User talk:Dirk P Broer/Archive-2011

Grolier Encyclopedia

I'm holding a submission which wants to credit the authors of this publication. Trouble is, you've placed all three authors in one field, thus creating a new author. I'm going to accept the submission because of the other data that you added, but ask that you do another update which enters each of the authors in their own field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oké--Dirk P Broer 14:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also some concern about crediting a corporate entity as an author. I've brought the subject up on the rules and standards page so that other editors can join the discussion. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazon goes as far as only citing Grolier Multimedia as author...--Dirk P Broer 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We trust Amazon so much we put a warning in the notes for anything sourced from there. :-/ BLongley 18:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If we are to follow Wikipedia, we only cite Clute and Nicholls, but I wrote part of that entry myself and was the one to include the multimedia version in the references.--Dirk P Broer 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't actually follow Wikipedia either - we LIKE Primary Verifications and Original Research. Thanks for the pointer though - I must pick up a First Edition now I know that one had illustrations too. BLongley 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that only Clute and Nicholls should be credited as the editors. You can credit Grolier in the notes field. Thanks.

Oké, they already were in the notes, removed them as 3rd author--Dirk P Broer 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent) I made this new title a variant of the book version. --Willem H. 08:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

World's Best SF 1

Is this the title on the Title Page? If so then this edition needs to be a Variant title of the existing Title World's Best Science Fiction: 1968. I can accept the submission as is which would then require the new record to be unmerged from the other three, then made a Variant of the original title. Another way would be to submit again as a new anthology, then make that record the Variant. Either way the contents can then be imported to the new Sphere pub record. We also have another option which works the best when the titles are the same, called Cloning. By cloning an existing record [that option is available in the Editing Tools to the left of your screen] all the contents are included and automatically merged. A little research has this edition published in March 1971, source Amazon.UK [which, unlike its' US counterpart, is much more reliable when it comes to month/year]. Worldcat has an ISBN of 0722192738. Let me know about the title and I can do the rest or walk you through the process. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that the title on the cover(though with periods between the S and the F and a period after: S.F.) Want a scan as well?--Dirk P Broer 15:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The default title is the one on the Title page, not the cover. Usually it's the page before the copyright page. Once a record is made, then a scan can be added. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That page makes it even more clear: "The World's Best S.F. No. 1" --Dirk P Broer 16:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay! [This] is the result. Please check that the contents are correct and add a scan if you wish. I didn't add the ISBN from Worldcat, but if it is there [usually on the back cover for Sphere, or spine] please add it as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an old book, ISBN-wise, so the sphere book has sadly nothing more on it's back than 92738 --Dirk P Broer 16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Scan has been uploaded, contents checked and found correct. If all Sphere books had a ISBN at that time beginning with 07221 than 92738 might be the part that identifies this particular book.--Dirk P Broer 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

They did, and it does. Feel free to make it an ISBN of 0722192738 (with notes to keep others happy). BLongley 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded images

Congratulations, you made the classic mistake most people make at least once. You copied the URL of the image's wiki page to the pub record. This should have been the URL for the image itself. I corrected The World's Best S.F. No. 1, but left the Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for you to see the result. See step 6 here. Try again? --Willem H. 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You lost me there. How am I supposed to know it is stored at www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/4/4c/*.jpg, -if that is the case with all following uploads- ??? --Dirk P Broer 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, you didn't read the helptext? You're not "supposed to know" where the image is stored. Help sais In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. What you did is assume all images are stored here but they're not. I had to reject your last two submissions. --Willem H. 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interstellar Empire

Hi. I have your edits to Interstellar Empire on hold. What you did is fine, but the information from OCLC and Locus1 don't quite match the entry (or each other), so I'm checking with Bill about those verifications and the OCLC number in the notes, rather than having the modified entry sit in an inconsistent state. Locus1 agrees with your changes, and a different OCLC number also matches what you have provided. I'll move it along and perhaps fix up the OCLC number in the notes once I hear from Bill. --MartyD 11:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

All set. I adjusted the note to reflect the OCLC number matching this printing. --MartyD 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thnx!--Dirk P Broer 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Worlds Out of Words

It's ISFDB standard to disambiguate generically titled pieces (such as "Introduction", "Afterword", "Notes", "Glossary", etc.) by adding the title of the book in parentheses. I've done that for the applicable contents in this pub. Also, according to the OCLC record, this book is 21 cm. which would make it trade paperback-sized. If so, we use the initials "tp" to designate the book format. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It was initially coded 'hc', and, as it has no hardcover, I thoughtlessly changed that to pb (In the Netherlands used for the tp format, we call pb "pocket" format). Thanks for the instructions for the various entries in Worlds Out of Worlds! --Dirk P Broer 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

SF Adventures #9

If you're doing a primary verification of a publication (book or magazine), feel free to remove any notes that no longer apply. It appears that all of the notes in this pub can be removed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Page counts for magazines

Unlike the method used for counting pages for books (the last numbered page), for magazines we count every page including the covers. This make take more than a cursory glance at the last page. You must determine if the publisher counts the covers in their pagination. Start with the cover and go forward. If you determine that page 1 is the first interior page you have to add 4 to the total pages. Make sure to count any unnumbered pages at the end as well. I'm holding the submission to change the page count of this issue from 116 to 112 in order for you to determine if the covers have been included in the count. If not, I'll reject the submission, or you can reject it yourself. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And they are not even consequent doing their pagination either... Science Fantasy 37 and 39 have 2 as their first numbered page (so add 4 for total count), 38 has 4 (so add 2). I will change the pagecount as per above. --15:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Dirk P Broer

Publisher of New Worlds (1966)

The publisher given in the 1966 issues of New Worlds which you have verified is Roberts and Vinter. There are other verified records of this title which give the publisher as Roberts and Vinter Ltd. If you agree that the "Ltd" is present in your issues, I can make a submission which will change all of the issues at once. Would you please check your copies? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I had the "Roberts and Vinter" (without "Ltd.") from the entry on 'New Worlds' in Clute and Nichollson's Encyclopedia. (p. 867.) --Dirk P Broer 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. They've all been corrected. I'm also going to drop the "£" from the price field of these pre-decimalization issues. Mhhutchins 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Right you are. These prices date from the time that 12 Shilling made a Pound Sterling and 12 Pence was a Shilling. 3/6 is thus the equivalent of 3x12=36+6=42 Pence. As a pound is 144 Pence, that's comparable to a decimal £0.29 --Dirk P Broer 09:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was 20 shillings to the pound. 3/6 is equivalent to £0.175 new money. BLongley 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

