User talk:MagicUnk


Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, MagicUnk, 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! Stonecreek 00:17, 23 February 2018 (EST)

Luke Smitherd novel

Hello, and thanks for contributing. I have approved the novel but changed the capitalization so it meets our standards, and the publisher to fit to the already existing one. Take a look at the extended help pages referred to above. Thanks again, Stonecreek 00:20, 23 February 2018 (EST)

Your recent batch of submissions

Hello, I've approved your submission but had to make some changes to conform to our standards:

  • for In the Darkness, That's Where I'll Know You, I've deleted the number of pages (meaningless for an ebook), added cover artist (which I supposed to be a new" Mark Kelly) and regularized dates (the ebook was published earlier that the tp).
So the rule is: when ebook, no number of pages should be entered, yes? MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Exactly. Hauck 09:17, 24 February 2018 (EST)
  • for The Physics of the Dead (ebook) I've deleted the number of pages, note that the cover linked to is no the one shown on amazon, for the tp I've changed the publisher's name from Createspace to the author's. I've also merged the resulting titles. I've put the submission for the Smashword published title on hold, please provide me with a link so that I can check things.
Cover: this relates to my questions/observations over at the HelpDesk page: the assumption I made was that Amazon changed their ebook cover in sync with the printed edition. Now granted, this is not a certainty, so I see now that the more sensible rule could be to enter the data as is 'current' at the time of retrieval. Do note though that applying this rule will likely result in covers displayed that do not correspond to the actual cover at the time of first publication date.
If you can confirm this is what I should do, I'll update the cover accordingly (ie linking to the ebook cover as currently shown on Amazon UK)
In fact, I (personnally) am not fond of links to amazon covers as they are likely to change without notice. If you're "sure" of the cover of a specific printing/publication, it's better to use the cover uploading procedure. I'm also not fond of publications entered via secondary sources.
Publisher: CreateSpace vs. author name. The rule to have the author as publisher for work published through CreateSpace, as far as I can see, is not consistently applied in the database. Look for example at Children Of The Deterrent on Amazon and the ISFDB entry - where CreateSpace is entered as the publisher, and compare that with the same data for The Physics of the Dead on Amazon and on ISFDB where the author is entered instead.
Ah, consistency... It's the present rule to consider that CreateSpace is not a publisher but merely a printer (note that I completely agree with this rule), if you're trying to spot all of our inconsistancies, you'd better be prepared to live a looooooong life.
Smashwords publishing: see this link MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
I'll have a look, thanks.
The links from smashwords end in error, I suspect that this book/ISBN simply doesn't exist. For bibliographical purposes, amazon is not thta good but Smashword is (IMHO) to be avoided.Hauck 09:46, 24 February 2018 (EST)
  • same set of remarks for The Stone Man.
  • for Kill Someone (tp) I've also set the publisher to "Luke Smitherd" and added cover artist ("Luke Smitherd" again), deleted number of pages for the ebook and merged title and artwork. Please confirm that the book is indeed spec-fic and not non-fantastic horror.
I'm assuming as it is horror, it should be listed? According to the ISFDB front page The ISFDB is a community effort to catalog works of science fiction, fantasy, and horror.
We do not list work of non-supernatural horror (I don't know your english term for this, Slasher?), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is horror but not spec-fic.
Not spec-fic as per bc and comments, I've deleted the lot.
  • for A Head Full of Knives: They're Waiting for Your Answer, I've shortened the title as per title page, deleted number of pages, merged titles.
Isn't They're Waiting for Your Answer considered a subtitle? If so, then I assume it should be added after the colon as per the Help:Screen:NewPub Title entry. MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Not in this case as it's not on title page (as I saw it on amazon), it's more a blurb.
  • for How To Be A Vigilante, I can't find any spec-fic elements, please confirm that the book is indeed spec-fic and how, I've put the submissions on hold.
You're right. It's not 100% clear, unless Amazon cataloguing it as fantasy counts as sufficient confirmation? MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Well, amazon's classifications usually leave me cold ;-) (my answer would be no).
I've read some of the 192 reviews, as it's visibly not a spec-fic work. I've rejected your submissions.
OK. Makes sense. MagicUnk 12:02, 24 February 2018 (EST)
  • for Do Anything, deleted number of pages. It's nice to see a contribtor that has understand on his/her first try the whole CHAPBOOK business.
  • ditto for Hold On Until Your Fingers Break and merged the novella with the already existing record.
  • for He Waits, the link provided seems to imply that there is second story in the publication, thus making it a COLLECTION. Can you confirm?
I've checked, and yes, you're right that it's a collection of two stories. I've changed the entry accordingly (hope I've done it right) MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
I've approved your submission.
  • same for The Man On Table Ten.
No, that's just one single story. MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
My bad wording, I've just (IIRC) deleted the number of pages.

Please note that such large batches of submissions that need a lot of corrections and verifications and merges by a moderator (I've spent nearly an hour working on them) should be ideally split in smaller increments, this will simplify communication and allow you to better your submissions. Thanks for contributing. Hauck 06:35, 24 February 2018 (EST)

Apologies for that. Thought I did a good job - turns out I still have to get the hang of it... I will definately try to take your suggestions at heart next time. MagicUnk 08:59, 24 February 2018 (EST)
No problem, we (the moderators) are here to help. Be reassured, your batch was really not that bad (to the contrary), it was just a bit long to proceed.Hauck 09:42, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Please also take note of the remarks to your questions at the HelpDesk. Stonecreek 06:50, 24 February 2018 (EST)

Tales of the Unsual

Hello, I've approved your submission but changed title from Tales of the Unsual to Tales of the Unusual. I've also merged the new titles with those already present in the db. There is still one problem: He waits is given in your submission as a novella but as a novellette in this publication. Any thoughts on the matter? Hauck 11:51, 24 February 2018 (EST)

My bad, is a novelette. I've submitted correction. MagicUnk 11:58, 24 February 2018 (EST)

The Black Room

Hello, I've approved your submission but after reviewing all the data, I've chosen to use the same organization as we used for this other novel initially published in segments. I've adjusted some errors (you gave #3 the same title as #2) and fixed some dates. The result is here hope it suits you. Hauck 05:01, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Looks good! But of course, now the thing is that you've left me wondering what on earth you had to do to accomplish this? :-) MagicUnk 13:52, 26 February 2018 (EST)
Pure magic! In fact I've mostly worked on the records of the individual chapbooks after approving them, changing all the occurences of the titles (at title level and publication level). This done, I've varianted the texts to the NOVEL. That was not very complicated once I've chosen a course of action.Hauck 14:30, 26 February 2018 (EST)

All These Worlds submission

Hello, I have put this one on hold as there are remain some questions: 1) You stated that the data is from 'From physical copy', but there is no (primary) verification. 2) You stated 'Total number of pages': what do you mean by that? 3) You gave the cover artist as Jeff Brown, Note that we have two Jeff Browns, one an author, the other one an artist. You likely meant the second one? Stonecreek 00:16, 28 February 2018 (EST)

I approved the submission and made some changes along the notes you made below: please check. Stonecreek 04:45, 28 February 2018 (EST)

We Are Legion (We Are Bob)

Hello, I've approved your submission for this book but had to make some changes to conform to our standards:

  • instead of stating "From physical copy:", just become the Promary Verifier of the publication, it will just indicate that the data comes from a physical copy, to do this use the "Verify This Pub" link of the left (see Christian's messsage above), this also mean that you can delete the " Data from as of 2017-06-09." bit.
  • changed artist from "Jeff Brown" to "Jeff Brown (artist)".
  • changed publisher to "Worldbuilders Press" as per copyright page as seen on amazon.
  • this is up to you as I believe that the data put in the "Note" is personal but, IMHO, "Novel starts at page 5," is a bit redundant with the page number "5" that you entered for the start of the novel, also I don't see the added value of "Ethan Ellenberg acknowledged as author's agent." the more as such such data being not publication-specific (it may go at author level) and is not a bibliographical fact. Finally, as Christian, I also don't understand what "Total number of pages" without any qualifier means.
  • your html wasn't correct, with a string of "li" tags there also must be a pair of "ul" ones.

Thanks for contributing. Hauck 03:07, 28 February 2018 (EST)

I've got nearly the same set of remarks for For We Are Many. Hauck 03:09, 28 February 2018 (EST)
I've followed your and Stonecreek's recommendations and verified the books, as well as removed the non-bibliographical/redundant information. My intent with this info was to clarify the relationship between Ethan Ellenberg Literary Agency, which was the publisher mentioned in the original entry, and the Worldbuilders Press as per the copyright page in my copy of books 2 and 3 (not mentioned in book 1, strangely enough).
For book 1 you're correct that Worldbuilder -is- mentioned in the electronic excerpt, so we can go with that (I've added a note to mention that fact).
This seems to be for the tp. Hauck 04:53, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Well, I'll double-check my own copy, but I'm fairly sure that while it is mentioned on the electronic version on Amazon, it's not in my actual copy.
As for the total number of pages, it is actually the last printed page number. So I've removed that text as well. MagicUnk 04:24, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Oh, and I will scan and upload actual covers to replace the Amazon ones :-) MagicUnk 05:00, 28 February 2018 (EST)

MI, Bob

Hello, I've approved your submission. I've made the following changes:

  • as you correctly surmised, we're not allowed to deeplink to the specified website so the cover scan will have to be hosted by us. I've done this for you (it's done by using "Upload cover scan" and following the procedure outlined above)
  • you used a wiki-type syntax (with brackets) that does not work, I've changed it to a HTML one (with tags).

The result is here, all is left to you is to variant the hungarian title to the original one. Do you need assistance? Hauck 07:41, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Thank you Hauck. I'll give it a try first. Have a Chzech translation as well in the works. MagicUnk 07:43, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Ich Bin Viele

Hello, I've rejected your submission as our present policy is not to accept publications situated more that 3 months in the future (and this limit is only valid for "sure" publications). There are too much things that can change in the meantime that the risk to create phantoms is too high.Hauck 11:46, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Cover Uploads

Hello, I've had to delete the cover that you uploaded as they lack the requisite licences (don't ask me what it is, it's all legalese for me). To upload a cover for a given publication, just follow these instructions:
From a publication record display, click the link labeled "Upload cover scan" (or "Upload new cover scan" if the Image URL field is not empty). This will open an ISFDB wiki upload form in another browser window or tab, which is pre-filled with a license template with data from the publication record. It will also set the file name to the publication tag and create a link back to the publication record. If the image was copied from a source other than your personal scan of the publication's cover, you will need to edit the "Source=" section of the pre-filled template. This method allows you to skip all Direct Upload steps and go to Step 6: Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) Go back to the publication record, click the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu, and enter the URL you just copied into the "Image URL" field. Then submit for moderator approval.
Thanks. Hauck 02:38, 1 March 2018 (EST)

I've fixed it. MagicUnk 10:27, 3 March 2018 (EST)


Interviews should be entered via the Interviews section of the pub edit form. This will create an interview record that is associated with the author. I have updated Bloom to convert your essay to an interview. By the way, it is actually credited as by "Anonymous" in the publication? If not, it should be entered as "uncredited". Anonymous should only be used if that is what is actually used in the pub. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Apologies. Noticed that I made a mistake. Will correct and change to uncredited. MagicUnk 16:34, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Editions and printings

Hello MagicUnk,

I accepted your update to God's War but did a few small changes:

  • As you indicated that the printer key is "3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2", that means second printing. In this case, the entry should have a date of 0000-00-00 except if you have a source for that printing's date. ISFDB keeps each printing in a separate record. I fixed the date and the note about the date. Feel free to edit the note again if you want to add more details there.
  • I created a new record for the first printing (which now keeps the original date and the Locus reference). :)

Thanks! Annie 18:46, 15 March 2018 (EDT)


Hello, I've approved your submissions for the Cobely books. Note that we usually do not list all the paratext that goes with some books. IMHO it tends to really clutter author's pages, but it's your call. Note that, if you choose this way, such texts as What Has Gone Before should be disambiguated as there are at least one per book in the series. I've done this for you for your recent additions. Hauck 04:53, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Thank you Hauck. I understand that it is a judgement call, but I thought it relevant as the subtexts relate to the novel proper. Regards MagicUnk 05:05, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Woken Furies, Broken Angels, & Altered Carbon

I am holding publication edits for these three pubs. In each case, your proposed pub notes state that it's a latter printing (fourth, sixth, & sixth respectively), but you seem to be be editing the first printings of these editions. It appears like the printing statements should be removed form these edits and new versions cloned for your printings. Or am I missing something? If not, I will accept and make the necessary changes. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Yes, you are correct. I started editing the existing pub record, as it was not very accurate, and only afterwards realized I should have cloned it instead. Since I already did most of the update on the existing record, I decided it would be easier if I would clone my entry to create a first printing pub record after you had approved my modifications. So, if you can approve my edits, I will take care of the creation of the 'first printing' version. Regards, MagicUnk 03:55, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
I approved, cloned, and made the necessary changes. There are now two versions (original & your printing) of each of these ISBNs. Please double check. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Thank you. I've reviewed, and added cover scans or reference where appropriate MagicUnk 12:42, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Carbono Alterado

Hello, I've had to reject your merge. When there are different translators, we do not consider that this is the same work and do not merge them. That's why you can find multiple similarly-titled translations in the same language that only differ by the translator like Le test. Hauck 04:02, 27 March 2018 (EDT)

Binti: Home

I have your clone of Binti: Home on hold. I'm not seeing anything that is different than the current version. Why do you believe this is not the same printing? -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (EDT)

Well, based on the fact that there's no mention of printer's key (and mention of POD) in the notes of the original pub record, and my copy says 'P1' at the bottom of the copyright page... I admit I could be wrong though MagicUnk 04:12, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
I've asked one of the verifiers of the current version to weigh in. I'd like to ensure their version doesn't have the P1 & it just wasn't added to the notes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Mine is a POD [last page has a barcode and a very long sequence of letter numbers ending in ...B/331/P with a date code above ending in 290118 which translates as 29th of Jan 2018 - typical POD data]. I didn't view the 'P1' as a number line [you shouldn't call it a 'printer's key', just confuses things]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:16, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
I can check my copy when I get home, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:33, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
My copy neither has "P1" on the copyright page nor a long sequence of letter numbers on the last page. There's only "Printed in the U.S.A." on the back. I bought it in a book shop in Berlin (Germany) last year, and they had it in stock, so maybe all this is a hint that at least my copy is not POD and that probably does a mixture of POD and "traditional print". See the information about's print and publishing strategy which I just added to its publisher record, taken from their website. I guess we should record in the note of the current record that copies are maybe POD and, as long as we can't clearly distinguish the different prints, also add all information (like the "P1" and the long sequence of letter numbers on the last page) to the note. Jens Hitspacebar 07:17, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
I checked my copy again, and last page showed following sequences: LVOW 12s0012301117, and 557892LV00008B/339/P. I agree with Jens to clarify in the notes. MagicUnk 07:56, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
I have rejected your addition since it is the POD edition. Please feel free to clarify the notes of the current version. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

Binti: The Night Masquerade price

Hi, you have entered a price of CAN $19.99 for Binti: The Night Masquerade in the note. Is that really stated on the back of your copy? I ask because my copy has a price of CAN $19.50. Jens Hitspacebar 06:08, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Apart from this, I changed the format from novella/chapbook to novel. See the word count information I entered on its title page. Jens Hitspacebar 06:56, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
Yes, you're right. My copy too says CAN $19.50. My bad. I submitted the correction. MagicUnk 07:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Ok, thanks. Do you also have print on demand information stated on the last inner page? This is the only one of my Binti copies which has POD infos. It says "Printed by BoD in Norderstedt, Germany" on top and has a QR code on the lower left corner. If you're not in or near Germany you'll likely have another country stated there. Or is there nothing? Jens Hitspacebar 08:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
No, there's nothing. I bought my copy from Amazon UK. MagicUnk 03:38, 2 April 2018 (EDT)



Despite of how FantLab presents the cover artist for this one, he is the designer, not the artist so I removed it from the record. That's valid for the whole series. I also fixed the series name to what is actually on the books. I also added some more details from Bulgarian sources. The result is here. Thanks for adding it! Annie 14:07, 13 April 2018 (EDT)

Thank you Annie. This is actually not my cup of tea, but I started adding all translations of Altered Carbon, so I thought I'd see it through. Almost there... MagicUnk 14:09, 13 April 2018 (EDT)
I do not see too many people adding Bulgarian books (and I need to get around to it and add a lot more). I just fixed the format as well - this one never got out as a hardcover - not sure why FantLab says hc and this ISBN is definitely the tp one - Bard tended to do a double run on the same day - with the same text body and just using two separate covers and 2 ISBNs but they dropped the hardcovers for awhile when the printing runs were lowered - this one has a printing run of just 1,000 for example. I'll need to check if there is a second printing these days - considering the TV series... :) Annie 14:17, 13 April 2018 (EDT)

Cover designer vs cover artist

Hi, I have your submisssion about Mischa Joseph on hold. I can hopefully make myself clear to you: take e.g. your last message to me about The Greyfriar. On the back cover it is stated
Cover Illustration © Chris McGrath
Cover Design by Grace M. Conti-Zilsberger
Furthermore, Mischa Joseph has no artist page anywhere on the net. I would like to see the (original) artwork clearly credited to an artist, not to the (possible) cover designer.--Dirk P Broer 16:59, 13 April 2018 (EDT)

Hello Dirk, Yes I understand. However, have a look at the other pubs where Mischa Joseph -is- credited as cover artist, and compare style. You'll notice it is the same artist we're talking about. I leave it to you to reject or not, since it's true there's nothing to find around the 'net... Regards MagicUnk 17:04, 13 April 2018 (EDT)
I'd like to be shown the exact wording in which Mischa Joseph is credited. There is a big chance that it is in the vein of Omslagontwerp Mischa Joseph, which throws us back to square one: 'Omslagontwerp' is cover design.--Dirk P Broer 05:14, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
My copy of De Schepper van het Universum has "Omslagillustratie: Mischa Joseph" on the back cover.
My copy of De Poorten van de Hel has no artist credit. Pub record says "Credit from from the PJF International Bibliography". The PJF site says "Cover art not credited [= Mischa Joseph]"
I don't have De Heren van de Kosmos. The PJF International Bibliography website says "Cover art Mischa Joseph". We could ask Willem or Wjvanruth to re-check their copy, but pub record says cover artist not credited, so doubt there will be one..
My copy of Op Zoek naar Zei says "Omslagontwerp: Mischa Joseph" on the copyright page.
I don't have De Hand van Zei. We could ask Willem to re-check his copy, but pub record says cover artist not credited, so doubt there will be one. MagicUnk 09:10, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
May I interrupt: There are many German publications that face the same problem in that they only give a credit for the cover design, while the art is recognizable as created by the stated person. Stonecreek 08:04, 15 April 2018 (EDT)
I would not have so much problems with Mischa Joseph as the artist, if I could find an artist by that name -which I can't. Dutch publishers are noteworthy sloppy in their artist credits.--Dirk P Broer 10:31, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
As a prime example of their sloppiness: Your copy of De Druïde van Shannara is credited to Steven Stone, while the exact same cover art is also credited to Keith Parkinson here.--Dirk P Broer 06:56, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
Aaaaaaarghlp ... Any suggestion how this mess is best sorted out? Adding further clarification in the notes of the affected publications perhaps? Or is there a better way? MagicUnk 11:39, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
That is a good idea, further clarification in the notes.--Dirk P Broer 06:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Het Wenslied van Shannara

Hi, I have put your submission for the third printing on hold: are there really statements as "Second print 2003" (in English!) to be found in the book? Stonecreek 08:07, 15 April 2018 (EDT)

Eh, no you're right. It's actually in Dutch. Any recommendation on how I should enter this kind of printing history statements in English instead? MagicUnk 08:09, 15 April 2018 (EDT)
The one I would use would be analogous to this example ( Stated 8th printing ("8. Auflage Februar 2002") ), or something similar. You also could use a more free text like 'Third printing by stating the different publications'. Stonecreek 11:15, 15 April 2018 (EDT)
I updated accordingly. Have a look. Thanks! MagicUnk 14:13, 15 April 2018 (EDT)
Good! I just put the end 'on copyright page' at the beginning of the sentence: this way it may be easier to understand. Stonecreek 12:32, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

De Razernij van een Demonenkoning

Can you please discuss the changes in this update with the PV? You may have a different printing that makes the book slightly different from what this record is about (thus asking for a clone and not an update) or it may need corrections but when you are doing such extensive data changes to PV'd publications, a discussion with the PV is very important). Thanks! Annie 18:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Hi Annie, I'm fairly sure it's the same book, but I've asked the original PV for confirmation-see his talk page. MagicUnk 02:51, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Alice in Wonderland


A couple of small changes in this one:

  • When the price is in pence alone, we regularize as per the guide. So 65p should be entered as £0.65.
  • Prefatory Note is one of those Generic titles that needs disambiguation like Introductions and Forewords and so on.

I've done both changes - let me know if you see something weird. Annie 15:46, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Ah, yes. Thank you Annie for catching these. MagicUnk 16:04, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Your 'Frankenstein' submission

Hi! Regarding this submitted publication: on the title page is the title Frankenstein or is it Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus (these are different titles)? I've put the sub. on hold while waiting for an answer. Stonecreek 16:49, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

It's Frankenstein. I'll upload my cover scan once you have approved :-) MagicUnk 16:55, 26 April 2018 (EDT)


Be very careful when using amazon data. I reverted the date, as this source was found to be unreliable, especially when it comes to publications more than a few years (say five or ten) back. The different cover is jus another example for that. Stonecreek 16:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

OK. I'll keep the date as-is when it's already there going forward. MagicUnk 16:56, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Prins van de Waan

Is Annemarie Kindt (noted in your newly added the same person as Annemarie van Ewyck? Do you have any idea? Because we already have van Ewyck's translation and I am not sure if we need a new variant here or a merge :) Also - translators apply on the title level so when adding translated books, please don't forget to add a title note about the translator when you know it (not just a publication note). Annie 18:13, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

PS: I added the translator to the title on this one. Annie 18:14, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
Apologies. My mistake. Should be Annemarie van Ewyck. Submitted the corrections already. Good catch, thanks! (I really should hit my bed, it's becoming late...) MagicUnk 18:20, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
No worries at all - I merged the two titles after that so we are all set :) I was wondering if she did not get married and changed names between the two editions - but apparently it was just a typo. Oh well... :) Annie 18:22, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
Actually, looking at the first print record (Meester van de Waan) (as stated in my copy of the book), the PV (Willem) mentions Annemarie Kindt as translator (not Ewyck). Digging a little deeper, I find this statement on Wikipedia (dutch): Ze was van 1970 tot 1982 gehuwd met Leo Kindt, which translates to: She was married from 1970 to 1982 with Leo Kindt. First edition 1982 = Kindt, second edition 1987 = Ewyck. Same person... MagicUnk 18:34, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
Interesting... I'd add that to the title note as soon as I am done with the thing I am editing now. Annie 18:44, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
Just submitted addition myself for Meesters, will do that for Prins in a second MagicUnk 18:46, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
All approved. Thanks for finding this out :) Annie 18:51, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Aardzee Omnibus

As there already is a corresponding Dutch OMNIBUS, there was some tweking to do. Stonecreek 14:25, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

Hmm, can't we group these omnibus series in a (or even two) subseries, in analogy with the Amber series? There's two subseries for two different omnibus series there. See Amber-Romans (Dutch) and Amber Omnibus (Dutch), which are both subseries of Amber. Granted, for Aardzee here the situation is not exactly the same, as there's two editions of (likely) the same omnibuses but with variant title. Variant title of variant title is not possible I believe, so that's out. In any case, the Dutch omnibuses are a 2-book subseries of the Earthsea Cycle, so to me it'd be logical to group them like that as well, no? MagicUnk 14:42, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
It seems the (Dutch) Amber series was installed in error, as there are original titles for those, and they should have made into variants in the first place. Stonecreek 01:59, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
I see what you've done, and removing the Dutch subseries is correct -I think...(leaves me wondering if there's a way to somehow group these omnibuses without violating definitions of 'series' and ' 'subseries'), but what I don't yet get is that you would variant a 2-novel omnibus with a 4-novel omnibus (when considering 'same content, different title' is the definion of 'variant'). Wouldn't it, in this case, not be better/more logical to not variant, but just add the title to the Amber series directly (same for the non-English omnibuses that do not have an English counterpart-these can be considered original titles imo)? For example, unvariant this 2-novel omnibus title, and then variant the dutch 2-novel omnibus to that one. MagicUnk 10:47, 29 April 2018 (EDT)


Hi, you state "See cover scan for title details, and in analogy with the amber-romans (dutch) series" Know that the title page is leading, not the cover.--Dirk P Broer 19:30, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

That's correct, it -does- say Aardzee on the title page. I'll try to be more accurate in my notes going forward. MagicUnk 10:29, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Title Italics

We do not apply formatting to titles. It breaks searching. You may add notes regarding the font if you wish. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Understood. Thank you! --MagicUnk 06:07, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

