suggest not using the term "magazine" for the ebook edition if we go this route. However some distinction when there are different versions of the preface seems warrented. -DES Talk 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now a moderator!

Your nomination was successful and the moderator flag has been set on your account. Congratulations! :) Ahasuerus 05:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Woo Hoo! Kevin 05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!! Maybe someday I'll reach to your level. Willem H. 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unmerging pubs from contents

First, congratulations on becoming a moderator. I realized it when I saw that you'd placed a submission on hold. Which turns out to be a good idea! There's too many gotchas from unmerging pubs from contents. Just as a test, you can approve the submission and check out the consequences. It will give you some practice on repairing any damage that may occur. The add/remove method of changing contents might take an extra step but will be better in the long run. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! and Yep!. I noticed right away that things didn't look right when I was looking at the submission, but bedtime had come and gone, so I waited till today to drop the title from btoh pubs, and then re-added it. Thanks for looking out, and comments/suggestions are always welcome! Kevin 05:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosmonaut Keep

Added a cover image to [[1]] Congrats on the Moderatorship! ~bill, --Bluesman 17:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wim Lewis

Keep in mind that Wim Lewis is a moderator, just a very sporadic one :) He doesn't mind other moderators approving his edits, though. Ahasuerus 00:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Woops! - Thanks Kevin 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

With a Strange Device

You're right, it's a duplicate and needed rejection. About "Note also the bad price of £0.17 created from a used copy for sale?" though - it's not due to a used copy for sale, it's due to trying to convert the old pre-decimal price. "3/6" is "17.5p" in new money, I guess Amazon can't handle the halfpenny. BLongley 12:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your previous rejection after I had already rejected this one. A light dawned, but we can't edit rejection notes. Heck, I'm just happy that someone else is reading my Fixer rejection notes to keep an eye on me. Thanks! Kevin 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's not just you I'm keeping an eye on. ;-) As Mike Hutchins pointed out, somebody's been doing some lazy approvals of Fixer submissions, I want to see who is doing it or make them paranoid enough that they'll stop. :-) BLongley 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations of your rejects though, we should probably all do more comprehensive notes in that area. Share the knowledge around and all that sort of thing. (Saves writing more moderator help articles.) BLongley 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I try to check our Rejects at least once every few days to see if there are patterns that Fixer can catch. Ahasuerus 20:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Talent for War

Found and added an image to [[2]]--Bluesman 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ping

I responded to your question in the Grantville Gazette (Your Verified Pub) section of my talk page. Further discussion may be needed. -DES Talk 22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cover of Darkness

A submission updating this pub led me to check who accepted the original submission adding the pub. You suggested changing it to an anthology, but kept the title Cover of Darkness May 2009 (no comma). If this is an anthology series, and not a magazine, the publication date should not be used in the title. Also, the stories are dated 2008. They appear to be original to this publication dated May 2009. I can make an inquiry to the original submitter if you wish, or leave it in your hands. MHHutchins 05:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the dates on the contents have already been updated/corrected. I left the title alone, as there is a ["Cover of Darkness"] from 2007, ["Cover of Darkness 2008"], and the subject title ["Cover of Darkness May 2009"] per the listings at Genremall. I was going to give the original submitter a few days to come back and perhaps enter the other works, but the reason I left the title alone was because (either as a magazine or an anthology) the full title may be needed for clarity. I was concerned they may be moving to a biannual or quarterly format and figured we could regularize the title if needed once a new pattern emerged. Kevin 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Similar to Destinies anthologies although published on an even more sporadic basis.--swfritter 23:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

5th Annual

Added a cover image to [[3]] Since all the other data was the same as the first printing, assumed the cover was the same. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved - Thanks Kevin 01:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

SF Best of Best

Added a cover image to [[4]]--Bluesman 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Subterranean Online

You may want to add it to the list of provisional titles on the the policy page. I will take a closer look at the ones you have entered tomorrow. At least there is no question about story lengths. Copy, paste, wordcount!!--swfritter 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm using a Firefox Add-on called 'Word Count Plus'. All I have to do on a page is CTRL-A, Right Click, Select Count Words. (In the rare instance it's within a few hundred of a cut-off point, I manually select just the story frame and count again. But regardless, no need for cutting and pasting and using Word or a similar program to get the wordcount. Kevin 05:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hurray! That will save me some time in the future.--swfritter 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Using actual word counts does bring to light our continued violation of the word count categories for Novellas and even Novelletes, published in single item form. The Sagan Diary is an acknowledged Novellete. The word count in it's publication in Subterranean Online Fall 2007 comes in right at 13,000 words, not even twice the length of the longest short story. Yet it has been published in HC form and somehow stretched to 100 pages, so we call it a novel. This happens again with Charles Stross' Missile Gap. The original publication was as a Novella in a collection, Then later as a 99 page HC by Sub Press, and now in a fiction webzine. I just changed that one to Novel, and then back to Novella when I realized it actually won the Locus poll for Novella. I can accept some mismatches, but shouldn't a story be classified as the type it won an award for? Kevin 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's perfectly possible, and has happened, that a story wins multiple awards in different length categories. BLongley 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It frustrates me, too. Unfortunately there are technical issues involved. The best way to handle such stories would be the chapterbook type, if it worked correctly; or perhaps a more generic pub type. Notice that with "Missile Gap" the title is at Novella length but it is contained with a "Missle Gap" publication which is designated as a Novel. That is also misleading. There are also novellas that have won awards as novels and which are perceived by many, no matter how incorrectly, as being novels.--swfritter 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What we truly need is a way to separate 'Novel length work' from 'Novel type book' since the accepted definition of Novel, and the technical ability to print in a single volume, and the marketplaces definition has changed over the last 200 years. I think Missile Gap is fine, Novels as a container can contain shortfiction, and with the interior artwork displayed, it's looks ok. As to items which have won awards 'outside' the correct category, if a Major award (Hugo, Campbell, Locus Poll) chooses to ignore its own rules, then who are we to disagree. If a minor award (Prometheus, Etc) can't figure out the real definitions, then we should catalog correctly and note that the minor award organization choose to award/nominate out of category. Kevin 18:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
They don't ignore their own rules though, the rules on length aren't as strict as you think they are and not as standard as you might think they are. Sometimes it's perfectly OK for a Novella to win a Novel award if it's been published standalone. Some awards are just for "Shortfiction", some make no distinction between Novella and Novelette. And which of the 42 Awards we currently record are the "Major" ones anyway? BLongley 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There are big disagreements over length categories not only in the industry but here. We get by mostly by letting the award winners be handled by the Lengthists, and the Formatists carry on entering short novels and juveniles as NOVELS anyway. I think the only way to keep the majority of people happy is to introduce the SHORTNOVEL category. Which would be mostly handled by fixing the Chap(ter)book code except that everybody hates the name and there are a few real Chapterbooks and Chapbooks. We've actually got Bug Reports and Feature requests to 1) add support and 2) to remove the little support we have for Chap(ter)books. :-/ It may even come down to which coder "fixes" which Bugs, or adds which "Features", first. :-( BLongley 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that wwe need a fully working container type for standalone publications of works shorter than novel length. I wopuld not call it "short novel" as that is a term used in the General Literature and (I think) mystery fields for what SF usually calls a novella. I would favor "chapbook" myself (not chapterbook), but I could live with some other term. "A chapbook by some other name should still work as well." -DES Talk 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
One thing that's not been offered to Developers yet is any update to existing data. Anything that is still called CHAPTERBOOK in the database will remain as such, although we could change all the display logic to call it whatever anyone wants. Due to constraints on certain tables, we can't even add a new type to separate true chapbooks (if we ever agree what those are) from Claimed-Novel-Publications-That-Aren't-Really-Long-Enough-To-Win-A-Major-Award Books. :-/ I can code one-off scripts that would allow such a separation, and detail all books affected for review, but what's the point if some people are vehemently against it? BLongley 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Informative to say the least. Why can't we add new types? (Feel free to point me elsewhere in the wiki if it's already spelled out clearly). Kevin 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found this [5] which shows that title.ttype and pub.ctype are both enumerated values (and the only ones like that). But I still haven't figured out why we can't convert them to a table look reference, convert the entries already present, and then add items to the newly created tables. (Or did I just say something like - If we have steel, and a hammer, can't we just build a car)? Kevin 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay now I think I found the answer on Wikipedia, "MySQL provides an enumerated type ENUM with allowable values specified as strings when a table is created." so am I thinking now that to 'add' a new ENUM choice, the table literally has be recreated in mysql, the new value specified at creation time, the old data copied to the new table, the links all recreated, and then the old table deleted. Whew that does sound like a problem. Kevin 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, there's no issue like that: just run
ALTER TABLE isfdb.pubs
CHANGE pub_ctype pub_ctype ENUM('ANTHOLOGY', 'CHAPTERBOOK', 'COLLECTION', 'MAGAZINE', 'NONFICTION', 'NOVEL', 'OMNIBUS','FANZINE'
,'SHORTNOVEL');
Except that we don't have adhoc MySQL access to run such. I guess we can deploy a Python script to run once to do this, but as I say it's merely that we haven't been offered such capabilities. BLongley 12:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A better reason to run some plain SQL would be to fix the "reference" table where the reference_id values have developed gaps. That's stopping us adding new references as the scripts assume consecutive numbers. BLongley 12:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That's much simpler, I was letting my imagination find much grander problems. As to fixing the verification table, that's near and dear to my Bleiler project that's on hold. Tags alone just weren't going to cut it. It's nice (yet frustrating) to know that we have the knowledge in the volunteer pool, but that we don't have access. I was shocked to recently realize that we have no-one other than Al as root on the ISFDB box. At least Ahesuras can restart the server processes now, and apparently the ability to deploy code. Kevin 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT (And Conversation Herding)

