ISFDB:Community Portal


(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Professor Bernice Summerfield: examples)
(Professor Bernice Summerfield)
Line 953: Line 953:
:::::If that's what's on the covers, then yes. Lacking any PV to check with, we have to go by what's on the cover or Look Inside. If the cover doesn't have that as part of the title, then we shouldn't be adding it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:29, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
:::::If that's what's on the covers, then yes. Lacking any PV to check with, we have to go by what's on the cover or Look Inside. If the cover doesn't have that as part of the title, then we shouldn't be adding it. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:29, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
:::::So, for example, [ this one] doesn't have the "and the" as part of the title, so the "Professor Bernice Summerfield" is just the name of the series. On the other hand, [ this one] has "Professor Bernice Summerfield and the Dead Men Diaries " on the cover, so that's what we use for the title unless a PV or Look Inside shows differently. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
:::::So, for example, [ this one] doesn't have the "and the" as part of the title, so the "Professor Bernice Summerfield" is just the name of the series. On the other hand, [ this one] has "Professor Bernice Summerfield and the Dead Men Diaries " on the cover, so that's what we use for the title unless a PV or Look Inside shows differently. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 18:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
:::::: I only refer to 1-6. It seems since 7 the "and" is missing. That's why my first proposal was to also drop that for 1-6. But as you rejected that I'll unify 1-6 with the "and". If later a PV notes that this is wrong it at least will be much easier to correct it by simply editing the title records. --[[User:Stoecker|Stoecker]] 08:02, 16 August 2019 (EDT)
== Imadjinn Awards ==
== Imadjinn Awards ==

Revision as of 12:02, 16 August 2019

ISFDB Discussion Pages and Noticeboards
Before posting to this page, consider whether one of the other discussion pages or noticeboards might suit your needs better.
Help desk
Questions about doing a specific task, or how to correct information when the solution is not immediately obvious.
• New post • Archives
Verification requests
Help with bibliographic, image credit, and other questions which require a physical check of the work in question.
• New post • Archives
Rules and standards
Discussions about the rules and standards, as well as questions about interpretation and application of those rules.
• New post • Rules changelog • Archives
Community Portal
General discussion about anything not covered by the more specialized noticeboards to the left.
• New post • Archives
Moderator noticeboard
Get the attention of moderators regarding submission questions.
• New post • Archives • Cancel submission
Roadmap: For the original discussion of Roadmap 2017 see this archived section. For the current implementation status, see What's New#Roadmap 2017.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Community Portal.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46


Windy City Pulpcon

If anyone here is attending the Windy City Pulpcon on April 12-14. Let me know if you'd like to meet up.--Rkihara 13:18, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

As usual, I'll be there. It's practically in my back yard. I'd be happy to meet up if you're interested. Bob 17:43, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
Sure, I'd like that. I'll be registered at the Westin as Ron Kihara and will be arriving Thurs. evening. I usually drive down I-80 from the Bay Area, so it's possible the weather might prevent me from making it.--Rkihara 19:20, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
Great, Ron. I'll get there about 11 a.m. Friday when the dealer room opens. I'll hang around the entrance for a while, then wander through the ballroom. I'm Bob or Robert Lumpkin. If we somehow miss on Friday, I'll be there about 10 am on Saturday with my adult son. I'll hang around with dealers like Greg Ketter (Dream Haven Books), Lloyd Currey, Andy Richards (Cold Tonnage Books), Graham Holroyd, and Bill Cavalier. There are usually a bunch of friends from the Robert E. Howard community as well. Bob 20:06, 1 April 2019 (EDT)
I'll be going into the dealer room about the same time. I'll be easy to spot, I'm Japanese, wear glasses, bald, and I'm told I look like a Kung Fu villain. The dealers I usually spend time with are; Steve Hafner, Larry Hallock, Craig Poole, Dave Kurzman and Steve Spilger. I'm also in and out of the hospitality room.--Rkihara 22:39, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

Template that can be used in the wiki

I've created Template:Notice float right for anyone that wishes to use it. If you visit the template page, it gives an example of how to use it. You can also see it in use on my user page. Enjoy! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:15, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Changes to ISFDB links

The way ISFDB links -- including links to author, title, series, etc records -- are displayed has been changed behind the scenes. The new linking format is supposed to be supported by all browsers going back to Internet Explorer 6, so the change should be completely transparent to all users.

Still, given the variety of browsers out there, you can never be 100% sure. If a link doesn't work as expected, please post the offending URL and your browser version here. Ahasuerus 16:11, 6 April 2019 (EDT)

Does this address the issue of Facebook adding the "&fbclid=" bit onto URLs? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:08, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
I am afraid not. It's a different change addressing a different issue. Ahasuerus 14:02, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
Some users report issues under certain versions of Safari. Investigating. Ahasuerus 11:31, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
Unfortunately, there wasn't anything that I could do to address the Safari bug(s). For now, I have reverted the software changes to enable Safari users to access our data. Ahasuerus 11:57, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

Canonical name Thomas Blot or William Simpson (I)

In relation to the 1891 pseudonymous NOVEL The Man from Mars, as by Thomas Blot T1013407:
This week I added the 1900 Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged, by William Simpson (I), and the 1893 stated second edition, identical to the first but also under the author's real name. --both of those as publications one NOVEL by William Simpson (I) T2536737, although 80 of 280 pages are new in the Third Edition, a 60-page Preface and a new chapter. Most information on how the 1900 differs from the earlier eds. is now in the 1900 publication record P710623.

That is: 1893 change in credited author name; 1900 change in contents --but not so great that we should treat it as a new NOVEL, in my opinion. Right? If so, then one NOVEL title should be variant of the author, depending on which should be the canonical author name.

Neither Blot nor Simpson (I) is likely to enjoy a growing bibliography here. SFE3 knows the writer as Blot, from the 1st edition. Library of Congress doesn't know him at all.

Thomas Blot or William Simpson (I)? That governs the (re)location of all Author data and much NOVEL data to the appropriate parent record, and whether the Novel by Simpson should be dated 1891 or 1893? --Pwendt|talk 16:53, 6 April 2019 (EDT)

(fix template links, rewrite and expand) --Pwendt|talk 17:52, 6 April 2019 (EDT)

Arthur C. Clarke Award - Categories

The Arthur C. Clarke Award is currently set up to have the following categories:

  • Winner
  • Runner-Up
  • Shortlist
  • Honorary Award

It would appear that the first three categories as they are currently defined in the database are actually different "award levels" of the Best Science Fiction Novel "award category". My guess is that the editor(s) who originally created these categories were trying to get around the fact that -- the way the software currently works -- an award category has to be either a "Poll" or "Not a Poll". As luck would have it, the Best Science Fiction Novel category doesn't fit this mold. In 1987-1996 there was one "winner", one "runner-up" and a number of nominations every year, but "runner-ups" were eliminated in 1997. Whoever originally entered the date presumably tried to get around this problem by creating additional categories.

It occurs to me that there may be another way to organize the data. We could merge the three categories into one, "Best Science Fiction Novel", and set it up as a "Poll". Winners would then be entered as "Award Level 1", runner-ups as "Award Level 2" and regular nominees as "Finalists" (a supported "special award level".)

What do you think? Ahasuerus 19:54, 9 April 2019 (EDT)

Sounds good. It also looks like there were 3rd place winners announced in 1989 and 1990, per the SFADB. The Award's site lists only winners and shortlist for all years. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:58, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
Done! Ahasuerus 15:46, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Wiki page elimination

Moments ago I made three submissions related to the ISFDB wiki page Author:Jonathan Scott. That page gives a medium-length quotation from the British DNB.

  1. As the DNB quotation concerns Scott's edition of the Arabian Nights alone, [1] I copied all of it (typography unmodified) as a Note on Title 1340796.
  2. I copied most of the first sentence (typography modified) as a Note on Author Jonathan Scott.
  3. On the Wiki page I added a note, with signature and timestamp, explaining how the page is now redundant (entirely).

I have wondered about the procedure for wiki page elimination. I don't work on it systematically but I have added some Notes to the database that make some Author, Bio, and Publisher wiki pages redundant. Is it desirable to annotate the wiki pages as I have done here? Alternatively, is there another place to report that a page is now redundant?

The Author page is entirely redundant (pending approval of these submissions) in that all of its content is available in the database. Perhaps I should have included a link or some instruction in the Author Note --as I would have done for someone with a medium or long bibliography. For instance, minimally

  • "In 1811 Scott published the work by which he is chiefly known, his edition of the Arabian Nights" in six volumes (the 1811 work listed below).

--Pwendt|talk 14:39, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

When content from a wiki page has been moved to the database, add the following to the top of the page: {{Page transferred}}. That will tag the page for deletion and it will (eventually) get deleted. You can also use {{Deletion candidate|your reason here}} (filling in your reason) for pages that are not a simple transfer case. I have deleted the author's page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

New Help page organized

I created Help:How to (wiki) (which previously only existed as a list of pages in a category). I organized the pages by what they discussed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:01, 12 April 2019 (EDT)

SFE3 Reconciliation - New Report

The way our author URLs are reconciled with SFE3 has been changed. A new cleanup report has been created and deployed. The new functionality includes:

  • All editors have access to the report (only moderators can "ignore" SFE3 URLs)
  • The cleanup report is now updated nightly with the latest SFE3 data
  • The software analyzes SFE3 article names and tries to guess what the corresponding ISFDB author should be

If everything goes smoothly, the new data will become available in a couple of hours when the nightly process runs. Ahasuerus 23:15, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

The nightly process ran successfully and added 4380 SFE3 URLs to the report. I have cleaned up the first 10 and the process seems to be working correctly. Things are looking up. Ahasuerus 11:33, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 06:34, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
Glad it's useful :-) Ahasuerus 06:48, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

Inconsistent category names on Locus Poll Award in 2007, 2009 and 2010

I notice that there are a few instances of categories for the Locus Poll Award not being prefixed by "Best". This is visible at , but a rough list of the offending categories/years is:

  • Collection (2010)
  • Fantasy Novel (2007, 2009, 2010)
  • First Novel (2007, 2009)
  • Nonfiction/Art Book (2010) - note that the "Best" category is "Best Nonfiction/Art", no "Book"
  • Novelette (2010)
  • Novella (2007, 2010)
  • Short Story (2010)

Anyone know if there's a good reason for this? It certainly seems less than ideal from a UX point-of-view. I'm a newbie here, so I dunno how easy it would be to merge these back into the more common "Best..." categories - it looks like there might be enough records for some sort of SQL bulk UPDATE to be better than multiple updates via the UI?

(FWIW, Wikipedia has them all as "Best Whatever", SFADB just has "Whatever". Locus' site uses "Best Whatever", at least for 2010:

In a similar vein - but it is at least consistent within the award - the Nebulas are just categorized as "Novel", "Novella" etc, whereas on the SFWA site they are "Best Novel", "Best Novella" etc. e.g.

