User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 1

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nihonjoe's Talk Archives


1·2·3·4·5·6·7·8·9·10·11·12

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page. Nihonjoe 08:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Normally we welcome YOU rather than vice versa! :-) Are you the author of the book I recently approved? BLongley 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I was just working on something else which brought me around to that book and I noticed that the bio of the author was missing some links. Nihonjoe 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Nihonjoe/Archive 1, 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! BLongley 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Afterblight Chronicles

I had to reject your submission to change the title of this pub to that of the cover image. The original data is from Amazon, so that's where the title came from. Hopefully, when the book is published, an editor will be able to confirm the title from the book's title page. That's the ISFDB standard for titling publication records, not from the book's cover or dustjacket, as they sometimes differ. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, have fun with that. I don't even care about that book, and was just trying to help. Nihonjoe 23:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cover image linking

Hi. Thanks for the correction to Horror Film Festivals and Awards. I had to make one change to the submission. Our software displays linked cover images (and author pictures) by loading them from the host website, putting a load on that site, so we only link to sites where we have explicit permission to do so. (If you're interested in the gory details, see ISFDB:Image_linking_permissions). McFarland.com is not a site where we have permission. I did a little searching and found another image on Amazon.com (where we do have permission to link) that looked the same to me, and I changed the cover link you provided to this link instead. Let me know if it doesn't look right to you. Thanks, and thank you for contributing. --MartyD 01:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Unquiet

Hi - I had to reject your submission to update the editor of The Unquiet from 'uncredited' to the authors of all the works included. In the case of this record, the Anthology has an editor, someone who should receive credit for bringing these 5 stories together but at this time, we don't know who that is (we are hoping the copyright page will let us know once the book comes out in a few weeks). You can see the guidelines for Author here. Thanks Kevin 16:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So you can add that later. Doesn't make the edit I suggested any less valid. Nihonjoe 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Vampires

I am also going to reject your submission to change the editor of Vampires from 'uncredited' to the authors of the contents. Now.... in this case you've found a record where the contents of the anthology haven't been entered yet. You are welcome to enter all the contents of the anthology, so that each author gets credit for being included in the book. You can see the guidelines for putting 'Contents' into an anthology in the Help Pages. You should also wait until the book comes out so you can enter each Author and the correct short story, unless there is an exact list on the publishers website that I didn't see. Thanks again. Kevin 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I already entered the information and you rejected it. Feel free to add it yourself. Nihonjoe 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Man-Kzin Wars XIII

When a multi-author anthology doesn't have a credited editor, some ISFDB editors have proposed that the authors listed on the title page should be credited as the authors of the book. The ISFDB display logic credits them as editors because ordinarily the "author" of an anthology is its editor. I personally feel such anthologies should give the editor as "uncredited", but there's still a debate about such cases should be handled. Rest assured, we know the authors listed in this anthology are not the editors, just those who are credited on the book's title page. Mhhutchins 21:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You may know that, but the casual user of the site isn't going to be able to read your minds. The way the information is presented is misleading and incorrect. Nihonjoe 18:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
An anthology having no credited editor is relatively uncommon, so we have to make exceptions when that happens. As I tried to explain, the present way of crediting isn't perfect, but that's the standard. Any intelligent, albeit casual, user would understand the dilemma. A note of explanation in the record's note field doesn't hurt either. We don't presume to know whether the casual user can read minds. They're a pretty smart group of people. Otherwise they wouldn't be reading speculative fiction. :) Mhhutchins 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting a new line in the Note field of a publication record

Re this publication: you'll notice that all of the information you added to the Note field runs on like it's one sentence. That's because this field doesn't recognize a keyboard "enter" stroke as the start of a new line. You must force a new line by using HTML. At the end of each line, or when you want to start a new sentence enter these four characters: <br>. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No one mentioned that before, and the other ones I've done must have just been edited by the moderator approving them. Nihonjoe 23:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
That may be the case. Moderators will occasionally correct errors, and only bring them to your attention if they see a pattern. It's always a good idea to look back at the records you've edited just to make sure no errors got through. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Archiving messages

I see that you've removed recent messages from your talk page but not where you archived them. You should wait about a month or so before archiving messages (never delete them) because you never know when something may come up again about some advice or instructions you were given, or if another editor asked questions concerning a submission or a verified publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a wiki, so everything is in the history of the page. If you really insist, I can certainly create an archive page to make it one less click to access the info. Nihonjoe 04:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, due to disk space limitations, we have to purge all but the last 50 versions of our Wiki pages once every 6-12 months :( Ahasuerus 04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Disks aren't all that expensive, and they are going down in cost regularly. Perhaps have a "Donate" button on all the pages to allow people to chip in a few bucks every now-and-then. Nihonjoe 04:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, the ones I removed aren't recent. They were from 2012. I left the recent ones here. I made a link to the archive at the top of this page. Nihonjoe 06:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

