User talk:Ldb001

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Ldb001, 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|talk 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thaïs by Anatole France

I accepted the submission adding this publication but had to unmerge it from the title you had entered it under. In this case, the original French work and the English one have the same title, so you have to careful to check the language of the title before creating a publication for it. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins|talk 03:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my error! Being new to the site (I had only uploaded a few covers in the past), I wasn't familiar enough with how variants are handled. When i check the English and French pages for this book, I see the same publication listings, which led me to believe they were already merged together in some way. I'll be sure to remember this distinction in the future (although I don't have too many translated books).Ldb001 03:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It was no problem to correct, and one that any new editor would likely to make. Your submissions have been very good for someone new to the database. Keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to ask if you have a question at the ISFDB:Help desk. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wraparound cover art

Re this image: We encourage the scanning of both front and back if the work of art continues (i.e. a "wraparound"). But in this case, there is no value in including the back cover if it duplicates the front. Keep that in mind for any future uploads. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that guidance; it's valuable to know the site policy on artwork. I strongly disagree that there is no value; in fact I would like to see full cover scans of every book. The overall designs are interesting, and there is often unique information on the back cover, as well as possible visible hints about alternate printings. But I will gladly adhere to the policy of only wraparound artwork meriting full cover scans. If I may ask for one clarification: (1) if the artwork is not a continuous wraparound, but has continuity broken by a solid spine; or (2) if there is completely different, but unique, artwork on the back: are full cover scans encouraged in these cases? Ldb001 06:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
1) is still considered a wraparound, 2) is accepted, especially in cases like Ace Doubles. So yes to both. To clarify the reason for showing an image of a book: its chief purpose is to identify the edition, and it's the only reason we can claim fair use in hosting and displaying a copyrighted work. We discourage scanning non-art back covers because of the very reason you give for liking them. Quite often the text on the back is copyrighted by the publisher. Any case for showing the back isn't strong enough to protect us from charges of copyright infringement. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 07:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense, although text is at least as valuable as artwork in identifying en edition. But the copyright issue is paramount, and I'll take care to be sensitive to that. Fair use is a grey area, and much better safe than sorry. Thanks again for the guidance.Ldb001 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Imprint vs. Publication Series

Re this publication: Is it clear that "Thriller Novel Classic" is a publisher's imprint and not a publication series? Mhhutchins|talk 05:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question, and now I must go read the wiki to find out the difference!Ldb001 05:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to determine which this is. In fact it may not be realistic to try based on only one book. Partly I do not yet fully understand how one can tell the difference between an imprint and a publication series, except that I suppose a subset within an already determined imprint is likely to be a series than a nested imprint. But I don't even know that for sure. I do not know the entire output of Novel Selections, Inc., but there is also a "Detective Novel Classic" series of books from the same publisher, which might give you some indication of which this is.Ldb001 06:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a publication series. Even though it can occasionally hard to distinguish, there's a few signs to look for. A publication series usually has a common design. The series is usually stated clearly on the front cover. A publication series is rarely noted on a book's title page, which is where you'll find the publisher and/or imprint credit. And most of the time, there's a pretty clear statement on the copyright page. (BTW, in most cases we enter the publisher field as "Imprint / Publisher", especially if both are given on the title page, but that's not always the case.) Here are some examples in determining the difference: Del Rey once was an imprint of Ballantine. Del Rey Discovery is a publication series from Del Rey. Equinox was an imprint of Avon. SF Rediscovery was a publication series from Equinox. If you have a question about whether it's an imprint or publication series, do a search for it under both "publisher" and "publication series". If it's new to the db, you can ask at the Help Desk. Mhhutchins|talk 06:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the OCLC record and it gives the publisher as "Novel Selections" (note the plural), and "Thriller Novel Classic" as a series. Perhaps this helps. Mhhutchins|talk 06:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There's precious little information in the book. The title page has only Novel Selections, Inc., as does the copyright page. That's about it. The spine has "A Thriller Novel Classic," as does the back cover. Thank you for noting the careless omission of the "s" on the publisher; I just submitted a correction for that. As for imprint or series, you have much more experience in categorizing these two, so I would prefer you choose which to use. There's sometimes a tendency to treat things as scientific terms when they're really not, and I doubt the answer is always definitive.Ldb001 07:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
From all of the evidence you've provided, it's pretty clear. The publisher is "Novel Selections" (we usually omit "Inc.") and "A Thriller Novel Classic" is the publication series. It has all of the distinctions I gave in describing a publication series. Mhhutchins|talk 22:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a related imprint/series question. I am entering two books by Royce Publishers. A record (1768410) already exists for one of them. These are labeled "Quick Reader" vertically on the front cover, and the inside back cover has a list of recently published "Quick Readers" (101-141). The term is not used elsewhere in the book. Any idea about whether this is a publication series or an imprint? If I may, a second question about these two publications: they are extremely small (4"x3") staple-bound pbs. Should these still use the normal "pb" code? Thanks for your continuing help in bringing me up to speed.Ldb001 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Publisher is "Royce Publishers", publication series is "Quick Reader". 2) How many pages are in the book? If it's no more than 100, it would seem to be closer to "ph" than "pb". But, as our standards state "other - Choose this value if a publication can not fit comfortably into any of the above categories." If you do choose "other", then describe the format/binding in the Note field. Mhhutchins|talk 22:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! I think the *other* category is better. Even though the pb category does not give minimum size guidelines, this is far enough from the norm that it deserves to be separated.Ldb001 23:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Replacing an image file

When you replace an existing cover image file with a (hopefully) better one, it's not necessary to update the publication, since the URL remains the same. (You may have overlooked that when making the submission the URL didn't change.) I rejected two submissions because they made no change to the record. Thanks for the better scans. Mhhutchins|talk 05:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice that the url was unchanged. I was doing the editing because of the statement in the canned 'welcome' message about image uploading not being entirely automated, and about editing the page. I had thought that was what was being referred to. Thanks for setting me straight.Ldb001 05:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Merging records

You've been doing a great job in creating and updating publication records. So good in fact that I'm going to accelerate your "education" to the next level. When updating a record to add titles which already exist in the db (like the contents you added to this record), an editor should follow-up by merging these new title records with the existing ones. Here is the help page for merging titles. I suggest using the "Check for Duplicate Titles" method for the Poe stories. Look for the duplicate pairs of the stories you just added and do one or two merges to get the idea. If you have any questions, just ask here. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, I was thinking about adding the tags to the stories manually, but decided if there was an automated way I should be using, I would hear from someone :-) There is so much educational material on the site that I'm not familiar with it all yet; thank you for directing me to the correct method. I'm still not completely familiar with the organization on the help wiki, and it's still difficult to find answers to specific questions. It'll get better (and my hope is that I stop taking up so much of your time).Ldb001 03:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC) ave a message on the ISFDB:Moderator Noticeboard. Mhhutchins|talk 04:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a semi-automated way to avoid entering duplicate titles which have to be merged, but depending upon the circumstances it may be easier just to merge them. If you're adding a new publication typed as COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY, try to find a record that's already in the database with similar contents and IMPORT them, either individually, or en masse from a publication record. You also have the option to CLONE records if they're identical in title and author credit, but differ in certain fields of the metadata section.
Searching for help in the wiki documentation can be hit or miss. So I suggest that you first go to these pages (in order):
If you can't find the answer there, ask at the ISFDB:Help desk for general questions. If you need to get the attention of a moderator, post a message on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard. Please never think you're being a burden or taking up too much of a moderator's time. Adding and updating publication records in the ISFDB is not a simple process. We don't expect all editors to get it right the first time, and we know it may take some time to learn the ins and outs, and all of the tricks. Let me say here that you're much more knowledgeable about the process than most new editors. We need new blood, and try to do our best to be welcoming to new editors. Together we can build a better database. Thank you for becoming a vital part of the ISFDB. Mhhutchins|talk 04:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Appending to an existing reply from you, on a completely different subject, may be frowned upon, but I'm not sure what the proper way is to address something directly to you. Your talk page appears to be for official business rather than for helping out novices. Since we have discussed the Quick Reader series already, I wanted to follow up with you rather than with a random moderator who might respond to a help desk request.Ldb001 05:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No user talk page is restricted. It can be posted on by any user, and it can be read by any user. So please feel free to post a message on my talk page (or any other user/editor/moderator talk page.) Mhhutchins|talk 06:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Two additional queries about another book in the series, Stevenson's *Jekyll and Hyde*. (1) The Quick Reader version is edited, in the sense of having material removed. Is this entered under an existing title that matches, even though other publications of that title are complete? Or should this be a completely different work (or edition?) by Stevenson with the same title, since the text differs? (2) Recall that the notes I wrote for the Poe number in this series mentioned illustrations. I just stumbled upon rules for indexing illustrations, and realized I probably should have done so for that publication. All illustrations are uncredited; some are captioned (for which i see rules as well). I wanted to make sure these illustration rules for indexing applied to books rather than just to magazines. Thanks once again.Ldb001 05:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. We enter publications exactly as they are credited, in both title and author. So it should be entered under any existing title and author credit which it matches. If a work is obviously abridged, especially if it is stated as being "adapted", "abridged", "rewrote for the modern reader", etc, on its title page, and more especially still if another author is credited as the adapting one, then you can create a new publication for it without entering it under the existing title. If it's less than 40,000 words, as most abridgments usually are, it should be entered as a CHAPBOOK, with a content of SHORTFICTION for the work. Add a note that the work is abridged or adapted to the publication record.
  2. Personally, I don't create content records for uncredited illustrations, but you have that option. (I usually just add a note about them in the publication record.) If you choose to create a content record for them, I suggest a single one, not one for every illustration, even if they are titled or captioned. It would be titled for the work it illustrates. A single one would be titled "The Best of Edgar Allan Poe" and typed as INTERIORART. If you choose to create records for each illustration, again which I don't recommend since they're not credited, then it would be better to title them the story which they illustrate, rather than the caption. I personally feel that using the story's title is more valuable to a database user than a caption which would probably have no connection to the average user. Again, these are all options. When it comes to illustrations, I feel that there has been too much emphasis placed on them by the current spate of ISFDB editors, especially since this is the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, and not the Internet Speculative Art Database. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea of the word count; but *Jekyll and Hyde* is a short novel, and this (although physically a small book) is 128 pages. It is certainly not re-told or adapted in that sense; it's simply abridged. The inside cover states, "only the excess material has been cut away." Ha! So I am inclined to enter this under the same title. I am also quite content to relegate the illustrations in these books to the Pub Notes section of the record. Many thanks again for your valuable guidance.Ldb001 06:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting page number for contents

Re this publication: Does the uncredited essay appear on the unnumbered fifth page from the start of the book, or four pages before the title page of the first story? If the latter, you should give the page number without brackets. We only bracket unnumbered pages if they are within a range of unnumbered pages and can't be derived by counting forward or backward to the nearest numbered page within a range of numbered pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I replied to this but do not see this reply here; perhaps it was lost. In summary, even though the answer to your question is "both," based on my intent the page number should probably be without brackets.Ldb001 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Two dashes or a single long dash?