--ErsatzCulture 19:19, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

I can think of two possible explanations:
  1. The person who created the additional categories overlooked the fact that related "Best" categories were already on file
  2. The person who created the additional categories was working with what s/he considered an authoritative source -- perhaps Locus issues? -- and s/he wanted to be as accurate as possible
Normally, a minor name change doesn't result in the creation of a new category, so my inclination would be to merge them and to document any discrepancies that we may find in the Note field. Let me check submission history to see who created these categories first... Ahasuerus 20:07, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
I have scanned the submission table looking for clues. Here is what I think is happening with these categories.
Originally, award types and categories were handled differently. Award types used to be hard-coded using two-letter abbreviations -- see "award_ttype" on this Wiki page. Award categories used to be manually entered every time an award was entered -- see "award_atype" on the same Wiki page.
It was very messy and I ended up rewriting the whole thing in 2014 -- see Development/Archive/2014 for details. I then migrated previously entered award categories to the new table structure. I think I tried to merge near-duplicates where feasible, but it looks like I missed quite a few.
I think it should be safe to merge these categories. Roughly 200 awards will be affected, which shouldn't be too hard to do manually. Ahasuerus 21:22, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
OK, I think I have merged everything that could be merged without losing specificity. Please let me know if I missed anything. Ahasuerus 21:30, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Fantasy and Science Fiction mentioned ISFDB

I forgot to mention it back on April 4. See this post. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:08, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

Nominating Biomassbob as Moderator

I would like to nominate Biomassbob (talkcontribs) for moderator. He has been an editor for seven years and has 44530 edits as of this date, covering the full range of the database. I have always found his edits to be detailed and complete. I believe that he is highly qualified to be a moderator and he has accepted the nomination.


  1. Support, as nominator.—Rkihara 10:41, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  2. Support. No concerns; I can't remember the last time I had an issue with any of his plentiful and varied submissions. p.s. Thanks for making me feel old, Ron. --MartyD 17:05, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  3. Support. About time :) Annie 17:55, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  4. Support. I have no concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 22 April 2019 (EDT)


  1. I haven't done a lot of moderating lately, so I'll abstain. Ahasuerus 19:16, 23 April 2019 (EDT)
  2. I can't remember having moderated enough of his submissions to make a judgement, therefore I stay neutral. Jens Hitspacebar 13:21, 25 April 2019 (EDT)


The nomination was successful; the moderator flag has been set on the account. Congratulations! Ahasuerus 11:29, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

Cropping Amazon images

Dirk Stoeker has identified a way to crop Amazon images:

However, the way our software is currently configured, an Amazon image URL that contains "L._" generates a yellow warning ("Extra formatting in an Amazon URL") on post-submission pages. It also generates an exception on one of the nightly cleanup reports.

That said, it would be easy to modify the software to accept "L._CR" URLs, so the question is whether we want to allow them. On the one hand, "cropped" URLs can come in handy when dealing with unusual Amazon images. On the other hand, Amazon URLs are not always stable and this particular method has been apparently changed in the past. Here is what an overview of Amazon images says about it:

  • This crops the image, trimming away everything but a selected rectangular area. The first two numbers indicate the upper left-hand corner of the selection area (the first is how many pixels from the left, the second is how many pixels down from the top). The next two numbers are the width and height of the selected area, in pixels.
  • Note: this was a great way to trim away the excess white space left by other commands,,. which other commands used to create, although that was greatly reduced sometime around July 2007. You have to take the time to crop precisely for a given image. If you set the crop area to go beyond the edge of the image, the image will merely be resized with white space added.

Based on this history, I wonder if it may be better to create a cropped image on your computer and then upload it to ISFDB. What do you think? Ahasuerus 19:26, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Amazon tends to change their formatting when it suits them and relying on it may end up with some weird side effects when they do in a few years. If the Amazon image is not good as is, then we either should live with it or find another one or fix it -- but relying on an undocumented and non-guaranteed external formatting is just asking for trouble. Annie 21:46, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Downloading, cropping and uploading to ISFDB is not an valid approach, as there still can be copyright on the images (even if it is debatable if copyright can exist for a mere photo of a book). As far as history of Amazon shows they simply ignore old parameters when they change, so in this case the result would be an uncropped image again. --Stoecker 04:17, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Copyright is irrelevant for this discussion. We use non-public domain cover images under fair use criteria. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Not for me. Even if the use of the motive is ok, modifying the photo taken by somebody else is a minefield I wouldn't want to step into, especially with the upcomming copyright changes in Europe. --Stoecker 11:58, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
Amazon covers are not always reliable, especially for older works. I'm not thrilled with the idea of locally uploading Amazon images, especially for works that were verified without a cover. If the cover is actually for the wrong edition, it creates a false record where it is harder to see that the image is not correct. Especially since uploaders are incredibly poor at properly changing the source field in the fair use template. The crop functionality has been around for sometime. If change were to occur, it would probably be that Amazon deprecates it, in which case, it would go back to showing the whole image so not much of a risk in my opinion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
While I don't care for relying on specifying the cropping in the URL, I don't see any harm in allowing it, and it does seem a little better to me in terms of preserving the provenance of the image than we might get if we recommend downloading and cropping and uploading. --MartyD 09:57, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
It looks like we have 3 editors in favor of allowing "L._CR" URLs, 1 opposed and 1 neutral (me). Would anyone else like to share his or her thoughts? Ahasuerus 11:06, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
If everyone else is in favor of it, I am not going to block the decision - so ignore the opposing editor. :) It is an easily reversible one if Amazon managed to make it a disaster with an update - because of the format, we can always strip those programmatically later. Annie 13:20, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) OK, we have a consensus or as close to it as we are likely to get. I have changed the software to ignore "._CR" in Amazon URLs and updated Template:Image Host Sites with Dirk's instructions. In addition, the new cleanup logic is somewhat more robust than the old logic, so I expect it to find 30 new "problem" images tomorrow morning. Ahasuerus 19:59, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Cleanup completed. Ahasuerus 14:14, 29 April 2019 (EDT)


There doesn't seem to be anything specific in the Help pages about abridgements, specifically what constitutes an abridgement, how to credit additional 'authors'/'editors' or note them if unspecified, varianting to the original title, effects of translation (e.g. abridgement of a translation vs. translated and abridged vs. abridged then translated) and distinguishing abridgements of an oft-abridged title. Are there rules or even consensus for these topics? If this turns into a discussion of actual rules, it should be moved to that forum, but for now I'm wondering about where we stand. ../Doug H 12:05, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

In my experience, it depends on the nature of the abridgement. If the differences are minor, they are documented in Notes. If they are major, a new title record is created.
If the person who performed the abridgement is known and a new title needs to be created, s/he is credited as a co-author -- see William Shakespeare's bibliography for examples. If the text was rewritten so extensively that it qualifies as a separate work (typically retellings for young children) then the original author is sometimes only credited in Notes. Ahasuerus 18:10, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
If we stick with crediting per the pub and it doesn't list the abridger on the title page, then it should be entered as by the author alone and varianted to as by the author and the abridger. We are inconsistent in doing that though. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
If you variant to the title with the original author and abridger, then you can't variant that in turn to the original. Does that mean abridgements aren't supposed to be varianted to the original? Is there any way to keep track of the relationship? ../Doug H 19:37, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
Variants are the same work under a different title (or translations). They are not for variance in the work itself (other than translations). If an abridgment is different enough to be considered a new work, then it would not be varainted to the original work. If the changes are minor enough to not be considered a new work, then there would not be a separate title & it would be simply captured in the notes (as Ahasuerus referred to above). If it's different enough to have its own title record, then you would need to use the notes to link it back. The only exception would be if it's a minor abridgment and a title change (then a variant would be appropriate). -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

New External ID type for Science Fiction-Leihbuch-Datenbank?

The German SF database Science Fiction-Leihbuch-Datenbank has a fairly limited scope, but their data is solid and well organized. Their publication-specific pages can be accessed using "permalinks" like, which should make it easy to add the site as a new "External ID" type. Can anyone think of a reason not to add it? Ahasuerus 15:34, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

No reasons I can think of. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:02, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
Me neither. Stonecreek 13:33, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
OK, FR 1274 has been created. Ahasuerus 14:12, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
A new External ID and a matching linking Notes template have been added -- see this record for an example. Ahasuerus 14:17, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

The Lord of the Rings / The Lord of the Rings (Boxed Set)

Hi, everybody! I just wonder why we have different titles for these: it seems to be somewhat illogical by our internal logic. After all, as for the titles involved in the respective OMNIBUSes, they should be identical; the form of publication shouldn't be reflected in the title, only in the publications. Am I missing something? Stonecreek 09:57, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

Agreed. It might relate to this discussion (at one time the single volume Lord of the Rings was apparently considered a novel). However, since they are both omnibuses, they should be merged. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
Yes, I dimly remember that discussion. If no one objects, I'll do the merging: in any case, I'll wait until Tuesday before beginnin with it. Stonecreek 13:38, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
Can't find the original now that they're merged (without an long manual search), so a question - was the entry for the box itself, which had a separate ISBN and cover image than the books it contains? Should the other boxed sets be dealt with the same way? Two contrasting examples - James Blish Cities in Flight has a single publication for the set like Lord of the Rings, but A Game of Thrones: 5-Book Boxed Set will (hopefully) never see a single omnibus publication. ../Doug H 08:53, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
Re: GRRM. You never know, I think, though a printed one-volume edition will take a long time (and some muscles to carry home), there'll likely be an ebook someday.
Re: LotR. There were several boxes, some with one ISBN, some with separate ISBNs. I remember that there were several around the movie(s) release(s), apart from the one mentioned in the title note. Ideally, the page count should be split into three portions (XXX+YYY+ZZZ), though there was one (unverified) set that had only one number.
And yes, this was one example of the underlying principle, I should think. I have merged the Blish OMNIBUSes: thanks for pointing them out. Stonecreek 09:58, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
Lots more where those came from. Just pulled them from the list of 200+ titles with "boxed set" or "boxset". Didn't even try other variations. ../Doug H 19:29, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
To be merged, they would have to have the same contents and same title (minus the artificial box set disambiguation we add). If they had the same contents and different title, they would be varianted. There may be a few more cases out there if someone has the patience to go through them all, but I randomly poked through a bunch of the results from doing such a query and only found one. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
So if there is no existing omnibus with a matching title when you enter the box set, the generated TITLE title would also include "box set", until such time as someone entered the matching omnibus without a "box set", at which point the box set should be merged with the second omnibus title? The inclusion of "box set" is acceptable as long as there isn't an existing non-boxed omnibus? In the case of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, the box set title entry explicitly states it is not to be merged with the single volume omnibus. So it sounds like someone had a different opinion that a moderator agreed with. No verifications, so no names or dates. And a question for Stonecreek - what do you mean "by our internal logic"? And as a final observation - I thought box sets were different and were put in as OMNIBUS because that was the closest thing without coding a new type - which is the only reason I keep picking at this, I don't yet understand. ../Doug H 22:53, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
No, it seems that (box set) wouldn't belong to the title in general: it crept into our database just because vendors such as Amazon have that title, which only belongs to a specific publication, and is not to be found anywhere in or on the publication itself. Stonecreek 00:26, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Crediting cover scans - proposed design changes

Here is how cover scan credits work at this time. When we link to a cover scan, we credit the organization operating the server that hosts the scan. The credit line reads "Cover art supplied by X", where [X] is the name of the organization (Amazon, Galactic Central, etc) linked to the organization's home page. Clicking the image takes you to the raw image hosted by the third party. Here is an example of how it currently works.

There are two partial exceptions to this rule. First, images hosted by the SFE3 Picture Gallery are handled differently. Due to SFE3 requirements, clicking an SFE3-hosted image takes you to the Gallery Web page that hosts it as opposed to the raw image. For example, if you click the cover of this publication, you will see its Gallery page, not the raw image. This was done in order to support SFE3 requirements -- see Template:Image Host Sites, which reads, in part, "all SFE3-hosted images must have a link to the associated "Gallery" page added after a "pipe" ("|") character", for an explanation of the technical details. (Ignore the fact that the linked publication page currently credits "Encyclopedia of Fantasy" instead of SFE3. It's a recently discovered bug which needs to be fixed. The bug has been fixed.)