You posted this: ==Image for Alas, Babylon== I submitted a cover image for Alas, Babylon here back on February 23, but the image isn't showing up yet. I submitted one for The Tar-Aiym Krang here on the same day, and it's not showing up, either. How long do they take to show up? Thanks! Nihonjoe 22:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Images are not automatically linked to the records once they are uploaded to the DB. Once the upload is complete, you need to copy the URL for the image, not the upload page [right-click on the image and your browser should give you a couple of options: save/copy to your clipboard] or just click on the image which will then open it on it's own page [no external wiki-stuff] and then copy that URL into the image field in the record. The images you inquired about will still be in the Upload Log, they don't disappear, so you can still do this without re-uploading them. There is another way, rather than scrolling through a bunch of images: just use the "Upload New Image on the edit screen for the two records and you'll get a warning that an image already exists. Click on the link given and there's your image. Transfer it as above! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: this kind of inquiry should go on the Help Page or the Community Portal, I don't check my secondary page very often and on the other pages this would have been responded to the same day. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As for checking your secondary pages, if you don't check it often, you shouldn't direct people to post to it. Seems counter-productive otherwise. Nihonjoe 01:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comments here, the welcome message is still on the archive page, so pretty easily accessible if I need it. Or, as you pointed out, it's in the navigation box in this part of the wiki. Thanks! Nihonjoe 21:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When Marnie Was There

Are you certain of the publication date of this record? I can't find a 2014 edition of this title. There was an edition published on April 2, 2002 according to Amazon, but it was published by Collins (not HarperCollins Children's Books) with an ISBN of 0-00-710477-4 (not 0-978-00-710477-2). Could this be the same as your copy? Or perhaps you have a later printing of this edition? Mhhutchins 22:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

At the top of the copyright page, it reads as follows:
First published in Great Britain by Collins in 1967
First published as a Collins Modern Classic in 2002
This edition published by HarperCollins Children's Books in 2014
And yes, the "Children's Books" part is italicized in the book. The ISBN is from the back of the book and matches the ISBN on the copyright page. 978-0-00-710477-2 is correct. Nihonjoe 23:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've also uploaded a cover image for the one I have. It's a little different than the one you added from Amazon. Nihonjoe 00:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Is it just a coincidence that the 2002 and 2014 editions were published on the same day of the year? Also, is there a printed price on your copy? Mhhutchins 01:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they planned it that way. No idea. There's a Canadian price and a Sterling price. No US Dollars price. Nihonjoe 02:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
What is your source for the publication date of the your edition? I just found this 2014 Canadian edition published on April 29, 2014. (Pay no attention to the cover image, because Amazon occasionally links the image of an earlier, or later, printing.) Since your copy has a Canadian price, perhaps that's your edition. Also, any printed price should be added to the record. The most prominent one goes in the Price field, and secondary ones are recorded in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I got the date off the copyright page in the book itself. I guess it's possible I got a Canadian edition. I just ordered it off Amazon. Neither price is the most prominent, though. I'll look at it again and see which one it might be. Nihonjoe 21:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked because it's quite rare to put a publication date in a book, usually it's just the month or the year. Knopf is about the only publisher who recorded the date on later printings. Does your copy state anywhere something like "Printed in Canada"? Mhhutchins 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It was printed in England. I added the £6.99 for the price. Nihonjoe 05:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, on this listing, the "281 • Postrcript (When Marnie Was There) • (2002) • essay by Deborah Sheppard" needs to have a typo corrected: "Postrcript" needs to be "Postscript". Nihonjoe 05:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That's easily corrected. Click on the title, which leads to the title record, and then click on the "Edit Title Data" link under the Editing Tools menu. Mhhutchins 05:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Nihonjoe 05:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Shin'ainaru kurōn

Re this publication: are you certain that "Tokyo" is part of the publisher's name? Mhhutchins 05:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Nihonjoe 05:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Also this. Nihonjoe 05:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Return of the Twelves

It looks like you used the "Add Variant Title" Web page to enter this book's data. Unfortunately, it is one of our more obscure and potentially misleading data entry forms. As Help:Screen:AddVariant says:

  • Note that this screen permits you to enter title information without any associated publication information. Because publications are the primary sources, it is always preferable to enter the publication instead of just some title information. That way the information can be verified by another editor. Please avoid using this screen if possible, for this reason. One situation in which the use of this screen is necessary is when you are entering a variant title for a serialized version of a novel which was never published elsewhere under that serialized title.

I have created a publication record for this edition and moved all publication details to it. I have also created a publication record for the first US edition. What's curious about it is that the Library of Congress claims that it came out in 1964 while the copyright page of your eighth impression says "First American Edition 1963". My guess is that the publisher filed with the Library of Congress in 1963, but the book came out in 1964, a fairly common occurrence. I will document the discrepancy in the Title note and in the Publication note of the 1964 record. Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oversized file

Re this image file: At 173 kb, this file exceeds the requested standard (files should be no larger than 150 kb; exceptions are made for wraparound cover art). Please resize it when you get a chance. Most graphic programs should be able to reduce its resolution while retaining the image size. If you need assistance, let me know. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This file has the same problem. Mhhutchins 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Whispers in the Graveyard

You make a good point about the Fidler award, but look at the history of the award. There were winners in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1987, then nothing until 1993, then annual awards between 1996 and 2001. Makes you wonder what happened between 1987 and 1996, right?

Now, according to this Bookawards page:

  • The Fidler Awards are unique in that the winning manuscript is guaranteed publication, offering aspiring writers the opportunity to see their first novel in print. Would-be authors are invited to submit manuscripts for novels for children aged 8 - 12 years. A panel of judges, comprised of members of Scottish Book Trust, who administer the Award, editors from Hodder Children's Books and a number of independent children's book experts, select the winner, which is then published after the full editorial process. The winner also receives an advance of £1000, plus a royalty package, and is presented with a rosewood and silver trophy, to be held for one year.
  • Kathleen Fidler was the author of over eighty books for children ... worked closely with the Edinburgh Children's Book Group. After her death in 1980, the members of that group, together with her publishers, Blackie and Son Limited, and Mary Baxter, then Chief Executive of the National Book League (Scotland), established The Kathleen Fidler Award as a memorial to her deep interest in children and writers. In 1996, Hodder Children's Books took over the sponsorship of the award and the name was changed to The Fidler Award.

