User talk:Uzume

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Uzume, 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!Kraang 01:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

John Norman's The Chieftain

I have rejected the submission which updates this publication for a couple of reasons. This is a second printing and the submission would give it the same date as the first printing. You also wanted to change the tag which is rarely a good idea. Most tags are automatically generated when a record is created. This ensures that no two records have the same tag. Is there any particular reason why you wanted to change the tag from "THTLNRNHST0000" to "BKTG12553"? I just checked and discovered that the latter tag is already assigned to another record here (the first printing of the same title). Having two records with the same tag would screw up any links that use the tag number (such I've just done above). If you have any questions or concerns you can ask them here on your talk page, as I've placed a watch on it so that I can respond. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You will notice the only method for asserting this is a second printing is via the number line. I am not convinced that it is in fact a second printing. There us nothing in the other publication record by this publisher (for this title) to suggest it was first. I was changing the tag because I also submitted a deletion of the other "first printing" record as this was meant to me a merge of the two records. I chose to merge to this one because it had a primary verification I thought would be best to keep. Uzume 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
We can only go by what's stated in the pub itself. A publication with a numberline which omits the "1" can only be entered as a second printing, regardless of whether or not there was a first printing. Do you have evidence that there never was a printing that contained a "1" in the numberline?
It is also ISFDB policy that when changing a record with a primary verification, the submitting editor should first contact the editor who verified it (see the policy here). Unfortunately, the person who verified this pub is on hiatus and may not be able to respond to any inquiries. Do you have a copy of this pub? If so you can do a second primary verification and add further notes to the record. I also see that you did Locus1 and OCLC verifications. Looking at the Locus1 listing I don't see any indication of a second printing. Because it's a record for the second printing, you should remove the verifications from this record, and I see there are already Locus1 and OCLC verifications for this record. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I just checked on Abebooks.com and there are several dealers indicating that their copies are first printings. Mhhutchins 19:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
My point is you have as much data to indicate there was a second printing as you have that there was not one. Does this mean you should reject edits for adding a second printing or reject edits for merging and deleting a second printing? I only verified the "2nd" because I was trying to merge it into being a "1st". I can remove my verifications if the edits are sure to never go through. It is obvious there was a first printing so it is easy to say there was one. It is much harder to prove a second without verification. As you well know verifying something to be a first printing can be daunting at best. The fact that some listing on Abebooks claim first printing means little for this discussion—either there was only one printing and thus they are all first by definition or there was more than one and only the original copyright is listed and thus it is misidentified as a 1st. The number line methodology (which I am familiar with) is interesting but not verifiable unless you have specific data about the way the publisher handled things during that time frame (as I am sure you are aware there are many types of number lines that can and do mean different things). Uzume 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Norman Invasions

Is the price and/or pub format correct for this pub? It seems rather expensive for a "pb", unless it's trade-sized and should be entered as "tp" for softcover or "hc" for hardcover. Also, by 2009, most publishers had converted to the ISBN-13. Should the ISBN of this one be 978-0-7592-9577-3? (Only the ISBN as given appears on the pub listing of the title record's page. Both ISBNs show up on the publication record's page when the system automatically creates both based on the ISBN entered.) Of course, if the publisher only gives the ISBN-10, we go exactly with what is stated in the pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are right—this is a trade paperback and not a mass-market paperback (my sources tell me 8.5×5.5×1.2 in.). I submitted a pub update for such. The back cover seems to list an ISBN-10 (but has an EAN-13/ISBN-13 in the bar code right under it). Uzume 00:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also you added an extra content title record for the collection itself, which is not necessary. The system creates a title record automatically when a new pub is entered. I'll remove it from the pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. That was my first collection submission. I should have figured it would auto-create the collection title just like it auto-creates novel titles for novel pubs (but not essays like a foreword included in a novel pub, etc.). I was sort of concentrating on all the details of the pub and short fiction titles (30 titles!). It is easy to overlook things. Uzume 00:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding data that is not in the primary source

Whenever you update (or create) a record with information that is not stated in the pub you should always give a source for the information. In the case of this record you updated it by giving a day of publication. Because the only note states that the info is from Locus (I wrote that note), a user would assume that Locus gave the day of publication, which it doesn't. Please add the source for the date in the notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem with moderation. Now, I do not recall where I got that from. As memory serves, I noticed it at a number of places but I could not tell you which they were now since I have researched many pubs since then (not to mention other events in my life offline). As far as I know, Locus never gives the day of publication even if the copyright page for a pub blatantly states it (perhaps I am wrong here but I have never seen such listed for any pub). Without having a primary verification there is no way for me to know what information is stated in the pub so there is effectively no way to implement what you request unless I add a reference for every update that is not based upon a primary (at the risk of being redundant with a primary). For a single pub update I might research 25 different sources for consensus—you really want notes that long? Uzume 11:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No. Just one source for each field that is not present in the book is good enough, and there are only ten fields in the record. That means no more than three sources are ever required for a book in hand (assuming the title, author, publisher, page count, binding, pub type and the ISBN/catalog # are present). That leaves price (for those uncommon books that don't contain a printed price), publication date and cover artist, and most of these might be present in one single secondary source. Not as big a deal as you seem to believe it is. Regarding the statement "Without having a primary verification there is no way for me to know what information is stated in the pub": only update the fields for which you have a secondary source, and note the source in the note field. If you don't have the book itself, nor willing to note the source for your information (even if it takes 10 sources for each of the 10 fields), you should not attempt to update the record. Mhhutchins 23:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, so only one—just how would you, like me to choose which one to list (provided I have 10-25 sources for something)? Uzume 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Choose the source(s) which you used for each of the fields that you updated. If you updated three fields and all are from the same source, note the single source. If the three fields are updated from three different sources, indicate the source for each field. You can abbreviate many sources to save time: online sources include OCLC = Worldcat/OCLC, Locus1 = The Locus Index to Science Fiction, BLIC = British Library catalog. Printed sources include Tuck = The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, Reginald1 = Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature. CD-ROM sources like Miller/Contento = Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index. Some lesser known sources may have to be spelled out completely. Mhhutchins 18:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I often end up adding data for something from a consensus of many lesser sources. I might update three fields and have 30 sources combined (some fields only using 25 and another also only 25 but some overlapping but not the same). I find this especially true for language translations for which most of the "major" sources here just have little to no information about. Uzume 18:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that one can make some assumptions about what a primary contains but they are still just assumptions. The pub date, price and cover artist are often present in the primary—but pub dates are not always and not always as specifically as listed elsewhere. Uzume 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
We try to make as few assumptions as possible. Without the primary source (which hopefully someone has physically verified), we have to be more careful when accepting submissions updating records. When the submitting editor notes sources in the record, it becomes easier for a moderator to accept the submission and go on to others. I would rather spend more time on my own research than doing it for unsourced submissions, especially in areas which I have very little knowledge or interest. You may find some moderators are less picky than I am about sourcing. And others who are even more picky. Ideally, if you continue to contribute, you'll find it less a chore than it may appear to be now. Even I occasionally find it tiresome to note sources, and as a moderator who moderates his own submissions, I could easily forego the practice without anyone else being aware. My conscience wouldn't let me. I couldn't ask others to do what I wouldn't do myself. Thanks for your efforts in building the database. Mhhutchins 18:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I can certainly understand the need for sources and can appreciate a moderators job/position but some there has to be a limit—some line in the sand where enough is enough. Uzume 18:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Worldcat/OCLC verifications

It is a very good idea to add at least the number, preferably a link, of the OCLC record to the notes when verifying from that source. Unlike Locus, there can be several OCLC records for apparently the same edition /printing. Just accepted your change to the Encyclopedia of SF [Clute] and there are three OCLC records tied to the year in question and 15 records for other editions of the book. When there are multiple records I try to pick the one with the most data [there are an enormous amount of 'stub' records on OCLC] and then link to that record. For the same pub record, you added the month, probably from Locus. Since UK editions rarely ever have the month on the copyright page, it's also preferable to note the source of the information. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and sometimes I find OCLC records to just be patently wrong (the same can be said of Amazon, etc. though too). I too have noticed there were many OCLCs for that title—considerably more than the number of pubs isfdb has for the title. Luckily pubs for that title seem to almost always have a new ISBN for every edition/printing so it was not hard to differentiate them (that is definitely not the case for other titles in Worldcat). I usually do not find Worldcat strong enough to cause me to generate updates here but I don't mind doing verifications. You are right—I submitted my changes to that pub based on Locus. One problem I find is that changes are moderated and verifications seemingly are not (and even if they were they are a different record/change). If I added an OCLC note every time I verified from Worldcat I would either have to verify ahead or wait for moderation and the possibility of rejection. The same can be said for multiple moderated pending edits to a record. Sometimes one edit depends on another. If during the course of researching something, I change something and notice further updates I have to wait for the first one to be accepted by moderation before making further changes or risk them being based on older data and essentially erasing the old change. I can only imagine the problem is worse when multiple contributors are trying to edit the same records. I originally was adding an OCLC number to the note a upon Worldcat verification but it became very cumbersome so I ceased. Uzume 11:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Verifications are not moderated. You can do so without someone having to approve them. Bill is asking that you record in the notes field the number of the OCLC record which you used to verify the record. Otherwise, simply noting that the record is OCLC verified has no real value, unlike Tuck, Reginald, Locus, et al verifications because there's only one record for each pub in those secondary sources. If it's too much of a burden to record the OCLC number (which I fully understand), don't do an OCLC verification (which I don't do...unless I record the OCLC number in the note field.) Mhhutchins 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
So effectively you are asking for OCLC verifications to be moderated since you want to require an update to do such. Should one verify before or after the edit is accepted/rejected? Uzume 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It's best to leave it till afterward, just in case the edit is rejected. BLongley 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) So the consensus is to essentially moderate Worldcat verifications by requiring the OCLC to be edited into the note prior and trying to make sure to remember (sift through committed edits after moderation) to verify them later. If this is the case, why not just add the field to the record (instead of within the note) and do away with Worldcat verifications in general? It seems like a clunky interface for such and if an OCLC field existed a direct OCLC link could be provided. Uzume 13:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sometimes verify against Worldcat/OCLC without notes if the only entry I've used is the one that we get from the ISBN link anyway. If there's some controversy and I've used multiple sources instead, then I'll note them before verifying. BLongley 22:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was doing—so now I am confused. Uzume 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Publication series links

