User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2015Sep-Dec

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Bad Death of Eduard Delacroix

On your verified publication of The Bad Death of Eduard Delacroix the cover art is credited to Mark Geyer. My fifth printing with the exact same cover states on the copyright page: "Cover art by Robert Hunt". Does your copy credit the cover to Mark Geyer? --Jorssi 20:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also on your verified publication of Coffey on the Mile the publisher is stated as "Signet / New American Library". I also have the first printing of this title and there is no mention of New American Library anywhere on my book. This publication also lacks the interior art by Mark Geyer and the Author's Afterword at the end of the book. I can submit the changes if you approve. Thanks. --Jorssi 20:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd only been at the ISFDB a couple of months when I did these verifications (more than 8 years now!), and I must have been doing that without doing a thorough check of each of the fields. I"ll go back through the whole set to make any corrections. Thanks for finding the errors. Mhhutchins 22:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Again, Dangerous Visions", by Harlan Ellison

You are the Primary1 verifier for the Book Club Edition of this book. The notes discuss the gutter code on p. 839. But the page count is xxvi+830, i.e. there is no p. 839. The gutter code in my copy is on p. 830, which makes this look like a slip of the finger typo. Chavey 01:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, it was. Please make the necessary correction. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 01:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chavey 13:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Locksley Hall, 2050 AD: Prologue to "The Space Enterprise"

In Ladies & Legends, p. 48, is one illustration from that story in Destinies, Spring 1980 (although it gives the title with 2025 instead of 2050). It shows a futuristic city, lots of rocket ships flying in the background and some sort of airship flying in the foreground above a broad highway. Could you please variant the right illustration to the one in the art book? Bob 17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Mhhutchins 17:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Norstrilia

Hello, I've changed the publication date of this pub as per review slip in my copy.Hauck 16:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

After-Words

Would you please look at After-Words? We have a shortstory of the same title varianted to the novelette. Since you have verified works containing both (novelette, shortstory), would you mine checking if one of the lengths is in error and they should be merged? Or if the shortstory is truly abriged, in which case they should be unvarianted and notes added? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

They're identical. I suspect the reason why they were originally varianted (by another editor) was not due to length but because of the subtitle: "The Second Book Depository Story". I consider these as series data and not true subtitles. I see you disagree because you varianted another story because of its series name. I have unvarianted the two records for "After-Words" and merged them as novelettes. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no strong preference on the subtitle thing. I've stuck with entering it as stated on the title page per our guidelines, but don't object to others changing it in those cases. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I did a word-count of "After-Words" to determine that it qualified as a novelette. I did the same for "Esmerelda" and it came in at 7800 words which would make it a novelette as well. Mhhutchins|talk 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I probably set the length based on the parent. Since the parent has multiple verifications, your choice if you want to edit them or ask the other verifiers. I'm fine with you changing it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Poems in The Best of L. Sprague de Camp

We've got the titles of the poems listed incorrectly in my copy of The Best of L. Sprague de Camp and I suspect they are wrong across all copies including yours. Please see this discussion and let us know if we can correct these across all the copies. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No Enemy But Time - author's note date

Doing an additional primary verification for yesterday's purchase of this book: [1], I noticed that the date of the Author's Note on page 7 reads as "Michael Bishop, Pine Mountain, Georgia, June 23 1981", which is slightly different from the 1982 date in the Content listing for the item in the Pub. Listing. Do you want to check your copy, or will I change it? Astrodan 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The date given is correct. The ISFDB records a work's first date of publication, not the date it is written. Mhhutchins|talk 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Murphy in Galileo

I have created a pseudonym relationship for the author Murphy as a pseudonym for the artist C. A. Murphy. I have also created variants for the interior art titles from the 40s and 50s. That leave three essays that are all in issues of Galileo ([2] [3] [4]) of which you are the only common verifier. Is there any information in the magazines that would indicate that the essayist is the same person as the artist? I do note that Miller/Contento (which only has two of the essays) indicates that Murphy is a pseudonym, though they don't say who it is for. If there is nothing that indicates that the essayist is the same as the artist, I would suggest that we disambiguate the name. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll disambiguate the essayist from the illustrator, since I seriously doubt they're the same person. If the credits of the illustrations are based on a signature, then we should use the ISFDB standard of crediting the canonical name of the artist and not the signature visible on the work of art. Mhhutchins|talk 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sunday I had Freytag on my mind

But it was in vain, because you had done all the necessary varianting. Many thanks for that, Michael! Christian Stonecreek 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Chapbook and Shortfiction

Hi. Does the duplication of title 30256 and title 1854155 fit the model or need some merge? The listed publications are identical, 27478 and 27479 for both titles. --Pwendt|talk 16:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The title records are not identical. One title record is for the contained work (SHORTFICTION), the other is for the container of the work (CHAPBOOK). They shouldn't be merged. For an example other than a CHAPBOOK which may bring clarity to the situation, Greg Bear's story The Wind from a Burning Woman (typed as SHORTFICTION) is contained in the COLLECTION The Wind from a Burning Woman. Hopefully this explains why CHAPBOOK (container) is different from SHORTFICTION (contained). Think of a CHAPBOOK as a COLLECTION with only one work of SHORTFICTION or POEM. Mhhutchins|talk 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Plane Crash Lover" in Night Cry, Winter 1986

We have two "Plane Crash Lover" titles by Dean Wesley Smith. The first one is a short story in your verified Night Cry, Winter 1986. The second one is a poem in Smith's Monthly, Issue #10, which can be accessed via Amazon's Look Inside. Could you please check the text in your verified pub against what's on Amazon to see if they may be related? Perhaps the poem was originally used as an epigraph for the story? TIA! Ahasuerus 20:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. No connection that I could see. I'll make a note that they shouldn't be merged. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins|talk 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Science Fiction Book Club info

I've been a member of the SFBC since 1963 and have all my old member bulletins starting with April-May 1963, and several before that. I have two main comments concerning the bibliographic info on many of the SFBC editions of that era.
1. Regarding the SFBC prices often quoted from Tuck: Tuck was Australian and the prices he quotes on p. 911 of Tuck's Encyclopedia Vol 3 are apparently prices for SFBC volumes sold to Australia. The prices quoted in the U.S. bulletins from March 1955 (the earliest I have) are $1.00 for normal editions, increasing in March 1967 to $1.49
2. Regarding the SFBC ID numbers, early editions that did not have ID numbers printed on them still were referred to by the SFBC bulletins using those same ID numbers when ordering copies of previous months' selections. See, for example, the discussion on the ISFDB publication listing page of Asimov's "The Foundation Trilogy." The ID number 1932 mentioned in the discussion there is also shown as the order number for The Foundation Trilogy on the back of a bulletin as early as Feb-March 1965. The earliest bulletins, e.g., March-April 1955, have slightly different ID's, e.g. "535-a" for "The Stars Like Dust." The -letter designations were dropped starting with the Sept-Oct 1963 bulletin, but the numbers themselves were unchanged.
3. So--what do I do with this information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve823 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for this interesting and valuable information. Here's what you can do. For publication records which are not primary verified (look at the first row of the Verification Status table), you can edit them using the "Edit This Pub" link, making the corrections, and give the SFBC bulletin as the source in the Note field. For primary verified publication records, post a message on the PV editor's talk page, providing the data and let them make the corrections as they deem necessary. The price fields can be easily corrected since prices aren't stated in the books themselves, and only secondary sources (like the SFBC flyer) provide that information. As for the ID numbers, you can place them in the ISBN/Catalog number field (with a preceding #) for 1968 editions and later. But for pre-1968 editions, if you don't have the actual book and can't confirm that the number appears in the book itself, then add a statement to the Note field, for example "Catalog number 1234, per the January 1965 SFBC flyer", or something equivalent. If you have any further questions, please post them at the ISFDB:Help desk. Also, don't forget to end all wiki posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically signs and dates them. Thanks again. Mhhutchins|talk 23:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Artist Norma-Bernal

Hi, the cover artist of this book is actually Antonio Bernal - or Bernal, as his signature states. We had a similar discussion a while back, I believe, when relating to Norma-Segrelles or Norma-Ballestar. Norma is the Barcelona based agency that Bernal and others worked with. Norma-Bernal is not a regular pseudonym. Cheers, John JLochhas 08:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've changed the credit and noted the reason. Thanks again. Mhhutchins|talk 16:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Second Armada Monster Book

