User talk:PeteYoung/Archives/August 2011–December 2012

Welcome!

Hello, PeteYoung/Archives/August 2011–December 2012, 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:

• Help pages
• Help:Getting Started
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• ISFDB FAQ
• Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
• Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
• Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

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! Ahasuerus 04:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Young's biographical data

Just to let you know that I have processed the submission that added your birth place, birth date, legal name and e-mail address. I had to make some minor formatting changes, e.g. our editing interface only understands dates that are entered using the YYYY-MM-DD format, but I think I got it right. When you get a chance, could you please take a quick look to see that everything looks OK? Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

new publications

Hi, and welcome. I accepted your submission of Once Upon a Space. For entries we construct that are not directly from a book in hand, we cite the source of the data in the notes. And we want to enter all printings of any title. So what I did with the above is add a note that the information comes from the 2nd printing (per your note to the moderators), and I cloned it to make a record for the second printing. (If you go here, you'll see them both). If you would verify this latter one against the book you have, that would be great. Thanks, and thank you for contributing. --MartyD 10:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I also changed the author credit, per our email discussion, to Peter Young (?-). Figured I'd save you some edits + approvals. The two Peter Youngs should be completely separated now, and Pete Young shows up as a pure pseudonym, with all titles appearing in Peter Young (1960-)'s bibliography. --MartyD 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marty, everything is as it should be now! PeteYoung 13:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Unmerge Title

I'm holding a submission in which you wish to "unmerge" Anna and the Ripper of Siam from this pub. I think you want to remove the story from the publication instead. Go to the pub record (linked second above) and click on "Remove Titles from This Pub" under editing tools, and on the next page check the box for the story you wish to remove from the collection. Let me know if this was what you intended to do. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 04:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have this book? The ISBN currently links to OCLC with a different title from the same publisher. According to OCLC the ISBN should be 974-8303-65-9. Also, if you have the book, please consider doing a primary verification. Ask me if you need help to do this. Thank you. Mhhutchins 04:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance re. removing the story... that's correct, it's what I wanted to do as one story has been substituted with another. Still learning the ropes here...

Also, yes I do have the book, and yes the ISBN on the back cover barcode is different from that in the colophon. Which one should be used? PeteYoung 05:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Use the ISBN listed above (because it links correctly to other sites) and point out in the Note field the presence and location of the other ISBN. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ISSNs

Hi. I moved the ISSN you supplied on No Time to Die from the ISBN/Catalog field to the notes. We've decided that because ISSNs are not issue-specific, we shouldn't capture them as an identifier on a publication record. If there's no issue-specific catalogue number or ISBN, we just leave it blank. See Help:Screen:EditPub#ISBN for more details about the use of that field. Not a big deal by any means. Thanks. --MartyD 13:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Your Mailbox is Full"

Hi. Just thought I'd double-check whether Your Mailbox is Full should be an ESSAY instead of SHORTFICTION. (Shortfiction is the default, if one forgets to change it, and the title sounds essay-ish.) --MartyD 14:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, an essay. I've just edited it, so thanks. PeteYoung 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Zoo Nation

I put the Zoo Nation issues into a series, added it to Fanzines and created the bare Fanzine:Zoo_Nation page from the magazine template. You can fill it out as much or as little as you see fit. It looks like we're not as rigorous about recording fanzine information as we are about recording magazine information, so I'd say just delete any of the template sections that are not appropriate or that you feel are not worth the bother to populate.

For the issues themselves, if you put a comma after "Zoo Nation", the grid will omit the name and use only what comes after the comma (for these, the issue number and title). Other moderators more expert on magazine/fanzine data may have some feedback on how best to handle these. --MartyD 14:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll experiment with this later. Once it's all sorted I'll also submit data for the fanzine Journey Planet, which I occasionally co-edit with Chris Garcia, Claire Brialey and James Bacon (all Hugo winners yesterday!) PeteYoung 15:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging reviews

Identical reviews can (and should) be merged, but they are no longer displayed in Check for Duplicate Titles, unfortunately. If you'd like to give this a try: To merge them, go to Advanced Search. In the top section ("Title Search Form"), change the Term 1 type from Title to Author, and supply "Peter Young" as the text. Change the Term 2 type from Title to Title Type and supply "Review" as the text. Now click on Submit Query. This will bring up all of your reviews, sorted by title. Check the boxes next to the identical titles (do this only one title at a time -- it will try to merge everything that's checked into one title). Then click the Merge Selected Titles button at the bottom; you'll get a confirmation (and a moderator will then review it if you ok it, so you can't do any harm). I then use the "Back" button in my browser to get back to the search results list and do the next set, and so on. If you'd prefer not to do this, I'm happy to do it, just let me know. --MartyD 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Then you don't need the notes about the reviews' also appearing in Zoo Nation -- it'll show up under that title as a separate publication instance. --MartyD 15:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marty, I'll work on this tonight and tomorrow. PeteYoung 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Zoo Nation #4

I corrected the book's author credit of the review record for The True Knowledge of Ken MacLeod (in cases where a nonfiction work consists of work by several writers, the editor is given as the author) and linked it to the title record. Mhhutchins 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realised my mistake with the author/editor half an hour ago and have just come back to correct it, but you've clearly spotted it too. Thanks. PeteYoung 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing verified pubs

I've placed the submission on hold to change the author credit of this review from "Farah Mendelsohn" to "Farah Mendlesohn" in this publication. It is ISFDB policy to notify the verifier of records which have been primary verified to let them know you will be making or have made a submission to change the record. (Many editors have posted the degree to which they wish to be notified at the top of their user talk page.) It's quite possible that the publication may have credited the review incorrectly (as likely as the possibility of the verifier making a typo.) Please ask the verifier to check his copy to determine which is correct. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A Kindred Spirit

Hi, I removed the trailing company name from "Jonathan Cartland" and moved the interiorart credit from a note into a content record in A Kindred Spirit. I don't know if it's stated explicitly anywhere, but if a person's name is given, we don't usually do anything to credit the company as well (you could put that in the notes if you wanted to) -- after all, the artist is the same person even if employers change. We do record company names as artists if no person is identified. --MartyD 10:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Kafka in Brontëland

Hi. Would you check the ISBN on Kafka in Brontëland? I think it should end in 1539, not 1139. Also, "other stories" should be capitalized. Thanks. --MartyD 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The colophon states 1139, the back cover barcode states 1539. PeteYoung 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sulphuric Acid

The submission adding this pub was accepted. According to the OCLC record this only had 127 pages. Can you recheck? If you're not working from a physical copy of the pub, you should always record the source of your data in the record's note field. I've added a link to the cover image, and created a record for the original French title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sjambak

Update to this record was accepted, but a few more changes will have to be made. You asked in the moderator note field whether it is appropriate to add the bibliography. It's up to the individual editor, but anything that is substantial in quality or quantity should be added to the record. But one thing you must do is to disambiguate certain generic titles by adding the title of the book to the record's title. So "Selected Bibliography" should be renamed "Selected Bibliography (Sjambak)". You should also credit the author as "uncredited" instead of "unknown" (which is used only in limited circumstances.)

Also, because you know that Finlay's artwork is the same as was used in the July 1953 issue of IF, the two records should be merged. Once you've created new records (for story contents especially) which you know to be reprinted, you should always check to see whether there is record in the database for that story (or in this case interiorart) and then merge the two records. (Help page for merging records.) In many cases, its best not to merge interiorart records unless you have both copies and can confirm that they're identical. In this case, because there was only one piece of artwork for each publication, it's OK to merge the two. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 14:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No Time to Die

The submission changing this publication into a chapterbook was accepted. Because of their nature as container types, I had to add a shortfiction record of the actual story. (Think of a CHAPTERBOOK, in this case, as a single-story collection.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Interplanetary Adventurers

I accepted the submission adding this new record but made some changes to conform to ISFDB standards. The publisher was changed to "Robert Hale" (the most common form of the name, we try to give publishers as few names as possible so that searches will group all of their books together). I switched the ISBNs recorded in the ISBN field and the Note field, because the first one (0 7590 0339 0) was an invalid number. Also, I had to adjust the method used in entering the ISBN. All 10 or 13 numbers should be entered without spaces in the ISBN field. It doesn't matter how you enter them in the Note field. You can enter with dashes in the ISBN field, but it's not necessary. The system will display them correctly. Also, do you have a copy of this book? If so, please do a primary verification and check to see if there is a printed price. If you don't have a copy, please record the source of your data in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you check one more thing for me? According to OCLC and BLIC, only Jack Bertin is credited as the author of the book. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Jack Bertin is credited (as Author2), so I've removed Peter B. Germano (Author1) from both Publication Metadata and Content. Also, yes I have a copy of the book, however its price has been clipped. Should this prevent a primary verification? Thanks. PeteYoung 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. That's not the way to make a correction. You can correct the publication record, but because the book was actually written by Bertin and Germano, you'd be removing Germano's credit. The problem is the record was created from the wrong title record. There are two: the first one credits the actual authors, the second one credits the stated author. It's the second one under which you should have entered the new publication under. I'm going to reject the submission and walk you through the steps to correct the situation. It would be a lot easier for me to make the adjustments myself (and will if you want me to), but by going through these steps you will get a better understanding of the database structure. What do you say? Mhhutchins 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add: you can still do a primary verification. Just record in the note field that the verified copy is price-clipped which would explain why the field is blank. Hopefully someone down the line will have an unclipped copy and be able to complete the record. Mhhutchins 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I grok it now. I've submitted a new record based on the second record above. Of course, let me know if I'm still not getting it right, and thanks for the ISBN entry info. PeteYoung 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your submission was accepted, and now you'll have to delete the previous record. That was the most direct and simplest way to do it, but I would have shown you a different method, which, while more difficult, would have given you a better understanding of the database structure, teaching you how to merge and unmerge records, and how to create variants. You'll have to learn these eventually if you stick around. And I hope you do. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ultimate Aphrodisiac

