User talk:Rkihara

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Rkihara, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Marc Kupper (talk) 01:06, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Magazine

Ron, before tackling the magazines I'd recommend practicing a bit with novels as magazines tend to be more demanding from a data entry and verification viewpoint. You can jump right into editing and verification now. Out of curiosity, can you provide a general summary of which magazines you have? Please reply on this page (indenting with a leading :). Thank you. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:13, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Amazing Stories, years 1927-2000, 78% complete; Isaac Asimov's SF, 1977-2007, 99% complete; Astounding/Analog, 1931-2000, 93% complete; Fantastic Stories, 1952-1980, 68% complete; Magazine of Fantasy & SF, 1949-2007, 99% complete; Galaxy SF, 1950-1980, 100% complete; Galaxy Novels, 83% complete; Imagination SF, 1950-1958, 63% complete; Planet Stories, 1942-1955, 62% complete; Worlds of IF, 1952-1974, 98% complete. Also Satellite, Beyond Fantasy Fiction, Startling Stories, Thrilling Wonder Stories, Venture, Worlds of Tomorrow, Original SF, and miscellaneous others.Rkihara 01:53, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Double Jeopardy on hold

Great to somebody else interested in doing magazines. I am currently working on doing all of Fantastic. I have all the issues from 1952 to 1970 and intend to acquire the issues I am missing but may need some collaboration with any issues I can't track down. I have placed Double Jeopardy on hold because the data I have indicates that this is actually a collection, specifically this entry Locus Online. Is there something different about the edition you have? You can leave an answer here on your talk page. Again, welcome to ISFDB.--swfritter 12:15, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for the welcome. I've been thinking of contributing for several years, but didn't have the time until lately. I plan to work with books as Marc suggested, then move on to magazines. The Locus reference cites novelettes in two consecutive issues of Thrilling Wonder Stories, which I think were combined to make the novel. The following is printed on the inner leaf of the dust jacket "This novel has been printed in serial form in Thrilling Wonder Magazine." My book has the same page count and other identifying features as the entry I modified, and the chapters are continuously numbered from 1-18.Rkihara 12:53, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Thanks. I will approve. You may want to update the note section of the book as documentation of which stories were combined and where they originally appeared. Fixups are annoying. A. E. van Vogt is a particular nightmare.--swfritter 15:15, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Of course, van Vogt is probably the inventor of the term!, and we're still learning how to deal with it. :-/ Notes are always good. Sometimes a claimed 'Novel' is purely a collection of related stories in order, and easily separable into those stories, so gets called a collection here as it makes all the links to the relevant stories easy. Sometimes the stories are there, but have interstitial text too. And sometimes the stories HAVE been rewritten enough to make them inseparable and all you can do is say "this novel is based on stories X, Y and Z" in notes.
Ah well, if you want to know what sort of discussions we have see here for an example - don't let that put you off though, Welcome aboard, and leave the awkward bits till later! BLongley 15:39, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Galaxy submissions

Thanks for the addition of these pubs. I had to make one change to your submission and that was in the cat/isbn field. The field will only hold a limited number of characters and by using Galaxy Science Fiction Novel No. 17 for example you would lose 17, so I moved this to notes and left just the publication number. This field is for the cat#(#F-338) or the ISBN# only. Other information should be put into notes. Thanks for the submissions :-)Kraang 07:04, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the feedback. I've formatted today's submissions, Galaxy Novels #19 and up per your input. I've been reading through the "help" screens and I can see it's going to a bit of practice before I'm completely up to speed. Rkihara 11:52, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If March 1952 submission

I see you are getting brave. There are a couple of issues about the data as it now exists for this magazine. First - the starting page of the stories - this from the EditPub Help screen: "Interior art as the first page of a story. If a magazine presents a story with artwork on the first page, but no text from the story, that page should still be counted as the first page" The page number for the Twelve Times Zero for instance should be 4 instead of 5. It is fine to enter each page where art exists for a story but it is also OK to make only one interior art entry for a story. I usually enter the only the first page where artwork exists for a story but doing it they way you did it is perfectly fine.

If there is an existing date for a story (like 1952-00-00) it has to be updated manually if you want it to be the same as the date in Magazine title area. Note that the 1952-03-00 date is carried down to the new entries but the previously existing title date fields have not been updated. Also, if you find a date different than the magazine date, do not change that date (for example, a 1942 date in a 1952 magazine. The earlier date indicates that the title is reprinted from an earlier publication. You will be changing data not only in the publication you are working on but in other places too.

I am assuming that these changes were made by you but let me know if they weren't. Magazines are not easy. I will be glad to look at any mag submissions you make if you will let me know what they are. I will try to moderate them if they show up when I am online. It will get easier.--swfritter 18:09, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for the slow response, I keep getting blocked by ISFDB. I missed the instructions for artwork on the first page of a story. I'll go back and correct my page entries for the illustrations. The help guide is a bit complex so I tend to miss or forget things. I have been careful not to change dates of stories within the contents, since they may indicate an earlier publication. This is why I didn't update the previously entered fields, although 1952-00-00 seems to be a place holder. I've submitted one more issue, IF 05/1952, and will limit my submissions to one or two a day to limit my messes until I have a better feel for things. Thanks! I appreciate the advice.Rkihara 23:48, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)
There was no problem with your artwork entries, just the page numbers for the stories. There are three different options for artwork. Option 1 - One entry with the same page number as the story. Option 2 - One entry with the same page number as the first piece of artwork. Option 3 - multiple entries with the page number where each piece of artwork occurs. It's alright to change the dates of the stories to the date of the pub if it is the first place they appeared. Even with the blocking your response time is fine, any response within three days is adequate, and your responses are very communicative.--swfritter 08:52, 18 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If, May 1952

I am going to approve tomorrow morning and make some changes. After I am done I will let you know the changes I made. Perhaps we can map out a plan that you will get you totally up to speed in as little time as possible. It may require a little patience but you seem quite motivated and willing to learn. I think it's going to be a pleasure having you on board.--swfritter 18:35, 18 Aug 2007 (CDT)

A Hannes Bok Treasury

Your submission for a new pub of this title is quite similar to an existing pub. Please check and see if that pub just needs to be updated or that yours is an entirely new edition. The only difference I'm seeing is the page count (and the Bradbury foreword.) Also, the editor of a single-artist collection should not be credited in the author field, only the artist should be. Put the editor's credit in the notes field. (This would not apply to a multi-artist collection, in which the editor is credited.) I'm holding your submission until I hear back from you (Reply below to this message). Thanks. Mhhutchins 10:10, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

You're right, I missed that earlier entry. It needs to be updated.Rkihara 12:27, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I'll reject your submission of the new record, and you can update the existing one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:19, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If May 1952

I've made a number of changes and documented them below. I hope you are not getting frustrated. Every new Editor goes through this process.

Publisher: It looks like all or most of the issues of If include the city so it might be better to leave the address in otherwise all the issues will need to be changed in order to be consistent. This is a free form field so data entered here does not affect data entered elsewhere. I was actually considering the possibility of adding this information to magazines I am editing.