The second partial exception is ISFDB-hosted images. As expected, clicking an ISFDB-hosted image takes you to the raw image. However, clicking the word "ISFDB" on the "Cover art supplied by ISFDB" line takes you to the ISFDB Wiki page for the image as opposed to the ISFDB home page. Here is an example of how it works.

This is inconsistent design because seemingly identical links behave differently depending on whether the cover scan is hosted by ISFDB, SFE3 or another party. To make it worse, recent discussions with the administrator of Science Fiction-Leihbuch-Datenbank have identified additional requirements for linking to their cover scans. They would like "Cover art supplied by" lines to link to their publication-specific pages the way they currently link to ISFDB Wiki pages for ISFDB-hosted scans. We could modify our software to accommodate their requirements, but it would further muddy the waters. Besides, who knows what kinds of additional linking requirements other sites may have in the future?

An e-mail discussion of this issue with the administrators of Science Fiction-Leihbuch-Datenbank and SFE3 ultimately resulted in the following proposal:

1. Change the software so that clicking a cover scan (including SFE3-hosted cover scans) should always take the user to the raw image file.

2. Modify the credit line to have two links instead of one. The first link will continue to be a link to the site's home page. The second, new, link will be to a publication-specific page (if defined.)

3. The new wording of the credit line will be "Cover art supplied by X on this Web page" where:

  • "X" will be the name of the organization hyperlinked to its home page, and
  • "this Web page" will be a link to a publication-specific page, specifically:
    • for SFE3-hosted images it will be the cover scan's Gallery page
    • for ISFDB-hosted images it will be the ISFDB Wiki page of the cover scan
    • for Science Fiction-Leihbuch-Datenbank-hosted images it will be the publication-specific page associated with the cover scan
    • all other cover scans won't have the words "on this Web page" displayed because there is no page to link to

For now we will keep the current way of entering links to publication-specific pages, which uses "|" to separate the cover scan URL from the URL of the publication-specific page. If the current proposal is accepted and implemented, I expect that we will revisit this issue at some point in the future and probably create a separate field for the data that is currently entered to the right of "|", but that's another discussion.

So, what do you think? Ahasuerus 13:56, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

Sounds overall very good to me! Stonecreek 13:45, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
To me as well. Jens Hitspacebar 14:50, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
Me three Annie 19:53, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
Sounds good to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
Thanks, folks. FR 1277 has been created. Ahasuerus 20:47, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) The deed is done. (Hopefully without messing up anything else.)

BTW, there is another site that requires that we link to the underlying page -- Smashwords. We have a cleanup report that hunts invalid Smashwords links, but we need to add a yellow post-submission warning. I'll take care of it when I add Science Fiction-Leihbuch-Datenbank. Ahasuerus 17:53, 8 May 2019 (EDT)

Couldn't we get something similar for Amazon-linked cover art? I regularly get into a situation where I want to check out the actual page, so it'd be nice if I could click on a link and it'd bring me directly to the actual pub instead of to the frontpage where I then have to search for the pub I'm looking for...
Additionally, could it be done to have a link to any one of the Amazon sites, depending on which site is used to link to? For example, linking cover art from Amazon UK (or DE, or...) would link to instead of to MagicUnk 14:00, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
Publications with ISBNs display links to the supported Amazon stores under "Other Sites" in the navigation bar on the left. Publications with ASINs link to the supported Amazon stores in the External ID section.
Having said that, we could add an explicit Amazon link to the credit line for Amazon-hosted images. Unfortunately, there is no way of telling which Amazon store the image is associated with because all Amazon images use the same URL structure (at least to the best of my knowledge.) I guess it means that we will have to link to Ahasuerus 14:55, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
Ah yes, I could have found out myself if I'd paid attention. My apologies. Regards MagicUnk 17:56, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Linking to SF-Leihbuch

SF-Leihbuch has been added to the list of third party Web sites that we are allowed to link to.

The software module responsible for post-submission warnings and cleanup reports has been rewritten to handle the three Web sites that require additional links for images -- SFE3, Smashwords and now SF-Leihbuch -- consistently. If you encounter any issues, please post your findings here. Ahasuerus 21:33, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Crediting third party sites - Part 2

Now that the dust has settled and various queued up software tweaks have been implemented, I'd like to revisit the issue that I raised a week ago.

At this time there are three third party Web sites that require us to link to a particular Web page when displaying their images: SFE3, Smashwords and SF-Leihbuch. The way we do it is by entering the URL of the image, then the "pipe" character ("|"), then the URL of the third party Web page associated with the image -- see Template:Image_Host_Sites for site-specific details. In the future, we may be given linking permissions by other sites that have similar requirements.

I don't think the current design is a good long term solution. It's not consistent with how other data entry fields work, it can mess up Advanced Publication Searches and it makes the software more convoluted than it needs to be.

I propose that we create a new field for these links. Instead of entering something like "|" in the "Image URL" field, we would be entering "" in the "Image URL" field and "" in the new field. The new field would be optional, but we may be able to add pop-up validation to make it mandatory for the sites that have this requirement. Post-submission warnings and cleanup reports would be adjusted accordingly. Existing data would be migrated automatically.

I am not sure what a good name for the new field would be. Something like "Web page of the image"? Any reasons not to add it? Ahasuerus 18:39, 11 May 2019 (EDT)

Breaking it out into a new field seems reasonable, but it needs to have a name that is not confusing. Most users (especially new ones) will not be familiar with the unique requirements for this field. The name should be something that makes it clear it's only needed in certain cases (or another option, though more complicated, would be to use JavaScript to only make the field displayed when an URL for one of those sites it entered). I'm struggling to come with an good option, though. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2019 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I can't think of a good name either. For now, I have created FR 1282, Create a new publication field for crediting 3rd party sites. Based on the limited feedback, I assume that it's relatively low priority. Ahasuerus 13:35, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

"SF Calendar" added

A new Web page, SF Calendar, has been added as per FR 998. It is accessible from the "Other Pages" section of the navigation bar on the left. After selecting a day, you are taken to the list of authors who were born and who died on the selected day.

Let's wait a few days to let everyone get used to the new functionality and address any page layout issues that may arise.

Once the layout is stable, we can revisit the discussion which prompted the creation of this FR in 2017: what do we want to appear at the top of the home page? Now that the birth/death data is available on a separate page, can we remove it from the front page? Pare it down? Replace it with a link to "SF Calendar"? Should we display other links at the top of the home page, e.g.:

  • Author Directory
  • Award Directory
  • Publisher Directory
  • Magazine Directory
  • Statistics/Top Lists

? Ahasuerus 17:01, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

Enhancing the "Chronological Bibliography" page?

A new Feature Request, FR 1280, "Create a noncategorized-chronology page for authors?" has been created on SourceForge. It reads:

I frequently want to view all of a given author's works in a single chronological list, rather than a set of categorized chronological lists. Is there already a way to do that? (When I click "Chronological", I get categorized lists.)

Currently, "Chronological" author pages ignore series groupings. However, they display novels, collections, anthologies, magazines, short fiction, essays, etc in separate sections. "Alphabetical" pages use the same approach.

The proposal, as I understand it, would add a new Web page for author bibliographies. The new page would display all titles chronologically without regard for the title type. I can see how it could be useful in certain cases, e.g. if it's not immediately clear whether a short novel appears in the NOVEL section or the SHORT FICTION section. At the same time I suspect that combining reviews, chapbooks, EDITOR records, etc in one long list may be confusing. Perhaps displaying the title type next to each title would help? Ahasuerus 14:58, 20 May 2019 (EDT)

That's a nice feature. The title type should definitely be displayed. Moreover, information about language and variants are quite helpful. The display format could be a mixture of the way titles are displayed on the author page and in the "Contents" section on a publication page, which would also include title series and alternate name information. For example, the line for the German translation of Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas could look like this:
  • "Bedenke Phlebas [German] (1989) • [Culture • 1] • novel (trans. of Consider Phlebas 1987) [as by Iain Banks]"
Also, the list could be organized into a separate section per year. Then the year could be omitted per line:
  • "Bedenke Phlebas [German] • [Culture • 1] • novel (trans. of Consider Phlebas 1987) [as by Iain Banks]"
Jens Hitspacebar 15:43, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
I would love to have a "All fiction in order" section - but if you add the collections and anthologies and magazines and reviews and interviews, it will become way too long to be useful. Maybe if you can chose which types you see? I assume that variants will remain filterable in that new view as well? Annie 16:49, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
We could have multiple different Chronological" pages, e.g.:
  • "Chronological by Title Type", which would be the same as the current "Chronological" page
  • "Strict Chronological" -- or whatever we decide to call it -- which list everything chronologically
  • "Fiction (Chronological)", which would be limited to novels, short fiction and poems
  • Possibly more, at which point we will probably need an intermediate menu page for different options
That being said, it looks like Jens may be proposing an additional layer of layout changes that would apply to all "Chronological" pages. Is my understanding correct? Ahasuerus 09:14, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
No, my layout proposal was for the "noncategorized-chronology" feature request only, not for the already existing chronological summary author bibliography. But now that you mention it, making the layout per title more consistent across all chronological pages could be a good idea. Or maybe not, I'm not sure yet. The existing chronological author summary bibliography puts the kind of variant at the beginning:
  • Translation: Bedenke Phlebas [German] (1989) [as by Iain Banks]
which, if used the same way on the new "Strict Chronological" page as well, could probably make the list hard to read if many lines would begin with Translation: or Variant:. On the other hand, changing the existing chronological summary author bibliography to also use "(trans. of ...)" instead of Translation: doesn't make sense there because it's obvious that it's a "translation of" due to the way parent and variants are formatted using the bullet lists.
Jens Hitspacebar 16:15, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

Notifying Primary Verifiers

Where do we stand on notifying primary verifiers of changes to their pubs? The "My Changed Primary Verifications" will show what field changed, but not what the change was (both columns show the new value). When that feature was implemented, the community was still saying that primary verfiers should be informed of what the change was. Since the "Note to Moderator" is displayed on the change page, that became the more frequently used method over posting to the verifiers' talk pages (as the moderator's note is easier and remains with the edit history, that makes sense). There is the added complication that not all changes (title level, import/remove) are shown in the changed verifications report. We used to be pretty stringent on the notification requirement. However, a recent conversation has indicated this is no longer the case. What are people's opinions on this? It doesn't help editors for moderators to be inconsistent so we should update practice and/or our documentation based on the community's current position. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (EDT)