I'm not sure how it's done, but the links that you added to the wiki's Publication Series pages don't link to the database's Publication Series pages. Does there need to be a change in the header or the template on the wiki in order for the link to work? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that. The header template is broken (and when it is fixed they will link right). See discussion here: Template talk:PubSeriesHeader#Broken! Uzume 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I responded there, weakly I admit because of my ignorance in the matter. Our wiki guy has been on an extensive leave. If you know how to fix it, I'll try to find out if we can bump up your role in order to access the template. Mhhutchins 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I see a link on the bottom of Template:PubSeriesHeader that allows me to "Unprotect this page." If I do so, would it allow you to correct any errors there? Mhhutchins 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably—I do not know as I of course do not have access to that feature to know how it works for certain. Uzume 00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the protection level (I hope). Can you see if you're able to edit the page? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that changed the protections and I made the fixes to the template. Incidently you mentioned "bump up your role" but there are only two wiki bureaucrats that can assign/change wiki adminship/sysop privs and they are Alvonruff and Ahasuerus. Uzume 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That's true. I didn't say I could personally change your role, that I would "try to find out". And I meant the editorial "we". Sorry for the mix-up. Now I know that even us lowly moderators have the power to unprotect a page. I appreciate your efforts in correcting the error. Mhhutchins 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Wet by Shute

I accepted your submission adding the catalog number and price to this record. Then checked out the listing in Tuck which confirmed it. I removed the link to the bookdealer's listing and gave Tuck as the source. We discourage linking to bookdealers because the listing can be very unstable. Once the book is sold the seller will naturally remove the listing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with discouraging such things but I did not have another source (sorry I do not have a copy of Tuck to use as a reference). Uzume 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't hesitate to ask either on the ISFDB:Verification requests page or on my talk page about any 1968 and earlier pubs for which Tuck might have a listing. Mhhutchins 20:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks—I appreciate that and shall likely take you up on that offer. Uzume 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Indicating Canadian dollars

When adding a Canadian edition (or the price to one like this one), give Canadian currency by adding a "C" before the dollar sign. Help Page Source Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a Canadian printing that is for sure but I am not sure that is specifically a Canadian price as the price is the same in other US prints of this both before and after that date (with even the exact same cover including the price tag) so methinks this is the exact same edition—just printed at a different locale. Thanks for the pointer though as I have run into a few things that seemed to be priced only in Canadian money and it might nice to know how to denote that (I was already aware of the help reference and how to denote prices but nice to reiterate it under the circumstances). Uzume 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthony's 0X / OX

I don't think we should make make Ox into a variant of 0X. Looking at my copy of the first edition, I concede that the title should be changed to OX (the capital letters "O" and "X"). In the body of the text, the "O" in the character's name is identical to the letter "O" and not the number zero. Do you believe it was Anthony's intention that the title be a zero and the letter "X"? I think we should first change the titles of the current pubs, based on the published text and then later decide what Anthony's intended title is. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is my contention that it should be named 0X. I felt making the current title a variant of the more canonical title useful because this is a common confusion and people will search for OX and Ox (and possibly even ox or oX) and expect to be able to find the work record. I figured we could then move and rename some of the pubs to the new title then (many changes I want to do require multiple edits and I have to wait for moderation before I can move forward more). BTW: thanks with Dream Makers (at some point perhaps I can get you to include the interviews in Dream Makers, Volume II: The Uncommon Men & Women Who Write Science Fiction; I can see some of that in Worldcat but seeing as you have a primary copy I figured you would have the complete details). Uzume 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we can both agree the book title is directly taken from character's name so I shan't go into that. I base my contention on what the character's name is upon quotes like the following: "the code designation of Zero X, or Arabic numeral nothing multiplied by the Roman numeral ten, themselves symbols for frame-representations that cannot be expressed in your mathematics. Zero time ten is nothing in a single frame, and dissimilar systems can not interact meaningfully; but in the larger framework the result is both infinite and meaningful, expressing sentiences" (from chapter 16). It is very clearly spelled out as "Zero X" here and not the letter "O" (nor a lowercase "x" as it is to represent the Roman number ten). The name literally means "zero·ten" but also wants to include the concept of dissimilar systems by representing zero in Arabic number notation and ten in Roman number notation. Uzume 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the book, but never read it. Your explanation is clear and the rationale of making it a variant of Anthony's intended title makes sense too. Few users would actually search for 0X (zero X). I'll accept the submission.
Also, it was your submissions for Platt's interview series that prompted me to pull out the three books. I've been working off-and-on throughout the day putting them into better shapes. All of the interviews have been entered and I'm in the middle of reconciling the records both with each and any pre-publication of the individual pieces. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am going to move Of Man and Manta: A Trilogy pubs to 0X title—sadly there is no way to change the contained titles in a single transaction so I have to add or delete first followed by the opposite (and wait for moderation on each). Uzume 02:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of this. I thought we decided to keep the pub titles as OX (letter), and to make their title record a variant of 0X (number-letter), their current status. I'm not sure why you want to add a shortfiction content (titled 0X) to this pub or why you want to remove all three novels from this one. Submissions are on hold. I've also placed on hold the change in title of this pub. I approved the changes of the others because the verifier is no longer active, but Marc Kupper should be notified about the change in his pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought 0X looked a little strange with "only appeared as". I had planned to leave the stand alone novels with OX title both in the pub and in the variant title. Since Of Man and Manta: A Trilogy omnibus pubs have no such name in their published titles I thought I would change their contents so they references the X0 title. I had not intended to add a short-fiction named X0 but rather the already existing X0 title—perhaps I did it incorrectly (I might have to merge the titles later). I just deleted from one pub and added to the other. I figured once I got one right I would import/export the contents to the other—that is why I emptied one of the omnibus pubs. I have no qualms with Marc Kupper looking at it before the change. Uzume 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The "only appeared as" statement is how the software displays titles that have never been published with the parent name. The only way to get around this is to break the variant and change the original title record (the one that contains all the pubs, including the omnibus pub) to 0X. We dismissed that because of the search problem. I have no problem with the way it's currently displayed. Also, we can't change the title records for the omnibus appearances because that would make it appear that these are the only publications which use the zero-letter title. The only solution I can see is to have the books all published as letter-letter, but that they contain the text which the author intended to be titled with the zero-letter name. And that's the current state of the title relationships. I've left notes on Marc Kupper's and Willem H.'s pages, but keep in mind, it's the submitter's responsibility to notify verifiers of major changes in verified pubs. Changing the title is quite major. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why this is a problem: "Also, we can't change the title records for the omnibus appearances because that would make it appear that these are the only publications which use the zero-letter title." That is exactly what I was proposing (but the interface makes me do it in piecemeal fashion; is there a better way to change the title contents of a pub?). If you really think it is better as-is where all pubs use OX title (even ones that do not have anything OX in their pub title) then I can understand (but mildly disagree) with such. I realize the only way to maintain the OX title is to have some pub use it and there are many stand-alone pubs that have pub titles that do very much look like such and thus are often confused with such (this is why we agreed to leave those alone and only cap the "X"). Uzume 03:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe all publications of the title should be handled the same and see no reason why the omnibus pubs should be treated differently. Even though the omnibus does not contain 0X in its title record, it is a container for the title record which is shared by all publications of this novel. This title record (OX) has been made a variant of the "true" title. Again, I see no problem with that. Feel free to carry the discussion to the larger group if you disagree. I will go along with whatever the group decides. BTW, when you change content titles you also change every publication of that title. This caused so many problems in the past that a couple of years ago the software was changed to deliberately make it difficult to change content titles. I thank God this change was implemented. You'll never know the hours of frustration spent in repairing pubs that were mistakenly changed by a submission updating another pub. Mhhutchins 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Edit Pub will let you change Contents titles that have only appeared in that pub. If a title has appeared in multiple pubs and you want to change all occurrences of the title, then you can do it via Edit Title. Ahasuerus 06:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I realized changing the contents of a title was likely submitted improperly and cancelled the submissions. That said I still believe it does not make sense to leave works under an incorrect (but perhaps useful for searching) title (i.e., OX) when they have no reason to be so misinterpreted (i.e., have nothing in their title names even resembling "OX" or "0X", etc.). Ahasuerus: A moderator's interface might be different than mine but I do not see any method to change a title's contained titles from the Edit Title level (other aspects of a title can be edited however). Perhaps I am mistaken but pubs are the only containers for multiple titles (even so called "container title" types like collection, anthology, omnibus, magazine, etc. still rely on this mechanism (so two publications of the same anthology title could have different sets of short-fiction titles contained within—and actually this is the recommended method for magazines as usually there is only one magazine title per year or other time frame depending on frequency and each monthly magazine pub then references the same container magazine title and contains different content titles such as short-fiction titles, etc.). The interface for adding titles to a pub however is not very good when one wants to add an existing title to a pub (this is why I erroneously ended up trying to add a short-fiction version of 0X to one of the omnibus pubs instead of the existing one)—especially when the title is referred to by no pubs but only variant titles (I cannot import or export a variant title's "contents" to a pub's contents). How does one go about saying "add this title to that pub" (export title vs. export pub) or "add that title to this pub" (import title vs. import pub)? I cannot import or export a title that has no pubs (but has variant titles). It would also be nice to have a method to change a pubs contained titles without going through the restrictive "add" and "delete" so that multiple submissions are needed—it is hard for a moderator to see and accept such an action when it is obviously not a completed thought. Uzume 12:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your comments and to answer your questions:
  • A moderator's interface might be different than mine
No, ours is identical. We have to go through the same steps as any other editor when we are editing. The only difference is that we can accept the submissions, but the process is the same.
  • I do not see any method to change a title's contained titles from the Edit Title level (other aspects of a title can be edited however).
Only publications contain titles. You can change a publication's contained titles by clicking on that title, going to its title record, then choose "Edit Title Data".
  • I cannot import or export a variant title's "contents" to a pub's contents.
A title doesn't have contents. Only the contents of a publication can be imported or exported. A title being a variant has nothing to do with importing or exporting.
  • How does one go about saying "add this title to that pub" (export title vs. export pub) or "add that title to this pub" (import title vs. import pub)?
In order to add a title to a pub record choose "Edit This Pub" go down to the Contents section and click "Add Title". If that title already exists in the db, you will have to merge its title record with the title record that was just created by the submission. You may have to reconcile any differences. To avoid a merge, you can use the import/export function. All of the titles contained in a pub are imported/exported. Do not use this function for NOVEL type pubs. You'd be importing the novel title record, which would be duplicated in the pub you're exporting it to.
  • It would also be nice to have a method to change a pubs contained titles without going through the restrictive "add" and "delete" so that multiple submissions are needed
Yes, but as I attempted to explain above, those restrictions have been created to avoid the problems of changing titles that appear in more than one pub. If you'd been around before this restriction, you would have seen the havoc that was caused by unrestrictive changes. Yes, it requires more than one submission, and if you're uncomfortable taking the required number of steps, ask for help on the moderators page and one of us can make the necessary submissions. There have been many editors who have gone through this process, dealt with it, and who are now moderators. Learning this process leads to a better understanding of the database's structure.
  • ...it is hard for a moderator to see and accept such an action when it is obviously not a completed thought.
Yes, occasionally it's difficult for a moderator to know the purpose of a submission. That's why the "Hold" system and the ISFDB Wiki was created. If we don't know what a submission is all about, we place it on hold and ask you on your Wiki user page. Frustrating perhaps for some editors, but just as much so for some moderators, especially when dealing with editors who haven't found their Wiki user page or fail to respond to inquiries. But that's why we get paid the big bucks. :)
Mhhutchins 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the details but I do not think that covered anything I did not already know. And by a title containing another title I only meant it either semantically (in terms of "containing title types") or in how a title can "contain" or link to a variant title (contain really only means link to as pubs link to their contained titles). Uzume 19:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to have wasted both our times. Perhaps another moderator can successfully answer your questions. Mhhutchins 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I did not mean to imply such discussion was a waste of time. I don't know what sort of "big bucks" compensation you get but you certainly get my kudos. Right now as I see it you are the most responsive person on ISFDB and I highly appreciate that (even if we "knock heads" in disagreement on a few issues). I like to think I am fairly knowledgeable about such things but you have more "on the job" experience here (staying with the work analogy) and certainly have a considerably larger SF library than I have (though I do have a fair one but not enough time to catalog it all—isn't that all our stories?). In a word: Thank you. To get back more on topic though, that is why I added 0X short fiction to the one omnibus pub. As it has been pointed out there is no other way to do that (and it requires a later title merge and a delete of the OX title). The title wipe of the other omnibus pub was in prep for an import/export from one to the other once I got one of them right (that is less steps once one is right). So it seems my implementation methods were not really wrong (we can talk further about if it should be done of course) even though I have retracted my update submissions (that you held). Uzume 20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing white frame on Amazon images

