User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 3

Nihonjoe's Talk Archives

---

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14

J. R R. Tolkien Handbook

Please add the pub format to this record, and update the Note field, since you've done a primary verification of it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Research has shown that it's a trade paperback, so I updated that field. Please correct the source when you get a chance. Mhhutchins 06:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner. Lots of stuff going on. I found I actually had a different printing, which I submitted. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ERB Princess of Mars - Page Count and Cover Art Credit

I fixed a typo in your verified record for Princess of Mars - 2012 Library of America HC. The database had "xlviii+3-3" in the page count, while Worldcat shows "xlviii, 303 pages". It seems pretty obvious that you only typo-ed the zero with a dash (one key over on a keyboard). If my correction is incorrect, I will leave it to you to update the record with the correct information. Also the cover is pretty clearly the Schoonover cover for Princess of Mars, as listed by Worldcat. I also went ahead and added a coverart credit to Frank E. Schoonover with a statement that it was credited by comparison. Thanks - Kevin 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien Handbook (2)

Can you confirm the publisher is given as Baker Books and not Baker Book House? (As given in the OCLC record.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That's what it says on the title page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

cover art

I added the amazon.com cover art link to this book Susan O'Fearna 20:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing data in primary verified records

Please add the publication format/binding data missing from the records of publications which you have verified. The publication records are linked in this clean-up report under your user name. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 19:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Light on the Sound

I've amended part of the Note for our verified 1986 edition: "End of book has two appendixes, list of Proper Names, and a Glossary", by adding "none of which are present in the 1982 first edition." I reckon it's worth mentioning. PeteYoung 06:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sounds fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Default display of non-English translations

When you get a chance, could you please review this discussion? The proposal basically boils down to changing the behavior of the Summary Bibliography when the viewing user is not logged in. Currently only English translations are displayed for unauthenticated users. The proposal would change it to displaying all translations. The downside is that the Summary page could get longer and harder to navigate.

I am trying to get a sense of how widespread the support for this change is. TIA! Ahasuerus 01:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. I hope my suggestion makes sense. I think it would be a good place to start, and be the best of both worlds. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"House of Many Ways", by Diana Wynne Jones

I added some (minor) notes to your verified publication (the first and last note). Chavey 23:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding subtitles to the title record in relation to the pub record

I accepted your submission to change the title of The Irda: Children of the Stars because the subtitle appears to be in all editions, so effectively it's more than a subtitle. But keep in mind, that in most cases, the title field of the title record doesn't have to be an exact match of the title field of the publication record. We usually omit some subtitles, such as "A Novel", and those that give series information, such as "Fifth Novel in the Zuluala Series". It's OK to add that data to the title field of the publication record, since you're quoting directly from the book's title page, but the title field of the title record should not be changed to match. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case it is part of the title. I don't usually change the title record in these cases, for the reasons you mentioned. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fredric Brown's "The Devil Times Three"

Last year an anonymous contributor created Bug 524, which reads:

• The story "The Devil Times Three" is not a separate story, but just combines "Nasty", "Rope Trick", and "The Ring of Hans Carvel" into a single "story."

I see that you verified The Mammoth Book of Awesome Comic Fantasy, which contains this story, on 2015-06-20. Could you please check if it's a composite entity? TIA! Ahasuerus 16:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look it up when I can get the book (a baby is sleeping in there right now). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a composite entry. How should this be changed? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! Please proceed to add the three individual stories to your verified pub. Additional Notes explaining the situation would be great too. Once the submission has been approved, we can remove the composite title from the pub and then delete it from the database. Ahasuerus 22:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But they are not listed in the table of contents. They are just sections of the story that is listed there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite often the case that the table of contents doesn't tell the whole or the true story (we only go by it if we don't have the full book as reference, for example data entered from the 'look inside' gadget.) Stonecreek 04:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Amazon and ebooks

Re this publication: Amazon's ASIN should not be entered into the ISFDB record's ISBN/catalog number field. It is a merchant's identifying number and not a publisher's catalog number. You have the option to record the ASIN in the note field.

The page count field for ebooks is only used if the book is PDF format. In all other formats the pages are set by the user and file reader. You can also give Amazon's "Print length" (which is how they designate the number of pages) in the Note field.