I qualified the publisher of this pub by adding "(Australia)" to differentiate it from the US and British publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You should note the source for your data in the note field. Mhhutchins 18:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Black No More

This is a pretty expensive paperback. Could it be a trade paperback? You should also note the source for your data. If you have the book, just let the moderator know that you're working from a copy in the "Note to Moderator" field, and then you can do a verification after the submission has been accepted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I accepted the submission. A quick question about the introduction and preface: Are these subtitled with the book title, as you submitted them? If so, no problem! If not, the format we use for disambiguation is to include it in parentheses (to distinguish from a subtitle, where we use the colon). Thanks. --MartyD 10:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Stepford Wives - Pages

Was your intent to make the essay in The Stepford Wives show up on page 'v'? Your submission to make this change at the moment will result in it showing as being on page 'v+139'. I think your intent was for the essay to be on page v and the total publication length was to be changed to 'v+139'. Was that correct? If so, feel free to cancel your submission and submit an updated change. If I've misunderstood, let me know. Thanks! Kevin 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking. Everything looks good now. Kevin 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Other City of Angels

Is this spec-fic? The description on Amazon is somewhat ambivalent. They also have the date as Feb '08. Does the book state anything differently? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly say so. It starts out fairly mainstream adventure but ends in a fit of science fiction fury. I'm working from a copy of the book (sorry, should have mentioned that), and the month is unspecified. PeteYoung 01:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good enough! Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

From Other Worlds

The [OCLC] record has the size as 20cm. Should the binding be tp instead of pb? --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Height is actually 19cm, so yes, it should be a tp. PeteYoung 03:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll accept it and alter the binding. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Provide source or verification

When adding a new pub to the database, please let the moderator know (in the "Note to Moderator" field) that you're working from the actual pub and will be doing a verification of the record. If you're working from a secondary source (not the book itself) please note the source of your data in the record's "Note" field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed that you're doing that on your recent submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maître Mussard's Bequest

The submission adding this record was accepted, but a couple of changes are needed to bring the record up to ISFDB standards. When creating a new chapterbook record, you have to also add a content record for the shortfiction piece which is contained in the chapterbook (this is done automatically for novel types, but chapterbook types require a manual creation of the content). Also, the price should be given as £1.00. And please do a primary verification of the record when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I will make the changes so you can see the results. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done now, just before seeing your subsequent note. I'll do the primary verification soon and also upload a cover scan. PeteYoung 04:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Packing Fraction

Hi. I accepted your Packing Fraction submission, but per your note changed "&" to "and". Our standard is to go by what's on the title page, not what's on the cover or spine. The good news is your note covers either choice! :-) Thanks. --MartyD 11:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Helmet of Horror

I accepted the submission adding this new pub to the database, but I moved the translator info you entered in the "Note to Moderator" to the record's note field. Please remember: the "Note to Moderator" field is only for information that you believe will help the moderator's decision about accepting the submission. This information does not become part of the database record. Data about the book itself should be placed into the "Note" field, which will be part of the record. It would also be nice to know where you got your information. I've brought this to your attention several times and have no idea why it's not sinking in. At this point, it should have become second nature. If you feel this is too much of a burden, please present your case on one of the public forums (preferably the Rules & Standards discussions page). Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Priest's The Islanders

Thank you very much for your update! I am waiting for a shipment of the book, but I didn't know it was part of the 'Dream Archipelago' sequence. If you could submit the correct cover image and put it into the title series it would be much appreciated! Stonecreek 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading images

I've noticed that you've uploaded a couple of images for Vonnegut books, and that they don't have image licenses. The best way to upload images is to use the semi-automated method which is described on this help page. (Look at the subsection "Semi-automated Procedure".) This method will automatically add a fair-use license to the image file. If you use the "Upload File" function linked in the ISFDB wiki pages, you have to add the license which covers us when uploading copyrighted material. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. Mhhutchins 21:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed it was only one image. Ask me if you need help to add the license tag to the image. Mhhutchins 21:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I've not received a response from my inquiry, I added the license myself. Mhhutchins 05:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, and thanks. The real world has rather taken over, of late, to do much online stuff until today. (My house is currently flooded, but at least the books are safe...) PeteYoung 07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Price field

You should only give one price in the price field (either the first listed or the one most prominently displayed). All others go in the note field. I corrected this record. Mhhutchins 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

1Q84

I'm holding two submissions that want to add pubs under this title. Do you know if the pub (Knopf 2011) that's currently under that title includes all three volumes of the work. If so, those two pubs you're adding should have been entered as separate pubs (using the "Add New Novel" or "Add New Omnibus" functions, instead of the "Add Publication to This Title" function.) I'll do more research to see how each pub differs. If they have difference contents, I'll accept the submissions, and then unmerge them from the title records, giving them new title records. Mhhutchins 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Finished (I hope), in what took several dozen submissions, there are now eight separate title records:

1. Japanese Book One
2. Japanese Book Two
3. Japanese Book Three
4. English Book One, a variant of #1
5. English Book Two, a variant of #2
6. English Book Three, a variant of #3
7. English Books One and Two, an omnibus of #4 and #5
8. English Books One, Two, and Three, an omnibus of #4, #5, and #6

In the future, keep in mind that when you use the "Add Publication to This Title" function, you're saying that the pub you're adding is essentially the same as all other pubs under this title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the US edition is all three titles (but by the look of things I think you've figured that out by now). I'll verify the 2 UK editions. Tricky one, this, so thanks for the pointers. PeteYoung 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Dark Spires

You ask in the Note to Moderator field:

This is their only publication listed on ISFDB although I'm not 100% sure this page would be the correct place to change it - please advise! Thanks.

It's better to ask such questions on the Moderator Noticeboard before making the submission. Posting a question there will bring it to the attention of more moderators, anyone of whom can help you.

As for your question: you should always correct any error that may appear in the record if you're working from a book-in-hand. You're not really changing the name of a publisher by correcting the name in the field of one record. (You're only changing the way it appears in that particular pub.) There is a way that moderators can change the name of a publisher, but that would change every record in the database, regardless of how it appears in the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Second Stage Lensman

I added the Moderator Note to the Note field of this record. It's important to explain how the page count was arrived at. You should notify the primary verifier of the record (Rtrace) about the change. Mhhutchins 01:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Vortex Blaster

I'm holding the submission to change the author credit for this pub until you've notified the primary verifier and you both agree to the change. You note the cover credit matches the title page, but the current image credits "E. E. Smith, Ph.D." on the cover. Mhhutchins 05:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Skylark of Space

I'm holding your submission to remove a credit for interiorart from this record. The record isn't verified, so I'm not sure what is the source for the interiorart credit. Can you confirm that there are no frontispiece, endpapers or illustrations credited to Paul? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I've checked every page, there is no interior artwork at all. The dustjacket however is credited to Paul, on the back cover. PeteYoung 07:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Chocky

Is the ISBN credited anywhere in the book at all? If not, it should be removed from the record. It may be the ISBN for a later printing, as suggested by this OCLC record. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, no ISBN listed anywhere, on the dustjacket or anywhere inside. The copy I have has a full unclipped jacket, with price intact. PeteYoung 07:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept a submission to update the record to indicate this. Mhhutchins 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanity and the Lady

I added the price to this record based on the listing on the publisher's website. Mhhutchins 01:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dating contents

The date of content records is determined by the first date of publication, not any dating that is given at the end of a piece (which is usually a completion of writing date) . Also, according to the info you gave in the note field of the submission to update this record, you say that the appendix "(an Introduction)" is stated on the contents page, but not on the piece's title page. It is ISFDB standard to record titles from the title page, not from the contents page. I'm going to reject the submission and ask that you resubmit based on these standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave that title data alone then, as I don't know how it appeared in the first edition of the anthology in 1985. Resubmitted now, but I have altered the date appended to the essay from 1987-00-00 to 1985-10-00, the first edition of the book in which the essay is already listed to have appeared. PeteYoung 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Interior art

Hi. I saw your note in Brown about interior art. If you want to, you can record this via content by adding a title of the same name as the work (here, "Brown") and giving it type INTERIORART, and no page number. The artist should be supplied as the "author". If you wanted to record each piece of art, you can use the titles the illustrations are given (if any) or use the same title-of-the-work approach with " [2]", " [3]", etc. to differentiate, and you would then give the specific page numbers. --MartyD 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done in a new edit. I think my brain entered a black hole this afternoon, I've no idea why that blindingly obvious method didn't occur to me. Thanks. PeteYoung 13:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Is Anybody There?

