User talk:Nihonjoe
Notice: If you're here to tell me of a minor change (image added, additional information added, etc.) to one of my verified publications, you do not need to make a note of it here. Thanks!
Starfire
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5665530; It mentions Starfire logo on copyright page and second page says "Other Bantam Starfire Books you will enjoy" so this is a Starfire book but I'm not willing to argue about it. Here's a random Starfire book which mentions logo but not other books, https://archive.org/details/amongshadowstale00mont, and yet it's Starfire on ISFDB. So all these rejections are going to screw up standardizing publisher imprints and lead to many books being under the wrong publisher, but that's not my problem. --Username (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2023 (EDT)
- That's all true, but standard practice is to use what is on the title page, regardless of anything anywhere else. If all the other books are the same way, then they were entered incorrectly and will need to be corrected. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 2 June 2023 (EDT)
- I'm just going to mention that doing so would be a really bad idea, because there are thousands of publishers where imprint/publisher is used even when the publisher isn't on the title page. I don't think you can find a single one of the hundreds of Leisure Books post-1982 that are on ISFDB, and likely none of the non-genre books that aren't on here, that actually say Dorchester on the title page. The nightmare of going through every book on ISFDB that's by Leisure and Dorchester and changing them all to Leisure, having to contact all the PV of which there are very many, some of which have been gone for years, is not worth it. I believe only the 2 60s books and the very early 70s books can legitimately be standalone Leisure books, everything from then to 1981-1982 says published by Nordon and everything after that says published by Dorchester. So what needs to be done is for several people, since this is a pretty big job, to go through "Leisure Books" and change everything from 1982-on to Leisure and Dorchester, being careful with the earliest ones because I'm not sure when the exact switch to Dorchester happened; of the books by Leisure and Dorchester currently only 1 is probably wrong, 1980's Killer Satellites. I don't have any real interest in this stuff like many of you do and likely won't be editing here much longer but I'm telling you that you're going to open a can of worms if you try changing stuff that doesn't need to be changed. --Username (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2023 (EDT)
- That's been the policy for as long as I can remember. If one (or more) is entered differently, it should be a rare exception and clearly documented in the notes as to why it's an exception. If you think the policy is wrong, then a discussion needs to happen on the Rules and Standards discussion page so all the details can be ironed out and everyone can be aware of the change (if any). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:06, 5 June 2023 (EDT)
- I'm just going to mention that doing so would be a really bad idea, because there are thousands of publishers where imprint/publisher is used even when the publisher isn't on the title page. I don't think you can find a single one of the hundreds of Leisure Books post-1982 that are on ISFDB, and likely none of the non-genre books that aren't on here, that actually say Dorchester on the title page. The nightmare of going through every book on ISFDB that's by Leisure and Dorchester and changing them all to Leisure, having to contact all the PV of which there are very many, some of which have been gone for years, is not worth it. I believe only the 2 60s books and the very early 70s books can legitimately be standalone Leisure books, everything from then to 1981-1982 says published by Nordon and everything after that says published by Dorchester. So what needs to be done is for several people, since this is a pretty big job, to go through "Leisure Books" and change everything from 1982-on to Leisure and Dorchester, being careful with the earliest ones because I'm not sure when the exact switch to Dorchester happened; of the books by Leisure and Dorchester currently only 1 is probably wrong, 1980's Killer Satellites. I don't have any real interest in this stuff like many of you do and likely won't be editing here much longer but I'm telling you that you're going to open a can of worms if you try changing stuff that doesn't need to be changed. --Username (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2023 (EDT)
Kurodahan Asamatsu
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5692125; After my edit's approved you might want to look at this since PV is gone and there could be some things to add/fix. EDIT: There's 1 other book by him, https://archive.org/search?query=ken+asamatsu, that I don't think is on ISFDB. --Username (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2023 (EDT)
- It's already here (since 2018), though he only has a short story in it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:20, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
Yu Miri
Hello,
When you have a chance can you figure out the originals of Yu Miri's books and add the Japanese editions (and probably flip the canonical to her Japanese name). Tokyo Ueno Station is JR上野駅公園口 but I cannot find the "The End of August" original title so figured I will just ask you if you do not mind figuring out both and fixing the whole author. Thanks! Annie (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2023 (EDT)
- ✓ Done here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:26, 29 June 2023 (EDT)
"Rokusyou Usuasagi" -- one author or two?