One last thing Amazon Digital Services is not really a publisher, it's a platform for self-publishing. I see that there are other records in the database that credit them as the "publisher", but we should only use the publisher credit given in the book itself. If no publisher is credited, the field can be left blank, and then noted. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 15:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Then the instruction page needs to be corrected. The ASIN is Amazon's catalog #, and since they are the publisher of any ebooks sold on the site, it is the ebook's catalog #. As for whether or not Amazon is a publisher, that's really just semantics. They are the ones providing the method to get the book out to the public. That might be a good discussion for one of the rules boards. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with most of your statement concerning Amazon's relationship to an author's work. Amazon is not the publisher of every ebook sold on their site; they are either the retailer or the distributor of thousands of ebooks by thousands of different publishers. True they do publish books under certain imprints like 47North, but not books published under the CreateSpace self-publishing platform. Would you say that every book in a Barnes and Noble store is published by B&N as well? Since B&N "are the ones providing the method to get the book out to the public." It's not semantics. There's a clear distinction here which has nothing to do with language. It's about business. Feel free to bring the discussion to the group. Mhhutchins|talk 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, what specific part of "the instruction page needs to be corrected"? Mhhutchins|talk 05:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, in this case it was originally listed as "Amazon Digital Services" being the publisher on the Amazon listing. It's now listed as "CreateSpace", so I've updated the listing here. The instruction page says nothing at all about ASINs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And why should it? What does an ASIN have to do with a field designated for ISBNs and catalog numbers? It doesn't mention that dogs aren't ISBNs either, but then that's as irrelevant to the field as ASINs. Or should we append a list of everything that's not an ISBN or catalog number. As for the publisher, "Amazon Digital Services" is given in the "Sold bv" field, not in the publisher field of the Amazon listing for the ebook. "CreateSpace" isn't mentioned at all. Mhhutchins|talk 18:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you being a jerk? It was listed there when I looked, or I wouldn't have put it there. Fix it yourself since you keep questioning everything I do. I only help here in my spare time because I want to make the site more complete, and having to deal with your attitude doesn't encourage me to want to do anything to help out. If the book is published by Amazon (which it is, in this case), then the ASIN is as much a catalog number as anything else. Try to be a little more diplomatic in how you deal with things instead of coming off as an arrogant pedant. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out that the ISFDB doesn't recognize the ASIN as a catalog number, a fact which you don't want to accept. If that's being a jerk, then so be it. About the publisher credit, since you have copies of both the ebook and the print book, please make the publisher credit of the ISFDB records match the publisher credit given in the books. If you believe I'm wrong or being a jerk, please present your case to the group on one of the community pages. Mhhutchins|talk 15:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hell's Foundation Quiver

I added a new cover scan, notes and the maps to the contents for Hell's Foundations Quiver. Bob 19:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"A Wizard of Earthsea", by Ursula Le Guin

I added a cover artist for your verified edition of this book, based on the attribution given by Wikipedia. Chavey 05:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Frederic Brown

Can you confirm that the three stories in this anthology are correctly credited to Frederic Brown? If so, please make variants to the parent title records under the author's canonical name. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 16:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Left hand, please read my right hand. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read my message again. The topic to which you link has nothing to do with the author credit. I'm asking if "Frederic Brown" is credited for the stories on their title pages, and not Fredric Brown. If the answer is "The stories are credited to Frederic Brown", make them into variants. If the answer is "No, the stories are credited to Fredric Brown", then correct the records and merge them with the existing title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 15:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fredric Brown and Frederik Pohl have a lot to answer for :-) Ahasuerus 17:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Full-Throttle Space Tales

At this time "Full-Throttle Space Tales" is set up as a regular series rather than as a publication series. Do you think it would be worthwhile to convert it? Ahasuerus 21:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be more of a publication series than a regular one. The stories are not related other than being in the various anthologies together. I think it would be better as a pub series. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, a lot of anthology series are like that. Consider Nebula Awards, New Dimensions, The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, The Hugo Winners or Orbit. Would you be in favor of changing all of them to regular series? Ahasuerus 22:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've always looked at regular series as related books, like the Barsoom series, and the publication series as books that are in a series, but the series is not containing related works (like this Full-Throttle Space Tales series). They are only related because the publisher chose to create a series to contain them, not because they actually are related to each other. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not an unreasonable way to look at things, but at this time we have 4,288 anthology titles that belong to regular series and only 2,853 anthology publications that belong to publication series. It would be a fairly major project to convert all of them, so it may be better to discuss this issue on the Rules page first. Ahasuerus 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have approved the submission since it contained other data. I will wait for you to get the Rules discussion going and then we can adjust the publication record. Ahasuerus 14:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A Call to Arms