Can you confirm how this title is presented on the title page? If it's a single long dash, it should be given as —, which is an em dash that can be entered using the alt code 151. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a single long dash. Generally I work with editors (not speaking of ISFDB here) who assume this, but I realize now that we cannot do that here since accurate transcription is critical and assumptions are dangerous. You can change it to an em dash, or leave it for me. Thanks.Ldb001 18:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating cover title fields

Due to a recent upgrade in how cover art records are handled, it's easier now to distinguish front cover art from rear cover art. (In the past we had to enter back covers as INTERIORART.) So it isn't necessary to disambiguate the title fields, as you did in this publication. Because the artist credit is different, there would be no possibility of an accidental merging of the records. So "Cover: City of Glass" is how they each should be titled. You have the option to add a note to each record about their place in the publication.

Also, your "Note to Moderator" abut the artists not being credited in the publication should have been entered into the "Note" field. The data in the former field is temporary, and disappears the moment the submission is accepted. Data about the publication (and not the submission) should be entered into the visible Note field.

It would also be a good idea to create a single content record for Emshwiller's interior art. If the signature is the only form of identifying the artist, then you should credit the content record to the artist's canonical name, and note the signature as the source for the credit (as you have already done.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me try the content record for the artwork and we'll see if i botch it. Sorry about the Note to Moderator mixup, slip of the finger.Ldb001 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to remember exactly what i put in the Notes to Moderator field. Now that I finally do, I realize that I did intend it as a note to the mods. There was an implied question that I should have made specific. The question is: in the case where prior record info exists, does not give a source, and is not obvious from the publication itself, what do I do? Delete it, announce that it is apocryphal, or research it myself and try to verify it?Ldb001 19:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to Moderator field

You asked a question in the "Note to Moderator" field, which is not the best place to do so. Moderators don't have the ability to answer questions directly from the submission. We only have three options: accept the submission, reject the submission, or hold the submission. Here's the talk page section that explains the purpose of the field. Questions would be answered sooner, and probably with better input from various editors, if asked at the Help Desk or the Moderator Noticeboard.

In the submission to update this record, you asked:

The Harlequins were printed in Canada, but were they priced only for sale in the US? The price already entered here does not indicate Canadian. Should it be changed to C$0.35?

I have no way of knowing whether the price in Canada was different from the price in the US. I suppose there may be a way to research whether there were separate printings with separate prices for each region, but that's above my pay scale. We have to assume that since it was printed for the US market, then it would be priced in US currency. Mhhutchins|talk 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you about the info concerning limitations of the Notes to Mod field, which I did not realize. Once more I thank you for your patience and guidance. I continually have to fight pessimism that I will never learn all the details. But I will soldier on with gratitude for your support.

Your answer about Harlequin pricing gives an implicit answer that my question, which is whether these were printed for the US market and thus priced in US cents. I did not know that was so. Whether there was a different price in Canada is another issue. But if these were intended for US sale, I will leave the price as it is.Ldb001 20:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Perma Book of Ghost Stories

Re this publication: The note field lists contents and author credit (which should be removed before the record is primary verified), but you list all but one of them as uncredited. Also, the generic preface's title should be parenthetically disambiguated with the title of the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Authors are uncredited in the book. The guesses previously in the notes are not supported by evidence from the book, so I left them as guesses in the notes. Poe as author of "The Black Cat" was given in the Preface, but no others.
Also, in merging these story titles, should I merge them with the titles in the other anthology records I mention in the notes field (records 369541 and 399486), even without solid proof they are identical? Without firm author attributions, I was unsure how to proceed.
Secondly, are these three anthologies to remain completely separate even though contents are the same? These types of questions help my developing sense of ISFDB's organization. Ldb001 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The contents may be the same but the credits and story titles seem to be different. I'll have to do some research about the other anthologies to determine how to fix this. (I'll pull out my copy of Contento and Ashley's Supernatural Index.) We may be able to save some time by importing contents from one publication into the others. This record seems to have the same contents with the same credits as yours. In the meantime, I'm going to remove all of the titles from your record, which means I'll also have to delete each of them. It's going to take several minutes to clean this up. Once we get back to a blank record, we can start over. I will respond to the other parts of your response later. Mhhutchins|talk 04:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I've got the record into pretty good shape. Please look it over to determine if it matches your copy in all particulars. If not, please update the record, and provide additional info in the Note field as needed. Mhhutchins|talk 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Third, is your comment about the Preface title suggesting the title "Preface (The Perma Book of Ghost Stories)" as the new title? Sorry to be obtuse, just want to be sure. Ldb001 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No harm in asking. There's no such thing as a stupid question. :) So, yes, that's to what I was referring. Generic titles are disambiguated because of the high possibility of them being accidentally merged. (An author could have dozens of titles named "Introduction" on his summary page.) I have done that for you, and then varianted it to a new record for the 1904 preface. Mhhutchins|talk 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And finally, a related but separate question. I'm entering a Sherlock Holmes collection *Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes* as by *Sir Arthur Conan Doyle*, for which there is a single existing record (441421), but under the title *The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes." I have not yet had to deal with creating a variant of a title and am unsure how to proceed. In addition, the existing record only lists one of the 11 stories, although all 11 are present. I don't know what problems this will cause.Ldb001 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
When that record was entered, we didn't have the ability to add records for non-genre SHORTFICTION. Doyle is "above the threshold" so his non-genre work is eligible for the database, including the Holmes stories. It's possible that there's only one content because the editor believed it qualified under the old rules as being spec-fic.
There is currently no title in the database that matches both the title (dropping "The") and author credit (adding "Sir") of your copy, so you'll have to use the "Add New Collection" function, and then variant it to the existing title record for that collection. (Just to be certain: are you using the title page title and not the cover title?) Go ahead and create the record, and once it's accepted, I'll walk you through the merge and/or variant process. Mhhutchins|talk 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Every answer I receive adds more knowledge to my own database; thanks again. Yes, the title page title/author are the same as on the cover. I'll get to that one in the morning.Ldb001 07:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's how you learn how to edit the ISFDB: you edit the ISFDB. There's a lot of documentation that you could pour over for hours, but when it comes down to it, it's better to just start editing, make mistakes, listen to the moderators helping you, and learning from them. You're doing exceedingly well. Keep up the good work and the positive attitude (which is more than 50% of the effort when you're first starting out.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 07:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Subtitles

Re this publication: When a subtitle is present on the title page, feel free to update the record's title field to include it. That doesn't affect the canonical title, which is given in the title field of the title record. Caution should be taken when updating that title. I would also caution about adding series data to a title field of a publication record. That's usually redundant since that data is provided on the title level. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

Submission adding this record has been accepted. Now add a flag to those titles which are non-genre (not spec-fic). Then variant them to the titles crediting the canonical form of the author's name. If a parent record already exists, use the top portion of the "make variant" form to enter the current record number. If there is no parent record for it, use the bottom portion of the "make variant" form to create a new parent record credited to "Arthur Conan Doyle". Ask if you need help. (I have merged the records for "Silver Blaze".) Mhhutchins|talk 18:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that you could add the content titles to the Sherlock Holmes title series at the same time you made them non-genre. You can do that now, but only to the parent titles, not the variant ones. Mhhutchins|talk 22:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering about that, but decided not to strike out on my own.
The sophistication of this site is pretty impressive. It's not quite plug-and-play (unavoidable due to the complexity), so there are novice growing pains; but on the other hand the help material is there. I've found the pop-up references at the little "?" icons, with links to more detail, to be quite handy.
Regarding variants, my recent edits on record 340422 suggest the need for a title variant for the "Oh, Whistle..." story, which does not use quatation marks in this edition. I see that variant already exists, so I will attempt this correction and see how it goes.

Publisher credit

I accepted the submission to update this record but reverted the publisher back to just "Dell", which is the ISFDB designation for this publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. OK, I am uncertain about the best method for correcting the title of one of the stories here to the proper variant. Is it better to do some kind of un-merge operation, or better to delete the story and add it back in with the correct title, then do a variant assignment afterwards?Ldb001 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If you can't edit it during a pub edit (it's grayed out), you'll have to use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function. Then add it back. That's two separate submissions. Then you'll have to either merge it with the existing variant or create a new one. (That's a third submission.) Mhhutchins|talk 00:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Mating Center

Because you changed the author credit for this publication, it no longer matches its title reference record. So I unmerged it from that title which automatically creates a new title reference record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that thought crossed my mind that something like that might be necessary. Learning. Do I guess correctly that the old title reference record then disappeared because there were no entries left for it?Ldb001 00:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
No title disappears, even if you remove all of the pubs under it. So I had to delete it manually. Mhhutchins|talk 01:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


I am entering a new Lewis Carroll book (early Pocket Books pb), and would like to ask questions ahead of time so that the submission will not be a total mess. This contains the two Alice novels, two of the well-known long poems, and "Puzzles from Wonderland." I am indexing this as a collection rather than an omnibus, since at least one of the poems, "Phantasmagoria," was originally published as part of a poetry collection, not by itself. I have found no existing Carroll work on ISFDB with the same contents.

However, the poetry that is part of the first two novels is giving me a headache. I am not intending to separately index all of the poems within these two novels. But there are some that give me trouble. As an example, *Through the Looking Glass* chapter 1 text starts on pg. 121; there is a prefatory poem on pg. 114 (part of the original book), followed by a chess diagram and sequence of chess moves (corresponding to the action in the book) and finally an author's preface (for a later 1896 edition) on page 118. I am saying that the novel starts on pg 114, but is this right? The material in the original book certainly started there, and the prefatory poem is in some sense no different from the other poems in the novel; but the Preface between the prefatory poem and Chapter 1 makes me think that perhaps I should list the novel starting on pg. 121 with the start of Chapter 1. What does your experience indicate? Should the prefatory poem be considered part of the novel, with that page number as the start, or should the original publication be considered a collection? Thanks.Ldb001 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your publication is considered an OMNIBUS under the ISFDB definition: A publication may be classified as an omnibus if it contains multiple works that have previously been published independently, and at least one of them is a NOVEL, ANTHOLOGY, COLLECTION, or NONFICTION. (All of the different publication types are defined here. Take a few minutes to read it when you get a chance.) So it only takes a single previously-published NOVEL in a publication of other works to make it an OMNIBUS. (There are a few rare exceptions. For example, an author's collection that includes an original work of more than 40,000 words, a NOVEL, is considered a COLLECTION because the NOVEL content had not been published independently. An example.)
Next, poems which are part of a novel are not included as separate content records. Just as we don't create content records for named chapters, parts, sections, prologues, epilogues, etc. All of these constitute a single work which is the novel. If a poem is later extracted and published separate from the novel, then it is listed as a content of the publication (COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, etc.) which contains it.
Starting pages for novels can vary. It can be the title page, it can be the epigraph, quotation, or poem. Each primary verifying editor makes that decision. If another editor disagrees, then the two must come together to come to a singular decision. In this case, I would agree with your decision that the novel's starting page should be 114. Mhhutchins|talk 05:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I would suggest that you find a publication record that contains the two Alice novels, making sure the titles and author credit match exactly to your edition, and then clone it. Then you can remove or add any contents from the record to match your edition. That will save you much time in merging records. Mhhutchins|talk 05:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I interpreted that statement to mean "multiple works that have *all* previously been published independently," rather than "multiple works *any one of which has* previously been published independently."
I've seen other editions of Alice that index all of the poems, and I'm glad to hear that isn't expected. However, I see some value in doing so, since they have an independent life: there are many collections of Carroll poetry out there, including verses from these novels. But I have little interest in poetry so I will forego that indexing pleasure.Ldb001 05:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me know of any editions of the Alice novels that include the poems. If they're not verified, I'll remove them. If they are, I'll contact the verifying editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
One such example is record 390680. I'll try to survey what's out there and send a complete list.Ldb001 05:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What I hope is the final question about this one: two non-fiction items in this book (a preface and a bio note) exist under exactly the same title in other records. However, the versions in this book are undated, and without seeing the text of both I cannot be sure they are the same as in existing records (although I think it's likely, at least for the preface, that they are). I expect I should leave these unmerged? Thanks again. It's sometimes difficult for me to decide, without experience, those things that are recommended practice and those that are not.Ldb001 07:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If the titles and author credit are identical then there's no reason not to merge them, unless you are pretty certain that the text is substantially different. And since you don't have all of the other publications to compare the texts, no one expects you to be 100% certain that it's not different. Mhhutchins|talk 06:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding record 273129, not sure what i did wrong but the record shows a "title reference" that i did not intend. I went there planning to variant the title to the parent form, but it seems i can't do that. Is there some way to remove that title reference so it can be a separate variant of "Creep, Shadow!"? Or perhaps that is not the right way to do it for some reason. ThanksLdb001 04:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. You can't change the title reference record during a publication edit unless the publication is the only one under that title. Since there are several publications under that title, you will have to "unmerge" the publication record from the title. That will create a new title record. In a subsequent submission, you can variant the new title to the canonical title. So go to the title record, click "Unmerge Titles" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next screen, check the box for the publication you want to unmerge. But before you do this, can you confirm that the change you made to the title is from the title page and not the front cover?
BTW, you should have posted this on the moderator noticeboard or the help desk. The only reason I saw this is because I came to post the message below. Otherwise there's no way anyone would know you had posted a question at the bottom of an unrelated topic. Your talk page is for other editors and moderators to post messages to you, and for you to respond. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Unnumbered list in HTML

