User talk:ForJohnScalzi

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, ForJohnScalzi, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 16:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Android's Dream and "Judge Sn Goes Golfing"

I'm holding the submissions to create a series for these two titles. My research has shown that the novel is not really the first work in a series, and that the novella is an early draft of a shorter version of the novel. This would not necessarily make them a series. The best approach to this is to update each of the title records explaining their relationship. If you agree with this, please cancel the current submissions, and update the title records. If you disagree, I'll continue to hold the submissions while you start a discussion on the Rules & Standards Discussions page. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the novel and story have exactly the relationship you describe, at least not in the form they are now. It might be true of some early unpublished drafts. In current form they are a novel and a short story set in the same universe with intersecting characters. I agree that the order is questionable, so novel is not necessarily the first in the sequence, but other than that, they are definitely series. And the next novel has been promised for a few years now. ForJohnScalzi 04:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
Thanks for the information. I've found that my research was flawed, and see now that the two stories are different but share the same universe. I'll accept the submission, but remove any numbering. Are you certain that the title of the novel is the best name for the series? Mhhutchins 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Metatropolis change

Hi, and welcome. I have a submission of yours on hold that wanted to do something to Metatropolis. (You should be able to see what's pending for you by using the My Pending Edits link in the ISFDB proper). The submission doesn't change anything, so I am wondering what you might have been trying to do. Thanks. --MartyD 12:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to add page numbers to Metatropolis using verified Metatropolis and apparently something went wrong. I'll try to do it again. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 00:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC).
It worked this time. Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which function to use when adding new records

Please refer to this Beginner's Guide to determine which function to use in order to add new records to the database. In the case of METAtropolis, it would have been better to CLONE this record, instead of ADDING the two records for the audio formats. Now that I've accepted them, it's better to IMPORT the contents from that same record instead of adding new content records which will have to be merged with the existing content records. CLONING and IMPORTING automatically merges the content records, while ADDING creates new records which will have to be manually merged. That's why I'm rejecting the submission to ADD the contents to this record. Instead go to the record I've linked above, write down its record number from your browser's URL (which is 294187) then go back to this record and click on "Import Content" under the "Editing Tools" menu. On the next screen, enter the contented pub record's number (294187), and uncheck the box which transfers page numbers, because in this case, the audio formats don't have page numbers, then proceed with the import. If you have any questions, just ask here. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 01:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing Data

It is very important that you provide the source for the data you're entering into the ISFDB. If you are working directly from the actual publication, tell the moderator that in the "Note to Moderator" field. Something as simple as "Book in hand" will suffice. If you are working from a secondary source, anything other than the actual publication, you MUST give the source for that data in the "Note" field of the submission. In the case of the two audio recordings of METAtropolis, please go back to the records and add your source. If you have copies of the recordings do a primary verification of the records. (See the link in the Welcome section above concerning primary verification.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The B-Team

I accepted the submission to add this record even though you didn't source your data. It's very important to get into the habit of providing the source either in the Note field if you're working from a secondary source, or in the Note to Moderator field if you're working from the primary source, after which you should do a primary verification of the record. Thanks for your cooperation.

A question: is the full title of the content given as "Human Division #1: The B-Team" on the publication's title page? It's important to record title data exactly as given on the publication's title page. Mhhutchins 01:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about sourcing. Yes the title is exactly "Human Division #1: The B-Team" on title page but uses word episod instead of hash on the cover. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 02:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC).
We don't use cover text to record the title or author credit of a publication. I'll update the record to change the title of the pub record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Walk the Plank

You must have entered the date field incorrectly for this record, so it defaulted to "0000-00-00" which is displayed as "unknown". I'll correct it to "2013-01-22" (I'm assuming this will be released one week after the first part.) I'll also correct the date you entered into the note field from "09-01-2013" to "2013-01-09" which is the standard dating format for ISFDB purposes. And I'll change the title of the pub to "Human Division #2: Walk the Plank" assuming it will be titled with the same format as the first part. Mhhutchins 05:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you've made the same mistakes consistently in the next 11 parts. I'll accept them and await your submissions to correct them. Please use the guidelines as I gave them for the previous parts. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: according to the publisher's website the novel will be published later this year as The Human Division. So I've created a title record for the novel and will be varianting the serial parts to it. I just want to make sure that the ebooks are published as Human Division and not The Human Division. Mhhutchins 05:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! It's indeed THE Human Division. And I'll be following the date format from now on! ForJohnScalzi 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

Chizine #24

I'm holding the submission to add a record for this magazine for several reasons, the most important of which is it doesn't give a source for the data. Also, you've given a URL in the publisher field which should only give the unlinked name of the publisher. It's also lacking almost everything else but a single content record. I'm assuming you don't have a copy of this issue, but can provide a reliable secondary source. If the purpose of the submission was to add the Tidhar story to the database, it already is here. All you have to do is update the title record to note its first publication. Or I can accept the submission and you can update it to give the source and add further information. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's a record for one other issue of this magazine, that's basically as barebones as your submission. Unfortunately, it wasn't sourced either. (That's why moderators should insist that editors source their data.) Do you know if the magazine is published by ChiZine Publications or is that a separate entity? The URL you gave in the submission is to a magazine titled "Chiaroscuro". Mhhutchins 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose was indeed to note the first publication of Tidhar's story. I'll do it the way you suggest. ForJohnScalzi 03:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
I believe that Chizine (just e-zine) came before ChiZine Publications, at least before formal publisher called ChiZine Publications. At some point they turned the Chizine ezine into more formal Chiaroscuro magazine. But I dont have any references, just a recollection. ForJohnScalzi 03:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Breaking the Bow