There's a trick to removing the white frame from many Amazon images (look at this pub). If you drop everything between the two dots in the URL (and remove one of the dots), the frame disappears. So http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vjm-CmQwL._SS500_.jpg should be changed to http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vjm-CmQwL.jpg. Neat, huh? Mhhutchins 02:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Same thing with this pub. Mhhutchins 02:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with this "trick" but I did not realize the images had white frames when I submitted the URLs. Thanks. Uzume 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You can also use the same trick to get rid of the "Click to LOOK INSIDE" logo:
  • http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aIN5bjg9L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
  • http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aIN5bjg9L.jpg
Though I knew of the white border "trick", I only recently discovered this works for this too. Enjoy. Uzume 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Author's photos

The same policy applies for author's photos that applies for cover images plus one more. Not only do we have to get permission to link to another server's hosted image, because it's a photograph we have to get the permission of the owner of the image. If you contact Theresa Tomlinson and obtain both permissions I'll accept the submission adding the photo to her author summary page. Mhhutchins 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case but was not sure. Where is this authorization list kept? I submitted that to open this type of conversation (which I figured you'd bring up). Where is the permission for this image linked on Piers Anthony? I know sometimes stuff is deleted from the DB to improve it but there is no way to remove such images to improve it if there is no place that lists such obtained permissions (who knows what should be in and thus who knows what should be removed?). Thanks. Uzume 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Info on image-linking is here. This page generally concerns rules about cover images. The same should also apply to linking author photos as well. Permission to post is different than permission to link. We consider the displaying of cover images to be covered under the fair-use laws. But I don't think fair-use would cover us when it comes to author photos. Generally a photographer retains ownership of the image, not the subject.
I'm not sure if anyone got permission to link to the Anthony site. If they did, I'm not even sure where they would have posted the info. Ideally the best place would have been on the Author:Piers Anthony page. This reminds me that I've failed to note the permission I received from the photographer (Beth Gwinn) for the Michael Bishop photo. I even paid her a nominal fee to post it on the website I maintain of his work.
I should bring this up on the community portal page. There seems to be a lot of author photos here that we are unlikely to have received permission to display. And we're linking to a lot of sites that are not on the list of permitting websites. I believe what happened in your case is the unluckiness of having me moderate the submission. There may have been another moderator who would have approved it. This inconsistency drives me nuts, and I'm sure it's just as frustrating to new editors, for which I apologize. Mhhutchins 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. A book cover would likely qualify under fair use without issue but a photo would not as it is the entire work (if the original was very large and we used a very significantly scaled and cropped version maybe). And hosting is another issue. One issue you have not brought up is permission to use ones likeness. I know people have sued others for using picture of themselves without permission (this is why spokes people get paid—to support a particular use of their image; use without permission could be considered defamation of character or a whole host of other things) I am not saying most authors would not welcome the publicity an affiliation with a bibliographic site like ISFDB is but that is exactly why permission should be required. In fact, we should probably have a place on the site where authors and photographers can donate such easily. Uzume 06:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Inspired by this conversation, I volunteered to update Author photos for ISFDB's Livejournal friends. Only 7 responses so far, but in all cases they preferred us to copy a picture rather than link to one. Only one mentioned a photographer credit - but most looked like self-portraits. BLongley 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That is interesting. At least there are some results. I had considered another thing too related to this. What about say scanned photos from published books? There is often an "about the author" photo on a hardcover's slip or the like. This is usually small enough to hardly impact the photographer's copyright, already used for identifying the author and her works, and could be considered a "fair use" piece of a larger work (the book or at last the "about the author" blurb). Thanks for the update. Uzume 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Best of Omni SF series

I'm holding a submission that wants to make "25305" the parent series of The Best of Omni Science Fiction. Is a puzzlement... Mhhutchins 05:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I got it. You entered the series number instead of the name Omni Science Fiction. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thanks. Uzume 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Magazine Series vs. Anthology Series

