User talk:DStandsh

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, DStandsh, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 01:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gemmell's Waylander

Re this publication record: Is the author credited on the title page without a middle initial? We don't use the cover credit for recording the author credit in an ISFDB publication record. We only use that given on the title page. Thanks for checking, and then make your response on this page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the title page is also missing the initial in the New Infinities edition. However the 1989 Legend edition other publication record does include the initial on the title page. (I wonder how I ended up with two copies of this book?) DStandsh 01:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Please proceed to correct each of the record's author credit. If the cover doesn't match the title page credit, then add that information to the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made that correction via additional edits. DStandsh 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Note to Moderator" field

It's better to ask questions on one of the various community pages, not in the "Note to Moderator" field of a submission. That field's purpose is to provide further information that helps the moderator determine whether to accept the submission. Specific questions about how to edit the database can be asked at Help Desk page, general comments can be made on the Community Portal, or to discuss ISFDB policy and rules go to the Rules and Standards page. You'll get a faster and more thorough response as more editors will see it there than the one moderator who handles your submission. You can even leave a question on the Moderator Noticeboard if you want to get the attention of all moderators who are currently online. Most of us monitor all of these pages so we know when a message has been left on any of them.

Now whether to change the publication date field of this record: If the specific date of publication isn't stated in the book, you are allowed to use secondary sources to complete the date. If you do this, it should be indicated in the "Note" field. The month of publication comes from the Locus database, so state in the notes that "Only year of publication stated on the copyright page. Month of publication from Locus1" (that's the ISFDB designation for the Locus online database.) You can be even more specific and give the date as sourced on Amazon.co.uk which is April 5, 1984, entered as "1984-04-05". Mhhutchins 03:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Linking in ISFDB record's note field

HTML should be used to link to another website in the record's note field. Wiki write-up doesn't work. Also, it's not necessary to link to the listing on Amazon. You can't be sure that it will be a stable URL. Just stating "Date of publication from Amazon.co.uk" is sufficient. Thanks. (If you're unfamiliar with HTML, here's a basic tutorial.) Mhhutchins 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your patience. DStandsh 03:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Making changes to records primary verified by other editors

If you wish to change the data or add missing data to primary verified records, you must first notify the editor which verified it. (See the link about primary verification in the Welcome section above.) After the discussion, you or the other editor can make a submission to change the record. If you're only adding notes or links to a cover image to the record, you can make the submission and then notify the verifying editor. Some editors have notification preference messages at the top of their talk pages which may override these rules of etiquette. I'm holding the submission to add cover art credit to this record and the submission to change the page count of this record until you've notified the verifiers of the records with messages on their talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't intend any discourtesy and will follow this advice in future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DStandsh (talk • contribs) .
You're welcome. No accusation of discourtesy was implied. It's just a way to protect the records that editors have taken the time and effort to verify data. Thanks for understanding. Mhhutchins 02:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Left to His Own Devices

Re this publication: because ISFDB records aren't privately controlled, you should avoid using personal verbiage in the record's note fields. I've changed "my copy was purchased in Canada" to "the primary verified copy was purchased in Canada". Please do a primary verification of the record when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks Mhhutchins, Primary verification done. DStandsh 02:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bracketed roman numbers

Re this record: Brackets are only used for unnumbered pages. Pages with roman numbers are considered numbered, so they are not bracketed in the page count field. Thanks. Mhhutchins

