User talk:Astrodan

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, Astrodan, 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:

• Help pages
• Field-by-field guide to entering new publications into the database
• Help:Getting Started
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• FAQ
• Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
• Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
• Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

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! Stonecreek 10:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing ...

You couldn't know it but it is usage to inform the (active) primary verifiers of a given publication about changes to the entries of it. Many editors (including me) don't mind about adding notes, but usually they state so on their talk / discussion page. I have notified the verifier for you. Thanks again! Stonecreek 10:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Noted, and I'll do that in future. Thank you Astrodan 11:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Radio Times Guide to Science Fiction

Thanks for this item! I just changed the publisher to the shorter BBC Worldwide, which is a publisher we already have with publications over many years. Stonecreek 19:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No probs, I just copied the longer version which is what's on both the title page and the copyright page; the shorter version doesn't feature anywhere. I know from the help pages that the rules on publishers are a bit less strict than for other data fields, so that either would do. I'm also learning as a new user that the direct-entry search box is quite literal, and that a search for one version will not throw up the other. A good reason to use the various "...Directory" tabs on the left of the main pages, and their alphabetical grids, for a search.Astrodan 21:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the longer version may actually be what is stated in other publications too, but it's just better to have them all under one heading. Also, we actually don't stick to the long Version stated. For example, for an eminent British Publisher it used to be Victor Gollancz stated for a long time but we subsume all books under just Gollancz (we usually don't mention the publisher's first name). Stonecreek 09:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've put your new submission on hold as their seem to be two difficulties which need to be adressed. They are the use of case letters in titles and the entering of initials. I do cite from the help text, to be found for example here:

Case. Titles should have case regularized unless there is some specific evidence that the author intended certain letters to be in a specific case. For example, if the title is "EXTRO" in all caps, the title should be entered as "Extro". This applies to the titles of short stories as well as books. Typesetting style is not important; for example, Fantastic Universe typically printed story titles in lower case, but these titles are regularized for the ISFDB. Regularized case means that 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". Hyphenated words have the first letter after the hyphen capitalized. (so, for example, 'How to use this guide' should have been entered as 'How to Use This Guide' and Actor's index' as 'Actor's Index').

Initials should normally be entered followed by a period and a space as "Gordon R. Dickson" or "K. D. Wentworth", even if period or space is omitted in the publication. (so Brian W Aldiss should have been entered as Brian W. Aldiss).

If there are no special circumstances (please state, if so) then I'll approve of your submission , but please do make the necessary corrections afterwards (you can do so by directly editing the publication). Stonecreek 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do also consider this remark: I concede that there's not much information gain for ISFDB to include indexes and other such items. I'd also think that it'd be better to include them into the notes like in this example. Stonecreek 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the omitted full-stop/period was just a slip; I knew from using the search box the need for one after an initial, as the search fails otherwise. As soon as I saw the yellow "New Author" label against Aldiss's name I realised the omission. I was waiting for the update to be approved before correcting it, as I wasn't sure whether using the "Cancel Submission" button would delete everything, or just return it to the edit page. I'm guessing the latter now?

Re the Titles issue; I hadn't properly read the sentence defining 'regularized' in the Contents 1.1 Title help page - I have now, thanks for the heads-up!

Re the general contents issue, I think I confused myself over the fact that the various indexes and extra material make up around 20% of the book, with two of them having fresh material not contained in the main A-Z section. Those two are probably the only ones I would refer to in the notes, the rest are covered by the title as you say. The artwork I included is one of two original film posters in the book (I missed the other one), in between a great many photos which I know are generally not included. The posters are each on the page of the relevant A-Z section entry for the film, and are paintings rather than photos; which if I understand the content help correctly, makes them eligible for inclusion?

A fresh query; the Contents 2.4 Pages help page states "Pages without numbers that fall between the two types of page numbering (Roman and Arabic) can be ignored." - is that the case even if the unnumbered page has content? If not, and the page should be included, is the correct way to do it to just increase the Roman numeral count by one, or to use the format xix+[1]+524? (From my copy of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?44585, which has a full-page Vincent Di Fate painting on the unnumbered page.)Astrodan 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission is approved. So, please use the •Remove Titles From This Pub• button to delete the obsolete items and then submit the necessary corrections.

Thanks, will do. What's your call on the two full-page film posters - do hand-drawn/painted film posters count as legitimate Content?. They seem to satisfy one, possibly two, of the criteria in the Content 3.2 Content always included/INTERIORART/Rules for including artwork, in that they each illustrate an adjoining article in the main A-Z content, and in that each could be considered reasonably well-known (and therefore significant?)Astrodan 10:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

On the pagination: yes, it's okay to extend the Roman numeral count by one, provided I understand you right that the artwork is on the page between pages xix and 1. But please keep in mind that you should ask any primary verifiers before submitting such a change. Thanks, Stonecreek 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the artwork is between the last Roman numbered page, xix, and the first (unnumbered) page in the Arabic numbered A-Z main content body (Page 2 is the first page to show a printed number.) There's an issue with a duplicate page in the Roman section (possibly the cause of the unnumbered artwork page?) which I was going to draw to Hauck's attention too as primary verifier, so will be asking him about both.

For my own guidance and consistency, there's a similar artwork question to the one above with this book also. In addition to the full-page Vincent Di Fate illustration, and a lot of face photos and film clip stills, there are 64 quarter-page illustrations and magazine cover reproductions, all hand-worked. Again, they all seem to satisfy the story illustration criterion, but their significance seems to be a judgement call. What's your view on this? Thanks, Astrodan 10:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you like to include them, why not? I personally only would include them as items if there's a chance to identify them, that is at least to determine their creators. Stonecreek 04:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dream Machines

Submission updating this record was accepted but changes where made for it to conform to ISFDB standards.

• The various generically titled contents ("Foreword", "Preface", etc.) were parenthetically disambiguated to avoid accidental merging of identical titles, per ISFDB standards.
• The records for uncredited "Assorted Spacecraft Engineering Plans" on the endpapers were deleted. I added their existence to the Note field. (BTW, only use "uncredited" as the credit for such work, if they are eligible for the database. "Multiple, uncredited" creates a whole new author page.)
• There was also an HTML error in the Note field (the closing of the links were missing, making everything after it into a link.)

A couple of questions:

1. The titles of illustrations (and other interior art) must be as they are titled in the publication. The title field should not be used to describe the work. If an illustration is not titled, it should be given the title of the work which it illustrates. With that in mind are the titles of the first three content records given as they are in the publication?
2. Are the artist credits (e.g. "D.M.P.", "F. R. Paul", and "Nasm") actually stated in the publication as you have credited them here?

Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins|talk 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer your first three points;

Parenthetical disambiguation - thank you for the definition of this on your discussion page. I'd wondered what it meant exactly, but that def. is very clear. I'll do it from now on. (Re your BTW, what makes such work eligible for the database?)

End-paper images - I agree! The images are a montage from different locations, not all in the book contents, with credits varying between organisations, designers, artists or none. What you have done is much simpler.