You've made a submission to make Omni Science Fiction, an anthology series, into a subseries of Omni, a magazine series. I understand the rationale to do so, but we try to keep magazine and anthology series separate. If you look at the summary page of Ellen Datlow, the one common person between the two series, you'll see my point. See how each of the two series is displayed on her page. Omni is under the "Magazine Editor Series" category and Omni Science Fiction is under "Anthology Series". If I accept you submission, the two would be displayed together, and I don't know which category it would go into. Either one would be incorrect. Mhhutchins 16:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right—I hadn't thought of that wrinkle (this is where your experience is most helpful). I need to rethink such things in light of that. Are webzine's considered magazines too for such things? I grouped them together as well—initially under a single series but that made the grid look ugly as in incorporated both and there was no way to view them separately so I restructured and put Omni magazine by itself and the webzine "Online" by itself and the both of those under "Omni". Thanks—I shall rethink such. Uzume 16:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we consider webzines and printed magazines to be the same type of publication, but we limit which webzines are allowed into the database because of their instability. Even though Omni Online no longer exists, the stories at one time were accessible through an archive site. Same thing with Datlow's Sci-Fiction webzine. Currently we allow only Subterranean, Clarkeworld, and a few others because they're recognized by the SFWA as professional markets. If we allowed anyone that had posted a story on their website to enter it into the database can you imagine the consequences? Mhhutchins 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I was not proposing to add webzine/Internet series/titles/pubs (just fill-in and clean-up the ones we already have). I noticed both magazines and webzines like Omni Online both have the same EDITOR title type and MAGAZINE pub type so I figured it out. Uzume 16:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I noticed that the The Dark of the Woods OMNIBUS causes the Fairy Tales Retold anthology series to appear under "Fiction series" on Ellen Datlow's bibliography page so seemingly any series with mixed title types defaults to that. I imagine mixing an ANTHOLOGY series with a EDITOR series would result in similar (and thus not be useful). On that topic, should The Dark of the Woods be an OMNIBUS? The way I see it, it is a redited anthology that contains most of what the earlier works in the series already had but I do not have the works to confirm. Uzume 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Locus1 it's an omnibus of the two previous anthologies, even retaining the individual introductions and separate pagination. You've come across a problem concerning the OMNIBUS type. The system has a hard time understanding that an omnibus isn't just a publication containing previously published novels, they can contain anthologies and collections as well. Because it can't choose which it is, if a series mixes an ANTHOLOGY record with an OMNIBUS record, it places it under the "Fiction" category on an author's summary page instead of the "Anthologies" category (which is where these three title records should rightfully be). Placing it under the "Fiction" category might lead a user to believe Datlow wrote fiction. Now if an omnibus contained a previously published NONFICTION record, I think the system would blow up. :) Mhhutchins 17:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the "blow up" angle but yes, it probably would not perform usefully. It is too bad there is not a way to groups/series dissimilar works (without issue). As a side note on this topic, I notice it comes up as them being "Authors" too and not "Editors" due to it being an anthology OMNIBUS. Uzume 18:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Locus1 also claims it is a "hc" "Bound in boards" and published by "Simon & Schuster/Aladdin" but Worldcat claims it is "Paper-over-board" and published by "Aladdin Paperbacks" and does not contain any references to Wolf at the Door and Other Retold Fairy Tales (2001) and Swan Sister: Fairy Tales Retold (2003). Worldcat instead has the contents directly with short story titles and introductions, etc. listed. So is it an omnibus or an anthology? Part of the problem is that both omnibuses and anthologies are "container" title so this is like a container container title, Anyone seeing this pub cannot see the short story titles contained and instead sees the omnibus contained anthologies which is not highly useful IMO. Uzume 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
In an OMNIBUS, it's more useful to include not only the ANTHOLOGY records but the contents of those as well. This is particularly important when there are versions of the ANTHOLOGY with different contents, e.g. when some titles have to be dropped for foreign editions for copyright reasons. BLongley 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That is a good point. So you think it makes sense to have an anthology omnibus pub that has its own omnibus title, included anthology titles as well as each anthologies contents (e.g., short fiction titles, etc.) all in one? I tend to agree with that. That way anyone looking at the anthology content titles (e.g., a short fiction) will see the omnibus and anyone looking at one of the anthology titles will see the omnibus as well. Uzume 23:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretender

I approved your change to this pub but as you can see the order of Author credits didn't change. We don't have any way to ensure the order of credits. People keep trying so it may be worth a Feature Request (if we haven't got one already) - though it's been considered of low importance for some time now. BLongley 18:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Uzume 18:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dream a Little Dream

I have your submission for this title on hold. You want to change the date from 1999-00-00 to 1998-00-00. Is there a reason for this change? My copy of the paperback states copyright 1999 and first edition January 1999. --Willem H. 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The hardcover first edition was published in 1998. Uzume 20:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that stated in the pub? --Willem H. 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe so but do not have it to verify. Various sources online mention that date. Uzume 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't follow what online sources say, when there's a primary source (in this case my paperback edition) that tells something else. I'll reject the submission. --Willem H. 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Really!? What about the Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office? Registration TX0004872456 says date "1998-12-17" for Dream a little dream / Piers Anthony [pseud.] & Julie Brady. Goto http://www.copyright.gov/records/ and look it up by record number TX0004872456. I did not try to change a publication date just the title date. Uzume 20:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I resubmitted the change with a more accurate date and included the U.S. Copyright Office registration number in the title notes. Uzume 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I placed this on hold again, wating for the discussion on the Moderator noticeboard. --Willem H. 21:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, but I resubmitted the request to match the earliest publication record date as per the current consensus (of course that may change). Uzume 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Volk

The ISBN provided for this pub record comes up as invalid. Also, did every copy have an autographed bookplate? Also, you should note the source of your data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed I somehow had a digit transposed. I do not have a copy much less every copy to verify the bookplate. I got the data from several sources including the publishers website, Amazon, and piers-anthony.com (who seems to have many copies of his works including at least the book-plated hardcover of Volk). Thanks. Uzume 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cover images for non-genre magazines (e.g. Alfred Hitchcock)

On the help page about entering non-genre magazines, it states: Do not enter a cover artist, nor a cover image URL. Leave both fields blank. Exception: if the cover art illustrates the SF content, or is by a well known SF artist, enter the credit, and if an image is available, enter the URL. Mhhutchins 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is good to know but now I need to know where the definitive list of genre and/or non-genre magazines is so I can know which is which. I was under the impression Hitchcock was horror and that was well within the speculative fiction definition (yes, I did notice the word "mystery" in the title though). I cannot say I know enough about the magazine to say one way or the other (but it was interesting to research a bit to learn about it though I cannot say I have found any data to say one way or the other). Uzume 05:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hitchcock's full name is Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine. It occasionally publishes pieces that are suspense/psychological horror, rarely supernatural stories and then only if there's a mystery/detective element. Here's the list of non-genre magazines, but strangely, Hitchcock's isn't on the list, which must be an oversight. But it's not on the genre magazine list either. Feel free to bring up its omission from either list on the community portal page. Mhhutchins 06:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
So you are asserting it is non-genre (I have no basis to argue either way; just an assumption based on the name and the cover of each magazine seemed to indeed have his face on it and he is rather well-known for horror and suspense). I might have to point that out and get a quorum determination and have it added to one of the pages (though I am sure your assessment is correct). I also recently added cover links for everything in Adventure (which I notice is on the "general interest"/nongenre list). I suppose that shall have to now be taken out. I am sorry and did not mean to cause more work. Thanks again. Uzume 06:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hazel Adair

Thanks for catching that mistake on my Hazel Adair bio! That shouldn't have slipped by me, but it did. And it's nice to see that someone else actually looked at one of the ones I've added :-) Chavey 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure which mistake you are referring to. I just added some more information. I was trying to "kill" very old "living" authors by finding proof of their deaths (and entering their date of death into the database). And I suceeded in a few cases—her's being one. One can dig up a lot of obscure information when looking for a single obscure obscure fact.
Sadly, it seems I have not been able to have success with some of the "oldest". Some data is just very hard to find. Uzume 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you made several updates. I don't normally put in the family stuff, which you did, but my specific comment was about adding the alias "A.J. Heritage" as one of the aliases that she used in writing, which had just somehow overlooked. Chavey 23:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. I just put in the family stuff because finding stuff about her was not so easy and knowing those other names helps with searches. That is also how I stumbled on the "A.J. Heritage" name. Uzume 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can do is ask...

