Currently, the application supports a huge number of scanners, if you list them all, then this page is simply not enough space. If You are constantly working with different types of files, You can save the settings in the so-called profile. When you process a specific file later, You will be able to select the appropriate profile, thus Saving yourself from having to reconfigure the application. I would also like to say that the program is able to reveal the hidden potential of scanners, and this is not a joke, I suggest You see for yourself.
One of my recent posts included a number of topics. One of them concerned situations where an artist is editorially credited only by last name but signs a fuller version of his name in a legible manner. Virgil Finlay for instance almost always signs his full name but is often credited as Finlay - same with Freas/Kelly Freas. It makes sense to me to use the more fully qualified signature. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement on this one issue.--swfritter 22:08, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)
Serial Number For Vuescan 9 For
When a book has 6 unpaginated pages of "Author Notes" and "Acknowledgements" prior to page 1, ad then has 317 paginated pages, should the page count be entered as "317" or "6+317". I know what would be done with lc roman page numbers, but what if there are none at all? -DES Talk 15:38, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
The Book of Andre Norton contains a bibliography from 1975 of her works, compiled by Helen-Jo Jakusz Hewitt. It references a number of publications not included in the ISFDB, particularly German titles and publishers. The only information beyond title, publisher, year and language is pages for the first publication. Is this worth entering? How to credit? Any volunteers - 11 pages. -- Holmesd 22:17, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)
I think we've done a lot with the new tools, but we lack direction. I don't actually WANT to be directed, but when someone is actively promoting one variant over another it would help if we knew when we were working against someone else, at least. Mods don't have a view of the most commonly used variations (OK, they may have seen the file I provided of all current variations, with number of pubs attached, but that gets out of date VERY rapidly with the smaller publishers) and there's no way yet to guide or suggest things to Editors apart from direct messaging. BLongley 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The number of the series is Bantam numbering. The Doc Savage Magazine number is different. Should I switch to that or leave it? The Bantam series did add new books at the end so it has more than the pulp series did. Dana Carson 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How does one deal with the case where a book gets a subsequent multi-volume publication? Stephen King's It was republished by J'ai Lu in a three-volumes paperback set (coll#s 2892-4, boxed set #6904), as was Asimov's The Robots of Dawn published as two volumes (#1602-3). Denoël republished Asimov's Mysteries (or at least disordered parts of it) in two volumes (#113-4) etc. This is fairly common for these publishers because they stick to a fairly rigid bracket of page numbers. Circeus 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, although we generally use "uncredited" when the anthology editor is not known -- as per the Help recommendation above -- a number of magazine records use "Anonymous" when reviewing anonymously edited anthologies, e.g. see the review section of Science-Fiction Plus, June 1953. Is that by design or do we wan to change all reviews to use "uncredited"? Ahasuerus 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the number of times we're using OCLC/Worldcat to justify dates, explain stub entries for pubs we don't have but think exist, etc, should we be raising the profile of this resource a bit more? If it's good, then it could be a new source to verify against: if only so-so, then guidelines for such links would be appropriate: if VERY good, then maybe we should ask for OCLC references to be added to pub-level entries in the same way that we have ISBN/Catalog numbers. Comments please! BLongley 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The warnings above are IMO too large for Sources of Bibliographic Information#Aggregate Library Catalogs and Search Engines -- there is already a lot of info on that page. So i have created Help:Using Worldcat data, and linked to the new page from the existing one. (Please take a look at my new page and improve it if you can.) I don't see an urgent need for coding changes to create a worldcat number field in the db -- The notes should do IMO. A sidebar link would be nice, but is not urgent. I think we should add worldcat to the verification matrix without waiting for any new coding, but I don't want to do that unless others agree that it would be a good idea. -DES Talk 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have actually found an example of a serialized novella: ...And Now You Don't by Asimov, the story that became the second half of Second Foundation. Apparently it was never published separately aside from the original magazine publication, and it must be near the boundry of novel length. Surely not a common situation. -DES Talk 15:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