We have a pubtype of Novel, with title type of Novel, (Collection, Coll; Anth, Anth; Mag, Mag; etc). Let's just game this out and figure out an acceptable solution. What would be the consequences of adding Shortfiction (and essay) PubTypes? If it's published as a stand alone item, Let's just call it what it is. Imagine the title display, with a novella published once in a collection, once in a magazine, and once in a 'novella' pub type. We don't want to imagine a new pub type without imaging how this will effect the bibliography display... so lets imagine that immediately below novels we list Novella's and Novellettes as new sections, instead of buried in the nebulous and murky short fiction. DES, Bill, Anyone. Thoughts? Kevin 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If we were to create a new pub type I see no value for creating separate types for short stories, novellas, and novelettes published separately. How about a single type "Short Works" which would ideally include all the existing chap(ter)book entries (rather they would be migrated to such a type). I would support such a change. I would call it "Short Works" rather than short fiction in case of separately published essays (I think that "Niven's Laws" was once published as a convention booklet) and to avoid confusion with the existing shortfiction section in displays. -DES Talk 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking ahead to ebooks entry. Every short title (that can be found and scanned after copyright expires), will eventually be published as a stand alone ebook. (Alot of Nivens earlier work was published as single stories on Fictionwise years ago as a current example). By planning now for this type of data we can avoid future problems. If we add Novella and Novelette, yet leave shortstory, and the unclassified shortfiction together in an area of display on the authors page, avoid merely creating a 'new' shortfiction section that has everything in the old short fiction section. I'm trying to think of a way to 'promote' the longer works that are separately published today in short novel form, and tomorrow, the republishing of everything. Kevin 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The shortfiction section currently includes Novellas and Novelettes, of course. I don't see the advantage in breaking these up into three separate sections by length, or more likely into for sections: separately published Short Stories, Novellas, and Novelettes, and shortfiction that has not been separately published. At any given time the most recent 70+ years of fiction will be under copyright, and IMO it will be a long time before most, let alone all, shortfiction is routinely published in ebook form while under copyright. It will be more than 70 years yet before currently existing fiction is all out of copyright. I don't think the day when all or even most shortfiction is e-published is coming soon enough to be a major factor in current DB design. However, the frequency of separate ebook publication of short fiction will probably increase, and this indeed should be planned for. I still don't see the added utility of separate sections for Novellas and Novelettes. If i am looking for a work by an author on the author's summery page, it is an extra pain if I need to know which shortfiction length category it falls in, doubly so because many of our length assignments are little more than guesses, particularly when dealing with the distinction between Novellas and Novelettes.
I am proposing a single container type of "Short Work" to be implemented much like an anthology or collection, to handle a single less-than-novel-length work of fiction published separately, possibly with associated essay or interview or art or similar non fiction contents. I don't understand what you think the downside of this is, or what we gain by having separate container types matching the shortfiction length types. In fact I think not matching them would be a plus -- we already get confusion between Novel title records and Novel pub records, having the same name for a title type and a container/pub type seems to me to be asking for such confusion and should be avoided when reasonably possible. -DES Talk 17:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more breaking out Novellas and Novelettes from 'short fiction' on the biblio page since they can and are separately published as stand alone titles. This is irregardless of a shortworks publication 'type'. Perhaps if we labelled those sections as 'Novellas - Short Novels' and 'Novelettes - Long Stories' it would help calm the 'least' surprise when someone finds the 99 page short novel they have in thier hand somewhere other than novels. This thought was as a display function on the biblio page though. I hate that all those good medium length stories are trapped in the morass that is now short fiction. Kevin 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. I think that having more different sections to look in reduces the usability of the biblio page. I would strongly oppose any such change. That would be true even if such separate publication were common, it is still rare, although probably becoming a bit more common. A separate section for works which actually have been separately published would IMO be of value, but not even there a separation between the various lengths, IMO. (For one thing our length data is not consistent or reliable enough IMO to make such a separation useful, even if it would be with perfect data.) A note (perhaps a footnote) about what is included in "shortfiction" might be helpful. I also think that we should move this discussion, perhaps over to Rules and standards discussions or the Community Portal. -DES Talk 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really want to clutter up those pages with my idle musings about 'what if we do this'. If you (or anyone) wants to make an actual proposal that's fine, I'm just trying to poke holes in my ideas and see what other ideas sprout. As to opposing a separate area for Novellas and Novelettes, (shrug) how does it clutter the biblio page more than it is now. For authors with lets say, 15 or fewer shortworks as a whole, it's still fairly easy to comprehend. For authors with 50+ short works, the page is already so cluttered as to be useless in the shortfiction part of the page already. I routinely use CTRL-F to find what I want on the page instead of scrolling to find it. As a proposal, it adds two more bits of whitespace to the page. I hear you on the "It's unreliable" front. It's a mess, but part of the reason its a mess is because its hidden in the shortfiction junkpile. If a visitor to the site is looking at an author biblio, they aren't even exposed to the data that they 'know' to be incorrect unless they click on a short story title link. but if it's upfront that 'Story_A' is listed as a Novella, and the visitor knows it's shorter than that, they may very well submit a correction. There's a proposal somewhere that Marty was playing with to add non-fiction etc callouts on the bibliopage if they get included in series data. Some of my arguments fall away if we were to impliment that for all short fiction with NV, NT, SS, and SF to all those title. I also like the halfway solution to 'promote' those items that have been separaetly published to a section, instead of all items. That's a happy medium. Perhaps that along with the shortfiction identifiers answers all my arguments. Kevin 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Subterranean