Jungle in the Sky - Titles amended with (Complete Novel) and classified as Serials are designated that way on purpose. This is mostly a display issue compromise which makes sure people looking at the author page know that the work appeared in a magazine rather than as a book. Seemed weird to me to and I did the same thing you did when I first started. I don't think the subject is actually mentioned in Help. That being said - this work does not achieve the 40,000 word barrier that would classify it as a (Complete Novel). Instead it is a novella. Editors often used this ruse of overstating the length of stories in order to make them seem longer. Digests usually have between 400 and 450 words per page. Stories become novelette length at around 18 to 20 pages, novella length at about 40 pages and (Complete Novel) length at about 80 to 90 pages in digest magazines.

I have changed all the dates of preexisting stories to 1952-05-00. These are clearly the first appearances of the story. Updating the month portion will make them sort more accurately in the author bibliographies.

It Takes a Thief - The author is listed as Walter Miller, Jr. and should be so entered in the magazine. Walter Miller, Jr. is considered a pseudonym of Walter M. Miller, Jr. (see his author page). Note: This one was actually a little more complicated since the story was later published under a different title.

"The Beast" - Same situation as the Miller story. John W. Jakes should be treated as a pseudonym of John Jakes. In this case this is the only appearance of the titles in the database so you can safely make the changes in the publication editor mode.

Infinity's Child - 'DeVet' is actually printed here when the canonical name is 'De Vet'. This is one of those fudge factor cases where I, and I think most of the other editors cheat a little bit and use the canonical name so I haven't changed this.

Resurrection Seven - The artwork title was misspelled Resurrection Seveb. I usually copy and paste interior art titles from story titles.

Editorial - The actual title from the title page of the story/essay should be used. In this case the title obviously indicates that is an editorial so it does not need any further modifiers.

Science Briefs - Since this is a continuing column I have added the "(If, May 1952)" for clarification. The general rule is not to modify titles but when there is a duplicate title in a continuing feature it can be done for clarification.

The Postman Cometh - I have also added the "(If, May 1952)" qualifier. The rules for authorship of letter columns - If the responses are signed use the name of the responder. If they are generically signed ('ed., 'The Editor', etc.) use "The Editor" as the author. If the responses are unsigned use 'uncredited'. If they are just letters without responses use 'various' as the author. At this point in time we are not entering the letter writers' names unless they are significant letters by significant people.

The technical title of the magazine is If. Worlds of Science Fiction is just some verbiage printed on the cover. This becomes more confusing much later on when "Worlds of" actually is incorporated into the title.

A great source of information is Mike Ashley's Transformations. This is a history of sf mags in the 50's and 60's and provides incredible amounts of valuable information. It was reading that book that prompted me to get back into collecting and reading magazines from that era.

Once again, you are doing just fine. There is a major learning curve. I am more than willing to spend the time to make you feel comfortable with editing magazine data.--swfritter 10:32, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

That's quite informative and sets out the information in an easy to digest manner. If it was expanded a bit it would make a great example in the FAQ. My entries to the May IF were generally pagination and illustrations. I may have added the letters column and editorial, but I don't remember. I should have checked the previously entered data a little more closely while making changes, though I find that dealing with variations in author's names to be confusing. While I'm on the subject, what about Emsh? He's listed as Emsh, Emshwiller, Ed Emshwiller, and so on, not counting pseudonyms. I've been entering Emsh, as that's how he signed most of his artwork, and leaving other variations encountered in the database alone. I'll study your changes and continue moving forward with IF. Thanks for your time.--Rkihara 12:30, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I generally enter the artist name as it is credited or signed and I think most others do the same. I would imagine there will eventually be a big cleanup. One way to keep track of the changes you make is to do a printscreen of the data entry area. I did so before I approved your submission so that I would know the changes you made. You can also do a text copy and paste of existing data. I will try to set up some sample data for you to work with tomorrow in order that you can learn how to do variant titles and pseudonyms without worrying about trampling live data. The first gap in my collection of If does not occur until 1955 so I can do checks on any data you enter up to that year.--swfritter 13:10, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I've entered IF July 1952, and will try to do two or three more in the sequence today. I'm now printing the files before editing to pdf for reference.--Rkihara 13:34, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I've just realized that I entered the month into the day position in the dates for possibly the July, August and September issues. It's too bad that you can't recall a saved edit before approval.--Rkihara 14:37, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)


Great - I have put them on Hold temporarily to save the other moderators having to analyze them. I might note that most of the problems with the May issue were not a result of your actions but they are things that needed to be fixed. If you want to limit yourself to adding art and missing data along with fixing significant errors that is just fine. It is not unusual for editors to do intensive but non-comprehensive projects.--swfritter 16:23, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

New If submissions

Approved. Luckily these were more correct when you got to them. All of your additions seem fine. Updated the dates for you. You can leave the dates for new entries blank and they will fill in from the issue date. It wasn't this way when I first started editing. I submitted a whole bunch of stories with a date that ended up being 0000-00-00. Might note that the July issue has an essay credited to Sam Merwin Jr. in the magazine. It is pretty much standard practice (as was done here) to add the comma to make it Sam Merwin, Jr. Same with Ph.D. and Ph. D. - they should be entered as Ph.D. M.D. and M. D. are entered as M.D.--swfritter 17:07, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Adding 1953 issues of If today. I bumped the enter key while typing in the data for May, so there's an extra submission for that month.--Rkihara 10:32, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Been there; done that. I use a program called KeyBoardRemapper http://software.techrepublic.com.com/download.aspx?docid=289108 to disable the Enter key although this is kind of annoying because you need to disable the program so often to do other things. There are certain situations when you can totally lose everything you have entered if you hit the Enter key. I lost one magazine entry with 12 stories, associated artwork, and 12 cartoon entries. It might be a good idea to wait until your partial submission has been accepted before you enter the rest of your data. I am going to reject your initial May submission and approve the following one since it appears to have all the same data plus additions. Looks Like If is a good place to start for you. The data appears to be in decent shape and for the most part requires only artwork and essays to be entered.--swfritter 10:55, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Glad you entered your profile. It has some similarities to mine although I was lucky enough to have a high draft number of 301. I floundered around for a few years after I got my English degree and finally returned to school to get my Computer Science degree and am now retired. I had the core of my collection before I was 25 and have updated my collection during the last year.--swfritter 10:55, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)

May through November If

May 1953 - The artwork on the BEP was classified as SHORTFICTION and not INTERIORART. Clarke's 'Jupiter Five' should be a Novelette (not your mistake).

July 1953 - (If, July 1953) not appended to letter column. September 1953 - The editorial is actually signed by Associate Editor Larry T. Shaw (he uses the initials lts).