Please give the source for the data (as here) unless you intend to do a primary verification of the pub. Thanks. My only other option is to hold the submission, do research myself, and then add the source. You should not expect moderators to do this. Mhhutchins 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually planned to do neither as I was planning to link the Wikipedia to the title record, which is where I got the data mostly from (and from links there of). But as you know I have to wait for the pub to be approved before the title exists for me to add the link. If you think I should add the Wikipedia link to the pub as well since there is where I got the pub data I can but that seemed overkill. I never expected a moderator to do such research. All I can do it wait... Uzume 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are linked to titles, not to pubs, using the title record field. This field can't be used to indicate that it is the source for the data of a publication of that title. You would have to use HTML in the notes to link the pub itself to the Wikipedia article if you're using it as your data source, and that could have been done on the original submission. But it appears from your statement on the Rules & Standards page (in an unrelated discussion about noting sources) that you oppose the use of HTML in notes. Or you could have simply noted "Info from Wikipedia article titled Earth Begotten" and that would have settled the matter from the start. Mhhutchins 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That can be easily added if you like. Uzume 06:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

After Dark

Good work on cleaning up this messy series. Some editors have a hard time figuring out how to fix chapterbooks, but you've done a fine job. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not done. I found I still have to swap some titles to retain the award on the short fiction title vs. the chapter book title (since I cannot move awards) and some other house cleaning with the series. But thanks for the kudos. Uzume 19:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Variant covers for The Plague and The Carriers

Hi. I have on hold your submission that would make Cover: The Plague a variant of Cover: The Carriers. I understand that the main titles are variants of one another, but these two covers look completely different. If the publication titles were the same -- giving us identical cover art titles -- we would not merge them because they are in fact different works that just happen to have the same name. Likewise, we do not make variants where the two works are different. I am not a cover art expert, but I think there is no need in this particular case to try to parallel the variation in main work title. Painting A appeared as the cover of an edition of The Plague, while Painting B appeared as the cover of an edition of The Carriers. But see what you think. --MartyD 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And carrying on from above, your proposed merge of 1072909 and 1151786 covers for Tales from Outer Suburbia is not appropriate. The cover artwork is completely different (take a look at the covers for each of the pubs). So these should be left separate. I've put the merge on hold for the moment while you look at it, but I will have to reject this one. Thanks. --MartyD 13:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right about covers of Tales from Outer Suburbia—good catch. I somehow got overzealous in that merge and have now cancelled the submission. But interior art of The Plague being a variant of interior art of The Carriers is right. Note that those are not cover art but interior art (the cover art is indeed different). Uzume 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, right you are! Don't ask me why I thought those were covers.... I will approve it. --MartyD 00:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging interior art records

It's not a good idea to merge interior art records unless you can verify that the works are identical. Because there's no set policy about how interior art is recorded there may be conflicts in how each of the verifiers entered the data. They have a choice to enter all pieces and give each an identifying number, or to just create one record that represents all pieces that are associated with work of fiction. Also, sometimes when a story is reprinted in a later issue of the same title (or from the same company) they may choose to use all or only some of the artwork that originally appeared with the story. You should only merge if you have both issues and can verify that the art is identical. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps such policy standards should be developed. I understand the danger in merging and I was careful to not submit any that did not look entirely like duplicates (even going so far and to make sure the accompanying stories were the same and already merged, etc.). I was trying to par down the list of titles that needed to be made variants from the pseudonym but if you would rather I just variant the whole bunch—so be it. I do not have the actual publications for the submissions you have held under this conversation—do what you want with them (Please excuse if this comes off a tad curt. Work has been reaming me just now and I am not in a very sound state of mind though I was when I made the submissions). Uzume 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No problems at all. Concerning standards, the current policy arose out of some editors believing each piece of art should have individual records. We didn't feel we should REQUIRE it and that's the reason for the double standard. It's always been policy that an editor enter as much data as he feels comfortable with. We weren't going to establish a policy that required All editors to enter EVERYTHING in a publication. As it stands currently, an editor can enter 1) all interior art, 2) one record for each work illustrated, or 3) no interior art. Actually, they don't have to enter ANY contents at all, but we ask that they not do a primary verification on it otherwise.
I checked each of the records for the held submissions, and determined it was safe to merge them based on the fact that in all cases the number of pieces for each work was identical, and that the reprint was a UK facsimile of the US edition. Thanks for the work you're doing on straightening out the Frank Kelly Freas/Kelly Freas/Freas situation. There were discussions years ago about which name should be considered the canonical one. When that was settled in usual ISFDB fashion (meaning: with grumbling consensus), no one took on the task of varianting the records of the pseudonymous titles. Some editors probably still feel that "Freas" is not a pseudonym, while some feel it's just a signature. I think some editors felt that credits for records would wind up being changed, especially the magazine editors who devoted thousands of hours in verifying those credits. Its clear that varianting doesn't change the actual credit, it only displays the canonical name along with the actual credit. Mhhutchins 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, since you accepted them (I too checked them carefully before submitting them) I shall likely submit some more along the same lines as most of these publications are very explicit and capture each internal art and seemingly all in the same way (or I stay away form submitting the merge). I am just saying I shall likely submit more. I would appreciate another set of eyes though as it is easy to make a mistake. Thanks again. Uzume 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Occasion for Disaster" merge

I have a submission to merge Occasion for Disaster (Part 2 of 4) (serial) with Occasion for Disaster (Part 3 of 4 parts). I think you meant to merge this one with the last record. Mhhutchins 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Better!? Unfortunately I cannot see the actual submission data after it is submitted (I can see the list of my own submissions but it does not give the complete XML contents) so it is hard to see that. Thanks. Uzume 04:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep. That was the right one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Report on the Dean Drive"

I'm not sure what's happening with this pub, but it's strange to have two content records in the same pub with one being a continuation of the other. Since the pub isn't verified, I'm going to delete the second part ("continued") from the pub. I'll wait until you've had a chance to look at it. In the previous submission that I rejected, I chose to merge the two titles that were recorded (with slight variation in name), instead of making one a variant of the one credited to "The Editor". Mhhutchins 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—I agree that is weird but as you said it is unverified. I was not entirely sure what the best course of action was. Sometimes it is a close call to merge or variant. Uzume 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Good. Then I'll reject the submission and delete the "continued" record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Cover variants

Thanks for all the submissions, but it would have been better if you'd checked which double-covers needed re-titling before the variant creation: e.g. Freas should just have "Cover: The Off-Worlders" whereas Gaughan gets "Cover: The Star Magicians". BLongley 14:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed that. I was checking a lot of data. It seems I always need another pair of eyes. Uzume 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The changes should probably have been done at the time the artists were identified. Some doubles can probably be left as double titles for now, where the same artist did both sides. BLongley 15:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, Freas Coverart Doubles covered now (at least from the Freas side). Are you going to take on other cover artists now? BLongley 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding roman-numeraled pages

I've noticed a few submissions which give the page count, for example, as "[vi],248". If the pages before page 1 are roman-numeraled it should be entered as "vi+248". Ordinarily unnumbered pages before page 1 are not added to the page count unless there is data on those pages and you wish to create a record for it. In those cases you would enter it as "[6]+248". If the first numbered page is 7, you don't need to add the 6 unnumbered pages to the count. What is the case for this book? Mhhutchins 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. I added those because some of the pages before page 1 were numbered with roman numerals (like the TOC) but not all of them (and usually not the last just before 1). That is why I included them. Uzume 17:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the comma you should use the plus sign and not put the roman numerals in brackets (which indicates unnumbered pages). Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I can use plus if you'd rather but I put in brackets because the cited page was unnumbered. If the pages go: [i],[ii],[iii],[iv],v,[vi],1...248 etc. I state [vi],248 (or [vi]+248 since you seem to like plus better though I notice WorldCat and others use commas) since I had to infer vi from the previous page v. Del Rey seems to do that type of thing a lot but I have seen it with some others too. Uzume 17:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The field is to record the number of pages (the field used to be labeled "page count"). Unlike WorldCat records, the field doesn't record how the pages are numbered. The plus sign has a specific purpose in the field. "vi+248" makes it clear that there are a total of 254 pages in the book (other than unnumbered pages in the back that may contain ads.) Mhhutchins 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
But it does record how pages are numbered or the value would just be 254 and not vi+248. That said, I agree it does not (have to) have the same meaning as WorldCat—that was just an example. Uzume 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You're correct in one sense. But it doesn't say that the first four pages are unnumbered, only the fifth page has a roman numeral, the sixth page is unnumbered, and the seventh page is numbered "1". The field is for the page count and "[vi],248" isn't a page count, it's an attempt to show how the pages are numbered. Entering "254" into the field would lead a user to believe the last numbered page is 254. That's why the current standards were arrived at. At one point, all you had to do was enter the last numbered page. Here's the help page that states the standard. Unless you're adding content data that appears on the roman-numeraled pages, it's not necessary to record them at all. If you feel these standards don't work, you can start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Mhhutchins 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually in a few cases I was contemplating adding content titles for some maps and such left out. That is also why I added the page count thusly. And I was not attempting to show how pages where numbered in any complete sense or I would have mentioned that page "v" was numbered, etc. I was only attempting to show how many pages there were. If you feel what I entered does not do that and does not meet policy, you are free to change it and as a moderator even reject it. I too agree 254 would not be useful and certainly how all the pages are numbered is not very meaningful or useful in this context. That was not my objective. Uzume 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm "free to change it and as a moderator even reject it" but that's really not the kind of moderator I am. If I just keep going behind editors and changing their submissions, I'm not doing anyone a favor. In trying to explain the rationale behind my decisions, I'm hoping to lead the editor into becoming self-sufficient to the point where they can moderate their own submissions, and then become a full-fledged moderator (it's called mentoring). It would have been a lot easier for me to simply "change it and...even reject it", and I would not have spent so much time trying to explain the reasons. If you would prefer that I use an "approve or reject" approach to your submissions, just let me know and I'll accommodate you. Mhhutchins 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I hardly would like that as I appreciate your help. I am sorry I did not change it right away. I was sort of busy with Freas. Uzume 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You certainly were - those tied me up for four hours! ;-) BLongley 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) You can only imagine how long it too me to enter all those submissions. All of the Freas family credits are starting to look very good now though. Uzume