  • Issue #1: There have been discussions about using dummy page numbers to order titles in a pub. Some hesitate to use them but it is not a problem for me; it makes it a lot easier to verify the contents of the pub against the web publication. If there were artwork assigning page numbers would be more problematic. You might want to indicate in the notes that the interviewer is identified as SP presumably for Subterranean Press although I don't think it is necessary to credit as such for the interview. This is the type of data that would be lost if the webzine disappeared and all we had was the TOC.--swfritter 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
How would/does artwork complicate assigning order numbers? I guess since it interrupts the TOC flow... we could go with 10, 20, 30, for issues with individual artwork, and then the artworks could appear on 31, 32, 33 when associated with item 3 in the TOC, but I dislike that as page counts are now variable in the record (somethings are 10, somethings are 1) and since we are trumping page counts for an order record, I think I would just prefer to list them as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc in the same number flow. That reminds me that I DID NOT enter any interior artwork, and it does appear a few places. I will need to revisit that. I will also put in an edit to add notes about the interviewer, etc for this issue. - Kevin 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
With Baen's Universe I give the artwork the same page number as the story being illustrated. In that case the page number is actually the index number used to jump to the story.--swfritter 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ooohhh - I Like that idea. Especially when for this 'zine you could consider the 'page number' to be the link # from the TOC. Kevin 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would always recommend dummy numbers increment in 10s to allow for exactly this sort of situation. If somebody enters the fiction 1,2,3,4,5... and somebody wants to add the artwork in between, you're forcing the artwork-adder to renumber everything to maintain order rather than just add the few details they're interested in. BLongley 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
But we don't want to invite revision. As has been pointed out, there is only a single copy of this publication. Once it's properly entered and verified, there should never be a real need to revise it so heavily as to insert new contents items. (It was my oversight to not document the interior artwork (which is mainly covers of reprinted Novels (nee Novellas/Novelettes)) the first time I went through) Kevin 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"Don't want to invite revision?" Yes, we do! But we initially don't want to force people to enter more than they're comfortable with. I'm only interested in the fiction. It's why we're called the Internet Speculative Fiction DataBase. It's perfectly acceptable to enter that alone and I don't want to raise demands on entry-standards above that, it would just put people off editing. Anyone that wants to add Interiorart I wasn't interested in can do, it improves the publication. Anyone that wants to add additional prices that were listed on the publication can do so too. There's been all sorts of "improvements" suggested since verification was introduced, and some people like me go through their collection again and some people say "this is too anal for me, I'm quitting". In the case of Dummy page numbers, allow for the fact that someone may enter the fiction. Someone else may add artwork as well. Someone may add prefatory notes later. Someone might add Ad pages later. It might get to the stage where people want to record footnotes to appear in the right order. I've no idea how far it will go, but whenever someone pushes the level of detail they're willing to go to, someone else will copy it and has to fit it in. BLongley 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Bill, I didn't make my intentions clear. For webzines (which I think we are trying to figure out a standard for) where we must consider the fact that some of them will evaporate, the initial documentation should be as complete as possible (yes this is a higher standard for a special case). For printed materials, I understand your reluctance and agree that 'any' correct information submitted is good enough. Kevin 02:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Verification will have a more strict meaning for webzines. There will just have to be a greater level of accountability and ownership.--swfritter 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments about interviewer incorporated. Kevin 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Issue #2: Caitlin R. Kiernan is credited as Caitlin R Kiernan and this should be mentioned in the notes especially since there is another author (Lansdale) whose middle initial has a period. Wikipedia lists here with an "R." and gives her a middle name which seem to indicate that the R is an initial rather than a name. Make sure you credit the reader of the audio story in both the pub notes and title notes for the story; that information is not credited on the TOC. The variant title method seems to be a good solution although I normally modify the title in lower case, like "(audio download)", to reduce the possibility that somebody will think it is an actual part of the title although there is likely to be little confusion in this case.--swfritter 14:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Caitlin R. note added; Audio Reader note added to webzine pub, (Audio Download) title, and parent title; Interior art added on same page as the two stories that have it. That's odd though, I always modify titles in Title Case. I'm sure I got it from somewhere in our voluminous docs and standards ... Kevin 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Issue #3: Audio reader again. Godfrey Winton - I don't have anything by him in my collection. He is about as lost and and forgotten as an artist can be. Almost like he never existed.--swfritter 14:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Audio Reader added. Ahh Godfrey - I never knew him well. (Chuckle) Kevin 03:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Issue #4: Audio reader again. Anne K. G. Murphy is credited as Anne KG Murphy on the book review page; information that is not on the TOC. That information should be in the pub notes in case we determine in the future that the KG is preferred. Caitlín R. Kiernan is credited with a period after initial in this one so I don't know why she was credited differently above.--swfritter 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Donovan's Brain