Torchship Trilogy

When there is an omnibus with 3 novels from the same author, the omnibus always get credited to the author of the novels. There is no editor involved in such cases (not in the way you have one for anthologies) so crediting to uncredited when you cannot even see the title page makes no sense at all. I've corrected this publication. I also had to fix a typo in one of the novels names and merge the newly created titles to the ones we already had. In cases like this, adding an empty omnibus and then going back and importing the content saves a lot of time :) Annie 16:55, 30 April 2018 (EDT)


When submitting a pseudonym, please do not forget to also submit the variants (so that the title in the now pseudonym can show up on the main page). In such cases, you need to use the "Option 2" in the Make Variant page and just replace the pseudonym with the canonical name and press submit. I've done the variants for Annemarie Kindt. :)Annie 18:58, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

Thank you Annie, but not sure I follow. I could only enter one parent author record to make Annemarie Kindt a pseudonym. MagicUnk 02:59, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
This connects the authors but is only the beginning of the process. You also need to tell all the titles that are under the pseudonym to show up on the new page. In order to do that, you have to create a variant for each of them. In this case, Kindt has 2 titles so in addition to the pseudonym creation, there were two variants to be done. Annie 03:36, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
Ouch, that's confusing... So whenever I enter a new title with a pseudonym as author, I always also have to create an additional title with canonical author name and variant the former to the latter? MagicUnk 06:55, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
The varianting has a second option allowing to create the title during the varianting. So you do not need to create the new title under the canonical first. But yes - each title credited to a pseudonym needs a title credited to the canonical name as a parent. Annie 11:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Essay vs short fiction

Hi, could you please read the wiki about entering Forewords, introductions, prefaces, afterwords and endnotes? They should all be entered as essay. I just changed quite a lot of them in your Michael Cobley books.--Dirk P Broer 21:44, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

K. Tholen

I have the suspicion that K. Tholen, cover artist for De Totale Robot is a typo -either by you or by the publisher. I think it is in fact Karel Thole, but could you please check, especially for the 'n' at the end? If it turns out to be K. Thole it can be made a pseudonym.--Dirk P Broer 04:41, 11 May 2018 (EDT)

Hi Dirk. Good catch. Checked again and says on copyright page - literally - 'K. Tholen'. I agree it's most likely Karel Thole that's referenced. Not sure what the best way is to capture this; added note to pub record. MagicUnk 08:39, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
As the ISFDB tries to catch the data 'as it's in the book', shouldn't we enter the erroneously printed name and make a pseudonym of it? MagicUnk 22:19, 11 May 2018 (EDT)

Date changes

When you change the date of the title in the publication (as you did here), there is no need to follow it up with a title change as well (as in here). You need to individually change the title only if you cannot do it via the pub update (if there are multiple publications for the title) :) Annie 17:28, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

Series in books that will need to be varianted

As titles get their series from their parents, adding a series to a book that will need to be varianted is a bit counterproductive (because then it usually needs to be removed from the variant - which is one more edit) :) Annie 18:42, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

Thank you Annie. Wasn't aware series info shouldn't go into to-be-varianted pubs. Will take care going forward MagicUnk 18:44, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
No worries - it is not obvious if you do not dig down into a variant - if you just look at it, it looks as if it is assigned there as well :) But it is always only on the parent title - no matter how many children it ends up having. Annie 18:47, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

The word OCLC

Removing the word OCLC is not needed and quite honestly is impossible - between the template and the need to use it for various other reasons, it is a valid word. We are moving the links, not the word. Please do not rewrite the notes just to fit whatever search you are doing :) Thanks! Annie 15:08, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

Well, it depends. WorldCat is the preferred word to refer to the world catalog, not OCLC (OCLC is the organization behind the catalog, not the catalog itself). So can't see any harm in replacing the word OCLC with WorldCat where referring to the catalog is inferred/intended. On top of that, if you search on 'notes contain OCLC', it is quite handy the pub doesn't turn up over and over again anymore once you've moved the OCLC number to its own field :) MagicUnk 15:19, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
I am not arguing how something needs to be called. But if someone prefers to use OCLC, there is no reason to force them to use WorldCat instead. And as I mentioned, there is no way to remove all the OCLC words (we even have a linking {{OCLC|ID}} template for the cases when you want to cite an OCLC but it does not belong to the publication.
It may be handy for your searches but someone else may decide that they do not want to see the word WorldCat instead and just use OCLC - what do we do then? Let you and them duke it out and end up in a never ending edit war? Move the links, leave the word OCLC alone :) Adjust your search if need be (I personally look for the link when I do a search, not for the word). OCLC is a valid term. :) Annie 15:26, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
By the way - if you want to help with the OCLC links migrations, we have the handy report that you can work based on. It catches all that is linked and gets regenerated with a 500 titles each evening). If you would rather search and work based on that, up to you but just thought I may point that out :)
And one more note - when moving IDs around, putting a note "moving OCLC" in the moderator note is very useful (plus describing any other changes you may had done) - not for the handling moderator (they can see before and after) but for the people that had PV'd a publication - they can see that note and not wonder what else you had changed (as they cannot see the "before" state once a change is approved). Annie 15:36, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
Hi Annie, can see your point that choice of words is largely a matter of preference. Notwithstanding, in this case it is clear that WorldCat is not OCLC, thus should not be used interchangeably. Granted, OCLC is used primarily not to refer to the organization, but rather to the catalog record ID instead. So, if editors are using the word OCLC to refer to the catalog instead of to the organization or the catalog record ID, I consider that sloppy language. And I think it is fair to expect isfdb editors are as precise as they can be in their choice of words...
PS. Searching for the link will not render all pub records with OCLC references in the notes as some notes do not contain the link. I also noticed that the 500 at-a-time didn't (doesn't?) list Japanese, Chinese etc. pubs - hence me starting to use advanced search instead.
PPS. Don't take my viewpoint on this that I'll start an editing war anytime soon - if there's an editor who insists on his/her preferences, I'm fine with that, too :)
PPPS. I confess, I'm lazy. I'm not always adding a moderator note, assuming that even without one it'd be obvious... I'll try to better myself :) MagicUnk 15:57, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
It is an acceptable word when you are discussing OCLC/WorldCat numbers. Slice it any way you want, it won't be banned.
The non-English publications will show up in the 500 at a time down the road - they are going into the list in roughly publication ID order (with some quirks because of the joined note ID) and the non-English titles are added much later so we just had not gotten to them yet :) As long as there is a link, it will get into the report sooner or later (we have ~48K OCLC links still standing as of a few weeks ago (we started with 75K) - there is a long road to go).
As for the ones that are not links - yes, they won't show up but we cannot do much about it. We cannot ban a word just so that we can look for them. :) As I said - do your searches but don't just edit to remove the word OCLC.
We may get a separate report downstream that has a "ignore" feature (so we can just mark the ones that are ok) to allow the remaining non-linked to be found. At this point, the linked ones are the ones we are trying to move so we eliminate direct links. One step at a time. Annie 16:07, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
By the way, why are we doing this manually? I know a thing of two about relational databases, and a select-parse-insert query should do the trick for the majority of entries MagicUnk 16:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
Because there is text around those links (on the same line or on the lines around it) and if we just pull them, a lot of the notes won't make any sense or the format will be broken or there will be weirdly looking sentences. Plus some of the OCLCs that are linked have a "this is for a different edition" note (so they need to be templated and not pulled). There is no way to find out which ones are safe and which are not - so manual it is. Which is why we are trying to use templates for most things now - easier to pull and move when needed. Annie 17:46, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) One thing to consider is that WorldCat calls these numbers "OCLC Numbers", e.g. "OCLC Number: 604321" in this record. Help:Using Worldcat data was out of date, so I went ahead and updated it with information about Notes templates and such.

Re: automation, last year I was able to convert many Amazon links to External IDs, but, as Annie indicated earlier, OCLC links can be tricky. After multiple attempts to cover various permutations I gave up and created manual cleanup reports :-( Ahasuerus 10:44, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

Hello Ahasuerus. Yes, that's correct; OCLC is used to denote the number itself, too. If that's how they're used in the text, of course we shouldn't touch it. After giving this some more consideration, I can see that you could get a query to work to copy the OCLC number to its own field, but that it would, indeed, be virtually impossible to cleanup the notes correspondingly without risking a complete mess... MagicUnk 10:59, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
Even just copying is not trivial - between numbers that should not be moved (hardcover OCLC in the tp record for example) and some very creative editors, even parsing them is... challenging. And at the end we will still have the links to clear manually - so we may as well not even try. Migration non-structured data to structured one is always painful - and when the non-structured had been created in the span of more than a decade by various hands, it gets even funnier. On the other hand, working through these can be fun (even if they make my "I want to read this" pile grow exponentially. And it also allows some more general cleanup of the records and spotting other things that need some mopping :) Don't get me wrong - I would have loved to be able to move them and be done but... lemons and lemonade :) Annie 12:37, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) In the cases where not all OCLCs need to be moved (see how much fun it is?), we have a template way to remove the links. See what I did here. The one that is moved can either stay as text (as I just did - removing it completely will make the format unreadable) or you can also template it if you prefer (I would template it if more than one was moved and there were a lot of them down in the list; in this case). Annie 13:26, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

And I thought we agreed that you are not going to edit records just to remove the word OCLC? :) Annie 13:37, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
IIRC, the recent batch I did were not 'just' for removing the word. Instead, always taking care conserving the meaning of the notes when also moving the OCLC number to its dedicated field. I did remove some of the duplicate meanings, such as, for example, 'OCLC/Worldcat record' made into 'Worldcat record' for short. Granted, it's a judgement call, but its cleaner that way. Also, saw what you did with the templating. Will use that going forward. MagicUnk 14:37, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
Scrap that. Actually, I did :( ... MagicUnk 14:39, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
No worries. And some of those may get approved - which won't be the end of the world but I do not like forcing standardization in the free text notes. If people like "OCLC/Worldcat record", they can use it - I am actually quite fond of that spelling but I am not going to go and change everyone's records. :) The fact that you find it to be a duplicate is fine but some people prefer it. I've approved all of the ones that were changing something or fixing typos and so on but let's not go and ban a word for the sake of banning it? :) I had to laugh on one of them actually - you were changing one of my notes just so you can replace OCLC with WorldCat.
I understand that you would like everything to be uniform but it will never be - and leaving the notes in their current form usually helps find out who wrote it initially - we have a few editors with very specific style. For non-verified publications, sometimes these editors have more details - and you can ask them sometimes. The Notes is a free field by design - which is a pain when we are moving data but it still is. And that's why we keep pulling data out in their own fields - so it is indexable, searchable and so on. So let's leave the poor OCLC word alone?  :)
PS: I saw that you are also getting the translators sorted. Don't forget that if you are working on a collection/anthology/omnibus, each of the contents record should also have the Tr added to them. And thanks for working on those by the way  :) Annie 14:49, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
I missed the contents record bit. Thanks for pointing that out. Will keep it in mind for when I get to my next batch :) MagicUnk 15:00, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

10 000 Meter unter der Erde

In cases like this one, the OCLC and DNB do not belong to the book itself - so making them a template is all that should really be done. I removed them from the external IDs. Annie 16:07, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

OK. I'll refrain from editing right now, as it looks like we're on the same batch of records :) MagicUnk 16:08, 17 May 2018 (EDT)
Nah, please go on - I will get out of your way - I have another thing I am working on anyway (and there I am in the Cs and later letters) - I was taking a break from it for a bit and did not realize you are around. Annie 16:11, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

IDs that do not belong to the publications

When an external ID does not belong to the publication but instead is for a series, a previous/later edition, different edition (entry for the print edition while the pub is for the ebook for example) or something else (and is just needed in the record as source of data or to connect the dots somewhere), it is better to template them instead of move them into the external IDs - these are not IDs for that publication after all. That's what we have the templates for. :) Annie 16:38, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Thanks Annie, not sure which pub you mean, but I normally take that into account. MagicUnk 16:40, 21 May 2018 (EDT) OK. Noticed the cancelled record MagicUnk 16:44, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
 :) You are usually good about those but when you get on a roll, it is easy to mess them up - and in this case the notes needed rewriting as well so you made a conscious decision to move them (for some value of conscious anyway). Thus me pinging you:) Annie 17:00, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Sorting titles

When the title is on a regular page inside of a publication (8, 11), the software will use that for sorting - so there is no need to add additional sorting (such as 8|1 and 11|2). You want that sorting order only if you have non-numerical pages (i, v, bp and so on) or if you need to sort the content on a single page (11|11.1 and 11|11.2 to order the two poems that live on the same page for example) or when you are adding e-books (then we usually just add a | in front of the page number from the print edition as opposed to adding |1, |2 and so on (when we know them anyway).  :) Annie 18:33, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Tempel der Winden

Are You shure that this pub shows the right cover? It has a different title. --Zapp 07:43, 4 June 2018 (EDT)

Oh, sorry! I didn't see the small subtitle at the bottom before. --Zapp 12:13, 4 June 2018 (EDT)
No problem :-) MagicUnk 15:51, 6 June 2018 (EDT)

Converting notes

When you find a note like the one in Children of the Storm that does not use the ul/li syntax, please do not convert it to it -- just move the OCLC, clean the br (except for the leading one - it is needed to keep the structure as is) if you want but leave the note as is. We do not enforce the style of the notes and most PVs have preferred styles (and changing them for the sake of changing is unneeded). Thanks for the understanding. PS: This is in reference to this submission. I rejected it and moved the OCLC instead, cleaning the brs. :) Annie 16:36, 7 June 2018 (EDT)

OK Annie. Actually, from a comment received from Hauck I was under the impression that bulleting are required be done by <ul><li></ul> tagging. Looks like I am mistaken. Will take care not to edit for style going forward. MagicUnk 14:40, 8 June 2018 (EDT)
I have no idea of the context of that conversation but he is one of the people that really don't like people converting notes for the sake of doing it. Plus there is a difference between "add my own notes" and "move some data around in someone else's notes on a book I do not have". The funny part is that pretty much everyone does that at one point or another - I thought it was nice to do it as well (I was new...:) ), then was gently asked to stop -- and I kinda agree with this position these days - the formatting is very often a clue towards who created the notes. Thanks for the understanding and for working on these! Annie 14:45, 8 June 2018 (EDT)

German Magazines and OCLC/DNB

Please be careful with German magazines - they may have 2 sets of OCLC/DNB records - ones for the issue itself (which need moving) and one for the magazine entries in the two libraries (collecting years of magazines in single IDs - which get templated). This is a great example of the later type of IDs. Not only the IDs do not belong to the publication itself (click on them to verify - the OCLC One is for issues "Nr. 270-308", the DNB one is for "270 - 308" as well) but you are leaving the note in a bad shape (that last line does not make sense without the two templated IDs under it). Thanks! Annie 17:08, 13 June 2018 (EDT)

Ah, ooops. I see it now. Apologies - again... :-( (I start to feel depressed, there are so many different cases. Can't seem to get the hang of it...) MagicUnk 03:53, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
You are doing fine and all the help is appreciated. I know about these because I’ve handled a few hundred of them and recognize the pattern instantly. :)
I’d again mention that working off the report reduces the number of special cases. And we will have a second report when the first is done that deals with the non-linked ones. :) or if you prefer the search, exclude the templates. :) Annie 04:03, 15 June 2018 (EDT)

Kronieken van de Academie voor Schaduwjagers

What is the source for the cover artist credit on Kronieken van de Academie voor Schaduwjagers? The image you uploaded matches the English edition which credits the cover to Cliff Nielsen. Cassandra Jean is only credited with the interior art in the English version. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2018 (EDT)

Ah, that's my mistake. I checked the WorldCat record, and from there inferred Cassandra Jean was the cover artist. Good catch, thanks! MagicUnk 09:25, 17 June 2018 (EDT)

De kraaienfluisteraar


You missed to paste the URL in the notes here. :) Annie 15:49, 19 June 2018 (EDT)

Ooooops. Added :) MagicUnk 15:52, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
While you are around, I had to reject this one - the policy is not to add anything that is more than 90 days in the future (too many changes are possible and lead to all kind of orphaned records) unless you need it to link a review. Sorry. Annie 16:00, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
Hi Annie, can you check again? The pub you link to is from 2017... :) MagicUnk 16:03, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
Ooops, I misread the date (not sure how that happened). I will reenter it. Sorry for the confusion. Annie 16:05, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
PS: When changing publication dates, don't forget to adjust the title ones as well - especially when you are changing the first publication :) Annie 16:05, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
Ah, yes. I will have another pass at the titles after this round to make sure. Thanks for reminding me. MagicUnk 16:06, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
I fixed a few that I noticed but may have missed a couple (apparently I cannot even read a date today). Meanwhile, restored book. Sorry about that :) Annie 16:10, 19 June 2018 (EDT)

Cover art when cloning

I noticed that before so figured I will come and ask - why don't you leave the checkbox for the cover art enabled when cloning and the cover is the same? You still can change the image location while editing(it will be pre-populated but you can change it) but this way the two COVERART records will automatically merge. I merged the ones for the hc and the tp of "The Thousandth Floor" Annie 13:24, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Welllll... I guess my brain shortcircuited (if that's a word :). Just didn't realise that the effect of unchecking caused the coverart records not to automatically merge, despite actually noticing that it said, 'manual merge required'. Go figure... MagicUnk 14:18, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
Of course it is a word (with a hyphen in the middle usually :) ). No worries - this is why I pinged you - sometimes the connections in our DB may be a bit... arcane :) Annie 14:35, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Spirit Walker

No change here. What are you trying to do? Annie 16:33, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Must have been by accident when I was checking the juvenile flag on the English edition. MagicUnk 16:36, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for the confirmation - preferred to make sure so you do not need to check all of them again because of one missed change. Annie 16:44, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
Actually just finished with consolidating and adding publications of Uitgeverij Moon. Should be fairly complete now, eventhough I'm quite sure I've missed a couple... :-)MagicUnk 17:00, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
Sounds like you are doing the same thing I am doing with Bulgarian publishers - grab one, add all their books, get them strengthened out, go to the next one :) Annie 17:08, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Тысячный этаж

Thanks for submitting Тысячный этаж! I have approved the submission and made a few changes/additions:

  • Changed "Юлии Белолапотко", an inflected form of the translator's name, to "Юлия Белолапотко" -- WorldCat has both versions
  • Added WorldCat's and FantLab's external IDs
  • Linked to the cover scan hosted by FantLab -- we are allowed to link to their images
  • Added transliterations of the author's name and the title/pub's titles
  • Set up a variant relationship and a pseudonym

Hopefully everything looks OK! Ahasuerus 11:49, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Perfect! :) MagicUnk 11:51, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Oneindig Moment: Informatie over Fritz Leiber, Merrill vs Merril

Hi, the foreword for Oneindig Moment: Informatie over Fritz Leiber, was it written by Judith Merrill or by Judith Merril?--Dirk P Broer 04:53, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

Sorry, my bad. Merril. One 'l' MagicUnk 12:39, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

Planned Project Scope Expansion

(I am leaving this note on the Talk pages of some of the more active editors to make sure that we are not missing anything. If you have been following this Rules and Standards discussion and agree with the proposal, please ignore this note.)

As per this discussion, ISFDB:Policy#Rules_of_Acquisition is about to be expanded to include:

  • Speculative fiction webzines, which are defined as online periodicals with distinct issues
  • Special speculative fiction issues of non-genre webzines
  • One time speculative fiction anthologies published on the Web

If you believe that this scope expansion may cause unforeseen and/or undesirable consequences, please share your thoughts on the Rules and Standards page. TIA! Ahasuerus 11:20, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

Science Fiction Omnibus 2

I placed your addition of "Science Fiction Omnibus 2" on hold. What you added is probably this printing. The notes explain why it's titled "Science Fiction Omnibus" without the "2". Some other issues: "De Grote Onttakeling" and "Marsbewoners, Hoepel Op!" are novels, so the publication is an omnibus, not a collection and Bruna did not use ISBN's before 1970. The reviews you found in "Broedt Daar een Mens?" are probably for the first printing of the omnibus in 1969 (or the second which was published a few months later). I suggest you cancel this submission (you can see it in "my pending edits). --Willem 16:21, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

Hi Willem, this might not be the case, because when comparing data available from the internet (search on 'Science Fiction Omnibus 2', as well as on ISBN 9022950565) with data from Science Fiction Omnibus and data from Broedt daar een mens, I notice the following:
Together these two observations lead me to believe that the reviews refer to the first printing from October 1969(?), with a price of ƒ11,50 - BFr 170 --> Is it realistic to assume the price for the second printing was cheaper than the first?
In adition, since search on ISBN returns results referring to 2nd printing, is it possible that the 2nd printing (presumably 1972) has been given an ISBN?
As my submission was cobbled together from data from the internet and is inaccurate, I'll cancel the submission. However, wouldn't you think we should create a first printing pub record for 'Science Fiction Omnibus', with pub date October 1969, no ISBN, same no of pages, same contents, price ƒ11,50 -BFr 170, and with some explanations as laid out above, to be able to refer to that one instead? MagicUnk 15:57, 2 August 2018 (EDT)
To make things a bit clearer, I own a copy of the first printing, published in september 1969, and the third printing from 1972. I have added a record for the second printing, which was published in october 1969.
As you stated, the reviews can not be for the 1972 edition, but it's not clear if they are for the first or the second printing. At least one of these (and maybe both) probably were priced at ƒ11.50/BFr 170, but it's not clear which one. We can of course add notes about the price from the reviews. --Willem 17:20, 2 August 2018 (EDT)
On second thought, I placed the Bruna SF omnibus titles in a series, and will add the third (titled Science-Fiction Omnibus) from 1981 today or tomorrow. --Willem 03:40, 3 August 2018 (EDT)
Not sure where and how to put the price info for the 2nd sf omnibus. Suggestions? MagicUnk 11:59, 3 August 2018 (EDT)
I found an ad for this publication in N.V. Onsterfelijkheid, with the same price stated. I added the price to the 1st printing, with a note about the price in Belgium see here. Better like this? --Willem 04:01, 4 August 2018 (EDT)
To complete it, I've added further reference to pricing from 'Broedt daar een mens?' in notes of 2nd omnibus (1st printing), as well as a link back to title record in note field of 'broedt daar een mens?' MagicUnk 14:26, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

Oneindig Moment: Informatie over Isaac Asimov

Hi - The Jo Thomas the articles in this book have become linked to isn't Jo Thomas who translates into Dutch. Do you know how we can separate these two authors out?

