Search results
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The '''Verified Publishing Names''' project is experimental and is for documenting publishing group, publisher, and imp ...publication references near the start/end dates. For example, The earliest verified publication for an imprint may be July 1983 and if you find one for May 1984 KB (620 words) - 00:49, 27 September 2008
- ==Proposed Scope of the Project== ...ther country (see Douglass' biblio) or it may be that different readers or publishers have different names for it, etc. I am not sure it makes a whole lot of sen37 KB (6,425 words) - 17:22, 17 December 2015
- | Self-published books and vanity publishers included | Self-published books and vanity publishers are included15 KB (2,138 words) - 09:48, 8 September 2022
- ...sted and it has probably received others. Length, from a word count of the Project Gutenberg version, is about 20k words. I would allow a certain fudge factor ...entioned. The book buying public is clearly not demanding that authors and publishers publish word counts even though in this age of word processors and electron76 KB (13,019 words) - 21:00, 12 November 2008
- ...is on hold. I would like there to be a warning bar, similar to the "pub is verified" warning, if the submission is on hold. Moreover, I would like a confirmati ...e'd be able to ask the last editor "Do you want to mark the publication as verified?" as it looks like they have done all the work except for clicking "verify.110 KB (17,630 words) - 20:24, 3 January 2020
- == Regularization of Publishers == ...e specifically regularized, my question is simple: "Do we still regularize publishers?".172 KB (28,464 words) - 13:26, 14 November 2019
- ...camps: objective and subjective. Objective data is easily found and can be verified without argument. Publication data falls into the objective camp; a book ha ...ir recently added support for links between "editions" and their "fiction" project. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 21:31, 1 May 2006 (CDT)168 KB (27,880 words) - 17:18, 17 December 2015
- ...e allowed a few years before that (it was just "paper" at the start of the project). And again - in this case the column seems like a legitimate issue-based w ::::::**professional publishers115 KB (18,749 words) - 13:00, 12 September 2022
- ...a) or ''Rebel without a Cause'', {{T|42472|''Christmas Without Rodney''}} (Verified 4 times) or ''Christmas without Rodney''). The good news is that while we h *Ebook publishers have to cross a fuzzy line in order to warrant inclusion.208 KB (35,083 words) - 17:26, 17 December 2015
- ...te all graphic novels and the problem will go away. That was my very first project in May 2006 when I went on a "search and destroy" mission to delete all com == Publishers and quotes ==212 KB (35,169 words) - 17:27, 17 December 2015
- ...stcovers can identify this as the same book. I think that as long as both publishers are listed, we are providing useful identification information [[User:Hall ...ts, particularly with large stories reprinted in paperback form where some publishers will divide it in two paperbacks and others in three. A trend seems to be t124 KB (21,154 words) - 17:19, 17 December 2015
- ...primary verifier adds unverified (non-primary-verified) data to a primary-verified record. Possible use cases are: * The primary-verified record's quality can be improved by additional data from external data sou225 KB (36,311 words) - 12:24, 12 April 2021
- ...Part 2 - Reverted the change after the completion of the language cleanup project | Warn that there are series, publishers and pub series of the same name131 KB (18,114 words) - 21:04, 5 January 2018
- ...uld be worth the effort. (And yes, that means I'll volunteer to be on that project.) [[User:Chavey|Chavey]] 15:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC) ...ase basis. For the moment, this practice is only done by Baen, but if more publishers start doing it, we could come back to the issue. I personally feel that sel191 KB (31,181 words) - 17:28, 17 December 2015
- ...tend to be leery of merging Cover Art records until I have seen them both. Publishers have been known to resize or even replace covers in between printings. I am :::Of course! We are the enemy of the publishers, we tell people that they might be able to buy a cheap second-hand copy ins206 KB (35,390 words) - 17:20, 17 December 2015
- ...B2.22 this discussion] for details. Some of them were published by regular publishers in the 1990s, but some remain unpublished. ...r the small publisher. If I may be frank, your current rules favor the big publishers with deep pockets. Electronic media have opened the door to the small press180 KB (29,287 words) - 15:38, 23 March 2017
- ...discussion]] back in 2013 where we decided that publications should not be verified for the Clute/Nicholls slot based on a SFE3 entry. We do mention SFE3 in o ...got was rather odd and appears to say that they are intending to leave the project to resolve the issue. I certainly don't want anyone to leave over this, an231 KB (38,975 words) - 12:44, 29 June 2022
- ...e. In the not too distant past we had a moderator who even deleted primary verified pubs without informing the verifier. There should be some value in (primary ...nical - we may need to do it here), adding contents and/or date changes on verified books may mean a different edition. And describing what was changed -- once153 KB (25,708 words) - 03:05, 14 May 2020
- ...ed by "Popular Library, Inc.". So that book, at least, indicates these two publishers are the same. If we looked through more "Popular Library" books, I suspect ...easing an ebook for purchase on Amazon would be considered a new work, but Project Gutenberg simply making the text available on their site for free would not246 KB (40,297 words) - 20:05, 26 September 2017
- ...elieves the date must actually be stated in the pub ''because it's primary verified''. ...guideline doesn't make sense: if three or four secondary sources have been verified, how would a user know which fields apply to which source? I created [[Refe267 KB (43,901 words) - 17:27, 17 December 2015