User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 4

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nihonjoe's Talk Archives



Before I accept the submission adding this title, can you confirm that all of the contents of this anthology are spec-fic? Also, is the editor as given, Hayakawa Editorial Board, actually stated as such in the publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

All of the authors write only specfic, so yes. And the editor is given as indicated in the submission. They do that in Japan a lot for anthologies or art books or anything else which is edited. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Shortfiction length designations

Re the note you added to this record: the ISFDB standard for designating the length of a story is based on the number of words, not the number of pages. Pages alone should not be used to determine a story's length designation. The note is somewhat misleading to the average user. Mhhutchins|talk 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the description by pages from the help page. Since there's not really a good source for determining number of words for works, pages are often all we can go by. I know it's an approximate range, but the 42 pages is far enough from the "about 50 pages" that it is either not actually a novella or it's at the high end of novelette and was just called a novella. I suppose I could ask him for the word count since I know him personally, but that seems a little extreme. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read my original post. It's about the misleading note, not about using the number of pages to estimate a word count when there are no other means to determine it. Your note says that the ISFDB standard is to use the number of pages. There is nothing in the help pages about using the number of pages to determine the length of a story. You're also incorrect to say "there's not really a good source for determining number of words for works." The best way is to actually count the words. Another way is less accurate but more reliable than the basing it on the number of pages: this word counter. (You may need a Google account to access it.) If you're not working from a primary source, then you should leave the length designation field blank. Mhhutchins|talk 05:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I wrote, so if you misinterpret it that way, there's not much I can do. I've submitted a removal of it. I'll look at the counter and see if it will be helpful. At first glance, it's confusing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on the few pages available in the Amazon Look Inside, a rough estimate of the word count (using the Google spreadsheet) is about 12000 words. Mhhutchins|talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


I've changed the type of this publication from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION, since it contains two works of SHORTFICTION by the same author without a NOVEL, COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, or NONFICTION content. Mhhutchins|talk 05:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Please add the content records for the two NOVEL records which make up this OMNIBUS. If the two works are not presented as individual works within the publication, it must be typed as a NOVEL. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know how it works. I had to have this approved before I could do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it's been submitted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
A submission adding an OMNIBUS record doesn't have to be approved before adding the contents. They can be added in the initial submission. If the content exists, you will then merge the records in a subsequent submission. That avoids the record showing up on an error report (which is how I came upon it) as well as avoiding having to deal moderators cleaning the report. Mhhutchins|talk 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can request a feature allowing entry of the existing record number so it will add and merge them all in one step. That would be useful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Author photograph

Please reload this image at no more than 600 pixels tall. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's already below the size limit of 150k, and I took the picture, so there's not a problem with fair use. Why upload a smaller version? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I think there could be a typo in the title of this entry. Shouldn't it be Fragments ... ? Stonecreek 21:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, typo. Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Diann Thornley

There are a few problems with your submission to update the author data for Diann Thornley.

1) The "Legal Name" field should be in the format "Lastname, Firstname Middlename". You entered it as "Diann Thornley Read".

2) For persons whose names are written in the Latin alphabet, the "Trans. Legal Name" field should remain blank. That field is only used for authors whose legal name is in a different alphabet.

3) The sole purpose of the "Family Name" field is to sort authors for the Author Directory. A user looking for this author would naturally look under "T" for "Thornley", not "R" for "Read".

4) The country should be given in the "Birth Place" field. So "Utah" should be "Utah, USA".