Please discuss the change you want to make to this publication record with the primary verifier, per ISFDB etiquette. I will hold the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked him to comment here. I'm not sure where "Tom" came from since it's never been used anywhere as far as the name used by the author for their works. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It should indeed by Thomas. I think I took the Tom from the discussion in either this pub or it's predecessor. Mea culpa. I changed it. Bob 17:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hideyuki Kikuchi

Would you be able to create parent Japanese records for the remaining English titles credited to Hideyuki Kikuchi? In particular, the works under the Demon Princess and Vampire Hunter D series. I've looked everywhere on the internet, but with no knowledge of Japanese, it's been tough going. It's possible that some of these are original English publications, but I can't be sure. Just when you have some spare time. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, perhaps this weekend. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added the 8 Japanese volumes in the series. The first two English volumes match up with approximately similar page counts, but the third English volume seems to be more than one of the Japanese volumes (probably two of them) based on the page count. Looking at the "Look inside" feature on Amazon, it indicates it is an omnibus of volumes 3-4 of the Japanese volumes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you are interested, this is the Japanese Wikipedia page for Kikuchi. The "Demon Princess" (夜叉姫伝 Yashakiden) series is listed on a separate page for the parent series, 魔界都市ブルース (Makai Toshi Blues). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the publisher from "Shodensha" to "Shōdensha". Otherwise it creates a new publisher and wouldn't be displayed with the other publications. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 08:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That works. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a problem with this publcation. It contains the Japanese novels and not the English translation of those novels. Mhhutchins|talk 05:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the English translations of the Japanese volumes 3-4 have never been published separately, how should they be entered? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out how to do it. I can't do it, though, until the Japanese titles are removed (it's awaiting approval). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not overwhelming you with all the titles being added. He is very prolific, and I've barely scratched the surface. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been a breeze, since I trust the data you're providing and not having to do backup research. Thanks for your efforts. Mhhutchins|talk 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which Japanese volumes correspond to this title and this title as none of the Japanese titles match what is in the database here. Since I don't have these books, I can't look on the copyright page to see if it states anything there, and Amazon doesn't have a "look inside" feature for the two English titles. Neither title has been verified, so I can't ask anyone to look for me or take a picture and post it. It's possible they correspond to the "Yōjū Toshi 2" (妖獣都市2) and "Yōjū Toshi 3" (妖獣都市3) titles, but they don't seem to have subtitles in Japanese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I created those Japanese parent titles before I realized it was way over my head to go any further. They were based on an OCLC search for "Wicked City" titles in Japanese (see the three oldest titles here). If those aren't correct (and they probably aren't), please correct them to the titles that you suggested. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't know which titles those are (meaning the English titles). They don't match up to anything I can find (none of the book titles in the Japanese series translate to what the English titles are). That's why I need to find someone who has them so I can look on the copyright page and see what the original title was. Do you know anyone who has them? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No. We'll have to wait until someone does a primary verification to know who has them. Mhhutchins|talk 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm checking with some people I know to see if they have them. We'll see. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and those titles you linked to above? Those are most of the other books in the series. OCLC helpfully returned a listing of almost all of them. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Vampire Hunter D

When you converted some of the English titles to COLLECTIONs, you forgot to change the pub records (like this one). Please make sure that the pub records match the title records. Also, one of them was primary verified, so please notify the editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 09:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't forget. I was just doing things one step at a time. The pubs are all submitted now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To avoid the records appearing on clean-up reports (as these do since the reports were ran last night), please make the submission to fix the pub record immediately after changing the title record. In cases like these, where there is only one pub under a title record, you can do a pub record edit and change both pub record title and title record title in a single submission.

BTW, since you've subsequently updated these records to include NOVEL-typed contents, then they should be typed as OMNIBUS, not COLLECTION. Mhhutchins|talk 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Dark Guard

There are two titles in this series that are missing a publication record (published in 2000 and 2002). Would you be able to create them when you get a chance? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Post 2006 publications

I have changed the ISBN for this publication to the ISBN-13. If you're using a secondary source for post-2006 publications, please use the ISBN-13. Amazon gives both even if only one is present in the book. OCLC gives both, but lists the stated ISBN first. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 07:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I had previously understood it was 2009 and newer. Thanks for the update. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Conversion to the ISBN-13 standard was initiated in 2005, but not fully implemented until January 1, 2007. Some small press and self-publishers were slower to convert. The ISFDB record should give the stated ISBN, even if it was the wrong format. So if an editor is adding a publication record based on secondary sources, they should use January 1, 2007 as the starting point for using the ISBN-13. If the ISBN-13 doesn't appear in a primary verified post-2006 publication, the editor should note that exception, because we have a clean-up report that finds such records. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Six of the publications you created today were published 2008-2013 and were given ISBN-10s. I've corrected them to ISBN-13s. Mhhutchins|talk 08:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Time Travel SF