(Full disclosure, I am the other Jo Thomas in this instance. This is why I started using Jo M. Thomas to write under as there are quite a few of us about.) --Journeymouse 07:28, 3 August 2018 (EDT)

I disambiguated the Dutch Jo Thomas from your entry as Jo Thomas (Dutch). --Willem 10:31, 3 August 2018 (EDT)
Thank you Willem. MagicUnk 11:59, 3 August 2018 (EDT)
And belated thank you to both of you from me --Journeymouse 11:59, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

WorldCat links reminder

Just a reminder that when you have a note such as this one, just pulling the OCLC from the last line is not enough - you also need to clean the link to WorldCat in the first line. I am editing these out as approving but just heads up (or they will need to be edited again). Annie 15:40, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Yup, I occasionally forget that. Sorry. Thanks for catching these! MagicUnk 16:00, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, I've seen you getting them cleaned but ran into a sequence where the links were still there so decided to stop by and post a reminder :) Annie 16:03, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Baum's Own Book for Children

Changing the title of a verified book that you do not have is a pretty serious change - as we go by the title page, any secondary source and/or covers are an unreliable way to decide what the actual title is. So I will keep this on hold until the PV confirms. In the future, I would strongly recommend that you first discuss with the PV and then submit a change like that. Annie 15:54, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

OK, will do. Eventhough it's highly unlikely that it's actually misspelled on the title page. And after all, easy enough to revert back in the unlikely event it'd turn out to be indeed the case, don't you think? MagicUnk 16:04, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
It is also easy to just wait - relying on someone remembering to revert ends up with the DB being in a mess more often than not. If we have an active PV, let's show some courtesy and just give them a chance to respond before we start messing with their books - changing something just because "it may be true" when we have an easy way to check is just bad bibliographic practice. Thanks! :) Annie 16:09, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

De Scrypturist

Are you sure that this is indeed a new printing and not just older copies made available? If so, the note should be mentioning something about it... Annie 16:00, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Welll, I've added this (and others like it) based on the assumption that the publisher's webpage provides accurate information. But no, I'm not sure as information about these books is sparse... should we cancel these and add a note to the already-existing pub record along the lines of 'website inspection shows pub date of yyyy-mm-dd but otherwise unchanged' or something to that effect? MagicUnk 16:07, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
I am not very well versed in the Dutch publishers' practices so not sure what the usual practice is (Bulgarian publishers tend to put new dates online on old books when they are promoting something or when they just need to show it as "new")..
While it may be a new printing, without any other corroborating information, I am not sure that we are not adding duplicates (if we don't have the book at all, using the publisher's date is as good as any but when we already have a copy, we need a bit more details). Let's hold to these for a bit and see if we can discover some more information - I will ping Willem as well to stop by here and post an opinion. Annie 16:15, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
I wouldn't trust the publisher's website too much in this. There is one thing that should make you suspicious, the cover image on the publisher's website still has the Mynx logo. Publisher Mynx was taken over by De Boekerij around 2009, and Mynx became an imprint of De Boekerij and later disappeared. "De Scrypturist" was one of the last books published as by Mynx, and I doubt there was a second printing. We probably have a lot of titles from 2009/2011 with the wrong publisher attached (as by Mynx, but with the logo of De Boekerij on the frontcover). My other sources (Fandata, De Boekenplank, De Koninklijke Bibliotheek) also don't have a second printing of this book, and the author's website doesn't mention it. --Willem 04:09, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
OK, makes sense. I'll review again and cancel the submissions currently on hold if they're equally 'suspicious'. Would you recommend to add pricing information from the publisher's website and add a note saying publisher has another date to the already-existing pub record ? Or just cancel and leave existing record as-is? Thanks! MagicUnk 09:50, 10 August 2018 (EDT)


Hi, your verified copy of Wolfsklauw is attributed to Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth. The corresponding title record is Wolfsklauw • (1967) • novel by Frederik Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth. Can you look on the title page to see how the names are presented. If it's like on the cover this records needs to be varianted.--Dirk P Broer 03:47, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

Yup. Wel spotted. It's Cyril M. Kornbluth on the title page. Need to be varianted. Could you explain how to do that? Thanks! MagicUnk 04:40, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
I've already done it in order to explain it better: First you unmerge the title that is a variant via the menu on the left 'unmerge titles'. Secondly you make the new title a variant of the main title (because you can't variant a variant, so the four Wolfsklauw books are by now not together anymore).--Dirk P Broer 18:15, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Thank you ! MagicUnk 15:09, 25 August 2018 (EDT)

De Zwerver

Hi, the cover art for De Zwerver was indeed by Eddie Jones, not by Chris Foss.--Dirk P Broer 19:49, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

I don't think that is correct. I have the 3rd printing in hand with the same cover as for the fourth printing, where the cover art is clearly attributed to Chris Foss instead - see The Skylark of Space. I guess the cover art of the previously unverified 3rd printing has been erroneously copied over from the 2nd printing, as well as the fact the cover has been attributed to Eddie Jones on the copyright page, has caused the confusion. But the art of the 3rd printing is clearly in Foss' style, not Jones'. See also I've therefore re-submitted updates to swap out cover art title for the one attributed to Chris Foss, as well as added an own scan of the cover of my 3rd printing. MagicUnk 14:06, 25 August 2018 (EDT)
I had a submission by you where the Jones' cover was credited to Foss. Perhaps you cloned the 1977 record and took the cover art and attribution with it?--Dirk P Broer 20:09, 25 August 2018 (EDT)
Almost:-) There was an already-existing pub for the third edition but with the Jones' cover that I started correcting. Hence the confusion. All's in order now. MagicUnk 02:15, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

De Zwaarden van Lankhmar

Hi, I found your cover artist for your verified copy of De Zwaarden van Lankhmar. The art work is a mirror-image of Showboat World by Jim Burns.--Dirk P Broer 06:18, 27 August 2018 (EDT)

Very nice! Thanks! MagicUnk 14:37, 27 August 2018 (EDT)

Orbit -some remarks

Hi, as to publication dates: the publication date in Orbit should -in case of a translated story- be the date of first appearance of the translation used. Another thing: my guess is that 'De Boekenplank' has its data from Note that, when comparing cover and reported contents, there are some discrepancies: complete stories seem to be missing. I am searching for more content, but I haven't found much yet.--Dirk P Broer 05:58, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

Yes, Annie made a similar remark over at the Help Desk. I agree with you that data quality out there is not all that great. I'll continue adding the data from De Boekenplank, confirm with sfanpedia, and any other source we may be able to unearth, and we'll take it from there. OK? MagicUnk 06:52, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
BTW, how did you find the cover artist for the latest issues? They weren't on MagicUnk 06:59, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Reverse image search...--Dirk P Broer 09:25, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
That's new for me. What tool do you use for that? MagicUnk 14:00, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Google Images works ... some of the time. They have removed some functionality lately, but it can still be useful. Ahasuerus 16:48, 3 September 2018 (EDT)
Do proceed with Orbit. When I'm back I'll dig out my copies of the magazine and complete the entries. Willem 08:54, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

The Whalestoe Letters

Hi, I am changing back your change from SHORTFICTION to CHAPBOOK as your previous update already created the necessary chapterbook entry. JLochhas 16:20, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Thanks. I didn't know what was needed exactly to make the coversion. MagicUnk 17:31, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Lars Kepler and other joint pseudonyms

A quick note re: Lars Kepler. As per Help:How to record a pseudonym:

  • Note that the ISFDB doesn't support joint names like "Jonathan Wylie" as canonical names

so I have created variants and pseudonyms for the husband-and-wife team behind this joint pseudonym. Hopefully everything looks OK. Ahasuerus 12:50, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Looks good! Thank you! MagicUnk 16:59, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

New Publication vs Add publication

Hi, a brief note to your good work: to prevent repetitive title merges in the future, please use 'Add a publication to this title' when the tile already exists, instead of making each book a new publication.--Dirk P Broer 16:37, 1 October 2018 (EDT)

Hi Dirk. I believe doing so requires that I wait for a first pub+title being approved before I can add another pub to that new title. Correct? Can do that, though I guess makes it more challenging to keep track of which ones I've added already, and which not. Or am I missing something obvious here? MagicUnk 16:40, 1 October 2018 (EDT)
You're not missing something, but doing a lot of extra work -and so do we moderators. I've seen that you mastered the art of cloning though, so there's still hope.--Dirk P Broer 19:13, 1 October 2018 (EDT)

Nieuwe maan

Re: this publication, is it safe to assume that the title page says Nieuwe maan even though the cover says "New Moon"? If so, then we may want to add a line to the Note field to clarify things. Ahasuerus 10:47, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

Yes, it is. All sources I've consulted (PPN, WorldCat,,...) have Nieuwe maan as title for this ISBN. I'll add a note to the pub. Regards, MagicUnk 15:00, 16 October 2018 (EDT)
Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 15:12, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

Verleiding author credit

Hi. I accepted Verleiding, but when I went to make the variant relationship based on your note to the moderator, I noticed that Tempted is jointly credited to P. C. Cast (as are the others in that series). Should P. C. Cast be credited on this one as well? --MartyD 11:12, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

Yes, apologies. Error on my part. Correction submitted. MagicUnk 12:31, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

Import reminder

Just a reminder that we have a very nice Import functionality that allows you to add already existing novels (and stories and so on) after a publication is created. When you just add the names during the creation, they need merging later (I've been merging for your omnibus editions today while approving them) :) Annie 16:50, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for the reminder Annie. Were you referring to this 2nd tp Omnibus I entered after the ebook one? Then yes, I'm aware of the import function (just didn't realize I should have waited for the first submission to be approved so I could import its contents). But while we're at it, tell me, can I import a single title from a regular pub? I've been trying to use the import before on a pub title I wanted to import into a newly-created omnibus, but that didn't seem to work? Thanks MagicUnk 16:58, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
You could have imported into both actually as the novels were already in the DB individually. Just create empty ombinus, I tend to add the ID lists in the moderator note and after it is approved, either a moderator will use that to import (if they feel like it) or you use your own note to import instead; it is not mandatory though - just add a "will import content" so we know you did not forget. You can import in two different ways:
  • Option 1: import all titles from a different pub (similar to how Clone does basically). This will import ALL titles from the selected publication -- useful when you have an anthology in tp and e-book for example - you add in one of them, then import from there in the other.
  • Option 2: Provide specific Title IDs - just get the Title IDs you want to import. So if you want to import the 4 novels, you get their IDs and list them here :) To use your examples, the IDs you needed were 2094569, 2094570, 2094574, 2094575 (these are title IDs and not pub IDs - if you submit a pub ID here, it does not work as you expect.
More details: here. Let me know if I can assist any further. Annie 17:16, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
Ah, got it! I forgot option 2 existed too. Will give it a try when I do the next omnibus. Thanks! MagicUnk 17:18, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
 :) If you had not used it a lot, it is easy to forget about it. No worries - that's why I am sending reminders when I see cases like that. Annie 17:34, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

It's getting a mess...

Hi, can you look here? Omnibusses, collections, chapterbooks, boxed sets, all under one title record. Can you please straighten this out?--Dirk P Broer 19:52, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

But that is normal - this is a novella, not a container record - it can be inside any of the containers - so they all show up when you look at it. All popular short fiction titles look like that when you look at their title records. Annie 19:57, 30 October 2018 (EDT)
That is true, but the series structure of the prequel series (parts 0.1-0.4) is missing here. Look e.g here. A much clearer presentation of the series.
Ah, that is what you meant. :) The original message was talking about the specific title record :) Annie 16:19, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Neat! Good suggestion! Will look into it and submit the necessary adjustments. MagicUnk 08:30, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Yesterday I got the feeling that I saw the same ISBN under two tiles, sporting different covers and at different parts in the series. Can't find it today of course.--Dirk P Broer 05:12, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Will check that one too. MagicUnk 08:30, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Hi Dirk, I'll look into it in more detail tonight, but as far as I can tell Annie's right. This is normal. There might be some omnibus reorganization required. I'll look into that when the dust settles :)
On another note though: can you help keep an eye on the capitalization? This rule is only valid for English titles. In Dutch, we don't capitalize titles. French also has different rules. Thanks! MagicUnk 02:39, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
I have a submission on hold (Inwijding / Opstand / Samensmelting) that I think has another title than the one that will appear on the title page (I think 'Divergent '), based upon the same Picarta information. Looking for the ISBN I came across a boxed set, can't you name it like or in the manner of the other boxed sets in this series?
Hi Dirk, I remember I had doubts about the title myself. I'll dig deeper and see if I can come up with a confirmation for the title. In fact, I'll review my entire batch of submissions Real Soon Now™. MagicUnk 08:30, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
On capitalization. I came across the capitalization while checking for duplicate titles. I'll go for the Dutch rules next time in case of Dutch titles.--Dirk P Broer 05:12, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Thanks! MagicUnk 08:30, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) Hi Dirk, Annie. I've proposed (and submitted) a simplification per series order in line with what has been suggested on Goodreads. I've checked, and this series ordering is consistent with other sources on the 'net. I also propose a series renaming to simply Divergent. Have a look.
I've been searching for more info on exact title of trilogy boxed set. When magnifying the picture, it reads:

  • Divergent 1: Inwijding / Divergent 2: Opstand / Divergent 3: Samensmelting

Alternatively, on several sites it is advertised as ('Divergent present box')

  • Divergent cadeabox

I'm inclined to go with the former, not the latter, as title to use. Whaddyathink? MagicUnk 15:58, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

I really hate boxsets - they are screwing up with our "use the title page". If we do not have the title pages, I would propose to stay with the shorter title (aka - no series name and number in the titles). Or go with "Divergent cadeaubox". See also OCLC :) Annie 16:19, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Makes sense. Let's see what Dirk has to say. Might indeed be a good idea to use the shortened title as you suggest, and clarify in the notes.
And thanks for approving. Looks much better now :) MagicUnk 16:23, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
I am happy with any consequent solution (perhaps we should make 'boxed set' an attribute for an omnibus?).--Dirk P Broer 21:04, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

Juvenile vs Young Adult

Hi, I've seen you set Dutch translations of titles to 'Juvenile' where the -mostly English- original only has a tag 'Young Adult'. After approval of your change of the Dutch title there comes a maintenance report the next day of mismatched juvenile flags, whereupon the moderator-in-charge decides whether the title is juvenile or not. As you may know isfdb is a relational database, and changing a flag 'juvenile' for a title can have consequences. You may have to notify all of the PV1 verifiers of the original title that you think it is 'Juvenile' -and they not agree, pointing out that 'young adult' is not exactly the same as 'juvenile' (hence two categories). I've seen that you are already aware of this discussion, you may have to defend your choice for Narnia soon.--Dirk P Broer 08:50, 9 November 2018 (EST)

I agree. However, as long as the policy does not change the juvenile flag also covers young adult, which these titles are. Anyone that argues otherwise will have to seek consensus to have the rules changed first - a rules change which, to be clear, I am not opposed against per se. As far as I understand it, the recent discussion did not lead to a conclusion yet. On a side note, I didn't think many pubs are PV'd (couple might have been though). Will take care to notify the PV-ers going forward. Regards, MagicUnk 09:57, 9 November 2018 (EST)
And on the Narnia case, yes, that might spur some discussion... But I guess you can agree with me that it is YA, so as per the rules the juvenile flag should be set, no? :) MagicUnk 10:12, 9 November 2018 (EST)
My point is that when you change it for a Dutch translation, you should also change it for the corresponding original and their other language derrivates -which can be quite tedious, in the case of Narnia. Otherwise the maintenance reports can get quite long, next day.--Dirk P Broer 16:23, 9 November 2018 (EST)
Aaah, OK. Understood. MagicUnk 17:02, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Sun, Moon and Stars

As you describe it as a 'collection of myths and legends' this is likely not a CHAPBOOK but a (short) colllection. I rejected you submissions and will intall that title type instead. Stonecreek 08:12, 11 November 2018 (EST)

Yes, you're right. Thanks! MagicUnk 08:15, 11 November 2018 (EST)

Mockingjay - replacement ISBN ?

Hi Dirk, I came across this pub: Mockingjay. It says vervangings isbn. Any idea what that means, and should we enter this ISBN into the DB (and how)? Thanks! MagicUnk 06:21, 8 November 2018 (EST)

I have no idea as to what it means, you'd best contact the publisher.--Dirk P Broer 06:56, 8 November 2018 (EST)
How would I go about doing that? I mean, who best to contact, and how should I introduce us, the ISFDB, and the project to ensure the best chance of getting a reply back? Thanks! MagicUnk 05:32, 9 November 2018 (EST)
I've sent them a mail and will report to you when they answer.--Dirk P Broer 05:46, 9 November 2018 (EST)
Their reply: "Geachte heer, Op een bepaald moment is ISBN 9789000348404 aangeboden aan de boekhandel. Hier kwam totaal geen respons op. Exact dezelfde titel met isbn 9789000343027 was voldoende leverbaar, om dit kenbaar te maken, heeft dat een tijdje in de titel gestaan. Het is dus een creatieve manier van communiceren geweest, om kenbaar te maken, dat er een ander isbn (hetzelfde boek) wel leverbaar was.
ISBN 9789000348404 is dus nooit verschenen."
Thanks Dirk. I would have expected they wouldn't bother to reply. Shows my ignorance I guess :) I 'll submit the entry to track this ISBN as unpublished, with note stating confirmed by publisher. Thanks for the help. Regards, MagicUnk 17:20, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Sean Fay Wolfe

Hi! Pardon me, but I think Picarta is doing an awful cock-up with Sean Fay Wolfe. Wouldn't you say 'The Dusk of Hope' translates well into 'De Duisternis van Hoop'? Yet the first is both part 3,4 of the series and part 2 of volume 3, while the latter is part 1,2. Can you please try to get hold of the originals and/or the actual translations to see which Dutch title fits with what English title?--Dirk P Broer 18:46, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Yup, I noticed that too... There are actually two issues to sort out. For the translations, I figured it has to be like this:
  • Strijd om Elementia 1 - Het recht van de sterkste --> The Elementia Chronicles #1: Quest for Justice (2015-07-25)
  • Strijd om Elementia 2 - De nacht van het kwaad --> The Elementia Chronicles #2: The New Order (2015-10-27)
  • Strijd om Elementia 3 - De duisternis van hoop --> The Elementia Chronicles 3 - Book Three: Part 1 The Dusk of Hope
  • Strijd om Elementia 4 - Het lot van de wereld --> The Elementia Chronicles 3 - Book Three: Part 2 Herobrine's Message (2016-04-07)
Publication history of the English editions is an even bigger mess. Looks like book 3 has been published in two separate volumes (hence my suggestion to make the book 1 & book 2 a serial), as well as in one single volume. I'm digging into the publication history atm - I'll come back when I have sorted that out. Wish me good luck :) MagicUnk 10:49, 20 November 2018 (EST)
Okay, here's the rest of the story. Books 1 & 2 are straightforward. Been released on 2015-07-00 and 2015-11-00, respectively. Book 3 with 700-ish pages has been released on 2016-01-00. And a little while later book 3 part 1 (323 pages) and part 2 (480 pages) has been released on 2016-02-00 and 2016-04-00 respectively. So release date is after that of the single volume edition. The only explanation I can think of is that the publisher got clever and said 'let's screw the buyers and split the 3rd volume'.
Anyway, the question is: how do we add that to the database? I suggest to have part 1 & 2 as a serialized variant of Book 3, and treat vols 3 and 4 of the Dutch translation the same, ie have vols 3 and 4 as a serialized translation variants of Book 3; whaddyathink? MagicUnk 14:36, 20 November 2018 (EST)
Aren't serials published in magazines?--Dirk P Broer 15:48, 20 November 2018 (EST)
I think it looks presentable now.--Dirk P Broer 15:58, 20 November 2018 (EST)
Much better! :) Serials are not only when in magazines. See this and this example. As the parts are not variants as we define them, they should be changed to serial instead. Ok with that? MagicUnk 01:37, 21 November 2018 (EST)
I do not completely agree with your reasoning. There are countless (well, countless..) collections which are varianted to larger collections, e.g. Dangerous Visions. No other books that have been split in two have received the 'serial' treatment that I know off. see e.g. Alone Against Tomorrow.--Dirk P Broer 09:58, 21 November 2018 (EST)
Ah, but your example is actually an error and has to be unvarianted if you ask me. What has happened there is that the two constituting volumes of stories have been varianted to the 'omnibus' of the two collections. It is clear that these should have been left alone, and are to be added to the omnibus as contents (or better yet, its constituting list of stories as contents), not variant. For me, variant means 'same content, different title', or 'not same content? Then not a variant' - do we actually have a definition of variant title written somewhere? See also this discussion about contents of an omnibus of two collections. Should we move the discussion to R&S to see if we can get clarification & consensus ? MagicUnk 13:44, 21 November 2018 (EST)

(unindent) Books separated into volumes are not recorded as serials - the separate volumes are varianted directly under the main title, keeping the original type. Usually applies to novels but sometimes to collections and anthologies. See Dune for an example. Serials are only for magazines, fanzines and as of recently, webzines (see here and we recently talked about adding the webzines to the list. The other direction (combining two books into one) makes an imnibus; splitting a book keeps the type. One of the oddities in the DB :)Annie 15:40, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Hmm, doesn't make much sense to me. Serials is a much better approach imo, in both cases. And what about the examples I mentioned above? Serials, but not in a magazine... Expand the definition of serial, and remove the oddity. What's not to like? :)MagicUnk 15:45, 21 November 2018 (EST)
Every new editor bumps into that specific rule :) Serialization and splitting into volumes are very different things (one changes a container title; the other one is part of a container title - chapbooks had always been a bit in the gray area because of what it actually is). Some time at the dawn of time, a decision was made to handle things this way. Feel free to open a discussion on the rules again - although I cannot see it getting much traction but go ahead and try. But as of now, this is the standing rule and practice. :) Annie 15:53, 21 November 2018 (EST)
True they're not the same, but that doesn't mean they can be recorded in the same way. Ater all, both have an identical relationship: a title and its constituent component titles (as separate volumes). As for moving it to the R&S discussion forum, I gues I'll be smart and let it rest - for now (we still need to finish the language-dependent-title-rules discussion):-D Cheers! MagicUnk 16:01, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Sally Gardner titles

I have put two of them on hold as they don't seem to be novels (I also approved one by accident, without looking at the length). If that's so, then please don't submit those titles as they are not according to our definition of a novel (if they are in fact linger than 40,000 words than let me know it, please). Stonecreek 10:04, 1 December 2018 (EST)

I took the type from the English original that were also entered as NOVELs. But I agree with you they should be CHAPBOOKs instead. If we switch, we'll have to change the English originals from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK too. MagicUnk 10:08, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Okay, I'll reject the pending submissions. The English titles & publications (as well as the translations) will have to be changed to SHORTFICTIONs inside of CHAPBOOKs first. Stonecreek 10:23, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Ugh. What would be the best way to do that? MagicUnk 10:28, 1 December 2018 (EST)
The first step is to change the NOVEL title into SHORTFICTION (presumably novella in this cases). When you go to the publication record afterwards the publication needs to be changed from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK and there also has to be added the CHAPBOOK title. Stonecreek 12:45, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Thanks. Submitted the first step. MagicUnk 13:01, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Never Let Me Go

Hi, I have a submission on hold from you for Never Let Me Go. I can't see what you want to change in my screen.--Dirk P Broer 07:03, 2 December 2018 (EST)

There was a closing /ul missing. Someone must have fixed that already. I've cancelled my submissing. Cheers! MagicUnk 07:57, 2 December 2018 (EST)
That would have been me - it popped up on the nightly reports so I fixed it. Sorry, did not see your update - I scanned the list of submissions before that but apparently missed it. :) Annie 19:28, 2 December 2018 (EST)
No worries! :-) MagicUnk 05:57, 3 December 2018 (EST)


What is the difference between this and the already existing one you are cloning from? Both say first printing, both are the same publisher, both are hc and they even have the same external IDs. What am I missing? Annie 12:09, 10 December 2018 (EST)

Never mind - found the update later on. In cases like that, please use the note to the moderators to tell us what you are doing -- we cannot read your mind and that is what they are there for. Plus sooner or later, someone will just reject as a duplicate instead of holding and asking you what you are doing. :) I also changed the date of the coverart - you remembered to fix the novel but not the art. I probably would have done that a bit differently - as we already have "first edition", leave it as is and just adjust dates; then add the second as a new pub but both ways work. Annie 12:13, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Yes, I know. I screwed up the first edit, and went back and fixed the second. Apologies for the confusion. MagicUnk 13:15, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Happens. Got me scratching my head for awhile - thus the messages :) Annie 14:14, 10 December 2018 (EST)

Missing link?

Did you miss the link to here on purpose? And do you want a notification when I see a missing link while approving? Annie 18:35, 11 December 2018 (EST)

And one more. Annie 19:09, 11 December 2018 (EST)
These were left out by accident. The links to are more as a courtesy to others than anything else - after all, no clue how stable these URLs are going to be in the long run...
If you come across mising links feel free to notify me, but if it's too much of a hassle don't feel obliged to do so. MagicUnk 04:55, 13 December 2018 (EST)
It is not a problem at all - I just saw a break in your pattern so decided to stop by and ask if it was intentional :) Annie 14:11, 13 December 2018 (EST)


Hi, though Bibberomnibus has 'omnibus' in its title it is technically a collection, as all content is of shortfiction nature.--Dirk P Broer 04:54, 14 December 2018 (EST)

Ah, yes. Sorry. You're right. Can you accept it? I'll submit the change immediately after. MagicUnk 04:56, 14 December 2018 (EST)
I've already done so -accepted and changed.--Dirk P Broer 04:56, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Thanks! MagicUnk 04:57, 14 December 2018 (EST)
There's again the issue of CHAPBOOKs vs. NOVELs: I have put many of your recent submissions on hold as a length of up to 128 pages strongly points towards novella length. This seems an item for many of the book publications by Nico De Braeckeleer as well as for 'Bibberomnibus' mentioned above. Do you have any actual word counts for the titles in question? Stonecreek 08:46, 14 December 2018 (EST)
No, I don't. I therefore use the cutoff of 100 pages: if it's above, it's a novel. MagicUnk 08:52, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Moreover, the author considers his books also novels ('Roman' in Dutch). MagicUnk 08:54, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Both points are irrelevant for ISFDB or simply not true: there is only a small fraction of publications (some magazines or tps set in small letters) for which a text page count of less than 140 pages do mark a novel, and it only is relevant to us what we do consider as novels (i. e. fiction texts of at least 40,000 words - else we also would have to count the whole of the German Perry Rhodan magazines as novels since publisher and most authors do think & publish it as such). I do strongly recommend to go back to the help pages and try to accomodate with it. So, do you have any word count for the texts in question that is above that magical threshold? Stonecreek 09:20, 14 December 2018 (EST)
The help specifies 100 pages as the cut off. The page threshold is a bit nebulous because different books can have very different word densities. I can see arguments for using a higher number, but MagicUnk is being consistent with our current help. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2018 (EST)
I agree with JLaTondre. When we don't have the pub in hand, the only discriminating factor we can use is the 100 page cutoff as mentioned in the help tekst. That is the only unambiguous rule I can follow in this case. MagicUnk 09:36, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Sorry, but I go along with Dirk who identified the Bibberomnibus as a COLLECTION at the top of this discussion item. You promised to change the publication and its titles immediately, but didn't. A rough estimate has a length of about 122 pages for each of the three items. Putting that into context with the fact that we have a hard deciding factor of a length of 40,000 word, and a nebulous one of 100 pages (which seems to be obsolete in most cases), we should go with the hard information. I have found not a single stand-alone juvenile book publication (published after, say, 1980) of less than 140 pages that had more than 40,000 words: at least the vast majority of them can safely be assumed to be novella or other types of shortfiction. So it seems that we should play it safe and regard the texts as SHORTFICTIONs (unless we have specific information of novel length), or only add them when we are sure of their word count, because else there is always clean-up work to do afterwards. Stonecreek 10:07, 14 December 2018 (EST)
To give you an even more terrifying example: This is one book of a series of six which I just reviewed that has 160 pages but still only features a NOVELLA (and the letters even aren't as small as in nowaday juveniles). Stonecreek 10:14, 14 December 2018 (EST)s
I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You are enforcing your bias onto my entries. If you want to have it your way, have a discussion to change the rules first. As it stands, entries as novels are perfectly within the help text. MagicUnk 10:12, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Sorry too, but it is your bias that comes into way and stands against the vast majority of facts. Please go along with the hard fact of word count. Stonecreek 10:16, 14 December 2018 (EST)
What are your plans for Bibberomnibus? Stonecreek 10:18, 14 December 2018 (EST)
I just reviewed the recent edits, and it seems you deliberately submitted a change back to OMNIBUS. What are you trying to do? Stonecreek 10:29, 14 December 2018 (EST)

(unident) What determines whether a work is a novella or a novel is its word count, specifically whether it's under or over 40,000 words. Page counts vary from edition to edition and can only be used as rough guidelines. We have seen POD books squeeze bona fide novels in under 80 pages (I pity their readers!) and we have seen novellas appear as 300+ (sic!) page books. It all depends on the font and the page layout/size that the publisher chooses to use.