20? Even more whacky than I thought (I am a real decimal dude) £0.175 new money shows you how far downhill we went since then, now its £7.99.... --Dirk P Broer 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be worse: 17 silver Sickles to a gold Galleon, and 29 bronze Knuts to a Sickle. I've actually got books priced "14 Sickles, 3 Knuts", which equated to £2.50 in 2001. BLongley 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

14'/3'', and that's cutting me own throat, honest! (C.M.O.T Dibbler)

The Ankh-Morpork currency system:

There is the $AM, the dollar, which is made up of twenty shillings. (An older unit of currency is the Guinea, composed of twenty-one shillings, but this is falling from use)
The shilling is composed of twelve pennies, or two sixpences, or four thruppeny bits.
The Penny is composed of two Halfpennies; each Halfpenny is composed of two Farthings.
Each Farthing is composed of two Mites; each Mite is composed of two Elims.

Though this is severely contradicted in the Lemma Currency in both The Discworld Companion and the The New Discworld Companion. --Dirk P Broer 18:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Guinea, sixpences, thrupenny bits, ha'pennies and farthings were real British currency. Mites and Elims, not. BLongley 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Author/Artist fields

When adding data to a record or creating a new record, only the name of the person should be entered into the field. That's the only it can be automatically merged with other records by the same author or artist. All other information should be added to the notes field. I'm going to accept the submission for a new pub of The Streets of Ankh-Morpork, but you'll have to correct the problem with the cover art field. Also remember, the Artist field is for the cover artist only. All other credits should go into the note field. Here's the record that will need fixing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You create a record for interior art using the Add Title fields under Contents. Mhhutchins 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done as you suggested. --Dirk P Broer 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Streets of Ankh-Morpork and changing verified pubs

You have a submission updating this verified record. It is ISFDB policy to notify the editor who is the primary verifier when making changes in the record. Each editor has his own individual policy about the levels of notification that is usually found at the top of each user page. I have placed the submission on hold until you've discussed the change with the primary verifier. Mhhutchins 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Same situation with this pub. Mhhutchins 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Confessions of a Crap Artist

You want to change the date of this pub. If it's not stated in the pub, your source should be noted in the note field. You also credit three artists with the cover art: Claydon, Hook, and Mann. Is this correct? And you've added an introduction as a NONFICTION type. That type is reserved for larger works published in book form. Content pieces should be entered as an ESSAY type. You should also disambiguate any generic titles by adding the name of the book in parenthesis, e.g. "Introduction (Confessions of a Crap Artist)". I'm going to accept the submission and let you make the corrections. Mhhutchins 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oké, done so. --Dirk P Broer 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Analog 3

I'm holding the submission to update this pub. You want to change to price from "xiv+269" to "xiv + 269 pp". It's not necessary to add "pp" to the page count. The system does that automatically (see the listing here). Also, it is ISFDB standard not to place a space between any designated page counts. You also state that the price is 30/- which would indicate a later (undated) printing. I just checked Tuck who gives the price as 21/-. Because you added the page numbers and cover artist I'm going to accept the submission, but remove the changes you made in the page count field, price field, and note field. Then you can clone the current record, remove the date, change the price, and add your note about it being a possible later undated printing. Once that's accepted you can remove your primary verification of the first printing and move it to the reprinting. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about it after the cloning. On close inspection, I discovered that the price of 30/- was in the advertisement for the Analog Anthology on the back flap. The book itself had been "price clipped" at the front flap, so might well have been the first Dobson printing. Sorry, what do we do now?--Dirk P Broer 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've already deleted the clone, and gone back to verify the first. You'll have to correct the notes that I placed in the note field about the source. Note that the verified copy is price-clipped and give Tuck as the source for the price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OCLC's ISBN

When obtaining data from an OCLC record, the ISBN that is stated first is the one that is listed in the book itself. Like the ISFDB, the OCLC has "retrofitted" all ISBN-10s with the corresponding ISBN-13, even though the latter is not stated in the book. So this record will have to be corrected giving only a single ISBN, the first one (this was 1988, long before the ISBN-13 existed) Also, checking the OCLC record, I see the title is The Fires of Bride. The record must reflect that as well. Another thing: what is "DDC: 823'/914 LCC: PR6057"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This one will have to be corrected, too. Mhhutchins 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DDC=Dewey's Decimal Code, LCC=Library of Congress Catalog (see e.g wikipedia entries on books)

"LCC: PR6057" doesn't work. We've tried to establish a standard designation similar to the Library of Congress current usage: LCCN (Library of Congress Control Number). See here. Mhhutchins 23:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LCCN for The Fires of Bride: 88-3925. PR6057 is part of the call number which it shares with other titles, so I can think of no reason to include it as part of the ISFDB record. Mhhutchins 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1973 Annual

You added a cover image to this pub with a note stating "jacket painting by". The cover is only text, so where is the "painting"? Perhaps George Woodman designed the cover? Mhhutchins 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the effect of cloning for you....and of trying to do as much as possible in as short a time--Dirk P Broer 15:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It actually says: "Jacket Design by George Woodman". --Dirk P Broer 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Planeet der gevangenen by Godwin

What is the source for this pub's date? The OCLC record isn't definitive about the date of publication. Mhhutchins 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I know -because I read it halfway the 1970ies- that it can not be 1980, so I went looking on the net and found a site with publication years for all published Luitingh SF books.--Dirk P Broer 09:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the record to give the website as the source for the date. Mhhutchins 15:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A Decade of F&SF

Thanks for adding the pagination of the stories in this anthology. The story by Green was overlooked. Mhhutchins 15:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Breaking lines in the note field

When you want to start a new line of notes in the note field, keyboard returns aren't recognized. You should enter the html code <br> at the end of the previous line. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Links in notes

Hi. The ISFDB data presentation doesn't use the Wiki software, so Wiki shortcuts like "[" + "]" to get a hyperlink to a URL don't work in the publication and title notes fields. To get a link, you need to use HTML anchors instead:

<a href="the url">the label</a>

I converted the Google Books link you added to Human and Other Beings. --MartyD 09:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cover art credit