I accepted the submission for this record, but want to verify the publisher credit. We usually indicate an imprint and publisher as "Imprint / Publisher" (note the spaces around the slash), but use this mostly in cases where both are indicated on the book's title page. Can you see if both Ted Smart and Orion are credited on the title page? The OCLC record gives the publisher as Orion Children's. Thanks for looking. Also, if you look at the record you'll see that there are two content title records for the novel because you added an additional content record in your submission. Keep in mind that a submission adding a new novel will automatically be given a title record, and you should not add one in the submission's content section. You'll need to remove one of the records using the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The book's title page only states "Orion Children's Books", the Ted Smart imprint is on the spine, which I'll remove from the record. As for the 2 title records, my bad. Will do. PeteYoung 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Titling introductions

When an introduction has a title, it is not necessary to disambiguate it by adding the the title of the book in parentheses. Disambiguation is only done to keep generic titles from being merged in error, not to indicate the name of the book in which it is published. You should adjust the title of this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cover image for The Cat's Pajamas

There is already a file in the database for the paperback edition of this title: here. You can link that to your verified record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Return to Earth

Hi. I have one of your submissions on hold that would make the Chapterbook publication of "Return to Earth" credited to Christopher and Binder into a variant of the short story "The New Wine", credited to Christopher alone. Assuming "The New Wine" was never published a chapterbook, what you should do instead is make the short story credited to Christopher and Binder into the variant of The New Wine. Are these really the same, though, or is "Return to Earth" revised/completed and actually a different-but-derived work? --MartyD 13:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused by your second sentence as I believe The New Wine is the title I wanted to make 'Return to Earth' a variation of. However you have raised another point – as I've not access to 'The New Wine' I couldn't say with any accuracy if they are the same, though the copyright page states "Original edition © John Christopher 1954" and "First published as 'The New Wine' in 'The Twenty Second Century', Grayson & Grayson, 1954". It probably *is* a different-but-derived work given that it's specifically an edition for Stage 2 readers, maybe with some editing and probably some simplification to the language. But as 'Return to Earth' is also a separate publication in its own right, with its own ISBN etc. and effectively a different "author", would it then be best to just record the connection between the two titles in the publication's notes, or is there another way to link them? PeteYoung 21:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help, this area can be a bit confusing. A "chapterbook" involves (at least) three ISFDB records.

• The first is the chapterbook's title record. This represents the chapbook as an entity, and displays all publications of it. In this case this is Title record #1359157.
• The second is the publication record for a specific publication of the chapbook. This records details about the publication, like the publisher, pub date, price, and cover artist. In this case it is pub record #369428.
• The third is the shortfiction's title record. This represents the story as a text, and will be linked to all publications of the story, whether in chapbooks, collections, anthologies, or whatever form. In this case, this is Title record #1359158. The difference is not as clear in a case where the story has only a single publication. (There may also be title records for essays or interior art, as there is here for the essay "Activities".)

I believe that your submission tried to create a variant title (VT) relationship between the chapterbook title and a different shortfiction title, in this case "The New Wine". If a VT is to be set up, it should be between the shortfiction title record for "Return to Earth" and the title record for "The New Wine".

That leaves the question of whether a VT should be set up at all. In general we use a VT for cases where the same text has been published with different author credits and/or under a different title. If there are minor differences to the text, such as copyediting or the addition of a paragraph or two, then a VT may still be used. If the differences are big enough to make the new text a different story, then a VT will normally not be used. Exactly where to draw the line is a judgement call.

I hope this is helpful. -DES ^Talk 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a way to record "deriviation" relationships for works at the moment. So if "Return to Earth" is a likely re-telling (which it seems from your description), you should not make one a variant of the other. Instead, you could record in each title's notes the existence and nature of the other work. E.g., in The New Wine, you could enter something like retold by Susan Binder and reissued for Stage 2 readers as "Return to Earth", and in Return to Earth you could enter something like a retelling of Christopher's "The New Wine" for Stage 2 readers. I am going to reject the chapterbook-variant-of-shortfiction-title submission, as that wouldn't be correct whichever way you end up deciding to go. I know this is complicated, so please ask about anything that's murky. Thanks! --MartyD 12:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gone along with your suggestion not to make the VT and added notes to the relevant bibliographic entries. Thanks for the many clarifications, guys. PeteYoung 11:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Daughter

I added a cover image and the list price from Amazon to your submission for Good Daughter. Chavey 07:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Most Silent School in the World

I have your submission to change the language of this record from English to Thai. This is the title record for the English translated publication of the work. Instead of changing the language of this record, you should make it into a variant of the Thai language title record. You do this by going to the English title record ([here) and click on "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work". At the bottom of the next screen change the title field to the Thai edition's title, and change the language field to Thai. I will reject the current submission and will await the submission creating the Thai parent title record. Mhhutchins 05:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the date of the English record to 2010-07-00, so you'll need to give the date of the Thai edition in the "Make Variant" submission. Mhhutchins 05:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that you linked the English publication record to an image on Photobucket. This is against ISFDB policy. Here is a list of approved sites that will allow us to deep-link to their servers. You can also upload a file of the cover to the ISFDB server. Click on the "Upload new cover scan" link of the pub record. Mhhutchins 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications re VTs... it makes better sense now. PeteYoung 05:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Publication of Year Zero

Sorry, but I had to reject your submission: the price information is likely to have some source (possibly Locus), although no price may be stated on the book. But thanks for your usually thoughtful submissions! Stonecreek 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Invention of Morel

I'm assuming the "Prologue" in this publication is more introduction than a true prologue to the novel. If that's correct, it may be a good idea to note that in the record so that a user wouldn't think that Borges wrote the novel's prologue. What do you think? Mhhutchins 22:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely an Introduction, and "Prologue" is certainly misleading in that sense. I'll add a note. PeteYoung 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Source info in notes

Hi. Not a big deal, but when you run across an entry that cites a source (most often, it will be Amazon via Fixer, but sometimes it will be Locus1 or something else), and you are working from the book, delete the comment about the non-book source. E.g., it appears you should do that in A Separate War. That way someone will be more careful editing the information in the future. If some information is not found in the book and comes from one of those sources, then you should adjust the note to identify the specific items (most frequently, that will be for publication date or maybe artist credit). Thanks, --MartyD 16:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is another case. You could drop the "Data from Wildside Press' internal records" or at least alter it to identify any specific items not present on the book itself. --MartyD 12:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case it's the absence of any cover price which led me to leave it in, prompted by my earlier Talk comment "Publication of Year Zero". I often come across details/edits which I'm averse to altering in case I'd be deleting a useful source of information for that publication, but I guess it won't hurt to specify things more on the balance of information available. Thanks for the input. PeteYoung 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Classic Science Fiction Stories

Can you confirm that the title of this book as given on the book's title page is Classic Science Fiction Stories? The OCLC record drops "Classic" and they usually give titles from the book and not the dustjacket. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is "Classic Science Fiction Stories" on the title page (plus on the front and back covers and spine). It's a truly beautiful book for kids, too. PeteYoung 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple more questions: is the story on page 446 credited to "Phillip Frances Nowlan" (two "l"s in the first name, and an "e" in the middle name)? If so, we'll have to create a pseudonym. Also are the excerpts titled "XXX (excerpt from YYY)" on their title pages? Mhhutchins 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd spotted the double 'l' in Phillip and the 'e' in Frances and was working my way down the list towards creating Nowlan's pseudonym. His story is also a variant title. The excerpted titles appear as "XXX", then beneath the title "From YYY", indicating the novel the story has been excerpted from. I couldn't say if the given titles have been assigned by this book's editors or if they are chapter titles from those works, if that's your concern. PeteYoung 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I asked about the titles is that a parenthetical appendix to a title normally indicates a disambiguation and that is not part of the title as actually stated in the pub. In these cases it would seem that the titles should be entered as "XXX: From YYY" which makes it clear that this is the way the excerpts are titled on their respective title pages. The use of a colon indicates a separation between a main title and a subtitle, in these cases the subtitle being the source of the excerpts. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Micromegas

You didn't have to change the name (adding the accent) in a separate submission. You could have merged the two records, reconciling the title, all in one submission. Mhhutchins 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Priest: The Interaction

In the Note to Moderator in the submission to update this record you state "Also added "The" to the publisher's name, which is how this publisher appears in all their other titles". The question is how is it stated in this publication? Mhhutchins 06:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I stated my source of information in the Note to Moderator as I'm not working from a copy (probably my first time, actually), so I wouldn't know. But as the publisher is the same as that of the rest of the 'Foundation Studies in Science Fiction' series, which all appear as published by "The Science Fiction Foundation" it seems the correct edit to make, as up until now the title has not appeared in the publication series. PeteYoung 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But I take your point. PeteYoung 06:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources should be noted in the record's Note field. The Note to Moderator does not become part of the public record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

David Hughes

I found a nice little bio at the bottom of this, so I made the birth date be 1970 (here). Also, at the bottom of this is corroboration that it's the same David Hughes who did "Mister Tan" (which appeared in It Was a Dark and Stormy Halloween). --MartyD 11:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's probably some further disambiguation needed from the original David Hughes record. I somehow doubt that the novelist, with very little genre history, suddenly turned into a scholar of Farscape and unmade science fiction movies in the latter years of his life. I have The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made so will soon check if there's a bio in there; I also contacted him re. that publication many years ago so I may be able to do so again, and further ask him if he's also the cover artist for The Art of The X-Files (a US publication). If not this may mean yet another David Hughes to create a biblio for. PeteYoung 01:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if all authors/artists/editors nicely numbered or otherwise disambiguated themselves? :-/ (Bill Longley the 5th.) BLongley 06:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Who Goes There? by Campbell (Jr.)