You verified both the Robinson first printing and Running Press first printing of this publication. In both cases, you left the notes as "Data from Amazon UK (date) and Locus Magazine #633 as of 2013-10-11." Data for verified publications should be from the publication itself. If there is specific data not in the publication, than there should be a statement stating what specific data came from what source (ex. "Cover artist not credited in publication. Cover artist credit from Locus Magazine #633."). Please update the notes for these publications to remove the general statements.

Also, on the Running Press edition, you list the introduction as being on page vi. Would you please double check this as I believe it should be vii matching all the other printings (it looks like the Robinson & Running Press editions were jointly printed with different publisher names / prices on the cover).

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I only have the US edition, so the verification on the UK edition must have been a mistake. I've unverified it now. I'll check on the page number later as someone is sleeping in the room it's in right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Submitted an update. The page number was a typo. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A Tale Of Time City

Just added the cover artist credit and the numberline to this listing that you verified. MLB 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm holding the submission until Nihonjoe can confirm that the cover art is credited to Richard Bober. PV editor should be notified before making the submission to change a verified record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bober is the cover artist. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Illustrated Gormenghast

You probably should have just updated this record by correcting the author credit of the introduction. That would have saved three submissions. Once you've read this, I'll delete this record, and then add a record for the Mieville introduction to the UK editions. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's possible the UK editions have the Mieville intro, and the North American editions have the Moorcock intro. The Amazon Look Inside showed the UK ebook version, and it had the Mieville intro. That's why I did it the way I did. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I believe the UK edition has the Mieville intro. That wasn't my point. I'll repeat: you should have just updated the existing record of the US edition which was identical to the record you created except for the introduction. That could have been edited to give the correct author in a single edit of the pub record. I'll delete what is now a duplicate record. Mhhutchins|talk 17:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad News from Orbit

Hi Nihonjoe! The publication was entered in error as a novel at the title level but correctly as a collection at the publication level. In edit you can change the title record from novel to collection because there are no other publications attached to the record . This will fix the problem. Do you want to submit the change? I'll leave the first submission on hold.Kraang 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Atlantia

Can you confirm that the publisher credit as given in this record matches that of the book's title page? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 02:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is just Dutton (though every Dutton book I've ever seen is actually shown as "Dutton Books" on the title page, including on this one). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

All books published as "Dutton Books" after it became an imprint of Penguin in 1990 is entered into the database as Dutton. We only use Dutton Children's Books if that is the imprint stated on the title page. (Books published before it was acquired by Penguin are entered as E. P. Dutton.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Stated publication date

According to the Amazon Look Inside, the copyright page of this publication states "First edition, March 2015". It is ISFDB policy to record the stated date in the publication date field. We only use a secondary source if there is no stated publication date. In this case, you can give the day of publication in the Note field and source Amazon. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, submitted less specific date. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Time at the Top

Title Record # 745101. Cover artist "Peggie Bach" you verify. You do not mention interior illustrations but the page-count matches first edition for which the Library of Congress credits illustrations by "Peggie Bach". LC never credits cover art and "Peggie Bach" is one of its unlinked creator names.

Our other verified edition shows a presumably different cover uncredited, credits interior artwork by "Peggy Bach". Publication Record # 233049

Both Peggie and Peggy are now in the database only as Time at the Top illustrators.

Now I see that the other record lists "About the Illustrator", presumable source for Denmark, 1925. I will try to remember to write to Marc Kupper but I am out of time now. --Pwendt|talk 04:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would variant Peggy to Peggie since Peggie seems to be the most common name. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Series no. for World Horror Convention Souvenir Books

Hi, your submissions were approved in error by Hauck and me, so I renumbered the series according to our set of rules (see here), under consideration that this series of events was started in 1991. Thanks, Stonecreek 20:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

絶対ナル孤独者 / The Isolator (light novels)