When closing an unnumbered list please use the slash character (/) before ul, i.e. "</ul>". Otherwise the list isn't closed and may cause problems with the display with the remaining part of the record. I've fixed it on the last few submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those careless errors. I'll try not to let them slip by me. Normally I'll look at the submission page after I submit to make sure everything looks ok, but I neglected to do that carefully enough. Thanks again. Ldb001 06:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Project MARS

I'm holding your submission to change the author credit of this publication. Can you confirm that the author credit is taken from the title page and not the front cover? If so, I'll accept the submission. Since the other edition is from the same publisher, it's very likely that the credits are the same, so that publication should be updated, as well as the author field of the title reference record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The author is given as "Dr. Wernher von Braun" on cover and title page. Actually, also at the top of every odd-numbered page in the book.
Regarding *Creep, Shadow Creep!* that title is from the title page; the cover also uses only one comma, but omits the exclamation point. Best, Ldb001 06:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, if you want to link to a publication record, there's an easy to use template which does 90% of the work for you. It really helps in a wiki post when you're referring to a specific publication. Between the standard template brackets (the curly ones, two at the front and two at the back), give the letter "p" (for "publication"), add a pipe ("|"), and then the record number. So if you want to link to this record you can use the standard wiki link I just used or the template like here: 273129. Look at the raw edit of this post to see how each is done. You can also link to titles with a similar template. Just replace the "p" with a "t". So the title reference record for Creep, Shadow, Creep! is 186905. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cleopatra

Can you confirm that the work titled "Dedication" which you added to this record is an essay and not a dedication? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely a dedication, but more than your normal 1-2 lines. It's a couple of paragraphs written in the form of a letter by Haggard to his mother, speaking of how he has wanted to dedicate a book to her and this one seemed appropriate. Ldb001 03:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You should add that information to the Note field of the title record, to avoid other users from questioning its eligibility as a record in the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 08:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Beowulf

Re this record: I've made a few changes. I changed the spelling of "Forward" to "Foreword". I removed the disambiguation of Tolkien's preface. (It has a unique title, so disambiguation is not necessary.) And I changed the dates of some of the contents from 1950 to the various dates which I've been able to determine is their original publication date. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 08:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The date for Tolkien should be changed back to 1940. That was the first publication of his essay; in fact this essay was specifically written for the 1940 revision of this book by Hall. If you have *J. R. R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography* by Hammond and Anderson, that gives the details. If you look at ISFDB record 262061, "Monster and the Critics" is the second entry, but the third entry "On Translating Beowulf" is the current work, which gives the 1940 date. I was planning on varianting this on a subsequent edit. I was also going to ask the helpdesk if the title in the present work should be the standard title, since this is its first appearance. I'm uncertain how canonical titles are chosen.
The date for the translation of Beowulf itself was 1911 for Hall's original translation, but it was revised in both 1940 and 1950, and not by Hall himself. So I believe the date should be 1950 to reflect that this is a new work by way of revision. I was uncertain about assigning joint authorship, but decided not to since the book itself does not. The same goes for the Finnesburg piece, which even had its title changed in revision.
I apologize for not making these details clear using the mod notes upon submission. Thank you for correcting the spelling error and removing the unnecessary disambiguation. Best, Ldb001 14:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I see from my submission that I did not enter the Tolkien piece with a 1940 date, but left it as 1950 along with the other material. Thank you for your comment, which called this to my attention. Ldb001 15:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't create variants based on text. Variants are based on a change in title (like the Tolkien work) or a change in author credit. We use the note field of the title record to indicate any revisions of the text. I have corrected the variant and the publication date of the Tolkien work. Even though a work may appear under a different title when first published, we consider the author's preference when he retitles it for future publication, and that title becomes canonical. Mhhutchins|talk 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. The Tolkien essay has been varianted to the wrong work, as I mentioned in my previous comment. The essay here is a variant of "On Translating Beowulf," not a variant of "Monster and the Critics." Those are completely different essays. Its first appearance *in any form* is in the 1940 revision of Hall's book. Ldb001 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Please clear your cache. As I said above, I changed the variant to the correct title. Mhhutchins|talk 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I read your response and wrote a reply, while in the meantime you altered your response. I generally don't do a cache dump while I'm responding. These things happen, not a problem; I'm sure we both understand the sequence of events. Thanks for all your clarifications. Ldb001 22:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Hall translation, I'm primarily concerned with the dating. A revised version qualifies as a different work with its own copyright date, if I understand the wiki correctly. My impression was that this is the primary reason dates of works are based on book publication rather than a prior magazine appearance -- because works are often revised for book publication. Best, Ldb001 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No. The reason why we use book publication as the canonical date isn't because it could possibly be revised. It's a long standing bibliographic standard to date a long-form work from its first appearance as a book. (A tradition with which I personally disagree. It's elitist in my opinion, but I'm bound by the ISFDB standards. Why aren't the same standards applicable for short works?) Also, we don't use copyright date at all unless there is no secondary source for the publication date. Works can be re-copyrighted and have the identical text as a previous copyright. Mhhutchins|talk 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. My phrase on copyright was a tangential remark, sorry to sidetrack things. Generally revisions result in a new copyright, but I didn't mean to imply conversely that all new copyrights result from revisions. But it doesn't matter to me now since I realize that ISFDB does not distinguish revisions as separate works. It would be great if it did, but I can imagine it would complicate things greatly. I appreciate the information you've given; it helps me to understand more details of ISFDB's structure, and the reasoning behind it. Ldb001 22:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The word "revised" is so nebulous and so ill-defined that it would be close to impossible to create a standard based on it. How many editors have two texts of a work in order to compare? Who determines what percentage of change constitutes a "revision"? To make it personal, I've been working with Michael Bishop over the last decade or so in the reprinting of most of his body of work. He has "revised" almost every piece he's ever written in bringing these works back into print. As one of the few persons in the world who can sit down and compare word for word each of hundreds of works he has published, it would be, even for me, too daunting a task. How can we ask a regular editor to take on such a task, not mention the responsibility? Hope this better explains the ISFDB policy. Mhhutchins|talk 23:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the policy makes sense from a practical point of view. There are some authors/works for which there are more than a few people who care, and in those cases I'd love to see differentiation. One practical method might be modeled on other paradigms within ISFDB: by default all revisions are ignored and grouped under a common bibliography. If someone identifies an altered text, they can create a new record for that revision. It's not expected that all revisions of all works will spring into existence immediately, and perfectly. As with everything else, it would be an evolving work. I'm not recomending that ISFDB do this; as you point out there are practical issues, some of which I'm sure I don't foresee. But as a thought experiment, the idea is appealing to me. Besides this issue of identifying revisions, the other factor you mention, standards definition, is also challenging. But I think the ISFDB mods have done such a fine job of defining standards that I'm sure they would be up to the job. Ldb001 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In looking at several example records, I see that generally revised versions of works are not given separate records. Sorry I was mistaken about that. I suppose that magazine publications is a special case rather than a general rule concerning revisions. Thanks for setting me straight on that. Regarding canonical titles, any rule is a good one as far as I'm concerned; I'm glad to know the thinking on that. Although in the case of the Tolkien essay he had passed away before the reprint, so his preferences were probably not a factor here. Ldb001 18:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
In this case, Tolkien scholars have created the Tolkien canon. That's how it happens with dead authors. Mhhutchins|talk 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Gernsback bio

Re this record: I changed the publication date to the one displayed in the publication, and added a note about the actual date given on the publisher's website. The stated date gets the preference over the date of a secondary source. We only use the secondary source if there is a great discrepancy or evidence that the stated date is in error.

I also reverted the price field to that of the original record, and noted the current price. Because of the nature of POD publishing, prices will vary over time. So we have to use the price at the time of publication, unless there is strong evidence that it was incorrect. I'm not sure how we can check to see if Amazon's price is incorrect. Mhhutchins|talk 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about both of these points, and hoped that the mods would make those changes if I judged incorrectly. Thanks for those changes. Ldb001 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide: Chronology

Re this publication: You should correct the date using a secondary source since it's not stated in the publication. According to OCLC, it was published in 2006. According to Amazon, it was published on November 2, 2006. You can note the latter as a source and update the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 02:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Same situation with the second volume. Amazon gives the same publication date as above. Mhhutchins|talk 02:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet

Re this publication: I changed the publisher credit based on the publisher stated on the title page (as you noted.) Also, you mention a price on the dust jacket, but it wasn't recorded in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I changed the publisher credit on this edition as well. Did you intend to title the interior art credit as another volume in the series? Mhhutchins|talk 04:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien: Architect of Middle Earth

I'm holding the submission to add an edition from Running Press credited to Daniel Grotta-Kurska. We have a record for the 2001 edition, but it is credited to Daniel Grotta. Can you confirm the credit on your copy of a later printing? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's Grotta-Kurska on cover, title page, and other places in the book. And just to confirm, my copy is a later printing relative to the first printing, but not relative to the 2001 edition you mention; I bought mine in the 1970s. Best, Ldb001 04:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
p.s.-actually i can't confirm it's a later printing at all, i had guessed it was but there's nothing on the copyright page except "Copyright 1976 by Running Press." Ldb001 04:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Merritt's The Metal Monster

I expanded the notes to A. Merritt's The Metal Monster adding various catalog numbers. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks. Ldb001 16:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings

I'm holding the submission to unmerge this publication (and the one for the first printing). The page count field would seem to indicate three volumes, but is it published in one volume with separate pagination for each novel in the trilogy? Mhhutchins|talk 04:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, there's separate pagination but all three original volumes are published together in one large binding. I assumed that meant that the existing plates for three separate volumes were used for this release, rather than resetting all the text. Ldb001 05:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Family Circle

We only allow the creation of records for non-genre publications which contain speculation fiction. We don't consider non-fiction even when it is related to speculative fiction to be strong enough basis to create a publication record. Doing so would open the floodgate to literally hundreds of thousands of publication records for non-genre publications: an issue of TV Guide with a Star Trek article, Starlog issue with an article about Battlestar Galactica, a Fangoria article about a Clive Barker film, a Time magazine interview with Stephen King or Isaac Asimov, etc. Hopefully, you'll understand why we have to limit such publications and only the speculative fiction published in them. The issue of Family Circle which you've submitted doesn't have any. So unless you have a compelling reason that it should be exempt from the standards, I'll have to reject the submission. If you don't, then you can cancel it. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine; I suspected that there might be some such limit, but I submitted this just in case it was appropriate. Best, Ldb001 13:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

S. S. Van Dine

I rejected your submission to change the parent title's author credit, assuming that the author's real name was supposed to be "Van Dyne". Now I understand that you were correcting a misspelling in the ISFDB record, not a misspelling in the publication. Can I assume that you have the issues in which the serial appeared and that you can confirm that the author is credited as "S. S. Van Dine"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 21:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't even realized yet that it was rejected :-) Yes, the publications (which i have) spell it "Dine" everywhere in each of the three issues. Sorry i didn't make it clear in the mod note for that submission. Van Dine was a well-known mystery author so it was easy to verify that "Dine" was the correct spelling, as well as being the spelling in the magazine. Also, I don't know if it is necessary to have his real name (Willard Huntington Wright) in the ISFDB; I doubt he will have an entry here under his real name.Ldb001 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You can update the author data to add any pertinent biographical information: legal name, place and date of birth, death date, etc. Mhhutchins|talk 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, artist Winter in these publications is surely not the other Winter in the ISFDB, but currently my entries have been merged with that other artist since they have the same name. Trying to figure out what to do about that; they are both artists. I'll figure out some modifier on the name that makes sense, i guess. Ldb001 22:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the system automatically combines titles entered with the exact same name into one author. (That's the basic premise of databases.) It's up to the editor to disambiguate for same-named people. I'll add the disambiguating "(I)" to this new artist's credits, which will automatically create a new person. Any future titles by the same person will have to be entered the same at the time of entry, or corrected once they're in the database. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins|talk 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Decided to disambiguate the artist with the least number of titles (only one) and left this one as is. Mhhutchins|talk 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Ldb001 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ruger

In this publication record, you have two art records credited to "Ruger" and the third to "Jno Ruger". Are they explicitly credited that way? Mhhutchins|talk 01:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, is the essay attributed to "N/A" also explicitly credited? Mhhutchins|talk 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The N/A is the letters column (unless i made a mistake and put it on something else). The "Ruger" attribution is for illustrations on which there was no signature but was credited by last name; on other illustrations (even in the same magazine) he used the "Jno Ruger" signature, so those illustrations were entered with that name. Ldb001 03:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
If a work of art is not explicitly credited, and is identified only by the artist's signature, you should enter the artist's canonical name in the record and give the signature as the source. But, if it is explicitly credited to a pseudonym (which, if I understand correctly, these are all explicitly credited to just "Ruger"), then the pseudonym must be entered into the record and a variant of the record should be created to the credit the canonical artist name.
This seems to imply that a signature is less reliable than a credit, which strikes me as backward. But I'll do that if it's the ISFDB way.
This is a holdover from the ISFDB standard about crediting text works (which you should understand why it must be that way, since text works don't have "signatures" and we can only use the explicit credit). I personally agree that art works should have a different standard when it comes to credit, and I've argued for it in the past. I'm through arguing. Mhhutchins|talk 06:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
If you choose not to create individual content records for each of the letters in a letter column, and instead choose to create a single record for the entire column, then the record should be credited to "various". Mhhutchins|talk 04:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be contrary to instructions in the wiki: " If a work by its nature has no author or editor, use "N/A"; this applies to unedited letter columns." Ldb001 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen that statement before, and had to do a wiki search to find it. I'll start a discussion on the rules discussion page so that it can be fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. In the meantime use the defacto standard that I outlined. If you'll go to the author N/A you'll see that most of the titles there are probably the ones you recently added (and no moderator caught it.) Mhhutchins|talk 06:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Get ready for a lot of trivial submissions as i fix these things. Ldb001 06:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] You changed the cover art credit to this record contrary to my instructions above: "If a work of art is not explicitly credited, and is identified only by the artist's signature, you should enter the artist's canonical name in the record and give the signature as the source." Mhhutchins|talk 07:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You make it sound so intentional. That was a mistake. Ldb001 07:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It was simply a statement of fact, without any implication. Whether your edit was intentional or in error is beyond my ability to read minds. :) But rest assured, I didn't think it was intentional. I actually thought you had misunderstood my instructions.
BTW, if you're editing a single content record which only appears in one publication, you can do an edit of the title record instead of a pub edit. If it appears in more than one publication, you are forced to edit the title record, but you have to be sure that the edit applies to every publication in which the title appears. Mhhutchins|talk 07:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien

This pub that you verified: I have taken the liberty to remove Humphrey Carpenter as author - the book is a collection of letters by a single author (J. R. R. Tolkien) and for single-author works we credit editors only in the notes of publication or title record (link to help). I also removed Christopher Tolkien as author, for the same reason as I removed Carpenter, but additionally in this case Christopher has not even contributed any written text to this book. Please write on my talk page if you disagree with these changes. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 15:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The War of the Jewels

Hi, I've imported content for your verified copy of The War of the Jewels.--Dirk P Broer 00:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that! Ldb001 21:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Author's Note (Taran Wanderer)

Hi, I have put your submission on hold. Usually we don't put essays into a fiction series, as they may incorporate some comments on the series or some works but aren't part of the series. Is here a different case given? Stonecreek 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information; please feel free to defer that edit. Two Author's Notes from other books in the series are included in "The Prydain Chronicles" series, so I was following that example. Those should probably be removed as well. Ldb001 14:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint! I'll do so. Stonecreek 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantasists on Fantasy

Hello, I've approved your submission but please do not change the NONFICTION record (as it's the link to the title, you'll end with a titleless publication which may cause the termination of the universe). I've saved the universe, disambiguated the introduction, changed all the dates that you set to "1984" (why?) to "1984-02" as per publication itself and merged what have to be (except some uncredited essays that are likely to be different). The result is here. Hauck 07:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for preventing the apocalypse! I don't think I've run into a situation like this where the existing entry was for a single-author work but which needed to be changed to an edited work. So my ignorance almost caused catastrophe, but I've learned now. I think the "1984" entries must have come from a single error that got multiply pasted elsewhere.
Thanks also for the merges; that would have been my next step, but you've saved me the trouble. There are one or two others that need to be merged/varianted, which I'll take care of, as well as some expansion of the titles of a few of these essays (a handful are excerpts from longer works that have been retitled here, but which I've not yet notated).

Conan the Conqueror

Hello, I've put your submissions on hold. Doesn't the printer code "8-72" cited in your noptes confirm that the date is really "1972-08"?

And "9-72" may mean "1972-09"?
Same for "4-72"?Hauck 08:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess that depends on whether these codes are actually equivalent to a statement on the copyright page. I'm happy to equate them if that is the accepted lore. There are Publication Records for other Conan editions (with the date codes) whose date field in the record does not specify the month, so it's unclear what the consensus is regarding them.
But if you feel that it's a sound equivalence between date codes and actual printing dates, I'll go back and edit the month to match the date code (or you can alter them yourself if you prefer). But it's probably easier if you process the current submissions, then I can go back in and quickly change the dates if necessary. That would save me from starting over from scratch on these. Thanks, Ldb001 12:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As some of our more bibliographically reliable contributors seems to think that this date should be used as publication date, I'll go ahead and fix the lot. Hauck 13:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! I'll use this guidance for any other Lancers that I edit. Ldb001 13:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Le Guin's Voices

Hi, I have somewhat modified this entry to fulfil our standards: 1) we do count forward for unnumbered pages at the end of a publication, so the beginning of the inerview is now on p. [345].

2) 'Anonymous' is reserved for authors who actively choose this pseudonym. If an item is not credited we set the author to 'uncredited'. Thanks, Stonecreek 05:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for correcting these. I was unsure about the unknown interviewer attribution. I'd done a search for author 'uncredited' and didn't get any hits, so I'd assumed that it wasn't generally used. Maybe the search simply doesn't work for that special case?
Exactly, the links (and the "general" search) are disabled for the particular author (you can try this. Hauck 14:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The wiki help pages are very valuable, and because I haven't been editing long enough to encounter all the unusual cases, I still refer to them often. For the case of unnumbered pages, I'd seen the instruction for entering Regular Title content: 'For example, if a content appears on the fifth page in a range of unnumbered pages, enter "[5]"'. I hadn't been able to find a special instruction for the case of such pages at the end of a book, so I'd assumed this rule applied in all cases. But it's probably the case that the instruction is on a page I overlooked. Thanks again for the tips. Ldb001 13:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Le Morte d'Arthur Volume II

Hello, I've approved your submission but can you check the ISBN? Thanks. Hauck 07:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, ISBN corrected now. Ldb001 15:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Credit from signatures

Hello, when the artist credit is from signature only (as seems the case with your recent addisions for Marvel) we credit the artwork to the canonical (thus saving one variant). I've tried to correct some based on your notes but I'm not sure that I catched them all. Hauck 06:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting those; I'll go through and try to catch any that remain. I had thought I remembered that credits for signature-only were as signed, so I'm glad you brought that to my attention.
I will add notes to indicate the form of the signature on each illustration. All the best, Ldb001 13:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Preface" in Amazing Stories Annual, Vol. 1

Hi. I accepted your modifications to Amazing Stories Annual, Vol. 1, but I made some changes to "Preface". Based on your notes, it is credited to "Editor", not to Gernsback. So what we do in a case like that is make the content reflect the actual credit, then make that result a variant of a new title using the actual editor's name. Also, for generic/standard titles of a type that could be used by the same author over different works (e.g., "Introduction", "Foreword", "Afterword", etc.), we append the containing publication's title in parentheses to diasambiguate. "Preface" is a title of that type, so I changed it to "Preface (Amazing Stories Annual, Vol. 1)". I also changed the credit to Editor and made a new parent with the Gernsback credit. The end result of all of that is here. BTW, if you go to Hugo Gernsback, scroll down to Essays, and look for Preface, you'll see how the disambiguation helps. I hope that all makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions. --MartyD 02:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I should have known better about using "Editor" rather than the canonical name. I did actually think to disambiguate "Preface" after submission, figured I'd do it once the submission was accepted, but you've saved me the trouble! Many thanks again, Ldb001 04:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Winter / WAK / W. A. K. etc...