I accepted the submission to add this record to the database. If you're not inclined to enter all of the contents, please note that the contents are incomplete in the record. Also, standard capitalization should be used in titles, so I'll change the "The" to "the". This standard is explained here (under "Case"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I changed the date to reflect that given by Amazon.co.uk, which you gave as the source for the date. Mhhutchins 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Tahnk you. Done. ForJohnScalzi 03:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Redstone, September 2012

Please do a primary verification of this record if you have a copy of it, or give the source for your data in the record's Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The source noted. ForJohnScalzi 03:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Mis-variant of "Ammazzare il tempo (Part 1 of 4)"

I have on hold your submission that proposes to make Ammazzare il tempo (Part 1 of 4) Italian-language SERIAL a variant of an identical new SERIAL record. Two things:

  • I'm guessing you were trying to make it a variant of something else and perhaps pushed the wrong submit button in the Make Variant form? If that's not it, I don't see what the difference is that would warrant a variant. But...
  • That title is already a variant of Immortality, Inc., which looks right to me.

I don't know if you were perhaps thinking of making this installment a variant of the first installment of the English serialization -- Time Killer (Part 1 of 4) -- but since serial installments are made variants of a title representing the complete work, and we don't use variants-of-variants, we wouldn't make it a variant of that because that is already a variant of the complete title. I hope that makes sense. If you explain what you were trying to do, I am happy to try to help. Thanks. --MartyD 12:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your last conjecture is correct - I was thinking of making this installment a variant of the first installment of the English serialization. Thank you for the explanation, I cancelled the submission. ForJohnScalzi 00:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC).

Website links

When updating author data, you have to give "http://" as part of the URL. Otherwise the system tries to look for the address on the ISFDB website. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

I'm in agreement that it's very likely that the name Jim Hawkins is shared by two writers: the author of the 1980 novel and the one who wrote the four short stories in the past few years. Do you have any definitive proof or can point to a reliable secondary source that could confirm this? Mhhutchins 05:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In the author's profile (last issue of Interzone) it says (approximately): "Jim started his first SF novel at the age of 10 and still haven't finished it". Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 05:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
Does it mention his nationality or any other biographical data? I'll accept the submission but will keep looking for additional author data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just found this page for a high school reunion, where he mentions being the author of the novel. I estimated he was born in 1954 based on being in the 1972 graduating class. Mhhutchins 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That's an impressive detective work! The only other piece of information about other Jim Hawkins in Interzone profile is that he "had a career in screenwriting and now lives in Hull". So it might be this chap. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 23:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
That may be him, but I wonder why someone with such an impressive c.v. in television (1973-1995) would start writing spec-fic so late in his career. Mhhutchins 05:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Retirement project? :) ForJohnScalzi 05:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

Jagannath: Stories

You removed Locus as the source for the data of this record, but didn't replace it with another source. Unless you have a copy of the book, you should enter the source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Locus restored. But forgot to mention that ToC from ebook version:( ForJohnScalzi 05:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC).
Did you know you could have changed the dates of the stories' title records in one submission by updating the publication record? Mhhutchins 06:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I know now:) Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 06:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC).
What is the source for the price of this edition? It seems quite high for an ebook. Mhhutchins 07:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's leftover from cloning. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 21:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

Tainaron: Mail from Another City

This is a short novel (less than 40K word count) and the ISFDB standard is to type it as SHORTFICTION with a novella length. I accepted the submission adding this record, but changed its type to CHAPTERBOOK, and added a content SHORTFICTION record which I merged with the one already in the database. If it possible that there are two versions of this title, one that is longer(novel-length) than the other? Mhhutchins 00:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know whether the version in "Weird" was abridged one or not, seems possible. But the original English publication and this reprint are the same translation and are identical. As to the word count, it seems that it's in the neighborhood of 40K, from above. I'll try to get better estimate from converting my ebook. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC).

CHAPTERBOOKS and NONFICTION

Books of nonfiction, regardless of their length, are entered as NONFICTION type. The CHAPTERBOOK type is only used for the stand-alone book publication of a single work of fiction that is less than novel-length (40k), either SHORTFICTION and POEM. I changed the type of this record to NONFICTION. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I was reading help pages just before submission trying to determine suitable type and got impression that essays also get CHAPTERBOOK type. ForJohnScalzi 01:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC).
The help page (under "Publication Type") states "This format is primarily used for separate publications of a single work of short fiction, even if bound as a standard paperback or hardcover, or in any other format." The "primarily" is misleading in that it may suggest there are other uses for the type. There are not. I'll suggest a removal of the word in a Rules & Standards discussion. Mhhutchins 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's correct: "primarily" along with the mention of essays in the next sentence were the reason for my interpretation. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 01:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC).