Tag changes

When you get a chance, could you please add your changes to the Development page and create a Feature Request? TIA! Ahasuerus 05:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You want a FR? I thought Bug 3153982 was enough (you already have integrated some work on this in r2011-01). I added Bug 3153982 to Development#Outstanding changes. I also added Bug 3183869 and Bug 3183863. Uzume 15:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that should be sufficient for our perfidious purposes. Ahasuerus 05:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So far I believe I have only checked-in common/login.py on bug 3183869 (though that will need a lot more work before that bug is complete, however, that cleans up the login pages and works without anything else) and several small patches related to 3153982 (I shall have to search if you want a list of file and version numbers but as per my comments on that bug where I asked what it meant and got no answer; I have since extrapolated the meaning to mean expunging all references to pub tags until I get further feedback). Uzume 15:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In the past, I received an e-mail notification whenever anything was checked in, but that functionality was broken during the Great SourceForge Break-In. Bill Longley is reporting that it may have been partially fixed recently, but I haven't received any e-mails so far. I could recreate the list of modified scripts manually by checking the check-in date in CVS, but if you could do it on your end and update the Development page, it will be appreciated. There is a description of the process at the top of the Development page. Ahasuerus 05:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand. I made a suggesting on your talk page so create an RSS thread instead of mail but perhaps it is working again. I shall try and make a list but without a baseline for what is already on the server it is hard to figure out. Uzume 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I have been meaning to ask you: How does one determine what versions of the files are running on the live server vs. the CVS? The patch tags seem to only tag the files modified. Is there a way to figure out what baseline the live server is running (like a comprehensive tag that patch tags are based on and can be applied to)? Uzume 15:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible under CVS or at least I am not aware of a way to do it. Normally, the delta between the live server and what's in development (including what's been committed to CVS) is documented on the Development page, and that's been the primary way of determining what's where. Ahasuerus 05:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well human comments on that page are hardly guaranteed to be up-to-date with the server and the repository but I understand. I believe there is a means of tagging all the files in a tree at a certain place/version (instead of just tagging a file files to represent a patch). The code could also be branched. This is a case where I wish we has a distributed revision control system (there could be an administrative repository on isfdb.org that was used to install the live version and was read-only for all but administrators and a public development repository people could check-in to and administrators could pull patches from and merge into the administrative one). Uzume 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand the problem - there have been many times in my career where I've found a problem is caused by the deployed code not actually being what the Source Control system thinks has been deployed. I can think of two possible solutions: 1) create a script that will search for the "$Revision" lines in the source code (a simple "grep"), and put a GUI front-end on that so developers can see what's really currently deployed (assuming the "make" worked): or 2) change every script so that it identifies itself when executed - which would make screen output even less friendly to the non-programmers. (And wouldn't work for non-executables like the banners.) BLongley 19:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I personally think just a baseline tag across all the code files in CVS by an administrator would be more valuable. What you are suggesting might have some value, however, it still makes it very cumbersome to do something like check a diff of what is currently deployed vs. what is checked-in. Your suggestion would be an ultimate test but it means one is only able to do it one file at a time and it is sometimes almost impossible with some files (like POST submission forms or modules that are not a CGI at all). Uzume 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm thinking of "grep $Revision isfdb2/*/*" which would do most files in one go - that performs perfectly well on my local system. I just don't know how to call such from a Python app. BLongley 20:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well you'd be better off using something like "find cgi-bin -xdev -type f '(' -name '*.cgi' -o -name '*.py' ')' -print0 | xargs -0 grep '$Revision: .* $". Methinks it should not be that hard to do something similar as a Python CGI or similar. While we are at it I was considering adding a method to show the deployed Python version too, etc. Uzume 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And on a different but semi-related topic, I noticed many of the module files (.py that are not renamed to .cgi) are copied around to many of the deployed directories. This seems very broken. These files do can be shared and actually do not even have to be installed in web accessible areas. I have also considered using more modules (probably even a group of them as a sort of Python isfdb site package) and merging CGI scripts. There are so many actual CGI script which makes for a rather large attack surface from a security perspective and such would be better from a maintenance and code development perspective too (though it might mean URL changes; I would probably try to move away from URL query arguments AKA CGI QUERY_STRING and into using relative sub-paths AKA CGI PATH_INFO). Uzume 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And on top of all that, it might make sense to gravitate away from CGI directly and use WSGI with a CGI shim for now. Then at some point it could be made into a single application server. Uzume 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed there is a bunch of client-side JavaScript in a few of the Python files. I have not had time to delve into them but it occurred to me that if we are already depending on client-side JavaScript, it would be possible to make a better API interface (XML read access to more than just title records, etc.) and make the application almost all client-side JavaScript and some static pages (containing some HTML, CSS and a bunch of client-side JavaScript). Uzume 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have rambled enough. I am now thinking I need a separate development discussion page. Uzume 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Astounding covers - Jan '59 and Apr '59 (UK)

Hi. I have your proposed merge of the Apr 1959 (UK) and Jan 1959 Astounding coverart on hold. Based on the scans, these are not the same artwork. They are similar, but the US one has the additional seasonal decorative items on the table, the man on the right has a cigarette in his mouth, and a "Kelly Freas" signature is clearly visible at the bottom left of the tabletop. None of these is present in the UK artwork. It looks to me as if Freas perhaps reworked an earlier version (seen on the later UK edition) into the one seen on the US edition. What do you think? --MartyD 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've come across some Canadian printings of US pulps that have been completely "re-painted" without giving credit to the original artist. In the case of the UK printing of this issue, because Freas is given credit, perhaps making it a variant would work. Just like when an artist's cover artwork for one book is later used for a different title entirely. This is very common among European publishers who've used artwork from earlier US and UK editions. Mhhutchins 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You will notice I am only proposing to merge the top title not the variants Apr 1959 (UK) and Jan 1959. They were originally varianted for pseudonymous reasons so now I want to merge them so they essentially become sibling variants of one another. I am not proposing they have a single coverart title but just a single parent title since they are obviously based on the same art. If they weren't already varianted I would be proposing a make variant rather than merging the parent (but variants to variants do not make a lot of sense). Uzume 13:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You can make the UK record a variant of the parent title record without making it a variant of the pseudonymous title record. If you merge the UK record with the parent title, you're saying that each have the same artist credit and are the same work. For example this title record (UK Apr 1959 as Freas) should be made a variant of this record (the parent title as Frank Kelly Freas, Jan 1959). Mhhutchins 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, but merging the variant parents does the same thing. If 'a' is a variant of 'x' and 'b' a variant of 'y', you can make 'a' and 'b' be variants of 'x' by merging 'y' into 'x'. I am not proposing to merge the UK record, but rather to merge the UK parent record with the US parent record (leaving them both as variants to the US parent since it was first and the original publication of which both are derivatives of—both by pseudonymous name but the UK also because of similar content). I am not sure why this is an issue. I submitted several of these and others were accepted. Here is an example of what I want it to look like only with different month covers: 1244908 Uzume 05:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, work has cut into my time the past few days. The difference, in my opinion, is that in the case you cite, the two appear to be the same artwork. I don't think I agree with Michael's suggestion for the submission I have on hold. A canonical title supposedly represents a unique work. We do not use variants for content variations (except for translations). A merged art record at any level says this is the same artwork. We would use variants to show that the same artwork was used for two different purposes; e.g., it was used for the cover of publications of two different works. In the submission I have on hold, the art is clearly not the same -- it is more than just a repainting, it is a modification resulting in a different -- albeit related -- work. In our current scheme, I think these should be separate titles. We don't yet have a way to record derivations. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but viewing the canonical title would say "This same painting appeared as the cover on Jan '59 and on Apr '59 (UK)", and that's not true. --MartyD 11:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand about work, etc. Well you can clearly see in the pub note for the UK version this "This is a reprint of most of the Jan. 1959 and a story from the Jan. 1958 (US editions)". In all the other cases where this was true the coverart was the same too. And I wonder what you see different in the scans. To me they appear exactly the same save the text, the overlaid cigarette with nativity scene and black bar at the bottom with "Merry Christmas" and the light level/darkness of the scans (it seems like all the UK cover scans are lighter). The coverart itself is identical. To me this is no different from varianting interior art that was originally used as a cover. The interior art might not have text or other icons like the cover had. It might be a much better print (let's face it not all magazines are printed with the best quality to begin with). You said "repainting" but I don't see any evidence of repainting or modifications. I highly doubt the coverart credit given to "Freas" in the US version has anything to do with the overlaid nativity scene that was added due to the time of year it was published and I would be willing to bet any coverart collection it is published in will not have the nativity scene in it as the coverart is a science fiction topic most likely related to Eric Frank Russell's Study in Still Life which Freas also did interior illustrators for in this edition. Incidentally, here is another slightly lighter scan of the January '59 cover: Galactic Central If you really feel strongly about making this separate due exclusively to the overlaid nativity scene and the cigarette, I highly question that but I suppose shall have to accept that. Uzume 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you read the background for the British reprints at Visco you'll see that there were clear reasons for repainting rather than reprinting - the covers were different sizes. Finding the artist that did the rework is far harder though. Another good site to look at is here. BLongley 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Bill—this seems like a much stronger argument but brings up the issue of coverart attribution as that page states that virtually all the UK covers are repainted and no one has been able to identify who has done the alterations. Visco's attribution solution was to just use "After <original artist>" (which is very reminiscent of a variant but evidently this usage is not currently policy). Uzume 20:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect many British reprints' covers are misattributed and should properly be by "unknown", with notes saying they are copies: as I own next to none I don't know whether they were generally mis-credited in the publications themselves. I will dig out the few I own at some point and see what they actually say though. BLongley 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Uzume, I understand what you are saying, but I'm sorry, I do not agree with your analysis of these two covers. You are right in that titles, cropping, rotation, logos, overlaid frames, lightness/darkness, and other mechanical things that are done to covers have no bearing on whether the underlying artwork is "the same". And we do ignore those things when considering whether merging is appropriate. So here, for example, the table border, the "Merry Christmas" vs. 'Conflict', the placement and color of the Astounding Science Fiction, the variations in date/price, and the "British Edition" logo are irrelevant. It comes down to the nativity scene and the cigarette. I don't agree that the nativity scene is an overlay -- it looks worked into the painting to me, with shadows incorporated using matching color, etc. But even if I accept your argument that it is an overlay supplied by the publisher to match the title and date of the magazine and is not part of Freas' artwork, that does not explain the cigarette. There would be no reason for that to be a seasonal overlay, so I have to assume it was part of the original drawing in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And that alone, in my opinion, would make the UK edition's cover an alteration. That I think the nativity scene was part of the original drawing merely reinforces my belief. --MartyD 12:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to reject the submission, but I see you've cancelled it. Sorry my availability has been so sporadic; I did not mean to drag this out. Please also keep in mind my opinion need not be the final answer -- ISFDB content is not subject to Marty's whim. If you believe I am mistaken or even that I am correct but the two titles should be combined despite my points, please bring it up to a wider audience on Rules and standards discussions. The rules are open to interpretation, clarification, and even change. In fact, I have to bring something up there covering some of the interiorart and serial merges Mhhutchins and I approved. Thanks, and thanks for all of the hard work on Freas. It's looking quite good. --MartyD 12:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I am not sure agree with your assessment based purely on visual assessment, I actually agree with decision in general and am glad you caught that. BLongley's comments that refer to 3rd-party statements asserting that all the UK coverts were most likely repainted/edited brings this and all the UK covers into question about credit attribution. I do think there is a need for a generalized method to specify derived works such as these (including translations, etc.) but I agree the current policy does not address this well if at all (and now that I agree this is a derived work, this sort of submission currently does not seem to fall within the current variant policies...though perhaps it ought to—that seems to still be up for consideration/debate). Uzume 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Variants and foreign language titles

