Notice: Sometimes I am gone from ISFDB for months, so please don't take it personally if I seem to ignore your message. If you require an answer I will respond as soon as I come back, usually on your own talk page if more than a few days have elapsed since you left the message, since I assume that your endurance for checking my talk page will run out after a week or so :-) Thank you, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Updated Riftwar maps conversation
The Great Book of Amber
Sirius: A Fantasy of Love and Discord
Hi, I've found a scan for Sirius: A Fantasy of Love and Discord (Penguin, 1964). It is not of very high quality, so when you have a better scan, please feel free to replace it.--Dirk P Broer 10:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to your cover scan I noticed that my copy of the book has a different price than the pub record you updated. I'm going to clone the pub and un-verify the original.
In the Problem Pit
- Another good find, thanks. I also updated the artist record with the website from the pub notes. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Nebula Awards 10
DAW Collectors publication series
In filling out the DAW Collectors Books publication series, I have a question about a book that you verified. C. J. Cherryh's The Faded Sun, 21st printing, has a note with the "DAW Collector's Number". Since many reprint editions didn't actually list this number, I was hoping you could tell me whether this note was "inherited" from other editions of the book, or whether it actually appears on this edition of the book, and if so, where -- e.g. on the cover, the spine, or the copyright page. Thanks much, Chavey 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Appendix IV: The Almanak en-Ashraf (Dune)
I think the title as given in some records (The Almanaken-Ashraf) is an error, and has been perpetuated by cloning. Before making the content record in your verified pub into a variant, I would suggest first asking those editors who have verified the other title to re-check their copies. I'll hold the submission until you've had a chance to do this. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I have dropped corresponding notes to AndonSage and Nimravus, I hope the latter will become active again in a few days. BTW: DESiegel60 has not answered a similar request that I wrote in May 2011 - do you know whether this particular editor has definitely left the project? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- He's in and out. His last contributions were in July 2012, but he seemed to have missed your message. (You can click on "User Contributions" to see when they last time they edited the wiki.) I'm going to go ahead and merge the titles under the names in your copy. Hopefully, they'll confirm this if they ever respond. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
LOA ed. of Kurt Vonnegut
I accepted the submission to create this record and removed the other titles. But a question: the book is credited to "Kurt Vonnegut", but the contents are credited to "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." Ordinarily they would match. Do the contents give individual credit on their title pages that is different than the book's title page? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- You are right, of course, it should always be "Kurt Vonnegut". "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." only appears on the copyright page. I will fix this ASAP. Thanks for catching me, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Brooks' The Tangle Box
You attribute cover art credit for this record to a record which is also uncredited. I would suggest giving the source as just Locus1 (don't link to it in the notes, that database has floating anchors.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Pub record has been updated. Thanks for the hint regarding Locus1, I should really try to use it more... Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! by Harry Harrison
- You're right of course, I meant to enter the number with brackets. Once again, thanks for the catch! Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Also you should add the unnumbered pages to the page count field, e.g. "367+". And do the same with this record, this one, and this one. (I'm assuming that the excerpts appear on unnumbered pages.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I must say, though, that I have never done this before in any other book that I verified. I only use the "+" notation to record Roman numeral pages. I just had a look at the EditPub help page where it says "you may", so I hope my guilt is not too severe... Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't add "excerpts" (read: advertisements, IMO), then there's no need to add the extra pages to a record. (That's the optional part). But if you create content records for these promotional pieces on unnumbered pages, you should indicate those pages as well in the record's page count field. Otherwise a user might think you've added them already to the record. By bracketing the numbers, you're telling the db user that there are unnumbered pages in the book for which you've created content records. (Don't do this for real advertising, only for these teasers.) Mhhutchins 20:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The Hands of Choas
- It's on an unnumbered page, I have updated the pub record. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Smith's The Rediscovery of Man
- As of late, it seems I have become a bit of a fast typer :-( Anyway, it's corrected now. BTW, I would have caught this myself since I always have another look at a new pub record after the submission is accepted, and a wrong ISBN is clearly marked up. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A question about the page numbering of the Timeline: bracketing usually indicates that the work appears on unnumbered pages within a range of unnumbered pages. If the range of pages on which the work appears is roman-numeraled, you don't add brackets to the page number, regardless of whether there is an actual roman numeral on the page. For example, if a work appears immediately after page "v", you can interpolate that the page number is "vi" and enter that into the record. Just as you would if a story appears on an unnumbered page within the body of the book but whose number can be derived by counting forward (or backward) from the nearest numbered page. Hope this makes sense. Mhhutchins 02:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that your reasoning applies here (see the next paragraph), but since it's such a minor detail I don't want to argue too long over this concrete case and simply have fixed the pub record to not use brackets, explaining the situation with a pub note (pub notes are such a life saver :-)).
- So why am I not convinced? First of all, the EditPub help screen (my rule goddess :-)) says quite clearly that one should use brackets whenever the page is not actually numbered. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me to not use brackets for unnumbered pages that are "sandwiched" between numbered pages. I am getting real fuzzy, though, when it comes to unnumbered pages that appear before or after a range of numbered pages. I prefer to use brackets when the unnumbered page is in the introductory section of a book (the Timeline case we are discussing above), but when the unnumbered page appears right after the main text I have been known not to use brackets. Remembering my rule goddess, I usually go for brackets. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I've approved your cloning, it seems that the artist is "Leonard" see on the right wing of the beast. Hauck 11:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fix is in the queue, thank you very much. I know that I need a better light on my desk. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Malacia Tapestry
Based on your notes, the author credit of this record should be corrected. The pub will also have to be unmerged from its title record and then the new title record should be made into a variant of the original title record. Let me know if you need instructions on how this is done. Mhhutchins 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although this is my first unmerge, I believe I will manage by just following the help pages. I hope it's OK to submit the unmerge while the pub record change is still pending. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- If it's another submission to update the same pub record, you have to wait until a queued submission has been handled. In this case, unmerging a pub from a title record has no effect on any pending updates to the pub record. Mhhutchins 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's no conflict, because one submission involves the publication record, the other one involves the title record. So it doesn't matter which order you make the submissions or which order they are approved by the moderator. Now if two submissions involve the same title record or the same publication record, there may be a conflict. Mhhutchins 01:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note to self: I pinged Michael on his talk page because it's been such a long time since he asked the question. It seems that the printing number is OK. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Yiddish Policemen's Union", by Michael Chabon
You verified a third printing of this book. Since then, the link to the cover image appears to have broken. I replaced it with another likely candidate for the cover image. However, Amazon also has a slightly different version of this book cover. If you have the chance, please look at this and see which cover is the one that belongs with your book. Thanks, Chavey 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the broken link. However, neither of the two images (the one you link to, and the one currently on the pub record) is the correct one. The cover on my book has the headline "NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER" and sports a badge in the lower-right corner with the text "BONUS MATERIAL INCLUDED". Luckily I found the correct image on images.amazon.com and updated the pub record accordingly. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- We have found that Amazon image files with "LZZZZZZZ" in the URL are not stable, so I rejected the submission to link it. I was able to find one which appears to match the image you describe and linked it to the record. Is it correct? Mhhutchins 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the correct cover, thanks. Thanks also for the information about unstable "LZZZZZZZ" URLs, I will refrain from using those in the future. I would like to point out, though, that the EditPub help page still mentions "LZZZZZZZ" URLs. Since submissions with such URLs are now rejected, wouldn't it be advisable to also change the help page to point out that "LZZZZZZZ" URLs shouldn't be used at all? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm not on ISFDB much so sorry about my slowness in responding. It's been years since I've been active in editing the ISFDB and I no longer remember much about the mechanics. I looked through your notes on my talk page and would suggest you go ahead with whatever is best in your judgement. I have no memory of the verification I did -- sorry. Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note to self: Mike's pub record seems to be gone after 1.5 years, so there's no point in editing that anymore. Regarding the issue of whether Chris Moore or Jim Burns is the cover artist: After extensive googling I now believe that Chris Moore is the actual artist and that my original conclusion - namely that the publisher corrected a mistake when they changed the cover art attribution to Jim Burns in a later printing - was wrong. I updated my own pub record accordingly. Ron's pub record already has the correct information in its pub notes. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 07:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Witch Fantastic cover