I approved your edit of The Book of Mars, but then removed Chris Foss from the artist field. Your note is clear, and we don't credit an artist unless there's proof somewhere (some of us add notes about where the proof can be found). I'm holding your edit of Savage Heroes. You add Lee Edwards as cover artist, but no note (is he credited in the pub, is there a signature??). Second reason, you should notify Unaperson of this change. Please read this help page. --Willem H. 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting little service at tineye.com which does reverse image searches. I plugged in the URL for our "The Book of Mars" cover and it came back with 3 pictures of the cover but also a magazine cover which seems to have the same artwork. This page, when run through Google translate, seems to indicate it's by Patrick Woodroffe. BLongley 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this site! Tineye.com looks very useful, Google has nothing like it. Jane Frank agrees with Patrick Woodroffe, and I found a reproduction on page 127 of Mythopoeikon, so I added the credit and a note. Can you agree? --Willem H. 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the second image works as well and shows that the same image was used on White Dwarf 16. A little searching on that title does give the cover artist credit to Les Edwards. BLongley 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my source for Les Edwards as cover artist for "Savage Heroes" What is the change that I should notify Unapersson of?.--Dirk P Broer 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just that you're changing one of his verified pubs, which I see you have done now. BLongley 18:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He might just be a she, Una Persson in the Jerry Cornelius series was.--Dirk P Broer 18:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe our Unapersson is a male called Ian Davey. Bit of a Moorcock Expert. BLongley 20:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while. I had to go shopping, cook food and eat. Approved the edit (it was Les, my mistake). You should add a note about where the cover credit came from. --Willem H. 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You eat arond the same time as I do. Done as you suggested. (BTW: are you Dutch -like me-, as your name Willem suggests?).--Dirk P Broer 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good guess, but it's no secret. I live in Haren (a few kilometers below Groningen). --Willem H. 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

reverting publication date on Human and Other Beings

Hi. I'm sorry, but I did not look closely enough at your change to the publication date of Human and Other Beings. The source you cited is a list of copyright registrations, not publication dates. We don't use copyright dates for publication dates. I reverted the publication date to 1963-00-00 and moved the date you discovered into the note. --MartyD 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming interior art

You stumbled on another gotcha in your edit of Tigers of the Sea. Interior art gets the title of the publication, without the addition "Interior Art" before or after the title, since it's title type is already interior art. --Willem H. 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing about naming interior art records: if the piece is a specialized type of interiorart, (e.g. map, frontispiece, chapter headings) you still name it the same as the publication's title but add the type in parentheses. So in this pub the frontispiece should be titled "Plague Daemon (frontispiece)" [note small "f'], and a map would be "Plague Daemon (map)". The only exception is if the map is titled, then it's acceptable to give the record the title of the map. (This may not have be formalized in the help documentation, but it appears to be the working standard.) Mhhutchins 15:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to correct the names of the interior art records for this pub, using the standard stated above. (Also "frontispiece" is misspelled.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding shortfiction records to novel records

I'm holding your submission to update this pub, by adding shortfiction records. If you're certain this is a collection of stories, the pub type will have to be changed to COLLECTION (the type of the title record will also have to be changed.) Are you certain that these are individual stories and not just chapter titles? Could any of the stories stand alone? The Wikipedia article you linked to in the notes say it's a "short story anthology" (the ISFDB and the SF community have a different definition of the term) and it's edited by David Pringle. Is he credited in the book? Are there individual copyrights for the stories or acknowledgement of previous publications of any of them? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I had already assumed as much, so included the wikipedia link. David Pringle is not credited (and he shouldn't, Jack Yeovil is Kim Newman), and there are no individual copyrights. I will gladly cancel this submission.--Dirk P Broer 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adjusting notes

Hi. When you edit a publication record based on a book you have (especially when you then make yourself Primary verifier), you should adjust any notes that cite a secondary source for information you have found in the book. Secondary source citations in notes are used for entries where a physical copy of the book has not been found and when providing additional information not present in the book itself. So, for example Renaissance no longer needs to say the artist is from Locus1, and Brak the Barbarian no longer needs to say the data is from Cal State. --MartyD 12:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, I have your second edit to Brak on hold. This would remove the artist credit. Are you sure it is not Achilleos, as perhaps the Cal State data might have stated? I found this showing some covers for Tandem printings, if it's of any help. --MartyD 13:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have now removed Achilleos twice already, and in the meantime uploaded a scan for the 1976 edition as well, which will show you it is the same unnamed artist as with the previous two 1976 Tandem editions, which show very different cover art than the 1970 (Achilleos) editions. Rather crude paintings I'd say.--Dirk P Broer 13:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I accepted the edit. --MartyD 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal names on authors

Hi again. Legal names on authors should be entered as LAST, FIRST MIDDLE. See Help:Screen:AuthorData. I adjusted your edit to Kris Jensen, so just something to keep in mind for the future. Thanks. --MartyD 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll never do it again, promise! --Dirk P Broer 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (Broer, Dirk Pieter)

Gerald Knave

Here is my last one for today, I promise. I have your proposed Gerald Knave-related edits on hold. These would assign a number (3) to the Knave and the Game collection and then renumber +1 the three later novels. While that collection certainly belongs in general series, it doesn't look to me like it's part of the series of five novels. I Googled a little and couldn't find anyone / anywhere treating the collection as part of the series of novels. Why do you think it should be #3? Thanks. --MartyD 14:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Reginald3 (p.502) and Clute/Nicholls (p.639) say so? Are the present #3, #4 and #5 visibly numbered then? --Dirk P Broer 14:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good reason to think so. :-) --MartyD 00:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reginald3 also has a series index on pages 1359-1482 (which btw extends further back than 1975, a real treasure) and Knave and the Game is there given as #3 as well (p.1411).--Dirk P Broer 07:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cover Images

Thanks for the cover scans, but when you're adding them to the publication you're using the wrong URL - it needs the URL of the image, not of the wiki page the image is on. E.g. you used http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:THDTHFGRSS1988.jpg whereas the image on that page is actually http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/5/54/THDTHFGRSS1988.jpg. You can normally get the image URL by right-clicking on it and using "Copy Image Location" (or the equivalent in your browser). BLongley 15:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've learned this already on later submissions - ignore me. BLongley 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Image "permissions"