Contents for Don't Pay for Bad

You can find the contents of this publication using the "Look Inside" feature on the Amazon listing of the title. Mhhutchins 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Palm-Wine Drinkard

I corrected the OCLC record you gave as the source of this record (you added an extra digit) and linked it to OCLC. More importantly, I gave the full title as the source for your data gives it. Mhhutchins 04:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope to get a copy from the library soon so I can verify whether the subtitle is present and exactly what it is. ForJohnScalzi 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC).
It is OCLC standard to record the title as given on the work's title page, just as the ISFDB standard. So if you use the OCLC record as your source, you should also use its stated title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Crediting "copies" to the original artist

I'm holding the submissions to update the French issues of Galaxy to credit the original artist. These covers were redrawn by an uncredited artist based on the original artwork. If the editor who entered and verified these records didn't think the pubs should be credited to the original artist, I would not feel comfortable accepting these submissions. Please bring these records to his attention. Mhhutchins 06:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the basis for assuming "covers were redrawn by an uncredited artist based on the original artwork"? To me they look as exact reproduction of original covers. And there are dozens of others in database for this magazine that are credited exactly in this way. But I am happy to consult with PV on the issue, will do asap. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 06:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC).
Sorry to contredict you but these covers are not "exact reproduction of original covers", for example compare this copy with this original. The first issues of Galaxie (1ère issue) used effectively the original artwork (sometimes explicitely credited, sometimes with readable signature) but from mid-1956 started to use copies (not credited, no signature). I invite you to browse this issue grid [1], where I've painstakingly (by peering on my screen or better by comparing physical copies when possible) detailed such data (albeit not for all issues). Hauck 08:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I did browse the grid and did see the dagger, which IMHO is a definite improvement on the "original":) I wasn't proposing anything as radical as "merging", just creating variant titles. Since you feel stongly about this, I am happy to cancell my submissions. But I do believe that the artist of the "original" must be mentioned, at least in the notes. Btw, do you have any sources for the claim that "covers were redrawn by an uncredited artist based on the original artwork"? Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC).
With such empirical evidence, no source is necessary. They are not the same (thus "redrawn"), the artists are not credited in the publications (thus "uncredited"), and they're obviously "based on the original artwork". We only variant records that are the same work by the same artist, so varianting the coverart records would not be correct. If the submissions had been accepted, the wrong artist would have been credited, and I assume varianting would have been your next step in the process. And I agree that it would do no harm to credit the work as based on the other artist's work in the record's note field. Mhhutchins 00:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Everything here depends on the definition of "variant". Take for example, 121308, his work was seriously modified to become a cover, but he is still credited as the author. ForJohnScalzi 00:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
There's always going to be exceptions. And the use of "classic" works of art for book covers will always be problematic. If you have ideas about how these areas could be improved, we are open to suggestions. Starting a topic on one of the community forums would be the first step. Mhhutchins 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, variant titles is a very good thing. As long as it mentioned in the notes that the cover was possibly redrawn, not credited, etc. It's like with bowdlerized translations of say, J. Verne. It's still a variant title even though he had not approved and wasnt aware (sometimes very radical) chnages. But the problem with "classical" art is that isfdb has no record for the original work of art, from which variants have been created. ForJohnScalzi 00:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

"Martin"

There are currently four separate names/summary pages for artists named "Martin". The one that did mostly interior work for US magazines in the late 50s (mostly for Galaxy), Martin (I), has been pseudonymed to Don Martin. Martin (II) did interior and covers for UK magazines in the early 50s (mainly Vortex). Martin (III) did interiors for Planet Stories in the 40s. And Martin (IV) did a single cartoon in a mid-50s issue of F&SF. (I suspect IV is the same as I, but I don't have any of those issues to compare.) So when a record is entered into the database as just "Martin" someone has to decide which one it is. That's why I had to reject the submission to make "Martin" into a pseudonym of "Don Martin". I've gone through those records that were in the database at the time of your submission, and assigned each to their various artists, hopefully correctly. Mhhutchins 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see the isuue now. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

Dating "forthcoming" publications

When there is no set publication date, you can enter "9999-00-00" which will be displayed as "forthcoming" in the title record display. This is what I've done for this record. Mhhutchins 02:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's useful. ForJohnScalzi 02:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

Sourcing data to update records

When you're adding new data to a record which gives Amazon (or anyone else for that matter) as the source, you must give the source for the new information, e.g. the updates for the Tachyon books that add cover credit, like this one and this one. Mhhutchins 02:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also this one. Mhhutchins 02:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

But the credits are from amazon. A few are from my ebooks but I also checked that the copyright page is identical to what amazon gives for real books. And few are from tachyon website, but again the data is identical to amazon. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 02:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
Ah-ha. It's from the "Look Inside" which can not be accessed by the robot that creates these records. Thanks for the clarification. The record should specify that the "Look Inside" was used, so that when or if it disappears or changes at the whim of Amazon, a user will know that a "Look Inside" the actual book was the source and not Amazon (there's a difference). Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see the point. Will do. ForJohnScalzi 02:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

Cover: Becoming Alien

Hello, I've put your submission on hold as it's perhaps better to ask first the PV if there's no mistake in the data entered. I've done this for you here. Hervé Hauck 11:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PV just confirmed artist as Wayne Barlowe. Hauck 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Simbi

Does your copy of this have a stated price? If not, you should note that in the record. Mhhutchins 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Morse's The Works of M. P. Shiel

I've replaced the cover image you uploaded for a better one. Mhhutchins 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Garden of Forking Paths"

