ISFDB:Help desk/archives/archive 28

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page for the Help Desk. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from January - June 2018.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Help desk.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

Expanded archive listing

magazine issue on genre topic

The journal TEXT has an entire issue (scholarly articles and fiction) devoted to literary fairy tales, guest-edited by at least one genre author. I'm wondering if I should catalog the whole thing (considering it a genre publication) or just the fiction (considering it an issue of a non-genre magazine). --Vasha 12:38, 11 January 2018 (EST)

If the articles are related to speculative fiction, I would catalog them as essays. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:43, 11 January 2018 (EST)
They are... The thing is, the standard here is not to include nonfiction contents of non-genre magazines even if they're relevant. (That does seem a bit inconsistent with the fact that nonfiction books are admitted -- one of several ways that rules for books & magazines differ.) I'm just trying to figure out whether a special issue guest-edited by a genre author counts as enough of of a genre magazine to allow cataloguing all its contents. Also, in that case, I would list the actual editors and not "Editors of TEXT" as the author.
FWIW, I already created and cancelled a submission for the complete issue, so you can see it here. Among other things, it contains an interview with an artist and a review of a book that's already in the DB. --Vasha 12:25, 12 January 2018 (EST)
But you said this was a special issue devoted to speculative fiction topics. That's why I would include all of them. I would include everything you entered in your canceled submission. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:22, 12 January 2018 (EST)
True, that seems logical. But the issue is not what seems logical to you or me, but what the ISFDB usually does, which doesn't necessarily follow everyone's logic! --Vasha 16:32, 12 January 2018 (EST)
Well, you asked what you should do, and I offered my opinion. You're welcome to submit it or not. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:01, 12 January 2018 (EST)
Can it be treated as an anthology the way we deal with Conjunctions? It is a slim line with some of those publications and the issues are usually borderline anyway. Annie 00:35, 13 January 2018 (EST)
I'd think not: other issues may contain more genre fiction, and should be included as magazines. But if it's an issue that is devoted to genre fiction, this issue should be considered as a genre publication, and maybe only the content not related to our topic should be excluded. I have done a similar thing before, here. Christian Stonecreek 04:00, 13 January 2018 (EST)
It depends on which is the magazine - Conjunctions is also a magazine for example but we have it as an anthology. I agree it needs to be added completely so I think we are all on the same page. Annie 04:11, 13 January 2018 (EST)

I guess yet another paragraph should be added to Help:Entering non-genre magazines. Something on the order of Headline: "Special issues" Text: "Sometimes, a non-genre magazine will devote an entire issue to speculative fiction and/or articles about it. This can be regarded as a genre publication and catalogued in its entirety, even though other issues of the magazine aren't." --Vasha 12:43, 13 January 2018 (EST)

I'm all for it. Is there any argument against this? Stonecreek 03:58, 14 January 2018 (EST)
This should be on rules and standards discussions page since it's a proposed change. Copied to Rules and standards discussions#Special Genre Issues of Non-Genre Issues -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2018 (EST)

Correcting the spelling in an incorrect title

The title for The Deputy Sheriff of Comanche County (Edgar Rice Burroughs, non-genre) is misspelled using "Commanche" with two M's. The probably reason for this is that Ace/Charter misspelled it on the cover of their three publications, although they did spell it correctly on the title page. Would the correct procedure be to update the title record, then update the publications (titles and/or contents), then re-variant the serializations? Doug H 14:02, 13 January 2018 (EST)

In principle, yes. But it has to be checked for the PVed publications: some of them may have the title page with 'Commanche'. Stonecreek 04:02, 14 January 2018 (EST)

Replacement Cover Image Upload (AKA: I think I've done this before)

Just uploaded a full cover scan for "Persepolis Rising" (ISBN ends in 5) to replace a half cover image. The image seems to have gone into the bit bucket. I think I did this once before and had the same problem. I'm old and getting a bit weak between the ears.

Any suggestions or explanations for what happened??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsorgen (talkcontribs) .

Your browser is showing a cached version of the old image - try F5 (works for most browsers). If not, clear your browser history. The old Wikimedia software used on this site doesn't properly tell the browser a new version is present so the browser continues to use the cached version vs. downloading the new version. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2018 (EST)

British Library versus British National Bibliography External IDs

The record for The Condition of Muzak has an external link to the British National Bibliography (BNB). If you click on this link it goes to the British Library page which then states that the reference does not exist. This is true for the Fontana edition of this novel, only the Allison & Busby edition is in the British Library catalogue. However the Fontana edition is in the British National Bibliography catalogue. Is there something wrong with the BNB link? The result when accessing the link seems to be odd. I've just re-selected the link and it did take me to the British National Bibliography page and found the correct record. However when I closed down all the pages and then reopened isfdb, selected the novel and clicked on the BNB external link it went to the British Library page and not the BNB page. --AndyjMo 10:51, 15 January 2018 (EST)

Unverified publications

There is an unverified publication of The Warlord of Mars that has a date of 1992-00-00 and a price of $5.99. I would like to enter two publications of the same book, the 32nd and 33rd printings by the number lines, but neither is dated. I have reason to believe that these are the only publications with that price, but not certainty. If I could date either to 1992, I could subsume the existing entry. If I could date either to something other than 1992 (and the chronology allowed) I could also subsume the existing entry with the other publication. But if I can't date either, should I create two new entries and leave this ghost? Doug H 10:29, 16 January 2018 (EST)

I would just subsume it. There is no source for this publication information. It would be a reprinting since that ISBN was seen as early as 1985. If there was a source for the date I would say keep it, but without it, it is more an likely an aberration. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2018 (EST)

A anthology is missing on authors page

Hello, I can't see this title on Jeschkes author page. What is wrong? Thanks Henna 09:55, 19 January 2018 (EST)

That is because it is entered as a translation of Evil Earths which is by Aldiss alone. It will only appear on Aldiss' page. Summary page listings are determined by the canonical title. However, it looks like the contents of the two are different (5 stories vs. a dozen or more). So while it contains translations of stories in the original publication, I'm not sure I would consider the publication itself a translation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2018 (EST)
I think I was responsble for that: the anthology was split into at least two publications. I didn't think Jeschke's part was much more than to do this splitting (and submitting the translations, of course). Christian Stonecreek 12:02, 19 January 2018 (EST)
Hello, thanks both of you. The no-series Titan is confusing. Henna 12:40, 19 January 2018 (EST)
Yeah, with the Titan anthologies originally edited by Pohl, Bova & Silverberg, it was possible to create sub-series, but the ones originally edited by Aldiss have no part in a title series. Christian Stonecreek 13:29, 19 January 2018 (EST)

Der Utofant

Hello, I want add the collection Der Utofant by Johanna and Günter Braun, here is the table of content. The subtitle of the collection is A magazine from the century III found in the future. What should I do with the categories in front of the story titles? When I type the titles like in the book the real title looks like a subtitle or it is better to omit the categories or in braces behind the title. Any idea is welcome. Thanks Henna 14:49, 24 January 2018 (EST)

I'd say that you can either enter them using only the bold part as the title, for example "Kette", or also append the other part as a subtitle, for example "Kette: Katastrophe des Monats". The other way around ("Katastrophe des Monats: Kette") doesn't make much sense to me because it looks like the bold part is the title. Christoph Pree who, if I remember correctly, enters most data from physical copies of the books he has in his collection, also used the bold parts as titles (and he omitted the other parts). Jens Hitspacebar 07:08, 25 January 2018 (EST)
Hello Jens, thanks for your answer. When I omit the subtitles, what I prefer, I have a problem with this title. Thanks again Henna 10:24, 25 January 2018 (EST)
The publication in which it is contained in is not primary-verified, therefore we could just change the title to "Großvater und Enkel über Fa und Cre". However, Christoph Pree (same link again) also uses "Die Abendbetrachtung: Großvater und Enkel über Fa und Cre" for "Professor Mittelzwercks Geschöpfe", but on the other hand only "Großvater und Enkel über Fa und Cre" for "Der Utofant" (both the Suhrkamp and Das Neue Berlin). This may indicate the we'd actually need two different title records, one for "Die Abendbetrachtung: Großvater und Enkel über Fa und Cre" and one for "Großvater und Enkel über Fa und Cre", but may also be just a mistake on Christoph Pree's page. As long as we don't have copies for primary verification it's mostly guessing and we should rename the title to "Großvater und Enkel über Fa und Cre". It's still possible to split it into two records later if we get more information. Jens Hitspacebar 11:13, 25 January 2018 (EST)
Hello Jens, Christian Prees entries are correct. For Utofant he dropped the subtitles but cannot for Prof. Mittelzwerck by the sources. So we need two records, if I understand you right. Thanks again Henna 12:42, 25 January 2018 (EST)
Yes, two title records are necessary in this case, one of which will have to be the variant of the other. Jens Hitspacebar 16:50, 25 January 2018 (EST)

Andrew Lang's Fairy Tale Anthologies

Andrew Lang's Coloured Fairy Books are currently entered as collections with Lang as the credit on each story. However, these are really anthologies edited by Lang. Lang selected the stories, but did not write them. In many cases, they are translations / adaptations of other works we have in the database.

In the original editions, Lang had a preface describing the translation / adaptation (example), the story title page had no author credit (example), and there was a footnote at the end of the story specifying the original source (example). For the story in these examples, we have it as "The White Cat" by Andrew Lang, but it is a translation / adaptation (by Miss Minnie Wright) of "La chatte blanche" by Comtesse d'Aulnoy.