I accepted some submissions adding images [Edmond Cooper Dutch titles] before realizing the website they came from is not on our [list] of sites that have given us explicit permission to directly link to them. If you can get the site's permission [there's a sample letter shown on the page that can be used], we'll add it to the list, then the site name will be displayed beneath the image. I went back and downloaded the images to my computer, then uploaded them to the database, so these are okay now. I generally just follow that procedure when using an image of a book that I don't have, as any external site could change/disappear and all the images linked to would also disappear. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The other Bill over-simplifies a bit - someone (probably me or Ahasuerus, judging by current activity) will have to do some code changes to make sure the site is credited properly. But there has been some discussion - see point 7 here - User_talk:Mhhutchins#Data_Consistency_.3E_Cleanup_Scripts about making it easier to record which sites are allowed, so we can clean-up ones that aren't - and provide more obvious warnings to moderators when new sites come along. BLongley 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a simple kind of guy!! :-) A thought occurred to me [it does happen...] that on the Upload page, there is a link to the process but no link to the Policy page that lists the currently accepted sites. And that page can't be edited by just anyone to add the link [or I would have]. That would make the fact that we need permission more evident and possibly prevent unauthorized linking. And I hope we get permission from this particular site, as well. The images are small but of very good quality. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, there isn't even a link from the Help page on how to upload images to the policy page that says where we can get them from. The link should even go in with the Welcome list we put on each new editor's talk page. Just another idea... on a roll now! ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The request has just been sent, let's hope he grants us permission, he has pretty much everything that has ever been translated into the Dutch/Flemmish.--Dirk P Broer 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WE've permission to use the images of www.deboekenplank.nl The owner of the site would appreciate linking back to him.--Dirk P Broer 10:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The coding is done, not sure when it will go live. BLongley 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lost Face

This should be made a Variant of the Czech title, not a variant of a variant. Sounds odd but it's the right method. Looks like all the common stories need merging, as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Meaning Vynález proti sobĕ ?--Dirk P Broer 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The other title is a variant of it, as this one should be. Have you done a variant relationship yet? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Alea Iacta Est. 1126686 is the parent. --Dirk P Broer 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And done! The stories still need to be merged. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dutch translations

Do you have a copy of this pub in order to do a primary verification? If not, please give the source for the data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And here. Mhhutchins 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Both first versions I read of those publications (somewhere in the 1980ies), and which I have since obtained in English. The original Dutch versions are at a friend of my daughter. More on the Dutch translations of Laumer's books can be found here.--Dirk P Broer 19:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Gladiator-at-Law by Pohl & Kornbluth

I've submitted an update for your verified pub to change the author from "Cyril M. Kornbluth" to "C. M. Kornbluth". It's on hold at the moment, but I'll accept it if the change is correct. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's C.M. on the cover and on the copyright page, and also the more common version of his name (see Cyril M. Kornbluth).--Dirk P Broer 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Blind Heelal

Hi Dirk, I approved the addition of this pub, but I think you should reconsider a few things. You have the publisher as "Luitingh-Sijthoff", but in those days Sijthoff was not mentioned in the Luitingh books. I think the publication series should be "Tijgerpockets", not "Luitingh SF" (that came later), and the price is mentioned on the backcover (295138 means ƒ2.95, Tijgerpocket 138). --Willem H. 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oke! I do not have the book at home anymore -gave it away to a friend of my daughter when I bought the Hamlyn edition- so I had to find my information on the net, where I was deceived by this, but the same site also says this, which supports what you suggest.--Dirk P Broer 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I had some thoughts in that direction. Kees Buijs is not always accurate in his information, Fandata is better, but has no cover scans, and information in Fantasfeer (Meulenhoff 1979) is very reliable. By the way, I own most Dutch SF publications pre 1975, and will eventually enter them when foreign language support is better than now (at least a translator field and acceptance of translated title records). I hate doing things twice, but you can always ask (the books are on shelves, but second and third row). --Willem H. 10:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Take Back Plenty

I approved your submission regarding this title here but I don't understand why you duplicated the same comments in both fields "Note" & "Synopsis". Note also that your method for linking to another ISFDB record is not right (IIRC it's more along the lines of <a href="http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?901188">here</a> ). Hauck 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The method used for linking is a wikipedia template, and doesn't work in the database, which as Hauck states should be HTML. Also, a synopsis should be neutral. The field should not be used to review the work. Mhhutchins 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I had it originally under 'synopsis', decided that it did not really belong in that field and, using 'cut and paste' took it from there and placed it under 'note'.--Dirk P Broer 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of Modifications

Please remember to notify the primary (and 2nd, 3rd etc) verifier when you modify some of the data, you'll see on each talk's page their desiderata (some want to be notified of everything, some of only certain types of change, etc.). Regarding this pub [1] please keep in mind that you are changing data ("VGSF/Gollancz") that is ISFDB-wise perfectly valid and correct (see our discussion on the subject and the content of the help pages) by another set of information ("VGSF", which is also perfectly valid and correct albeit less informative for the neophyte), in this case, I'd don't see the point of reducing the quantity of information entered in the db. Hauck 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I try to strife for consistency. Like Bill Longley I do not see the added value in entering VGSF / Gollancz, (see his remarks under publisher VGSF on these pages about it) and I would like the see all books categorized in the same, consistent way, like any good database should have consistency. You yourself have entered in the note field "First VGSF edition 1990", and looking up its OCLC gives the same VGSF as publisher, *NOT* Gollancz, *NOR* VGSF / Gollancz. Must we have the same argument over and over again? Publisher = logo on cover, it is that simple.--Dirk P Broer 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise you to have a look at the help page : "Publisher = The name of the book's publisher. Use the official statement of publication where you can. The publisher has in the past not been a key entity in the ISFDB, but publisher and imprint support is in the process of being improved, and a process of determining canonical names for publishers and imprints is in progress. For the time being you are free to choose an imprint ("Ace Books"), a division ("Berkley") or the parent corporation ("Penguin Group (USA)") as you wish.". Hauck 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To give a more elaborate example why I think your view is wrong, I take my copy of "Jingo" by Terry Pratchett. Printing history:
Originally published 1997 by Victor Gollancz Ltd
Corgi edition published 1998. Would you now enter this book as Corgi / Gollancz?--Dirk P Broer 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO we're not talking about Pratchett here. To stay with _Tangents_, which part of the phrase on copyright page : "VGSF is an imprint of Victor Gollancz" leads you to believe that VGSF is not the imprint and Gollancz not the publisher ? Your desire to standardize the "Publishers" field is commandable but it will be more efficienly done at the global level and with an formalized agreement of a majority of the contributors. There is also the matter of simple politness when modifying other person's entered data. Hauck 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So we are left with opposite views on this matter until there comes a separate field 'imprint'? In my point of view it is just a mere *coincidence* that the hardcover publisher of "Tangents" belongs to the same publishing group as it's paperback publisher. To stay with _Tangents_, which part of the phrase on copyright page "first VGSF edition" leads you to believe that VGSF / Gollancz is its publisher? "VGSF is an imprint of Victor Gollancz"? yeah, and why don't we use such data with other publishers? I use the Pratchett analogy to point out that the link between paperback publisher and hardcover publisher can be very shady or even non-existent so, to avoid confusion one way and different ways of entry on the other, I'd like to standardize using a simple rule-of-thumb: publisher=logo When that is too simple ALL entered books need to be checked and changed when needed into imprint / publisher, but I would rather not have not policies like you are free to choose an imprint ("Ace Books"), a division ("Berkley") or the parent corporation ("Penguin Group (USA)") as you wish, because this only leads to a need for massive editing in the future.--Dirk P Broer 18:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So here's a nice one for you : Mortal Remains is very interesting as it bears the VGSF logo on spine but has "Victor Gollancz" (not VGSF) on title page and "First published in GB 1995 in hardback and paperback by Victor Gollancz" => see here and there. So here's a book with the VGSF logo that is clearly published by Gollancz. It seems to settle the debate to determine who is VGSF publisher. Hauck 16:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In my eyes this is a book published by Cassel, using it's Gollancz brand and publishing it under the imprint VGSF, hence the VGSF logo. I yesterday verified a Futura book -part of Macdonald & Co), published under the Orbit imprint, as it has Orbit logos on spine and cover, also stating "An Orbit book" in the copyright page (Storm Constatine's The Fulfilments of Fate and Desire). here shows in any case clearly that VGSF / Gollancz is out of the question, if you want to be consequent you'd use VGSF / Cassel here (But why? What does it add? The ties between imprint(s) and publisher need to be addressed at a higher level, not per publication).--Dirk P Broer 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

