User talk:Ruddickn

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Ruddickn, 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:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

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! Hauck 18:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction Adapted to Film

Hello, I've approved your submission, the result is here. I've made a few changes to conform to our standards: 1) regularized publisher to simply "Gylphi", 2) transfered series information from title series (it's used mainly for fictive universes) to publication series (a series of books that share the same "packaging"), 3) uploaded a scan of the cover. Thanks for contributing. Hauck 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Hauck. More additions to come once I get the hang of this. Ruddickn 23:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction Across Media: Adaptation/Novelization

I accepted your Science Fiction Across Media: Adaptation/Novelization, but made the following changes:

  • Pages: Removed the spaces around the "+". For consistency, we don't use spaces.
  • Interview: Converted the essay on page 201 to an interview. Interviews are entered using the "Interviews" section at the bottom of the publication submission form.

We do appreciate your submission. ISFDB has some conventions that need learning, but everything should be in the help links in the welcome message above. We hope you will continue to contribute. And please let us know if you have any questions (ISFDB:Help desk is a good resource for asking). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also regularized (you'll find that we're fond of regularizations) "I.Q. Hunter" to "I. Q. Hunter". Hauck 06:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Arthur C. Clarke Award: A Critical Anthology

Hi Nicholas, I've accepted your edit to add the essays to your verified publication, with a few minor corrections:

  • After generic titles such as 'Preface' and 'Introduction', we add the title of the work so as to disambiguate them from the thousands of other Prefaces and Introductions we have in the database.
  • When no author for a title is given, we use "Uncredited", which I've added to the last two titles. It's not actually necessary to add things like bibliographies, appendices and acknowledgements if (as usual) they are uncredited, as they just tend to clutter the database while not serving any quantifiable bibliographic purpose.
  • Authors with consecutive initials have those initials separated with a space, so "L.J. Hurst" has become "L. J. Hurst".
  • I added your message to the moderator concerning the ISBN to the Note for the publication, as it might have some bibliographic use.

Otherwise, good job! And thanks for contributing. PeteYoung 23:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Time Machine: An Invention

Hello, I've approved your submission but had to make quite extensive changes to conform to our standards: 1) deleted Title series (see above for the same remark, "Broadview Literary Texts " is a publication series as you correctly entered it), 2) changed author to Wells only (the scholarly parts do not generate -in our sense- joint authorship, see here or there), 3) disambiguated (by adding title of the book) the "generically-titled" items (Introduction & Appendices), see remark above, 4) credited the Appendices to you alone (we do not use the "et al." concept) and changed its type to ESSAY (NONFICTION is only for books), 5) transferred some of the data given in the Note to Moderator (that are deleted) in the publication's notes, 6) deleted the extraneous NOVEL record that you added (a NOVEL record is automatically created when entering the publication), 7) I've also varianted the novel to its shorter-titled form. The result is here. Hauck 15:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your trouble. Will try to do better next time! Ruddickn 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Three Go Back

Hello, I've rejected your submission as we do not enter cover designers (as are credited the Tullett) as cover artists. This data can go in the notes (I've done this for you). As you set you up as PV of the publication, you can delete the part about Locus in the notes. Hauck 17:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd better consult you before making changes in future, as I'm not sure I quite understand certain distinctions!
Here's a question. I have a hc first US edition of Sue Harrison's Mother Earth Father Sky. This edition has already been verified, but my copy has 274 pp while the verified copy has 323 pp. (see http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?22980). What do I do, if anything? Ruddickn 15:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The best is to contact the Primary Verifier (here) and directly ask him the question. This is effectively quite strange. Hauck 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Aô l'homme ancien