I see you used my suggested solution for adding dramatizations. Unless I missed a conversation elsewhere, I don't believe this ever became an official standard and there did not seem to be a final consensus.--swfritter 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I came up with it on my own (Parallel Evolution?). I found that surfing, and when I realized it had later won a Grammy award, I felt compelled to shoe-horn it into the database, and track it back to it's original broadcast. You might also notice I added 'Suspense' as a General_Interest_Magazines even though it was a weekly radio show. I think it really helps to understand the popularity of many stories when you realize that it was turned into a modern day 'Made for TV Movie' Radio Dramatization. That doesn't happen much today, and when it does for TV and Movies, it's easy to link to the IMDB, but for audio, it's a lost and cold world out there with a variety of partial databases and Websites. I planned on letting this entry simmer for a while and see what i thought of it again in a few weeks or months. If it still felt right I was thinking of going through the 'Suspense' and 'Escape' series of broadcasts (See Escape-Suspense for some write ups) and linking up the other stuff that was originally printed SpecFic, after bringing it up on the Rules, etc. Board. - Thoughts? I also found Best of Radio Science Fiction at Amazon and it's knocking at the ISFDB door in my mind as well. (It's also another publication of the Donovan's Brain hour long re-broadcast) Kevin 15:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly better than merging them. Something that could be implemented with a new variant type. One entry is enough as an example. You also have to think about how this will affect other moderators who will have to research such submissions. Webzines would not have that big an impact since there aren't very many of them, they are easily accessible, and it is expected they will be sponsored by individuals. There are a ton of old radio broadcasts and in many cases there are judgment calls involved as to whether or not individual shows are s-f. Some of them were serials; do we treat them like magazine serials?--swfritter 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the primary reason I was contemplating only those episodes that were based 1 to 1 on literary works, as opposed to those from original scripts to start. The larger serials, 'The Shadow', 'Space Gordon' etc, might be better entered as annual or season 'collections' if we ever get that far. I did enter the two Donovan's brains as serials and that seems to display just fine. As to Moderator's researching entries for approval I hadn't really considered that a required task. Either the submitted data makes sense in the context of the entry submitted (It's consistent with data in the database), or it fills a vacuum in the database, at which point research can be left to a later editor to perform and correct or update. When research is required, the only real sources I'm aware of anyway are google and wikipedia. And like I said above, this one entry just needed to be documented since it won a Grammy, and it can also serve as a decent example of 'how-to' if we ever take it any further. Kevin 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just taking the case above: If an editor hadn't processed many adaptations they would have to check our Help to make sure the entry is correct. Since a variant is not assigned upon initial entry they would then have to make sure that the submission can later be made a variant of an existing title. To be really through they could also track the title to make sure the editor follows through on the variant processing. I sometimes bookmark pubs if I think a submitter should take a further action. Another example: if a submission seems to be non-genre the moderator will have to do some online research to verify that the entry is acceptable. They might even have to do a fair amount of time doing "threshold" research. Other questionable submissions might also require research.--swfritter 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Too be done correctly adaptations would require two changes to the database: An "Adaptation" title type and an adaptation variant type the addition of which would require community consensus and programmer effort. Probably a hard sale. I am of the inclusive philosophy and would probably be for it.--swfritter 14:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Roll out the Rolo

In RX for Chaos you verified Roll out the Rolo. The magazine version was Roll out the Rolov!. Looking at the TOC for the webscription it seems to be Rolov! also. Can you verify? Dana Carson 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Catch - The Cut n paste failed me and I didn't notice. Title is fixed and merged. Thanks! Kevin 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Webzines - proposed Policy Statement

See what you think of this.

In - Web-only publications. Must be on the list of Qualifying Short Fiction Venues of the SFWA. Must be archived in an issue based format. A screen shot of the table of contents of each issue must be archived in the ISFDB image library. Must be sponsored and verified on an issue-by-issue basis by an ISFDB moderator.--swfritter 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarkesworld, Subterranean, Fantasy Magazine, Flash Fiction Online, Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, and Pedestal are currently the only webzines that qualify. Strange Horizons and Chizine are not fully available by issue. Interesting that Helix does not qualify by these standards, not even as a past market.--swfritter 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we draw the big dark line at SFWA, and Hugo nomination, and draw the fuzzy line somewhere beyond that.
In - Web-only publications (Not published in downloadable format). Must be on the list of Qualifying Short Fiction Venues of the SFWA, or Hugo Nominated (final ballot) as a publication, or have originally published Hugo Nominated (Final Ballot) fiction works. Must be archived in an issue based format. A screen shot of the table of contents of each issue must be archived in the ISFDB image library. Must be sponsored and verified on an issue-by-issue basis by an ISFDB moderator.
I will also point out that 'Archived in an issue based format' is kind of cheesy and easy to ignore. All Blogs are 'archived' in a date based format.. all it takes is calling it an 'issue'. Here for example is Tor.com's April 2009 issue. It publishes stories, Critical Analysis, Reviews, etc. The only reason we don't particularly worry about this example is that Tor also publishes the short fiction in downloadable format. Most multi-author websites publish in a blog format these days. I guess what I'm saying is that the requirement to archive in an issue based format doesn't get us much clarity, and may not be an appropriate line in the sand. Kevin 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
After some research... the 'history' of Chizine is available in the wayback machine at internet archive to Issue #5. Issues 1-4 are lost to the sands of time unless we contact the publisher for some historical information. Also it appears that the majority of Strange Horizons is available... just select the archive, then have the display sort by date and it sorts into issues (With the understanding that some authors did not allow their articles or fiction to be archived). We could probably contact The publisher after catching up the zine in the database and ask if a list of non-archived articles, fiction etc exists in their internal archives. Kevin 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm also thinking Hugo or Nebula Ballot, those being the premier fan and pro voted awards. Kevin 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would exclude both Chizine and Strange Horizons. If they can't keep their archives together and/or do not have adequate contracts that allow there stories to remain accessible then I do not think they pass the stability test. Helix folded rather than allowing stories to be pulled. I am not so sure that having a Hugo nominated story is a justification, although that would make Helix retroactively qualified and, of course, such a mag would have to pass other tests. I also think we might want to make this proposal for "primarily fiction magazines". Webzines like the IROSF and SF Site should perhaps be considered separately since they would not even be considered by the SFWA. If they were in the system we could have an online s-f bibliography site with links to online short fiction and book reviews. I think the topical value of the data they contain overrides their potentially transient nature. But that would be a battle for someone else.--swfritter 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been researching current spec fic pubs. There are more than 30 that are available in print and/or downloadable format. Quality varies and payments range from $0.00 to $0.10 and sometimes more but most of them could justifiably be in the database although some might be considered fanzines. There are nearly the same number of webzines many of them quite awful considering the ease with which a webzine can be created.--swfritter 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would think both Chizine and SH in. In Chizine's case, they appear to only provide access to 1 years history on the website. That is consistent with a reasonable sunset frame of 1 year. Since they started so long ago, that may have just been a choice to only maintain 1 years worth of back issues (And possibly a selling point that they were only buying 1st online rights, limited to a 12 month archive period). As to SH, they are organized, it just appears they do allow folks to request (possibly at contract time) removals after some specified time. I'm just not comfortable 'excluding' valid information just because we aren't positive of it's completeness. (Now if it were a matter of 'incorrect' data because didn't document the time it was published, that would be a separate problem.) Kevin 00:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
How do we get a screenshot of the original table of contents? That is the aspect of the proposal that seemed to me to make webzine's doable. It would actually be a good idea to start collecting screenshots of current webzines so that an argument in the future for their individual inclusion could be made based upon a history of stable contents. Lack of a guarantee of verifiable stable contents is one of the biggest argument against the mentioned webzines and webzines in general.--swfritter 01:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We take a screenshot of the information available. If that leaves something out ether 1. we know about it, and document that it's not on the screenshot, but confirmed via info source X, or 2. we don't know about it and it remains undocumented until a secondary source of documentation becomes available and is pointed out to us (shrug), which is exactly how we treat other unknown items... if we don't know about them, they don't exist in the database. Kevin 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If the inclusion of webzines is going to be approved by the community they cannot be treated like other pubs. I would add to the proposal that "every issue of a webzine must have a static non-variable persistent table of contents. No webzine will be considered for inclusion before the second anniversary of its first issue." In addition we may want to add the proviso that a second moderator must concur that a webzine adheres to the stated criteria. Based upon past discussions, many of them buried deep, any ambiguity in the standards for inclusion is not likely to met with a great deal of enthusiasm.--swfritter 13:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am still very dubious about webzines in general. Perhaps winning -- not merely being nominated for -- a Hugo or nebula would do. But if any are included I like this suggestion of swfritter's. I would add that since any webpage however apparently "static" can always be changed at any time: "Any entry for a webzine must be supported by a copy or image of the ToC uploaded to the ISFDB as a permenant reference." -DES Talk 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Archiving the image of the ToC was to me the key. Kevin has developed a methodology for for so doing. Using his methods we can indeed verify whether there are changes to the ToC. Digital publishing is the future and it is better that we develop the methodologies for dealing with it now rather than later.--swfritter 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Subterranean Online, Winter 2008