This one was a little odd in that only one page (vi) had a roman numeral page number. I extrapolated the roman numbering to include the 2 unnumbered map pages which follow page iv directly. Apart from the brackets is this approach acceptable? DStandsh 22:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The Page Count field is used to determine the total number of pages of a book (within reason). You should enter the highest roman numbered page plus the highest arabic numbered page. (See how OCLC gives the page count.) You can add unnumbered pages into the page count field only if you add content records for any substantial work (map, illustration, introduction, afterword, etc.) which appears on unnumbered pages. Will you be adding a content record for the maps? If not, then there's no need to record them in the page count field. What is the number of the first arabic numbered page? Is it possible that the maps appear on an unnumbered page within a range of numbered pages? Mhhutchins 23:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I assume you are refering to a literal plus sign, i.e. "vi+407". I see OCLC has "iv, 407". I can add a content record for the maps, if it helps. My intent is to conform to isfdb conventions.
I counted back from the first numbered page to determine that the maps preceed page 1. Excluding the cover, the book consists of the following:
  • first internal page is a fragment from the text (normally not included in page count)
  • second internal page list some other books by the author (normally not included in page count)
  • title page (normally not included in page count)
  • copyright page(normally not included in page count)
  • contents first page unnumbered
  • contents 2nd page numbered "iv" (correction vi)
  • 1 page map unnumbered
  • 1 page map unnumbered
  • part title page unnumbered
  • start of novel text numbered "2"
  • text continues up to and including page numbered "407"
  • book ordering page (normally not includecd in page count)
There are no blank pages.
From other records it seems some verifiers limit the page count scope to the primary text. I can be satisfied with that approach. Perhaps I am trying to hard to conform to the template and help direction. DStandsh 23:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If you don't plan to add content records for the maps (the ISFDB standards don't require you to do so), the page count should be entered as "iv+407" (the ISFDB format). If you create two content records for the two maps, the page count field will be "iv+[2]+407". The first map would start on page "[1]|0.1", the second on page "[2]|0.2", and the novel on page "1". The pipe character is used to sort contents as they're to be displayed in the record. Mhhutchins 00:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mhhutchins. I've made the change (actually vi+407 not iv+407 my mistake above). DStandsh 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphans of the Sky

I have approved the addition of a note about "minor cover image differences" to this pub, but I wonder if it may be better to upload a new scan since you have the book? Ahasuerus 02:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded a new scan and removed the cover image comments. DStandsh 02:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 06:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Robin Hobb's Shaman's Crossing

Replaced the Amazon image of Robin Hobb's Shaman's Crossing with one I scanned. You are listed as Primary reference. Doug 12:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. DStandsh 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Robin Hobb's Forest Mage

Replaced the Amazon image of Robin Hobb's Forest Mage with one I scanned. You are listed as Primary reference. Doug 12:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. DStandsh 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Divine Endurance

Based on the image you attached to this publication record, I changed the publisher to "Unicorn / Unwin Paperbacks". Does this match the copy you're working from? Mhhutchins 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That is acceptable. Unwin is correct, but "Unicorn/Unwin Paperbacks" could be more correct. DStandsh 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A Crown of Swords

Re this publication: please confirm the publication date of this third hardcover printing (the same date as the first edition). Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Changed to 0000-00-00. DStandsh 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Clone vs "Add Publication to This Title"

When adding a new printing or edition of a NOVEL, it's better to go to its title record and use the "Add Publication to This Title" function found under the Editing Tools menu, rather than using the "Clone This Pub" function to a publication record. Because of the risk of transferring data by mistake from the original record to a new one, it may be better to restrict the cloning of a publication record when it has contents which are easier cloned than imported. That would include works typed as COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, and other container-type publications. Cloning also helps when a novel contains additional contents such as introductions, illustrations, and maps which are in both the existing record and the publication you're entering. Either method is perfectly acceptable when adding new publications, and it's entirely your decision which to use. So if you choose to clone, be sure to go over every field before the submission is made and then check the record after it is accepted. I'm not saying that it's likely that you will mistakenly transfer data from one record to the other, but that cloning increases the chances for such errors. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I did miss fixing the date on "A Crown of Swords", which again I thank you for catching. I try to check everything twice. I am more concerned about mistyping, or using noncanonical artist name. I haven't tried "Add Publication to This Title". I'll try it out to get a feel for it. DStandsh 03:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I've not caught any major errors (except for the minor one you cite), but otherwise you're doing a fine job for a new editor. Because there is often more than one way to accomplish a task, I'll occasionally give you a note to guide you in making choices. Thanks for the good work. Mhhutchins 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Publishers and imprints

Hi, and a belated welcome! I accepted your The Marriages Between Zones... but I made one change, based on the notes you recorded. When you see something like "A Panther Book" over "Granada", the former is an imprint, the latter the publisher. We record these using Imprint + space + / + space + Publisher. So here it might be "Panther Books / Granada" or "Panther / Granada".