If we don't have access to a copy, all we can do is make a guess based on the publisher's history. For example, has a history of publishing novellas as 150-200 page long books, e.g. see All Systems Red. Still, it remains a guess until we can confirm the page count. I deal with it all the time when I work on Fixer's submissions. In borderline cases I try to add a note to the effect that the exact word count is unknown and the work may have to be reclassified once it becomes know. Ahasuerus 10:39, 14 December 2018 (EST)

@Christian: I started out classifying the contents as novella, but that became a mess with the other contents, so for the sake of consistency, changed back to novel
@ahasuerus: In the case that we are discussing, there's no previous evidence that we can go by to judge what the pubs should be classified as. I concur that we can add a note stating that these might have to change once the word count is known. I don't see the point of changing them to chapbook (and besides, I hate to have to re-enter everything from scratch :( ) MagicUnk 10:48, 14 December 2018 (EST)
That is the backdrop of entering publications one isn't sure about. The work seems to have to be done anyway, so you can start right now. But I'll change Bibberomnibus to the status agreed upon (it was not okay to change it back without notifying Dirk or other moderators).
It seems that the rough novel threshold for juvenile texts has to be put up to 150 pages (or more provided there are many illustrations) and 120 pp. for non-juveniles. Stonecreek 10:59, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Not sure what you mean with "the backdrop of entering publications"? And can you clarify what you imply with "the work seems to have been done anyway"? I assume you want me to update the notes once you've released the submissions you have on hold, and go back to the already existing entries and add a note there too?
Instead 'backdrop', better read 'backside'. And the publication / title types need to be changed the same way as described before here. Stonecreek 13:33, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Allright, I'll review my juvenile submissions and will convert to SHORTFICTION if the page count is less than 150 pages and add note accordingly. MagicUnk 13:52, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Christian, can you release the ones that you still have on hold? To make sure we're not mixing up. Most of them have an update of the cover. MagicUnk 14:05, 14 December 2018 (EST)
On an additional note, do you intend to propose a rules update and have the 150 pages/120 pages added to the rules? (and to be clear, I can support that proposal) MagicUnk 13:13, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Just waiting on some more reactions on that topic by the moderators involved. Stonecreek 13:33, 14 December 2018 (EST)

Interior Art Records

Is there a reason that when you create a pub like Drakentranen, you are making a note of "Illustrated by ARTIST NAME" instead of adding an interior art credit? I noticed this on quite a few recent entries I processed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2018 (EST)

Yes, this is because I don't know whether this is about interior art, or the cover, or both. Only when I'm sure (or fairly sure), I create a cover artist record and/or interior art record(s). I'd rather leave it to a PV-er one day to confirm and have the record updated rather than have (possibly) erroneous data in the DB. Regards, MagicUnk 11:40, 21 December 2018 (EST)
In each of these, you created a cover art credit. Illustration implies interior art, not credit art. If you are trying to say that the "illustrated" may refer to the cover and not the interior, a different choice of verbiage should be used (or just leave the note out). -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2018 (EST)
In the cases you mention the artist is both for the cover art, and interior art. So I believe, in these cases it's correct, no? MagicUnk 13:56, 21 December 2018 (EST)
I'm confused. You seem to have come full circle and are saying that the artist credit is for both. In that case, you should be creating an interior art record. If you are uncertain whether there is interior art, then you should not be leaving a note that unambiguously says there is. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2018 (EST)
Should I do that even if I don't know for sure what they look like, or how many there are? I prefer merely copying over statement from my sources 'as is' in the notes rather than making assumptions about the nature of the illustrations, except where I have a clear indication that cover is also by the same artist, which is the case here. 9 out of 10 there's only mention about illustrations, and it is not clear to me whether this statement refers to interior art, cover art, or both, so I'd rather just note that in the notes. MagicUnk 13:45, 22 December 2018 (EST)
You are correct that you should not create a record if there is doubt. But if there is doubt, neither should you be adding a publication note that unambiguously states that there are illustrations (which is what you are currently doing). Instead your publication note should reflect that uncertainty. Something like "Per SOURCE, Illustrations by ARTIST. Unclear if this refers to cover, interior art, or both." (there is probably a more succinct way of saying that). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2018 (EST)
Aha, got it. Will do that going forward. MagicUnk 01:37, 23 December 2018 (EST)

HTML problems

You may want to check again this and this. Both finished with a "li" tag instead of a "/ul" one so I am not sure if you did not mean to add more details and just submitted by mistake. I fixed the html in the meantime. Annie 13:29, 4 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks for letting me know Annie but no, I didn't mean to add more info. Just me not paying attention. Thanks for the correction. Regards, MagicUnk 17:32, 4 January 2019 (EST)

Re: Bob Van Laerhoven

I just asked Dirk a question about finding the original title for one of Laerhoven's stories; maybe you can answer it. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 03:42, 5 January 2019 (EST)

Answered on Dirk's page. --Willem 05:49, 5 January 2019 (EST)

"Dark Space" in Victory Conditions

Hi. I accepted your Victory Conditions submission, but I have a question: Is the Dark Space in it a standalone piece of short fiction, or is it an excerpt of the novel? If it is an excerpt, we add " (excerpt)" to the end of the title to disambiguate from the full work. Thanks. --MartyD 10:32, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Ooops. That should have been an excerpt. Apologies. Correction submitted. MagicUnk 10:34, 13 January 2019 (EST)


Hello, if this title is not an abbreviation, only the first letter 'L' should be uppercase, since we normalize titles. Thanks, Stonecreek 09:26, 31 January 2019 (EST)

Well, I actually didn't enter the pub record, just updated it. All three pub records are in all caps, which is as in the book. Don't know (yet) exactly if it's because it's intended as an acronym or label since I haven't read the book yet, but it's intended by the author to be all-caps. Will make a note in the title record that title is related to either an acronym or label. MagicUnk 09:46, 31 January 2019 (EST)
I just saw that the series name is normalized. No need for you to make the unnecessary edit, I'll normalize the titles: they likely got erroneous via amazon. Thanks, Stonecreek 09:52, 31 January 2019 (EST)

Leviathan Wakes - James S. A. Corey

Hi, you are the only PV here. I have the same edition. I propose some changes which you can see here

Please reconsider your interpretation of the printing. Orbit did 1st publish this in 2011 (in three formats) but not as this ISBN. "Reprinted 2012" is not stated on the c/right page.

I've also expanded the publisher to the full information on the c/right page and reformatted the information about the unnumbered pages.

Let me know if you agree with all this. Thanks. BanjoKev 12:06, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

If MagicUnk's copy has "Reprinted 2012" on the copyright page, and yours does not, you need to cancel your submission and then clone this edition to create a version that has what you state. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:38, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
Yes, I understand that, thanks for pointing it out though. BanjoKev 12:54, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
Hi! I've checked my copy again - just to be sure :-), and I advice against updating the current record since:
  1. Mine has Reprinted 2012 printed on the copyright page, implying my copy is the second printing of the tp edition (reprinted refers to this tp edition only, not including other editions). If yours doesn't have the "Reprinted 2012" on its copyright page, you have the first printing of this edition and you'll need to update this pub record instead.
  2. For well-known imprints we generally don't use the 'imprint/publisher' notation, but rather the shorter form of just 'imprint'. Your proposal of Orbit / Little, Brown / Hachette UK as publisher, while strictly correct per the rules, should be entered as just Orbit instead. If you want to record the information, add it to the notes instead (see here for an example of how I'm recording that info) -- a Good Thing™ to do is to first check on already-existing publisher records before creating a new one. More often than not there's already a publisher record available that'll fit your needs. We really need to restrict number of publisher records as it's already bad as-is...
  3. While notes clarifying titles not listed in the Contents section is left to the editor's discretion, it is generally not productive to repeat in the notes what's already available elsewhere. So in your proposal, I'd recommend leaving out Interview p.[569], and 2312 (excerpt) p.[573] as it only clutters the notes and doesn't convey any additional information.
Hope this helps. Do not hesitate to ask further questions here or in one of the forums! MagicUnk 15:57, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for your time on this. As a new editor, I'm trying to collect Good Things to do...
It puzzled me that seasoned editors were just entering the imprint name (for instance, Gollancz) which didn't record the complexities and morphing of the Orion Group/Hachette /UK/Livre. You have given me the perfect solution, even though it is a bit more long-winded.
Inclusion of Interview & 2312 (excerpt) was a bit tongue in cheek I'll admit, but you've clarified that too.
See here for my 1st edition
Again, thanks for such a helpful reply. BanjoKev 20:25, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
You're welcome! Only thing left to do is to import the 2312 (excerpt) title into the Contents section of your copy :-) MagicUnk 12:13, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for rescuing me there :)) BanjoKev 06:20, 15 May 2019 (EDT)

PoD printings

You left a note on my page about two Tor books, The Ballad of Black Tom and All Systems Red. Neither of my copies are PoD. Thanks, Tom TAWeiss 16:07, 15 May 2019 (EDT)

Do we need to do anything to disambiguate PoD printings from other printings? Tom TAWeiss 10:22, 14 July 2019 (EDT)
I've submitted a separate PoD record for both pubs. MagicUnk 06:35, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

Author Disambiguation

When disambiguating authors, in addition to changing the title records, the publication records need to be changed as well. The publication author needs to match the title author. I have taken care of Tom Fletcher (1985). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

Ah yes, sorry for that! Thanks for taking care of the update. MagicUnk 09:23, 9 June 2019 (EDT)


When the currency is denoted by letters and not symbols, you need a space between the name of the currency and the number. So "Bfr 450" and not "Bfr450". We even have that exact one in the help page :) I am fixing these as I am accepting them (such as here and all from that batch) but heads up. Annie 14:47, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Argh, screwed up again... And the funny thing is I actually added that Bfr example to the help pages... Thanks for catching these MagicUnk 15:32, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
No worries - it happens :) Annie 15:55, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

(unindent) Careful with the separators. The rules are very clear: " Period (".") should be used as the decimal separator and comma (",") as the thousands separator, regardless of currency or native number format. E.g., €7.80 or Lit 1,000. " so "Ft 3,999" is correct. Annie 14:35, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

Owch. Only removed the ',' for the one. Looks like we'll have to do a second pass to check on all the entries without thousand separators then... MagicUnk 14:40, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
No worries - if you come from a language that does not use a separator (Bulgarian does not as well), it is sometimes a hard rule to remember. :) A couple more places as well but I reverted them (you did both the reversal of the order and the comma in most so I just accepted and corrected; the only rejection was for the one that did not need a fix) :) Annie 16:02, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

Horowitz horror

The price here looks very weird. Is that printed price? :) Annie 13:06, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Yup! Agree it's a weird price all right. However, it's from the Dutch National Library so I tend to just copy these over into the ISFDB record. I've found another website mentioning €22.50, so I've added a note into the notes :-) FYI, I'm still working on these submissions, gradually piecing together sufficient information from various sources to get to a reliable listing. A bit of a challenge, thruth be told ... MagicUnk 13:58, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
I would add a note saying where the price is from exactly in such cases (price from X as of Date) -- just so it is clear where we are getting the price from. :) Annie 14:08, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Just submitted that. Have a look :-) MagicUnk 14:15, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Approved :) As a rule, if I add more than one source, I will note which source provided which piece of information unless they all agree (and even then, if they are really different, I will list the exact source for price and pages at least). Makes it easier to track things later on. Annie 14:29, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Agree. I also tend to do that, albeit maybe not as concientious as you :). Thanks for reaching out. Regards, MagicUnk 14:32, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Hmmm, these weird prices sprang up at the time of transition from the national (European) currencies to Euro 2001 / 2002. They usually mean that there was a former un-Euro price, and that the book was available already in late 2001. Stonecreek 15:09, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Makes sense. However, I couldn't unearth any Bfr (as it's a Belgian publisher), nor Guilders for that matter. Feel free to make an additional note to clarify. MagicUnk 15:13, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

The Hooded Man

About this one - do you have access to the title page. I would leave all that stuff out (as it is now) and add a series instead. Why do you think we should add it to the title? Thanks! Annie 15:14, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

No access to title page, I'm afraid. Merely because of alignment with this one. Feel free to update as you see fit. Regards. MagicUnk 15:16, 18 July 2019 (EDT)
Let me think on that one for a bit - my gut feeling is that this does not belong in the title but let me do some digging. Thanks! Annie 15:22, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Het jungleboek

We have two of those:

Are they really different types? And when you have a chance, both need content :) Annie 15:38, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Hi Annie, my mistake. Needs to be a collection. If you can approve, and then I'll merge and fix the type. MagicUnk 15:39, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
And as for what contents is concerned, I can't find the contents for this edition. I have found one for the 1934 versions, but not the 1991 newly translated ones (yet)... MagicUnk 15:40, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
I already merged the 3 collections so will fix and merge the omnibus as well. No worries for the contents - I was more concerned about the omnibus - but as we do not have one - well... :) Annie 15:42, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
Thanks Annie. Just submitted the merge myself :) MagicUnk 15:42, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
Oops. Did it before I saw this so hard rejects are to follow :( Sorry about that. Annie 15:44, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

ebooks and page numbers

Just a reminder: don't forget to remove the number of pages when cloning for e-books -- I cleaned it up from here :) Annie 13:01, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

Will do... MagicUnk 13:40, 25 July 2019 (EDT)


What is NUR here? Annie 17:22, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

"Nederlandstalige Uniforme Rubrieksindeling" - "Dutch Uniform Category Classification". It's a 3-digit numerical code identifying the subjet of a book. For example NUR 333 and 334 are Science Fiction and Fantasy, respectively. See here MagicUnk 17:29, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
Ah, like the LCCN or Dewey (and other library systems) subject headers. Got it. Wanted to make sure that we are not missing a pub series or something. Thanks!
That sounds very useful when determining of the Dutch consider a book genre. :) Annie 17:36, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
Yup, it's useful allright - see here Only thing is, it isn't consistently applied as far as I can tell... :) MagicUnk 17:42, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
Why would it be? It would be too logical and making our life easier :)
I would make the note a bit more descriptive (add "Nederlandstalige Uniforme Rubrieksindeling" - "Dutch Uniform Category Classification" in brackets maybe) or at least the English part - thus clearing up that question for someone else if I were you. Think of someone that had never seen Dutch books (or that had seen a limited amount of them) seeing the record. :) Annie 17:45, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
I actually didn't (and don't) enter the NUR code in the notes - the example you referred to was submitted by another Dutch-speaking editor. I just added to it, and didn't touch what was already there. I myself find the NUR code not all that useful, to be honest. But can always add a clarification as you suggest when I stumble upon one again, of course :) MagicUnk 17:55, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, I know you usually don't - which is why this is the first time I am asking you about it:) It is useful to find the books; once we have them, a tag may be a better idea (if you are so inclined). I was just saying that it may be useful if you leave it in place. Dutch editors will know what it is; other people maybe won't. I am not going to tell you that it must be done - I am just offering an opinion. :) If you disagree, you can ignore it. If you had not realized it yet, I am in the "more and more precise is better but it is up to the editor for non-critical details" camp when our DB is concerned. And part of the job is making sure that the notes make sense. :) Annie 18:01, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

The Dutch should start printing bigger printing runs

For a small language, this is an excessive number of reprints, isn't it? :) Annie 16:48, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

LOL! Yes, very true. And I even didn't add all printings... MagicUnk 16:59, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Shaking head. Well, it least they seem somewhat well documented. :) Thanks for adding the translators. When you get bored, there is some work here - especially the ones that start with A or B (I am still working on the Cs and later but feel free to...) - if they are still around in the report, it is because I cannot figure them out and maybe searching in Dutch WILL help. Annie 17:24, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Are you sure that they are not using 01 as the day on a date when they do not know when in the month something was published? I see way too many updates to -01 based on that and I cannot imagine the Dutch publishing books only on the 1st. What do you think? Annie 20:06, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

I don't know, but I guess it is possible. As with all internet-based data sources, the data quality/reliability may vary. It may also be the case for date references (that I also use as source), where there are periods where there are relatively many dates ending on 30, or 31. As it is virtually impossible to distinguish between a 'filler' day vs. an actual release date on the 1st, or 30th/31st of the month, I'm inclined to copy over into the DB irrespectiven, clearly referencing the source I got it from (and when). MagicUnk 11:57, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
That's fine - I was just wondering. We have a similar problem with US books from Amazon which are old-ish (pre-Amazon basically) and the weird dates and sometimes months that we get for them. Some DBs are not built for fuzzy dates - thus the need to go for 01 and/or 30/31 (and 28/29 for that weird month that never grew up). Annie 12:29, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
I'll continue to monitor, and maybe I'll find a pattern that'll allow us to derive some conclusions as to what's going on with these dates. MagicUnk 13:03, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

Notes formatting

When changing notes, please do not reformat the whole note when there is a PV on the publication. Some people prefer html formats, other prefer bulleted lists (non-html based), others prefer just lists without bullets. We do not enforce the formats and changing it just so you can add a few more notes is a bit like taking a tank to kill a fly. And making something an HTML makes it harder for some of the less-technical editors to work with the note -- it is ok to do it your way for any book you add or PV or for non-PV'd books but for PV'd books, let's try respect personal formatting in the field. Thanks for the understanding. :) Annie 15:54, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

Hi Annie. Sure, no problem. Didn't think much of it. Will try to remember. Cheers! MagicUnk 16:00, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
No worries. It is not something that comes to mind immediately and I know that it kinda gets into a sequence, it feels easier- so I am just bringing it up :) Annie 16:15, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
That's how it should be, but not all users stick to it. Stonecreek, for example, is constantly changing notes to suit their personal tastes, regardless of the original formatting. That is not collegial (Google translator).--Wolfram.winkler 00:53, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

De reiziger

9th Printing on an ebook? Annie 16:42, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Oops, cloning error. Will fix. Thanks for catching the error. MagicUnk 16:43, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 :) I was keeping track of (and being amused by) the number of printings (with separate ISBNs to boot) that the Dutch managed to end up with again. :) Annie 16:48, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
I was wondering exactly the same - lot of work to have a different ISBN each time... Also, for these multi reprints, it can get tricky to find the right dates and prices. For example and tend to only report the most recent reprinting date - yes, these do happen ;-) - so I try to cross-reference, and compare several sources with each other to detect anomalies (which are almost always caused by sloppy updates if you as me) and to get to a consistent and as accurate as possible printing history. Perfect? Don't think so, but it's the best I can do atm. ;-) MagicUnk 16:56, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
Might be something around contracts, laws and what's not - if the original contract specifies number of copies, reprinting may end up requiring a new one and then some local laws may be demanding a new ISBN. Who knows - every country does its own thing. As for the rest - we do what we can. The reason we have moderated submissions is two-fold - ensure consistency and allow for a second set of eyes (when I self-moderate, I am checking my data 3 times because I know I do not have the second set of eyes to spot something like above). And sloppy updates and mistakes do happen - you should see some of the notes I write when I reject my own sloppy updates (for example) when I catch them before I press Approve (or hear me if my brain sees it a second after I pressed the button) :) Annie 17:07, 7 September 2019 (EDT)


When you add a book, always add a source please. Such as here (I added the ISBN while I was at it because I went and found the book to verify it is in scope - it is barely supernatural but barely is good enough). I suspect that you are adding it because you have a translation but if you add a book, try to get at least an ISBN (if any) and please add sources. Thanks in advance! :) Annie 16:46, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

I know, was a bit too hasty with that one... Already submitted update to add source. Thanks for notifying. MagicUnk 16:48, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! Not that it is not clear it is most likely one of the Amazons but still :) I like also to add a date of the sourcing when I use secondary sources - makes it clear when the record was sourced. Not mandatory, just a thought (more important for e-books which disappear and small presses than the old editions). Anyway - thanks for updating! Annie 16:55, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Nevelen van Avalon (XL, volume 1)

Are you sure about the title and Pub name here? The XL is a pub series so we usually do not have those in the titles as well. Annie 15:36, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

Same for this one and this one Annie 15:36, 16 September 2019 (EDT)
Well, I'm entering the 2-volume and 3-volume editions of Nevelen van Avalon as separate titles that need to be varianted. As I needed to distinguish between Volume 1 of a 2-volume split, and a Volume 1 of a 3-volume split (the XL one), I added the Xl disambiguator to the title. Any other suggestions? MagicUnk 15:43, 16 September 2019 (EDT)
1 of 3/1 of 2? Or even leave the same name and add notes what is what so it does not get combined. The problem with the XL there is that if it gets reprinted in another pub series, that name will be irrelevant. :) Annie 15:54, 16 September 2019 (EDT)
Aaah, good suggestion! :-D I'll change the titles to volume 1 of 3, resp volume 1 of 2 etc. Thanks! MagicUnk 15:56, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

Welcome to Fixer's team

Saw you joining so welcome :) Keep in mind a couple of things:

  • If you see more books and formats than are on the list, feel free to add them. Or if you do not want to, that's fine as well - they will popup sooner or later :)
  • Keep an eye for non-SF books (some sneak in) and otherwise ineligible ones, especially if you decide to work on the dated ranges (less likely to happen on the author and publisher lists).
  • If you want to work on an author and/or publisher and they are not on the list, ask for a list - it can be produced easily :)

Thanks again for joining the effort to help Fixer deal with the back queues! Annie 12:26, 19 September 2019 (EDT)

Thanks Annie. After seeing you adding a bunch of fixer records I thought I'd give it a try and lend a hand as well. MagicUnk 17:55, 19 September 2019 (EDT)
And it is appreciated - really :)
One more thing I should have mentioned: Fixer can also get all the ISBN-less ASINs - we usually do that as a second step after the ISBN list for an author/publisher is cleared. So if it is easier to clone (as you had been doing), I do not want to stop you but if you would rather not, we can do it via the second process later. Just let me know when an author/publisher is done and we can deal with it. Does not apply to the dates ranges of course... It's a never ending rabbit hole if you try to follow all threads. Thanks again! Annie 15:40, 20 September 2019 (EDT)


Hi MagicUnk,

Don't forget to add prices when you add e-books for Fixer (and otherwise): I added it for this one. Although you being in Europe may cause an issue with prices: What price do you see here? $4.99 or a different one? Annie 14:06, 20 September 2019 (EDT)

List price $14.99; Kindle price $6.08... MagicUnk 16:32, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
Bloody Amazon. Keep leaving the kindle prices out then. Thanks for checking! Annie 16:55, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
Keep in mind that Amazon can display up to three different types of prices for Kindle books. The first one is "Kindle Price", which can vary depending on the country associated with your IP address. The second is (an optional) "Digital List Price", which is the list price set by the publisher of the e-book. The third one is "Print List Price", which has nothing to do with the displayed e-book, but Amazon displays it anyway to emphasize how much money you will save if you buy the e-book version as opposed to the paper version. Ahasuerus 17:29, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, there is that. Although in my experience "Digital List Price" is there only when there is a real (big) publisher - the self-published and most of the small presses will have the Kindle one and eventually the Print List one. When "Digital List Price" is missing, the only one we have is the Kindle one (and as long as notes are dated, at least it gives us an idea of a price at a certain point). Annie 17:40, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
That's pretty much what I have seen as well. The Amazon API doesn't return price information for e-books, so all we have is what's displayed on Amazon pages. Sometimes the Kindle price differs greatly from the digital list price and then I document the former in notes. Ahasuerus 17:58, 20 September 2019 (EDT)

That second duplicate record...