Kevin, I know you've been entering issues of this webzine and wondered if you plan on creating records for the remaining issues, in particular, Winter 2008 which includes a story by Michael Bishop. I could help, but I'd leave it up to you to create the screenshot and all the peripherals involved in adding a webzine. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, I've been distracted of late (Lots of development fun, lots of butterflys, lots of things growing my yard I have to Kill and Mulch). I have every intention of completing the Sub. Online data entry, but in the meantime you are very welcome to enter what you want of that issue, and I will finish it up as I come in behind you. Cheers Kevin 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI that Carrie Vaughn's "Conquistador de la Noche", which appeared in the Spring 2009 issue, is reportedly a part of her Kitty Norville series. Ahasuerus 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard reject

I see you have a submission in the queue that has become moot. Are you familiar with the hard reject option? Here's the link to get instructions on how to remove a submission that can't be approved or rejected. MHHutchins

Adding text/labels to forms

Hi Kevin. I wasn't sure if your comment on the community portal meant adding text to the forms wasn't something you know how to do. Feel free to delete this if it is. You just add a couple of more lines of "print", right above the line that prints out the button whose label you are changing. E.g.,

print '<font color="red"><b>Change this existing publication?</b></font>'
print "<p>"

If you don't want to change the color, just omit the <font...> and </font>. "<b>" is bold. "<p>" gets you a paragraph break, which has a little more whitespace around it. You can instead use "<br>" for a line break, which will keep the subsequent text closer. --MartyD 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I didn't know yet. How to change the color, font, size. Thanks Kevin 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You can do the same on buttons, except you need to use a "style". You can in-line the style:
 print '<input type="submit" style="background-color:red;color:white;" value="Submit This">'
or you can define the style in the stylesheet (in isfdb2/css/biblio.css), which is better for centralizing the control. For example, you might put into biblio.css (which is applied/available to all pages):
 input#subedit {
   background-color: red;
   color: white;
 }
 input#subclone {
   background-color: yellow;
 }
and then use id="xxx" to pick which input style:
 print '<input type="submit" id="subedit" value="CHANGE Pub">'
 print '<input type="submit" id="subclone" value="Save CLONE">'
If you poke around a little, you'll see this latter approach is used fairly consistently throughout the code. --MartyD 10:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Features 2802730 and 2799105

The changes look good except for "whould" in one of the comments, but we'll let it slide :) Curiously, I didn't find any URLs for www.asahi-net.or.jp/~we8y-mrt/vanvogt/ or vanvogt.www4.mmedia.is, though. Have they been removed or do we have permission to link to these sites, but no images as of yet? Ahasuerus 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey - Typos in comments give code character! I'll fix that the next time I change that file, the correct word is 'should'. As I documented on Development there are no records using those two sites, even though we have permission to link to them. Kevin 04:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks! Ahasuerus 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I acquired several of the permissions while working on van Vogt, before my fixup breakdown. Looking back at them, I see www.asahi-net.or.jp/~we8y-mrt/vanvogt/ didn't actually ask for a link, but for an email. Perhaps that's why nobody's used it? BLongley 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like how this came out. Very nice! --MartyD 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Subterranean Online, Strange Horizons, etc.

See you put a couple of more issues of Subterranean Online into the system despite the fact you are so busy otherwise. The best argument for the inclusion of webzines is that there are editors willing to maintain them. I think it is pretty much inevitable that we will include them as a general policy. Better sooner than later. In order to convince the more skeptical I think it might be better to first focus on the webzines that are easier to verify. My priority list would be Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, Fantasy Magazine, Pedestal, Flash Fiction Online. Both Strange Horizons and Chizine would be fine by me but there would have to be all kinds of disclaimers posted at both the wiki and pub level. Strange Horizons in particular would require a great deal of labor. Parsing the data from the website is the easy part. It took me about an hour to extract the about 500 pieces of fiction. Basic is not dead! There are about 2000 other titles (reviews, essays, etc.) which can also be extracted easily. Then comes the hard part: getting the information into the system. I have to think there must be close to a 100 hours of work to get that data into the system. And even after that it still cannot be verified on an issue by issue basis. Since the most recent four issues are listed as issues on the website it would be easy to enter and document the current data.--swfritter 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have the data in a "computable" format, you can use the Web API to create Magazine submissions or ask one of us to do it. I would guess that it shouldn't take me more than a few hours to adapt Fixer's submission module to handle random magazines. Ahasuerus 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And since Kevin is the one who proposed Strange Horizons and Chizine I would not want to deny him they joy of incorporating them into the ISFDB. It will still be a substantial task. It still waits to be seen whether there will be a community consensus as to the inclusion of more webzines and these two in particular.--swfritter 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehehe - I was merely trying to 'mark off the back 40' so anyone who wanted to could do the plowing (chuckle). In fact it might be a good idea to formally pre-select some webzines that are 'ready' to graduate and let any editors have open season on them, or let any moderator or experienced editor adopt them. As a backstop, I'm happy to go through and screengrab the complete contents of a webzine in a single setting and upload them to the Wiki for archival purposes, so that 'once started' we know we have a complete data set even if a particular webzine goes 'poof' before the data entry is complete. Kevin 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I use a "Web site copier" program, WinHTTrack, which downloads complete Web sites and preserves them in a browse-able format. Given their transient nature, I thought it made sense to download all known SF biblio sites, which I have been doing religiously for the last few years. If you are not in a position to set up WinTTRack locally, let me know which sites need to be grabbed and I can do it quickly. Well, as quickly as WinTTRack can handle them -- some have hundreds of thousands of pages :) Ahasuerus 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Strange Horizons is definitely an overnight, turn the computer off when you are done option. Good job for my old linux machine. I tried it on one site which publishes PDF's and it downloaded them too. Will try it on Clarkesworld with the next issue.--swfritter 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A few caveats to keep in mind. First, many sites have a "robots.txt" file which tells all robots what files and directories to ignore. In most cases they contain useful information, e.g. "ignore any *.cgi files", but sometimes they tell robots to go take a hike. The way to get around it is to modify the Browser "Identity" value, which can be done under the Browser ID tab.
Second, the Scan Rules tab is your friend, e.g.:
+*.png +*.gif +*.jpg +*.css +*.js
-*forum*
-*cgi*
will tell the robot to download all png, gif, jpg, css and js files while ignoring any links which have "forum" or "cgi" in the URL. On rare occasions, forums and cgi file are desirable, so this is not an absolute rule. The most dangerous kinds of pages are dynamic pages since they can tell the robot to download the same directory tree over and over again, each time creating a new subdirectory level. That's a bad thing and can really mess up a Windows hard drive, not to mention that it can cause the targeted Web site to exceed its bandwidth limit (think Geocities, overseas and other sites with limited bandwidth.) The most common offenders are "*php*" files.
Third, some sites do not want the extra load on the system which is caused by spiders, so they block users who download too much data. The way around it is to throttle the download process by changing the "Max transfer rate (B/s)" value under "Limits" to something like 25000, "Max connection /seconds" to 1 (or less for particularly demanding sites) and "Number of Connections" under "Flow Control" to 1.
Finally, the default number of links that the robot will follow is just a few hundred thousand (500,000, I think), which is insufficient for sites with a lot of small files. Make sure to change it to 5,000,000 or so if you expect to run into this limit.
Happy downloading! :) Ahasuerus 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Amber, Volume II