I have been asked to start a discussion as to whether or not J. R. R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion should be considered a collection or a novel with multiple parts. I haven't read this book, I just listed a French translation of this book on this site. Still, it looks like a collection to me. Please enter this discussion here and weigh in on the subject. MLB 21:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- In the meantime, the discussion has been archived here. The discussion was short, and apparently did not lead to any action, since the title and all publications are still NOVELs. I believe that the discussion was worthwile and the Silmarillion should indeed be changed into a collection (external link to my thoughts, it's in the "COLLECTION or NOVEL?" part of the TODO list), therefore I will probably bring up the subject again, but later™, when I actually have the time to turn any decisions made into real action. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
A Romance of the Equator
Complete Stories of Ambrose Bierce
Can you confirm that there is an ISBN-13 stated in this 1984 publication? If not, please update the record, changing the ISBN to the one stated there. If so, then the publication date given in the record is incorrect. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 02:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- The book indeed has an ISBN-13. I removed the publication date from the record and added a note. The record also had an ISBN-9, so I changed that back to the ISBN-13. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Pohl & Kornbluth's The Space Merchants
If your copy of this publication has a stated ISBN-13, it can not have been published in 2003 (the ISBN-13 didn't go into effect until 2005). I would suggest zeroing out the date to indicate that the record is not dated (publishers often give the date of the first printing, and use a number line to indicate subsequent printings without giving the printing date.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've made the changes that Michael suggested and expanded the existing note about the date. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- The cover image currently on the pub record does not match my book. The current cover image contains the vertically written word "MASTERWORKS" below the "SF" badge in the upper-left corner. My copy of the book does not have "MASTERWORKS", it only has the "SF" badge. Discussion taken to Pete's talk page. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 07:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Cover art for Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed
- Thanks for the note, I've updated the pub record for my printing accordingly. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 07:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I Am Legend
I have moved your verified 2010 edition from the 'Millennium/Gollancz SF Masterworks' series to the correct 'Gollancz SF Masterworks (II)' series. Only the Masterworks (II) edition contains the Introduction and Afterword. Thanks. PeteYoung 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're the expert, I wouldn't know where to double-check this :-). Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 08:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Mammoth Book of Science Fiction
Lord of Light
The Blue World
- I've also replaced the cover with an Amazon image – the cover in the database omitted the word "The" from the title. PeteYoung 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Credit on "Under the Pyramids" in The Thing on the Doorstep
Hi. In your verified 10th printing of The Thing on the Doorstep, how is "Under the Pyramids" credited? An editor with a different edition discovered it credited there having "with Harry Houdini" on the story's title page. I'm trying to separate the variations of that title where it's credited just to Houdini, just to Lovecraft, or jointly to the two of them. Thanks. --MartyD 12:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The title page 53 says "(with Harry Houdini)" below the story title. In the "Explanatory Notes" essay at the end of the book there is a whole section dedicated to the story where it says:
There is more anecdotic detail about how the story was written, but I'm sparing you that :-). Let me know if you need more information, I should be around for the next few weeks. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"Under the Pyramids" was ghostwritten for the Hungarian-born magician Harry Houdini [...] in February 1924. It was first published (as "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs" in Weird Tales (May-June-July 1924) and reprinted in Weird Tales (June-July 1939).
- Ok, thanks. Then I am going to change this when I get a chance to be the variant dually credited, instead of just being credited to Lovecraft. --MartyD 03:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I even had the chance, so done. Thanks again for checking on it. --MartyD 03:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Price on The New Adam
I added the Canadian price to your verified
- Note to self: No Canadian price is on the book, but the pub record does not contain a Canadian price either, so there is not really an issue. Discussion taken to Don's talk page. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 09:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the Amazon image with a better cover scan, added overseas prices to the notes for your verified, and removed “price from Tuck”, which seemed unnecessary for a PVed. Thanks. Linguist 10:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC).
- Verified that the image matches. The prices I cannot verify because on my book they have been obscured (probably by the second-hand dealer I bought the book from) and are illegible. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 09:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct as far as my copy goes - I failed to spot that when verifying to my shame. Mine is clearly stated as "Panther edition published 1967" but could we have an unstated later printing than ApeMind and Herzbube? Prof beard 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think I read somewhere on this site (where ?) that Panther books usually state reprints. IMHO, I think the 1967 Analog Two record started as a clone of Analog One, but the price wasn't corrected. Couldn't the difference in length (218 p. against 169) account for the difference in price ? Linguist 13:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
- I cannot verify any prices because on my book they have been obscured (probably by the second-hand dealer I bought the book from) and are illegible. When I did my verification, I probably assumed that the price information on the pub record came from ApeMind, the editor who did the first primary verification. Anyway, I agree with Linguist that Panther books usually state reprints (from personal experience, but I don't recall any official source for the information). For instance, this pub record is an extreme example with a large printing history, but also the second printing of "Analog One" can be clearly distinguished from the first printing by the reprint statement. To sum this up: I believe we all have the same book, and if you see 5/- as the price, that's the correct information that should be in the pub record. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 09:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for responding ! Linguist 09:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 1
The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 7
I Am Legend
Star Light, Star Bright
- Verified that the image matches. The pub notes are also OK, but I can't verify the prices because *sigh* once more my book has a second-hand dealer price sticker covering them. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Dancers at the End of Time
I've recently added the 9th printing of the SF Masterworks (II) edition Moorcock's The Dancers at the End of Time. You may wish to use the cover image file for your 8th printing, however pay attention to the oddities about this 9th printing cover which I've detailed in the note: it may or may not precisely match the cover for your 8th printing. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- The "SF MASTERWORKS" logo is indeed differently placed on my 8th printing (closer to the spine). So thanks for the offer, but I will provide my own cover scan that matches my verified copy exactly. I hope I'll soon™ get around to do the scanning... Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Stars in My Pocket
Re the submission to update this record: This is the record for the first printing. You should have cloned the record to create a new one for your copy of the second printing. I'll do that for you and then transfer the notes you've added. You'll have to move your verification to the new record which I will link here once it's been done. Please keep in mind that unless specified, it is assumed that records are for the first printing, or the one which is specified by the publication date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the record I created for the second printing, based on the Notes you added in your rejected submission. Please remove the PV of the first printing's record and then PV this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. But I'm slightly confused: The record of the first printing has 1986-06-00 as the pub date. I double-checked with Locus (external link) where they list the book using 2 dates, like this:
I understood this to mean: May '86 = First printing, Jun '86 = Second printing. From there it was clear that I had the pub record for the second printing. So did I read Locus wrong? Can you explain what the bracketed date means? Thanks for your help, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Jun ’86 [May ’86]
- Locus lists the stated publication date first, and then the date they received a copy of the book in brackets. So the book was published in June 1986, but a copy was seen in May 1986. You'll find this format used throughout the Locus database (Just look at the listings for Delany and you'll find dozens of uses of this format. Why would they have listings for second printings and not firsts?) There is nothing on their website which explains this standard, but something a longtime user would understand. (I can see how this would confuse new users.) Based on the statement in your copy of the second printing, there is no stated month of publication, just the year. That's why I changed the ISFDB record to match the statement. If you find a reliable secondary source which provides the month of publication of the second printing, you can update the record and provide the source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Dating a publication based on advertising
I agree wholeheartedly that estimating a book's publication date based on advertising is a tricky matter. I try to discourage new editors from doing so, but there are some moderators who have a more lenient approach to such matters. Thanks for being conscientious. Mhhutchins 15:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If the SBN is the source for deriving an unstated ISBN which was recorded into the ISBN/Catalog # field, then you should note that. If there is a full ISBN printed elsewhere on the publication, then it is optional to record the SBN in the ISFDB record. Mhhutchins 19:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I just updated "Natives of Space", and I will do the same with "Cycle of Fire" as soon as the record comes out of the submission queue. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me like your proposed clone of Babel-17 is a duplicate of this. I see we have a fourth printing with the same ISBN and price, where the editor recorded "fourth impression", so I assume no indication of printing would be the first one. Do you think your copy is different from that one? Thanks. --MartyD 11:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, I forgot that Gollancz usually adds a numberline (I double-checked a couple of other books I have from the (first) SF Masterworks series and they do have number lines). So, yes, I think I indeed have a copy of that first printing, at least I can see no difference. I will cancel my submission and update the other pub. Thanks for spotting this, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's doubtful that your 12th printing has contents that have titles which differ from the earlier Ace printings. They probably all just cloned a record already in the database without looking at the titles, and the original record probably used the contents page instead of the title pages to enter the individual essay titles. I would suggest asking the other verifiers to confirm that their printings aren't probably the same. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I went ahead and accepted your submissions to create variants, but it may turn out that all the titles are the same, once the other verifiers check their copies. Mhhutchins 21:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for accepting the submissions. The verifiers of the other printings should have an easier time now that they can take a look at one publication that has already been "massaged" into shape. Just as a side-note: I have also spotted inconsistencies surrounding the "Pandora's Box" essay (title record) that I intend to clean up. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 09:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation of generic-only titles