0-575- identifies the once-independent Victor Gollancz Ltd., and its VGSF imprint: both these are now imprints of Cassell, which is in turn owned by Orion (since late 1998), who are themselves owned by Hachette; and also Vista, which Cassell launched as an imprint of Cassell using that same stem, after they bought Gollancz from merkin publishers, Houghton Miflin (who were the owners of Victor Gollancz Ltd. from their purchase of it upon the retirement of Livia Gollancz); see also 0-75281- etc. (Orion); titles on the vista list are being re-badged and -isbn-ed as orion millennium books as they are reprinted. So, VGSF / Gollancz might not even been so clear-cut as you think it is.--Dirk P Broer 19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear-cut to me. If you can point out any publication under the VGSF imprint that wasn't published by Gollancz, I will buy your argument. Do you have any book in your collection that carries the VGSF imprint, but doesn't give Gollancz as the publsher? As far as I know, VGSF hasn't been used since Orion published Gollancz in 1998. The argument should not be obfuscated by bringing in Cassell, Hachette, Millennium, Orion, and Vista. I'm not going to merge the two publishers (VGSF and VGSF / Gollancz), even though it would only take two submissions to make every pub in the database have the same publisher. (Hauck could do the same, if he wanted to.) I respect those verifiers who chose not to have the longer name. I believe Hauck asks for the same respect when it comes to pubs that he verified. Please feel free to change any non-verified pub in your collection to whichever usage you prefer. Mhhutchins 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This policy will make it impossible to see (at this moment) all that was published under the VGSF imprint, while if you add an imprint field and make mother-daughter relations, stating that VGSF is a daughter of Gollancz, it would be possible to see all that is published under Gollancz, no matter what imprint and each and every imprint as well. By giving people the choice to do as they please you give yourself -and others- more work in the future, IMHO.--Dirk P Broer 21:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really too much work. As I said, it would only take a couple of submissions to standardize all the publications of VGSF. If (a big IF) we ever get a separate imprint field, a global change would take a millisecond (a few more seconds for the editor). Mhhutchins 21:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

millisecond..It would be true if not for the fact that some publications that are in my eyes just "VGSF" have been coded as "Gollancz" only. Nevertheless, they can easily been found using the list of publications at the back of the VGSF titles, where it says "Titles available from VGSF". Just a matter of finely distinguishing when the publications suddenly went over being "Vista", such as with e.g. Hegira by Greg Bear.--Dirk P Broer 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) Those publications would have to be discovered regardless of the outcome of this discussion or a global change. Eventually they will. That's what makes this so much fun! Mhhutchins 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that big an "IF". I've suggested, several times, that we separate Imprints and Publishers - by default, at worst we'd have the same information in both, and if people don't know which one to use then it would go in both, or the moderator can choose to fix or improve either. So if I coded it and provided the initial fix script, then all "VGSF" pubs would get that as "imprint", and all "VGSF / Gollancz" pubs would get "VGSF" as imprint and "Gollancz" as publisher. Much rework would then ensue - and I'm sure that the "/ SFBC" exception will need special coding. We can code stuff that people want, you just have to agree on what you want! BLongley 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument. I never mass-change a Publisher without checking with active Verifiers - the most angry I've ever been with another moderator is when lots of my books became "Del Rey / Ballantine" without my consent. I've left a load of publications alone when I'm not the first verifier - and I'd be happy to code in extra checks to make sure that moderators cannot do mass "publisher" changes on verified books. Or at least get warnings about whose books will be affected. I think it all boils down to "simplicity" versus "as much information as possible" - which are not incompatible, it's just that "Publishers" as a separate entity is comparatively new and people used to put all the information in the Publisher field, as there was nowhere else. We've improved that, and can improve it more. I really do want to standardise a bit more as, for instance "Awards" for "Publishers" don't link. But too much bickering will not lead to an improvement. BLongley 21:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, too much bickering will not lead to an improvement. Neither does taking no stand and let anyone do as they please. What it boils down to is the question "What is a publisher?" Should a division be considered a publisher? In my honest opinion: NO, unless the division publishes books under their own name. But that should be another publisher, and not a combination of various levels of publication. The same -or even more so- holds for parent companies. These higher entities can be related to the lower ones at another level, not per publication. I am assuming isfdb is a relational database, I hope that is correct?--Dirk P Broer 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed relational - based on MySQL. You can download a copy of the latest backup and try it for yourself. However, editing is not dependent on knowing about such, or Mike wouldn't be top moderator and contributor - he freely admits that DB stuff is not his expertise, but I'd challenge anyone to find faults in his bibliographic skills. I think you've got a lot of valid comments about "What is a publisher?" - and I think it would be far simpler in the long run to separate imprint and publisher. But I'm not going to be prescriptive about it, let the discussions continue - in a good-natured way, hopefully. It shouldn't really be taking place on one person's talk page though.... BLongley 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Harm's Way by Greenland