I accepted the merge of this record, but reverted the date from 1941 back to 1948, which I believe was the first English translation of the story. Mhhutchins 02:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it was in EQMM translated by Boucher. Deserves a note, I rekon. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 03:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

El Aleph

You should record the source you used for updating this record in the Note field, not the Note to Moderator field. Mhhutchins 02:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. It was a typo. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 02:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
(Adding a colon to the number in the previous message will separate it and indent it for easier reading. Thanks.) Mhhutchins 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
See my previous statement:) Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 03:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
You know you could have a signed copy of this trade paperback first edition for just a few dollars, give or take. :) Mhhutchins 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so we just wait and see who verifies the pub:)). I was NOT working from book in hand. ForJohnScalzi 04:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
[This http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=4190563094&searchurl=kn%3Dellery%2Bqueen%2Bmagazine%2Baugust%2B1948%26sts%3Dt%26x%3D0%26y%3D0] EQMM issue is also not exactly cheap. ForJohnScalzi 04:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

Ellery Queen, August 1948

You'll need to add a source for this record. (This should become second nature if you're not working from a book in hand.)

(But don't add a cover image, for nongenre magazines, according to ISFDB rules.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibliographic comments page for Amos Tutuola

Perhaps you didn't read the warning notice asking you not to remove the header template when you created this page? It stated "DO NOT DELETE the above header template. It is used to link this page back to the author's database summary page. If you remove it, there will be no link. This message will not display once the page is edited and saved. PLEASE start additional text below this message." And as it said, by removing the template, the page is not linked to the author's summary page in the database. You can fix it by adding this header back to the page: {{AuthorHeader}}. Mhhutchins 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I'll try to fix it. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 05:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

Galaxy's Edge, Issue 1

I've accepted the submission to add this record, but have make a few corrections and changes. Editor is Mike Resnick (entered as "Mick"). I dropped the publisher name in the publisher field, because almost all records in the db use the imprint name only. Galouye's serial was retitled to conform with the ISFDB standard for serials. (I'll change the "?" when we learn how many parts it will take to be serialized.) I changed the date to the date of the serial's publication. This is different from the date of the book publication, another ISFDB standard for serials (each part having the date of the publication in which it was serialized.) I've also added a link to the cover on Amazon. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 03:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

Collaborative cover art

Whenever a cover is created by two or more artists, there's a bug in the software that creates several records, one record for each credited artist. (As opposed to what it does for fiction records: creating one record giving the credit to each author.) So I had to go back and fix each of the records that contained the cover art by Kaluta and Fastner, before I could accept your submission to create a variant crediting both artists' canonical name. Hope this makes sense. I don't even think most moderators are aware of the bug and how to fix it! Mhhutchins 04:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought there was something fishy about the record. When I was variating it w.r.t. Kaluta, I noticed that some records had Fastner as Steven and one as Steve, I planned to look into it after first varianting was accepted. ForJohnScalzi 04:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC).
What's the way to go such case? There are few more of those double credits that need varianting in "Bill, the Galactic Hero" series. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 04:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC).
I've already started working on them. It's very submission-intensive, as it takes several to fix each work: first, one of the artists had to be removed from the publication record (and this has to be done for every publication record using the same cover art). Each submission then has to be moderated. Then you have to go back and update the cover art record to add the missing artist, which has to be moderated. So, it's better that a moderator works on them, because it can be frustrating for a non-moderating editor to wait between submissions. And because these types of submissions don't have a "Note to Moderator" there's no way to let the moderator know what you're doing. I would suggest leaving a note on the Moderator Noticeboard if you come across this situation again and ask one of us to fix it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yoruba Folktales

I've added a record for the first edition, based on an OCLC record, changing the dates of the stories to 1986. Does your copy specify that the collection first appeared in 1996? Mhhutchins 00:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's 1986 in my book, typo! Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 02:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC).

The Forbidden Sea

I've rejected your submission to change the author credit of this title record from "Shiela A. Nielsen" to "Sheila A. Nielsen", because, according to your note it "is better to have author's name the way it appears on the book." Actually it's better to have the author who is credited in the book. That is the ISFDB standard. Both OCLC and Amazon.co.uk spell the author's name the way it's recorded here. Without a primary verifier, we have to use the secondary sources, and can't use the cover art to determine a work's author. So for now I have to work from the assumption that the book's title page is miscredited, and will create a variant record to credit. Eventually we may discover if the OCLC record is correct, and we can remove the variant and change the author credit of both the title record and the publication record. Mhhutchins 04:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found an email for the author and will try to get to the bottom of this. Mhhutchins 05:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The name is "Sheila A. NielsOn". Here is the author's webpage: http://authorinfo.blogspot.com.au/ and here is the another instance of the book: 321239. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 05:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I discovered that (how else would I have found her email address?), but as I said, we can't change the title record credit based on the name given on her website or the book's cover. We have to use the secondary source until we confirm the way it is credited on the book's title page. And there's also a discrepancy in the title as given on that second publication record (the OCLC record doesn't give it an initial "The"). Mhhutchins 05:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You could have found her email at publisher's or her agent's, those are usual suspects. I wasn't re-proposing the change, just giving information to establish pseudonym relationship, because now it's a "stray title" whatever that means. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 05:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC).

