Difference between revisions of "User talk:Rtrace"

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
! style="background: #66CCFF; border: 2px solid; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; "|  
 
! style="background: #66CCFF; border: 2px solid; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; "|  
 
<center>PLEASE NOTE:</center>
 
<center>PLEASE NOTE:</center>
−
If you're writing to inform me that you've either added a COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS, please click [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Rtrace/Changes_to_Verified_Pubs&action=edit&section=1 HERE] and add it to the bottom of the list. A link to the pub record would be appreciated. Once the pub has been reviewed, I'll remove your note from the list. Thanks. Ron (Rtrace)
+
If you're writing to inform me that you've either added a missing COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS, please click [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Rtrace/Changes_to_Verified_Pubs&action=edit&section=1 HERE] and add it to the bottom of the list. A link to the pub record would be appreciated. Once the pub has been reviewed, I'll remove your note from the list. Thanks. Ron (Rtrace)
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive12]] (2019)
 
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive12]] (2019)
 
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive13]] (2020)
 
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive13]] (2020)
−
 
+
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive14]] (2021)
 +
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive15]] (2022)
 +
* [[User talk:Rtrace/Archive16]] (2023)
 
for older discussions.
 
for older discussions.
  
−
== Cover art for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?10837 Dr. Futurity / Slavers of Space] ==
+
== Cover Image Licenses ==
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron, it looks as of the cover credits have somehow been mixed up for this publication. I don't own this pub so I can't validate it personally - but shouldn't the credits be vice-versa, i.e. 'Dr. Futurity' is by Valigursky the the 'Slavers of Space' by Emsh? Cheers, John [[User:JLochhas|JLochhas]] 16:30, 2 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
:I wasn't the one who added those credits and it took me forever to find the Emsh signature, but you do appear to be correct. I'll swap the credits.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 16:40, 2 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Midnight Pearls Blue ==
 
−
 
 
−
Please see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4876999 this submission] that would change a title in one of your verified pubs. Should this be accepted or a variant created instead? Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
:It's a good edit.  You can go ahead and approve.  Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 10 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Hornbook & Movie ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hello. My "presentation copy" of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?227849 this] with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?227853 this] arrived from the USA today.
 
−
I've changed the notes field and added additional text taken verbatim from my copy thus:
 
−
Not separately priced. Available only as a set with <i>The Harlan Ellison Hornbook</i> in a slipcased, limited edition of 776 numbered copies.<br>
 
−
Stated first edition "Mirage Press limited edition / October 1990"
 
−
Gives ISBNs of Letherbound Deluxe and Limited Clothbound editions on copyright page.
 
−
Notes on publication history on copyright page.
 
−
Limitation stated on page preceeding title page thus: 776 copies pof this Mirage special set of Harlan Ellison's Movie along with it's companion volume The Harlan Ellison Hornbook have been produced. 26 sets have been signed, bound in full leather, slipcased and lettered A-Z. 750 sets have been signed, bound in cloth and numbered 1-750" below this "Of this numbered edition, this is copy ....".
 
−
PV2's copy is marked PC [Presentation Copy].
 
−
Note I changed the original limitation from 750 to 776 as that's the number the printed text in the book says.
 
−
Hope all that is satisfactory. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 08:29, 13 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, April 1980 ==
 
−
 
 
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?60968 Adding a couple of letters from authors in our database, if you have no objection. [[User:Gzuckier|gzuckier]] 23:44, 15 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Jack Vance ==
 
−
 
 
−
Added missing series to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?55524 this] as well as normalisinf the series titles to "Writers of the 21st Century Series" as a whole. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 01:50, 16 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Fifth Season ==
 
−
 
 
−
 
−
Hello, Rtrace.
 
−
 
−
I inserted the translation to the Portuguese (#819033) but in the summary of the author (#111330) appear like a new novel, not a translation. How to fix it?
 
−
 
−
How is the right way to put translations? Its a New Novel or Add Publication to This Title or Variant?
 
−
--[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 10:02, 22 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:It looks correct to me now and I believe that [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] got the records where they needed to be.  It is at least a two step process and there are two main ways of doing it.  Probably the easiest way to to use the "Add New Novel" tool and and the translation with the translated title and language.  It is also a good idea to add the translator in both the title notes and the publication notes using the translator template: "<nowiki>{{Tr|Aline Storto Pereira}}</nowiki>".  After that edit has been approved, you'd need to make the title record of the new publication (e.g. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2825634 this]) into a variant of the canonical title ([http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1878015 this]).  This is done by clicking on the "Make This Title a Variant" while on the translated title.  You would use Option 1 on the next page and provide the record number of the canonical title (1878015) in the parent # field.  That should be all that's needed.  You can also do it backwards by using "Add a Variant to This Title" from the parent title, and after that is approved, use "Add Publication to This Title" from the new translated title record.  Hope this helps and don't worry.  Variants take a bit of getting used to.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:44, 22 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
:: One small advice here: If someone uses "Add a Variant to This Title" and does not submit and have approved a publication to it on the same day the variant creation is approved, the empty variant has a high chance to be deleted overnight - a report flags it and there is no real way (short of looking through the daily approvals) to find out if it is a new one waiting a publication or an old uncleaned one (left over after a deletion or a rename/unmerge) - so these get deleted fairly quickly. So "Add New" -> variant is better than "Add Variant" -> "Add Publication". [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:55, 22 January 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== F. Shroye(r)? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi, Ron! I wonder if [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?313877 this author] could be the same as [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?132150 this one]: both were writers of letters to ''Weird Tales'', around the same time. Thanks for spending a thought (or a second look), Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 08:13, 4 February 2021 (EST)
 
−
:Thanks for finding this.  I was going to say they were different as the letter by F. Shorye was from Decatur, IL and the 2nd letter by Frederick B. Shroyer was from Ann Arbor, MI.  However, the 1st letter by Frederick B. Shroyer was also from Decatur.  I'll make the variant for the abbreviated name.  Thanks again. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:45, 4 February 2021 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume 5 ==
 
  
−
You blessed my addition of the contents to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?794324 this book]. Thanks. The contents only went to one of the editions, the trade paperback that I edited. How does one add them to the HC and ebook? Do I go through the same process for the other two? The Help page "How to clone a publication" is suggestive, but I'm not sure how to apply it. (New editor)
+
When using the "Upload new cover scan" option from a publication page, the software will automatically add a licensing template pre-populated with the publication information. In this case, you do not need to select a license under the "Licensing" pull down on the upload page (as it creates adds a second, incomplete template that needs to be cleaned up). The "Licensing" pull down only needs to be used when using the upload option from the wiki directly. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:42, 1 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Thanks.  Good to know. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 08:49, 1 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
== And I see ... ==
+
== [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?985361 Starman Jones] audio reading ==
  
−
... I haven't yet remembered to sign my name. I think I have it now: [[User:Sfmvnterry|Sfmvnterry]] 17:17, 17 February 2021 (EST)Sfmvnterry
+
Hi, Ron! Just wondering: the noted narrator and the one stated on the cover image do differ. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 13:16, 1 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:You are correct. But is appears that the cover has the incorrect narrator.  Audible credits Paul Michael Garcia in their [https://www.audible.com/pd/Starman-Jones-Audiobook/B002UZQYN0 current listing] and I re-listened to the credits in the audio book which which also credit Garcia. I had already checked that the current cover on the Audible site (the same as linked in the publication record), matches the one I downloaded when I purchased this book in 2011.  The images are identical and both credit Powers, apparently incorrectly, as you noticed.  I'll add a note that pictured credit is incorrect.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 13:30, 1 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
:Hi Sfmvnterry and welcome.  Getting the contents from the trade paperback edition to the other formats is not particularly difficult, but cloning is not the way to go.  The fist step in the process is to get the Publication Record # from the record with the contents.  This can either be found in the top right corner, or as part of the URL for the page.  In this case, the number is 794324.  Then navigate to one of the other printings and look for the Import Content tool.  Clicking this will give you two options.  Option 1 is what you want which is to import all the contents from one publication to another.  Option 2 is for when you want to specify individual title records for import.  For option 1 you have checkboxes for including coverart, interior art and page numbers as part of the import.  You'll want all three of these to be checked (as they are by default).  Enter the record number from the source and click "Import Content".  This will take you to an edit screen with all of the contents from the source publication added.  You have a chance here to make any adjustments.  When you import to the hardcover, you shouldn't need to adjust anything.  When you import to the eBook, we don't want page numbers, but we do want things in the proper order.  This can be accomplished by prepending a pipe (|) before each page number (e.g. "|1").  For you Roman numbered item, you'll need to change it to Arabic numbers i.e. make "ix" into "|0.9".  This will cause the items to sort base on what is on the right side of the pipe, but only displays what is on the left side of the pipe, which in this case is nothing.  After you submit these edits and they are approved, everything should be fine.  I'll mention one other thing that doesn't apply here.  Any title can appear in a publication only once.  If your source publication has a title that is already in the destination, it won't import.  Please go ahead and give it a try and let me know if you have any questions.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:10, 17 February 2021 (EST)
+
== Kioga Titles ==
−
::That works - thanks! Good explanation, just what I needed. (This is the issue, lack of a TOC in this book, that inspired me to get off my butt and get an account. I hope to do a lot more.) [[User:Sfmvnterry|Sfmvnterry]] 22:27, 17 February 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== The Haunted Woman / David Lindsey -- cover check ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=kioga%3A&type=All+Titles; Should those all say "informal"? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:54, 2 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Corrected.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:58, 2 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Could you check your copy of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?255157] and see if it has the "Slightly higher in Canada" markup next to the price on the top/right front page? Mine doesn't, but the verified record cover does. Thanks. --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 01:59, 18 February 2021 (EST)
+
== Amazing Stories, October 1960 ==
−
:It does not.  I've replaced the Amazon scan, with one of my copy.  It does look like my copy was trimmed a little off from the design.  Note the solid purple bar at the bottom.  If you can do a better scan, please feel free to replace it.  Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:40, 18 February 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
::My copy it trimmed the same way. --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 15:31, 18 February 2021 (EST)
+
Regarding {{P|56651|Amazing Stories, October 1960}}: Would you mind checking the artwork on page 83? It is listed as "The Missionary [2]" by Bernklau, but Bernklau did the "Seeing Eye" artwork right before and Emsh did the "The Missionary" artwork after it. Should this be "Seeing Eye [2]"? Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 09:40, 6 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:I agree and have made the change.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 12:07, 6 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::OK by me.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] ([[User talk:Swfritter|talk]]) 18:52, 6 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
== Bradbury's "Dandelion Wine" a variant of Portuguese? ==
+
== HIstórias Extraordinárias N.7 ==
  
−
Hi! Why did you approve of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4917109 this]? This is the second strange variant submitted by the editor that I came across (the other one I already corrected). Could you please revert to the correct varianting? [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 15:18, 18 February 2021 (EST)
+
Hello Rtrace, thanks for reviewing and approving my submission [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5838401 5838401].
−
:Clearly that was a mistake and easily fixed.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:32, 18 February 2021 (EST)
+
I must have missed some information in it because it is not appearing as part of the series in the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/seriesgrid.cgi?67858 magazine series page] in the 2023 December slot.
 +
Could you please fix it or tell me where I should insert the pertinent information so it can appear there?
  
−
== Rest of the Robots ==
+
Thanks! [[User:Pugno|Pugno]] ([[User talk:Pugno|talk]]) 13:00, 9 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Hi Pugno
 +
:Magazines are just a little bit tricky and involve at least one edit beyond the initial one to get everything correct.  One thing that you missed in adding this record was to add the series name, "Histórias Extraordinárias", in the Title Data section of the New Magazine screen.  Had you done this, your new record would have appeared in the Issue Grid.  However, even had you don that, there still would be an addition step to do.  We can take care of the series name at the same time that we do this second step.  You may have noticed that Magazine and Fanzine records have a special Title record of type EDITOR.  Also that title record contains all the publications (issues) for a given calendar year that have the same editors.  For example, the title record for 2023 for Histórias Extraordinárias is {{T|3180646|here}}.  You'll notice that the title is different that that of the individual issues ("Histórias Extraordinárias - 2023") and that the date is for the year only i.e. no month or day.  For the first issue that is added for a given year, the EDITOR title record has to be edited to change those fields.  In this case, since the 2023 title already exists, all we need to do is to merge your newly created EDITOR title ({{T|3265222|here}} with the existing 2023 title.  The best way to do that is to go to any of the three editor's pages and select "Show All Titles".  Then find the two titles in question ("Histórias Extraordinárias - 2023" and "Histórias Extraordinárias, Dezembro 2023").  Select the check boxes next to these and click the "Merge Selected Records" button.  This will take you to an intermediate page to resolve the conflicts between the two records.  Select the title with the dash and the year, the series name and the date without the month and click "Complete Merge".  Once that edit is approved, things will appear as they should.  Please go ahead and give it a try if you feel comfortable with the instructions.  If not, feel free to ask questions or if you'd like me to take care of the merge for you.  I'm happy to do so, but wanted to give you the change to learn how to do this.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 20:38, 9 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::Hi Rtrace
 +
::I am not sure I understood it all :) So what I did was to submit a change ([https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5856081 #5856081]) and I kindly ask you to please adjust it accordingly so it can appear correctly in the series page. I tried to follow your instructions and use the "Show All Titles" that you mentioned but alas, couldn't find it. I am sorry.
 +
::In the meantime, for the same magazine, I will also submit a number of changes to create variants of interiorarts, since they are the same art appearing in different spots, just zoomed in. Thanks! [[User:Pugno|Pugno]] ([[User talk:Pugno|talk]]) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:::I'll go ahead and do the merge.  For the next time you need it, the "Show All Titles" link in on the author bibliography page e.g. {{A|Mario Cavalcanti}}.  In the left menu, under "Editing Tools", it's the 4th item down (or the second from the bottom, I've got the Moderator link first, which I'm not sure you can see, so your count may differ).  In any case, thanks for your contributions on these.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:41, 11 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::Rtrace, thank you very much for your help. I hadn't realized that the "Show all Titles" link could be accessed via the author bibliography page. Now it is clear! Now I submitted two variant adjustements, #[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5856083 5856083] and #[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5856084 5856084] to correctly set two interior arts. Could you please see to it? Once it is done, I will clone the magazine to create its ebook version. Once again, thanks a lot!! [[User:Pugno|Pugno]] ([[User talk:Pugno|talk]]) 21:35, 11 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:::::Both approved.  You can proceed with cloning.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:38, 11 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::::Thanks Rtrace! I just cloned it. Submission #[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5857813 5857813] - hope it is all OK. Thanks again! [[User:Pugno|Pugno]] ([[User talk:Pugno|talk]]) 17:20, 12 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Hi, just logged in for the first time in a while and I saw your note about ''Rest of the Robots''.  I do still have that issue of ''New Worlds'', but it's in a box.  If I can dig it out I'll let you know.  Sorry about the delay! [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 06:16, 24 February 2021 (EST)
+
== The Fourth Invasion by Alvim Correa ==
  
−
== Mrs. C. Coleman McGhee or Mrs. C. Coleman McGehee? ==
+
I saw that you registered Black Infinity, Fall 2018 and have two INTERIORART attributed to Alvim Corrrea, wouldn't it be a case of turning it into a variant of La guerre des mondes? [[User:Hyju|Hyju]] ([[User talk:Hyju|talk]]) 08:57, 15 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:I wouldn't think so. Those are two individual illustrations. Whereas, {{T|743875|La guerre des mondes}} is the full set of illustrations for a book. We don't generally make variant titles for only part of the whole (excepting serials). --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:44, 15 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Hi, is there a chance that the following two, [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?234288 Mrs. C. Coleman McGhee] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?144010 Mrs. C. Coleman McGehee], are at least the same person and one likely a typo for the other?--[[User:Dirk P Broer|Dirk P Broer]] 18:44, 3 March 2021 (EST)
+
== Exhalation ==
−
:Yup.  I missed an "e" on one of them.  Thanks for finding it. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:57, 3 March 2021 (EST)
+
In Your pv pub [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?788223 CoNZealand: 78th World Science Fiction Convention] there is an interiorart [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2763640 Exhalation (cover)] as a variant of "Exhalation" cover. In the ISFDB there are three cover titles Exhalation: [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2780439 here], [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2777439 here] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2553590 here]. Can You please have a look which one is the right one or is there another fittig title? Thank You. --[[User:Zapp|Zapp]] ([[User talk:Zapp|talk]]) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:It's the Shutterstock cover.  I'm guessing that we hadn't identified the "artist" it at the time I entered the ConZealand book, or I would have linked it then.  I'm not thrilled with identifying Shutterstock as an artist.  My impression is that they are more of a licensing company than a creator of artwork, but I'll defer to the verifier of publication.  All linked now.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:54, 15 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
== Black Magic ==
+
== Robert Anton Wilson / Schrödinger's Cat - Glossary ==
  
−
Please see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4929681 this submission] that impacts your verified pub and let me know how to proceed. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:28, 6 March 2021 (EST)
+
Posted on the Talk pages of Rtrace, Marc Kupper, Spacecow
−
:I don't have a dust jacket for that one, so I can't offer any verification.  I probably wouldn't have added a price, myself.  It's probably correct, but perhaps we should add a note "Prices assumed from publication series".  Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 08:42, 6 March 2021 (EST)
+
<br>All of the publications: [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49137 The Universe Next Door] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?29062 The Trick Top Hat] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?29063 The Homing Pigeons] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?985980 Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy] have a glossary at the back. I have all four of these pubs and have compared the glossaries and they are all the same. There is an existing ISFDb record for the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?656785 glossary] and it is present in the omnibus (all five print versions) but none of the individual volumes. Hence I propose to import it into each of these three pubs. As a consequence, I will also change the disambiguation from the omnibus name to the series name, ie from "Glossary (Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy)" to "Glossary (Schrödinger's Cat)". Is all this ok with you? [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 18:38, 18 January 2024 (EST)
−
::Okay, thanks. I accepted and added a note for explanation. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:58, 6 March 2021 (EST)
+
:I've no objections.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:19, 18 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
== Larry Correia's birthday ==
+
== K. J. Parker's Relics/Under My Skin ==
  
−
Hi, you approved a change in the birthday of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?130466 Correia] a few months ago (probably because of Wiki having the wrong date). Another editor discovered more information about the case so the old date was restored and the author note was updated to explain the source. Just heads up :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 21:27, 7 March 2021 (EST)
+
You've PVed the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?934729 2023 Under My Skin] collection.  One of the Hugo novella nominees seems to be the story [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3160540 Relics], which seems like [https://csfdb.cn/works/34951 it was first published in Chinese translation in 2022]. Can you have a look at the copyright page (which isn't part of Amazon's preview of the ebook) to see if that's correct?  Thanks!
−
:Larry has stated to me (I know him) that he would prefer to not have his birthday displayed. That's why it's not on his Wikipedia pages. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 14:42, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 
−
:: You have the permissions - edit the author to remove all the notes we added, clean up the birthday field and add "Birthday withheld by request by the author; please note that the Wikipedia one is not correct as of March 2021" or words to that effect (or just the first part) and add a moderator note that it was in a request to you. See [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Policy#Data_Deletion_Policy Data Deletion Policy] - the last paragraph is about biographical data - and birthdays is one of those. Edit History for authors is Moderators only so that should keep it away as per the author's wishes. If he is comfortable with having just the year, we can do that. Or leave it blank :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:03, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should just do it since you were talking to Rtrace. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 16:26, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 
−
::::: I caught the update that reversed something he approved so I just posted a FYI to him an the editor that did the original update - we used to have the correct date, then we replaced it - so I was just making sure we do not end up cross editing. :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:33, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
::: (after edit conflict)
+
BTW, I'm not rushing to do the Hugos, given the errors in the nom report e.g. at least two duplicated nominees...  [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (EST)
−
::: Our [[ISFDB:Policy#Data_Deletion_Policy|Data Deletion Policy]] says:
+
:The Parker story gives a 2023 copyright and states "First appeared in this volume".  That would appear to ignore the translation.  I am adding nomination data for the Hugos, though the Chinese titles are giving me trouble.  Please feel free to correct any errors that you see that I've made.  The duplicate nominees were called out in one of the blogs, which I'm keeping an eye on.  There's definitely several odd things about the nomination statistics.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:43, 20 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
:::* If a living author (or their authorized representative) requests that the ISFDB remove the author's detailed biographical information, the ISFDB will comply after confirming the requester's identity. The ISFDB will remove as much biographical data as needed in order to accommodate legitimate privacy concerns while preserving, to the extent possible, the work of the editors who have compiled the data. A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why.
+
:: [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3107243 This] is Fungi Song according to [https://csfdb.cn/works/37152 CSFDB]. [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 19:03, 20 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::: Hi, I'm just slowly going over the Chinese entries.  I've added [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3272563 a title record] for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3272563 this "stub" award entry], but I'm perplexed how to get it to show the author name in the award record.  Any ideas?
 +
::: Thanks! [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 12:35, 21 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::I took care of it.  The author needs to be listed in the "untitled" award record before it is linked.  I unlinked them, added the author and then re-linked them.  The title and author fields are not editable in an award that has been linked to a title record.
 +
::::For the other two above, were you going to add the original Chinese publications?  In both cases, the nomination was for the Chinese version of the story as opposed to English original/translation.  I can help link them if you'd like, or you can proceed, but to avoid the above problem, the author's name should be added to the award record prior to linking.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:13, 21 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::: Yeah, I'll do those short fiction records when I get to them - I'm planning on cleaning up one category a day.
 +
::::: Did you get very far on researching 余光 aka Residual Light (#13 in the Best Novel noms)?  I noticed you hadn't done that one.  Arthur Liu (CSFDB head honcho) mentioned that they couldn't track it down, even though it looked like it was a Chinese story.  I've now found [https://www.everand.com/read/653149574/Residual-Light a very weird 2023 English language pub] that looks to be (machine?) translated from another language, I'm wondering if that's it?  [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 14:55, 21 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::::I didn't really go much past checking Worldcat, amazon.cn, and google. I'm interpreting whichever language is listed first as the one that was nominated in cases of translated works.  Since authors are not listed, I've omitted them if I wasn't able to find the nominee, which was the case with this one.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 20:49, 21 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::::: Cheers; with the help of someone in (I think) Indonesia, we managed to identify what exactly Residual Light is, and I've added a proper title record and updated the award record, so I think this one is as good as it's going to get.  Apparently one of the Best Series nominees is related to it, but I've not looked into it as yet.
 +
::::::: Will try to start on some of the other categories tomorrow - not had chance today. [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 15:26, 22 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
::: Based on the above, we could change the currently displayed birthday to "1975-00-00" and add a note explaining the author's request. However, we would still need to have an official source for the year of his birth being 1975 as opposed to 1977. The only such source that I am currently aware of is [https://monsterhunternation.com/2012/08/20/today-is-my-birthday/ this 2012 post], which also lists his birthday.
+
== Robert A. Heinlein / Stranger in a Strange Land ==
  
−
::: I can think of two ways to resolve this Catch-22. One way would be to find an official source giving his year (but not the date) of birth. If one is not available, then we could ask the author to add it to his Web page. Alternatively, if he doesn't want even his year of birth to be publicly known, we could remove everything from the "Birtdate" field and add a note about it. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 15:12, 8 March 2021 (EST)
+
I am editing and PVing [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?297700 Stranger in a Strange Land] and have added notes and also deleted OCLC/Worldcat: 220513743 because it refers to a different edition (1977, 21cm (ie hc) and different ISBNs). My submission is [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5865682 here]. I cannot find a record on OCLC/Worldcat for this specific printing but this pub record has been SVd to OCLC/Worldcat by Bluesman who is no longer active. Is it possible to get SVs by inactive verifiers removed? [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 18:27, 20 January 2024 (EST)
−
::::He would prefer no DOB be given. I've updated it now. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 16:26, 8 March 2021 (EST)
+
:I've approved your edit and removed the Worldcat verification.  Any moderator can remove a secondary verification, but since that feature was added, I'm the only one to use it.  I only do so when the verifier is inactive.  In any case, thanks for your edit. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:32, 20 January 2024 (EST)
−
::::: The reason for the date not being there should be in the notes as explained above both by me and Ahasuerus (and the rules: "A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why."). I added the note: "Birth date withheld per request by the author." Feel free to rewrite it but a note to that effect should always be added when we remove the birth date/other biographical info by request. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 16:37, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
:::::: That's right. It helps avoid circular editing with people adding and removing biographical data over and over in an infinite loop. I think everything looks good now. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:38, 8 March 2021 (EST)
+
== Girl in a Swing ==
−
:::::::Yup, forgot to do that part. Thanks, Annie. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 16:54, 8 March 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== James Blish's [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9615 The Quincunx of Time] was identified as a novella ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?11141; 1980 UK HC on Archive.org says, on back flap, that Reginald George Haggar, who has his own Wikipedia page, did the cover art; edition you PV says Karen Murray. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Murray is credited on the back cover.  If you look closely at the two covers, they are subtly different.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:00, 22 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::SFE also says Murray for the HC so maybe that's why someone entered it. I made 2 edits, one adding archived link and note about last unnumbered page and the other unmerging cover art. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:25, 22 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Hi, Ron! It happened [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#James_Blish.27s_The_Quincunx_of_Time_appears_to_be_a_novella here]. I'm going to change the pub.s and titles accordingly. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 01:59, 10 March 2021 (EST)
+
== SF Writer's Workshop ==
  
−
== McGrath ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?102360; You entered price for Owlswick TP, as can be seen on back cover of archived copy, https://archive.org/search?query=longyear+workshop, the price is much lower, I'm letting you know in case something needs fixing. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:56, 23 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:It would appear that Chalker/Owings got the price wrong.  Please go ahead and update it.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:00, 24 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Should this be McGrath?; [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2319105]. --[[User:Username|Username]] 12:03, 10 March 2021 (EST)
+
== First Men in the Moon ==
−
:Yes.  Corrected.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:28, 10 March 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Stephen Baxter intro(s) to Clarke Golden Age Masterworks ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5859839; I didn't actually erase anything at the time I made my edit, it's just that it took so long to be approved that the UK guy with the slang, who made an edit at almost exactly the same time as I did, has an edit queue much shorter than mine (as does pretty much everyone else) so it got approved first, which can easily be seen by going to edit history, so our edits conflicted. So I'm going to make another edit just adding archived link which he didn't do. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:45, 29 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Odd that I didn't get the warning that the record was updated since the edit was submitted.  You should probably refrain from adding archive.org links pending the results of [[Rules and standards discussions#Linking to third party Web pages -- defining "legally posted"|this discussion]]. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 09:49, 29 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::You should read the message from long-time mod Marty just above yours in that discussion where he says it is not ISFDB's place to decide what's legal or not, we just make links and if the host of the link gets a request to take certain works down for whatever reason then we can just remove the link, which is exactly what I said earlier in that thread. I made a simple message about Moondust a few days ago and it's somehow gotten blown completely out of proportion; if anyone had a problem with ISFDB hosting links they would have told you so long ago. Just let it go and move on. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:57, 29 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:::Of course I read it.  However, a single post in a discussion does not signify that the community has reached consensus on the issue.  Unless there is consensus on the issue or consensus that we should keep adding such links while discussing (the question I raised), I will not be approving any edits adding the potentially problematic links.  I would expect that the other moderators would behave in the same manner.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:03, 29 January 2024 (EST)
 +
::::There is rarely any consensus reached on anything discussed here; things usually just peter out without anything being decided. I know one thing, deciding to remove thousands of Internet Archive links, very many of which were added by me and were used by me and others as research tools to add/correct info here, because someone is paranoid that the internet police are going to come after this site after not doing so for the nearly 20 years it's been open to public editing, is the last option anyone should consider. We don't host, we post. My suggestion would be to just add a line or two to the legalese saying that links are only to be used for private use (i.e. reading the book) or research/study (that's what we do here) and, boom, issue solved. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:12, 29 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:::::It would make fare more sense to raise your points on the Rules and Standards discussion rather than here. I see you've made other points, but not these.  Regardless, this question isn't going to be resolved on my talk page.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:34, 29 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Hi, I've just taken one of these off my TBR pile, and I see it's the same situation as [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Rtrace/Archive13#M._R..2FMIke_Carey.27s_introduction_to_Lensmen_books the M. R. Carey/Lensman intros] - i.e. the same intro is used in all three books [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?700040 The Sands of Mars], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?700041 Earthlight], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?719230 Against the Fall of Night].  (I've got all three of them, and have verified it's the same 4 page intro in each.)
+
== Proposed change to title novel to shortfiction ==
  