HTML - I remember fixing a 'ul' and 'li' tag pair for an unnumbered list, but must have messed up, oops.

To answer your questions, the titles of the first three records are my own quick descriptions, with details and artist credits below:-

"Full-Page Painting of Rocket on the Moon" - This seems to be linked to the 1950 film Destination Moon, and shows the rocket Luna standing in a crater. It's signed 'DMP 49' at bottom right, with no further credit. I haven't been able to find the image online, or to find an artist matching that signature. Amend to default book title in Title field, and Author field blank, or "uncredited"?</li?>

"Drawing of Rocket on the Moon" - This of course a Frank R. Paul artwork, apparently a pen-and-ink drawing, showing three astronauts walking though a rock cleft on the moon towards a rocket in the distance, with the earth in the sky. It's signed 'Paul', underlined, at bottom left, and 'F. R. Paul, 1930' printed up the right-hand side. The rocket looks very like the Friede from the 1928 Fritz Lang Film Frau im Mond, but again I've drawn a blank on-line. wwww.frankwu.com gives a good list of publications Paul worked on, over 70 in 1930 alone. Amend to show his correct name, the date 1930, and default book title?

"Painting of Spacecraft in Orbit" - this actually is titled "Ferry Rocket and Space Station" (from universetoday.com), and is signed 'David A. Hardy' at bottom left. It's a cropped section of the original, rotated 90 degrees. Amend to show correct title?

"Raketenfahrt von Max Valier" - this is the cover art for the book Raketenfahrt by Max Valier, initially published as this book [1]. Unsigned, and only the word 'NASM' printed up the right-hand side, which appears to be an acronym for the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, from an unlinked list of picture sources in the book. Amend to default (The Dream Machines) book title, and author field blank or "uncredited"?

If you approve I'll fix those content records later today. There are a few other full-page images in the book I could add too, adhering to the same standards. It'd be a shame not to, it's such an impressive book, or perhaps being a spacecraft modeller I'm somewhat biased...

If I scanned the unknowns above, would a course to take be to upload the images to ISFDB, and post an info request with a link to each one on the Verifications noticeboard?

Lastly, looking at your discussion page, I've realised a coincidence - I was in a second-hand bookshop yesterday, and bought a copy of Michael Bishop's No Enemy But Time. Looking forward to a read later. Thanks for the help, Astrodan 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

When adding uncredited work, it is sometimes a value judgment as to whether it is worthy of being recorded. Some cases are clearly and obviously a valuable addition to the database, while others are clearly not. That leaves a grey area for borderline cases, and it is ISFDB policy to allow the primary verifier of the record make that decision. In my opinion, uncredited drawings and sketches that are not related directly to speculative fiction should be noted in the record and not necessarily a separate content record. What is the value of having them listed on a page with thousands of other items?

Yes, point taken. Astrodan 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So for those contents you've added, please update them to give them as titled and dated in the publication. If we find that there exists records already in the db for them, we can variant them. For the Paul illustration, I recommend changing the credit to the canonical form of his name and give the date shown in the publication.

Done. I've used 'Remove Title...' for the DMP 49 image, as there's basically nothing known about it. Let me know if some of the other boxes are still incorrect, eg using original artwork date, not pub date; and using 'uncredited'. Astrodan 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't recommend going through the effort of scanning the images and uploading them to the ISFDB server unless you feel that there's a strong possibility of the work having appeared in periodicals and other publications which may be recorded by the ISFDB. Not only is there a copyright issue with us hosting these files, but one of available space.

Yes, point taken again. Astrodan 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And on a cheerier note, I hope you enjoy reading No Enemy But Time. If you need any more recommendations of Michael Bishop's work, just ask. :) Mhhutchins|talk 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. I picked it up as one of Pringle's "Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels", whose author I hadn't read before. Astrodan 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Posting messages on the ISFDB wiki

When creating a new message (as opposed to responding to an existing one), it's better to click on the plus (+) tab than to do a page edit. Doing the former usually prevents conflicts if another user is editing another message on the same page, and it displays the subject of the new post on the "Recent Changes". Thanks and much appreciation for your efforts here. Mhhutchins|talk 14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)responding to an

If you're talking about your post above, 'The Dream Machines', and my response, I thought I was responding to an existing message...no? Astrodan 15:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No. As I said above, this concerns new messages, not responses to a post. For example, two messages you posted today here, and the one you just posted on my talk page. Mhhutchins|talk 16:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're talking about my previous messages; I'm fairly sure I used the (+) tab for the one on your page and the most recent on Hauck's? In any event I'll be using it from now on, it was something else I'd picked up from the intro on your page. Astrodan 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Escape From Kathmandu

Can I assume that there is no publication date or prices on either of the Voyager editions of this title? Do you know if it's possible that the other verifier's copy may have them? In cases where there is a discrepancy between the record and your copy of a primary verified pubication, it is best to first leave a message on the other verifier's talk page to discuss the change. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You've got me there, I only see one Voyager edition in the Title Record #11869, and I've only done a Primary2 verification, not an edit. The price and date on my copy agree with the COLLECTION pub. record #218757. There is a novella of the same name, SHORTFICTION pub. record #41435, which forms part of this COLLECTION; is that causing a problem? Astrodan 17:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I've placed two separate submissions to edit a publication record on hold. Please go to your "My Pending Edits" list and you'll see them. Looking again at them, they are identical changes to the same publication record. You have the option to cancel one of them, and then answer my original question: is there no price or month of publication stated on your copy of the publication? If there isn't, please leave a message on the PV1 editor's talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see what happened - the outside world got in the way and I was doing too many things at once. I've cancelled the second submission. To answer your question, the year and price on my copy are in agreement with the pub. record, except as seems to be usual, my book doesn't have the month. I looked on locus1 to see where the month info had come from, and since it was there, I put the pub note in to that effect, but included the price as well, forgetting that it was already on the book. If you release the hold on the first submission, can I re-edit it, or just cancel it too, and start again? Astrodan 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept the submission and remove the price source. Any non-sourced data in the primary fields of a publication record is assumed to be stated in the book itself. Thanks for the clarification. Mhhutchins|talk 20:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll send the PV1 ed. a courtesy call just about the Date month note. Another reason I was distracted over this one was seeing the price sticker on the back, which was from a little shop in Lukla village, in the lower Himalayas in Nepal. Some light reading after a bit of a walk through the mountains in Oct 2006, happy memories. Astrodan 22:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're still watching, would you mind giving a quick explanation of the difference between page count and pagination? I did a search on wiki, but there's yards to get through. Thanks, Astrodan 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

New author!