My thought is that:

  1. These should be changed to anthologies.
  2. The story credits should be as per the footnote (when present) or uncredited (if no footnote). This will sometimes mean the credit is only a last name (example for the extract of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels).
  3. The translations varianted to the original versions with notes on the translator when known.
  4. Generally not worry about the adaptations unless significant changes are found. If there are significant changes, we could credit per the footnote and the preface?

A further complication is that some later editions of these books stripped out the preface & the footnotes. For these, I would think we would still treat them an anthologies, but have the story credits as "uncredited".

Are there any other thoughts on handling this? I will point the few verifiers of these pubs to this discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2018 (EST)

At first glance, I see no problems with this. I'll look at it again later when I have time to consider it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:07, 25 January 2018 (EST)
I like the idea overall but I am not sure that we should default on uncredited for the ones without footnotes - we have someone to credit (Lang) even if he may not be the author per se. Brothers Grimm did not write their stories either - they just collected them. If we go for uncredited here, we should do the same for Grimm (and a few more collectors like that) and that does not make sense. Annie 13:32, 26 January 2018 (EST)
Unlike Grimm, we know the sources of most of Lang's stories. If we credit to Lang, than we will be varianting titles as by Lang to titles by the original author. That doesn't seem to make sense either. Also, the original publications specifically define Lang role as editor on the title page (example). I believe that is a different case than Grimm? Certainly for a modern anthology, we would never default an uncredited story to the editor. I don't know why we would do it for Lang's. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2018 (EST)
The first Grimm collections states that these are collected tales and they are not the authors. Modern anthologies are different in a lot of ways - although the line between adaptation and retelling is very thin. I was just thinking aloud... Annie 15:49, 26 January 2018 (EST)
There is one that is already changed to an anthology [I did that] but I didn't realize how many there were!! A lot of work here but the stories simply can't remain credited to Lang. Each story should be tackled at the title level, regardless of whether any particular book has the extraneous material. Once credited properly, then it stays that way throughout. Unlikely to be new versions after 100+ years. We have a new editor who has all the books in question and seems eager to do the work if the manner gets defined. I know very little about fairy stories so can't help with the particulars on individual stories. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:27, 26 January 2018 (EST)
Yes, Loviatar has good information and it’s thanks to him that this issue was discovered. Unfortunately, he is struggling with the concept of crediting per the pub. He’s trying to use names that are not in the pubs (fully expanded names, etc). The scans for these are online. I will begin updating them tomorrow unless there are objections. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2018 (EST)
Re: Brothers Grimm. It's true that they collected the fairy tales, but as these were folk tales and they were the first to actually write them down, it seems reasonable to let the credit stay with them, it's done this way in most bibliographies; maybe it'd be better to add a note that mentions this, though. Stonecreek 10:58, 27 January 2018 (EST)

I've updated the first edition of The Blue Fairy Book. If anyone is interested, please give it a double check. I'll start working on the other editions and the remaining color books in the next day or so. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (EST)

Great, thanks for doing this work. --Vasha 20:48, 28 January 2018 (EST)

How large does a review have to be to be indexed?

I am wondering whether I should do separate review records for the short stories and poems that Brandon O'Brien discussed in his column—each is just a paragraph. --Vasha 14:59, 27 January 2018 (EST)

It really depends on the preferences of the cataloging editor. If you think that they are important on their own, catalog them on their own. If not, catalog the whole thing as one entry. These are proper reviews in my book and if they are printed in Locus or in Asimov's, I would catalog them individually. :)Annie 21:25, 27 January 2018 (EST)
I tend to look at the presentation more than the length. Pieces with separate titles/headers and dedicated to reviewing a single work are, in my mind, good candidates for treatment as separate reviews. I would do separate records for each of the reviews in that column. As Annie says, though, it's up to you. --MartyD 07:11, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Discworld Series - Type

I've just noticed that the type of some of the Discworld novels is defined as NOVEL [Juvenile] i.e. Going Postal, Thud!, Making Money, Snuff and Raising Steam. Some of his novels are aimed at the young adult market, but I do not believe that there is any difference between these 5 novels and others in the Discworld series. Is there any reason why they are classified as Juvenile? If not then I suggest that they are changed back to just NOVEL. --AndyjMo 08:46, 29 January 2018 (EST)

I agree - these are not juvenile (the Tiffany Aching novels can be called so but outside of that subseries, they should not be set as juvenile). I wonder of this designation did not come from a language version where they had been marked so (for one reason or another) and then flowed up into the main work. Annie 13:26, 29 January 2018 (EST)
So.. can we, I, you change it? Or does it need more investigation? --AndyjMo 15:31, 29 January 2018 (EST)
If you look in the list of books at the front of the more recent titles, when they list the books they list the title and where appropriate follow it with "(for young adults)", which can look like a header for the books that follow in the list. The titles you mention all follow after the actual juvenile books, so are likely classified (incorrectly) as such based on the title list. Doug H 15:54, 29 January 2018 (EST)
I will change the title records to NOVEL. --AndyjMo 04:37, 30 January 2018 (EST)
Thanks for that, but remember that variant titles also have to be changed accordingly. Stonecreek 04:54, 30 January 2018 (EST)
Ah, that I did not know. Back to the keyboard. --AndyjMo 06:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)

Vampire Armand editing issue

Can't edit a specific record. It keeps giving me an error that I haven't seen before. There is a cover artist specified in the record.Can someone take a look?

No artists were entered, but other cover data was specified. At least one artist must be entered. See Help for details. TAWeiss 16:03, 9 February 2018 (EST)

A new patch was just installed. Bill reported that a F5 cleared it - so try to reload. Annie 16:06, 9 February 2018 (EST)
More specifically, Control-F5, which most Web browsers interpret as "Do a full Web page reload" :-) Ahasuerus 16:10, 9 February 2018 (EST)
I keep forgetting that not everyone knows that when I say F5, I mean CTRL+F5. :) I never do just F5 - so have bad habits talking about it. Thanks for completing the instructions. :) Annie 16:37, 9 February 2018 (EST)
I’ll give it a go. Thanks TAWeiss 22:30, 9 February 2018 (EST)

Inconsistent display of Variant for interior art

In this pub, which lists interior art by Luis Royo, some entries specify they are variant of cover art for some title. If you follow the link, the top area states "Variant Title of cover art for: " and the title. However, if you follow some of the interior art entries, they are also variant titles of cover art, but don't say so in the publication. For example - #6 is "Variant Title of cover art for: Mute (by Luis Royo )", but does not say so in the publication list. #35 (Flaming Bess) is not a variant of anything, but there's no way to tell the difference from the situation for #6 without following the link. It looks like the variant information is suppressed if the title and author for the interior art and cover art match. Is this by design or fallout from some other reasoning? Doug H 19:42, 10 February 2018 (EST)

It looks like a bug to me. The ones that are displayed as variants have different title text from their parents, while the ones that are not displayed as variants have the same title text as their parents. --MartyD 06:41, 11 February 2018 (EST)
There is some special logic to display INTERIORART/COVERART variants differently. I'll review it later today to see if it's doing what it's supposed to be doing. Ahasuerus 09:05, 11 February 2018 (EST)
It looks like a bug. I'll see if I can fix it tomorrow. Ahasuerus 00:04, 12 February 2018 (EST)
I ended up rewriting that part of the software. Hopefully nothing got broken in the process. Thanks for reporting the issue! Ahasuerus 20:39, 12 February 2018 (EST)
Thanks for addressing this. Makes figuring out which images have already been identified as covers much easier. Doug H 21:20, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Sure thing! Ahasuerus 21:36, 23 February 2018 (EST)

Does this conference handout count as a publication?

I am currently entering the Premio UPC anthologies. Each one includes the keynote speech from the year's awards given at a conference at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Some of the speeches were delivered in English, but translated into Spanish when printed in the anthology. However, it seems that the English versions were printed in some sort of conference handout (you can see one example here.) So far, I have just putting a note on the speeches as they appear in the anthologies saying "translated from an unpublished English original titled XXX;" but should I in fact be creating records for the English versions, and should I be giving them a "publication date" of the date of the conference? --Vasha 15:46, 11 February 2018 (EST)

There is precedent for recording conference proceedings as publications. It sounds to me like that applies here. --MartyD 06:19, 12 February 2018 (EST)
OK, I have made some variant titles, but only when I could find out for sure that the talk was in English and what its title was. --Vasha 23:39, 12 February 2018 (EST)

Clarifying a date for a publication before the first listed one?

I noticed that some Joanna Russ stories have a "Date" value that's long before the date of the first publication listed. For example, Visiting lists a Date of 1967-00-00, but the first listed publication's date is 1988-01-00. I eventually figured out that that's because some of the stories were originally published in non-sf venues that aren't covered in ISFDB, and indeed a couple of the stories have Notes to that effect, such as What Did You Do During the Revolution, Grandma?, which has a Note that says "Originally published in The Seattle Review, Spring 1983 (Volume 1, Number 1)." So that's all fine--but some of the stories don't have Notes indicating where they were originally published, and I want to add such Notes.

So I started to edit Visiting to add bibliographic info from the acknowledgments list in the Russ collection The Hidden Side of the Moon; I want to add a Note that says "Originally published in Manhattan Review, Fall 1967." But I also want to indicate where that information came from, and I'm not sure how to do that. I was going to add a Note to Moderator saying that this info came from the acknowledgments list in The Hidden Side of the Moon, but the help for the Note to Moderator field says this:

Do not enter any vital bibliographic information which you believe adds value to the record. This includes the source of the data used to update or create the record. That data should be recorded in the "Note" field.