I will accept the submission so that you won't lose the data that was added in the other fields, but ask that you make the changes in the four fields which have errors. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Trans. Legal Name" was just my mind being on autopilot after doing so many Japanese entries. Regarding the Author Directory, they may look for her there now, but she has a new book coming out soon which will be under "Read", so that's why I updated it. I've updated the rest. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
She'll be in the directory twice. Once under "Thornley" and later under "Read" when a publication credited to that name is entered into the database. But "Thornley" should be the "Family Name" for this author credit. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins|talk 05:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Separating a main title from a subtitle

In the case of this publication, there should be a colon separating "Oh My Goddess!" from "First End". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that it would look very strange with a colon after the exclamation point. That's why I didn't include it the first time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a bibliographic standard (and not only for the ISFDB, see the OCLC record), regardless of how strange it may look to some. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins|talk 05:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Betrayer of Trees

You have verified this publication containing Betrayer of Trees as a novelette and this publication containing Betrayer of Trees as a shortstory . Please check this two version and 1) if they are the same, they should be merged under the correct length; or 2) if one is an expansion/abridgment of the other, notes should be added to each title record. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Done and submitted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Price of Allegience

Would you mind double checking the spelling of "allegience" in Price of Allegience from Explaining Cthulhu to Grandma and Other Stories. Is this a database typo or an error in the original publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo. Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tale of the Dead Town

I have changed my verification on this pub from Primary1 to Transient. You may wish to change your Primary2 to Primary1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Would you happen to be familiar with this artist-cum-author of light novels? I was looking for his legal name and at first I thought that it was 自然の敵P (Shizen no Teki P). However, it appears to be his nom de theatre. Ahasuerus 14:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. I can't find any more than what you already have. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 02:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlene S. Harmon or Charlene C. Harmon?

Can you confirm the credit for this work? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to check when I get home. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Had my wife check. She said it is "C" as the initial, so I submitted a correction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Stasheff - "The Secular Wizard"

I've replaced the Amazon image for The Secular Wizard" with a scan. Doug 21:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Japanese publication series

When you have a free moment, could you please take a look at this discussion on the Community Portal? TIA! Ahasuerus 17:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Marianna Roberg

You created duplicate titles records for this author which will have to be merged. In the future, it's best to wait until one of the submissions adding a new title has been moderated, then use the "Add Pub to This Title" function. This will avoid the duplication of titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 08:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Typos

Would you mind double checking these possible typos?

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating interior art...

...should be done as follows: The first piece isn't disambiguated. The second (and subsequent) pieces are given a number based on their order of appearance in the publication. The number should be in squared brackets, e.g. "A Work of Art [2]".

The works must be identically titled in order to be disambiguated. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is based on several entries in this record. Mhhutchins|talk 20:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, if the art illustrating a story (or essay) appears before the title page of the story, then it is also considered the starting page of the story. For example, "A Witch's Christmas" starts on page 22, and "Loyalty" starts on page 30. Mhhutchins|talk 20:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's another record which contains the wrong disambiguation for the interior art records. Also, the title of the serial should be given in the format "Title (Part x of y)". The serial records will also have to be varianted to a parent record of either NOVEL or SHORTFICTION type. Most likely you'll have to create a new parent record. Can you determine the combined length of the parts to see why type the parent record should be? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Those were already fixed (the other records), and they've been approved. As for the serial records, I don't have issues 4-5, so I don't know if there are 3 or 4 parts to it. The editor of issue 3 noted in an essay that it looked like it might go for 4 parts, but since I don't have those issues, I can't see for sure. Once I have copies of those issues, I'll fix them all to "part x of y" so they all match. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the length designation of "novelette" from this SERIAL title. Records typed as SERIAL don't have a length designation. Mhhutchins|talk 08:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
When the number of parts of a serial aren't isn't known, use "Title (Part 1 of ?)" until the number of parts can be determined. I've changed the title of the two parts currently in the database, and have varianted them to a SHORTFICTION title. If it is determined that the total word count is more than 40K, the type can be changed to NOVEL. Mhhutchins|talk 08:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbering magazine editor records