Would you happen to know the original Japanese title of The Isolator, Vol. 2? TIA! Ahasuerus 22:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've submitted title corrections for both volumes, and I will add the Japanese titles once approved. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid the second submission would have changed the title of the English version of the second volume to "絶対ナル孤独者2 -発火者 The Igniter-", which is presumably not what we want. I have created a parent (Japanese) title instead, but I don't know when this light novel was first published. Would you happen to know? Ahasuerus 00:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, saw that, but you were too quick in correcting it. I've submitted the Japanese volume 2 for approval. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Ahasuerus 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I just submitted a few other corrections to them, too. No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Approved, thanks. Ahasuerus 01:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And I just submitted the covers for the Japanese volumes, too. :D ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The more the merrier! The two EditPub submissions have been approved and the COVEART titles have been varianted. Ahasuerus 01:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I like the cover art. Maybe I'll pick them up and read them in English. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reki Kawahara seems to be quite popular at the moment with anime, manga and video games coming out on a regular basis. Ahasuerus 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Magazine and anthology series

I rejected your submission placing the OSC's Intergalactic Medicine Show anthologies under the same series as the magazine, because mixing such series creates a mess when it is displayed on the editor's summary page and the magazine grid. So I tried placing them both under a superseries, but it still doesn't display very well. Look at the summary page of the editor Edmund R. Schubert, and you'll see that the system still displays them as magazine series. Also, because the software made the superseries into a magazine series, it created a magazine grid which displays both series. I'll ask our software designer to look at changing the software to prevent it from creating such a grid, and ask him to respond to this post. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll await the comments from Ahasuerus. This might be a good feature request: allow specifying what kind of series it is, perhaps through a drop-down list when creating the series. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we had this discussion about a year (?) ago when the nested series logic was rewritten. I ended up creating a cleanup report ("Series with EDITOR and non-EDITOR Titles") to find these "hybrid" series. However, the report lets you "ignore" certain series because it was felt that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to have a hybrid series.

Now that this cleanup report has been available for some time, perhaps we could revisit the issue and check whether hybrid series are the best away to organize our data. At the moment we have the following hybrid series on file: Fantasy Magazine, Planet Stories: Adventure House Reprints, Postscripts, SF Personality, Tales of the Unanticipated, Thrilling Wonder Stories: Adventure House Reprints, and Weird Tales Facsimiles. If we decide that hybrid series are not desirable, I can change the cleanup report to disallow "ignoring" them. The next step will be to review the logic responsible for creating magazine grids for superseries and tweak it to ignore non-magazine pubs. Ahasuerus 20:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with mixed series. When working that clean-up report, there were occasionally some records that were mis-typed, but many (as you list) which were legitimate. So I don't think the parameters of the clean-up report should be changed and the "ignore" option should remain. The problem, as I pointed out above, is in how they are displayed on the editor's summary page, and on the magazine grid. So as you conclude, we should review the logic behind magazine grids and the display of superseries. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If it ignored non-magazine pubs for the grid, and then included "See also: Non-magazine sub-series link" at the top, that would be helpful. Then it would still give easy access to the non-magazine entries. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing, I will see if I can tweak the display logic.

In the meantime, what would be the desired behavior on Summary pages like Edmund R. Schubert's? Ahasuerus 23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha! That's where the larger problem arises. The only way to get the two types of series to be displayed under their own category is to remove them from the superseries. Other than doing that, which negates the original purpose for creating a superseries, I can't imagine how they could be displayed separately . . . and together! That's the paradox. If there's no overwhelming reason for displaying both series as a single series, then why create a superseries at all? Maybe displaying them under a new category, like "Mixed Series"? But even then the magazine series won't be with displayed with their own kind if an author has other magazine series, nor will the anthology series. (Just spitballing here, and getting a headache trying to come up with something.) Mhhutchins|talk 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps in cases where a magazine series might be part of a non-magazine parent series, have a placeholder link in the series section which points to the magazine section (e.g., "See also LINKTOMAGAZINELISTING")? Basically, have the database check to see if a magazine series is part of a parent non-magazine series, and if so, place that link at the bottom or top of the parent series listing in the series section of the bibliography. That would keep all the magazines together, but also let people know its part of a series (maybe even have a reciprocal link from the magazine series listing pointing up the the non-magazine parent series listing). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Titling maps

I changed the title of this record from "Map (Elantris)" to "Elantris (map)", per the ISFDB standard for titling and disambiguating types of INTERIORART record. Mhhutchins|talk 21:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That works. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban

A couple of problems with this record: If the ISBN-13 is present, your copy must be for a later printing, since the ISBN-13 wasn't conceived until 2005. Also, you have to use HTML to link in an ISFDB record's Note field. Wiki mark-up doesn't work. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 08:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