So it looks like the award ran into serious trouble and went dormant ca. 1987. And if we check the Blackie and Son Limited page on Wikipedia, it says that the company folded in 1991. The award was apparently given a new lease on life in 1996 when Hodder's Children took over the sponsorship.

Given the circumstances, it seems likely that Breslin did win the award in 1987, but Blackie and Son Limited were unable to come through since they were already struggling financially. Subsequently the book languished until the early 1990s when it was published by Methuen.

What do you think? Ahasuerus 00:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's possible. Maybe it would be good to put in some note on the award page and/or the book page explaining the information above. Otherwise, people may continue to question it and perhaps submit it for deletion again. Nihonjoe 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Done! Ahasuerus 01:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. (link) Nihonjoe 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A Call to Duty

I added a new cover scan and notes to A Call to Duty. I also added the Roman numeral page count and disambiguated the foreword and afterword. Bob 23:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Nihonjoe 05:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Baen Big Book of Monsters

I have a couple of questions regarding your verified The Baen Big Book of Monsters:

  • Is the story on page 87 credited to Anthony N. Rud on the title page? The story is actually by Anthony M. Rud, but Amazon Look-Inside & Baen's webpage show the TOC as "N" and not "M". However, I wanted to double check the title page before creating a variant.
  • Is the story on page 297 credited to Steve Diamond on the title page? Amazon Look-Inside & Baen's webpage show the TOC as Steven Diamond.

Much appreciated. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

He is listed as "Anthony N. Rud" in the Table of Contents, on the Copyrights of Stories page, on the first page of the story (p.85), as well as on pp.88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, and 110. I'm asking Baen if it was just a typo.
It should be Steven Diamond in all cases. If it's entered as "Steve", it's a typo by me when I entered it. Nihonjoe 08:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I submitted a correction for Diamond, and a pseudonym entry for Rud. Nihonjoe 09:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I got a reply here that it was just a typo. Nihonjoe 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A Call to Duty

I added to the notes for A Call to Duty outlining the role of Thomas Pope as a third author. Bob 03:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nihonjoe 05:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Drift

I'm holding your submission to update this record by adding content records for "Acknowledgements" and "Author's Note". We normally don't create content records for an acknowledgements if it only contains a list of "thank you"s. Also, such content should be typed as ESSAY, which is a piece of nonfiction which is contained in a larger work. The type NONFICTION is used for book-length works of nonfiction. Also, all generic titles should be disambiguated to avoid accidental merging of identically titled works. So an introduction titled "Introduction" should be titled "Introduction (Title of Work)". In this case, the author's note should be titled "Author's Note (Drift)". Let me know if the acknowledgements and author's note are substantial enough to qualify as separate essay contents in this publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Acknowledgements" part is two pages. The "Author's Note" part is more substantial. I included both because the Acknowledgement section is between the book content itself and the Author's Note. Nihonjoe 04:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of its length, is it substantially an ESSAY? The ISFDB rules of inclusion state that ordinary acknowledgements should not be entered as separate content records. I will accept the submission, correct the types, disambiguate the titles, and let you decide whether to retain or remove the acknowledgements content record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The Author's Note is an essay. The Acknowledgments section is a typical one, so feel free to remove it. I can't figure out how to do that. Nihonjoe 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Removing titles from a publication. Once the title has been removed, it will have to be deleted from the database if it is not associated with another publication record. Mhhutchins 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the ball's back on your side of the court. Nihonjoe 05:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Eos Reader 2004 - 2005

Hi, I'm holding your submission for the new publication named above. The stated publisher and the stated ISBN need some clarification (well, at least in my eyes): We have several publishers with 'Eos': 'Avon Eos', 'Avon Eos / SFBC' and four with 'Eos / Harper' as part of their name, but none with only Eos; maybe this publication would fit into one of the established ones?

Also, the stated ISBN is invalid and leads to the message Catalog ID is missing "#"; could you please check if it's really 0-06-0764020-3?. And is it really 'Elizabeth Anne Scarborough' and not 'Elizabeth Ann Scarborough'? Stonecreek 08:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely Eos / Harper, since the back says "Eos - An imprint of HarperCollins Publishers".
The ISBN is 0-06-076402-3, and the ISBN-13 is 978-0-06-076402-9. And it is Elizabeth Ann Scarborough. Nihonjoe 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the answers and for adding the anthology. I approved and changed the data according to your information. Stonecreek 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'm adding another one with about 250 short stories in it. I'm about halfway through entering them. :) Nihonjoe 08:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Artist1 field

The purpose of this field is to credit the cover art. I'm holding your submission which updates this record (for a leatherbound book which doesn't appear to have cover art) by adding three artists to the Artist1 field. Your description in the Note field indicates that these are two different works of art which are not on the cover but the inside of the book. Those works should be credited as contents and not cover art, using the INTERIORART type. (As should the third work for a map.) Unless my interpretation of the description is incorrect, please cancel the current submission I have on hold and create a new submission adding content records. Of if you wish, I could accept the submission and you'd have to remove the cover art credit, and add the three content records. These will leave the other changes you've made in the submission in tact. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I resubmitted it and cancelled the other submission. Nihonjoe 00:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you confirm that the work is credited to "Lawrence" and not Laurence Schwinger? Mhhutchins 07:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Lawrence. Nihonjoe 08:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Short Victorious War