I'm holding a submission that wants to add a new paperback edition of this title, dated 1993. There is already a record for a paperback edition dated February 1994. I checked this against Locus1, which may have been the source for the record. Does your copy specifically state it was published in 1993, and not the hardcover and trade paperback editions? They appeared simultaneously in May 1993, and it would be unusual, at least in US publishing (I'm not so certain about UK publishing) for a paperback reprint to appear within 7 months. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my copy clearly states, as I put in the notes: "This paperback edition 1993", followed by a printing line 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2. As far as I know sometimes books are published simultaniously in different formats, and sometimes the paperback is even printed first.--Dirk P Broer 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I also have the matching OCLC number, 31609231, and a coverscan is waiting (NOT the smae as the hardcover, in fact I do not know the artist. You can see an example here.--Dirk P Broer 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept the submission, delete the Feb 1994 record, and note that Locus1 gives another date for the pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Feb 1994 edition may very well be the 400 page OCLC 221466632.....--Dirk P Broer 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Locus1 matches everything but the date, including page count and ISBN. I personally feel that the stated date is incorrect, but ISFDB standards require that we record data as found. That's why I gave the sources of the conflicting data in the record's note field, but didn't change the date of the record. BTW, the OCLC record you cite gives a 1994 publication date, not a copyright date, which bolsters my theory of an incorrectly stated date. OCLC gives the page count as "[400]" which means they're taking it from another source (probably the publisher's catalog), not the actual book. Publishers' pre-publication data often gives the total number of pages in a book, not the last numbered page method we use. Check out recent and forthcoming books on Amazon and you'll found the page counts hardly ever match the actual book, and are almost always multiples of 4. Mhhutchins 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even counting a biography, an advertisement for the BSFA, a preface for "Hot Head" by Simon Ings, and blanks (3), I get no further than 384 pages, which I believe is a multiple of 4 too. I get to 386 counting the inner and outer back cover, and I can count no further than that. Nearest multiplication of 4 is then 388, not 400...--Dirk P Broer 00:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Making changes to verified pubs / notifying primary verifiers

Hi Dirk, this is one thing you seem to keep forgetting. Can I direct your attention once more to this "rule"? It 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. Your edit of The Great Fetish, adding Steele Savage is a good find, but I would like to know about it. Scott Latham may not respond to wiki questions, but he is active on the database side, and even though Dragoondelight is not active now, you should consider notifying him. --Willem H. 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I had looked up those users and found a remark from Dragoondelight saying "I am resigning as of this date and will not respond to wiki questions", while Scott Latham's contribution to the record was made some 4 years ago and has not answered a single message since February 2010. When I add things that are verifiable true, like the literal text of the copyright page, the OCLC number, I can hardly imagine anyone to take offense to that. It is also impossible -for me- to see what my editing will change in those cases that it is been held up by the moderator, and therefore I find it hard to send someone a message saying "I have changed something in a publication you once verified earlier than me, but I have forgotten exactly what it is all about, as I have no insight in the outstanding editing requests". The application is already incredibly slow -forcing me to hit F5 all the time while on a 20 Mb line-, and now you force me to open two instances in order to notify people of changes. Can you make the outstanding edits visible? Than I can include a link to them in a message.--Dirk P Broer 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like FR 2799077. Does that cover it, or is there more? BLongley 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

FR 2799077 would sure be very helpful! By linking to your proposed changes you can let people see exactly what you did. And by the way, my -proposed- changes are not the gospel. People can leave out what they please, especially as they can explain why.

In a VGSF vs VGSF / Gollancz or, when they choose, plain Gollancz that's alright as well, people frustrate me by making it impossible to look up what has been published undere a given label/imprintby putting it under a publishing conglomerate or a mix of publishing labels.--Dirk P Broer 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're avoiding the real question. What's your excuse for not notifying me when you submit a substantial edit to one of my verifications? --Willem H. 18:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You lost me there. What is the substantial edit, what was it for, and -when I am the 3rd, 4th or 5th verifier-, who do I have to notify for which change I *propose*? I come from Wikipedia, where all editors have the same rights, and good faith is assumed (wich sometimes is a bit naieve, but nevertheless).--Dirk P Broer 08:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You could start by reading this. It might make you understand what primary verification means. In my opinion, one of the important things is, that the primary verifyer states, that the information recorded is correct. Changing or adding data the way you do makes the primary verifier responsible for data he hasn't been able to check, and that's one thing I do not want. The yellow note on top of my talk page is clear about my preferences. Notification of minor edits (notes and cover images) should go on my "changes" page, for other edits I want a message on my talk page. In this case the substantial edit was the addition of the cover artist. I'm always happy if one is identified, and I want to know about it. This is not wikipedia, and no, not all editors have the same rights there. On wikipedia they're called administrators. --Willem H. 09:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not make the person who adds information responsible for that specific part of information? In this case the first verifier has done his thing 4 years ago, and seems not to be active anymore (at least does not answer any message after Feb 2010). I add the cover artist, and in the note field I add a line where you can find a picture where the credit for the illustration is given (and when you choose the maximum resolution for that picture you can read "Steele" clearly). I did not remove any information that was already there -to my knowledge, but I cannot check that- and in my eyes I just added a "nice to know". I will take care to notify each and every earlier verifier in the future, I did not foresee that adding information that is so verifiably right has to be judged be all preceding verifiers. And I am aware of the existence of Wikipedia administrators. It was the plain editors I was writing about.--Dirk P Broer 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the big differences between the Wiki and the database side of ISFDB, is that it's very hard to find out who made what change to a record after a submission is accepted. So it's nearly impossible to make someone responsible for the information he added. Also, the point is not the addition of valuable information (I appreciate that very much), but that I want to know about my mistakes, things I missed in a pub or simply didn't know when I verified a pub. I have some 6000 primary verifications now, and if I don't get a signal about changes, it will probably be years before look at the record again. Do remember it's about the record's information, you don't have to inform me about your verifications (primary or secondary), or OCLC/Worldcat records that the database links to by itself (if a publication has an ISBN number, you'll find the Worldcat link on the left side under "other sites. This takes you directly to the OCLC record). I mentioned the Wikipedia administrators, because they're comparable to ISFDB moderators. --Willem H. 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question that came with the info about Frank Javor's "The Ice Beast", this site was originally meant for Anglo-Saxon publications only. We, the continental Europeans are allowed to add things in our language here, but the database is not very user friendly for translations (I think you already found that out by now). The Versins encyclopedia is of course one of the important reference works. It is in the database, but not (yet) on the Sources of Bibliographic Information page. I'll verify my copy someday (if I ever finish the @&%X anthologies), and add some others too. --Willem H. 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be looking out to the other-language references. Haven't finished my anthologies either. Can I add my ConFiction 1990 Souvenir book as well?--Dirk P Broer 19:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding a souvenir book should not be a problem. See here for an example of how it's done. --Willem H. 08:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Weird Ones