I see that you have a primary verification for this pub and wondered if you could check the gutter code of your copy. Mine has "I 51" at the bottom of page 433, and the pub record gives "I 31". I don't believe my copy was a reprinting and that "I 51" is more consistent with the printing date. Thanks. MHHutchins 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I apparently was just happily verifying things that day, or perhaps the gutter code was new to the record from Harry's update? I dunno. Regardless I have a matched set of M47 Gutter codes for the Chronicles. I've cloned the records, and moved my verification to the M47 set I've tentatively dated as December 1982. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Kevin 14:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought we generally didn't create multiple records for different SFBC printings? The help says:
"Because a book club edition may have several printings, and each may be designated by its Gutter Code, you may be tempted to enter a pub record for each printing. Before doing so, please ask at the Moderator Noticeboard."
In the past I have just added an "also printed with code 'XXX'" note to existing SFBC pubs, when my copy in hand had a different gutter code. Was this a mistake? -DES Talk 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No, DES, you were correct to add the additional gutter code, and yes, we probably shouldn't create new records when the only difference is the gutter code. If the catalog number changes, or the artwork, or the publisher, we should, but I will allow Kevin reconsider his creation of another record (or begin a discussion on the Rules page.) My question remains, does anyone have a copy with "I 31" (as the record states)? I don't believe it exists, so I asked Kevin (because he had a primary verification) what was the gutter code in his copy. Since I'm pretty sure that "I 51" was the first printing I'm going to change the record. Thanks for the input. MHHutchins 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I never even realized (or If I did, it evaporated) that there was such a desire to limit publications of SFBC editions to a single record. I'm personally fine with that, the primary problem is that some of Harry's description he entered doesn't match my copy in hand. Specifically the placement of the SFBC catalog number. I'm fine with re-working his added notes to clarify that different gutter codes have different 'points'. Gimme a minute to massage the record. Kevin 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a look now. If satisfactory, I will put a note on Harry's page that we/I (Based on Michaels copy in hand) changed I31 to I51 as a presumed Typo, but that if he has I31 (Several Months Early) he should definitely update the pub record with his anomaly. Thoughts? Kevin 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree that the I31 was just a typo on Harry's part. There was little discussion about how SFBC editions should be handled. After being here on the ISFDB a couple of months, I attempted to begin a dialog. There was very little interest so later I took it upon myself to draw up some help guidelines, which seems to have worked well, at least for those years that I was in the club (mid 70s to mid 80s). With the purchase of the club by Bertelsmann in 1987 there were some changes that were put into effect over the course of the next decade. Gutter codes were dropped and ISBNs were created for original publications. Eventually I hope to get back to those guidelines to fill in info on that period of the club. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I have a copy of the SFBC edition of this as well, but not at hand. I'll have to dig it up and see what the gutter code is. -DES Talk 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I did err on gutter code. I just did a re-edit for the two quotation marks that I forgot and one captialized i in html code. Love the way the gutter codes are shown in notes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaye's Witches & Warlocks

Thanks for bringing the SFBC edition of this title to my attention. My research of the title led to a couple of changes you might want to make in the title. It was an alternate selection for the month of April 1990, and as such, that would be its publication date. Locus1 concurs that April was the month of publication. Also according to the SFBC standards (which, admittedly, I wrote), publishers name would be followed by the " / SFBC" to indicate a SFBC edition. One other thing: is the publisher credited as "Guild America" or "GuildAmerica Books"? We have many titles under the last publisher's name. BTW, is the copyright 1989? That's the year given by most Abebooks.com dealers. That might indicate that it was available earlier as a selection for other book clubs. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As to your comments (not to be tooooo snarky) that was kind of what 'Work in Progress' was for...(chuckle) in reference to putting the SFBC out of order, and reading the wrong date from Locus, etc. Heheh - I wasn't done yet. Kevin 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As to Guild America vs. GuildAmerica - The text NEVER appears in this (or other volumes I own IIRC) except as the Stylized Logo. However, if you read the logo, you can see that there is a clear separation between the words highlighted by the capitalization, and the top and bottom racing stripe on the smaller letters. I think I would prefer to list this as 'Guild America Books' - Thoughts?. Kevin 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As to the Copyright, yes it has a 1989 copyright, and the 3-4 original stories also have 1989 copyrights, but Locus indicates this is a first edition, and also indicates there was a trade edition in Oct. 1991 retitled 'The Penguin Book of Witches and Warlocks' 0-14-014991-0. I imagine that there was no previous edition, but that the plates were set and then printing got delayed. It was probably scheduled for a Halloween release in 1989 originally, and that matches when it was re-released in 1991. Kevin 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway... thanks for keeping me on my toes, and hopefully I'll get this entered and massaged to an acceptable state tonight. (Last night bed-time snuck up on me and I just had to drop things where they were). Cheers Kevin 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Sorry to jump in before you'd finish entering the pub, but I thought the header was complete and you were simply adding the contents later. (It was your listing of it on the SFBC pages that brought it to my attention.)
Looking over the five pubs I have from GuildAmerica Books I can see how the spelling of their name could be ambiguous. But it seems to my eye that the space between the "d" and the capital "A" is about the same as the space between the "A" and the "m". Most of the Abebooks.com dealers tend to agree with you (39 to 4!), and a search by publisher gave 8427 listings for Guild America and only 1117 for GuildAmerica. A search for titles at isbndb.com gave Guild America 14 titles and GuildAmerica had 36 titles. I'll ask others who have verified copies what they think it should be. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Checking my copy of The Reality Disfunction, I see that the stylized logo on the spine and on the title page can be interpreted either way, but the statement at the bottom of the title page clearly says "GuildAmerica Books". I guess if the only appearance of the publisher's name in a book is in that logo, I can see how most dealers assume that it's two words. Something to add to Publisher level Notes, I assume. Ahasuerus 02:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this