I added a cover scan for The Short Victorious War and added variants for the paperback covers inside of this pub. I also merged the map with those in other volumes in the series. Bob 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nihonjoe 08:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Science Fiction series

The anthologies should have their own series name, and not be the same as the periodical. I'll create a new one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

True. Maybe Daily Science Fiction (anthology)? Nihonjoe 02:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Already did it. Daily Science Fiction (anthologies). I just thought of something. It would be easier to import these contents from the magazines issues. You would save a lot of entry time, and you wouldn't have to merge them with the existing title records. Mhhutchins 02:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm doing that. Will you watch for the next little while as I do that? Nihonjoe 03:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking good. I'm glad I caught you before you went to all that extra effort. This is going to save us both so much time. The next thing to do after importing the titles is to enter the page numbers. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I figured it would be easier to get them all in and then enter the page numbers. Thanks for the tip! I'll get the rest in, and then go grab the first year anthology and get started on that one. Nihonjoe 04:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the first volume is already entered. Nihonjoe 04:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1636: The Viennese Waltz

I added notes, content and a new scan to 1636: The Viennese Waltz. I also added the Roman numeral pages. Bob 22:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not Just Rockets and Robots

I added a cover scan and a note as to the edition to Not Just Rockets and Robots. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rocket Dragons Unite

I added a cover scan and a note as to the edition to Rocket Dragons Unite. I also corrected Michele-Lee Barasso's name which was listed as "Barosso" and added the introduciton. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cover image file uploads

When creating a file for a publication's cover, do not scan the back cover unless it is wraparound cover art. In the case of this image, the back contains basically text and should not be part of the image. We do not want to run the risk of violating copyright laws in case the text has been copyrighted. Please let me know if you'd like me to cut the image down to the front cover only. Or you can do it yourself and replace the current file. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We're no more likely to run into copyright issues than using just the front cover, especially since it's such a low resolution. Regardless, I've uploaded just the front. Nihonjoe 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
An image of the front of the book is covered by fair use for the purpose of identifying the work in question. The claim could not be made for the back of the book. In any case, an image of a book's back adds nothing to the value of the database. (And, IMHO, it is aesthetically displeasing.) Thanks for understanding. Mhhutchins 06:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, all of that could be argued. I'll just chalk it up to the quirkiness of ISFDB. ;) Nihonjoe 04:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Shadows Beneath

Re this publication. The currency is missing from the price field. Also, NONFICTION is restricted to book-length works of nonfiction. Any works of nonfiction which are contained in another publication should be typed as ESSAY, regardless of their type of nonfiction. (Your explanation of the works qualify them as ESSAYs.)

Also, much of the explanation that you added to the "Note to Moderator" field would have been better given in the "Note" field. The purpose of the first field is to provide addition information about the submission to help the moderator's decision to accept (or reject) the submission. It disappears the moment the submission is accepted. The purpose of the second field is to provide additional information about the publication which can not easily be provided in any of the other data fields visible to the database user. It is also better not to use the "Note to Moderator" field to ask questions concerning the submission, as it is impossible for the moderator to answer those questions directly. Any questions should be asked on the Help Desk page before making the submission.

One last thing, the title "Untitled" should only be used when that is the actual title of the piece. Works of INTERIORART are not usually titled, so we title them the same as the work they illustrate. If the piece doesn't illustrate a specific work within a publication, it is given the title of the publication itself.

BTW, the Amazon listing of the Kindle edition doesn't credit an editor. It only credits the four authors. Does your copy explicitly credit Peter Ahlstrom?

Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 02:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I updated them to essay, updated the title of the interior art piece, and added a modified version of my note to the moderator into the pub note.
Peter Ahlstrom is credited as the editor on the copyright page, which is also where I got the names for all of the interior artists. Nihonjoe 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If the author/editor isn't credited on the title page (the ISFDB standard source for such credit), it's a good idea to record the source of the ISFDB record's credit in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The number of pages in a Kindle-formatted ebook is set by the reader, so we leave the Page Count field blank. (As far as I know, the only ebook format which has set pages is PDF.) You'll have to remove that number from this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, updated both of those. Nihonjoe 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Deep Thoughts: Proceedings of Life, the Universe, & Everything

I moved the ISSN to the Note field of the records for these publications. The ISSN is neither an ISBN or catalog number, but is assigned to a periodical and not to an individual publication. Also, can you confirm the publisher as stated in each issue? The OCLC records give the publisher in various issues as LU&E Press or TLE Press. We don't make an attempt to make them match if the publisher is given differently in different issues of a periodical. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've updated them. Nihonjoe 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculative Japan 3: Silver Bullet and Other Tales