November 1953 - Editorial once again signed by Shaw. Your first cartoon. I hate them. I would paste the Help section for them here but I don't seem to be able to access the Help screen. Unsigned cartoons do not have to be entered. Signed cartoons should be entered as - Cartoon: "caption in quotes" (see the November changes I made). Cartoons without a caption should be entered as - Cartoon: no caption. I credited the cartoon. Your entry in the notes is an indication that the attribution might not be accurate. You might want to look at the way I have done cartoons in the early issues of Fantastic http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Magazine:Fantastic . Book Reviews - you should make sure the title and author are entered as they actually occur in the database (I usually look up the title and copy and paste to the review) so they will be listed with the books being reviewed. If the title listed in the review is not the same you should document the discrepancy in the notes field for the magazine. After the pub with reviews has been entered you should look up the books being reviewed and make sure the review listing shows up there.

I assume you bypassed the January and March issues because they were verified. Verified pubs are not off limits. In fact I found that in both of these issues the page count had not been corrected and the letter columns had not been entered. If you find obvious errors in a verified pub it is alright to update them and notify the verifier. If you have any questions about the proposed changes you should first notify the verifier. A real problem in this case is that the verifier has not been active for awhile. You will find a long discussion about the verification issue at http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Rules_and_standards_discussions#Verification_Definition

Also it appears that somebody had started a "Personalities in Science Fiction" series from essays in If. A number of potential candidates for the series have not been added. One problem is that most of the essays in the series are about scientists. I am going to leave it to you to determine how you want to deal with this.--swfritter 12:55, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)

January 1954 If

Once again the editorial is signed by Larry T. Shaw (lts).--swfritter 14:11, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)

A Case of Conscience

If, September 1953. Here's one of those gotchas. Somebody mistakenly merged the novella version of "A Case of Conscience" with the Novel version. See http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2276. I'm not positive but I think when you changed the magazine version, the main title type was changed to shortfiction from novel. Mixed in with all the titles under "A Case of Conscience" are editions of the Novel and appearances of the Novella so this title was screwed up before you did anything to it. I will try to sort it out tomorrow by unmerging the novella entries from the novel entries.--swfritter 18:24, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Wow, and I thought I was getting the hang of it. Sorry about the mess. I'm going to have to look over your corrections, and try not to make repeat errors. I think "Personalities in Science" is a separate series from "Personalities in Science Fiction." I'm inclined to keep listing these, since they would fall into the category of a science article.--Rkihara 18:46, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Not really your error but as you gain experience this sort of entry will create a certain suspicion that will cause you to want to investigate. I didn't recognize the problem immediately. It wasn't until a few hours later that my subconscious figured out.--swfritter 08:51, 21 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Working on If Mar. - Dec. 1954

I've read through your notes and I think I understand your edits, so I'm going to continue on through 1954. I really appreciate the time and effort you're putting into bringing me up to speed. Thanks again.--Rkihara 23:44, 20 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I've submitted March and May 1954. April is one of my two missing issues. I noticed a case of recycled art in the case of the bep for May 1954. A slightly modified version was used for the cover of October 1955. The bep is monochrome, while the cover is in color and the spacecraft has a fin number changed. Is this considered a separate piece of art?--Rkihara 00:22, 21 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Probably the best thing to do is make it a separate work of art an make a notation in the notes field for the magazine.--swfritter 08:55, 21 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If though July 1954

No problems. I updated the April issue. One of the interesting things I found there was an illustration credited to Ed Emsh on the title page of the story but signed by Orban.

I have set up a test pub so that you can learn how to assign a pseudonym http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?224341. What I would like you to do is assign swf pseudo as a pseudonym for swf author. Make sure you put "swf" somewhere in any piece of data you add or modify so that I can track it down and delete it. When you get to this screen http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/mkvariant.cgi?719145 please note that there are two "Submit Data" buttons. The top button applies only to data entered in the top part of the screen and the bottom button applies only to data entered in the bottom part of the screen. You will probably want to work in the bottom part. At some part of the process you should also find yourself at this screen http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/mkpseudo.cgi?98373. To save you some navigation time you will find the appropriate Help screens here: http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:How_to --swfritter 10:33, 21 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I've submitted the test pub. If I understand it correctly, executing the first example identifies the real or parent author out from multiple names assigned to one title, while the second example screen identifies pseudonyms of the parent.--Rkihara 17:11, 21 Aug 2007 (CDT)
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/mkvariant.cgi?719145 defines tells the database that the story was written under a pseudonym by the author whose name you entered in the variant data screen. http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/mkpseudo.cgi?98373 tells the database that this a pseudonym the author used - it does not link any stories. If a pseudonym is already listed it should not be added again. See http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?John_Jakes and notice that John W. Jakes is listed twice as a pseudonym. That was an early mistake I made. Unfortuneately, there is no way at this time to remove multiple entries.

You may also want to try to find a way to unlink the pseudonym attribution. You may also want to add a dummy collection with the same story as is listed in the magazine and then merge the two stories and then try to unmerge them. I am going to let you play around on your own with the sample data. I usually learn more by my mistakes and with test data you won't have to worry about trashing any signficant data.--swfritter 17:39, 21 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Fantastic, June 1954 already in database

I put it in there or modified it recently (I can't remember which). Perhaps you are confusing Fantastic with Fantastic Adventures?--swfritter 11:39, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I think I've figured it out. There are two,nearly identical databases in the ISFDB with slightly different titles, one is called "Fantastic" and the other is "Fantastic Science Fiction Stories." I guess they'll have to be merged or one deleted? I was working with "Fantastic Science Fiction Stories."--Rkihara 12:08, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Wow - I thought that both "Fantastic" and "Fantastic Science Fiction Stories" linked to the same lookup table. According to some of the notes it looks like somebody was doing some cleanup work there even before my time. Three of the "Fantastic" entries seem to lead to a single table and the first leads to another table, the one I have been updating. Sorry about that. I should have noticed. I will reject your entry. I might note that you do not have to enter uncredited cartoons. Also with magazines the tags are user assigned because the system is not designed to create consistent magazine tags. Sorry again that you had to do unnecessary work.--swfritter 13:01, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
My assumption was correct and the extraneous entries are gone although I have retained links to the tables on my Home Page just in case. In any case, every once in awhile you will find that a magazine has been added to the database but there is no link to it so you don't know that it exists. Before working on I project I usually go the Bibliography for the magazine editor and see if there are any surprise entries for a magazine. Fantastic is my primary project right now. I have all the issues through 1970 and expect to have the issues I am missing before I enter them.--swfritter 13:15, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Searching for the editor doesn't always work - I've had to enter Editor records on previously missed magazines. And some we didn't entirely miss. Still, it meant I found and created these two magazines entries, hopefully someone will finish them off eventually. Impulse and SF Adventures (UK). But Kyril Bonfiglioli seems to be missing from a few more magazines too... I prefer to work from primary sources though, so if anyone else wants to step up to the job of "rediscovering" magazines I'm happy to let them do it. There are too many problems with how to categorise foreign reprints that I prefer to point them out and let someone else take up the challenge, or at least demand the ability to Clone a magazine, for instance... BLongley 16:43, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
The links to the tables are still active in my browser, even after clearing the cache, etc. I'll stick to "If," since you're doing "Fantastic."--Rkihara 16:16, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If, Jan thru May 1955

The documentation states that it is acceptable to assign the page of the artwork to the first page of the story but I think using the first page where artwork is found makes the data in this issue consistent with the other interior art entries you are making with If.