GuildAmerica.jpg

is what will determine the issue. The so-called "racing stripe" only stops because of the capital letters. I don't see a gap. If the gap is really there then they've done a very bad job of creating it. Certainly it does not exist in the non-logo part of the above image. That should outweigh the logo, unless we want to get an artist to help out so we can catch that damned Pocket Kangaroo long enough for a portrait to add to every pub from them?¿?¿ ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

GuildAmerica it is then. (On an aside, I checked the 7 SFBC originals I have from that era, and between 1989 and 1996 not a one has the GuildAmerica written out on the Title page - it might only be later years that have it 'spelled out' so to speak). Kevin 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Same here. None of mine (all from the the same period) have it actually printed out, only the logo. That's why I tossed it over to anyone who may have a verified copy. Thanks, guys. Issue settled. MHHutchins 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ellison Wonderland

It looks like we put Ellison Wonderland on hold at about the same time. I then approved the submission, reverted the affected story and did the add/remove/merge thing. If you check the pub as it currently exists, I think it looks about right, so I put your latest submission on Hold hoping that you will see the Hold before you try to approve it. I am not sure what will happen if you approve a submission which tries to remove a title that's no longer in the pub, but I wouldn't be surprised if a minor explosion occurred :) Ahasuerus 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw the Hold. Did not 'Cross the Streams'. All is well in Who-ville. (Chuckle) Kevin 04:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate info in the Wiki SFBC listing and the db record

I saw you had added a note to the Wiki SFBC listing for The Hopkins Manuscript. IMHO, the note is superfluous, as it duplicates information stated in the db record which is linked to the listing. Taking a look at the purpose of the Wiki list, you'll see that it is "not intended to replace the database or duplicate information that is easily located in the publication records." Because the title is linked to the pub's database record, any user has easily accessible information on that title. (That's why I didn't add columns for page count, price, catalog number, cover artist, etc.) I felt that keeping the list as streamlined and uncluttered as possible would better serve its purpose: to provide a chronological list of SFBC selections. This could only be done on the Wiki, because the db search engine, currently, is incapable of returning such a list. The foregoing might appear to be territorial or proprietary, and, if so, I apologize if that's the impression, but I am open to any recommendations on how to improve the list. MHHutchins 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No Problemo. I agree to the concept of keeping the list simple. I was only trying to document a little extra since it's an oddball record. Feel free to snip, adapt, reduce, or remove anything I've put there that duplicates database information. I've also got no problem with territoriality either (Actual or the appearance there-of). We all have our areas of expertise and like to keep our sandboxes organized. It was a conversation between you and Ahasuerus talking about the gutter codes that prompted me to dig up a stack of SFBC editions without gutter codes listed to update your list for you, with what little information I have to add. Cheers! Kevin 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being tolerant of my one or two quirks (you've probably seen others and have kept mum, bless you.) I forgot to mention that I'm surprised that there was no gutter code in the SFBC printing of The Hopkins Manuscript. It does happen occasionally, but not very often. Thanks again. MHHutchins 04:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
A little research shows that there was a later printing (the following year) that had the gutter code "10G". Art Vaughan, who owns SciFiFantasyBooks.com, is one of the rare dealers who recognizes the value of the gutter code and includes it on most of the listings for SFBC editions. He's the source for many of the gutter codes in our SFBC list. MHHutchins 04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gutter Codes

I've updated the gutter code page based on research prompted by your discovery of a double-letter code. In correspondence with Art Vaughan, I discovered that double-letter codes were used in 1985-1987, which pretty much proves your theory of a continuation from Z codes in 1984. He sent me a list of 7 pubs that he's found with double-letter codes, including one in the trade edition of a pub that we already had in the database! Thanks for putting the bug in my ear. MHHutchins 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha - Jinx - We were both typing at the same time... see you talk page... and Thanks! Kevin 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Minervan Experiment by Hogan

According to Art Vaughan's online catalog the catalog number for this pub is 5906. Is that correct? Thanks. MHHutchins 04:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't have a dustjacket on my copy. Cannot confirm catalog number, feel free to put that into the record though as needing verification. Kevin 05:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Just checked Locus #250 (November 1981) and they give the catalog number as 5906 and the price as $6.98. You can use that as your source to update the record. MHHutchins 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Undiscovered Country

Scanned in an image and fleshed out the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this pub carry the "Book Club Edition" slugline?

Can you check your copy of this pub to see if "Book Club Edition" is printed at the bottom of the front inside flap of the dustjacket? I'm trying to narrow down when this practiced stopped. I have a book from January 1988 that still carries the slugline, and one in July that did not. Your book was a May release and that can narrow it down further. Thanks. MHHutchins

No dust jacket statement. Another note, the SFBC Catalog number is also very well hidden on this. Since it was an SFBC original perhaps?, the catalog number appears in the artwork on the back, and not in a separate white box, nor in the 'normal' location at the bottom of the back. Kevin 09:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Great. That narrows it down to April or May when the line was dropped. Ahasuerus has a March pub that printed it. I'm trying to determine now whether there may have been more than one plant printing their books. The unusual placement of the number on yours may indicate that. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the artwork, you can see the number as a dark line on the back cover artwork near the bottom of the artwork. Kevin 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Echoes of Honor - added notation

Morning! This. [6]. I added notation to your and DSorgen's ver. Note the tag "Heinlein Maneuver" and note in notefield. Smiles. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not part of the Heinlein 'MiaHM' Universe, since 'Heinlein wasn't in that universe. If we had a lunar colony today, and they revolted and they threw rocks at the Earth, 5 will get you 10, that Fox News or CNN would call it the Heinlein Manuever. David was just paying 'homage' to Heinlein by naming the generic 'kinetic strike' tactic after Heinlein. Kevin 00:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I quite agree. -DES Talk 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

At All Costs - Question

Afternoon ! This. [7]. First question, Did you see the signature at bottom right as "© David B." with no Mattingly? I am a little vexed as signature scrawl is in my experience unusual for him and Leaving off the last name I do not remember. Second question, I have the disc also and really wonder if it's contents should be listed just like it was an omnibus? In my peculiar sense the book is both a printed product and cd library. Perhaps, a question for the group? Just imagine, one cd included as part of the book that is a library in and of itself. Personally, can not fathom the publisher's intent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent of the publisherf is to build-up word of mouth and increase the popularity of the series, at which he seems to have been successful. Jim Baen long believed in limited amounts of free distribution (see his Baen Free Library) as a stimulator for sales: "Have a nice free taste, it won't hurt". Also, as CDs were only included with the initial print run, and were desired, they stimulate early sales. They have done this more than a dozen times now, it seems to work reasonably well.
As to what to do with the CD, it could be simply ignored, but if it were to be entered I would be inclined to call it an omnibus, in ebook publication format. I would make a separate entry for it, not part of the entry for the printed book, because not all copies of the book include the CD. A mention in notes that the CD accompanied the book would do, in my view. -DES Talk 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As to the Signature missing the end, I'm Absolutely Positive that --Dragoondelight 12:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)David signed the artwork in full. If you notice the foil area's (Reflective) in the dust jacket, now look for parts of the painting that 'stick out' into the foil. The full artwork was cropped to shape (down from the rectangle), and 'David B.' appears on the Blanket on Honor's lap, while 'Mattingly' fell into the background shape crop. That's all. Kevin 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As to the CD, I had always intended to someday index all the Baen CD's as a huge Omnibus's (As DES described above). Kevin 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I will gladly leave it to you. LOL! Thanks, Harry.