I was looking at one of your verified pubs and I have noticed something strange that I wondered if you could look into for me. The pub note for Speculative Japan 3: Silver Bullet and Other Tales mentions "To the Blue Star": Edward Lipsett in the list of story translators, however, the pub contents do not mention such a story. Based on the publisher's website this story seems to be by Ogawa Issui (who so far does not seem to be an author here in ISFDB yet). I was hoping you could look into this and update the pub adding the story "To the Blue Star" (and the page number since you did this with the other stories). Thank you. Uzume 17:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I just noticed you have the author of story "The Warning" in this pub as "Ondu Riku". I believe this is some sort of entry error and should be "Onda Riku". Perhaps you can fix that when you are editing this pub as well. Thank you. Uzume 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it could also be a typo in the book, so let's leave it "as is" until Nihonjoe has had a chance to take a look. Ahasuerus 06:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I was not planning to change it until a primary verifier can check it out. However, at the same time, I was treating it as a possible pseudonym and using a variant title to correctly attribute it to "Onda Riku" (using the original Japanese title record). If it is indeed in the pub itself we can then mark this author as a true pseudonym. Uzume 19:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. One of your submissions would have changed the spelling of the name, so I assume that it was not intentional. I approved the submission, which made other changes to the record, then reverted the name change -- no harm done :) Ahasuerus 20:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
One should not create a variant based on a change in author credit without also creating a pseudonym. There's a clean-up report that finds such errors. So in the case of "Ondu Riku", either the credit of the variant should be corrected or a pseudonym created. Mhhutchins 02:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Due to no response, and the record showing up on a clean-up report, I went ahead and changed the author credit back to "Onda Riku" based on the OCLC record, the only secondary source we have. If the author is credited to "Ondu", please correct the English title record and make "Ondu" a pseudonym of "Onda". Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It is Onda Riku, sorry for the typo. I don't visit the site every day, so I won't necessarily respond immediately. Nihonjoe 23:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The story is To the Blue Star by Ogawa Issui and translated by Edward Lipsett. I have submitted a correction for the page numbers since whatever was entered for it was incorrect ("|85" was entered, not sure why). Nihonjoe 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Loved Like That

I don't see anything spec-fic in the synopsis you've provided for this title. Do you have any further evidence of its eligibility for the database? Mhhutchins 18:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The main character meets his love interest when she is a ghost, then brings her back to life. Seems pretty spec-fic to me. Nihonjoe 06:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If you consider anyone who has had a near-death experience to be a ghost, yeah. I've accepted it, but I'm still skeptical. Mhhutchins 07:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Since it had speculative fiction elements, I added it. There were several others of her works which I didn't add because they didn't seem to have any at all. And usually, with near-death experiences, the dead person doesn't interact and "meet" a living person. It was because of the interaction, which the person who died doesn't remember, that I included it. If it had been just a near-death experience alone, I wouldn't have included it. Nihonjoe 16:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fortune Cafe

Amazon's Look Inside states this was published in 2014. Also, the height of 8.5 inches makes this a "tp" instead of a "pb". Mhhutchins 18:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just a typo. For both of those (or I guess a "selecto"). Nihonjoe 06:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I added a price sourced to Amazon. Mhhutchins 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nihonjoe 06:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Same problem with the date of this record. Given as 2011 by Amazon. Remember when updating the date of a publication record, you must also update the date of its title record. Mhhutchins 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, another typo. Nihonjoe 06:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Eyes Like Mine

What is the publication format of this? I could only find an ebook edition on Amazon, but it was published in August 2011. Mhhutchins 18:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Try this one. You can scroll down to see customer images, too, in case you need pics showing the physical version. Nihonjoe 06:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That record has a different ISBN. Which is correct for your edition? And you still need to add format to the pub record. Mhhutchins 08:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Space Eldritch II: The Haunted Stars

In your verified Space Eldritch II: The Haunted Stars, the story "Seed" (page 187) is listed twice. Is this correct? Or is this an error in the database? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it's a duplicate entry. Nihonjoe 02:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been removed. Nihonjoe 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Tayler / Taylor

When I accepted the submission to correct the spelling from "Taylor" to "Tayler", it was the only record in the db credited to "Taylor". So the pseudonym was automatically deleted. (An author can't exist without a title.) The pseudonym will have to be reestablished once a record for the "Tayler" miscredited publication has been entered into the db. I'll do that. Mhhutchins 19:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the pending submissions has the misspelling (the Science Fiction and Computing update). Nihonjoe 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating generic titles

I disambiguated the "Preface" in this publication. You should do the same for other generic titles like "Introduction", "Afterword", "Author's Notes", etc. to avoid the accidental merging of identically titled works. Mhhutchins 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought I had on that one. Must have slipped my mind. Thanks for catching that. Nihonjoe 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki publisher pages

These pages are no longer necessary since we can now add notes to a publisher's page directly in the database. You'll also notice that the template doesn't link back to the publisher pages in the database. So, it's best to add information about the publisher directly on their database summary page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How? That was the only way I could figure out how to add a note to the pages. Nihonjoe 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Click on the publisher name as it appears in a publication record. You will be carried to that publisher's summary page. (Or you could search for the publisher in the simple search box at the upper left of every page.) For example this is the summary page for HarperCollins. There's a link on each publisher page titled "Edit This Publisher" under the Editing Tools menu. Click on that and you can change the publisher name (a dangerous thing to do), add a link to their website, and then add notes in the next field. Mhhutchins 02:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's an admin-only link, because all I see is a "Key Maintenance" link in that section. Nihonjoe 05:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Strange. I can see why there would be a restriction on changing the publisher name, but adding links and notes should be available to everyone. I'll inquire about whether that's possible. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the original restriction was imposed a number of years ago, back when Publisher records had only one field, "Publisher Name". One possible compromise would be to make Edit Publisher available to all users, but make the Publisher Name field not editable unless the editor is a moderator. Ahasuerus 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me. Mhhutchins 19:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, FR 786 has been created. I'll see what I can do later today. Ahasuerus 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. We need to create a Help page for this edit form, but it's fairly self-explanatory. Ahasuerus 03:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Help:Screen:EditPublisher. Nihonjoe 06:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! :) Ahasuerus 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing duplicate entries