Hello, I've put your submission on hold. Can you be more precise about the spec-fic elements of this book (it seems standard prehistoric fare as per data that I've gathered, note also that it's not listed on the usual french sf sites). Hauck 07:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you exclude this, I fear you'll logically have to remove dozens of other works of prehistoric fiction already listed. I have a collection of pretty obscure works of prehistoric fiction of which Elie Berthet's The Pre-Historic World is the oldest. I've been verifying them on ISFDB and so far this one is the only one which isn't already in the database. As for the genre issue, well, I've written a whole book on this (The Fire in the Stone), in which I conclude that prehistoric fiction has the same fantastic status as science fiction, the difference being that one is set in the unknowable past and the other in the unknown future. Ruddickn 15:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Here, (in France), the preshitoric fiction is also sometimes merged with SF (all this is Rosny's fault). That said, my own opinion is that it's not spec-fic in the usual sense (be reassured, I didn't write a book on this). As I'm tired of playing the villain, I'll release your submission (left to my own devices, I would have rejected it) for another moderator to approve it. I could have directed you to Rules & Standard pages but it may prove a waste of your time. Hauck 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Please be assured that I greatly value your responsiveness and attention to detail on this and other issues.[User:Ruddickn|Ruddickn]] 19:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
After re-reading for the nth time this page, your proposed inclusion is perfectly in our scope (even if I don't agree with it). I've approved your submission. Hauck 06:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Approaches to Teaching the Works of Oscar Wilde

Hello, sorry to play the "bad cop" again but this time I had to reject your submission. In a nutshell (see here), we "exclude non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book." and this even in the case of authors above the threshold (don't ask me how high is the threshold, though). So in both counts, the text is outside our scope. Hauck 06:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jabberwock 1: Anuario de ensayo fantástico

Hello, I've approved your submission for this pub (please enter only one ISBN). You'll notice that there are quite a few unlinked reviews that you'll have to attend to. Hauck 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Any advice about how to do that? Ruddickn 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It'll be a multiple step process. The first step is to enter the spec-fic books that are reviewed based on the data given in the source (which may be sometimes sketchy). For the non spec-fic titles (if there are some), the REVIEW record should be changed into an ESSAY like this one. The second step will be to link the reviews to the titles obtained in the first step via the "Link Review to Title" option at the review title level here for example by passing the newly created TitleID. The third step will be to variant the titles obtained (e.g. Las Confesiones de Max Tivoli is probably to be varianted to The Confessions of Max Tivoli aka this title). Hope this help. Note that correctly entering reviews is one of the more complex and more time-consuming task of the db. Hauck 10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll have a go at this in due course. Ruddickn 15:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As they appear as anomalies in our cleanup reports, it may be quite urgent. Hauck 10:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Changed into ESSAYs. Hauck 08:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Golden Strangers and Sous le vent du monde submissions

Hi, and welcome. I accepted your submissions for The Golden Strangers and Sous le vent du monde and made a couple of changes I wanted you to be aware of. And I also had a couple of other things to tell you about. So here's the list. :-)

  • Prices in new shillings (where 20 = 1 pound) are recorded as s/p, using "-" for zero. So I changed "21 shillings" to "21/-" based on your note to the moderator.
  • We record introductions as content (using the ESSAY) title type. So I added one to each of those publications using the information you provided in your notes to the moderator. Please review and make sure I got them right.
  • Note to the Moderator is not persistent -- it's just information for the moderator to help in processing the submission. Pub notes are made a part of the actual publication record. The sort of information you provided in your submissions might be appropriate for the pub notes.
  • When you come across an entry that says something like "Data from Amazon..." or "Data from [some other secondary source]", and you have the book, you should delete or alter that note. That note is telling everyone the record was constructed from one or more secondary sources, rather than from the publication itself. So if everything in the record is visible in the publication, you should delete the note entirely. If something is missing (e.g., the book might not give a publication date or might not have a price), then you should alter the note to be specific about what still comes from the secondary source (e.g., you'd change it to read "Publication date from Amazon.com" or "Price from Locus1" or whatever). Everything else is implied to have come from the book itself. So please revisit the note in Sous le vent du monde.

These are all very minor things. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, and thank you for contributing. --MartyD 04:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have deleted that note in Sous le vent du monde.Ruddickn 17:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Story of Ab; A Tale of the Time of the Cave Man

I have approved your submission to make this a variant of Tale of the Time of the Cave Man: Being the Story of Ab. Do you know about a publication under the latter title? Stonecreek 08:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

After a bit of research I found that this step was wrong, 'The Story of Ab; A Tale of the Time of the Cave Man' being the first published and so the canonical title. I'll delete the variant. If you know about a publication with the differing title, please enter it. This is the correct way of adding variants (varianting will then be done in another step.) Thanks, Stonecreek 19:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right about the canonical (US) title. My copy is an early British edition published by Adam and Charles Black in London (1904). It has the variant title "A Tale of the Time of the Cave Men, Being the Story of Ab." Shall I enter it as a new publication? Ruddickn 22:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mallot Diaries