- Thanks for merging. I would not haved dared do this myself without first checking with another editor (here's my request). Was I over-cautious? How did you know that the two title records referred to the same essay? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Same author, same title, same year of publication. Just guessed it was the same essay. Who knows, I could be wrong. Mhhutchins 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the foreword: You are right, I have the one co-credited to Kubrick. Will do the merge in a minute. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
2010: Odyssey Two
I accepted the submission adding a new note to this publication record, but have a concern. If there is an ISBN-13 present in the publication, you should update the ISBN in the record. BUT...are you certain that's an ISBN-13? Before 2007 it was common to use the EAN which was a precursor of the ISBN-13 (see this Wikipedia article to understand about EANs.) If it isn't explicitly stated as "ISBN 978-0-586-05699-8" above the barcode (which may have a number below the barcode like "9 780586 056998") then it's probably the EAN. If it does explicitly give it as the ISBN-13, then update the ISBN field of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. I knew about the EAN from household shopping, but not that it was used for books as well. Anyway, I had another look at the back cover, and it really has the 13-digit ISBN. Will update the pub record in a minute. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- You may be interested in this article concerning the co-opting of the EAN by "Bookland". When books started adding a barcode based on the EAN, there was no relationship between the EAN and the ISBN. The EAN prefixes "978" and "977" have been designated exclusively for books. Mhhutchins 20:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Importing contents to avoid duplicate titles that require merging
Re this publication record: It would have been better to import the contents from another printing of the trilogy and you would have saved time by not having to enter the new contents and not having to merge the duplicate records. Keep that in mind when updating a record for an omnibus, collection, or anthology which already has another record with the contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, I had forgotten about this function (have never used it before). Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course you are right, the title page has "Ursula Le Guin". My natural reaction was "let's create a variant title", but I am hesitating because I notice that's not what you did for this pub that you verified. Is there some mystic taboo surrounding the title that forbids creating variants (similar to this Help Desk question)? I would find this very irritating because for many other Le Guin titles we do have variant titles. Confused, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Jumping in here because I've got one of the other Masterworks editions of this title which Pete also brought to my attention. The answer to the help desk question refers to how we treat subtitles only. In this case, aside for the missing subtitle from the original there is a difference in the author's name, which always requires a variant relationship. I already made the changes to my copy creating this new variant title. Aside from your copy, I believe that this publication which has been transient verified by Pete as well as his copy mentioned above should all be unmerged from the "Ursula K. Le Guin" title and merged instead with the "Ursula Le Guin" one. In any case before doing that with your copy, you'll need to adjust the name in your publication record, or the unmerge won't create the new title correctly.
- If both you and Pete agree, I'll let you or Pete do the unmerge and remerge. Or, I can do it if you'd both prefer. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification regarding variants and subtitle handling. Although I don't know the reason why subtitles are treated specially, it's at least a general rule that can be followed. The only remaining problem is that one needs to be told about the rule, because it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the help pages (e.g. Help:Screen:MakeVariant or Help:Screen:EditPub).
- Back to the issue at hand: Thanks for the offer, but I would like to do this myself. It has been a long time since I last used the unmerge tool, so I would welcome the practice. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well done all… please unmerge away! PeteYoung 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Bishop's No Enemy But Time
- The book certainly does not say anything about the month (I doublechecked). I guess the month was already there when I verified the pub record - at least that's what the pub notes say. I am always wary of removing data that is in the database, and in 2009 there was no "Note to moderator" field for submissions, so I was probably just afraid of getting a rejection if I removed the month. I have made a submission that fixes the error and revises the pub notes. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Patrick. Feel free to make changes as necessary to unverified records. If you're working from the book itself, you ARE the authority and a moderator will probably only question changes that appear unusual. Mhhutchins 00:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I accepted the submission updating this record even though it changed the ISBN-10 to an ISBN-13. Are you certain your copy has an ISBN-13? If so, you have a later printing, post-2005. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am certain. The way how the ISBN is printed is different from how volume 2 shows the EAN. It's a real ISBN where the check digit is correct, and the ISBN-13 also appears on the copyright page. So yes, I must have a later printing. Thanks for catching me - again. I have made a clone submission. As soon as this is accepted, I will revert my changes to the first printing publication. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Scarecrow editions of The Road to Science Fiction
Do these editions omit the introductory essays Gunn wrote for the original paperback editions? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The introductions are included, although with the generic title "Introduction". I will fix these entries, along with many other errors that are currently in our database (stories that are in my books but are missing from the pub records; stories that are in the pub records but not in my books; different author credits; variant titles, etc). Here's an outline of my plans for the editing process:
- I have started the correction process by first adding page numbers and notes to the pub records. This is what you have seen so far.
- I did not want to do too much in one edit because of the numerous changes required. Maybe I should have explained that in the notes to moderator field.
- Next I am going to modify the pub record contents. This will take me another day or two to finish, as I currently don't have as much time on hand as in the last two weeks.
- I will try to keep the number of edits low, but please have patience if it is not the absolute minimum. I believe that sometimes it's better to spread out changes over several edits, to minimize the chance of getting confused. I'm applying a similar principle here as I do when I am developing software.
- I hope this plan is OK with you. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perfectly fine. Please proceed at your own pace. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"Introduction (The Road to Science Fiction: Volume I: From Gilgamesh to Wells)" variant
Hi. Your new variant submission of Introduction (The Road to Science Fiction: Volume I: From Gilgamesh to Wells), which I have on hold, looks like it is creating an identical title. Did you mean to try to make it a variant of this and perhaps push the wrong button? Thanks. --MartyD 12:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oops, looks like I pushed "Create new parent title" instead of "Link to existing parent". Thanks for catching this. Let me try again... Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Variants to excerpts in The Road to Science Fiction
I don't think it's a good idea to variant the titles in your copy until the outcome of the discussion on the help page. It could very well turn out that the original edition has the same titles as yours (which seems quite likely.) Then it would mean just a matter of updating the titles instead of having to unvariant all of these. What do you think? Mhhutchins 21:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that's fine with me. The main thing was to finish the business on my end so that I can put the books back on the shelve. Unless it's irritating you or the other moderators to see a non-empty queue, could you please hold the submissions for a few days until a decision is reached? It would be nice if I wouldn't have to redo the work in case it turns out that varianting is necessary after all. [That was a sentence with a lot of conditionals, I hope my grammar wasn't too far off ☺] Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the other moderators' concern about a "non-empty" queue. Many of them never even look it, much less care if there's any submissions in it. :) I'll keep them on hold until the outcome of the discussions. I should have made it clearer that it would have been best to hold off making the variants until it's been discussed. Mhhutchins 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that a consensus is forming to change the titles to match yours, with one voicing the opinion that the "(excerpt)" disambiguation is redundant if the work is titled "From ...". I see his point, since we only add "(excerpt)" if the title of the excerpt is identical to the title of the work from which it is excepted. I will reject the held submissions, and when the others have updated their records, we'll merge them with your titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Tales of the Dying Earth
Re this publication record: I'm uncertain why you've added brackets around the page numbers. Is the whole book unpaginated? Brackets should only be used for unnnumbered pages within a range of unnumbered pages. Once a book's pagination starts, you count forward or backward to the closest numbered page to determine the page numbers of unnumbered ones, and they're entered without brackets. More than half of all book designers choose not to give page numbers on a content's title page (for aesthetic reasons, I suppose). Pull a few anthologies and collections off the shelf and check them out. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've approved two submissions of this kind (now reverted) before noticing something strange. Hauck 17:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
And [225437 this one]. Mhhutchins 16:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Michael, you are saying
Brackets should only be used for unnnumbered pages within a range of unnumbered pages. Once a book's pagination starts, you count forward or backward to the closest numbered page to determine the page numbers of unnumbered ones, and they're entered without brackets.
