User talk:BanjoKev


(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Page numbers for ordering purposes)
(Page numbers for ordering purposes)
Line 193: Line 193:
:Got it :) I've been lucky using the pipe that way so far because it was only used to sort a couple of titles. Can you reject that one then please. I've cancelled another which was to follow. Thanks, Kev. [[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] 18:19, 4 December 2019 (EST)
:Got it :) I've been lucky using the pipe that way so far because it was only used to sort a couple of titles. Can you reject that one then please. I've cancelled another which was to follow. Thanks, Kev. [[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] 18:19, 4 December 2019 (EST)
:: Probably. Or someone was not paying attention when approving (it may happen) :) Already rejected - see the top line: " Cancellation/Rejection Reason: Nope. Will explain in a note why - the format is a bit wrong." :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:23, 4 December 2019 (EST)
:: Probably. Or someone was not paying attention when approving (it may happen) :) Already rejected - see the top line: " Cancellation/Rejection Reason: Nope. Will explain in a note why - the format is a bit wrong." :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:23, 4 December 2019 (EST)
:::I've resubmitted. If someone clones from this pub later, does the pipe instruction carry through as well? Thanks, Kev. [[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] 18:39, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Revision as of 23:39, 4 December 2019



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

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

Uploading covers

Please do not upload the covers before the publication addition is approved. Once it is approved, you will get a very nice "Upload cover scan" which will then put the file in the correct place for covers AND will tag it properly thus ensuring that it is clear which book exactly that cover belongs to. You can always edit the wiki page after that but doing it this way will ensure consistency of the links and file names on the server. And do not forget to edit the newly created publication to add the cover there as well. Annie 20:19, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Also: We credit only artists for covers -- the designers are never credited; nor are film companies for "movies" covers. So in the case of this book, we would not credit "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and headdesign" and create a COVERART entry with their name; you can mention them in the notes. I pulled the record out. Annie 20:22, 8 November 2019 (EST)
PS: And yes, I know "headdesign" is credited elsewhere. Unless the book says that they did the artwork and not just the design, it should not be. If that is the case, I can add them back as the artists of the cover. Let me know :) Annie 20:23, 8 November 2019 (EST)
I pre-uploaded three cover scans for pending submissions: (a semi-gloss cover) (a gloss cover)
Should I now delete them from the wiki to get a 'clean' upload run at the "Upload cover scan"?
Your PS goes to the heart of it. I just couldn't work out who had done what. All I have are the listings as per my pub.record notes under 'Back cover'. I noted that it didn't state 'Cover design:' although it's fairly obvious they just set the wording over the 20thC film outtake. I'd be quite happy to leave the 'Cover:' field empty and let the notes speak but someone's bound to come along later saying 'Hey, you left the artist out!' - Oh yes, and who would that be, pray tell me!
So, my current thinking is that 20thC did the artwork and headdesign just incorporated that into their cover design. What do you think? And if you conclude what I think you will, how about changing the other records that you alluded to?
To further complicate matters, I will be submitting the 28th edition (the first image, above). It's clear that Eric White added quite a bit to a stock NASA astronaut picture. The back cover credit says "Cover design: Eric White" and "Cover photograph: NASA (astronaut)". Thanks Annie. Kev BanjoKev 21:15, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Well, if you do not mind to reuplod them, I can delete these 3 as soon as we are done with the 3 books and they have their proper covers :)
For the credits: welcome to the nightmare world of 21st century publishing. Trying to decipher credits on covers and who is an artist and who is a designer is a... nightmare. I tend to just NOT add a cover artist if there is no clear illustrator - the point of adding it is so that we can build a bibliography of the illustrators. If you want to add headdesign, I will approve it (some of the other copies of the book have that). And if someone complains, they can discuss with you later and we can readjust. If I see this kind of credits, I leave the field empty usually on the books I add/verify. Editor's choice and all that.