You created this author for the database when you changed the credit for this record. Perhaps it should be credited to "uncredited". Also why did you change the title to "Raketen (The Dream Machines)". Perhaps I misunderstood that it was already titled (or captioned) as "Raketen Fahrt von Max Valier"? I see that you'd asked about the credit and title of this work above, and I failed to respond. My response will always be "Title and credit the work as it appears in the publication." If it isn't credited, then it should be credited to "uncredited". If it isn't titled, it should be given the title of the work it illustrates. There may be odd pieces that fall between the cracks, and this may be one of them, but that should always be the rule of thumb when titling and crediting contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you made a subsequent submission to correct the credit. It is always best to wait until a submission to edit a publication record has been moderated before making another submission which corrects the first one or makes further edits. There's a possibility of a conflict between the record's data as it stands in the database, the record's data which you have edited, and the record's data based on a submission sitting in the queue or in the process of being moderated. Mhhutchins|talk 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, noted to both. 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Kraken An Anatomy - wrong pub. date in cloned copy

If you're reading this as sub. editor, I've just submitted a cloned copy of this book; [2]. I only realised when I saw the Cloned Pub. Submission page that I'd left the original date (2011) in the date box, instead of putting the 2010 date from my copy in it. I'd gone back from the clone page to the original a couple of times, and forgot the date on the last time. If you approve submission, I'll do an edit and correct that. Astrodan 00:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This should have been posted on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard to get a faster response. The only reason I noticed it was because I came here to ask about the date, after approving the submission. Mhhutchins|talk 01:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, noted. I'd just thought that the sub. editor who noticed the date discrepancy would probably come here first to ask me about it, and so see my message above. I'll use the noticeboard in future, or even better try not to make mistakes. Astrodan 08:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Some moderators aren't as conscious of such matter as others. Mhhutchins|talk 19:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When I first checked in this morning about half an hour ago, I was sure I saw a message from you saying that the 2011 date was correct, but now I can't see it; have you withdrawn it, or was I not fully awake yet? Is it ok to do the edit to change the date to 2010? Astrodan 08:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't leave (or subsequently remove) a message about the date. (You can always check the page history to see if any changes were made, and withdrawn, from your talk page.) But I'm suspicious that there was a trade paperback of this released in 2010. Locus1 and Amazon.co.uk give the date as 2011, and there's an identical record for it already in the database based on their listings. Perhaps the publisher printed the wrong date in the book. Mhhutchins|talk 19:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was probably looking at bits of previous messages; this laptop scrolls off like lightning if you even breathe on certain keys.

The copyright page mentions 2010 three times, and all the info on the page looks coherent. The title just above mine in Title record (#1108445) certainly looks identical, except for the different cover. The two books at top and bottom of the record have similar, but not identical covers to mine. They both have the same three-line blurb in white at centre left on the cover, just above 'China', which is not on mine. And they're hc, with different publishers, ISBNs and prices. And I've owned the book for around 5 years.. Does it make much difference whether the pub. record is wrong with 2010, or wrong with 2011?

Separate query; Where did the colon in the book title come from? It's not shown anywhere in my copy. Or is it a Wiki convention for book titles with subtitles? Astrodan 21:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it would have been better to wait until the submission was accepted before uploading a cover for a publication record that's not in the database yet. If you go back to the wiki page of the cover you uploaded, you'll see that it's linked to another record, not the one you uploaded. Mhhutchins|talk

Ok, no image unpload until pub record. accepted. I'm looking at the links tab in the image wiki page, and take it that 'Pub=KRKNNNTMBF2011' is the important bit - what's the best way to fix that so it shows the link to my created copy instead? Astrodan 08:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This can be corrected. Copy the tag from the publication record. (It's in parentheses in the "Bibliographic Comments" line of the metadata section.) Go to the image file's wiki page, edit the page, replace the tag currently in the PUB parameter with the one you just copied from the publication record, and save. BTW, the tag for the record you created is "KRKNNNTMCK2011". The last four digits are based on the year you entered in the publication date field. Mhhutchins|talk 19:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'd more or less guessed that was the way to do it. Astrodan 21:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Image wiki page now edited; does it matter that the large-print title, and the File history and Metadata tabs still show the incorrect KRKNNNTMBF2011 tag, or are they just non-effective labels? Astrodan 21:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no way to fix that unless you delete the file (only moderators can do that) and re-upload it from the proper publication record. The system automatically names a file the same as the tag of the publication record from which you created it. (Another reason you have to wait for a publication to be in the database before uploading its cover file to the server.) Mhhutchins|talk 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, understood Astrodan 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In the future, if you see that you've made a mistake in a submission, you can go to your "My Pending Edits" list and cancel the submission before a moderator has handled it. Mhhutchins|talk 01:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Astrodan 08:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

About the use of the colon in titles: this is a convention adopted from OCLC and other bibliographers. It is a way of separating a title from a subtitle, even though the colon is rarely ever present in the publication's actual title. Without it there would be no way for a standard typewriter to indicate that the main title is separated from the subtitle, either by use of spacing (different lines), size, or font when recording data in the pre-computer era. The standard still exists because there remains no better way to do it. So it is ISFDB policy to add the colon, even if it isn't present in the publication. Mhhutchins|talk 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I thought I'd read that somewhere. The search box enforces it too. Astrodan 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lem's The Cyberiad

Don't forget to adjust the source in the Note field of this record, and import the contents from another record which matches yours. (Page numbers of the contents don't have to match. They can be adjusted in the import submission.) Mhhutchins|talk 19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the 'penguinsciencefiction' source, it was already there, and I knew what it was; that lovely interactive grid of all Penguin Science Fiction covers back to their start in 1935, 401 covers. That would be some collection! I'll get the URL and paste it in. I only did the OCLC link when doing the update. (I see it isn't working, so something else to check :(

Contents are on my to-do list. Astrodan 21:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. I misread the note to say that the data was from Amazon and Penguin. I have clarified it by saying the publication date is from them. Mhhutchins|talk

I created an HTML link to The Art of Penguin Science Fiction website and ficed the HTML of the OCLC link. (You didn't space between the "a" and the "href".) Mhhutchins|talk 23:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen why; the help page for using Worldcat/OCLC data has a page break in exactly that spot! They have it shown properly in the LCNN paragraph.

Thanks for the website link; I take it you just use the same <a href= system around the website name? Astrodan 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I try to always give the name of the website as the name of the link. I see some users enter "Source <a href="">here</a>" or similar which I try to avoid. Mhhutchins|talk 02:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing closing tags in Note field HTML

Just a heads-up: The current version of HTML doesn't require that a line have a closing tag. I don't want you to put a lot of effort into adding them or correcting records in which they aren't used. Mhhutchins|talk 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy days! That was a fiddly bit to do. Does it also apply to the unnumbered list closing tag, /ul?

Some notes use the br tags,; does that matter or can you mix and match? Astrodan 21:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you do have to close an unnumbered list with the /ul tag. In the past the only way to create a separate line in the Note field was to use the br tag. Now all it takes is a keyboard return. I personally prefer to use HTML unnumbered lines for notes, but it can be complicated to some users so it's not mandatory. Use the option that's best for you. Mhhutchins|talk 23:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the HTML ul too, it's very neat. Astrodan 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a closing /ul tag to the unnumbered list in the record for Past Time. Without it, the display was off. Mhhutchins|talk 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was experimenting in leaving it off. Astrodan 00:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Bradbury's Summer Morning, Summer NIght

About this record: you can save time in the future for publications typed as COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY to clone an existing record of an edition that has matching content. This will save you from importing the contents. Also, a question: are you certain it states "First published in Great Britain by Subterranean Press"? The book was actually first published by the British publisher PS Publishing in 2007, not the American publisher Subterranean Press. Mhhutchins|talk 19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the ISBN is missing a digit. Mhhutchins|talk 19:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, cloning for content; I've a shelf-full of anthologies, and many collections, so a good tip, thanks.