So ... should I include something in the Note field saying where I got this info? I can certainly do that; I just wasn't sure, because the existing Notes that I found about prior publications don't mention where the info came from. --Elysdir 02:00, 13 February 2018 (EST)

It sure is the best thing to add sources to a title's note field. Stonecreek 02:16, 13 February 2018 (EST)
That kind of info belongs in the notes. Editors here vary wildly on how much detail they include in such notes. At a minimum, there should be enough information that someone else could look up the source and verify it if they wished. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:32, 13 February 2018 (EST)
Great—I'll put the info in the Note field. Thanks! --Elysdir 21:23, 13 February 2018 (EST)

Novel Kill Creek (2017) credited to the wrong Scott Thomas


Apologies, complete novice here, so couldn't see any immediate way to correct this:

The novel Kill Creek (2017) has been erroneously credited to the Scott Thomas, the brother of Jeffrey Thomas. This novel is actually by a completely different Scott Thomas, a first-time writer who doesn't yet feature on the Db.

As this association between novel and author is already in place, any help would be much appreciated in correcting this.

Thanks in advance,

Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexsheers (talkcontribs) . 08:44, 13 February 2018 (EST)

I've created a new author Scott Thomas (I), you can now add any relevant data via the "Edit Author Data" link. Hauck 10:53, 13 February 2018 (EST)
Hi Hervé, thanks a lot for your help and for the editing pointers. This is a fantastic resource and I'm happy to be able to contribute in my own small way! Cheers Alexsheers 05:32, 14 February 2018 (EST)

How to mark a title that combines two other stories?

I'm looking at the ISFDB entry for Joanna Russ’s “Old Thoughts, Old Presences.” That title is the title of a concatenation of two of Russ’s other stories: “The Autobiography of My Mother” and “Daddy’s Girl.” In Russ’s collection The Zanzibar Cat, “Daddy’s Girl” comes first, followed by “The Autobiography of My Mother”; in her collection The Hidden Side of the Moon, “The Autobiography of My Mother” comes first, followed by “Daddy’s Girl.” But in both collections, the title “Old Thoughts, Old Presences” is just a title for the two stories put together; or to put that another way, those two originally separate stories are treated as parts 1 and 2 of “Old Thoughts, Old Presences.” Is there some formal way to indicate that in ISFDB? Should I just add this info as a Title Note for one or more of these three stories? --Elysdir 20:16, 14 February 2018 (EST)

It seems to me this title should not appear at all, instead there would be the possibility to install a title series "Old Thoughts, Old Presences" like here. Do you know if the story titles are also present in The Zanzibar Cat? Stonecreek 23:26, 14 February 2018 (EST)
Yep, the original story titles are present in both collections. In Zanzibar Cat, the TOC just lists “Old Thoughts, Old Presences,” but in the body of the book, the page says “Old Thoughts, Old Presences” and then under that says “I. Daddy’s Girl,” and then a dozen pages later, “II. The Autobiography of My Mother.” In Hidden Side of the Moon, the TOC lists “Old Thoughts, Old Presences” and then indented under that says “I. The Autobiography of My Mother” followed by “II. Daddy’s Girl.” In the body of the book, the page says “Old Thoughts, Old Presences” and then under that says “The Autobiography of My Mother” (no number) and then a dozen pages later says “Daddy’s Girl” (also without a number). ...I agree that “The Other Side of the Sky” looks like a parallel situation, and “covering title” seems like a good description—though I don’t know whether Russ herself thought of “Old Thoughts, Old Presences” as a single story composed of two titled sections, or as a covering title combining two stories. But I’d be happy to follow the “Other Side of the Sky” example if you think that’s the right approach. --Elysdir 12:33, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Narn i Chîn Húrin: The Children of Húrin page numbering

There are two publications of the fourth printing this and another (which should likely be combined). Additionally, comparing with the first printing, they all have different numbers of pages though it seems likely they should all match. I also have the fourth printing. In my copy, there are 313 numbered pages, followed by a brief note about a map on page 315 and finally a fold out map on page 321 just before the back cover. Should the page numbering be 315, 313+[2], 313+[8]? Thanks TAWeiss 20:59, 18 February 2018 (EST)

James E. Coplin

Pseudonym question. There are four "Coplins" now in the db, and they are all the same person, shown here. "j. e. coplin & James Coplin are pseudonymed to "Jim Coplin". "James E. Coplin" is on his own. The latter has recently put out a new book (shown in the link) with that name, presumably the one he wants to now be known as. There are 30 or so years difference between between "James E. Coplin" and the others' works but an article by Charles de Lint here, under "Creaking Staircases" shows that they are all the same person. I would propose making the "James E. Coplin" name the parent name and re-pseudonym the others to it, since the current "Jim Coplin" name only authored a couple of letters to magazines. If that's agreeable, I would be glad to attempt the changes but it would be simpler if a moderator wanted to take it on. Any suggestions? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:07, 21 February 2018 (EST)

If anything, the primary name should be "j. e. coplin" as there are far more titles under that name than any other. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:26, 21 February 2018 (EST)
Is that the criterion for which name is made the pseudonym? Doug / Vornoff 20:45, 21 February 2018 (EST)
Normally the canonical name is the best known name of the author within the genre. Thus Murray Leinster's canonical name is "Murray Leinster" even though his legal name was William Fitzgerald Jenkins and he wrote a great deal of non-speculative fiction as Jenkins. Ahasuerus 21:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)
I'll try submitting changes to make "j. e. coplin" the canonical name, then, and pseudonym the others to it. Doug / Vornoff 00:30, 22 February 2018 (EST)

Cora Lee Healy

Cora Lee Healy uses four alternate names as seen in this link. But she doesn't have one for C. Lee Healey. The only entries for that name are iterations 2, 3 & 4 of the interior art title "I Mind". Following the link, we see that the original art entry for "I Mind" is for Cora Lee Healy (as by C. Lee Healy), one of the alternate names. Neither of the verifiers is active. Would it be appropriate to assume the 3 iterations were typed and copied wrong, and entered in error, and should be changed in the pub to read "C. Lee Healy" and then varianted, eliminating the spurious "C. Lee Healey"? There is also corroboration here that "I Mind" is credited to "C. Lee Healy". Thanks, Doug Vornoff 00:10, 22 February 2018 (EST)

I'd think there is no problem with that, especially as the rules of crediting aren't as strong for art as for sf (which is our main domain). Christian Stonecreek 01:57, 22 February 2018 (EST)
OK - I submitted it. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 02:05, 22 February 2018 (EST)

Price: with or without VAT?

If there's no price on the cover of the book itself, it can often be found on seller webpages, or on invoices received. When looking at my Amazon invoices, I couldn't but wonder whether price should be entered with or without VAT? I suspect without, but would like to get confirmation (couldn't find related info anywhere else, apologies if I missed it)

Might also be worthwhile to add answer to the corresponding extensive help page. MagicUnk 14:38, 23 February 2018 (EST)

I always try for the base price, without any taxes. Sometimes (for instance, in Japan), it's not always easy to find the base price, so I enter what I can find. It at least gives an idea of the correct price. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:11, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Depending on circumstances, we have to be extra careful when trying to determine the original list price based on secondary sources. For example, a few years ago we determined that Russian publishers stopped using list prices in the early 1990s due to high inflation. The prices that we had on file at the time had come from secondary sources and needed to be removed. Ahasuerus 16:43, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Thank you. Without VAT it is. MagicUnk 17:07, 23 February 2018 (EST)

CreateSpace self-published: how to deal with print runs and other questions

I've taken it upon me to add all works of Luke Smitherd to the database. His titles are self-published through CreateSpace, as well as published as an eBook on Kindle through Flying Body Press.

1) When browsing Amazon UK and, I came across multiple covers for the same paperback (tp). From this observation I infer that there must have been multiple 'print runs' of the same edition, but with different covers. For example, when searching for on Amazon UK and I could identify at least 3 different covers. Unfortunately, Amazon lists information for original edition only, notably first publication date with whatever the latest cover happens to be by default. Do you have advice on how to handle this case? How to add these inferred variant publications with their corresponding cover?

2) The same observation holds for the ebook versions.

Unfortunately, a different cover listed at amazon doesn't necessarily mean that a publication with this cover actually exists. We have found that this vendor also displays pre-publication covers that never were used. So, as unfortunate as it is: don't add publications of that kind you are not absolutely sure they exist (seen by yourself, referred to in a review, sale by a second hand).
In addition, there are many ebooks who are only advertised with a cover, but don't contain any such thing with the final product. So it may be best to stick to only one ebook for a given publisher (especiallly when they all are catalogued with the same date of publication), and to those you are sure of they exist with a distinct cover.
Seconded; I only add variant covers when there's some confirmation they exist (e.g. reviewer posted picture of it at a certain date; author's Facebook states she's just reissued the book with a new cover; etc. etc.) I treat it rather like a second printing. Most often I have to say "date unknown." --Vasha 15:21, 25 February 2018 (EST)

3) Smitherd has published 4 ebook novel(la)s as part of a series (The Black Room series), which have later been reissued in a single volume as a novel ( When combined in the novel, they've rreceived a new title. How do I enter the individual ebooks as part of a series? (CHAPBOOK as SHORTFICTION doesn't work as I can't put CHAPBOOKs in a series) and at the same time allow creation of a link to the contents of the novel (but with an alternate title for the constituent parts)? The novel is not a collection, I don't think.

