The difference between the two is that in the case of I TL 3280-6P all substories point to I TL 3130-1P whereas for I TL 3446-1P only the first substory points to I TL 3429-1P. Our software does not create an xref in the case of I TL 3446-1P. I've asked that we treat the former case differently, so generating an xref for the superstory. To check if my hypothesis is correct I have added xrefs to all substories of I TL 3446-1P; let's see tomorrow if the website has changed.
The problem is that we use slightly different rules for the Italian index, in particular the existence of substories which make things very complex (to the point I am not even sure what's going on).
I have just checked, and the xrefs you have inserted it the FSB file are now showing up. Well done :)
Hi The difference between the two is that in the case of I TL 3280-6P all substories point to I TL 3130-1P whereas for I TL 3446-1P only the first substory points to I TL 3429-1P. Our software does not create an xref in the case of I TL 3446-1P. I've asked that we treat the former case differently, so generating an xref for the superstory. To check if my hypothesis is correct I have added xrefs to all substories of I TL 3446-1P; let's see tomorrow if the website has changed. The problem is that we use slightly different rules for the Italian index, in particular the existence of substories which make things very complex (to the point I am not even sure what's going on).
Yes, the different "inheritance" rules between substories and superstories seems to be the problem.
According to inducks.org/bolderbast/xe22.html#a_SuperRef for [xref] the values are "merged". So if one of the substory has the [xref] and the others are all empty, the merging probably goes to empty.
When caballero first reported something about this issue, the maintainer marked the report as 'solved' too quickly; the xref was present in the Inducks data, but just in the file holding the Topolino issue index, not the story index. A log message was generated for us maintainers, but the xref was not present in the output data.
The maintainer corrected that yesterday morning, before cacou looking into this, being unaware of the fact that the raw input data did not reflect the processed database data any more. Having the xref added to just one of the substories is enough (just checked that by doing a local run of our database processing software after changing the raw input data back before the change of cacou).
In other words, no database issue as suggested by megamau; just a human error of not having addded the xref yet, followed by a lot of speculation here.
In the database, the term "newspaper strip" is a possible value for the *page layout* field. We have a separate field which indicates the origin/producer of a story (list here: inducks.org/comp.php?mode=6) among which are "Daily strips (US)" and "Sunday pages (US)", for the US, while "Denmark" refers to D-coded items including the items you mention.
Now, "newspaper strips" in a page layout field is a bit misleading. The reason we have that is that KFS newspaper strips were not all published in the same layout, but in a variety of format, depending on the newspaper. So there is not a single originally-intended layout. That's the only thing it means. If an item is published in a journal, as a strip, and only in that journal, it has a well-defined page layout so we don't use "newspaper strip" here.
cacou On this topic, I have a question/comment/suggestion on the COA website and the use the storycode and pagel information. It is long, pedantic and boring....you have been advised
I believe the original intent is for the storycode define what the item is (its 'kind') 0) Codes starting with Q are noncomic or nonDisney 1) Codes starting with Y or Z are strips (daily/sunday) (e.g. YM 48-04-30) 2) Codes without "C" are "Stories" i.e. items with a plot (e.g. I TL 3505-1) 3) Codes with "C" are everything else i.e. covers, illustrations, games (e.g. IC TL 3505)
A separate field is the "layout" of the item, namely [pagel] '3d' = 3 tiers of 4 panels '4d' = 4 tiers of 3 panels 'i' = illustration 'c' = cover 'f' = centerfold 't' = text 'a' = article 'g' = game or puzzle 's' = strange layout 'L' = landscape painting 'P' = portrait painting '=' = printed sideways (only possible in DBI files) '?' = uncertain
The layout field is useful. For example a cover can be used as an illustration
IC TL 3505 1c is the cover of Topolino 3505 (Link Cover) IC TL 3505 1i is an illustration at page 6 of the same issue. (Link page 6)
or a series of strips can be remounted as a story
YM 114 1d is the daily strips as appearing in the newspaper (Link newspaper) 1 tier of 4 panels YM 114 3b is the story as appearing in Tesori Disney (Link Tesori) 3 tiers and 2 panels per tier
However the layout does not define the item. So for example there can be "Stories" which are in "Illustration Layout". These are typically the earlier stories, with no balloons and the text below the images, or stories with only one panel
But the current implementation of COA website appears to confuse the two properties (kind and layout) For example in advance search the options in the "kind" dropdown are actually page layouts [pagel]
More important are the colourcodes of the "storycode" column, in each issue page. They separates the various items visually (and I believe are also used for the podium). They seems to be taken from the [pagel] with some additional condition for the "gags". The colourcodes are story (blue) , cover-illustration (orange), gag (pink), non-Disney and/or non-comic (brown)
However this method creates issues, for example in the UK annuals (Link to Annual).