Good morning! Maybe someone's browser hiccuped, the editor did not realize it got submitted so either redid it or pressed again send later when their browser/internet recovered and the approving moderators missed it. Or they forgot they submitted it and did it again. It happens. We probably need a report for duplicate ASINs because I doubt it is the only one out there... :) Annie 03:09, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

Changing dates on all stories in a publication

You can do that with one edit - as long as the strips are in one publication only. Just change the date next to the contents line of that story on editPub. If they are greyed out, then you will need to do it one by one because this means the story is also elsewhere. But if it is just one pub, that is much easier. Annie 20:39, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

You're right. Don't know why I didn't think of it myself. Thanks for the reminder. MagicUnk 01:53, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
We have way too many small things like that which are easily forgotten. So I run a regularly scheduled reminder service about them :) You will be surprised what kinds of things everyone forgets now and then.
PS: While I have you around - you know how before you clone the 3456 (or was it 3567?) editions of a Dutch book, you clear up capitalization and whatever else is wrong with them? Think of these English clones the same way - I caught a chapbook with two stories today (which means that it is a collection even if it is very short) and "With" being capitalized in the middle of a sentence. As both had clones pending from you, I approved them and then fixed both the originals and the new clones. Sometimes it is fun to work with some of our older records... Nothing will break if they do not get cleaned up but if we see them, why not? :) Annie 02:13, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
It was actually the 4876th edition :) And I think I know which one you meant. Being non-English speaker, I wasn't sure whether it had to be "with" or "With". And as for collection vs. chapbook, it turns out that looking into Fixer records to add I come across all kinds of fun stuff such as coll. vs. anth, karate bunnies, color books,... :) MagicUnk 04:27, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, right. I told you - I mix up all of those numbers... :)
Capitalization: The rule is: "all later words are capitalized except for "and", "or", "the", "a", "an", "for", "of", "in", "on", "by", "at", "from", "with", and "to"" Technically that means that we don't even care if it is a phrasal verb (it was not) even if the practice differs a bit. Worst case - the rename will be rejected :) So... always a good candidate for a fix.
Welcome to the dark side... We go by tags and categories and Amazon can be creative with those... And as you are working on the last from those years, there are some gems and a lot of weirdness over there. I think that the karate bunnies will become a running joke around here.  :) Annie 04:38, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
PS: "Being non-English speaker" - you know that I am not either, right? Never stopped me from implementing the rules :) Annie 04:39, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, I know. But from what I'm reading from your hand on this here website, you're much more proficient than I am - and have much more in-depth knowledge of the English language. I'll keep learning though :) MagicUnk 11:30, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

De drakenruiters en andere verhalen

I would like to change the US price of this verified pub to the Dutch price (€17.00). I'm doing that for all the Dutch Spatterlight editiond. The US price can go in the notes. Can you agree? --Willem 10:25, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Makes sense I guess. It's an American-Dutch publisher after all, iirc. So go ahead, I don't mind. Thanks for the notification. MagicUnk 14:55, 17 October 2019 (EDT)


We no longer record CreateSpace as a publisher - they are just a platform and usually there is another publisher name hiding in the work. So when you see that as a publisher, there are three choices:

  • Look inside may show you a real publisher inside.
  • Use the author name as a publisher.
  • Leave it empty with a note that the publisher is unclear

Order of preference as listed. I removed the publisher from here - it is the perfect case for the third option. :) Annie 13:06, 18 October 2019 (EDT)

Thanks Annie! Wasn't entirely sure what the best way to record it was. Thanks for the correction. MagicUnk 01:49, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

NewCon Press

While you are updating them, all their prices should be in £ (and are on the site). And all books have catalog IDs indeed (always on the copyright page, the hardcovers at least on the spine as well) :) Annie 17:21, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

And while copying the same thing everywhere, check what price is already added? If the UK one is there, no point repeating it in the notes... Annie 17:24, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
Will do. But I'm a bit too tired to concentrate, so it'll be something for another day... :) Question though; do you happen to know where to find the catalog ID's for the limited edition hc's? Thanks! MagicUnk 17:26, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
On my bookshelf? :) I need to work on those - I have most of them... Basically the catalog numbers go in order, especially in the older editions (for the most part) with a few exceptions). If you want to leave that alone for now, I will get my books out next week when I am done with the current Fixer download and work on them - and if need be, will ping the publisher and ask for a complete list. Annie 17:32, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
Ok, no problem Annie. MagicUnk 17:33, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
If you want to update the ones you have info on, go ahead, less work for me. Just do not worry about the rest (is what I am saying) :) Annie 17:47, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

The Chronicles of the Avenger: Book 1

this appears to be too short to be a novel looking at a sample page and the number of pages so downgraded it to a chapbook. I look suspiciously at anything under the 150 pages mark these days - Look Inside is very helpful in estimating :) Annie 11:34, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you! MagicUnk 11:40, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Michael Andrews times too many

Looks like you found a new Michael Andrews. I disambiguated him. One trick is to check the page on Amazon - the new authors are obvious (and the novel is nowhere to be seen in Michael Andrews (I)'s list on GR and on his page on Amazon). Always something, isn't it? :) Annie 11:57, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Ah, a new one?! I thought it'd be the 'default' one. Thanks for catching this one. MagicUnk 11:58, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
With smallish authors (this is where the Amazon list come into play), it is always worth checking if it is the default one (more often than not, the default one is the oldest or the first added so most modern novels go to the disambiguated ones - unless it is a big name). Which is why I never add a book by an author I do not recognize until I had opened the author page and verified it belongs to whoever we do have on the list - sometimes it is obvious (the series is there already), sometimes it needs a check in GR or Amazon - none is perfect but between the two of them, one of them will get you on the right track usually.
In this case the default one is a house name used by the publisher TSR that had not been used since 1994. Very highly unlikely that it will be back any time soon. Especially considering that TSR had been dead for 20 years :) Not that we had not seen some old house name reappearing lately but still, that is not one that is very recognizable to be worth resurrecting (I would think)... Annie 12:05, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Darkness & Good

You won't like that but... adding stories with the author as unknown will make sure that they never get proper authors - and starting down that road, we will have thousands of them before you turn around (small presses are fun). So I would advice these to be pulled out from the publication, Incomplete template to be added and the titles to be added to the notes - and then added to the proper places when we find who wrote them. Annie 12:40, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Arghl! I KNEW I would run into trouble with this one... :) I'll update and submit accordingly. MagicUnk 12:44, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
One learns from one's mistakes :) More seriously though: It is a tricky case. I left a few anthologies empty lately exactly because I cannot match authors to stories. It is annoying, isn't it? :) I used the big mop and deleted the stories you ejected so all clean now. :) Annie 13:06, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
You may want to use | for these newly added ones... Or real pages - I will add them :) Or the bubble at the top. And we capitalize "As" :) Annie 13:48, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
Eh, did you find the actual pages? MagicUnk 15:14, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
Yep - everyone's favorite Look Inside decided to show me the second page of the contents in one of the refreshes. It pays off to use multiple browsers sometimes. :) And reopen a few times. Annie 18:21, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Self-published books

Read the title and copyright pages - don't rely on the Amazon's publisher field - half of the time it is wrong on who the publisher actually is - sometimes it goes for the printer, sometimes for a parent company, sometimes for the distributor. So you use that only if Look Inside does not give you an option (or even GoodReads).

Fixed it here plus a small rewriting of the last statement (on actual printing date). And you do not need to use "br" tags... :) I suspect they came from the clone but you can clean them up before submitting. Annie 13:11, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Ah yes, thanks! MagicUnk 13:13, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Two Small things

  • Ebooks do not have number of pages unless they are PDFs or comparable formats. Specified number of pages (from Amazon for example) go into the notes.
  • English capitalization rules: "As" is always capitalized

:)Annie 15:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

The Devil's Hoof: A Gothic Tale

Are you sure that the novel is by the artist? Annie 12:56, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Yes. Did a search on the title, and articles came up confirming this. See here and here for example. Further search revealed that the artist we've on file is the same that did the cover art for this one too. 1+1=2 :) MagicUnk 13:01, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Good enough - making sure we do not have a copy/paste snafu. Almost feels like we should rename him from (artist) to (I) :) Annie 13:04, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
...almost... MagicUnk 13:06, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
The other Barry was a pseudonym used for 1 variant only. That made no sense so I reorganized the division - the guy got his name back. Annie 13:12, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Aaah, nice. Much cleaner this way :) MagicUnk 13:21, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Did you see my note on Christian's page on the policy for series names in titles? Annie 13:29, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Bright Eyes, Ape City: Examining the Planet of the Apes Mythos

A collection/anthology/omnibus/chapbook in this DB means fiction. The only two containers that do not need to contain fiction are EDITOR (for non-fiction magazines) and NONFICTION (for any book that does not have fiction in it). So I changed this one from Anthology to Nonfiction. And "About the Contributors" always needs disambiguation so did that as well. :)

And I also adjusted the name of the publisher to a bit longer name to reunite with the rest of the books from the same publisher. If you think it should be the shorted name, I can fix it in one edit. The result is here. Annie 13:02, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Perfect! (I somehow forgot that we have an Add Nonfiction... blush) MagicUnk 13:05, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Happens :) And I fixed a boatload of capitalization thingies (As, Is are ALWAYS capitalized (yes, I know, two letters words but they are not on the list so capital letter they get); And is only capitalized at the start of a title or subtitle and words separated by hyphen always have the second word capitalized :) Annie 13:09, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Thanks again Annie. I really need to start paying attention, instead of just typing over the contents with a shut-down brain. MagicUnk 13:11, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
If it helps, it does become automatic at some point :) Mistakes do happen and they will keep happening. And I will keep reminding you of the short words that need capitalization. Nothing that is unfixable later on. :) Annie 13:19, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

The Amazons

There are 16 Amazon sites, each having different information very often. So when using Amazon as a source, always specify which one ( is also Amazon US if you prefer that notation). Otherwise someone would assume that Amazon in a Portuguese book means Amazon BR :) I fixed it here. And while we are on that - the Portuguese series name belongs in the notes of the series. I added it here. :) Annie 13:35, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

I'm using Amazon as 'shorthand' for US. I always use Amazon UK, Amazon ES etc. when it's not the US one. Should I abandon that, and always use (or alternately Amazon US) instead? MagicUnk 13:37, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Yep. No disambiguation this way on what you mean by Amazon. For someone living in Brazil, Amazon means Amazon BR. For a French book sourced from Amazon, I would assume Amazon FR if you just say Amazon. Annie 13:42, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Your wish is my command :) Consider it done! MagicUnk 13:43, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Edward J. McFadden III

This name needed to be normalized first (see the examples - which sent it into the preexisting Edward J. McFadden, III so the alternative name is now impossible. Annie 14:30, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Avenging Angels

So... for some reason you had the name of this book as "The Angels' Secret". Which looking at the cover (no Title page anywhere) is incorrect. So I fixed that. Then varianted the two titles. It is pretty common with smaller presses and self-published to have the books under more than one title. Annie 14:40, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Sorry Annie. Duplication mistake. Thanks for the correction.MagicUnk 15:51, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
No worries :) Just wanted to let you know why I am rejecting some of the entries you were trying to do. Copy/paste mistakes are always so much fun :) Annie 15:52, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Speak / Penguin

Are all of those actually Speak / Penguin Books (US)? If so, I can merge the publishers instead of updating each work individually? Annie 16:19, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

I'm checking each of them one by one. I'll submit them when checked. MagicUnk 16:21, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Yup, they were. All submitted :) MagicUnk 16:24, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Which makes more work for both you and me... :) Now I need to approve 5 submissions :) Just keep in mind that Publishers can be merged for the next one you find. Annie 16:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Skyhook World Classics

Making this a series and not a pub series means that these stories are ALWAYS part of this series, regardless of who is publishing them. As such, having a publisher name does not make sense... So why these are not publication series? Annie 16:32, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Just realized I made that mistake and cancelled my submissions. Will re-edit and re-submit as pub series. MagicUnk 16:32, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 :) Good. Annie 16:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Chapbooks and juvenile

When you mark a story as juvenile/graphic and so on (any of the 4 check-boxes), don't forget that its container also needs to be marked as such when it is published as a chapbook. Or they will popup on a report and someone else needs to do them :) Annie 18:44, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Yes, I am aware. I normally do that, and I have several in the queue. May have missed a few though, but will re-check. MagicUnk 18:45, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Thanks :) Saw only stories going through for awhile so decided to send a reminder :) Annie 18:46, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Publisher template

Just a reminder that we have a Publisher template - this way if publishers get merged or destroyed and recreated and the ID changes, the search based on the name will find them again. Fixed it here :) Annie 18:48, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for the nudge. Wasn't aware there existed a template for use in DB records. Will try to remember :) MagicUnk 18:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
The full list of templates that can be used in all Notes fields :) Annie 18:54, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Number of pages and Amazon

Amazon lists complete number of pages (empty ones included) as the publisher gives them, not what we are looking for. OCLC follows our rules (or we follow theirs :) ). So in cases like here, please do not replace the correct value (which came from OCLC - the Worldcat validation and the OCLC number there should have told you to look there for the source) with the Amazon standard number of pages. Approved the update but restored the pages number. Annie 19:20, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Understood. MagicUnk 19:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

The Martian : Andy Weir

Hi, you are PV here. First off, thank you for your full coverage for this record! However, I have proposed trivial changes here:

By the logic that the map is at [8], then the page count should be [12]+369.

I've added italics to the printer's key (following your practice, I think, of displaying book actual content in italics?).

Re-ordered the Contents so that the map is listed first.

I'm not sure whether the ISFDB help on page count clarifies anything. There are three unnumbered pages before page 1 that have no content at all. What do you think?

As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to count these. MagicUnk 04:17, 12 November 2019 (EST)

"Sometimes a publication will have unnumbered pages before page 1. If there is any material in these pages which needs to be entered as part of the contents of the book, you may record this by entering the count in squared brackets. For example, [6]+320 would be a publication with six unnumbered pages and then 320 numbered pages. There is no need to record these unnumbered pages if they contain no content that needs to be recorded. At times you will need to count backwards from the first numbered page to see which is page 1 and then would count the unnumbered pages that are before this.......". Many thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 13:13, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the refinements. MagicUnk 04:17, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Dr Bloodmoney : PKD

Hi, regarding your PV1 here, I can't work out why Pat Cadigan's Inroduction doesn't appear on PKD's Bibliography page here Philip K. Dick. This pub may be involved too. Can you help please? :) Kev. BanjoKev 20:18, 16 November 2019 (EST)

Hi Kev. Not exactly sure what you're asking, but this is normal behavior. Pat's introduction can't appear on Dick's page because Dick is not the aurhor of said introduction. You'll find it on Pat's page instead. MagicUnk 00:06, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Thanks for the reassurance. Looks like a dumb question to me now... I guess I was looking down the wrong end of the telescope at the time :) Kev. BanjoKev 04:29, 19 November 2019 (EST)

Give us a chance?

Give us a chance to try to clear the waters a bit before you leave for good? I hate seeing you leave but I understand the frustration. If the decision is final - thanks for all the work! If there is anything I can do to help change the decision, let me know (and apologies if I stepped on your toes as well)... Annie 23:58, 17 November 2019 (EST)

No Annie, you didn't. You are wonderful. And as for the permanently leaving? I still can't resist coming back to check now and then, so who knows? MagicUnk 00:02, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Give it some time. We are all human -- and sometimes things go weird. Anyway - have a good day :) And I will love to see you back. Annie 00:10, 18 November 2019 (EST)
And believe it or not: me too. You overall did a good work. But it is (or was) stressing to dig ever deeper into the database and recognize all the things that are weird and getting weirder. It seems that all the big title series have their problems, and all have to be dealt with, I'd think. I have grown up with Marvel comics, and just couldn't stand the mess the series had become. Christian Stonecreek 03:05, 18 November 2019 (EST)
To echo others: You are very helpful and I hope you stay. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:58, 19 November 2019 (EST)
I'm sorry to read this news. Your publication notes structure were a great inspiration to me when I was struggling to work out how best to organise mine. Be well :) Kev. BanjoKev 01:50, 20 November 2019 (EST)

(unindent) A few things, which may, hopefully, affect your decision.

  • I have discussed recent issues with moderation with Christian. He has re-committed himself to following consensus when editing ISFDB records/guiding editors and to following other ISFDB rules and guidelines like not changing existing series organization without prior discussion. I will keep an eye on things to make sure that we don't have problems going forward.
  • I apologize for my lack of oversight of Wiki discussions. My health hasn't been that great the last couple of years and I was spending my shrinking "ISFDB man-hours" primarily on Fixer and on software development. In retrospect, it was a mistake. I should have been paying more attention to Wiki discussions. Again, my apologies. I will try to do better in the future.
  • Going forward, if I and other moderators miss problems during your Wiki-based discussions with the reviewing moderator (which is always possible given the number of submissions and Wiki posts these days), please don't hesitate to bring them up on the Moderator Noticeboard. As I wrote the other day:
    • If an editor believes that a moderator is not treating him or her in a "supportive and friendly way" and/or not enforcing the rules and the consensus correctly, s/he is encouraged to raise the issue on the Moderator Noticeboard. It will be reviewed by other Moderators. If necessary, it will be escalated to a "bureaucrat" who can impose administrative sanctions to ensure that all moderators follow the consensus and treat editors fairly.

Please let me know if you can think of other ways to improve the process and thank you for all of your contributions! Ahasuerus 15:55, 20 November 2019 (EST)

Er Was Eens...: Een Reisgids Naar het Onbekende

I would like to make some (minor) changes to this pub before verifying my copy.

  • Add to the notes that I suspect most or all of the uncredited essays were written by Jacques Post
  • Make two of the three interviews variants to the titles they appeared under in "Het Parool", and add title notes. I also found proof that the interviews were conducted by Jacques Post (Farmer and Asimov
  • According to Fandata (my local copy) Blikgeld by Thomas M. Disch was translated by Jacques Post in this ECI publication, not yet in the database. I think we can safely assume they're the same translation.

Any problems with these changes? Thanks, --Willem 15:49, 2 December 2019 (EST)

Nice finds. Go ahead, I don't mind. MagicUnk 17:50, 2 December 2019 (EST)
Thanks & done. Another change: 'Jack Vance De Mitr' should be 'De Mitr', and merged with the other title (Blikgeld is also not 'Thomas A. Disch Blikgeld'). --Willem 03:45, 3 December 2019 (EST)
I noticed that too. Not sure what I was thinking when I added that jack Vance title:). Feel free to update. MagicUnk 08:55, 3 December 2019 (EST)
Thanks again. I kept the note about comparing the text. --Willem 14:19, 3 December 2019 (EST)

Dutch capitalization

So is Dutch capitalization like French (and almost any other language) (proper names and first words capitalized, all others all small) or like German (all names are capitalized)? Annie 18:08, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Yes, see also here. I can't remember if we ever decided to update the rules to explicitly state to apply language-specific capitalization rules though. MagicUnk 22:31, 9 December 2019 (EST)
I ask A or B, he says Yes... shaking head :) I am just asking -- we did put in that the rules are per language so we are good on fixinh; I was just making sure I know the rules. Normal sentence case then. :) Glad to see you around. Annie 22:40, 9 December 2019 (EST)
Sorry... I'm actually lying in bed being tired. Should have waited till tomorrow... MagicUnk 22:44, 9 December 2019 (EST)
All Good. Go to sleep.  :) Annie 22:57, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Het Verhaal Achter de Foundation

Hello, Can we verify if this and this are the same essay and if so, is that the translation of the one that came with "Foundation and Earth" (as I suspect - and if so I will move it to its new parent) or the earlier 1982 one that came with the original trilogy (and originated in the magazine)? I am also calling Willem here as he is the verifier of the second one. Annie 11:55, 10 December 2019 (EST)

For this pub, it's the 1986 version - see here (might not be readable - I have the originals I can post if someone could tell me where... MagicUnk 14:17, 10 December 2019 (EST)
Nah - we have the scan up only so people can compare to something :) Do you mind if I drop the disambiguation and merge it with Willem's version (he comfirmed it is the 1986 as well) - which will leave both of them under the proper title and together? Annie 14:25, 10 December 2019 (EST)
(after edit conflict) The Dutch translations are now all connected to the right parent (see here. I was wondering if they should be merged. The disambiguation is i.m.o. not really necessary. --Willem 14:28, 10 December 2019 (EST)
Agree. Go ahead and merge them if you please (and sure, drop the disambiguation) MagicUnk 14:58, 10 December 2019 (EST)
Done. Thanks! :) Annie 15:01, 10 December 2019 (EST)

Cover art title removal

I've held two title removals (this one and this one) because no reason was given for the removals. Why are you wanting to delete them? Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:15, 13 December 2019 (EST)

Sorry, this is due to a cloning error. They shouldn't have been there as the green covers are not by Nico Keulers. MagicUnk 16:18, 13 December 2019 (EST)
No problem. Approved! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:45, 13 December 2019 (EST)
Thanks!MagicUnk 17:03, 13 December 2019 (EST)

Inui Rokurō vs Rokuro Inui

Hi, You have entered a title in a review as this, but the actual books is this.--Dirk P Broer 05:42, 17 December 2019 (EST)

Yes, but the review from Interzone 284 is listed as by 'Inui Rokurō'. Hence the varanting. I could make a note on title level to clarify? MagicUnk 06:07, 17 December 2019 (EST)
We generally do not create titles just because a review misspelled something though - unless a book was published under that author/title/language, it is not worth having as a separate title (we are pub-based after all) -- it is much better to have the review under the title it actually reviewed. Connect it to the book, add a note that it is credited slightly differently in the review and we are all set. Annie 11:21, 17 December 2019 (EST)
OK, can do that. Do I keep 'Inui Rokurō' as a variant, as that's the name the review has listed (after all, that is what the author's transliterated name is)?
Well, if it does not have anything attached to it, the variant will come up on a cleanup report and get deleted overnight and the pseudonym will get deleted then anyway. We don't let publess titles pile up. Unless a publisher actually use that form of the name on a page and we add that book, it does not matter how the name get transliterated based on the rules, it is not a valid pseudonym for us - we are publication based after all. :) Annie 12:52, 17 December 2019 (EST)
But what do I do with the review [1] then? As it is right now, it is as written in Interzone 284. And I would think that particular form of the name doesn't come out of thin air - the reviewer must have gotten it from somewhere, might even be printed in the book...? MagicUnk 12:56, 17 December 2019 (EST)
Highly unlikely, as Japanese have their family names first, and this is a book by a Japanese publisher.--Dirk P Broer 05:18, 18 December 2019 (EST)
I see... I noticed the review has been already relinked to the proper title. I guess all's in order now. MagicUnk 06:43, 18 December 2019 (EST)


I'm holding this submission for now, but it will have to be rejected. The first Dutch edition of Maskeradel was another translation with another title (Maskerade) and so is another variant. I changed the date to 2010-08-01, the first publication with the new title. --Willem 16:02, 27 December 2019 (EST)

Hi Willem. OK, I think I see what you mean: I have changed the dates to the 'Maskerade' pub date, whereas I should have updated to the first 'Maskeradel' pub date. Correct? MagicUnk 16:07, 27 December 2019 (EST)
I think I see it now. I hadn't seen your submission to add the first printing of the second edition. I will approve these. Thanks! --Willem 16:15, 27 December 2019 (EST)

Do you think you're ready to be a moderator?

Well, I do. You've been overloading the submission queue for a long time now, and I think it's time you at least review your own submissions. I've approved a lot of them these last few weeks, and found only one thing to question (and that was my own mistake). Also, your work on the Fixer public page has been noticed. Think about it, take a look at the Moderator Qualifications and let me know what you think. --Willem 17:29, 27 December 2019 (EST)

Hi Willem. Makes sense I guess :) Self-moderating would make life much easier for sure - and it would improve the quality of my submissions even more as it would allow me to go back immediately and finish all required edits in sequence. I may not be able to help out much as a regular moderator though, as I will not always have that much time as I have right now to assist. I could help with the fixer queues from time to time though:) Other than that, I thin I may qualify... -MagicUnk 18:14, 27 December 2019 (EST)
Working with other editors is one part of the job - how much you do of it is... a different question. So a "regular moderator" does not mean just approving other's submissions - everyone that approves anything is a regular moderator, even the ones that only self-moderate :) And Fixer has a different type of queue system for moderators - you can get the submissions directly submitted and held for you so they can be approved and edited post-approval instead of going for the wiki page (which can be a lot more fun or a lot more of a headache... depending on the case)  :) Annie 18:29, 27 December 2019 (EST)
Thanks! I started the process here. If successful, you can of course start with self moderating, and grow in the role. There's a whole new world to explore... --Willem 04:56, 28 December 2019 (EST)
The nomination was successful. Congratulations! Please don't hesitate to ask if the "Moderator" Web pages which you now have access to are not clear. Help:Screen:Moderator is a good place to start getting acquainted with the moderator side of things.
Some things will be obvious, e.g. creating a submission will now immediately take you to that submission's review page and let you approve or reject it. Others may take time to become familiar with. A couple of "merge" options that you now have access to -- "merge authors" and "merge publishers" -- are probably the most powerful and potentially dangerous new tools in your toolbox. Again, congratulations! Ahasuerus 15:59, 3 January 2020 (EST)
I just saw that you are now able to moderate. Congratulations! It is well earned. Christian Stonecreek 15:54, 3 January 2020 (EST)
Thank you ! Will make life much easier :) MagicUnk 16:01, 3 January 2020 (EST)
Welcome on Board. Two basic rules - never be afraid to ask for help and there is nothing that cannot be fixed if it gets messed up - although some things may need a lot of work ;) have fun! Annie 16:05, 3 January 2020 (EST)
Congratulations! And a warm welcome from me. :) --Willem 17:04, 3 January 2020 (EST)

ebooks and ASINs

I added the ASIN here here. One trick I had learned with the European Amazons is that not all of them will have both the ASIN and ISBN connections working for ebooks - it has something to do with how ISBNs for ebooks are recorded across them. In this case, an ISBN search on did not find anything (which is why you probably did not add the ASIN) but DE, UK and IT do have a working ISBN based connection (so does US technically with a note that you cannot buy it - DE and IT seem to often be able to help in such cases) - and then the ASIN-based link works for the (and most of the other European ones). Which is a good thing for a Dutch book to have on the record. Plus having the ASIN gives us one more chance to track the book elsewhere later on. :) Annie 23:09, 28 December 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up. I tend not to concentrate on Amazon for Dutch titles, as is "the" online shop for The Netherlands and Flanders. But I'll have a look at the Amazons and I'll add the ASIN's if it doesn't take too much additional time :) MagicUnk 06:44, 29 December 2019 (EST)

De bliksemdief

A link to here? Or did you leave it out on purpose? Annie 05:13, 29 December 2019 (EST)

Forgot to add it. Thanks for spotting this. MagicUnk 06:41, 29 December 2019 (EST)

Echopraxia Notes and References - Peter Watts

Hi, I'm changing the date for the essay here to its original publication date in the Tor 2014-08-00 edition. I found the details of it on amazon's Look Inside.