I have seen that Smitherd wrote in one case of a previous serialization, so SERIAL sems to be the correct way to handle them. Here is a similar example.
The thing is, this is a CHAPBOOK serial (4 novella's), but I can't enter a serial title when I choose add new chapbook. What should I do. Select new novel for each of the 4 novella's instead? MagicUnk 11:46, 24 February 2018 (EST)
Sure you can: it's in the drop-down menu where SHORTFICTION is the pre-selected choice. Stonecreek 12:10, 24 February 2018 (EST)
OK, I've given it a try. Have a look and let me know how I did... MagicUnk 12:42, 24 February 2018 (EST)

4) Several of the collected short fiction in Dark. Weird. ( have also been published separately as an ebook. How do I create the link between the paper version in the collection and the individual ebook entries? And correct some of the contents of the collection from short fiction to novella to boot?

Please edit & merge the titles.

5) Finally, on the author's page ( I came across an audio book with a collection of short stories (my guess novella length, as some have been also published as ebook). Any advice on how I should enter these? (and link to the variant publications published elsewhere, either as standalone ebook, or as part of a(nother) paper collection?

We have audio formats (just scroll down the list of formats), and then please follow the previous advices. Hope that helps. Stonecreek 01:58, 24 February 2018 (EST)

Fwew! MagicUnk 18:27, 23 February 2018 (EST)

How to handle different UK & US publication dates for same edition?

I was reviewing the entry for Alex Lamb's Exodus, and noticed that the data entered as obtained from differed from the data obtained from Amazon UK in publication data (and price) only. So, I've added a new pub for the UK release, in line with what has been done for the earlier publication (ISBN 978-1-4732-0614-4) where both the US and UK publication dates have their own record too. Did I do that right?

List of 1942 titles with any votes, for Retro Hugo nomination

For those of us struggling with the 1943 Retro Hugo nomination form, would it be possible to provide a list of all 1942 titles with any votes, sorted by average vote and/or number of votes?

— Flash Sheridan FlaSheridn 08:28, 5 March 2018 (EST)

I am afraid only 0.78% of our title records have votes associated with them, so it probably wouldn't help much. The easiest way to get to the data may be by running an Advanced Search on:
  • Title Year is exactly 1942
  • Title Language is exactly English
  • Title Type is exactly SHORTFICTION (or NOVEL or SERIAL)
It takes a few seconds to retrieve the data from the database, but it's not too bad. Ahasuerus 09:16, 5 March 2018 (EST)
Au contraire, the small percentage of votes is a feature; I’d already tried the advanced query and given up in despair at the volume. Obviously titles with votes here is a somewhat arbitrary criterion, but less so than the alternative I based my first draft ballot on, paging through the Astounding grid.
FlaSheridn 09:54, 5 March 2018 (EST)
I see. Well, there is no way to do this using the regular user interface, but it can be easily done by writing a database query. Here are the matches for SERIALs:
and NOVELs:
SHORTFICTION will take a little longer. Give me a few minutes... Ahasuerus 14:34, 5 March 2018 (EST)
Ahasuerus 14:43, 5 March 2018 (EST)
Plus one collection: Clark Ashton Smith's Out of Space and Time. Also, FYI, there are no eligible non-English titles. Ahasuerus 14:46, 5 March 2018 (EST)
Ooh, thanks, I’d overlooked some of those. — FlaSheridn 08:46, 6 March 2018 (EST)
You are welcome! Ahasuerus 10:01, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Trazo as pseudonym

While adding Premio Ignotus data, I looked up the artist "Trazo" and found the following on the back of a book (one of the ones with a cover by Trazo): "Juan Miguel [Aguilera] es diseñador gráfico y, junto con Paco Roca y otros miembros del equipo TRAZO, se encarga, desde este año 1994, de ilustrar las portadas de NOVA ciencia ficción." ("Juan Miguel Aguilera is a graphic designer and, together with Paco Roca and other members of the TRAZO team, is responsible for illustrating the covers of NOVA science fiction since 1994.") The other place where I've found reference to who is behind the name Trazo is an article by Mariano Villarreal going into lots of detail about the awards; every time Trazo won an award Villarreal names Aguilera and Roca alone as the winners. So, I'm not sure what to do. I think I should not make Trazo a pseudonym for Aguilera and Roca because it might sometimes be other people. Should I just variant the works that Villarreal says are by Aguilera and Roca to them?

P.S. That article is quite interesting; among other things, shows an astonishingly small participation in Premio Ignotus (at the low point, 2013, 27 people nominating and 47 voting!) and discusses what AEFCFT is doing to get more participation. --Vasha 10:50, 5 March 2018 (EST)

Same publication but for their number line

I was looking into Hannu Rajaniemi's The Quantum Thief, and noticed that there are two entries for the same ISBN (see here and here) that only differ in their number line. I have been looking around, but couldn't find any reference to what to do with identical publications but for their print run. Any advice? Keep all print runs, or delete all but one? MagicUnk 09:02, 10 March 2018 (EST)

We record each printing as a different record. It is not unknown for there to be differences between printing runs. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2018 (EST)

Sheila Williams

While adding some author images I found this about Sheila Williams, but, not having met her, I don't think that this is a picture of the editor of Asimov's. Another person? MLB 01:44, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

You are right, it is a different Sheila Williams. Annie 02:08, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

To update the original publication date of a book, which records should I update?

My specific title is Bram Stoker - The Lady of the Shroud

Overall title record is The first edition record is

Both records list date of 1909-00-00. The U.S. copyright registration states it was first published in U.K. July 7, 1909.

At this time I just submitted a change for the first edition record. Will that automatically propagate back to the overall title record or do I need to explicitly change both records? PatConolly 17:32, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

Nothing will get changed automatically - so if you want to change the dates in both places, you need to submit both changes separately. And I would even add a note in the publication explaining where the date came from exactly. Also please note that if you are changing a title with a single publication (not the case - this is just for future references), you can change both dates from inside of the Edit Publication screen :) The title date is greyed out when you have multiple publications (as is your case). Annie 18:25, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

What type is this?

How should I categorize La enciclopedia galáctica? It is a compendium of all the snippets of the Encyclopedia Galactica from Asimov's Foundation Novels. (They are accompanied by a couple of essays and a bio of Asimov but they take up 80% of the book). Is it a COLLECTION? or maybe NONFICTION because of being intended by the editors as a companion-volume to the Foundation series? Also, should I credit Asimov as the sole author (clearly yes if it's a COLLECTION, but I'm not sure in the case of it being NONFICTION)? I can't find an image of the title page so I don't know what the credit is there. --Vasha 23:07, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

I would treat it the same as Star Trek Federation: The First 150 Years. It's a collection of in-universe material that is considered non-fiction. So, while the contents are actually fictitious, they are treated the same as any other guide to a fictional world. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:47, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
Or like The Confederation Handbook - it is all in-universe information about the worlds of the confederation. It is in-universe non-fiction so I would go with NON-FICTION. Annie 15:55, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
I have found the book on Scribd and read the introduction, and it seems I was wrong, it is exactly equivalent to the Confederation Handbook in being an encyclopedic guide to the Foundation/Robots universe written by the editors as well as compiled by them (thus NONFICTION).
There is no author credited on the title page. I guess I will call the book "uncredited" then. The problem is that the book was nominated for a Premio Ignotus and if it's uncredited the award won't show up on the pages of the people who worked on it. I think I will variant the "uncredited" record to one in the names of the compilers --Vasha. 19:50, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Amazing Stories Quarterly, Fall 1930 - who should be listed as publisher?

Currently the Publisher field shows "B. A. Mackinnon, H. K. Fly" As our notes show: "Miller/Contento/Bleiler give the publisher as Radio-Science Publications, Inc.; Jamaca, NY. The copyright for this issue was registered to Radio-Science Publications, Inc. However the publisher is listed as Mackinnon and Fly on the contents page."

This is the only title that lists "B. A. Mackinnon, H. K. Fly" as a publisher. The following issues for the next year are listed as being published by Radio-Science Publications. The Amazing Stories and Radio News monthly issues in this period were published by Radio-Science Publications.

My own vote is that Radio-Science Publications, Inc. is the one that should be used for this issue.PatConolly 17:31, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

One additional point - a scan of this issue is online The contents page does say "A. Mackinnon, H.K. Fly, Publishers". At the bottom of this page, in the indicia section, it says "Copyright, 1930, by Radio-Science Publications, Inc." PatConolly 18:12, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

We credit per the publication. Since it lists it as "A. Mackinnon, H.K. Fly, Publishers", that would be the credit. The fact that it is a one off credit is irrelevant. The publication note seems to cover the situation well enough. By the way, with primary verified publications (where the verifier is active) like this one, it's good etiquette to inform the verifier of conversations like this (or just ask them directly) since it impacts their verification. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2018 (EDT)
I do want to modify the Notes then to unambiguously state that the contents page in this issue lists "A. Mackinnon, H.K. Fly, Publishers" at the top, and Radio-Science Publications, Inc. in the indicia. PatConolly 12:13, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Neil Gaiman title merge

Please merge these two title for "Down to a Sunless Sea" and MarkStackpole 19:33, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Done Annie 20:09, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Help finding contact details

Can someone find out how to contact John H. Jenkins, who runs ? I want to ask him if we can link to his images. The overview page on his site implies that the thumbnails are fair use, but I'd like to be certain. They are rather small (100 x 145) while the files they link to are somewhat large (627 x 912).

I'd also like to know if we can link to .

--Auric 09:33, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

While you're sending letters, maybe you could ask Juan José Parera, who runs Términus Trántor? He's got quite a stock of uncommon high-quality images. --Vasha 12:08, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
I wonder if the images at change over time, making them too unstable for our purposes. Ahasuerus 13:58, 19 March 2018 (EDT)
And disappear in my experience from a few years ago... Annie 16:59, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Date field for Titles whose first book publication was in parts

For example, Jules Verne's "Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers" (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) Currently the Date field says 1869-00-00. I would like to make it more specific.