It's usually helpful to search by one of the main names (e.g., Panther or Granada) for publishers to see what has been used so far; we try to avoid a proliferation of imprint and publisher name variations and normalize them a bit, sticking with precedent when there is one. In this case, we have been using "Panther / Granada", so I changed the publisher identification to that. You can find many more details about recording publishers in Help:Screen:EditPub#Publisher.

Not a big deal by any means, just something to keep in mind for the future. Thanks, and thank you for contributing. --MartyD 00:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Same with this and this. Thanks for the nice clear notes! --MartyD 00:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MartyD. I looked at some of other records for this series and found both Granada and Panther. I went with Granada because the only mention of Panther was on the title page. Granada seems to have gone through a period where they emphasized the Granada brand and de-emphasized Panther. For the fourth book in the series "The Making of the Representative for Planet 8" there is no occurrence of "Panther"at all, while the fifth book is the first that states "Panther Books" on the copyright page. I'll follow your lead and use "Panther / Granada" for the fifth book, but use "Granada" for the fourth. I suspect that existing data may be quite dirty with respect to imprint vs publisher. I'll try to be more carefull going forward. It would be great if we had a reference of canonical usage, though I expect it would be a difficult thing to implement well, given that mergers and acquisitions may morph publishers into imprints. DStandsh 01:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"As stated on the title page" is our preferred source of information for titles, authors, and publishers. We're unfortunately not very consistent about canonical publisher names, and for some one really needs to know their history (which I most certainly do not). Sometimes there are notes on the publisher pages to help guide you. If in doubt, mention in the notes to the moderator or ask on ISFDB:Help_desk. Documenting what you see (as you did) is a huge help, both to moderators and to other editors. --MartyD 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MartyD. DStandsh 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Monk

Re this publication: Can you confirm the spelling of the preface? "Imatation"? Also, because it's not generic, it should not be disambiguated. It should also be varianted to the canonical author's name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. You are correct. It should be "Imitation". I will correct it, but before I do I want to be sure I understand your other concerns.
  • The content "Preface. Imatation of Horace (The Monk)" should be entered as "Preface. Imitation of Horace". The title doesn't need the disambiguation "(The Monk)" since it is distinct enough. If it was simply "Preface" then the disambiguation would be appropriate.
  • Similarly, the content "Advertisement (The Monk)" should be left as is. In this case the content "Advertisement" is generic (in modern usage this content would likely be "Aknowledgements").
Does this seem correct? DStandsh 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the current ISFDB practice. Disambiguate only when there's a possibility of an exact title being used again by the same author. Mhhutchins 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I am unclear as how author varianting works. I see that "Advertisement (The Monk)" shows as essay by Matthew Gregory Lewis [as by Matthew G. Lewis ]. I don't see why the same thing doesn't happen automatically with the preface content? DStandsh 16:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't happen automatically. It must be done manually. (Moderators tend to do this for new editors who eventually are asked to take over the task.) Ordinarily you would go to the title record, click on the "Make Variant" link, and replace the pseudonym with the canonical author's name in the bottom section of the form. I varianted "Advertisement" for you, but didn't variant the Preface for the reason you give below. Mhhutchins 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking deeper, I found that there already is a title "Preface: Imitation of Horace" [1]. I went with "Preface. Imitation of Horace" using a period rather than a colon because this is how it appears in the table of contents on page 9. If it hadn't been for the table of contents I would have used a colon, since the content is "Preface" with "Imitation of Horace" below. If I dug around more I would have found the existing title and followed it. I can change this, but is any special action required to merge this content with the existing title? DStandsh 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
When part of a title is considered a subtitle, either by placing it on a different line or in a different font face or size, it is ISFDB practice to indicate that with a colon. In this case, as you suspect, the titles can be merged. (We only use the table of contents as a last resort: when there is no title on the work's first page.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It just occurred to me. You can't merge the two preface titles because the author credits are different. You'll have to variant this record (after you've corrected the spelling and the formatting) to this one. Mhhutchins 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think "Preface: Imitation of Horace" is correct now. All that is left is to variant this record to this one. Is that right? DStandsh 23:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since both of those already have variants, this is going to take a couple more submissions to get right. I'll do that for you. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. DStandsh 01:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Submission for "Dime Store Magic"