Hello, after your last round of updates, there is probably some cleanup to do with the following bunch of authors (who are probably only two overall): K. A. W. with his kaw pseudonym but who has a story as by Winter without pseudonymistic link who is himself a pseudonym of Lumen Winter. Note that I've noticed your submisisons for this case yesterday and thought them quite fishy but haven't got the time to see to them. It seems that they are indeed problematic. Hauck 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that K. A. Winter and Lumen Winter are two different people. However, there may be some cases (when the artwork is unsigned) for which it is not possible to know which is correct. For now, I have left the name as "Winter" in Air Wonder Stories if there is no signature. My plan is to check the art itself (for as many cases as I have) and see if I can tell by stylistic differences. I have all of the Wonder Stories issues as well as Science Wonder, Air Wonder and Scientific Detective, so I think I have all the information available to research this. But it may take a while as I slowly go through these issues and verify things. Thanks, Ldb001 14:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As this problem shows up on our cleanup reports in diverse places, I've created a new artist ""Winter(II)" and set him as a pseudonym of "K. A. W.". It will give you some time for your research. Hauck 15:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, Thank you. The progress is slow and I don't want this to create a problem for the moderators. All the best, Ldb001 15:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Masthead

Hello, to the best of my knowledge, we usually do not list such reccuring features (mastheads, illustrations for certain recurring essays, fillers, etc...), a point vaguely evoked here. The more so in this case where the artist is uncredited. IMHO we're reaching the limit of the lisibility of the publication record (always the old debate between exhaustivity and practicity). Hauck 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's OK with me. I originally did not include these, but I saw that other issues of this magazine (verified by others) included them, so I decided to do so for consistency. If it is decided to remove them, I would vote for removing them in all issues.
An unrelated question: My submission for the January 1930 issue of Science Wonder appears under "Errored Out" submissions, and the current state of that publication record includes some of my entries but omits many of the new titles I submitted. I'm not sure what the status of that submission is. Thanks, Ldb001 14:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You're probably the victim of some recurring bug. Some "long" submissions or some passed at a certain time (e.g. the 13:30 UTC shutdown) may encounter problems and be only partially entered. To the best of my knowledge there is no remedy. Hauck 14:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll just resubmit the titles that did not get through. Ldb001 14:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note how such things can easily go out of hand with this example where the bibligaphical value of the record is quite low (all it tells us is that there is a recurring illustration by we-don't-know-who in most of the issues of Planet Stories). Hauck 05:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
True, but in this case it's a larger and more detailed illustration than the usual masthead. Even so, I would not have included it (per your advice), but the title already had many entries so I wanted to continue it for completeness's sake. Also, at some point it may be discovered who the artist is. That's one reason I don't mind at all uncredited art in the db: it may not be uncredited forever.
The previous example that started this thread still has entries (or did the last time I checked). I'd rather see them eliminated rather than to have them incomplete. What little bibliographical use the title has is made even less by incompleteness. All the best, Ldb001 13:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Stories Quarterly, Winter 1931

Hello, I've put your submission on hold as I was wondering what were your reasons to enter a "1931-01-00" date even if you state "Contents page states publication on 15 December." in the notes. Is there another publication month somewhere in the magazine? Hauck 06:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I had seen a similar situation addressed by Mhhutchins for the Winter 1930 issue: "I have to reject the submission to change the date of this issue from 1930-01-00 to 1929-12-15. Because this is dated on the cover as a 1930 issue, we have to retain that as the date of the issue. Because of the vagaries of magazine publishing it's almost impossible to determine the actual publication date of magazine issues. That's why we depend solely on the date given on the cover. This becomes a problem when the dating is seasonal. But we can't change the date of "Winter 1930" to December 1929 without conflicting with the established standards of the ISFDB and other databases. For example, the January issue of almost every magazine in the field appears on the newsstand and in subscribers' mailboxes sometime in late November, sometimes even earlier. Regardless, the ISFDB record gives the date as January."
The talk page where I saw that was http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Martinbainbridge. It's a short page, you'll see it easily. Thanks, Ldb001 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is stricly Michael's opinion which is alas not supported by our Help pages where the fact that the publication date should be used when known (as is the case here) is quite clear. As Michael is no more moderating, his advice is now less important. I've approved the submission and changed the date in accordance with your notes. Hauck 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this. A related issue arises with publications such as Science Wonder Stories and Air Wonder Stories; publication notes on their contents pages state publication on the 3rd of the preceding month and 10th of the preceding month, respectively. I'm sure this is true of many publications: not just release to newsstands a month early, but an actual stated publication date earlier than the nominal month on the cover. What is the policy in these cases? From my viewpoint it would be counterproductive to list the entire series of magazines a month earlier than the cover date, yet they all have a stated date a month earlier. The help page you linked to mentions this type of earlier publication, saying "However, since this is a well-known fact about magazine publication schedules, and also because there is no good way to determine actual publication date..." But in the cases of the two magazines I mention, we do have a good way to determine actual publication date. In a way I hate to bring this up because I'm afraid of what the answer might be :-) Thanks for all your help, Ldb001 15:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As I understand things, we use in priority the date on cover (mostly for monthly magazines with a clear month stated even if they're on the newstands sometimes two months earlier), without such data, we then use the stated publication date (as in the example above) when it's given, in last resort we simply enter the year (for "season" issues). But don't worry too much, the person that enters a specific magazine tends to naturally create its own set of rules (particularly in your case for such rare items). Hauck 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I will attempt to at least make the Wonder Quarterly series consistent in this way, and leave other publications until such time as a problem arises. All the best, Ldb001 16:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unlinked review

Hello, there is an unlinked review in this issue. To what should it link to? (I didn't find any matching text in the db)? Thanks. Hauck 06:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that; I assume it is not in the database because it is a non-fiction book. I included the review because it was of a book by a well-known author. I can create a pub record for the book, or if you feel it is inappropriate for a new entry, I can delete the review. Thanks, Ldb001 13:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
In fact in such cases, we usually change the review into an ESSAY along these lines. Hauck 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, I will follow that example when I get home this evening. One more thing I have learned. Thank you for all of your guidance with my learning curve. Also thanks for all of your moderation work on my submissions. Ldb001 15:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comet

Hello, I've approved your submissions and make some merges afterwards. In order to skip this phase for later issues (even if there's only one left) , perhaps can you be more lazy and reuse the data entered here by using the "import Content"/"Option 2" function that will let you enter already existing items (by passing their titleID). This will need only one submission instead of multiple ones as the titles will be automatically merged. This is perhaps applicable to other magazines that have been "facsimiled". Hauck 06:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly do it that way if you prefer, and if it is less work for the moderators. There are differences I would make (e.g. "The Spacean" is fiction rather than a "non-fact essay" whatever that is). I didn't know about these facsimile pub records, thanks for pointing them out to me. Ldb001 13:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New to Science Fiction

I have your unvarianting of New to Science Fiction on hold. In the note to the moderator, you state "unlinking to change form of author's name". However, this record is also in the reprint. If you change the author credit, it will change it in both pubs. As the reprint is verified, you need to check with the reprint's verifier to ensure it is also that way in the reprint (which is highly likely, but sometime reprints change things). If it matches in the reprint, than the title record can be updated. If it doesn't, than you need to create a new record for your pub. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I might have done this incorrectly then. My intention was to change the author attribution in the original magazine publication *only*, and leave the reprint alone. I had thought that unlinking this record from that in the reprint was the way to do it. As you mention, the other publication is verified, and i don't have a copy, so I'm not making any assumption about what might be in the reprint. Thanks, Ldb001 01:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The verifier of the reprint, MLB, is an active editor. You should ask him to double check the credit in his version. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll do that, but I want to make sure I understand the issue here. The editorial is signed only "The Editor" in the original magazine. I've been given explicit direction by another moderator that this should be entered thus, and then varianted to the editor's canonical name (F. Orlin Tremaine in this case). My thought was that the first step in the process was to disconnect the title record in the magazine from the parent record, change the name to "The Editor," then variant back to the original parent record. I understand that you wish to know whether the reprint has it this way also. But does this in some way affect the validity of the change I'm proposing? I just want to be sure of the problem so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks, Ldb001 01:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
What you are trying to achieve is correct, but the method is incorrect:
  • If both pubs use "The Editor", then there is no need to unvariant. The variant can simply be edited to change the credit to "The Editor" (it is already varianted to the editor's canonical name). This will update the record in both pubs (as it is shared).
  • If the reprint used the actual name, then unvarianting doesn't help as it will still leave the same title record in both pubs. To resolve it in this case, there are two options:
  1. Edit the publication & add a new title record with the same title, page number, & type, but with a credit of "The Editor". Once that is approved, use "Remove Titles From This Pub" (on the publication view) to remove the original. Also then variant the new title record to the original parent.
  2. Use "Unmerge Titles" (on the title view) to split the shared title record into two separate title records. Then edit the one for the original publication to have a credit of "The Editor". Ensure both title records are variants of the original title (I believe in unmerging them, they both would end up variants, but I'm not positive).
If the reprint also uses "The Editor", we would want it corrected as well & it is the easier solution. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll take your word for this as having much more experience than I do with the db. I'm pretty sure though that I've used this method in the past when two title records shared the same parent. After unvarianting the one I wanted to change, what remained was the title record to be changed, now without a parent, and the other title record still with the original parent record. Because this is what I wanted to achieve, I'd thought the method was correct. I've unmerged to handle this in the past, and it works fine, same number of steps. So I'll try to use this method in the future. Also, I contacted the verifier of the reprint, so hopefully I will have an answer soon. Thanks again, Ldb001 02:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In the case you describe, there would have had to be two separate variants each in a different pub. In this case, there is one variant that is shared by two pubs. Unvaianting does not create (split) new title records. Unmerge is what does that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You finally got through my thick skull with the right words! Thank you for sticking with it rather than giving up; I really appreciate your patience. That makes complete sense; I indeed was thinking of the former case, whereas this is the latter. Thank you again! Ldb001 03:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

R. C. Sherrif

When entering reviews, if the reviewed author's name is not in the database, you should use the canonical name and add a note to the publication (see help). We do not create new authors for reviews. This one of the few cases where we deviate from the 'enter exactly as in pub' principle. I've updated Astonishing Stories, April 1940 accordingly. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing out that important exception, and for making the correction. All the best, Ldb001 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Funny, I'm sure that I've corrected this record (and linked the review that was, logically, unlinked due to the difference in author). Hauck 14:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I changed it back :-) because I thought the moderator just assumed I'd made a typo. Now I know it is because it was incorrect. Ldb001 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I should have explained my reasons to you (but I didn't want to overburden you with such exceptions). BTW, it's nearly the same logic for interviews: they should also always credited to the canonical name (reviews may credit a existing pseudonym). Hauck 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't hesitate to explain things fully. I always welcome it, and really it's the best way to learn. I am sure I only know a small fraction of the protocols, but I seem to learn a few more every week. Thanks, Ldb001 15:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello, another tip for something that I've corrected in your PVed publications. When a review "doesn't link" with the reviewed title (in this case there is no hyperlink in the publication), for example because the title used in the review is a shorter one or because it's mispelled (like this one that I've fixed), you should not create a variant of the review with the "correct" title. Just go at the REVIEW record title level and use the "Link Review to Title" link and pass the target title ID. This will link the review and the reviewed item even if they don't exactly "match". Hauck 14:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. In one other instance I used the linking feature, so I'm familiar with it, but I think it was only after varianting to make the titles match. It's good to know that is not the correct procedure. I hate to make extra work for moderators by doing something wrong; but my goal is to make a particular mistake only once. I'm grateful for your help in learning. All the best, Ldb001 14:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A batch of nongenre stories - if you disagree please comment

Currently there are numerous non-genre horror stories that are in the database because it's natural to just enter a book of horror or "tales of terror" without figuring out which stories are supernatural. I don't intend to systematically hunt for them, but when I spot one, I like to mark it nongenre. (In the case of classic stories, marking is better than removing it from the database because it'll just get re-added with some new anthology.) At the moment, I've spotted the following stories that I think need such a change, and I'm consulting people who have them in their verified pubs.

