User talk:SGale

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Important!

This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here.

If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please:

  • post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes
  • post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard

Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.


Welcome!

Hello, SGale, 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!

Virtual Reality

I've accepted the submission to add a record for a new edition of this title. If you are working from a copy of the actual book, leave a message in the "Note to Moderator" field, which will help us avoid having to do additional research. If you are working from secondary source you should record that source in the "Note" field. (This latter field remains visible part of the record, the former one does not.) A question: according to the OCLC record this book has 384 pages. Can you confirm your copy has 415 pages? Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 14:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing data

Always give the source for your data in the Note field, not the Note to Moderator field. The former is a visible part of the record. The latter is temporary and disappears the moment the submission is accepted. Please read this section of the publication entry help page to understand the purpose of the latter field.

Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 22:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry: I intended to include a Note about using Amazon UK for the details, but forgot about it at the last minute. SGale 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

About Time 4

Please confirm the ISBN given in this record. It's an invalid number. Thanks for looking. (Also, do a primary verification of the record as well.) Mhhutchins 20:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The ISBN I gave was from the copyright page. However, there is a different one on the back cover, which is 0975944630. That's a bad error by the publisher.SGale 10:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Please make a new submission giving the good ISBN (0975944630) in the record's ISBN field, and then record in the Note field the bad one (0972595930) and where both are located in the book. Also, are you certain these are 10 digit numbers without a preceding "978"? By 2008, most publishers should have switched over to ISBN-13. (Don't forget to add a colon to your message when responding on the wiki.) Mhhutchins 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DoneSGale 15:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

About Time 5

Please see if there is an ISBN-13 given in this book. By 2010 all books were required to carry an ISBN-13. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The ISBN-13 which I managed to find: 9780975944646.SGale 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
But is it actually stated in the book? We can always create an ISBN-13 if we want to. But we should only record what is actually stated in the book itself. Mhhutchins 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's from below the barcode.SGale 09:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

About Time (6)

Well, it appears you made another submission to create a new record which corrects the problems with the original record. In the future, wait only the first submission is accepted, then make another submission to update it. Now we have two records for the same publication in the database. I'll delete the first after you've read and responded to this message. Mhhutchins 21:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I think I hit CR when I wanted to move to a new field rather than Tab.--SGale 17:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I should also have mentioned that, yes, I have a copy of this book. The volume number is not included on the title page. However, the number appears on the spine, in the background to the cover artwork and it's in the listing of other books in the series given on the copyright page. (The comments on volume number also apply to those other volumes in the series.) I was also making it consistent with those other volumes.SGale 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The title field of the publication record should match the title page of the publication. When you get a chance please go back and make any necessary corrections in the publication records. I also need a response about the ISBNs in the two earlier posts. Also, add a colon to the beginning of your responses to a wiki post which will indent it and make it easier to read. Add one colon to the number in the previous post. For example, this post has two colons. In your response, you should start with three colons. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 19:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notes

Hi. A note about notes: They will read better if you make each item/sentence start on a new line. Unfortunately, simply hitting Enter in the notes field won't do the trick. You need to use special HTML tags to do it. The simplest way is to put <br> at the end of each line or at the beginning of each subsequent line: 

   This is my first comment.<br>
   This is my second comment.<br>
   and so on...

or 

   This is my first comment.
   <br>This is my second comment.
   <br>and so on...

If you want to get fancier, you can use lists. See Help:Using_HTML_in_Note_Fields if you're interested. I added breaks in Last of the Gaderene's notes. --MartyD 11:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Useful information. Thanks. I'll use this for the rest of the books in the series when I get round to adding them.SGale 12:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating generic titles

Generic titles, such as "Introduction", should be disambiguated by parenthetically adding the title of the container to the work's title. For example, the introduction in this record should be titled "Introduction (Players)". Please update the record when you get a chance. Mhhutchins 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have remembered that. I'll have to edit some others too, as they've already been approved.SGale 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Surface Detail by Banks

I'm holding a submission to add a new publication to this title, but it seems to be identical to this one, except for the date. What is the stated date of printing in your copy? (This should be part of the notes.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Publication history - 'This paperback edition published in 2011 by Orbit. Reprinted 2011 (twice), 2012 (twice).' I;m not sure what's the problem. At the very least, as I point out in the Notes. the cover differs from that shown.SGale 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll accept the submission. You should update the record to indicate the publishing history in the note field, so that later users know it's a different printing. Mhhutchins 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Essay Dates