- I like this rule, but this is the first time that I have heard about it! Here is a quote (emphasis mine) with the rule from Template:PubContentFields:Page on which I have based my data entry:
[##] Any page for which a number is derived by counting, possibly from a previously or subsequently numbered page, but the page carries no actual page number, should be listed in [brackets].
- I have been "doing it" :-) quite a few times in the past few years, and so far nobody has ever complained. I believe I usually did it in cases where several unpaginated pages in a row occurred, i.e. in situations where it was really noticeable that page numbers are missing (e.g. omnibuses like the ones I entered today). In situations where there was only a single page without a page number (e.g. anthologies) I usually bent the rule. Anyway, here are three consequences:
- I will never do it again :-)
- I will fix the mistake in those pub records that I have verified (will take some time)
- I write a proposal for an addition to the template text that clarifies the situation (will have to wait one or two days)
- Agreed? Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. I'll make the correction in that help section. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Dancers at the End of Time
Re this publication: Does An Alien Heat start on the first page of a range of unnumbered pages, which are not part of the range of numbered pages that constitute the bulk of the publication? Mhhutchins 22:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Content of the publication that I have verified:
- Front cover
- Inside front cover (I believe this is called the "front end paper", right?)
- First unnumbered page "Critical acclaim for Michael Moorcock"
- Second unnumbered page: "Also by Michael Moorcock"
- Third unnumbered page: Title page
- Fourth unnumbered page: Copyright page
- Fifth + sixth unnumbered pages: The "Prologue" content item
- Seventh unnumbered page: Title page for "An Alien Heat"
- Eightth - twelfth unnumbered pages: Some more pages belonging to "An Alien Heat"
- The first numbered page, page 7: Beginning of prologue chapter of "An Alien Heat"
- On re-reading (very carefully) the rules as they now appear in Template:PubContentFields:Page, I see two possible ways how to record this:
- If I follow the rule for the special designation "[##]", I can record "" for the "Prologue", and  for "An Alien Heat".
- If I follow the rule for the special designation "bp", I can record "bp" for both the "Prologue" and for "An Alien Heat"
- Please let me know if this time I got it right, and I will amend the pub record. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- In my defense: I am really trying hard to follow the rules. However, I played some sort of mind-trick on myself where I mis-read the "bp" rule addendum "(although generally you can derive the page number and enter it in brackets)" to mean that I should derive the page number by handcounting backwards - that's how I arrived at . Upon carefully re-reading everything, I now realize that "you can derive the page number" actually refers to the definition of how to derive page numbers under the "[##]" rule. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- That method is also used for "unnumbered pages" in a range of numbered pages (see the first bullet of the rules.) Counting backward from the first numbered page ("7"), the page you designated as the "seventh unnumbered page" would be considered page "1". So Alien Heat should be entered as starting on page "1". Any record for content before that page is entered as being within a range of unnumbered pages. So the "Prologue" would be numbered as "". Alternately, the rules allow an editor to use "bp" (before pagination) for all content before page 1. Just because there isn't a printed number on page 1 doesn't mean it's part of the range of unnumbered pages. The "page number can be derived from the nearest numbered page" rule is in effect here. Mhhutchins 19:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I have tried to illustrate all this with some pseudo-graphical diagrams (link to wiki page). In the meantime, I have fixed the "Dancers at the End of Time" pub record, but I am waiting with fixing other pub records until I get some feedback from my proposal on the "Rules and standards discussion" page. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Replaced the Amazon image of Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell with one I scanned. You are listed as Primary2 reference. I also noted the Canadian price. Doug 15:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Rejects of variant submissions
I rejected the three submissions that created variants because all three titles already existed in the database. It's possible that some of the pubs had different translations and that will have to be sorted out, but the three translations in this publication are reprints of previously published translations and have title records. Mhhutchins 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you notice that the variants I tried to create were using different spellings of the author name? Specifically:
- This title uses the author name "Stanislaw Lem", but in the "Road to SF" pub it appears as by "Stanisław Lem" (note the l vs. ł)
- This title uses the author name "Jorge Luís Borges", but in the "Road to SF" pub it appears as by "Jorge Luis Borges" (note the í vs. i)
- This title uses the author name "Kobo Abe", but in the "Road to SF" pub it appears as by "Kobo Abē" (note the e vs. ē)
- The database currently has no variants under these author names. As far as I know we always create variants for differently spelled author names. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Differently spelled, yes. But these are essentially the same. We don't make pseudonyms or variants based on accented letters. You won't find any records by "Jorge Luis Borges" in the db. They're all by "Jorge Luís Borges", regardless of how the name appears in a publication. (Just as you won't find any records in the db for "Philip Jose Farmer" although it's very likely that there have been many publications without the accented "e".) "Abē" appears to be the same situation, but without going through each of the actual publications represented in the database, we can't know which use that form of the letter "e".
- The variation for "Stanisław" however is relatively recent. An editor familiar with Polish determined that the character "ł" is sufficiently different from the Latin letter "l", so the change was made. But there's no telling how many works in the database were entered using "l" instead of "ł" because very few English-only editors know how to enter that character on a standard keyboard. If you want to add a variation under this name, please remove the existing one in the publication record, add a new one (credited to "Stanisław"), and then variant it. Making the variant first creates a publess title record, and there are clean-up reports that find such titles and editors delete them from the database.
- It's quite possible that we need to start a discussion about whether the difference requires the creation of variants and pseudonyms. The ability to use non-Latin characters is quite recent, and some rules may need to be established. Feel free to post a topic on the Rules & Standards discussion page to get a wider range of opinions on the matter. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
In this publication, it would be a good idea to change the interview with John Huston to an ESSAY. If you look at the link from Huston's name to his summary page, you'll find no publications. The best way to handle these publess "authors" is the conversion of the record from INTERVIEW to ESSAY. Since you can't do a direct edit to an INTERVIEW record, it will have to be removed from the record, deleted, and an ESSAY record added to the publication record. I'm not sure if this policy is explained in the help pages, but when I get a chance I'll bring it up on the Rules & Standards discussion page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can certainly do what you ask, but before I do I would appreciate it if you could explain the reasoning behind the policy. Probably the best place to do this would be on Rules & Standards so that others can also benefit from the explanation. The things that puzzle me:
- The database has genuine support for recording interviews, i.e. an interviewer-interviewee relationship. Therefore I would have imagined that recording accurate information by making use of that DB capability is much more important than preventing the odd non-spec-fic related author to appear in the database. Why is it so important that we have no publess authors?
- What happens if after a while it turns out that we need to add some titles for an author that we originally thought was not spec-fic related? If we followed the policy we would have to go back and turn ESSAY titles back to INTERVIEW - something that I believe is unlikely to happen, since by creating ESSAY titles we lost the interviewee information except in unstructured pub/title notes. Just as an example: Who would have thought that Woody Allen is a spec-fic related author, and yet at some point a couple of entries were made for him.
- Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 15:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but would you not agree that summary bibliography pages for publess authors look rather strange? How would a typical database user encountering this page react? And since John Huston has shuffled off his mortal coil, it's not likely that we'll ever get a spec-fic related publication out of him. Adding the word "interview" in the Note field of the ESSAY-typed record will easily pull out any that would later need to be converted to true INTERVIEW records. This one, for example. Just as we don't create REVIEW records in spec-fic publications for non-eligible titles (like films, non-genre books, etc.) but enter them as ESSAYs, the same approach would be just as reasonable for interviews of non-spec-fic related persons which appear in spec-fic publications. Mhhutchins 22:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are right in that Huston's author page looks empty, but I do not agree with the conclusion that because of this we must sacrifice database accuracy by not letting him enter the database. The solution in my opinion clearly lies in modifying the source code that generates the author page. Software solutions that I know generally show a prominent notice in place of the content that is usually expected. For instance, we could display the placeholder notice "This author has no publications.", with enlarged font or whatever is necessary to make it look good. In other words, I find this to be a presentational issue which should not 1) influence the way how we record data; and 2) create yet another rule that editors have to remember.