The book's open in front of me, and that's the way it reads, with no mention of PS Publishing. Although they can be slippery with their language; "First published in Great Britain by Subterranean Press" can also be read as "The first time that Subterranean Press published it in Great Britain", which leaves it open for earlier publications from others. The low price makes me think it was some sort of special offer, maybe cobbled together from editions in both territories. I'll make some email enquiries from here.

The ISBN's last zero digit seems to have fallen off somewhere, I'll stick it back on. Astrodan 22:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Penguin's Man in High Castle

There's already a record for the March 1983 printing of this title under the Classic Science Fiction banner. I'm not sure that we should add the same date to this record for the seventh printing. It's possible that these are the same printing. You could leave a message on the talk page of the verifying editor of the first record to see if there is a number line in his copy. I'll hold the submission but we may wind up deleting one of the records anyway. Mhhutchins|talk 03:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I take it you mean March 1987 for your first link? I'm not sure why I put that date in my edit submission, as the prices on the two books are different, so I had them in my mind as two separate titles. My intent was really just the pub notes. I'll ask the verifying editor of the first one anyway, and if s/he has a different number line, wouldn't that help to confirm the separate identities? Astrodan 08:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The price itself should indicate that they're two different printing, so it's not likely your copy is from 1987. So I'll reject the submission. Mhhutchins|talk 18:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to close this one off, I've left my contribution to this record at an additional verification and a pub note linking to the Penguin site showing date of first use of the cover art. PV1 notified. Astrodan 13:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Lure

Hello, I've approved your submission for this pub but changed the date to "0000-00-00" as the phrasing on copyright page that you gave very likely indicates a undated third printing. The "First published in paperback in 2003" part refers only to the 1st printing or you'll find something along the line of "This edition published in 2003". I've also corrected the last HTML tag from <ul> to </ul>. Hauck 13:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a previous line I omitted; "First published in 2002 by HEAADLINE BOOK PUBLISHING" (together with the author's copyright "Copyrght © Bill Napier 2002"). That seems to account for two printings, but there's nothing else to account for the third one suggested by the number line, so 'undated' it remains. Thanks for the other correction, I think it was getting late. Astrodan 14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Official Red Dwarf Companion

Sorry, but it seems that this out of scope for ISFDB, see the eligibility guidelines: we are committed to speculative fiction, and though we have various NONFICTION works connected to this theme, I'm afraid that NONFICTION on a tv series is out of range (as are works on movies and other areas with speculative contents), so I'm inclined to reject your submission (which is on hold right now).

For future submissions please remember to place 'uncredited' instead of 'Not stated'. Stonecreek 14:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok to both. I'd just come across the book and did wonder about it, but it was practice anyway. Astrodan 15:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Ascent of Wonder

Re this publication: It would have been easier to import the missing contents from the US edition. Adding the new contents creates new title records which will have to be merged with the existing ones. Are you up to that task? Mhhutchins|talk 01:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but would it be simpler just to reject this submission and I then do it again, using the import process? I don't mind either way. Still have to get used to thinking 'import' with anthologies/collections.

While I'm on, could you explain the difference between page count and pagination? Thanks, Astrodan 07:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Uploading images

Please do not upload an image more than once (as you did for the Hartwell), to save disk space it will require a moderator to delete all the previous versions. Thanks. Hauck 16:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to upload a scan of my own copy, but the system kept showing the existing image when I took the 'overwrite' option when offered. Not sure what was wrong...Astrodan 17:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a known "bug", after uploading you need to refresh the page (by F5 on most of the browsers) to see the new image. Hauck 17:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll use it next time. Astrodan 17:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Just checked, it's uploaded my scan while I wasn't there... All's well, etc. Astrodan 17:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really a bug, but unlike many other websites the ISFDB doesn't automatically replace the previous version of a page which you have visited and has been stored in your computer's cache. You have to do that yourself, as Hervé says, by refreshing your browser. I'm not sure if it's possible to change that action by the ISFDB server, but it sure would be desirable. Mhhutchins|talk 21:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No probs, it's just a key press, Astrodan 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding the OCLC number and linking it in an ISFDB publication record's Note field

You've probably seen the OCLC number given in the Note field of many ISFDB publication records, some linked, and believe that it is either required or strongly suggested to do so. Actually, if the publication has a valid ISBN, the ISFDB automatically provides a link to a matching OCLC record on the WorldCat website in the section of the menu under "Other Sites". I personally feel it is a waste of time to provide the OCLC record number in these cases (primary verified records for pubs with valid ISBNs), and that it is even more so unnecessary to go through the trouble of linking to it from ISFDB records. There are some editors here who are practically obsessive about providing the OCLC record number in the ISFDB records regardless of whether the publication has a valid ISBN. (I've seen it done to my own primary verified records, but don't feel strongly enough about the situation to remove it.)

In a recent update you added an OCLC link to this record. If you go to that record and click on the link you're carried to the OCLC record 872970675, but if you click on the "WorldCat" link under the "Other Sites" menu, you'll see that you're carried to another OCLC record 14692189. This latter OCLC has more information and is more complete than the one you linked to (which appears to have been entered by a German librarian.) Strangely, both have page counts which differ from the ISFDB record! You're going to find that situation quite often (where different records exist on OCLC). I'm not sure how the ISFDB software and/or the OCLC software decides which OCLC record comes up when you search by ISBN as compared with searching by title and/or author, but sometimes there is a difference.

The only time I add the OCLC number is when WorldCat is the source of the data for a non-primary verified record or the source for the non-stated data in a primary verified record. I link the OCLC record only when the non-primary verified publication doesn't have an ISBN.