BTW, I was not aware varianting for translations was policy. Is this only when the title changes? In a variant a translator could also be credited (though we have no credit type for such things). Perhaps better spelled out rules on when how a variant should be used would be good since obviously they are only used for certain types of variations. Uzume 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Varianting for translations from something non-English to English are policy at present: the Non-English original title is the parent. English translations into other languages go under the English title. For contents, this means the only way at present to record the foreign name is in notes, e.g. this pub. There is a title_translator field in the database but it's not used - and it's arguable about whether we want it at title level rather than publication level anyway. BLongley 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
What about the other way around? non-English translations of original English material? I am interested and have been resisting entering such things as ゴルの巨鳥戦士 (which is a Japanese translation of Tarnsman of Gor) because the foreign language title support (both software and policy) seems rudimentary at best. Uzume 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
What other way around? I thought I'd explained both ways. Foreign characters support is minimal at present and will need a move to UTF or suchlike. I won't take such on as I am not expert in even the Western variations of the alphabet I know. (We don't use accents much in English English.) BLongley 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No I did not mean it that way. I did not mean to imply you had not explained it but that the policy is incongruitious in that variants are used one way but not the other. I just meant that is why I have held off entering foreign language translations of original English works. Uzume 00:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Futuristic Science Stories

I'm holding the submissions that update and merge the editor records for this magazine. According to the Tymn/Ashley magazine reference, the editor was credited as "John Spencer Manning" but was really edited by the publishers, Sol Assael and Michael Nahum. According to the Miller/Contento reference, all but the last issue was uncredited (#16 was credited as edited by "John S. Manning".) What is the source for your updates giving Assael the sole editorship? Also, you can't update the editor records themselves, because, according to the current ISFDB record, the magazines aren't credited at all. So you would have to create a variant record to give the actual editor(s) credit, once we've determined who is the real editor. Also, you shouldn't merge title records in subsequent submissions without the submission to update has been approved. You never know which record the system will keep when it merges the multiple records. The record it chooses to retain may be the one that wasn't updated. Mhhutchins 17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with "uncredited" varianted to the real editors but my real objective was to put them into a series to they can be seen on a series grid, etc. Actually one can sort of see which record is retained in a merge—especially when not all the data is the same as the editor record titles are different in this case. I was just trying to make things better. If you have input on how to make my suggestions/submissions even better—great. You always seem to have good input. My source of data for editorial credit was Galactic Central Futuristic Science Stories, which apparently is based on "Miller/Contento" and "Index to British Science Fiction Magazines". Uzume 18:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You can place the issues into series without changing the title record's editor credit, and without merging as well. Just place each of the editor records into a series "Futuristic Science Stories". That creates a grid. The purpose of merging editor records into years is to streamline author summary pages (imagine John W. Campbell's page being 12 times longer than it is now!) It seems everyone forgets this was the original purpose of merging title records. With only 16 issues with an uncredited editor, there's no need to create annual records for this magazine. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This is true. I just thought I would fix the editorial credit as well and it was just as easy to merge a few editorial titles as it was to edit each. Uzume 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You can't "fix" the editorial credit because the editors of the issues aren't credited in the issues. Once we've determined who the actual editor(s) are, we can create a variant, not update the current editor records. The series info will transfer as well to the variant title records. Mhhutchins 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that earlier in this discussion. The fix for the editorial credit was not as well conceived as I at first though it was. The right "fix" is to leave uncredited and variant. Uzume 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those. It is hard for me to see what I had submitted (I really wish we could see the XML content of submissions—at least our own) and try to remedy such. I also got rather busy to think too deeply about it (intermittent work interrupts, etc.). Uzume 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

UK version of Astounding/Analog

I just created this series, by unmerging all of the UK editions from the US series. This makes for a better magazine grid display. Together they were a mess. Mhhutchins 07:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur! I was watching. I had been making some submissions and determined it was futile because by the time my edits were moderated they would have already been done. I did add a few minor touch up submissions though (and cancelled a few of mine and backed off when I saw you doing the same things). Uzume 07:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Heretic in a Balloon"

I think this novella was fixed up with "The Witches of Manhattan" into the novel The Great Fetish. As such, its title record should not be made into a variant of the novel's title record. The title records of all three could be placed into a series, and the novel's title record should probably be updated with the information about the source stories. Mhhutchins 23:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you'd rather it was a series, I can do that but I do not think this would be an issue if the two short stories had been published with the same title as serialized parts. On what basis do you propose these were "fixed up"? Uzume 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You're correct. It would not have been an issue if the two stories had been published as a serial, regardless of the title of the serial. A big "if" there. They weren't. We go with how it was published.
I say "fixed up" regardless of how much or how little work de Camp did in order to publish the book under a new title. It's a bibliographic term that means any work that is published as a novel that contains work which was previously published separately, even if they were originally written to be part of a larger work. Perhaps I was wrong to say it was "fixed up" until I've examined how each of the two shorter works relate to the novel. I do know that neither work should be made into a variant of the novel, regardless of how they fit into the novel.
The variant function should not be used to indicate a variant in text. It should only be used to indicate a variant in author credit or title of the work. Currently there is no way in the database to accurately and effectively indicate a variant in text and/or the relationship of one title record to another. The title record's note field is the only means to do so. Mhhutchins 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
How do you propose they were not published as a serial except that each part had a different title? Perhaps you'd rather The Great Fetish were a collection or an omnibus? Based on verifications, you have all the parts (both magazines and the first pub of The Great Fetish) so I shall go with whatever you say. Uzume 00:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how it's defined, I know a serial when I see it...and this was not published as a serial. There's no mention at all in the first issue that the story will be continued. The only reference connecting the stories is in the blurb of the second story that they will "soon appear in hard covers from Doubleday as The Great Fetish." There is no "what happened before" synopsis in the second story. I made a cursory comparison of the texts and saw that there are only slight revisions, with the first story comprising the first eight chapters of the novel, and the second story became the second five chapters. I have updated the three title records. Mhhutchins 01:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, a collection usually gives each story its own title page and includes a table of contents. This book does neither. An omnibus must include, among other contents, a work which was previously published in book form (usually a novel, but not always). Obviously this book wouldn't qualify. Mhhutchins 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't serious think the omnibus fit but not having the book I was not sure about collection (but there were several verifications across two pubs and I would have thought they would have caught such). Thanks for looking into that. I find your choice of series title interesting. Instead of "Marko Prokopiu" I might have went with "The Great Fetish" or even "Kforri". Uzume 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Series titles are debatable, and easily changed. I personally don't like to name a series after one of the titles, but it's been done ad nauseum. If de Camp had written another book in the series, we would have had a stronger basis upon which to name the series, whether he would have used the same protagonist, or had chosen another character in the same setting. Mhhutchins 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Uzume 01:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the HTML blockquote in db records

