User talk:Ofearna/Archive13
From ISFDB
Contents |
The Moscow Moffia Presents Rat Tales
Hello. In your verified pub 380673 could you please check the name of author on p. 18. Is it NielsOn or NielsEn? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
- (Should have used the plus tab to create a new topic. Otherwise the editor might miss this since it was added to the bottom of a previous topic. Mhhutchins 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- (Pretty sure I've used the plus). ForJohnScalzi 04:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
- (Not according to the page history.) Mhhutchins 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- the ToC had ON but the page with the story has EN Susan O'Fearna 18:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- NEVER use a book's table of contents to enter its contents. Mhhutchins 19:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice the diff! Susan O'Fearna 20:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Joe Hill's Horns
You may be happy to learn that your copy of this title is not the 14th printing, but the first. You'll need to delete it since there's already a record for it in the database. Feel free to do a second Primary Verification of it. Mhhutchins 02:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can't believe I got a 1st ed hb from Joe Hill brand new for $1.50 Susan O'Fearna 21:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was his first novel after the fact that he was Stephen King's son became publicly acknowledged in 2007. The publisher printed too many copies, expecting it to be a bigger seller than it was. A good thing my copy was signed by the author, making it somewhat more valuable than a regular first printing. Mhhutchins 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Merlin Dreams
Are you certain that the cover you uploaded for this record is correct? It looks nothing like the one on the Amazon listing. Mhhutchins 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my note I did state that the copy I found had no dustjacket... this is the actual cover of the book Susan O'Fearna 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the record, I see nothing about this image being of the book's cover, nor anything about a missing dustjacket. That should be part of the visible record, not in the "Note to Moderator" which disappears the moment the submission is accepted. Don't put anything in that field that relates to the publication. The "Note to Moderator" should only be used for data about the submission. You should also do a Primary Verification of the record, so that you will be informed in case another editor comes along with a dustjacketed copy. Mhhutchins 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- What does illuminated T mean? Mhhutchins 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, disambiguation of INTERIORART records should use brackets for numbers (like you've done here), but parentheses for words, such as "X (maps)" or "X (endpapers)" or "X (frontispiece)", etc. Mhhutchins 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I added the note about the cover (not dustjacket) to the notes, hopefully fixed the endpapers disambiguation and (again) hopefully made the illuminated letter more clear. Susan O'Fearna 18:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter & Max
Is there any compelling reason why you're creating a content record for every single drawing in this publication? What is the value of having a record for each one? Looking at the artist's page you see just a listing of titles which mean almost nothing to the database user. (And even scews their perception of this artist's output.) Looking back at the publication record, you'd think this was a book by the artist and not the author. All the user needs is one record that indicates that Steve Leialoha did the illustrations for this publication. And that's how it's done in thousands of other publication records in the database. Although nothing in the standards prohibit you from doing this, it seems to me to be far more work than necessary to make a single point: Steve Leialoha illustrated this novel. I can see why an editor would create individual records for a few illustrations of a story in a magazine, or each of the works in an artbook, the major one being that the individual works can be linked to the publications which used the art for covers. But that's not going to happen in this case. Again, I won't stop you from wasting your time, but I don't want other new editors to feel this is the norm and would feel compelled to do the same. In publication records like this, you can't see the forest because of all of the trees. Too much information can keep a user from taking in the whole picture. I've seen you going in this direction with earlier records, and it seems to have gone to the extreme in this case. Mhhutchins 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It's getting pretty extreme when you create content records for a single letter as in this record. Mhhutchins 18:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Should I delete the "extra" illustrations for Peter & Max? Susan O'Fearna 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's entirely up to you. As I said, there's nothing in the rules that prohibits this, and what I've said here is just one person's opinion. I'm hoping you see it as a request to look at the "big picture" when it comes to the practice. If you strongly feel that these content records are vital to the database, please start a discussion on one of the community pages to get a broader scope of opinion. Mhhutchins 15:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Kelley Armstrong series
What is your source that the Darkest Powers Universe series is a subseries of the Women of the Otherworld series? Mhhutchins 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Submission rejected due to non-response. Please try again if you believe the change is correct. Mhhutchins 04:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not usually online on weekends. I read the series and they're all the same universe, Darkest Powers and the other teen universe are all teen sub-series of Women of the Otherworld, tho Armstrong's taken to just calling it the Otherworld since she's paying more "attention" to the men. Susan O'Fearna 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is there anything on the author's website that corroborates this? I could find nothing. Mhhutchins 18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, plus I read the series... the Darkest Powers & Darkness Rising trilogies are the teenaged genetics experiment trying to make the "side-effects" of the supernatural races less with brief mention of The Pack in the Syracuse New York area and the teens themselves were mentioned in the regular series -- like Tori being a (gengineered) Witch/Sorcerer hybrid like Savannah... Susan O'Fearna 17:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide the link to the author's website. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi,
Yes, the teen series takes place in the same world as Kelley’s Otherworld series. Two quick examples... Derek’s father is a Cain (who is in the adult series) and the Cabals are the same—St. Clouds and the Nasts. Hope this is helpful. If you need anything else, please let me know. Sincerely, Alison (Kelley’s assistant)
- This was an email I received while trying to find a link to back up what I know... Susan O'Fearna 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would propose making both series into a subseries of a new series instead of making the YA series into a subseries of the adult series. (You would think that the author would have made this as a selling point of the YA series. I still can't find anything on her website that makes the connection explicit.) Mhhutchins 02:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