I'm in the process of submitting my Head of Zeus 2015 1st printing of Echopraxia, but I find that I have to do a bit of repair work first and this is the first step.

You don't have to do anything at the moment but I will get back to you after the first round dust has settled, if that's ok. Thanks, Kev.

Sure, no problem. Thanks for the heads-up. MagicUnk 17:27, 1 January 2020 (EST)

Being Moderator

Hi, Congratulations with your appointment to moderator! You may now make use of the 'Approve' button, which is something of a change at first. Your own submissions are from now on not possible to approve by other moderators..--Dirk P Broer 16:55, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Thanks! MagicUnk 16:56, 3 January 2020 (EST)
Congratulations from me, too! If you need any help or are unsure of anything, just ask. --MartyD 14:07, 4 January 2020 (EST)
Thank you! Will surely do! MagicUnk
You might want to add yourself to this list. ../Doug H 12:15, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Congrats from me too! With great power, etc etc.! PeteYoung 12:19, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks for the nudge. Now added to the list. MagicUnk 12:22, 25 February 2020 (EST)

Shadows of War

Re this edit: Why would you reject it? It's valid pub that exists. While ideally we would have contents for all pubs, not accepting the pub would seem to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Contents could be added from Amazon look inside if the editor is not willing, but from the description, it sounds like a mixed-genre collection. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2020 (EST)

Yes, it is a valid pub. But seeing that approving it will result in a poor, incomplete PV'd record (no contents) which will show up on a cleanup report once approved, and the editor's submissions are know to be generally of poor quality and is known to be unresponsive, I was thinking what I could do to entice a reaction from said editor to try to convince him/her to at least also add the contents. The idea being to reject if no answer is forthcoming, and provide information in the rejection note field to the why, what should be done to improve the quality of the submission(s), and how to contact us if for whatever reason the editor didn't know how to log on to the wiki and respond to our inquiries. We shouldn't have to rely on secondary sources to complete the contents for PV'd records. Contents might be available from Amazon for Shadows of War, but this is not necessarily so for other pubs. The fact that he/she wants this record PV'd might be enough to pay attention... This approach might be wrong, and/or not desired, so any and all feedback and insights always welcome :) But do note that we -are- having an issue with uncooperative editors that enter poor-quality data - for example, the act of PV-ing a record and refusing to correct data that is wrong or refusing to complete any missing data is basically equivalent to worsening the data quality by the simple act of PV-ing the record ...). MagicUnk 10:45, 15 January 2020 (EST)
If the pub is salvageable, rejecting it is always the wrong thing to do. Some editors add barebones pubs and then fix them. Some don’t and someone else fixes them. Rejecting just because they are not perfect leads to discouraged editors. Instead of rejecting, approve and work with the editor. Or fix it post approval. Or if you are not willing to do it, skip it and let a moderator that would do it handle the submission. Just my 2 cents. Annie 11:09, 15 January 2020 (EST)
My two cents: Shadows of War is already in the database, also without content.--Dirk P Broer 11:14, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Ah, it's not about not willing. I have no problem completing data where I can. I think the question boils down to: are we willing to let these inattentive, sloppy, uncaring (or whatever you want to call them) editors' submissions through or not? Should I just let it go and not bother? I find this a slippery slope to be honest MagicUnk 11:28, 15 January 2020 (EST)
If they are valid works? I will take them and work with the editors and the works as opposed to chasing the editors away because they are not perfect and not getting the publications in the process. Not everyone will be perfect. That’s why this is a team effort. Calling editors names is not very productive either. There are a lot of reasons why someone may want to help but may not be able to raise to the standard you seem to require - language bareer, health issues, troubles understanding the dB and so on. Chasing people that want to help away is a bad practice. Again - if you are not willing to fix it or work with the editor, skip it. If you approve it, you work with the editor and the pub until they are up to code. Moderating is not a yes/no process - it is all about the balance. Annie 11:38, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Sigh... OK. I'll approve, and keep an eye on it and if the editor doesn't add the contents, I'll add it from Amazon. MagicUnk 11:43, 15 January 2020 (EST)

Caves of Steel fragment as serial

Hi. I read today Orion Orfeu - 2 and Orion Orfeu - 3 and Caves of Steel (Cavernele de oțel) (18 chapters) is published as serial. In issue 1 is chapters 1-6, in issue 2 is chapters 7-11 and in issue 3 is chapters 12-18. --Florin 05:48, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Aha, very nice. Then indeed, you can record Cavernele de oțel as three serial records varianted to the original. You could then have titles disambiguated as usual with part 1 of 3 etc... between brackets. Regards MagicUnk 11:07, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Oneindig moment

I finally found my copies of the 'Oneindig moment' booklets. Entered the first (#0) here. I would like to add the four you entered to the publication series, and, since these were published together with the author pubs in the 'Oneindig moment' series, I would also like to synchronise the publication dates, add notes if necessary and links from info booklet to the corresponding author pub v.v. Hope you don't mind. Thanks, --Willem 15:47, 22 January 2020 (EST)

Sure, no issues with that. I would suggest to name the pub series just Oneindig Moment, or perhaps M=SF - Oneindig Moment- but I leave the choice up to you :) MagicUnk 16:03, 22 January 2020 (EST)
Eh, scrap that. Oneindig moment informatie is the better choice :) MagicUnk 16:05, 22 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks, will do. I chose 'Oneindig moment informatie' because we still have a wish somewhere in the pipeline to be able to add pubs and titles to multiple series. When (if?) that's realised I would add the novels/omnibuses to a series called 'Oneindig moment' --Willem 16:14, 22 January 2020 (EST)

Using templates in subjects in Wiki

You may want to be careful with those - they do not work very well as links. When you see the link in the Watchlist (or in a history), it won't send you to the correct entry if you use a template (because the text on the page does not match the text on the list) -- thus making it very hard to navigate a page for the more active editors. Using the templates in the body of the message is fine, using just plain text on the subject line makes everyone's life much easier :) Annie 15:14, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Aha! That I wouldn't have thought would be a problem. But it makes sense. Thanks for telling me :) MagicUnk 15:15, 6 February 2020 (EST)
Anytime:) Same with links - anything that renders as text differently from what it shows really. Thus me using only plain text for subjects. Not a problem if one has 20 messages. A bit of a headache if you have 100+ :) Compare clicking on the -> in front of the last 2 entries here. Annie 15:22, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Title Dates after Publication Dates

Can you take a look at the five omnibus titles on this cleanup report? All of these are dated 8888-00-00 (unpublished), but have a publication with a publication date. Only one of these can be correct. Thanks, --Willem 03:54, 7 February 2020 (EST)

All corrected I see, so no need to answer here anymore. --Willem 14:42, 7 February 2020 (EST)


Hi, Can it be that your definition of 'Omnibus' is more narrow than the Isfdb standards? I have removed two remarks with entered omnibuses where the notes stated 'This is not an omnibus. The ISBN represents the two/three separate publications as a single set, sold together'. If that does not define an Omnibus, what does in your eyes?--Dirk P Broer 07:41, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Is it perhaps that you try to say that they are boxed sets (a well-known pain in the posterior)? --Dirk P Broer 09:46, 7 February 2020 (EST)
Nah, I've been struggling with those Zilverspoor/Zilverbron ISBN's that are supposedly for an omnibus, but are really only a package deal for the separate volumes sold together (or at least that's as far as my research got me). They're not even a boxed set as far as I can see. So. Not sure how we best enter such a set of separate volumes sold together. But thinking about it some more, the set -IS- listed under a single ISBN so, if that hints towards an omnibus I have absolutely no issues with that :) MagicUnk 12:27, 7 February 2020 (EST)
BTW, I initially thought these ISBN's never got released, so I had them as 'unpublished'. I later discovered that (some of) the sets were for sale on MagicUnk 12:33, 7 February 2020 (EST)
Still an omnibus in ISFDB terms - regardless of their binding - one book, 20 books, box set, loose and tied with a ribbon - if it collects two or more long enough works and do not fit anywhere else, it is an omnibus here (with notes added for it). Don't get tied to what you would call an omnibus in the real world - some of our types are... our own (omnibus and good old chapbook being the most obvious ones).
For things like that, if they appear unpublished, do not add them. It is good to add "actual works" that got cancelled sometimes but adding a packaged thing that never made it is just clutter - we are not advertising agency for publishers - we record what did make it out. Add a note in the collected work (the novel that was supposed to be part of that deal) if you want with the ISBN and an explanation but don't add the thing :) Annie 12:40, 7 February 2020 (EST)
In this case, they have been (or still are) for sale, so it's not an unpublished work after all. I'll review the few pubs we're talking about, and update the notes to reflect that they 'are' omnibuses after all :) MagicUnk 14:19, 7 February 2020 (EST)
I was just commenting on your explanation earlier on why they were marked as 8888s. Sets and box sets are so much fun. Not! :) Annie 14:24, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Paul Hugli

You asked for confirmation that the Paul Hugli I submitted information for his death was "our" Paul Hugli. Aside from the name appearing in the In Memoriam article I will be publishing next week at Amazing Stories, the information originally came to me from Paul di Filippo (I maintain the annual in memoriam lists used by Worldcon, World Fantasy Con, SFWA, and various other conventions). I believe that Dave Langford may have noted his passing as well. Shsilver 17:10, 8 February 2020 (EST)

The information in ISFDB, and available information on the internet, was quite sparse so I thought it prudent to ask. So thank you for the additional background where the info was coming from. By the way, I am monitoring your talk page, so you can always reply there :)
Also, I notice that you cancelled your submission? There was no need, as I would have approved once I received your reply. If you'd care to re-submit, that would be appreciated. Regards, MagicUnk 13:01, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Iron Kingdoms & Bilbo's Last Song

Ping! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:02, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Ping (for Bilbo). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:03, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Time Out of Joint - PKD

Hi MagicUnk, you moderated/accepted my replacement of an inferior image here. The old file can still be reverted, which wouldn't be right. Could you please delete the old 485 pixel file? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 23:34, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

Done MagicUnk 12:00, 17 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! Kev. BanjoKev 15:09, 17 April 2020 (EDT)

Die Flußwelt der Zeit / Auf dem Zeitstrom / Das dunkle Muster / Das magische Labyrinth (1997)

Hi, can you explain please why you rejected this cloned edition [2] ? I only see 'Rejection Reason: Forced'. What does this mean? Of this set of four books are two printings, one in 1996 and one in 1997. Did I do something wrong? Zlan52 22:34, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Chiming in to help with the time zones delay: someone merged or deleted a title that was inside of the cloned publication and one or more of the referenced titles in this new one disappeared thus making the clone broken. The only thing a moderator can do at this point is to force reject and we do not get to even provide a reason :(. Feel free to resubmit - there was nothing wrong with the record itself, just one of those annoying internal things on the site. . Annie 22:45, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
Apologies, I should've left a note on your talk page... but yes, Annie's right - it says so at the bottom of the submission that a title ID no longer exists. MagicUnk 03:45, 5 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks for the answers. The omnibus has been resubmitted. Zlan52 20:53, 5 May 2020 (EDT)


MagicUnk, thanks for all you did today. Nice touch about PV2 too - I incorporated into the other bibliography as well :) Just that one little slip by me in what was otherwise, for me, a bit of a red ski-run :) Kev. BanjoKev 21:04, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Four Stories Plus


About this - did not want to step on your toes but ph is a tricky format at the best of days and this sounds more like that than anything else so decided to stop by and inquire. Think of tp/pb as the catch alls for paperbacks based on size -- ph, dos and digest take precedence if they fit the book (US publishing can be interesting sometimes) :)

And a trick from Annie's bag of tricks: When you work with collections: After you approve one of them, even if "Find Duplicates" after the approve tells you there is nothing, go to the author page and run it from there and click through the Similar and Aggressive mode. This will find things like A/The mismatch and so on. Look very carefully on both - most will be false matches but occasionally there is a story that needs to be varianted (or clarified). Not that it is not useful for anthologies as well but... too many authors - with collections at least it is a single place :) Annie 21:09, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Het wonderbaarlijke verhaal van de kleine prins

Hello again,

A quick question about this one. When you say that Tiny Fisscher edited the book, does that mean "rewrote to the point it was not Exupéry anymore"? If so, then this should not be varianted under the main title - it is considered adaptation and these are not variants; if not - we do not credit editors and translators this way.

As it is late here, I may be missing something so before I go and change things, can you clarify what is the situation with this book? Thanks in advance! Annie 03:28, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Good question! I did some more digging, and the only meaningful piece of information i could find that 'Le petit price' was ' retold in modern language ' by Tiny Fisscher - so, I don't think that counts as an adaptation, do you?
I've updated the publication notes to make this clear. MagicUnk 15:27, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Sounds like a translation -- then Tiny Fisscher should not be on the authors list :). Annie 16:10, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
Ugh, right... corrected now MagicUnk 11:35, 8 May 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! :) Annie 14:01, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Ophelia omarmd / Ophelia in My Arms

You added the Dutch version of this collection, but made it a variant of the English translation. I.m.o. it should be the other way around (Mike Jansen is a Dutch author). Do you mind if I make these changes, also for the shortfiction pieces? Thanks, --Willem 04:09, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

No problem. However, bear in mind that Mike Jansen has published a lot in English as well (still working on his records). So, I'm not 100% sure the English was not before the Dutch version. That said, we can always argue he -is- Dutch, so that takes precedence. I'm fine either way :) MagicUnk 07:31, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
What matters is what language he wrote the stories in and which version was a translation, not what he is or what got published first - we’ve seen both authors writing in non native languages and translations being published first. Not sure what language he writes in but just thought I should mention what is considered an original :) Annie 07:42, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
This is a collection title we are discussing. The collection might have been published first in English (hence we can consider the collection was 'written' in English first), as opposed to the individual stories; most likely the majority of the stories has been written in Dutch first (but not all?). But since at this time it is not know which stories got written in what language first we have to make assumptions, and after second thought, Willem's suggestion is a good one as it's more likely at this point the stories (and the collection at that) were published in Dutch first (or at around the same time as the English collection so I guess we get to choose :). MagicUnk 13:10, 17 May 2020 (EDT)
According to Mike Jansen's website (you can switch to other languages on the top right), the English version (Ophelia in My Arms) contains "somewhat older, but also a lot of recent work and nominated and award-winning stories". I.m.o, Jansen still wrote everything in Dutch in 2013, if you want to be sure, he has been active on ISFDB for a short time (see here), and he left his e-mail adress on his author page. I will reverse the varianting, and complete the contents from the look inside on

Linking templates in notes


If an external ID does not work in its field because the link does not work, making it a template makes no sense -- you still have a dead link in the record. The templates are there for the cases when you have a valid ID that does not belong to the book (a different edition you need to reference to support something in the note) or for usage in non-Publication notes; not for adding invalid links. I am pretty sure you knew that but as you posted an advice for moving a dead external ID to a template, I thought I should stop by and mention it again. In that case, it was a bit more complicated (as you can see from the conversation that went after that and my new thread in Community) but if it was a really dead/wrong external ID, it still would have become a templated link. :) Annie 01:08, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

Non fiction inside of a book/magazine

Hello again,

Please be careful when correcting things based on different definitions of terminology between what an author calls something and what is defined in ISFDB. Inside of a book/magazine, ANY nonfiction which is not a review or an interview should be added as an "essay" and not as "nonfiction" - NONFICTION is for books (containers); separate pieces of non-fiction are called essays around here. So this update was incorrect (I've fixed it to essay now). Annie 11:30, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks Annie, I'll try to remember :) MagicUnk 15:37, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

StoryHack Action & Adventure, #4


In this one, you have a note saying: "Editor not credited on or in the publication.". Unless you can see the complete magazine (in which case this should be in the notes - your only source now is , this is not factually correct ("Editor not credited on or in the visible pages of the publication via Look Inside)." would be a more correct statement if the only source being used is Amazon's Look Inside). As of right now, Amazon does not show all the pages of this magazine so it is possible that the editor is indeed credited on one of the missing pages and the ebook (which cannot skip pages) clearly shows Beattie credited as an editor. :) Can you clarify the sources here? Thanks! Annie 09:16, 25 May 2020 (EDT)

This has been entered when i was adding one of the old fixer submissions of 2017-05. I do take care to check the LookInside before making such statement, and looking at LookInside right now does not show Beattie as editor, unlike the earlier magazines, where it is clearly stated Beattie is the editor on the ToC. But you're right, I should have been more careful, and stating that there was no editor from LookInside. Thanks for catching this one. MagicUnk 13:48, 25 May 2020 (EDT)
It pinged on a report because the pub and title authors were different. After fixing that, i looked at the note and decided to come asking. Look Inside is a great thing for things it does show but not that much for pages it does not (annoying...). It possibly is indeed uncredited in that specific issue but without book at hand, it is almost academic - so notes need to point to the uncertainty. Considering that we have no access to the full magazine, I would have left his name as an editor with attribution based on the ebook and a note that it may not be credited in this issue but that is just me  :) Annie 15:18, 25 May 2020 (EDT)



A question for your verified. Any idea why the title is not normalized to Wired? Is it the name of an organization that just spells the word WIRED or something like that? Looking at Look Inside, it looks like it should be normalized but as you have it, thought I will stop and ask first :) Thanks! Annie 22:39, 25 May 2020 (EDT)

I've unearthed the copy, and it's title is written, literally everywhere, all-caps - blurb at the back, About the Author, it even has 'AMPED, the WIRED sequel'. Appears how the author wishes it to be written (to be honest, I probably didn't give it much thought at the time, and went with what DESiegel60 originally entered). By the way, its sequel, AMPED, is also all-caps in the DB. MagicUnk 13:44, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
I know for the sequel - I was adding missing editions to the author last night and cleaning up other issues in his books :) Add notes to the titles on that then explaining the all caps? We are good as long as we have notes. Blurbs and backs sometimes do all caps on short titles for recognition purposes but let's leave it all caps for now and we can always revisit... :) Annie 14:00, 26 May 2020 (EDT)

The Gossamer Mage

Can you pull this one from your shelves and check the copyright page for the following text: "DAW Book Collectors No. 1831."? The ebook shows it clearly which usually means the HC as well but as you have the book, better check before amending. Thanks! Annie 21:08, 28 May 2020 (EDT)

You're right. I've added the collectors number to the hc record as well. Thanks! MagicUnk 08:01, 29 May 2020 (EDT)

Capitalization in English

Just a slight reminder that we have a list of words we do not capitalize in English - "with" over here for example. I will fix these but careful with English records :) Annie 17:56, 29 May 2020 (EDT)

Numbering of same-named art

Just a small reminder -- we change the name of a piece of art or a story from what is inside of the magazine only when there is a confusion in the names - aka same (title, name) pair. So this should have been rejected - only one of those needs renaming (the second Richard A. Dübell one). And we never add [1]. The relevant help page is here. Thanks! :) Annie 14:39, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks Annie. I somehow missed they were not by the same artist... sigh. MagicUnk 15:44, 2 June 2020 (EDT)
Been there, done that. :) The "do not use [1] for either the first or the second" used to get me a lot as well - so I am extra careful around these indexed art pieces. Annie 16:04, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

That entry in the Queue

You may want to either approve or reject this. It had been more than a month :) Annie 20:13, 3 June 2020 (EDT)

Hi Annie. Yes, I know. There's no hurry as far as I am concerned. I haven't forgotten, and will continue to keep an eye on submitter's talk page. MagicUnk 01:33, 4 June 2020 (EDT)
In my experience, if you do not get an answer in a month, you will either never get one or get one months from now. Just reject it and continue keeping an eye on the page. When/If they respond, it can be resurrected or redone. Annie 02:30, 4 June 2020 (EDT)


Why did you approve this edit? We enter the title per the title page, not the ToC or copyright. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2020 (EDT)

I misunderstood the notes, and not thinking it through. Sorry 'bout that. MagicUnk 04:37, 15 June 2020 (EDT)


Hi, MagicUnk. You live in Belgium, I read now. Is that English "unknown"? Perhaps you know whether title=Unknown here at ISFDB should always mean that that word is the title? Now we have 164 titles start with "Unknown" including one Unknown Poem and two Unknown publication.

That's correct. But I don't understand why you are mentioning this? Could you elaborate?

Concerning the Macmillan book publishers, I have revised The Macmillan Company, and will return to it after improving the other main records (3). Maybe today :--) --Pwendt|talk 16:42, 19 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! MagicUnk 16:46, 19 June 2020 (EDT)

Approving Magazines


Just a reminder that unless the magazine has a specific date somewhere on its record, we date without a day -- so a July issue will be 2020-07-00. Also - we credit based on how the author is credited in the magazine - Tocchan tends to use the Japanese/Chinese names instead so these always need verification when showing up on English magazines. I fixed these here (plus a capitalization issue).

A lot of the editors have issues with the rules around magazines so they usually need a bit more attention than usual. :) Annie 22:38, 1 July 2020 (EDT)

Magic Kingdom for Sale—Sold!

The exact wording is "L. Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz" (Title in italics). I added the word excerpt. Thought I was following the directions in the help section. Date the excerpt the date of the current title. I put novel since that is where it came from. I added the word excerpt because I thought it would be misleading to show two novels in the contents. I waited to do the last 3 until I saw what the moderators did with the first two titles, no changes were made or suggested.

All the works in this series follow the same format, although the numbering changed after the first three titles. Publisher omitted the roman numerals for the last three titles. Let me know what final changes you want made, I will be happy to comply. Scifibones 16:46, 20 August 2020 (EDT)

I did not update tangle box as that already had a primary verification.