Yen On has published this novel, which credits "Rokusyou • Usuasagi" on the cover and "Rokusyou and Usuasagi" on the title/copyright page. I have found and entered the Japanese original, but I am not sure whether "緑青・薄浅黄" is one person or two. Would you happen to have a way of telling what's going on here? TIA! Ahasuerus (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2023 (EDT)
- It's two authors. I've cleaned it all up. See here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:20, 3 July 2023 (EDT)
Wikipedia-ish question about anonymous edits there
Hi, I think you are or were active on Wikipedia? Can I ask your opinion on something that's somewhat Wikipedia related?
The Worldcon in Memoriam Twitter account has just reported that artist Peter Goodfellow died on 2022-12-11. Whilst I guess that account is somewhat official, and I've never seen it misreport anything before, I can't find any corroboration for that date in Google search results, or even that he's definitely passed away.
The sole exception is that there was a Feb 2023 edit to his Wikipedia page, to say that he died some time in 2022. The edit is just attributed to an IP address, which I assume is an unlogged in user. That IP doesn't seem to be associated with any other edits.
How trustworthy are such edits, in your opinion. For something as potentially sensitive as deaths, I personally am reluctant to make an edit without a couple of moderately independent and trustworthy sources. Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2023 (EDT)
- Never mind, just tried a different search term, and found a death notice. Although it has a middle name not in the DB here or Wikipedia, and says nothing about him being an artist, the location matches where the Wikipedia page said he lived. Sorry for blathering on before thoroughly checking stuff :-( ErsatzCulture (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2023 (EDT)
- Good find! Generally speaking, anonymous edits are just as acceptable on Wikipedia as logged-in edits, as long as a reliable source is used. That twitter account is likely more reliable than some others. Let me know if you have any other questions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:05, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
Yumi and the Nightmare Painter ebook public release
You've PVed the Kickstarter epub here. Amazon UK and Kobo (GB) have ebooks with today's date. (If those links don't work on your side of the Atlantic, I imagine there are similar ebooks on the respective US sites.)
Based on the content visible in the previews for those ebooks, they seem to be identical to what you've documented in your PV. As such, I'm inclined to add the ASIN to that record, and note the later pub date for those site, and the fake Kobo ISBN of 1230006019518, as opposed to adding a second ebook record. Does that seem reasonable to you?
I just checked back to the previous secret project ebook, which I had a recollection of submitting. It seems there was only an entry for the PDF ebook, which similarly was 10 days earlier than the "public" release. Does that maybe merit similar changes if there was a Kickstarter version of that format? Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2023 (EDT)
- I only have the Kickstarter versions, so I couldn't offer any insigt as to whether the UK releases are the same or different. If you don't have them, I'd suggest creating separate publications for the UK/Kobo releases. If they turn out to be identical, we can always combine them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:21, 11 July 2023 (EDT)
- Sorry, I only just realized after looking at my local TODO list that I never responded to your response. FWIW, these ebooks are published by Dragonsteel Enterprises, and I'm 99.99% certain they are identical between the UK and US - the ASIN is the same, so it would be weird if they aren't. (The physical general market releases are from Tor (US) and Gollancz (UK), but IIRC they are a few weeks from release, at least the UK one is.) The Amazon.com page is here, could you possibly take a quick look at the preview and see if it matches your copy? Annoyingly the preview doesn't include the copyright page, which might settle the matter unambiguously. Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2023 (EDT)
- I spoke with the lead editor at Dragonsteel, and he said the releases are pretty much identical (some minor errors were fixed and some ads were added at the end). So yes, merge the Dragonsteel releases from the Amazons into the Kickstarter epub release (not the PDF release, as that one has page numbers and the epub does not). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:23, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- Much appreciate you going the extra mile on this one. I'll sort it all out tonight, if only because I want the ASIN in the database before Saturday's download, and I can sync my local data against it. Thanks again. ErsatzCulture (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- I guess you'll have received a PV notification, but I've just updated it. Added extra para for with the Amazon etc details, plus ASIN and BN IDs. Hopefully that's the end of it... at least until the next secret project comes out ;-) ErsatzCulture (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- Much appreciate you going the extra mile on this one. I'll sort it all out tonight, if only because I want the ASIN in the database before Saturday's download, and I can sync my local data against it. Thanks again. ErsatzCulture (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- I spoke with the lead editor at Dragonsteel, and he said the releases are pretty much identical (some minor errors were fixed and some ads were added at the end). So yes, merge the Dragonsteel releases from the Amazons into the Kickstarter epub release (not the PDF release, as that one has page numbers and the epub does not). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:23, 14 July 2023 (EDT)