Let me try to address the technical side. FR 1237 says:
  • Enhance "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications" to capture Import/Export and Remove Title submissions associated with the user's primary-verified publications.
Once it's been implemented, the report will become more comprehensive and more useful. Also, Roadmap 2017 says:
  • Create a history of changes to primary-verified publications by storing a snapshot of the way each verified pub looked like right before it was changed.
It will take more time to do, but it will make the report much more useful.
Both features are close to the top of my list, but I need to code and deploy the new Amazon interface first. Fixer takes so much of my time these days that making at least some of what I do publicly available (and thus freeing up more development time) is my top priority at the moment. It's kind of a Catch-22: working on other features means that I can't work on the Amazon interface, which means that I have to spend most of my time working on Fixer, which means that I don't have time to work on other features... Ahasuerus 09:06, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Yes, I wasn't looking for a technical solution (though that will be nice when it arrives), but rather how we deal with it before the full technical solution comes. I appreciate the enhancements you have been giving us. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
I am sorry, I didn't mean to come across as defensive, but I guess I did. Too many balls in the air and not enough productive hours, especially these days :=\ Ahasuerus 21:31, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
I do not notify when I am doing what I consider house-keeping actions (moving identifiers, adding transliterations, editing any of those elements, fixing typos in Notes, fixing a broken HTML or a formatting issue, updating a title or an author name to comply with the capitalization policy and so on) - but I always add a moderator note (and if I am replacing, I tend to add the old and new value in that note). Outside of that, I do notify - one by one if needed; as a group when I am working on a bigger project (swapping a canonical name for example). I also try to notify when making a big change on a title level that impacts a PV'd publication - with a note of what changed to what so we can backtrack if needed. Import/export also causes a notification in my book. For any big changes (changing an author name, fixing page numbers and so on), I try to discuss before I do the change. Annie 19:55, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Annie's approach may be a viable compromise solution, at least for now: minor changes are listed in the Moderator Note field while significant changes require a note on the Talk page. Approving moderators get to decide what qualifies as a "significant" change and make sure that the Moderator Note includes the "before" version of the data for "minor" changes (since it would be lost otherwise.) Ahasuerus 21:05, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Edit: On second thought, we probably need to create at least some standards re: what is considered a "minor" edit. Annie's list -- typos, transliterations, HTML fixes, etc -- would be a good start. Ahasuerus 05:44, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
One of the problems when approving someone else's update is that if they do not add the note, you cannot add it. In a lot of cases, the record has at least one more thing that needs fixing but now with most of the identifiers out of the way, we start running into no-issues publications. If I see something else needing fixing, I would fix it and add both edits to the moderator note - so the PV does not wonder what happened. Any chance of making the moderator note editable during the approval? That will also help with the other two issues we have - the fact that the moderator note is visible (a moderator will be able to clean up the private data if any) and the inability to add anywhere any notes when you approve something that at first glance looks weird. Add the ability to add the change if the original submitter had forgotten and we will have a much better system. :) Annie 22:40, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Letting approving moderators change Moderator Notes would be possible although non-trivial. However, I am not sure it would be optimal. There would be potential for confusion re: who wrote what.
It may be better to create a new field and call it something like "Approval Note" or "Note by the approving moderator". We could then display the Moderator Note and the Approval Note side by side on submission history pages. We may also want to change the name of the "Moderator Note" field to "Submission Note", "Comment about the Submission" or something similar to avoid confusion with the new field. Ahasuerus 05:57, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Sounds great! "Submission note" is fine, I'd think: it's short and right on the head of the nail. Stonecreek 08:35, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
That works as well :) Annie 17:19, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
I also like "Submission Note" and "Approval Note". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:31, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
OK, FR 1281, Add an "Approval Note" field; change "Moderator Note" to "Submission Note", has been created. Ahasuerus 11:12, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

I've gone ahead and approved the submissions I had on hold over this. I'll encourage the submitter to add moderator notes in the future, but given the low level of participation in this discussion, I don't feel it is appropriate to reject their edits when other moderators have been approving them. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

Sorry to be late to the party. I have not been paying attention to what others do. I don't worry about moving of identifiers or correcting of minor deviations from capitalization standards, but otherwise I would have done as you did: put on hold and ask that the PV(s) be notified. But I also prefer to avoid rejecting and losing work, so sometimes I will notify and/or check with the PVs myself and accept and remind the submittor to follow notification protocol the next time. It is a bit tough to be strict about notifications with so many inactive PVs and PVs with special notification instructions. --MartyD 22:30, 23 May 2019 (EDT)

Proposed Software Changes

Ahasuerus: As these "describe again what is obvious" type of requests is constantly causing me useless trouble: Would you accept a solution to this issue as patch? My solution would be to add the existing values at the time of accepting a request to the stored request, so that a historic view could show the accepted difference situation (That still can differ from the actual value at submission time in case of inbetween changes). --Stoecker 13:39, 23 May 2019 (EDT)

[P.S. later] I'd really like to have such a feature, because even moderators create request without any comment like this and even moderators can be totally wrong. In this example the price was correct before with €15.00. It seems it is now €18.00, but I payed €15.00 as stated on the website at that time (plus €11.00 delivery) for that one Foster story (and the remaining useless contents :-) --Stoecker 13:55, 23 May 2019 (EDT)

We had a fairly extensive discussion of this issue in early 2017. Let me copy-paste the relevant parts of my comments:
Re: "a snapshot of all OLD values". Unfortunately, it would require a significant effort. Granted, it would be easy to do for fields like "ISBN" and "Price". However, consider publishers. The way the database works, we store publisher numbers (1, 2, 3, etc) in publication records. Then, when we display a publication, we retrieve the name of the publisher, including its transliterated name(s), from other parts of the database and display them.
This works well when displaying current data. However, suppose we were to save a verified publication record as it existed prior to submission approval. We would store publisher ID 12345 in the saved record. Then, a few months later, publishers 12345 and 12346 are merged, so publisher 12345 no longer exists in the database. When the original verifier goes back to check this pub's history, there is no publisher 12345 to display. The same thing can happen to publication series, authors and titles. Actually, it can get even more complicated with authors and titles if we want to preserve the pseudonymous/VT/series relationships as they existed at the time.
The ultimate way to address this issue would be to build a snapshot of the then-current version of each about-to-be-changed Publication Web page and store it in a separate database location prior to submission approval. We could then have a list of snapshots for every publication and display them on demand.
We'll need to add a warning about potentially broken links, but the textual part should be very close to what the data looked like as of the time of the edit.
[comments about the impact of this change on disk space omitted since testing has shown it to be manageable, especially if we compress the data]
[related comment:] We started work on a "history" system -- basically a log of changed data -- in 2007. However, we quickly ran into the problems outlined above and more. I spent many man-hours trying to get it to work in the early 2010s, but eventually had to give up because the underlying approach was flawed. Ahasuerus 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the summary above is still our best bet.
I guess the first step would be to rewrite the software that displays Publication pages. Currently it displays the data as it retrieves it from the database, mostly one line at a time. We would need to change the code so that it would retrieve all of the data first, then build the Web page and then display it. Once it has been done, the next step will be to modify the submission approval process. For primary-verified pages, it will invoke the part of the Publication display code that retrieves and formats the data. It will then compress it and file it in a "history" table within the database. [Need to run, may post more later]. Ahasuerus 15:05, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Having a complete version history like Wikipedia including the chance to revert edits and show history would be fine, but from my current perspective this would be impossible to do. My proposal only includes a small subset. At the time of a change request acceptance I'd simply add for changed fields the old and new information, so that the changes can be displayed with proper information. Maybe there could even be a cleanup process to drop that additional space wasting information after some time. --Stoecker 15:29, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
I agree that implementing Wiki-like "version history", including the ability to revert changes, would be time-consuming and not feasible at this time.
However, what I outlined above is more modest in scope. The filing software would simply capture the HTML version of each about-to-be-changed primary-verified publication record. It would then compress the HTML "blob" and store it in some table. Each "blob" would be linked to its publication ID and its submission ID. That way the HTML would be accessible from View Submission pages as well as from Publication pages. That shouldn't be too difficult to implement, I hope. Ahasuerus 17:00, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
P.S. I have added the above to FR 1238 "Create an Edit History page for publications". Ahasuerus 11:04, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
This proposed HTML method is nothing where there is a chance of successful cooperation between you and me. It is much to complex to get it to work. --Stoecker 04:34, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
I am not entirely sure I am parsing the 2 sentences above correctly. Are you saying that capturing the body (HTML) of primary-verified Publication pages is a complex process? It would appear to be fairly straightforward since the software already builds all the requisite data when a Publication page is displayed. We just need to capture and store it. Could you please clarify the nature of the complexity? Ahasuerus 10:09, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Still my proposal is an option - a submission is stored as XML in the database. My proposal is to extend this XML at the moment of accepting the submission and store the old values for changed elements (and only these) in the XML. That way a diff can not only show new, but also old values of a change. That will help a lot to verify a change even if it does not cover all possibilities. This adaption needs only small modifications at submission acceptance and display of a change request and not a major new functionality. And it does also not conflict with any future plans. --Stoecker 04:34, 30 May 2019 (EDT)

Magazine issue navigation

How easy would it be to implement the "Previous ← Current → Next" issues navigation as a database feature, as shown in the Notes field here? Could it use the existing database table information used to create the issue grid, so any missing issues would be skipped? And maybe indicate that one or more issues were skipped (if it can easily see that)? Just curious, as it would benefit browsers of the site so they wouldn't have to visit the issue grid between each issue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 20 May 2019 (EDT)

How would you determine "next/previous" in the cases where we do not have months in the date field? Finding missing issues will be even more problematic - some magazines have 2 issues in some months, some are irregular... and not all magazines have nice numbers on all their issues. Not a bad idea but just wanted to make sure we cover all the logistics... :) Annie 22:19, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
That's why I asked. There's some sort of sorting happening in the issue grid, so that's why I suggested that as a possible method, if it can be used for that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:28, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Let's consider Science Fiction Quarterly (UK), which has 6 issues whose months of publication are known and 4 issues whose months of publication are unknown. January 1952 through August 1953 should be doable since all of the issues have months. However, what should we do about December 1953 and later issues? A human can figure out that the sequence should be:
  • December 1953
  • #6
  • #7
  • February 1955
  • #9
  • #10
but it would be difficult to replicate the logic programmatically. Ahasuerus 07:14, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
To add to that: The grid does not really do well if it needs to stick more than one issue in the same cell (the no month one for example for a specific year) - it does its best but... it can get a bit wonky and it does look weird for some magazines. Which is not a problem on a grid (you see them all, the slightly off order is not that problematic) but becomes a problem on a straight list. Annie 16:06, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps a way to turn it on for magazines that have all the issues entered? Or some way to enable it on a per-issue basis? It could then be left turned off for any that don't line up correctly. Or, program it to display the out of order issues according to which was entered into the system first? Just tossing out ideas. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:27, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
We could use publication record numbers to determine the order in which issues were entered. However, there is no guarantee that magazine issues are necessarily entered in the order of their publication.
Having said that, it may be possible to piggy back on FR 1202, "Add fields for magazine issue numbers to pub records":
  • Add the following new fields for magazine issue numbers to publication records: Volume, Issue, Whole Issue. On the data entry side, we could have a single line for capturing this information, e.g.:
  • Volume: [field] Issue: [field] Whole Issue: [field]
For example, the proposed "Whole Issue" field could support the "|" format, which we currently use for page numbers. The first part of the value would be displayed to our users. The part after the "|" character would be a "sorting" value used to create "Previous" and "Next" links. Ahasuerus 10:45, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

Change ID

Good evening. I am sure this is covered somewhere but cannot for the life of me find the article. How can one go about changing their username on this site? Thanks in advance. Zybahn 23:22, 28 May 2019 (EDT)

I am afraid the ability to change user names is not supported by the ISFDB software. Ahasuerus 00:03, 29 May 2019 (EDT)

Guerra eterna (The Forever War) - Joe Haldeman - broken link

Hi, there's a broken cover picture link to the Mondourania website here, where they've probably reorganised their site. As I don't read Italian, can I ask that someone else rectify this. I think the link should be as below, but I may be wrong.

Covers page here:

Relevant cover here:

Thanks. BanjoKev 16:38, 30 May 2019 (EDT)

Fixed. The problem was an extra space in the string we had - so chances are that was never a correct image to start with. :) Annie 18:04, 30 May 2019 (EDT)
Thanks Annie! BanjoKev 19:06, 30 May 2019 (EDT)

Project Gutenberg publication records

Concerning publication records for Project Gutenberg ebooks:

1. Do we discourage formal verification? Only a small share of our records are Primary Verified, now 4 of about 50 for year 1998 and none at all 2017 to 2019.