If the author of this collection is credited only as "John W. Campbell", you'll have to remove the contents and add them back with credits that match the book's credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael is right, unfortunately. I must look into a software improvement that will do that in one step, I'm pretty sure we have a lot of slightly miscredited authors - Campbell didn't seem to need his "Junior" suffix in the UK, and I've pointed out before that a middle initial "M. " doesn't always survive the travel across the Atlantic. Or "R. " - Dean Koontz seems to have suffered from our laziness too. :-( BLongley 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a British thing. Starting with 1993's Mr. Murder, all new Koontz books dropped the middle initial. Some reprints straggled along that kept the "R" but by the middle 90s, it was gone completely and even reprints dropped it. Mhhutchins 15:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Transformation Space (Sentients of Orion)

I approved your edit to this pub. There's no problem with the data/information, but you should notice that the pub was primary verified by user Kraang, and we have this habit of informing primary verifiers of changes to their pubs. Thanks,--Willem H. 08:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd done that also. PeteYoung 08:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I see now. Sorry for the superfluous note. --Willem H. 08:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Who goes there? (Again)

I placed your submission to make this title a variant of this one on hold, but it will have to be rejected eventually. If you look at the second title record, you will see there already is a variant as by John W. Campbell. The new record will have to be merged with the existing one. You can do this in the advanced search (title search, title is "Who Goes There?", author is "John W. Campbell") or you can go to the author bibliography, click on "Show All Titles" under editing tools and search for the records to be merged. If you need more help, please ask. --Willem H. 08:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Done now using Advanced Search. Let me know if somehow I've got it wrong (again). PeteYoung 09:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks! --Willem H. 10:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Bantam New Age

Hi. I have one of your submissions on hold that would establish a publication series, "Bantam New Age" for the publisher Bantam. Are you sure it's a series and not an imprint of what was then Bantam Books? In this Look Inside, it is described as an imprint: This important imprint includes books in a variety of fields.... One of the books listed under that description is Ecotopia. Thanks, --MartyD 11:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it was an actual imprint, although there is another edition listed under "Bantam New-Age Books" (hyphenated, probably incorrectly). There is a "Bantam New Age Books" logo on the back cover and spine which I took to indicate a series as there's no actual reference to an imprint on the copyright page, just a brief reference to "Bantam New Age" and the accompanying logo being trademarks of Bantam Books etc., but all other details on the copyright page refer to just Bantam Books, such as "ECOTOPIA (over) A Bantam Book". The spine states "A Bantam Trade Paperback" (top) and "A Bantam New Age Book" + logo (bottom). But on balance, given the reference you found I'd say yes it should be listed under the imprint, and I'll just have to curse the Old Rooster for being so vague on their copyright page. It's Christmas, must be a case of turkey's revenge. ;-) PeteYoung 12:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will accept the submission and change the series to an imprint. And a belated Merry Christmas! --MartyD 12:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

PS. I think I cloned this publication without removing the incorrect cover, it's totally different. Will fix. Belated Merry Christmas to you too... I will never eat ever again. PeteYoung 17:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

2666

I think your copy is the same as this record. Because it's not been primary verified, feel free to update the record. You might want to check with Blongley who did a Locus1 and OCLC verification, just to confirm the differences. I'm not sure where he got the Locus1 verification, unless he has the CD-ROM with updates later than the online version. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing: you note that "Contents indicate that 'A Note from the Author's Heirs' appears on page "xi", although all pages before page 3 are not numbered." If this is true you should give the page count as "[xi]+898", and give the page number of the intro as "[xi]" (without the quotes, but in brackets which indicate the pages are not numbered.) Mhhutchins 20:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The record you point to is the export trade paperback of the first edition, issued at the same time as the hc edition. The ISBNs match as well. However the price listed on that record (£8.99) is very likely incorrect for such a large tp as the price for the equivalent hc was (if I recall correctly) £20.00. This edition I'm working from is the smaller size tp, issued later that year with a different cover. Thanks for the pointer re. numbering within brackets in the contents. PeteYoung 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the record indicated that it was an export edition, so I'm going to update the record with that info, and accept yours. You can then make the correction in the page count. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PS. Don't you mean Bluesman, who did the verifications? Just checking before I contact either one. PeteYoung 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I confused the two Bills! No need to contact either. Your explanation of the different editions was sufficient. Mhhutchins 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from a common first name, I'm not sure why people confuse us. Different countries, different times, different books, different references, etc. Maybe it's just because between us we seem to do as much work as Michael? Or we're getting some credit for Bill Contento work? (There is a reason I called this activity "Billiography"!) ;-) BLongley 05:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

PPS. I edited Bolaño's Author Data earlier today, adding the tilde over the n in his surname, edit accepted. I'm now trying to remove the redundant pseudonym from his Summary Bibliography ("also as by Roberto Bolaño") because clicking on that 'pseudonym' of course just refers to the same page. However, when using Make/Remove a Pseudonym I get an error message "Author record can not be a pseudonym to itself", which is precisely what I'm trying to fix. The Removing existing pseudonyms help screen doesn't really help in this instance. How do I work around this, or this something only the moderators can do? PeteYoung 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no redundant pseudonym. All records in the database give the tilde accent. That "also as" display is a bug caused when a translated record keeps the same title as the original record. The programmers know the bug, but haven't figured out how to fix it. Mhhutchins 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite true. The "also as" problem can fairly easily be improved but it's not really clear as to what it should be improved to - that's where the users need to come in! I, for instance, think that the addition of the title language after the title of the variant would be a good start. I'm pretty sure Michael wants "translations" separated from "variant titles". (We've stretched that to "variant author spelling" and serialisations as well, and we really need to agree on how far we can stretch it before it gets too confusing.) But foreign letters like the German for "ss" and accents are beyond my skills, and foreign alphabets are totally out. We'll get there, eventually, but we need more multi-lingual programmers and testers and editors and moderators. I think 2011s software improvements have introduced us to three extra languages that we can cope with now, and over a hundred that we can't deal with. Yet. I'm quite happy to code myself into redundancy, but I lack the spoken/written-language skills to do so. BLongley 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Paris in the Twentieth Century

Your submission to add this title was entered under the wrong title record. If a book has a different title, and there's not a matching one in the db, you should use the "Add New ..." function. After it's accepted then you can make the new title record into a variant. Well as it turns out, the two other pubs under the current title record should also be Paris in the Twentieth Century and not ...20th Century. I'm going to accept the submission and make the necessary changes in it, its contents, the other two pubs, and their shared title record. Mhhutchins 02:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Half Past Human

I've accepted the submission adding a new pub to this title, but wonder why you used the "Add New Novel" function rather than "Add Publication to This Title". This title already exists in the database so the latter approach would have been better. The two titles will now have to be merged. Are you familiar with the merging function? Mhhutchins 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, merged now. Thanks. PeteYoung 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Twin Dilemma

This new record was created from your submission, but again, you should have entered it under the existing title record. They will have to be merged. Also, it's very similar to this record, with the date being the only difference. Can you confirm the stated date of publication of your book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, scrap that, I didn't see the 1986 date on the copyright page, and I have absolutely no idea why I didn't use Add Pub – same with Half Past Human, also just submitted. Apologies. PeteYoung 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge done now. PeteYoung 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Lethem's Girl in Landscape

I placed the record you verified for this title into the "Vintage Contemporaries" publication series. Mhhutchins 05:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cloning records with content

It's always better to clone an existing pub that has content, rather than creating a new, typing in all of the contents, and then merging each new content record with the one already in the database. Go to this record, and click on "Clone This Pub" under the editing tools menu. On the next page, change all the fields to make it match your edition, then submit. This will save you (and the moderator) much time and effort. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, done. While we're on the subject of this collection, Murakami has stated that he wants the translated editions to have no capitalisation in the title, hence "after the quake" in both US and UK editions (I've no reference for this, but it's quite well known). Shouldn't that be reflected in the title as it appears on the title record too, or would ISFDb capitalisation standards apply and the fact just recorded in the Notes instead? PeteYoung 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover art credit

I moved the cover credit from the cover artist field to the note field of this record. We try to reserve that first field for individuals or the actual artist. Photographs and paintings that are uncredited for individuals, but to a corporate entity, should be credited in the note field. Mhhutchins 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

after the quake

Can you check the publication date stated in this book? I created a record for the first printing and Amazon.co.uk gives the date as March 2003. Is your 11th printing also dated 2003? Also, please check the page count. OCLC gives the count as 144 pages, but it may be wrong. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention of 2007 on the copyright page, just "Published by Vintage 2003". However this style of cover Vintage UK are using for Murakami's books does probably date from around 2007 or later. Also, OCLC is wrong, the page count is 132. PeteYoung 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't specify the publication date of this particular printing it's best to zero out the date. Mhhutchins 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tuck Everlasting 16th printing

Hi. It looks like your proposed Tuck Everlasting submission duplicates this entry. What do you think? --MartyD 14:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does. Good catch.PeteYoung 15:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I rejected your submission and transferred the note from it to the existing record. You can upload a cover scan to that and verify. Sorry if I missed anything. --MartyD 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Kafkaesque

Hello, I'm in the process of adding some more contents and some notes to this book. Stonecreek 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Masters of Atlantis

The submission adding this record was accepted, but there's a couple of problems. The ISBN is invalid. I believe it should be 978-1-58567-021-5. Also, this is the first I've seen of an imprint called "Tusk". Where does this appear in the book? Mhhutchins 04:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2 typos on entry, I'm afraid. Your ISBN is correct, and the imprint is Tusk. Damn these publishers who use 4pt type for everything. PeteYoung 05:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tusk appears on the back cover as "A Tusk Book Published By The Overlook Press", with a Tusk 'elephant' logo which has Tusk above and Overlook beneath it. This logo also appears on the spine. PeteYoung 05:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It popped out because there's no other book using this form of publisher. I did find there are several books in the db as Tusk Books / The Overlook Press. Would it be OK to change your record so that they'll all be listed together? Mhhutchins 05:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. PeteYoung 05:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agent of the Terran Empire

I rejected the submission to add new content records to this record. You should import them from this record. It would have saved you from having to type them in, and it will save you from making four submissions to merge the existing titles with the ones you would have created if I'd accepted the first submission.

Anytime you're working on a record that's already in the database that is without contents, your first step should be to find a publication record that already has, as close as possible, the same contents as your book. You can always go back later and add or remove contents from the record to match those of your book.