In the May 1955 issue the date for Easy Does It was not changed to 1955-05-00 and I assumed that this was an oversight so I changed the date from 1955-00-00 to 1955-05-00.--swfritter 12:05, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Question about individual letters

"If" starts a letter column in June 1955, and I noticed a letter within by Charles Fontenay to the editor. The FAQ says that inclusion of individual letters is "debatable," which implies that it is okay in some cases. If including the letter is allowed, how is it entered? Is the writer listed as an author in the letter column, or is he/she listed individually?--Rkihara 12:59, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Well this is one of those Rules and Standards discussions that basically led to nowhere: http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Rules_and_standards_discussions#Attribute_Letter_Columns_to_Various.3F
I know I did a couple of them early on by assigning the letter writers as collaborators. Looks really stupid especially if you have four or five names. If you can find a policy hiding in the discussion, let me know. You can start up the discussion again. I now have a fairly definite idea of what should be done but perhaps you have some new ideas and I do not want to influence any original ideas that you might have. Welcome back to the world of committees. You probably had them in your job.--swfritter 13:37, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I'm not sure I've seen ANY Rules and Standards discussions lead anywhere really, but I keep on trying. DO feel free to join us in the discussions, Rkihara. It might save me starting the revolution on my own. ;-) BLongley 14:18, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
As the others state, there aren't any rules (or I've not seen any.) Here's how I chose to enter them in the contents fields of the periodicals:
  • Page: Page number that the letter begins
  • Title: Entered as "Letter (Periodical Title, Date or Issue #)" [I use the issue number in most cases, but that's a personal preference.)
  • Month: Leave blank unless you're correcting a previously entered periodical. Default date is the date of the issue.
  • Entry Type: ESSAY
  • Author1: Letter writer's name
Go here for a recently added periodical to see how it looks. I'm not saying this is the best way, but it does show up clearly on the Author's Summary page. Mhhutchins 16:34, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Good example! It's got the "these people are famous SF authors and even a letter is bibliographically important", along with the "Who the Heck is THAT?" single-entry-here-because-of-one-letter people. Personally, I can't be bothered to enter every letter-writer unless I think the author is already here for other reasons, but I don't object to that level of data being added, so long as it's (a) not DEMANDED as the level of data-entry required, and (b) doesn't cause problems with an insignificant letter-writer being confused with a significant author, or even a significant artist or reviewer. BLongley 17:11, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Actually, if you take a look at the history of the ISFDB Policy page, there have been changes based on Wiki discussions and previously implemented features. Ditto for Help pages. Unfortunately, the process is not as fast or as efficient as one might wish :(
Things were somewhat better back when Al, our programmer, was around as he would often summarize the results of a discussion and implement new features based on the consensus. Due to Al's extremely limited availability (family and work issues) over the last 6 months, many discussions petered out since we weren't sure whether a software fix would be possible/forthcoming or whether we needed to implement a policy workaround. To use letters as an example, one possible way to address the issue would be to create a new "title type" for letters, but it's all pure speculation until Al comes back in September, collects requirements and tells us how viable a software solution would be. Ahasuerus 16:56, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
A lot of things don't depend on a software solution, and some things do get changed just by someone being slightly aggressive and changing a help page when nobody disagrees enough. It's not the best solution, and I wish we had some sort of voting mechanism to say what we would like to happen. So far only Moderator creation seems to have a formal process. Almost anything that DOESN'T require software changes, or retroactive data changes, should at least have some sort of procedure, probably not as fast as the new Mod process though. Policy changes have longer-reaching implications than single-person authority ones. BLongley 17:11, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I'll expand on that a little more, but as we've got a significant number of active editors and mods talking here (a quorum, maybe? ;-) this really should move back to a more appropriate forum soon. We're acquiring some Frequently Asked Questions from new editors, and probably should pull a few past discussions out of the archives to either a) explain why things aren't going to change, b) why they can't change just yet, c) they could change but not enough people really want it, judging on current discussions (which is why I particularly want to pull out some archives which show there IS enough support) or even d) why some people should be silenced. :-/ We're at a crisis point, IMHO: the Bureaucrats aren't enforcing the original "Laws" (Good!), discussions are encouraged (Good!), but although Moderators and Editors are talking, things aren't changing and I can foresee people quitting when they've done their "acceptable" edits. I'm looking to the new editors to save us from eventual total stagnation. BLongley 17:40, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I like the idea of a "new title" type, maybe the entered data could be hidden at a lower level to reduce clutter and linked back to the "letters column." Writers with similar names to major players would not cause confusion in the main author listing if this listing was decoupled from the main author listing. Later, if the letter writer is verified as an author/editor/etc., then his/her entry could be linked back to the main listing.--Rkihara 17:50, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)

(unindent) I have copied Bill's last comment to the Community Portal and added a comment of my own. Ahasuerus 19:45, 23 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I find Mhhutchins solution to be acceptable except that I would use the title of the letter column, "According to You... (Fantastic, June 1954)" as an example. But that is no biggie. For right now, would prefer restricting to artists already in the database. The positive aspect is that we do not have to wait for software changes and it seems that implementing a Letters table might be a long way off. If this "committee" can come up with a consensus then I think we can propose it as a solution. Otherwise, we can wait for possible software solutions. There is plenty of other essential work to be done.--swfritter 08:42, 24 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If I was running the ISFDB as a software project I'd certainly be asking for lots of user comments by now before the next iteration, so I'm encouraged by this talk. I know I'm running into "Authors" that actually aren't authors a lot, but then I've gone hunting for variant authors and have been finding obscure ones that are actually multiple people, sharing a name. How big a problem this is I don't know - my activity makes it LOOK like a big problem at times. So I may be worrying too much about one-off letter-writers, or my suggesting that "crediting previously unknown letter-writers may lead to too many authors" will exclude some notable people. E.g. Mike Glicksohn is here on the basis of 3 letters but seems quite well known elsewhere? I'm FOR capturing more data than we need, rather than missing things entirely, but some of the auto-merging we have may lead to short-term problems. Software changes may stop an author being confused with an artist or a letter-writer - but some people ARE in multiple categories, e.g. Keith Roberts. I'm sure we can come up with some guidelines without needing software changes OR losing data - e.g. "If a letter-writer has no Author entry already, put their contributions in Notes instead". Or maybe a Magazine level comment would be more appropriate: e.g. the "SFWA Journal" letters column probably has everybody that should be included, whereas a reprint magazine that only appeals to the general public should probably have all letter-writers excluded on the grounds that the "notables" will have read originals. Possibly. Discuss. BLongley 14:11, 24 Aug 2007 (CDT)
If we want to institute a methodology now we need to keep it simple. Only two questions need to be answered. How do we format the entries and how do we insure that only significant letters are entered (at least until we have a standard for entering all letters)? I believe Mhhutchins input resolves the first question. As for the second question - I would suggest that we recommend that editors summarize the contents of letters in the notes fields of the letter entry. If a letter is not worth summarizing then it is probably not significant enough to be worth entering. If we want to hold out for something more elaborate then we will have to wait for further guidance.--swfritter 08:44, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

If

Nice job on If, August 1956!