- That being said, I agree that finding interview ESSAY titles and converting them back to INTERVIEW is feasible the way how you describe it. What I am not so sure of is whether people will actually do this when the time comes to create a new author. But I guess we can add some automated moderator script that tracks down records that have "Interview" in the Note field.
- Just my 2 cents. And thanks for the Shakespeare :-) Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not the fact that the author's summary page is empty. There's more than a matter of aesthetics at play here. Why should a database devoted to speculative fiction have a summary page for a film director, actor, scientist, author, etc. who have no spec-fic connections? That's the fundamental reason why REVIEWs and INTERVIEWs of these people should be entered as ESSAYs. As for "database accuracy", it's undeniable that these reviews and interviews are still essays. So there's no sacrifice in db integrity to record them as such. If anyone comes here looking for Alfred Bester's interview with John Huston (a infinitesimal possibility, I suppose), it will be easily found on Bester's summary page under essays. Who (admittedly, an even more infinitesimal possibility) would search for a summary page for John Huston to find Bester's piece? As for what editors will do, you never know. Being a voluntary project, one never knows what another editor might do. Maybe an editor will take it on. I'm going to go through all ESSAY-typed records with "interview" in the title to make sure that it's also in the Note field. At least that's a good start. (A quick search found about 150 such records in the database.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Michael Moorcock Collection is not a title series
About this "series": It looks like a publication series and not a title series. (Rule of thumb: if this exact publication was reprinted by another publisher would it still remain in the same title series? If the answer is no, then it's a publication series.) It appears to be another (fourth or fifth) repackaging of titles in the Elric series, and not a new title series. Since you have a verified record in the series are you up to making the corrections and moving the pub records to a new publication series? Mhhutchins 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know who created the title series, but I already concluded that it wouldn't be the right thing for the entire "Michael Moorcock Collection", so that's why I started adding to the publication series. So to answer your first question: Yes, I think I am up to the task. It seems to me that working with title or pub series is not that difficult - the whole interior art stuff gives me much more headaches. Anyway, please give me a few more days before I destroy the title series, I'd like to verify the remaining 4 pub records series first (I have all the books).
- Regarding the "Elric: The Fortress of the Pearl" pub record: I just added some more content, but all of those items are essays of one sort or another. So I guess you are right, this is probably not a collection, and I have made a corresponding submission to change the pub type to NOVEL. Thanks for catching this. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There
- I found the correct ISBN on OCLC. Please see if that number matches your copy. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I always forget to check the pub type :-( I will make the change tomorrow, but first some sleep... Thanks for the reminder, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The Zenith Letter
- Argh, I know I know I know... why didn't I fix that date myself?! Sometimes I have this terrible reluctance to overwrite someone else's data... Thanks for making the edit, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, it's better than being too willing to overwrite other people's data! :-) Ahasuerus 19:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Elric von Melniboné: Die Sage vom Ende der Zeit
I just comapared my 4th printing of Elric von Melniboné: Die Sage vom Ende der Zeit with your record for the first printing and it seems like the INTERIORART of your first printing is distributed accross completely different pages. Also it seems like my edition has a lot more images than yours. Random example: you recorded an INTERIORART "Die träumende Stadt" on page 335, but in my edition there is no image on that page, it's just the start of the text for "Erstes Buch: Die träumende Stadt". However, I see artwork on pages 345,353,367, which I don't find in your publication record. Same with all other INTERIORART you recorded. Is there really artwork on the pages that you've recorded as INTERIORART? And is there no other artwork inbetween these? Jens Hitspacebar 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a sane explanation for everything - I hope :-)
- I did not create INTERIORART records for each separate illustration, that would have been much too detailed for ISFDB purposes (the level of granularity that ISFDB wants is the level on which first publication can be attributed). So in this instance I created INTERIORART records for each story/novel. Taking the example "Die träumende Stadt":
- I created this title record
- If you look at the title record, you will see that it is a variant title, because I had to record the non-canonical author name "J. Cawthorne"
- If you look at the canonical title record you can see the note where I described that the title record refers to a set of 3 illustrations!
- Now you probably start to understand what's happening: I only have one INTERIORART title record, but I have 3 illustrations on different pages; since I can't record 3 different page numbers for the same content item, I chose to record the starting page of the story, i.e. page 335. This procedure is documented under the bullet point "INTERIORART" on this help page. I hope this clears up some things, but if you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I had just realized that as well and wanted to post that here, but you were quicker :). Sorry for bothering you, I should have read the help beforehand. If I remember correctly I was following the first rule instead when I entered the data for my 4th printing (because its the same artist for all artwork except the map). Hitspacebar 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I added the month of publication to the first edition, along with an accompanying note. Christian Stonecreek 04:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Excerpts in Wicked
- Yes, I am certain, and I am aware that I need to delete title records after I remove the last reference to them. Recording excerpts has been a mistake I have made a few times in the past, but I never liked it. Since no one else has cloned my pub yet, and I had to touch the pub for adding the cover scan anyway, I thought I might take the opportunity to kill off those records. If I recall correctly you are also not fond of excerpts, so I hope you will approve the submission. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I do and I have. (Hate recording excerpts and approved the submission.) I'll delete the record as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
ISBN-13 on Cyteen
I accepted the submission changing the ISBN in this publication to the ISBN-13, but a question: is this the number given on the barcode and are they words "ISBN-13" stated? It could be an EAN, which was a precursor of the ISBN-13 and was used for more than a decade on the barcodes of books. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the word "ISBN-13" is stated. The first line is the ISBN-10, the second the ISBN-13, and below that comes the EAN bar code. I assume the 9th printing was manufactured around the time when the transition from 10 to 13 ISBN digits took place. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's good to know that at least the 9th and over printings will have an ISBN-13. Mhhutchins 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for deleting the excerpt title record. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I can sometimes anticipate an obvious follow-up submission, so it saves some time and effort for the editor if I do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note to self: The discussion was about converting "The Silmarillion" titles and pubs from NOVEL into COLLECTION. The deed has been done. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note to self: The discussion has wound down long ago while I was absent. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I added the month of date to your verified
Cities in Flight
- I double-checked, and my copy of the book clearly has £2.50 on the back cover, so I assume that you have a different printing. Since your price is higher than mine it must be a later printing. I don't know how Arrow Books distinguishes printings (a number line? enumeration of printings on the copyright book?) but hopefully you will find something on the copyright page. If you like we can exchange more details to find a distinguishing point. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have a different back cover without the barcode on it, so it is must be a different edition also because of the price, thank you for responding. Wjmvanruth 13:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. I wonder if there is a neat trick how to easily create wraparound cover scans without breaking the book's back, or does the work simply consist of adding together 3 partial scans in an image editing software? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- "The neat trick" - at least for my collection - is for them to be floppy enough to open out flat onto a scanner without breaking them. Although I'm guessing that there are certain bibliophiles who'd shoot daggers at me with their eyes for doing such a thing and they'd cobble together a three part scan in photoshop. --Mavmaramis 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Road to Science Fiction 6 (White Wolf)
- Sounds fine, thanks. Publisher/imprint handling is definitely not my strength. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Again Dangerous Visions 2
- Thanks for the nice looking cover scan, I wish my book were in as good a shape as yours. The Australian price was not in the notes when I just looked, so I added it myself. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The New Adam
- Yes, it does have a red stripe with that text. I hope this answer is still useful despite the long waiting time since you wrote the question. Don't hesitate to ask if you need more information - I will be active again on ISFDB for some time, so an answer should be forthcoming with much more dispatch ☺. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent, Thanks! Albinoflea 03:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Mutant Weapon vs. Med Service
Please see ISFDB:Community Portal#The Mutant Weapon vs. Med_Service as a primary verifier of Quarantine World. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note to self: The Community Portal page has been archived, this is now the correct link. I missed the discussion, but I agree with the outcome. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Blue Mars 3rd Printing
It looks like we have two entries for the 3rd printing of the Bantam Spectra mass market paperback edition of Blue Mars; one I submitted and one submitted by Pip55. Do you see any issue in combining them and transferring your Primary Verification? Pips55 hasn't been responsive in a few years. Thanks, Albinoflea 21:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I double-checked the data and my book, and I agree: These two pubs are effectively the same and should be merged. I almost made the necessary edits, but then I hesitated because I realized: If we delete the pub record that was submitted by Pips55 we will lose his (her?) Primary Verification, because he (she?) is no longer active and is thus unable to transfer his (her?) Primary Verification. I can think of two solutions:
- We do it anyway and leave a note on Pips55's talk page, so he (she?) can transfer the Primary Verification whenever he (she?) returns to active service.