That 28th edition? None of those is recorded as cover artist. So no complication at all - you add them in the notes, you leave the cover artist field empty. The covers and the COVERART (which is what you are creating when you add the artist) are two different things - you can have only one of them or both or none for some books. Hope that this makes some sense :) Annie 21:24, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Yes, please could you delete the 3 images now, I can't get the 'Editing Category:Deletion candidates' process to work for me to put them before a Moderator. And sorry, I meant to clarify as the 28th printing of the 2014 Broadway/Crown edition. Eric White is credited as cover artist on every one of those.
With the submission you've pulled, I'll choose headdesign (2015) as the cover artist. Also, I had a nightmare trying to get the date to come up in that field, in spite of everything I read in the Help. Kev. BanjoKev 22:10, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Deleted :) The Deletion candidates is for web pages mainly (we have a cleanup process going on); images are done a bit different. Finding a friendly moderator and pointing them in their direction is the easiest way :)
Ah, ok for Eric White. What do you mean about the date? If it is greyed out, it means that it is used in more than one publication - so you need to edit the title record to change it. If you meant something else, can you clarify? Also - if you leave a date field empty, it will be populated with the publication date. Annie 22:19, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Thanks for the deletes :) Having trouble getting the date into the field. Refering to here - - As this is a clone, I can't enter the date. As this publication is 'date unknown', the date won't be entered by default. No previous editor has credited headdesign with this 2015 edition cover (although the 2014 edition is), so I've got nothing to work with. What am I missing? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 22:46, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Same principle. When you are cloning, you will have two copies for the title (the original and the new one you are making) so the system does not allow you to change the date -- you need to do it from the title so you can see listed under it all pubs that will be influenced. Click on the name of the cover (the link with the name) in the pub you are cloning from. It will open the COVERART record. Edit that, change the date :) Keep in mind that we use 0000-00-00 (aka unknown) when the pub is a later printing which does not have its own date. If the work you cloned from did not have a cover and you are adding it, the date will come from your publication's date. The date shows up for the cover only when you edit existing publications (as the COVERART is already there). In all other actions it defaults to the pub one (for AddPub/NewPub/ClonePub for new cover) and to the one that is already there on ClonePub (if you are getting the cover from there). Same for the cover name btw - you probably noticed you cannot edit that either (unless you are working on an existing pub) :)
And do not worry - once created, you can always go and change the date later :) And we never have dateless records - if nothing else applies, we use the pub date from the pub that created the title. Let me know if it still does not make sense. Annie 23:01, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Wow! I'll have to study on that. Thanks very much for your patience Annie. Kev. BanjoKev 23:10, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Two basic rules: If the cover name or date is not there at all but there is a place to add an artist, they will match whatever your publication date is; if the date is greyed out, it is in more than one publication so you can change it only via EditTitle. The greyed out rule applies for dates, titles, types (NOVEL, SHORTFICTION and so on), lengths (novella, short story and so on) and author names in the contents section as well. :) Annie 23:21, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Well, that was a blast! Perfectly formed! Thanks Annie :) Kev. BanjoKev 23:46, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Artemis - latest submission

In this one.

  • The page number should be [10]+305 and not [10]305. I fixed that.
  • The note says pb, the format tp. How big is the book - and which one is correct?

Thanks! Annie 22:45, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the '+' catch. The 'pb' was my oversight, fixed now. Thanks Annie, Kev.BanjoKev 23:01, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Anytime. I also fixed the + thing in your other submission :) As it was 2 in a row, I decided to come let you know you are missing it :) Annie 23:08, 10 November 2019 (EST)
I appreciate it! Kev. BanjoKev 23:27, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Martian Time-Slip

About this one. You are dropping three pieces of information:

  • "No number line" (should stay together with the "Apparent first printing" line so it is clear WHY it is apparent. It may be apparent because the number line contains "1" and the editor just likes the word apparent :)
  • "No additional prices" (which is important because this is the only way a lot of UK editions differ from each other)
  • "Gloss cover" (because it may also indicate a separate/new binding if it is not - matted and glossed covers may differentiate a first from second printing or printing batch.