−
You've PVed all three of these pubs, but I trust you've got no objection to me merging the intro records into one, as was done with the Carey/Lensman ones? Given the lack of a common series, a generic title isn't as obvious, but do you think "Introduction (Clarke Golden Age Masterworks)" would be OK?
+
Hi Ron. Faustus is looking to change[https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5874311] a novel to shortfiction in a 1928 magazine due to it's low page count, your the only PV.[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] ([[User talk:Kraang|talk]]) 23:38, 30 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:That's fine.  I checked Miller/Contento and they have it as a novelette.  It appears that [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]] made the variant.  Perhaps he misread "nv" as novel, assuming Miller/Contento was his source. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:05, 31 January 2024 (EST)
 +
:Thanks, I'll make the changes.[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] ([[User talk:Kraang|talk]]) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (EST)
  
−
Thanks [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] 14:48, 13 March 2021 (EST)
+
== once more with footnotes ==
  
−
:No objections at all. Please proceed. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 15:00, 13 March 2021 (EST)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?71155; Page count is 282. Edit PENDING. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:18, 6 February 2024 (EST)
−
:: Thanks - I'll pick it up in a day or two when the current backlog in the edit queue has been processed. [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] 18:48, 13 March 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== New Editors, formats and external IDs ==
+
== Spock Storybook ==
  
−
Hi Ron,  
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?32222; While working on a ton of novelizations lately I came back across this one where my name is in the edit list followed by you adding a note about missing paper edition but this, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Storybook-Paramount-Pictures-Corporation-Paperback/dp/B00OQTMGQC, seems to be it. Also, a book club edition as seen on back cover, https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-III-Search-Spock/dp/0671476629. I just made an edit adding an Amazon cover with another photo on the page showing back cover with correct ISBN and price; archived copy's cover was way too dark. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:58, 10 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:Thanks for that.  I've cloned the record for the paperback and moved the Reginald verification over.  I'll leave it to you to enter the book club edition if you'd like.  I'm not sure where to research which book club published it though SFBC seems likely.  I'm also skeptical of the date for the BCE, though it may have been later in 1984.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:52, 10 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
Just a gentle reminder to be a bit more careful when approving the submissions of editors, especially new ones - the pb/tp is not always clear to them and the external IDs need to match the book they are adding (and when they have discrepancies and are listed as sources, comments need to be added). A few examples:
+
== Deryni Magic ==
−
* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?822622 As crônicas Marcianas] - Amazon BR shows 20.6 cm (which will be tp); the publisher site concurs with 14cm x 21cm and GR has a different date. The editor was on the site for less than 3 weeks at this point :)
 
−
* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4898973 this one] had the wrong language and again the wrong format (I will drop a note to the editor to offer them to switch their default)
 
−
* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?821106 this one] - the format again plus the note read "Data from publisher's website. Data, price and synopsis from publisher's website." :) That should have been cleaned up - no synopsis that second one needs to be Date or the first needs to be dropped.
 
−
All above and a few more from the same cluster are now fixed. :) The earlier we catch bad practices and misunderstanding from new editors, the easier it will be to coach them. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:43, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Body Shop ==
 
−
 
 
−
You entered [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?823819 The Body Shop] using Reginald1, apparently.  The date for that pub has come under question (see my discussion page); apparently a scan of the cover was found and shows that the original date of publication was 1973.  Could you please check your source to be sure the date is as currently given? [[User:Biomassbob|Bob]] 16:13, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Dark Summer ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron,
 
−
 
 
−
I am trying to untangle the title of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?37968 this book]. It was entered as "A Dark Summer". OCLC and BL have it as "Dark Summer". Locus1 has it as "The Dark Summer". The cover has no articles. The title page cannot be found anywhere. Can you check what Reginald3 thinks about it so we can finish this note (Bill verified there). Thanks! :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 03:05, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Reginald does not have the article and I've updated the note accordingly.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:30, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 10:15, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Username's submissions ==
 
−
 
 
−
A quick note re: Username's submissions. He tends to enter his sources in the "Note to Moderator" field as opposed to the regular "Note" field -- see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4937551 this submission] for a recent example. Please remember to move them to the Note field when approving them and don't hesitate to ask him if he forgets to specify the source. He is adding useful information to the database, but many of his submissions would result in Note inconsistencies if approved "as is". Hopefully he will learn over time, but for now his submissions require additional TLC. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 14:32, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Following up on my earlier message, I have further concerns about some of his recently approved submissions:
 
−
:* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4940174 4940174], which changed the cover artist on [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?21261 this hardcover edition of ''Makoto''] from {{A|Joe Curcio}} to {{A|Paul Stinson}}. The "Note to Moderator" fields reads "https://picclick.com/Kelley-Wilde-Makoto-1st-Edition-Hardcover-323577583777.html (previous editor mistakenly credited jacket designer instead of jacket artist; cover is the same as paperback)". If you follow the link, it turns out that the [https://picclick.com/Kelley-Wilde-Makoto-1st-Edition-Hardcover-323577583777.html#&gid=1&pid=7 7th photo] is a snapshot of the backflap, which reads, in part: "Jacket art by Paul Stinson. Jacket design by Joe Curcio". We should really capture this information in the Note field, which is currently empty.
 
−
:* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4940890 4940890], which added an Amazon cover scan and changed the publication date from 1983-00-00 to 1983-09-00. The publication month probably comes from Amazon.com, which lists the book as published on 1983-09-01, or [https://www.fictiondb.com/title/the-gatherer~owen-brookes~96955.htm perhaps FictionDB.com]. I think we need to identify and document our source in Notes, especially given how unreliable Amazon's pre-1995 data can be.
 
−
:* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4942185 4942185], which populated the Price field of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?760858 this record]. The "Note to Moderator" field says "price on spine", which is true if you enlarge and examine the OpenLibrary scan carefully, but it would be better to document this in Notes.
 
−
:* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4942350 4942350], which added page numbers to all Contents titles in [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?31823 this pub]. The "Note to Moderator" field reads "https://richarddalbyslibrary.com/products/e-f-benson-spook-stories-hutchinson-london?_pos=3&_sid=1586820ab&_ss=r". If you follow the link and then enlarge the first photo in the second row, you'll find a semi-legible scan of the Contents page. I can't really read the numbers even when I magnify the image, but if that's the source of our data, then we need to document it in Notes.
 
−
:* [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4941057 4941057] updated [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1753113 this 1979 title record]. It added [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Formula_(1980_film) this link to the Wikipedia article about the 1980 movie based on the novel] and "1980 film version had behind-the-scenes troubles; see above link" to the Note field. We rarely link to Wikipedia articles about films unless the title is a novelization -- see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/adv_search_results.cgi?USE_1=title_webpage&O_1=contains&TERM_1=film%29&C=AND&USE_2=title_title&O_2=exact&TERM_2=&USE_3=title_title&O_3=exact&TERM_3=&USE_4=title_title&O_4=exact&TERM_4=&USE_5=title_title&O_5=exact&TERM_5=&USE_6=title_title&O_6=exact&TERM_6=&ORDERBY=title_title&ACTION=query&START=0&TYPE=Title these Advanced Search results] -- but it's not a big deal. The Note, however, is completely unrelated to the novel and is based on a poorly written and unsourced section of a Wikipedia article.
 
−
 
 
−
: I think Username's contributions are valuable in that they flesh out and/or correct our data. Moreover, it looks like the quality of his submissions has been slowly improving as he has become more used to our data entry standards. However, they still need careful review and occasional follow-up, at least for the foreseeable future. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 15:41, 22 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Well I did think I was being more careful with their submissions, but apparently not careful enough.  I've tried to limit myself mostly to approving additions of cover scans with this user, but occasionally I seem to have missed an alteration to the cover artist.  I generally don't click through on links when added to records, generally trusting that the submitter was adding the link with good reason.  I'll try to do better going forward. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:20, 22 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: Thanks! [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 09:24, 23 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
1) Added important note about jacket designer to Makoto. 2) There's a copy of Pocket Books' edition of The Gatherer on Google Books and if you enter 1983 into the search box it says "First Pocket Books printing, September, 1983". I wouldn't enter month if it was just on Amazon. 3) The Dragon's Brood's spine doesn't need enlarging, it clearly says 7/6, and the few other books that pre-date this book by publisher John Long which have a price entered on ISFDB all have the same: 7/6. 4) If you enlarge to 200% then they are perfectly legible. Dalby's site is a mess, including the fact that photos don't actually enlarge properly until you get to a certain %. All page #'s were entered accurately by me. 5) The behind-the-scenes turmoil on The Formula is legendary and documented on many sites. I linked to Wikipedia article mainly because of its complete list of Razzies and Stinkers nominations, not for that "poorly written" part. I've added several articles to my edits about behind-the-scenes troubles on films (see A Name for Evil, for example) so it's nothing new. The info about the film does belong here because the author was also the writer and producer of the film, Steve Shagan, and he was the main source of the behind-the-scenes problems. 6) My submissions have not been "slowly improving", they were good from the beginning. --[[User:Username|Username]] 10:58, 23 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: We need to state the sources of our information in Notes. Without them, it's anyone's guess where the information originally came from or how reliable it is. For example, if the information in "2)" above came from Google Books, then the Note field should say something like:
 
−
:* "First Pocket Books printing September, 1983" and full number line on the copyright page as displayed by Google Books' "Search Inside" feature
 
−
: It gives our users a degree of assurance that our data is accurate, something that they wouldn't have if the data were unsourced.
 
−
: And that's exactly what I meant when I wrote that the quality of your submissions has been slowly improving -- based on my spot checking, your recent submissions are more likely to state their sources than your earlier submissions. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:15, 23 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Piranesi ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron,
 
−
 
 
−
A quick question about [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?787020 this one]? Does it have an excerpt at the end and does it have an excerpt credited on its copyright page? I have the BOTM version (which seems to be a further repackaging of the SFBC one) and it has an excerpt credited but not printed - so trying to figure out how to write the notes for that. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 02:33, 25 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:No excerpt.  Nor do I see it credited anywhere.  Hope this helps.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:28, 25 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Yep, thanks! Weird credit in my book then... [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 10:56, 25 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Dragon issues ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, You modified two of my submissions to remove the issue number from the title.  The rest of the series and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/seriesgrid.cgi?25585 other magazines] include the issue number.  I'm trying to be consistent with the rules, and I've got dozens more issues of Dragon and few other non-genre gaming magazines to work through.  Do I need to go back and remove the issues number for the old issues? Tom  [[User:Taweiss|TAWeiss]] 19:33, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Hi Tom.  I saw Annie's note on your page and was just responding there. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:35, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Edits ==
 
−
 
 
−
I found a cover for an "adult" novel, GAY VAMPIRE, and saw you entered info for it recently. I added cover, but name on ISFDB was backwards, price was missing, and ID # was incomplete, so I fixed those. If you entered info from a copy of the book you may want to check and see if things are correct now. --[[User:Username|Username]] 20:08, 1 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Wonderland of Oz  ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron,
 
−
 
 
−
Can you look at the serials [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2763500 here] and add notes on when they were initially published - we have dates but no notes on where they were published. Adding the original publications is even better of course but we should at least have notes so they do not get redated by mistake. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 13:51, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:It was syndicated, to those dates are only from a known appearance in the Decatur Herald.  I've added the appropriate issues and expanded the notes a bit.  Unfortunately that is only a handful of the serials.  If it was running daily except Sundays, there are a lot more that could be added.  The article mentions some other papers that carried the earlier installments, but not with enough specificity to add them.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:28, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: That's the problem with early syndication, isn't it? :) Thanks for adding them! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:36, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Resurrection, Inc. ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron. When adding this pub {{p|832321| Resurrection, Inc.}}  In the note to moderator I asked for some help re: linking. I really wanted to put the link at the end of the note "PV copy is without slip case. Publisher's webpage for this item does not mention a slip case " After reading the help page, I tried <a href="the link" /a>. Wouldn't accept it. Then I ended up just putting it in the webpages: can. If you have a minute, will you show me what I did wrong? John [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 17:50, 8 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Sorry I missed that in the note.  I can see the problem with your html.  What you want is <nowiki><a href="the link">publisher's website</a></nowiki>.  Of course, you can replace "publisher's website" with whatever you'd like to call the link in your note.  Give that a try and let me know if if doesn't work.  There are instructions [[Help:Using Templates and HTML in Note Fields#Links|here]], but they kind of assume a familiarity with HTML.  The warning in that section actually has a good example.  Let me know if it doesn't work correctly.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:02, 8 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Thank you Ron. I like how submission 4959244 now looks. Would you mind approving it?  Not sure how many people will ever look at this pub record, only 100 copies exist. For what its worth, mine is #15. John [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 19:49, 8 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::Done.  I made a small tweak to remove a leading space in the link.  Looks good. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:01, 8 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Unicorn omnibuses ==
 
−
 
 
−
I based my Asimov edit off the fact that this, [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?651243], has the 2 genre authors listed, so if the omnibus with Asimov's novel should be uncredited should the one I linked also be changed to uncredited? --[[User:Username|Username]] 13:17, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Sorry, I re-read the help page and we surprisingly allow all the authors to be listed in a multi author omnibus provided there is no credited editor, and there are less than 5 authors.  I've un-rejected your edit.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Satan's Stud ==
 
−
 
 
−
Saw you added this recently, noticed it said "distributed by Zorro" on Worldcat page, found a site showing all Trojan books, which have Trojan helmet top left and Zorro mask top right, realized your cover image had mask covered up with something, so I found this, [http://bookscans.com/Publishers/sleaze/images/TrojanClassicTC230.jpg], which not only has sharper color but shows part of the mask. So if you want the old cover can be replaced with this new one. --[[User:Username|Username]] 12:19, 13 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== An Earth Gone Mad ==
 
−
 
 
−
Since you have verified {{P|2476|An Earth Gone Mad / The Rebellious Stars}} and {{P|60722|Startling Stories, November 1952}}, can you please check out [[User_talk:Gweeks#An_Earth_Gone_Mad|this conversation]]. Either the novella was expanded into the novel or one of our types is wrong in the database. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
: I added a response on [[User_talk:Gweeks#An_Earth_Gone_Mad|Gweeks]]' talk page.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:26, 14 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Publisher mistake ==
 
−
 
 
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?795270; word in publisher should be "Washington", shouldn't it? --[[User:Username|Username]] 13:38, 18 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Corrected.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 13:41, 18 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Xanth edits ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, you're too quick for me, I was resubmitting a couple of Xanth book edits. The imports showed up as I was redoing the pub edits, lol. They are ready now. 497154 & 457159. Thankyou  John  [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 14:00, 21 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Voyager series question ==
 
−
 
 
−
When I was editing my copies of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9 Voyagers II: The Alien Within] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?8 Voyagers III: Star Brothers] I submitted edits to remove the series title from the publication title. Since they are sitting in my queue, I'm wondering if there is a question as to whether I'm correct. Let me know if I am wrong and I will cancel them. John,  [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 08:06, 23 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:P.S. I submitted edits for all the pubs in those two titles
 
−
::Those edits should be fine. I think it's just nobody has gotten to that point in the queue yet.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:17, 23 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: Cool, Thanks [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 18:52, 23 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Publisher name ==
 
−
 
 
−
This, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?36340, is the only book with "Productions" in the publisher's name; the other 11 books on ISFDB just say New Infinities / Ace. It would be good to have them all under the same name in case people are searching for them, so can you check your copy and see if it really says the full name on the title page or the shorter version? --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:19, 23 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:"New Infinities Productions, Inc." on the title page, copyright page, cover and spine.  I'll check with the other active verifiers and see if we can settle on the longer name and merge the publishers.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:16, 23 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Elric map ==
 
−
 
 
−
While PVing Stormbring [[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?33416]] I noticed that the map is entered as uncredited, even though there's a block of text with 'This map based upon the writing Michael Moorcock | Compiled and drawn by John Collier and Walter Romanski | Lettered by Art Ravison". Is this the same map as in [[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?332478]]? If so, any idea why lettering doesn't count in the artist list? --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 17:25, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:They do appear to be the same map.  As for the credit in ''Swords and Roses'', that's from the caption in the book below the map which only mentions Collier and Romanski.  Apparently the editor of S&R did not consider the letterer to be one of the artists.  I probably agree with that, though I don't know that we have a policy as we usually don't see a letterer credit.  As far as the map in ''Stormbringer'', I suspect that I didn't inspect the map closely enough when I verified the record.  Since the credit is in the map itself, I have no problem if you want to merge the two title records keeping artist credits.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:39, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Is a merge a specific operation? (I haven't done one yet, if so). --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 20:02, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::Sure.  For this you'll need to do an advanced search for titles.  Since the names are different, you can find it with Title Starts With and "The World of Elric".  When you click "Get Results" you will find 3 title records.  You can ignore the 2006 record as it is not the same map.  Mark the check boxes next to the other two and click "Merge Selected Records".  You'll be brought to a screen that shows all the differences between the two records.  Select the appropriate radio button for each difference.  I see that one of the titles has "(map)" appended.  I reread the [[Template:TitleFields:TitleType|help section]] (under INTERIORART) is slightly confusing, but it appears that the version with "(map)" is the correct one.  Other than that, select the authors names and the earlier date and submit.  You may have encountered the merge process if you ever checked for duplicate titles, this is just another way at it.  Let me know if you have any questions, or run into any problems.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:03, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Merge submitted. The feature is fairly will hidden. I was expecting something under edit tools, like a merge. --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 21:24, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::: Approved.  Looks good.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:25, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Martian Chronicles / The Illustrated Man / The Golden Apples of the Sun ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, thank you for approving these edits. Two questions. Are you holding submission 4972423? Second, I thought I would have to go back and delete the 4 duplicates, did they just merge into the existing titles? [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 10:07, 27 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I tend to approve edits while I'm multitasking with a work meeting.  For that reason, I tend to skip anything that requires a response.  Your edit seems fine, but I would have to think more about the question you posed in the notes to moderator.  If it were me, I wouldn't worry too much about the unsourced date.  It's probably from a retail site, perhaps bn.com.  Anyway, that's why I skipped the edit.  For your other question, when you import from another collection, the software won't try to import titles already in the target collection. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:14, 27 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Glad to learn that about the software, saves a step. I'll be interested to see what you decide about the date. John, [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 10:19, 27 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== A small favor ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, asking a small favor. I'm doing another map merge [[User talk:Scifibones #Magic Kingdom of Landover map consolidation | Details here]]. I have submitted the first two merges 4974794 and 4974804. Any chance You could approve them so I can submit the last ones. All the materials are on my desk. The queue might take a few days to reach me. If not, I understand. Thank you John [[User:Scifibones|Scifibones]] 10:16, 28 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Done.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:33, 28 April 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== "Farewell Performance" in 1946 ed. of ''Clock Strikes Twelve'' ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron. [[User:Username|Username]] discovered in photographs of the 1940 edition of ''Clock Strikes Twelve'' that one of the pieces is titled "Nimbo and Nobby's Farewell Performance", while our records all use(d) "Farewell Performance".  Would you check your verified {{P|280545|1946 edition}} and confirm that it's the shorter version?  If so, we should probably change the date on that to 1946, even though it's the canonical record (maybe we ought to swap the relationship around, but "Farewell Performance" seems to be the more common from what searching finds me).  --[[User:MartyD|MartyD]] 10:36, 1 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:The Arkham edition has the title as "Farewell Performance".  If we are going to maintain it as the canonical title, it should keep the 1940 date.  We always reflect the earliest date published under any title or alternate name (excluding serializations) for the canonical title.  Since it was only published with the longer title once, I thing we should keep the canonical title as the shorter one.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:38, 1 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Well at the World's End: Volume II / William Morris ==
 
−
 
 
−
I'm PVing [[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?49806]] and noticed a discrepancy in the printing statement. The record says "First Ballantine Books Edition: September 1970", mine has "First Ballantine Printing: September 1970". Yours? --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 02:40, 2 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:My copy agrees with yours.  Please feel free to update it.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:37, 2 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== A quick lesson on variants. ==
 
−
 
 
−
I just finished verifying [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?12283 Starship (Resnick)] series. One of the titles I imported into books 3 though 5 [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?443991] is incorrectly marked as a variant. It is actually identical to the "parent". After finishing all the imports, I went to the make variant tool and entered 0 for parent. Then I did a merge of the two. Will this work? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:43, 2 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:That should work, but it's unnecessary to make the child record a variant of nothing first.  You can simply try to merge the variant with its current parent.  When doing so, the parent title will be one of the fields that shows as a conflict (as title_parent).  Simply choose the the radio button next to the empty line for that field and they will merge correctly.  It will save you a step.  Let me know if you have any questions.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 13:20, 2 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Thank you. I'll just cancel the submission breaking the link. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:18, 2 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Knight's Shadow ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, I started to verify [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?530013 Knight's Shadow] and noticed that you have credited "Manuela Hackl" as cover artist (from edit history). Where did you find this? The HC first credits "buerosued.de" on the jacket. This looks like a graphics design house. Publisher's website is no help. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:06, 11 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I don't really recall, but I almost certainly imported it from one of the other publication records with the same cover. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:10, 11 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Another variant question ==
 
−
 
 
−
Look at [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?292694 Chanur's Venture] SFJuggler named the map "Chanur's Venture" and it is by David Cherry (only in this pub, corrected by the DAW edition). This results in two title records. In all the other pubs of this title and all the succeeding titles this is used [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?563473 Map of Compact Space] I left a note for Jim, assuming he agrees, what is the most efficient way to accomplish the following.
 
−
# Change name to "Map of Compact Space" . the two interior art titles are [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1668143 Chanur's Venture] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1670239 Chanur's Venture]
 
−
# Parent it to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?563473 Map of Compact Space]
 
−
# Get rid of the extra title record
 
−
# Change date of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?563473 Map of Compact Space] to 1984-10-00
 
−
 
 
−
Appreciate the help [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:17, 12 May 2021 (EDT) P.S. If it wasn't for the name difference I would just do a simple merge.
 