For anything from Perfection Learning Prebound, they take the paperback version of the book, scan the cover and spine, then remove the cover and spine and rebind it into the "library binding". It is impossible to know when this particular copy was printed, but they only have one release date for it. As for using HTML, that must have been a brain-fart. I knew that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If your copy has an ISBN-13 present, please zero out the publication date. I'll clone the record to get a first Perfection Learning edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done cloning, and I'll do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Re this record of the same title: We don't have any records with the exact publisher designation you give here. All of the others are under Arthur A. Levine Books. It would probably be better to have your record conform with the others so that all of this publisher's titles would be in one listing. BTW, how is the publisher stated on the book's title page? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 08:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The publisher is listed as "Arthur A. Levine Books, an imprint of Scholastic Press", which is why I listed it that way. It would be really nice to add the variant option to publishers, so they could all be linked together like book titles and authors/artists. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

HP omnibus

I rejected your submission to add a record for this because there appears to already be a record for it in the db. The only minor differences are in the title and the publisher credit. Please update that record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 23:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a different one because what I have isn't that one. The only thing that is the same is the ISBN. The outside pictures are different, and mine has the ISBN-10, not the ISBN-13 depicted on Amazon.com (click on the "See all 7 images" link here). Mine is likely the first edition, and that one was released years later (after ISBN-13 became a thing). Next time, please put it on hold and ask me first. Now I have to reenter everything again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Prydain Stories illustrations

From a contemporary review (1973) i submitted publication date 1973-11-12 for The Foundling and Other Tales of Prydain first edition, and its interior illustrations by Margot Zemach that you primary verified as part of the 1991 Prydain omnibus. --Pwendt|talk 23:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Recently i added some of the Prydain maps (4 of probably 5) by Evaline Ness as interior illustrations for the 1999 matching set and (1 published so far) recent 50th Anniversary Ed. They are credited and dated (eg, (c) 1964 Evaline Ness) on the copyright pages of the 1999 set and the one extant 50th Anniv.

For the 1991 Prydain omnibus publication we date the uncredited maps to the first publication years of the five novels.

I have supposed that I would soon merge uncredited Prydain maps, and those with different generic titles assigned by ISFDB editors, with those by Evaline Ness. (I have not read instructions on how to do that technically. I do expect to examine first editions but I do have early paperback editions in a box somewhere, presumably with five two-page maps that I might compare with those published 1999 and 2014, etc.)

By the way I wonder whether it is worthwhile to enter publication month and date in the database, form a source such as contemporary Kirkus Review. At least for a publication with multiple components, that may involve a lot of editing and merging and notifying of other editors. (Still in the queue as i write, this is what i submitted after reading the Kirkus Review of The Foundling --not yet including the illustrator altho she is named on the cover image). --Pwendt|talk 00:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

When there is no statement of the month of publication within the publication itself (only the year or nothing is stated), it's OK to enter the day of publication from a reliable source, as long as that source is given in the Note field. But, if there is a month of publication stated within the publication, that should be used in the record's Date field, even if there is a secondary source which gives the day of publication. That day of publication can then be entered into the Note field, along with the source, while the Date field must give the stated date of publication. If there is a great discrepancy between the stated date of publication and that of a very reliable secondary source, perhaps three or more months difference, or there is general knowledge that the stated publication date is an obvious error, you can change the Date field to give the non-stated publication date, as long as you note the discrepancy and provide your sources in the Note field. In other words, the stated publication date trumps every source, unless it's proven to be an error. Mhhutchins|talk 01:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You should absolutely not merge the maps in this edition with maps from another edition unless you have both (or access to both) and can verify they are the same map, drawn by the same person. In the 1991 Prydain omnibus, the maps are uncredited, so unless it can be definitively established they are the same maps used in another volume where they are credited, leave these ones alone. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lost Boys

You have verified this pub containing Lost Boys as a shortstory and this pub containing Lost Boys as a novelette. Would you please double check these records and see if they are the same story? If they or not or if the second is an expansion of the first, then a note should be added to the second title recording indicating that. If they are the same, they should be merged. Multiple editors have verified the first as a shortstory so if they are the same and you believe it should be a novelette, you will need to start a discussion with them on changing the size. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a short story. I've submitted a correction. As far as I can tell, they are the same. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the records together as a shortstory. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Any chance you can approve the Japanese entries I have pending. I want to add the English versions, but I want the Japanese ones there first so I can then variant them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Approved. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Alcatraz vs. Evil Librarians

Do you have a source that indicates that this second printing appeared in the same month as the first printing? Mhhutchins|talk 03:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a typo. I've submitted a fix. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization for English titles