When entering contents to a publication, the dates should either be the same as the publication (if you leave the date field blank it will automatically use the publication's date) or the date of the publication it first appeared in (or a special case of previously published, but unknown when, would use 0000-00-00). I have changed the dates on the introductions to The Silent Stars Go By and Beautiful Chaos from the year only to the dates of the respective publication. Let me know if you have questions or if that wasn't clear. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd that no other moderator mentioned this. But I'll remember it next time.SGale 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, you've only been active for a month. Some moderators will do some clean-up on records by newer editors, but will eventually point out consistent mistakes and inform you how to clean-up the records yourself. Mhhutchins 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I thought I must have been missing something.SGale 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Entering plates into publication records

Are there illustrations on the front and back of the plates in this publication? If so, then "13+[80]" would be correct. If the backs of the plates are blank, you should only enter the number of plates in the brackets. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry: I thought I'd read that square brackets were used to indicate unnumbered pages. I didn't realise it was different for artbooks. Yes, there are 40 plates, with captions on the facing pages.
On that point, it seems usual to have a list of the plates so that links can be made to the appropriate books. What information is needed for that and how does it need to be presented? For example, one of the captions reads: A Private Cosmos. 1977. Oil. 17" by 27". I recognise the book as being by Philip Jose Farmer. Also some of the artwork is for historical romances or gothics, so obviously won't be in the database.SGale 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Only enter the title of the work (e.g. "A Private Cosmos") in the title field of the content record. If you want, you have the option of adding other data in the note field of the title record once it's in the database. It doesn't matter what the genre of the original publication. You can variant these records with those for the coverart records if you can determine on which book the art was used.. Do not create a publication for the non-genre publications in order to variant the content record in this artbook. I would suggest adding only two or three contents at first. Once it's been determined that they're OK, you can proceed adding the other contents. Of course, all of this is purely voluntary. Nothing in the rules demands that you enter the contents of artbooks. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wounded Land

If you have this book, according to what you wrote in the Note to Moderator field, please remove the source given in the Note field, and do a Primary Verification of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I was thinking very much about artists and artwork at the time.SGale 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

World War Z

According to Amazon.co.uk, this edition is 19.6 centimeters tall which makes it a trade paperback (entered as "tp"). Can you confirm this? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is 19.6 cm. Sorry: it just looked like all other recent paperbacks.--SGale 18:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Zacherley's Vulture Stew

Thanks for finding the publication month for this book. Two things however, the source of the month is not Locus1 but Contento1 (I agree, they look alike) I changed this note. Second, if you look at the publication again, you will see that it has been primary verified (scroll down to verification status). The help text states: "It is a matter of courtesy to inform the verifier of changes you make to his or her primary verified pubs, unless a specific verifier has requested not to be notified of particular types of changes. It is very strongly encouraged that you notify the verifier first if the change is particularly significant. Many moderators will not approve a "destructive" change -- that is one that removes or alters data in a verified pub record -- unless the verifier has been asked first. Changes that only add data are usually considered less significant, but verifiers should still be notified of such changes." In this case I'm the verifier, so consider me informed, but please remember it for future submissions. And of course, thanks for contributing! --Willem H. 14:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, two stupid errors in the space of one entry! Sorry about that. If I had been using the print version of Contento, maybe this wouldn't have happened.--SGale 07:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Title capitalization

The ISFDB uses this standard English capitalization rule when entering titles: the first word is capitalized, and all later words are also capitalized except for "and", "or", "the", "a", "an", "for", "of", "in", "on", "by", "at", "from", "with", and "to". Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Fantasy

I've added a cover scan to: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?39187 Prof beard 13:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Spectrum 19

You verified a copy of Spectrum 19 -- I've made some changes to the Jeffery Jones image here and added a new version (mine is not 1st ed TP) I'm working on adding items to. MHutchins recommended I notify you of this. Susan O'Fearna 05:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--SGale 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing primary-verified records and sourcing data