−
 
 
−
:Hi John
 
−
 
 
−
:You can skip a couple of steps by merging [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?563473 Map of Compact Space] with the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1670239 parent record] under the other name.  You can keep the earlier of the two dates and the preferred title.  Then you only need to edit the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1668143 child record] to change the title field.  Hope that helps.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:51, 12 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: Thanks, I'll submit the edits as soon as I hear from SFJuggler. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 06:42, 13 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== A quick approval ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, I was about to submit another map merge and realized I misspelled the name. Any change you could approve #4986799 this morning?  I hope this is not a frowned on request. Thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 07:24, 19 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Done --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:28, 19 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Pukey Dates ==
 
−
 
 
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?442090; The Pukey is originally from a British mag, Encounters, in 1960. Any mention of that in Weird Fiction Review you PV'd so date can be changed? At first I thought it was an unpublished story unearthed and published for the first time, which would explain the new date, but it's a reprint. --[[User:Username|Username]] 00:06, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:What's your source for the UK appearance?  There's nothing in the magazine.  FictionMags has the first appearance in an anthology, Anti-Story, edited by Philip Stevick, published by The Free Press, 1971, so I've set the date to that. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:22, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::https://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1960jul-00003/; https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.16990. --[[User:Username|Username]] 09:56, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::OK, I've added that issue of ''Encounter'' and merged the story.  You could have done that yourself.  The instructions for adding a non-genre magazine are [[Help:Entering_non-genre_magazines|here]].  Please give it a try if you encounter this situation in the future, and let us know if you have questions.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:43, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::Since you were PV of the mag where the story appeared, nothing would be done by me until I'd asked you to check the mag first to see if they mentioned anywhere that it was actually a reprint; I've been chastised many times by ISFDB moderators about changing info without checking with PV first, although in almost every case my info turned out to be correct. Since Encounters was a general fiction mag if it were up to me I would have just changed the date and added a note saying where the story was first published; I wouldn't have entered a new record. There's countless records on ISFDB where some issues of a non-genre mag were added while a lot of other stories just have a note mentioning which non-genre mag they first appeared in. There's no consistency to any of this, just thousands of editors over the years entering things as they please. --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:36, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Changing Covers ==
 
−
 
 
−
Just curious about why you changed cover here, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?48780, back to old image. A lot of covers on ISFDB are not the best, so when I find better ones I replace them. The cover I added from Fantlab (not the 1 on the page but 1 of the photos) is the only 1 that shows the full artwork including the spine, and it's framed better. No big deal, it's just 1 out of hundreds, but I'm just wondering if you've replaced any others I added. --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:27, 1 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Well, new image I replaced the one you linked to is in color whereas the one from fantlab is in black and white.  I actually have a preference for image of the front cover only as opposed to images including the spine or the back cover as well.  My reasoning for this is that the artwork in these instances is under copyright.  While it is considered fair use to include a low resolution scan of the cover for purposes of identification.  I'm less certain that including images beyond the front cover still falls within fair use.  Clearly other users in the database disagree.  However, there is no requirement to show complete artwork in in these cases it is generally left up to the primary verifier to decide what to use.  You probably should have notified me prior to making this change.  I don't recall replacing other covers that you had linked.  However, I generally don't check who had added a prior cover when entering a better one, so I couldn't say for certain.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:03, 1 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Hellstrom's Hive ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron, could you check your copy of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?353543 Hellstrom's Hive] for number of pages? Mine has 332 as last numbered page. You have for your PV'd 1st printing 352. Typo perhaps? Thanks! [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] 08:20, 5 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Corrected.  I must have misread the 3 as a 5.  Thanks for finding it.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:47, 5 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::You're welcome :) [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] 03:32, 7 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Willimas ==
 
−
 
 
−
Re: the recent Willimas thing, surprisingly only 1 other Willimas is on ISFDB, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1655836, but PV of the mag hasn't responded on his board since the end of 2017. This, http://www.savoy.abel.co.uk/HTML/selse2.html, says "Williams", so I don't know if it should be changed. What do you think? --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:02, 10 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I would go ahead and update it, but not from source you cite.  FictionMags also has it as "Williams".  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:08, 10 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Done. Title was wrong, too, so I also fixed that. PV had a massive list of edits so now I'm wondering how many other errors he made that were approved. --[[User:Username|Username]] 19:13, 10 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Read Aloud ==
 
−
 
 
−
Rudam just approved my edit changing the title of the book reviewed here, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1199556, to its correct title without the "Be". Your PV'd review still has the "Be" so I don't know if you want to change it, or if that's how the title appears in Baum Bugle. --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:31, 10 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Corrected.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:09, 10 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Aztec Century ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron, Should I edit the other publications in [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?8349 this title] to reflect the change in cover art attribution in the HC? The verifiers for the other pubs appear inactive. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:23, 11 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I would say so.  Probably easiest to merge the three coverart titles.  That way you won't have to deal with deleting.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:27, 11 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Submitted, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:44, 11 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Black Spirits and White ==
 
−
 
 
−
Please see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5004477 this edit] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5004481 this edit]. Let me know how to proceed. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 14:45, 12 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:The edits are OK.  Although, I'm not certain about using Roman numerals for pub series number.  I see the others in the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?8199 series] were entered in this way, one by this user and one by another.  I'm not certain that sorting by series number will work properly.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 16:30, 12 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Approved them. Not sure what happens if there were L or M, but for I and V, sorting works fine since alpha sorting of those two is the same as if they were treated as numbers. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Projects ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, Do you have any projects that need a volunteer, or should I pick something off the cleanup report? I know what to do with some, need guidance on others. You can move this section to my talk page, no need to clutter up yours. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:43, 15 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:I'm not sure what to suggest.  I tend to work on things that interest me and right now I'm doing a bunch of work with secondary verification sources.  I can let you know about things I have worked on in the past, but lost interest in.  This is usually because I found the work to be a bit tedious.  I try to keep up with awards and when entering them, I also will try to add the publications that contain the awarded work when missing.  Adding the publications is the tedious bit.  There are a few awards where our coverage of what is awarded is usually lacking, so many of the pubs need to be added. I was going to mention [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/awardtype.cgi?69 NOMMO]s, which are for works by Africans.  Finding enough data for things published in Africa can be challenging.  Happily, it looks like someone has kept up with that award.  The awards issued by the Science Fiction Poetry Association ([http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/awardtype.cgi?35 Rhysling], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/awardtype.cgi?67 Elgin] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/awardtype.cgi?66 Dwarf Star]) are all missing the last few years. File770 usually announces these awards [http://file770.com/tag/rhysling-award/ Rhysling], [http://file770.com/tag/elgin-award/ Elgin] and [http://file770.com/tag/dwarf-stars/ Dwarf Star]) including the source.  Another area where our records are lacking is with fanzines.  Many of the classic fanzines are scanned at [https://fanac.org/fanzines/? fanac.org].  Again, it's something that I've found tedious to work with.  I don't know if either of those areas interest you.  If they don't, please don't feel like you have to work on them.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:34, 15 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take a look at the poetry awards. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 07:07, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::If we have a title record for a winner, but the original publication it appeared in hasn't been entered, should I add that pub? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:48, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::It's up to you.  Assuming it's a genre publication, we'd eventually want it to be entered anyway.  Even if it isn't it's permissible to enter publications and list only the genre contents.  Either way, if you want to enter it, please do. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 13:54, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::I am using [https://www.sfpoetry.com/ra/pages/19rhysling.html SFPA ARCHIVE 2019] as my source. Are all these finalists or am I reading the page wrong? 14:24, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::That's exactly right.  2019 looks good. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:51, 17 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I've expanded the project to include updating the relevant poetry webzines. I have a few questions
 
−
Eye to the Telescope<ul>
 
−
<li>Every issue is a different editor, no way to group. Can I change the title records to "Eye to the Telescope, Issue xx"? (The pub titles will be "Eye to the Telescope, Issue xx: Subject")
 
−
<li> I followed the last few issues and used "Science Fiction & Fantasy Poetry Association" instead of "SFPA". Can I change all of these to SFPA?</ul>
 
−
My only frustration is waiting for submission approvals. Many are a three step process. Entry, Imports and variating, merging. Most of the other magazines are straight forward, but I'm sure I will have more questions, hope you don't mind me asking you vs moderator notice board. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:06, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:That naming would not be standard for magazines.  There were already several issues that were not named by our standards and I've corrected them.  The [[Template:PublicationFields:Title|standard]] indicates that magazines should be named with <Magazine Title>, <Date>.  There are exceptions when a date isn't present for for magazines published in certain countries to use issue number instead of date, but that wouldn't apply here.  We did have a discussion a few months back about changing this, but failed to reach a consensus to do so.  I would recommend keeping with the magazine naming standards.
 
−
:For the publisher name, I'm less concerned about that.  The [[Template:PublicationFields:Publisher|standard]] states that when there are multiple forms of the publisher name, we need not match exactly what is in the book (website).  By those rules, you would be fine to change it to "SFPA".  However, there have been a number of edits over the last several months to change publishers to exactly how it is reflected e.g. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?37 Ace Books] vs [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?27151 Ace Science Fiction Books], so others may insist on the longer name at some point.
 
−
:Please feel free to ask questions.  I will warn you that I may be slow to respond beginning tomorrow through the 24th.  I'll be away from home and will only have access through my phone and tablet.  I can respond with short answers, but I'll probably leave anything that requires much typing until I get back.  Happily, approving edits is one of the things that is easily accomplished on a phone (provided that there are no questions).  Thanks for taking on this work.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:19, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Then I need to change "The Pedestal Magazine" as well. My submission followed the previous three and used issue number. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:55, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::Thanks for editing some of the pub titles for me. Now I see why it is better to create the initial records using the desired publication titles, then only one title record needs to be edited to prepare for the merge. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 16:15, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::If you happen to peek in, would you mind clearing my queue? Thanks, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:55, 21 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
(unindent) Making good progress. Take a look at [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?21043 Kyla Ward]. Looks like we have the wrong name as the alternate. Is this a moderator only change or can I do it? If so, what is the most efficient method? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 08:48, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:I'm not sure I agree that the canonical name should be changed.  It looks like there are 21 titles as only "Kyla Lee Ward" with about 24 as only "Kyla Ward", the current canonical name.  If you're encountering a bunch of new titles published with the longer name, we could consider it.  Changing the canonical name involves many multi-stage edits.  While I think any editor can submit these, it's probably easier for a moderator just due to the number of edits required.  Basically, you would need to change the relationship between the two names, by removing the variant and then making a new alternate name in the opposite direction.  You would also move much of the author metadata (biographical) to the new canonical name.  Then for titles with publications under both names, you would break the old variant relationship by adding a parent of "0" to the old child title.  Then make the former parent a variant of the former child.  If all publications of title are with the former child name, then they each need to be merged with their parent choosing the new canonical name and discarding the parent id.  For titles only published under the former canonical name, there shouldn't be two title records, so these just need to be made into variants under the new canonical name.  The title under the third pseudonym, Edwina Grey is a simple change to the name on the current parent title, as is the interview.  The artwork could be tricky, since we credit artwork with the canonical name when there is no explicit credit.  Thus, some of these can just be changed to the new name.  If they are explicitly credited, we'd need to make a variant.  As you can see it's a lot of work, which is why I would recommend waiting until we have a clear majority of titles under the longer name. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 16:16, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::I knew it was an involved process, was hoping there was a secret moderator menu! Finished, 2019 & 2020 Elgin, almost done with Rhysling, working on Dwarf Stars. This has been an interesting project, I had no idea there was SF poetry. Thanks again for pointing me in this direction. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 17:10, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::Since poetry anthologies don't include a table of contents entry for each poem, how do I show the source of original publication? Take [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?835652 Triangulation: Dark Skies]. The table of contents, taken from Amazon.com, agrees with [http://parsecink.com/index.php/dark-skies/ the publisher's]. However [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2757811 How to Notice a Dark Nebula] is not included. [https://marysoonlee.com/bibliography/#poems Mary Soon Lee's website] shows that it was indeed published in this anthology along with another which is not listed. If I insert it, and someone checks it, they will think it is an error either rejecting the submission or editing it in the future. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:36, 28 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::You could certainly add a note. Even noting that not all poems are in the table of contents is probably sufficient.  You might also want to add the <nowiki>{{Incomplete}}</nowiki> tag.  If you weren't aware, you can search in the Amazon look inside feature and I believe that "How to Notice a Dark Nebula" appears on page 19.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:51, 28 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==== 2021 Awards ====
 
−
Do I need to make any changes for this year's awards vs how I handled the last two years? I have been slowly adding the original source publications in anticipation of the announcements. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 08:09, 6 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Nothing special.  You may need to mark all the awards as nominees, or finalists if you're entering in the nomination phase.  Then you just need to go back and update the awards one the winners are announced.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:14, 6 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==== 2013 - 2016 Elgin Awards ====
 
−
Some of the winners from these years are missing. While I am adding these, is there value in adding all the finalists as well? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:44, 3 August 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:There is certainly value to adding finalists that we don't currently have listed.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 09:47, 3 August 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==  Amazing Stories, August 1927 ==
 
−
 
 
−
Would like to double check the cover artist credit for {{P|56223|Amazing Stories, August 1927}}. Did that come from Bleiler (Gernsback) also? Or did that source only indicate the interior art credits? I'm not seeing Paul recredited within the magazine. The Forrest J. Ackerman Collection [https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/magazine-cover-with-robot-war-machines-by-blade-gallentine-news-photo/526770152 credits] it to Blade Gallentine. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 15:13, 20 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I’m away from home until Friday. But if you check the variants of the cover, it has been reprinted in several collections of Paul’s art. Sometimes as the cover. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 16:28, 20 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Yay, I saw the variant credits after posting the above. I was unable to find any information on Blade Gallentine. That name only appears in the Ackerman collection. I ended up just adding a note on the {{T|2873435|title record}} for the one interior art record with the Gallentine credit. I decided not to variant to the original. Sorry, I should have removed the above since I was satisfied at this point. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 18:56, 20 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Tsathoggua Cycle ==
 
−
 
 
−
I'm very curious to know where the cover art credit for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?48904 this] came from. When I got a copy of 2nd edition I checked the copyright page. I'm assuming "someone" decided it was Fassl due to the similarity with many others he did for the CoCF series books. But his name is definitely not on the copyright page. Would you mind checking your copy just so I'm not going totally mad. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 04:26, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:The credit appears on the title page, "Cover Art by Harry Fassl".  That being said, the copyright page gives the copyright for the cover art to Mark Achilles White. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:53, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::I accepted MLB's edit to your joint verified pub and added this to the notes. I based this on Mavmaramis' second printing. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:59, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Sampler 2015 ==
 
−
 
 
−
The publication [Sampler 2015 http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?535459] you PV'd lists the content titles as starting with "From ...". I ran across it while looking at something quite different (use of periods in acronyms like HARLIE). I wondered about whether the titles should have excluded the "From " and had "(excerpt)" added. And I've no idea about varianting. So I figured I'd ask and learn something. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 10:54, 1 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I can't seem to put my hands on that book.  However, I am certain that I would not have entered the titles that way unless that's how the appeared on their title pages.  We only use "(excerpt)" when the title matches that of the work excerpted from.  In the case, the title of the excerpt is different, so there is no need to add the disambiguation.  If I run across the book, I'll double check.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:58, 1 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Arsenika Epubs ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, I have a number of Arsenika magazine issues in my queue. I mistakenly called them webzines rather than ebooks. Do I need to cancel and resubmit or just edit them after approval? Thanks, [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 17:41, 3 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I've approved them so you don't lose your work.  You can go ahead and update the format.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:45, 3 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Frank U. ==
 
−
 
 
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?352731; the cover artist should be Frank Utpatel, yes? --[[User:Username|Username]] 17:53, 6 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Fixed.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:11, 6 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== City of Secrets ==
 
  
 
Hello,  
 
Hello,  
  
−
Am I missing something with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?810733 this one]? It is a graphic novel, submitted as such and definitely not from an author above the threshold - which makes it ineligible for addition. Unless I am missing something of course :) Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:17, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
+
As you are the PV of both works, can you look at [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5740941 this submission] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5740946 this submission]. I do not have them on hold in case you want to handle them - if we go to Community, I will put them on hold pending the decision. We often create special series for the non-fiction in big series and Deryni Magic looks exactly like that so it makes sense to keep them separate... but they also can go up in the parent series. If you rather start a discussion on Community, I can do that as but as you are the sole verifier on one of these books, I am starting here. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 13:30, 13 February 2024 (EST)
−
:I really don't recall something from 7 months ago, but I likely missed the graphic flag when I approved. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:21, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
+
:Hi Annie
−
:: I was making sure that I am not misreading the record. I will zap it. Thanks! :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 19:28, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
+
:In general, I don't like the way Kurtz's Deryni books have been put into series. I'm rarely a fan of the XXX Universe super-series which doesn't make sense in this instance, especially as the works contained in it are nearly all Kurtz's own short fiction.  We have fan-fiction or sequels by other hands in a sub-series named "Deryni" and they are all authorized from an anthology edited by Kurtz. Lastly, I'd take ''King Kelson's Bride'' out of "The Histories of King Kelson" sub-series.  My copy is certainly not marketed as part of that trilogy.  If it were entirely up to me I'd keep the 4 trilogies as a sub-series of a single super-series of the Deryni series which would contain all of the other works.  But that's not exactly what you asked. I don't really see a need to group ''Deryni Magic'' with ''Codex Derynianus''. I'm not even sure that the latter is properly non-fiction. It's one of those in-universe encyclopedias i.e. as if written by a fictional person from the setting.  I see that [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] added the Deryni Magic series to {{T|102600|Codex Derynianus}}. The edit history for {{T|17013|Deryni Magic}} is less complete, but there was a title merge by Ahasuerus on the same day as the series edition to the other title.  We may want to seek his input as to why these two were grouped by that series title.  I'll leave a note on his talk page.  If they must be grouped, I would prefer a name like "Deryni Non-Fiction", but my preference would be to not group them.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:12, 13 February 2024 (EST)
−
 
+
:: Thanks for the answer - and that is why I started here. I am fine with either way - and I agree that the current series name makes little sense. Do you want to put the two submissions on hold until this is sorted out? (Or I can if you prefer - I just do not want someone to spend time digging through things and miss the conversations). [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] ([[User talk:Anniemod|talk]]) 21:23, 13 February 2024 (EST)
−
== Strange Horizons ==
+
:::I've held them. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:33, 13 February 2024 (EST)
−
 
 
−
Ron, While checking all the Strange Horizons issues, I noticed 3 duplicates. Looks like you entered them while my submissions were sitting in the queue. It looks like you entered them as needed for the awards you were posting. The three issues are 3 February 2020, 2 March 2020 and 10 August 2020. I started to submit merges but thought I would ask what's the best way to handle? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:16, 8 July 2021 (EDT) Apologies for the poor grammar .
 
−
:Yes, I was approving several of those submissions and I recalled that I had added some November issues, but had forgotten about the earlier ones in 2020.  We should go ahead and merge the content titles and then delete whichever publication is least complete.  I was entering those from FictionMags which doesn't list reviews, so yours are probably the ones to keep. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:24, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::I'll take care of it.[[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 19:30, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== quick help ==
 
−
 
 
−
If you are still online, will you process [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/submitpub.cgi this submission]. Then I can merge it with an erroneous title record that can't be edited another way. thanks [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 16:29, 10 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:apparently no merge necessary. I appreciate it. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 16:39, 10 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::You're above link to the edit didn't work, so I started approving your submissions in general.  I'll assume that I approved the right one.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 16:41, 10 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::It was the very first one you processed.
 
−
 
 
−
== Author Merge ==
 
−
 
 
−
I think you should merge [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?284537 Alex De Pompa] with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?317244 Alexander De Pompa]. Looks like he uses "Alex De Pompa" in all the issues. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:42, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I don't think they should be merged.  FictionMags always has the editor as Alex as does the about page on the magazine's website.  However, both these sites have most of the editorials signed as by Alexander.  I've linked the two author records making Alex the canonical name. Thanks for finding this.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:05, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Saw something else when I was working with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5031943 Augur, December 2020]. FictionMags had all the titles coded ss except the editorial. I only included the content titles that I could verify the type. Publishers website had a couple linked that I could look at, and the two poetry I included are Rhysling finalists. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:36, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Fire in the Heavens by George O. Smith ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi, Ron. You've verified two publications of this novel (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9652): as a "serial" in one issue of Startling Stories (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?60682) and as a "novel" in an Ace Double (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?21668). If they're really different, would be great if you could add pub notes explaining the difference. Thanks! [[User:Markwood|Markwood]] 12:47, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:They appear to be the same from a spot check, but that's what our publication records indicate.  The way you are asking the question makes me think that you may be confused about how we reflect a novel published in a magazine.  For novel, whether published in multiple parts or as a whole, we always add them with the SERIAL type.  See [[Template:TitleFields:TitleType|this template]] under SERIAL and [[Template:TitleFields:Title|this one]] for how they are titled.  If I'm misunderstanding why you asking the question, please let me know.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:32, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Was this a test? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi Ron, You approved three Rhysling edits for a "first time editor" for titles not yet in the database. Was this a test for me? I sent him a message explaining in case it was real. Should I have used the welcome template even though I am not a moderator? [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:07, 12 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:No test.  I had assumed that the titles weren't in the database yet.  Since you're pointing out the duplicates to the other user, I'll refrain from deleting the unlinked records.  Once you've finished the discussion, let me know if you need me to delete those, although, I believe that anyone can submit deletes.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:47, 12 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Yeah, I started to delete them and then cancelled the Rhysling deletes for that reason. <strike>I did leave the delete for the Dwarf Stars item</strike>. I will be entering the source pubs for them shortly. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:02, 12 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== The Bright Red ? ==
 
−
 
 
−
https://www.ebay.com/itm/293035531572 shows title page of Harrap edition which says "Business Men", but Google has a copy of the John Day edition and searching for "Business Men" brings up 1 mention of that phrase within the novel itself, but "Businessmen" has 90 hits, including title page. So technically ISFDB is correct since only Harrap edition is here, but later editions altered the title. Picclick also has a Severn House edition, but doesn't show title page. If I enter John Day edition, do I just "add publication" or does some kind of varianting have to be done? --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:40, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Don't use add publication, since the existing title is "Business Men".  Add it as a new novel, and then variant the new title record to the existing record and you should be good. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 15:54, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Publication Series Doubt ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hello
 
−
 
 
−
:I saw that you approved my change in the publication series [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?9804 Mundo Fantástico].
 
−
:I am tracking this series and they change the name after edition 13 to [http://bibliowiki.com.pt/index.php/Mundos_da_Fic%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cient%C3%ADfica Mundos da Ficção científica].
 
−
:How do I put this whole series toguether? I am thinking in change the name to '''Mundo Fantástico / Mundos da Ficção científica'''...
 
−
:What do you think about it? --[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 12:23, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::You could do it that way, if you'd like.  Unfortunately, publication series don't have parent/child relationships like title series do.  I will point out that if we kept the series separate, they would both appear on the publisher's page. If you decide on a single series name, I would recommend going to the publication series and using the "Edit This Publication Series" tool to change the name of the series rather than edit each individual publication record.  I don't believe that's a moderator only tool, but I could be wrong.  Let me know if you don't see that tool, and I can change the name for you.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:41, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Scifaikuest: Online ==
 
−
 
 
−
I'm setting up the online magazine for Scifaikuest. Here is the submission [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5034460]. Teri Santitoro is the editor but he is using the (xeno-unit) alias. Now I'm working on the next issue and he uses the sakyu alias. Should I continue to use the alias' as the editor or use his real name? Worried about merging. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:31, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Each issue needs to have the pseudonym that was used for that issue which would all be varianted to the title record with the canonical name. I don't know if I've ever seen this scenario.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Got it. Thanks for the quick response. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 14:42, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Further info. Third issue (August 2020) he doesn't sign the editorial at all. After further investigation, just above the bios of all contributors, he selects his favorite poem from the issue. He signs those "Teri Santitoro, editor". Sorry I didn't find this sooner. It is present in all three issues. I don't want to cancel and reenter 30+ content entries per issue, just change it after processing. I will leave the editorials credited to the alias'. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 16:05, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::The editorials should definitely be credited as they are signed.  However, I wouldn't necessarily use that credit for the editor of the issue.  I see that they are listed as "T. Santitoro" on the cover of many of the issues as viewed on Amazon.  If you have access to a scan or the actual magazines, I'd go with whatever is on the masthead or table of contents has.  If that's not available the cover credit is probably good. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:38, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::The series you are looking at on Amazon is [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?44187 this one.]. That's why I named the online series "Scifikuest: Online" to differentiate. They are published the same months, but are totally different. Per my usual procedure, there is a link to the actual publication in each issue. I have all three in my queue, here is [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5034460 Scifaikuest: Online, May 2020]. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 20:34, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Got it.  I had been rooting around on that site, but it's a bit confusing.  I can't really find a link to the webzine aside from the current issue.  Regardless, I would recommend that the equivalent of the masthead would be the [https://www.hiraethsffh.com/about-hiraeth-publishing About Us] link which does give the credit of the editor as Teri “Sakyu” Santitoro.  It's not clear whether they are editing the print our online versions, but I'd assume both, especially as they are also signing the editorial.  Thanks again for doing all the work for these publications and awards.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:08, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::You're welcome. Thanks for tolerating all my questions! If you would approve [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5034460] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5034502] I'll correct the editor and put them to bed. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5034560] is correct as is. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 21:16, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::It seems the site appears to have had a hiccup, but they're approved now. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:22, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::::Thank you [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:18, 15 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Galaxy 1963-10 ==
 
−
 
 
−
Cover art of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?58633 this issue] is credited to Dember, but the same but differently cut cover art of [https://www.flickr.com/photos/161053216@N03/51301915361 Galaxie #1, Mai 1964] is clearly signed R McK, that is, [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?27543 Richard McKenna] (not the writer). [[User:Horzel|Horzel]] 11:06, 20 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Hyperlink in Publication Series. Its possible? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hello.
 
−
 
 
−
I would like to add a hyperlink to explain more about a Publication Series in [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5037575 this] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5037571 this case]?
 
−
I try to use an exemple but didn't work. Do you know how to fix it?
 
−
 
 
−
Another thing, how do I know when I receive a reply to a message? I receive a warning about a message, not a reply. What do you do?
 
−
--[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 11:22, 22 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:We have two different types of linking templates.  The one you used <nowiki>{{PubSeries|9804|name=Mundo Fantástico}}</nowiki>, from [[Help:Linking templates|this list]], is for use within the wiki, but not the notes field.  For the notes field in the main site, you need to use the templates from [[Help:Using Templates and HTML in Note Fields|this list]] and the format for the publication series link is a bit different, e.g. <nowiki>{{PubS|Ace Double}}</nowiki>.  I've corrected the first record.  I'll leave the second one to you to try, unless you'd like me to fix it for you.
 
−
:I don't know of any way to get notification when someone responds on a talk page other than your own.  However, you can add pages to your watchlist by clicking the watch link at the top of the page.  If it says "unwatch", then you've already added it.  Then you can check the "my watchlist" link and it will give you a list of the most recent changes to the pages you're watching.  This is how I keep track of questions that I've asked others.  I'll go ahead and leave a note on your talk page to let you know I've responded.  Hope this helps.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:24, 22 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Reject ==
 
−
 
 
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5037535; I added (play) because other editor added it to the other 2 plays in the book. If my edit is not needed the other 2 shouldn't be, either.
 
−
:I would have rejected those other edits as well had I been the reviewer.  Disambiguation should be used sparingly and there is no need to indicate the title type in this instance.
 
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5037403; Fantlab has a book not on ISFDB, https://fantlab.ru/edition83664, which reprinted Calling of the Sea, and has "Coasts". So that checklist other editor used was probably faulty. However, the only way to say for sure is looking at a copy of the original book's contents page, if anyone can find it. --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:55, 22 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:Titles can vary in different publications which is how we get variant records.  The issue was that you changed the title, but left as the only cited secondary source as one which disagreed with your change.  Discrepancies between sources can certainly exist, and in those cases we should document the discrepancy.  I'm not sure why you noted your source only in the moderator notes instead of adding it to the publication notes.  I'm also not sure of your reasons for finding the threeleggedfox bibliography to supersede the one from the Hodgson blog. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:43, 22 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Toxicon and Arachne ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ron, would you mind processing this one submission. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5039245]. Not only did I forget the equals sign, but , I want to change where it is pointed. Want to fix this so it doesn't slip my mind. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 18:51, 23 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
: A quick glance at the Recent approvals looks like Ron is not around so I approved for you. If you know the order of the poems, I strongly recommend to use piped pages (|1, |2 and so on) so they stay in the order you want them to be. Even if they look ok now, merges and imports can cause them to go every which way (and we can always change the default). So use pipes :) PS: If you need a quick moderator action, the Moderator noticeboard is usually monitored by everyone active so you have better chances there) :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:57, 23 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Lady Churchill’s Rosebud Wristlet September 2014 ==
 
−
 
 
−
Dear Rtrace,
 
−
 
 
−
You added a cover to my verified copy of the above.  My copy has a black and white cover, not a color one, although I believe it is that image.  Do you have a print copy with a color cover? 
 
−
 
 
−
My physical copy is currently in storage.  It may take me some time to find it and check your edit for the table of contents.
 