Per , these are the first book publications:

(part 1) Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers. Tour du monde sous-marin, 28 October 1869.
(part 2) Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers. Tour du monde sous-marin, 13 June 1870.
Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers. Tour du monde sous-marin, 16 November 1871

Which date should I use ?

The same question applies to quite a few Jules Verne books. PatConolly 14:44, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Looks like no one has an answer. I started to expand the Jules Verne bibliography as well, and dug up the earliest publications (generally the Magasin) only to find that that the serialization date wasn't wanted for the earliest title date and I wasn't going to enter each issue separately, hence the notes. Some options for the true first book publications:
  • Create a novel "VML..." with the 1871 date. Create a CHAPBOOK "VML... (Part 1 of 2)" with content of SERIAL "VML... (Part 1 of 2)" and ditto for Part 2 with their respective 1869 and 1870 dates. Then make the two SERIAL "VML... (Part x of 2)" titles into variants of the novel. I think this follows from the definition of a CHAPBOOK and the recommended SERIAL usage.
  • Create a novel "VML..." with the 1871 date. Create separate novels for each of the parts (like Zero Hour with (Part x of y) in the title and associated dates and variant them to the full novel.
Observations and suggestions welcome. ../Doug H 15:36, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
I do not think so. Serials are not used for multi-volume publications of novels but for installments publications (IMO Dickens's novel in 24 parts are proper serials; Dickens's 3 volume publications of the same are not) - we enter these volumes as novels, not as serials. Otherwise, how is this different from the French splitting of long novels? :) Annie 17:32, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
Verne's novel was published as a true serial - weekly from March 1869 to June 1870. The magazine was published as a collection - six months per volume. The first part (titled as part 1 in the magazine) was published as a book once the serial for that part had completed, but before the second part had gotten very far (Sept vs. Oct). The second part got its own book after the serial completed. The novel as a whole came out a year later. There aren't any Dickens serials in ISFDB, so your example is incomplete. Was Dickens 3 volume publication to break it down after all parts had been published or were they released in stages like Verne's? If each section is too small to be a complete novel, do you still create novels rather than CHAPBOOKs with SHORTFICTION? (I'm guessing yes, but it's nice to state for the record). I had made the notes regarding the serials rather than creating hundreds of entries but haven't really done anything about the bound / collected issues. Is our record complete enough? ../Doug H 19:54, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
Then take one of the modern serials as an example - Dickens was just easier to use as an example and it was not an example of dates but of what is an is not serial. As such, it is a complete example. :) If it was serialized in a magazine, we know that the main title gets its date from the first BOOK publication. Thus me thinking along the same line here... Annie 19:59, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
My only quibble with Dickens is that we don't actually have them and I'm not familiar with the early publications. To our Vingt mille - if I understand correctly, we should create two new publications, one under each of the existing Part 1 and Part 2 titles(assuming they have the same title - and use them as examples for creating two new titles otherwise), and update the 1923 dates to the corresponding 1869 and 1870. The 1871 edition should be entered as a publication of the main title (assuming enough information can be found to support it). And the date for the title should be changed to 16 November 1871. N'est-ce pas? ../Doug H 22:35, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
If the names match - then yep, that's what I am thinking. If they do not, I'd add a note to the main title and to the two you linked and leave it alone for now... Or do two new variants if you really want to. :) Annie 22:57, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
My gut feeling is to use the date of the first complete publication - so 1871, with the other 2 varianted under it and extensive notes on the dates situation. It will look like some serials that seem varianted back in time but using 1869 does not make sense (part of the novel was not published yet). I can see an argument for 1870 - but as there may be changes in the text, it makes sense to use the first complete edition. Sounds like we need a new rule for this - because our help is not very helpful (this is not a very common scenario in the US genre publishing):) Annie 17:32, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
Part of the problem here is the abuse of variants in the multi-part scenario. But given that practice, I agree the best approach is to have the record for the full novel use the date the work was first published in its entirety, then make the earlier, partial titles be variants of that and having their actual appearance dates. It should make sense when viewed, and also it is similar to the handling done for serializations (where the canonical title for the complete work gets the date of the first "book" publication). --MartyD 19:34, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
Oh, I know. When I joined, I was a bit surprised that we do not use serials for those splits (they kinda sounded perfect for that until I got some of the finer points of this whole thing) and we variant half a novel into a full novel while both are called novels but it is what it is. And yes - there are abuses - but unless we have a better plan, I just cannot see what else we can do. Doing chapbooks of half-novels and making them serials sounds even worse quite honestly. :) Annie 20:02, 2 May 2018 (EDT)

Darkover series and sub-series

Just wondering, on the Darkover series page, it shows "Darkover Shortfiction" as a sub-series, which contains short fiction by MZB, Ronald M. Hahn and a further sub-series "Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover", which contains short fiction and poems by various non Bradley authors. It looks like all Bradley Darkover short fiction should go in "Darkover Shortfiction" and non-Bradley in "Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover". If that's right, first, shouldn't the story by Hahn be given the latter series name to put it with the non-MZB short works and second, to me the name "Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover" is misleading if it means short fiction not by MZB. Couldn't it be called something like "Non-Bradley Darkover Shortfiction" which would nail it down and still fall under the "Darkover Shortfiction" parent? If my idea is valid, does anyone have a better new name for the sub-series? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 17:25, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

POD and complete number lines on copyright page

I have a book that is printed on demand (last page shows a 2018 date and so on so I know it is on demand and just printed). At the same time the book has a complete number line on the copyright page (which would make it first printing) complete with the ISBN-13 a few lines above the number line. Except it obviously is not first printing because the numberline is for "this paperback edition...September 2006" and this book is physically manufactured a few days ago so almost 12 years too late. So what date do I put on that book? 2006-09-00 or 0000-00-00? (And Worldcat is being "helpful" and shows a 2010 date for this ISBN but this is a different story). Help! :) Annie 00:05, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

In another discussion, I wrote " It wouldn't be a bad idea to make a note of when your verification copy was printed, in case someone with another copy notices any differences, but in my opinion, unless the differences are major it would just be a matter for a note, not for calling it a different printing" and I still think that. When the file that the POD machines print from was created, they chose to add a number line for some reason, but it's still the same file, no matter when the ink goes on the paper.
Back when printing was done with lead type in forms, they would take apart the type as soon as they were done printing a number of copies of the page, so that each print run was typeset anew--could have major differences. That changed with 20th-century printing methods, usually they do reuse the same plates/images for the various printings, but it isn't guaranteed. POD is a different matter; I guess you could think of it as a very slow "print run" lasting for years! And how can we be sure they're using the same file for each copy? I don't know. But I think we should assume that it is the same, and just give the whole thing the date of when it first became available. A note of the printing date would help pin down changes if any are noticed later.
As for the specific edition you're talking about, do you know if it was POD in "September 2006" (it wasn't so common then)? Maybe they scanned the copyright page of a traditionally-printed book and turned it into POD without changing anything. --Vasha 12:56, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
I am well aware of how printing works...
The annoying part is that it is not some small publisher - it is Pocket Books (this is the book in question: The Entropy Effect). I am not sure if they reset it in 2006 quite honestly and if there was even a proper run at all or they went POD from day 1 - it looks exactly like the first mmp edition from 1981 but on bigger pages - it feels like slightly enlarged text but I do not have the original so cannot confirm my suspicion. So it may be that back in 2006 for the 40th anniversary they reprinted the book by simply throwing a photocopy in the POD printed and called it a day. But then why add the complete number line? Most publishers don't add these for POD books so either it was not POD at the start or they added it because it was such a new technology that they did not know what they are doing yet...
I am still against recording the date of one's copy - we will overload the DB with meaningless information and because files can be changed between printings, if we start recording that, it will be very hard to keep track of when we need to pull a separate edition. I think we need to have a POD discussion at some point though :) Annie 16:45, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Gardens of the Moon

I was recently looking up something and I found that this book cover is attributed to two different artists, Steve Stone and Chris Moore. Which one should get the credit? I suspect Steve Stone, but I don't want to second guess any editor, especially as I don't own this work. MLB 17:12, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

The Moore attribution is here. I would ping Don to ask him to check the back cover of his book again - this is the Stone US cover. It is possible that the UK edition mis-attrubuted but he is the only one to clarify? Let me know if you would like me to ping Don? Annie 17:25, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
PS: I have the US edition and it is clearly attributing the cover to Stone. The UK editions used the Moore's cover and it seems like the switched if I am reading Don's notes properly. I can check the book tonight again - I even know where it is (for a change) Annie 17:29, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
I pinged Don - so we can get to the bottom of this together. :) Annie 18:11, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
I tend not to bother people with emails, so if Don answers let me know. I suppose that from one book to another the wrong artist got the credit. It's happened before. MLB 18:58, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
I left a message on his Talk page - he had been around lately so he is bound to see it and come here and post. It may be a mistake in the book or during entering - we will see what will turn up. Thanks for finding the mis-attribution! :) Annie 19:03, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
The back cover says "Illustration: Steve Stone"Don Erikson 16:53, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Thanks, Don. I will change the cover artist and then merge it with its brothers. Thanks for checking! Annie 21:10, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Kirby: King of Comics

As much as I admire and enjoy the works of Jack Kirby, I wonder what the justification would be for the inclusion in the db of his biograhy by Mark Evanier, entitled Kirby: King of Comics. Kirby, of course, was a comic book artist, maybe even the greatest, but still a comic book artist, and I don’t recall seeing him illustrate science fiction books or magazines a la Wood or Morrow. On the Policy Page it says, under ‘Exclusions’, “Speculative fiction is defined to exclude...comic books, manga, and graphic novels.” So should this work remain or be deleted? Doug / Vornoff 01:20, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