We usually don't number the editor records for magazines. Even for magazines which prominently number their issues, such as Interzone. Is there any reason why an exception should be made for The Leading Edge? What will you do when an editor record is an annual merging of issues, like this one? Mhhutchins|talk 02:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why those are merged because they shouldn't be. I don't know who entered those, but that's a weird way of doing it. It doesn't make sense to list them like that because they title pages don't have that on them. They should be separate issues, not annually-combined listings. And I don't know what you mean my "number the editor records" as I haven't done anything with editor records like that (other than entering a specific issue and listing the editor on the title record). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Look in the series number field of this EDITOR record. To my knowledge, we've never numbered EDITOR records for magazines (as I said above.) And repeating my question, how are you going to number this EDITOR record, even if you do unmerge the two pubs from each other? Mhhutchins|talk 04:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, those are two separate issues there: 20/21 and 22. They shouldn't have been merged in the first place. The first one would be 20,21 or 20/21, and the second would be 22. The first one is a double-sized issue, and is numbered that way. As for the numbering showing up on the editor page, I wouldn't know about other magazines since this is the only one I've entered. Looking at this entry, I don't see a problem with it. I'm fine either way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
When you say "They shouldn't have been merged in the first place." you're incorrect. It is ISFDB standard to merge EDITOR records in annual groupings. I admit that when less than four issues per year are published, there is no strong reason to merge them. But then again, there are no rules saying they shouldn't be merged either.
This publication is exceptional only because of the infrequency with which it's published. But is that enough reason to treat it differently than other publications which publish at the same frequency? If you'll look at the example I gave you for periodicals which number their issues, you'll see that as a standard, the issue number isn't given in the EDITOR record. Would you suggest that a periodical like Interzone be handled similarly to the way you're handling Leading Edge? Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why handling this publication should be different from other magazines, you should remove the number from the series number field. Or if you want to change the standard, start a discussion on the Rules & Standards discussion page. Mhhutchins|talk 06:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I already removed them. To me, the grouping by year seems completely arbitrary and pointless. What function is supposed to serve? All it does is make people have to dig through another layer in order to find the issue they want. It would make more sense if these "combined year" titles were treated as series, so you could still see the issues indented below them. Only in that case would I not take issue with it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Another problem: see how the issues you've changed the title of are displayed in the magazine series grid. The software is written to display only the issue date or number by disregarding the title of the magazine if it appears before the first comma. That's why most magazines are in the format "Title of Magazine, Date" or "Title of Magazine, Issue Number". Mhhutchins|talk 02:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've addressed this last problem with the queued submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Varianting and pseudonyms

When you make a title record into a variant based on a difference in author credit, you should determine if a pseudonym has been created for the author. You don't have to wait until the submission creating the variant has been accepted to make an immediate submission to create the pseudonym. I did that for you for this record's author. Mhhutchins|talk 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Leading Edge, 1990

Hi. Would you explain a little more about your proposed unmerge of the two issues from The Leading Edge - 1990? It's normal treatment of magazines to have all of a year's issues merged to a single, year-based title, even though the issues themselves are distinct publications with different contents, as long as the publisher and editor(s) are the same. The two issues associated with that 1990 title appear to meet those criteria, so I am trying to understand why they should be separated. Thanks. --MartyD 12:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That policy doesn't make sense. Why would you merge multiple titles that are not the same into a year-based title? For this magazine, which has (at most) three issues a year, there's no reason to do that. It makes it hard to find each issue (well, harder, anyway) because people have to keep digging through multiple layers to try to find what they are looking for. And then when you do it for a single issue, it makes even less sense. I'm trying to understand why they should be kept together (or, in the case of the years that have only one issue, having the title changed to something that makes no sense). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't argue with you. I only work here, and it is a practice that predates my tenure with the ISFDB. I believe it has to do with cutting down on clutter on the editor summary pages. There is a one-step way to see all of the issues: Click on the "View Issue Grid" link. That will show you: . When recording the issues, if you put a comma before the issue number, the number will be shown in the grid. For example, see . --MartyD 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that part out. I started a discussion on the Rules and standards page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mistborn sub-series