2. Do we discourage use of the Cover field, in reference to the first image that is displayed at in HTML format (and probably some others)? Commonly the first image displayed, if any, is an image of the front book cover or front dust jacket. For instance, Ebook #25609 at Gutenberg (HTML format) and at ISFDB (COVERART credited). We now credit no cover artists for year 1998 and only four 2017 to 2019. (We link no cover images for those years.)

3. We have some old-fashioned records whose Notes contain an HTML link to the reported Ebook (not a different one) at This one also provides an explicit list of available formats P291428. (That one is Primary Verified by User:DESiegel60, retired.) Do we recommend either retaining or deleting such notes?

--Pwendt|talk 16:54, 5 June 2019 (EDT)

As I have been the one keeping up with entering new PG publications, I will give you my rationale on how I've been entering them.
  1. We don't discourage formal verification. I have not been verifying them as PG's are a special beast in my opinion. They are regularly updated with corrections, etc. and I don't see the point of creating different records for minor edits (we have had this debate about ebooks before & haven't really come to a decision on how to handle). There is also the issue that PG ebooks are available in a variety of formats. So what is actually meant by verification? One format checked? All formats checked? Anyone can use the PG link to view the ebooks so verification hasn't been important in my mind. I'm basing my entries on the HTML versions.
  2. We don't discourage covers. However, I personally don't enter the image or the cover credit. My rationale is that PG ebooks are available in a variety of formats; some of which have "cover" images and some of which don't. But then again, I have been adding the interior art even though not all formats have that either. So I'm not necessarily consistent in my approach. ;-)
  3. As we have the built in link, there is little point to the manual link. Likewise, PG formats are pretty standard (though possibly not all older ones have every format) so little point in the format note. There is no harm to them and as long as they are valid (ex. formats haven't changed since the note was written), there is no point in removing. In the case of the one you link to, I don't believe the Plucker format is available anymore so it should probably be changed to reflect that.
Those are just my opinions. You are free to verify, add covers, etc. as you see fit. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2019 (EDT)

Star Wars (and other franchises)

I noticed someone recently took the series Star wars: Nonfiction out of the parent series Star Wars universe with comment "As this lists titles about the Star Wars franchise, it is not a part of the Star Wars universe". This may be true but imo all "Star Wars" should be consolidated under one parent series. Such a separation would also affect any franchise like Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc. And where to set boundaries: Is a character encyclopedia not fictionous enough to be part of a "Universe"?

As a user i'd like to find all of a "Universe" on one page, not divided to a few.

What do you think? WernerWelo 13:46, 6 June 2019 (EDT)

Hi, Werner! It was me who made that differentiation. The reasoning behind this is that if a title is truly in-universe it is fiction (not nonfiction). It's misleading to have a title like this in the same category as this one, where in fact fictional stories about spaceships are told. Stonecreek 14:03, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
What about Star Wars chronologies and 'nonfiction' ? ../Doug H 14:23, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
These are in-universe and as such part of the franchise. Stonecreek 14:43, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
I‘m all for differentation, however all of Star Wars should imo be combined under one parent series wether its fiction, fictionous nonfiction or real nonfiction. Has not to be the „Star Wars Universe“, maybe a parent like „Star Wars Franchise“ or similar could do it. Under such a series the differentation could be made in universe and others. Welo 14:53, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
I see no issues with having Star Wars: Nonfiction having the parent Star Wars universe because the nonfiction is about the Star Wars universe. Since it's all contained within a series that specifically states it's nonfiction, I doubt anyone will ever get confused. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 6 June 2019 (EDT)
I have been struggling with this issue for years. Some non-fiction books are "in universe" and some are not. Some are written or co-written by the author(s) (like Roger Zelazny's Visual Guide to Castle Amber), some are "authorized" and some are completely unauthorized. I am yet to come up with a hard and fast rule to determine when a non-fiction series should be entered as a subseries of the main universe. Ahasuerus 00:12, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
I'd say distanced pieces like "Star Wars on Trial" or movie compendiums that rely more on the filmical aspects shouldn't be part of a universe. 'Encyclopedias' of characters, planets and space-ships should be imo. Stonecreek 02:59, 7 June 2019 (EDT)
The problem is, that makes it very subjective as to what is included. One person may think it clearly should be, and another doesn't. I think it's best to simply lump all non-fiction together in a non-fiction series, and then put it under the main umbrella series for the entire series. That makes it easy for everyone to remember, and we'll not have to debate it every time something new comes up. Straightforward solutions work best, IMHO. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:19, 7 June 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) Ironically I came here looking for a link about a book entitled The Land of Unreason by Fletcher Pratt and L Sprague de Camp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris humel (talkcontribs) . 18:31, 6 June 2019 (EDT)

How is it ironic? Also, the book you're looking for is here: 18960. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:24, 6 June 2019 (EDT)

Publication pages - tweaks behind the scenes

I have installed a minor patch to change the way Publication pages are built by the ISFDB software. I expect a number of additional patches to be installed in the near future. Once everything has been completed, these changes will facilitate the process of creating "history" Web pages for primary-verified publications.

These changes should not affect the "look and feel" of Publication pages. If you come across any issues, please post your findings here. Ahasuerus 16:09, 14 June 2019 (EDT)

There's a tiny glitch with "(View All Issues)(View Issue Grid)" in the "Publication:" line on a magazine's publication page. The pub's title and these two links are not separated by space any more. Example: Interzone, #263: "Interzone, #263 March-April 2016(View All Issues)(View Issue Grid)". If I'm not completely mistaken there used to be some space between these three elements, which made it easier to read, and it looks like this change has been introduced with one of the recent commits, probably rev. 435. Jens Hitspacebar 04:10, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
Good catch; fixed. The latest patch also fixed links for magazines issues whose EDITOR records are not in a series (not that we are supposed to have any.) Ahasuerus 10:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

"Transliterated values" fixes

There was a bug with the way "transliterated values" were being displayed on some pages. I have installed a patch to address the issue. If you see anything unusual, please let me know. Ahasuerus 15:45, 16 June 2019 (EDT)

Pseudonym display

Would it be too difficult to change the display of titles with multiple authors, and where one or more has a pseudonym, to reduce the space and make it easier to read. Right now, it's something like this:

Title by Author One and Author Two and Author Three and Author Four and Author Five and Author Six and Author Seven and Author Eight and Author Nine and Author Ten and Author Eleven and Author Twelve and Author Thirteen and Author Fourteen and Author Fifteen and Author Sixteen and Author Seventeen and Author Eighteen and Author Nineteen and Author Twenty [only as by Author One and Author Two and Author Three and Author Four and Author Five and Author Six and Author Seven and Alt Eight and Author Nine and Author Ten and Author Eleven and Author Twelve and Author Thirteen and Author Fourteen and Alt Fifteen and Author Sixteen and Author Seventeen and Author Eighteen and Author Nineteen and Author Twenty]

If it could be something like this, it would make viewing the information much simpler and much easier to read:

Title by Author One and Author Two and Author Three and Author Four and Author Five and Author Six and Author Seven and Author Eight (as by Alt Eight) and Author Nine and Author Ten and Author Eleven and Author Twelve and Author Thirteen and Author Fourteen and Author Fifteen and Author Sixteen and Author Seventeen (as by Alt Seventeen) and Author Eighteen and Author Nineteen and Author Twenty

Would this be reasonably easy to do? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:45, 18 June 2019 (EDT)

I agree that it would be desirable and I looked into it at one point.
What I found was that it would be possible to do if "variant-specific authors" and "alternative author names" -- which are entered and stored in the database separately -- matched in predictable ways. Granted, in many cases they do, e.g. Robert Heinlein is always an alternative name for Robert A. Heinlein, Maxine Reynolds is always an alternate name for Mack Reynolds, etc. However, we also have many collective pseudonyms and house names that overlap unpredictably. For example, consider The Whispering Gorilla series. The Whispering Gorilla omnibus of 3 novels is currently listed as follows:
"Alexander Blade" was a house name used by both "unknown" and by Don Wilcox, so one might think that this line could be rearranged as follows:
However, if you examine the publication record, you will note that David V. Reed is credited explicitly, so the line above would be in error.
The only way to get it to work correctly for all records (that I could think of) would be to change the way we capture variant authors. Instead of simply entering the canonical names on the "Make Variant" Web page, we would have to specify which canonical name each alternate name corresponded to. It would require extensive changes to the way the software works and a subsequent review/revamp of thousands upon thousands of variants. Ahasuerus 11:19, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Displaying the parent title's authors on the variant title's page

The recent discussion of Dates on COVERART variants has resulted in a software change. Variant title pages whose parent title's date is different from the variant's now display the parent's date on the "Variant Title of" line. For example, "The Skull" by Vincent van Gogh displays the following information:

  • Author: Vincent van Gogh
  • Date: 2011-00-00
  • Variant Title of: Kop van een skelet met brandende sigaret (1886) (by Vincent van Gogh )

Note the bolded date.

While working on this issue, I noticed something that we may want to address. As you can see above, the "Variant Title of" line includes the authors associated with the parent title. The information is useful if they are different from the variant title's authors, but we display the parent's authors even when they are the same.

The "Contents" section of Publication pages only displays the parent title's authors if they are different from the authors of the variant title. It seems to make sense to change the Title page to do the same.

Are there scenarios that would be adversely affected by the proposed change? Ahasuerus 20:53, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

The change has been made as per FR 1287. In addition, the "Variant Title of" line has been changed to display the language of the parent title if it's different from the language of the VT. Ahasuerus 19:05, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Advanced Author Search - Author Image URL

FR 1286, "Add Author Image URL to the Advanced Author Search", has been implemented. Ahasuerus 19:31, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Python error

Was trying to add an image to an entry and got this python error: Image:Screen Shot 2019-07-13 at 7.28.13 PM.png. Oddly, everything seems to have gone through okay as the publiscation in question (723121 seems to be fine (it has the cover I uploaded). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:32, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Got the same error again when updating the cover artist for this pub: 264000. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:35, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
That was an unintended side effect of the post-approval change discussed on the Moderator Noticeboard, now fixed. The bug only affected the way things were displayed, not the data added to the database. Sorry about that! Ahasuerus 22:50, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
No problem. You want the image deleted? I don't know if it has any potential security stuff in it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:08, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
Nope, no security stuff. Just a graphic reminder to re-test all changes before installing them :-) Ahasuerus 23:18, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Yiddish Speakers?