Is that an oversight or did you mean to drop these? Annie 19:04, 12 November 2019 (EST)

I've been trying to decide about "No number line" as part of my submission 'template'. I mean apparent because there's no number line. But that's implicit. I'll state it from now on.
The same with gloss/semi-gloss. I've only done that so far where I know there're different finishes - especially with the Masterworks I & II. So, you've set me well on those two points. For me there are three finishes: Matte, Semi-gloss and Gloss. PKD's Ubik here has a matte finish that's almost hairy (extreme case) so I couldn't describe the smooth 'non-gloss' Masterworks (for example) as 'matte'. There's another term I considered - 'eggshell' to describe smooth non-gloss but rejected that as not making it internationally.
"No additional prices" - again, it's implicit because I've recorded the only price actually on the cover. Reviewing that, it's fair to say that another editor could ask "What's he left out?". So point well taken Annie.
If it's acceptable, could you approve this submission and I will rectify the three points straight away. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:30, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Done. In my experience, the more you spell out the better. Especially on points we know may indicate a different edition/printing/binding - cover finish, sewn or glued for publishers that do both, prices being printed or not and so on. Just because we do not know that there is a matte finish somewhere does not mean that there isn't one or that POD variants of the same title won't have it in the future (and these tend to repeat the copyright page of the first editions making them harder to spot if you do not look at the back). If you don't want to add it, that's fine. But do not remove it if it is there just because it does not fit your pattern :) It is team work after all. Hope this makes sense. :) Annie 19:35, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Good advice Annie, many thanks for your time. I'll also go back through my previous PVs and clarify them as well. Kev. BanjoKev 19:39, 12 November 2019 (EST)

The Martian : Andy Weir

BanjoKev, I added a reply at User talk:Marc Kupper#The Martian : Andy Weir. --Marc Kupper 16:14, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The essays

Responded on my page - one more step is needed to finish the work on these. Annie 17:23, 15 November 2019 (EST)

Getty Images and similar

We usually do not credit the big stock images supplier for the covers. I know we have a few over there and I am not sure if we ever put a note somewhere in the rules (will check this weekend) but the idea is to build the portfolios of our artists, not of the studios that have copyrights and stock images :) So it is ok (and good) to add in the notes but I would not create a coverart for it if I am adding a book. Annie 23:32, 16 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks Annie, I thought this might raise a Moderator eyebrow, and I was undecided about it until I saw this :) Kev. BanjoKev 23:38, 16 November 2019 (EST)
We do have some cleanup to do.:) Welcome to ISFDB. Things are sometimes a bit... unorganized. We are trying though. :) Considering how prevalent Getty are, if we were recording them, they will have a LOT more on that page. Do you want me to teach you how to remove a coverart record from a book or do you know how? Or do you want it to stay? Annie 23:41, 16 November 2019 (EST)
Yes, all trying - trying to get it right going forward whilst reaching back and trying to fix earlier stuff when perhaps exactness wasn't an issue. I'm trying to get stuff right and sometimes I'm amazed at the thought that's gone into presentation and all the hidden link-up stuff that makes it look so easy. It sure is a piece of work.
I'd like to take you up at a later stage on how to do coverart removal if that's ok. You've been a great help so far!
Now, the Getty thing... In this particular instance, I entered Getty for the coverart (after I saw their page) because theirs is the only credit. If the credit(s) had been "Billy Bob/Getty Images" I would have only credited Billy Bob, if that makes sense. Without going back to Getty's page right now, I did see Getty Images credt that read "with". That feels to me as though the art credits were on the pubs as the Billy Bob example. Others I see are, for example, "Joe Blow/Photonica" - here I'd just enter Joe Blow. But, if the only credit was "Photonica" I think I would credit that. Does my reasoning stand up to scrutiny? If so, I'd like to leave the coverart as it is. It's clear from the pub.notes that this is the only credit (for such time as consensus develops for policy change and implementation. :)) Kev. BanjoKev 00:04, 17 November 2019 (EST)
The DB can be challenging and it has a lot of hidden and semi-hidden small things (and I think they have babies when we do not pay attention...) :) You are doing fine - really :) And if it gets to a point where you need to do something and do not know how - come ask me or ask on the Help desk. Someone will assist.
No worries. Just don't be surprised if we do mount that cleanup operation (especially if we tighten up the language in the Help) and you get a note that we are removing it (one day). I would not add a coverart at all if there is no real artist to assign it to. :) Annie 00:10, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Solved :) Kev. BanjoKev 00:22, 17 November 2019 (EST)
And I deleted the ejected record after I approved it (or it will show up on the report in an hour) :) All clean and tidy now. Annie 00:26, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Older books and ISBNs