PS Just so you feel confident, I own every book I have or will be verifying. I have an extensive collection. Scifibones 16:48, 20 August 2020 (EDT)

Francesc Barrio's ON HOLDs


This is where you need to decide if you are willing to put in the work - the short version is that the author does not understand the DB and just tries to add their work here. Some authors will come and work with us, some won't (a lot of them won't). So you can either reject all of these or you can approve the ones that are in scope and essentially redo them based on your own research (usually changing every single line...), posting on his page summaries on all changes and explaining how we work (based on publications, not based on titles) so that if they come back, they can work them. Just heads up. If you are unwilling/unable to work them, I can take a crack at them if you want next week - or you can try. That is why they were on board so long - I had not time at the time and not everyone wants/can spend the time. Annie 03:13, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi Annie. Thanks for the heads-up. That's exactly what I intended to do :) Only, I'm taking my time with these as I need to find a suitable timeslot to do some research and enter the author's works. Also, I tend to give the editors sufficient time to come back with an answer - I noticed not all editors are frequent visitors to the site (and especially so during summertime, I believe) so the extra time is warranted imo. I've also recently worked on some of the more 'hairy' submissions this weekend that were already waiting for several days for processing by moderators. It's my experience that these take quite a lot of time from moderators to process correctly (ie do some research, write feedback on the submitter's talk page)... Regards, MagicUnk 04:56, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
Some moderators are less inclined to try to save submissions like that -- so I decided to stop by and mention it. Not that now they cannot be rescued even after they are rejected but still... :) Annie 06:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
I try to never reject a submission if I can avoid it. I still remember how frustrating it is if a submission gets rejected :) MagicUnk 06:07, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror Pulp Tales Facsimile

Why was this rejected as it contains a listing of non-fiction and illustrations not found in the original listing. I even put in the notes that the illustrations were from the facsimile. You rejected my submission as "already done", and obviously it was not. I will be adding all of this later to the facsimile listing and then verifying. Explaination please. MLB 05:16, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Ooooooops. My bad. I totally goofed up as I did a minor typo fix, and thought that your submission was same. I have resurrected your submission and approved it. Again, apologies... MagicUnk 05:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Converting novels to chapbooks

Please be careful when moderating these - see the note I left to the editor. This should have been rejected, an explanation posted and the novel should have been converted to the novella. :) Thanks! Annie 21:26, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Ow, sorry about that. Should have known. I try to be careful, but turns out moderating is much harder than I thought it would be... MagicUnk 12:25, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
Haha. But it is fun :) Remember when you were nominated and I recommended to start slowly, self-approve first and slowly ease into the rest? Thinking like other editors takes awhile to get used to; noticing those small (and not so small things) is harder in some cases and the editors can come up with very very weird ways to submit things that make you scratch your head and think for a long time on why this is wrong or what it will do to other records. Everyone messes up - so no worries - I am trying to help here by pointing out what to be careful about (and why). Plus one of the main role of the moderators is to help people be more self-sufficient (So we can kick them up and stop bothering with their updates) -- and that happens only if such things are explained when they happen. :) Annie 13:03, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Re: Higher, Further, Faster

Hi. Thanks for getting back to me. To answer your question: yes, I do own the hardcover edition of this book. Sorry for not expressing myself very clearly. Page 249 is the last numbered page, the last page of the novel, and the last page that is not blank (its other side, which would have been 250, is blank, and there are no more pages). Thank you for the links: I tried to figure out the rules and will make sure to add these to the policies to check when entering page numbers. However, I do believe this book to be a very simple case, even bland, I would say. I am generally hesitant to remove things put by others, which is why I did not remove the Amazon sourcing date. But you are right: it makes sense. Similarly, I was afraid to verify anything until I get better acquainted with the policies. Thank you for suggesting to do it (I do try to read the policies before editing). I will try to modify my edit according to your suggestions and resubmit it. Thank you for offering help in the future. I will probably take you up on this. HugoReader 03:27, 7 September 2020 (EDT)

Magazines and non-fiction

One more thing when moderating, especially magazines and even more with newish editors: see this. It is a very common mistake from new editors so it is usually a good idea to keep an eye for this specific thing. :) Annie 07:48, 13 September 2020 (EDT)

Thanks Annie, noted. MagicUnk 06:18, 16 September 2020 (EDT)


You may want to revisit this one - this is definitely an ASIN (and a valid one at that) and not a KBR number so I suspect you clicked something wrong (never pasted the KBR number even if you changed the type?). Annie 13:03, 18 September 2020 (EDT)

Ugh, not sure what happened here. Surely screwed up royally. Thanks for catching this one. MagicUnk 13:08, 18 September 2020 (EDT)
Happens with the external IDs - I tend to look extra carefully when there are changes in them -- they are so easy to mix up and some still will slip. ;) Annie 13:11, 18 September 2020 (EDT)

The templates

Just a reminder to keep an eye for these when approving edits with templates: here. Thanks! Annie 00:02, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

Review credit

Can you pull "Interzone, #280, March-April 2019" and check the review page itself for the author of this review? The author would like us to correct the data here so I need to know how to handle. Thanks! Annie 06:25, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

Interzone says 'interview by Duncan Lunan', so seems to be a typo. Regards, MagicUnk 09:38, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

Shrinking Man

Hello. You moderated a change to this. I removed the cover credit (deleted the info in the fields) but it seems not to have had the desired effect. Since the cover art is not by Pennington (despite the credit in the Marriott work) is there a reason it was retained ? --Mavmaramis 01:01, 1 October 2020 (EDT)

Looking at your submission, you only updated the Notes field, you didn't remove the COVERART record. Simply deleting the values in the fields when editing the pub will not remove the COVERART record. Instead, you have to use the Remove Titles from this Pub from the left-hand menu. I remember I found your edit a bit strange (making a comment in the notes but not changing the cover art), so I should have contacted you and ask for a clarification. Apologies for that. Hope it is clear. MagicUnk 04:09, 1 October 2020 (EDT)
Ahh yes that does explain things. Thanks for the tip. I'll go back and do that. --Mavmaramis 10:06, 1 October 2020 (EDT)

Non-Genre Magazines

Two items regarding this conversation: Per the non-genre periodicals rules:

  • Editors need to be entered as "Editors of PERIODICAL NAME". The actual editor can also be optionally entered, but we generally do not create author records for non-genre magazine editors
  • Covers & cover artists are not allowed for non-genre periodicals. This gets debated every so often, but with no consensus to change the rules. I've noticed we have quite a few "sneaking" into the database. I've debated starting another thread to see if there would be willingness to change, but haven't worked up the energy.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

I'm not really into non-genre magazines ;), so am not familiar with the associated rules - Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Regards, MagicUnk 13:38, 5 October 2020 (EDT)
As a friendly advice - don’t moderate entries when you are not sure about the rules around them :) Annie 14:54, 5 October 2020 (EDT)
Yes, please be extra careful when venturing into areas that you are less familiar with. We cover a lot of different types of data and the rules can be subtly (or even not so subtly) different. Even I forget some of the more obscure rules at times :( Ahasuerus 15:08, 5 October 2020 (EDT)
Ah, very true words. There's one caveat: I have to be aware I don't know the rules in the first place. In this case I wasn't really aware that the rules for non-genre magazines differed from genre magazines. I thought I alraedy knew how to handle magazines - obviously I didn't. Luckily I have you all to keep an eye on my doings. I'll be extra, extra careful going forward. Thanks for the advice, MagicUnk 12:43, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

The Sinister Mystery of the Mesmerizing Girl

Your PVd should really be under Saga Press / Gallery and not just Saga. All the books under the Saga imprint (regardless if they are tagged as an imprint of Gallery or its parent Simon & Schuster (as is he case with this one)) are collected under it based on the notes we had left - the "Saga Press" name is only for the books before it became an imprint. Would you mind changing it? Thanks! Annie 05:07, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

Well, I'm hesitant to change it as that would be misleading imo. There's nothing on or in the book that suggests this has been published under the Gallery brand. I'd rather have it as just Saga Press, and clarify as needed in the pub records Note field. MagicUnk 17:11, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
Then you will need to create a third publisher name with Saga as an imprint of S&S - Saga Press is used exclusively for books from before it became an imprint and this one explicitly states that it is by an imprint of the big parent company (Gallery is an imprint of Simon & Schuster - so is technically Saga even if it usually gets nested one step lower under Gallery). I would rather not have a third publisher in the mix and we do standardize in such cases but as the data is now, it is incorrect and this book does not belong in the pre-imprint days publisher record. Pick one of the two ways - but it cannot stay where it is now. Annie 17:34, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
There's more to it than that. Facts so far:
  • Saga Press has always been an imprint of S&S (since 2014)
  • Saga Press has been moved to Gallery Publishing Group in 2019, but
  • All Saga Press copyright pages (to date) continue to mention "Saga Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster" (no mention of Gallery whatsoever on or in the books that I've checked - both the few that I own and Amazon's LookInside)
Since we go by what's on or in the book, the most correct publisher would be 'Saga Press / Simon & Schuster' for ALL Saga Press books, both from before and after the switch to Gallery. And since we accept to leave off the parent company for well known imprints, it is acceptable to go with just 'Saga Press'. In other words, we'd be better off removing 'Saga Press / Gallery' alltogether (because it's not mentioned at all in the books) and replace with 'Saga Press' (or 'Saga Press / Simon & Schuster'). Clarification of the publisher's history needs to go into the publisher record(s). MagicUnk 06:08, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Nope, the publishers were split at the time of the move of the imprint. The old record is pre-move. Leaving the new books inside of it causes confusion and makes any publisher list worthless. The notes were added specifically to guide editors in how to add their books. If you disagree with the agreement reached on it, post in R&S and get a different agreement. In the meantime, please get that book out from the pre-move publisher record. Thanks! Annie 06:27, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
The notes were added by me under the assumption that one of these days Gallery would show up on the copyright pages. But nope... so let's head over to R&S... MagicUnk 15:57, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Cold Storage

I see that you have my submission for Cold Storage on hold. Is there something that needs to be fixed? it's been more than 2 weeks.Jim 23:44, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

I'm sorry. I asked for some feedback from other moderators, and I totally forgot about it. Details on your talk page. Sorry again. MagicUnk 13:28, 16 October 2020 (EDT)

Repeating information

Repeating information on new editors' pages before the editor is even able to react to it can be confusing so I reverted your change here as it added no new information. Thanks! Annie 16:30, 27 October 2020 (EDT)

OK. No problem. I had the same with another editor recently. :) MagicUnk 16:32, 27 October 2020 (EDT)
Yep - I saw that one - which is why I checked the ID before I posted there this morning and asked them if this is what they meant :) If the editor is not very tech savvy, primary key is not something they would know of. Thanks for the understanding! :) Annie 16:38, 27 October 2020 (EDT)

The Conqueror

I'm holding an edit to delete this publication. The submission doesn't give a reason and is from a user who hasn't really been communicative. However, it looks like this is pure historical fiction vs. speculative. As you were the approver (and it was just a couple days ago), checking to see if you found anything different. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2020 (EST)

Yes, you are right. I don't see any spec fic elements either. Normally I check any submissions by new editors carefully. I don't know for certain why this one slipped though - it 'could' have been because I was distracted by the incorrect image URL, thinking 'hey, that needs a correction' and did just that. Publication should be deleted. Regards, MagicUnk 06:45, 26 November 2020 (EST)
When I first looked at it, I thought it was going to be an obvious include (guy with a sword on the cover after all). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2020 (EST)

Old submissions on hold

Just making sure you're aware of these almost two-month-old submissions you have on hold: Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, Spring 1977 and Planet of the Small Men / Masters of Space. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:53, 11 December 2020 (EST)

Yes, I am. Two months is about the time I'm waiting for a response before taking action. Thanks for the nudge though. MagicUnk 18:36, 11 December 2020 (EST)
Sounds good. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:04, 14 December 2020 (EST)

A Thread of Grace

Since you accepted this edit, I will leave it for you to clean up. It has varianted a record by Robin Locke Monda to a record by Andrea Mantegna. However, these are not the same people. If you look at these pub notes, you will see Monda is the designer (so shouldn't be credited per standards), Mantegna only did the top image, and the bottom image is by another artist. So either a single credit by both artists or two art credits as you prefer. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2020 (EST)

Thanks for catching this one. I'll notify Chavey, as he did credit Monda as the artist. MagicUnk 15:14, 19 December 2020 (EST)

Empty anthologies

No need to add the incomplete template on an empty anthology/magazine - we have a separate report for empty ones and they are obviously empty when you open them. :) Once the first story is in, we do need the template indeed because there is no way to differentiate between full or incomplete but empty are covered in a different way. :) Annie 15:35, 29 January 2021 (EST)

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the reminder. MagicUnk 15:36, 29 January 2021 (EST)

Questions in my moderator notes

I see you just approved my submissions. There were a few questions in the notes to moderator. I didn't see where you answered. Would you rather I post them here? Thanks John Scifibones 16:45, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

I'm sorry about that, but yes, asking questions on the wiki instead of in the moderator notes is the better option :) So feel free to post them here, or over at the moderators or community forums. Regards, MagicUnk 16:50, 14 April 2021 (EDT)
  1. Great Sky Woman Locus1 says this is the 1st of the book in "First People" series. Should I go ahead and set this up? No subsequent books.
I myself wouldn't add series info, as there's no info on or in the book that claims this is a first volume in a series. Or is there? If there's series info on or in the book itself, then you can add it to the pub record. Of course, you can always add additional notes explaining what locus has to say on the matter :)
  1. The Armies of Memory Should I set up a title record for the Afterword? Same as I did for Merchant of Souls in this series.
That depends. Does this Afterword contain meaningful info? In other words, could it be considered an ESSAY? If so, go ahead and add it. If it's only a thank you, or similar piece of text. Do not add it to the contents, but only mention it in the notes.
  1. Do you ever removed secondary verifications? If so, what are the criteria? thanks John Scifibones 17:09, 14 April 2021 (EDT)
I actually have never tried it myself, but yes, it is allowable to update secondary verifications. There's only one criterium I would think, and that is only if the original secondary verification is clearly in error. For more input on this question, I suggest to post it in the Community Portal. Regards, MagicUnk 10:05, 15 April 2021 (EDT)

Thanks, John Scifibones 10:41, 15 April 2021 (EDT)

Your comment re: Origin

I just saw your comment regarding changing the title of Origin Here. This is my reason, quoting directly from the moderator notes for the submission,. "Title page, Locus1, Library of Congress, and Worldcat all agree the title is "Manifold: Origin". Also is consistent with how we are treating the other books in this series." Moved this to your page so it would be easier to remember where to follow up. Comments? John Scifibones 07:33, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

We do not treat the titles of the other books in the series as "Manifold: Title" either. However, I agree, that publication titles are entered inconsistently - see Time, for example. The following is to be considered:
Clearly, I was not specific enough. I can see the title records do not include the series name. I would not expect them to. I was referring to the other two Del Rey / Ballantine hc volumes in the series. I was not trying to change the title record, only the publication record. See submission #4965336. As to what the other editions of Origin say, I make no claim. I was not verifying them. One additional source, Copyright Registration Number TX0005517804 shows Title: Manifold: origin / Stephen Baxter, Published 2002-02-12. I personally agree with you, and treat it so in my database. However, comments, answers, guidance, etc always come back we show what the source says. That's what I believe I was doing. Please do not take this personally. I'm trying to reconcile what seems like contradictory advice. John Scifibones 11:26, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
Hi John, no problem at all! We're here to explain. And you're absolutely right, we record what's on or in the book - with certain exceptions, obviously ;) - and in case you're still wondering, yes, sometimes it's a mess... As to the topic at hand, we're not really looking at series from a publisher perspective, rather from a title's perspective. In this case that would mean that the other two Del Rey / Ballantine editions have to be updated, and the 'Manifold' removed (and notes added). BUT... I'm only me, and I have been proven to be wrong before, so why not head over to the Community Portal? No harm in asking for a second opinion for this particular case. After all, we -could- turn it around and state that the title really -is- 'Manifold: Origin' since it's printed like that on the title page.... Regards, MagicUnk 11:52, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
  • Title records are entered as 'Title: Subtitle', except if the subtitle is also the series title - in the current case, an argument can be had about whether 'Manifold' is to be considered the title or subtitle, but really it is the series title, so shouldn't be in the title proper - this is also in the rules here (Subtitle bullet point).
  • In the past, publication titles didn't have to follow the rule 'Publication record title = Title record title', hence the current inconsistency you're seeing. And if you look at Time's edit history, you'll notice that it has been changed to just read 'Time' on 2009-10-26, but alas, a large number of publications added before that date didn't get their title updated accordingly (presumably because they had been PV'd at the time(?)). Since the Edit history is incomplete (because it wasn't fully implemented until sometime in 2016), we can't really tell much more than that. Today, the rule is to enter publications where Title record title = Publication record title, and variant differing titles as appropriate.
    Related to this topic, I believe there have been discussions ongoing what to do with these inconsistencies between title record and publication record. But for an update on that topic, feel free to ask a question over at the Community Portal.
So to your question, all publication records need an update and 'Manifold' removed from their title (instead of the other way around). MagicUnk 11:52, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
  • By the way - as far as I know the "pub title=title title" had always been the rule of the land... officially (and that is why we have them as one entry on add/new/clone). It just got interpreted somewhat differently for subtitles sometimes (including allowing the subtitle to be different than the one in the title and not requiring a variant when it happens or in these cases here, allowing the series/subtitles to be there only on publications) and we had been much better at cleaning titles than pub titles. And with the number of books we have, a concerned effort to clean the pubs had not been made yet. Thus the discrepancy in numbers. :) Annie 13:00, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

(unindent) Your second set of eyes is here (invited for a change ;)): We match publication titles and title titles (that is why we only require one when you add a new book) and the practice as it stands is not to use the series names in either -- even if they are on the title page. We can describe in the notes the exact spelling/usage from the title page but the titles themselves are the simplified ones. We should update the help page for publication title really but I removing the series is the current practice. Older books still have series sometimes - because things had changed and we had not launched a full blown cleanup effort for them (yet). The only case where the series title should stay is when there is no separate title for the books or when removing it will cause confusion (so good old common sense). Which is not the case here. :) Hope this helps. Annie 12:06, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

Perfectly clear now, thank you. I resubmitted my edit. Would you like me to submit edits for all the other pubs with Manifold in the pub title? Scifibones 12:28, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
Up to you really, but I wouldn't bother at this time as I've understood you've quite a number of PV to perform. Am I right? Better to review & add/correct/amend/improve against the books you have - and if you still feel like it after you've done all that, you're most welcome to help improve all the rest :) MagicUnk 12:33, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
The non-verified? Yes, if you want to - these are clear and easy. For the verified ones- also yes but make sure the moderator note explaining why so if an editor is unhappy they can complain to me and not you. Just because one has a lot of personal books does not mean they cannot assist elsewhere first (she said looking at her own personal bookcases and realizing she never got back to them...) ;) Annie 12:35, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
I'll do it now, I'll never remember if I wait. I'm still in the A"s & B's. I'll leave courtesy notes for the active PV's John Scifibones 12:44, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

Did I commit some kind of faux pas by changing my mind re: posting a link here? When I remembered Annie's statement that editors can complain to her, that's when I changed it. John Scifibones 11:07, 19 April 2021 (EDT)

Eh, not 100% sure what you mean to say, but no, you haven't committed any atrocities as far as I'm concerned. :) And do feel free to link back to any conversation that might help illustrate an argument. I -think- what Annie meant to say above is that if you change the title, you could add a statement in the Note to moderators along the lines of "Changed per moderator recommendation", and then link to this (or any other discussion) MagicUnk 11:44, 19 April 2021 (EDT)

The Martian Chronicles

Thank you for accepting my first edit of BOMC edition of The Martian Chronicles. It needs more editing and I'm not sure the most efficient way. The actual contents are from the 1997 Avon edition. For some reason, on 2021-01-18 JLaTondra went in and edited out all the correct publication dates. Not only did this create one off title records, but, it is just plain wrong. That's why I didn't add the 1907 Avon reference like I did here BOMC edition The Illustrated Man. What is the best way to handle? If I merge in the correct contents, will it get rid of the one off records? Or do I need to go in and delete eact title record and then merge? UGH Help John, Scifibones 15:30, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but JLaTondre's update of The Martian Chronicles' Contents title dates to 2001-11-00 seems to be correct to me. We record the date of first appearance of that particular title variant. Assuming that January 2030: Rocket Summer did not appear with that exact same title before, 2001-11-00 is the correct date for it. It -is- varianted to the original 1950-05-00 Rocket Summer title, so it's clear that the original pub date is 1950, not 2001.
Concerning your reference to the 1997 (not 1907 I assume? :) Avon edition in the notes of The Illustrated Man, I wouldn't do that as that 'could' imply that you didn't bother checking the contents in the actual book, but just copied it over from another book instead without confirming your book has actually the same identical contents. Of course, it's perfectly fine to import contents from somewhere else - provided it's the exact contents as it appears in the publication you actually have. No need to reference the pub you imported the contents from (it's actually better not to). Hope that makes sense. Regards, MagicUnk 15:57, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
Too bad you didn't also process my pending edits to The Martian Chronicles / The Illustrated Man / The Golden Apples of the Sun, you would see that I go through each collection one by one. Interestingly, the copyright page of this book makes direct reference to the relevant 1997 Avon editions, as well as the 2001 editions. The titles are the same as what shows in the BOMC editions. Whereas, Locus1 claims that the BOMC editions are also reprints of the 1997 Avon edition. so, Are all the pub record wrong? Even the BOMC edition of The Martian Chronicles is wrong because it would not be a variant, it is what the 1997 editions should show. Are we sure the titles are any different from any other edition? Now what? Scifibones 16:28, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
P.S Looks like 1997 titles are wrong. All three should show the plus 31 year dates. What do you want me to do? BOMC Martian Chronicles is correct. Pub record for Avon 1997 is wrong. My omnibus will need to be fixed after the initial edits are processed. Scifibones 16:36, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
I don't know about the contents of the respective editions, not having seen them. However, I would write "stated on copyright page that contents titles are identical to 1997 Avon edition, however current Avon 1997 pub record shows different titles", or something similar for the individual BOMC collections. You should only add what's on or in the books, so go with what you have in hand. Since I understand you don't have the Avon editions in hand (nor have a secondary source to confirm(?)), you should not update those Avon pub records. Also, your OMNIBUS doesn't need fixing since the Contents section of your OMNIBUS refers to the respective COLLECTION title records (as it should), not to the actual BOMC publication record. If you want to specifically refer to the BOMC editions pub records of the individual collections, the only way you can do that is by referencing them in the notes of the OMNIBUS pub record. I believe that what you have now for The Martian Chronicles is correct and should stay. MagicUnk 17:08, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
I guess I have confused you and myself.
Seems like that is three sources indicating what the 1997 Avon should show. Also, what my OMNIBUS should show. I'm a rookie bibliographer, sorry about the confusion. John Scifibones 17:41, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
OK, I think I start to understand. Concerning 1997 Avon edition The Martian Chronicles, I see that Markwood has been online recently, so you can ask him on his talk page for confirmation what the actual Contents titles are. If they are as in your books, then I suggest the following edits: 1) Removal of the wrong titles from the Avon edition, 2) Import of the titles from BOMC edition of The Martian Chronicles, 3) adjusting title dates of these to 1997 (to be in line with when they first appeared in print), and finally 4) importing these Contents titles into the OMNIBUS you own (and perhaps change type to COLLECTION, but I'm not sure about what the practice is for an omnibus of collections - you could ask on the Community Portal). Sounds about right? MagicUnk 03:14, 28 April 2021 (EDT)

The Aeronaut's Windlass

You are the PV of The Aeronaut's Windlass . When I was PV'ing the Roc edition, I noticed, there are three seperate title records for the interior artwork. I submitted a merge to rectify this. Do you have any objection? The other two title were "The Aeronaut's Windlass", your title is "The Aeronaut's Windlass (map)". Which title do you prefer? John Scifibones 14:29, 5 May 2021 (EDT)

There's a preference to keep "The Aeronaut's Windlass (map)", unless the map has it's own title? In that case use that title with (map) appended (can't remember, and can't get to my copy easily). Regards, MagicUnk 10:04, 7 May 2021 (EDT)

Bad Candy; a few thoughts about this one. First, it's been a couple of hundred edits since I did this, but I remember vaguely that afterwards I noticed "Softly, the Night Whispers" in Bad Candy was an alternate of same title without the comma, I think. Now that's fixed but there's a 2007 record because that's what copyright page for Bad Candy said. I have a feeling either it was a misprint and should have said 2003 or he included it in 1 of his story collections and used that date ( misprinted dates in small-press pubs. are very common, and Melniczek published lots of obscure small-press books so there may be one or more not on ISFDB). It's a little annoying having that phantom record floating in between the other two, but that's just the way it is. I also notice Fabric of Memories also has a 2003 date but doesn't come from the 2003 book where other story came from, so who knows where it was first published. Lastly, I asked on the Portal if Bad Candy should be an anthology instead of a collection and you agreed, but now I see 2003 book, Dark Harvest, where "Softly..." came from is a 2-author book, so shouldn't that also be an anthology? --Username 14:22, 6 September 2021 (EDT)

As it is right now, the varianting of Softly, the Night Whispers is incorrect since both the 2003 and 2007 title records are with the comma - so there's actually no variant title in the database at this time. Quick search didn't unearth any variant title without the comma, so to correct this I unvarianted and then merged them. Now there's only one 2003 title record - let me know if that's what you expected. As for the 2003 date of The Fabric of Memories I can only surmise that the 2003 title date was derived from some LookInside or other data source that the original submitter of the publication record consulted (but failed to mention in the notes field). Without additional info, such as a 2003 publication with this title, your guess is as good as mine, I guess :) And yes, Dark Harvest should be an ANTHOLOGY. From the rules: "ANTHOLOGY. A publication containing fiction by more than one author, not written in collaboration,... ". Hope this helps, regards, MagicUnk 14:49, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
Yeah, there's only so much we can do; we're not responsible for misprints or wrong dates, which I've encountered countless times while checking publications. However, while looking into this just now I discovered an interview with the co-author of Dark Harvest, William P. Simmons, on Infinity Plus where the month for that book is given, so I've fixed all the dates, and also uploaded that sweet cover for his Becoming October collection since it was missing here (and isn't on any friendly sites). So it all worked out for the best. --Username 15:20, 6 September 2021 (EDT)

Six Meter Surge

Greetings, MagicUnk. When you were processing my submissions to switch canonical names for M. C. Childs, I think you got confused on this one. I broke the variant and merged the duplicate. All that was needed was to link the child to the parent. Looks like you submitted four entries. The result is backwards. Six Meter Surge should be the parent and Six-Meter Surge the child. This submission will break the variant. Then just need to submit an edit for the correct variant. Thanks John Scifibones 16:52, 6 September 2021 (EDT)