- We do it the other way around, i.e. you transfer your Primary Verification, then we delete the pub record that you submitted. This will preserve Pips55's Primary Verification.
- Knowing that it is the ISFDB culture/spirit to try to preserve as much data as possible, I favor the second option. What do you think? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've transferred some of the notes, moved my primary verification, and deleted the other pub. I'll leave a note on Pips55 talk page as well. Albinoflea 02:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Jesus Incident
- Good find, thanks. I will have to change the scan, though, my book has a version of the cover art that is much less colorful than the one that is currently in place. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Pebble in the Sky - pub note
- I don't know what you added, but it looks good in its current state ☺. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The Songs of Distant Earth - publication date?
Hi, my copy of The Songs of Distant Earth appears to be identical to your PV1'd copy, with the exception of the following:
First, my book has a price of £6.99 in the white barcode box on the rear cover.
Second, there is a single number '9' in the centre of the line underneath the top line, "This paperback edition 1998", of the printing history you have shown. (Indicating a 9th printing, out of a 9-number printing line perhaps?) The rest of my printing history matches exactly what you have shown. I'm not sure if the presence or not of the '9' would make any difference, especially in view of the line "reprinted 4 times" on both our books, but it would be useful to know. Thanks, Astrodan 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I double-checked my book, and I can say with certainty that there is neither a price on the rear cover nor a number "9" on the copyright page. This lets me think that you probably have a different printing, possibly a later one, but I can't be sure of that. I suggest you create a new pub record by cloning the one I PV'd, and adding your observations to the pub note. If you like you could also bring this up on the Help page, maybe someone with more experience than me knows the significance of the differences you noticed. Regarding the "reprinted 4 times" line: I believe this refers to the Grafton edition; if you check out the title record you can see that we already have 4 Grafton pub records in our database, so we are missing only one more. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Forever Free - change of publisher
I've made a change to the Publisher shown in the metadata of your PV2'd Forever Free, from 'Millennium / Orion' to 'Millenium / Victor Gollancz', to match what is shown in my copy of the book. They are both essentially the same company here in the UK. How does this compare with your copy? Astrodan 10:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- My book has "Millennium an imprint of Victor Gollancz" on the copyright page, so your change is 100% correct. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hawkmoon - Year and pub note
The Amtrak Wars: Cloud Warrior - pub note
- Can you specify where on the back cover of your book that price is located? On my copy the lower 25% of the back cover has a white background, with the British price on the right-hand side, right above the ISBN and the barcode block. On the left-hand side of the white area my copy did have a label, fiendishly glued on by the 2nd hand bookshop that sold the book to me. Unfortunately I partially destroyed the back cover just now, when I tried to remove the label and suddenly became very impatient. So now I have no idea whether the Malta price was underneath the label. *sigh* At least it's not a valuable book. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I Am Legend cover
- One less cover that I have to scan myself. The scan matches my book perfectly. Thanks a lot, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Classics of Modern Science Fiction
The Long Haul From the ANNALS OF TRANSPORTATION, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
I'm placing this topic here on my talk page because several editors are involved (Markwood, Bluesman, Hauck and DarkMatter42) and I would like to keep the discussion centralized, yet the topic seems too minuscule to bother the Community Portal with it. Anyway, the topic is this title record. Currently the title of the story is recorded in ISFDB like this:
- The Long Haul From the ANNALS OF TRANSPORTATION, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
I propose that we regularize this to the new title:
- The Long Haul from the Annals of Transportation, the Pacific Monthly, May 2009
- The words "From" and "The" should be lowercase, i.e. "from" and "the"
- Whoever added the title record used caps to represent italics. According to our rules, however, we should not represent fonts by changing the spelling of titles. Quote from Help:Screen:EditPub: "If the font seems important, it can be shown and/or described in a note."
Furthermore, in this book that I own the story appears with an additional comma after the word "Haul", like this (italics added as they appear in my book):
- The Long Haul, from the Annals of Transportation, the Pacific Monthly, May 2009
So here are the questions to all involved:
- Do you agree to regularize the title as proposed above? If your answer is "no", what else do you suggest?
- Does the comma appear in the publication(s) you own? If the comma appars in all publications then we can add it to the title record. If not then we will have to create a variant title record.
- I recommend we go with Dozois' version (except without italics):
The Long Haul, from the Annals of Transportation, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
- Comparing Dozois with Strahan & Horton:
- - Dozois has a comma after "Haul". Strahan & Horton don't have that comma, but they have "The Long Haul" on a line by itself so there's an implied comma.
- - In Dozois, the "the" before "Annals" is not capitalized, but the "The" before "Pacific" is capitalized indicating it's part of the title of "The Pacific Monthly". (I'll bet your UK "Mammoth Book" version of Dozois also has "The Pacific ...".) Strahan & Horton aren't useful for this issue because both have the two embedded titles in all caps.
- Markwood 06:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks for the additional information! Please excuse the delay in my answer, I thought I would give the other editors a chance to also add their thoughts. My two cents:
- So Strahan & Horton have "The Long Haul" on a line by itself. In my opinion that's a clear case of a subtitle. Quote from Help:Screen:EditPub: "Subtitles. If the title has a subtitle, enter it, with a colon and a space used to separate the title from the subtitle. For example, the 1986 edition of George MacDonald's "Lilith" has "Lilith" on the title page, and below that, in a smaller font, "A Romance". This should be entered as "Lilith: A Romance"."
- Regarding capitalization, you win the bet, of course ☺. My lame excuse ☺ is that my book uses a fancy font that makes it hard to distinguish between lowercase and uppercase. OK, so it can be argued that the author intended "The Pacific" to use a capitalized "The". Quote from Help:Screen:EditPub: "Titles should have case regularized unless there is some specific evidence that the author intended certain letters to be in a specific case."
- So my new proposal is this: We change the canonical title record to the subtitle form, to be used in the Strahan & Horton publications:
- Excellent, thanks for the additional information! Please excuse the delay in my answer, I thought I would give the other editors a chance to also add their thoughts. My two cents:
The Long Haul: From the Annals of Transportation, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
- Then we create a variant title record with the comma form, to be used in the Dozois publications:
The Long Haul, from the Annals of Transportation, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
- Re-read our discussion and noted your comment, "Whoever added the title record used caps to represent italics." So I checked the story's original publication in eMag 'Clarkesworld': http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/liu_11_14/. There are italicized fonts on the page, so use of all caps in title is clearly a choice, not an expedient compromise. Based on that, and noting your research on how to show sub-titles, I now think we should only change the initial comma to a colon, and retain the typography used in original publication:
The Long Haul: From the ANNALS OF TRANSPORTATION, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
- Given this new info, what do you think? Markwood 19:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Very good observation. I think you hit the nail how we should record the title in the canonical title record. However, following ISFDB rules we cannot ignore the differing punctuation used in the Dozois publications - even if it's only a measly comma ☺ - and thus should create a variant title record that has the comma:
The Long Haul, from the ANNALS OF TRANSPORTATION, The Pacific Monthly, May 2009
- If you agree I can make the necessary edits. I say I will wait another 3-4 days before implementing the changes, to give Bill (Bluesman) and Hervé (Hauck) a final chance to voice their opinion. Mark (DarkMatter42) appears to have been inactive for almost 2 years now, so I don't think we'll have to wait for him. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Brian W. Aldiss...
...is the canonical name of the author. So I rejected the submissions to make records credited to him into variants under his pseudonym Brian Aldiss. What exactly were your intentions regarding these submissions? Mhhutchins|talk 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I re-read the Note to Moderator in the first submission, so now I understand what you were trying to do. You were just going about it from a different direction. It's best to create variant titles by first adding them as contents to a publication record. Then you can variant those new title records to the existing ones for the title which credit "Brian W. Aldiss". By creating title records first, you risk the chance of creating non-pubbed titles. But even if you didn't and were able to keep track of them, you'd have to make further submissions to import all of these titles into the publication record. Mhhutchins|talk 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Too bad you rejected those submissions, because I have carefully thought out the process! Look:
- Creating variants first: n submissions for creating the variants, then 1 submission for importing them. Total = n + 1.