Regarding your query as to this book and the author Adrien Stoutenbury being one and the same as Adrien Stoutenberg. Unless you know differently I don't believe that Adrien Stoutenbury and Adrien Stoutenberg are the same person. Stoutenberg is an American author/poet and all of the stories in the Chetwynd-Hayes "Aramada Monster Book" series were written by English (UK) writers. --Mavmaramis 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't preclude Chetwynd-Hayes from publishing stories by Americans. (The postal services worked very well back then!) If you go to the author's Wikipedia page, you'll see that the story "The Giant Who Sucked His Thumb" was the title story of a collection published by a British publisher in 1972. That's probably where Chetwynd-Hayes first saw it and then reprinted it in his anthology. I suppose the misspelling is due to "Stoutenbury" being so much more British than the Germanic "Stoutenburg". I'll see whether the collection qualifies for inclusion and if so, create a record for it. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Suspect the only way to be sure would be to compare them. The misspelling could also be a typo as it's consistantly BURY throughout and does leave the question as to why C-H would change the name of an author on such a tenuous basis - one I suspect will never be answered. --Mavmaramis 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure it's a typo. I can't imagine he would change her name on purpose. No doubt somewhere along the line he thought it was "Stoutenbury" and used it consistently, though mistakenly. Unfortunately, the ISFDB doesn't have a way to differentiate between real pseudonyms and typos. Wish there were. A while back there was some discussion about doing this, but it fizzled out without any firm decision to do it. Mhhutchins|talk 19:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing History

regarding your comment here: Did you have the patience to work back through "Recent Edits"? Or is there an easier way to find out who edited a record? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I had to go through the Moderator's "Recent Approvals" list. I wish there were an easier way. Maybe Ahasuerus has a better method of checking through his interface. There have been several occasions where I've had to go back through several days worth of submissions, and you can imagine how tedious that can be. I was helped here because I had a memory of fixing those titles which showed up on the cleanup reports. Without having done that, I wouldn't have had a clue where to look for those submissions which updated your verified record. Mhhutchins|talk 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

iPhone / Android isfdb app

Hi Michael! First I would like to voice my appreciation of what you have created here. This is no small feat. Because of my own personal library I've been forced to download and use an Android app on my phone to keep track of what books I own. In my search for just such an app I stumbled across your wonderful database. It has occurred to me that you could expand and fill-in your online database by the creation of your own app. Such an app could assist the users by helping them log and keep track of their own physical libraries on their phone/tablet (as I do). In trade the users could use the app to help isfdb fill in details on the books already here as well as add missing books when the user happened to be trawling through new or used books stores. Everyone wins. Blargg 08:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but I'm not tech-savvy, and couldn't even begin to know how to create such an app. There may some other people who work on the ISFDB that have that set of skills. I will copy your suggestion to the ISFDB:Community Portal. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Trillion Year Spree - photographs?

Hi, I've checked my copy of Trillion Year Spree against this pub record before doing an additional verification/edit, but I'm not sure about the way the photographs are shown, so am seeking opinion from the other three PVs in the absence of PV1 BLongley.

As you can see, the 16 pages of photos are included in the metadata 'Pages' count as '688+[16]', which to suggests to me 16 unnumbered pages containing some Content at the end of the numbered pages, not 16 pages of photos in the middle of the book.

The photos are also described in a pub note, but are not listed in Content.

Would it not be more in keeping with Content rules to:

  • Return the 'Pages' count to '688' only.
  • Keep the pub note describing the photos.
  • Consider a disambiguated Content entry; "Photographs (Trillion Year Spree)", entry type: INTERIORART, uncredited, and not requiring any page number?

    • This would be less confusing, if nothing else. Thanks, Astrodan 09:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    The ISFDB "Page Count" field is just that: a record of the number of pages in the publication. It has nothing to do with pagination, which is a horse of a different color. Pagination is about the page numbering and refers to the order which the page numbering appears, and has nothing to do with the number of pages in the book. So in the case of this book, the ISFDB record shows that there are 688 numbered pages and 16 unnumbered pages. We can't very well split the count of the numbered pages in order to show where the unnumbered pages appears. The note in the Note field explains that quite well. If users misunderstand from the Page Count field that the unnumbered pages appear at the end, they misunderstand the purpose of the field, and there's very little we can do about that.
    About your questions: 1) the current data in the page count field quite clearly follows the page count rules, and "688" would be a misrepresentation of the number of pages in the book, 2) Yes, keep the pub note, and 3) No. I don't consider photographs as art, even though some editors have a more liberal definition of the word. I also particularly dislike adding records for uncredited content to a publication record when the Note field is a perfectly fine place to record such content. Mhhutchins|talk 15:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, it would have been better to post a single message on the Community portal and directed each of the three PV editors to that message. As it is now, our discussion will be spread over three pages with the strong possibility that there are three different opinions on the matter and without the forum for discussion and a final consensus on how to handle it.
    FWIW, my opinion is to leave the record as is. Mhhutchins|talk 16:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    My confusion arose in part because the help pages at "Help:Screen:NewPub 2.4 Pages", and elsewhere, talk clearly enough, (but only) about Roman or unnumbered pages before the main body, and unnumbered pages after it (from what you're saying, is that not really about pagination?) They have nothing about 'inserts', like these photos. They don't make it clear that unnumbered pages can be anywhere; the closest they get is the sentence "Please note that these examples don't cover all possible cases" on the "Help:How to determine the value for the "Pages" field in a book" page. However, now that you've clarified the meaning, I'll adhere to it. That really removes my reason for asking this question in the first place, so I'll let the other PVs know I'm withdrawing it.
    I'll also use the single message with individual directions to it from now on, good suggestion. Astrodan 17:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Our help documentation leaves a lot to be desired. It's a mishmash patchwork thing that keeps changing as the software changes. And not always updated concurrently with those changes. Unfortunately, no one really has the time to go through all of the help pages to check for inconsistencies and lack of clarity. (We're too busy working on the database itself!)
    But the biggest problem is getting a consensus to actually change standards and rules based on the current practices which may be de facto but unstated standards. There have been many discussions that wound up going nowhere because of the divide between editors of think of the database as an organic and ever-changing entity, and those who think of the rules as set in stone, regardless of how they have been applied when it comes to the database records. I'm usually in the middle on such discussions, seeing both sides and willing to change based on a logical decision. (I don't mean to imply that my "logic" is any better than another editor's!) That usually means very little ever gets accomplished by such discussions. Some of us have become weary of these standards discussions and choose not to participate in them.
    I'll see if those sections of the help documentation need further clarification. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins|talk 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    No worries. A bit of flexibility in any system is always a good thing to have. And this system does actually seem to run very smoothly for such a lot of records. Astrodan 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    "Ghost Story", by Peter Straub

    In working on the "two covers? or one cover with two artists?" project, I ran across your verified "Ghost Story". This is listed as having two artists, but it appears from the notes that the second one is just a cover designer, and hence should not be credited in the "cover" field. But I'll let you decide if that's the case. Chavey 06:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

    In this case, I believe the cover designer should be considered the creator of the cover, along with the designer of the brooch pin. Neither are "artists" in the sense we usually mean, but I feel an exception should be made here. I'll make it into a single cover art record. Mhhutchins|talk 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    It did look like a bit of a special case. Chavey 08:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

    Tokyo Sogensha Co.