−
 
 
−
Amoeba of Horror
 
−
[[User:Amoeba of horror|Amoeba of horror]] 04:04, 27 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:The source for that cover is the [http://www.philsp.com/homeville/fmi/k/k03493.htm#A1 FictionMags Index] which uses Galactic Central for their images as does Miller/Contento.  It does look like the previous and subsequent issues (September 2013 and December 2014) had black and white covers, but their scan of that one is in color.  Perhaps there were variants? Feel free to swap it out with your own scan.  If you do so, you may want to add a note that FictionMags shows a different cover, as someone coming after might think your scan was in black and white rather than the cover being that way.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:36, 27 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== I canceled a submission by mistake ==
 
−
 
 
−
I canceled a submission for mistake. Please, do you can would bring back? The title is "Além da imaginação e do tempo" and ID is "5041529". Thank you --[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 14:20, 28 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
: It is back live :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:22, 28 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Thank you! --[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 23:19, 28 July 2021 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Breathing Black Angels ==
 
  
−
Please see [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5044295 this edit] which would impact your verified pub. Let me know whether to approve or not. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 10:31, 31 July 2021 (EDT)
+
:::: I am looking at the Title History page for {{T|17013|Deryni Magic}} and, surprisingly enough, I have a vague recollection of what may have happened to it back in 2006. I think I remember changing ''something'' in a robot-created Deryni record -- probably the title type which early ISFDB robots tended to set to NOVEL -- and then merging the result with a pre-existing title. Of course, it's been 17+ years, so I can't be sure, but it feels right. I also see that Bill Longley did another title merge that affected this title in 2009, but I don't know what that was about.
−
:It's a good edit. Please go ahead and approve. Thanks --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:09, 31 July 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== My Pending Edits ==
+
:::: Substantively, I have no objection to changing the series structure/name. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 22:49, 13 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
Why the moderators don't approve or reject my lasts edits?
+
:::::Thanks.  I've approved the two edits in question.  I've counted 15 active verifiers of Deryni books, and I think maybe a community discussion is warranted before restructuring the rest of the series.  I'm going out of town on Saturday, so I don't really want to start that discussion until I get back.  I'd rather not try to participate in a discussion using a tablet.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:19, 14 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
I saw "Bad checksum" in ISBN entry. But the number that I added was on the website that I found the data... Do you know some site where I search data about ISBN?
+
== Art of the Pulps ==
  
−
In Brazil we have [https://www.cblservicos.org.br/isbn/pesquisa/ this site], but seems like doesn't work... --[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 14:34, 3 August 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5892306; Notes say copyright page date is September 2017 with actual date from Amazon but date entered here is September; was some more exact date supposed to be entered and wasn't? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:It was entered but was changed back to the date from the book.  I'll remove the note. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 15 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
:When I'm moderating, I'm usually multi-tasking and can't really spare the time to start conversations about edits.  For that reason, if I encounter an edit that requires a discussion, I will skip over it.  Bad ISBN are such edits.  I think the way these are generally handled is to move the bad ISBN to the notes stating that it is listed that way in the book.  If a correct ISBN can be determined, it's fine to enter it in the ISBN field, provided that the source of the correct ISBN is noted.  I hope this helps.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:03, 4 August 2021 (EDT)
+
== WFR #3 ==
−
:: Yes, make sense. I understand. Thank you! --[[User:Paulotecario|Paulotecario]] 09:57, 6 August 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Chariots of the Gods Fixes ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/submitpub.cgi; Page count was added by other PV who often adds pages to the count that shouldn't be but since this is a magazine shouldn't all pages, including covers, be counted and count changed to 236? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 23:06, 15 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
I suppose your note meant I had it right in the first place? Great, but note about SBN still needed fixing, so I made another edit and hopefully that one won't be rejected. --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:49, 17 August 2021 (EDT)
+
== Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, Mid-December 1986 ==
−
:No, your first edit listed the decimal price in the field and the pre-decimal in the note, so I fixed it after I approved it.  If you check the edit history, you'll see what happened.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:03, 17 August 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Bowen ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?56983
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2871752; first name's supposed to be Marjorie, right? --[[User:Username|Username]] 18:21, 19 August 2021 (EDT)
+
hiya Ron your the only pv still hewing at the coalface for this one. just to let you know that he contents are missing another int art by hank jankus for "picaper" on p104. cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (EST)
−
:Yes. Corrected.  Thanks for finding it. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:25, 19 August 2021 (EDT)
+
:Hi Gaz
 +
:I see you've verified it as well. I'm about to go out of town for a bit, so please feel free to add the missing item.  If you're not comfortable with that, I can take care of it when I get back.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:47, 16 February 2024 (EST)
 +
::righto mate Ill have a pop at it.  [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
== Hustler Books ==
+
== Theodore Sturgeon / Without Sorcery ==
  
−
Your recent addition, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisheryear.cgi?76026+1980, should probably be here, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?32061, in order to keep all these "adult" books from Hustler together. --[[User:Username|Username]] 12:02, 22 August 2021 (EDT)
+
I am editing and PVing [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?55088 Without Sorcery] and propose to 1) change Pages to xi+355. 2) change start page of Introduction to v. 3) change start page of Preface to viii. 4) add pub notes. 5) upload high res cover scan from my copy (existing image is a thumbnail). Is all this ok with you? [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (EST)
−
:I've merged the publishers.  However, Hustler feels more like a publication series rather than an imprint.  Both Reginald3 and Worldcat list the publisher as simply World-Publishing.  Worldcat Hustler either as a series or in the notes only.  I know you frequently find sites with scans that may include title pages.  Have you encountered any for this publisher?  I'm curious as to whether Hustler is mentioned on the title page, and if so, in what manner. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 15:22, 22 August 2021 (EDT)
+
:All those changes sound good.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:41, 27 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
:: No title pages found, but there's a back cover photo of Rape of the Red Witch on Worthpoint that says HUSTLER PAPERBACKS. Also, 4 of the Hustler books on ISFDB have catalog ID, 3 starting with 10- and yours starting with 101-; adultbookcovers.net has it starting with 10-, so it might be a mistake entered here; I also wonder why the Possessed ID doesn't match the number in the ISBN (and the ISBN shows another Hustler book, Sin & Sorcery, on Google Images), and why some ID's were entered in notes but not added to the ID field. These "adult" books were entered by so many different people here over the years trying to standardize their records is tough, especially since the books themselves were so shoddy they often changed names and numbers from one part of the book to another. While trying to find a few ISBN's just now, I came across another Hustler book on Amazon, Barbarian Blonde, that looks like it might be ISFDB-worthy. --[[User:Username|Username]] 17:36, 22 August 2021 (EDT)
+
== Theodore Sturgeon / E Pluribus Unicorn ==
  
−
== Splitting some Burroughs publications you have verified ==
+
I am editing and PVing [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?268135 E Pluribus Unicorn] and will correct two of the titles in the Contents section:
 +
<br>
 +
"The Silken-Swift" should be "The Silken-Swift..." (existing variant)
 +
<br>
 +
"The Professor's Teddy-Bear" should be "The Professor's Teddy Bear" (existing variant)
 +
<br>
 +
The pub record currently shows the titles as they appear in the ToC. I will add a pub note about the ToC discrepancies. [[User:Teallach|Teallach]] ([[User talk:Teallach|talk]]) 16:46, 18 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:As above, all these changes are fine.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:44, 27 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
Some existing Burroughs publications you have PV'd have two variants that need to be split. You have verified 
+
== Mona Lisa Overdrive audiobook ==
−
[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?44274 Monster Men], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?44315 The Moon Maid], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?26181 Pirates of Venus], [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?34557 Tarzan and the Lost Empire] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?51344 Thuvia Maid of Mars]
 
  
−
Please check [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Holmesd#Changing_Burroughs_Books_.28Poll.29 this poll] to help determine which variant is the existing entry, and which is created. Your participation is appreciated. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 23:35, 26 August 2021 (EDT)
+
I added the price and ASIN to this [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?993892 Mona Lisa Overdrive audiobook] record. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 08:40, 19 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:I backed out the changes for [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?993892 this edition] and applied them to [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?993893 this edition] where they belonged. Sorry. [[User:Philfreund|Phil]] ([[User talk:Philfreund|talk]]) 08:48, 19 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
== John / Jack McDermott ==
+
== Disclosures in Scarlet ==
  
−
Hello Ron. You happen to have a copy of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?627859 Weird Fiction Review, Fall 2016] within which is the cover art for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?211329 The Body Snatchers]. However if you take a look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDermott_(artist)#/media/File:Dell1st042.jpg wikipedia] page it gives the cover art credit as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDermott_(artist)] John McDermott not Jack. Don't shoot me I'm only the messanger. And don't ask me why the guy from Twitter won't join and do all this himself. Anyway somewhere there is an error so sorry for seemingly dumping this all in your lap --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 01:02, 30 August 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5895461; Pasted $6.00 sticker on flap in case you want to add a note about that. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:17, 19 February 2024 (EST)
−
:I'll go ahead and merge the artists.  The reprint in WFR doesn't have an artist credit, so I was just following the credit from the paperback.  I am going to assume that the credit in the book is for John or not there at all.  Unfortunately, the sole verifier has been inactive for over a year so we're unlikely to be able to check.  The Worldcat record does state that it's John.  Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:39, 30 August 2021 (EDT)
+
:There is no evidence that that price sticker is from the publisher, so no need to add a note. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:46, 27 February 2024 (EST)
−
:: You are welcome but don't thank me thank the guy from Twitter (Joachim Boaz) who DMs me from time to time with such things as he knows I'm able to do edits here. Thanks for sorting it. It was the reason I contacted you as I noticed the sole verifier was inactive. I had to wrap my brain around his slightly convoluted message at 6am this morning when I barely functional. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] 11:47, 30 August 2021 (EDT)
+
::Are you sure? It's mentioned several times here, https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/disclosures-scarlet/author/jacobi-carl/first-edition/. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 20:00, 27 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
== SFPA-Sponsored Poetry Contests ==
+
== The SFWA Handbook ==
  
−
Thank you for approving these. Are you okay with me updating 2016 to match all the others (your original submission)? I didn't want to touch it until you had a chance to see what I did with the other years. I have submitted all the necessary round 2 edits for the all the other issues.
+
Ron, I'll leave [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5883345 this submission] for you. [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?865674 This pub] was ignored when [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?879426 this one] was created. Don't know if you want to move your SV's or import and ask Michaelc to move his PV. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:02, 22 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
I have noted two authors which should have the canonical and alternate name switched. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?14188 Melanie Rawls] & [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?226864 Mark C. Childs]. Having done it before, I feel confident I can handle it, if you approve. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:33, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Catamount ==
−
::By all means, proceed with both sets of edits.  I didn't have any evidence of a month, so I just entered the year.  If you want to remove the note about the webzine being added because of award nominations, that would be fine.  We've changed the rules for webzines since that was added and we no longer need to justify why it's there.  In any case, I don't have any special claim to that record.  I only entered it to get the award nominated poems into the database.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:12, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::Edits for both authors are in the queue. Melanie Rawls should need no further action. M. C. Childs will need two more submissions after a variant break and a merge are processed. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 09:14, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Strait Gate's Cover Artist ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?233737; Archived link, +[1] to page count/[283] author's note. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:46, 24 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
I didn't misspell her name, I fixed it because it was entered incorrectly on ISFDB years ago, then I made another edit changing cover art's date to match book's date, but since edit with name change hadn't been approved yet that edit with date change still contained incorrect name. When there's a huge backlog and it takes days for edits to be approved things like that happen. --[[User:Username|Username]] 21:41, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== A Praed Street Dossier ==
−
:Had I approved your edit, the name would have been misspelled.  I own this book, and easily checked the credit as printed.  This is definitely another example where you should have contacted me before submitting any of these edits.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:50, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:: This is all a bit confusing since once edits are fixed and approved the wrong old info doesn't appear anymore, so I'm trying to sort it out, but as far as I can remember a few days ago I fixed a lot of incorrect or missing info for Russell Kirk's books and when I got to Watchers... saw that the cover artist was misspelled. Many others including you worked on it over the years but didn't notice the artist's name was wrong, even though she's on Wikipedia with her correct name (I have a pending edit where I added Wiki link and other info to her record). After fixing it, I fixed other info including making cover art's date same as book's date, but as has happened several times recently, because it takes so long for edits to be approved when I changed the date the name hadn't been corrected yet, so I assume that's why that 2nd edit still had wrong name and you thought I had misspelled it, even though my edit correcting cover artist's name was approved by another moderator shortly before. All you had to do was ask why name was different in that 2nd edit and I would have explained all this and edit wouldn't have been rejected. It's really hard to make an edit and then hold on to other edits for the same book until someone finally gets around to approving the first one, so sometimes they overlap. It also would have made no sense for me to contact you about this book, since Fantlab's photo clearly showed the artist's name was misspelled on ISFDB, and the info about the 1984 essay being different than the 1962 essay even though they share the same title came from online info where authorities on Kirk mentioned the content of the essay was different, so unless you also were the PV of the book where the 1962 essay appeared (and I see you weren't) you wouldn't have that book to compare the 2 essays, anyway. --[[User:Username|Username]] 22:18, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5900107; There's no note about copies so you may want to enter it from the colophon at the end like you usually do for these AH/M&M books. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (EST)
−
:::The protocol here is to ask existing active verifiers before editing their books.  There is not an exception if you have seen a scan of the book.  There is not an exception if you've read something that states that a title needs to be unmerged.  As it happens, I was able to compare the essays as there is a scan of the other book.  However, the point is moot as ''The Surly Sullen Bell'' was not being changed, nor are there any primary verifiers.  If you're having problems my making additional edits to the same record while prior edits are pending approval, you could always cancel the pending edit and then make all the changes in the new edit. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:29, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Nada the Lily interior art ==
+
== Vathek ==
  
−
Hi, Ron! Since the one entry of interior art for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?267494 this publication] was made the parent of a distinct piece of cover art I renamed it (because I had added the other pieces to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?689495 the first book publication]. Now, it ''does'' look a bit strange, I suppose. You may want to add the other pieces of art also. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 04:25, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2892553
−
:That art record was for all of the illustrations in the book, which is an acceptable way of noting the contents.  If there had been a single illustration in the Newcastle edition, I would have preferred that it be made a variant of the correct illustration.  I've always felt that the numeric disambiguation refers to a specific publication.  I've examined a scan of the first edition, and there actually appear to be 22 illustrations in addition to a frontispiece and title page illustration.  I've updated that record accordingly.  The Newcastle edition has the frontispiece and title page, but only has 18 of the plates.  I'm going to have to go through them and see which ones are there and make the appropriate variations to the original.  Also, I should bring [[User:MLB|MLB]] into this conversation.  We should also reach out to [[User:RedDragonBooks|RedDragonBooks]] and see if they still have access to the US edition.  I'd be surprised if it is missing 4 illustrations from the UK edition.  I don't know what to do about the 1927 reprint, which I see you verified from Worldcat.  It mentions that the illustrations are from a German edition which we don't have in the database.  I would guess that we should assume that the 1927 printing has all 24 illustrations unless we have evidence to the contrary.  I'm happy to look into these things, but it will have to wait until later today or tomorrow as I've got to run.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:29, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Oh, sorry, I'd have thought that I had got all of the illustrations. The German one - which I'm gonna add quite soon - has only 20 illustrations, 19 of them full page ones, which I assume were published initially as plates. I had already contacted [[User:RedDragonBooks|RedDragonBooks]], having added the 20 illustrations to his verified. Thanks, Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 07:34, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::I also found a dedicational essay preceding the preface within the German edition, which I have varianted (cautionary) to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2907576 Dedication (Nada, die Lilie)]. I'm now tending towards the assumption that the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?855116 German edition] was based upon the Newcastle one, and that this dedication should also be printed in the latter. (I included this dedication because it sheds a light upon Haggard as well as on the novel.) Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] 10:09, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== quick approvals ==
+
Ron ive just been reading the introduction and bibliography by Roger Lonsdale in the OUP edition (1983) where he talks about the 1787 french editions and he says that the theory that they were retranslated from the english back into french is wrong.  He says "Professor Parreaux's careful investigation finally disposed of this theory in 1960.  The 1787 Lausanne text undoubtedly represents Beckford's own French text, from a manuscript which he must have had with him, in a slightly earlier state than that translated by Henley"  He says that the 1787 Paris edition is a revised version of the Lausanne one but this one does contain some of Henley's notes for the English translation, retranslated into french.  The bibliography indicates the first translation from the english back into french was in 1819.
 +
:All that might not be the final word and im sure you've dug into deeper than me but i thought you ought to know with regard to the notes for the title.  I can scan the relevent pages and send them to you if youre interested.  cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 10:18, 25 February 2024 (EST)
 +
::Hi Gaz
 +
::I haven't done any special research on this.  I do see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vathek Wikipedia] sticks with the original composition in French.  You could certainly add to the notes in the title record.  However, I'd note it as an alternate theory and cite your sources.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 20:54, 27 February 2024 (EST)
 +
:::righto mate ill have a stab at it.  Yeah Beckford wrote it in french and Henly was commisioned to do the english translation but he was cheesed off that beckford wouldnt let him publish and the rapscallion jumped the gun, published it without mentioning beckford and said it was translated from some old arab text.  The dispute is about the french versions published shortly after the english one.  I couldn't find anything in the wikipedia that says the first french versions were retranslated from henley's english version back into french which was what people originally believed and which lonsdale says has been refuted.  Ill see if i can find any other source for the double translation theory. cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (EST)
  
−
Thank you Ron. When I edited the title [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2877651 of this poem], the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ay.cgi?66+2021 2021 Dwarf Stars] didn't re-sort. Is there a way to force it? I asked for the quick action because I am working  to complete the list of finalists this weekend. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 22:22, 4 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Grandon ==
−
:I do know what's going on the the sort.  The [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/award_details.cgi?70337 award record] has its own copy of the title field.  This created when you enter a new award, either from scratch or by adding an award to an existing title.  When you change the title of the linked title record, it does not affect the title of the award record.  However, what is displayed, is the title of the linked record, so to see the title field on the award record, you'll need to attempt to edit the award.  Unfortunately, for a linked award, the title field is locked.  I was able to change it, but it was a bit of a hack.  In the edit award screen, I used my browser's web developer's tools to change the value in the underlying HTML and was able to submit the update.  An easier method is to simply delete the existing award record and create a new one, which will pick up the new title.  This is probably too much of an edge case, but you could reach out to [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] and see if either a change to the title record with awards could cascade the changes to the award record, or if the title field on the award edit screen could be unlocked.  I expect the latter would be easy to do, and the former much harder.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:16, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::I like the second suggestion, unlocking the award title record. I'll ask [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] about it. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 10:05, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::: Early on, the "Title" field and the "Author" multi-field were editable. It caused all kinds of problems because title records and title-based award records could (and often did) get out of sync.
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?21045; I just added edits with HathiTrust links to 333 and Werewolf of Ponkert, I checked online and all 6 books say The Grandon Company on the title page, I'm thinking of changing publisher's name to that, you PV 4 of them so if yours say the same let me know and then I'll make the change. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:They all say "The Grandon Company" and it would be fine to change the publisher's name. Just make sure you update the publisher instead of individually updating all the publication records.  Let me know if you have any issues.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:14, 1 March 2024 (EST)
 +
::I can't do that; I'm not a mod. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:34, 5 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:::Updated.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:03, 5 March 2024 (EST)
  
−
::: I can think of two ways to address the sorting issue. The first one is to modify the Edit Title code to update all associated award records whenever the "title" field of a title record is changed as per Ron's idea above. The other way would be to use the title field of the associated title record for sorting (and all other) purposes.
+
== Swear by Apollo ==
  
−
::: Let me examine the code and see which approach is less impactful. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:02, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?291019; This is the book club edition (Random House / BCE) going by the page count but the record has trade price; your Reginald SV may be affected by that. There's a copy, https://www.etsy.com/listing/1292726176/swear-by-apollo-by-shirley-barker-1958, that shows trade with price on front and cover artist on back + LCCN on copyright page; eBay has nothing but club editions except for 1 seller who shows LCCN on copyright page but didn't bother with photos of the flaps. LoC site says 306 pages, not 307. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:33, 5 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:Trade copy here, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006592863. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:34, 5 March 2024 (EST)
 +
::Well, the Reginald verification is from [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]], not me.  I also see that you effectively converted the publication record of the trade edition to that of the book club edition with [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5022497 this edit] in 2021 while not adjusting the publisher to indicate the book club.  Both the Reginald number and the Worldcat number refer to the trade edition.  I would guess the page count in the record was 306 before you changed it, which would match Worldcat.  What I'd recommend is that you back out your edit and restore the data for the trade edition.  That would be easier than creating a new record for the trade,  fixing the publisher of the BCE, removing the external IDs and then getting two other editors to move their verifications to a new trade record.  After you've restored the trade edition, then you could clone it to create the BCE.  Lastly, I'm not sure why you're asking me about this record.  I'm not in the edit history and have no verifications, aside from marking the ones that are not applicable.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:17, 5 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:::https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5908165; OK, so I went back and did it the way it was before and then improved it with lots of other info which the previous editors apparently didn't care to look up. As I've said before, the only reason I ask you is because you're around more often than some of the others (at least until recently when you're doing mostly your own audiobook edits) so when I see your name in a record I default to you. Mr. Hutchins hasn't really been actively editing for years and barely responds to anything, anyway, so no use asking them. Rudam is the one who approved my nearly 3-years-old previous edit and I believe he's the one who I asked to slow down on the approvals because I was finding things that needed fixing that they were not noticing because they were just running through dozens of approvals in the space of a few minutes just to get the queue down to size, I guess. They went off in a huff after that. So, you know, it's really difficult dealing with all the personalities here and figuring out who's around and who's mad at who and whatever so if I get a little confused sometimes I think it's understandable. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 20:04, 5 March 2024 (EST)
  
−
::::The title field probably should always be consistent between award record and linked title record.  However there are occasional cases where the author of the linked title record is not who is being awarded.  A good example is the 2019 Locus award for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/award_details.cgi?64166 Best Art Book].  The award is for Charles Vess. We have it linked to Le Guin's book, but have the award record with  Vess as "author".  His name isn't viewable unless you edit the award, nor is listed in Vess' awards. We at least have to correct person reflected somewhere.  I recall that I specifically entered the new award with Vess' name and linked afterword so as to get the records as close as I could to what is really going on.  It's not usual, but sometimes awards refuse to conform to how we've modeled them.  Since you're considering award vs title records, we may want to consider using the award record's author for display and also for who's award list to place the award in.  Something more to thinks about.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:34, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== Futuristic Tales, No.1 ==
  
−
::::: Was the award given to the art only? If so, then wouldn't we want to associate it with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2417205 the COVERART] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2418221 the INTERIORART] titles, which is how Vess's 2019 Chesley nominations are currently handled? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 22:06, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?995232
  
−
::::::Since the category is for "Best Art Book", I would say that it belongs with the book rather than the artwork records.  The Chesleys have separate categories specifically for covers and interior illustrations.  I wouldn't want to consider linking to the INTERIOR art titles if someone goes to the trouble of indexing each individual piece.  Also, I think one would expect to see the award on the book's [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2417204 title page].  I see that the Hugos had the same category that year as a special category. The award on their site lists both Vess and Le Guin as recipients, and apparently I didn't go through the same process to get Vess' name on the award record.  I remember that I've run into this problem occasionally.  This was just an example that came to mind. Mainly, my point is that there are use cases where it makes sense to have the author credit of the award differ from that of the title record it is linked to. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:08, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
hiya ron sorry to bother you I just wanted to pick your brains about how to handle cases like this re the alternate names of the authors.  Theres the 3 names which are all psuedonyms.  The authors real name is not on the db - presumably if it was on the db then those 3 would be made alternate names of it.  as the real parent name isnt listed then one of the others has been made the parent name (Stacker).  Did you do that because it was the earliest one in the contents or was there some other reason? There's some more like that for later issues of this mag so i want to get on top of it before trying to sort them out myself. cheers from gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 17:35, 6 March 2024 (EST)
  
−
::::::: Yesterday night I was too tired to follow all the connections. After examining the database data which underlies [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/award_details.cgi?64166 this award], I now see what's going on. The award appears on {{A|Charles Vess}}'s [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/eaw.cgi?7228 awards page], but when you follow the link to the award record, the only listed author is {{A|Ursula K. Le Guin}}. The reason it happens that way is that the author stored in the award record has been changed from "Ursula K. Le Guin" to "Charles Vess", which can only be seen when editing the award. The underlying reason it works the way it does is that there is a flaw in SQLloadAwardsXBA, the query which builds the Author Award Bibliography page: the authors stored in the "awards" table are only supposed to be used for non-title based awards, but instead they are used for title-based awards as well. It was a bug in the software changes which I made back in 2014 when I reworked awards.
+
Ron ive just noticed that you linked them by doing a variant title.  Does using the alternate name route have the same outcome?  [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 17:58, 6 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:Hi Gaz
 +
:I recall these edits from earlier today.  I went ahead and adjusted things to get the records in order, as you have noticed.  The first thing I did was to add "Abu Khattub" as the legal name for the three pseudonyms (or rather "Khattub, Abu" which is the proper format for the legal name. In order to get those three stories under the same bibliography, there are two sets of edits that have to be done. First the authors must be linked. We ordinarily select whichever name the author is best know as in the field as the canonical name. Since we had three names with one story using each pseudonym, there was no way to give any name preference for the canonical, so I just chose one, Garry Stacker.  If we find more publications by this author, we may need to adjust which name is canonical. I should also note that because there are no publications with the "Abu Khattub" credit, we cannot us that one as a canonical name.  So, choosing Stacker as canonical, I then made the other two names into pseudonyms by navigating to each author and using the "Make/Remove Alternate Name" tool. The other set of edits is to make the title records under the alternate names into variants of a parent title using the canonical name.  Again, I went to each title record and used the "Make This Title a Variant" tool, selecting Option 2 with "Garry Stacker" as the author name to make the new parent title.  I hope this answers your question, but let me know if you need me to expand on any steps in the process.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:11, 6 March 2024 (EST)
  
−
::::::: Also, from our users' perspective, this is really odd behavior because it's not clear why an award given to a book credited to Le Guin appears on Vess's awards page.
+
::cheers mate, a bit more in it than i thought, i'm glad I asked else i would have only tried to do one or the other of those. Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (EST)
  
−
::::::: As per [[Help:Screen:EditAward]], the title and the author(s) of a title-based award are not editable because they should always come from the title record. The only reason they are currently captured by the software is that they are stored in the "awards" table, which is shared with "untitled awards". Back in 2014, I wanted to split this table in two -- one for "title-based" awards and another one for "untitled" awards -- but it would have meant a lot of additional work, so I compromised and made the fields uneditable and unusable for title-based awards. Clearly I didn't do a very good job of it since this discussion has brought up two bugs in the current logic: the original sorting bug and the Author Award Bibliography bug.
+
== New York 2140 Audiobook ==
  
−
::::::: To go back to the larger issue here, a title record is defined by its title as well as by its author(s). If an award is given to a title record but not to the author(s) of the title record, then I don't believe it should be entered as a title-based award. For example, a "Best ''Translated Novel''" award ''should'' be linked to the translated title, but a "Best ''Translation''" award shouldn't be linked because it's given to the work's ''translator(s)'' as opposed to the work's author(s).
+
Hello, question about the ISBN from audiobook download {{P|994420|New York 2140}}; where did you source it from? It doesn't match the one listed on the Hachette site (9781549128141). Thanks! [[User:Albinoflea|Albinoflea]] ([[User talk:Albinoflea|talk]]) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (EST)
 +
:Hi Albinoflea
 +
:Sure, I got that from the linked Worldcat record and the same ISBN is used for the three eAudiobook records I can find in Worldcat.  I did find a different ISBN, 9781478941224, listed in [https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/reviews/read/127281/new-york-2140-by-kim-stanley-robinson-read-by-suzanne-toren-robin-miles/ this review], however, searching that in Worldcat returns a record for the print book which doesn't actually list that ISBN.  Worldcat does not have the ISBN from the Hachette site.  I'll admit that I'm finding audiobook ISBNs a bit puzzling.  Audible doesn't list them and they do not appear in the book, nor in the metadata that I can see when I import them in iTunes. Worldcat can list multiple ISBNs, though it doesn't in this instance.  That review site will sometimes list library edition ISBNs in addition to trade, but again, not in this instance.  For ''New York 2140'' I suppose that we could list them all in the current record and cite the source of each.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:44, 7 March 2024 (EST)
  