"Untitled" by Peterson/Petterson

I'm holding the submission to make this title into a variant, until I hear back from the primary verifier that it was correctly entered. It may have been a typo. In situations like this, it's a good idea to discuss it with the PV before making the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It also seems to have been incorrectly titled. (We should only use "Untitled" for the title if that is the stated title.) Mhhutchins 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If pseudonym relation already exists in the database and the pub is verified, I assume that the editor and moderator have already done their due diligence and checked that there is no typo. If it's a pseudonym I propose creating then I check with verifiers if any exist. But in this case I probably should have investigated more because of suspicious title. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 23:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC).
Look at the number of requests on my talk page to check some data in records that I've verified. And I'm always asking other PVers to confirm some suspicious data. We're human, we make mistakes. Sometimes we need someone with a different set of eyes to find mistakes that we've made. So don't hesitate to ask the editor to check a primary verified record if you're uncertain about the data given. That's one of the responsibilities that goes with putting their names on a record. Mhhutchins 06:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Amatka

Please recheck to see if an ISBN-13 is given for this publication. It's been a number of years since they became mandatory. Mhhutchins 03:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

both are given, changed to ISBN-13 9789186843540. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
If both are given in the publication, always enter the ISBN-13 in the record. If you're working from a secondary source, and the book was published after December 2006, enter the ISBN-13. (Some publishers, especially in the UK, started as early as 2005 using the ISBN-13.) Mhhutchins 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Is this somewhere in the help pages? ForJohnScalzi 04:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
I'm not sure. So much of it was written before ISBN-13, I'd doubt it mentions it specifically. But it's understood that an editor should enter what's stated in the publication. As for secondary sources, that's always suspect. I went to this publisher's website and saw only the ISBN-13, so we may have been looking at different pages. BTW, I changed the name from "Mix" to "MIX" as that's the way it appears in all instances on its website. Mhhutchins 04:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I quite often see both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 stated in the book, especially from smaller publishers. I don't know whether it's "Mix" or "MIX". Swedish libraries seem to be listing it more often as "Mix" and dropping "Forlag". ForJohnScalzi 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
As far as secondary sources go, it's seem natural to me that the publisher's website be the definitive source for how their name should be entered. (That is, if you're not working from a book-in-hand.) Mhhutchins 05:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Blodsband

This record is missing a content SHORTFICTION record. This is required for all CHAPTERBOOK publications. Mhhutchins 05:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And this one. Mhhutchins 05:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for better cover images

It it's possible, please try to find a better cover image. For example, this one is better than the one you uploaded. Sometimes it's just a matter of doing a Google Image search. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Innsmouth Free Press

I'm holding the submission to add Silvia Moreno-Garcia as a co-editor to this record. I went to the publisher's website, and only Paula R. Stiles is credited as Editor-in-Chief. Moreno-Garcia is the publisher. The pdf of the issue doesn't give any credits at all. Mhhutchins 15:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Also holding the submission to update Issue 2. Mhhutchins 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From my own PDFs, can confirm that Stiles is sole editor of all issues preceding the current issue (in which Garcia assumes coeditorship), even though editorials are usually coauthored by both Stiles and Garcia. FJS is correct to add ellipses to the Nick Mamatas story in issue 1 (odd typographical placement--I may have thought it was decoration rather than punctuation). Dwarzel 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a moderator can't pick and choose which parts of the submission to accept. I'll reject the submission and correct the title of the Mamatas story. Mhhutchins 23:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the story's title to "And Then, and Then, and Then . . ." which is the ISFDB standard of adding an ellipsis at the end of a title. Mhhutchins 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, NO editorial credits are in Issues 1 and 2. Editorial is signed by both Moreno-Garcia and Stiles. There is no basis for crediting Stiles only. (Need to doublecheck with Dwarzel about possibly different pdf version WITH editor credit). In spirit of ISFDB standards it should be either 1). "uncredited" editor or 2). both of them with the note that the credit is inferred from signed editorial (sorry, forgot to put it into the notes). ForJohnScalzi 01:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Jupiter

I'm holding the submissions to add new issues of Jupiter. What is the source for your data? Mhhutchins 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done more research, accepted the submissions, and added a source for the data. Mhhutchins 00:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I was sure, I put amazon as the source of the data. ForJohnScalzi 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't in either the Note field (where it should have been) or the Note to Moderator field (where sometimes it is mistakenly entered). I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of researching the submission if it had been sourced. Mhhutchins 02:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Volk's "Time Capsule"

I accepted your submission to update this record, but the date you gave in the data field doesn't match your note about the original publication. Mhhutchins 14:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, note corrected.

Black Static No. 27

Re this publication record: You're going to have to change the date of the contents, the editor record and the cover art record as well. Mhhutchins 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

The Tenth Victim

I accepted your changes to The Tenth Victim, but I have a comment and a question about the ISBN -> Catalog number change. The comment is: If you are not using an ISBN in that field, be sure to put a "#" on the front of the catalog number (I added it here). The question: I see in the cover image that the catalog number is presented on the cover as 114814. That it is also the trailing portion of a valid ISBN -- including check digit -- if "0" for English and "583" for Mayflower are stuck onto the front is somewhat of an odd coincidence. Is there any number anywhere else, such as on the spine or copyright page or back cover that includes a "583-"? --MartyD 12:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I've already noticed the hash-omission myself. There is no other numbers (except 114814 on cover and spine) anywhere in the book, just a bit early for formal ISBN, I think. I strongly suspect that all other Mayflower titles from 1969 in the db use "derived" isbn, just like you suggest. I'll try to remember to check later on. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 12:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
And, 114814 is, of course, the part of valid ISBN, it was called SBN at the time, I believe. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Retaining the story length when merging titles