My guess is that this item was included by somebody because of the introduction (by Neil Gaiman). But it seems you're right that the book shouldn't be listed here. I recommend to wait for a day or two and if nobody interferes, to delete it. Stonecreek 08:52, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
I suggest keeping it. He's in the database having done some interior art and some short stories. Using Look Inside, it looks like this is a biographical tome, not a collection of comics. Therefore, I think it qualifies to be included as a biography of Kirby. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:27, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
After thinking about it, I also think it may stay. Thanks for the info. Stonecreek 00:46, 15 April 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for the input. There is a goodly amount of text material but also a lot of artwork but looks like the consensus is to keep it and that's what I was looking for. Thanks. Doug / Vornoff 23:19, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

German editors help needed

Guys and gals, Can one or more of you help find the German titles of this book? The PV is not around anymore and this is the last of the non-English books with English titles (we managed to fix all of the others in the last year or so). So... any chance that someone can find the book in a library/book-sale/something and just copy the names of those essays so we can get that taken care of? If you do not want to make the variants, scan the page(s) and I will enter them - I just cannot find the titles anywhere (and getting a copy shipped from is a bit unfeasible...) Thanks on advance for any assistance! Annie 19:59, 10 April 2018 (EDT)

It is already on my list, but I wasn't able to find a copy so far. But I'll try on. Christian Stonecreek 23:38, 10 April 2018 (EDT)
Thanks, Christian. Maybe someone else has a copy in the corner of their attic... :) Considering the popularity of Clarke, I really expected to find an online listing somewhere but no such luck either (and I had been looking for awhile) :( Annie 00:20, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
I'm sorry but I don't own an example of this book too. I'll try to track it down in a second-hand bookshop. Rudolf Rudam 15:18, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
Never mind - someone took it on themselves to destroy the entered data and delete all of the contents of the book. Thanks to everyone that was trying to help. If one of you finds the book by any chance, maybe we can recover the destroyed titles. :( Annie 18:25, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
It would take some work, but you can look through the Recent Edits and see if you can find them. If the titles were removed, search for "TitleRemove". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:06, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
I did try that and after failing (single edit 4 days ago is not that easy to spot), Ahasuerus‎ lent me a hand. The data was discovered, I will re-add it as a note to the publication to wait for the day when someone gets the book. Annie 21:13, 14 April 2018 (EDT)

How to Add a Series for a Title that's Part of an Anthology?

Hello! I want to verify this title if I can: Hides the Dark Tower, Publication Record # 595149, since I own a copy of the book. Kelly A. Harmon's story "Giving a Hand" is not identified as being part of the Charm City Darkness series on the TOC, but it is on the title page of the story. (Does that make a difference?) When I edit the record for the antho (Hides the Dark Tower), I don't see how to add the series. Can someone point me to a help page? Many thanks. Zinnia 18:25, 17 April 2018 (EDT)

If a particular story in an anthology is part of a series, go to the story title page and add the series to it by editing the title. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:29, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
Okay - thanks. I didn't know if it were permissible to edit the individual story titles since they are part of an antho. Thx! Zinnia 18:41, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
Definitely allowable. Regardless of which anthology or other collection it's in, it will always be in the series. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
Makes sense. Thanks! Zinnia 12:23, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

Text stories in comic books

I have a copy of Showcase Presents: The House of Secrets. It has a text story, by Gerry Conway called "The Golden Tower of the Sun", illustrated by Gray Morrow, originally published in The House of Secrets #86. The rest of the book are comics. Should I submit it? --Auric 10:30, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

Sure, if it's a speculative piece, per our rules_of acquisition, but be sure to include only this item, and be careful with the credit for the editors (who are they?). Stonecreek 13:36, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
Ghost story, revenge from beyond the grave. According to GCD, for the original, it was Dick Giordano. For the anthology, it is Don DiDio. --Auric 14:36, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

Edit needed to 2004 Nebula Award novel nominees

According to and, Kathleen Anne Goonan's *Light Music* was a Nebula nominee, but is missing from the ISFDB Nebula list. I can't figure out how to suggest that edit in the system, however. --Gengelcox, 18 April 2018

Find the title in the system (here), then click on "Add an Award to This Title" in the Editing Tools menu on the left. Then follow the directions to add it as a nominee. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:16, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
Thank you! I've submitted the modification. --Gengelcox, 18 April 2018

The Seven Altars of Dûsarra

Hi. My copy of 46888 has an accent on the title page. I thought the first step in handling this would be to create a variant title so I submitted a request which was very kindly accepted by Dirk P Broer. However, the new title isn't appearing on the title page so I'm clearly doing something wrong. How should I have/should I handle this? --AliHarlow 03:47, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

Checking submission history, I see that the new VT was deleted by Anniemod at 01:13:21 server time, i.e. 13 minutes after the nightly cleanup reports began their nightly regeneration process. My guess is that the new title appeared as an "orphan" (since it had no publications) on one of the cleanup reports and got zapped. We may want to check with Annie to see if she had something else in mind.
As a general observation, I find that it's typically safer to use the following process:
  • change the spelling of the affected publication's title
  • unmerge the publication from its reference title
  • make the new title a variant of the original title
It seems to minimize the chances of something going wrong. Ahasuerus 12:08, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Sorry about this. Yup, it got caught in the cleanup process. There is no way to determine if a title is there waiting for another update or it is a leftover from a not-completely cleaned deletion or unmerging or something along these lines and will stay orphaned forever. So orphans that do not contain useful information are getting zapped as soon as someone goes through the nightly reports. I make sure I clear the submissions queue first (or at least make sure none of what I am zapping is in a submission) but free standing orphans tend to pile up very quickly and we have no easy way to find out if it had been around for a few hours or a few weeks so if noone has a pending update that will make it a connected one, it gets zapped.
I'd recommend the same approach that Ahasuerus outlined - no free standing variants at any time - just use the publication to get to the variant. You can even submit the unmerge and the change in spelling in parallel and if you use the moderator's note to tell the moderators what you are doing, they may even variant for you :) Annie 12:50, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Many thanks, both. I'll see what I can do. --AliHarlow 14:26, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

How do you add a "bonus" story which appears in the back of a novel?

How do you add a "bonus" story which appears in the back of a novel? Thanks! Zinnia 12:24, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

If it is a story that is already in our DB, you can import it. Find the story, get the ID from the top of the screen, then go to the publication record of the novel (your book) and look for the import/export menu to the left. You want the second option in the Import page - the individual import), paste the ID you got from the story and submit it.
If the story is not in the DB, edit the publication record and add it in the content under the novel. Let me know if you need more assistance and/or pointers. Annie 12:39, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Okay - I found this page: Am I correct that I would type in the Content Field: "Name of Short Story" 1N+1S ? Will this short story then get it's own page? Asking because it's part of a series (the same as the novel), and I presume that I would then edit that short story title page to include the series? Sorry for all the questions! I want to get this right the first time. :) Thanks! Zinnia 13:38, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Nope, this field is only for omnibus editions and it is only for denoting what the omnibus has inside - it does not add anything (sorry for the confusion). Your title will remain a novel even after the story is added. In this case, just edit the novel publication (go to your book and click in Edit on the top right), scroll down to the "Regular Titles" section (you will see the novel listed there), click "Add Title" and add the title, the author and type of the new title (and which page it shows up on) in the newly showed fields and submit. Annie 13:44, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
Got it. Thanks for all the help! Zinnia 16:30, 19 April 2018 (EDT)
You are very welcome :) Approved and merged the two stories in a single record (when you add this way, it creates a new record for the story). Now you can edit the story to add the series :) Annie 16:33, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

Two PV'd pub records to merge. How to do?

I came across this and this record. Turns out they are exactly the same publications, apart from their primary verification (and cover art) which was done by two different people. How do I merge these pub records so we end up with one record that retains all info from both records but the cover art? MagicUnk 17:58, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

It is the same art - just different image of it. One of the PVs (Mavmaramis) is active - so ping them to move their image and their PV and we can delete the that one. No Publication merging I am afraid - one needs to be deleted. Annie 18:17, 25 April 2018 (EDT)
I've taken your advice at heart, and asked Mavmaramis on his talk page. MagicUnk 07:30, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Er Was Eens...

I have a small booklet in Dutch that contains info on spec fic, such as essays, interviews with authors, list of Hugo winners, novel fragments (spec fic), couple short stories (spec fic). My question is, what's the best way of starting to add this to the database? Thanks! MagicUnk 15:30, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

See this helptext. This should be typed as an ANTHOLOGY. You can add the contents as essay, interview, short fiction etc. --Willem 16:11, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
Done. The result is here. Thanks! MagicUnk 14:45, 29 April 2018 (EDT)


Hi. This is AliHarlow for his father. I'm trying to add the first printing of the Bantam 1990 edition of Nemesis. There appear to be two copies of the third printing in the database (23607 and 522758. Given that the only PV of 23607 is no longer with us, would it be sensible to edit this entry for the first printing? --DavidHarlow 13:20, 28 April 2018 (ED

No, please don't do this. I don't know how long you are willing to wait, please let us know, because the other record may be available for such an edit, as the PV is (alas infrequently) active; see two items above, or at the PV's talk page. If it becomes too long for you, you are free to add a new record for the first printing (best to clone it). Stonecreek 16:12, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
Unfortunately Bill Longley is no longer with us, see his author page. It's a bad idea to add the first printing, since it's already in the database here. --Willem 16:29, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
How on earth did I miss that? Many thanks Willem. --DavidHarlow 16:59, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
Well, likely you missed it just the way I did ;-). The cover art is credited to Tony Roberts with the one third printing and the British hardcover editio. How about adding him? Stonecreek 00:39, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Done (I hope). --DavidHarlow 17:05, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Just to let you know I've moved my verification from record 522758 to record 23067 today. --Mavmaramis 04:36, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
Thank you Mavmaramis. I have now initiated deletion of duplicate record 522758. MagicUnk 05:58, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

Does date of publication on the copyright page trump actual appearance date?