Of course, I could have just accepted the submission, and merged all of the records during the time I wrote this out. But hopefully, this will save us both time and effort in the future. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite heads-up. As you've probably figured, I'm not always a specialist when it comes to The Bleedin' Obvious. PeteYoung 07:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Testament of Jessie Lamb

Is the publication date of this second printing explicitly stated? Mhhutchins 14:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It states "Reprinted 2011" on the copyright page. PeteYoung 14:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Without a stated month or date, that should be entered as "2011-00-00". Mhhutchins 14:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Precursor

See how the line you added in the note field is on the same line with the OCLC number in this record. To start a new line in this field you have to force it by using HTML. A keyboard return has no effect. Add <br> at the end of the previous line. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I always do that. Must have slipped this time. PeteYoung 14:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Children of the Lens

I added the interior art to Doc Smith's Children of the Lens. I also added the Library of Congress link and linked the OCLC number. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 12:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Genuine Thai Copies

Submission adding this record was accepted. According to the OCLC record, this was published by Bangkok Book House. How is the publisher credited on the book's title page? Mhhutchins 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the cover art credit and their logo (which includes 'House' in barely visible type) the only other (less formal) mentions are just to Bangkok Books. However I'll add the 'House', as they have just one other book on ISFDb. PeteYoung 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Micromégas and other Short Fictions

Are you certain that all of the pieces you've entered as contents in this collection are speculative fiction? Mhhutchins 04:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In an Eighteenth Century sense of the term, most certainly. Not all are as science fictional as Micromégas, for sure (although some almost are), but these satires all contain varying degrees of the fantastic. They all show Voltaire trying to get his readers to speculate on "what if?", whether it be by veiled attacks on religion with journeys into the afterlife, or talking animals, or argumentative Roman gods, or dream stories, or perhaps other stuff influenced by The Thousand and One Nights. Other stories like 'The Education of Daughters' and the satirical 'Women, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands' are actually imaginative defenses of women's rights, historically very ahead of the curve. I can't blame you for questioning some of the mundane titles, but rest assured they all fit well here. PeteYoung 11:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted the submissions. Please date, the best you can, the content records to the first English translations of the work. And then variant them to the original French titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Brasyl

I approved your edit to McDonald's Brasyl. Including a change to the ISBN to "1-59102-543-6". Unfortunately, that ISBN is invalid. I think the actual ISBN should be 1591025435 If you are working from your own copy, you should enter the valid ISBN and add a note that the incorrect one is reflected in the book. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Worldcat lists ISBNs ending in both 5 and 6. How does anyone know which is incorrect? As I said in the Note to Mod field, both the copyright page and the barcode end in 6, which is the reason I made the straightforward alteration. I'll add a note to the Note field pointing out the discrepancy. PeteYoung 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The last digit of an ISBN is a "check digit", computed from the preceding digits. An ISBN-10 will have a different final digit than the corresponding ISBN-13, because the leading "978" on the ISBN-13 causes the computation to produce a different result. The barcode has the ISBN-13, thus the "6". Worldcat lists both the ISBN-13, ending in "6", and the ISBN-10, ending in "5", that Ron cites above. --MartyD 02:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Excerpts

In a few cases, I've noticed that you have gave a length designation (e.g. short story) to a SHORTFICTION record labeled as an excerpt. It is better to leave the length field blank for excerpts, because they're not really short stories. Leaving it blank defaults to "shortfiction" when displayed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, cheers. PeteYoung 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Puffin edition of Peter Pan

In the update to this record you give the page count as "+[23]", but in the note you say the additional material is 17 pages. What is on the other 6 pages? Mhhutchins 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it the excerpt? Mhhutchins 22:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I stated in the Note "'The Deadly Poppy Field' (excerpt from The Wizard of Oz) also appears at the rear of the publication on unnumbered pages." PeteYoung 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's 6 pages long will help explain the number in the page count field. Also, this record also has the extra material, but the pages haven't been added to the page count field. Mhhutchins 22:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Same thing with this record. Mhhutchins 22:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll add them now. PeteYoung 22:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An Easter Greeting to Every Child Who Loves Alice

I'm holding a submission to make this title record into a variant of a new title, but the new title and author is identical to the original. Did you mean to make it a variant of this record? Mhhutchins 22:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There are quote marks around "Alice" in the parent title, however in this pub on the page the title appears the quote marks are absent. PeteYoung 22:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the title I entered into the Parent Record field. PeteYoung 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The title you entered into the parent record's title field is identical to the variant's title. I'll accept the submission and let you see the results and you can determine where to go from there. Mhhutchins 02:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted it. The title record is now a variant of an identically titled record. Mhhutchins 02:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Simon Clark(e)

In your verified Journey Planet, #11 there's an interview with (a.o.) Simon Clarke. Can you check the spelling? I think it should be Simon Clark. Thanks, --Willem H. 11:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. In the interview he's referred to as Simon Clarke (with the e, as I entered in the record) but reading the text of the interview he makes reference to his Doctor Who novel The Dalek Factor, which is by an e-less Simon Clark. His name only appears once in the text and not in any heading, so I'll amend the name and add a Note on the error to the Journey Planet #11 publication listing. Thanks. PeteYoung 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Chapterbooks, again...

I've accepted the submission to add this record to the database, but you failed to add a SHORTFICTION content record, which is required for all CHAPTERBOOK type records. I've mentioned this a couple of times in the past, and several times have just went ahead and added it for you. As I've said before, think of the CHAPTERBOOK type as a collection that contains a single story for which you have to create a content record. I'll let you update the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. It'd be lazy of me to blame jet-lag on this occasion, so I won't. Edit done, sorry for the extra work in the past and thanks for the heads-up. PeteYoung 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Le Guin's The Word for World...

Look at this record and see if it's not the record for your edition of the book. It was created from Amazon data, and all of the important details appear to match those of the submission you made for a new record: publisher, date, ISBN, binding, and price. The only visible difference is the page count, an area in which Amazon's data is almost always wrong. And don't let the "Second Edition" indication of the Amazon record put you astray. Tor's first edition was published in paperback in 2006. If you come to the same conclusion that I have, cancel your submission and update this record. If you disagree, I'm happy to hear your argument. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was that "second edition" that led me to clone the record instead of updating the record for a book I don't actually have in my hand, and that 2006 edition is a Tor Teen edition with a completely different cover. I'll update the existing record. Cheers. PeteYoung 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Foundation #92 (and others): page count and putting issues into the grid

I see you chose to only record in the note field of this record about the DVD review by Mark Bould. It is perfectly OK to create an essay in the format of "Review of XX by YY" for a review of any non-book item such as movies, recordings, tv programs, etc, and books like graphic novels and nongenre nonfiction (associated items). So in this case the title of the essay (make sure it's ESSAY type and not REVIEW type) would be "Review of the DVD "Space Is the Place", a film by John Coney" (if that's the film being reviewed), and credit Mark Bould in the author field. Doing it this way creates a record for Bould's summary page and is searchable if someone is looking for a review of the film. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Pete! I approved your submissions of two newly entered issues of 'Foundation'. To address the notes to the moderator you've made and to meet the standards of our database I have three remarks:

1) You may put the issues into the issue grid by yourself (well, the first step of it, if you like I'll guide you through the process): (re-)enter the title of the publication entry as 'Foundation, #87 Spring 2003' (in this case): this puts the issue into the grid. Then change the title entry (NOT the pub. entry) to 'Foundation - 2003' - and you've created a new year for this magazine (other issues from 2003 may then be merged with this year of publication).

2) The page count for magazines is special in that there is a coherent rule:

'Pages - The page count of the publication. For books, the general convention is to use the last printed page number. For magazines, the convention is to use the actual page count - including the cover. For example, early issues of Fantastic Universe had the pages numbered from 1 to 192, not counting the front or back covers. This would be entered as 196 pages.' (from the help pages. So, the page count probably has to be changed to a higher number (at least the cover and inside cover and perhaps all other pages up to and including the back cover) as in this issue.

3) If you have a source for a cover artist (as in the case of Gahan Wilson) it'd be fine to add him to the artist field - you already gave a note. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 09:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Christian, I followed your instructions and think I have it figured. Let me know if I've broken anything valuable ;) PeteYoung 10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You did fine! In fact, there's one more step to do: just place the title 'Foundation - 2003' into the title series 'Foundation: The Review of Science Fiction' (this way this year becomes part of the overall magazine series).

With magazines there's a special logic: the individual issues are viewed only as publications of a given title year - and have no title entry of their own. I had some hard time until I understood that, you were much faster!

For the issues from 2004 you have to do this just once, the other titles can be merged with the then established 'Foundation - 2004'. Stonecreek 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks good so far with one caveat: we only merge EDITOR records when the editor(s) is/are the same, so I rejected the submission that would have merged this title with this other title. No worries, you are doing great! Ahasuerus 18:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Foundation #96

This record should have been entered as a MAGAZINE type instead of NONFICTION. You'll have to change the title record from NONFICTION to EDITOR. Only then can you place it into the magazine series. Mhhutchins 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The same situation with Foundation #97 and its title record. Mhhutchins 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. PeteYoung 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You added the image links but didn't change the publication type. It could have been done in one submission to update the pub record. Mhhutchins 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had problems with various pop-up menus before... sometimes they haven't registered the choice from the menu, other times they don't pop-up anything. A browser issue, probably. I've restarted and logged in again and had another go for each record. PeteYoung 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. They've both been fixed now. Mhhutchins 20:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Murakami's Kafka on the Shore

You want to update this record by changing the date to 2005-01-06, and noting that your copy is "9th printing of the 1st UK edition from 1 – 10 number line." How could a novel that was first published in translation in January 2005 have gone through nine printings in 6 days? Perhaps you meant to clone the record instead of editing it? An unstated printing date should be entered as "0000-00-00". Also, how is a ninth printing indicated in a "1 - 10 number line"? Wouldn't it just be "9 10" with all earlier numbers removed? I've got the submission on hold. Please cancel it if you think you should have cloned it rather than updating it. Mhhutchins 16:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not being clear enough and am confusing myself (and you) into the bargain. Will clone and leave the original alone. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd thing is, I've already done more than enough edits which have taken factors such as these into account beforehand. Obviously not second nature enough yet, so thanks for your patience. PeteYoung 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. Every once in awhile, I find myself making a mistake with something that I've done a hundred times before. Fortunately, in most cases, I'm the only person who knows (one of the perqs of moderating your own submissions.) But look at my talk page and you'll see all of the mistakes that have been brought to my attention by other editors. At over 190,000 submissions, I'm going to make more mistakes than others, numerically. But when it comes to percentage of errors I'll put my record against anyone's.