I accepted your submission for updating the record for this publication, but I had to make several corrections. You should be aware of these changes, so that later submissions are easier to moderate. Specifically, I (i) Added the units to the price, changing "15.95" to "$15.95". Since this is an international database, you shouldn't assume prices are in US currency; (ii) You used regular "return" characters to separate lines of text in the notes, but web formatting ignores return characters, so your notes would have been smushed together into one single paragraph. If you go in and edit that record, you'll see how I used <ul> and </ul> around the notes, and <li> at the start of each line to create the line breaks you wanted, but in a more natural format. This format has become pretty standard on the site; (iii) I corrected your spelling of PHOTGRAPH (we all make spelling mistakes sometimes); (iv) I added a colon after "OCLC" to put it into what is the isfdb standard (although there are lots of other records that fail that standard, which you might have used as a reference). Finally, one change which I didn't make, but I'll ask you to check your book. You credit "ZENA HOOLOWAY" as one of the photographers. I'm pretty sure that should be Zena Holloway. Assuming that's correct, you should put Zena Holloway and Ryan McVay as the cover artists for the book. Chavey 21:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Chavey thank you for catching these. I was aware that currency is required and apologize for missing the dollar sign.
I will correct the spelling of Zena Holloway. Given that the two photographs appear to be from a stock image service (Getty Images) I do not think they should be credited with the cover art. Possibly Leah Springate could be attributed for combining those images to produce the cover image.
We generally put artists and photographers on the same level, so we tend to credit the photographers as quickly as the artists. I think if that was a painted image, we would credit the artist, so we should probably do so with the photographers. (But I'll admit to some bias here: My daughter-in-law is a professional photographer.) Usually we try to avoid crediting companies (such as Getty Images). We do credit the cover designer when it appears much of the "value" of the cover is because of what the designer has done with it. One example of that is this cover. This one is a "borderline" case, IMHO, and I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to credit Springate as well. Chavey 22:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Because the cover art appears to combine two photographs seamlessly, I left the artist field empty, leaving the notes to provide some attribution. I agree that this is an ambiguous case. I will add all three as artist for the cover. DStandsh 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
With regards to use of HTML markup, this appears unnecessary. See BKTG09526, for example. If you view the source of that record you will see that the notes have the following style <div class="notes">. In the underlying style sheet I find
/* for notes, preserve carriage returns */
div.notes {
white-space: pre-wrap;
}
This prevents the lines from joining together as long as explicit line breaks are used for the text. DStandsh 22:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Digging deeper, it appears using the Enter/Return key for line breaks is accepted practice, though in the past it was necessary Help:Using_HTML_in_Note_Fields . I understand the mess that would result in the absence of the applied CSS style.
I try to be careful, double or triple checking, but sometimes my eyes glaze over and I miss the obvious. It doesn't help that my current browser doesn't do spell checking. DStandsh 22:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The indentation and bullets still make it look better, even if the css is (now) preserving the returns (it didn't use to -- thanks for pointing that out to me).
Personally, I find the bullets distracting, though that may depend on browser rendering. If it won't cause dissension, I would prefer to continue as I have---keeping significant HTML for existing records but only using line breaks for predominately new entries. DStandsh 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a number line and Canadian price to you verified

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?38686[2].Don Erikson 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DStandsh 05:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