I added story by Der Nister which is a translation from the original Yiddish. While I can find a scan of the original Yiddish edition at Hathi Trust (Vol. I and Vol II, I was unable to determine the original title in the proper alphabet and thus added this title reflecting the Yiddish language parent but noting that the original title hasn't been found yet. Are there any editors that are fluent enough with Yiddish to find the proper title? The English title is "At the Border". I'll also note that the collection Gedakht is described by Wikipedia as a "collection of fantastic stories", and may itself be eligible for inclusion here if someone wants to take that on as a mini project. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:06, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

It looks like "Gedakht" is געדאכט, but that's all I can figure out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:22, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Google Translate says "At the Border" is אין די גרענעץ, but I have no idea how accurate that is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:23, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
I searched the text for גרענעץ and found four entries: אויף גרענעץ, which apparently means "On (the) border", זיך א גרענעץ, which means "set a boundary", זיין גרענעץ, which means "its boundary", and קיין גרענעץ, which means "no border". One of those might be the title. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:30, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
According to Language help, Linguist knows a little Hebrew. It's not the same thing, but uses the same alphabet, so he might be able to offer some help. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:33, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
I think I found it. The table of contents in Volume 1 is on page 243. I carefully reconstructed the title of the story that appears on page 137 using the Hebrew alphabet Wikipedia page and ended up with אויפן גרעניץ which Google translates as "On the borders". Assuming that I identified the correct letters (exporting the scan to a pdf didn't work with cut and paste), I think I've identified the title correctly. Thanks again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:44, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
Saw the post a bit late. I have added a transliteration to the title : oifn grenits, the equivalent of German auf der Grenze « on the border ». Cheers, Linguist 05:19, 16 July 2019 (EDT).
Maybe you can add Gedakht to the database? You might be able to it more quickly than anyone else here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 17 July 2019 (EDT)
Will do (in due time, as there seems to be quite a lot to do…). Or maybe Ron can enter the romanized titles, and I'll Hebraize what I can ? Lekhaim ! (! לחיים) Linguist 04:43, 18 July 2019 (EDT).
I went ahead and took a stab at it. It would be an excellent idea for someone to check the entries against the scans to ensure I didn't get them wrong. Also to add missing transliterations. I also went ahead and made the Yiddish name canonical. I was able to link up all but one of the English titles. I suspect that "The Fool and the Forest Demon" may be "דער נאַר און דער ןןאַלד־רוח" as Google translates that as "The fool and the old age" which is a close title. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:35, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
I have linked "The Fool and the Forest Demon" and "נאַר און דער ןןאַלד־רוח, that was OK, and corrected the transliteration (der nar un der vald-rukh; you had confused ו (v) and ן (final n), which do look almost alike; and in Yiddish, א at the beginning of a word usually indicates it starts with a vowel, so און is just un “and” (= German und), not aun. I have started looking at געדאכט: ערשטער באנד : your first entry, the title of the story on p. 7, דער נזיר און דאָס ציגעלע, was written backwards (each word correct, but in the wrong place, if you see what I mean). I have corrected it, but there is one word I don't undestand : "The hermit and the stigele". Does that sound familiar ? Linguist 05:56, 20 July 2019 (EDT).
Same thing for the next one (words were inversed) : צוס בּאַרג, tsum barg = German zum Berg “at the mountain”. Linguist 07:41, 20 July 2019 (EDT).
Ditto for אין וואַלד, in vald, "in the forest" (German im Wald). Linguist 07:58, 20 July 2019 (EDT).
Went through both volumes, updated a few more transcriptions, gave translations when possible. There are two titles I don't understand fully, and three not at all. Sorry ! :o( Linguist 08:38, 20 July 2019 (EDT).

Votes and counting

I've been adding a lot of votes recently and have been amused at how, sometimes, my feeling about a story/book fails to match up with others' votes. Amused, but not surprised--we all read, and enjoy, different things. However, I do think it would be interesting in the Statistics/Top Lists to expose those stories that have the farthest deviation from the mean (i.e., stories that some people absolutely hated while others loved). The one I ran into today was Philip Jose Farmer's "Riders of the Purple Wage," originally published in Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions anthology. I thought the story was quite good, especially when re-reading it recently because the concept of a universal basic income has become more prevalent. It already had two votes when I added mine: a 1 star and a 4 star. Somebody really hated it. Gengelcox 16:24, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

It's certainly doable. A simple database query (select std(rating),title_id from votes group by title_id having count(user_id)>3 order by std(rating) desc) creates a list of controversial titles starting with:
Ahasuerus 18:29, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
That's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping might pop up -- I recall reading The Time Traveler's Wife with a book club and how it really creeped some readers out while others loved it. Gengelcox 10:20, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

On the subject of the Stats page and votes, I'm wondering if we could expose the top lists for novella, novelette, and short story along with the list already being run for novel? Gengelcox 16:24, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

We could create a "top" list for SHORTFICTION titles, which would include short fiction without a "length" designation. We could also create separate sub-lists for novellas, novelettes and short stories. Ahasuerus 18:29, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
I'd be interested, but obviously not a priority. Gengelcox 10:20, 15 July 2019 (EDT)
OK, FR 1289 has been created to document these suggestions. Ahasuerus 11:04, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Jerry Ahern

Someone had started shifting the canonical name to a name that was never used in print (Frédéric Charpier for them (at least in our DB) and unless I am missing something, is not even connected to these books). Can someone share light on what they had been doing here (and add notes to the authors names). If noone can explain what this is all about, I will break the pseudonym in about a week and clean these pages up a bit. Annie 15:27, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

Apparently Charpier translated a bunch of Ahern books into French, then continued the series himself while continuing to use the Ahern name. At least that's what the French Wikipedia article states:
Frédéric Charpier a par ailleurs traduit en français un grand nombre de romans d'inspiration survivaliste de la série Le Survivant de Jerry Ahern (en), puis continué lui-même la série en français, sous le couvert d' « adapations » qui sont des créations originales (numéros 29 à 53, aux éditions Vaugirard).
Not sure if that's what this is about, but it's what I could find. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:07, 17 July 2019 (EDT)
This site seems to support what I wrote above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:11, 17 July 2019 (EDT)
Aha. That explains it. Thanks - somehow I missed that when I was looking through the wiki articles earlier and trying to figure out what is going on. Why can't people just use their own names (I know, I know...). I will add some notes on the author's page... :) Annie 16:12, 17 July 2019 (EDT)
I'm the culprit (only saw the post today). As Nihonjoe explained, Charpier went on writing the series himself after translating the first ones, but indeed his name never appears except as a “translator / adapter”  : a common practice among the Plon / Presses de la Cité / Vaugirard / Vauvenargues publications (see some of the Blade / Jeffrey Lord pubs, with a host of French shadow-writers). I thought I had made a general note somewhere about it, but had apparently only meant to… But such notes appear on each individual title, see here. And by the way, the Wikipedia passage quoted by Nihonjoe was written by me ! Linguist 04:15, 18 July 2019 (EDT).
Come to think of it, I had written the note for Original Richard Blade Adventures in French, but somehow the one about the Survivalist got waylaid. Linguist 05:23, 18 July 2019 (EDT).
Yeah, once I got on the right track, it started clearing up. Thanks for the explanation! I wonder if we should not use Jerry Ahern (Frédéric Charpier) for these books (or something along these lines) so it is clear it is not really Ahern - we had done that for other wrong attributions in the past. Annie 13:33, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
I would use "Jerry Ahern (II)" and include a note on the author page explaining things. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:45, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
That also works :) Even "Jerry Ahern (I)" would work. I find descriptive differentiator easier but the nummeric ones work as well. Annie 15:21, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
I like the numeric ones better because they are shorter. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:29, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) Our software supports uncredited co-authors (e.g. see this series), but it doesn't have native support for ghostwriters. We have FR 346, "Add support for ghostwriters", but it wouldn't be easy to implement. For now, the best we can do is add a note at the author level like we have done with V. C. Andrews and her ghostwriter Andrew Neiderman.

Speaking of the "Richard Blade" series by "Jeffrey Lord", Wikipedia says:

  • In the early 1990s the Russian publishers could secure the rights to only the first six books in the series, and approached the translator - Mikhail Akhmanov - to write the further adventures of Richard Blade.[3] Together with then young sci-fi author Nick Perumov and others, Akhmanov wrote over sixteen sequels[4] to the adventures of Richard Blade, and then, after writing Russian sequels to the saga of Conan, went on to create numerous original characters and plots.

The Russian Conan project was apparently similar. Ahasuerus 15:30, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Publication Series Name

Several hours ago the new publication series 8383 Queen's Treasure Series was created in the usual way, by adding its first publication record, which remains the only one. I added a pub series Note. Publication Series: Queen's Treasure Series. The keyword Treasure should be plural.

First Question: If the pub series name is modified in its one publication record, will the existing pub series record be deleted, and its information lost --either immediately on approval, or by some automated cleanup, perhaps overnight? (I understand that is the case when a publisher name loses its only publication record.) --Pwendt|talk 21:57, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

Publication series get deleted as soon as they loose their last book. This is one of the cases when you need to find a moderator and ask them to change the name. Which I just did. :) Annie 22:16, 17 July 2019 (EDT)
Thanks. So this one is now named "Queen's Treasure Series", which happens to be the name displayed on half-title page, rather than "The Queen's Treasure Series" as atop the description and list on the next page and in newspaper advertisements by the publisher. In some newspaper articles "Queen's Treasures" in quotation marks may be found.
Second Question: Do we have good reasons to prefer shorter or longer versions of names such as "[The] Queen's Treasures [Series]"? --Pwendt|talk 17:57, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
It's actually "Queen's Treasures Series" now - as requested :)
In a lot of cases, it is down to the editor's preference. The word Series is rarely in the name of a series I create for example - except for older series where I may add Series if I expect that someone can consider it a magazine. Or something. So... no real good reason - unless one specific spelling is used a lot more often in both books and reference materials. If I was adding it, I probably would have added it as "Queen's Treasures" but that is just me - and I would not change it when someone adds it the way you added it. Adding a note in all spelling being used (and where) is never a bad idea. Annie 18:18, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Slow Server

Is it just me or is the server extremely slow at the moment? Annie 18:26, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Facebook links

I'm guessing a fix was put in to allow links from Facebook to link correctly by stripping out the "&fbclid=" part. However, it looks like there's a tiny error still. The links come through with an equal sign (=) added to the end, so they still don't work. This link should go to 724848, but the equal sign prevents that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:56, 24 July 2019 (EDT)

I don't recall any recent software changes that should have affected the way URLs are processed. Could you please post a sample "native" Facebook URL? Ahasuerus 22:10, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
They look like this:
That translates to somehow (note the equal sign at the end). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:50, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
It translates to
for me btw - which is not even the same author ID. And it is consistent with any link like that from Facebook since we started having this problem awhile back (after they changed how their links work). Are you sure you copied the correct link? 14:35, 25 July 2019 (EDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anniemod (talkcontribs) .
Depends if you are signed into Facebook or not. If you are signed into Facebook, it resolves to Nihonjoe's link. If you are not, it resolves to Anniemod's. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
I see the same regardless if I am signed in (Firefox, I can see my name and so on) or not (Clean Chrome browser where I had never logged in). It may have something to do with having access to the link or not... Annie 17:14, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
I don't know about access. I just clicked the link above. Regardless, it is clear Facebook adds different parameters under different conditions when you click the "Follow Link" button. And ISFDB resolves those different parameters differently (no surprise). In an ideal ideal world, Facebook wouldn't add parameters to the URL, but that won't change. In an ideal world, ISFDB would handle extra parameters correctly (i.e. ignore them). I remember there was discussion about software issues with that. Guess the question is do we think the benefit (possible more exposure, new users) is worth the effort. I don't have an opinion on that - especially since it is Ahasuerus' time, not mine ;-). -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
That's right, we would have to change the way ALL ISFDB Web pages process and validate parameters. It should be doable and would also result in certain additional benefits. Unfortunately, it would be time-consuming :-( Ahasuerus 20:14, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I gave two different URLS. The example "native Facebook" link is for a different one than the other. I mixed up two different ones, somehow. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
Lol I didn't even notice the author ids were different (despite Annie saying that). I focused on the parameter differences. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

"Translations without Notes" - Reorganizing the report

Here are the numbers behind Translations without Notes:

| English            |               6476 |
| Italian            |               6386 |
| French             |               4907 |
| German             |               4227 |
| Dutch              |               2554 |
| Portuguese         |               1108 |
| Spanish            |                774 |
| Polish             |                255 |
| Finnish            |                233 |
| Romanian           |                207 |
| Serbian            |                178 |
| Swedish            |                115 |
| Croatian           |                114 |
| Hungarian          |                112 |
| Danish             |                 68 |
| Turkish            |                 45 |
| Czech              |                 44 |
| Lithuanian         |                 44 |
| Japanese           |                 41 |
| Slovenian          |                 20 |
| Slovak             |                  8 |
| Esperanto          |                  8 |
| Chinese            |                  6 |
| Norwegian (Bokmal) |                  5 |
| Galician           |                  5 |
| Korean             |                  4 |
| Norwegian          |                  4 |
| Latin              |                  4 |
| Scots              |                  3 |
| Middle English     |                  2 |
| Catalan            |                  2 |
| Estonian           |                  2 |
| Russian            |                  2 |
| Hebrew             |                  1 |
| Albanian           |                  1 |
| Mirandese          |                  1 |
| Scottish Gaelic    |                  1 |
| Thai               |                  1 |
| Malay              |                  1 |
| Old English        |                  1 |
| Icelandic          |                  1 |

Based on editor feedback, my tentative plan is to create separate cleanup reports for English, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and Japanese translations. The first 7 have more than 500 affected translations while Japanese is the 7th most common language in the database and sees a lot of turnover.