Re the submission updating this record. You can not remove duplicate contents by using the "Edit This Pub" function. You should use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function. Then you need to go back and delete the duplicate title records from the database. I'm not sure how the duplicates were created. The system must have hiccupped the exact moment the submission was accepted. :) Mhhutchins 17:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused, too. I couldn't see what happened to cause that. Nihonjoe 06:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see your subsequent submission. You already know how to remove titles from pubs. Now we have to delete all of those duplicate titles. I'll start at the bottom if you start at the top. Mhhutchins 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. I deleted the 30+ duplicates. Mhhutchins 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed them from the entry with this submission. I didn't have time to remove the duplicate entries because I had to go to work before the above submission was accepted. Thanks for cleaning things up. Nihonjoe 06:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Along the way, the author of "A Sort of Homecoming" got omitted. I added "Terri Wallace" as the author of that story. Chavey 07:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that. Nihonjoe 07:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert J. Defendi

Sorry, but I had to reject your submission for that author, since we normalise author names. I put the place of birth into the entry on my own (adding USA, since we also catalogue the land of birth). Thanks, Stonecreek 07:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Template:TitleFields:Author, "Initials should normally be entered followed by a period and a space...[except] when it is clearly the author's choice to omit the period, or when the author has a single letter name that is not an initial (e.g. "Harry S Truman") the period should be omitted." Therefore, we should omit the period because the "J" in the name is not an initial. Nihonjoe 07:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That may be so, but we really do need hard proof for this. So, what are your sources for this proposed change? Plus: This would have effected a publication primary verified by another editor, so this needs in every case a discussion with him. Thanks, Stonecreek 07:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I know him personally, though I don't know how to use that as a source. I've known him for many years now. His official site doesn't use a period at all (see here). Looking at my copy of this book, there is no period used in the index, on the copyright page, at the beginning of the story in the book, or at the top of the pages within the story where the author's name is listed. For this title, looking at the cover of the book shows no period, the title page shows no period, the copyright page shows no period, the index shows no period, the beginning page of the story shows no period, and the top of the pages within the story where the author's name is listed shows no period. The same goes for this title. Is that enough evidence? Nihonjoe 07:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This may be so, but you still need to discuss this with the other primary verifier first, since it would affect a publication first verified by him: this is a case of etiquette in ISFDB. Thanks, Stonecreek 07:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine that he would object, since if he has those books, he can easily see the current name is a typo. I've asked him to come comment here. I guess I'll have to submit the request a third time since you keep rejecting the edit rather than just waiting for the process you're insisting on to be complete. Nihonjoe 08:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for that! It was a kind of overreaction (but on the other hand you did ignore my advice to contact the primary verifier first, which is obligatory when he is still active): If there's an actual publication with Robert J. Defendi, it has to be decided which one should be the canonical name, especially when it is his legal name. Thanks, Stonecreek 08:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar with his works, and I have yet to see any that have a period after the "J". I did see his name with a period in a program book at a convention once, but that was just a typo and they haven't made the mistake since (he regularly attends that convention). Nihonjoe 08:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I am in the process of trying to track down the anthology in question, but if I listed the Defendi incorrectly it is because the protocol of this site to put periods in such names, and I was unfamiliar with this author, although if I recall I did like his story. If Nihonjoe also has this anthology, and wishes to change something, like Defendi's name, then I'm game. Before this, I was only familiar with TT Zuma and EJ Altbacker who no longer put periods in their names. MLB 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Nihonjoe 05:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I've changed the canonical name. Christian Stonecreek 14:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Nihonjoe 05:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Very minor changes to notes on Dangerous Women

I made some very minor changes to the Notes on Dangerous Women - removed duplicate listing of LCCN, added more detail to notes on author profiles, changed story lengths on the 2 included non-genre stories. Nothing big. BungalowBarbara BungalowBarbara 04:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nihonjoe 05:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Page count field

Re the page count of this publication: What appears on these pages? We only use brackets for unnumbered pages which have substantial content, using standard numbers, not roman numbers. If there are roman numbers before the first numbered page, then they shouldn't be bracketed. Also, there should not be a space in the page count field. One last thing: please merge the contents with any titles which may already be in the database. Most of the stories appear to be reprints. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

When I tried to correct the page numbers, I got a Python script error. Do you want the details posted here or is there an error log which gives the exact error? Nihonjoe 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Try again. I just updated it by removing the spaces and the submission and moderation went through OK. BTW, I saw in the notes you mention an introduction, but it's not part of the contents. Is that what appears on the roman numbered pages? If the book has roman numbered pages enter the highest number, e.g. "xi+311", not a range of pages. This field is for the number of pages, not a book's pagination (which is another thing entirely.) Mhhutchins 23:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it went through this time. I also added the introduction. Nihonjoe 23:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW, when you make a merge submission, the moderator can see the fields which have been reconciled. Your choices have been good, i.e. keeping the earliest date, and any missing language, length, and notes. You don't have to add a note to the moderator about what choices you made. This will save you a little time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, tool late for that. ;) Nihonjoe 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
One other thing to keep in mind: page count should not be the only factor used in determining story length. There are variations in words per page, depending upon font size, margin width, etc. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I know, so I generally don't bump up to the next one unless it's several pages over the "lower limit" for that. This book is printed in pretty standard 10pt or 11pt. Nihonjoe 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have chosen the wrong story length for this one. It's only 13 pages in one anthology, and 11 pages in your verified anthology. Mhhutchins 22:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, looked at the wrong line in the TOC. Fixed and submitted correction. Nihonjoe 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Washed by a Wave of Wind