In Terry Grimwood's There Is a Way to Live Forever, the Amazon preview of the print edition shows the statement on the copyright page "First published in Great Britain in 2017 by Black Shuck Books." However, I know (because I was tracking it on the Black Shuck website) that it actually became available for sale on February 10, 2018, although it doesn't say that on the website, merely on So, two questions. A. If a physical copy of the book showed the same statement, would we give the book a date of 2017 in the database? B. Given that we can't confirm that the actual book says what the preview shows, what date should we give it now? For the moment, I have used 2017, with a note about the situation.

I want to get this right because it matters for award eligibility. The most relevant awards for this particular book are the British Fantasy and Stoker awards. The BFA rules aren't detailed enough, while Stoker Award says use date actually printed on the book even if released later. Shirley Jackson Award is nominated by a jury so I guess they figure out what criterion they will use. --Vasha 14:52, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

We would go with what is in the book, although keep in mind what you're seeing in the Look Inside might be a preview copy (note the 90000 on the bar code on the back cover, instead of a price), so the physical book may have a different statement in it. I think what you did with the information you have and the notes is the appropriate treatment. --MartyD 06:52, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Speaker for the Dead

Hi. Can I ask for some help with the publication notes in 648552, please? I have what appears to be a 1986 first printing of the Arrow Books edition, priced at £2.95. The publication notes would suggest that this is not the case. How do we determine what's right? Many thanks. --DavidHarlow 17:09, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

If you have a book with a printing statement of 1986, that would win. Locus lists the £2.95 Arrow edition as Feb 1987. This Worldcat record has notes similar to those in our record (and it also cites the ISFDB, so hard to tell if this is circular). What does your book say with regard to the publication date? --MartyD 21:07, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for the detective work, Marty. Copyright page says "Arrow Books Limited" over an address over "An imprint of Century Hutchinson Limited" over "London Melbourne …" over "First published in Great Britain by Arrow 1986" over "© Orson Scott Card 1986". There is no printing statement or number line. I'm guessing the book was printed in late 1986 but held back for some reason and not actually published until Feb 1987. --DavidHarlow 01:15, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
Made a submission which I hope is correct. --DavidHarlow 03:41, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

A very odd listing

Could somebody check this out? I think there is something drastically wrong here. There seems to be two artists with two drastically different pieces of artwork listed on the same page. MLB 00:21, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

Look at the types of the variants. Click on "Do not display variants or translations" and you get this - which is just the single cover we have in this mix. All of the variants are interior art which is what causes you to look again when you see it first.
So you have one cover (to The Solarians) and the other 4 books are there because they have the same cover as interior art. Which is why there is only one cover down in the cover view as well. So all is good. Annie 01:06, 4 May 2018 (EDT)


Hello everyone,

The "Novelization" template mentions “novelization of a movie, TV show, game or other non-written work". Could it also include the novelization of a graphic novel, which is a partly “written work” ? The question arises for this title. TIA, Linguist 10:10, 6 May 2018 (EDT).

I'd vote for 'yes', since the emphasis for comics & graphic novels lies on the non-written side. Stonecreek 15:45, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for responding ! Since no one else feels concerned about the matter, I'll go and tinker with the template, so as to include the case of graphic novels. Linguist 04:42, 8 May 2018 (EDT).

Variants of variants

I understand that one cannot have a variant of a variant. There is a fantasy art card listed under "Rowena" which is variant'd to one under "Rowena Morrill". I would like to variant both of these to the COVERART title. Could I variant the parent to the cover art and let the software magic make the variant follow? Or should I re-parent the variant, then variant the parent. (sounds like Dr. Seuss). There's lots of other cards, so I'd like to get this right. ../Doug H 13:55, 6 May 2018 (EDT)

The second variant is the correct one. I'll do this for you. Stonecreek 15:47, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
The software will do the correct thing (make both variants) if you variant a parent to another title. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2018 (EDT)

Series title for untitled map instead of publication title?

I have a series of 12 books all with the same untitled map. Is it acceptable to give the map the title of the series instead of the publication? This way it would be unambiguously clear that the map is -in effect- the same in all 12 books of the series? MagicUnk 16:15, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

Yes, or if the map has a title, you can use that (I've seen both done). You would need to make sure there are indeed all the same. Sometimes there can be small variances between books. But using a common title and merging would be more straightforward than varianting all 12 together. I would recommend a title note explaining they are all the same. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (EDT)

How to "Title" Interviews which don't have a title?

I'm adding a new antho to the db and realized that after each story there is a short interview (Q&A format, a page or two long) with the author about the story. All the questions are the same for each author about how and why they wrote the story. There is no title for any of these. I presume they should still be cataloged as an "interview" in the db? If yes, how should I title each of these? Just the author's name? Include the author's name in both the title and interview field? If no, how? TIA - Zinnia 10:11, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

It'd be possible to title them with the author's name or the shortfiction's title (the second version would especially come to mind if there are one or more questions about the respective preceding piece). Stonecreek 14:33, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
Got it. Thanks! Zinnia 18:06, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

Consolidate Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth map

The books from Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series all contain the same untitled map (drawn by Terry himself). There exist 10+ additional interiorart title records in the database all referring to this same map. It therefore makes sense to consolidate these into a single title 'Sword of Truth (map)'. How would I do that, as there are quite a few contributors that PV'd the impacted pubs, and with the added complication that there may exist one or two variants (for example, versions missing Anderith and/or Renwold and/or Grafan Harbor - see here for result of my scrutinizing my Dutch books). Searching the internet, I think there are only two variants in existence, one with, and one without Anderith/Rewold/Grafan Harbor, but I would like confirmation, of course. Ideally, if the PVs (list below) could scan (or take a picture of) their version of the map an share it here with reference to which pub record it came from, it'd be possible to identify any variant if existing.
Ideas? MagicUnk 15:20, 11 May 2018 (EDT)

  • Wizard's First Rule (map) (1994) [INTERIORART] Gzuckier
    This (verified) and this (transient in hand) pub use version 1. ../Doug H 12:45, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
  • Stone of Tears (maps) (1996) [INTERIORART] Bluesman Holmesd Willem H.
    I have uploaded an image I called version 1 (ref) and it applies to this publication. Also applies to an undocumented map in Wizard's Rule that I will add once the dust settles. ../Doug H 16:57, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
    Also an unrecorded copy (9th printing) to be entered (transient) uses version 1. ../Doug H 12:45, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
  • Blood of the Fold (map) (1996) [INTERIORART] Bluesman Don Erikson Willem H.
    Also an unrecorded copy (9th printing) to be entered (transient) uses version 1. ../Doug H 12:45, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
  • Temple of the Winds (map) (1998) [INTERIORART] Gzuckier Don Erikson
    I have uploaded an image I called version 2 (ref) and it applies to this publication. ../Doug H 11:58, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
  • The Sword of Truth (map) (1998) [INTERIORART] Taweiss
  • The Pillars of Creation (map) (2001) [INTERIORART] Hauck
  • Naked Empire (map) (2003) [INTERIORART] Bluesman Hauck Don Erikson
    I have uploaded an image I called version 3 ( ref]} and it applies to this publication. ../Doug H 12:24, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
  • Chainfire (map) (2005) [INTERIORART] Hauck Don Erikson
  • Phantom (map) (2006) [INTERIORART] Willem H. Don Erikson
    This pub uses version 3 (transient copy in hand). ../Doug H 12:24, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
  • Soul of the File
    This pub uses version 3 (transient copy in hand). ../Doug H 12:24, 14 May 2018 (EDT)

If —

I've been doing some clean-up of some of the stuff dealing with the pulp Thrilling Wonder Stories and I see that the speculative non-fiction If —, a series of illustrated features has been listed alternatively as both fiction and non-fiction. As this is a speculative non-fiction feature, I would like to change the fictions into non-fictions and group them all into a series. Any suggestions as to why I shouldn't? MLB 00:30, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

Anthology compiler vs. editor

Here's one I haven't run into before. The Look Inside for an anthology submitted by Fixer has "Compiled by A" (over) "Edited by B". While "B" is obviously the editor in the strict constructionist sense, do we want to capture the compiler as the main "editor" and relegate the editor to the notes? Vice versa? Something else? --MartyD 09:58, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

Do you have a link to it? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:17, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
This is our entry now. A Look Inside. Eric S. Brown of the "compiled by" credit also contributes some interviews. --MartyD 06:50, 21 May 2018 (EDT)
Some magazines list multiple "editors", "fiction editors", "editors-in-chief", "editors emeritus", etc. I don't think we have been able to come up with a single rule for capturing this data.
In this particular case, given that the nature of the "compiler"'s and "editor"'s responsibilities is unclear, I would enter them as "editors" and explain the way they are credited in notes. Ahasuerus 08:59, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Cover art on non-genre books

Is there an acceptable way to document cover art by 'genre' artists on non-genre books? The example is a cover by Frank Frazetta on an historical novel (as seen here). There are two novels listed, one exists as interior art from one of Frazetta's collections, but the other is undocumented on ISFDB. ../Doug H 10:09, 25 May 2018 (EDT)