Is H. L. Gold actually credited as the editor of this book? Reginald1 says it was uncredited and was anonymously edited by Ivan Howard. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Citing Malcolm J. Edwards entry for H.L. Gold in Clute/Nicholls 1995, p. 505: "He also edited one independent antology, The Weird Ones (anth 1962)". So, on this ground, I have him as editor for the later edition as well. On the other hand the book itself says with an introduction by H.L. Gold, not actually saying "edited by", and Clute/Nicholls give Ivan Howard also as editor -uncredited- on page 589.--Dirk P Broer 23:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on your response, the record should state "uncredited" in the editor field. You can add further information and their sources in the note field. We can also make a variant title record if enough sources form a consensus about who may have actually edited it. Mhhutchins 23:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected for this edition. For the 1962 original there is still an issue.--Dirk P Broer 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on two of the primary verifiers' talk pages. Mhhutchins 01:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cover image on Hard to be a God

Hi. I changed the cover image link on your Hard to be a God submission from http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/edition/?isbn=0413452603 (which is a data page, not a cover image) to http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514cCCTL9hL.jpg (which is the actual link for the image appearing on that page -- you can right-click on the image to get the link). --MartyD 10:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, sorry for the mistake. Further two Strugatsky uploads are all my own!--Dirk P Broer 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Make Room!

The HTML link is incomplete in the note field of this pub. Mhhutchins 22:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That link is completely wrong and not the one I submitted!.--Dirk P Broer 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In this one, you put the image link in the cover artist field. Mhhutchins 22:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling thaT TWO edits are mixed up here. I put Adrian Chesterman in the artist field, and the link where it belongs.--Dirk P Broer 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Connoisseur's SF

You want to remove a data source from this record. Is every data field actually stated in the pub itself, including cover artist and month of publication? If so, I'll accept the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything but the month.--Dirk P Broer 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we'll need to retain the source giving the month. I'll accept the submission, but add the source back to the note field. We have to be careful when deleting data, just as much as when adding data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the price field. Were books that cheap in 1976? Mhhutchins 23:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind...I just looked at other Penguins for that year...and they were that cheap! Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Incredible those prices, not? Wish I'd had more money then...But then again, Dutch bookshops added an extra ƒ10,00 to the price, effectively doubling the price those days.--Dirk P Broer 23:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dreamsnake" cover scan

Hi. You notified me on my talk page about the cover scan you added to Dreamsnake. My copy of the book does not have the large notice "Hugo Award Winner 1979" in the lower-right corner. Is this some sort of sticker glued onto the cover of your copy? If it's not then we must have a different printing. Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It's a sticker, definitely not part of the cover itself, like the "Nebula Award 1978" mentioning in the upper right corner.--Dirk P Broer 19:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I made a note of this on the pub record. Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 00:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[The] Return of the Breakneck Boys

Is there an initial "The" in the title of this pub? Mhhutchins 20:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

HI, as you can see in the cover scan: No, there isn't. Was already there, overlooked it. Sorry!--Dirk P Broer 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the cover that brought it to my attention, so I checked OCLC (because covers are known to lie). Mhhutchins 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the title reference already was without the "The", so I should have noticed.--Dirk P Broer 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Confiction Programme

I had to move the data you placed in the price field to the note field for this record. It can't hold that many characters and was cut-off. Changed price field to say "None". Mhhutchins 03:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord Valentine's Castle

The date on this record should be zeroed out, unless there's a later printing that states it was reprinted in 1981, or you have a reliable secondary source for the date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done so. Also uploaded a less tatty cover for this publication.--Dirk P Broer 14:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Price and date of purchase (14-06-1986) narrow the publication year down to either 1985 or (first half of) 1986. But for the rest it is a pretty elusive title.--Dirk P Broer 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should also remove "Assumed second Pan printing" - I'm pretty sure it was more popular than that would imply. BLongley 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oké, on Amazon.co.uk there is some evidence of a 1983 edition (which would have been cheaper than £2.50).--Dirk P Broer 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the Runestaff

If the number in the ISBN field of this pub is a catalog number place a # before it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dautzenberg and other author data