I have a submission to change the publication date field of this record. It is ISFDB policy to notify the primary verifiers before making a change in a verified record. You must also give the source for your data in the record's "Note" field, not the "Note to Moderator" field. Any message left in the "Note to Moderator" field disappears the moment the submission is accepted. It is used to provide information that helps the moderator in the decision to accept the submission. Information about the publication should not be entered in this field. As a courtesy, this time I'll leave a message on the verifier's talk page, and add a note to the field about the source of the data. Please keep this in mind when making any future submissions. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Incidentally, what about altering data that appears incorrect but where the edition has *not* been Primary-verified? Should you also query this with the original supplier of the data?--SGale 12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If a record hasn't been primary-verified, then it's perfectly fine to correct any mistakes, especially if you have the book in hand. If you don't have the book, and are working from a secondary source, you should always provide the source for your data in the record's Note field. If another editor has entered data from another secondary source into a non-primary verified record, which conflicts with your source, then you both should discuss the problem, and try to find further corroborating evidence, and make the changes accordingly, while noting the conflict present in the secondary sources. If one of those secondary source is a dealer listing, i.e. Amazon, noting the conflict is unnecessary, because the data from such listings is more suspect than from one of our verification references. (But even they can have errors.) BTW, the editor who provided data to a non-verified record is usually not known, and usually not human. (We have robot spiders which crawl and gather Amazon's data.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that info.--SGale 10:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Misaligned ISBN

Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only given in the barcode. It's 978-1934331491, as appears to be generated on the entry's page.--SGale 16:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Fellowship of the Ring

It seems that you didn't use the 'Add publication to This Title' function, but instead the 'Add New Novel' button, whic automatically generates not only a new publication but also a new title (especially for that publication). You also could have cloned your fifth printing of this Edition. I have now merged the two titles for you. Stonecreek 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a new level of stupidity for me. Of *course* I should have used the 'Add publication' as in other cases. I don't know why I didn't this time. Sorry about the extra work. I was also wrong about the capitalisation too, incidentally!--SGale 09:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Submissions on Hold

I have several submissions to add publications on hold. It looks like we already have records for these publications in the database:

  • By Air Express to Venus or Captives of a Strange People - see 309522
  • Five Thousand Miles Underground, or, the Mystery of the Centre of the Earth - see 256494
  • Through Space to Mars or the Longest Journey on Record - see 256534
  • Through the Air to the North Pole or The Wonderful Cruise of the Electric Monarch - see 256537
  • Under the Ocean to the South Pole or The Strange Cruise of the Submarine Wonder - see 251800
  • By Space Ship to Saturn or Exploring the Ringed Planet - see 309523
  • The City Beyond the Clouds or Captured by the Red Dwarfs - see 309521

Am I missing something? Also, your submission of Lost on the Moon, or, in Quest of the Field of Diamonds would new as we don't have a Cupples & Leon edition. But given the above, are you positive this is not the Whitman Publishing Company edition as everything else matches? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As it's been several days without a response, I've rejected the ones which are duplicates. I'll keep Lost on the Moon on hold for a bit longer. Please let me know if you're sure about the publisher and whether you think this is a separate printing or the existing record should be updated. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've rejected Lost on the Moon, or, in Quest of the Field of Diamonds as well since there has been no response. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My computer has been dead, and it took time to sort it out.
It appears there's been a recent update to the database. Now, when I click on a book title I no longer get a list of printings for that title. This was the first time I saw that. As I'm using a fairly ancient browser this is *my* problem.
As for Lost on the Moon, the details are from Bleiler78. They are also the same in Reginald3, which shows it is one of a series, all from the same publisher. So I'd say the earlier entry is incorrect.--SGale 09:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
There are Whitman Publishing Company editions for other books in the series, but they are from later dates. It's possible WorldCat has a bad date on the record that listing was taken from. Given there is a source for the information, I recommend leaving it as is and hopefully someday it will be updated based on the actual book. I've cloned it to create the Cupples & Leon edition. Please edit that to add in Bleiler78 and Reginald3 information. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

ISBN-13

Re this publication: A book published in 1985 would not have an ISBN-13 as they weren't created until 2005, and weren't required until 2007. Like the ISFDB, your source gives both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, and just like the ISFDB, the one appearing in the book itself will be displayed first. That is the ISBN which should be given in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with this record and this one. Mhhutchins 21:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Should have realised that, with both ISBNs listed. Would have saved some effort too! I'll make sure to remember when I add a missing title for this author.--SGale 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Ghost Squad and the Ghoul of Grünberg series

I accepted your submission of The Ghost Squad and the Ghoul of Grünberg, but I removed the "Ghost Squad" publication series info you provided. This appears to be a title series. After accepting the submission, which created the title record, I added the title to the existing The Ghost Squad title series as #4. A way to judge whether something is a publication series or title series is to ask yourself if the series placement/identification would remain intact if the work were published by a different publisher. "Yes" would indicate it's a title series, while "No" would indicate it's a publication series. See Help:How_to_work_with_series for more detailed information. --MartyD 20:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mizora: A Prophecy