- Sorry, I only just realized after looking at my local TODO list that I never responded to your response. FWIW, these ebooks are published by Dragonsteel Enterprises, and I'm 99.99% certain they are identical between the UK and US - the ASIN is the same, so it would be weird if they aren't. (The physical general market releases are from Tor (US) and Gollancz (UK), but IIRC they are a few weeks from release, at least the UK one is.) The Amazon.com page is here, could you possibly take a quick look at the preview and see if it matches your copy? Annoyingly the preview doesn't include the copyright page, which might settle the matter unambiguously. Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2023 (EDT)
Guy Anthony ?
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?951203; All other works by DeMarco are as by De Marco; is this one really DeMarco or should it have a space? --Username (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
- No idea. I don't have a copy of that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:38, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
- I take that back. The editor sent me a pic of the table of contents, where the name is "DeMarco", with no space. I've varianted it now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:51, 25 July 2023 (EDT)
Tiny Dragons
Just heads up on an author disambiguation involving your verified: here. Annie (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2023 (EDT)
- Looks good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:08, 4 August 2023 (EDT)
Mothra
https://picclick.com/Sanrio-SF-Bunko-30A-Rosalind-ash-moth-174916262653.html; I'd been adding links and stuff to Rosalind Ashe novels when I came across that sale; beautiful cover that's not on any editions on ISFDB, so if you can find out more you may want to enter that edition. --Username (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2023 (EDT)
- Done here, and another one here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:07, 4 August 2023 (EDT)
Goodnight, Mr. James
Your verified Robots Through the Ages, has Goodnight, Mr. James as a short story. There is a more widely appearing Good Night, Mr. James as a novelette. Would you mind double checking the length of your version and, as appropriate, either update the length & variant or add a note indicating this is a truncated version? If you need to compare the text, the original magazine version is here. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2023 (EDT)
- I'll check. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:27, 17 August 2023 (EDT)
- I did a full word count from the archived copy and got 7490. I did an estimated word count on the version in Robots Through the Ages and got 7412. I've updated the length to "short story" per that, and varianted the Robots Through the Ages title to the existing title. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 23 August 2023 (EDT)
Genius Loci
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5740518; Page count, both Roman and regular, are off, and "editor's note" is really foreword. I didn't check page numbers or story titles or anything like that. Also, the reprint years later with a different cover is 350 pages shorter on here; that can't be right. --Username (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2023 (EDT)
- I'll have to check my copy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:25, 17 August 2023 (EDT)
- Okay, these are all fixed. I updated the version I have, and split off the newer anthology of the same name as it only has 15 stories in it (despite the Amazon description). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:02, 23 August 2023 (EDT)
Shigeru Kayama
Hello Joe,
Would you mind getting this author sorted out? I found this. Thanks! Annie (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2023 (EDT)
- All done here. I'm working on adding more of his works as there aren't very many included here yet. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 21 August 2023 (EDT)
Surraoundings
Hi, re your PV'd pub here. Would you mind sorting out the typo in the canonical for "City of Adopest (map)"? Titles affected are here. (Btw, I've submitted correction to one of the page counts) Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2023 (EDT)
- It looks like that misspelling is from this publication, for which there are no PVs. Based on that, I assume it's a typo and have corrected it accordingly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:45, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
Green Man
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5694041; All other books by the publisher are PB, that's why I changed it. A low-rent publisher like this wouldn't publish a TP, especially not in the 1940's. Also, one PV was transient and the other one had not left a message on their board since October of 2021 and just happened to start leaving messages again exactly 1 day before I made my edit. Here's a sale which calls it a paperback, digest size: https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Green-Man-Visitor-Space-Sherman-Harold/19181544857/bd. --Username (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