Hi. Please see, and respond to, this note, as the proposed change affects one of your verified pubs. Thanks. --MartyD 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Leslie Perdew or Pardew

Can you confirm the art credit for the story "Loyalty" in this publication? There's another artist with a similar name which is very likely the same person. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That is how the name is spelled. Because it is such an unusual spelling, I double and triple checked when I entered it. It may still be the other person you mentioned, however. Perhaps a pseudonym? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
More likely a typo on the publisher's part. Mhhutchins|talk 02:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Very possible. If so, they did it at least twice in the issue. I will do some checking with people who worked on that issue (I know a bunch of them) and see what I can find. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Todd Hestor or Nestor

Can you confirm the two credits by these artists? Todd Hestor and Todd Nestor. The two works are published in consecutive issues of Leading Edge which you primary verified. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Corrected Nestor to Hestor. The first couple issues of the magazine were typewritten instead of done on a computer, and the name was a little blurred. I checked in another location in the magazine and it was written "Hestor". I've submitted a correction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Serialized novelette = SERIAL

This work should be typed as SERIAL, and the length designation should be removed. Then the record should be varianted to a new one typed as SHORTFICTION which includes the length designation. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed and submitted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It still needs to be varianted to a SHORTFICTION title (as explained in the original post.) Mhhutchins|talk 08:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, submitted one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I accepted it before I realized the variant was reversed. So I deleted the one you created, and made the SERIAL into a variant of a new SHORTFICTION record. Mhhutchins|talk 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That works, thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Title confirmation

Can you confirm the spelling of the titles given in this publication? Is "Magicians's" correct? If so, it's oddly ungrammatical. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, just a typo. Submitted corrections. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fiction River

Are you certain that the contents you've added to these publication records are eligible for the database? The pub record may be eligible because of the editor being "above the threshold", but that doesn't mean the contents would be eligible unless they're spec-fic or by an author who is "above the threshold". Mhhutchins|talk 01:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. All of the issues I added have specfic content. I didn't add contents of one issue because they seemed to be all mysteries, and since I don't have that issue, I can't read the stories to find out if any are specfic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Book of Amber

I wouldn't have rejected the first submission to add this if you hadn't given it the same publication date as another record. And since you had to clone that original record, it was relatively easy to create a new record. Sorry that you had to make so much effort to get it right this time. Mhhutchins|talk 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have been easier to simply accept it and have me correct the date. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I will repeat: I thought it was already in the database. Why would I have accepted a submission believing it was a duplicate? Mhhutchins|talk 23:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps put it on hold and ask? It's not any harder than rejecting it. Regardless, this isn't going anywhere, and the water is long gone under the bridge, so let's move on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Odyssey / Harcourt Young Classic / Harcourt

You verified Bed-Knob and Broomsticks P518182. I suppose that is "An Odyssey/Harcourt Young Classic" per title page, with unspaced slash. Probably the copyright page covers both the tp Odyssey Classics and hc Harcourt Young Classics identically, with both ISBN and both letterlines. Is that right?

Evidently "Odyssey/Harcourt Young Classic" is title page usage that designates the joint Odyssey Classics and Harcourt Young Classics editions, where the actual O Classics (tp) or HY Classics (hc) is specified only on the back cover or jacket.

Thus the slash represents alternation rather than hierarchy. So the imprint should be "Odyssey/Harcourt Young Classic / Harcourt" with first slash unspaced in the database Publisher field.

I have a copy of the Odyssey Classics (per back cover) tp Seven-Day Magic P79958 in hand. Last week I entered the Harcourt Young Classics hc Mary Poppins Comes Back using in the Publisher field your specification with both slashes unspaced.