I am afraid changing "uncredited" to "Uncredited" didn't work since the ISFDB data entry logic matches entered author names against what it already has on file and the match is not case sensitive. It then uses the name on file instead of the entered name and "uncredited" was there first :) The only way to change the case of an author's name is via "Author Data". If we were to change "uncredited" to "Uncredited" across the board, we would need to change our Help text, though. Ahasuerus 23:27, 24 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I wondered why the auto fill and final listing kept showing "uncredited" in lower case. It'll save some time to quit fighting with it.--Rkihara 10:00, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

More practical lessons?

Would you like me to continue posing practical problems for you? You are doing some great work on If but you are not having to deal with pseudonym/variant title information, merges, or Editor records. The primary goal when a quality editor shows up is to move them up to moderator status as soon as there is a consensus about their ability and a willingness on their part. If you want me to continue with the practical problems I am going to expect that you use the Help screens rather than relying on me for practical guidance. Sound good?--swfritter 08:59, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I'm game, but I'm not sure about being a moderator, that sounds like a full time job. I have a large chunk of free time right now since I just retired, but next month I start taking classes in bookbinding, and in October I start working again as a part-time consultant. I'm also spending a lot of time reading the stuff I'm entering <grin>. Charles Fontenay's "Z" which I encountered yesterday is one of the best re-complicated time travel stories that I've ever read, right up there with Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps." I'm surprised that I haven't seen it before, or even heard of it. Maybe its obscurity has to do with it being complicated and conceptually more difficult. I'm still trying to puzzle out the logical implications.

I'll be working on Galaxy and/or F&SF for the next week, before going back again to If.--Rkihara 10:00, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I'm with you on the reading part. I find my head spinning thinking about the bibliographic stuff. I sometimes wake up at nights thinking about rules and standards. My primary reason for doing ISFDB is so that I can read through my collection in an orderly manner. I am currently reading through the 12 sf magazines that came out in December of 1952. What I want to do eventually is write Wikipedia essays. Short fiction essays are starting to appear there now. I would particularly like to document the novels and short stories of Daniel F. Galouye one of those semi-forgotten masters. I have read through all his novels and short stories and find them still quite readable. I actually don't do much moderating of other submissions besides mine. The other moderators primarily wanted to make me a moderator in order to lighten their load. The main reason I spent the time on your submissions is that you are working in the same area as I am. You are substantially reducing the workload for myself and others.--swfritter 11:40, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Daniel F. Galouye was one of my favorites too. I read Dark Universe and Simulacron-3 in my early teens and still think about them today. Simulacron-3 is actually a little chilling since many scientists like Paul Davies are speculating that our universe is a simulation. No proof, but their arguments are both compelling and disturbing.--Rkihara 12:49, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

You are a smart person

I just spent three hours entering the March 1959 issue of Fantastic http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?FANTMAR59. Richard de Mille also has the variant name Richard deMille. One of his stories in Analog was attributed incorrectly to de Mille when it should have been deMille. Two magazines where his stories appear have the name listed differently in the table of contents and the title pages of the story. Further examination revealed that he also wrote stories under the name of Arthur Coster. Those pseudonym attributions had not been assigned so I had to do that. In addition, the story The Girl of Many Bodies, which has the unattributed pseudonym Wilson Kane, previously appeared in the December 1952 issue of Other Worlds under the title The Identity of Sue Tenet by the unattributed pseudonym of Frank Patton. Going to Frank Patton led to straightening up a number of his pseudonym attributions. Linking The Girl of Many Bodies and The Identity of Sue Tenet as variant titles by pseudonymous authors proved so difficult that I just left notes in the appropriate places. How could you avoid a challenge like that?--swfritter 12:04, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I can see that there's satisfaction in finally bringing order to chaos. Are there any certified lists of pseudonyms on the ISFDB, or do you have to search them out in Tuck and other references? I'm kind of a visual guy, I wonder if it would help to chart out pseudonyms in a family tree sort of way, with dates of earliest use, and date of last use (birth and death <g>)? This would be especially informative if two or more authors collaborated under real or pseudonymous names.--Rkihara 12:49, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)
A valuable resource is the Locus Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index (1890-2005) CD-ROM at https://secure.locusmag.com/About/CDRomAd.html. It has all the data not only for the magazines in ISFDB but many others. It is HTML-based and does not have interior art or book review entries and is not integrated with book data. It does have a large amount of series and pseudonym information. It costs money but I consider it absolutely essential. ISFDB bibliographic information can be found at http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Sources_of_Bibliographic_Information. There are also a number of online bibligraphies for various authors that usually can be found by typing in the author's name plus the word 'biblography'.--swfritter 13:41, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Changing contents of a collection, anthology or periodical

I am holding your update of Galaxy, February 1951 to let you know that there is a recommended method of how to make corrections in the contents area of a collection, anthology or periodical. If you change the TITLE or AUTHOR fields in any of the content records you will be changing every record in the database for that title. For instance, the Lester del Rey story "And It Comes Out Here" has ten appearances in the database. Your submission would change its title in Galaxy, February 1951 to "...and It Comes Out Here", but that would change its title in the other nine publication records as well. I can personally verify that at least five of these are not "...and It Comes Out Here", but "And It Comes Out Here". Here's a page in the Help guide that shows you how to make corrections in a contents' title.
Because you've added so much new contents to this pub, I'll go ahead and accept it. This saves you from having to retype it all, if it had been rejected for this single (but quite important) reason. I will have to go back and correct the title in the other nine pubs (and create a variant title for this story also.) If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:51, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about that. I'll read the guide carefully and be more cautious about changing titles and authors.--Rkihara 20:35, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)
No problem. There's so much to take in when you first start here on the ISFDB. You're already far ahead of most new editors when it comes to magazines. I don't doubt that within a few weeks your submissions will be of a level that a moderator will only have to make a cursory glance. And who knows, it won't be long before you're approving your own submissions as a moderator. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:02, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Recent Galaxy submissions

December 1952 - I believe the Ashman entry for the 'The Deep' was meant to be interior art. Will leave to you to fix. April 1952 - Jones is already in the database as Jones. This is similar to what happened when you tried to enter "Uncredited". Also there was a novel attributed to "jones". I did an ISBN search in abebooks http://www.abebooks.com/ and determined that the actual author of that book was Claudia Jones. I updated the name in the book pub record so now there is only one 'jones' in the data base. If you wan to uppercase the name, the best way is probably to go jones summary bibliography page use the Author Data option to change the name to Jones. I will leave that to you.