The original intent was for all of them to be stories, as identified by all of them starting with U DDA and not with UC DDA Then some of them have an "illustration layout", while others have a "strange layout" and some a "1 tier 1 panel" layout
So I would suggest to leave the definition of what the item is (kind) to the storycode. It is the storycode that define if an item is a story or not. This should be the basis for the colourcoding and also for the calculation in the podium. The layout is already indicated in the column "Number of pages"
Does the above make sense ? Did I misunderstand something ? Could the COA website be tweaked in this direction ?
Does the above make sense ? Did I misunderstand something ? Could the COA website be tweaked in this direction ?
In the Inducks database model, an item is either an illustration/cover/centerfold/game/strip... or a story, with more information on how the story looks like; this information is encoded in the pagel field in the input data. In the output data, there is a kind field which is equal to the pagel field, except when the pagel field indicates that the item is a story; then it has the value 'n', with additional information present on the layout in columnsperpage/rowsperpage. The story code is never interpreted to obtain any information on what the item looks like, and the 'kind' dropdown item on the search page refers to the kind field in the database.
If an item is not supposed to be an illustration, then it should simply not be marked as illustration in the database (as it currently is), so the input data should be corrected. The index of U DDA 2AI simply contains an error that should (and can easily!) be corrected; I don't see any reasons to mask this error by changing the whole database structure...
In the Inducks database model, an item is either an illustration/cover/centerfold/game/strip... or a story, with more information on how the story looks like; this information is encoded in the pagel field in the input data. In the output data, there is a kind field which is equal to the pagel field, except when the pagel field indicates that the item is a story; then it has the value 'n', with additional information present on the layout in columnsperpage/rowsperpage. The story code is never interpreted to obtain any information on what the item looks like, and the 'kind' dropdown item on the search page refers to the kind field in the database.
If an item is not supposed to be an illustration, then it should simply not be marked as illustration in the database (as it currently is), so the input data should be corrected. The index of U DDA 2AI simply contains an error that should (and can easily!) be corrected; I don't see any reasons to mask this error by changing the whole database structure...
I've definitely no intention of changing the whole database structure . Just trying to understand how it works and how it interfaces with the website, so that I can help improving the data via Coazilla. Thanks for the explanation, and an additional clarifications below
...when the pagel field indicates that the item is a story...
But "how" does the [pagel] field indicate that the item is a story ? Is it only numeric values (number or tiers) and 's' ? Or does it include also 't', which according to Bolderbast is for a text story ?
If I understand the logic, the errors to be corrected in the data are much more than one, as for example most among the 146 items in Inducks search 1 and 43 items in Inducks link 2 would need to be changed from [pagel: i] to [pagel: 1a] or similar.
...when the pagel field indicates that the item is a story...
But "how" does the [pagel] field indicate that the item is a story ? Is it only numeric values (number or tiers) and 's' ? Or does it include also 't', which according to Bolderbast is for a text story ?
An item is a story when it is not something else, where 'something else' means having the "special layout" as defined on Bolderbast for the pagel field.
If I understand the logic, the errors to be corrected in the data are much more than one, as for example most among the 146 items in Inducks search 1 and 43 items in Inducks link 2 would need to be changed from [pagel: i] to [pagel: 1a] or similar.
Probably yes, but this is something for the maintainers of the respective productions to decide. It's not so clear after all: if we have speech-bubble-less comics of multiple pages that we call a story, then what about a drawing spanning a small part the page without speech bubbles; is that a story or an illustration?