Per User:Mhhutchins you are the only contributor who has primary-verified any spaced-slash "Odyssey / Harcourt Young Classic / Harcourt". Regardless of copyright page details in the first paragraph above, I hope to unspace the first slash. Do you agree? --Pwendt|talk 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to look it up, but not tonight. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a little more concise in what you want to do? Your whole message is rather confusing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
He's asking about the imprint/publisher hierarchy. Are "Odyssey" and "Harcourt Young Classic" given as separate imprints in the book? Or is the imprint given as a single name: "Odyssey/Harcourt Young Classic" which is an imprint of Harcourt? If the latter, there should be no spaces around the dash in the imprint's name. Check out this publisher. Adding spaces implies the first is an imprint of the second. Mhhutchins|talk 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming by "dash" you mean "slash". I've submitted an update. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Del Rey

Can you confirm that the publisher stated on the title page of this book is "Del Rey" or does it give the publisher as "Ballantine" with the Del Rey logo? If the latter, the record should give the publisher as "Del Rey / Ballantine". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Author Field of an author's data

You must be very careful about changing this field. Doing so will result in changing the data in all publication records and all title records for this author. That's why I had to reject the submission to change Mariko Ohara to "Mariko Ōhara". There's at least one primary verified record which gives the name as "Ohara". You should contact that verifier to see how it is given in the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 02:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Italian ed. of Monkey Brain Sushi

According to the OCLC record, the publisher of this book is Mondadori, and is #431 in the publication series, "Piccola biblioteca Oscar". Also, unless you intend on adding the other contents, it would be a good idea to add a note that the contents are incomplete. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

CR Bunko

When you have a free moment, could you please review this discussion? TIA! Ahasuerus 00:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Invention of Hugo Cabret

At INTERIORART T1350698 I noted that Selznick won the Caldecott Medal for this work. It's an award to the illustrator for illustration. --Pwendt|talk 19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and Selznick both wrote and illustrated the novel, so it makes sense that he won the Caldecott Medal for the work he illustrated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Annotated Alice

While entering the Quality Paperback Book Club edition of The Definitive Edition of The Annotated Alice, I notice that you have verified two publication records for the 1999 Norton edition. Each of these publications records is under a separate variant title. The first publication is under the title The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition which matches the title in the publication record. The other publication is under the title The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass which does not match the title of the publication. Assuming that you only have one copy of this book, the second publication record (that doesn't match its title record) should be deleted.

Given that the QPB edition is produced from the plates of the Norton edition, the content should be identical. However, I noticed some discrepancies between my copy and the record for the Norton edition. Mostly there is a bunch of missing content. If you review what I've included in the QPB edition and want to add it to yours, you can import content from mine (558869). The import tool will only pick up the content that is missing. There are a two pieces of content where the title is different. For the first, you have the introduction to the original 1960 edition as "Introduction (The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass)", whereas the title page has it as "Introduction to The Annotated Alice" which is how I've entered it in the QPB edition. The other is the item for the Tenniel illustrations. You have them as a single title as "The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition" whereas I've entered them in the QPB edition as two titles ("Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There"). If you import titles from the QPB edition, you'll end up with both versions of these two (three) titles, so you'll have to delete one set. Let me know if you have any questions or if you see any differences between what I've entered for the QPB edition and yours. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have two copies of that book: the 1999 edition and the 1960 edition. Someone apparently went and changed the title of the 1990 one so it's incorrect, so now I'll have to go fix it. The title on the title page is "The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass". That's why the titles of some of the content have "(The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass)". The other stuff can wait until then. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the duplicate publication record, which is the one you removed your verification from. I also re-merged the publication for the "Definitive" edition that you had unmerged. You shouldn't have had to unmerge the titles since that copy was already under the proper variant title. The title records look good now. Regarding the introduction with the disambiguated title, my concern was that as the title reads, "Introduction (The Annotated Alice: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass)", we would expect the title page to read simply "Introduction". However, the title page for that essay in the QPB edition reads "Introduction to The Annotated Alice", which doesn't even require disambiguation. Let me know if you have any other questions about that or any other content. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Wanderers

This series consists of novellas, not novels. The publication records for the eight parts will have to be converted from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK, and the two typed as OMNIBUS will have to be converted to COLLECTION. Do you want to try your hand at the conversion or would you rather I do it?