Firstly, there's Great Tales of Terror and the Supernatural (verified copies: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)), which contains "A Terribly Strange Bed," "The Three Strangers," "The Most Dangerous Game," "Leiningen Versus the Ants," "A Rose for Emily," "Taboo," and undoubtedly other non-supernatural ones that I'm not noticing at the moment. Here are verified publications for those and some other stories:

Are there any of those stories you think ARE genre? Vasha 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC) --Vasha 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A commendable undertaking! I see nothing here to object to, and thank you for making the effort to do this. Ldb001 17:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure many people have thought of changing one of these stories in the past, noticed how many primary verifiers they'd have to consult, felt tired at the very idea, and left the matter alone. So I decided to just do a bunch all at once, and compose a message to send out to 25 PVs... Not going to do this again any time soon, I don't think. --Vasha 18:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been editing long, and already there are some tasks that I avoid just due to the number of people who would have to be involved. So I can definitely sympathize. Ldb001 19:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to the Community Portal. --Vasha 00:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Added contents from another edition

I am working on the Cleanup Report that complains about collections and anthologies that have no contents. Right now I'm importing contents for such works when we have another printing of the same book (by the same publisher) that includes the contents. Books verified by you for which I've done this are: The Book of Lost Tales, Part I and The Return of the Shadow. I haven't included page numbers unless the page count for the two printings was exactly the same, so some of these books will be missing that detail. If you have the time, I encourage you to verify this against your own copy. Chavey 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I've always thought of these as chapters rather than individual works, although given the complex nature of the History series, I can see it the other way too. I've made the changes (or at least submitted them for moderation). The first of these had correct page numbers; one title was duplicated due to the import process. I removed that duplicate title. I've added page numbers to the second book. The "Queries and Alterations" title has a missing front quote, which you can correct on the title record. All the best, Ldb001 05:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Princess and the Goblin" omnibus, by George MacDonald

I approved your New Pub for this book, and merged the novels within it. But if you go to MacDonald's page and click the "Check for Duplicate Titles" button, you'll see that it suggests you might want to merge your interior art records with one of the existing ones. If either of the descriptions of those other art records apply to your book, I encourage you to do the merge; but if they do not apply, I encourage you to add a descriptive note to your interior art records so that someone else doesn't inappropriately merge them later. Chavey 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the flag. I generally do check for duplicates after the publication is created, and handle them as necessary. Artwork is difficult because it is not easy to know if two publications have identical artwork unless one owns them both :-) Even if the artist is the same, it's problematic. I'll either add a note to the title records or add a disambiguation to the titles. I'm reluctant to merge them. Thank you for being conscientious about this! All the best, Ldb001 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Stories, February 1936

Wonder Stories, February 1936 - I'm pretty sure the last item on page 893 is a movie review of Transatlantic Tunnel. You have "Move Review: Transatlantic Tunnel". --Marc Kupper|talk 04:45, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

Haha, thanks for catching that; always glad to clean up typos. I've submitted the change. All the best, Ldb001 19:01, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

Tales of Wonder, #3 Summer 1938

Hello,

I accepted the addition of the letters in Tales of Wonder, #3 Summer 1938 but had to change two of the author names - when you have Junior, Jnr or Jr as a suffix to the name, we always standardize the suffix as Jr. (and not Jnr.) Annie 16:02, 20 July 2017 (EDT)

Thanks Annie. I take the written policy as a guide, but it's great to learn all of these "accepted practice" items as I run across them. I am always grateful for moderator feedback. All the best, Ldb001 17:00, 20 July 2017 (EDT)
It is the written policy (in a way): here and here. I think what is missing is to specify that Junior and Jnr needs to be collapsed to Jr. (but we have two examples with it and I think there is an assumption that everyone understands that this is the standard. Do you think that a table in the help page of "These are the names for these suffices" will help? ) :) When I am not sure, I run a quick search in the DB -- Jnr. returns no results; Jr. finds a lot of them. And in this case, we already had one of the guys with his Jr. name as well. Annie 17:07, 20 July 2017 (EDT)
Yes, those examples beat around it a little, but I don't think the average editor would deduce the desired way to treat "Jnr." It's uncommon, and a search with zero results might only indicate that people are handling a few cases incorrectly. Anyway, you could add such a note, which would leave 999,999 other exceptions to take care of. I generally think the db does an excellent job of documenting policy, and all possible situations cannot be foreseen. I'm very happy with the method of mods passing these on to editors when they come up, and of considering a policy addition if a particular one comes up a lot (this one is not in that category, I'm sure). There are far more common ones that as far as I know still do not have a consensus written policy (e.g. attribution for letters columns: "various," "The Editor," or something else).
Thanks again for the feedback. I've had great help from mods with these things, and I'm very grateful that they (and you) take the time. All the best, Ldb001 17:39, 20 July 2017 (EDT)

Modern Electrics, November 1912

I accepted your edit to Modern Electrics, November 1912, but have a question: Does the cover art illustrate the story? From the title on it, it doesn't look like it. For non-genre publications, we only include cover art image and credits if the cover art illustrates the story. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2017 (EDT)

Ah, I didn't know that! I've done similar in the past with non-genre magazines, so I think I must have done those in error as well. It's a shame, particularly for these seminal magazines, that that is the policy; but I'll take care to do that in the future. Should I remove these data for this issue? Thanks for the guidance, Ldb001 22:19, 24 July 2017 (EDT)
It's buried down in Help:Entering non-genre magazines. However, it's a wordy page so it's easy to overlook. We've debated it a couple of times, but the general consensus is that we're a spec-fic site so we should focus on that. While we tend to stretch things at times, this is one area that has general agreement. I've deleted the cover. If there are other ones that you can recall, let me know and I can take care of them also, but not a big deal. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2017 (EDT)
The ones in question are Science and Inventions (1923 all issues) and Radio News (all verified issues 1923-1925). It is sometimes difficult to tell what story or article the cover illustrates, although in many cases we take the story that is highlighted on the cover as some evidence. Many of these covers are by Howard V. Brown, who I guess rates as a well-known sf artist and thus invokes the exception to the rule. The remaining covers (to be deleted) are: S&I 1923-05,10,11,12 and RN 1923-07, 1924-06, 1925-05,07,08,10. Some of these may also be by Brown (judging by style) but are not confirmed by signature. Thanks for taking care of this for me. All the best, Ldb001 23:48, 24 July 2017 (EDT)
I left S&I 1923-05 & 12 as while they may not illustrate the story, they are spec-fic in nature. We have enough other things that skirt the standards so didn't see the reason to push it on these. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for taking care of those; I'll remember this policy in the future. I overlook some of these datails at times, usually because I don't know to look for them. I'd read over the instructions on non-genre magazines a couple of times but missed this. I appreciate the help! Ldb001 00:46, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Victor Valla

Please see this discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, fine with this as there is ample documentation to support it and the edition I verified had no artist attribution. Ldb001 23:22, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

Hunded thousand kingdoms interview

Hi, could you check the interview at the end of The Hundred Thousand Kindgoms? You have the author as "Anonymous", but if there's simply no author mentioned that should be "uncredited" -- unless it literally says "Anonymous." Thanks! --Vasha 21:32, 28 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for catching that; it was careless of me. Uncredited it is; I'll submit the change. Thanks again, Ldb001 19:34, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
P.S.: It appears the change has already been made, so I'm just confirming that the change is correct. All the best, Ldb001 19:37, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

Cover artist for May 1940 Marvel Tales

We currently have the cover artist for the May 1940 issue of Marvel Tales as H. W. Scott and there is a note stating that the source is this book which I can verify credits the artist as H. W. However, this publication lists the artist as J. W. Scott. Additionally, this website also credits this cover to J.W. Given that J.W. did other covers for Marvel, I suspect he is more likely to be the correct artist. I also feel that the credits in the Ellis book, which deals with art, are more likely to be accurate. If you agree, I'd like to change the artist for this issue and adjust the note as to the source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:02, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

I agree, based not just on the persuasive points you made but also on the style, which looks much more like the other cover art of J.W. than that of H.W. Please feel free to change it, and thanks for catching what is a likely error. All the best, Ldb001 22:12, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

Tales of Wonder No. 3 Cover Artist

I'm going to change the cover artist for Tales of Wonder, No. 3. The current credit is for "L. J. Roberts" and is from this source which does list him as "L. J.". However, the cover is reprinted here where it is credited to W. J. Roberts who did many of the other covers for Tales of Wonder and other pulps from the same publisher. The source also mentions the signature. From the scan, it looks like it would be read as "W. J." and it does appear to be the same signature as that on scans of other covers (including this one which you have also verified. I also have one of the other reprints of the cover, which has no credit. I suspect the remaining reprint is probably uncredited as well. I'm certain enough of the ultimate name that I'm going to proceed with the change. We can roll it back if you disagree. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:19, 11 November 2017 (EST)

No, I agree completely, thanks for spotting that. I can understand how the first initial was read as "L," and the cited credit stating so probably influenced my reading of it as well. But it is clearly a "W." All the best, Ldb001 09:40, 11 November 2017 (EST)

The Nibelungenlied

I put a note about the cover art of this pub. --Zapp 11:30, 15 November 2017 (EST)

Thanks for the note, and great that you found a reference to the art. One note, the link to it that you included doesn't work (at least it doesn't work for me) because it has the isfdb URL prefixed onto the alamy URL. All the best, Ldb001 10:04, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Getaway on Krishna

Hello, as per this source, Ylee changed the title of your PVed story this from Gateway on Krishna to Getaway on Krishna. Hauck 09:20, 29 December 2017 (EST)

Excellent catch, thanks for the correction. Ldb001 13:21, 29 December 2017 (EST)

The Island of Dr. Moreau

I'm holding your clone of The Island of Dr. Moreau. You are creating a record for catalog ID D-537, but we already have a record for that one and all the data matches (minus the date which you extrapolated). Would you check it is not the same as your pub? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2018 (EST)

I scanned a couple of times (both in Wells's bibliography listing and the Ace publications listing) and I STILL somehow missed that! Thank you for flagging this; it already exists so I will just delete the submission. Thanks, Ldb001 08:49, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Amazing Stories Annual

Hello, I intend to modify the Notes for your verified Amazing Stories & Annual by adding publication dates, obtained from Library of Congress copyright registrations. PatConolly 01:19, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

That would be great, thanks. Ldb001 17:25, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

Science Wonder Stories, November 1929 and Air Wonder Stories, #8, February 1930

Hello, these issues, which you Primary Verified, featured covers that were the basic for contests. I was curious as to what stories won the contest, spent some time looking them up, and figured maybe others would want to know also. So I added Notes stating what was the first-prize-winner and where they appeared. There are other story contest covers - not to mention the 2nd and 3rd prize winners for these covers - but at this time I don't feel like chasing them all down. PatConolly 21:13, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

I think I notated place winners for some contest covers, but I'm sure I missed a few others as well as these two. If there are any others you specifically know of for which winners are not mentioned, I can check those issues and add the information. I know that for some cases, I mentioned the winners in the notes for issues that contain the stories, but not in the notes for the issues that contain the covers. I agree that putting the information in both places is best. Thanks for taking the time to add these details. All the best, Ldb001 22:09, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Science Wonder Stories and others, publication dates

Hello, I intend to modify the Notes for your verified Science Wonder Stories by adding publication dates, obtained from Library of Congress copyright registrations. Actually, I plan on doing this for all U.S. science fiction mags through 1936 (the period covered by Bleiler's SCIENCE-FICTION: The Gernsback Years) so I won't continue to notify you for each different magazine. PatConolly 21:54, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

Copyright Registration dates.