−
::::::: Normally, we wouldn't want to link an art award to a work of fiction because other editions of the same work may not have the same art included. However, in this particular case, the title of this omnibus includes the words "The Complete Illustrated Edition". It suggests that the editors of the book considered Vess's illustrations to be an integral part of the omnibus and that any other edition that didn't include them should be considered a different title record. If we accept this logic, then we can variant the current "Le Guin" OMNIBUS title to an OMNIBUS title by "Le Guin and Vess" and link the award to the new parent title.
+
== Scream for Jeeves ==
  
−
::::::: Now to fix the identified bugs :-) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 14:27, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?487698; Starting number of first story is wrong, title of essay is wrong. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:24, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Updated. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 12 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
::::::: P.S. Let me add one more thing. There are hundreds of lines of ISFDB code which operate based on the assumption that the title/author values stored in award records are never used, which means that the two places where these values ''are'' used are clearly bugs. That being said, fixing the Author Award Bibliography bug may result in unexpected behavior for any other awards that have been tweaked the same way that this award was tweaked. To help deal with this potential problem, I am going to create a report to find all mismatches between title records and award records. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:46, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== The Dark Tower ==
  
−
::::::::Ignoring limitations of how the software is written for a moment, I'm afraid that I really disagree here.  I don't think a user would be surprised by seeing Le Guin's book in Vess' award list, given the category.  I think a user would be far more surprised if they didn't find the award listed in the book's title record.  For me, the award is clearly for the book which we reflect with a title record.  Locus presented the award to Vess (whereas the Hugos presented it to Le Guin and Vess).  It would make sense for the award to appear both in the title, and on the recipients page.  This is almost always the same as the "author" of the title record.  It's just these edge cases that are problematic.  I really don't like the idea of making variants to accommodate award recipients.  It's completely external to the book.  Your translator vs translation award analogy is apt and the Earthsea book is a good example as it won awards both as art book and for artwork.  Back to the problem of variance from the design.  I understand that it's a bug, but it is one that I assumed was a feature, at least as far as getting the awards to appear where I believe they belong.  I'm sure you will find other mismatches between award author and title author with your report.  However, what problems have they caused?  I was going to suggest adding a recipient field to the award records/tables, but that's really just adding a new field/column that behaves like the current bugs allow it to. Your point is well taken about awards for a specific edition that does not vary from a title record. I know I've encountered that, and I've handled it in the notes on the award record specifying which edition was honored.  Also, the place you'll need to prevent the varying authors is when an untitled award is linked to a title.  That's how I've created all of these.  I only attempted fiddling the value of the locked field to fix the sort issue that started this thread.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:17, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?63665
  
−
::::::::: Re: "what problems have they caused?", the main issue is that title/author data changes all the time. If we decide to change "Charles Vess" to "Charles Vess (I)" tomorrow, there will be no way of telling that we need to go back and change the author name in his title-based award records at the same time. Moreover, there will be no supported way of making the requisite changes.
+
hiya ron i'm having a look at the int art for my book (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?167561) to see if the existing int art title can be added to the contents.  The hodder hb has 12 named colour plates listed on an illustrations content page.  just wanted to check if the american editions have the same pictures.  cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 14:27, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Hi Gaz
 +
:I replaced the {{P|63665|trade edition}} above with the {{P|770401|Artist Signed Edition}}, which is why I marked the former verification as transient. You may try reaching out to [[User:Willem H.|Willem H.]] who has a permanent verification on that edition.  I can tell you that the Artist Signed Edition also lists twelve color plates on the illustration contents page.  There are also several monochrome spot illustrations and illustrations for section headings in addition to pictorial end-papers. Hope this is helpful for you. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:10, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
::::::::: In the meantime, I have changed the SQL query and created a new cleanup report. Once the software changes are deployed, the new cleanup report will run overnight and find a bit under 1,000 suspect award records. Most of them are due to the title/author changes mentioned in the previous paragraph. A few will require re-pointing awards to the right VT (mostly translations) and a few are like this Vess situation. I also improved the sorting of award records while I was a it. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:40, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
:: sorry mate i didnt notice it was a transient, thanks for the info cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::::::::: The software changes have been deployed and announced on the Community Portal. Now to fix the originally reported sorting bug... [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:20, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
+
== The Baum Bugle, Spring 2023  ==
  
−
::::::::::: The sorting bug has been fixed. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 13:33, 8 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Please see [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5847952 this edit] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5847960 this edit] which impact your verified {{P|984332|The Baum Bugle, Spring 2023}}. Let me know how I should respond to submitter on first one and whether I should accept the second one. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 10:10, 24 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:I think that both changes are essentially fine.  I can convert the first essay to an interview, or you can work with the submitter on how that is accomplished if you would prefer.  For the second edit, it was a little confusing as the title page has "Art and Additional Comments by Lorena Azpiri" which did not make it clear that she was also interviewed.  I would recommend cloning the interview for the Spanish version.  There is not a separate Spanish title listed, so maybe make the Spanish a variant of the English.  Although, the interview itself is printed side by side with Spanish on the left, so I could go either way with which title should be canonical.  Let me know if you'd like me to work on these changes.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:27, 24 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::Since you have the pub, I will unhold these and let you work them. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Tuck verification ==
+
== Little Annie and Jack in London ==
  
−
You identified a Tuck verification for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?343789 Tarzan and the Lost Empire]. That publication record says it is a US printing. Would Tuck be that specific? Could the verification belong to the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?560336 Canadian printing]? Some red flags: the same image is used for both (provided by Bluesman), they have the same OCLC entry and the third printing (01754) says it is the second printing (1969-10) and the first was 1963-10 (F-777) and the first Canadian printing was 1964-01. My Burroughs reference had no record. I'd like to delete it, but figure noting it has no mention in the reference is safer. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 16:42, 13 September 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1969250
−
:Tuck states that Canadian editions are sometimes included, but he doesn't cover them comprehensively.  That publication is listed in Volume 1 under Burroughs: "Ballantine, 1963, pa, (2 ed)".  It is further listed in Volume 3 in the paperbacks section under both Burroughs: "Ballantine U2012 1963 159 50¢ R" (Last column is for reprint), and in the publisher section in the list for 1963.  So Tuck definitely thought it exists and did not mark it as a Canadian edition.  I see that a inactive editor added the notes about the edition being printed in the US.  I've actually encountered a couple of publications recently where I am suspicious that they were ever published.  In those cases, I went ahead and added them to the database with a note stating which sources asserted their existence.  I'd follow the same thing here and add a note stating that it can be found in Tuck, but may not in fact, exist.  That Worldcat record is definitely wrong though and should be removed.  It looks like maybe 761384352 could fit, but that record could refer to any 1963 Ballantine printing.  If you don't think the Worldcat verification is appropriate, please go ahead and remove the number and I can remove the verification for you.  Hope that helps.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:44, 13 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Submitted. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 22:02, 13 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Tarzan and the Lion Man ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5922621
  
−
You uploaded a cover image for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?390848 this] pub in 2012, but did not verify. I have reason to believe this was a Canadian printing. Do you have access to this publication to check? Thanks ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 09:55, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
+
hiya Ron i didnt ask you about this first because your pv was transient.  I can scan the pages and get them to you if that would help. cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 10:05, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:Sorry, but I don't.  I probably never did as I would have marked it transient if I had seen a copy.  There are no secondary verification, so you should go ahead and adjust the record per your sources.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:20, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Ditto [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?390943 this] pub of Tarzan's Quest. Just a few more to go, so I'll stop bothering you with this particular problem. Thanks. ../[[User:Holmesd|Doug H]] 11:47, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::Again, I'm sure I didn't have a copy.  Please feel free to update as needed.  In general, you don't need to check with me for publications I haven't verified.  Unless there's a secondary source you need me to look up.  I've got two different Zeuscher bibliographies, but I'm under the impression that you do too. I also have Heins, and you may see notes from me referencing these.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:13, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Balook ==
+
:I still have the book handy.  I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.  Reading footnote 7, makes it clear that "Little Ella" is the name of the mirror reversed reproduction by Currier and Ives of "My First Sermon" which is the illustration appearing on page 171 (it is also identified as such in {{P|558606|this later edition}} of the Annotated Alice).  The other Millais painting, "My Second Sermon" is described as the same girl sleeping, which does not fit either illustration.  Therefore, the remaining illustration on page 172 has to be the one from ''Little Annie and Jack in London''.  Let me know if you have a different interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the current title is correct.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:35, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
I added some data from my copy to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?3563 this pub], and I would like to change the publication date to 1990-00-00 and the Locus note to "Locus #362 (March 1991) has this in the books received - January 1991 column. The title page states Underwood Miller 1990." Any objections? Thanks, --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 10:50, 17 September 2021 (EDT)
+
::sorry Ron but i still think i'm right on this one.  The bottom pic is the millais painting "MY First Sermon" https://victorianweb.org/painting/millais/paintings/43.html  the top pic is "Little Ella" https://www.americanantiquarian.org/514163.htm Its note number 4 in my book not No 7 so maybe the notes are different? Or even the pics are different? [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
−
: I agree completely.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:28, 17 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
::Thanks! and done. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 07:02, 18 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== The First Men in the Moon artist credit ==
+
:::OK, our books have different illustrations.  It does appear that what mine label as "My First Sermon" is in fact "Little Ella", though the note does not make this clear.  However, the second illustration in the QPB edition is neither of the images you linked.  I'm going to reject your edit and update the title record to change "My First Sermon" to "Little Ella".  For your book, if it has both the Millais painting and the Currier and Ives version, you should adjust the altered title to the correct page and add "My First Sermon".  Let me know if that makes sense.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:25, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
I updated the cover art credit for {{P|272248|The First Men in the Moon}} based on {{P|263085|Possible Futures: Science Fiction Art from the Frank Collection}}. As the Franks purchased the original artwork, their attribution would seem more reliable than the Vintage Paperback Archives which doesn't provide a source. Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (EDT)
+
::::righto mate - its a bit misleadin in my book as well as he gives the impression that the first pic is millais and the one underneath is the mirror reversed copy when its actually the other way round - he was taking the looking glass theme too seriously. cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Black|Gold|Red Unicorn / Tanith Lee -- publisher ==
+
(undented)
 +
Ron while were on it does your book have a picture not listed in the contents thats in mine.  Its in the tweedledum chapter just after the Tenniel picture with the rattle on the ground.  its a tenniel drawing from "Punch" of a boy on a gate with a gun and waving a rattle.  also in the wool and water chapter next to the tenniel drawing of alice and the sheep shopkeeper theres a photo of "Alice's shop" in oxford not in the toc. [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Yes, both the Punch drawing and the photo of the shop are present.  I hadn't bothered with the drawing as there is no good way of giving it a title.  I omitted the photo as it is uncredited and I don't usually include photos.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 22:03, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Please see here [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:GlennMcG#Black.7CGold.7CRed_Unicorn_-_Tanith_Lee]. Thanks. --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 15:39, 23 September 2021 (EDT)
+
::i put in a edit a few days ago adding the tenniel drawing to my book and its just been signed off.  I called it "Punch Cartoon". i'm happy to take it out to keep the different editions as consistent as possible. I left the shop one out as i figured it might be because it was a photo. cheers Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::No need to remove or delete the new drawing. I was just explaining why I hadn't originally added that item. I'll go ahead and import it in my copies. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:30, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== African Writer, February 2016 ==
+
== Horror: 100 Best Books ==
  
−
Hi Ron,  
+
Hi. There may be an error in the contents of the [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?283627 publication] you've PV'd. Could you check & chime in [https://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Faustus#Lort_of_the_Flies_review here] with what you've got in your copy? Thanks! [[User:MagicUnk|MagicUnk]] ([[User talk:MagicUnk|talk]]) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Under [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Policy#Rules_of_Acquisition which rule] is [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?857136 this] eligible for addition? The current rules for web-only publication are:
+
== An Informal History of the Hugos ==
−
#** Speculative ''fiction'' webzines, which are defined as online periodicals with distinct issues (note: online periodicals without distinct issues are not considered webzines)
 
−
#** Special speculative ''fiction'' issues of non-genre webzines
 
−
#** One time speculative ''fiction'' anthologies published on the Web
 
−
#** Online publications available exclusively as a Web page, but only if:
 
−
#*** published by a market which makes the author eligible for SFWA membership (listed [https://www.sfwa.org/about/join-us/sfwa-membership-requirements/#pro here]), OR
 
−
#*** shortlisted for a major award
 
−
This looks like a non-genre webzine - which will be in only if it has a complete genre fiction issue (And if we bend that to mean "a story", we are literally allowing ANY story out there... I generally am in favor of allowing these types of stories from non-genre webzines BUT we need a rule change for that. Or do you see it as eligible under one of the available categories above? Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:47, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:I didn't question that new publication because I am completely surprised by the rule.  It's counterintuitive and I certainly don't agree that a distinction should be made.  We know how to handle non-genre periodicals, why wouldn't we treat non-genre webzines identically?  In any case, I can begin rejecting these if you'd like.  I'll leave it up to you if you want to delete this.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:39, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: (after a conflict) We can always change the rules - but under the current ones, these are not eligible. Back when the rules were changed to add the first 3 categories, they were supposed to be the pilot ones to see how it goes and we were supposed to revisit and it never happened. Before that only the awards and  SFWA rules were there for web-only periodicals. We never extended the rules... Slate was treated as "Special speculative ''fiction'' issues of non-genre webzines" case (thus the dates on the "issues") - which had always been a stretch for them but went in under that rule - we had a discussion about it somewhere even. I'd be happy to kick off the discussion again if someone will bother to comment - usually noone cares enough and we get nowhere... I want these stories in but we need to work based on our own rules... [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:45, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== A very old on hold ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?672377
  
−
Hi Ron, you have an on hold sitting at the top of the list since May :) Can you ping the editor or make a decision? Thanks. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 04:26, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
+
Ron Ive just pv'd this and theres a couple of walton's reviews in my copy not in the db contents. my book has a review of "A Canticle for Leibowitz" on p69 and a review of "Dying Inside" on p214.  Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:I don't know how to proceed with this.  I started [[ISFDB:Community Portal#Allen Drury's Advise and Consent|a discussion]] on the community portal, but it petered out as these things do, and in my opinion did not reach a consensus.  I held the edit to restore the non-genre flag, because it was undoing the edit I had made to remove that flag earlier. I still feel strongly that this should be considered a speculative work on the evidence that it is listed in three of our standard secondary sources as well as SFE3 and in a contemporary review in ''Astounding''.  It's set in the near future from the time it was published, 1959.  From the description in the review, the future described is easily distinguishable from 1959.  So clearly, I fee the edit should be rejected, but have been hesitant to do so because we can't come to an agreement. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:37, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
+
:Hi Gaz -
−
:: Ah, that happened around the time I was awayt with health issues (or just after that when I was still not really paying attention) so I missed the thread. I just posted my 2 cents. I think we should keep it genre but add the notes on attribution as genre into the notes (major genre secondary sources and all that)... Astounding's review usually won't convince me as much (they had reviewed some borderline books occasionally) but SFE and the secondaries listing it do. Hope that helps. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:52, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
+
:I don't know how those were missed. Please feel free to add them, or let me know if you'd like me to do so.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:32, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:::Thanks.  I'll give it another day or two to see if anyone else responds to your comment.  If nobody does, I'll reject the submission. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:57, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:::: I'd add the notes from the thread into the Notes of the record regardless of what we decide about the flag if I were you :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:59, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== The Blue Book Magazine, March 1947 ==
+
::i'm happy to do it mate but i'm not 100% sure about the second one.  thats the only review that doesnt have a surtitle (right word?) so should that just go down as a review and not a review and an essay?  Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 19:43, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::For the Silverberg review, you only need to add the review without a separate essay.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
I think your patterns went a bit weird: "Non-speculative content only." is the opposite to what we want or you wanted to say [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?648929 here]. I fixed the note to read "Speculative content only." instead. Letting you know in case you have a template you are using the needs fixing :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:25, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::::Ron one of the reviews isnt showing up as hypertext, is that something ive done - I cant see anything wrong with how it was added? Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:That wasn't me.  The comment was added with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5009265 this] edit.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:32, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:::::I can explain what happened. When a new review title record is created, the software attempts to match the reviewed title and author to an existing record in the database.  In this case, you entered the review author as "Walter M. Miller". {{T|2283|A Canticle for Leibowitz}} has only ever been published as by "Walter M. Miller''', Jr.'''"  Thus the software couldn't match your new review title to an existing title record. I would recommend updating the review author in the {{T|3297174|review title record}} to "Walter M. Miller, Jr.". Unfortunately, the software only attempts to link the review when it is first created, so that won't cause the hyperlink to appear.  To make that happen there is another step.  From the review title, you'll want to use the "Link Review to Title" tool. You'll need the title number for A Canticle for Leibowitz which is 2283. Once that edit is approved, the link will appear. Hope this helps, but let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:10, 27 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:: Oops. My bad. Sorry :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 18:36, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Mysteries of the Worm ==
+
== Third Cry to Legba ==
  
−
Missed that note; careless of me, and I apologize for that. Oddly, I can't find a photo of that edition's title page anywhere online, so I wonder if they ever released a corrected edition with "Early". However, every cloud has a silver lining; while searching, I found that Dalby's site has the original Chaosium edition, https://richarddalbyslibrary.com/products/robert-bloch-mysteries-of-the-worm-a-chaosium-book-1993, which supplied the previously unknown cover artist, to be entered by me in an edit. Also, while the same subtitle is on this edition's cover, the title page doesn't have it; instead, title page and copyright page have "Second Edition Revised and Expanded", unlike the cover which has "New Second Edition, Revised & Expanded", so I will enter it as it appears on the title page. --[[User:Username|Username]] 16:41, 6 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?77932; I added Luminist link, word in subtitle should be Cobbett. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:You can go ahead and add the cover artist.  The edition statement appears below the author's name and should not be added as a subtitle.  Thanks for checking before submitting your edit.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:46, 6 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:Fixed.  I'm not sure about those wasabisys.com links.  In the recent discussion we had consensus for archive.org but not other sites.  I've posted the question in that [[Rules and standards discussions#Linking to third party Web pages -- defining "legally posted"|thread]] and will hold the edit for now.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:15, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
::Ahasuerus just approved an edit of mine for a book PV by him (among others) and it included a Luminist link so he's obviously fine with them. It's not a torrent site with passwords and membership and such, it just provides singular PDF's of old books and magazines. As always, if someone complains about an individual book they'll take it down, like Archive.org does, and the link won't work (someone with patience, i.e. not me, could have some fun doing an advanced search for the hundreds of Luminist links in ISFDB records, most added by me over the last few years, and remove any that don't work anymore if there are any); if not, the links are good. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:09, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== The (Even More) Compleat Feghoot ==
+
== Dr. Caligari ==
  
−
{{P|34888|This}} has two cover records that are variants of each other. Seems like it should only have the "(Even More)" version? --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 14:06, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5926963; Most of the photos are from the limited edition, Gahan Wilson art, signature pages, 100 copies, etc. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:32, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:Thanks for catching that.  Clearly it got snapped up when I imported titles from the earlier collection. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:09, 10 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:The ISBN is they list is for the trade edition, though for some reason, they are using a 10 digit ISBN for a 2016 publication. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:57, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Bill's Phantasm ==
+
== This year's Chinese Hugo Finalists ==
  
−
Hi Ron,  
+
I'll do all the ones that aren't already in the DB - all but a couple were on two rec lists, so I already have the details at hand for them.  [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Sounds good.  I may need to pause for a few hours.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:57, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:: Sorry for stepping on your toes for a couple of the later awards.  I've think I've done all the Chinese finalists, apart from Wandering Earth II in Best Dramatic Presentation.  [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 14:15, 29 March 2024 (EDT)  EDIT: I'd missed Yao Haijun in Editor Long Form, but he's in now. [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] ([[User talk:ErsatzCulture|talk]]) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::No worries, I thought I was the one stepping on toes.  Your notes were more extensive than mine which is why I zapped my own records.  I'm going to wait until this evening to enter the rest, unless you wanted to work on them now.  I can handle the DP Chinese finalist if you don't get to it since we don't need a record and it's simply a matter of cut and paste. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:31, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Is there anything in the review for [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2527974 this one] to indicate where it was published first so we can add a note about it? Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 01:38, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
+
== Science Fiction Reader's Guide ==
−
:There is.  Bleiler had it in [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?552107 this collection] as did Tuck.  Contento has it only in the US edition, which we didn't have.  It looks like [[User:Username|Username]] recently removed it.  In the same series of edits, he indicated that he was adding page numbers from a Google Books copy.  Google's copy is search only and does not appear to have that story.  In any case, I've added the US edition and the original appearance in ''The Saturday Evening Post''.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 03:29, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Awesome. Thanks! :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 03:44, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
::: http://www.philsp.com/resources/ISFAC/t165.htm#A2991; Stokes published Beyond the Desert as a separate novella, but didn't include it in the Stokes edition of Hidden Player and replaced it with Bill's Phantasm. --[[User:Username|Username]] 08:45, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5928018; Link and fixed essay title, publisher should have something (Nebraska?) added to differ from much later unrelated one of the same name. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:52, 30 March 2024 (EDT)
 +
:https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?270380; https://archive.org/search?query=0822011697; Price is lower on archived copy so ISFDB record is likely for a later printing, essays from Reader's Guide originated in this book so you may want to import them. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== The Grendel Affair -- clonepub ==
+
== Pisces of Fate ==
  
−
I was planning to delete [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?820075], but noticed that you approved its creation from [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?820075] with edit [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4896219]. It seems to be a duplicate, with the publication date not normalized to honor the copyright page. Other books in the series seem to have the same issues. Thoughts? --[[User:GlennMcG|GlennMcG]] 01:36, 19 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?622398; I added a cover artist to a book today and his name is Henry Christian-Slane which is the same as his site henrychristianslane.com; should the artist for the book linked be Slane, too? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 08:53, 31 March 2024 (EDT)
−
:I've no objection if you delete these.  I've no memory why I approved these back in January.  If there has been a discussion about date in the book vs Amazon date, I've missed it.  For my own verifications where a book is already here from Amazon, I will alter the note to state that day and or month are from Amazon.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:17, 19 October 2021 (EDT)
+
:I don't own the book, nor have I verified it except for Worldcat which has no art credits, so I couldn't say.  The note states the artist is from a Vogel nomination which can be viewed [https://www.sffa.nz/sjv/sjvNominations-2016.html here].  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:37, 31 March 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Tales of the Uneasy ==
+
== When you get a minute ==
  
−
You PV'd original 1911 edition of this book, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?417820, so I'm letting you know I moved the Archive.org link from title page to the 1911 edition and fixed the page numbers. --[[User:Username|Username]] 14:39, 24 October 2021 (EDT)
+
Hey Ron, just a heads up. [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/cleanup_report.cgi?326 These audiobooks] have the wrong format. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:54, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:All fixed.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:42, 3 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Wrong Date ==
+
== Aesop's Fables ==
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?822007; I was adding some stuff to G.K. Chesterton's books and wondered why 1 short story was much later than the others; seems all the stories in the collection linked above, except for Dunsany's, were given the date of the book because their titles were slightly different, but Chesterton's is from 1911, I believe (1 of his Father Brown stories); you might want to verify exact date and change it. --[[User:Username|Username]] 17:52, 24 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?935296
  
−
== Gaslight ==
+
hiya Ron dunno what Ive done wrong this time but a couple of the fables that i was doing ie the 1912 Vernon Jones translations (the belly and the members and the boasting traveler) seem to have been merged with the ones that you did with the unknown translator. ive just done some edits removing them from my book and readding them - hopefully that is right. when i was editing them to add the perry number and webpage they seemed ok then so cant work out what happened. cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 10:36, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Hi Gaz -
 +
:I think I can see what happened.  If you take a look at the edit histories of the two titles in question ([https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title_history.cgi?2800518 The Boasting Traveler] and [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title_history.cgi?2433761 The Belly and the Members], you'll note that they were both merged with the existing title records with the unidentified translator on 4/7 by [[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]].  I would expect that he didn't realize that the translators were different.  Your method for correcting this error is exactly correct, and I've approved those edits.  You should be able to proceed to add the translator template to the new titles and make them variants of the canonical titles.  Hope this helps.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:39, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5134567; I assume the 1998 was an editing error so I fixed it, but on the slim chance your copy actually says 1998 I'm letting you know first. --[[User:Username|Username]] 10:24, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::thanks for sorting that our Ron I'll have to train myself to remembr to check out the edit history in future. cheers - Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 19:15, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Tightbeam - 2018 ==
+
== Bowl of Baal ==
−
Hi Ron, thanks for updating the ''Tightbeam'' series title entries. One thing, though. Is there any chance you could combine the two Tightbeam - 2018 entries where Bob Jennings was editor (i.e. http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2934941 and http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2938582)? There was a change of editorship of ''Tightbeam'' from Bob Jennings to George Phillies and then to George Phillies and Jon Swartz between August and October 2018. In the process, the last edition of ''Tightbeam'' edited by Jennings (#288) bore the same date as the single issue edited solely by George Phillies (#289), i.e. September 2018. Currently, the entry for the ''Tightbeam'' series appears to show Bob Jennings re-appearing as editor after a brief stint by George Phillies in 2018 (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?44410).--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 10:49, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
Also, it was my typographical error to name George Phillies as "Goerge Phillies" regarding the sub-series Tightbeam - 2018 (as edited by Phillies and Jon Swartz). Is it possible to un-variant this name or at least to correct the typo? That said, it's likely that the variant will still show because of Swartz's name (his main entry is as Jon D. Swartz). Sorry for the confusion on this matter. Greg--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 10:49, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?264557; I added FantLab ID and thought you might want to enter the intro into contents; Teitler has a few other credits already on ISFDB. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:29, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Added. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:11, 9 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:I can combine the two EDITOR records for Jennings for 2018, but that is an edit you could do yourself.  In this case since the title records are identical, you can simply go to Jennings' [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?189135 bibliography page] and find the "Check for Duplicate Titles" link on the left menu under "Editing Tools".  This will produce a list of suspected duplicates.  Check the boxes next to the two titles and click the merge selected titles button.  Ordinarily this produces an intermediate page that allows to to resolve difference, but since these two records are identical, there's nothing to decide.  Click the complete merge button to submit the edit.
+
== Worlds of If, February 2024 ==
−
:To fix the typo you don't want to break the variant relationship.  It still needs to be there because of the difference between "Jon Swartz" and his canonical name "Jon D. Swartz".  What you want to do is go to the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2937593 title record] with the typo and simply edit it and correct the name.  The author record for "Goerge Phillies" will automatically be deleted by doing this.
 