- Adding titles to a pub first: 1 submission for adding the titles, then n submissions for making them into variants. Total = n + 1.
- So both approaches require the same number of submissions, but the second approach requires me to copy&paste all the titles and the dates for the variants into the publication, which is substantially more work than just gradually building up a list of record IDs that I have to import in a text editor. Can you trust me, please, that I am able to keep track of those variants? Because I am going to repeat the process, it really is much more convenient for me. Thank you, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The Best of Sci-Fi
I'm placing this topic here on my talk page because more than one editor is involved (Dirk P Broer and Prof beard). The topic is this anthology where I have discovered numerous discrepancies that I would like to correct. Here is a list where each change has a number that we can use as reference during the discussion.
- "Introduction (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)": This should be recorded as "Introduction (The Best of Sci-Fi)".
- "The Never-Ending Penny": This appears as "The Never Ending Penny" (no hyphen).
- On page 80 an illustration appears that has not been recorded. Title is "Obvious!", credit is "Michael Ffolkes".
- "A Rose by Other Name ...": This appears as "A Rose by Other Name" (no ellipsis).
- On page 174 a text titled "About the Author" appears as a kind of postscript to the preceding story. The text is about Elizabeth Emmett. Usually I would not record something like this, but since in this case the text appears quite out of the ordinary I propose to add this as an essay. I'm not sure how the title should look like - "About the Author (The Best of Sci-Fi)" seems a bit misleading in an anthology, so how about this: "About the Author (Elizabeth Emmett) (The Best of Sci-Fi)"?
- "Ed Lear Wasn't So Crazy!" by "Hilbert Schenck": This appears as by "Hilbert Schenck, Jr." (with suffix).
- "The Year in S-F (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)": This appears as "Summation: The Year in S-F". It should be recorded as "Summation: The Year in S-F (The Best of Sci-Fi)".
- "S-F Books - 1960": This appears as "S-F Books: 1960" (colon instead of hyphen). It should be recorded as "S-F Books: 1960 (The Best of Sci-Fi)".
- "Honorable Mentions (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)": This should be recorded as "Honorable Mentions (The Best of Sci-Fi)".
Please provide your opinion if you agree / don't agree with any of the proposed changes, or have other suggestions. Thanks for your help in cleaning this up. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 02:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here are my two cents, but you need far more verifiers in my eyes as other editions are also affected -I can vouch that the two UK and two US paperbacks are 100% identical within, owing one edition of both-:
1. As 'The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F' is the parent title of 'The Best of Sci-Fi', I have no problems giving the introduction in all five titles under that parent just one name, that of the parent. If we decide a new name is needed it should be made into a variant of the original, but then the same would be needed for "6th Annual Edition: the Year's Best S-F".
2. "The Never-Ending Penny" should indeed be "The Never Ending Penny".
3. You are right about the cartoon.
4. "A Rose by Other Name ...": Indeed appears as "A Rose by Other Name" (no trailing periods).
- Funny thing is that at least one US edition does this right.
5. "About the Author (Elizabeth Emmett) (The Best of Sci-Fi)" Here we have the same problem as with the first, why not call all "About the Author (Elizabeth Emmett) (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)". In fact, why mentioning the anthology at all, if we are to include the 'about the author'?
- Your mentioning this author was in fact instrumental in me finding details about her, thanks!
6. "Hilbert Schenck" here the Canonical name has been used during the entry of the record. The book however has "Hilbert Schenck, Jr." both in TOC and on title page.
- Funny thing is -again- that at least one US edition does this right.
7. "The Year in S-F (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)". Same as with the first and fifth: If we decide a new name is needed it should be made into a variant of the original. But why three names for the same content?
8. "S-F Books - 1960" should in my eyes just be # "S-F Books: 1960". It is the same for all five titles and adding the three different anthology names adds nothing.
9. "Honorable Mentions (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)". Same as with the first, fifth and seventh: If we decide a new name is needed it should be made into a variant of the original at the cost of introducing two addtional names for the same content.--Dirk P Broer 07:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Round two of comments :-)
- Proposals 1, 7, 9: If you think there's no need to change the disambiguation suffix, then I won't press the matter. It's just how I would have done it, but I guess there's no need to be religious about it :-).
- Proposal 5: Well, our rules pretty clearly state that "[...] you should parenthetically append the container title [...] to the title of the essay [...]". (search for "Standard Titles" on this wiki page to find the source of the quote). So having "About the Author (Elizabeth Emmett)" is, I think, not something we should do. But I'm fine with "About the Author (Elizabeth Emmett) (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)". After thinking more about it, I would also be fine with a simple pub note.
- Proposal 8: I really think we should disambiguate this. "S-F Books: 1960" is just too generic, it should become "S-F Books: 1960 (The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F)".
- Proposals 3, 4, 6: I see that you already fixed those, thanks for that.
- Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Round two of comments :-)
- Here are my thoughts - I only have the UK edition:
- 1,7, 9 - dont feel strongly
- 2 Agreed
- 3 Agreed
- 4 Agreed
- 5 Really not sure about this one
- 6 I agree will observation above re "Jr." being in both TOC and Title Page
- 8 I would disambiguate Prof beard 08:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've said it before and I'll say it again: this involves more than just two editions, there are in fact five.
- #5 I agree with Prof beard: I would also be fine with a simple pub note.
- #8 S-F Books: 1960 is not too generic, it only appears in these five editions -and they are all exactly alike.--Dirk P Broer 20:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to involve the editors of five editions, it will only result in endless discussions - that's why I just wanted to clean up our publication all along. For the remaining open points this means:
- #2: Since we all agree that in our publication the story appears without hyphen, I will replace the variant title with the canonical title (no hyphen). This affects just our publication.
- #5: Since you are fine with a pub note, and Prof Beard didn't counsel against it, I will add a pub note. This affects just our publication.
- #8: I won't insist to disambiguate, we let the title stand as it is.
- All other points have been dealt with, so that's the end of the matter. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to involve the editors of five editions, it will only result in endless discussions - that's why I just wanted to clean up our publication all along. For the remaining open points this means:
The Masks of Time - Star, 1982
- Thanks for the hint. I've now uploaded the cover and made a submission using this site as the source for the Pennington credit. Hope that's reliable enough. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Chroniken der Zukunft / Welten der Zukunft
I am about to begin with entering data for a series of 12 omnibuses (I own all of the books) that were published in the 1980s by German publisher Heyne. After three volumes the publisher, in its infinite wisdom, decided to change the series name, but to continue with the numbering:
- Volumes 1-3 are titled "Chroniken der Zukunft Band 1/2/3"
- Volumes 4-12 are titled "Welten der Zukunft: Chroniken aus Raum und Zeit Band 4/5/.../12"
I would like to group all 12 publication records under a single publication series titled "Welten der Zukunft / Chroniken der Zukunft". I noticed that we already have two books from the series in our database:
I would like to ask the two verifiers whether they agree to the following changes to their pub records:
- Both publications currently are titled "Welten der Zukunft". When I look at the title page of the two books (I own both of them) I think the titles should be changed to
- "Welten der Zukunft: Chroniken aus Raum und Zeit Band 7" for volume 7
- "Welten der Zukunft: Chroniken aus Raum und Zeit Band 8" for volume 8
- Both publications currently are in the publication series Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy. According to my plan this should be changed so that the two pub records will be in the proposed "Welten der Zukunft / Chroniken der Zukunft" publication series. I believe this series is more appropriate than the generic series "Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy", because the publisher, Heyne, clearly wanted to group the 12 volumes into a distinctive set, what with the unique cover layout, titling and even a sponsor (Philip Morris).
- Hi, Patrick! I have just verified #7 of the series and I think your ideas are well rooted. The title page phrases the title as you stated it. Also, the series was listed under its own pub. series heading in the Heyne bibliographies, like this.