Re: your note on my page. I've noticed your point about song publication dates e.g. just this week I saw that most of Bob Dylan's songs on Blonde on Blonde have a publication date of March 29, 1966, two months ahead of the planned release date of the album (and almost four months ahead of the actual release). No idea what March 29 actually represents.

However, for periodicals (fiction magazines and comic books are what I look at), the stated publication dates for many decades matched other sources of those dates, such as contents page or ads saying "on sale this date". Occasionally there will be an obvious typo; and it may well be that some publishers were slack in that regards.

I am not removing any prior Notes about publication dates. For that matter, if a prior Note has a date stated in the issue that matches the copyright registration date, then I don't add my statement, as being redundant.

Science Wonder Stories was an exception. I saw that the contents have consistently said they were published on the 3rd of each month, whereas their registrations consistently said they were published on the 1st of the month (except the first issue dated 29th of month before that). I've simply added my statement to the existing statement. People who care can take their pick - I care because I physically store my collections chronologically. PatConolly 18:41, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

That sounds like a good plan. I had guessed that, while close, registration dates might not match actual publication dates, i.e. when the issues actually hit the newsstands. This wasn't based on knowledge of the registration process (about which I know little when it comes to magazines) but just the fact that the two events (registration and distribution) are parallel events and might not exactly synch. I don't know what sets the registration dates -- is it when a publisher submits the paperwork, or is it when the copyright office records the registration? Anyway, because I was uncertain of the process I raised the question.
For a monthly magazine, I would expect any discrepancy to be only a matter of a few days anyway. For that matter we can't know if either of these two dates is exact! Maybe there were occasional production delays. But if the magazine does not state a specific publication date, the registration dates are definitely good to have. That goes even more for quarterlies, annuals, etc. So thank you again for taking the time to look up registrations for all of these. All the best, Ldb001 00:53, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
For periodicals, the date is neither the date that the paperwork was sent, nor the date it is recorded. Occasionally the registrations have even been submitted the following year. For example, in the 3d quarter of 1935 Teck Publications submitted registrations for Amazing Stories issues from Jan, Feb & March of 1934! However, the publisher submits the date of publication for each issue, which by copyright definition is supposed to be the date on which it is offered to the public for sale. That same date is used on renewal registrations, 27 or 28 years later (assuming the publisher is still in business and still cares). Some publishers are less careful about getting the dates right.PatConolly 01:44, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Aha, I have learned something new, thank you! That makes sense now that you point it out. For periodical publication, it would be a lot of work to separately submit paperwork for each issue; and stating the intended date on the forms would be the sensible thing to do. So the publication date stated on the registration and the date of actual distribution should be the same, unless unexpected difficulties arise or the publisher changes the schedule after the registration has been submitted. With music, where release was irregular and often unpredictable, I guess they had to do it a little differently. Thank you again, Ldb001 14:52, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Importing titles

Hello,

When you are adding a lot of titles that we already have to a publication (as was the case here using Import instead of Edit saves a lot of time - both for you (so you do not need to type) and for someone else after that- because all those titles have to be merged after that (I just finished all the merges). Plus that minimizes the chances of typos and other issues. :) Annie 03:11, 2 May 2018 (EDT)

Thank you for pointing out the Import option; I don't think I have used it before. I agree it saves a lot of work! Normally I do all of the title merges myself after verification; I didn't intend that the moderators should do this work and apologize that you had to do it. All the best, Ldb001 10:35, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
It is still work - regardless who does it at the end. :) I hate leaving dangling titles when it is obvious that we need merges so we I tidied up. Take a look at the imports - they are very very useful. :) Annie 12:16, 2 May 2018 (EDT)

Science and Invention 1923 Issues

You may not be aware, but for non-genre magazines, it is permissible to enter the name of the actual editor in addition to "Editors of ..." (See here). I've been doing this for other issues of S&I, but I wanted to check with you before altering your verified issues. I'd also like to check whether the editor is listed as "H. Gernsback" (which I expect) or is he credited as "Hugo Gernsback". The scans available online for earlier issues all have him as "H. Gernsback" as does this scan of the October 1924 issue masthead. If you verify the credit, I'll go ahead and use "H. Gernsback" ast least through 1924. For 1925 and beyond I'll leave it as "Hugo Gernsback" until we can verify further. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:47, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

Thanks Ron, I didn't know that. To be honest, I think that the "Editors of..." was already in the pre-verification versions of the records, and I looked around just enough to see that was standard for non-genre. Yes, Gernsback is shown as "H. Gernsback" on the masthead above the issue editorial, exactly as in the example you show; the similar field on the contents page doesn't list the editor. Please feel free to add this to those issues. Thanks, -Doug Ldb001 22:47, 5 May 2018 (EDT)
I'm going to go ahead and do the same thing for the issues of Modern Electrics that we have, many of which you've verified. Again, all the scans I can find online have the editor credit as "H. Gernsback". I'll also add volume and issue numbers to the note. I did notice that the cover of the May 1911 issue has a price of 15 cents. However, the price noted in the masthead on page 82 is still 10 cents. I think the interior price is fine for the record especially since this one issue is an outlier. However, I'll add the discrepancy to the note as well. Let me know if you have any problems with these edits. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:17, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
Yes, I checked those when I looked at the S&I issues, and "H. Gernsback" is the form used on the ones I've verified. Also thanks for adding the vol/issue; I'd been meaning to go back and do that, as well as to update the pages field to include covers (these were among the first magazines I verified and I wasn't aware of that convention for magazines). Also center-stapling (all issues through July 1911) versus side-stapling (issues from September 1911 onwards; not sure about August 1911, which I do not have). The odd price code on the May 1911 cover is a puzzle.
I notice that some unverified issues use a format of "quarto." I'm not sure of the conventions, but these ME issues are definitely not close to 8.5 x 11" size; they are the standard pulp size, although trimmed, going all the way back to the very first issue. All the best, Ldb001 11:47, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
I considered bringing up the size, but as I'm working from secondary sources, I wasn't sure I wanted to push on that. Miller/Conento and FictionMags (a related index) describe these as "Large" which they define as 8½" x 11". Galactic Central which gives an overall size to the entire run say these are bedsheet. Tymn/Ashley describes the entire run as quarto. Since you've got actual copies, I'd certainly defer to you for size, but I'll probably continue to use the secondary sources for the unverified issues. Perhaps these were closer to 8.5 x 11 before they were trimmed? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:47, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
Just to be clear, they are trimmed as issued, not afterwards. Just like Gernsback's other pre-Amazing magazines. The size of the raw paper stock is another matter, and is probably unknowable, but doesn't figure into the format choice anyway. Whether the secondary sources choose quarto because of the center stapling, I don't know (and only the earlier issues are thus). But the size of these issues is consistently 10" tall, and between 6.75" and 7" wide.
Thanks for working on updating all of these! All the best, Ldb001 13:57, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

The Scientific Adventures of Baron Münchausen

I've got a different Gernsback question for you. I'm intending to convert the original magazine appearances of these stories from serials to short stories. (I've laid out my arguments for doing so here). Locus1 is the only place that I can find that considers this a novel specifically for your verified 2006 printing. Locus also mentioned that the Apogee edition is edited and abridged. My question is whether it is really presented as a novel, or could it be considered a collection? i.e. Are the stories separate? Based on the Locus description, I would assume not. In that case, I would recommend we leave the novel as is and put it in a series with the stories. Otherwise, we may want to consider converting this to a collection. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:57, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

That's a good argument, and I don't have strong feelings either way. The Apogee edition presents this as a novel, and the "stories" are listed as Chapters, both in the ToC and at the start of each. So thie edition is properly a single work. But as you point out, it is edited, and thus could easily be considered a fix-up of individual stories. So the original serial (since we lack primary verifications) could also be a series of stories. All the best, Ldb001 14:08, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

Practical Electrics

I'm going to add Gernsback as an editor for Practical Electrics. I'll add him as "Hugo Gernsback". I expect he probably is credited as "H. Gernsback" as with his other magazines of this era. If you can verify that he is credited so, let me know and we can change it for all the issues. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:29, 26 June 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for taking care of that, Ron. Yes, he is credited as editor under the name "H. Gernsback." As with some other publications from this period, this credit is not on the contents page but on the masthead above the editorial for the issue. I can confirm that for the three issues I own and have verified. All the best, Doug Ldb001 23:38, 26 June 2018 (EDT)

The Shaping of Middle-Earth

Hi, I've added content for your verified copy of The Shaping of Middle-Earth. You may want to add yet more Christopher Tolkien essay material.--Dirk P Broer 16:01, 13 December 2018 (EST)

Much appreciated, thanks. Ldb001 21:08, 13 December 2018 (EST)

Wonder Stories Quarterly Winter 1931

I added a note to this issue saying "Library of Congress copyright record shows publication date 1931-01-15" I seem to have missed this one last year, when I was doing all the other Gernsback magazines. PatConolly 17:37, 21 January 2019 (EST)

Sounds good. Thanks again for adding all of these. Ldb001 09:56, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Air Wonder Stories

I've noticed that the publication titles for Air Wonder Stories have been entered in a non-standard format by including the issue number in the title field. They were undoubtedly in that format before you verified them. Would you have any objection if I were to edit these records to bring them in line with our standards? I would remove issue number from the title. I would also add both the volume and issue number to the notes, which is where we commonly store this data. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:12, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

Exactly right, I used the standing titles when I verified them. Please do change them for consistency; I'm sometimes reluctant to make those changes not knowing the reasons they were that way in the first place. All the best, Ldb001 13:27, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

Waldo and Magic, Inc.