Galaxy October 1952 - You did a good job of not messing up the other entries but if you go to Eric Frank Russell's bibliography page http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Eric%20Frank%20Russell you will note that 'a little oil . . . (1952)' is listed as a variant title of 'A Little Oil' but there is no pub appearance listed for 'a little oil'. There is a pub appearance listed for 'a little oil' right below those two. There is more than one way to fix this but I would probably try to merge the two records for 'a little oil'. Hint - these titles will not show up under dup candidates. Another hint - when you do get to the merge window select the radio buttons for the variant title nt, 56278 for title parent, and the button that allows you to keep the notes. I am going to let you see if you can resolve this but if you stumped let me know.--swfritter 13:17, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I've made the corrections and submitted the merge, though not without some trepidation.--Rkihara 18:22, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Looks good.--swfritter 09:01, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)

December 1954 Galaxy

Galaxy's Five Star Shelf is classified as shortfiction. Will let you fix. The really great thing about being a moderator is that nobody knows when you make a mistake. I just got through fixing about 6 places in Fantastic where I made the same error. And nobody knows - until now.--swfritter 12:27, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Or at least not until another editor verifies the same Publications :) Ahasuerus 12:32, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I've fixed it. After a few hours of data entry and checking, I get a little dopey. Speaking of multiply repeated errors. It would be nice to have a batch modify function for a limited number of fields, particularly in the heading where the data changes little from issue to issue. Changing the pagination of a hundred magazines one at a time is really fatiguing.--Rkihara 14:24, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Variant for Star Short Novels

Are you creating the variant based solely on the Galaxy review? If no publication exists title "Star Science Fiction Short Novels" then we should not create a variant. (My research came up with none.) If you want to link the review with the publication change the title of the review. Then add a explanation in the notes of the Galaxy pub page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:06, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Yes I made the variant based on the Galaxy review, I thought it was safer than changing the title in the review. Looking in Tuck, I see that Pohl also edited a series called "Star Science Fiction Stories", and at the end of the list by itself is "Star Short Novels." Maybe Conklin conflated the two titles? I'll go back and change the title in the review as you suggested.--Rkihara 17:56, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)
FYI, we have a Magazine page for Star Science Fiction, which explains the relationship between the abortive magazine attempt and the successful anthology series :) Ahasuerus 18:49, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Galaxy, Jan 1953 [UK version]

I rejected your deletion of this title, but saw why you thought it was a duplicate with the wrong contents. This is actually the UK version of the magazine. I've changed the title to reflect that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 21:12, 28 Aug 2007 (CDT)

You're probably right that it's a UK edition, that seems a reasonable delay from the September 1952 US edition which has the same fiction contents. But if so, then we can add the correct coverart (Visco has the British editions, in this case here) and from that the correct British price (1/6). But that leaves us with an incorrect cover artist record for Jack Coggins as the UK edition is apparently by Emsh? Also, we seem to be missing the Editor record to make the UK version easily findable. BLongley 15:19, 29 Aug 2007 (CDT)
However, the US/UK Galaxy cross-reference at Visco also seems to disagree whether it's the September or October 1952 edition in the US that was reprinted as the January 1953 UK one: and I see no reference to the Willy Ley essay(?) mentioned on the cover of it. For that reason, I'm reluctant to make ANY edits apart from notes like this comment here. Presumably someone is working from primary editions here though and can verify one part at least? If so, I'd LOVE to know what the key is to those author pictures on the British cover! BLongley 15:19, 29 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Sorry to point out the complications, feel free to do what I do - i.e. "the best I can" with so little magazine experience, then "holler for help" from the magazine mods! ;-) BLongley 15:19, 29 Aug 2007 (CDT)

FSF entries

Approved by noticed that some of the stories are still classified as shortfiction instead of shortstory. There is no date for the Recommended Reading column for Fall 1950. You might also want to think about putting Vol n, No n data in the notes field although a quick glance shows that most of the earlier issues don't have this data and, of course, FSF gets all fancy and uses roman numerals for the volume number. There seems to be no consistency in the way vol/no data is entered in later issues either. If you can determine a standard you might want to consider making a note to that effect on the link page. Or, of course, you could update all 600 or so issues in the series. Or just leave it to me when I get around to it sometime in the next decade.--swfritter 09:20, 30 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I tried changing shortfiction to shortstory, but this option was not in the drop-down menu, although interestingly enough, if it was classified as a shortstory, I had the option of making it shortfiction. I noticed that a lot of the book reviews were trimmed off, is this a quirk of the ISFDB, or did you edit those? I know they were short and numerous, but they did meet the minimum criteria for inclusion as given in the Editing guides. I could enter the Vol. n, No. n cross-referenced to the Strauss index, or use the spine numbering up to vol. 10. Is it customary to insert Vol. and issue number for all magazines, or just for magazines that are so tagged on the spines or front covers, like Amazing or F&SF?--Rkihara 09:58, 30 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Did not touch anything. I am pretty much in the mode of informing you of things that possibly need to be fixed and I have always informed you when I did make changes. The only reason I made changes earlier was that it was easier to do so for teaching purposes. I do not know why shortstory worked that way or book reviews were trimmed. I know of no lmitation on the number of reviews per issue. There is no stated standard on vol and issue and no requirement that they be entered. I noticed that other people had entered them and did the same. They are a good way of identifying issues. A glance through other issue of F$SF shows that they have not been entered in any consistent manner so it wouldn't hurt to set this issue aside for the time being. We really should have a set standard before updating such a large set of data.--swfritter 14:49, 30 Aug 2007 (CDT)
I went into edit mode on the Fall 1950 issue and dropdowns seemed to work OK. The two dropdowns actually worked independently from each other. I was actually able to put in an essay with the length of novelette. Kind of weird what's happening to you.--swfritter 15:07, 30 Aug 2007 (CDT)
There were funny things happening with the database/server the last couple of days. Sometimes when I'd post I'd get a message saying that the server was unavailable, so I would back button and wait for a 15-30 minutes and try again. I wonder if the review data vanishes by doing this? I may try it on a test submission and see what happens. In several cases whole sets of reviews disappeared, in some, maybe a third to a half of the submissions vanished, which led me to think they'd been edited. I wasn't totally sure that they had been edited, since everyone had been informing me of changes, but I felt that I should ask. I apologize if you were offended. Maybe some of my entry problems are browser/platform related, as I'm running Firefox on a Mac. The volume/issue numbers are printed on the spines of the first six years in Arabic numerals, so I'm inclined to use that for the standard, converting Roman numerals where they appear. If it's better for me to work one publication at a time, let me know. I'm jumping around between magazines, because my digests are stored ~5 years to the box, and boxes of similar years are stored together.--Rkihara 16:44, 30 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Absolutely no offense taken. Moderators can only approve or reject submissions. If they make changes their re-submissions will show up under Recent Edits. I was worried that my last message might be wrongly interpreted. The fate of the world does not depend on the ISFDB - unless this is an Ender's Game scenario. Most of the volume and issue number data has been entered in the format 'Vol nn, Issue nn' with later issues of F&SF also having a whole number. I should throw something out in the Help screens since this has become somewhat of a de facto standard. I once suggested putting the data where Catalog# goes but magazines now have an official number of some sort similar to ISBN's. You might want to put something out on the Community Portal about the Firefox/Mac issue. I use Firefox/XP and my delayed submissions seem to go through OK.--swfritter 10:43, 31 Aug 2007 (CDT)
The editing page seems to be working correctly today. I can now change shortfiction to shortstory, and vice-versa, so something may have been corrupted on my machine. I went back to the first issue of FSF and I'm re-inserting everything that disappeared. I'm putting in Volume and Issue as Vol. nn, No. nn in the comments section, since that's how the spine is marked. If there is some sort of standardization in the works, I'll skip that for now until the format is settled.--Rkihara 11:08, 31 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Looks like everything went through OK. Skipping Vol and Issue number for right now is probably a good idea. The information is of more value in identifying issues of oddball titles where there are multiple magazines with the same titles (two unrelated Science Fiction Adventures), magazines that skip nearly a decade between incarnations (Future)and magazines that change names(Imaginative Tales/SpaceTravel).--swfritter 11:25, 31 Aug 2007 (CDT)
Have started a discussion on Volume and Issue numbers at http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Rules_and_standards_discussions#Volume_Number.2C_Issue_Number.2C_Whole_Number. Nice to know I can still do a little SQL.--swfritter 14:17, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF, February 1951