Why are you choosing to lose the story length when merging title records? When one has been given a length (ss, nt, nv), it should be retained in the merge. Mhhutchins 01:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a mistake, of course. ForJohnScalzi 02:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

The Night Howls

I've imported the contents from the record for the 1938 hc edition of this title to the ebook record you created. It would have been better to clone the original record to avoid a second submission to add the contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nanny McPhee

I accepted the submission to update this record but returned the original ISBN-10 to the record. The Amazon Look Inside is for the fourth printing, and that was after the conversion to ISBN-13 in January 2007. Mhhutchins 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. ForJohnScalzi 03:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

No. 472 Cheyne Walk: Carnacki: The Untold Stories

I'm unsure of why you're wanting to remove the two publications of this work from their title record. Mhhutchins 03:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see why you're removing the 31 page pamphlet, but why the other one? Mhhutchins 03:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see my mistake, I only need to click the pubs I want to be removed fro the title. I though it works like merge when you click all the titles you want to join, so I clicked all titles I wanted to unmerge. ForJohnScalzi 03:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
Yes, check only the publications you want to "unmerge" from the title record. It actually works the same way as merging: you only check the titles you want to merge. Mhhutchins 03:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the page numbers for cloning

If you're creating an ebook by cloning a print book, be sure to uncheck the box that transfers the page numbers of the original publication. Mhhutchins 03:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be not paying any attention to detail today! I better stop editing and do something else:) Thank you for your patience! ForJohnScalzi 03:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Changing editor records

Re Dark Horizons: There is no need to change the title field and/or merge editor records for magazines which publish only one or two issue per year. Mhhutchins 01:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. ForJohnScalzi 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC).

The Widderburn Horror

I accepted the submission updating this record, but wonder why you changed the publication date field from 1971 to 1973. The source your give (OCLC) gives the date as 1971. Also, when giving OCLC as the source the number should be given in the form "OCLC: XXXXXXX". This will facilitate the updating of ISFDB records if we ever get a dedicated field for OCLC record numbers. (Source: the Using Worldcat Data help page.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll expand the note. The worldcat indeed gives 1971 which seems to be the copyright date of the first Leisure publication. Multiple abebook listings and amazon give 1973 for Five star paperback. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
I've created a record for the Leisure Books edition, made R. Warner Crozetti into a pseudonym, and made the title record of the UK edition into a variant of the US edition. Mhhutchins 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lest Earth Be Conquered

Submission accepted adding this record. The publisher should be "Five Star (UK)". Also, the height, according to the sourced OCLC record is 19 cm, making this a trade paperback ("tp"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The publisher of this record should also be corrected. Mhhutchins 00:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The image you uploaded for Lest Earth Be Conquered exceeds ISFDB standards both in file size and in dimensions. A file should be no larger than 150 kb, and no more than 600 pixels in height (exceptions are made for wraparound cover art.) Please replace this image with one that falls within the standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This image exceeds the height, but is OK in file size. Mhhutchins 01:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Date change on Through the Dark Curtain

I have on hold your proposed date change on Through the Dark Curtain from 1965 to 1968. What is your source for the 1968 as first publication? SFE says 1st publication was Zenith in 1965, corroborating the 1965. WorldCat lists a Zenith edition of unknown 1960s vintage (39198559). Thanks. --MartyD 02:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Zenith edition is undated (so 1965 in SFE3 is just a guess, I guess:). Lancer's edition gives 1968 as copyright and it's documented elsewhwere that the Guardian series been planned and sold by Baker in 1967-68. ForJohnScalzi 02:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC).
Reginald1 gives the 1968 Lancer publication as the first edition. Mhhutchins 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. --MartyD 02:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Rex Dolpin/Dolphin

I'm beginning to think SFE3 is wrong about the spelling of this author's name. Almost every source I can find gives it as "Dolphin", including Reginald3. And there are several books published under this author's name by Mayflower in the 60s (not spec-fic) according to OCLC (they have no records for "Rex Dolpin". I'm thinking we need to change it. I'll email the editors at SFE3 and inquire about the possible typo. Mhhutchins 03:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I've also seen Dolphin in a number of sources. Please keep me updated. Cheers, ForJohnScalzi 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC).
Email sent. Hopefully they'll be able to respond soon. Mhhutchins 03:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Received this response from David Langford:
Thanks for noting this. Our pseudonym expert confirms it's an error inherited from the second edition. With best wishes David Langford.
The SFE3 entry for Peter Saxon has been corrected. I'll make the correction on the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 03:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

Sexton Blake

This is a title series, not a publication series. It will have to be removed from this publication record and entered into the title record. If you're unfamiliar with the different types of series, check out this help page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Turns out there are five series of this character, with each one starting over in numbering. So I've created subseries for the two that are currently in the database and made this into the parent series. Keep in mind that if the title is non-genre (as most of these appear to be), they would not be eligible for the database unless written by an author chiefly known for his sf, like Michael Moorcock. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the subseries, it was my next step to split:) I'll tread very gently, the overwhelming majority is nongenre by nongenre authors. I'll do a prelim list on Sexton Blake's series wiki page first with explanations/sources and then start adding. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 13:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC).
No, thank you for taking on the grunge work while I do the clean-up. Mhhutchins 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A Caribbean Crisis