McQuinn's Warrior

I have put your submission on hold to add a new publication to this title. After you changed the cover image for the existing one both look fairly identical to me. Is there any difference I missed? Stonecreek 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Initially I was simply going to change the existing record. Then I noticed that my copy is printed in Canada, though the cover is printed in the US. I cloned the existing one becuase mine is printed in Canada. I continued with the image update on the original becase my copy's cover is printed in the US, and because the Amazon cover is obviously incrroect. The Amazon cover cites "Witch" which was written later. DStandsh 19:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, amazon is not always reliable, especially so when it comes to data from the pre-millennium. The problem is that we don't know what is stated in the publication already catalogued, since it was not primary verified. Isn't it possible that it also was printed in Canada? Stonecreek 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume the practice at that time was to print both in the US and Canada to avoid import duties. From the copyright page Published in the United States of America by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. DStandsh 20:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume the typesetting would be done in the US. Before printing, the "Printed in Canada" would be added. The "Printed in Canada" is in a different, or at least smaller, font. DStandsh 20:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
If there's clear evidence that there were two printings, one in the US and one in Canada, then creating two separate publication records would be fine. I suggest changing the price of the "Printed in Canada" record to Canadian dollars. This will avoid future editors from looking at the list of publications on the title record page, assuming that there's a duplicate record, and deleting one without realizing that one was printed in Canada. Mhhutchins 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there then the price in Canadian dollars stated in or on the book? It may also be possible that the whole run was printed in Canada. It fairly often is the case in Europe, where books are printed in one country but for a publication in another country (also in a different language). Stonecreek 05:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
We'd only know that if someone verifies the record "Printed in the USA". The submission states that there is both a US and Canadian price present on the "Printed in Canada" publication. Mhhutchins 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me get my copy... OK, it's the same (October 1991) printing and the same US/Canadian prices appear on the cover, but it says "Manufactured in the United States of America" on the copyright page.
Once DStandsh's submission has been approved, I will clone and verify my version. Ahasuerus 06:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Done so. Couldn't your copy be the one that's already there? Stonecreek 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahasuerus, I think your version would be the existing one BKTG11333, my submission is the clone. DStandsh 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
That's right, the US version was already there. It will teach me to post at 2am :) Ahasuerus 20:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhutchins, I have been following the template Template:PublicationFields:Price which states "books published in both the USA and Canada, only the USA price should be noted". I assume that in a complete world, we would always have two records for these simultaneous printings. Are you suggesting that the record for the printed in Canada versions should have the Canadian price as the primary price? DStandsh 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. And for the reason I gave. The US price for this "Printed in Canada" edition can be given in the Note field. The rule you cite is for books which have one printing which is marketed to both countries. Mhhutchins 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll update this Canadian edition, and follow that rule going forward for "Printed in Canada" editions. Thanks. DStandsh 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Prologues, etc.

Re this record: Prologues, chapters, parts, sections, epilogues, interludes, etc. are inseparable parts of a novel, so they should not be given a separate content record. Mhhutchins 23:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it seemed that the prologue has been pulled out of the novels and applied to the omnibus as a whole. The hardcover edition also had a content record for the prologue. If I have erred, I can remove the content record that I created. I use the "Remove Titles From This Pub" tool, correct? DStandsh 23:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But a note you added states that the prologue is from the standalone publication of the first novel. I notify the verifier of the other edition to get his rationale for creating a record for the prologue. Mhhutchins 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I had a copy of the standalone publication to compare against. In the context of the omnibus work it appears to be repurposed as a general prologue. Interestingly, the prologue from the second novel appears to have been removed for the omnibus edition.
Shall I remove the content record? DStandsh 23:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if you compared it with the prologue of the first novel and found them to be the same. Otherwise, wait until I've heard back from the editor who added it to another publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
While I didn't do a word for word comparison, I scanned the paragraph beginnings and endings. The only difference I noted was that the omnibus edition was missing one paragraph break. I assume that if I remove the prologue content record, then I should change the starting page of the first novel to vii, correct? DStandsh 00:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Remove the content, delete it from the database, and update the starting page of the first novel. This will take three separate submissions. Mhhutchins 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, Thank you for your patience on this. DStandsh 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Black Corridor / ...Una Persson

Re this record: If you're sourcing your data from the actual publication you should indicate that. You should also remove any previous source for data in an unverified record. Based as the data you added to this record, it appears that you're working from an actual copy, so please do a primary verification of the record, or a transient one if the book is only temporarily in your possession. Mhhutchins 23:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It seemed that someone had gone beyond the norm researching this pub. I will remove the previous unverified data.
Yes, I intend to do a verification. I think all my edits to date have been based on physical copies. DStandsh 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If you plan on PV'ing records after submissions to update, leave a message in the "Note to Moderator" field that you're working from a copy-in-hand. Otherwise, the moderator has no idea that your data is from a primary source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Will do. DStandsh 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If the price is obscured on the verified copy, then you should have left the note about the source of the price. Any time you're doing a primary verification and any information in any of the metadata fields is not present in your copy, you must note the secondary source. In this case the source for the price is Locus #232 (April 1980). Mhhutchins 00:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Acknowlegments