- All you wrote was "fixed format". That is neither clear nor helpful as we can't read your mind. As you've been asked many, many times before, you need to include all of this information with your submission. I've approved it now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:41, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
- Why would I need to include anything? Click on the publisher and you can see for yourself. Is that so hard to do? Do I really need to tell you to do that? Do you think I just changed it because I felt like it? Has my edit really been sitting around for months because none of you mods can click a link? Did none of you notice that one of the PV was transient and wouldn't have the book anymore and the other one hadn't responded to anything in a couple of years and just happened to come back exactly at the same time I made my edit? Am I psychic and should have known that would happen and left them a message telling them I changed the format even though they should have known what the format really was because the other 2 books by the publisher that are PV were done before this guy's PV and they both entered it correctly as a PB paperback? I'm in the business (among many other things) of fixing the countless mistakes that were made here in the nearly 15 years that public editing was going on before I started; mistakes that apparently no one noticed or cared enough to fix because most of you abandoned print books long ago and just enter e-books now. So I'm doing my best to fix (and add) as much as I can until I decide to stop doing this; try being grateful instead of complaining about something as utterly trivial as this. --Username (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
- If you had included a simple "All other books by the publisher are PB, so it's unlikely this one was TP", that would have worked. Work with us, and we'll work with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:45, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
- Are you purposely trying to annoy me? I'll say this again, this publisher only has 5 books on ISFDB, all others are PB, PV of this one made a very common mistake and entered TP for PB, I've corrected countless numbers of those, many of which you approved, I'm sure, or sometimes PB is wrongly entered instead of TP. There's an enormous amount of fixes needed for the print books on this site, many of which were entered incompletely and then never followed up on by anyone, others that were entered with wrong info that a mod approved without double-checking the info to make sure it was right, and I've tried my best to correct what I can, although I'm sure even after more than 2 1/2 years of doing this nearly every day I still have only corrected less than 1% of the mistakes here. I'm not here to hold your hands and walk you through every step, especially since most of you have been here far longer than me, most of the other people here don't answer anything I ask on the message boards or when they do they answer with sarcasm or weird non-answers or the usual stuff about being sick/moving/unpacking/I don't care about this site anymore because I'm mad at someone else on the site, or they answer with anger at daring to suggest they made a mistake about something; I see hundreds of messages on Community Portal right now with no name except my own. I still can't believe some of the recent edits that have been sitting in my list that took forever for someone to finally approve for the most ridiculous of reasons, from adding Roman numerals to page counts (which many PV forget to enter or didn't know they were supposed to enter) or this one which was patently obvious or the Ramsey Campbell one adding a cover to a PB that sat there for months for some unknown reason. The ingratitude here is really something else; all the work I've done to correct the mistakes you and everyone else made before I got here, not to mention all the additions I've made, and all you can do is complain about something that would have been taken care of in a couple of seconds by clicking a link that's right there on the edit page. Or, now that I think of it, when the first mod who looked at this one long ago, probably RTrace, didn't feel like clicking the link he could have left a message saying "I'm not sure about this one" and then I would have responded with some version of what I wrote above about the publisher and the edit would have been approved shortly afterwards. You know what? I had already made up my mind before your rejections that tomorrow was going to be my last day for a while, I plan on not doing this in September and then coming back in October for the Halloween season to add as many horror-related edits as I can, and after that, who knows? This is all so pointless, anyway, because the site has largely shifted to e-books and awards and Amazon links that bring in cash for clicks; most of my nearly 60,000 edits have probably never been looked at by anyone after they were approved and probably never will be. --Username (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
- Okay. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 1 September 2023 (EDT)