The remaining languages will continue to be covered by the existing cleanup report whose name will be tweaked. We can also split it into language-specific tables and have a "table of contents" at the top of the page to make it easy to jump to the language of your choice.

Does this sound like a good idea? Anything else that we need to change or tweak while we are at it? Ahasuerus 15:52, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

How did Portuguese sneak up that high on the list... :) I like the plan - it will make that project a bit more manageable. I am not sure that we need the Japanese on its own - they always show up close to the top of the generic report anyway - but if it is not that hard to split it, I guess we might as well. Annie 16:30, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
I like this idea. Looks like I need to work hard to bring the number of Japanese titles even higher. Maybe I can get it to the top five. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:34, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
How hard it will be to add the parent's title or language (or both) in the report alongside the title (similarly to how advanced search shows titles for example)? It is not critical but sometimes it is helpful to work per language pair (mainly because the names of the translators become familiar and I usually have their pages open on the side...) Annie 21:04, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
It should be eminently doable. Ahasuerus 21:53, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) OK, it's decided then. I have another 550 Fixer-harvested ISBNs to process and then I will work on this FR. Ahasuerus 15:42, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

The Shaver Mystery Compendiums - Call for Volunteers

6 Shaver Mystery Compendiums have been added by Fixer. Looking for a volunteer willing to add Contents-level items. (July and August are Fixer's busiest months because September is typically the busiest month in the publishing world.) Ahasuerus 17:45, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

I will add them later today - will see if I can figure out if all of the art items from the magazines were reprinted or just some of them. Annie 13:35, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
Fiction imported; will work on covers, ebooks and so on and a second check if we need any variants instead of the main titles later today. Annie 14:14, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:10, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Collected Short Stories (H. P. Lovecraft)

I am planning to convert this to a publication series - it looks weird with all the variants and so on - and it will allow us to actually mark the correct editions as part of the series. Anyone can see a reason not to? Annie 14:45, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Never mind, they already have a pub series. Still something does not feel right... Annie 21:00, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
It appears that they should be in two publication series: Tales of Mystery & the Supernatural and "Collected Short Stories", which we don't support. I do think that the use of a title series which really only applies to the Wordsworth printings here is not appropriate. I would suggest removing the title series and putting these in a new publication series with a notes on both pub series records explaining a parent child relationship. This would be workable unless Wordsworth reprints these as part of Collected Works but not as part of Tales. However, I suspect that it unlikely. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:52, 1 August 2019 (EDT)

What to do with pubs that are not spec-fic?

Hi. I wanted to check with the community what the feeling is about submitting deletions of pub records for which no evidence can be found they are spec-fic, and for which the author is not above the 'threshold' (yeah, I know, quite vague... :)?
I am well aware that it's not fun for the editor(s) that have put all the work in to get their work erased (I wouldn't like it myself). But if we let these records stay because someone happened to have put a lot of work in it, where will it end? It becomes trickier if a verified pub record turns out to be not spec-fic. I tend to leave these alone but these too should - strictly speaking - be deleted from the database (after contacting/notifying the PV first). Thought? Suggestions? MagicUnk 08:05, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

Well, we do not want chemistry and language textbooks (yep, we had some :) ). Can you share a few links of books you consider deleting? Annie 12:40, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Yup, much easier to make a determination if we know which book(s) you are considering. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:02, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Here are a couple of examples:
Out of the Dark (even though it's primary verified - this one's borderline, perhaps?)
Born of the Sun (even though it's recorded in Locus1 - unjustified imo)
The Bailey Game (did ask ClarkMCI, no feedback to date)
The Raging Quiet (here ClarkMCI made a note that he has suspicions this is not spec-fic)
I checked Goodreads reviews, and not really one that I could find that convinced me these contained spec-fic elements warranting inclusion. MagicUnk 07:51, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
All of these novels are by established SF authors, so I would flip the "non-genre" flag and document what we know about them in notes. It's been my experience that it's more beneficial to keep borderline cases in the database and explain why they are "borderline SF" or "not really SF even though they may look like SF" in Notes. Not only does it help our users, but it also prevents robots and new editors from creating "genre" records in the future. Ahasuerus 10:50, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Hmm, that's something we could do of course. But then we are ignoring the 'authors above a threshold' rule (assuming they are non-genre), don't we? Afaik the authors of the examples above aren't really above the threshold - even though they are established SF authors. We can update/remove that rule of course... What are the other editors' practices related to non-genre publications? MagicUnk 10:59, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Are we? The idea of the threshold rule is not to count someone’s work as if they are tomatoes and go by percentages but to allow us not to burden the DB with the collected works of a prolific author just because they happened to write 1 genre novel. If the author is considered a genre one, they are above the threshold IMO. There is a reason why that rule does not say anything about exact numbers. Annie 11:25, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
PS: And borderline spec fic belongs here for two reasons: the boundary will always be in the eye of the reader and so that we do not need to make all the explanations of why it is not. And especially for those borderline ones, I really do not feel like we should be removing them based on GR reviews alone (if you look at The Amazing Mycroft Mysteries and their reviews, you would decide that they are not genre either. And yet, as I read the first two lately, I can tell you that they belong (the first one has killer-bees and enough science around them to qualify it at least as a border case, the second one has a working medium). I would opt on the inclusion side unless either someone reads the book and can make a decision or at we find another way to make sure they are not speculative at all. Or that the author is not a predominantly genre one - if they are, then the works are in anyway. Annie 12:50, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
As to the threshold rule. The relevant parts of the policy say Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold [are included], and, Works that are not related to speculative fiction by authors who have not published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold. [are excluded]. Mirriam-Webster has Threshold: a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not. For me, this means that the policy says that even for established SF authors who have not produced 'much' (ie are below the threshold), the non-spec-fic should not be entered. Cursory reading of the threshold-related discussions over the years seem to support this interpretation. Now, we may not want the policy to mean 'above a certain value', but then I would like to see the rules of acquisition rephrased to somehow include 'non-spec-fic work of established SF authors' (whatever established really means :-))
Now, having said that, there's - as you rightly point out - the other side of the medal; when is a work borderline SF, and thus eligible for inclusion? I concur that it is difficult to figure out without having read the book whether they have to stay or not from reviews and synopses alone. So, concluding, and erring on the side of caution, I surmise the current consensus is to leave them in when there's not unambiguous proof of the contrary, but add a note as to the debatable SF contents of the work. If it can be unambiguously established the contents is non-spec-fic, and the author is below the threshold (even when an established SF author), it has to go out. In practice, the latter case may not happen at all - unless someone actually reads the work, right? MagicUnk 16:31, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
How do you define the threshold? Not what the dictionary says, how do you understand it in ISFDB? We read that rule somewhat differently I think - mainly on how threshold is defined. It sounds like you are trying to find a numeric representation of that value. What I am reading when I see that is exactly what you want to rewrite it as - an author over the threshold is not just about the numbers, it is about "is that one of our authors?". I just cannot see a difference between what we have and what you are proposing to change in the wording. Some authors are ours under one pseudonym (Nora Roberts and her Robb pseudonym for example), some are ours under all names. Annie 16:59, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

[unindent] Wellll... I think that's the issue - we're not interpreting the current rules exactly the same way, which is a Bad Thing™. If I may paraphrase; you and Ahasuerus seem to imply that whenever the author is an SF author -ALL- publications should be recorded. This implies - amongst other things - that however small their output may be, all publications have to be recorded irrespective, as long as they are a recognized SF author. Whereas I'm interpreting the rules as "even if the author is an established/recognized SF writer, if his/her SF output is 'low', everything that's non-SF should -NOT- be recorded". Do note that new editors do not have all the ISFDB history, so are likely to go and check the Mirriam-Webster definition of threshold, and will end up with interpreting it as a numerical threshold - as I did. Going back to the examples given above, authors such as Gillian Cross, Welwyn Wilton Katz, and Sherryl Jordan, notwithstanding having produced SF works, can hardly be considered established SF authors imo. Now, I'm not having a preference one way or the other 'per se', but the rules should be as unambigous as we can make them, especially so because we do not want new editors to interpret the rules - nor the moderators for that matter. So, either we have

  1. If it's a 'recognized' SF author, record ALL (ie SF -and- non-SF) his/her works, or
  2. If it's an author with SF works above a certain threshold (numerical), record ALL his/her works (and consequently, if the output is 'low', do NOT record all of his/her non-SF works)

I've been interpreting the rule as the latter (and I suspect many other editors & moderators with me - chime in and tell me if I'm wrong here ;). So, do we want to organize a poll as to clarify if it's 1, or 2 we want? If we want 1. we need to rephrase the rules, as it's confusing right now for new (non-English-speaking) editors (which I am), as they are likely to interpret it as 2. Also, if we would go with 1., the danger exists we end up with loads and loads of non-spec-fic works of 'established' SF authors, however low their output is/has been.

---And yes, I am well aware of the difficulty of coming up with acceptable definitions of 'recognized SF author', or, 'author with SF works above a threshold' - but that's food for another discussion...