Please consider this when updating records and ask yourself whether the effort you're taking has any value to the ISFDB. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one of the things I was going to ask about; how exact does an OCLC link need to be? Already I've seen a range of standard, from just linking to the first result that came up on the OCLC search, through to an exact match. Up to now I've tried for an exact match, but if it's not needed, I'm happy to oblige. Astrodan 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have to link to an OCLC record, (and as I said above, 90% of all books published after 1970 wouldn't need to be linked), then try to find the best, most complete record. Be sure to use the permalink, not the address as displayed in your browser's address window. The permalink is located at the upper right of the OCLC record's page. Here is a link to the help page about linking to OCLC (and other secondary sources) in a publication record's Note field. Mhhutchins|talk 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of other things I thought of:

Is it better, or required, to edit or verify first? Verification seems to just take seconds, but if you edit first, do you need to wait until approval before then verifying? Astrodan 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In the past, we advised editors to edit a record before verifying it, but now that the moderator gets a warning if a publication is verified, that let's us know that you're working from the primary source. (This wouldn't apply to creating new publication records, because the user is required to give us the source of the data in the submission.) So, yes, it is better to verify it first. If for some rare reason it turns out that you updated and/or verified the wrong record, that's easily fixed by "unverifying" it. Mhhutchins|talk 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between page count and pagination? Astrodan 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Page count is the number of pages in the book based on the ISFDB standards. Pagination is a horse of a different color, and is not used on the ISFDB. It records how the pages are numbered. For example a book which has 6 unnumbered pages, then 5 roman-numbered pages, then a blank page, and then pages 1 through 375, followed by 7 unnumbered pages, would have the following pagination: [1-6],i-v,[1],1-375,[376-382]. (Brackets indicate that the pages are not numbered.) Some bibliographers are just this thorough when recording a book's pagination. The ISFDB Page Count field records the number of pages with significant text and would be "v+375". Mhhutchins|talk 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Licence tags - up to now I've only uploaded my own book scans, so do I need to worry about them? The help pages seem to be a work in progress, best approached in a comfortable chair with a good drink. ;-) Astrodan 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're only uploading cover images, you never have to worry about license tags because the system adds the proper tag for you...but only if you use the correct link on the publication record. Uploading a file using the wiki link is different and requires that the uploader add the proper license tag. There are different ones for various purposes: artist signatures, author photos, public domain images, publisher logos, miscellaneous publication content, etc. If you need help to upload any of those image files, ask at the Help Desk. Mhhutchins|talk 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If these would be better dropped in the Help Desk, just say, I can cut and paste them over. Thanks for reading, Astrodan 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily these should be asked at the Help Desk, but since you responded to my post, I was able to answer them here. Mhhutchins|talk 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above, very helpful with the learning curve.Astrodan 22:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

AAPPL = Artists' and Photographers' Press

Hi, I changed this publisher for the recently added NONFICTION by Hardy and Moore to its long form, as this is the form we had already publications for. Thanks, Stonecreek 14:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't heard of either and forgot to check the Publisher Directory. Astrodan 15:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Voyage

What is on the four unnumbered pages given in the Page Count field of this record? We usually don't count unnumbered pages unless it contains significant content, which we record either in the Note field or as separate content records. Mhhutchins|talk 20:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are three pages showing diagrams of the story mission profile (orbits), and various spacecraft configurations. I mentioned forthcoming Content in the Note to Moderator box, but should have expanded on that, sorry. There is also a six-page afterword "Lost Mars", Baxter's essay on why we haven't gone to Mars yet, in the last numbered pages which I'll put in Content too. Astrodan 20:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed that message in the Note to Moderator field. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You know you can use the Clone function instead of the Add function if there are contents which are included in another edition. It saves you some typing and then merging of title records. Mhhutchins|talk 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've used Clone a couple of times, but I'd rattled through the two Content items this time by the time I thought of it. (And not all of the other titles which had bracketed numbers for the unnumbered pages at the end, have listed any Content for those pages...) Still getting used to considering every alternative. Astrodan 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Flux

Added cover for your verified here. Hauck 12:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it was on my list to do, you've saved me the task. Astrodan 14:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"...in this Title Record"

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement you've used in the Note field of this record and a few others the last day or so. I would suggest "Source needed for Artist1 credit; not provided in this pub record or any other with the same cover art." Or is there something I'm missing in the way you've stated it here. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the Title Record #2465 containing the pub record I verified and edited, out of the 11 other pub records there was only one other with the same cover, which was the only other one I could say I looked at. That's why I phrased it the way I did; I couldn't really speak for "...any other with the same cover art.", as I thought that could include the same cover in a possible other Title Record, or someone with a fresh book waiting to be added, etc. Looking back at the sentence I used, if I'd put the word 'the' in front of '...other pub record with the same cover...' it would have said more clearly that I was only talking about one other book. Hope that makes sense. Astrodan 01:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused, and I can't imagine what the average user of the database would make of the statement. Perhaps it's better to say "Source needed for Artist1 credit which is not provided in this or any other pub record associated with this publication's title reference." It's the "this Title Record" part that is confusing, since the user is not looking at a title record, but a publication record. Mhhutchins|talk 01:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, got you now. I'll have a good look at that and rephrase things. Have to wait until later today, I'm off to check out the lunar eclipse! Astrodan 02:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll go back and check the other records anyway, and make sure that they are clear in stating how many other examples of the same cover I looked at in their respective Title Records.

If you don't mind another question about covers while we're talking here; being mindful of the available storage space in the system, when doing an 'Add Publication', or just doing a 'New Image' upload, should I look for an identical image already on the system in preference to a scan of the one in my hand, or is a scan always preferred? Thanks, Astrodan 01:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If the covers are identical, there's no reason not to link it to another publication which has the same cover. But if the price is visible, it's best not to use another edition's cover if the prices aren't the same. Mhhutchins|talk 01:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

After Such Knowledge

I'm holding your submission to add another publication to this title. It appears to be the same as the record already under that title, except for the price. I would suggest that you correct that unverified record, and make any necessary changes to match your copy. Or do you have further information that yours is not the same edition? (Also, if this were a valid new entry, you should have use the CLONE function instead of the ADD function. Otherwise, you have to make a second submission to add the contents, and even further submission if you have to merge the content records.) Mhhutchins|talk 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pull that submission and verify/edit the existing pub. record; the price difference was the only discrepancy I'd found initially. I had been thinking about just doing an Import Content after the Add Pub for the four Content items, although looking at them again I see that three of them have page numbers a couple of pages out of sync. I imagine that doesn't really affect the Add, Clone or Import choice, or does it? Astrodan 21:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you either Clone or Import, you have the option to change the page numbers of the contents. If you use the Add function to add contents to a publication record, you will have to merge them with any existing titles already in the database. I suggest only using the Add function for novels, and new anthologies, collections, and omnibuses. I suggest using the Clone function for reprints of anthologies, collections, and omnibuses. I suggest using the Import function when a record exists without contents and there's another record in the database with similar contents (not necessarily the same exact contents).