I accepted the submission updating this record, but reverted the binding back to digest. A pamphlet, using the ISFDB definition, is a "short (in page count), unbound, staple-bound, or otherwise lightly bound publication..." I don't think would qualify under that definition. Mhhutchins 19:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Image upload exceeds ISFDB standards

This cover image file far exceeds the ISFDB standard of 150 kb. (You should have gotten a warning of this at the time of the upload.) I will copy it, resize it, and then upload it to replace this file. Please keep the limits in mind for future uploads of cover image files. Mhhutchins 21:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Records for forthcoming books

We usually only add records to the database for books that are less then 90 days from publication. So many things can change in the five-six months before these books will be published by Gollancz. If you intend to keep a constant eye on these records for the next six months to check on their accuracy, I'll accept the submissions. Otherwise, cancel them. BTW, there is currently no publication series for "Fantasy Masterworks (II)" . Looking at this list it appears that the numbering will be a continuation of this series. Mhhutchins 01:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I looked on the Gollancz website and could find nothing about these titles. Please provide the link here when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The ISBN you provided for Votan and Other Novels is the same ISBN for The Phoenix and the Mirror. Mhhutchins 02:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to keep an eye on these books. The series situation is as follows: it is indeed the continuation of this series but it will be unnumbered. The same way Gollancz did with SF Masterworks, unnumbeerd continuation is this series.
The source for the data on the books is the actual catalogue, I am happy to email it to you if you'd like.
I'll fix ISBN for the Votan.... Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 06:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC).
I'll accept them, but ask that in the future you keep such submissions to within 90 days of publication. I've seen too many changes in records, enough so that I remain uncomfortable with these early records. Also, if you're certain that this will be a new series, I would suggest that you include "Gollancz" in the name of the series. In the example you gave of another "unnumbered continuation", I don't see the point of making it a new series. If they're still labeled the same series' name and from the same publisher, it's odd to give the series a new name, unless the publisher considers it a new series. If research shows this isn't the case, I'll bring it up to the group. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know how the publisher considers the series. The man in charge, 7891, when introducing unnumbered version of Masterworks, was using words like "relaunch", etc. The overall design is quite different, especially in the case of Fantasy Masterworks and there are no numbers anymore. Moreover, the previously published titles are reissued in new series design and w/o numbers but they keep the same ISBNs. I tend to view the new reincarnation as the different series, but it's just a personal opinion. Would be interesting to hear what other editors/moderators think. I'll postpone adding Gollancz to the title of the series, maybe it will be better to merge with the previous series, depending on the view of the community. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC).

Adaptation of "The Phantom of the Opera"

I am holding your edit of this publication, but will probably have to reject it. As far as I know we don't allow adapters (or translators) in the author field. Kate McMullan is, as it should be, in the notefield. One other thing, you're converting the pub type to "CHAPTERBOOK", and the container title from "NOVEL" to "SHORTFICTION". The title record however is a variant of the original French novel. In such cases it's smarter to add a new title record for the novella, and delete the novel record. Pub type "CHAPTERBOOK" also needs a new container title. Just enter a new content item with the title of the pub record, and type "CHAPTERBOOK". --Willem H. 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i'm sorry for the slow response. I wasn't aware about not including adaptors as authors. I usually try to figure things out from the looking at the existing records. And in this case, 398164 is just an earlier printing of 1364880. And there are four other titles for "Phantom" that list an adapter as author along with the Leroux. And there are six adapted Draculas with adapters as an extra author. The same for popular titles by Stevenson, Dickens, etc. That's why I presumed that adapter also goes into the author field.
I'll cancel my submission and do it the way your suggest (create new CHAPTERBOOK, then delete NOVEL), but I am keen to learn more about the way the adapters are treated. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC).
Good point. I was referring to discussions about abridged translations, where the adaptor/translator should be mentioned in the notes. Didn't notice the existing chapterbook. I did the edits as I think you meant to, the result is here. Please check. This might be worth a new rules and standards discussion. --Willem H. 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Essential Phantom of the Opera

The title of the publication is The Essential Phantom of the Opera, but the title of the work is The Phantom of the Opera. This title record should be merged with this one (retaining the date and title of the latter record). The title field of a publication doesn't have to match the title of a work. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Recording OCLC's designation for extra pages