If the book is from 2006 or earlier, it cannot have ISBN13. If it is printed there, it is not from pre-2007 :) Swapped it here. Relevant help page: here. :) Annie 23:39, 16 November 2019 (EST)

I really do not like the expression "Apparent first printing" followed by an explanation of why it is not first printing. Very confusing :) Annie 00:42, 17 November 2019 (EST)
I agree :) I'll resubmit. Kev. BanjoKev 00:48, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Apparent is fine - it was the rest of it that did not fit. If there are no reasons to believe it is not the first and noone claims the first and there is no number line, I would use apparent. And edition will need to be a first printing if there are to be others. But if you would rather not have it, I will approve. :) Annie 01:05, 17 November 2019 (EST)
And if you leave the date as "2011-03-24" here, it is first printing :) Annie 01:06, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Thanks for your patience Annie :) Kev. BanjoKev 03:06, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Legal Name

Hi, I copied this from our wiki to help you enter legal names in the correct way "Legal Name - This field should contain the most recent legal name for the author. For example, James Tiptree, Jr. was a pseudonym of Alice Sheldon, who was born Alice Bradley. Alice Sheldon is the most recent legal name for this author. Use the format Lastname, Firstname Middlenames, with all names being given in full. The reason for this format are names like "Patrick Nielsen Hayden" where you can't readily tell whether the last name is "Hayden" or "Nielsen Hayden." No prefixes should be used: "Capt.", "Mrs.", "Sir", and so on, are not recorded in this field. Suffixes that are not part of the legal name -- for example, "Sr.", educational and professional designations such as "Ph.D." or "M.D.", ranks and orders such as "Col.", "K.G." -- also should not be recorded. Certain suffixes such as "Jr.", "II", "III", etc., may or may not be part of the legal name. We assume they are not, unless we have reliable evidence to the contrary. If a suffix is part of the legal name, use the format Lastname, Firstname Middlenames, Suffix.".--Dirk P Broer 05:03, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Argh! and I had read that! Thanks for pulling me up on it. Kev. BanjoKev 09:11, 21 November 2019 (EST)

No need to change the date before a merge

If one of the two titles has the correct date, you can merge them and select the correct date during the merge. :) Annie 18:06, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks Annie, didn't realise that :) Kev. BanjoKev 18:07, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Same with series and names and authors and so on - as long as you can initiate the merge (advanced search with OR as the operator can get any two titles on a screen where you can start a merge), you can select which value to remain after the merge. You may need to write a mode note IF it is not obvious why you want to merge but other from that... :) Annie 18:24, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Special characters in publisher names

I just cleaned "i" tags from the publisher name here. If they are always styled that way, we should be adding a note to the publisher record; the name itself is saved unadorned :) Annie 17:45, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Coverart and import

I approved this and then merged the covers. Just heads up that if the cover is exactly the same record (title, artist, image (as per our definition of the same), language), you can simply import instead of adding and then needing a merge. Let me know if you need assistance with the process. Annie 17:58, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Collins / HarperCollinsPublishers

Looking at the new name you have here. Isn't this the same publisher as Collins / HarperCollins (UK)? We normalize publishers a bit so... any reason to have two separate versions of the same? Or are they different?Annie 21:41, 28 November 2019 (EST)