Here's a link to A Beginner's Guide which I started a while back. It's not linked to the help pages because I got a less then enthusiastic response from the other editors when I presented this first section to them. I believed the section I finished is a good tool to teach new editors about which function to use for creating and updating publication records. Based on the other editors' response, I abandoned any further work on the guide. Maybe you'll find it helpful. Mhhutchins|talk 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with all the steps you have in your guide, but it's a handy aide-memoire nevertheless. Astrodan 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, what's the system and/or rationale for deciding to Merge Content or not? I looked at the Merge Title help pages but they don't seem to cover that. Astrodan 21:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have added or updated a publication with a new content title which has exactly the same author credit, the same title, and the same language, and you've determined it is the same work as one already in the database, then you must merge them. There are three basic ways to find matches to merge. Here is the easiest method. Go to the author's summary page and use the "Check for Duplicate Titles" function under the Editing Tools menu to find exact matches, or near matches using the "Similar Title Mode" or "Aggressive Title Mode' (these functions are only linked on the "Duplicate Titles" page.) For the other methods, check this help page. Mhhutchins|talk 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the section I need to get straight. For starters, does the word 'title' in 'Help:How to merge titles' have the same meaning as it does in 'Title Record', or is it just referring to Content titles? Astrodan 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Colony

I'm holding your submission to add new notes and remove the cover artist credit from this record. If you look at other printings of this title using the same cover art, one of them indicates that the author is explicitly credited. You can use this as secondary evidence that your cover art credit is correct. You can contact the active editor to confirm this credit. Mhhutchins|talk 18:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And what's even worse, I missed the credit on the back of my own book too! That's what I get for staying up most of the night to watch the eclipse. I'll withdraw the submission to remove the offending sentence and re-submit. Thanks, Astrodan 18:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters particularly I think, but your hold is on my After Such Knowledge edit, not the Colony one... Astrodan 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I read this entry before the previous one.... Astrodan 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Time Ships

Re this publication: I'm not certain why you wouldn't credit the interior art contents to Les Edwards since you state that's how it's credited in the publication. Mhhutchins|talk 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Other editions (such as this one) have credited the four works to Edwards, using standard ISFDB titling for interior art. Mhhutchins|talk 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't sure myself, must have been that they weren't signed, but as you remind me he was credited on the title page as 'Illustrator'. No probs, I'll re-edit and attribute them to him. Astrodan 22:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Now done. Astrodan 22:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

HTML, not wiki markup, in publication Note field

This publication contains an unlinked "link" because you used wiki markup instead of HTML. If you need assistance to fix it, just ask and I'll do it for you. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I realised I'd got it the wrong way round as soon as I saw the pending submission, but was then called away by outside life again. I'll fix it shortly, with the next batch from my collection ^_^ Astrodan 07:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Now fixed Astrodan 08:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Childhood's End

In the Note field of this record, what is meant by "other printing data data found"? Mhhutchins|talk 16:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Typing error; should read "..no other printing date data found." Now fixed. Astrodan 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Poems used as epigraphs before the main work

Re this record: we usually don't create content records for works like poems, quotations, or excerpts by other authors which are used as epigraphs before the main work. Is there anything exceptional in this case that you feel it should be given a content record? Mhhutchins|talk 00:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really, probably just being slightly biased - he was a good poet, and we're both from the same city... No probs. Astrodan 09:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Notifying other PV editors

You need to notify the first PV editor of this record about the changes you made. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I know - now done Astrodan 09:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Crichton's Timeline

I'm holding your submission to update this record for the Arrow 2000 first printing of this work. It's understood that when it isn't noted, and it isn't primary verified, that a record is for the first printing. Your submission would change this to the 8th undated printing. Perhaps you meant to clone the original record instead of editing it? If so, I can clone the original record before accepting the submission. You'll also have to remove the date of publication from the record, since it appears there is no date specified for the 8th printing. Unless this is the unlikely case of a book being reprinted 8 times in its first month of publication. Mhhutchins|talk 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was meant to be a clone. The hazards of interruptions again. I'll withdraw the submission and resubmit as intended, it's good practice for me. Thanks, Astrodan 11:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Clone submission now done. Just to clarify, what do the red 'Manual Merge' boxes in the Merge Method column on the Pending ClonePub Submission page require me to do? I can't find anything on that in the help pages, unless I've missed it and you can point me there? Thanks, Astrodan 11:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are warnings to let you know that you're entering new content, thus creating new title records. If there are ISFDB records for the same works, you would have to manually merge them. If you clone a record which included those contents, the system would have been able to merge them automatically. If those contents have never been entered into the database, then there's no need to worry about the warning. Mhhutchins|talk 17:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

Re this record: the excerpt (or epigraph as we discussed before) is an authorial conceit. From the Locus review by noted SF scholar Gary K. Wolfe: "It's worth noting, speaking of authenticity, that despite the lengthy bibliography of physics and history that he appends to the novel, the quotation that appears as the book's epigraph is from M.D. Backes's The Hundred Years War in France—a totally fictional book invented by Crichton for the sole purpose of setting up his ersatz version of history." As such, it is part of the novel, thus shouldn't be given separate content record. You have the option to note it. Mhhutchins|talk 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Conceit is the word; talk about sneaky! I knew I should have googled that 'book'. I might leave it in a note, but only to point out that it's fiction.

I'm not sure about the introduction, acknowledgements and bibliography. Do they appear to be authentic? If so, the generically titled ones should be disambiguated. And the NONFICTION type is used for book-length work. For works of nonfiction which are contained in a larger work, use the ESSAY type.Mhhutchins|talk 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Introduction: Science at the End of the Century" is a discussion of the science advances over the 20th century, followed by a look at contemporary quantum physics. It's footnoted with 8 popular science/physics text books, and 4 scientific papers, all of which I looked up. Being an amateur astronomer I recognised some of them, and Crichton would have been doing well to take them all in. This item is four full pages long, but the problem area I suppose is in the last 16 lines, where he blends fact into his storyline, by describing advances made by a fictitious company featured in the novel.

The "Acknowledgements" (I forgot to disambiguate) is one page, 38 lines, and is 75% a discussion on contemporary understanding of the Dark Ages and the Renaissance, and a brief comment on time travel. The last 25% comprises the usual thanks etc.

The "Bibliography" (forgot this one too) is a genuine list of 81 history books, and 8 scientific references. I checked out enough to be reassured.

Of the three, I still think the "Introduction..." could be usefully included, depending on your view of the last few lines. The "Acknowledgments" I'll take your recommendation on, and keep the "Bibliography" for a pub note. Also, point noted re NONFICTION v ESSAY. Astrodan 21:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

NONFICTION

Re the content in this record: as noted above, NONFICTION is for book-length works. Nonfiction works contained in a larger work should be typed as ESSAY. Whether a bibliography should be considered an essay and eligible for inclusion as a separate content record is another matter. We usually don't include them as contents, just note them in the record. Mhhutchins|talk 18:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not an essay. I just wasn't sure because Bibliographys didn't seem to be specifically mentioned in the help pages. I'll remove the content listing and leave a mention in the notes. Thanks, Astrodan 21:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Month of Year"