- Are you purposely trying to annoy me? I'll say this again, this publisher only has 5 books on ISFDB, all others are PB, PV of this one made a very common mistake and entered TP for PB, I've corrected countless numbers of those, many of which you approved, I'm sure, or sometimes PB is wrongly entered instead of TP. There's an enormous amount of fixes needed for the print books on this site, many of which were entered incompletely and then never followed up on by anyone, others that were entered with wrong info that a mod approved without double-checking the info to make sure it was right, and I've tried my best to correct what I can, although I'm sure even after more than 2 1/2 years of doing this nearly every day I still have only corrected less than 1% of the mistakes here. I'm not here to hold your hands and walk you through every step, especially since most of you have been here far longer than me, most of the other people here don't answer anything I ask on the message boards or when they do they answer with sarcasm or weird non-answers or the usual stuff about being sick/moving/unpacking/I don't care about this site anymore because I'm mad at someone else on the site, or they answer with anger at daring to suggest they made a mistake about something; I see hundreds of messages on Community Portal right now with no name except my own. I still can't believe some of the recent edits that have been sitting in my list that took forever for someone to finally approve for the most ridiculous of reasons, from adding Roman numerals to page counts (which many PV forget to enter or didn't know they were supposed to enter) or this one which was patently obvious or the Ramsey Campbell one adding a cover to a PB that sat there for months for some unknown reason. The ingratitude here is really something else; all the work I've done to correct the mistakes you and everyone else made before I got here, not to mention all the additions I've made, and all you can do is complain about something that would have been taken care of in a couple of seconds by clicking a link that's right there on the edit page. Or, now that I think of it, when the first mod who looked at this one long ago, probably RTrace, didn't feel like clicking the link he could have left a message saying "I'm not sure about this one" and then I would have responded with some version of what I wrote above about the publisher and the edit would have been approved shortly afterwards. You know what? I had already made up my mind before your rejections that tomorrow was going to be my last day for a while, I plan on not doing this in September and then coming back in October for the Halloween season to add as many horror-related edits as I can, and after that, who knows? This is all so pointless, anyway, because the site has largely shifted to e-books and awards and Amazon links that bring in cash for clicks; most of my nearly 60,000 edits have probably never been looked at by anyone after they were approved and probably never will be. --Username (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
- If you had included a simple "All other books by the publisher are PB, so it's unlikely this one was TP", that would have worked. Work with us, and we'll work with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:45, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
- Why would I need to include anything? Click on the publisher and you can see for yourself. Is that so hard to do? Do I really need to tell you to do that? Do you think I just changed it because I felt like it? Has my edit really been sitting around for months because none of you mods can click a link? Did none of you notice that one of the PV was transient and wouldn't have the book anymore and the other one hadn't responded to anything in a couple of years and just happened to come back exactly at the same time I made my edit? Am I psychic and should have known that would happen and left them a message telling them I changed the format even though they should have known what the format really was because the other 2 books by the publisher that are PV were done before this guy's PV and they both entered it correctly as a PB paperback? I'm in the business (among many other things) of fixing the countless mistakes that were made here in the nearly 15 years that public editing was going on before I started; mistakes that apparently no one noticed or cared enough to fix because most of you abandoned print books long ago and just enter e-books now. So I'm doing my best to fix (and add) as much as I can until I decide to stop doing this; try being grateful instead of complaining about something as utterly trivial as this. --Username (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
...Sunset
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5702805; Because there's archived links to 2 editions and another is on Amazon (there's a $300 edition but nobody's going to have that). I don't believe I would have changed the title unless it was wrong in the books themselves. --Username (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
- Where are the archived links? You didn't include them in your submission, and you didn't include them here? Please provide them so we can verify the information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:47, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