    Any issues merging Tokyo Sogensha Co. with Tokyo Sogensha? You're the only verifier of the only pub in the DB from Tokyo Sogensha Co. Thanks, Albinoflea 21:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

    Even though the book is credited to "Tokyo Sogensha Co." and the notes on the publisher page for Tokyo Sogensha gives it as "Tokyo Sogensha Co., Ltd.", I went ahead and changed my verified record to match the majority in the db. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't think I was entirely clear; I was just looking for confirmation that the two were likely the same corporate entity.
    Aside from the two of us, it looks like only one other user (Don Erikson) has a Primary verified pub from either Tokyo Sogensha, and I don't mind keeping the more verbose name. All the other pubs seem to be secondary entries from WorldCat or other sites. I know that "publisher consolidation" can be a touchy topic; I'm fine either way. Thanks, Albinoflea 23:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    That's why I changed my PV'd record, and didn't merge the publishers. Don't want anyone to think I pray to the God of Normalization. (You'd think some of these people don't understand how a database works.) I have no problem with making my record match all of the others, even if the data came from a much-aligned source which I truly respect. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

    Nearly belated

    Congratulations! (Your birthday is already over here but it's still valid for you). Christian Stonecreek 03:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks. At my age, "nearly belated" is MUCH better than "dearly departed". Mhhutchins|talk 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Penguin Science Fiction Postcards

    I'd like to alter the notes slightly for this pub. I can verify that my copy had the cards in the identical order as yours and I'd just like to update the references to verified copy to "copies". If someone verifies a later copy with a different order, we can revisit this then. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

    Please proceed to make the changes as you suggested. Mhhutchins|talk 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

    Prayers to Broken Stones interior art

    There are seven substantial pieces of interior art in your verified Prayers to Broken Stones that illustrate individual stories, and for which we have no records. If it's OK with you as PV2 I'd like to add them (PV1 also notified). PeteYoung 19:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

    Fine by me. Mhhutchins|talk 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    Done. I've had to add a note to the effect that the interior art appears on unnumbered pages that are not part of the book's pagination (which by using the bar method makes the contents listing look a little odd). Also, that the artist's signature is visible on the front cover. PeteYoung 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    You didn't have to use the pipe method of page numbering for every content item, only those which appear on unnumbered pages. In any case, I added the seven unnumbered pages for the illustrations to the page count field. Also, I noticed that Ellison's introduction starts on page I, not page 1, so I changed that and made a note about the unusual pagination, where the Arabic numbers take over from the Roman numbers. BTW, pages 9-10 are missing in my copy. How about yours? Mhhutchins|talk 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, mine's the same, no pages numbered 9-10. Cheers. PeteYoung 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Image:THMNPL1919.jpg

    You deleted Image:THMNPL1919.jpg, but it is still the cover image for The Moon Pool. Was this a mistake or was the link supposed to removed from the publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    I have no memory of that image, so I don't know why I may have deleted it. I would not have deleted it if I knew it was linked to a publication record, or I would have removed the link as well. When did I do it, and where do I go to see a list of deleted image files? Since this is the second printing of the same year, we can assume it has the same cover as the first printing. I see no reason why we can't link this image to the publication record. Mhhutchins|talk 04:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    Go to Image:THMNPL1919.jpg. Click the "2 deleted edits" link that is part of the small "View or restore 2 deleted edits?" below the title. That will show you the deletion log (you deleted it on 24 September 2015). It will also show the File history which if you click on the date, will show you the image (though it will eventually get purged when Ahasuerus frees up space). The image is not the same as the first printing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    I restored the image, but as you can see, the link to a publication record on its wiki page is invalid. I may have stumbled upon it and saw that it wasn't linked to a publication record and deleted it. (I still don't remember doing that.) How can you know that it was for the second printing? Also, it's an image of the book, which very likely had the same dust jacket as the first printing. Mhhutchins|talk 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    No idea. I just stumbled across the broken link. When I said it wasn't the same, all I meant was the two images were not the same. That wasn't meant as a comment on whether it was valid or not. Since Bluesman uploaded it, you could ask him. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    Verify with correction and extension

    Hi, Mhhutchins. Thank you for your many prompt approvals of links to English Wikipedia, primarily (recently with added biographical data).

    I tried a primary verify but found the publisher to correct (so I would not verify all as written) and more info to add. This is the first ed. first printing of The Serpent's Shadow, Current [Record #380547].

    Beside writing the note quoted below, I revised the second existing bullet point in the public Note, inserted a sixth bullet point in the old list, and added this note below the bullet list. "Hieroglyph art: small b/w line drawings are concentrated in the Glossary from page 402; appear occasionally throughout, introduced by colons and centered, to illustrate magical commands issued by the main characters."

    [quote]

    Note to Moderator: The first four old bullet points (first set) evidently refer to the title page verso, the last two to the dustjacket. Tp verso also identifies the font. Referring to a copy I correct the publisher (imprint) and verify all except [1] publ date per Amazon months later, which I replace in that bullet point above; [2] not sure Riordan is the author of the two "Essays" below. One of those is merely the location where hieroglyph art by MGK is concentrated; see my explanation above. I first viewed "Verify This Pub" but it seemed premature for me to complete that.

    [end quote]

    Please advise. To begin, is it correct to delay formal verification in this way? Would it work well to verify first (primary, transient), then immediately submit correction and extension.

    The Note to Moderator is long, partly because I did not anticipate writing you here. Now it occurs to me that the Note may be lost to posterity (and me) for purpose of discussion, after someone takes action one way or the other. So I quote it by copy/paste here.

    --Pwendt|talk 02:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, the Note to Moderator disappears once the submission is accepted. That's why it should only concern the submission, and not provide data about the publication (which would go in the displayed Note field.) I've looked over the submission to update and it looks good. I'm going to place your new note under the one about the hieroglyph art. Thanks also for correcting the publisher credit. If everything now matches your copy, you can do a primary verification of the record. Go to the link labeled "Verify This Pub" under the Editing tools menu. On the next page, check the button on the first row and the center column. Sometimes it is good to hold off verifying a record until it's correct. If you do this, add a Note to Moderator that you're working from a copy of the book. If you verify first (which is still OK), the moderator gets a notification that it's primary verified and we know you're working from the book itself. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins|talk 03:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also, if you're not certain that Riordan is the author of the essays, and there's no evidence to suggest that he is, then you can change to author field to "uncredited". Mhhutchins|talk 03:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help. My verifications for this weekend's augmentations in progress will be transient. I am working at a public terminal in a library, having selected exceptionally complicated works in order to learn as much as I can quickly (and in order to credit some "illustrators" broadly defined, a theme on which I will devote some more library time in the future). I may not own any books so complicated.
    For two complex submissions now, after your instruction of three hours ago, I copy/paste each Note to Moderator as a reply at User talk:Pwendt#The Demigod Files.
    Now I must go. It's a 24-hour library but I am not 24hr. --Pwendt|talk 03:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    About the Illustrator

    Greetings. Here in USA it's a national holiday, Thanksgiving Day, and I have a minute or ten break from the kitchen to visit my favorite database. Enjoy what's left of it, whether or not it's one that you celebrate.

    This title record is literally erroneous <a href="http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?360461">Bibliography: About the Illustrator (A Wizard of Earthsea)</a>; ISFDB Title Record # 360461. Ruth Robbins is the illustrator, not the author of "About the Illustrator" on the last printed page of A Wizard of Earthsea, who is uncredited. I wonder whether there is some convention to cover such a blurb this way or whether this is a mistake. --Pwendt|talk 20:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

    The publication record containing that title has been primary verified, so you should bring this to the attention of that editor with a note similar to this one. I suspect that he credited both the author and the illustrator with each of their "About" pieces under the assumption that many such pieces are solicited by publishers. In any csse, if they're uncredited, that's what the ISFDB record should credit, based on current ISFDB standards. Mhhutchins|talk 20:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, to link to a database title or publication in the wiki, you should use standard wiki linking instead of HTML. Enter the URL of the title or publication's page between two squared brackets: [ ]. Leave a space after the URL then name the link. So the first link above would be entered as
    [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?360461 About the Illustrator (A Wizard of Earthsea)]
    And be displayed as
    About the Illustrator (A Wizard of Earthsea)
    Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

    Azenath Hammond

    Would you please double check the author credit for the first essay in Locus, #239 November 1980 and see if Azenath ('z' vs. 's') is a typo or whether valid (in which case it should be varianted to Asenath Hammond)? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    Earthsea trilogy

    I revised our record for A Wizard of Earthsea, US pb 4th printing, easy to do without disruption of other records (or notifications to other editors) because that record (was not primary verified and) it specified "4th printing" from the book, publication data (evidently the date) from a list on the copyright page of a later edition. Indeed I found that we had transcribed such a list in one record for a later edition, which I linked in the Notes. Approved Publication Update Submission