I'm holding your submission to update the dates of this publication based on the Locus database. If you look again at the listing on Locus, you'll see two dates. They list the actual publication date followed by the date of receipt in the Locus offices in brackets. So the date of the publication record and its contents should be February 1994. Also, the date given at the end of the introduction is the date of composition. The ISFDB records the date of a title as the first date of its publication. So we must assume that this introduction was published the same date as the publication itself. Also, when using a secondary source to provide data that is not present in the publication itself, you must give the name of that source in the Note field. For example: "Month of publication from Locus1". I can accept the submission and you can change the dates again. Or you can cancel it and make a new submission. Your choice. Mhhutchins 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and accept it and I'll make the changes again. Nihonjoe 06:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You left eight of the contents dated as January 1994. Perhaps I should have just rejected the submission and had you start all over. Mhhutchins 22:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what happened as I changed them all before submitting. I've submitted the new ones now. Nihonjoe 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Tamsin

Re this publication: shouldn't the publication date be 2013-03 based on what you entered in the Note field? Also adding extra lines in the Note field isn't a common practice. Is there any particular reason for doing so here? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just a typo. I've submitted the correction. I added the extra lines because it makes it easier to read. Nihonjoe 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Invisible Magic

Re this publication record: how is the publisher given on the book's title page? I ask because this form of the publisher's name is new to the database. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's exactly like I entered it, only in ALL CAPS. Nihonjoe 16:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

John Carter of Mars

I changed this publication to an OMNIBUS. Also, it would have been better to create the pub without contents, and then import them from another record, this one for example. This would have avoided having to merge all the new content title records which were created when the submission was accepted. I'll merge them for you. Mhhutchins 05:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that, but it was asking for an editor rather than authors, so I went with collection instead. I'm fine merging titles in the future. Just let me know. I find that faster than importing five different works into one. Nihonjoe 05:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
But instead of importing five titles, you had the option to import the entire contents of another publication record. It would have taken two submissions: the first creates the publication, the second imports the contents. By adding contents for titles already in the database, it took six submissions to straighten it out: the first to create the publication record, and five more to merge each of the duplicated titles. Mhhutchins 05:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that particular volume. Sometimes finding things in this database is a pain, especially for works like this which have been collected and reprinted umpteen times. Oh well. Thanks for approving it. Nihonjoe 05:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Since we know it was five volumes of a particular series, we could go directly to that series and find a record that is labeled "[O/1,2,3,4,5]" or "[O/1-5]". That's how I found it, assuming that somewhere in the database there must have been a publication that included the first five novels in that series.
About an OMNIBUS: Any publication (with few exceptions) that includes a previously published novel should be entered as an OMNIBUS. The "editor" would be the author of the entire work. If there were five novels by five different authors, and a credited editor, only that editor would be credited for the omnibus. If there is only one author for the entire contents, then that author would be credited for the omnibus. Mhhutchins 05:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arabian Nights['] Entertainment, by Sir Richard Francis Burton

I just approved your three volumes of submissions for "The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night". You comment on adding the apostrophe to "Nights", and grammatically you are probably correct. It is spelled both ways in various editions, and even occasionally as "Night's". Here is an example of an early edition from the Burton Club in which there clearly is no apostrophe (click on the second picture). Personally, I wouldn't want three different series that are distinguished only by whether and where the apostrophe is. But you are creating a new series in the process of adding these, and it won't be connected with the main series. I should also note that every one of your submissions has to be varianted to an edition listing the canonical name for the author, Sir Richard Francis Burton. If you want, I have some tools available to do that en masse, so I can do that for you if you wish. Chavey 00:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we not supposed to enter the name exactly as it appears in the work? I know there's already a pseudonym in the system for "Richard F. Burton" which points to "Sir Richard Francis Burton", so I'm not sure why anything special needs to be done in this case. The series, "Arabian Nights' Entertainment" is exactly how it is entered in the book, too, so that's why I entered it that way. Is this an exception to the rule to enter it exactly as in the book? Sorry for all the questions, but I want to be clear on these things before entering in 14 more volumes. Thanks. Nihonjoe 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're supposed to enter the author's name exactly as it is, and you've done that step correctly. But the pseudonym can't immediately connect itself to the name you've entered, because there are too many cases of "House Names" where several different people use the same pseudonym, so the software can't do an automatic assignment. Once the system has been told that a particular book or story by a pseudonym has been assigned to a specific "canonical name", then from then on when it sees another copy of that story assigned to the pseudonym, then it will automatically connect that pseudonym to the same canonical name again (well, most of the time). But the first time a story is seen under some particular pseudonym, it has to be assigned to the proper canonical name manually.
As for the series, there is no rule that series names have to be taken directly from the book, nor entered "exactly as in the book". That rule only applies to authors and titles (with some small exceptions in both cases). For example, I just added two books that were listed as "Title-name (A Dreamwalker Mystery)". I put them in a series that is now called "Dreamwalker Mysteries". Not exactly the way it was listed on the book cover, but more appropriate for us. Chavey 06:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks. Nihonjoe 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Soul Windows", by Jaleta Clegg

I accepted your submission for this book, but changed the publisher to "CreateSpace", since that's how it's listed on Amazon. Chavey 14:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. The book itself doesn't give any indication at all. Nihonjoe 16:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Seeing Stone", by Tony DiTerlizzi & Holly Black