Hi. For your edits to J. A. Dautzenberg and Jo A. Dautzenberg, please include the country on the birthplace. Is Bocholtz the Bocholtz in the Netherlands? By the way, I suggest you pick one to be canonical and make the other a pseudonym instead of duplicating the biographical information. We can always switch them around if we find more information in the future. --MartyD 10:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Same pseudoynm comment for Annemarie van Ewijck (which I think should be the canonical) and Annemarie van Ewyck. Also, for these, the Legal Name should be the spelled out name. "A." should no doubt be Annemarie, right? If you don't know what the "G." and "M." stand for, it is ok to leave them. I would also be inclined to pick one form of the Ewijck / Ewyck spelling and use that for the last name in both places, but I'm not a naming expert, so you might want to ask about that on the Help Desk or Rules and Standards Discussions. --MartyD 10:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem here is that both ways of writing are allowed in the Netherlands and are used interchangebly, e.g. search in the Dutch Wikipedia on both names and find them both in an equal amount. She has also written as Annemarie Kindt (as she is/was married to a mr. Kindt), and as Annemarie Kindt-van Ewijck/Ewyck. The "ij" is one character on the Dutch keyboard and pronounced the same way as the "y" (and the "ei", for that sake) in *most* names but the Frisians, who pronounce it as an "i".--Dirk P Broer 11:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also by no means certain that "A" in A.G.M. stands for Annemarie, it could be Antoinette Geerarda Maria for all that I know.--Dirk P Broer 11:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am inclined to say that the "van Ewijck" spelling is a bit more common, and that we have no idea exactly what A.G.M stands for in the legal name. I've searched all over the internet, but can't find it. Annemarie is her "roepnaam", which may not have to be related to her legal name, just as US Williams are called "Bill", or Richards "Dick".--Dirk P Broer 11:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work on Dutch authors. I agree with "van Ewijck", but removed Kindt from the legal name, since Leo and Annemarie were divorced (I think some 20 years ago). I added variant titles for the Dautzenberg, van Ewijk and Evenblij titles published under pseudonym and removed the extra author information from the pseudonyms. Please check the entries again. --Willem H. 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for your updates! We will set Dutch/Flemmish SF on the map, someday. Last saw Annemarie at Confiction 1990! Speaking bout Annemarie: you may want to look at your talk page under "The Last Warrior Queen".--Dirk P Broer 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I first met Annemarie in 1974 (beneluxcon in AmerSFoort), when she and Leo were just married, and only saw her once or twice after Confiction. In those days she was the mother of Dutch fandom. One day I'll add her first story (Holland SF vol. 2 nr.5) and find out what the "A.G.M." means.

Saw the "Last Warrior Queen" entry, and responded there. Can do only one thing at a time. --Willem H. 14:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that, judging from above, my attempts at improved language support are already doomed. The list of languages includes Dutch and Frisian, but not Flem(m)ish. :-( All I can say is that I didn't create the list of allowed languages, I just used it. (And I'm thankful that the omission of "Klingon" is less likely to cause offence, otherwise it might get me killed.) BLongley 00:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Flemmish SF is SF published in Flanders. They use a language almost undistinguisable to Dutch, as e.g Canadian or Australian is to English. So do not be worried about the language support! BTW: I discovered today that the perhaps most famous Flemmish SF novel, "Sam, of the Pluterdag" (aka Where Where You Last Pluterday?)" has also been tranlated into the Swedish and the Hungarian (see the wikipage for the novel, which will redirect you to the [Dutch (language)|Dutch] wikipedia).--Dirk P Broer 01:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Concordat

I'm going to eat, but I foresee a question coming: Yes, the series consists of four books, not two. Source: Reginald3, pp. 966 and 1381.--Dirk P Broer 16:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems you're going to be keen on FR 2811812 "Capture reason or summary of an edit, Part 4". I'm afraid that's still a way off, but it's in the queue. That should be a better way of pre-empting questions from moderators. (And no, I'm not going to approve the edits, I'll leave that for a Moderator that actually has Reginald3.) BLongley 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reginald3 says so, it must be true. Edits approved. --Willem H. 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bought Reginald3 at a book fair, for a mere 5.95 Euro (new: $200)...:)--Dirk P Broer 00:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you! You do realise he's a fellow editor here? BLongley 00:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Which pseudonym will he be using this time? Even Reginald itself is one...--Dirk P Broer 01:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He's here as User:Robertreginald. It's interesting to see that Phil Stephensen-Payne, now also here, has made some criticisms of his published work - I hope they play nicely together! BLongley 12:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Read about it in the "Best of Murray Leinster (UK) - Just who is this Brian G. Davis" conversation!--Dirk P Broer 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

13 Above the Night

Added a couple of notes [there were none] to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Terraplane (series)

I found on wikipedia the chronological order for this series, which is support by Jack Womack himself via this link, stating "jack womack Member: Jose has it down exactly right. The internal order, with internal chronology in years:

• Random Acts
  
• Heathern (these roughly concurrent, the former @six months ahead of the latter)
  
• Ambient (@thirteen years later)
  
• Terraplane (@six years after that)
  
• Elvissey(@sixteen years after that)
  
• Going Going Gone (@fourteen years after that)"
  

So now I have to buy 'Going, Going, Gone' asap.--Dirk P Broer 11:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting new comments on wiki pages

I wondering what method you're using to add new comments to any of the wiki pages, including other editor's user pages. The reason I'm asking is that I always check on the "Recent Changes" page to see what has been added since I last checked. Your new comments appear to be entered without a subject or headline. Do you use the "Edit this page" link, or the "Post a Comment" link? (Some wiki skins also have a "+" tab to add new comments.) It helps those of us who are keeping track of what's going on to know what the subject is first, to determine if it's something we can help with or something that we need to know. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I mostly use "edit" and in 90% of the cases I use a headline. In those other 10% I have used "+", and people before me haven't used a headline either.--Dirk P Broer 11:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When you "edit this page", your headline/subject line does not appear on the recent changes page. The wiki believes you're merely updating the page, not adding a new comment. (I suppose you're having to add the equal signs before and after your subject to create a headline.) If you use the "post a comment" or "+" method to create a new message the headline/subject line is visible to those who check the recent changes page for wiki updates. It's up to you. Mhhutchins 19:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to a particular message that you or another moderator missed, so I can try to find out what goes wrong when? I mean, in this particular instance I merely react to your message. Are you checking my page to see whether I have reacted, or do you follow "recent changes" to establish that fact? If so, what makes other edits invisible to you or others? Is it the 'Summary' message?--Dirk P Broer 20:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Abarat

Would you object to my adjusting the publisher of this book to "Joanna Cotler Books / HarperCollins"? Yours is one of the few primary verified books under this imprint and I thought you should know of my efforts to bring them all under the same name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, *both* my Abarat books have this exhasperating mentioning on the back cover, the italics and capitals just as they appear in the book:

• JOANNA COTLER BOOKS
• HarperTrophy® An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

While on the title page they say:

• JOANNA COTLER BOOKS
• HarperTrophy®
• An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

By all means set them (Joanna Cotler/Cotler/HarperTrophy) under the same (logical) name!--Dirk P Broer 07:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the publisher given on the title page? Mhhutchins 12:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To be 100% exact,

Abarat:

• JOANNA COTLER BOOKS
• An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

(but as stated with HarperTrophy on the back cover)

Days of Magic, Nights of War:

• JOANNA COTLER BOOKS
• HarperTrophy®
• An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

Make "Joanna Cotler Books" a series of the imprint HarperTropy of the publisher HarperCollins? The contact for this construct is www.harperchildrens.com...--Dirk P Broer 13:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)