    1. We have records for 4th US pb printings of the two sequels that completed the Earthsea trilogy, namely 229105 and 229153. The first of these is wrong, I feel sure, in its Note, "4th printing according to the copyright page of the 11th printing." On the contrary, I feel it must be "4th printing" that is specified in the book and date 1976-06 that is given by a printing history in the 11th printing (whose transcript I have not located here). I am inclined to go ahead and revise this record, rather than clone and revise, with data from my copy that does specify "4th printing" and does not give a date (same as the 4th printings of book one whose record I revised yesterday and book three). I understand this ok without notice because the record is not verified. --Pwendt|talk 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not clear what you're asking. The printing and publication date of the record you cite is based on data stated in a later printing of the work, which is noted as the source of the data. Since no one has primary verified the record for the 4th printing, we don't know what is actually stated in the book. Once someone has a copy, they can note the stated printing, and still retain the printing date based on another source. (That's why I personally use quotation marks to indicate anything that is actually stated in a book, but that's another matter.) If your printing doesn't give a printing date, it is fine to give another source for that date. Is that what you're asking? Mhhutchins|talk 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    Your reply suggest to me that this entire publication record (and those for other printings of this edition, I see quickly) has been created by reference only to a printing history in a later edition. That possibility had not occurred to me. The page-count must be entered by presumption that it does not change from printing to printing. Vaguely I recall reading somewhere that one should be careful to compare illustrations across printings because there may be differences ...
    It's a non-verified place-holding publication record based on data from a secondary source, just like thousands of other ISFDB records. It's waiting for an editor to come along to confirm the data or delete it as an erroneous record. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, one should be careful and mindful about illustrations across printings, which relates directly to your question below. Mhhutchins|talk 20:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    2. For all three Earthsea novels we have publication records of numerous editions, and for many or all US editions we specify contents that include Interior illustrations by Ruth Robbins book 1 or Gail Garraty (books 2 and 3). Does such a page (book 1, linked) represent the merge of dozens of title records for Interior Illustrations (A Wizard of Earthsea)? Many of those publication records are primary verified. In my pub revision yesterday [5] I added a Note that describes the illustrations. I wonder how, if at all, I should add such information to the title record for the illustrations--without comparing multiple editions or notifying multiple editors who have verified those pubs.

    --Pwendt|talk 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    You can't add a note to a title record unless you're sure that it applies to every publication in which that title appears. For example, you can't say that the illustration appears on page 24. There are two basic kinds of data: one that is specific to the title, and one that is specific to the publication. Once you've determined which kind of data it is, you can update the Note field of the title or the Note field of the publication.
    ... Here I had in mind the possibility that illustrations may differ from one printing to another. Is a title record such as this created by the successive merger, printing by printing, of the "Interior Illustrations" for all printings of a particular edition (here the first Bantam Books pb edition of Earthsea)? Or do we presume identity across printings --as I now infer we have done for the page-count in this edition, preceding paragraph? --Pwendt|talk 19:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, the illustrations may be different. But the INTERIORART record represents the fact that each of these printings have illustrations by the same artist, regardless of whether each of the printings contains all of the illustrations in the other printings. Keep in mind that this is primarily a fiction database, and not an art database. That's why I personally believe in not taking too much effort to create content records for each individual work of art. I can find better ways to contribute to the database. It's also why we allow individual editors choose the amount of effort they want to make regarding illustrations. If an editor wants to go through their printing and create a record for every single illustration, I'm not going to stop them, but I would try to discourage it. This shouldn't be compared with page counts. Unlike illustrations, that is easily quantifiable data. Mhhutchins|talk 20:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    I see that our title record for book 2 book 2 Notes simply a link to its section in the wiki http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Author:Ursula_K._Le_Guin#The_Tombs_of_Atuan. Our title records for books 1 and 3 do not so link but those books do have such sections too [6] [7], of which the former includes a long section about the map. How if at all should augmentation of the pub records be coordinated with maintenance of such wiki pages? --Pwendt|talk 18:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    When the db was created, it was almost impossible to include extensive notes about a publication, a title, a series, etc. So we used the wiki and linked the database records to it. That's changed over the past few years. You'll find relatively few wiki pages that contain this kind of data. The wiki is now mainly used for documenting standards, and for communication between editors. We're trying to get away from wiki-based data, and have been gradually moving as much as possible directly to the database.
    In this case, feel free to link the database records to any relevant wiki page. But in most cases, it's better to enter the data into the Note fields of the database records. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    3 [later]. Is the name of the illustrator one acceptable disambiguater for "About the Illustrator", as well as the name of the work. I find both in the summary bibliography for "uncredited". --Pwendt|talk 19:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    Yes. Either one is acceptable. I don't think a standard has been documented. Again, we disambiguate titles to avoid accidental merging. The only other reason is for certain types of INTERIORART records, such as "(map)" or "(frontispiece)", to distinguish them from illustrations. Mhhutchins|talk 20:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

    Pyrna: A Commune; Or, Under the Ice

    Hi, Michael. There's still something I'm not getting in the above. Pyrna, first pubbed in 1875, was uncredited, but we know now that it was written by Ellis James Davis. There are two pubs under that title, the Bickers (uncredited) and the ebook (credited to Davis). I've changed the Bickers pub to 'uncredited'. From this point I'm not sure. I'm assuming the title record needs to be changed to 'uncredited' and then varianted to Davis at some point, but how are the two pubs handled? If I were to guess I'd say leave the Bickers pub with the main title as their titles and authors would be the same. Unmerge the ebook pub and then later variant it to the other title. ??
    When a pub is unmerged from a title, does it become a title on its own or does it stay a publication? If it stays a publication, can you attach it to an existing tile record, or do you have to delete it and start over with ADD PUBLICATION TO THIS TITLE. I think I'm close to getting this bu not quite there; any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 01:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

    When you changed the author credit of this publication to "uncredited" (submission #1) it no longer matched the author credit of its title reference record. The next step (submission #2) is to unmerge this publication from its title record. When a publication is unmerged, a new title record is created which has the same title and author credit as the publication. (You correctly surmised this would happen.) Then you variant the new title record (crediting "uncredited") to the parent title record (crediting "Ellis James Davis") which is the third and final submission in the process. Keep in mind that we do not make "uncredited" and "Anonymous" into pseudonyms of the canonical authors. I can do this for you, but I would suggest that you can do it yourself. This is advanced editing, and would move you to the top of the class once you understand the hows and whys of the process. Good luck. Mhhutchins|talk 04:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think I got it this time. I misread what you said for the third step but I hope I've got it right this time. Thanks for the help and for being more alert than I am. Doug / Vornoff 05:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

    Reverse ISBN 1-56865

    Mh, i wonder whether there is a way to ascertain, for current instance, whether ISBN-10 1-56865-xxx-x means SFBC definitively. If not generally so, then have we any list of frequent publishers of sf?

    Current instance is half-discussed, no reply yet, by me 30 hours ago at User:Marc Kupper#DAW Tough Guide to Fantasyland (which section originated as my first serious contribution eight months ago). I infer now from the DAW Collectors table linked there [8] that DAW Collectors use 0-88677, not sure 0-88677 means DAW Collectors definitively. --Pwendt|talk 02:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    Marc isn't as active as he used to be, so you may have to use the ISFDB system to email him. But I can affirm that the ISBN you refer to is a range owned by Bookspan, publishers of SFBC and other book club editions. See this section about SFBC ISBN ranges.
    No, we don't have a list of frequent publishers of sf. There are literally thousands of publishers in the db and such a list would be too difficult to maintain. Here's a directory to all publishers in the db. Mhhutchins|talk 02:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Here it is from the horse's mouth the Global Registry of Publishers: The owner of that ISBN is given as Doubleday Direct (predecessor of Bookspan back in the 1990s when that range was used) and GuildAmerica Books, which was the Doubleday Direct imprint for exclusive book club editions. Mhhutchins|talk 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 23:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    The History of Middle Earth

    Hello, As a verifier of one of the volumes of The History of Middle Earth, I would like to ask your input on an issue of authorship. Most of the title records for volumes in this series list both J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien as authors. Two do not (Vols. 1 and 10). Christopher is credited with editorship on the title pages, but his contributions go well beyond those of the average editor. On the other hand, strictly speaking an editor of a collection is not given author status on ISFDB. The exception to this rule that has given Christopher author status for most of these books is likely a judgment by ISFDB editors that the fraction of content he has contributed to these books warrants it.

    Please see <a href="http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Help_desk#Tolkien_-_Book_of_Lost_Tales_Vol._1">this entry</a> at the help desk for arguments on both sides.

    I would like to get your opinion on this, so that a consensus can be reached and all of the volumes be credited in a consistent way. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, Ldb001 20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

    The Kane Chronicles

    Hi, After four weekends i am back at the public library with first editions of The Kane Chronicles Series Record # 26841. Having read some instructions I doubt that I was right to include "Author's Note" ESSAY Title Record #1935057 in The Throne of Fire contents Publ Record #346772. I doubt but I am not sure. For clarity I added a Note and Synopsis to the title record today, when I primary verified the book.