Re this publication record: We do not create content records for acknowledgments if it is no more than a list of "thank you"s. Is that not true in this case? Mhhutchins 23:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. The aknowledgments in this pub are bare bones. I included them only because they in the midst of the numbered pages. If they should not have content records, I'll remove them. I'll do the same for this pub, which is similar. DStandsh 23:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Please remove them and then delete the titles from the db. For ISFDB inclusion policy, please read this. Mhhutchins 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Done DStandsh 00:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Jade Enchantress

The cover image you linked to this record is for the US printing with a visible difference in the price. That's OK as long as you add a note that the verified copy has a different price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I've uploaded a new image and updated the pub. Now the different price, while a bit indistinct, is evident. DStandsh 02:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Stardust

I added a cover and Canadian price to this publication. TAWeiss 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Taweiss. DStandsh 05:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Path of the Hero

If the "Forward" [sic] you added to this publication is fictional, it's considered part of the novel and should be removed from the record and deleted from the database. If it's a nonfictional author foreword, then change the type to ESSAY. Thanks. 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Foreward is fictional. I thought there might be a possibility that the forward was used in more that this book, but I find no evidence of that. In retrospect, I suspect my approach might not be entirely correct even in that case. I will remove it from the record and delete it.
Should the core content starting page should be changed back to empty, or would "vii" be more correct? DStandsh


Don't bother answering, looks like we already covered this a couple months ago. DStandsh 01:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Under Heaven", by Guy Gavriel Kay

I added an Amazon cover image to your verified publication Chavey 06:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chavey, it's a match. DStandsh 01:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"Fire-Starter", by Stephen King

I added a cover image to your verified publication. I'm pretty sure this is the right cover (correct publisher, price, and artist), but I encourage you to compare it against your own copy. Chavey 09:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this pub uses the white version of the cover image. I'll upload the correct one. DStandsh 14:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Chavey 04:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Quartered Sea by Tanya Huff

I did a secondary verification of The Quartered Sea by Tanya Huff. Made one change: the copyright page says "Cover art by Jody Lee" so I changed the artist name to that. Minor reformatting of Notes as well. Updated cover link to more stable version. BungalowBarbara 05:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BungalowBarbara. DStandsh 02:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Coming of the Demons

The Amazon page about this work says February [3].--Auric 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. The verification copy only specifies 1982. I suspect the month detail was present before any edits I made. DStandsh 01:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Typo

Would you please double check this possible typo?

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've submitted a correction. DStandsh

Minor changes to The Wild Ways

Hi, I have expanded and reformatted the notes for The Wild Ways. Only actual addition is "Cover note: Title & author name embossed. Title in metallic copper ink." OK? BungalowBarbara 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That is accurate. Thank you. DStandsh 02:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Snow White and the Seven Samurai" by Tom Holt

I replaced the Amazon cover with a scanned image for this pub. Doug H 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doug H., a scanned image is better. The image matches the verification copy. DStandsh 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Fool's Fate

I uploaded a scan of the original Fool's Fate cover. The one on Amazon is for a later reprint. NrjPure 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The Amazon image must have drifted. Your scan matches the reference copy. DStandsh 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Midnight Blue-Light Special

Replaced the Amazon cover art for Midnight Blue-Light Special with a scan of my copy, also added the copyright statement. --AndyjMo 13:52, 25 July 2017 (EDT)

Thank you DStandsh 21:10, 3 August 2017 (EDT)

The Last Light of the Sun

Hi, I added the month of publication to that book. Stonecreek 12:21, 28 September 2017 (EDT)


Thank you DStandsh 20:41, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

Changes to Royal Assassin

Hi, I have made changes to Royal Assassin. Added 16 un-numbered pages at end of book with excerpt from Assassin's Quest. Added Canada price. Added Map to contents. Added note about metallic ink on cover. Moved LCCN to External Ids. BungalowBarbara 16:07, 22 November 2017 (EST)

thank you DStandsh 19:52, 22 November 2017 (EST)

Changes to Fool's Fate

Hi, I've made some additions to the paperback edition of Fool's Fate. Added the map to the contents. Added quite a lot of information to the Notes, including appearance of cover, information on title and copyright page. BungalowBarbara 16:14, 10 March 2018 (EST)

Thank you DStandsh 20:40, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Blind Waves

I added a couple of notes to your verified pub Blind Waves. Bob 21:34, 27 January 2020 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:DStandsh&oldid=573346"