- The archived links are in the editions' records, both added by me earlier this year. They say "archive.org" on the page; that means there's an archived link to the book. Click on them and you'll see, like I did but not anyone else, apparently, that one of the titles was entered wrong here and so I fixed it. EDIT: [1]; There's the title page where the story first appeared which also says "On Sunset" regardless of what the careless publication history in Power's collection says which is probably where the incorrect "At Sunset" was taken from. --Username (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
- Then contact the PV and ask them to check their copy of the book and update the entry. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:53, 30 August 2023 (EDT)
- The archived links are in the editions' records, both added by me earlier this year. They say "archive.org" on the page; that means there's an archived link to the book. Click on them and you'll see, like I did but not anyone else, apparently, that one of the titles was entered wrong here and so I fixed it. EDIT: [1]; There's the title page where the story first appeared which also says "On Sunset" regardless of what the careless publication history in Power's collection says which is probably where the incorrect "At Sunset" was taken from. --Username (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (EDT)
![[1]](https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/31548137177_2.jpg){kind=link}
1634: The Bavarian Crisis
The Pages field for your verified publication 1634: The Bavarian Crisis currently shows '[x]+690+[3]'. I initially approved a submission removing the brackets from the Roman numeral (subsequently reversed). Per the help, we enter the Roman numeral for the highest numbered page. Hence, brackets can never be correct. However, I own a copy of the first edition, there are no Roman numerals in my copy. In my opinion, the correct entry for Pages is '690+[3]'. Do you agree? If not, why? John Scifibones 16:53, 9 September 2023 (EDT)
Same for The Dreeson Incident and 1635: The Eastern Front.
After looking at all the first printings up through 1636: The China Venture, I think the proper way to account for the maps is an unnumbered Arabic sequence. I'll be glad to verify them after we reach agreement. John Scifibones 17:16, 9 September 2023 (EDT)
- For The Dreeson Incident and 1635: The Eastern Front, I removed the brackets as the notes don't indicate anything about the pages being unnumbered but referenced in the table of contents. I think 1634: The Bavarian Crisis should be left as is since it does have a note indicating the pages are unnumbered but referenced in the table of contents. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:37, 12 September 2023 (EDT)
- I don't follow your line of reasoning.
- Publication pages field: Where does the help section support the use of Roman numerals for a publication which has no pages with Roman numerals?
- Content titles page field: If there are no Roman numerals in the pages field, how can the content titles have a Roman numeral? You mention pub notes referring to the publication's contents page. Wouldn't that contradict this statement from the help? "Caution: Do not use the table of contents to determine the page numbers of a publication's contents."
- Here is my analysis of the above two fields for numbers 2-28 (hc except for the 3 only printed in tp) in the 163x series. Note, correct in this analysis is determined by using Bullet point 3 here.
- "Sometimes a publication will have unnumbered pages before page 1. If there is any material in these pages which needs to be entered as part of the contents of the book, you may record this by entering the count in squared brackets. For example, [6]+320 would be a publication with six unnumbered pages and then 320 numbered pages. There is no need to record these unnumbered pages if they contain no content that needs to be recorded. At times you will need to count backwards from the first numbered page to see which is page 1 and then would count the unnumbered pages that are before this. Likewise, you may record the count of unnumbered pages at the end of a publication. For example, 320+[4]. As before, only do this if there is additional content in these pages that requires the creation of a content record, as when there is an afterword or book excerpt which appears on unnumbered pages."
- A couple of your verified publications do use the method I consider correct. Since you, User:Philfreund and I are the only active verifiers, I'll invite him to participate here. Thanks for your time, John Scifibones 16:39, 13 September 2023 (EDT)
- I also don't understand your use of Roman numerals where the only place they exist is in the ToC. I agree with John's points above. His second point about the content titles explicitly forbidding the use of the ToC for page numbering surely points for the need to have consistency in the pages field contents, even if not currently explicitly stated. There also definitely needs to be a note in each publication record where this situation exists since it's such an anomaly. The Help for the pages field should be updated to cover this situation. Looking at John's analysis, I need to go back and fix some of the publications where I am sole active PV; I'm not sure how I missed them the first time through. Thanks. Phil (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2023 (EDT)
- I don't follow your line of reasoning.
Terri Karsten / Terri Karston
Hi, Joe! It may be that the two authors are one and the same person. Since you are the sole verifier for a publication featuring the latter: could you take a look if there's a hint for the relation? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2023 (EDT)