- Just wait a little more time and I'll find out about the respective months of publication. Christian Stonecreek 04:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- And here they are:
- #s 1 - 3: 1984-11-00, according to 'Science Fiction Times, Oktober 1984'
- #s 4 - 6: 1985-02-00, according to 'Science Fiction Times, Januar 1985'
- #s 7 - 9: 1985-11-00, according to 'Science Fiction Times, August 1985' (Heyne preview)
- # 10: 1986-03-00, according to 'Science Fiction Times, Februar 1986'
- #s 11&12: 1986-04-00, according to 'Science Fiction Times, März 1986'
- I'll add the month to the existing publications, Christian Stonecreek 06:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- No objections from my side. --Stoecker 08:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Christian for the publication months. I have now added 10 new pubs and modified the 2 existing pubs. Besides the title changes I also added more details to the notes of the existing pubs, hope that's OK. I didn't wait for Peregrin's approval because I already had Christian's consent, and I think it's not a controversial change. At the time of writing this, my submissions are still in the queue; once they have been accepted I will have to do additional edits (title merges, title variants, fix a stupid mistake I made with the page count, etc.), so don't look too closely for another day or two ☺. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 01:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well done. Hubert Peregrin 23:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Varianting translated titles to the original
The following titles for translated works have not been varianted to their original title record:
varianted 1 Brian W. Aldiss: Feinde aus dem Kosmos merged 2 Poul Anderson: Das letzte Sternenschiff varianted 3 René Barjavel: Das große Geheimnis varianted 4 James Blish: Zeit der Vögel varianted 5 Ben Bova: Die dunklen Wüsten des Titans merged 6 John Brunner: Bürger der Galaxis varianted 7 John Brunner: Die Pioniere von Sigma Draconis varianted 8 John Brunner: Die Zeitsonde merged 9 John Brunner: Ein Stern kehrt zurück merged 10 John Brunner: Geheimagentin der Erde merged 11 C. J. Cherryh: Brüder der Erde varianted 12 Philip José Farmer: Als die Zeit stillstand merged 13 Philip José Farmer: Das Tor der Zeit merged 14 Philip José Farmer: Der Steingott erwacht merged 15 Philip José Farmer: Die Irrfahrten des Mr. Green varianted 16 Stephen Goldin: Scavenger-Jagd merged 17 Harry Harrison: Die Pest kam von den Sternen merged 18 Robert A. Heinlein: Revolte auf Luna merged 19 John D. MacDonald: Planet der Träumer varianted 20 Chad Oliver: Das große Warten merged 21 Chad Oliver: Die Affenstation merged 22 Chad Oliver: Die vom anderen Stern merged 23 Robert Silverberg: Der Gesang der Neuronen merged 24 Robert Silverberg: Die Sterne rücken näher varianted 25 Robert Silverberg: Kinder der Retorte merged 26 Robert Silverberg: Macht über Leben und Tod merged 27 A. E. van Vogt: Kinder von morgen merged 28 A. E. van Vogt: Slan merged 29 Jack Vance: Maske: Thaery
- Some of the titles you listed indeed needed varianting, but some of them instead needed merging with already existing titles. When I created the new publications I was aware that this additional work was waiting for me, so I had already kept a detailed TODO list in my private notes. I am sorry that compiling the above list of titles caused unnecessary work for you, I probably should have written a moderator note to prevent it. On the other hand, after close to a decade of editing on ISFDB, it is obvious to me that some "post-processing" work is necessary after adding new pubs, so I simply hadn't thought of leaving a note that points out the obvious. Anyway, the work is all done now. I used your list to double-check against my own TODO list and prefixed each entry with the actual submission I made. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed that some of the omnibuses in which these novels were published have a page count with "+". Does this mean the last page of text isn't numbered? If so, then raise the page count by one, and add a note that the last page isn't numbered. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the last page is not numbered. Adding + was a stupid mistake of me - even after a decade of editing on ISFDB ☺. It's corrected now. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The War of the Worlds
Hello, can you have a look at this pub. I suppose that the 2016 publication date may be wrong (PVed in 2011). It appeared on a clean-up report because of the lack of ISBN-13 (supposing that's a 2016 title). Thanks. Hauck 06:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that was my doing, see here. I'll revert it to the initial setting. Christian Stonecreek 08:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The Eye in the Pyramid
A Fall of Moondust
My copy of A Fall of Moondust has 2nd Printing 1964 on the Copyright Page but has 3/6 printed on the Front Cover. Would you like me to change the Cover Art and include the price in your verified version? --AndyjMo 10:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Before the Universe and Other Stories
Hi, I saw for your verified copy of Before the Universe and Other Stories the note containing 'The artist is not credited; no visible signature. [Paul Lehr]'. I can tell you that it is certainly Paul Lehr as the cover art is the same as for The World of Null-A, where Paul Lehr is credited.--Dirk P Broer 08:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The Jesus Incident
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
My copy of Conjure Wife has a different copyright page to this one. There is no mention of First published April 1943 in Unknown Worlds magazine, mine states First published in the U.S.A. by Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1953. The printing date in my copy states Published in Penguin Books 1969, month is not included. The Back Cover of my copy states "Cover design by Franco Grignani. As he is only credited as the Designer he shouldn't be listed as the Cover Artist. Should I create a clone or should the Notes be changed? --AndyjMo 18:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Assassin's Quest - cover image, and duplicate verification question
Hi, I recently verified the 7th printing of Assassin's Quest and noticed that the 2nd printing you verified might need an update. But it is also a duplicate of this entry, so maybe instead you need to transfer your verification over to that?
The problem for your entry is, you used the generic Amazon link for the cover, [here], and this has now changed to the new Alejandro Colucci cover which was released in mid-2014. It looks like yours had the older Steven Youll cover, so the link needs to be updated. The cover seems to have remained pretty much the same over the years, except for the part just under the author's name where it says "Author of xxxx."
Thanks! BungalowBarbara 06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
To Liver Forever
I'd like to change the cover artist of this Coronet edition from Matthew Fox to Nick Fox. The signature is the same as on other covers currently credited to Nick Fox, the style (leathery skin colors) is the same as on for example Dark Crusade (Coronet 1981). And "Matthew Fox" has no other credits, his existence is probably just based on signature "Fox" somehow combined with 1940s Weird Tales artist Matt Fox. Horzel 05:50, 18 July 2017 (EDT)
The Chronicles of Narnia
Natives of Space
FYI, the following copyright statement has been added to your verified Natives of Space:
- "Copyright © 1965 by Hal Clement"
Ahasuerus 16:47, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
The Hunting of the Snark
Hi. You verified the undated 6th printing P353633. I guess most of your data on these titles (including page numbers for 126-page eds.) are from your entry of this book, as we now have 1967 The Annotated Snark with mis-named contents such as "Introduction (The Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits)", date unknown T1289446. I expect to enter the 1962 original publication of that work and make variants of the contents under later titles, which will change your publication record as displayed.
Concerning your publication record itself please confirm, correct, or comment on these points
- Notes item "Reprinted in Penguin Classics 1965" --your typo for 1995?
- front cover design matches the images at Amazon US as 1998 and UK as 1996 and at WorldCat as thumbnails    --a design whose front cover illustration is part of the original by Henry Holiday T2014696
Is there any indication that some Contents have been revised since 1967 or 1962 (as some WorldCat records, as Penguin dated after 1967, note Revised)?
--Pwendt 12:25, augmented Pwendt|talk 14:55, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
- Here is another Penguin cover image for The Hunting of the Snark, at Amazon provided as that of a 1998 ebook. --Pwendt|talk 18:27, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
The Complete Short Stories: The 1950s (Aldiss)
Martian Time-Slip - PKD
Tau Zero - Poul Anderson
The Dispossessed - Le Guin
'Wailing Shall Be in All Streets' – essay or short fiction?
Hi Herzbube, I'm doing some digging around the Vonnegut title 'Wailing Shall Be in All Streets', for which we have two records as both a short story and an essay. From online descriptions I have seen I suspect it is an essay as in your verified pub Kurt Vonnegut: Novels & Stories 1963-1973, but I have also seen online a description of it (at a New York Times review, behind a paywall) as a short story. The only verifier of a pub which describes this as a short story is incommunicado these days, so could I ask you to have a look, confirm either way, and we'll take it from there? Thanks. PeteYoung 01:48, 14 January 2020 (EST)
Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said - PKD
The Forever War - Haldeman
Joe Haldeman - Forever Free
So I noticed that this book has cover artist credited as Chris Moore but it is exactly the same image as this which is a variant of this credited to Bob Eggleton. Something is not right. --Mavmaramis 11:51, 22 April 2022 (EDT)