Re this publication record and others: Perhaps you have a template from which you're creating notes, but the phrase "Month of Year" doesn't follow. Perhaps you mean "Month of publication" (for which I've corrected a couple)? Mhhutchins|talk 00:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a template, I was just using it as the shortest way to indicate where the month data part of the 'Year' box in the Pub Metadata was coming from (usually Locus.) 'Month of publication' is a bit longer to type, but I'll use it if you think it's more clear? Astrodan 00:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, but without your explanation I had no idea what was meant by it. I suspect other users might feel the same. "Publication month" is only four characters longer. Would that be better? Mhhutchins|talk 00:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, or 'Month of Publication', no probs. Sometimes it takes a couple of looks at what's written to see it as others might. Astrodan 00:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Re this publication: If the introduction is fictional, as your submission to update states it to be, then it is an authorial conceit, making it part of the novel, thus not eligible for inclusion as a separate content. Mhhutchins|talk 00:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does that mean that in a case like this, where it's a mix of reality and fiction, the fiction part overrides the reality for the purposes of classification? Astrodan 00:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. You've indicated that it's clearly fictional, which makes it part of the novel. We don't create separate contents for parts of a novel: chapters, parts, epilogue, prologue, books, etc. It's all considered one work. To be added as a content to a record typed as NOVEL, the work must be clearly NOT part of the novel. Looking over the other verified pub records, I see that some editors have created records for this "introduction" and I'll leave a message on their talk pages to join this discussion. I'll accept the submission to add the extensive notes that you wrote, and we'll handle the introduction situation as the other editors join us. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There was one other active editor who included the introduction in two verified records. He typed it as ESSAY but noted that it was a mix, and "a prologue to the novel." I've left him a message to join the discussion. Mhhutchins|talk 03:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the culprit here. While the introduction does contain some facts I think the author's intent here was clearly to set up the novel (a prologue). I separated it out at the time as I was unsure how it should be handled. Seeing as how the author went to the trouble to blend it in with the "reality" of the novel I'm inclined to go with the "part of the novel" vote.SFJuggler 05:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I can see the 'fiction or reality' logic, so have withdrawn the "Introduction..." submission from the Content, just leaving the mention in the pub notes. Astrodan 08:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing unnumbered list in HTML

I've noticed a few times where you end a list in the Note field with instead of . Although you don't have to end a line, you must end a list in HTML, or else it messes with the data that follows after it in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, probably going too quickly. I'm checking back occasionally on my 'recent edits' list for other things, so will look at that too. Astrodan 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Check how you ended the list in this publication record. Mhhutchins|talk 22:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just re-entered the link for the external website (with /a tag) and it was still in my head... Fixed now, and a good reminder to double-check list ends. Astrodan 23:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing contents

Please add the contents to the following primary verified records when you get a chance:
Asimov collection,
another Asimov collection,
Bradbury collection,
Ballard collection,
and another Ballard collection.
You should be able to import the contents from other records which will save you some time. Mhhutchins|talk 02:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

All Content now present and (I hope) correct. Looking through other pub records for verified content to import, I imagine keeping collections/anthologies in order is very much an ongoing task... Astrodan 12:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a new report which finds collections and anthologies which are primary verified but without contents. So you're up-to-date now. Mhhutchins|talk 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant that I thought the moderators had a never-ending task... which I'll endeavour not to increase. Astrodan 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capricorn Games

Hello, I've put your submission on hold because you also PVed this pub which looks quite similar but lacks detailled notes. Do you really have two versions of this £2.50 pb? Thanks. Hauck 15:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I only have one version. This pub is the pub record I took the clone submission from; I must have PVd it without thinking. I've now 'undone' the PV2 tag. Thanks, Astrodan 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Jennifer Morgue

Can you confirm the pub format/binding of this publication? According to several sources this is a "pb" (Amazon.co.uk gives the height as 17.7cm and OCLC gives it as 18cm.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 03:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I overlooked that field. Now corrected, thanks. Astrodan 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Identical pub records

Please delete one of these records: here and here. If you choose the latter record, you'll need to add records for the contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll submit the first one for deletion, it was one of the first few pub edits I made. If I understand your second sentence correctly, I need to copy the two pub notes individual to it ('3/87' date? and Pan Classics logo), over to the record I created yesterday? Astrodan 01:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You can update the Note field as needed. What I meant was that if you keep the publication record which is typed as OMNIBUS, you will have to add records for its contents. I'm assuming this pub includes at least the title novel and short story. Mhhutchins|talk 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 'Content' as opposed to content; of course. It's the title novel and the short story, nothing else. Now carried out, thanks, Astrodan 10:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't add a content record for the novel. All OMNIBUS-typed records must contain at least one NOVEL, ANTHOLOGY, COLLECTION or NONFICTION content record. Otherwise it's not considered an OMNIBUS. Mhhutchins|talk 15:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I changed the title of the story from "The Man Could Work Miracles" to "The Man Who Could Work Miracles" and merged it with the existing title record. If this isn't correct, let me know so that I can unmerge it and create a variant title. Mhhutchins|talk 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, rushing again. Novel content record now added. You've changed the short story title to the correct wording; I'd left 'Who' out. Thanks, Astrodan 17:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Artist credit from signature

Hello, in such cases as this one where credit comes from the signature (or a secondary source), the artist's credit should be to the canonical name. I've changed Peter Andrew Jones to Peter Jones. Hauck 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

'Peter Andrew Jones' was in the credit on the back cover, but I take it that's what the yellow 'Pseudonym' flag on the submission page means - canonical name only, and keep other versions for pub notes? Astrodan 22:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is a stated credit, even if it's for an alternate form of the artist's name, it should be used in the ISFDB publication record. Then we variant that record to one that credits the canonical form of the artist's name. I think Hauck misunderstood that the credit was from another source and not the primary one (unless you clarified the pub note after the submission was accepted.) Mhhutchins|talk 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I probably misunderstood (or read too fast) the notes. Hauck 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

25th printing of Chocky

What is the source for the publication date given in this record? We have a another record for the 26th printing (sourced from Locus) which has the same date. Mhhutchins|talk 02:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That date was inadvertently left in from the donor pub record for the cloning, which was the 26th printing you refer to. Now removed, and replaced with correct 'unknown date'. Thanks, Astrodan 13:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend only using the CLONE function when you're creating a new publication record for a new edition or printing of an anthology or collection. Using that function instead of the ADD PUBLICATION TO THIS TITLE function increases the chances of mistakenly transferring the wrong data into the new record. Mhhutchins|talk 04:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, belatedly realizing that now; checking back through my edits, I've just amended a couple of cloned records with the same error. Thanks, Astrodan 10:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Land Ironclads

Your verified The Ascent of Wonder contains Wells' The Land Ironclads which you have listed as a shortstory. This is typically given as a novelette (see The Land Ironclads). Is your verified story an abridgment? If so, then you should add a note to the story's title record reflecting that. If not, it should be merged into the novelette record. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also from the same pub, Rappaccini's Daughter which you have listed as shortstory, but typically given as a novelette (see Rappaccini's Daughter). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And another: With the Night Mail (shortstory) vs. With the Night Mail (novelette). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That was one of my early efforts at editing... I remember using the detailed page "Help:Screen:Newpub", 3.5 General Contents; Length, which gives the six options, with "Shortstory....... ≤7,500 words....20 pages or fewer" seeming to be applicable for these three stories, which are 17, 12 and and 12.5 pages long respectively in this book. That was ignoring the fact that this is a good-sized hardback with 52 lines to a page, average 14.5 words per line, giving these stories lengths of 11,900, 9100, and 8,750 words, all well into the "Novelette" category.