One last thing about the new record: does the book have an ISBN-13? It was entered with an ISBN-10. Thanks for checking, and please continue to contribute. Mhhutchins

The underside of the barcode has the same number string you've recorded, so that looks good. It's not listed on the copyright page. PeteYoung 18:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the record was entered with an ISBN-10 (see the listing under the title record. If it has an ISBN-13, which most post 2005 UK editions have, you should update the record and change the number to the ISBN-13. Just because it displays both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 on the publication record (even for a book published before the ISBN-13 existed), you should always record the number given in the book itself. Mhhutchins 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PS Sampler

Was the story in this publication credited to "Peter Hamilton" without his usual middle initial? Mhhutchins 17:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Peter F. on the story's 1st page. Will amend. PeteYoung 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jungle Books

The best method of cleaning up the contents:

1. Remove all title records that don't match exactly the titles as they appear on the stories' title pages (not the contents page).
2. Update the publication record to add the titles that are not in its content, entering them exactly as they are credited.
3. Once that submission to update the record is accepted, go to each of the new title records and see if there is a canonical title already in the database for which it is a variant. If it is, record the number of the canonical record and use the "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" function. Enter the number of the canonical record into the first field in the top section and then submit.
4. If the canonical title is not in the database, use the same function, but instead of entering a record number in the top section, go down to the bottom section and change the title field to show the canonical title. This creates a new title record, and automatically makes it the parent (canonical) title and the other title becomes the variant title.

Mhhutchins 21:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Midwich Cuckoos

Hi, a minor matter: my edition of this has a price of 13/6. Could you check? Horzel 21:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be able check in a couple of weeks... I'm away from home and my collection is currently split into three locations on two continents. I'll let you know then, so thanks for your patience! PeteYoung 04:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

13/6 it is, then... the price 14/6 was there before I added further details to the Note and verified, and my copy has a clipped price. I'll make the correction. Good catch. PeteYoung 11:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Futures from Nature

Alas, the connection to reviewed works is only automatic on initial submission of a review (and only, if the titles and author(s) match). So, you have to link the review title to the work (see below). For this you may use this address. I don't know what happened to this review, but probably title and author didn't match in the initial edit.

You have to go on the title page of the review and then hit the 'Link review' button on the left tool bar. After that you only have to give the title no. of the reviewed title (in this case 706389).

Regrettably, this has an effect on the altering edit of the issue of Foundation I just approved of. Although the titles now match the linking also has to be done. Don't fret: it may take its time but (as I view it) it leads to a highly potentious database. Stonecreek 13:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer. And I've just submitted a few more 'link to review' edits for titles that were similarly affected in issues #102 and #104. Cheers. PeteYoung 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like some more work? (and a tiny bit more freedom?)

Hello, Pete! I have watched the quality of your submissions get better and better, and so I am inclined to ask you if you'd like to become a moderator? (You have to be willing first, then the inauguration process is started: in fact, it is a voting among the existing moderators - take a look at the Moderator Qualifications and the Moderator Helpscreen). So, how do you feel about it? Stonecreek 13:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Christian, I'm very flattered you think I'd make the grade as a moderator. I have to say, though, while my heart says "yes", my head says "not yet". I know mods aren't expected to know everything about how the database works, but I feel like I'm still learning stuff and trying out the tools – every day I spend half an hour looking through the Help pages, Noticeboards and other editors' talk pages to learn how things are done and often how things are not done (my own Talk page is a testament to that, plus a few more grey hairs on Michael's head)... it's an old life-lesson: learning from other people's mistakes is less hassle for everyone than learning from your own.

At the moment I'm very happy to keep on submitting stuff for approval. Sure, I could get through things quicker as a mod, but at the moment I think the workload, as it is now (with a family and all), suits me fine. If I'm invited again in 6 months time, though – when I'm more sure in my head about the architecture of the database and the correct use of some of the more esoteric tools – I might well say yes. Again, thanks very much indeed for the nomination, I appreciate it. PeteYoung 08:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the bit about more work was really more a joke. You aren't condemned to moderate for others. Especially in the beginning you need time to find out how things work as a moderator. On the other hand as a moderator it would be appreciated if you participate in general discussions (but you can do that as 'normal' editor as well). It's just that I think you are trustworthy and cautious enough to not submit nonsense. In addition, I think you would be great in communication with others (because you already are). And I've already written about the quality you submit.

I do understand the situation with a family at your side, though. Stonecreek 13:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll think about this further and let you know in the next day or two. Cheers. PeteYoung 14:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Christian, I'll bite. I accept your nomination, and thanks once again. Sorry it took me a little longer to get back to you... I spend altogether too much time on airplanes, with all the accompanying jet lag, in-flight food poisoning, the usual... PeteYoung 15:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to write some ISFDB guides that go a bit beyond the help pages - e.g. they will include diagrams, admit to bugs and explain some of the history and future. The last will probably cover the entire database structure: and there'll be a pamphlet on software development (I don't feel qualified to write the whole of that one). Would you like to review the first draft of the first volume? BLongley 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very interesting, and yes, I'd certainly like to see that, but just the end-user stuff as I'm clueless on the software/coding side of things. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to give feedback, if that's what you're after. PeteYoung 15:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I started the nomination process here. Stonecreek 18:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The nomination was successful and the moderator flag has been set for your account. Congratulations! Ahasuerus 01:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Pete, and welcome to the team! --Willem H. 12:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, and don't be afraid to still ask questions. There is a whole lot more NEW stuff to learn now! BLongley 12:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyberabad Days

I added some notes to this verified pub. --Willem H. 13:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also replaced the Amazon link with a new coverscan. --Willem H. 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch

I think the Locus date should remain, see [1]. Would you agree? BLongley 13:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for spotting that, I missed it. PeteYoung 01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dating undated books

Re: The Vampire of Siam: If a book has no date other than the year of copyright, and if there is no indication that it is a reprint, and you're somewhat certain that it's the first edition, it's OK to give the year of copyright in the publication field as long as you note the circumstances, and the source for your dating of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add: you can also use a reliable secondary source. Just be sure to note the source in the record's Note field. Mhhutchins 14:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll place 2003 as the date as there are a couple of reviews quoted on the author's website which both give that date and I can't find reference to it anywhere with an earlier date than this. However I'll also add a note to the effect that Asia Books is only named as the distributor on the author's website bio page, and the named publisher, Willat Publishing, doesn't appear anywhere on the copyright page, all of which initially led me to believe there may be an earlier edition. Perhaps not. PeteYoung 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cybernaut

A couple of problems with this record. I'm assuming you meant this to be a CHAPTERBOOK type instead of NOVEL, because you created a SHORTFICTION content record. This can be easily fixed by changing the types of both the pub record and the title record to CHAPTERBOOK. Also, please re-checkk the ISBN. The number given has an invalid checksum digit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, a novel. I added the short story under the 'Additional Content' banner, but it looks like I should have waited for the Pub Record to be created first before actually adding the 'additional content'. Also the only ISBN on the copyright page (and the top of the barcode on the back cover ends in 1), ISBN-13 at the bottom of that barcode ends in 2. I've now made that correction. Thanks. PeteYoung 22:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-genre books

I rejected the submission to delete the pub record of a book which was reviewed in a spec-fic magazine. According to the rules (see #12 here) such works are IN. I've questioned the point of this during several discussions, but the consensus came down to allowing such works into the database. (That's why there are so many science books in the database, by authors with no connection to science fiction at all, because they were reviewed in spec-fic periodicals.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. I suggested this PubDelete using the same rationale as my edit to Jacques Chessex's The Vampire of Ropraz a couple of weeks ago: keep the title record for the reviews, transfer any useful information to the Note, and don't clutter up the database with the Pub - that PubDelete was accepted. Thanks for the link to RoA #12 and I'll bow to your battle-hardened experience. PeteYoung 02:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It comes down to dead-end links, which we don't like. At some point I will look into an easy way to convert REVIEWs into ESSAYs so that people aren't encouraged to enter reviews of graphic novels etc. BLongley 22:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ordering co-author credits

I see you're attempting to order the way in which co-authors are credited in title records. Sorry, but the system is unable to change the order in which the co-authors are displayed once the record is in the database. I'm not even sure if it makes a difference when you enter a title for the first time. Mhhutchins 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing: you'll notice that the data in the Note field as displayed in this record butts up against the next section of the header, and it looks like the Bibliographic Comments field is part of the Note field. That's caused by an open HTML tag; in this case, it's missing the closing UL tag. Mhhutchins 04:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed the omitted UL tag. But I'm not trying to re-order any co-authors in title records, and if that's how an edit has appeared it wasn't intentional. Where were you seeing this? PeteYoung 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There was an update of this record which looked like it was trying to re-arrange the editor order. Sorry if I misunderstood what the edit was doing. Mhhutchins 04:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I was just adding the middle initial to Paul's name, as credited. Cheers for keeping an eye out, anyway. PeteYoung 04:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's Anthem