According to the OCLC record you linked to this publication record, the book is credited only to "herself", and not the author credit which was attributed in later editions. Does Bleiler note that the first book edition was credited to Lane? Mhhutchins 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bleiler78 gives "Zarovitch, Princess Vera [Pseud of Lane, Mary W]". Just out of interest, I downloaded the Project Gutenberg file. Assuming it's a good representation of the book it says "Written by herself". It then goes on to give the publisher, Dillingham, and the date, 1890, but then continues with " Copyright 1889 by Mary E. Bradley".--SGale 21:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, I've just checked the cross-reference to the name in Bleiler78. There, it's given as "Lane, Mary E". So I think the " W" initial could be a typo.--SGale 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Please update the record based on the OCLC record and the PG file. If you look at the bottom of the linked OCLC record, you'll find that the "responsibility" (author credit stated in the publication) is "written by herself". This is a good example of why it's important to get data from more than one secondary source when available. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

They That Walk in Darkness

I've accepted the submission adding this record, but made some changes based on the OCLC record (which I've sourced in the Note field). This included changing the author credit and the title of the work. If possible, try to use another secondary source to corroborate the data in records created from Bleiler's listings. I find that OCLC is the best secondary source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to argue about the name. Then at the OpenLibrary (OL13514592M) I found a reproduction of the title page of this edition, clearly showing use of just the initial. However, I also noted that both the OCLC and OL refs gave the page count as viii+486, not 468. Oops - we both missed that. I guess this just reinforces your comment about Bleiler. However, I'm not sure about all WorldCat entries either. I've seen some books with dates given two years before the real publication date.--SGale 21:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
No secondary source is perfect, but that wasn't my point. An editor should not restrict their sources to a single one, especially when one is as readily available as OCLC. The older the records, the more problematic they are more likely to be, since they were transcribed from older records. You can always record the data discrepancies in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly agree. My point was simply that if you select the wrong secondary source you can still end up with a mistake.--SGale 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Tales of Natural and Unnatural Catastrophes

You Lotus1 verified Tales of Natural and Unnatural Catastrophes. Did Lotus report the publication date? The record says 1989-02-00 but the notes were empty. I have a copy of the publication but it does not give a more precise date than "1989". --Marc Kupper|talk 05:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Locus1 gives the date as Feb 89, exactly as given in the record.--SGale 09:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I updated the publication notes to credit Lotus1 as the source for the date. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

ISBN-13 again

Re this record: a book published in 1996 wouldn't have an ISBN-13. Please enter the ISBN as stated in the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with this record. Mhhutchins 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Alluring Art of Margaret Brundage: Queen of the Pulp Pin-Up Art

I added Margaret Brundage as author of this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

1990 Grafton The Diamond Throne

Hi. I think your proposed submission, which I have on hold, duplicates this. If you agree, I think you should update that record and cite Locus1 as the source of the month. Let me know if you believe they are different. Thanks. --MartyD 10:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you must be right. Locus doesn't say so, but there doesn't appear to be any other possible candidate for any paperback printing earlier than July 1990.--SGale 12:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just realised that this 1990 Grafton pb has been primary verified by BLongley, so I can't edit it.--SGale 17:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's ok to edit things verified by others. You'd normally ask them first. Bill sadly is no longer with us, so you'd normally want to confirm with a moderator before editing. Seeing as I brought it up, we can consider it confirmed. To save you an edit-and-review cycle, I made the date change and added a note in the existing entry and rejected your submission. Please review (link is above); go ahead and make any further changes based on what you found in Locus1 if you want to, and make yourself the Locus1 verifier. Thanks. --MartyD 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Prices

Don't forget to add the currency symbol before the price. (I've corrected this on several of your submissions.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Imperial Earth

PV1 and 2 are no longer active and I wanted to let at least one PV know that the cover art for this book is by Bruce Pennington. It is in the gallery posted on his Facebook page. --Mavmaramis 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this interesting information.--SGale 09:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Garden of Rama

I've added a couple of notes to our verified The Garden of Rama. PeteYoung 18:59, 29 November 2018 (EST)

Imprint/Publisher for The Tolkien Companion

Hi. I accepted an edit to your verified The Tolkien Companion, changing the publisher credit from "Picador" to "Picador / Pan Books", as this seemed to match the notes about the statement of publication. If you see this, please review. I am notifying the other PVs (all inactive) as well. --MartyD 11:38, 17 April 2021 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:SGale&oldid=602305"