−
:If you run into any problems, or have any questions let me know.  If you really get stuck, just ask and I'll do these edits for you, but I wanted to give you the chance to do them yourself first.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: All done! Thanks for your advice on that. :) Greg--[[User:Explorer1000|Explorer1000]] 22:40, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== The Bells of Shoredan ==
+
As the approver of [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5932603 this submission], you may be interested in [[ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Worlds_of_If.2C_February_2024_Part_Deux|this conversation]]. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 19:53, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
For [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1024837 this publication] I think ph (pamphlet) would be bettar as format than pb (paperback). Any objections to me changing this? Thanks, --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 16:31, 30 October 2021 (EDT)
+
: Since the outcome of the conversation also would affect various magazine issues verified by you (I mentioned "Foundation" in it), your input would be appreciated. Christian [[User:Stonecreek|Stonecreek]] ([[User talk:Stonecreek|talk]]) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:I agree.  Please proceed.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 17:02, 30 October 2021 (EDT)
+
::I actually would prefer that we list the editor in chief with sub-editors in the notes.  It looks like a Rules and Standards discussion is going to be started and I'll chime in there.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 21:21, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:: Thanks and done! --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 11:24, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Undoing a pub note change that you moderated ==
+
== Uncle Silas ==
  
−
Hi, [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Zapp#Undoing_the_pub_note_edit_on_a_Brave_New_World_pub_you_secondary_verified I'm proposing] to (mostly) undo a pub note change you moderated [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5075455 a couple of months ago] - this is just a FYI in case you have anything to add there.  Thanks [[User:ErsatzCulture|ErsatzCulture]] 09:04, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?291814
  
−
: I've added a note about OCLC's "vaporware" records to the discussion on Zapp's Talk page.
+
hiya Ron i've got a couple of the earlier printings of this one and when i imported the contents from yours i could see all the page numbers are the same except that "Note on the Text" is on page xxv in mine and xv in yours.  I thought it might be a typo. cheers from Gaz [[User:Faustus|Faustus]] ([[User talk:Faustus|talk]]) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Fixed.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:59, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
: On the moderation side of things, I find that Edit History is a very useful tool when dealing with submissions that would make significant changes to unverified-but-thoroughly-researched publications. At this time it's the only way for us, moderators, to determine who wrote the original notes and let him or her know about the changes. I am still getting used to its availability, but it's a great tool when I remember to use it.
+
== HPL Book of Horror ==
  
−
: At some point I hope to implement {{FR|1136}}, "Create user-specific watch lists of publications", which should help editors keep track of their "unverified-but-thoroughly-researched" pubs, but we aren't there yet. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:17, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5939499; The price, $7.98, is in barcode on back cover like a lot of these instant remainder books in case you want to add it to the record. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:38, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:21, 13 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== Question ==
+
== Acolytes of Cthulhu ==
  
−
Thanks for processing all those. I must have clicked the wrong radio button when I merged [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1661281 The Pretty Place] I submitted and edit [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5139095] to fix [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 12:00, 1 November 2021 (EDT)
+
Would you mind double checking a few items in your {{P|250774|Acolytes of Cthulhu}}? There are differences with the later Titan Books edition. Checking the Internet Archive scan of your edition, it appears some are database errors vs. changes in the Titan Book edition.
 +
*page 88, credit should be "Charles A. Tanner" vs. "Charles R. Tanner" (publication typo)
 +
*page 250, credit should be "John Glasby" vs. "Max Chartair"
 +
*page 316, credit should be "Dirk W. Mosig" vs. "Cemetarius Nightcrawler"
 +
Thanks. --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 08:16, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 08:31, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== "unknown" COVERART artists ==
+
== Audible-ASIN which are ISBN10 ==
  
−
When you have a moment, could you please take a look at [[ISFDB:Community_Portal#New_cleanup_report_to_find_.27uncredited.27_COVERART_artists|this announcement]] of a new cleanup report? It mentions two of your verified records. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 22:25, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Avatars Inc. ==
+
Hey Ron<br>
 +
When you have an Audible-ASIN which is an ISBN10, you also enter it in the ISBN field (converting to ISBN13 when appropriate). [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/cleanup_report.cgi?324 These] need correcting. I accidentally edited one of your verified pubs when I was working on the report. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 11:33, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:I generally do, if I can find it in Worldcat.  However, there are instances where I don't think it's appropriate.  It's been my experience that audible doesn't change the Audibile-ASIN nor the Amazon ASIN when they change the cover of the audio book.  In those cases, I've no way of knowing if a new ISBN has been assigned, or not.  In fact, it's usually impossible to pin down the date the reissue occurred and with an unknown date, searching Worldcat isn't much help.  For example, the one you changed is actually a re-issue of {{P|1001594|this publication}} from 2018 and which I purchased in 2020.  Whereas, the {{P|1001605|reissue}} with the yellow borders came out sometime between 2020 and 2024 (I narrow the dates based on when I downloaded my copy and by checking archive.org).  The only eAudiobook record in Worldcat for this ISBN has a 2018 date.  There is another eAudiobook in Worldcat published as Orbit, which has different ISBNs and a 2018 date and thus can't be for the yellow bordered publication (also the audiobook itself credits Hachette and not Orbit).  Thus, I'm left with a puzzle.  Since Audible doesn't explicitly list ISBNs, and as far as I have seen, never changes their ASIN or listed release date for reissues, do we assume that the ISBN (for the publication) stays the same or not?  My take on it is that ISBN for the reissue can't be reliably determined, so I have left them blank.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:04, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:: I assumed the ISBN would remain the same. I stand corrected. Sorry i changed the pub. [[User:Scifibones|<b>John</b> <small>Scifibones</small>]] 15:33, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::It may be, but there's no way of telling.  I see that the cleanup report doesn't have an ignore option.  I'll start a discussion on the moderator board to see if we need to have one added, or if my theory is way off base.  Thanks.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 15:50, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Hi Ron,
+
== Stephen Mitchell (translator) ==
  
−
Just a note that [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?836025 this] now has full contents plus a link to an archive where the stories can be seen actually thanks to an editor and a bit of cleanup. As you had been slowly chipping at it and trying to complete it, I thought you will want to know. I also cleaned up the pub note. [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 22:42, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
+
{{T|3287650|This essay}} in your verified pubs is credited to {{A|Stephen Mitchell (translator)|375891}}. Is this really a different person then {{A|Stephen Mitchell}} who is a noted translator of ''Gilgamesh'' in addition to being the author of ''The Frog Prince'' as per the linked Wikipedia article? --&nbsp;[[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 14:03, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:Thanks.  But I hadn't been attempting to complete this one.  I added the publication and two stories because those stories had received award nominations. I probably wasn't able to find the complete contents at the time.  Good that someone else was able to do so.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 07:11, 3 November 2021 (EDT)
+
:Merged them.  I don't recall what I was thinking, except that perhaps the author of a retelling of fairy tales was unlikely to be a translator of classics.  Regardless, they are on author now.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:11, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
== The Judging of Jurgen ==
+
== Science Fantasy Club ==
  
−
A quick question about [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?321637 this edition] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?321638 this edition] of "The Judging of Jurgen". Is the Bleiler Supernatural External ID really "322a"? Normally, all Bleiler IDs are numeric and that's what our cleanup reports expect. If this one has a trailing letter, I will have to adjust the report logic. TIA! [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 09:08, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?76305; Should that be Northwest? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 20:38, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:This one is a bit unusual.  322 is the entry for Jurgen.  Ordinarily, lettered entries within numbered entries to give descriptions of stories within a collection or anthology.  However, in this case Bleiler uses [a] to describe the story giving its original standalone publication (Bookfellows, Chicago, 1920).  He also notes that it is not included with the original novel (1919) but is included in most publications after 1920.  I don't know that I added any others with a alphabetic suffix.  However, I would have done so if the sub entry referenced a separate publication. If this is creating an issue with the cleanup report, we could move this to the notes. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 09:41, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
:: Oh no, I just needed to confirm that Bleiler Supernatural IDs could contain trailing alpha characters. Now that it has been established that they are valid, I'll change the report to treat them like it treats Reginald-1 and Reginald-3, which also allow trailing alpha characters. Thanks for checking! [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 11:37, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Josh Kirby rejections ==
  
−
== Fixing data after approval ==
+
"The COVERART titles should match the title of the book (Verhalen van de Schijfwereld bundel 1). I think what you want to do here is edit the publication record and add Josh Kirby as the artist. You could link to the individual titles in the notes." - No that's not what I wanted to do (why should I as there clearly already is such an entry?). I did the same as with previous joined cover books which contained complete individual book covers. Import all the covers into the joined cover as these are essential the same books. Seems IFSDB policy changed again, as the last time I did this, this was the way to go. I have no idea how to find previous examples as the history no longer contains enough entries or I would have referred some of them here (if they still exist).
  
−
Hi Ron,  
+
Anyway if the policy changed and that's no longer correct and instead a note should be used: Why did you also reject the varianting of the base cover to the correct entry: All of the 6 books background image are this: https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?141138. That fact is true independent from whether the additional covers are imported or added as a note. --[[User:Stoecker|Stoecker]] ([[User talk:Stoecker|talk]]) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:I'm afraid that I'm unaware that the policy has ever allowed individual titles used in composite to be added as variants of the composite title record.  Nor am I aware of a policy that allows such titles to be added individually under their original names.  So, I don't really see a change in policy here and nothing of this sort is mentioned in [[Template:PublicationFields:CoverArt|this template]].  If a prior moderator approved such an edit, I would argue that they made an error.  We certainly do not do this for fiction titles.  We wouldn't add the composite stories to a fix-up, not as variants nor in addition to the fix-up title.  That's my understanding.  If you can point me to a policy stating that this is how it is supposed to be done, I'm happy to reconsider.  However, as I noted, I don't believe this has ever been allowed.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 15:16, 20 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
After approving things like [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5140364 this], can you please fix the data after that (add the country after the state)? Also, and more importantly, can you point me to the source that says that this author was born in Ohio? Her author page and Amazon.com says "she grew up in rural southeast Ohio" which is not the same as being born there but as you approved that as a birth place, can you update the list of links to add the source of that (or add a note if it is not linkable). This specific editor has the habit to add as birth places any place an author is known to have grown up in or lived in - so as most of their submissions, these need to be carefully checked (as with any other submission of course). Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:21, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
+
== Reviews Link ==
−
:Updated.  SFE4 gives Ohio as her birthplace.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 15:21, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
−
:: Ah, yes. Forgot that they put that under the bio. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:27, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Under the Moons of Mars ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943546; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943547; Link isn't dead, it reviews 2 books so I added it to both of their title records. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:10, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
On verifying [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?52746 this pub] I noticed two things. First, the front flap of the dustjacket has code "0670", so I would like to change the publication date to 1970-06-00. Second, the cover is signed as Roger Hane in the lower right corner. Hane is only credited for jacket design, but I think it;'s safe to add him as cover artist. His [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hane#Book_covers_and_inside_illustrations wikipedia article] also mentions Under the Moons of Mars. Can you agree? Thanks, --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 09:36, 10 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Hatfield ==
−
:Both those changes sound fine.  Please proceed.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 10 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
::Thanks and done. --[[User:Willem H.|Willem]] 09:48, 10 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
== Necromancy in Nilztiria ==
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943534; I can't change name in author record because that is a mod-only process. I made 2 new edits fixing title month to -03- and another for the PB minus name changes; didn't bother with the "Doc" thing because I'm not sure if nicknames are supposed to be entered. I guess you would know as a mod. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:This all now a bit of a mess. I know I have explained to you numerous times, that if you change an author name within a publication record and it is the last reference to that author, it will delete that author and any additional data we have for that author.  The same is true for publisher records.  As has also been explained to you, the proper way to accomplish this sort of change if you don't have rights to edit author or publisher names is to post a notice on the moderator board asking that a moderator make the edit on your behalf.  Yet, you continue to submit such edits.  I'll approve them if there is no data that would be deleted.  When there is additional data, as in this case, the edits must be rejected to prevent the data loss.  Anytime you are editing an author or publisher name, you must check whether your edit will result in data loss. 
 +
:However, in this case, you made a subsequent edit adding another publication with the original credits ("J. H. Hatfield" and "George Burt"), which now makes things more complicated.  I'm not sure what you thought you would be accomplishing.  Had I approved your first edit, I don't know exactly what the result would have been.  It would either be a publication where the authors did not match the title record, or it may have been a case where the software would have demanded a hard reject.  This assumes that the TP edition is actually credited to "J. H. Hatfield" and "George Burt" as you added it.  Also, this no longer makes it necessary to change the author's name.  In order to accomplish your original edit, you now need to update the publication record for the PB with the new names.  After that is approved, you'll need to unmerge that publication from the title record.  You'll need to create pseudonym relationships for both authors and then make one of the titles a variant of the other.  When submit these edits, please make sure to explain your next steps in the moderator notes, so that whoever is moderating will know what is going on.  Now, if the TP has the other names, then I would question why you purposely added a publication with incorrect credits.  You should have waited until the author names had been changed before attempting to add a publication to the title record.  If these authors names need to be changed in both publications, then post a note on the moderator board asking that both authors name fields be changed.  There is not problem with a nickname if that is how an author is credited.  A famous example is {{A|E. E. 'Doc' Smith}}.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:43, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::It's not really a mess. I'll just cancel my 2nd edit and leave the simple one making month March which I don't think you'll have a problem approving. I see you approved my adding of the TP edition so you seemed to be OK with that. Edit history for the PB seems to indicate that authors were entered in the early days of this site because none of the named editors changed anything related to them; if I could ascertain who entered them incorrectly and they were still active I'd ask them to correct whatever's needed but no such luck. It's not really a good idea for me to go back to an old edit because everything gets tangled together with the many, many other edits I've done since. You can get the edit credit by making changes or not, that's up to you. As I know I've explained to you numerous times your lengthy explanations make no sense to someone like me who has no credentials and got hit in the head a few times as a kid. The vast majority of my edits are approved with no complaining so letting one go now and then doesn't bother me. In the future, assuming there is one, I'll try to notice when a name needs changing and just not make an edit that includes the change because obviously it's one of my blind spots (like making variants used to be). --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::So you see the data is incorrect, but unless you can edit it incorrectly and delete data in the process, you refuse to fix it?  Also, there is no need to determine who made the original error.  As long as there are no active primary verifiers, you are free to fix things.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:19, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::I just thought after the countless edits of yours that I've had to fix incorrect info for or add easily findable info to that you wouldn't mind fixing one of mine now and then but I guess not. The whole name thing is completely unintelligible to me so here's what I'll do; I'll make yet another edit adding everything to the PB except the name changes. Then all you'll have to do is whatever you explained above and those edits will be approved immediately because, after all, you are a mod. Much, much quicker than me trying to get a mod's attention to change the name in the title record and then waiting days for the pseudonyms and variants and whatever else to be approved after the hundreds of other edits I have pending. I've opened another window and made the edit so it's 5947262 for the month change and 5947652 for the PB edit. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Ron,
+
== Import Content for translations ==
  
−
See [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:JarlFrank#Necromancy_in_Nilztiria this]. This is a new editor - can you please be more careful when moderating new editors? Without being told what is wrong with their first submissions and being guided towards how to improve their edits, they will never learn the site's rules and conventions. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 07:03, 12 November 2021 (EST)
+
I need a hint... as I had written in the note to moderator when I submitted a <a href="https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5939668">new translation</a> for <i>Ficciones</i> by Borges, I was planning to use the ImportContent tool to fill the content table. I did that using import option 2 as explained in the help:screen page, but after <a href="https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943291">submitting</a> it, I realized that the automerge of the titles would have kept only one of the title notes, and the translator name is linked to the title and not to the publication. Since the <a href="https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?415765">source publication</a> for the import has a different translator than mine, one of the two would become wrong. So I self-rejected the import submission. The only other process I can think of is to edit my publication, manually add all the short stories in the content section, submit the change, and then submit a make-variant request for each story. Would that be the right thing to do? Isn't there a smarter/quicker process? Or maybe I did not understand correctly the merge/automerge process? thanks!
  
−
== Bosse ==
+
PS: as you see, I tried in this message to use the nice and elegant html tags to insert a link to the submissions but the result, although working, is certainly not elegant... is anything wrong in the syntax??? thanks again... --[[User:Fantagufo|Fantagufo]] ([[User talk:Fantagufo|talk]]) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Yes, what you describe is correct.  A different translator makes a different title record necessary.  Assuming that no title record exists with your translator, you would have add the titles manually, just as you say.  There is one additional step that can be done before or after you make the variants.  You should also edit each newly created title record and add the translator's name using the <nowiki>{{Tr|[translator name]}}</nowiki> template.  I know it's a lot of edits, but it unfortunately, it's the only way to correctly add translated titles when they don't already exist in the database.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:12, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
There is no Harper edition. Crowell was acquired by Harper and Row in 1979; this book came out in 1980. All publisher credits in the book (bottom of spine in photo, copyright page) say Crowell. Open Library record shows title page with Crowell. --[[User:Username|Username]] 11:55, 17 November 2021 (EST)
+
== The Anubis Gates ==
−
:This presents a problem since the preponderance of secondary sources list the publisher as Harper.  I've started a [[ISFDB:Community Portal#Publisher in transition|discussion]] on the community portal with a suggestion.  Please feel free to chime in there on how to reflect the publisher.  Once we decide what to do, I'll unreject your edit.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 18:48, 18 November 2021 (EST)
 
  
−
==  You Sexy Thing  ==
+
Hello Ron. Regarding [https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?88242 this]. Since cover designer should not be credited with the cover art I've submitted an edit to remove that. I've added notes as per my phyiscal copy which doesn't state a cover artist on the rear. --[[User:Mavmaramis|Mavmaramis]] ([[User talk:Mavmaramis|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Hi Ron,
+
== Fifty-Year Mission ==
  
−
The link being added [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5149029 here] is to a specific edition of the book (the edition already has it in its record). Why do we also need it on the title level? I removed it for now but wanted to make sure I am not missing something on why you approved it? [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:51, 17 November 2021 (EST)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2020272; Just made an edit adding archived link, fixed page count, and note about C$ price to the HC; title has no "and Unauthorized", just ", Unauthorized", as does e-book which has "and" on cover but comma on title page, you made your PV an alternate title but it's a matter of deciding which subtitle comes first so possibly all 3 should be the same. Up to you. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
−
: And [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5149025 here]? Adding a link to the publisher site for the ebook record into the hardcover? I swapped it for the record to the correct edition. Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 14:52, 17 November 2021 (EST)
+
:You're right and I've corrected my verified publication.  I see your edit, but you didn't update the title in publication or title records.  If you've got evidence that both the hardcover and eBook lack the "and" please update the publication records and merge the two title records. Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:12, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::Since you are the only PV and you've corrected the title problem then now, assuming you feel your ordering of the subtitles is correct, wouldn't the next step be to merge the two titles into one using your title as the parent? --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::Yes, as I suggested above.  It doesn't matter which order you submit the edits. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:28, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:: Unfortunately, although this editor, [[User:Tocchan]], clearly means well and has been contributing for a number of years, he doesn't communicate with moderators. I suspect that his ability to parse the messages that moderators leave on his Talk page is very limited, which means that he makes the same mistakes over and over. It's frustrating, but at this point all I can do is encourage those who work on his submissions to be extra vigilant and double check all of the values that he adds/changes. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 16:44, 17 November 2021 (EST)
+
== Ghost Flyers ==
  
−
:::I guess that I don't really consider either of Tochhan's original edits to be much of a problem here. In both cases, the page linked has a pull down list that allows the user to navigate between the various formats published by Macmillan.  Including the publisher site for the first edition in the title record seems fine, even if it is also linked in a specific edition.  For the second edit, yes, the hardcover link is better, but the ebook link has the hardcover available in the pulldown.  In any case, if I notice similar edits in the future, I won't approve them. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 20 November 2021 (EST)
+
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?40500; There are 2 printings on Google Books, 1993 (dated 1/1994 on ISFDB) and 1997 (which is actually the 2000 printing as can be seen if you search for "copyright 2000" inside it), https://books.google.com/books?id=sS-fb7M31fgC, both title pages are shown, both say Ghost Flyers, if you search in earlier printing for "copyright 1993" it says "FIRST EDITION" with a 1993 copyright date, they just pasted over the date whenever they reprinted it as can be seen in the 2000 printing where date on copyright page is clearly covering up the original date. Title is Ghost Flyers. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:Your edit only mentioned a link to eBay which did not show the title page and then went on to say that the title should be changed since a later printing had a different title.  Now you provide link to yet another printing (1997) from Google books which, again, tells us nothing about the 1994 printing  If you have an actual image of the 1994 to support your proposed change, please include that in the moderator notes when you resubmit.  Providing links to reprints with instructions to do additional searches is insufficient.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 10:39, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::I provided a Google Books link above which shows 2 separate title pages from 2 different printings, 2000 printing is also on Archive.org which I mentioned in my mod note. Both say Ghost Flyers, not THE Ghost Flyers. There is no printing available to see online that says THE on title page. If someone can find the real 1997 printing or if there were other later or in-between printings where they added THE on title page then that can be made a variant title but the original 1993 edition has no THE except on the cover/spine which doesn't count for our purposes. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::Sorry, but that Google books page is for the 1997 edition.  I see there is a link to other editions within Google books, yet you insist on providing a link to a reprint.  Again, you can go ahead and resubmit, but you need to provide evidence that the 1994 edition has a different title page in the moderator notes.  Don't provide links to eBay not showing the title page.  Don't provide links to reprints.  Just provide documentation that relates to the record you are attempting to change.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:19, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::There is a "View All" at the bottom of the page as is standard on Google Books when there are multiple copies and they usually make the latest printing the parent, it shows a copy with a 1993 date and shows the title page which is clearly separate from the other copy because there's some ink scribbled all over the other title page, if you really need a direct link to the original instead of just clicking the "View All" link here it is, https://books.google.com/books?id=7CBgI_xu23gC, title page has no THE on title page just like the 2000 printing, if you search in the search box for "copyright 1993", as I explained above, it says FIRST EDITION. Sorry I can't provide you with an actual copy of the 1993 edition because there is none available but it's not needed anyway because all we need to verify the title is the title page and it's right there on both printings' Google pages and the archived copy's title page. There are no available title page photos that say THE, as is very common for older books there are differences between cover titles and title page titles, just because Locus said something doesn't mean it's true, they've made countless errors which I've fixed when I've looked at archived scans of print copies. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 11:38, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::I don't need the link in my talk page.  It needs to be part of the edit in the moderator's notes so that we have documentation as to why the edit was made.  I've suggested that you include it with your resubmission twice above, yet rather than just comply with that request, you seem to want to complain about Locus and how it should be acceptable to provide only oblique references to supporting data.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 11:56, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::There's nothing oblique about it, there's 2 Google title pages (including the first printing) which are both visible on the same page AND an archived scan of a print copy that say just "Ghost Flyers", it's obvious the title page has never said "The Ghost Flyers", you're just being personally difficult because I'm the one making the edit, but if you really need me to make another edit in order to fix this then I guess I'll have to do that and hopefully you'll accept it right away ahead of the 400 other edits I currently have pending. I doubt anyone will ever care if it's documented, anyway, because nobody ever noticed it was wrong since your friend Chris made an edit way back in 2011 making the date January 1994, contradicting the book's 1993 copyright date, without providing anything to back that up, but they could do that because they're a mod like you and can approve anything they want. Also, Locus is not a real person, it's a magazine/website, there's no complaining but just pointing out that you and others here seem to feel that anything they wrote is correct regardless of the countless edits I've made correcting them. Apparently seeing a scan of an actual title page that contradicts their title isn't good enough. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::::You're correct that there are two pages in Google books each for a different printing.  One is for the printing we're discussing, the other is for a later printing and happens to have a link to the page for the correct edition.  Choosing to link the page for the later edition instead of the one we were discussing is precisely the definition of oblique.  You chose an indirect link to the book instead of the direct one.  If you think I'm being difficult only because you are the one with the problematic edit, you are mistaken.  If any editor had submitted an edit changing a title while only offering evidence that the title is different on a reprint's title page, I would have rejected it, just as I did with yours.  I believe that I would behave exactly the same way to another editor who, instead of just fixing their error, continued to argue about the edit while providing indirect evidence.  However, no other editor whose edits I have rejected behaves this way.  In any case, I respond to the substance of your arguments, not to the fact that you are making them.  I will get a little terse when I have to repeat myself (3 times in this case).  And yes, people do care whether edits are properly documented.  I'll also mention that sometimes copyright dates and release dates can differ.  The January 1994 date is documented.  The publication is verified for Locus1 which has that date.  I do assume that any data in the database is correct, unless I see evidence to the contrary.  Your original edit provided no such evidence, which is why it was rejected.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 19:51, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Your required new Ghost Flyers edit has been waiting since early this afternoon so if you could approve it, assuming you don't find anything wrong with that one, too; also, can you un-reject the 2 edits you rejected a week ago, https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Rtrace#Reviews_Link, since the link is active as I explained. --[[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::I generally don't jump ahead in the queue.  Those links still appear to be dead. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 20:58, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
==  The Great Victorian Collection  ==
+
:::::::::: It [https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#.22Dead.22_Link turns out] that the submitted Internet Archive link has valid data, but the saved version of the page is almost unreadable due to the chosen font. I have approved the addition of this link to 2 title records and added Notes explaining that users may need to highlight the text in order to be able to see it. Always something... [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] ([[User talk:Ahasuerus|talk]]) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (EDT)
  
−
Hi Ron,
+
== The Sea Raiders - or - The Sea-Raiders? ==
  
−
I have [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5155706 this change] to your verified publication on hold. Can you check your book to make sure that the price is there for the stated first edition (or if it is price-clipped, we can add a note that the PV copy is price-clipped). Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 01:28, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
Hello Ron, could you check your PVd {{P|285926|pub here}} to see if "The Sea Raiders" and "The Man Who Could Work Miracles" should be titled as they are {{P|1004884|here}}? Thanks, Kev. --[[User:BanjoKev|BanjoKev]] ([[User talk:BanjoKev|talk]]) 23:53, 30 April 2024 (EDT)
−
:Alas, it is price clipped, which is probably why I hadn't added a price. I can add the note after you approve the edit, or, feel free to add it yourself, if you'd like.  Thanks for checking.  --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:39, 22 November 2021 (EST)
+
:You're correct.  I've swapped them out.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:29, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
−
:: Approved, note added but feel free to reword it if you want :). While you are around, would you like to handle [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/submission_review.cgi?5156127 this one] (you are the only PV :) ). Thanks! [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 06:48, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 
−
:::Already rejected it.  The publisher as listed pre-dates my verification.  If we were to go with a single publisher it should by Smythe.  However, there is a note explaining what is going on, so I think the status quo is fine.  I mentioned the necessity to check with PVs in advance in the rejection note, which I know they read.  I've lost count of how many times I've brought this up with them.  Thanks. --Ron ~ [[User:Rtrace|Rtrace]]<sup>[[User talk:Rtrace|Talk]]</sup> 06:55, 22 November 2021 (EST)
 

Revision as of 06:29, 1 May 2024

PLEASE NOTE:

If you're writing to inform me that you've either added a missing COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS, please click HERE and add it to the bottom of the list. A link to the pub record would be appreciated. Once the pub has been reviewed, I'll remove your note from the list. Thanks. Ron (Rtrace)

See

for older discussions.