Hi, I've put your submission for that on hold: 1) Borzoi Books is an unknown publication series and sounds more to be an imprint. What's your impression? 2) You gave no source for the date of publication change, please do so. Thanks, Stonecreek 08:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Stonecreek. To answer your questions. 1) The title page gives "Alfred A. Knopf" as publisher. "Borzoi Books" with the dog logo is a long-time imprint of Knopf. The reverse of the title page says, "This is a Borzoi Book." 2) I have the first hc edition. At the bottom of the inside front flap is the date "5/65". Ruddickn 22:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As a result I have modified the publication to meet the established imprint format: Borzoi / Alfred A. Knopf. I have also added the source for the month of publication to the notes. The notes for primary verified publications most often need an update: the sources for the data (amazon, Reginald, national libraries etc.) can now be deleted, as the PV (in this case you) becomes the source of the data. Nevertheless information like the date of publication or the cover artist still need to be sourced, for example by stating the information given in a publication (or else by stating the source). Thanks, Stonecreek 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

La Caverne: ...

Thanks for adding this novel. I have modified the entry to meet our standards (please use currency symbols). For novels and nonfiction the container title (the novel or the nonfiction) haven't to be added. They are automatically generated. Thanks again, Stonecreek 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Watching

I have rejected this addition as it is a graphic novel. Graphic novels are outside the scope of ISFDB (see our inclusion & exclusion ploicy). We make a exception for graphic novels by significant genre authors (ex. Neil Gaiman), but it is limited exception. It would not apply to this case. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

N/A Marked Primary Verifications

In the following pubs, you have marked a primary verification slot as N/A:

Do you mean to mark these as verified? If you could update these, it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I have verified these publications. Ruddickn 17:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Golden Strangers and The Invaders

Hi, according to Wikipedia -and the cover of the first US edition- The Golden Strangers is the original title of The Invaders which makes your copy a collection, rather than a novel.--Dirk P Broer 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruddickn, you can check this. Does your book include these:
  • "I Cannot Go Hunting Tomorrow"
  • "The Black Longship"
  • "The Man on the Hill"
? Those are the works that make up The Invaders. Thanks. --MartyD 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You can also take a good look at the first US edition's cover, where is clearly stated "Original title: The Golden Strangers" [img]avonT400.jpg[/img]
No, my copy doesn't contain any stories. It begins with the Introduction by Rosemary Sutcliff, then there's a short prologue entitled " "Barley Dream," then the novel in three parts: Part One: "Dark Folk"; Part Two: "Light Folk"; and Part Three: "Day and Night." The reverse of the title page notes that this novel was first published by John Lane The Bodley Head in 1956, and that this 1967 edition is "Reproduced from the original setting by arrangement with John Lane The Bodley Head." Ruddickn 21:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Island of Regeneration

I accepted your submission of The Island of Regeneration, but I have a question for you. Do you have this original 1909 version, or just the 1910 6th printing you mentioned in your note to the moderator? If the former, don't pay any attention to the rest of this. If the latter.... We record each printing separately. So what you need to do is make a 1910 6th printing entry and primary-verify that (the one you have). It is ok to construct a record for the original 1909 from the 1910 edition, but what we'd do in this case is record in the 1909 edition's entry's notes that the record was constructed from information in the 1910 6th printing. And NOT primary-verify that record (primary verification is actual-copy-in-hand).

If all you have is the 1910 edition, what you should do is visit the link above and use Clone This Pub in the Editing Tools to make another copy. Adjust that to reflect the book you have (give it a 1910-03-00 date, include in the notes that it's the 6th edition, etc.) and indicate you have that book. Then also go back to the 1909 edition and remove the primary verification.