I don't think there's a way to generate an unattached cover art entry. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:52, 25 May 2018 (EDT)
Technically you can add it to any book and then remove the title from the publication. This will end up with an unattached cover art. I am not sure that we should though - if it is not used for a genre publication (or in an otherwise eligible one) it is treated as a non genre essay from a genre author in a non genre book - it is not eligible. Just my 2 cents. Annie 12:13, 25 May 2018 (EDT)
About what I figured. But if there was a cover artist who merited inclusion for 'non-genre' work (in the way some authors are allowed non-genre work), Frazetta is likely to be the one. ../Doug H 16:31, 25 May 2018 (EDT)
I do not disagree. But so do non-fiction essays of Asimov that were published in magazines and not collected (for example). We cannot cover everything and we are mainly a fiction DB. One option may be to start collecting the non-genre work of Frazetta in the notes of the author - drop a {{BREAK}} and start listing with links after that. This way you have them collected, we can move them to title if we decide to and the information is there but without cluttering the DB. Annie 17:15, 25 May 2018 (EDT)

alternative author names in parentheses

Here's a question I can't find the answer to in help. What should I do if the author credit in the book gives two alternate forms of the author's name with parentheses, e.g. "Leopoldo Alas (Clarín)"? --Vasha 12:14, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

What is the actual name of the author? Leopoldo Alas? Leopoldo Clarín? Leopoldo Alas Clarín? Annie 12:18, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
Real name Leopdo Alas, during his life usually published under the pen name "Clarín" --Vasha 12:25, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
I have seen this type of attribution before, but I don't recall a Rules and Standards discussion about it. The only comment that I can find in Help is:
  • If the title page shows both an original and a subsequent name, use the original name. For example, Isaac Asimov's "Lucky Starr" books were originally published under the pseudonym of Paul French, but later reprints were given both names: "by Isaac Asimov, writing as Paul French". In these cases you should still enter Paul French as the author and record the dual credit in the notes.
but it's a somewhat different case. Ahasuerus 14:15, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
My gut feeling is to record as credited and variant it...Annie 14:38, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
Here is a previous comment by Marty on a similar situation. In that case, it was "Pen Name (Real Name)" and Marty argued, citing that "writing as" paragraph, that we should enter just the pen name in the DB. In the case of Clarín, where it is "Real Name (Pen Name)," the analogy to the "writing as" situation seems even clearer and there's a pretty strong case for using the pen name. --Vasha 16:40, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
I did say "gut feeling" :) It is very similar - yes. The question though is if it is indeed writing as Clarín or it is writing as Leopoldo Alas and the Clarín is there to connect the dots for everyone. The more I think, the more it feels like "Leopoldo Alas" makes more sense here... Annie 16:55, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
That makes sense: I guess the way to think about it is that when an editor prints alternate names this way, they are giving a credit and then adding an explanation in parentheses. --Vasha 17:05, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
I agree with the "giving credit and then adding an explanation in parentheses" train of thought. That makes the most sense to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:33, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

Adding publication series

It seems like the following group of Doc Savage novels should be a publication series like "Doc Savage (Golden Press)". Is there a way for me to create this series? I poked through all of the help and could not find anything on adding these. Thanks Tom TAWeiss 22:09, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

Edit each of the publications and add it in each individually :)Annie 22:26, 30 May 2018 (EDT)

Multiple untitled interiorart titles w/different authors

I know that the standard practice for untitled interior art is to call them "BookTitle," "Booktitle [2]", etc. But what if they are by several artists? Should I do a numbering series for each artist-- Polly Painter's Booktitle, BookTitle [2], and Sammy Sketcher's BookTitle, BookTitle [2]? Or should I number the illustrations in the book sequentially regardless of who did them? --Vasha 22:10, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

Series per author is the usual way. No need to differentiate if they are from different artists. We have quite a lot of these all over the place - I can look for an example if needed when I make it home - a little hard to search from the phone on an airport. :)Annie 22:19, 1 June 2018 (EDT)
OK, thanks. --Vasha 22:24, 1 June 2018 (EDT)

Bastei Lübbe Sonderausgabe/Doppelband/Doppelausgabe

I have some pubs that i don't know how to add. They each contain two former released publications including the original title and copyright pages.

They look like the publisher took unsold books, cut the covers, bundled two and gave them a new binding and cover. There are a dozen or so that i know of, numbering implies even more but not all might be genre titles.


How should they be added, Anthology, Omnibus? Any advice appreciated. Werner Welo 02:30, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

Where they bundle up book-length works that were published separately, you should use omnibus. --MartyD 08:14, 2 June 2018 (EDT)

Zoltan Csernai

Hello, I duplicated the the Serbian Translation by create a variant. Can someone merge the stories? Thanks Henna 11:42, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

I do not see anything that needs fixing - did someone already fix it or is there still something to be fixed?
PS: For future references, you can submit a merge by either using "Check for Duplicate Titles" on the title, publication or author level or by using advanced search - both will give you the interface that allows merges. Annie 14:15, 11 June 2018 (EDT)
Hallo Annie, Hervé deleted the orphaned title. I know "Check for Duplicate Titles" and use it for all anthologies and collections (in most cases you are faster). Thanks for the hint to merge titles by using the advanced search. Thanks again Henna 15:33, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

ATom/Thomson #10267/#117280 confusion

Hello, Can one of the moderators assign the interior art for "Thomson" #117280 to "ATom" #10267 please. Thomson should be considered a pseudonym of "Atom" or vv. I've looked at the Thomson interior art from those New Worlds issues and it is the same style (and is from the same period) as other work by ATom (the latter has one in New Worlds #148). The 1938 cover for "Thomson" is unlikely to be his (aged 11 at the time). Thanks, Paul Fraser

So our Thomson contains works from 2 different people and the ones from the 60s need to be varianted under ATom? Technically do you do need a moderator for it - you need to submit an author change for the cover from 1938, a pseudonym for the Thomson that remains and then variant all the works. But I can do it for you if you can confirm that this is what you meant (and I am not misreading). :) Annie 17:59, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
Annie, it would take me hours to work out how to do all that, so if you wouldn’t mind . . .? Thank you, Paul Fraser 19:07, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
I will make you a deal - I will do that tonight and then I will post here the steps (with explanations and links) so next time you know how to do it. :) Annie 19:15, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
That would be great, thanks.Paul Fraser 18:13, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) And here are the steps

  • Move the cover that does not belong to the same author under a new name: Edit the title record and add (I) to the artist name (if this guy had more works, I would have instead changed the name of our guy).
  • Create the pseudonym (Go to ATom, get the ID, then create the pseudonym from the Thomson page)
  • For each of the Thomson records, go to "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work", usi Option 2 and replace Thomson with ATom in the author field to create the connection.

That's it :) Annie 15:35, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Thank you. Paul Fraser 16:58, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Images of Forgotten Books publications

Amazon provides some images akin to those displayed on the Forgotten Books homepage. Are these composite images of book cover and dust jacket, composite of two formats, or something else? Are they recommended here, or welcome, or something else? --Pwendt|talk 11:07, 21 June 2018 (EDT)

How to change omnibus contents to point to another title?

Hello. Will need your help to fix a screwup of mine :(. To start with, there exist two different Dutch translations of Jack Vance's Emphyrio: translated by Warner Flamen and translated by Mark Carpentier Alting. There used to be only one Dutch translation record, so I started with unmerging to end up with those two title records. So far so good. However, the omnibus Emphyrio / De Huizen van Iszm / De Zoon van de Boom will need as contents title Emphyrio translated by Mark Carpentier Alting (and the novel Emphyrio / De Huizen van Iszm / De Zoon van de Boom that got created shouldn't exist). How do I do that? MagicUnk 07:08, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Step 1 - Open the publication record and use the "Remove Titles From This Pub" page (left menu, under editing tools) to remove the currently added variants. Step 2 - use "Import Content" to import the correct ones. :) Careful when you do unmerge with omnibuses - they do something a bit different - unless you are unmerging the omnibus or its cover, sometimes remove titles is the better way to do things. Let me know if you need some assistance. Annie 16:51, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Contents for Alien and Philosophy?

I have added the non-fiction book Alien and Philosophy to the database because it's reviewed in Andromeda Spaceways Magazine and has articles about it in Sci Phi Journal and Apex Magazine. However, being about movies rather than prose fiction, it's not really in the main focus of this database. My question is, being as this is an anthology of essays, should I add all the contents, thus creating yet more questionably-relevant records? I have added them to start with; easy enough to delete them if people think I should. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 12:15, 26 June 2018 (EDT)

I would have entered the review as an essay to start with. We don’t add books that are not otherwise eligible just because they are reviewed in our magazines. But if the consensus is for it to stay, then no content please. Annie 12:56, 26 June 2018 (EDT)


I found an existing record where the ISBN-10 is entered in the ASIN external ID field. That does indeed take you correctly to the Amazon page; but is it frowned upon to use the field that way? Especially since the "Other Sites" Amazon link exists in the left menu? --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 14:04, 30 June 2018 (EDT)

I remove them when I see them and discuss with the editor. Every paper book that has an ISBN uses the ISBN-10 as an ASIN (or should be). If it is not a B ASIN, it does not belong in the ASIN field. Annie 14:09, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
That's what I thought. Fix submitted. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 14:18, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
Keep in mind that ISBN-10s are only valid for "978" ISBNs. When Amazon offers "979" ISBNs for sale, it adds a "B" ASIN, e.g. see this paper book. Ahasuerus 15:05, 30 June 2018 (EDT)
Yep. Same happens for older books, books that had their ISBN added later and a few more corner cases. In all cases, if it is a B ASIN, it is the ISBN-10. :) Annie 15:18, 30 June 2018 (EDT)