My guess is that Collins / HarperCollins (UK) has been entered as shorthand :)
I would advocate to normalise to the correct version, not to perpetuate a name which maybe vague and will need sorting out later. If I were to add the address to a new 'Collins / HarperCollinsPublishers' Publisher Record (no italics, but the italicised form given in the notes) that would differentiate this from any USA variations that might exist.
All 7 of the existing 'Collins / HarperCollins (UK)' entries were created by one person (Clarkmci, last active 2019-02-28) and I suggest that that person just shortened the address from what I suspect was 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB as given on the copyright page. I've yet to see the suffix (UK) anywhere in my collection.
Additionally, I would proffer the following info:
My collection data set is 1,067 books at present.
Listed, I have: 237 publishers or variations on publishers' details, as stated on the copyright pages.
Of these I have 13 variations on the HarperCollins theme, comprising 69 books, exactly as stated on the copyright pages:
1 Collins / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
5 Grafton / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
1 Harper / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
5 HarperCollins / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
2 HarperCollins Science Fiction & Fantasy / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
1 HarperOne / HarperCollinsPublishers [10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022]
9 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF]
3 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
3 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
7 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers Ltd [1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF]
1 Thorsons / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
30 Voyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
1 Voyager Classics / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]
What do you think? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev
When the only PV is not available, it needs to be brought to the community :) So please post to the Moderator Board, explaining what you want to rename to what and why and if noone disagrees, we can just rename the existing record. In the meantime, let's keep to it (so all books stay together and we do not complicate the split even more).
The suffix UK/USA is common when we have the same publisher on both sides of the pond - in cases when it is not possible to separate them in a better way, we would use it to differentiate. Publisher is one of the somewhat normalized fields - we try to stay as close to the books as possible but we will add additional identifiers if needed. If the names are exactly the same (think Orbit), we DO need to separate the books so the lists per publisher have some meaning. Annie 00:26, 29 November 2019 (EST)


I even read all the moderator notes. :) Annie 02:30, 1 December 2019 (EST)

You've got me laughing now :) Kev. BanjoKev 02:33, 1 December 2019 (EST)
And I will be here all week... :) It's a team effort -- some of the things in the DB are annoying and can make one want to scream and more often than not, we all talk to each other only when there are issues and/or when a record needs discussion but it is the small things that make one's day usually so I tend to acknowledge it when an editor writes something in the notes that make me smile. Annie 02:46, 1 December 2019 (EST)


So I stop spamming Chris. :)

They used to add a lot more on the site than they do now -- especially books lists - these archive pages show this information and it can be useful when researching weird things from those years. But the magazines always had more information (and the received & forthcoming lists are only in the magazines unlike the Recommended one in the February edition for example). Annie 00:30, 3 December 2019 (EST)

smile I read this piece, it's pretty good. Kev. BanjoKev 03:43, 3 December 2019 (EST)

Import vs Edit

When adding a cover we already have, instead of doing an edit (which then requites a merge), import the cover :) Annie 15:04, 4 December 2019 (EST)

I understand. Thanks for pointing that out, importing is in the next chapter.....
While you're here, could you please delete the older image that I've just replaced. I realised I had first uploaded, on 11th November, the wrong iteration of the image file :)
here - Many thanks. Kev. BanjoKev 15:40, 4 December 2019 (EST)
Well, I believe in getting people into the Advanced topics early :) Let me know if you need assistance and/or help :)
Done for the image. :) Annie 16:20, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Page numbers for ordering purposes

Regarding this one. The number after the pipe is the order in the overall book, not on the page. So 72|1 should be 72|72.1 or 72.01 if you expect more than 9 on the page. Otherwise it will sort it as page 1 - and in this update you have 9 "|1" ones - which will sort at the top of the list. Do you want to try again?

Think of it as "display value|sorting value" where just "display value" is treated as "display value|display value".:) Annie 18:12, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Got it :) I've been lucky using the pipe that way so far because it was only used to sort a couple of titles. Can you reject that one then please. I've cancelled another which was to follow. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:19, 4 December 2019 (EST)
Probably. Or someone was not paying attention when approving (it may happen) :) Already rejected - see the top line: " Cancellation/Rejection Reason: Nope. Will explain in a note why - the format is a bit wrong." :) Annie 18:23, 4 December 2019 (EST)
I've resubmitted. If someone clones from this pub later, does the pipe instruction carry through as well? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:39, 4 December 2019 (EST)
Personal tools