Database updated

cirerita

Founding member
AK's biblio is pretty good and accurate, if you ask me, though I'm not really big on that kind of bibliographies as they are addressed to a very limited audience. Other Bukowski bibliographies, however, are riddled with errors and citing them without triple-checking their accuracy could be your worst nightmare in the long run... Believe me, I've been there.

Re. the term collected, I think PS is right. It's just the standard way to say something has been published in a book (aka major work, primary publication, you name it). It does not matter if a poem was "printed" in a cave with sticks and stones two thousand years ago; if the contents have been reprinted in a book, then you can say it has been "collected". That's the standard form.

But I do get mjp's point, too. For practical purposes, it is as if that poem in the cave was never "printed" in the first place becase no one saw it besides the artist and his mom... and an archeologist 1999 years later, who was the one who deciced to publish it (again!).

If you're not using standard forms, then I guess it would be a good idea, as PS suggested, to explain that in a little note so scholars (ahem) using the database can understand what's going on.

I mean, if you care about Bukowski scholars ;)
 

mjp

Founding member
What is the main target audience of the DB?
Me.

Primary publications is a good place to start I suppose. As far as books are concerned. If we're getting technical I guess I have to also re-do the "major" designation for the books. That was always just my take on major anyway. It could be reclassified as "primary."



I just wanted someplace to see which book a poem was in...
 

mjp

Founding member
I uploaded 80 new manuscripts (2 poems, an article, 4 postcards and 74 letters) but haven't added them to the database yet. Turns out the current manuscripts page reads from the old database, so there is some revamping to do. Again. Of course. Anyway, work on the manuscripts is underway.

After these letters there are 1,160 image files left in the manuscripts "to-do" directory here; those files make up 663 poems and two short stories.

So, yeah.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Good job, mjp! It's gonna be one hell of a database when it's finished...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mjp

Founding member
The manuscripts page is updated and all the new letters are there.

One new poem went up as well that is apparently uncollected, though it looks familiar.

The observant and discerning amongst you will notice that the manuscript titles no longer have book titles and pages associated with them (where applicable). That's because I'm using the data from the new database, and those details are in different tables now. I'll see if I can get that back in there eventually.

The new manuscripts page is also static - meaning it does not query the database anymore. There were about a million queries on that page and the manuscripts table hardly ever changes, so...why the hell was I querying the database every time someone pulled that page up? I dunno.

Bored yet?
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
the poem is from one of the audio recordings, but never collected (as you point out).

the letters are fantastic, and the rest of the database looks great.

so far, so good!
 

mjp

Founding member
the manuscript titles no longer have book titles and pages associated with them (where applicable).
Book and magazine appearances for the manuscripts are back. Instead of being listed on the main manuscript list page they are listed when you view a manuscript.

I kind of preferred the old way, but this is the best compromise I have. And the old way was inaccurate and could only list one appearance for each manuscript. This new method finds them all.
 

mjp

Founding member
35 new poem manuscripts added today. Mostly in the "undated" section. All of those "broken typewriter" ones we discussed in another thread, plus a few heavily edited manuscripts, for fans of those.

I thought I could get a lot more done today, but the undated ones are kind of time consuming to look up, etc. All the undated ones are finished now though, so future additions should go a little more quickly. There's no quick way to do this though, so patience is the key.

17 of them were new titles, meaning they are uncollected under the manuscript title.
 

mjp

Founding member
Added 25 new 1971 and 1972 manuscripts (15 new titles, 2 of those are alternate titles).

Then I got distracted and spent a couple hours adding some queries so I could flag the manuscripts that contain uncollected poems. They are now marked with a red dot.

Turns out that more than half of the manuscripts contain uncollected poems. Who woulda figured?
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
weird. I can't see the red dot with Chrome, but can with Safari.

but that's a very cool feature. thanks for the hard work.
 

Johannes

Founding member
This is great.

The new manuscripts and the red dots! I always wondered about which ones where published and which ones were not.

Thanks a lot!
 

mjp

Founding member
weird. I can't see the red dot with Chrome...
I tested in Chrome (7.0.517.44), Firefox and IE when I made the changes and they all showed everything okay. They show up for me right now in Chrome. They're just html, the dots. They aren't images or anything. So, I'm not sure what the problem might be there. We'll see if anyone else is missing the red dots. You can see the black ones, yeah?

And I'll check the code, but it's hard to troubleshoot since they show up for me.
 

reasonknot

Founding member
I get green no.s', red dots,black dots,and blue signatures.Are the red dots published and was blue his hand writting preference.I guess i can check the latter for myself.It's all right there.Fun stuff this out dated software,funstuff.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
I tested in Chrome (7.0.517.44)... You can see the black ones, yeah?...

that's the version I have, just checked. I can see the black dots. but if it's just me, I'll live. I'll just switch browsers. no worries.
 
Absolutely cool, thanks a lot for the hard work. Just touched the tip of the iceberg, but had a great read in the undated manuscripts already. No problems with dots here, the pink butterflies I see are my problem.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
this is what I see with Chrome:

chromebuk.png


odd that the red dot in the explanation is visible, but doesn't show up next to the uncollected poems.
 

mjp

Founding member
Oh, they're all black. Well that's a hint, anyway. Let me check the CSS and see if there's anything in those boxes that prevents the color markup from being displayed.

I have to say though, it's a bug in that version of the browser (I assume you are on a Mac?), because it works in a strictly standards-compliant browser like Opera.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
pc.

checked Opera, Safari, IE. the red dot shows up on all those.

but don't spend any time on this if it's just a bug in my browser (as it seems to be). I just thought it was strange. Chrome is the browser I generally use, but Opera is pretty similar, so I can switch.
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
I guessed you were on a mac too hooch.

I have Chrome 7.0.517.44, (not sure how up-to-date that version is) and I get red and black dots... Win 7 64x. Perhaps mjp just fixed it?



edit: - just noticed - chrome says its up to date...
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
works now!

I hit refresh and the red dots appeared. so either mjp did something, or I had to refresh the page. which would be typical for me....
 
Top