Just updated the note for this pub to confirm the odd printing marks in the number line in a second copy. ../Doug H 11:36, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

Very good, glad to see that this was generic rather than a one-off printing error. Seems to me this decreases somewhat the possibility that this is an 11th printing. Ldb001 21:59, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

The Rule of the Pagbeasts

Did I miss where you discussed this change with the verifiers? One of them is very active. Major changes like that require discussion before they are made. Thanks. :) Annie 02:06, 23 November 2019 (EST)

I notified one of the verifiers as the other one's talk page guidelines appeared to only desire notification of changes that were not error corrections. This isn't actually a major change in the sense of creating a new form for the publisher; the form of the publisher i wanted to change to already exists on ISFDB. It's just that the publications on ISFDB from this period are inconsistent in the form listed for the publisher, while the publications themselves are unambiguous in listing the "Fawcett World Library" form. I was hoping these could be cleaned up as I have the Crests through 1960 and can check primary sources. But I'm happy to leave them be if there's an issue. All the best, Ldb001 11:45, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Nah. I agree, it will be better that way. I could not see a notification so came to ask. :) and it was late and I missed the one on Don’s page. Will approve. You may want to add this in the mod notes - easier to track. Annie 11:51, 23 November 2019 (EST)
OK, thanks. There are a handful of others that should be normalized in this pre-1960s timeframe; it's misleading when books by exactly the same publisher appear to be by different publishers. I'll try to get them changed over the next couple of days. I'll add more detail in the mod notes when I submit, including a mention that I've notified PVs. All the best, Ldb001 13:43, 23 November 2019 (EST)
We have a lot of those cleanup jobs in the DB - things can drift when you have a lot of editors across a long period of time. :) Thanks for working on these. Annie 13:57, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Bilbo's Last Song

Hello, as you are one of the verifiers of Bilbo's Last Song, I was wondering if you would be able to add the interior art title records, and variant their cover to the corresponding interior art ones? See also the question/discussion here? I've also left a message on the PV's Talk page. Thanks in advance! MagicUnk 10:31, 21 January 2020 (EST)

Absolutely. I'll check when I get home tonight and make the additions and changes. All the best, Ldb001 15:58, 21 January 2020 (EST)
I entered the major illustrations for the edition I have. The cover IDs are as follows: the green cover art is " Galadriel followed by Bilbo on a small grey pony"; white cover is "Merry and Pippin arrive at the Grey Havens"; the blue front cover is "The Far Downs and the distant sea"; and the blue back cover is "Sam, Merry, and Pippin watch the ship depart." I haven't yet varianted the covers to these interior illustrations. You can feel free to do that, or I can get back to it tomorrow evening. The illustration titles are my own synopsis -- they are not captioned in the book, so I referred to the Notes at the end of the book to identify each scene. If you think another scheme for titling is better, that's fine with me. All the best, Ldb001 01:42, 22 January 2020 (EST)
Thank you! Could you also link the cover art with their corresponding interior art? Or if you tell me which of the three different covers (green, blue, white) correspond with which interior art record, I can do that too. Thanks again! MagicUnk 13:26, 24 January 2020 (EST)
The artwork names I associate with the covers (see above) are the same names I used in entering the artwork in my verified copy, so it should be clear which corresponds with which if you look at my verified record. I think it might be best if you take care of unmerging all of the covers and then renaming using some scheme that separates the three versions into separate title records, and re-merging. Then the varianting will be straightforward. Since this is your mission, it should be your choice to rename them as you like. All the best, Ldb001 17:17, 24 January 2020 (EST)
Argh, stupid me. That'll teach me to read more carefully... I'll take care of the unmerging and varianting. Thanks! MagicUnk 02:23, 25 January 2020 (EST)
I finally got around unmerging & varianting the interior art records to their respective covers (needed to do it that way to allow varianting both interior art records to the front- and back blue cover). Thanks for the data you provided. Most appreciated. Regards MagicUnk 12:23, 31 January 2020 (EST)
Excellent! Looks like everything is sorted out. All the best,Ldb001 09:18, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Captain Future, Fall 1942

Hows it going? Just letting you know that I added some illustrations and some letters to your listing of Captain Future, Fall 1942, from my facsimile reprinting of the pulp. Also, I didn't change it, but I believe that the illustration on page 109, which you list as "uncredited" is signed by Leo Morey. What do you think? MLB 02:44, 24 January 2020 (EST)

I think you're right about the illustration on p109. The lettering is hard to read but the style of the signature is almost certainly his. Regarding the added Morey attributions in Planets in Peril: there is a duplicate entry for pg 15 for some reason (that page contains only one piece of art). Also, my original artwork entry for the entire story (tagged to the starting page 13 as is standard) is still in place, and now gives the impression that it refers to the specific artwork on page 13, which it doesn't since the art on that page is unsigned. I'm not sure what the best way is around that problem; it seems that usually verifiers either choose to have an entry for every piece of art, or they choose to have one entry for all of the art in the story (which is my usual method). What you've done kind of combines both methods and may lead to confusion. Finally, about the letter entries, I know there are a fair number of people who feel that letters should only be entered if they are by a known sf personality, with a few extra cases for fans who were only letter-writers but who wrote so many that they deserve an entry. I think in fact that is stated in the wiki. I generally only entered letters if the author already had a record in the db. All the best, Ldb001 17:40, 24 January 2020 (EST)
Your right about the letters, but, they were entered as part of the anthology The Collected Captain Future: Man of Tomorrow, Volume Three, so I've been listing them, the reprinted ones only in these omnibuses, as part of my facsimile reprints listings. If these letters hadn't been reprinted in the Captain Future omnibuses, then I wouldn't have listed them. Yeah, it's confusing, but take it up with Rtrace who did it first. Fool that I am, I'll remove the duplicate listing. By-the-way, Gwandanaland Comics is reprinting the complete run of Air Wonder Stories in three omnibuses. Beware though, the facsimile reprint I have from them is poorly reprinted, but still, these reprints might be worth optaining if you don't want to read, and possibly damage, your original copies.MLB 19:43, 24 January 2020 (EST)
I love that many of these old pulps are being reprinted; it's something I would have thought inconceivable 30 years ago before the rise of print-on-demand. Generally I group the art of a story under one contents entry, realizing that they may have to be broken out at a later time, for instance for cross-referencing to another appearance. So it's all fine with me, my major concern being that things not be ambiguous. I'll take a look after you're done and will put any necessary explanation in the pub notes. All the best, Ldb001 22:45, 24 January 2020 (EST)

Here we go again!

Here we go again, because they were entered into the databank here I’m entering the letters to Captain Future: Spring 1940, from my facsimile, to your primary verified copy of the original pulp issue. By the way, there is no real right or wrong way to add the illustrations, but because I have no life, I just tend to be more complete about details. See how I did it with John Fleming Gould. Almost all of those G-8’s are mine. Hopefully this will be my last Captain Future for awhile. MLB 00:30, 31 January 2020 (EST)

haha, that's fine with the letters and art. Yes, either way is OK for artwork; I tend to group them to avoid clutter, and if they are not republished elsewhere I generally see no reason (no ISFDB reason) to index them individually. But I've had occasion to separate ones from a particular issue when some (but not all) of them appeared in a different issue I was verifying. If the entirety of a story's art appears elsewhere (e.g. a pulp reprint) I also don't worry about breaking them out either. So in the example you sent for Gould, "Squadron of Corpses" has 10 entries for the 10 pieces of art, but they might as well be one since none are reprinted and they are essentially duplicate entries of each other. The method I usually use is to mention the pages with art in the pub notes. One question about the CF issue you cite above: you've entered art on p.27, and I notice the pub notes don't mention art on this page. Is this my typo or yours? Thanks,Ldb001 09:37, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Amazing Stories Annual, Vol. 1

Hello! You may not responsible for the entry, but this seems to be an ANTHOLOGY (sort of 'Best of'), not a MAGAZINE: the contents are only stories and art (no magazinical content like reader's letters, essays etc.), and with only one issue there's also no schedule to speak of. Plus: if the editor isn't stated, we should set the credit to 'uncredited'. Thanks, Stonecreek 05:07, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Yes, the content was already there when I verified this publication. I suppose that's a valid viewpoint, but I think we can find other magazines that only lasted one issue and are still clearly magazines. This one of course transitioned to Amazing Stories Quarterly, and the issue numbering started over. But in some sense it was the first issue of that publication series. The lack of letters was common in magazine first issues, as readers would not have written to a magazine that did not yet exist. I'll check the editor attribution; the editorial did not explicitly state the editor, but it may be listed on the masthead. All the best, Ldb001 10:51, 6 February 2020 (EST)
The first page does explicitly state "Editor Hugo Gernsback." All the best, Ldb001 21:58, 6 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks for the info! If that issue was a predecessor for AS Quarterly, it should be possible to insert both in a common series, like with Astounding / Analog. Stonecreek 23:27, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Poems and Songs of Middle Earth

There is no need to unmerge and then delete the collection, you can just remove the title from the publication. I also merged the individual poems - please don't forget that that we have import/export

Also - if you remove the collection, this won't be an omnibus anymore so a type change may be in order. :) Annie 22:08, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks Annie. I'll change this to a collection. Thanks also for the import tip; I've used this a time or two, but don't usually think of using it when i need only a few titles from a larger work. But I agree it reduces the number of steps. Finally, thanks for pointing me at the "remove title" option in the sidebar. I don't think I've used that before. For this case, in the past I would have unvarianted to remove the dependency, then would have removed it by an edit to the publication record. A nice timesaver here! All the best, Ldb001 23:34, 7 April 2020 (EDT)
Actually with the other collection still inside, it is an omnibus. Missed it when I looked earlier. :)
PS: An edit cannot remove a title unless you convert it to something else. If you never used remove, maybe a helpful moderator did and never told you. Anyway - glad that this helped. :) Annie 04:57, 8 April 2020 (EDT)
Omnibuses drive me crazy. I read the guidelines and it appeared to tell me that it should contain "multiple works that have previously been published independently" to qualify. I took that to mean that a single previously published collection together with a few extra titles (not previously published independently) would not qualify.
I think I haven't used "remove title" simply because I haven't usually imported data from another publication. I generate a new publication from scratch and then merge the titles afterwards. So there's usually been nothing that needs removing. All the best, Ldb001 11:24, 8 April 2020 (EDT)
They drive everyone crazy. Think of them as our catch all - if they do not fit anywhere else, they are omnibuses. As a rule, you should have only 1 object from the reference type: if we have 2 collection titles, the DB won't know which one is the reference one. The moment you add a collection/anthology that is not the main title, you are looking at an omnibus (or a magazine - the Italians had some weird ways of publishing things) :) Annie 11:33, 8 April 2020 (EDT)

Narrator template

We have a narrator template {{Narrator|name}} (produces "Narrated by name") to be used in publication notes. That way when/if we ever allow additional roles, we can link the narrator properly and have interesting things like list of narrated titles. Just heads up. :) Annie 14:02, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

Another new thing to me, thank you! I generally have not entered audio material, so don't have a great deal of experience with that. I'll remember it for the future, if and when I ever enter another audio publication. All the best, Ldb001 14:46, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

Satellite of Fear

In Planet Stories, Spring 1941, the story on page 96 is credited as "Frederick Arnold Kummer, Jr.". However, the Internet Archive scan of the magazine shows the credit as "Fred A. Kummer, Jr.". Can you please double check? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

Absolutely right, the first story page has Fred A. Kummer, Jr. The full form of the name is in the ToC. Apologies for missing this. All the best,Ldb001 18:51, 24 April 2020 (EDT)
Thank you for checking. I have made the change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

Jules Verne translations

I have been documenting the various translations of Jules Verne's works and trying to identify a piece of text from each translation so editors can position their publications under the correct title record. You are on record as a primary verifier for one or more publications for which I am looking for text or which are placed under a generic translation title. I would be grateful if you could assist in this by checking your copies, as listed below, and providing the initial text for missing translations or an indication of the translation for those unspecified. These are listed on the Jules Verne Translations wiki. Thank you. ../Doug H 14:26, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Ldb001&oldid=580347"