Also, using the Amazon "Look Inside" feature, I didn't see any publisher credit, only a copyright. Is that the basis for your publisher credit of these publications? Mhhutchins|talk 07:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazon lists the pubs with multiple stories as omnibuses (with publisher "CreateSpace") and which could be correct since all the included works were previous published independently, however, our definition limits such to requiring a larger work to be contained (see PublicationFields:PubType) so collection is probably the better choice. Uzume 14:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
True. We don't use anyone's definition of OMNIBUS but our own. So will you be doing the conversion?
Also, if all of your data is from Amazon, then you should give the publisher as CreateSpace, not the copyright holder. Mhhutchins|talk 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to convert them all. I used the Copyright name as the publisher in order to be consistent since all of this author's works are self published, but only the print books were done through CreateSpace. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't have to be consistent when recording publication credits. Consistency shouldn't be our goal. Accuracy should be. And again, copyright is never used for publisher credit. Period.
I'll do the conversion, which should take me quite some time considering the number of publications that have to be corrected. Mhhutchins|talk 18:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The series looks good now—thanks, Michael. I notice the records' publisher have not been updated. I poked around and virtually all sources online state the publishers for the printed editions with ISBNs as CreateSpace (Booktopia of Australia, however mentions "CANE RIVER PECAN CO"). I also tried to look into the ebook editions (but searching for them is harder without identifiers like ISBNs) and the few I found cite "Joe Vasicek" (and not "Joseph Vasicek" from the copyright) as publisher—one example is B&N Nook editions. Uzume 04:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


You have primary verified our 小説となりのトトロ pub record which states the publisher as "Animage Bunko / Tokuma Shoten", however, I was hoping to get this changed to "徳間書店" and add it to the pub series "アニメージュ文庫" (id "N-032"). OCLC: 779479866, JPNO: 88029942 and JP-ASIN: 4196695817 all confirm the publisher and series name. I thought I would also add the Amazon cover image. Please let me know if you are good with my making such changes. As a side note, I notice you cite the marked price as "¥390", however, the NDL records (via JPNO link) state "380円" and the Amazon-JP entry has a back cover image that shows the price as "419円" and "¥419". As such I wonder if perhaps both yours and the Amazon-JP prices indicate later printings (I realize Japanese publishers are particularly bad at indicating print run differences). Thanks. Uzume 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You already did it, so my comments don't really matter. As for the price, that is the price given on the back of the book. Japanese publishers are actually quite good at indicating print runs, they are always listed on the copyright page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I made the submission (since it affected only one pub) and cited my comments here (in the submission's moderator comment). I guess a moderator already approved it but as a primary verifier your comments do matter (if there is an issue it can be further remedied). Perhaps it is the catalogers/bibliographers of online catalogs/bibliographies then that are of poorer quality (and seem to conflate different printings). Anyway, I know sometimes the difference between an imprint and a publication series can be subtle. Thank you for your input. Uzume 03:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem. For the printing number issue, you can see it on [Image:THSCRTHSTR1978-copyright-page.jpg this page]. At the top right, there are two vertical entries. The one on the right is the date of the first printing (Showa 50 (1975) September 30), and the one on the left is indicating the copy that page is from is the eighth printing, printed on Showa 54 (1979) August 30. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dirty Pair

I wanted to notify you that I made submissions to add Amazon cover images for your Dirty Pair publications:

Thanks. Uzume 16:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Varianting a title by a non-pseudonym

When you variant a title to another author credit, you must also make sure that a pseudonym relationship has been established between the two authors. If not, you must create one. Otherwise, situations like this occur. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks just the same as every other pseudonym page I've seen. Is there something specific on that page which shouldn't be there? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)