[unindent] As so often happens when we get into standards discussions, we've started to stray from the original issue: what to do with invalid ISBNs. With Bill and Marc's latest posts, we've wandered over into derived ISBNs, Although tangentially related, talking about derived ISBNS will only dilute the current discussion. The options that David gave us are concerning ISBNs printed in a publication that turn out to be invalid numbers. With that in mind, Marc, does it make more concrete your choice of #1? Sorry to be so tactless, but I'll gladly jump into a debate about derived ISBNs when this issue has been settled. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of these books are just straight read and chose. With one of my books you also need one dice and besides choosing a choice you also roll the dice and then look up stuff in one of a number of tables to see how your score got adjusted. It was still a single player thing but it is more like a game in that you keep a score. I don't think two people could play at the same time as the book also had you jumping to sections based on your choices and the outcome of dice rolls. Sorry, I can't remember the title but the setting was future warriors and you were a leader of a small commando team that would get dropped planet-side. The warriors had these "jumper" or "bounder" rocket backpacks that allowed them to move rapidly by jumping. The bad guys seemed to be creatures that lived underground. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to the comments above I have devised a new test version of Cover Image Data. In this version, ther is no separate Publiction Link field. Instead the "Edition" display, which comes right after the title, is made a clickable link. (I used edition rathe than Title because the link is to a publication record, not a title/bibliography record.) The three exampels use the same data as the ones above, and again the third example shows what happens if no publication tag or record number is provided. I also changed the color of the "resolution reduced" field so that it is distinct from the link color (it now uses a significantly deeper green).
(unindent)As far as "city" prefixes go, keep in mind that library databases typically have at least two separate fields for publisher information: "place of publication" (field 260a) and "name of publisher" (field 260b). It's only when the library software has to display this information for human consumption that it concatenates the two fields using " : " as a separator. Since we originally had only one free text "Publisher" field, we were forced to stuff both data elements into it, which has increased the number of Publisher records significantly and fragmented publisher-specific information. Now that Publishers get their own records with multiple fields, I think it makes sense to move our "place of publication" data to the Publisher level, although we have to be careful to indicate when the publisher was based in City A and when it was based in City B.
One major issue to consider is DES' Megabooks example. A number of late 19-early 20 century publishers had offices in London as well as New York and it's important to record whether a particular edition was published by "Megabooks (London)" or by "Megabooks (New York). I am not sure if this distinction has been made clearly in the last few decades, but the recent tsunami of mega-merges and acquisitions makes me wonder if there have been books published in "New York London Berlin" and then, separately, in "London Tokyo Warsaw" or something equally bizarre. Perhaps we could ask somebody currently in the publishing business, e.g. Andrew Wheeler, formerly with the Science Fiction Book Cub?
Question in play here is whether to use the ISBN# or the SFBC catalogue # in the pub record. For about the last 10+ years the SFBC editions have included the trade editions' ISBN on the copyright pages and the back covers. The designation "Book Club Edition" has been removed from the front flap. All that's left to distinguish the different edition is the catalogue ID# (besides the physical size difference on most, but not all) and the lack of certain data on the copyright page (a number line, usually, but not always). These differences are easy to see with book-in-hand. But one of this site's primary uses is for searches, and an ISBN will never bring up an SFBC specifically (other than those newer omnibuses unique to the SFBC). Inputing an SFBC catalogue # won't bring up an SFBC title either, though it could at some point, but not if those ID#s exist only in the notes. If the SFBC had never done anything but reprints, it could almost be a footnote, but with the unique omnibuses and the few first hardcovers it produced, in some cases the only hardcover edition (PKD's "The Preserving Machine" comes to mind) or the true first edition (Herbert's "Hellstrom's Hive") that option doesn't come into play.The SFBC issues are many, this being just one. For any to be resolved, or at least handled in a consistent manner, data needs to be as accessible as possible.--Bluesman 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 2ff7e9595c
Comments