We want to list all works under the author's canonical name M. C. Childs. As such, the earlier 2018 title needs to be a variant of the later 2019 title, not the other way around as you suggest. If you'd do it the other way around, both Six Meter Surge titles would not be listed under M. C. Childs, but would end up being listed under alternate name Mark C. Childs, which we don't want (I've tried it, doesn't work). This is an (exceptional) side effect of having to variant all titles with alternate author names to a title with the canonical name as author if we want all works listed on the canonical author page. This only happens with titles re-published under different names, and only if the canonical name is used at a later time in the author's career (as is the case here). Regards, MagicUnk 02:58, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
I continue to learn something new every day. Now I understand the extra variants. Thanks for the clear explanation and attempting to make it work. John Scifibones 07:43, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
You're welcome! :) MagicUnk 14:18, 7 September 2021 (EDT)

Star Wars

I have restored Alan Dean Foster as an author on this Star Wars title record. The fact that he's never been credited on any title page is irrelevant for this record as there are no pubs under this record. The Star Wars variant as by Lucas alone is where the English language pubs are. We handle ghostwriting the same way we do alternate names, house names, anonymous works, etc. We record as per the pub and then variant to a parent record using the ghostwriter's name. If you feel ghostwriting should be handled differently, than you should open a rules and standards discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2021 (EDT)

I can see the logic of it - but to my knowledge there's nothing in the rules that says ghostwriter names are to be treated similar to alternate names, or is there? And if not, shouldn't we be amending the rules to clarify this case? MagicUnk 10:23, 20 September 2021 (EDT)
Recording a New Alternate Name Relationship has "This is necessary because of ghost writing, uncredited collaborations and other situations when authors publish stories as by other authors." which is a strong implication and is one of the first results if someone searches for "ghost writer". If you have a language to offer or a place where it will make it clearer, please open an R&S discussion :)
Just as a small request - when you find a title like that which looks incorrect and you do not understand why it was done that way, open a discussion instead of "fixing it" outright. The DB has some weird policies and conventions which can be a bit "interesting" when you had not happened to stumble on them before.
Also - if that was not the only one you fixed, you may want to go back through your edits and fix the others :) Annie 10:52, 20 September 2021 (EDT)
Wuh, never stumbled upon that piece of help text before :). And not to worry, it is the only Title record that I 'fixed'. Thanks again for the pointer. Regards, MagicUnk 12:44, 20 September 2021 (EDT)
Welcome to ISFDB - we have hidden help pages everywhere - I keep finding them all the time. If you think we should make that more explicit in the help pages linked to the title records for example, I won't be opposed. :) I was not worried - just reminding you to backtrack if needed - wearing my cleanup hat and all that. :) Annie 12:57, 20 September 2021 (EDT)

Zoe's Tale

I added cover art credit to Zoe's Tale, you have it in the notes, but not the link Susan O'Fearna 23:21, 22 September 2021 (EDT)


Just a reminder: When moderating, a source needs to be added to the Notes unless there is a PV. This among others should have been edited with the source where you verified that the book indeed exists, the date is correct and it is in scope (and the editor should have been reminded to add sources). And while you were there, adding the ASIN would have been extra helpful so Fixer does not consider the book as missing (especially if you checked the book on Amazon anyway). Thanks! :) Annie 19:11, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Duly noted. I actually left an identical message on the editor's talk page to always provide source - but it looks like he's yet another editor that isn't reading/responding to messages left on their page :( MagicUnk 09:40, 25 September 2021 (EDT)
Yeah - we have a few. We try a few times and if they ignore us, not much we can do :( This specific one used to add both ASINs and sources last year so not sure what happened (he works on books Fixer finds as well so we cross paths occasionally that way even when I do not moderate him). Unless I am sure that the editor is responding when I post, I’d either fix and tell them to see how I did it or leave a message but add the pubs to a list and revisit in a couple of days and fix if needed. :) It is annoying but it is better than just leaving them in the wild. Annie 10:14, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

August on holds

Hello, Paulotecario responded to you weeks ago, you two agreed on a plan. Can we get the on holds cleared? :) Thanks! Annie 14:12, 6 October 2021 (EDT)

Rejected held submissions & left explanation how to create parent title record. MagicUnk 13:23, 15 October 2021 (EDT)

De getekenden

The PPN number here needs a to be fixed. Thanks! Annie 14:12, 6 October 2021 (EDT)

And here. Annie 14:13, 6 October 2021 (EDT)
Blegh. Fixed now. MagicUnk 13:06, 15 October 2021 (EDT)

Weird Award attributions


We have 12 Dutch titles added by you in the short stories part of this report which look very weird for example this one:

  • They area all empty variants of stories we already have under other names/titles
  • They seem to have been created just to attach an award on them
  • No notes is added to either of them.

This is very weird and this is the only case where this had been done that way. We can ignore them (please do not just ignore them) from the report but there needs to be a very good note explaining why exactly this needs to be done that way (or just the books that contain the stories with this attribution need to be added). Please note that if you are working from site/source where titles and/or authors can be credited weirdly for the awards (and not based on how they are actually published), a better (and used) practice is to attach the award to the actually published story and add a note on the award page for any weird attribution. Thanks! Annie 14:27, 6 October 2021 (EDT)

A lot (all) of these stories have been submitted for the Harland Awards with the title/author name exactly as I attached them to the Award. However, these have never been published (to date) with that exact same title/author combination. Rather, they have been published for the first time at a later date with that other, canonical, title/author (I can't guarantee that one or two are due to typo errors on the source webpage though - example here). Looking at the title page of the canonical title, I see nothing weird, really. As far as I can see, attaching the award to the actually published title would be somewhat misleading as you would have, for example, an award awarded in year x that is attached to a title that has been used/published for the first time in a later year. I don't know what it would bring to add notes to the title and/or award records (like this title and this award), but that can be done - what kind of note would you actually add?
Having said that, when reviewing the submissions, I noticed that some of them have the canonical and variant titles in the same year (like this one for example) - so for these we could get rid of the variant title and attach the award to the actually published title, and adding a note - I will review these cases one of these days which, once updated, will already remove some of these exceptions.
One other thing I noticed though is that I may have messed up my varianting as that I've varianted the earlier title to the later title version instead of the other way around - unless we go with 'the canonical title is the one that is most well known, even if it has been published at a later date than the variant title' rule? Then they can stay as-is. Regards, MagicUnk 13:03, 15 October 2021 (EDT)
Oops - missed that you responded here :) So the basic rule is that we keep empty titles (with no publications) only if they have notes which explain why we actually need them. Attached award is not a reason to keep a title with no publications basically. In this case, if you want to keep them, we will need a note with the link to the source of this specific spelling and an explanation on why we have no publication (if there is an explanation).
We are a publication-centric DB and sometimes award organizers can make up non-existing combos (I was having a funny case with one of the Russian awards where pretty much all publicity used the old pseudonym while that book was never published under it (and never will most likely) - they just went for the recognizable name. As it turned out the official site used the correct name in the award announcement (but not in the nominations) so I did not need to wonder if I need a new title but I would have just added it to the title they were actually giving it to and added a note for the misattribution - we do not get anything by adding non-existing titles because someone tried to be creative (or was sloppy).
So either we need to move the awards to an existing/published title for that story (with a note in the award) or add notes in the awards with a link and an explanation of how they were nominated/awarded - so someone does not decide that it is a typo/mistake in our DB and decide to fix it while you are not watching. Hope that makes sense. Annie 23:29, 3 November 2021 (EDT)
Ping :) Just a reminder - can you please add a note with the source for these in each of them (we are pub based so any orphan title NEEDS to be documented). Then we can ignore them. Annie 16:10, 9 February 2022 (EST)

De Koninklijke Leerling

Just heads up - I reorganized the Ranger's Apprentice to match Wikipedia and the publisher sites which changed the series for your verified. The series note was updated to explain the change. Annie 20:28, 13 October 2021 (EDT)

Under the Pendulum Sun

I've amended the Note for our verified Under the Pendulum Sun re. the pages for the Acknowledgements. Previously they stated that page 411 was unnumbered... it is, at the bottom of the page. Cheers. PeteYoung 10:08, 20 November 2021 (EST)

The Luminous Dead

I was looking at this one. Considering that the printer key is 20 21 22 23 LSC 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3, that's a 2020 printing so we can make that one 2020-00-00. What do you think? :) Annie 19:53, 28 December 2021 (EST)

Yup - do go ahead and update the date. (P.S. my time available to do some work on the ISFDB has been very limited lately - hope it'll get better in the future). Regards, MagicUnk 10:27, 3 January 2022 (EST)
Done. Real life tends to interfere now and again ;) Annie 10:54, 4 January 2022 (EST)

Company Town

External IDs and notes about the date added to our verified. Both updates have mod notes with details. Just heads up as the changes are a bit bigger than usual (or I would have let the "changed PV" tell you about the changes on its own. :) Annie 14:41, 12 January 2022 (EST)

The Freeze-Frame Revolution

Considering that even the author admits that the text is a thousand words or so too long to be called a novella and we define these strictly by length, shouldn’t this be a novel really? I am verifying the second printing in the morning and would rather not verify with the wrong type. Different awards can have their win leeway with lengths but we are strictly length-defined. Thoughts? Annie 23:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)

Sure, no problem having this converted to a novel, especially if you'd do a wordcount :) - I remember I was wondering at the time myself whether to enter it as a NOVEL or keep it as a NOVELLA. Regards, MagicUnk 07:42, 14 January 2022 (EST)
No need for a word count if the author tells you it is over the community standard :) I’ll change it and add a note explaining why and so on. Annie 10:22, 14 January 2022 (EST)
PS: Kobo has it at 42k (which matches the author's musing - the number is within error range but with the author also admitting it is too long...) and looking at the audio, the time is in the framework for that as well . So looks like a very under-fed novel. I will change it when adding my copy and add a few more editions we are missing. Hope you are doing well.  :) Annie 11:06, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks Annie. Given the situation we're all in, I'm doing well - one thing I've noticed that since working from home, work seems to have been gradually increasing... But other than that, we manage :) MagicUnk 11:08, 14 January 2022 (EST)

eBay Link

You left a note,, but instead of Earth you added an eBay link that was in 1 of my edits for Potiki. --Username 10:52, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Oops... copy-paste error. Thanks for notifying me. Now fixed. MagicUnk 10:57, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Re: Comments regarding non-spec fiction

In a recent post you opined "don't waste your time entering non-spec fic - at all". I'd be interested in your reasoning, as I have been undertaking an exhaustive update of Isaac Asimov's non-genre, non-fiction works, initiated by a Community Portal request. ../Doug H 09:26, 3 February 2022 (EST)

We are primarily a speculative fiction database. I know that for authors 'above the threshold' we are allowed (not obliged) to enter their non-speculative works as well. However, in my opinion that is not what we are here for, and surely not for authors that are not well known (even if the majority of their work is spec fic). I won't prevent anyone entering non spec fic data for authors above the threshold if they really want to though. Notwithstanding, if you ask my advice, I'd advise against it (and do note the smiley at the end of the original message, so don't take it too heavily :)) Regards, MagicUnk 10:25, 3 February 2022 (EST)
I retired from computer analysis consulting several years ago, and recently started watching some Great Lecture series to relieve boredom on the treadmill. The latest series is on the history of philosophy, so I'll blame that for my noticing people's choice of wording, as if it reveals some deeper meaning. Your use of "we", "primarily" and implication that we are obliged to enter speculative works, "what we are here for" raise questions that make philosophy such a rat-hole. I point them out only to show what kind of tangents I do manage to ignore in an effort to actually accomplish anything. Thank you for clarifying your reasoning, my unease is abated. ../Doug H 10:49, 3 February 2022 (EST)
Now it's my turn to feel ill at ease thinking what what on earth I may have inadvertently implied with the use of words such as 'we', 'primarily' and so on :) MagicUnk 11:26, 3 February 2022 (EST)
My take on "we" (as an example) is the group of people editing and opining (both affect views) over the existence of the platform known as ISFDB. What I thought it was about in 2008 when I started and what I think now are quite different, so the two "me"s are two different elements of "we". So while "we" is pretty vague, being explicit doesn't really help. But it does give rise to and employment for philosophers. So, what I took from your comment was probably exactly what you wanted - it's your current opinion. My volunteering to enter Asimov was because I thought it would be a nice, productive distraction for a little while, until someone pointed out I needed more authoritative sources than the quoted site. I've been digging into the ISFDB referenced sources and others as an exercise trying to figure out what I'm comfortable with. I'm sure you've seen instances of multiple OCLC entries for the same book which differ in some way, or are short of relevant data. I've chased down OCLC references to originating libraries and found differences between them. So, for the moment, working out creating entries from multiple sources (sans a copy) and how to record them is my focus, and non-fiction Asimov happens to be the set I can work with, that happens to be fringe enough that no one is complaining, but might serve as an example. I refer to the (now quiet) discussion started on Dating publications. ../Doug H 12:22, 3 February 2022 (EST)

King Kong


This appears to be too short to be a novel I would think? Any chance that it is actually even shorter and a translation of this? Annie 17:27, 4 February 2022 (EST)

Let me see if I can dig it up to check whether there's more info available. MagicUnk 17:33, 4 February 2022 (EST)
I couldn't find any further information - however, comparing to the other volumes that I have, I could determine an approximate word count - word density is approx 265 words/page - hence approx. 33K€ words, well below the threshold. However, as it is likely an abbreviation, shouldn't we keep the type as its parent? (and for one reason or another I never varianted it... sigh...) Regards, MagicUnk 05:51, 6 February 2022 (EST)
If the original is a novel, then yep - that stays a novel. :) Variant it and we are all set - I stumbled on it while I was doing something else on tab author page - so was chasing down what it is actually. :) Annie 04:30, 7 February 2022 (EST)

Megatech: Technology in 2050

A couple of small reminders:

  • When the ASIN is ISBN10, we do not record is as ASIN - the link based on that already exists on the left menu. As a rule, if the ASIN does not start with a "B" and the book has an ISBN, you probably don't want it because it is ISBN10. When you add it, it shows up on a report :)
  • The no cover for non-genre is only for magazines :)

Fixed both here (plus page numbers and so on). Annie 14:52, 9 February 2022 (EST)

Thanks for the reminder! MagicUnk 15:02, 9 February 2022 (EST)

Status Update

MagicUnk, This is where we stand on Potters Field 7. Elizabeth_Hardy has been on the site and submitted other edits. She shows no interest in responding to this topic or my other post on her page. I see that you processed a couple corrections to Potters Field 7: Tales from Unmarked Graves by Morganmike. I assume he is satisfied that it is now correct. I'm not sure why he didn't move his PV as well. I propose the following

  1. Merge the two differing content titles using the titles as they appear here.
  2. Assuming it is allowed and you agree, remove the content titles and delete this publication
  3. Add a note here informing him of the deletion, reminding him to PV the other publication, and thank him for his cooperation.

What do you think? P.S.Thanks for giving me this, it's been a learning experience. John Scifibones 11:14, 24 February 2022 (EST)

It surely is a valid approach - if morganmike is somewhat more responsive, you could indeed notify him upfront on his talk page of above proposal. Also, do consult with another moderator (Annie, Ahasuerus) to chime in on the matter, I'd value their opinion on this issue as well. Regards, MagicUnk 08:26, 25 February 2022 (EST)
You do not need to remove contents - you can delete publications at any time (if it leaves orphan titles, they need deletion after that - you can either chase them down to leave them and the nightly report will catch them and we can delete from there). So all that needs to be done here is to delete one of these and notify the PV of the other to come verify the other one. :) Annie 19:12, 25 February 2022 (EST)
Done, John Scifibones 08:05, 26 February 2022 (EST)

Welcome template

When posting the welcome template, please use {{subst:welcome}} and not just {{welcome}}. That is clearly explained in the template itself (here). When you post the naked template, the editor cannot use the "edit" to respond because the edit edits the template itself - and not the text on their page. Which is not really good first impression (not to mention that editing the template is a bad idea) :) Annie 19:25, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Ah, damn, I missed that completely :( - will take care of it going forward. MagicUnk 10:52, 9 March 2022 (EST)
No worries - it took me awhile to figure out what I was doing wrong as well :) Annie 13:45, 9 March 2022 (EST)

Vlaamse Filmpjes

I'm going to enter the 50+ Vlaamse Filmkens/Vlaamse Filmpjes I have in my collection (and maybe more), but have a few questions about the way they're set up now. I see you entered them as a a publication series of magazines. I'm surprised that is even possible, but I think it should be one or the other. Would you mind if I convert this to a publication series of (mostly) chapbooks (as most Dutch/Flemish periodicals are in ISFDB)? The info about volume/number and editor would then go in the notefield. Thanks, --Willem 15:02, 14 March 2022 (EDT)

Hi Willem. They have an ISSN number, so I'd rather keep them as magazine (there are precendents - Urania is a notorious one). Not sure if publication series info should remain or not - if not, then that can go in the Notes field - but I would keep it as it is right now. Regard, MagicUnk 09:09, 15 March 2022 (EDT)
I was afraid you'd say that. Urania is not a good example. The original discussion on why Urania should be a magazine is here. Originally they were entered as a publication series of novels, but because there were additional serials, type NOVEL was not acceptable. Look at publications like Utopia, Apollo, Horror and Griezel-Story. These were all entered as publication series because they contain one novella/novelette, sometimes with an additional short story. I.m.o. Vlaamse Filmpjes are no different. Should we have a rules & standards discussion about this? Thanks, --Willem 15:41, 15 March 2022 (EDT)
Sorry for the late reply, but yes, why not? Think it'd be good to have some additional input. Regards, MagicUnk 04:35, 23 March 2022 (EDT)
No problem, sometimes life happens. I will start a discussion, looking foreward to your input. --Willem 15:44, 26 March 2022 (EDT)

(unindent) Can you take a look at this test subject? Anything you'd like different, or can you agree with how it's entered? Thanks, --Willem 15:42, 10 April 2022 (EDT)

Looks good to me. No poblem with it. Note though that there are other magazines with an additional title - see Wonderwaan for example - there may be more with this kind of 'exception'. Something to consider implementing for these Vlaamse filmpjes as well(?) Regards, MagicUnk 04:37, 11 April 2022 (EDT)
BTW, I still think the pub series/number thing's a neat trick :) MagicUnk 04:40, 11 April 2022 (EDT)
Thanks, I'll start entering the ones I own first. The difference with Wonderwaan (and some issues of Pure Fantasy) is that there each issue has a title of it's own that would otherwise only be visible in the notes. The Vlaamse Filmpjes title is the title of the story, and thus in the contents. --Willem 14:33, 11 April 2022 (EDT)
Ah, yes, that makes sense. MagicUnk 11:10, 13 April 2022 (EDT)
If I run into other problems I'll come back to you. --Willem 14:33, 11 April 2022 (EDT)
I entered the first 100 or so, and am coming close to the ones you verified. I would like to make some changes to those.
* Title: from "Vlaamse Filmpjes, title" to Vlaamse Filmpjes, #whole no.
* Editor: add "Editors of Vlaamse Filmpjes" to the main editor.
* Remove pub. series and #
* Format: change from digest to trade paperback. The issues after #3100 or so have a better cover and are perfect-bound
* Editor title: change to "Vlaamse Filmpjes - year" and group per year
Hope you can agree with all these changes. --Willem 03:44, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
Forgot one. The page count of a magazine includes the cover. See here, line 1 and 2. Page count for most Vlaamse Filmpjes will be 36, not 32. --Willem 10:11, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
Sure, go ahead MagicUnk 04:56, 27 April 2022 (EDT)
Thank you. Will do.--Willem 05:35, 27 April 2022 (EDT)

Dren; the Robert Reed Czech edition you worked on is pub. by Laser-books, but all other books by them seem to be as by Laser; you may want to alter the name so all books are under the same publisher. --Username 19:41, 20 March 2022 (EDT)

Thanks! Now updated. MagicUnk 04:39, 23 March 2022 (EDT)

Adrian Tchaikovsky / Walking to Aldebaran

I am editing / PVing Walking to Aldebaran and have submitted two corrections to pub notes: 1) Spelling correction: "silouette" to "silhouette" 2) Typo correction: "2019-03-30" to "2019-05-30" Teallach 18:42, 14 July 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up. MagicUnk 07:59, 15 July 2022 (EDT)

Adrian Tchaikovsky / Firewalkers

I am editing / PVing Firewalkers and have submitted one correction to pub notes: Spelling correction: "silouette" to "silhouette" Teallach 17:35, 15 July 2022 (EDT)

Adrian Tchaikovsky / The Doors of Eden

I see you have PVd The Doors of Eden and added extensive notes. My copy is published signed by the author on an additional tipped in page, so there are [12]+597 pages. I will clone the existing record to create a new record matching my copy and would like to add notes on the (very few) differences between the two versions. There might be a difference between the barcodes on the back of the jackets. My copy has the ISBN 9781509865888 in the main section of the barcode and 90200 in the supplement. Can you please advise the barcode information on your copy. Thanks. Teallach 18:48, 15 July 2022 (EDT)

Sorry for the late reply, but the barcode supplement on my copy reads 90100. Regards, MagicUnk 07:10, 1 August 2022 (EDT)

Odd-But Even So;; I see someone just approved my 3 story title fixes for this collection, but it seems to have all become tangled in the record. As it turns out, the Murray edition, while using P.C. Wren on the cover, has the same full name on the title page (there's also a raggedy Guild Books "Services Edition" reprint on which also uses the full name, although they drop the "Stories Stranger Than Fiction" subtitle), so there really are no variants needed; all stories in the collection should be under the full name for both editions. Also, they reversed the order of the last 2 stories between editions for some reason, and that AbeBooks photo of the contents page shows most of the page numbers, unlike the eBay copy which shows none. So I can enter page #'s for Murray and partial #'s for the other, but I'd like to get the variant issue cleared up first, when you have time to fix that. Also of note is that the 2 ISFDB editions have very different page counts while the Archive edition is much lower than either. --Username 14:02, 22 July 2022 (EDT)

I've updated the Murray edition to the author's full name. Do note that P.C. Wren is still the canonical name, so varianting still needed. While I was at it, I also updated the page numbers, and added some notes. Have a look and let me know if it is OK like this. Regards, MagicUnk 07:45, 1 August 2022 (EDT)
Looks good. I notice his novel was only by his full name according to editors here who worked on it years ago, even though his short name is on the cover, and has a full-cover photo and mentions a 1934 cheap and 1936 cheaper edition with different prices but no price is entered here for the original edition (although there's a title page photo which confirms full name was used), and his other collection, Rough Shooting, is by the short name on the cover in England but the full name in America and yet all stories here are entered using the short name (and a lot of story titles are variants, supposedly), but both editions are the same publishers as Odd... and may very well be by the full name on their title pages, so this guy's bibliography is a mess. More edits are needed, and I'll try to make a few if I can sort through all of this. Also,, which suggests there's another novel of his that should be on ISFDB. --Username 09:50, 2 August 2022 (EDT)

Terraforming Earth

Re: Jack Williamson: Terraforming Earth Thanks for updating the record regarding the individual stories in Terraforming Earth. I've had the info for some time, but I've never been comfortable editing ISFDB records in case I might muck something up. I hope this is the right way to contact you to thank you--I spent an hour or so pouring through help faqs to find this way. I have 10,000 or more 3x5" cards in my SF file cabinet I've been manually typing since the early '60s, and I'm trying to get used to WIKIs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve823 (talkcontribs) .

Almost :) When you want to reach out to anyone else using the wiki, go to their talk page (or any other wiki page for that matter) and press the '+' button at the top of the page - that will allow you to start a new message/thread. Replying to an existing discussion is by pressing the small edit to the far right of the title of any message. Hope this helps. Regards, MagicUnk 08:40, 2 August 2022 (EDT)

Adrian Tchaikovsky's Elder Race

A quick note about your primary verified paperback edition of Elder Race. As per this Community Portal discussion, the confirmed word count of this borderline novella/novel is 40,347, which makes it (barely) a novel. The title record and the linked publication records have been updated and Notes have been added. Ahasuerus 12:41, 3 August 2022 (EDT)

Thanks! MagicUnk 12:45, 3 August 2022 (EDT)


Please see this conversation as it it about a submission you processed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2022 (EDT)

Warsuit & Subira's Lattice

In Interzone, #288, September-October 2020, I changed the second "Warsuit" from shortfiction to interior artwork based on the Amazon Look Inside. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2022 (EDT)

For Interzone, #292-293, July 2022, can you please double check the double "Subira's Lattice"s? Seems likely one of those should be interior artwork also. Thanks.

The Man from Far Cloud

Hello, about the changes on the page of "The Man from Far Cloud": It happens that I acquired the book recently and when I saw that the information on the book's page on ISDB was incomplete I tried to change it, but as it is my first modification I ended up not putting the source. It's still a little confusing here for me, but I hope I get used to it. Regards, ArgonRex 17:28, 7 August 2022

Personal tools