    I have consulted ISFDB coverage of The Fellowship of the Ring for guidance in interpreting this and that. Our treatment of its Foreword as an ESSAY while we do not even mention the Prologue (analogous to Riordan's one-page Author's Note that follows, and also one-page Warning that precedes, the Throne of Fire novel) fits my afterthought that this Author's Note does not really belong in the database.

    Just now I reread "EntryType" http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:EditPub#EntryType. This passage appears in both bullet items SHORTFICTION and ESSAY

    Some books contain fictional essays, purporting to written by a character in the book, as introductions or afterwords. There is no "FICTIONAL ESSAY" entry type, so you can choose whether the entry is better described as SHORTFICTION or ESSAY.

    This does not explicitly concern whether the material should be entered as separate contents or passed over but it does suggest to me that to enter separately rather than to treat as part of a novel is not very important.

    The Kane Chronicles trilogy includes similar one-page Warnings before page one of all three novels; similar one-page Author's Notes after the first and second novels only. One leftover for me is whether to add The Red Pyramid [1] Author's Note for consistency.

    That's all for now. I'll compare the beginning and end material across volumes to see whether it differs. --Pwendt|talk 18:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

    P.S.
    1. The Author's Notes in volumes 1 and 2 do include some material evidently intended to be taken in a traditional nonfiction essay sense. Riordan assures that all mentioned Egyptian "relics and locations" exist; all gods and goddesses are attested to in the ancient texts. So my current thought is that it functions for the reader/parent/schoolteacher as a straight essay would.
    2. The Author's Notes and other end materials (ESSAYs) are all specific to the current novel so there is nothing now to merge.
    --Pwendt|talk 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    If a "fictional essay" is part of a NOVEL-typed publication, you should not create a separate content record for it. Any prologue, introduction, or afterword that is written in a fictional voice should be considered inseparable from the novel itself, so there should be no content record for it. When it's not clear about the function of the piece and how it applies to the rest of the novel, it's up to the verifier of the publication record to make this determination. If another verifier disagrees with your determination, then you should discuss the situation and come to an amicable compromise. You've already found the general rule that apply to situation, but look here under the "Essay" subsection of the What to Include section, where it states:
    Occasionally some pieces will be set in the fictional world of the novel; these do not get indexed separately as they are regarded as part of the novel's text.
    If you believe the rule should be more definitively explained (and perhaps it does), feel free to start a discussion to include other editors on the [[ISFDB:Rules and standards discussions] page. In the case of the record you link above, based solely on your description, I would not have personally created a content record for it. Hope this helps. Mhhutchins|talk 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Mary Poppins

    Hi, Hours later I thought I would do the library's latterday editions of Mary Poppins in the Park whose first American ed I covered (primary) last fortnight Publ Record # 548363.

    I did go ahead and augment our record for October 2006. But the last line of the copyright page "C E G H F D B" suggests second printing to me, which means, in turn, if i understand correctly, that all should have been entered as a clone with unknown date --rather than as update existing Publ Record # 83118. (Yet I added that line to the Notes and submitted the update.)

    Similarly I have in hand the library's copy of 2014 omnibus 80th Anniversary Collection which fits Publ Record # 483356 in all respects except that there is no internal date and there is closing lines "Manufactured in the United States: DOC 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2". Is this a second printing and must it be entered anew with date unknown rather than used as a source to augment #483356? (I'll wait until a later visit.) --Pwendt|talk 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    1) I'm holding the submission to update that record. I'll be leaving a message on your talk page after I've posted this.
    I replied there and submitted update to Publ Record #548363.
    2) Yes, that's a second printing also. Clone the existing record, make any changes based on the book in hand. Occasionally later printings will give the year of publication in a supplemental number line. Check to make sure that it's not present in this printing. If not, zero out the publication date field.
    I think it must be wrong that "Mary Poppins Boxed Set" is now entered as one Publ of this Title Record # 1780203. Perhaps all four volumes boxed are 80th Anniversary editions.
    Examination of the title page suggests the canonical title "Mary Poppins: 80th Anniversary Collection" (there is no design element between the big bold first two lines "Mary" and "Poppins" and the small third line "80th Anniversary Collection" after which a row of dots precedes the byline), which has the advantage of clarity and matches the LC Catalogue LCCN 2015296312.
    I have not read about boxed sets yet and it is very late so that is all for me now, back in 12 to 20 hours. --Pwendt|talk 01:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Box sets are an anomaly in publishing whose existence had to be squeezed into the database with some spit, rubberbands, and glue. It was determined that they should be recorded under the OMNIBUS type. This happened before I started here in 2007, so I had no input into the process. Looking at them now, I can't think of any other way to have done it.
    In the case you give above the box set isn't really under the title record you cite. It's under its own title record, which is a variant of the other title record, because they have the same contents: the same four NOVELs. Keep in mind that canonical titles don't necessarily have to match the title that's given on the title page of a publication. The canonical title of God Emperor of Dune will always be God Emperor of Dune regardless of what is stated on the title page of a publication of that work. Whether it's God Emperor of Dune: The Fourth Novel in the Chronicles of Dune or Frank Herbert's God Emperor of Dune or Dune 4: God Emperor of Dune. An editor can very well enter any of those titles exactly as they are published into the title field of the publication record, but they are not going to change the title field of the title record (the canonical title). You can update the title field of the publication record for the Mary Poppins anniversary omnibus to match exactly what appears on its title page without having to change the canonical title.
    Does it work for you that I extend this old discussion without notice elsewhere? --Pwendt|talk 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    It would have been better to start a new topic. It took me a few minutes to find this, even though I got a message that a change had been made to my talk page. It would have been easier to find at the bottom of the page. Mhhutchins|talk 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Re omnibus editions of Mary Poppins Series 12481, the 80th Anniversary Collection and the Boxed Set that I mentioned here one month ago, which comprise the same four novels with different auxiliary material and packaging, have been separated as two Titles. I understand from you that that is unnecessary because their main content is the same, the four novels.
    I see that we also have a 3-volume omnibus Mary Poppins Boxed Set T12481. That must be a separate Title for integrity of Storylen=/1-3 and I suppose that is a good reason. We also have a 2-volume /1-2 omnibus Mary Poppins and Mary Poppins Comes Back for whose 1964 edition I submitted update moments ago.
    --Pwendt|talk 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    Since there's no question, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're wondering whether the contents of an omnibus determine if it should be varianted or merged under the same title record, then yes, the contents matter. When it comes to new material, the extent of the changes also determine whether a new title should be made, and whether it should be varianted to an existing title record. Occasionally such decisions may be quite subjective and should be discussed with any other editors who may have verified records of similar omnibuses, or asked at the Help Desk or the Moderator Noticeboard. Mhhutchins|talk 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    About the use of a colon to separate a title from its subtitle: that's a bibliographic standard. Leaving just a space to indicate a break isn't going to work, and you can't indicate s change in the font type or size when entering data, even after computers came into existence. The use of a colon for this purpose goes back centuries. We accept that standard here at the ISFDB without question, even though we otherwise make it clear that the title must be entered exactly as it appears on a title page. So if you choose to update the title field of the publication record, try to enter it as close as you can to the one on the book's title page, while still using standard capitalization and bibliographic entry rules. Mhhutchins|talk 03:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


    3) When adding a new message to a ISFDB wiki page, use the plus (+) tab to create a new topic. When I responded to your previous post about The Kane Chronicles, I had a conflict in editing and had to go back and rewrite it. That's because you edited it to add this new topic. Keep that in mind to avoid edit conflicts with other users. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins|talk 01:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    The Year of the Quiet Sun

    The cover artist of this publication is Michael Whelan, see here on his site. Horzel 15:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've updated the record. Thanks for finding the credit. Mhhutchins|talk 16:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Capitol: The Worthing Chronicle

    And the cover artist for this is Vicente Segrelles, see his site and look at image CF_862.jpg (bottommost image). Horzel 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Bayley's The Zen Gun

    Michael, your verified The Zen Gun contains an author's afterword, a six-page essay from page 154 titled 'The Recessive Hypothesis' which we don't have in the db yet. It's not part of the novel, and I'd like to add it. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Sure. Go ahead and add the content. Eight years and two days ago, I was new to the ISFDB, and must have overlooked this essay at the end of the book. Or if I did see it, probably didn't add it to the record since it wasn't required then. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins|talk 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    The Book of Three

    I will return to The Book of Three 50th Anniversary Edition Publ Record #463528 and have a question about one bit of it. The front cover, unattributed, is a rather straightforward version (embossed and "two-colored" if i may coin a term) of the original front cover by Evaline Ness compare Title #422111. I suppose that is true of the back cover also; they are side-by-side and truncated on the front of the 50th Anniv. paperback edition, I know only from our cover image compare Publ 464939; yet I don't recall the back cover Ness painting. If/when I confirm that the 50th Anniv. back cover is derived from the 1964 back cover illustration in the same way, should the new cover be formally attributed to Ness as Cover art 2014? --Pwendt|talk 23:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    You can credit it now, since you've shown that it's the same art, even thought it has been digitally manipulated. Once you've credited it (making sure to give the source of the credit in the publication record's Note field), then merge the new COVERART record with the existing one. (If the same art was used on a differently titled book, you'd variant the record instead of merging it.) I can do that for you or you can try it if you'd like. Mhhutchins|talk 01:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I submitted both a clone covering the 12th printing of a tp edition and an update of the 50th Anniv ed. (the latter more info than I should have tried at once, but neither the computer nor the webbrowser crashed).
    Concerning "An Interview Between Lloyd Alexander and Students" pp 191-95, i found information to support the 1999 date that is now mentioned in a Note (submitted). The full interview as currently published by Scholastic "Lloyd Alexander Interview Transcript" includes the Q&A How old are you? ... I will be 75 in another four days. That implies interview date 1999-01-26. --Pwendt|talk 19:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    You can note the interview date, but that shouldn't be used for the work's publication date. We use the date on which a work is first published. Mhhutchins|talk 23:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    If so then the documentation needs amendment. Help:Screen:EditPub#Interviews (section 2.8) is exceptionally clear that we use "date the interview was conducted", stated both in the preface and in bullet "Date" of this section. --Pwendt|talk 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    That documentation is incorrect. It hasn't been the standard for the 8 years I've been here. Thanks for finding it. I'll bring it to the group's attention so that it can be discussed. Mhhutchins|talk 22:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Furthermore do we recognize no internet publication? I suppose that 2013 is simply the download date Henry Holt acknowledges. The last line of the page/URL at Scholastic.comm as now rendered by Mozilla Firefox browser includes "TM (R) & (C) 2015 Scholastic Inc." and I suppose that the same interview transcript page/URL included either 2013 or something like "1996-2013" at the time Henry Holt visited for the purpose of assembling materials in this 2014 publication.
    If we consider the full interview unpublished (afawk), only Henry Holt's excerpt published, then the date is same as the book Publ Record #463528], or 2014-09-02 per Amazon 2014-08-01. (I'm out of time.) --Pwendt|talk 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, we recognize the internet as a form of publication and it can be used to date a title. But we don't necessarily create publication records for an internet appearance. We also don't use copyright as a publication date unless there is no other secondary source found. Mhhutchins|talk 22:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    The Foundling and Other Tales of Prydain

    Concerning the 1999 Revised and Expanded Ed. whose first printing I augmented and verified (primary transient) four weeks ago, beginning with a Clone operation [9] but the link is no longer useful, at least to me). Now I wonder whether it was a mistake to Clone. Supposing that we treat Locus, same as Amazon (you explained to me), as a source for first printing data, my data should have been an update to Publ 40136 (current).

    Supposing I am right in retrospect, how should one generally proceede. And does it matter in this case that, having worked on other volumes in the 1999 Prydain matching set, I see that I must when I next have access to the book revise some of Publ 547462 (current) --bring it into line with the others? --Pwendt|talk 00:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, you should have updated the record which was already in the database. Your submission to clone must have slipped by the moderator who handled it. I suggest that you combine the data into one of the two records and delete the other. In the future look over all of the publication records under a title to determine whether the book you have in hand could possibly be one of those. If it's close, and the current one has been primary verified, leave a message on that editor's talk page. If the editor isn't active (there should be a message at the top of their talk page about their activity), leave a message on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard. If the current record isn't primary verified, and you don't want to take a chance of overwriting any of its data, again leave a message on the Moderator Noticeboard. Mhhutchins|talk 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    With my own settings (default, if i recall correctly) I see "User contributions" in the left margin of this talk page, for instance, and that report makes clear you are active by any definition. I don't see a top message about your activity.
    In preparation for deleting the older record, moments ago I submitted update to the newer --update comprising only effective merge of the two records as they now stand. Thanks for your help. No time for the P.S. now. --Pwendt|talk 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    P.S. Concerning the first edition I may have been rash last hour to submit publication month and date from a contemporary Kirkus Review. Perhaps better left "1973-00-00" because there are numerous contents dated 1973-00-00 in many other records. For more info see my notice at User talk:Bluesman#Prydain Stories illustrations. --Pwendt|talk 00:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've responded about dating from a secondary source on Nihonjoe's talk page. Mhhutchins|talk 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, you might find this guide helpful in determining which function to use to create or update publication records. I wrote it several years ago, but got a less-than-enthusiastic response for it, so I never linked it to the help documentation. Those few who did respond thought it was too complicated for new users, even though it's a step-by-step guide that's as simple as such a complicated issue can be explained. Let me know if it works for you. Mhhutchins|talk 01:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Grease Monkey

    Hi, Michael. In your pv'd Locus 547 you have a review to an unpubbed graphic novel on p.25, "Grease Monkey" by Tim Eldred. There are 3 other reviews for this work. I can't see where Tim Eldred has written much, if any, spec-fic fiction outside of graphic novels & comics. Is there a reason these reviews shouldn't be made essays and the unpubbed graphic novel title deleted? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 22:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Someone created that title record because of the relatively large number of reviews in major sf publications. (I didn't because I would have created a pub to go with it.) This seems to be a sufficient reason to add a publication to the database, even though otherwise it wouldn't be eligible. Some rules have to be bent a little in cases like this. I will create a publication for the title which would be easier than deleting all of the REVIEW recods and replacing them with ESSAY records. If you've ever done that you'd know it's not as simple as it seems, since you can't just change the type of a REVIEW record to an ESSAY. I will add a note explaining why the exception was made. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins|talk 00:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    No problem. Yes, the way I phrased it made it sound like it was a simple one-step maneuver. To check if I've got it right, I would have made an essay out of the review, removed the review from the pub, then deleted it. Then repeat for the other reviews after checking with the verifiers. Doug / Vornoff 00:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Close. Here's what I do (each is a separate submission, so you'll have to wait for moderation between each):
    1. Add an ESSAY-typed record (in the CONTENTS section, not the REVIEW section of the entry form), titled in this format (or something similar): "Review of the graphic novel "Grease Monkey" by Tim Eldred".
    2. Use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function to remove the REVIEW-typed record.
    3. Delete the REVIEW-typed record.
    It becomes more complicated if the review was credited to a pseudonym, e.g. "Tom Easton", because you'll have to delete both parent and variant REVIEW records, and then variant the new ESSAY record to the canonical author. Mhhutchins|talk 03:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I wasn't taking into account an instance where there was a pseudonym, but at least I got the general idea. A bit more to it, as you've shown. Thanks for the guidance. Doug / Vornoff 04:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    One last thing: if the REVIEW is not linked to a title, and you've determined that the reviewed title is not eligible for the database (either through your own research or with the assistance of a moderator or other editor), then you can convert the REVIEW to an ESSAY (using the method I describe), without needing to notify the primary verifier(s) of the publication record. This action is justified because you're replacing one content record with another one based on the ISFDB standards. You can leave them a message as a courtesy, and get their input in determining the title's eligibility for the database if you need it. But ISFDB etiquette is followed since you're not making a substantial change to a verified publication record. Mhhutchins|talk 05:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    OK, that's good to know - makes sense. Thanks again, Doug / Vornoff 05:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    SFBC page update

    Since [this] edition, from 1989, still has the slug line "Book Club Edition" I updated the section on [Dustjackets] to reflect that. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for finding this. We'll also have to change the part about "Spring 1988". BTW, can you confirm that this edition, published a month after the one above, doesn't have the slug line? If so we can narrow it down even further. Mhhutchins|talk 20:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    The Rosenberg does not have the slug line.
    This one was published a few months earlier. If it doesn't have the slug line as well, we can conclude that its addition was sporadic. Mhhutchins|talk 20:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    The Sheffield does have the line. You've done just what I was about to start!! I'll keep checking through any other '89s and see if I have any '90s. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I have nine more from later '89, the Jeter in Sept has the line and the Dillard in Oct [Star Trek] also has the line. None of the rest do [five editions through December]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Have only a handful from '90 [quit the Club that year] and none have the line. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'll change the documentation to say "Fall 1989" so that should be pretty accurate. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 23:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    Variant or merge

    Two 1968 INTERIORART titles by Evaline Ness are identical, namely Prydain (map) and The High King (map), I have now ascertained by examination of the two publications for which we now list them as contents. (Our records of other printings of Prydain maps in Henry Holt editions of the six books from 1999 do not list map content. Many list no contents, of course.)

    "Prydain (map)" originated as the correct generic title, revised from "Map (Prydain)", when you approved-with-amendments my clone request last month [10]. The map is untitled in both publications. Its detail is appropriate to The High King novel and not to The Foundling collection in which we have given it the generic title. So much supports merge under title "The High King (map)" rather than variant but I am not sure that is or should be decisive. What do you think?

    --Pwendt|talk 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    I agree that we should go with "The High King (map)" until we can determine if the identical map is used in other volumes of the series. Do you wish to merge the titles? If so, go to the artist's summary page and choose the link "Show All Titles", then check the boxes of the two titles you wish to merge. You will then have to reconcile the difference (since the title is not the same). Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Done.
    I was too brief re the big picture. The five novels carry five different maps with 1964 to 1968 copyrights, in 1999-or-later edition/printing, at least one for each novel that I have verified this month. Two are internally titled, three are not; today I learned that I entered the same five titles, two internal and three generic, Nihonjoe verified as contents of the 1991 omnibus [same copyright years too, but "uncredited"]. I expect that these five pairs of maps are identical and appear in the five first editions of the novels 1964 to 1968; that Ness (d. 1986) did not participate in production of the 1973 collection but publisher Holt re-used her 1968 map.
    Evidently, default display of titles in other languages was instituted last hour. Good night. --Pwendt|talk 04:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Publication year, month, day

    Your advice at [[User talk:Nihonjoe# pertains to the publication day. I infer that we recognize, for instance, "2003-10, no day" as well as "2003-10, day missing" and "2003-10-01" to "2003-10-31" for the 31 specific days in October on the calendar. But we use "2003-10-00" for both of the former and in the publication context we need to be wise. (For an author date of birth, on the other hand, I suppose that "2003-10-00" means unequivocally "2003-10, day missing".)

    The example I mentioned at Nihonjoe concerned my specification of both month and day, from 1973-00-00 to 1973-11-12 (which I should have said, as the update record does not show that after the update is approved). Let me set that aside.

    The 1963 novel Time at the Top (Title 745101) in its 40th anniversary edition and 2011 omnibus edition exhibits precisely the point of your note (except that no one has yet examined any copy of either book, which gives me an opportunity). Amazon gives publication dates 2003-10-01 [11] and 2011-10-01 [12]; we give 2003-10-01 [13] and 2011-10-00 [14]. The latter cites Amazon as of 2011-10-03. The former cites Amazon as of 2015-12-13 in a Note that I amended that day; i became concerned about this issue during that session and stopped before specifying the day "-01" from Amazon for the omnibus.

    I wonder what is best, working from a secondary source for a publication that no one has verified, for which we must commonly have only a year (often copyright year from LC or WorldCat although we prefer publication year) and fully specified yyyy-mm-dd from a source such as Amazon or a contemporary book review as by Kirkus.

    As I understand your advice, we should roll back a date as from 2003-10-01 to 2003-10-00 (meaning "2003-10, no day") when we do examine a hard copy and find Month Year given alone on the copyright page. Perhaps we should originally give the full date only in a Note, and leave it to the primary verifier to be more specific. Pwendt

    Leave it to the primary verifier to give the stated date. Naturally, that should be of no concern to someone who isn't working from the primary source. If the record has not been verified, you should give the most precise date available from a reliable secondary source. Make sure to give the source in the Note field, then leave it to any later primary verifier to change the publication date, and hopefully, leave a note about the exact date in the Note field. Mhhutchins|talk 04:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Re what is at risk --for me mainly the cost of revisions to and fro-- let me return briefly to Publ 40133 for which I provided 1973-00-00 from contemporary secondary source in place of 1973-00-00. What do you think of leaving the database in this state, as that update has done temporarily, where one Cover and six SHORTFICTION and the COLLECTION Title record all carry date 1973-00-00 (altho we display only "1973" in standard view) while the publication in which all first appeared carries 1973-11-12? Is it important or even useful to be consistent? If so maybe I should roll back -11-12 to -00-00 in the one location.

    Thanks for listening if you are still here :--)
    --Pwendt|talk 03:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    No, it's not necessary to roll the date of the publication back to the dayless date. Leave that to any future primary verifier if the book only has a month date. About the cover and content records not matching: you can update those to match the publication date, if you're certain that all of them were first published in the publication which you are updating. I'll check to see if that's the case, and if so, I'll update their publication dates. Mhhutchins|talk 04:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    favor: page numbering

    I need to impose on you for a favor, in your capacity as World Page Number Authority :-). I accepted Nihonjoe's xxx Keep pub updates this morning, but in a few of them he used bracketed Roman numeral page numbers. I'm not sure that's right for those books, but I was suddenly called to work and don't know when I'll have time next to research and/or provide guidance if necessary. Would you take a look at them and follow up with him if something's wrong? If you don't have time, no problem -- I will get back to them when I can. Thanks. --MartyD 14:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    As a rule, brackets should only be used in the Page Count field for ranges of uunnumbered pages on which significant text appears. Roman numbers are used only if they actually appear in the book. So it doesn't make sense to have roman numbers in brackets...ever. I'll look over the submissions and respond on the editor's talk page if necessary. Mhhutchins|talk 18:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I appreciate your fielding it. --MartyD 12:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Bio, Author, and User space

    Finding the article Author:P. L. Travers by Ahasuerus, I followed that example in one respect and moved from Bio to Author space a note that I created some time ago, now Author:Margot Zemach (and extended). I did not formally sign that page as Ahasuerus signed the other nine years ago.

    1. I was about to ask whether there is an automatic link back to ISFDB somewhere in the framework but I see now that template {Author header} will provide one and I suppose that I should.
    2. I am not sure what to make of the Author header concerning use of discussion pages. Glancing at a few instances it seems to me \
    3. I suppose that I should have vacated Bio:Margot Zemach somehow, so that it will be a redlink at ISFDB, rather than imply we have a biographical sketch of her as it currently does. Do I need a moderator (administrator I would say from Wikipedia experience) to complete this?

    --Pwendt|talk 21:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    I was posting on your page about the missing template header when you were posting this. So to answer your questions:
    1. There would be an automatic link back to the author's summary page if you'd kept the template.
    2. For every wiki page there is also a discussion page. There should be a link or a plus sign to lead to that talk page (depending upon what skin you using.) The first page (also called the "project page") should contain the data. The second page (the "talk page") should be used by editors to discuss what goes the project page.
    3. I deleted the Bio page because it was blank. Anyone clicking on it from the author's summary page would have been disappointed to find a blank page. By deleting it, the link automatically disappears.
    Wiki pages are not moderated. Any registered user can change them, delete them, or do anything they want with them. Fortunately, there's a way to restore any that are edited maliciously. Mhhutchins|talk 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    Interrupted because I infer that you are midstream in some fix of one or both. --Pwendt|talk 21:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I was responding to your questions. But I was able to go back and retrieve it after the edit conflict. (Thanks to Google Chrome. In some browsers it would have been lost, and I'd have to rewrite it.) Mhhutchins|talk 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    Now I see that Author:P. L. Travers is not a single 2006 contribution signed and presumably written by Ahasuerus. Rather it was composed in two parts, the second being unsigned 2011 insertion of both header and content above that 2006 note (history). This undermines some of my inferences and questions of one hour ago (never completed above) and suggests different ones but I will not think it all through now. --Pwendt|talk 22:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    I forgot to mention that you really don't have to sign any contributions to a project page, since they are considered a community effort. But you should always sign any post you add to a talk page. Mhhutchins|talk 00:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    One note to self which may be meaningful to you: Author and Author talk are similar to Wikipedia: WikiProject and Wikipedia talk: Wikiproject, except that ISFDB editors don't talk much outside User space. --Pwendt|talk 22:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, the ISDFDB Wiki is almost identical to Wikipedia since both are based on the wiki concept. The only difference is the version we use hasn't been updated for awhile. (Can't say why.) And you're right that we don't do much talking on project pages, but we make up for on the community and user pages! Mhhutchins|talk 00:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Amazon cover image and edition

    Hi. Recently I revised the dates for two Percy Jackson and the Olympians covers from perhaps 2006 and 2007 to 2014. FYI this problem is likely to recur if publisher and Amazon practices concerning this series are now common. Visit any one of the five novels at Amazon.

    • first ppb editions at Amazon: 1 2 3 4 5

    Evidently these are the paperback editions currently in print. First editions were 2005 to 2009; these are dated 2006 to 2011. But front covers were changed last year, new art by same artist John Rocco.

    Select "look inside" and read a notice such as this (book 2; link 2 above)

    "This view is of the Hardcover edition (2006) from Disney-Hyperion. The Paperback edition (2007) from Disney-Hyperion that you originally viewed is the one you'll receive if you click the Add to Cart button on the left."

    What you originally viewed is the "Paperback edition (2007)" only because Disney-Hyperion or perhaps Amazon does not treat this change in front cover art as a new edition (only a new printing, evidently). The Amazon heading ends "Paperback – March 20, 2007" which identifies the first printing of what seems to be considered the only US paperback edition to date. (Probably, at least in some cases, ISBN is stable, Amazon URL is stable, from say 2007 to date.)

    I do not know how common such practices may be but concerning the Prydain novels published by Holt (or Macmillan Children's Books or Pan Macmillan or Holtzbrinck) I suspect that the Square Fish logo, imprint, edition was introduced for the nth printing of Henry Holt paperback edition. In other words, I guess they changed the imprint without returning the printing count to 1; "First Square Fish Edition" was not a first printing.

    At the moment I have no good idea how to present this possibility in Help space. --Pwendt|talk 18:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    One should always be wary of Amazon as a source for secondary date, especially if a) a publisher is merged or bought by another publisher or b) the cover art doesn't match the edition of the listing. Amazon will credit a 1985 Harper & Row book as published by HarperCollins, when the corporation didn't even exist until 1990. Amazon changes the cover image for many publication for new printings, even though the listing itself is an earlier edition. So until you become more familiar with Amazon practices and ISFDB standards, I suggest sticking to adding and updating records based on books-in-hand. You can't go wrong if you're working from a primary source. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Demain, les étoiles

    Hi, Michael. Please see continuance of our conversation on my page re "Demain, les étoiles". Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

    Galaxy's Edge May 2015

    My copy of [this] has the correct pages, amended the notes accordingly and changed the page count. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks. It's good to know someone at the printer caught the error and corrected it, and that some copies escaped in good shape. Mhhutchins|talk 03:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    TheTombs of Atuan (excerpt)

    The Tombs of Atuan (excerpt) Title 1944645, which I added days ago as contents of a recent ed. A Wizard of Earthsea (ClonePub with notice "Manual Merge") is much longer than that excerpt previously in the database Title 877778. These two Title records share title and author --which generates the Manual Merge notice, i suppose. Dates differ because I used original publication date of the work excerpted (here and also Prydain novels reprints with "Turn the page for a sneak peek at the next"); another editor used first publication date of the particular excerpt. The other editor also used capital "Excerpt", a difference evidently ignored by our software.

    Are both date conventions acceptable for excerpts? Both caps conventions? Is it ok, does it fit DB design, to leave the database with this candidate Duplicate Title pair (matching title, author) that is known not to have duplicate content? --Pwendt|talk 21:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    The "e" in "excerpt" shouldn't be capitalized. Also, it is standard ISFDB practice not to merge excerpts unless the editor has done a primary check of the texts. Date of an excerpt should be the date when the complete work was first published. Also, just because there are matching pairs doesn't mean they should be merged. If you've determined that the works are not the same, then add a note to at least one of the titles explaining why they shouldn't be merged and should remain as two separate records. This will help avoid accidental merging. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Mary Hanson Roberts

    Would you mind double checking the interior art credit for SF & Fantasy Review, April 1984? Mary Hanson Roberts is usually credited as Mary Hanson-Roberts. If correct as credited, than a pseudonym needs to be created. I'll ping Biomassbob about his The Barbarian Scroll credits. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

    There's no hyphen. I'll create a pseudonym and variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

    Hideyuki Kikuchi status

    Just so you know where I am in entering his works, you can see my user page. Still quite a bit to enter. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Destinies Volume 1 Number 2

    Hi, Michael. Referring to your prime verified Destinies #2, my copy has "Comes the Revolution" credited to "J E Pournelle PHD" (no periods) on the title page. Also, "Malthusian Crisis and Methuselah's Children" has the author credited as "Dr. Robert Prehoda" on its title page. Also, I did a word count which averaged out at 283 words/page, requiring a story to be around 26 pages to be a novelette. Novelette "Second Chance" is 18 1/2 and "Cultural Conflict" is 23 making them short stories. I don't know if this has any real value, but there it is. Are the following two items worthy of a note?: a) p.3 credits page has the date as "February - March 1979" and b) The image on the back cover is reversed. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 07:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    I've corrected the credit for the Pournelle piece (since it's an established pseudonym), but left the Prehoda as is. I also changed the length designation of the two stories. Feel free to add those notes (or any other) to the record. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins|talk 22:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Notes submitted, Doug / Vornoff 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Page numbers again

    Looking for some interiorart documentation that I don't find (User talk:Pwendt#The Wolves of Willoughby Chase moments ago), I find one note that concerns me re page numbers, namely bullet point "Exception for works which have illustrations preceding their title pages" under Help:Screen:EditPub#Page.

    "preceding their title pages" implies that the interior title pages for particular book content are considered part of the content. To wit in case of narrative fiction content such as the first short story in a collection or part one or chapter one of a novel, the number of an interior title page should be entered in the content section, regardless whether the narrative begins there or on the next page --unless illustration of the narrative precedes that interior title page.

    This does not fit what you have explained, as I understand it (enter the numbers of those pages where texts begin); nor does it fit entry of page 1 or page 3 for a novel when there is a frontispiece illustration. The explanation under this bullet point speaks of 'a magazine' and not of 'a book' but there should be no conventional difference in page numbering of contents between magazine and book. Either way the bullet heading should be edited for clarity. --Pwendt|talk 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    The rule states
    "If a magazine presents artwork for a story or essay preceding the piece's title page, and it is apparent that the art accompanies the text, the starting page of the story or essay should be the page number of the artwork which illustrates it."
    So it doesn't apply to books. The starting page of a story within a book publication should be the page on which the title appears.
    As for the starting page of a novel, it's only important if you're entering a content record for another work which proceeds the first page of the novel. We can't use the title page rule as we do for short stories, since there are too many cases where a content (introduction, map, etc.) appears after the title page, but before the first page of the novel. Mhhutchins|talk 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Little big, oder, Das Parlament der Feen

    Hi, Michael! Thanks for entering this edition: I have one printing of this book and will verify it soon (though if it happens this year is another question). Just one thing to righten: I think you got into the amazon trap this time. OCLC has as year of copyright 1984, and if you use the link to Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, you'll see that both known printings are from that year. So this is another indication that pre-2000 data by amazon is pretty useless, at least when dates of publication are involved (mine printing should be one of the 1984 publications). Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks. I should have noticed the discrepancy and found a better source for the date. (I try to use the copyright date only as a last resort.) I will update the pub record and give DNB as the source. Thanks again. Mhhutchins|talk 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, are the commas correctly entered into the title? I got that format from OCLC, but DNB doesn't give them at all. Mhhutchins|talk 21:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Seems that DNB is correct. I'll verify and fix the title accordingly. Thanks, and have a good time until next year. Christian Stonecreek 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

    Destinies

    Carrying on with Destinies, April-June 1979 #3, INTERIORART shown as p.252 is actually on p.253. Doug / Vornoff 20:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

    I'll correct it, even though I didn't enter individual credits for each of the illustrations in this publication when I verified the record. I followed the standard of creating a single record representing the illustrations for each work in a publication. (Sometimes I wish that were the only standard, since this database is quickly becoming the ISFADB!) Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins|talk 22:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    I vacillated back and forth about just fixing it first, since it's so minor, and telling you after submittal, but then I figured I'd better just follow your instructions about changing data. For what it's worth, I've been questioning the virtue of entering the extra art for the same work. It seems overkill and clutters up the display when it's extreme. It looks, well, silly when you have a novel followed by twenty art content iterations. I know I've been doing it when ther're just a couple (and maybe some of the more numerous ones) but I think I'll hold off on adding most of the extra art for a while. It goes against the "completist" nature in me but I'll get over it :) Doug / Vornoff 04:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2015Sep-Dec&oldid=415527"