Following ISFDB standards for stand-alone publication of novellas, I changed your verified record to a CHAPTERBOOK and added a SHORTFICTION content record. Mhhutchins 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Gorel and the Pot-Bellied God

Can you confirm the ISBN as stated in this record? According to the publisher's website, the trade edition's ISBN is 978-1-848631-58-8 and the signed limited edition as 978-1-848631-59-5. Also, can you see if the price is stated on the publication? The website gives the trade edition as £11.99 and the limited edition as £24.99. Thanks for checking. I've cloned your record to create one for the limited edition. Mhhutchins 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I see there was some mix-up here: it's the signed edition ISBN with the unsigned edition's price. If you're creating a record for the signed limited edition I'll correct the ISBN for the current record to make it that of the unsigned trade edition. Also, prices are stated on the back cover: "Unsigned £12" and "Signed £25" (alongside each ISBN). PeteYoung 23:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the price of the signed edition based on the data given in the unsigned trade edition. I'm assuming the ISBNs as stated in the records are now correct as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pagination for magazines

I saw the message you left on editor MLB's talk page, and thought I would bring to your attention the section about magazine pagination on this help page. It allows for the use of "bc" and "bep" in magazines. Also in the case of this publication, perhaps page 1 is the first page facing the front inside cover, and is numbered as "1". Some magazines don't count the covers as pages, even though the ISFDB includes them in the total page count which we give in that field. The page numbers on which pieces appear may not have a correlation with the page count, as pagination and page count are not the same thing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've made the Talk edit which hopefully clarifies things. PeteYoung 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that "fep" in a magazine record, according to the current standards, means the unnumbered page on the back of the front cover of the publication, or the "inside the front cover" page. The page that is labeled "1" would physically be the third page, but any content on that page is listed in the ISFDB record based on the number actually printed on the page: "1". This may have caused the confusion in MLB's submission to update the record for Lore #9. He's correct to give "1" as the page on which the content appears if it appears on that third page of the publication. Again, the ISFDB record should reflect the page number as it is stated in the magazine. We don't enter the page numbers of contents by counting the pages in the publication. Page counting only matters in one field: the page count field in the metadata section of the record, not the content section. The page count field has nothing to do with how the page numbers of the contents are given in the record. Hope this clears up the confusion. Mhhutchins 06:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, re. "fep", that was a line that I meant to delete before hitting Save. I've made the edit that hopefully doesn't add to his confusion. ;) PeteYoung 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the reference title in a pub

I se your submission to remove the title record from this publication record in the queue. That's not a good idea, because it will cause the record to be a stray publication, i.e. a pub record without a title record. You may not have noticed the warning ("exercise caution") when you made the submission. If you're wanting to change the title record under which this pub was entered it's best to go to its title record and use the "Unmerge Titles" function. That's actually a misnomer, because you're actually unmerging the publication record from the title record, not unmerging titles. If you remove a pub record from a title record, the system will automatically create a new title record. If you remove a title record from the pub record, it will be title-less (as I explained above.) What is the intention behind the submission? Mhhutchins 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That must be some kind of stray duplicate edit to an earlier one I made (1924888) to remove Dick's afterword that first appeared in the Bluejay edition 5 years later. I certainly don't recall making a second attempt at it, and an edit to remove the title itself from the pub is certainly not an edit I'd consciously make or even Approve, which is why it was kinda orphaned in the queue. What the edit submission shows now is the novel and cover art in the Keep column with nothing listed for removal under the Drop column. I'll reject it, of course. Thanks for keeping an eye out. PeteYoung 22:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny. I saw something different. Either way, it's gone. Mhhutchins 22:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-coding

Please don't use < i > and </ i > in wiki-text, and particularly in section titles. in section titles it breaks the automatic link from the recent changes display to the section. Instead use paired single quotes ('') for italics. See Help:Editing for more information. Thank you. -DES ^Talk 02:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. PeteYoung 02:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2312

I've added a new scan and some additional notes to the Orbit UK edition of 2312. Albinoflea 05:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Suitably comprehensive! Thanks. PeteYoung 06:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Report on Probability A by Aldiss

This publication record was entered under the wrong title record. (Look at the author credit.) I found it only because it appears on the title/pub mismatch list in the clean-up scripts. If you need assistance on how to correct it, just ask. BTW, I added your name to the Moderator Availability list. When you get a chance, please update the availability data and your time zone. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have asked you this first, but I just noticed that the first two Sphere printings credited Brian W. Aldiss. I assumed that your verified record was correctly credited to Brian Aldiss on its title page, not just the cover. Mhhutchins 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, "Brian Aldiss". Done now, thanks for spotting it.

Re. Mod Availability, done also, although I'm either in one place (home) for a month, but then several places around the world on alternate months. However I'm still generally available most days, wherever I am. Thanks. PeteYoung 18:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't update my availability as often as I used to. Now I only do it when I'm away for more than a week. Otherwise I just leave it at "limited" and pop in and out, more days more often than others. BTW, I just answered the question you posted on my page about the PKDS Newsletter interviews. Mhhutchins 18:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm With the Bears

Are you by chance the submitter/editor of the pub record for I'm With the Bears? I noticed that you uploaded the cover art but there's no primary verifier listed, so I thought perhaps it might be you. Albinoflea 06:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was my submission, several months ago. I'm surprised I hadn't verified it! I'll do a P2 and tidy up the Note. Thanks. PeteYoung 06:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every time I'd forgotten to verify a submission... well, I'd still be poor, but I'd have an awfully big stack of pennies!

If it's OK with you, I'll update the titles of the three excerpts to comply with this discussion, and will place notes in the title records for the respective excerpts as well.Albinoflea 06:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. PeteYoung 06:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Foundation 102

I changed the author credit of the Heinlein piece in this record from "C. W. Sullivan III" to "C. W. Sullivan, III". Mhhutchins 18:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

C. B. Harvey unmasked

Colin Harvey (1971-) recently confessed to being the same person as C. B. Harvey, the Vector reviewer, so I have set up VTs for your verified Vectors.

Since you have done reviews for Vector and Strange Horizons, two magazines where Colin Harvey has appeared, I wonder if you may be in a position to ask him to check our records for Colin Harvey (1960-2011), Colin Harvey (1971-) and, most importantly, Colin Harvey (no disambiguating suffix). I suspect that almost (?) all the essays and reviews listed as by just "Colin Harvey" were actually written by Colin Harvey (1971-), but I am not sure about the fiction. TIA! Ahasuerus 19:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, great minds think alike, and all that. A couple of weeks ago I looked at those three biblios and was able to untangle just one title and place it under Colin Harvey (1960-2011), and I made a mental note to e-mail Colin Harvey (1971-) via his website to ask him if he could untangle the rest. I'll get onto it! Cheers. PeteYoung 18:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Ahasuerus 19:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done now. Colin Harvey (1971-) has let me know what entries were and were not his on the 'neutral' Colin Harvey page, and I've reassigned entries to each author. The late CH (1960-2011) is now Colin Harvey, and the living CH requested that his canonical name be listed as Colin B. Harvey, so I've removed their accompanying dates: if this simplification actually screws up anything (eg. possibly their reference in the 'How to separate two authors with the same name' Help Page), let me know and I'll reassign the dates. There may be some further disambiguation to do when CBH advises me how his fiction was credited: if it's 'Colin Harvey', at the very least his pseudonym will need "(1971-)".

I've also added bibliographic comments for each author re. their common name. PeteYoung 07:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! So it turned out that the essays/reviews in Strange Horizon were contributed by both Harveys? Boy, it's a small world! And yes, we will need to find another lucky duo to use on the Help:How_to_separate_two_authors_with_the_same_name page.

P.S. Disambiguation should be notably easier once we move Author-specific Wiki pages to the main application. Ahasuerus 17:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fury

Added the price to [this], source Tuck. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lemistry: A Celebration of the Work of Stanislaw Lem

Could you please double check if "Less Than Kin, More Than Kind" in your verified Lemistry: A Celebration of the Work of Stanislaw Lem is attributed to Brian Adiss rather than Brian Adliss (note the missing "l")? TIA! Ahasuerus 20:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Every time I make a typo the errorists win. I can't check it for a few weeks as that book's on the other side of the planet right now, but yes, it is without doubt a typo. As is yours, sir: "Adliss"?! :) PeteYoung 11:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On Usenet it was known as Skitt's Law: "any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself" :-) Ahasuerus 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Priest's Fugue for a Darkening Island

There are two different records, both primary verified, for the same 2011 edition of this title. There's some slight differences (page count and binding size.) Please get with the other verifier to determine which one should be deleted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, we're on it. PeteYoung 07:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Priest's The Islanders

FYI: I've found a note that credits the 'Wordcloud' art on the backcover of my edition to Priest. Maybe it's also on your edition? And I wonder if the hc really has the same pricing as the tp - maybe the 'export edition' thing has something to do with it? Stonecreek 10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the Wordcloud to the hc and merged the Interior art record. Re. the hc price: yes, it actually is £12.99. Which is odd, I agree, as these days with most Gollancz hardcovers you get very little change from a £20 note. Or in some instances, none! :) PeteYoung 04:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Zero Point

Replaced amazon scan for your verified here. Hauck 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

C. D. Evans' Capella's Golden Eyes

This publication record is under the wrong title record. Ask if you need assistance on how to clean up the record. Mhhutchins 05:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Lazy edit, methinks. You can see I've now varianted a pseudonymous title and created an identical pub record for the title (new pub the unverified one), but is there a way of replicating the assorted verifications into the new pub? Or, if there was a shorter way that wouldn't involve replacing/deleting the original pub record, I couldn't figure it among the tools at hand. A quicker route? PeteYoung 06:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But we'll have to go back to scratch. First delete the duplicate that you created and its title record. That was unnecessary. You don't have to create a pub record in order to create a title record. One of the fastest ways to create a new title record is to unmerge a pub from its title record. The following method should be used to do that in the future:

• Go to the original title record, and select "Unmerge Titles" under the Editing Tools menu.
• On the next page, click on the box of the pub record which has an author credit that doesn't match the author credit of its title record. (It was this mismatch that caused it show up on the cleanup script designed to find such errors. The scripts are linked on the moderators page.) Then click the "Submit Unmerge" button.
• Go to the Moderators page and approve the submission.
• The pub has now been unmerged from the original title record, and has its own title record. Click on the post-submission-approval link to go to the new pub record. Then go to its title record ("title reference").
• On this new title record, click on "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work".
• On the next page enter the title ID of the original title record (in this case "8945") into the Parent # field, and click on "Link to Existing Parent". (You will have had to already recorded the title record number of the parent record, but if you didn't you could have used the bottom portion of this function to change the author field to the canonical author's name. But this creates a new parent record which will have to be merged with the existing one. So it's best to record and enter the already existing parent record.)