IIRC that means I need to use either "Import Content" or "Edit this Pub" to create the stories with the 'Novelette' length, and following approval, "Remove Titles..." to get rid of the incorrect ones. Would using "Import Content" (rather than "Edit this Pub") from one of the other three pub records for the book, all of which show the 'Novelette' length, mean that the merging was automatic? Thanks, Astrodan 18:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is merge them. Since they are all from the same publication, go to publication page and click the "Check for Duplicate Titles" link under the editing tools menu. That will show you all the possible duplicates for this pub. These three stories plus a Kipling one and two essays are listed. For items that are duplicates, you would check the boxes and click the merge button. A new screen will appear that allows you to pick which fields from which record and then hit submit. Once accepted, the records will be combined. When merging, you just need to be careful that they are the same thing and that you grab the right information from the right record (i.e. novelette instead of shortstory in these cases).

The Benford essay should be merged as well since the other record is for other editions of this pub. The first and third versions of the Hartwell essay should also be merged since they are also for editions of the same pub. If there is anything in your pub that indicates that essay was original published in The New York Review of Science Fiction, then the second should be merged also. If not, then I would reach out to Syzygy (the verifier of that issue) and ask him it is the same (usually done by providing the first and last lines and asking if they match).

That's quite a bit. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't specifically answer your question. No, importing does not automatically merge. You would end up with both records in the publication. Also removing content does not delete it. It removes it from the pub, but the title record remains in the database. Import, remove, & delete would be a three step process. Merge is one step so that's why it is easier. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead a merged the records. If you get a change to look into the Hartwell essay, please do. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Green Mars

Just acquired a copy if what I believe is this edition of Green Mars; two questions:

1) You have a note: Copyright page statement: "First published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers 1992. Special overseas edition 1994. This paperback edition 1992". Is it possible that last date should be "This paperback edition 1994"?

2) Do you think this may actually be the Overseas Edition? The AUS and NZ prices seem to point that way, but I've only picked up one other mass market sized overseas edition so I'm not sure for certain what the indicators are.

Thanks, Albinoflea 01:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric Frank Russell's Deep Space

Added Australian and New Zealand cover prices to our verified Deep Space. PeteYoung 08:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard - "Alumuric"

I have replaced the Amazon image for Almuric with a scanned copy. Doug 18:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Cyberiad

Hi. I've asked a question which involves several verified pubs of the above. Could you provide input in this discussion? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Songs of Distant Earth

In October 2015 you wrote on my talk page, asking me a questions regarding Arthur C. Clarke's novel "The Songs of Distant Earth". Because you probably have stopped monitoring my talk page, I thought you would like to know that I now have an answer for you. Here's the link. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 22:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Amtrak Wars: Cloud Warrior

Also in October last year you notified me that you have added a price pub note to our shared pub of "The Amtrak Wars: Cloud Warrior". I've got a question regarding this, if you find the time could you please answer here? Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Best New SF 27

Replaced the Amazon image for this pub that you verified with an ISFDB cover scan. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 09:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

To Your Scattered Bodies Go - cover art

Added the cover artist of this [[3]] UK edition (1986). Also added some notes. Zlan52 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Viriconium

Hi, I have changed Iain Bank's Introduction from 'Collection' to 'Essay' with Viriconium, as it appeared between Iain Bank's Collections.--Dirk P Broer 10:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A Hole in Space

Hi, I've imported content for your verified copy of A Hole in Space.--Dirk P Broer 12:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Foster's Life Form

Added the Australian cover price to our verified pub. PeteYoung 16:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebel in Time

I've updated the notes for Rebel in Time. Any idea where the Publication Month came from? --AndyjMo 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Newton's Wake

Hello, can you confirm the statements on the copyright page of your PVed publication. The dates given seems strange for a title first published in 2004. Thanks. Hauck 12:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sassinak

I've replaced your cover art of Sassinak with a scan of my copy (the current image looked a bit damaged). --AndyjMo 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2061-Odyssey Three

Hi. Do you think the essay "Author's Note (2061: Odyssey Three)" in your verified 2061-Odyssey Three should be merged with the identically titled essay by Clarke in most of the other publications of the novel? Also, in your note "First published in Great Britain by Grafton Books 1998" does it really say "1998" instead of "1988"? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 02:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

End of All Songs

Added other prices to The End of All Songs. --AndyjMo 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The Rhesus Chart

Replaced the Amazon cover art for The Rhesus Chart with a scan of my copy. Also added a reference to the Extract. --AndyjMo 18:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Singularity Sky

In the Notes for your verified version of Singularity Sky it states No additional pricing on rear cover. My copy of this version This edition published by Orbit 2005 has a price on the back cover of £6.99. If yours does not have the price then maybe the Notes should be changed to say that some copies don't have the price. --AndyjMo 21:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the Printing History and included a note about the Price. I've removed the OCLC reference as it is not valid (the only OCLC record is for the 2003 edition). --AndyjMo 12:02, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

Lord Valentine's Castle

Image URL found for this pub. --Zapp 19:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Futures Past

The front cover of Futures Past seems to have a 'signature' of the cover artist. It's in the middle at the bottom in the right hand flame. Any idea who it could be? I've updated the Printing History. --AndyjMo 21:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Immortals of Science Fiction

I've submitted contents (interior art) to this publication, based on external artist credits, such as tonyrobertsart.co.uk (The Illustrated Man), comicsvalue.com and again for Terry Oakes, and isfdb entries such for covers by Richard Clifton-Dey, Alan Craddock, Stuart Hughes and Les Edwards. Horzel 09:08, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

Time's Eye

You verified the 2005 mass-market pb P82967. I moved the OCLC id from Notes to its new field, and replaced it with notice of current coverage at Amazon.

Mainly I researched "Cities and Thrones and Powers", and renamed it " 'Cities and Thrones and Powers' (excerpt)", with information at Title records and ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard. And re-numbered that Contents listing "[6]|0" rather than "[6]|1". --Pwendt|talk 12:39, 30 November 2017 (EST)

Mechanismo

RE: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?309783 - now thast I have myself an A3 flatbed scanner I've been scanning the oversized art portfolios in my collection including this one.--Mavmaramis 12:23, 19 October 2018 (EDT)

David Pringle

Replaced Amazon cover of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?264429 this} with one scanned from my own copy --Mavmaramis 14:27, 25 December 2018 (EST)

Amtrak Wars

Cover artist for this is Jum Burns, see page 117 of Lightship. The note regarding cover artist for this record is incorrect. --Mavmaramis 22:49, 27 July 2019 (EDT)

Startide Rising

Cover artist of this is Bruce Pennington, according to the checklist in Pennington: A Portrait of a Master Fantasy Artist. Horzel 05:09, 15 November 2019 (EST)

Highway of Eternity

Cover art for this confirmed as Chris Moore by artist himself via email correspondance. Removed the note containing a dead link to a Tumblr site. --Mavmaramis 18:09, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

2010 Odsyssey Two

Added notes to this about printing history thus: First published in Great Britain by Granada Publishing 1982 / Published in paperback by Granada Publishing Limited in 1983. --Mavmaramis 00:48, 8 June 2020 (EDT)