Heinlein's Revolt in 2100

This was published in May 1979, according to Locus #222 (June 1979). MHHutchins 00:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!. I'll update the record with a source note. Kevin 00:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Winston Science Fiction page

Wonderful job on the Winston Science Fiction page. Just one small quibble. You might consider placing it under the Publication Series category. I'm not sure how'd you do that other than putting that category's template on the page. But DES should be able to guide you. Again, great work. MHHutchins 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Header and category added. -DES Talk 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the praise. Since we are moving to support Pub Series in the database, I figured I would start documenting some of the more important ones, and do it up right. There is still a bunch of work to do, (Artist Sub Series, and at least a Lester Del Rey Sub Series), etc. I've got about halfway through the Schomburg Gallery so far, and I'll probably still massage the artwork on the main series page as it progresses. Kevin 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As to the PubSeriesHeader, I already had a header on the page, I just used the wrong one. I had just used SeriesHeader (I've corrected it now). I also made an executive decision (for the time being) to put the header on the bottom, a PubSeriesFooter so to speak. (Shrug) It still works for categorization etc, but this page is complex and complete enough, it doesn't need an 'explanation' of why it exists and instructions on how to use it floating at the top, so I stuck it at the bottom. Also, Once the series is in the database, I will be sure to link prominantly to the database in several places. Kevin 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Advice/Feedback? What should the individual titles link to? Right now I've linked them each to the first printing publication (In order to quickly reach the artwork view). Many of these titles were never reprinted... so no big deal, but some have had many printings of the 1st edition, and have gone on to other HC and PB editions. THe primary quandry are the titles with several printings of the first edition. Should I link to the Title record in those instances? Kevin 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Because you're documenting a publication series, it would make more sense to link to pubs instead of titles. And not particularly because of the artwork. As you said, some of these were reprinted by other publishers so linking to the title wouldn't get the point across, that you're listing the pubs in this series. I've done the same in other publication series (linked to the pub, not the title). What is commonly referred to as Series in the database (which also has a category here on the Wiki), is actually either an Author Series (e.g. McCaffrey's Pern), or Shared-World Series (e.g. Star Trek novels), and those are created by linking titles (works) and not pubs. By keeping Publication Series at the pub level, we can re-enforce the differences between two similarly-titled but fundamentally different categorizations. MHHutchins 04:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear. There were at least 12 Printings of Islands in the Sky Across two publishers, (with a minor change in the spine imprint), and 19 years (1952 - 1971), but with (to my knowledge) matching cover art and other Series indicators unchanged. To the Casual Observer... any of those printings are part of the series.... but by linking to the title, someone with the minor variations will be at the wrong publication to compare to 'thier' copy. (But Since we don't have 'Editions' to link to (sigh) (shrug)). The same problem is going to occur for most Pub level series. Kevin 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that this will happen to most Publication Series. It's quite rare that a series will continue over such a span of time or that the series "brand" will be used even longer. You just happened to have worked on an anomaly (a point which will be made clear if you decide to work on other publication series.) Because you've dated the titles to the first appearance in the series, it's only natural that you link to that first appearance's pub record. You also have the opportunity to note, for instance, that a certain title had a certain number of reprints which retained the series logo. Just make it clear by noting that the links go to the first printing. If that's not enough, append links as [2], [3], [4], etc, for any records in the db for later printings. See, no biggie. MHHutchins 05:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's probably the best bet. I'll add something about multiple printings and that we are just linking to the first printings, etc. Thanks for helping me bounce this around. Kevin 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Lovely job! Only ruined by the hideous pale green we use on links... ;-) BLongley 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you also for the praise. I had considered creating a new template for some color variation between Artists, Authors, and Titles. Kevin 22:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Job: A Comedy of Justice

I added some notes to this verified pub. Thanks Willem H. 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To the Stars by Robert A. Heinlein

I've changed the publication date of your verified pub of this title from April 2004 to March 2004, and removed the note that the date is from Locus1. They're wrong, and the correct date is stated on the copyright page. Does your copy have the same statement? If not, we may have a different printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I guess I didn't even think of looking on the copyright page because it was a book club edition out of habit. Thanks Kevin 14:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Octorber is the cruelest month of them all

At least to those deficient in typing skills.--swfritter 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Statement for Clarkesworld

See what you think of this. I think it might be an easier way to document the ToC data of webzines. Doing it this way will not require invoking a template for each issue.--swfritter 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly advise putting the fair use justification directly on each image page. Failing that, at least a link from each such page to the page where you make the justification. -DES Talk 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it really that much work to add {{TOC}} to each page? I'll do it if you want. -DES Talk 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly like an example which would allow me to link to all the documentation from a single page.--swfritter 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The point is, that someone may come to an image page other than via a link from your list page, where you are putting the Fair use justification. Unless the image page links to you list page, such a person would not see the fair use statement at all, Thus, i think that on each image page we should have either the existing {{TOC}}, or else a link to Magazine talk:Clarkesworld Magazine or wherever the fair use justification is put. If there is a need to put something on each image page anyway, I suggest that the existing {{TOC}} template does the job as well and as easily as anything. -DES Talk 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not clear what you mean by "link[ing] to all the documentation from a single page". -DES Talk 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Something like I have on the talk page so someone can immediately verify the ToC against what is entered in the pub without searching for the image.--swfritter 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Having an index page that links to all the TOC pages strikes me as a good idea. My only objection was to assuming that a fair use statement on the index page could/should replace statements on the individual pages, placed with {{TOC}} on each such page. Note that the TOC template puts pages into Category:Table of Contents images, however an index page in addition seems like a good idea to me. It allows separation by magazine, for one thing, and may be easier to find than the category, for another. -DES Talk 19:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh. 6 of one, half a dozen of another. I think our use is pretty clearly the definition of 'fair use' and I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. Kevin 03:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Would there be an easy way to incorporate both methods? It might already be there and I am not seeing it. Maybe I only need an example. Webzine's that have coherent TOC's can now have more thorough documentation than anything else in our system and I can see no reason why the standards for them should be any different than for any other publication. If that becomes the case we need to have the easiest possible method for the casual editor to add the data and the screenshots. Once again, your idea for using screenshots as documentation was a great idea.--swfritter 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that if we do anything, we should have the fair use statement / rational on the wiki image page. I think if that proves too great an effort, then a single statement for a publication series and then links to the images at least documents the fair use intent, if not as clear as possible. Kevin 22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That said, I believe we have sufficient documentation on enough images, and we have sufficient weight of documentation (Via these wiki discussions) as to our intent, that no additional Fair Use Rational Documentation is required anywhere in this database / website system with regards to cover art, cover images, dust jacket scans, table of contents images, copyright page images, title page images, 'first page' (Which may include some text) images, random text pages, etc. Basically - I think we already have the evidence required to show our intent, our goal, and to support just about anything other than wholesale duplication of complete story text, or print ready CYMK Artwork. Kevin 22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools