User talk:Ofearna/Archive14

ebook vs. e-book

Please use the word "ebook" in the format/binding field to indicate an electronic book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks!Susan O'Fearna 22:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So why are you continuing to use "e-book"? Every new submission after I left this message has the wrong format. Mhhutchins 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

GRRRR it's in my stupid drop-down... sorry. Susan O'Fearna 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Gould's Jumper

I'm holding the submission to update this record. Are you certain you have the same edition? I looked on B&N for their Nook edition and it has a different publisher and price. The record you want to update is for the Kindle edition from another publisher. Mhhutchins 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at "Jumper" instead of "Jumpers". I've accepted the submission. Mhhutchins

SFBC ed. of Nightseer

I had to reject the submission to update this record. The ISFDB standards for entering an SFBC edition explains that SFBC-generated ISBNs should be entered into the ISBN/Catalog # field and the SFBC ID number (from the back of the book) should be entered into the Note field. The SFBC occasionally publishes original titles in hardcover (like Nightseer) and give the book an ISBN of theirs. If the book is not an original SFBC publication, but a reprint of another publisher's hardcover edition, it will retain the ISBN of the trade publisher. In that case, the SFBC ID number goes in the ISBN/Catalog # field, and the trade publisher's ISBN goes in the Note field.

On the page I linked above is a list of SFBC-owned ISBN ranges. The one in Nightseer is part of one of those ranges (0-7394-) which is owned by the SFBC. I have added the other information that you had wanted to the record, but I restored the price which you had removed. Locus1 is the source for the date and the price and I noted them as the source in the Note field. Mhhutchins 23:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... wasn't sure but I remember you telling me to use the SFBC #, but this makes more sense ^_^ Susan O'Fearna 03:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Trickster

Who is actually credited with the cover art in this publication? Luis Royo and "Royo" can't both be credited. Mhhutchins 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

the back of the book says "Luis Royo" and the signature/copyright page have Royo...Susan O'Fearna 10:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So it's not two different artists then? :) I'll update the record to credit Luis Royo only. Mhhutchins 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, where did you hear that Amazon is going to change the URL of their image files. I could find nothing to confirm that. Mhhutchins 22:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I called Amazon about the customer-added images disappearing and they told me they're trying to make all the images like the "look inside" images, with no static url b/c of the bandwidth issues of 2nd party sites linking to the amazon images... Susan O'Fearna 10:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Art of Brom

I cropped the two images you uploaded for this title, removing the blank side margins of each. Mhhutchins 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

crap... sorry about that... there are actually 3 (1 is for the Sketchbook, one) ThanksSusan O'Fearna 05:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just had to download this one, crop it, and re-upload it. Mhhutchins 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Grave Sight

Where did the publication date for this record come from? Barnes & Noble gives the date as 2005-10-04. Mhhutchins 23:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(picture removed)

see the red/hotpink arrow Susan O'Fearna 23:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A simple "from the copyright page of the publication" would have sufficed. :) I didn't mean for you to go through this much effort. Mhhutchins 23:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to know ☺ Susan O'Fearna 23:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Triskell Press / Smashwords

Unless Triskell Press is an imprint of Smashwords (something I'm certain isn't true), the records you created with this publisher have been incorrectly attributed. If Triskell Press uses Smashwords to distribute their ebooks (which appears to be the case), it would be similar to a publisher using Amazon's CreateSpace to print their books, so only Triskell Press would be credited. Now if the books are published jointly by both Triskell Press and Smashwords, the publisher field should be "Triskell Press & Smashwords" or "Triskell Press with Smashwords". Can you find out the relationship between the publishers to see how the ISFDB records should be credited? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

-- how would I handle this (copyright page)? Susan O'Fearna 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it should be "Triskell Press & Smashwords". Mhhutchins 06:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Interior art in Spectrum 19

Hi. Sorry, it's such a drastic change I just have to double-check.... What's up with dropping all of those interiorart records from Spectrum 19? Are they really not there, despite the same page count as the other editions? --MartyD 02:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was gonna replace them (those that are pertinent, that is) with the actual image title

ep Spectrum 19 • (2012) • interior artwork by P. Tepper

-- not sure WHAT page #ep is, but this also appears on page #1 and says see page 276

Spectrum 19 • (2012) • interior artwork by Tohru Patrick Awa == says see page 276

Spectrum 19 • (2012) • interior artwork by Echo Chernik == says see page 1 84

Spectrum 19 (title page) • (2012) • interior artwork by Stephan Martiniere == says see page 66

Spectrum 19 (contents & copyright pages) • (2012) • interior artwork by Chad Weatherford == says see page 119

Spectrum 19 (Chairman's Message & Jury pages) • (2012) • interior artwork by Brun Werneck == photos of PEOPLE, not pertinent

Grand Master Award: James Gurney • (2012) • interior artwork by James Gurney == title is On Stranger Tides and is just an example of his artwork to accompany the acknowledgement that James Gurney won the Grand Master Award

Spectrum 19 • (2012) • interior artwork by Jeffery Jones == fine art reproduction accompanying the article "Briefly Noted" acknowledgeing that Jeff Jones died in 2011 -- a naked chick riding a tiger. May have been a book cover, research still ongoing

Spectrum 19 (Poster for SciFi network) • (2012) • interior artwork by Michael Koelsch == advertising art for a ... TV channel poster

Spectrum 19 (Cover illustration for "Naughty and Nice") • (2012) • interior artwork by Bruce Timm == small repro of the cover image to Bruce Timm's pinup art book (NOT SpecFic) book Naughty and Nice: The Good Girl Art of Bruce Timm

Spectrum 19 (Cover illustration for Dark Horse comic "Turok Son of Stone") • (2012) • interior artwork by Raymond Swanland == a comic book cover, shouldn't be here, so I've been told

The Spectrum Nineteen Awards Ceremony • (2012) • interior artwork by uncredited == photos from the Awards Ceremony -- Not SpecFic

Spectrum 19 (Cover illustration for "The Eye of the World") • (2012) • interior artwork by Darrell K. Sweet [as by Darrell Sweet] == this one should just be The Eye of the World (merged) by Darrell K. Sweet/Darrell Sweet

Spectrum 19 (Call for Entries Poster for Spectrum 19) • (2012) • interior artwork by Rebecca Guay == a naked chick on a dragon sketch background. May or May Not be relevant to the site, but the title is "Figure Eight"

Spectrum 19 Index • (2012) • interior artwork by uncredited == there is NO artwork on page 302

Spectrum 19 • (2012) • interior artwork by Lisa Falkenstern (page 280) titled Humpty Dumpty in the unpublished artwork section.

This list ignores the SF cover art and accompanying art that makes up the bulk of the book. I suspect someone created the record then copied it for either the HC or 1st TP edition since they seem to match. Susan O'Fearna 06:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will accept it so you can have your way with it. You might want to cross-check with Biomassbob. He verified the hc, but that was almost a year ago. "ep" should be trailing, unnumbered pages. --MartyD 12:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Susan O'Fearna 19:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead to Me: A Trio of Chilling Tales

Hello, Susan. I changed the title type to COLLECTION for the mentioned title by Kelley Armstrong. Christian Stonecreek 10:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Susan O'Fearna 19:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"I Travel By Night"

This CHAPTERBOOK was missing a content record, so I added one with the same title and as SHORTFICTION. Is that correct? I also added the price and publication date from Amazon. Mhhutchins 19:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the price has changed about 5 times, so I left that blank, but thanks for fixing the record... I'm reviewing/completing those I did yesterday. Susan O'Fearna 19:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note that the price is the Amazon price as of today. Just in case it changes, or if you know the original list price, you can update the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Awesome; I wasn't certain how to handle that since it doesn't have a printed price. Susan O'Fearna 16:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with ebooks. None of them have a stated price, many of them don't have ISBNs, most of them don't give publication dates, etc. They're a headache all-around. Mhhutchins 01:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Deluxe ed. of The Inheritance

I accepted the submission to add this record, but you didn't provide a source for the data concerning this deluxe edition. There are a couple of statements in the Note field that should either be removed or amended, some of which contradict each other. Mhhutchins 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions include the publication date, the limitation page, and the price. Mhhutchins 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that it's created I'll enter the changes; when I get my book from the UK I'll set details... BUT. Will <a href=http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/5/4/4/1/0/9/webimg/544409383_o.jpg?nc=653> work for the cover image or should I wait?

Thanks Susan O'Fearna 20:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We can't link to that server, but it's not a very good image to start with. Just wait until you can upload a better image to the ISFDB server. Mhhutchins 20:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you ask if you knew you were going to upload and link it anyway? Sheesh! Mhhutchins 20:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I can remove it, but you said it was a good start until I get the actual book and scan it. Susan O'Fearna 20:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, read my response and tell where I said it was a "good start". Forget about it.

And you still haven't given the source for the date and price. I know the book wasn't published in October 2011, at least according to the publisher's website, which also gives the price as $125.00, not $250.00. (see here) Mhhutchins 20:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope this latest edit will tide over what I need until the book gets here. Sorry & Thanks Susan O'Fearna 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Brackets

Do not use brackets in titles to disambiguate. Please use parentheses. Brackets are used for the numbering of same-titled interiorart records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So I did the afterword right except for the () [] mixup? Thanks! Susan O'Fearna 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Invasive Species

What is the source for the cover art credit added to this record? The Amazon Look-Inside credits Etchemendy with design. I found nothing crediting Hoffman. Mhhutchins 20:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The copyright page states that the cover was designed by Nina Kiriki Hoffman and Nancy Etchemendy. I've seen some of the stuff Nina puts on her facebook page; her camera does that "Starry Night" effect. Susan O'Fearna 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess Amazon's file has a different copyright page than the one in your copy. Mhhutchins 20:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that the quick-look is often different than the actual e-book... It has something to do with the v# Susan O'Fearna 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason to hate ebooks. They make the bibliographer's life hell. :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

CHAPTERBOOK records and series

Do not add series data to CHAPTERBOOK title records. The series data should go in the SHORTFICTION title record. I removed the series from this title and added it to this title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Drat, thanks for catching that. Susan O'Fearna 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Files exceeding ISFDB standards

I'm puzzled why you would upload an image using the proper standards and then soon afterwards replace it with one that far exceeds those standards. I noticed this a few days ago with this image. I deleted the larger image and reverted it back to the original upload. Now I see you've done it again with this image. I won't delete it until you've had a chance to see it and respond to this inquiry. Mhhutchins 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

oops... I know that if I want a larger image I load it to my website and use that (the permissions are OK) 16:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomsas Tenery

Hello, Susan. I have put the submission on hold to establish a pseudonym. It's better to wait for an answer by the primary verifier.

And please check for the exact title of this. Is it Immorality or Immortality? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 18:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right. It *is* Immor-ality, not Imort-ality! Susan O'Fearna 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there's another publication of the same title with the same cover Thomas, not Thomsas, so I changed it. Susan O'Fearna 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Primary Verifier of "Thomsas" isn't active, and the Amazon Look-Inside shows the back flap of the dustjacket which clearly credits the cover art to "Thomas Tenery". I would cancel the submission to create a pseudonym and correct the publication record. Mhhutchins 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Susan O'Fearna 16:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Technokill

As per ISFDB etiquette, you should first notify the Primary Verifier if you're going to change a veriifed publication record. In this case, you should leave a message on the Primary2 verifier's talk page (the first one is no longer active). You should also have given the source for your change in the record's note field. I'll hold the submission until you follow the proper procedure. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you cancelled the submission and left a message on the PV1's page. Please read the notice on the top of that verifier's page, and then post a message on the PV2's page. You should not make submissions to make changes without first discussing it with the PV editors. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

page keeps dumping my response: I cancelled and fixed and notified both verifiers... 22:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please approve the change? Thanks Susan O'Fearna 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Approval is based upon the primary verifier's agreeing to the change. That's ISFDB etiquette. Mhhutchins 01:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Boy's Life

I changed the publisher of this record from "Pocket/SFBC" to "Pocket / BCE", because this title was never a selection of the SFBC. I also added "#" to the catalog number field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

cool, thanks. I'm re-reading this absolutely FABULOUS novel and my copy's about to fall apart. Then I'll have an e-book version to Verify ^_^ Susan O'Fearna 02:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Image file too large

Please resize this file to less than 150 kb and re-load it. Mhhutchins 05:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

DONE, thanks Susan O'Fearna 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Unbound

What does the "(14)+" in the page count field of this record mean? Mhhutchins 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

there were 14 pages before the pagination started. Susan O'Fearna 23:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You should only add unnumbered pages to the page count field if they contain content for which you've created a record, e.g. illustrations, essays, maps, etc. If there aren't any such contents, those pages shouldn't be part of the page count. Also, you should use squared brackets to indicate unnumbered pages, not parentheses. Mhhutchins 00:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool; I'll check to see if you corrected that and if you haven't I'll just take 'em out Susan O'Fearna 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless I say so specifically, I try to avoid changing verified records, leaving it up to the PV editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Content title in Targete's Illumina

Please check the spelling of this title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks, I hope I'd've caught that... Susan O'Fearna 23:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mistaken varianting by accident

Sorry, please check your rejects. In one case you tried by accident to variant interior art to Brian Lumley's novel 'Elysia' (#10256). Stonecreek 07:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll go through at review all the stuff I was doing last night. Thanks Susan O'Fearna 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sundering

Hi. Two things about the cover for The Sundering: If you get a credit from somewhere other than the publication itself, don't forget to add a statement of the source to the publication's notes (notes to the moderator are only for the submission and are not preserved). When you change the artist on a publication, the previous coverart title is deleted, and a new one is created with the new name. If you want to change the name on the record, while leaving the rest of the title intact, you need to go edit the title itself and make the change there. In this case, your subsequent submission attempting to add information to the title record had to be rejected because the record was gone once the pub edit was accepted. I put the link you wanted to supply on the new coverart record that was created by your pub edit. Yet another of the many wrinkles.... --MartyD 11:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still stumped: I'd've SWORN that cover was by Donato... Susan O'Fearna 16:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Hitchers cover + variants + merging

Be careful when making multiple submissions involving the same titles. The safest course is to wait until one is accepted before doing the next, even though the delay is annoying. I had to reject your proposed variant for the interiorart / cover of The Hitchers because accepting your merge of two of the covers deleted the title you tried to make the variant to (I have redone the variant to point to the survivor). When merging, the lowest id ALWAYS remains (even if you take all of the other title's fields). So if you want to do a series of submissions, make sure your variant is aimed at the lowest ID. Thanks. --MartyD 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll go check those and hopefully get everything perfect. Thanks Susan O'Fearna 16:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins: The Art of John Jude Palencar

In your verified Origins: The Art of John Jude Palencar, the publication is credited to John Jude Palencar, Arnie Fenner, & Cathy Fenner. However, the title record is credited to John Jude Palencar only. These should match so could you please check which is correct and change the other?

Also, did you see this earlier message? Those still need to be merged or varianted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the Palencar title entry; I'll hunt down my copy of Ladies and check those... Susan O'Fearna 21:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Megapack" series

I just approved a bunch of your submissions (although I left the art variants for someone else). But I had to reject your suggestions to put The Christmas Megapack and The Mummy Megapack into a title series. These would make a good publication series, but not a title series. A Title Series has connections between the universe and characters from one book in the series to another, and has the property that even if the book was republished with a different title and by a different publisher, it would still "belong" to that series. (Think of "The Earthsea Trilogy" or "Chronicles of Narnia".) A Publication Series has to do with how a book is packaged, or presented, by the publisher. Specifically, if the same collection were republished with a different name, then it wouldn't "belong" to the series, which is the conclusive evidence that it's a Publication Series. Chavey 04:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, I thought since the TITLE was ... Megapack that it's be a title series. Oh well. Susan O'Fearna 18:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, it's a hard distinction to get used to. But consider a book like Arkham Horror: The Lies of Silence. The phrase "Arkham Horror" is right there on the cover, and could be viewed as part of the name. But it's definitely part of an "Arkham Horror" series. But the universe the story is set in is The Lord of Nightmares. Now imagine that the book went out of print, and the author decided to publish it himself. Then it wouldn't be part of the "Arkham Horror" series anymore. But it would still be part of the "The Lord of Nightmares" universe. And that's what makes it part of "The Lord of Nightmares" Title Series, and part of the "Arkham Horror" Publication Series: The title series is a permanent identification, based on content, while the publication series is dependent on the way the book was published. The confusion, I suspect, comes because of our use of "Title". To us, that phrase refers to something at a more general level than an individual publication, and largely independent of the "title" giving to a book. For example, it doesn't matter whether one publication is called "Alice in Wonderland" and another is called "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", they are part of the same "abstract thing" (they would be "variant titles" in our database, but all rooted at the same "canonical title"). And that abstract thing, for want of a better name, is called a "Title Record". Maybe they could have picked a better name, back when this was first being set up, but looking through my thesaurus doesn't give me any suggestions for something that would have been clearer. So we live with what we have. Chavey 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Susan O'Fearna 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think if Ahaseurus and the database designers had their druthers, they would have not used "title" to describe the author's creation, especially since there is a field also designated as "title". I think he's even said that the word "work" is a better description. That's what I try to use when distinguishing the title of a publication with the title of the work. Mhhutchins 19:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Last Dark

I have your proposed The Last Dark SFBC edition submission on hold. Primarily, I think it's a duplicate of this. See what you think.

Beyond that, a few comments/questions about the submission itself that may help on future submissions if nothing else: The cover image and the trade ISBN you cite both use "Stephen R. Donaldson"; should that be the credit on this SFBC edition (and then it would belong on this title)? Don't forget to use a leading # on catalogue numbers (anything not an ISBN should be started with "#"; only ISBNs should not have that "#"). Don't forget to put spaces around the "/" in any sort of compound Publisher reference. And what is the statement of the publisher's name on the title page? The Look Inside for the trade hardcover shows "G. P. Putnam's Sons", not Putnam Publishing; is this edition any different? Thanks. --MartyD 11:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll reject that submission. I couldn't FIND this so that's why I added it. Susan O'Fearna 19:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

ISBN / ID numbers for book club editions

As has been brought to your attention before, there are different standards when entering data in the ISBN/Catalog # fields for book club editions. Those standards are explained here. Another moderator accepted your submission to update this record but failed to see that you changed the book club ID number for the ISBN of the trade edition. I've changed it back and then noted the presence of the trade edition's ISBN in this book club edition. Please keep that in mind for any future updates to records for book club editions. If you have done this in the past to other records, please go back and enter the ID number in the ISBN/Catalog # field, and record the ISBN in the Note field. There are exceptions to this standard which are explained on the help page. If the book is an exclusive book club edition it will have a book club-assigned ISBN. Those ISBN ranges are noted here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some questions:

Is the ISBN given in this book an ISBN-10 or ISBN-13?
Is there an LCCN present in the book?
Is there any mention of the Rhapsody Book Club in the book?
What is your source for the publication date and price?

Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked. The link said that if the ISBN is unique to the BCE to use the ISBN just make sure the BCE# is in the notes. If the BCE uses the same ISBN as the HC or the PB/MMPB to use the BCE # instead of the ISBN. But this book (I checked) had a unique ISBN, so I used it. 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Check again. The ISBN you added to the record (0-312-35743-5) is the same as the one given in the trade edition. And it is not part of the range of ISBNs assigned by Bookspan and its various book clubs. They would not have given a unique ISBN to a reprint of another publisher's edition. They only give unique ISBNs to exclusive book club editions (first edition, first hardcover edition, first omnibus edition, etc.) Please answer the questions when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It has the ISBN-13 ; no LCCN *in* the book (or OCLC); The flyer from SFBC (I still have it) was a flyer, not part of the booklet—it *was* in the Rhapsody booklet; I left the price & pub date that were there--whoever created the record did not give the source, but Amazon.com agrees. If you go to Amazon.com and enter that 13-ISBN you get the BCE, not tpb. Susan O'Fearna 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The price and date appears to have been taken from the Locus database. You can give that as the source for the price and date. If it has an ISBN-13, then it was printed after January 2007. You should not add an LCCN to a record unless a) it's stated in the book or b) the LoC record refers exactly to the edition of the record. (Neither is the case here.) The OCLC record is for the trade edition and also should not be recorded in this record for the book club edition. You can't say in the Note field that it was published by Rhapsody unless it's an exclusive publication and it states explicitly that it was so published (as in exclusive editions published by the SFBC and gives them as the publisher.) If this flyer came with the SFBC catalog, then it is an offering of the SFBC, and so there's no reason to note Rhapsody, especially not as the publisher if it isn't stated in the book.

Also, when I say "trade edition", I'm not talking about a trade paperback, It means "retail edition", i.e. the edition sold by the publisher in bookstores and through Amazon. If you put that ISBN into the search at Amazon, you get the trade edition, not the book club edition. Mhhutchins 21:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes made; I hope this completes all you wanted. These can sometimes be complicated! Susan O'Fearna 22:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the term "trade edition" is one of our "top five most confusing terms" :-) Ahasuerus 23:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, and will try to remember to use "retail edition" in the future, even though I would hope that editors could be familiar with the word "trade" in case it pops up in another context. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could compile a glossary of "confusing bibliographic terms" like "stated vs. assumed". And I am willing to bet that a lot of our editors and users have been confused by records which claimed that they were "first editions" even though they were clearly reprints. It's almost like a foreign language :) Ahasuerus 01:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Unleash the Night

This publication wasn't "published by St. Martin's with the Rhapsody book club". It may have been an offering of the club, but unless Rhapsody is given as publisher in the book, the note should be reworded. Thanks. Also, the LCCN you link to this book club edition is for the paperback edition. Mhhutchins 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna come across about 8 of those... they've all got edits pending but as soon as they're done I'll go change that. Susan O'Fearna 22:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sherrilyn Kenyon series ordering

The reading lists on the author's website are not consistent, because the different subseries are intermingled on one of the lists. For example, Acheron is number 23 on this list, but number 17 on this one. I don't know how you plan to use these as a source and reconcile them with the ISFDB series and subseries. This should be done before making submissions to change the current sequence. Do you have an idea about how to do this? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The "small reading list" is JUST the books, not the stories which become more integral to the full story arc as you get into the "higher" numbers. I'm using the 0-readinglist master-list for the whole series, not just the books. What are you asking about reconcile them? Once I've gone through all 31 "stories" (short fiction *and* novels) there'll only be one number for each work. Susan O'Fearna 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

But a list showing "one number for each work" will contain multiple subseries. How do you plan to reconcile the numbers within each subseries? Otherwise, a person looking only at the "Were-Hunter" subseries will see a list of titles which aren't consecutive (2, 9, 10, 14, etc.) and will wonder about the missing titles in the series. (Not knowing the series, I know I would.) We normally number the titles in a subseries individually, separate from the numbers of titles in another subseries of the same parent series. Mhhutchins 00:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the way they are already. Dark-Hunter goes 1-2-3-4-6-7-9-11-13-15-16-20-21-22 then un-numbereds (with Fantasy Lover having NO number), then Were-Hunter 5-8-18-19 then un-numbereds, then Dream-hunter goes 2-3-4-5(duplicate numbers)-10 and if you look closely there is NO 12, 14, or 17. I was just trying to get them in order. Susan O'Fearna 01:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I may be a little confused as well. Is the ultimate goal to have the titles in the "Were-Hunter" and "Dream-Hunter" sub-series folded into the main "Dark-Hunter" series? So that this series would have only one sub-series, "Chronicles of Nick"? Or am I still confused? :-) Ahasuerus 01:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I do that? Susan O'Fearna 02:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If they don't serve any useful purpose, sure, off with their heads! :) There are quite a few series which arguably consist of multiple intersecting sub-series, but the relationships between individual titles are so complicated that it's much easier and neater to list the books sequentially. Ahasuerus 02:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

When I'm done it'll match this list. Susan O'Fearna 01:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read what I posted. That list (which I linked to above) can not be reconciled with ISFDB software, because it doesn't separate the subseries from the parent series. I'm going to accept your submissions so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. Mhhutchins 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the things that is fairly high on my list is allowing non-integer series number like "9.1", "9.2" and "0.5" (for prequels.) In the past, short fiction works set in larger universes tended to be standalones, so they didn't need to be numbered. However, a lot of recent series include stories and novellas that are an integral part of the overall arc, so it's important to indicate that a particular story should be read between, say, volumes 3 and 4 of the series in order to avoid spoilers. Ahasuerus 01:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Now, look at the series, to see just how odd it appears. You can see there are duplicates, both in and out of each subseries. Mhhutchins 02:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm only part-way through, but if you say I can remove the sub-series (they don't really serve a point) it'll be SO much neater! Off to do the rest of the books now that my pending list is done! Susan O'Fearna 02:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

By removing the subseries, you're removing information from the database. (The author's website makes it clear that these are valid subseries in her Dark Hunter universe.) It doesn't effect me, one way or another. But I'm afraid a Kenyon fan is going to come along and try to place these titles back into subseries. At that point, I'll just throw my hands in the air and let another moderator handle it. Mhhutchins 02:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, but by putting the "master series numbering" note I hope to avoid that. Thanks! Susan O'Fearna 02:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Confession time: I think it was me who originally put some books into two sub-series based on what the author's Web site said at the time. I will gladly defer to Susan since she is familiar with the universe and I am not.

As as aside, I find that some paranormal romance series can be very non-linear with major characters popping in and out. I suspect that the underlying problem is that typically a romance novel concentrates on a relationship between two people and it has to have some kind of resolution at the end of the novel. Later, when when the author wants to set more stories in the same universe, he or she needs to come up with another couple, possibly related (siblings, cousins, friends, etc), to tell their story. It can get rather complicated after a while, which is why I am rarely sure that I got it right when trying to organize some of these extra-long series.

Hopefully, once we add support for adding titles to multiple series, it will be easier to show these relationships (no pun intended! :-) Ahasuerus 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not just romance series or paranormal series; Anne McCaffrey's Pern and Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover can make your head spin. Names repeated, inconsistencies... I remember in Arthur C. Clarks's 2064 as well as Anne McCaffrey's The Tower and Hive being so confused by the characters and ships and destinations practically spinning a couple times... Susan O'Fearna 04:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Chronicles of Nick

The Chronicles of Nick are a separate storyline in an alternate past, so they aren't part of the Dark-Hunters numbered series. Susan O'Fearna 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So that series isn't part of the discussion, because the numbering of its titles don't have to be reconciled with the numbering of the titles in the Dark-Hunter series, even if it could possibly be considered a subseries of the same universe. Mhhutchins 00:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I'll consider the Chronicles of Nick to be the only true sub-series. Until Sherri changes things ^_^ Susan O'Fearna 04:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Bindings

I accepted the submission changing the publisher credit of this record to just Eos. Are you certain that the publisher isn't given as HarperCollins? At that time Eos was an imprint of HarperCollins. Also, if you look at the record as displayed, you can see the "gaps" in the Note section. This is caused by using both the paragraph HTML attribute (<p></p>) and the unnumbered line HTML attribute (<ul></ul>). It is better to create bulleted lines in the Note field to not use the paragraph attribute. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The title page says (logo) Vertigo Books for Young Adults, then has the EOS logo, then in print it has An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers (not just HarperCollins or HarperCollins Books...) Doesn't that mean the publisher is EOS? Also, I was trying to place some room between than information FROM the book and the information ABOUT the book (the pagination) Susan O'Fearna 06:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Eos is an imprint of the publisher HarperCollins and the record should be entered as Eos / HarperCollins, which is the ISFDB format for entering "Imprint / Publisher", such as Del Rey / Ballantine, and Aspect / Warner Books. Also, the way you're entering the data doesn't indicate that some data is about the book and some is from the book. The best way to differentiate information from the book is to put it into quotation marks, such as

"Cover art by Michael Whelan" on the back flap of the dustjacket.

Mhhutchins 15:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

After more than a week, I've gone ahead and corrected the record to return HarperCollins as the publisher. Those gaps in the Note field still don't make sense, but its too trivial a matter to become upset about. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SFBC ISBNs again

I have returned the book club-assigned ISBN (978-1-60751-794-8) to its proper field in this record. As has been brought to your attention before, book club-assigned goes into the ISBN/Catalog # field. When such an ISBN is present, the book club identifier (1269448) goes into the Note field. Again, please refer to this page which provides a list of the ranges from which Bookspan and its various clubs assign ISBNs to unique book club editions. This was a first hardcover edition, making it unique, so Bookspan assigned it one of its ISBNs. It doesn't have the same ISBN as the retail edition which was softcover. Mhhutchins 19:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I had to make the same correction to this record. If you've made such "corrections" in the past, and they were accepted by uninformed moderators, please go back and return the book club-assigned ISBNs to their proper field in the record. Mhhutchins 20:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Susan O'Fearna 22:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)