According to the OCLC record which you sourced for this record, the page count is "x, 314 p., [2] leaves of plates ". The ISFDB entry for this would be "x+314+[2]". Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand "x+314" but "[2] leaves of plates" refers to unnumbered plates of illustrations b/w pp.100-101 and pp.200-201, while ISFDB help explicitly refers to unnumbered pages at the end of the book. Should it still be entered as "x+314+[2]" even though the unnumbered plates are not at the end? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 05:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC).
And thank you for Reginald'ing those pubs! ForJohnScalzi 05:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC).
Usually OCLC uses the brackets to indicate unnumbered pages. If the pages are numbered then there's no need to add them to the page count field. It would be nice to include a note about them in the record. How do you know that this plates are on numbered pages?
Also, if "ISFDB help explicitly refers to unnumbered pages at the end of the book" then it may have to be corrected. An editor can add unnumbered pages to the ISFDB record's page count field regardless of where the pages appear in the book. Otherwise how would an editor include unnumbered pages if those pages occur in the middle of the book, as most unnumbered plates usually do? Point me toward the help section you're referring to and I'll see about making it more clear. Mhhutchins 12:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification, it makes perfect sense now. This help section confused me by stating: "Likewise, you may record the count of unnumbered pages at the end of a publication. For example, [6]+320+[4]."
The plates are not on numbered pages, they are between pp.100-101 and pp.200-201. I have scans of the book. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC).
Since the plates are not numbered (I had no idea what "b/w" stood for), and are only one-sided, they should be part of the page count field as "[2]", regardless of the order you place it in the field. There should be an explanation in the Note field as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I see you've already made an update submission. Please add the notes about the page count. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

La Poupée sanglante

Just a note that I have approved your changes to La Poupée sanglante and then changed the subtitle from "Roman d'aventures et de mystére" to "Roman d'aventure et de mystére" since I assume it was a typo. Ahasuerus 05:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo indeed. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 05:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC).
Hm, checking the Web, I see that both forms are cited. Let's see.. Aha! There is a scan of the title page here and it shows that it is "d'aventures", so I have corrected the Title record as well as the Publication record. Always something! :) Ahasuerus 05:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rouletabille at Krupp's

I'm holding the submission to add a 1918 publication of the above mentioned novel and am inclined to reject it. It does seem that your source for it is the WorldCat entry. But: The entry has 'Rouletabille chez Krupp', which is the French title, the publisher has only titles published in French (as far as they are in the ISFDB) & seems to be French based and the Wikipedia page for Leroux explicitly states a 2013 first publication in English. If you have some further evidence for an earlier publication, please answer here. (Let me add that even the copyright of 1918 doesn't mean that there is a publication in that year, it really only means that the copyright was assigned in that year.) Thanks, Stonecreek 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what happenned. I was adding the first book puiblication to original French title "Rouletabille chez Krupp", but erroneously added it to the English translation title. If you can fix it, please do. Otherwise I'll do correct submission after rejection. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 00:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
Well, I did reject your submission and instead added a publication with the data you provided to the French title. Thanks for clearing things up. Stonecreek 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous

It is not necessary to create a pseudonym in order to make a record into a variant. In most cases, when it's an actual pseudonym, it's a good idea. But in the case of "Anonymous" and "uncredited", all you have to do is to make the title record into a variant. This automatically creates a parent record which will appear on the canonical author's summary page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, ForJohnScalzi 01:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC).

Jules-Amédée Barbey d’Aurevilly

I'm uncertain why this author is in the database, because I've been unable to find anything he's written that is considered speculative fiction. They appear to be crime stories with no supernatural element (e.g. Les Diaboliques). According to Wikipedia " He specialised in mystery tales that explored hidden motivation and hinted at evil without being explicitly concerned with anything supernatural." Do you have any evidence that these stories qualify for the database? Mhhutchins 03:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the stories in 1299379 have elements of horror, satanism (whatever that means), and hints of supernatural. But it's based on recollection, I've read it quite a few years back. There is a review by Stableford in your verified 283740, that might be helpful. Cheers, ForJohnScalzi 07:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC).
I'll accept the submission, but will reserve the option of removing titles which are not eligible for the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, no worries. I'm curious to know what Stableford says in the review. Cheers, ForJohnScalzi 10:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC).

Wiki Bio pages

You created a wiki Bio page for "David Alexander (1943- )", but then changed his name to "David Alexander (1943-2010)". This broke the link back from the wiki page to the database summary page. The link is made at the time of the wiki page's creation and doesn't "self-correct" if you change the author's name. Just a heads-up if the same situation should happen in the future. I've created a new bio page for the new author name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for information. Cheers, ForJohnScalzi 01:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC).
Now that I look closely, I see you've added the same link to both the author's wiki bio page and to his database page. Was this intentional? The duplicate seems to me to be unnecessary. Mhhutchins 01:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cover art credit for The Explorer

Did you intend to remove Angelo Rinaldi's credit for the cover art of this record? (It's identical to the US cover according to the Amazon.co.uk link.) In the next submission you're merging it with two other records. If I accept the first submission, there will be an error with the second because the cover art record won't exist. Mhhutchins 01:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what happened: 1.I added cover artist credit, 2. merged the credits, and then noticed that the pub date is missing, so 3)added pub year but the edit 1) wasn't yet approved at the time so it's as if I want to remove the credit. I'll cancel the pub date correction and do it again. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 01:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC).

"My Adventure at Soisson's"

According to Ashley/Contento's Supernatural Index this is a story, not an essay. (It's here because of the anthology containing "strange stories".) What is your source for the change? Mhhutchins 02:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My source is the text of both "Memoirs" and of "My adventure...". Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 04:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC).
If you're certain this is a true memoir and not a fictionalized one, I'll accept your submission to change it to an ESSAY. With these 19th stories, sometimes it's hard to tell. Mhhutchins 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I accepted the change to ESSAY, but why do you call it an "non-genre adventure story" in the Note field? Mhhutchins 16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I wanted to say that it is "account of an adventure that has no genre relevance". Thanks, ForJohnScalzi 00:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:ForJohnScalzi&oldid=322283"