I hope that makes sense. If not, please ask questions. If you need any help, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 01:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MartyD. I have followed your instructions (I hope correctly). Ruddickn 17:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. You'll see the results here. --MartyD 18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing information in primary-verified publications

When you change a publication that has a primary verifier, ISFDB etiquette/policy is that you notify the verifier of your change by leaving a note on the verifier's talk page (or following any instructions found there -- which may include NOT notifying). If the change is substantive (altering the contents, changing a credit or spelling or date), you should confirm with the verifier first. If the change is minor or completely additive (adding a cover image, adding page numbers, adding a missing piece of information discovered in another source), it's ok to do the notification and submit the change at the same time.

So for your change to The Professor Challenger Stories, you should leave a note for Dfrank. Thanks. --MartyD 18:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've left Dfrank a note accordingly. Ruddickn 22:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Frontispiece map

I accepted your update to The Ultimate Island, but instead of having a note saying that it includes the frontispiece map, you could instead add a content title of type INTERIORART for it, with page number "fep" (if it's on the end paper) or "bp" if it's before any pagination. If it's untitled, we use the title of the publication and usually add "(frontispiece)" -- or "(map)" in this case -- to disambiguate from other potential interior art. --MartyD 11:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Aerodrome: A Love Story

I moved the LoCC no. to the notes. This may be similar to a catalogue number, but by that we mean one assigned by the publisher. Thanks, Stonecreek 16:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A Tale of the Time of the Cave Men

Hi. I accepted your A Tale of the Time of the Cave Men submission, but two things:

  • I made two changes to the content entry for the map: I changed "(Map)" to "A Tale of the Time of the Cave Men (map)", which is the way untitled interior artwork is entered (title of the publication, parenthetical disambiguation if appropriate). I also changed the artist credit from "unknown" to "uncredited". We only use "unknown" when working with incomplete, secondary sources where we do not know if a credit is present in the original publication. If you have the publication in hand and see no credit, then "uncredited" should be used to record the fact that the publication does not provide a credit.
  • I mentioned above and promise not to bring it up again: Instead of/in addition to documenting the details of the interior artwork in the notes (...and seven more internal color illustrations by Simon Harmon Vedder....), you can add one or more INTERIORART content entries (in the "Regular Titles" content section). You can add a single entry for all artwork in the book by the given artist, or you can add one entry per significant piece of art. We usually use the single-entry approach unless the individual pieces of art go along with some other content enumeration. And we use the same title-of-the-publication technique as I mentioned above.

I also made this new title a variant of The Story of Ab; A Tale of the Time of the Cave Man to save you an edit. I hope that's the direction it should go. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Thanks. --MartyD 11:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You have not contributed to the database since verifying this publication record, I see. Nonetheless I lay a few eggs here.
  1. There is a frontispiece map in the 1897 first edition of the novel, according to the WorldCat record we cite, OCLC 2127260.
  2. Price 3s. 6d., from the listing in full-page publisher advertisement "Beautiful Books", The Spectator 93.3989 (1904-12-10) p971.
This is one of 12 listed at the bottom of the page under the heading "For Boys and Girls". Followed by the publisher name and address and the very bottom line (quote small print):
  • A Prospectus of any Volume in the Series will be sent on Application.
The advertisement does not clearly identify any Series. Neither "Beautiful Books" nor "For Boys and Girls" seems likely to me as the name of an official Series.

--Pwendt|talk 19:44, 27 March 2019 (EDT)

Plutonia

Hi, I merged two title records (one of yours) that both had errors and were the same book. One had the correct author name, the other the correct title. Sorry for the mass of corrections I fired at you.--Dirk P Broer 05:07, 15 December 2017 (EST)

Jabberwock 1

Hi, If you see this message, could you please check the review by Julián Diez in Jabberwock 1 and see how the reviewer's name is printed -- is it actually "Díez"? Also, please change the Spanish-language titles to sentence-case (only the first word capitalized) because that's how this database normally treats Spanish. Thanks! --Vasha 17:00, 31 January 2018 (EST)

2018-03-02 update: The spelling of the canonical name has been changed as Vasha's note above. Could you please check the spelling in your verified edition once you are back? TIA! Ahasuerus 17:39, 2 March 2018 (EST)

The Wonder Stick

FYI, I 2nd PV'd http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?249596 and added note about price on front flap of jacket. Markwood 22:17, 20 February 2018 (EST) And today added an "interior art" credit. Markwood 11:49, 21 February 2018 (EST) and, finally, today updated scan to show wraparound art. Markwood 20:36, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Personal tools