Cover Image Licenses

When using the "Upload new cover scan" option from a publication page, the software will automatically add a licensing template pre-populated with the publication information. In this case, you do not need to select a license under the "Licensing" pull down on the upload page (as it creates adds a second, incomplete template that needs to be cleaned up). The "Licensing" pull down only needs to be used when using the upload option from the wiki directly. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2024 (EST)

Thanks. Good to know. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:49, 1 January 2024 (EST)

Starman Jones audio reading

Hi, Ron! Just wondering: the noted narrator and the one stated on the cover image do differ. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2024 (EST)

You are correct. But is appears that the cover has the incorrect narrator. Audible credits Paul Michael Garcia in their current listing and I re-listened to the credits in the audio book which which also credit Garcia. I had already checked that the current cover on the Audible site (the same as linked in the publication record), matches the one I downloaded when I purchased this book in 2011. The images are identical and both credit Powers, apparently incorrectly, as you noticed. I'll add a note that pictured credit is incorrect. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:30, 1 January 2024 (EST)

Kioga Titles

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/se.cgi?arg=kioga%3A&type=All+Titles; Should those all say "informal"? --Username (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:58, 2 January 2024 (EST)

Amazing Stories, October 1960

Regarding Amazing Stories, October 1960: Would you mind checking the artwork on page 83? It is listed as "The Missionary [2]" by Bernklau, but Bernklau did the "Seeing Eye" artwork right before and Emsh did the "The Missionary" artwork after it. Should this be "Seeing Eye [2]"? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2024 (EST)

I agree and have made the change. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:07, 6 January 2024 (EST)
OK by me.--swfritter (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2024 (EST)

HIstórias Extraordinárias N.7

Hello Rtrace, thanks for reviewing and approving my submission 5838401. I must have missed some information in it because it is not appearing as part of the series in the magazine series page in the 2023 December slot. Could you please fix it or tell me where I should insert the pertinent information so it can appear there?

Thanks! Pugno (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2024 (EST)

Hi Pugno
Magazines are just a little bit tricky and involve at least one edit beyond the initial one to get everything correct. One thing that you missed in adding this record was to add the series name, "Histórias Extraordinárias", in the Title Data section of the New Magazine screen. Had you done this, your new record would have appeared in the Issue Grid. However, even had you don that, there still would be an addition step to do. We can take care of the series name at the same time that we do this second step. You may have noticed that Magazine and Fanzine records have a special Title record of type EDITOR. Also that title record contains all the publications (issues) for a given calendar year that have the same editors. For example, the title record for 2023 for Histórias Extraordinárias is here. You'll notice that the title is different that that of the individual issues ("Histórias Extraordinárias - 2023") and that the date is for the year only i.e. no month or day. For the first issue that is added for a given year, the EDITOR title record has to be edited to change those fields. In this case, since the 2023 title already exists, all we need to do is to merge your newly created EDITOR title (here with the existing 2023 title. The best way to do that is to go to any of the three editor's pages and select "Show All Titles". Then find the two titles in question ("Histórias Extraordinárias - 2023" and "Histórias Extraordinárias, Dezembro 2023"). Select the check boxes next to these and click the "Merge Selected Records" button. This will take you to an intermediate page to resolve the conflicts between the two records. Select the title with the dash and the year, the series name and the date without the month and click "Complete Merge". Once that edit is approved, things will appear as they should. Please go ahead and give it a try if you feel comfortable with the instructions. If not, feel free to ask questions or if you'd like me to take care of the merge for you. I'm happy to do so, but wanted to give you the change to learn how to do this. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:38, 9 January 2024 (EST)
Hi Rtrace
I am not sure I understood it all :) So what I did was to submit a change (#5856081) and I kindly ask you to please adjust it accordingly so it can appear correctly in the series page. I tried to follow your instructions and use the "Show All Titles" that you mentioned but alas, couldn't find it. I am sorry.
In the meantime, for the same magazine, I will also submit a number of changes to create variants of interiorarts, since they are the same art appearing in different spots, just zoomed in. Thanks! Pugno (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (EST)
I'll go ahead and do the merge. For the next time you need it, the "Show All Titles" link in on the author bibliography page e.g. Mario Cavalcanti. In the left menu, under "Editing Tools", it's the 4th item down (or the second from the bottom, I've got the Moderator link first, which I'm not sure you can see, so your count may differ). In any case, thanks for your contributions on these. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:41, 11 January 2024 (EST)
Rtrace, thank you very much for your help. I hadn't realized that the "Show all Titles" link could be accessed via the author bibliography page. Now it is clear! Now I submitted two variant adjustements, #5856083 and #5856084 to correctly set two interior arts. Could you please see to it? Once it is done, I will clone the magazine to create its ebook version. Once again, thanks a lot!! Pugno (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2024 (EST)
Both approved. You can proceed with cloning. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:38, 11 January 2024 (EST)
Thanks Rtrace! I just cloned it. Submission #5857813 - hope it is all OK. Thanks again! Pugno (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2024 (EST)

The Fourth Invasion by Alvim Correa

I saw that you registered Black Infinity, Fall 2018 and have two INTERIORART attributed to Alvim Corrrea, wouldn't it be a case of turning it into a variant of La guerre des mondes? Hyju (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2024 (EST)

I wouldn't think so. Those are two individual illustrations. Whereas, La guerre des mondes is the full set of illustrations for a book. We don't generally make variant titles for only part of the whole (excepting serials). --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:44, 15 January 2024 (EST)

Exhalation

In Your pv pub CoNZealand: 78th World Science Fiction Convention there is an interiorart Exhalation (cover) as a variant of "Exhalation" cover. In the ISFDB there are three cover titles Exhalation: here, here and here. Can You please have a look which one is the right one or is there another fittig title? Thank You. --Zapp (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (EST)

It's the Shutterstock cover. I'm guessing that we hadn't identified the "artist" it at the time I entered the ConZealand book, or I would have linked it then. I'm not thrilled with identifying Shutterstock as an artist. My impression is that they are more of a licensing company than a creator of artwork, but I'll defer to the verifier of publication. All linked now. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:54, 15 January 2024 (EST)

Robert Anton Wilson / Schrödinger's Cat - Glossary

Posted on the Talk pages of Rtrace, Marc Kupper, Spacecow
All of the publications: The Universe Next Door and The Trick Top Hat and The Homing Pigeons and Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy have a glossary at the back. I have all four of these pubs and have compared the glossaries and they are all the same. There is an existing ISFDb record for the glossary and it is present in the omnibus (all five print versions) but none of the individual volumes. Hence I propose to import it into each of these three pubs. As a consequence, I will also change the disambiguation from the omnibus name to the series name, ie from "Glossary (Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy)" to "Glossary (Schrödinger's Cat)". Is all this ok with you? Teallach (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2024 (EST)

I've no objections. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:19, 18 January 2024 (EST)

K. J. Parker's Relics/Under My Skin

You've PVed the 2023 Under My Skin collection. One of the Hugo novella nominees seems to be the story Relics, which seems like it was first published in Chinese translation in 2022. Can you have a look at the copyright page (which isn't part of Amazon's preview of the ebook) to see if that's correct? Thanks!

BTW, I'm not rushing to do the Hugos, given the errors in the nom report e.g. at least two duplicated nominees... ErsatzCulture (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (EST)

The Parker story gives a 2023 copyright and states "First appeared in this volume". That would appear to ignore the translation. I am adding nomination data for the Hugos, though the Chinese titles are giving me trouble. Please feel free to correct any errors that you see that I've made. The duplicate nominees were called out in one of the blogs, which I'm keeping an eye on. There's definitely several odd things about the nomination statistics. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:43, 20 January 2024 (EST)
This is Fungi Song according to CSFDB. ErsatzCulture (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2024 (EST)
Hi, I'm just slowly going over the Chinese entries. I've added a title record for this "stub" award entry, but I'm perplexed how to get it to show the author name in the award record. Any ideas?
Thanks! ErsatzCulture (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2024 (EST)
I took care of it. The author needs to be listed in the "untitled" award record before it is linked. I unlinked them, added the author and then re-linked them. The title and author fields are not editable in an award that has been linked to a title record.
For the other two above, were you going to add the original Chinese publications? In both cases, the nomination was for the Chinese version of the story as opposed to English original/translation. I can help link them if you'd like, or you can proceed, but to avoid the above problem, the author's name should be added to the award record prior to linking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:13, 21 January 2024 (EST)
Yeah, I'll do those short fiction records when I get to them - I'm planning on cleaning up one category a day.
Did you get very far on researching 余光 aka Residual Light (#13 in the Best Novel noms)? I noticed you hadn't done that one. Arthur Liu (CSFDB head honcho) mentioned that they couldn't track it down, even though it looked like it was a Chinese story. I've now found a very weird 2023 English language pub that looks to be (machine?) translated from another language, I'm wondering if that's it? ErsatzCulture (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2024 (EST)
I didn't really go much past checking Worldcat, amazon.cn, and google. I'm interpreting whichever language is listed first as the one that was nominated in cases of translated works. Since authors are not listed, I've omitted them if I wasn't able to find the nominee, which was the case with this one. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:49, 21 January 2024 (EST)
Cheers; with the help of someone in (I think) Indonesia, we managed to identify what exactly Residual Light is, and I've added a proper title record and updated the award record, so I think this one is as good as it's going to get. Apparently one of the Best Series nominees is related to it, but I've not looked into it as yet.
Will try to start on some of the other categories tomorrow - not had chance today. ErsatzCulture (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2024 (EST)

Robert A. Heinlein / Stranger in a Strange Land

I am editing and PVing Stranger in a Strange Land and have added notes and also deleted OCLC/Worldcat: 220513743 because it refers to a different edition (1977, 21cm (ie hc) and different ISBNs). My submission is here. I cannot find a record on OCLC/Worldcat for this specific printing but this pub record has been SVd to OCLC/Worldcat by Bluesman who is no longer active. Is it possible to get SVs by inactive verifiers removed? Teallach (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2024 (EST)

I've approved your edit and removed the Worldcat verification. Any moderator can remove a secondary verification, but since that feature was added, I'm the only one to use it. I only do so when the verifier is inactive. In any case, thanks for your edit. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:32, 20 January 2024 (EST)

Girl in a Swing

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?11141; 1980 UK HC on Archive.org says, on back flap, that Reginald George Haggar, who has his own Wikipedia page, did the cover art; edition you PV says Karen Murray. --Username (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (EST)

Murray is credited on the back cover. If you look closely at the two covers, they are subtly different. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:00, 22 January 2024 (EST)
SFE also says Murray for the HC so maybe that's why someone entered it. I made 2 edits, one adding archived link and note about last unnumbered page and the other unmerging cover art. --Username (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2024 (EST)

SF Writer's Workshop

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?102360; You entered price for Owlswick TP, as can be seen on back cover of archived copy, https://archive.org/search?query=longyear+workshop, the price is much lower, I'm letting you know in case something needs fixing. --Username (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2024 (EST)

It would appear that Chalker/Owings got the price wrong. Please go ahead and update it. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:00, 24 January 2024 (EST)

First Men in the Moon

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5859839; I didn't actually erase anything at the time I made my edit, it's just that it took so long to be approved that the UK guy with the slang, who made an edit at almost exactly the same time as I did, has an edit queue much shorter than mine (as does pretty much everyone else) so it got approved first, which can easily be seen by going to edit history, so our edits conflicted. So I'm going to make another edit just adding archived link which he didn't do. --Username (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2024 (EST)

Odd that I didn't get the warning that the record was updated since the edit was submitted. You should probably refrain from adding archive.org links pending the results of this discussion. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:49, 29 January 2024 (EST)
You should read the message from long-time mod Marty just above yours in that discussion where he says it is not ISFDB's place to decide what's legal or not, we just make links and if the host of the link gets a request to take certain works down for whatever reason then we can just remove the link, which is exactly what I said earlier in that thread. I made a simple message about Moondust a few days ago and it's somehow gotten blown completely out of proportion; if anyone had a problem with ISFDB hosting links they would have told you so long ago. Just let it go and move on. --Username (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2024 (EST)
Of course I read it. However, a single post in a discussion does not signify that the community has reached consensus on the issue. Unless there is consensus on the issue or consensus that we should keep adding such links while discussing (the question I raised), I will not be approving any edits adding the potentially problematic links. I would expect that the other moderators would behave in the same manner. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:03, 29 January 2024 (EST)
There is rarely any consensus reached on anything discussed here; things usually just peter out without anything being decided. I know one thing, deciding to remove thousands of Internet Archive links, very many of which were added by me and were used by me and others as research tools to add/correct info here, because someone is paranoid that the internet police are going to come after this site after not doing so for the nearly 20 years it's been open to public editing, is the last option anyone should consider. We don't host, we post. My suggestion would be to just add a line or two to the legalese saying that links are only to be used for private use (i.e. reading the book) or research/study (that's what we do here) and, boom, issue solved. --Username (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2024 (EST)
It would make fare more sense to raise your points on the Rules and Standards discussion rather than here. I see you've made other points, but not these. Regardless, this question isn't going to be resolved on my talk page. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:34, 29 January 2024 (EST)

Proposed change to title novel to shortfiction

Hi Ron. Faustus is looking to change[1] a novel to shortfiction in a 1928 magazine due to it's low page count, your the only PV.Kraang (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2024 (EST)

That's fine. I checked Miller/Contento and they have it as a novelette. It appears that Mhhutchins made the variant. Perhaps he misread "nv" as novel, assuming Miller/Contento was his source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:05, 31 January 2024 (EST)
Thanks, I'll make the changes.Kraang (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (EST)

once more with footnotes

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?71155; Page count is 282. Edit PENDING. --Username (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2024 (EST)

Spock Storybook

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?32222; While working on a ton of novelizations lately I came back across this one where my name is in the edit list followed by you adding a note about missing paper edition but this, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Storybook-Paramount-Pictures-Corporation-Paperback/dp/B00OQTMGQC, seems to be it. Also, a book club edition as seen on back cover, https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-III-Search-Spock/dp/0671476629. I just made an edit adding an Amazon cover with another photo on the page showing back cover with correct ISBN and price; archived copy's cover was way too dark. --Username (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2024 (EST)

Thanks for that. I've cloned the record for the paperback and moved the Reginald verification over. I'll leave it to you to enter the book club edition if you'd like. I'm not sure where to research which book club published it though SFBC seems likely. I'm also skeptical of the date for the BCE, though it may have been later in 1984. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:52, 10 February 2024 (EST)

Deryni Magic

Hello,

As you are the PV of both works, can you look at this submission and this submission. I do not have them on hold in case you want to handle them - if we go to Community, I will put them on hold pending the decision. We often create special series for the non-fiction in big series and Deryni Magic looks exactly like that so it makes sense to keep them separate... but they also can go up in the parent series. If you rather start a discussion on Community, I can do that as but as you are the sole verifier on one of these books, I am starting here. Thanks! Annie (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2024 (EST)

Hi Annie
In general, I don't like the way Kurtz's Deryni books have been put into series. I'm rarely a fan of the XXX Universe super-series which doesn't make sense in this instance, especially as the works contained in it are nearly all Kurtz's own short fiction. We have fan-fiction or sequels by other hands in a sub-series named "Deryni" and they are all authorized from an anthology edited by Kurtz. Lastly, I'd take King Kelson's Bride out of "The Histories of King Kelson" sub-series. My copy is certainly not marketed as part of that trilogy. If it were entirely up to me I'd keep the 4 trilogies as a sub-series of a single super-series of the Deryni series which would contain all of the other works. But that's not exactly what you asked. I don't really see a need to group Deryni Magic with Codex Derynianus. I'm not even sure that the latter is properly non-fiction. It's one of those in-universe encyclopedias i.e. as if written by a fictional person from the setting. I see that Ahasuerus added the Deryni Magic series to Codex Derynianus. The edit history for Deryni Magic is less complete, but there was a title merge by Ahasuerus on the same day as the series edition to the other title. We may want to seek his input as to why these two were grouped by that series title. I'll leave a note on his talk page. If they must be grouped, I would prefer a name like "Deryni Non-Fiction", but my preference would be to not group them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:12, 13 February 2024 (EST)
Thanks for the answer - and that is why I started here. I am fine with either way - and I agree that the current series name makes little sense. Do you want to put the two submissions on hold until this is sorted out? (Or I can if you prefer - I just do not want someone to spend time digging through things and miss the conversations). Annie (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2024 (EST)
I've held them. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:33, 13 February 2024 (EST)
I am looking at the Title History page for Deryni Magic and, surprisingly enough, I have a vague recollection of what may have happened to it back in 2006. I think I remember changing something in a robot-created Deryni record -- probably the title type which early ISFDB robots tended to set to NOVEL -- and then merging the result with a pre-existing title. Of course, it's been 17+ years, so I can't be sure, but it feels right. I also see that Bill Longley did another title merge that affected this title in 2009, but I don't know what that was about.
Substantively, I have no objection to changing the series structure/name. Ahasuerus (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2024 (EST)
Thanks. I've approved the two edits in question. I've counted 15 active verifiers of Deryni books, and I think maybe a community discussion is warranted before restructuring the rest of the series. I'm going out of town on Saturday, so I don't really want to start that discussion until I get back. I'd rather not try to participate in a discussion using a tablet. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:19, 14 February 2024 (EST)

Art of the Pulps

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5892306; Notes say copyright page date is September 2017 with actual date from Amazon but date entered here is September; was some more exact date supposed to be entered and wasn't? --Username (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (EST)

It was entered but was changed back to the date from the book. I'll remove the note. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:00, 15 February 2024 (EST)

WFR #3

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/submitpub.cgi; Page count was added by other PV who often adds pages to the count that shouldn't be but since this is a magazine shouldn't all pages, including covers, be counted and count changed to 236? --Username (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2024 (EST)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, Mid-December 1986

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?56983

hiya Ron your the only pv still hewing at the coalface for this one. just to let you know that he contents are missing another int art by hank jankus for "picaper" on p104. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (EST)

Hi Gaz
I see you've verified it as well. I'm about to go out of town for a bit, so please feel free to add the missing item. If you're not comfortable with that, I can take care of it when I get back. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:47, 16 February 2024 (EST)
righto mate Ill have a pop at it. Faustus (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (EST)

Theodore Sturgeon / Without Sorcery

I am editing and PVing Without Sorcery and propose to 1) change Pages to xi+355. 2) change start page of Introduction to v. 3) change start page of Preface to viii. 4) add pub notes. 5) upload high res cover scan from my copy (existing image is a thumbnail). Is all this ok with you? Teallach (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (EST)

All those changes sound good. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:41, 27 February 2024 (EST)

Theodore Sturgeon / E Pluribus Unicorn

I am editing and PVing E Pluribus Unicorn and will correct two of the titles in the Contents section:
"The Silken-Swift" should be "The Silken-Swift..." (existing variant)
"The Professor's Teddy-Bear" should be "The Professor's Teddy Bear" (existing variant)
The pub record currently shows the titles as they appear in the ToC. I will add a pub note about the ToC discrepancies. Teallach (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2024 (EST)

As above, all these changes are fine. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:44, 27 February 2024 (EST)

Mona Lisa Overdrive audiobook

I added the price and ASIN to this Mona Lisa Overdrive audiobook record. Phil (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2024 (EST)

I backed out the changes for this edition and applied them to this edition where they belonged. Sorry. Phil (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2024 (EST)

Disclosures in Scarlet

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5895461; Pasted $6.00 sticker on flap in case you want to add a note about that. --Username (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2024 (EST)

There is no evidence that that price sticker is from the publisher, so no need to add a note. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:46, 27 February 2024 (EST)
Are you sure? It's mentioned several times here, https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/disclosures-scarlet/author/jacobi-carl/first-edition/. --Username (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2024 (EST)

The SFWA Handbook

Ron, I'll leave this submission for you. This pub was ignored when this one was created. Don't know if you want to move your SV's or import and ask Michaelc to move his PV. John Scifibones 11:02, 22 February 2024 (EST)

Catamount

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?233737; Archived link, +[1] to page count/[283] author's note. --Username (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2024 (EST)

A Praed Street Dossier

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5900107; There's no note about copies so you may want to enter it from the colophon at the end like you usually do for these AH/M&M books. --Username (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (EST)

Vathek

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2892553

Ron ive just been reading the introduction and bibliography by Roger Lonsdale in the OUP edition (1983) where he talks about the 1787 french editions and he says that the theory that they were retranslated from the english back into french is wrong. He says "Professor Parreaux's careful investigation finally disposed of this theory in 1960. The 1787 Lausanne text undoubtedly represents Beckford's own French text, from a manuscript which he must have had with him, in a slightly earlier state than that translated by Henley" He says that the 1787 Paris edition is a revised version of the Lausanne one but this one does contain some of Henley's notes for the English translation, retranslated into french. The bibliography indicates the first translation from the english back into french was in 1819.

All that might not be the final word and im sure you've dug into deeper than me but i thought you ought to know with regard to the notes for the title. I can scan the relevent pages and send them to you if youre interested. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2024 (EST)
Hi Gaz
I haven't done any special research on this. I do see that Wikipedia sticks with the original composition in French. You could certainly add to the notes in the title record. However, I'd note it as an alternate theory and cite your sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:54, 27 February 2024 (EST)
righto mate ill have a stab at it. Yeah Beckford wrote it in french and Henly was commisioned to do the english translation but he was cheesed off that beckford wouldnt let him publish and the rapscallion jumped the gun, published it without mentioning beckford and said it was translated from some old arab text. The dispute is about the french versions published shortly after the english one. I couldn't find anything in the wikipedia that says the first french versions were retranslated from henley's english version back into french which was what people originally believed and which lonsdale says has been refuted. Ill see if i can find any other source for the double translation theory. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (EST)

Grandon

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?21045; I just added edits with HathiTrust links to 333 and Werewolf of Ponkert, I checked online and all 6 books say The Grandon Company on the title page, I'm thinking of changing publisher's name to that, you PV 4 of them so if yours say the same let me know and then I'll make the change. --Username (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (EST)

They all say "The Grandon Company" and it would be fine to change the publisher's name. Just make sure you update the publisher instead of individually updating all the publication records. Let me know if you have any issues. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:14, 1 March 2024 (EST)
I can't do that; I'm not a mod. --Username (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2024 (EST)
Updated. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:03, 5 March 2024 (EST)

Swear by Apollo

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?291019; This is the book club edition (Random House / BCE) going by the page count but the record has trade price; your Reginald SV may be affected by that. There's a copy, https://www.etsy.com/listing/1292726176/swear-by-apollo-by-shirley-barker-1958, that shows trade with price on front and cover artist on back + LCCN on copyright page; eBay has nothing but club editions except for 1 seller who shows LCCN on copyright page but didn't bother with photos of the flaps. LoC site says 306 pages, not 307. --Username (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2024 (EST)

Trade copy here, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006592863. --Username (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2024 (EST)
Well, the Reginald verification is from Mhhutchins, not me. I also see that you effectively converted the publication record of the trade edition to that of the book club edition with this edit in 2021 while not adjusting the publisher to indicate the book club. Both the Reginald number and the Worldcat number refer to the trade edition. I would guess the page count in the record was 306 before you changed it, which would match Worldcat. What I'd recommend is that you back out your edit and restore the data for the trade edition. That would be easier than creating a new record for the trade, fixing the publisher of the BCE, removing the external IDs and then getting two other editors to move their verifications to a new trade record. After you've restored the trade edition, then you could clone it to create the BCE. Lastly, I'm not sure why you're asking me about this record. I'm not in the edit history and have no verifications, aside from marking the ones that are not applicable. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:17, 5 March 2024 (EST)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5908165; OK, so I went back and did it the way it was before and then improved it with lots of other info which the previous editors apparently didn't care to look up. As I've said before, the only reason I ask you is because you're around more often than some of the others (at least until recently when you're doing mostly your own audiobook edits) so when I see your name in a record I default to you. Mr. Hutchins hasn't really been actively editing for years and barely responds to anything, anyway, so no use asking them. Rudam is the one who approved my nearly 3-years-old previous edit and I believe he's the one who I asked to slow down on the approvals because I was finding things that needed fixing that they were not noticing because they were just running through dozens of approvals in the space of a few minutes just to get the queue down to size, I guess. They went off in a huff after that. So, you know, it's really difficult dealing with all the personalities here and figuring out who's around and who's mad at who and whatever so if I get a little confused sometimes I think it's understandable. --Username (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2024 (EST)

Futuristic Tales, No.1

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?995232

hiya ron sorry to bother you I just wanted to pick your brains about how to handle cases like this re the alternate names of the authors. Theres the 3 names which are all psuedonyms. The authors real name is not on the db - presumably if it was on the db then those 3 would be made alternate names of it. as the real parent name isnt listed then one of the others has been made the parent name (Stacker). Did you do that because it was the earliest one in the contents or was there some other reason? There's some more like that for later issues of this mag so i want to get on top of it before trying to sort them out myself. cheers from gaz Faustus (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2024 (EST)

Ron ive just noticed that you linked them by doing a variant title. Does using the alternate name route have the same outcome? Faustus (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2024 (EST)

Hi Gaz
I recall these edits from earlier today. I went ahead and adjusted things to get the records in order, as you have noticed. The first thing I did was to add "Abu Khattub" as the legal name for the three pseudonyms (or rather "Khattub, Abu" which is the proper format for the legal name. In order to get those three stories under the same bibliography, there are two sets of edits that have to be done. First the authors must be linked. We ordinarily select whichever name the author is best know as in the field as the canonical name. Since we had three names with one story using each pseudonym, there was no way to give any name preference for the canonical, so I just chose one, Garry Stacker. If we find more publications by this author, we may need to adjust which name is canonical. I should also note that because there are no publications with the "Abu Khattub" credit, we cannot us that one as a canonical name. So, choosing Stacker as canonical, I then made the other two names into pseudonyms by navigating to each author and using the "Make/Remove Alternate Name" tool. The other set of edits is to make the title records under the alternate names into variants of a parent title using the canonical name. Again, I went to each title record and used the "Make This Title a Variant" tool, selecting Option 2 with "Garry Stacker" as the author name to make the new parent title. I hope this answers your question, but let me know if you need me to expand on any steps in the process. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:11, 6 March 2024 (EST)
cheers mate, a bit more in it than i thought, i'm glad I asked else i would have only tried to do one or the other of those. Gaz Faustus (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (EST)

New York 2140 Audiobook

Hello, question about the ISBN from audiobook download New York 2140; where did you source it from? It doesn't match the one listed on the Hachette site (9781549128141). Thanks! Albinoflea (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (EST)

Hi Albinoflea
Sure, I got that from the linked Worldcat record and the same ISBN is used for the three eAudiobook records I can find in Worldcat. I did find a different ISBN, 9781478941224, listed in this review, however, searching that in Worldcat returns a record for the print book which doesn't actually list that ISBN. Worldcat does not have the ISBN from the Hachette site. I'll admit that I'm finding audiobook ISBNs a bit puzzling. Audible doesn't list them and they do not appear in the book, nor in the metadata that I can see when I import them in iTunes. Worldcat can list multiple ISBNs, though it doesn't in this instance. That review site will sometimes list library edition ISBNs in addition to trade, but again, not in this instance. For New York 2140 I suppose that we could list them all in the current record and cite the source of each. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:44, 7 March 2024 (EST)