Is there a reason that the recent set of submissions for Japanese titles have the English title in capitals? Even if they're presented that way on the books' title pages, we normalize English titles to the capitalization rules given in ISFDB help documentation. Mhhutchins|talk 19:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's just the way they were. If you approve them, I'll fix them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that you've entered these as English publications. If that's the case, it's even more important to use the ISFDB standards. Mhhutchins|talk 19:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't notice it was set to English until partway through them. I've submitted corrections for the ones already approved, and I'll fix the rest once they are approved. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll also have to correct the language of the COVERART records, which defaults to the language of the publication when the title is created. Mhhutchins|talk 21:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I did that already. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything with allcaps anymore. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read the message. I'm talking about the language field, not the capitalization in the titles. For example, look at the titles for artist Akira Fujishiro. Mhhutchins|talk 22:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed when I looked at the page for Akira Fujishiro that the comma was missing between the last and first names in the transliterated legal name field, so I added it. The documentation for that standard is here. Mhhutchins|talk 01:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, thanks for catching that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Professor Gottesman and the Indian Rhinoceros

Your verified One Horn to Rule Them All lists Professor Gottesman and the Indian Rhinoceros as a shortstory. The other verifications list it as a novelette. Would you mind double checking the length of yours? Does it indicate it is an abridged version? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's 22 pages in One Horn to Rule Them All, so with the space at the beginning of the story (half blank page) and the end (half blank page), that makes it 21 pages, so it could be a novelette. It's right on the border. I just changed it to novelette, though, since others are saying that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing the length still leaves two versions that needed to be merged (which I have done). You could have just merged them and selected novelette as the size during the merge. That makes it one step vs. two. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lightning Thief cover art mix-up

Hi, We have some mix-up regarding three front cover illustrations of The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan all attributed to John Rocco.

One of them (Title 1939281) is now linked to a publication record that you verified. I suppose the text data are correct but they pertain to a Miramax reissue with cover by John Rocco, not the cover image now linked (which is the 2005 first ed. cover by Peter Bollinger, per both Publ 69810 and Wikipedia).

The other two (Title 193088, 1244491) display images of cover art evidently by John Rocco but the second of them is dated 2006 here whereas that is the "new cover" announced by Rocco probably Feb 2014 ("Percy Jackson gets new covers!"; 2014-02-28 is the date of the first comment from a Rocco website visitor). For reference, All Covers for The Lightning Thief.

Now that I look at two trident covers close-up [1] [2], I see that the lettering shows one to be for an audiobook, and that one's cover art is a bigger piece of the 5-volume mural by Rocco --presumably cut to fit the audiobook dimensions, thereby encroaching heavily rather than lightly on the portion of the mural that illustrates the second rather than the first novel.

I have not yet read back pages about how closely we try to match cover images, up to front dustjacket or book cover that includes lettering or only the artwork itself. I have not looked for other editors who may have primary verified other uses of these three cover arts. --Pwendt|talk 23:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to check mine when I get home. I'm pretty sure the one I verified has the cover image correct, but you never know. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that image got attached to the one I verified. I have submitted a correction to the correct cover on this one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the future, there's no need to write a novel. Just ask me to check to to make sure the info is correct. I don't mind. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Seth Carter's Alien Adoption publisher

Hi. I accepted your submission of Seth Carter's Alien Adoption, but I have a question about the publishing credit. Your note says no publisher listed, so what is the source of the Fiona Ostler credit? How do you know she self-published? I notice Amazon lists Klabbin & Fovin as the publisher. Google Books and AbeBooks echo that. --MartyD 12:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to add: If no publisher is credited and you can't figure out who the publisher is (including no evidence indicating self-publishing), I think you should use "uncredited". We have some precedent for that. --MartyD 12:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The publisher help page states that the author should be listed if there is no publisher credit ("For self-published works, fanzines, bibliographic pamphlets and the like, use the name of the editor/author if no other publisher information is visible."). This book screams "self-published". I have no idea where "Klabbin & Fovin" came from as that is nowhere in or on the book. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if it's self-published, we use the author's name. I don't know where Klabbin & Flovin comes from, and my work schedule is preventing me from having time to research properly. A quick Google of "Klabbin & Fovin" finds:

http://www.tower.com/book-publisher/klabbin-fovin

http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780989931106

https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/seth-carters-alien-adoption/id716433968?mt=13

http://www.libreriauniversitaria.it/seth-carter-alien-adoption-ostler/book/9780989931106

http://www.chegg.com/textbooks/seth-carter-s-alien-adoption-1st-edition-9780989931106-0989931102