I've never seen this done before and it works well to quote a printed statement. Only trouble though is that the record's remaining data is overwhelmed by it. What do you think? Mhhutchins 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have used it before in the past several times (e.g., here) but never for such a large print history. I think it is alright but perhaps we should be wary. The real problem is the default font for the <pre> tag. I only used it because it uses verbatim whitespace but I am not thrilled with the default monotype font. There is a way around this using CSS but currently the site has no such CSS. Blockquote really only adds margins. Uzume 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure about "no such CSS"? I'm no expert, but changing the font-size for "pre" in isfdb2\css\biblio_css_stub from 150% to 100% seems a step in the right direction. Maybe "font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" too to make it more standard. I'm not sure what else would be affected though. Can you test such? BLongley 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the way to do it is to just use something like <div style="white-space: pre;">. That changes the white space handling on the div without changing the font like the pre tag does. I thought it might be useful to make the notes default to a div that uses a class that refers to CSS that does that in the main CSS code but never got around to that. It would make simple notes very easy as you could put multiple lines in without having to think about formatting much (and HTML tags like linking would still work). Uzume 20:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, this looked good to me but if there's a better way, go for it. BLongley 21:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example where I just attached the CSS directly to the blockquote tag instead of using the additional pre tag. You will notice the list is still very long but the font is no longer changed. Do we agree this is a better solution? Uzume 11:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's very much better. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, then I shall convert my earlier submissions to that format (which are now much easier to find thanks to the new user verification list). Thanks. Uzume 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There's also FR 3279968, "Support for Title and Publication Notes search" which will hopefully allow us to search notes for undesirable strings. However, Ahasuerus is not yet recovered enough to test big changes. Glad to hear "My Verifications" is coming in useful though! BLongley 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that and have already integrated that code into my personal test platform (so I can already test it at least with older data from backup snapshots). Thanks. I know that will be very useful. Uzume 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sands of Mars

Accepted the submission adding notes to this did a quick check of Locus1 and that's the date they have. Adjusted the note accordingly. There are probably thousands of records in the DB that have used Locus data without citing the source. For anything after 1984 [collections only pre-'84] I always check there. The online index is easy to use. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been busy entering many primary verifications (i.e., sifting through my library). Uzume 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Lee

Thanks for adding the birth year to Patrick Lee's record. I was at a loss at how to disambiguate him with the other Patrick Lee who wrote in the 1930's. I sent an email to the currently writer asking him for his birth year, but you beat me to it. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is publicly available on several sites including his own web page. It should perhaps also be noted that there is a "press picture" of him also available on that site under contacts which I expect would be acceptable to copy here and link in as it is specified for press (publication) usage and is also the same image as depicted in some of his books (in the about the author blurb). Uzume 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings" boxed sets

I accepted the submission making one record a variant of the other, then saw that they are all boxed sets and merged them into one record here. Mhhutchins 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good and I considered that myself. Thanks. Uzume 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Minor Operation" by Aldiss

I'm holding the submission creating a new parent record for the serial "Minor Operation". This serial is an abridgement of a novel (The Primal Urge) published the year before. What are your intentions in making the serial into a variant of the same name (and that you've typed as shortfiction)? It may be better just to make it into a variant of the original title. What do you think? Mhhutchins 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That works. I just thought it was better to not have the serials hanging in space and better to have them a variant of a SF so that it is a single SF with serialized appearances (I was going to variant the others to the same parent). If there is a better pre-existing parent I am all for it. I withdrew this submission and added more to make each serial entry variants (magazine appearances) of The Primal Urge Uzume 00:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Catmagic" by Barry & Strieber

It appears that several of the editions were credited to both, so they have to remain as credited, under their own title record, but made into a variant. We should remove those credited to Streiber alone and make it into the parent record. I don't believe there were any that credited Barry alone. Just because Strieber is Barry doesn't mean we can change the records of the publication's credits. I'll work on it and let you see the results. Mhhutchins 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Really!? I have not seen that. It seems to me more like Amazon or some large site incorrectly listed some publications as having both credits but I am unable to make any verifications where a publication actually had both credits. Even if there are some pubs with both credits it would be better to split and variant so there are titles with pubs correctly credited (some with one; some with the other; and possibly some with both). One other problem with this title is the name itself. Officially is is always Catmagic, however due to the way it is displayed on covers and title pages stylized with "Cat" and "magic" in such a way that it looks like two words where "magic" maybe capitalized. Every copyright page always seems to list it as either Catmagic or CATMAGIC Uzume 00:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you did basically what I was proposing to do anyway but with a few different steps. Difference I would make is that the Tor HC editions were only credited to "Jonathan Barry" alone despite some crediting both. It would be pointless to have the pseudonym in the case listed in the comment I added to the title record if there was the real name also attached. Uzume 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Look at the image I just loaded of the Tor hardcover edition. Also look under "Responsibility" in the OCLC record. Mhhutchins 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I concede to the cover. Thanks again. (I was planning to unmerge and variant in the opposite direction but the end result was the same—except the dual credit thing aside) Uzume 00:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Time Wars

Is Charles G. Waugh credited on the title page of this book, or is it "Charles Waugh"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The cover (as can be seen on the cover scan) and the title page say:
CREATED BY POUL ANDERSON TIME WARS EDITED BY CHARLES WAUGH & MARTIN H. GREENBURG
However the copyright page says:
Copyright © 1986 by Poul Anderson, Martin H. Greenberg and Charles G. Waugh
I hope that helps. Feel free to make such changes if you feel such are appropriate. Uzume 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

F&Sf July 1985

Replaced the Visco scan for your verified here. Hauck 17:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank for the heads-up. I have no issues with the edit. Uzume 00:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange Bedfellows

I made a few changes to this verified pub. The stories by William Carlson and Jack M. Dann were incorrectly credited to William K. Carlson and Jack Dann (see also here for Mike Hutchins'opinion). Corrected now, and I also added some notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lazarus Effect

Added artist credit to this, cover art same as hardcover which does credit the artist. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Long After Midnight

I added the artist (Ian Miller) and a note to this verified pub. --Willem H. 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Planet Run

New image and notes (there were none) added to this --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Worlds of the Imperium

New scan, identified the artist from signature, for this --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange Bedfellows

Replaced the FF scan for your verified here. Hauck 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sign of the Unicorn

I added a cover scan to this verified pub. --Willem H. 19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Split Infinity

I replaced the Fantastic Fiction cover scan for Split Infinity (DelRey, Aug 1983) with a scan of my own copy and expanded the notes with a remark about the artist credits. --Dirk P Broer 19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyranopolis

I expanded the notes for this verified pub. If you have a source for the publication month, please add it to the notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Juxtaposition - cover image, notes and page numbers

I uploaded a scanned cover image, added notes, and fixed the page numbers to denote the unnumbered roman numeral pages for your verified Juxtaposition. AndonSage 06:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Split Infinity - notes and page numbers

I added notes, and fixed the unnumbered roman numeral pages for your verified Split Infinity. AndonSage 01:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack of Shadows

New scan and identified the artist from signature [approx 1 1/2" up and 1" in from botto right, very tiny red lettering under 'globe'] for this. Adjusted notes accordingly. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Last Knight of Albion

I'm standardizing various books published by "New Infinities", an imprint of Ace SF. Our standard for such things is "Imprint / Publisher", so I've changed the publisher listing for your verified book from "Ace/New Infinities" to "New Infinities / Ace" Chavey 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Groff Conklin - Selections From Possible Worlds of Science Fiction

I updated your verified pub Selections From Possible Worlds of Science Fiction with added notes, cover art photograph, and I also corrected the publication title by adding Selections From. This now matches my copy in hand. Thanks Kevin 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Master Mind of Mars and A Fighting Man of Mars

You verified this book, which is listed with a print date of Jan. 1974. However it is also listed as having a gutter code of D51, which translates to Dec. 1973 (which agrees with Contento1, who just says "1973"). As such, I have updated the the print date for that book. Chavey 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Bluesman corrects me that we use SFBC catalogs to determine 1st publication dates, not the gutter codes, so I have reverted the change mentioned above. Chavey 23:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Hand of Oberon Roger Zelazny 7th printing

Added cover artist for this pub BarDenis 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Courts of Chaos Roger Zelazny 2nd printing

Updated cover art with the correct one in this pub BarDenis 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The New Hugo Winners, Volume 1

Another editor has uploaded and linked the cover image for this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Starcrossed by Ben Bova

I just added a cover image to The Starcrossed by Ben Bova Ofearna 21:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomads of Gor

Nomads of Gor 16th printing I added a cover image Ofearna 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Medusa: A Tiger by the Tail

Hi, I've added a cover scan and expanded the notes for Medusa: A Tiger by the Tail (DelRey, 1988).--Dirk P Broer 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Uzume"
Personal tools