I checked into the note you added to this pub and discovered that John Coates is the author of the book under review. So I made a change, but added a verification to your note to that effect. Good catch! Mhhutchins 16:09, 31 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Kerning

Just a reminder that we always enter a space between initials, thus it's "A. N. L. Munby" as opposed to "A.N.L. Munby" and "B. A. Botkin" as opposed to "B.A. Botkin" :) Ahasuerus 00:59, 2 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, November 1952

I have approved the changes to The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, November 1952, but I was wondering if you may have meant to change the publication date of Bradbury's "The Wilderness" from 1952-00-00 to 1952-11-00 as well? Ahasuerus 14:09, 2 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I should have left a note. "The Wilderness" was apparently a reprint, the acknowledgment in the footer to the story was "Copyright, 1952, by Triangle Publications, Inc."--Rkihara 14:23, 2 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, added :) Ahasuerus 18:33, 2 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF, January 1953

Ordinarily I would not have accepted the update that you submitted for this pub, because you changed the author of "The Perfect Creature" from John Beynon to John Wyndham (along with a lot of new info.) Fortunately all of the current pubs which attribute the authorship to "Beynon" is incorrect, and should have rightly been Wyndham. If I had been forced to reject the pub, all of the new contents that you added would have to be reentered in a new submission.
Remember that when you change the authorship of a story within a pub's contents, you will be changing all other pubs to that same authorship, even if they were published pseudonymously. I have a few steps to perform to get this story back to ISFDB standards. There's a way to change to contents to avoid this. Thanks.

Sorry! Thanks for saving my edit, that sounded like a bit of work to repair. I was under the impression that if a pseudonym was linked to the canonical name, that it would be decoupled, but I guess it's a case of the "hip bone connected to the thigh bone . . .--Rkihara 19:43, 3 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF June 53

Don't forget that cartoons need to be labeled as such. 'Beware of the Robot' should be 'Cartoon: Beware of the Robot'. Since there is no caption using the text from the lawn sign as a title is appropriate. Will let you make modification.--swfritter 09:02, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF July 1953

Good catch on Henry James - This is the entry from the Locus/Contento CD: The Friends of the Friends [“The Way It Came”] • Henry James • nv Chap Book May, 1896. While I've got the issue up a will go ahead and make the change.--swfritter 10:10, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I also got rid of the bogus pseudonym attribution. Apparently Kellenberger used actually did use Henry James as a pseudonym. Guess he didn't there was another writer named Henry James. Must not have had any high school English classes.--swfritter 10:25, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I might not have caught it if the Great Books group that I belong to hadn't been on a Henry James streak; "The American," "Washington Square," and so on.--Rkihara 10:48, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)
You were probably going to do some more research on this. Hope I didn't spoil your fun.--swfritter 11:13, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)
I would have had to make a trip to the library, so you saved me a bit of time. I didn't notice the pseudonym attribution, but the editor's intro left no doubt that it was the real Henry James. I wonder if anyone ever told Kellenberger about his faux paux? It probably raised a few eyebrows among his contemporaries, and provided a bit of amusement.--Rkihara 11:33, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The Victorian Chaise Lounge

I have approved The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, October 1954 submission, but then changed The Victorian Chaise Lounge to The Victorian Chaise Longue since I assumed that the typo was yours and not Boucher's :) Ahasuerus 13:57, 8 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that was my typo, though it was more like dyslexia on my part (I had to stare at it for a while). Out of curiosity I looked it up and was surprised to find out that that "longue" is the proper term, while "lounge" is considered to be a folk usage. I guess you already knew this.--Rkihara 15:49, 8 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Or maybe he just has some French skills? As various people have said in various ways, "We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary". We don't seem too fussy about keeping the trophies, whereas the French for instance are trying to pretend they didn't steal "Le Weekend" and "La Chewing-Gum". (Maybe they have troubles with the genders?) BLongley 16:12, 8 Sep 2007 (CDT)
I do know the French spelling of the term, but you never know with these crazy writer types, so I pulled up the record in OCLC and checked :) Ahasuerus 00:28, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Changing Bradley's "The Climbing Wave" to novella

I totally agree that this is not a novel and would prefer it to show exactly as you wished to change it, and without the (Complete Novel) designation in the title. But somehow, somewhere, somebody thought this was a good way to connect a story title to it's subsequent publication as a stand-alone book. I don't like it, and think there's got to be a better way... someday... But in the meantime, that's the way it is. I reverted your change of it in this pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:29, 9 Sep 2007 (CDT)