Also, we should be careful not to muddy the waters by introducing the notion of 'borderline' SF, as these need their own set of rules, of which the most important one is (I think): if in doubt, you are allowed to add it to the DB, but make sure to add a clear note about its dubious SF contents. Regards, MagicUnk 11:49, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

Early on, we had multiple discussions about the "threshold". Lots of different definitions were proposed, including numerical ones like "at least 50% [75% etc] of the author's output is SF". We always ended up with exceptions and exceptions to exceptions, so we were never able to come up with an explicit rule. The best we could do was to state that:
  • ... "certain threshold" is hard to define, but we need to draw the line in a way that would exclude Winston Churchill, who published at least one work of borderline speculative fiction. The goal here is to avoid cataloging everything ever published by James Fenimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, Honoré de Balzac and other popular authors. Instead, we want to catalog their speculative fiction works only.
Note that it doesn't say anything about the author being "recognized". For example, take George Orwell. By any measure -- sales, critical recognition, public awareness, etc -- he is one of the most recognized authors of speculative fiction. Yet we do not list his non-speculative novels.
For what it's worth, here is how I usually approach the issue when deciding whether to include non-genre works for an author. I ask myself: "If an average reader comes across an unfamiliar work by this writer, will she suspect that it is SF?" In the cases listed above, the answer is "no", so their non-SF doesn't get included. If the answer is "yes" or "probably", I include the non-SF works.
A few other things to keep in mind. There was a time when the only non-genre works supported by the software were NOVELs. It made life difficult and sometimes editors used "creative" solutions. They had to be revisited once the software was able to handle all types of non-genre titles. Some of these "creative solutions" may still be lingering in dark corners.
Also, at one point the policy was to enter non-genre works if they had been reviewed in genre-publications. The policy was changed years ago, but, yet again, some ineligible non-genre works still exist in the database. Ahasuerus 11:02, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

Japan Fantasy Novel Award

Can we add this one? It was given from 1989-2103, and then started up again in 2017. It has the following categories:

  • Japan Fantasy Novel Award
    • Grand Prize
    • Award of Excellence
    • Nomination

I will add them once the award is created. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:50, 6 August 2019 (EDT)

Done. As per this discussion of the Clarke Award, "Grand Prize" and "Award of Excellence" are not separate categories in the ISFDB world but rather different award levels within the same category. The category has been created and I have added a note about the first and the second places being called "Grand Prize" and "Award of Excellence" respectively. Ahasuerus 17:08, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
Based on your comparison to the Clarke Award, there should be two categories under win:
  • Grand Prize
  • Award of Excellence
Neither of these should have a "poll place" because you either win the Grand Prize or Award of Excellence or you don't. There is no ranking beyond winning one of those two or not. All of the nominees are eligible for both. The prize committee can choose to award in any given year either of those to one or more nominee (two is the most in a given year for either, at least historically), or choose to award only one of them to one or more nominees. The remaining nominees are just nominees for the Japan Fantasy Novel Award in general. I hope that makes sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
Originally, the Clarke Award was set up to have separate categories for winners, runner-ups, and shortlisted works. However, based on the outcome of the linked discussion, we changed it to have a single "Best Science Fiction Novel" category. Clarke winners are now entered as "Award Level 1", runner-ups as "Award Level 2" and other nominees as "Finalists" (a supported "special award level".)
If my understanding is correct, "Japan Fantasy Novel Award" has a similar hierarchy: "Grand Prize" is effectively "Award Level 1", "Award of Excellence" is "Award Level 2" and the rest of the nominees are "Finalists". Is this a reasonable approximation of the way the award works? Ahasuerus 19:49, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
Kind of. The problem is that both "award levels" are not awarded every year, as opposed to the Clarke Award where they are. If you win a Japan Fantasy Novel Award, you are awarded either the Grand Prize or the Award of Excellence. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:53, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
Let me double check that I understand correctly. "The Grand Prize" is a higher award level than "The Award of Excellence", right? And their recipients are selected from the same pool of books? Ahasuerus 10:22, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
It's always listed higher on websites that list awards, so probably? The recipients of both are from the same pool of nominees. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:53, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
There are some years where a Grand Prize is not awarded, so considering it "Award Level 1" seems weird in years where only the Award of Excellence was given. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:53, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
Well, similar things have been known to happen. For example, consider the 1976 and the 1994 John W. Campbell Memorial Awards, which had no winners and two (ranked) finalists. Or the 2015 Hugo awards, when "No Award" won in the "Best Novella" and the "Best Short Story" categories. Ahasuerus 10:22, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
I guess I'm most concerned about how it will show up on the title and author pages. As long as it shows "Grand Prize" and "Award of Excellence", then it should be fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:53, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
Maybe this is a feature request: to have the option of assigning names to the "places" for an award, or to just use numbers. That way, it displays "Grand Prize" instead of "1". I know this wouldn't be applicable in all cases, but it seems this (and perhaps the Clarke Award and other) are a bit of a hybrid between awards like the Hugo (which have multiple categories) and single awards with "poll places" (or rankings) since they give a name to the places, but share a common nomination pool. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:13, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
Well... The good news is that we already have a related FR, FR 656, Add a "Term used to described runner-ups" field to Award Category. The bad news is that it would be a fairly time-consuming change. Nothing too drastic, just a bunch of man-hours. Ahasuerus 15:49, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
Another wrench for the works: in 2005, a person who would have won the Award of Excellence declined it. There's not currently a way to indicate that since you can't select both "Poll place" (to indicate they would have won place 2, the Award of Excellence) and "Special" (to indicate they declined the award). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:44, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
That's right. The only way to capture both the fact that s/he was supposed be given the Award of Excellence and that s/he subsequently decline it would be to have a separate category for the Award of Excellence and, presumably, another one for the "Grand Prize". I guess we could do that, but where would the nominees/runner-ups go then? Ahasuerus 15:52, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
That's the big question, isn't it? This one really is a hybrid. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:23, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
A third category "Award Nominees"? When someone wins, they get removed and moved to the proper award (and we add notes on the three categories explaining the situation). Why won't that work? Annie 17:30, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
Well, it would work, but then we would have the same problem that we had with the Clarke Award prior to the changes. Having nominees in one category, Grand Prize winners in another category and Award of Excellence winners in yet another category would mean that the data for one award year would be scattered across multiple categories. It wouldn't be an accurate model of the way the award data is structured, so third party developers who use our award data would need to add an exception and so on.
Given our software limitations, I guess we need to decide whether it's more important to display the words "Grand Prize" and "Award of Excellence" on award pages or to have all nominated works listed within the same category (and use to document "Grand Prize" and "Award of Excellence".) Ahasuerus 08:15, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
I am less concerned about the award pages (we can add notes there) and more concerned on how things look on title pages -- we cannot add notes explaining what is what there. I know that we have challenges with the model (because it as built based on how US awards look like :) ) - but then we do have two types of consumers of the data - the people that look at the site and the people that use the DB itself. Just thinking aloud. Annie 12:16, 8 August 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) I guess we might as well do it right and change the software to support "Displayed Award Level". I assume that:

  • The new optional "Displayed Award Level" field will be at the award level, not at the award category level. This will support scenarios where the displayed award level changes from year to year.
  • The new "Displayed Award Level" field will be in addition to the currently existing "Award Level" field. The latter will continue to be used for sorting purposes.
  • The new "Displayed Award Level" field will allow arbitrary text like "Grand Prize" and "Award of Excellence" to be entered.
  • If no "Displayed Award Level" value is entered for an award, the value of the "Award Level" field will be displayed.

Does this look about right? Ahasuerus 09:55, 11 August 2019 (EDT)

I think so. Annie? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:20, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
Looks good. Do we want to have the award name always in English or do we want to allow a “Native / English” format as well? If the latter, we will also need the transliterations fields. As these names will show up on title pages, I’m inclined towards allowing the double name - especially because some of this names may not have an agreed upon English name and whatever is chosen will be the editors’ interpretation. Annie 02:52, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
At this time none of the award-related records, i.e. award types and award categories, support transliterated values. If we decide to add support for them, we should probably do it across the board. Ahasuerus 11:35, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
True. Which is why I brought it up. Because this one needs transliteration in its main form as well. Annie 12:34, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
I like the idea of adding transliteration fields for the awards. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:21, 12 August 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) OK, FR 1295 "Allow entering transliterated values for awards-related values" has been created. Also, FR 656 has been changed to reflect the "Displayed Award Level" functionality discussed above. Ahasuerus 13:59, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

Chen Jiatong

Would anyone happen to know the Chinese spelling of Chen Jiatong's name? I have found a bunch of English-language articles about him, including a recently added SFE3 article, but I don't know how his name is spelled in Chinese. Ahasuerus 17:01, 9 August 2019 (EDT)

Looks like it's 陈佳同 per this book. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:12, 9 August 2019 (EDT)
The National Library of Singapore agrees. Thanks! Ahasuerus 10:12, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:19, 11 August 2019 (EDT)

Dublin Worldcon

If someone is attending and wants to meet, let me know :) That also means I will be (mostly) out of pocket on the site after today and until late next week. Annie 14:26, 12 August 2019 (EDT)

According to Template:Moderator-availability, Rtrace headed to Dublin a few days ago. Watch out for leprechauns! Ahasuerus 17:51, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
I need to remember to update that thing when I am off... Well, I was considering catching a few and bringing them back to help with Fixer's queues... :) But then they are not that reliable I guess. Annie 19:12, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
Indeed I am. I’ve sent an email with my contact info. I recall that we had problems with the wiki email function in the past, so let me know if you don’t get it. Hope to see you there. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:58, 13 August 2019 (EDT)
Got it - see you in Dublin. :) Annie 10:34, 13 August 2019 (EDT)

Support for 3 new language codes added

The software has been updated to support the following new languages:

  • Guarani
  • Interlingua
  • "South American Indian language", which, as per the ISO 639-2 standard, covers all South American Indian languages

Ahasuerus 17:45, 12 August 2019 (EDT)

"Translations without Notes" split into language-specific cleanup reports

As per FR 1291, the cleanup report "Translations without Notes" has been split into multiple language-specific cleanup reports. The original report is now called "Translations without Notes - Less Common Languages". Additional columns ("Original Title", "Language") have been added throughout.

Updated data will become available when the nightly process runs in a few hours. If you run into any issues, please post your findings here. Ahasuerus 22:48, 13 August 2019 (EDT)

Awesome! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:38, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

Professor Bernice Summerfield

For the series: Professor Bernice Summerfield ( the first 6 books have usually different names for the original and the identical reprint. This series pops up in my cover art verification as different titles have the same cover link. For none I found a verified pub, so I'd like to unify them by dropping the "Professor Bernice Summerfield and" and cleanup the duplicate records. Objections? --Stoecker 11:00, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

The titles should be as they appear in each book. If that makes them not "unified", then so be it. We shouldn't be changing them just to fit a sense of order. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:38, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
Please read what I wrote before answering! None of the entries have a verified status, so the data is only based on the externally visible data and thus there should be no difference with identical covers (and identical ISBN BTW). --Stoecker 15:52, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
I did read what you wrote. The couple that I checked have the full title as we list it on the cover. If we don't have a PV, and there is no Look Inside available, that's what we have to go with. When the titles have "Professor Bernice Summerfield and the..." as part of the title, it's obviously part of the actual title, unless we can get a PV to show it's otherwise listed on the title page. It's exactly the same as all the "Harry Potter and the..." titles. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
OK. In this case I can change all the titles and covers by adding "Professor Bernice Summerfield and" to the titles without? --Stoecker 17:42, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
If that's what's on the covers, then yes. Lacking any PV to check with, we have to go by what's on the cover or Look Inside. If the cover doesn't have that as part of the title, then we shouldn't be adding it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:29, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
So, for example, this one doesn't have the "and the" as part of the title, so the "Professor Bernice Summerfield" is just the name of the series. On the other hand, this one has "Professor Bernice Summerfield and the Dead Men Diaries " on the cover, so that's what we use for the title unless a PV or Look Inside shows differently. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
I only refer to 1-6. It seems since 7 the "and" is missing. That's why my first proposal was to also drop that for 1-6. But as you rejected that I'll unify 1-6 with the "and". If later a PV notes that this is wrong it at least will be much easier to correct it by simply editing the title records. --Stoecker 08:02, 16 August 2019 (EDT)

Imadjinn Awards

Here's a new award to consider adding. It has the following categories (those marked with * may or may not be genre for ISFDB):

  • Best Anthology *
  • Best Children's Book *
  • Best Historical Fiction (not genre)
  • Best Horror Novel
  • Best Fantasy Novel
  • Best Literary Fiction Novel *
  • Best Non-Fiction Book *
  • Best Paranormal Romance Novel
  • Best Romance Novel *
  • Best Science Fiction Novel
  • Best Short Story *
  • Best Short Story Collection (single author) *
  • Best Thirrler Novel *
  • Best Urban Fantasy Novel
  • Best Young Adult Novel *

Should we add them? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:28, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

The award is apparently given by a regional (Kentucky) convention which has been active for the last 6 years. It seems similar to Endeavour Award, which we support, so it appears to be eligible. Ahasuerus 14:35, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
Personal tools