These instructions should help you now and should be referred to in the future until you've become familiar with the method. Believe me, this is so much more simpler than it used to be, because the system creates a new matching title record once a pub has been unmerged. Before we had that feature it was twice as hard to correct such errors. Mhhutchins 13:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this has slipped your mind. Let me know if you'd like me to fix this title. Mhhutchins 21:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt. Your instructions all make clear sense; it's only "Unmerge Titles" that I'm far less familiar with using, I've probably only had to use it two or three times in total. The cleanup scripts are something I plan to explore soon, as well as beginning to tackle some Fixer submissions. Cheers. PeteYoung 11:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis

Can you confirm the presence of an ISBN-13 on the copyright page or back cover of this edition? That would indicate a later printing, because the ISBN-13 came into existence in 2005 and wasn't widely used until 2007. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll be able to get back to you on that a little over a week from now as my collection is currently divided between two continents. Which is a hassle, as the necessary stuff is *always* where I am not... PeteYoung 20:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The ISBN-13 is on the back cover only (stating "ISBN-13:") above the same for "ISBN-10:", and the copyright page contains the ISBN-10 only. There are also a few strings of codes at the bottom of the copyright page, the most relevant of which is possibly " 07 / RRD 40", perhaps indicating a 2007 printing but I wasn't prepared to assume that off the bat without knowing what the code means. What's your reckoning, or what RRD may indicate in this context? If none of this sheds any light I'll change the pub year to 0000 and amend the Note. PeteYoung 13:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen all sorts of codes/letters in the center of number lines, and haven't yet figured out what most of them mean. I know some publishers indicate which press on which it was printed (for example, Bantam places the press code before the number line). But I've seen that same "RRD" in many HarperCollins pubs, but usually ignore it. The first number on the far left is the year of the printing and the last number on the far right is the number of the printing. Look at the number line that I recorded on the HarperCollins editions of this record, this record, and this record. All are complete number lines, but have different letter codes in the center. Regardless, the year and printing number remained constant. Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 15:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've settled on 2007 and the 40th printing, Note amended. Thanks again for your input. PeteYoung 03:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

40th printing? Are you certain that's the lowest number on the right side of the number line? If that's the only number then we may have misinterpreted the code. That seems a high number for a six-year-old book, especially for such an obscure title, even if it is C. S. Lewis. There are some pretty popular sf titles that took twenty years to get that many printings! Mhhutchins 05:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the only number, and yes, it is unlikely as a printing. I'll amend the note to reflect the ambiguity, but I think it's likely we can bank on 2007 as the year. PeteYoung 12:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Particles of Participation"

I'm always wary of pieces that have more than three authors, so this interview with eighteen people really stood out. Most of the interviewees are not otherwise in the database. Is this really an interview, or perhaps the author of the piece asked the eighteen participants a series of questions to which they responded? This would be an essay form that I see occasionally. If the latter, then I would suggest that the record be changed to an essay and with the participants added in the title record's note field. Not only would this streamline the display of the publication record and the interviewer's summary page, but it would also avoid about 15 or so authors' summary pages that have no title records in the database. But if you feel strongly enough that it remain an interview, just ignore the suggestion. Thanks.

One more thing: we're not supposed to use the word "untitled" in the title field of an interiorart record. It should have the title of the work it illustrates. If it doesn't illustrate a work of fiction or an essay, then it illustrates the issue of the magazine, so that would be its title. In this cases, that would be "Journey Planet #2" Mhhutchins 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

An advanced search for "untitled" in the title field of an interiorart record returns more than 700 records in the database. So I suppose there are many editors who are not aware of this standard (and moderators who are accepting submissions that do so). A scan through those records show many are from Journey Planet, but there are plenty more from older magazines which may have been entered before the standards were set. I'll bring this up on the rules and standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please disregard the above concerning the use of "untitled". Apparently that's the standard as given in the help pages, even though most users follow the "title of the work it illustrates" rule. Sorry. I'll bring up the discrepancy between the practice and the stated standard. Mhhutchins 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Re. 'Particles of Participation', yes I think it was a series of circulated questions. I'll get on it.

Re "untitled" interior art, yes I've been following the standard given at the end of the Help paragraph that focusses on 'Interior Art', although I think there is room for improvement in that wording, or at least updating (I get the feeling it was written some time ago, and possibly before anyone had heard of Chris Garcia). Some issues of Journey Planet (in fact most of the ones I haven't been involved with) actually illustrate what I've found to be an indexing problem, because Chris, as much as I love the guy, clearly likes to go too heavy with fillos. Entries which are simply "Untitled" or "Cartoon: no caption" etc. don't really serve the ISFDB very well, and although they're unavoidable I think they are not as descriptive or helpful as they could be. To add clarity I've recently been working my way through the JP issues and adding the pub title in brackets, much as we do with 'Letter', 'Editorial, 'Introduction', etc., then if an artist has several fillos scattered around the zine I've found it necessary to further disambiguate by adding "[1]", "[2]", etc. There's nothing in the Help that says this extra clarity for the titles shouldn't be done. JP #2 I've not touched yet, but JP #4 particularly has been a bitch to index accurately because interior art is not consistent across both the paper zine and the e-zine, and I've mentioned this in the Notes for each. But if I apply one indexing standard to an artist I ought to apply it to all for that pub, and this led to the herculean/pointless task of indexing separately all Bill Rotsler's fillos in a pub, for instance, things that could probably serve just as well as one entry without a page number. I'll probably go back and do that, actually. PeteYoung 22:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I truly feel sometimes that too much information can be as detrimental as too little. Adding every single detail as an individual content record, especially in magazine records, detracts from the important pieces, putting everything on an equal footing. But I'm not going to tell editors how much detail they want to add to a record. The standards leave that up to the editors. Adding contents at all is still optional. Honestly, how does it help anyone to know that Rotsler has several thousand untitled drawings in hundreds of issues of dozens of fanzine titles? We all know that. As for disambiguating the records, be sure not to add "[1]" to the first piece by an author/artist within the same publication. I know, it doesn't make sense. For the life of me, I don't know how this became a standard. Surely there was no discussion during the time I've been here. The rule has no apparent logic, but that's the way it's done in thousands of records in the db, and it's too late to change it now. Mhhutchins 23:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Fall of Hyperion

I added a note about the printing number and the Worldcat link to the SF Masterworks edition of The Fall of Hyperion. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 01:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Classic Science Fiction Stories [2]

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this], more data on the artwork, added the Foreword as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I think tp really does the edition an injustice. It's quite a remarkable book, in total [as a physical thing, regardless of the stories]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the extra input. Totally agree about the book itself... extraordinary. And I believe they did a similarly impressive title on Fairy Tales as well. PeteYoung 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Comic Con

Quick question: Was this orphan interview supposed to be included in this pub, by chance? Or was it superseded by this essay, in which case the interview record can be safely deleted? Ahasuerus 04:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto this interview vs. this essay. Ahasuerus 04:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were recreated as essays following Michael's suggestion above ('Particles of Participation'). I must have recreated seven or eight such entries and I thought I'd deleted all the interviews, so these must have slipped through. Thanks for catching them, they're gone now. PeteYoung 05:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I try to run the cleanup scripts accessible via the Cleanup Scripts page at least once every few months, which is how I found these two. Ahasuerus 06:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I run the scripts at least once at week, so you probably would only catch those less than a week old. It's good to know that other moderators are running them as well. Mhhutchins 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

New editor's greetings

If you handle a new editor's first submission, it's important that you leave the welcome message on their user talk page. It's easily entered using the template {{welcome}} followed by four tildes. I've added the template to this new editor's talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Such a simple thing to overlook. Not enough sleep, clearly. Cheers. PeteYoung 22:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Apex Book of World SF

Expanded the notes & added cover scan for The Apex Book of World SF. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Impressively comprehensive! Thanks. PeteYoung 09:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First Lensman

I added the interior art, the lccn and linked the Worldcat number to Smith's First Lensman. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hodder ed. of King's 11.22.63

Can you look at your copy of this and see if yours is a first printing? My copy has the number "5" printed on the copyright page just above the "All rights reserved" statement, so I think that's Hodder's way of indicating the printing number. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 07:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be able to dig this one out in a couple of days. Cheers. PeteYoung 01:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mine has a solitary "1" there, so it looks like yours must be the 5th printing. I'll also amend my Note to indicate it's the 1st printing. And Happy New Year! PeteYoung 03:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)