You submitted this publication, but without a publisher, saying "Amazon indicates Scholastic published this edition, but that is unlikely based on my recently-submitted clonepub of The Field Guide (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?2682043). Therefore, I left the publisher blank." I checked, and the publisher is listed as Scholastic by WorldCat and by 43 of the 46 copies for sale at Abebooks, so I went ahead and listed it as by Scholastic. Chavey 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just didn't want to submit the wrong publisher, but I thought the entry should be there since the book referred to it. Nihonjoe 16:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
If that is the same for the others like that, feel free to do the same tot them. Nihonjoe 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll mention that I've also been changing all of your publisher submissions from "Scholastic Inc." to "Scholastic". The terms "Inc." (in the US) and "Ltd." (in the UK) are more legal statements about a company than they are the name of the company, and we rarely include those in publisher names. Chavey 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll omit that in the future (though I've seen that on some existing entries, which is why I included it here). Nihonjoe 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There certainly are some, e.g. for historical reasons or due to automatic entry, but we try to avoid them. Chavey 17:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to indicate why this edition is different from your November 2003 first Scholastic printing. According to the OCLC record, it's for the school market. That may be why there are two different ISBNs assigned to this printing. Does your copy have a note about it being for school distribution only? Mhhutchins 18:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all of them did. Nihonjoe 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Mike has a good point. Although the different ISBN is enough to prove it's a different edition, when we know what the difference is, it's useful to add that as a publication note. Chavey 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
How can one be certain that all copies had a note about school distribution only? Why would Scholastic note that in retail editions? Assuming of course that Scholastic printed copies for the retail trade. Otherwise what point was there in creating two ISBNs? Mhhutchins 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's only noted in the ones for sale in schools only. It's very clearly printed on the back of each copy. I doubt it would be mentioned on the regular retail copies. Nihonjoe 18:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Then I misunderstood your response that "all of them did." Mhhutchins 20:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You asked "Does your copy have a note about it being for school distribution only?" and so I answered that all of them did, meaning all of the copies I have are for school distribution only. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Nihonjoe 02:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Scholastic books distributed through regular channels have no such note on them. On occasion, although I'm sure not consistently, WorldCat lists some of the Scholastic editions as having the note that they were for school distribution only. Chavey 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Translations

Re this record: Translators should not be credited in the author field. The only way to credit them is in the Note fields of the publication record and the title record. Mhhutchins 05:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know translators don't go in the author field. I'm not the one who added the original record. Nihonjoe 16:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
But you did a primary verification of the record. In doing that you're stating that the data is correct, and it's obviously not. And it's very likely that no "one' actually added the original record. It was probably created by a bot, all the more reason for humans to verify the records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and then I submitted the correction. I've found it's less hassle to verify first (since it doesn't require anyone to approve it) and then submit the corrections. Nihonjoe 02:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Then why not give the proper credit when you made your first submission to update the record? Never mind. This is getting us nowhere. Sorry for bringing it up. Mhhutchins 04:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you're getting frustrated, but the system here is hardly intuitive. As you said, it's likely the record was originally added automatically, and apparently incorrectly at that time. I entered the fixes to make it correct and match up to how the various guideline pages say to do it. I'm getting the hang of things, but there are still plenty of things which don't always make sense. You know everything off the top of your head since you've been doing this for a very long time. I appreciate your help. Nihonjoe 04:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, you should not have used the Clone function to add this record, since the author field differs. Once the other publication record's author credit is corrected, they should match. But in the future never use the Clone function if the title or author field doesn't match. In fact, I recommend that you only use the Clone function if only one or two of the other fields differ. It's better to use the Add Publication to This Title function to avoid mistakenly copying data caused by cloning. (For example, are the prices for these two publications identical?) The best time to use the Clone function (and the main reason why it was created) was to avoid having to duplicate contents in collections and anthologies. Novel records rarely need to be cloned at all. Mhhutchins 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Thanks. Nihonjoe 16:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Easton Press

As far as I know, The Easton Press doesn't give the price on their publications. Be sure to give the source for the price and the date of the source, since they've been known to raise the price of editions over time. Thanks. Mhhutchins

I found the original invoice for the ones I got, and that's the price on them (not including shipping). Nihonjoe 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
And as I said above, it would be a good idea to give the date of the source. An invoice dated 2004 isn't the same as one dated 1994. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Nihonjoe 05:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tintenherz

A title record for this already existed. You'll have to merge the one you just created with the one already in the database. Instead of using the "Add New Novel" function, you should have gone to the existing title record and use the "Add Publication to This Title" function. (BTW, when you merge the title records, be sure to use the existing series name. Then you'll have to delete the series you created which will then have no titles under it.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I searched for it and got nothing. I'll see what I can squeeze out of this database so it will show me what I want. Nihonjoe 04:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's easily found by going to the author's summary page. That's how I search for a title if I know the author. You could have also used the search box at the top left of every database page. Enter "Tintenherz" and choose either "All Titles" or "Fiction Titles". Mhhutchins 06:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of how the search box works. For some reason, however, it didn't come up when I searched. Did you delete the new series? I can't find it now. Just making sure since you mentioned above that I would need to delete it. Nihonjoe 17:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, submitted the merge. Nihonjoe 05:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Forward or Foreword?

Can you confirm this title's spelling? Also, if you need help in creating variants for the titles by Richard F. Burton, just ask. Mhhutchins 02:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. Just my fingers thinking faster than my brain. :) Nihonjoe 04:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A Wizard of Earthsea

Since you're doing a primary verification of this record, please adjust the note which states the source of the data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated. Nihonjoe 05:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)