http://www.infibeam.com/Books/seth-carters-alien-adoption-klabbin-fovin/9780989931106.html

and more. Oddly, no hits for any other book by that publisher. But, oh, I just found: https://www.facebook.com/Fiona-Ostler-Author-204384976250989/ and it has a pointer to http://www.klabbinandfovin.blogspot.com/ . So apparently Klabbin & Flovin is her. So self-published, but that's the publisher. I don't have time to poke around more, but it seems that's a good clue, anyway. --MartyD 12:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem being: it says nothing about "Klabbin & Fovin" anywhere on or in the book, so if she was publishing it under that name, she did a horrible job crediting them. Despite what Amazon states, the book I received has no listed publisher. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You can do what you feel comfortable with -- I am not insisting. I would record K&F as the publisher and cite the secondary source(s) of that credit + discovered link between her and K&F in the notes (and on the publisher page that will result). One reason to do that is precisely because of the widespread use of the K&F credit in other places. That increases the chance of someone searching in the ISFDB for K&F, and if we don't record it, they won't find it. Also, to me this is a lot like the case where there's no date of publication in the book, but other sources have that date. I think the help for Publisher simply doesn't anticipate this specific situation. You could also bring it up as a Rules and Standards discussion if you'd like to see what the community thinks. --MartyD 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel like arguing. It's just frustrating to have mods insisting that I put what is in the book itself, and then have another one come along and insist that I put down something that isn't anywhere in the book. I wish people would settle on something more concrete than, "Whatever the mod decides is right." I've submitted the change to what you want it to be. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Yeah, sorry, I quite understand. Maybe this will help:

• The first general rule is to record information from the publication, as it appears in that publication. There are some exceptions around correcting typos and obvious production errors. Unfortunately, and coincidentally, we are NOT consistent about applying this rule to stated publisher credits (preferring to have the publisher credit match an existing publisher record if it's indeed that publisher).

• The second general rule is that it's ok (and even desirable) to augment a record by filling in anything missing with information from "reliable" secondary sources, documenting that data's source. The primary (only?) exceptions to this are we never supply an author credit or title if none is given: for authors we use "uncredited", and for titles we use the first line or first words, and then we make a variant to a record with the determined author credit or title.

I'm sure you'll run into other specific exceptions, but those two general rules are why you would get feedback on one submission telling you to follow what's in the pub and feedback on another submission telling you to include something that's not in the pub. I hope that helps a little. Please don't be discouraged; you're doing very good work, and it's very much appreciated! --MartyD 22:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of brackets for page count and page numbering

Re this record et al: As a rule, brackets should only be used in the Page Count field for ranges of uunnumbered pages on which significant text appears. Roman numbers are used only if they actually appear in the book. So it doesn't make sense to have roman numbers in brackets...ever. (Read the help documentation for page numbering, 2nd and 3rd bullet points.) Do roman numbers appear in these books? Mhhutchins|talk 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I put brackets around a couple places that shouldn't have them, but I didn't notice until I'd done several other submissions, so I figured I'd wait until they were approved to submit a correction for those two (which I have done now). Thopse four books have pages with unnumbered Roman numeral pages (meaning some of them have the Roman numerals and others don't). The page count entries shouldn't have the brackets (and don't now that I've submitted corrections), but the page numbers for content should as they pages around them have the Roman numerals but those specific pages don't. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Brackets also shouldn't be used in the page numbering fields of content records unless the content appears within a range of unnumbered pages that start before what can be determined is page "1". Which again means they should never be used on roman numbered pages. Look at the first bullet point under the Page subsection of the Contents help documentation for "Pages without a printed page number". So the map in this publication should not have brackets on the page number. Mhhutchins|talk 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So in cases where the first numbered page is iv, and the map appears on what would be page ii, except that it is unnumbered, why wouldn't we let people know it's not numbered by putting it into brackets? That doesn't make sense. It lacks consistency and causes confusion (like what happened here). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So if we use the same logic, when a story begins on an unnumbered page within a range of numbered pages it should be bracketed as well? That happens a countless number of times. Pick up the nearest book of stories or periodical and look to see if the page number is given on the starting page of every content in it. Odds are pretty good that they don't. The purpose of putting brackets around a number is to indicate that the page falls within a range of unnumbered pages and the number has been derived. Why should we use the same logic if a story starts on an unnumbered page within a range of numbered pages and the designer of the publication has chosen not to number it for aesthetic reasons? Mhhutchins|talk 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)