That's okay with me, but what about the "Serial" designation? I'm beginning to see that categorization can be a real slippery subject. I'm reminded of a couple of articles I read about Linnaeus lately, and his categorization of the plant and animal kingdoms.--Rkihara 14:15, 9 Sep 2007 (CDT)
WHAT subsequent publication as a stand-alone book? I don't see it here... :-/
I too agree stories like this are not novels, but in this case isn't it just one magazine entry we have to disagree with? This doesn't even have a reprint in a "TWO Complete SF novels!" Ace Double or suchlike that wouldn't pass as a collection or omnibus these days. If it was my pub, I'd happily change it and leave a "this was laughably described as a complete novel" comment in the notes. It seems no other editor was brazen enough to say that - there's much longer works that are far more arguable, appearing only as "complete novel" serial and then as half a book, never as a complete book. Don't wimp out on this one, argue the case! BLongley 15:34, 9 Sep 2007 (CDT)
When I saw the (Complete Novel) designation, I assumed (wrongly) that there had to have been a stand-alone publication or at least an appearance in a double. But I couldn't find one, and can't figure out why an editor would give it that title. So I'm going to take it under my own authority to change the designation to a novella, and take the (Complete Novel) off it. (Wish I could do the same with all the others as well, but that would upset those few who like the designation.) Mhhutchins 16:09, 9 Sep 2007 (CDT)
"Complete Novel" does seem to appear on magazine entries more often than I'd like, and many entries here are transcribed from references of suchlike: but that's probably what the first publication said. Usually when a Book publication turns up someone can then argue that it's an expanded version of the former "Complete Novel", or that it's the same text and doesn't qualify. But we rarely have editors that own both. (OK, we probably do, but they're concentrating on one side.) We actually seem to be dividing into Magazine-Only and Book-Only editors: I hope the divide isn't so bad that Magazine Eds demand we go by what the publication says, and that Book Eds go by ISFDB categories. (I've already seen one example where Locus gave an award in a different length-category to the one it reviewed it as, I just can't recall what title that was.) Oh well, nobody said editing here was easy. (OK, that's a lie - I keep telling people it is.) Can I claim my work here as "relevant experience" to my "herding cats" Ph.D. attempt? BLongley 17:01, 9 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF July 55

Approved but made the following changes: Since the cartoon has a caption it should have been listed as Cartoon: "O.K.---now pass the bat's blood.". The Lasswitz story was published in 1885 according to the Locus/Contento 'Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index' CD. Good that you took Willy Ley out as an author and made the note. Also removed the title you had marked for deletion. I am not sure that you know this - titles you remove from pubs are not deleted and in this case resulted in an orphan title which I deleted.--swfritter 13:11, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF October 1955

Accepted as submitted - If the Merril story was about 20 pages longer the (Complete Novel) designation might have been correct but your change is correct. You might find the following entry from the Locus CD helpful: The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction [v 9 #4, No.53, October 1955] (35¢, 128pp+, digest, cover by Mel Hunter) 

   * 3 • Project Nursemaid • Judith Merril • na
   * 75 • Dywyk • Doris P. Buck • vi
   * 78 • By a Fluke • Arthur Porges • ss
   * 84 • Uncle Phil on TV • J. B. Priestley • ss Lilliput Apr-May ’53
   * 104 • The Cricket Ball • Avro Manhattan • vi Lilliput
   * 107 • The Talking Stone [Wendell Urth] • Isaac Asimov • ss
   * 124 • An Appointment for Candlemas • Robert Graves • ss Punch Dec 1 ’54

I did not do anything beyond accepting the submission.--swfritter 13:24, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF January 1956

It looks like you did not change all the dates. You can change all the dates for new stories to 1956-01-00. The date on magazines is generally the date that the magazine goes off sale so on a technical basis the stories actually first appeared in 1955. The general standard though is to use the date printed on the magazine as the date of the story.--swfritter 13:43, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF 1955-56

A lot of things to note down. I'll consider getting a Locus CD. Was the CD cited for the Merril entry or the more precise pub dates? Also wondering about how to handle Boucher's book reviews. He tends to review a book he likes over and over during the year, not to mention his recap of the year's best. I've been entering only his first reviews and ignoring repeats unless they are substantially longer and more detailed.--Rkihara 14:28, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Listed entries for more precise pub dates and sources for reprints. My first inclination on reviews would be to enter any of them that adhere to the guidelines - which are basically pretty minimal but I think your logic in not automatically adding redundant reviews is a good idea. I would enter the annual recap reviews since they constitute a best of the year list.--swfritter 15:31, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)
The number of end of year recaps are daunting. One of the lists must have had at least thirty titles, each with a short recommendation. Maybe I could enter the titles in the comments box?--Rkihara 15:52, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF March 1956

Cartoons without a caption should be listed as Cartoon: no caption. I know you are probably getting paranoid ( I still do) about changing titles within a pub but if the title (Like 'Science Screen') only appears in the pub you are editing it is alright to change it within the pub. In fact it is preferable since removing such a title leaves an orphan title which has to be deleted - as I just did. If everyone shares the same paranoia is it actually a paranoia? Since I've got the mag up in the screen I will delete the Beaumont title and change the cartoon entry.--swfritter 12:19, 11 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Definitely paranoid. It seemed to me that single occurrences should be safe, but I decided to err on the safe side. I'll be deleting those orphans when I make a sweep back over what I've entered.--Rkihara 13:02, 11 Sep 2007 (CDT)
I remember what it was like before I was a moderator. Little notes all over the place. I will leave you to destroy your own orphans from now on.--swfritter 15:05, 11 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF, September 1956

I accepted your update of this issue, but noticed that you had zeroed out the date of the Evelyn E. Smith DAXBR BAXBR. My research shows that it was first published in the 1954 anthology Time to Come but the two words are reversed and there's a slash between them. If the F&SF version is as you entered it, we should create a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 10:07, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I don't remember zeroing the date out, but I was puzzled about how to enter the title and left it as it was. On both the index and title page, the title was was laid out two-dimensionally like a crossword puzzle, with the two words(?) crossing at the "X." . DAXBR was vertical, while BAXBR was horizontal. I haven't read the story, but I flipped through it and it's filled with crossword puzzle constructions of all kinds; squares, rectangles, parallelograms, and so on. In this database it's the problem of entering a 1-D projection of a 2-D object. 8>)--Rkihara 11:05, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I can see how it might be difficult. I just created a variant and hope that covers it. You might want to add a statement concerning this situation in the note field of the issue. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:48, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF, October 1956

Your update of this issue zeroed out the date of the John Christopher essay. Was there an earlier publication that's not in the db? Mhhutchins 12:40, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The John Christopher essay was credited to Punch, no publication date. I don't have the resources to track this down.--Rkihara 13:05, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF February 1957

Is there a reason you did not change all the dates? There is another editor who has started changing entries like 'Recommended Reading (The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, February 1957)' to 'Recommended Reading (F&SF, February 1957)'. It might be a good idea since sf fans recognize the shorthand. But it would also require an awful lot of work to make the entries consistent. I put his submissions on hold temporarily since I think we should have group input.--swfritter 09:16, 13 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The previously input 1956 dates for February 1957 seemed to be wrong. I felt it better not to change them, since F&SF does a lot of reprinting and does not always give an acknowledgment. I've no objection to using F&SF in place of the full name of the magazine. I entered the full name of the magazine, since it had already been entered that way, including the full spelling of the month. I've also noticed that seemed to be the rule for other magazines. Since F&SF has published about 660 issues to date, that would mean at least 1320 changes if the title block was changed too.--Rkihara 09:49, 13 Sep 2007 (CDT)

F&SF Dec 1956

Venture to the Moon is actually of a series of short-shorts as listed in Locus/Contento CD:

100 • Venture to the Moon • Arthur C. Clarke • gp London Evening Standard May ’56; The Starting Line [“Double-Crossed in Outer Space”], ss London Evening Standard May 23 ’56; Robin Hood, F.R.S. [“Saved! By a Bow and Arrow”], ss London Evening Standard May 24 ’56--