Scream for Jeeves

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?487698; Starting number of first story is wrong, title of essay is wrong. --Username (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

Updated. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:25, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

The Dark Tower

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?63665

hiya ron i'm having a look at the int art for my book (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?167561) to see if the existing int art title can be added to the contents. The hodder hb has 12 named colour plates listed on an illustrations content page. just wanted to check if the american editions have the same pictures. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

Hi Gaz
I replaced the trade edition above with the Artist Signed Edition, which is why I marked the former verification as transient. You may try reaching out to Willem H. who has a permanent verification on that edition. I can tell you that the Artist Signed Edition also lists twelve color plates on the illustration contents page. There are also several monochrome spot illustrations and illustrations for section headings in addition to pictorial end-papers. Hope this is helpful for you. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:10, 15 March 2024 (EDT)
sorry mate i didnt notice it was a transient, thanks for the info cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

The Baum Bugle, Spring 2023

Please see this edit and this edit which impact your verified The Baum Bugle, Spring 2023. Let me know how I should respond to submitter on first one and whether I should accept the second one. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2024 (EDT)

I think that both changes are essentially fine. I can convert the first essay to an interview, or you can work with the submitter on how that is accomplished if you would prefer. For the second edit, it was a little confusing as the title page has "Art and Additional Comments by Lorena Azpiri" which did not make it clear that she was also interviewed. I would recommend cloning the interview for the Spanish version. There is not a separate Spanish title listed, so maybe make the Spanish a variant of the English. Although, the interview itself is printed side by side with Spanish on the left, so I could go either way with which title should be canonical. Let me know if you'd like me to work on these changes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:27, 24 March 2024 (EDT)
Since you have the pub, I will unhold these and let you work them. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (EDT)

Little Annie and Jack in London

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1969250

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5922621

hiya Ron i didnt ask you about this first because your pv was transient. I can scan the pages and get them to you if that would help. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

I still have the book handy. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Reading footnote 7, makes it clear that "Little Ella" is the name of the mirror reversed reproduction by Currier and Ives of "My First Sermon" which is the illustration appearing on page 171 (it is also identified as such in this later edition of the Annotated Alice). The other Millais painting, "My Second Sermon" is described as the same girl sleeping, which does not fit either illustration. Therefore, the remaining illustration on page 172 has to be the one from Little Annie and Jack in London. Let me know if you have a different interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the current title is correct. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:35, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
sorry Ron but i still think i'm right on this one. The bottom pic is the millais painting "MY First Sermon" https://victorianweb.org/painting/millais/paintings/43.html the top pic is "Little Ella" https://www.americanantiquarian.org/514163.htm Its note number 4 in my book not No 7 so maybe the notes are different? Or even the pics are different? Faustus (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
OK, our books have different illustrations. It does appear that what mine label as "My First Sermon" is in fact "Little Ella", though the note does not make this clear. However, the second illustration in the QPB edition is neither of the images you linked. I'm going to reject your edit and update the title record to change "My First Sermon" to "Little Ella". For your book, if it has both the Millais painting and the Currier and Ives version, you should adjust the altered title to the correct page and add "My First Sermon". Let me know if that makes sense. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:25, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
righto mate - its a bit misleadin in my book as well as he gives the impression that the first pic is millais and the one underneath is the mirror reversed copy when its actually the other way round - he was taking the looking glass theme too seriously. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

(undented) Ron while were on it does your book have a picture not listed in the contents thats in mine. Its in the tweedledum chapter just after the Tenniel picture with the rattle on the ground. its a tenniel drawing from "Punch" of a boy on a gate with a gun and waving a rattle. also in the wool and water chapter next to the tenniel drawing of alice and the sheep shopkeeper theres a photo of "Alice's shop" in oxford not in the toc. Faustus (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

Yes, both the Punch drawing and the photo of the shop are present. I hadn't bothered with the drawing as there is no good way of giving it a title. I omitted the photo as it is uncredited and I don't usually include photos. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:03, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
i put in a edit a few days ago adding the tenniel drawing to my book and its just been signed off. I called it "Punch Cartoon". i'm happy to take it out to keep the different editions as consistent as possible. I left the shop one out as i figured it might be because it was a photo. cheers Gaz Faustus (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (EDT)
No need to remove or delete the new drawing. I was just explaining why I hadn't originally added that item. I'll go ahead and import it in my copies. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:30, 26 March 2024 (EDT)

Horror: 100 Best Books

Hi. There may be an error in the contents of the publication you've PV'd. Could you check & chime in here with what you've got in your copy? Thanks! MagicUnk (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (EDT)

An Informal History of the Hugos

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?672377

Ron Ive just pv'd this and theres a couple of walton's reviews in my copy not in the db contents. my book has a review of "A Canticle for Leibowitz" on p69 and a review of "Dying Inside" on p214. Gaz Faustus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (EDT)

Hi Gaz -
I don't know how those were missed. Please feel free to add them, or let me know if you'd like me to do so. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:32, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
i'm happy to do it mate but i'm not 100% sure about the second one. thats the only review that doesnt have a surtitle (right word?) so should that just go down as a review and not a review and an essay? Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
For the Silverberg review, you only need to add the review without a separate essay. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:00, 26 March 2024 (EDT)
Ron one of the reviews isnt showing up as hypertext, is that something ive done - I cant see anything wrong with how it was added? Gaz Faustus (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (EDT)
I can explain what happened. When a new review title record is created, the software attempts to match the reviewed title and author to an existing record in the database. In this case, you entered the review author as "Walter M. Miller". A Canticle for Leibowitz has only ever been published as by "Walter M. Miller, Jr." Thus the software couldn't match your new review title to an existing title record. I would recommend updating the review author in the review title record to "Walter M. Miller, Jr.". Unfortunately, the software only attempts to link the review when it is first created, so that won't cause the hyperlink to appear. To make that happen there is another step. From the review title, you'll want to use the "Link Review to Title" tool. You'll need the title number for A Canticle for Leibowitz which is 2283. Once that edit is approved, the link will appear. Hope this helps, but let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:10, 27 March 2024 (EDT)

Third Cry to Legba

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?77932; I added Luminist link, word in subtitle should be Cobbett. --Username (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (EDT)

Fixed. I'm not sure about those wasabisys.com links. In the recent discussion we had consensus for archive.org but not other sites. I've posted the question in that thread and will hold the edit for now. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:15, 28 March 2024 (EDT)
Ahasuerus just approved an edit of mine for a book PV by him (among others) and it included a Luminist link so he's obviously fine with them. It's not a torrent site with passwords and membership and such, it just provides singular PDF's of old books and magazines. As always, if someone complains about an individual book they'll take it down, like Archive.org does, and the link won't work (someone with patience, i.e. not me, could have some fun doing an advanced search for the hundreds of Luminist links in ISFDB records, most added by me over the last few years, and remove any that don't work anymore if there are any); if not, the links are good. --Username (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2024 (EDT)

Dr. Caligari

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5926963; Most of the photos are from the limited edition, Gahan Wilson art, signature pages, 100 copies, etc. --Username (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2024 (EDT)

The ISBN is they list is for the trade edition, though for some reason, they are using a 10 digit ISBN for a 2016 publication. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:57, 29 March 2024 (EDT)

This year's Chinese Hugo Finalists

I'll do all the ones that aren't already in the DB - all but a couple were on two rec lists, so I already have the details at hand for them. ErsatzCulture (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (EDT)

Sounds good. I may need to pause for a few hours. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:57, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
Sorry for stepping on your toes for a couple of the later awards. I've think I've done all the Chinese finalists, apart from Wandering Earth II in Best Dramatic Presentation. ErsatzCulture (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2024 (EDT) EDIT: I'd missed Yao Haijun in Editor Long Form, but he's in now. ErsatzCulture (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (EDT)
No worries, I thought I was the one stepping on toes. Your notes were more extensive than mine which is why I zapped my own records. I'm going to wait until this evening to enter the rest, unless you wanted to work on them now. I can handle the DP Chinese finalist if you don't get to it since we don't need a record and it's simply a matter of cut and paste. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:31, 29 March 2024 (EDT)

Science Fiction Reader's Guide

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5928018; Link and fixed essay title, publisher should have something (Nebraska?) added to differ from much later unrelated one of the same name. --Username (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2024 (EDT)

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?270380; https://archive.org/search?query=0822011697; Price is lower on archived copy so ISFDB record is likely for a later printing, essays from Reader's Guide originated in this book so you may want to import them. --Username (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (EDT)

Pisces of Fate

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?622398; I added a cover artist to a book today and his name is Henry Christian-Slane which is the same as his site henrychristianslane.com; should the artist for the book linked be Slane, too? --Username (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2024 (EDT)

I don't own the book, nor have I verified it except for Worldcat which has no art credits, so I couldn't say. The note states the artist is from a Vogel nomination which can be viewed here. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:37, 31 March 2024 (EDT)

When you get a minute

Hey Ron, just a heads up. These audiobooks have the wrong format. John Scifibones 15:54, 3 April 2024 (EDT)

All fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:42, 3 April 2024 (EDT)

Aesop's Fables

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?935296

hiya Ron dunno what Ive done wrong this time but a couple of the fables that i was doing ie the 1912 Vernon Jones translations (the belly and the members and the boasting traveler) seem to have been merged with the ones that you did with the unknown translator. ive just done some edits removing them from my book and readding them - hopefully that is right. when i was editing them to add the perry number and webpage they seemed ok then so cant work out what happened. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2024 (EDT)

Hi Gaz -
I think I can see what happened. If you take a look at the edit histories of the two titles in question (The Boasting Traveler and The Belly and the Members, you'll note that they were both merged with the existing title records with the unidentified translator on 4/7 by JLaTondre. I would expect that he didn't realize that the translators were different. Your method for correcting this error is exactly correct, and I've approved those edits. You should be able to proceed to add the translator template to the new titles and make them variants of the canonical titles. Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:39, 8 April 2024 (EDT)
thanks for sorting that our Ron I'll have to train myself to remembr to check out the edit history in future. cheers - Gaz Faustus (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2024 (EDT)

Bowl of Baal

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?264557; I added FantLab ID and thought you might want to enter the intro into contents; Teitler has a few other credits already on ISFDB. --Username (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2024 (EDT)

Added. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:11, 9 April 2024 (EDT)

Worlds of If, February 2024

As the approver of this submission, you may be interested in this conversation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2024 (EDT)

Since the outcome of the conversation also would affect various magazine issues verified by you (I mentioned "Foundation" in it), your input would be appreciated. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (EDT)
I actually would prefer that we list the editor in chief with sub-editors in the notes. It looks like a Rules and Standards discussion is going to be started and I'll chime in there. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:21, 11 April 2024 (EDT)

Uncle Silas

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?291814

hiya Ron i've got a couple of the earlier printings of this one and when i imported the contents from yours i could see all the page numbers are the same except that "Note on the Text" is on page xxv in mine and xv in yours. I thought it might be a typo. cheers from Gaz Faustus (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:59, 11 April 2024 (EDT)

HPL Book of Horror

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5939499; The price, $7.98, is in barcode on back cover like a lot of these instant remainder books in case you want to add it to the record. --Username (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:21, 13 April 2024 (EDT)

Acolytes of Cthulhu

Would you mind double checking a few items in your Acolytes of Cthulhu? There are differences with the later Titan Books edition. Checking the Internet Archive scan of your edition, it appears some are database errors vs. changes in the Titan Book edition.

  • page 88, credit should be "Charles A. Tanner" vs. "Charles R. Tanner" (publication typo)
  • page 250, credit should be "John Glasby" vs. "Max Chartair"
  • page 316, credit should be "Dirk W. Mosig" vs. "Cemetarius Nightcrawler"

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:31, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

Audible-ASIN which are ISBN10

Hey Ron
When you have an Audible-ASIN which is an ISBN10, you also enter it in the ISBN field (converting to ISBN13 when appropriate). These need correcting. I accidentally edited one of your verified pubs when I was working on the report. John Scifibones 11:33, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

I generally do, if I can find it in Worldcat. However, there are instances where I don't think it's appropriate. It's been my experience that audible doesn't change the Audibile-ASIN nor the Amazon ASIN when they change the cover of the audio book. In those cases, I've no way of knowing if a new ISBN has been assigned, or not. In fact, it's usually impossible to pin down the date the reissue occurred and with an unknown date, searching Worldcat isn't much help. For example, the one you changed is actually a re-issue of this publication from 2018 and which I purchased in 2020. Whereas, the reissue with the yellow borders came out sometime between 2020 and 2024 (I narrow the dates based on when I downloaded my copy and by checking archive.org). The only eAudiobook record in Worldcat for this ISBN has a 2018 date. There is another eAudiobook in Worldcat published as Orbit, which has different ISBNs and a 2018 date and thus can't be for the yellow bordered publication (also the audiobook itself credits Hachette and not Orbit). Thus, I'm left with a puzzle. Since Audible doesn't explicitly list ISBNs, and as far as I have seen, never changes their ASIN or listed release date for reissues, do we assume that the ISBN (for the publication) stays the same or not? My take on it is that ISBN for the reissue can't be reliably determined, so I have left them blank. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:04, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
I assumed the ISBN would remain the same. I stand corrected. Sorry i changed the pub. John Scifibones 15:33, 14 April 2024 (EDT)
It may be, but there's no way of telling. I see that the cleanup report doesn't have an ignore option. I'll start a discussion on the moderator board to see if we need to have one added, or if my theory is way off base. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:50, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

Stephen Mitchell (translator)

This essay in your verified pubs is credited to Stephen Mitchell (translator). Is this really a different person then Stephen Mitchell who is a noted translator of Gilgamesh in addition to being the author of The Frog Prince as per the linked Wikipedia article? -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

Merged them. I don't recall what I was thinking, except that perhaps the author of a retelling of fairy tales was unlikely to be a translator of classics. Regardless, they are on author now. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:11, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

Science Fantasy Club

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?76305; Should that be Northwest? --Username (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2024 (EDT)

Josh Kirby rejections

"The COVERART titles should match the title of the book (Verhalen van de Schijfwereld bundel 1). I think what you want to do here is edit the publication record and add Josh Kirby as the artist. You could link to the individual titles in the notes." - No that's not what I wanted to do (why should I as there clearly already is such an entry?). I did the same as with previous joined cover books which contained complete individual book covers. Import all the covers into the joined cover as these are essential the same books. Seems IFSDB policy changed again, as the last time I did this, this was the way to go. I have no idea how to find previous examples as the history no longer contains enough entries or I would have referred some of them here (if they still exist).

Anyway if the policy changed and that's no longer correct and instead a note should be used: Why did you also reject the varianting of the base cover to the correct entry: All of the 6 books background image are this: https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?141138. That fact is true independent from whether the additional covers are imported or added as a note. --Stoecker (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (EDT)

I'm afraid that I'm unaware that the policy has ever allowed individual titles used in composite to be added as variants of the composite title record. Nor am I aware of a policy that allows such titles to be added individually under their original names. So, I don't really see a change in policy here and nothing of this sort is mentioned in this template. If a prior moderator approved such an edit, I would argue that they made an error. We certainly do not do this for fiction titles. We wouldn't add the composite stories to a fix-up, not as variants nor in addition to the fix-up title. That's my understanding. If you can point me to a policy stating that this is how it is supposed to be done, I'm happy to reconsider. However, as I noted, I don't believe this has ever been allowed. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:16, 20 April 2024 (EDT)

Reviews Link

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943546; https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943547; Link isn't dead, it reviews 2 books so I added it to both of their title records. --Username (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

Hatfield

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943534; I can't change name in author record because that is a mod-only process. I made 2 new edits fixing title month to -03- and another for the PB minus name changes; didn't bother with the "Doc" thing because I'm not sure if nicknames are supposed to be entered. I guess you would know as a mod. --Username (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

This all now a bit of a mess. I know I have explained to you numerous times, that if you change an author name within a publication record and it is the last reference to that author, it will delete that author and any additional data we have for that author. The same is true for publisher records. As has also been explained to you, the proper way to accomplish this sort of change if you don't have rights to edit author or publisher names is to post a notice on the moderator board asking that a moderator make the edit on your behalf. Yet, you continue to submit such edits. I'll approve them if there is no data that would be deleted. When there is additional data, as in this case, the edits must be rejected to prevent the data loss. Anytime you are editing an author or publisher name, you must check whether your edit will result in data loss.
However, in this case, you made a subsequent edit adding another publication with the original credits ("J. H. Hatfield" and "George Burt"), which now makes things more complicated. I'm not sure what you thought you would be accomplishing. Had I approved your first edit, I don't know exactly what the result would have been. It would either be a publication where the authors did not match the title record, or it may have been a case where the software would have demanded a hard reject. This assumes that the TP edition is actually credited to "J. H. Hatfield" and "George Burt" as you added it. Also, this no longer makes it necessary to change the author's name. In order to accomplish your original edit, you now need to update the publication record for the PB with the new names. After that is approved, you'll need to unmerge that publication from the title record. You'll need to create pseudonym relationships for both authors and then make one of the titles a variant of the other. When submit these edits, please make sure to explain your next steps in the moderator notes, so that whoever is moderating will know what is going on. Now, if the TP has the other names, then I would question why you purposely added a publication with incorrect credits. You should have waited until the author names had been changed before attempting to add a publication to the title record. If these authors names need to be changed in both publications, then post a note on the moderator board asking that both authors name fields be changed. There is not problem with a nickname if that is how an author is credited. A famous example is E. E. 'Doc' Smith. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:43, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
It's not really a mess. I'll just cancel my 2nd edit and leave the simple one making month March which I don't think you'll have a problem approving. I see you approved my adding of the TP edition so you seemed to be OK with that. Edit history for the PB seems to indicate that authors were entered in the early days of this site because none of the named editors changed anything related to them; if I could ascertain who entered them incorrectly and they were still active I'd ask them to correct whatever's needed but no such luck. It's not really a good idea for me to go back to an old edit because everything gets tangled together with the many, many other edits I've done since. You can get the edit credit by making changes or not, that's up to you. As I know I've explained to you numerous times your lengthy explanations make no sense to someone like me who has no credentials and got hit in the head a few times as a kid. The vast majority of my edits are approved with no complaining so letting one go now and then doesn't bother me. In the future, assuming there is one, I'll try to notice when a name needs changing and just not make an edit that includes the change because obviously it's one of my blind spots (like making variants used to be). --Username (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
So you see the data is incorrect, but unless you can edit it incorrectly and delete data in the process, you refuse to fix it? Also, there is no need to determine who made the original error. As long as there are no active primary verifiers, you are free to fix things. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:19, 22 April 2024 (EDT)
I just thought after the countless edits of yours that I've had to fix incorrect info for or add easily findable info to that you wouldn't mind fixing one of mine now and then but I guess not. The whole name thing is completely unintelligible to me so here's what I'll do; I'll make yet another edit adding everything to the PB except the name changes. Then all you'll have to do is whatever you explained above and those edits will be approved immediately because, after all, you are a mod. Much, much quicker than me trying to get a mod's attention to change the name in the title record and then waiting days for the pseudonyms and variants and whatever else to be approved after the hundreds of other edits I have pending. I've opened another window and made the edit so it's 5947262 for the month change and 5947652 for the PB edit. --Username (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

Import Content for translations

I need a hint... as I had written in the note to moderator when I submitted a <a href="https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5939668">new translation</a> for Ficciones by Borges, I was planning to use the ImportContent tool to fill the content table. I did that using import option 2 as explained in the help:screen page, but after <a href="https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5943291">submitting</a> it, I realized that the automerge of the titles would have kept only one of the title notes, and the translator name is linked to the title and not to the publication. Since the <a href="https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?415765">source publication</a> for the import has a different translator than mine, one of the two would become wrong. So I self-rejected the import submission. The only other process I can think of is to edit my publication, manually add all the short stories in the content section, submit the change, and then submit a make-variant request for each story. Would that be the right thing to do? Isn't there a smarter/quicker process? Or maybe I did not understand correctly the merge/automerge process? thanks!

PS: as you see, I tried in this message to use the nice and elegant html tags to insert a link to the submissions but the result, although working, is certainly not elegant... is anything wrong in the syntax??? thanks again... --Fantagufo (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

Yes, what you describe is correct. A different translator makes a different title record necessary. Assuming that no title record exists with your translator, you would have add the titles manually, just as you say. There is one additional step that can be done before or after you make the variants. You should also edit each newly created title record and add the translator's name using the {{Tr|[translator name]}} template. I know it's a lot of edits, but it unfortunately, it's the only way to correctly add translated titles when they don't already exist in the database. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:12, 22 April 2024 (EDT)

The Anubis Gates

Hello Ron. Regarding this. Since cover designer should not be credited with the cover art I've submitted an edit to remove that. I've added notes as per my phyiscal copy which doesn't state a cover artist on the rear. --Mavmaramis (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2024 (EDT)

Fifty-Year Mission

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2020272; Just made an edit adding archived link, fixed page count, and note about C$ price to the HC; title has no "and Unauthorized", just ", Unauthorized", as does e-book which has "and" on cover but comma on title page, you made your PV an alternate title but it's a matter of deciding which subtitle comes first so possibly all 3 should be the same. Up to you. --Username (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (EDT)

You're right and I've corrected my verified publication. I see your edit, but you didn't update the title in publication or title records. If you've got evidence that both the hardcover and eBook lack the "and" please update the publication records and merge the two title records. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:12, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
Since you are the only PV and you've corrected the title problem then now, assuming you feel your ordering of the subtitles is correct, wouldn't the next step be to merge the two titles into one using your title as the parent? --Username (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (EDT)
Yes, as I suggested above. It doesn't matter which order you submit the edits. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:28, 27 April 2024 (EDT)

Ghost Flyers

https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?40500; There are 2 printings on Google Books, 1993 (dated 1/1994 on ISFDB) and 1997 (which is actually the 2000 printing as can be seen if you search for "copyright 2000" inside it), https://books.google.com/books?id=sS-fb7M31fgC, both title pages are shown, both say Ghost Flyers, if you search in earlier printing for "copyright 1993" it says "FIRST EDITION" with a 1993 copyright date, they just pasted over the date whenever they reprinted it as can be seen in the 2000 printing where date on copyright page is clearly covering up the original date. Title is Ghost Flyers. --Username (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (EDT)

Your edit only mentioned a link to eBay which did not show the title page and then went on to say that the title should be changed since a later printing had a different title. Now you provide link to yet another printing (1997) from Google books which, again, tells us nothing about the 1994 printing If you have an actual image of the 1994 to support your proposed change, please include that in the moderator notes when you resubmit. Providing links to reprints with instructions to do additional searches is insufficient. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:39, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
I provided a Google Books link above which shows 2 separate title pages from 2 different printings, 2000 printing is also on Archive.org which I mentioned in my mod note. Both say Ghost Flyers, not THE Ghost Flyers. There is no printing available to see online that says THE on title page. If someone can find the real 1997 printing or if there were other later or in-between printings where they added THE on title page then that can be made a variant title but the original 1993 edition has no THE except on the cover/spine which doesn't count for our purposes. --Username (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
Sorry, but that Google books page is for the 1997 edition. I see there is a link to other editions within Google books, yet you insist on providing a link to a reprint. Again, you can go ahead and resubmit, but you need to provide evidence that the 1994 edition has a different title page in the moderator notes. Don't provide links to eBay not showing the title page. Don't provide links to reprints. Just provide documentation that relates to the record you are attempting to change. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:19, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
There is a "View All" at the bottom of the page as is standard on Google Books when there are multiple copies and they usually make the latest printing the parent, it shows a copy with a 1993 date and shows the title page which is clearly separate from the other copy because there's some ink scribbled all over the other title page, if you really need a direct link to the original instead of just clicking the "View All" link here it is, https://books.google.com/books?id=7CBgI_xu23gC, title page has no THE on title page just like the 2000 printing, if you search in the search box for "copyright 1993", as I explained above, it says FIRST EDITION. Sorry I can't provide you with an actual copy of the 1993 edition because there is none available but it's not needed anyway because all we need to verify the title is the title page and it's right there on both printings' Google pages and the archived copy's title page. There are no available title page photos that say THE, as is very common for older books there are differences between cover titles and title page titles, just because Locus said something doesn't mean it's true, they've made countless errors which I've fixed when I've looked at archived scans of print copies. --Username (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
I don't need the link in my talk page. It needs to be part of the edit in the moderator's notes so that we have documentation as to why the edit was made. I've suggested that you include it with your resubmission twice above, yet rather than just comply with that request, you seem to want to complain about Locus and how it should be acceptable to provide only oblique references to supporting data. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:56, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
There's nothing oblique about it, there's 2 Google title pages (including the first printing) which are both visible on the same page AND an archived scan of a print copy that say just "Ghost Flyers", it's obvious the title page has never said "The Ghost Flyers", you're just being personally difficult because I'm the one making the edit, but if you really need me to make another edit in order to fix this then I guess I'll have to do that and hopefully you'll accept it right away ahead of the 400 other edits I currently have pending. I doubt anyone will ever care if it's documented, anyway, because nobody ever noticed it was wrong since your friend Chris made an edit way back in 2011 making the date January 1994, contradicting the book's 1993 copyright date, without providing anything to back that up, but they could do that because they're a mod like you and can approve anything they want. Also, Locus is not a real person, it's a magazine/website, there's no complaining but just pointing out that you and others here seem to feel that anything they wrote is correct regardless of the countless edits I've made correcting them. Apparently seeing a scan of an actual title page that contradicts their title isn't good enough. --Username (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
You're correct that there are two pages in Google books each for a different printing. One is for the printing we're discussing, the other is for a later printing and happens to have a link to the page for the correct edition. Choosing to link the page for the later edition instead of the one we were discussing is precisely the definition of oblique. You chose an indirect link to the book instead of the direct one. If you think I'm being difficult only because you are the one with the problematic edit, you are mistaken. If any editor had submitted an edit changing a title while only offering evidence that the title is different on a reprint's title page, I would have rejected it, just as I did with yours. I believe that I would behave exactly the same way to another editor who, instead of just fixing their error, continued to argue about the edit while providing indirect evidence. However, no other editor whose edits I have rejected behaves this way. In any case, I respond to the substance of your arguments, not to the fact that you are making them. I will get a little terse when I have to repeat myself (3 times in this case). And yes, people do care whether edits are properly documented. I'll also mention that sometimes copyright dates and release dates can differ. The January 1994 date is documented. The publication is verified for Locus1 which has that date. I do assume that any data in the database is correct, unless I see evidence to the contrary. Your original edit provided no such evidence, which is why it was rejected. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:51, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
Your required new Ghost Flyers edit has been waiting since early this afternoon so if you could approve it, assuming you don't find anything wrong with that one, too; also, can you un-reject the 2 edits you rejected a week ago, https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Rtrace#Reviews_Link, since the link is active as I explained. --Username (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
I generally don't jump ahead in the queue. Those links still appear to be dead. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:58, 29 April 2024 (EDT)
It turns out that the submitted Internet Archive link has valid data, but the saved version of the page is almost unreadable due to the chosen font. I have approved the addition of this link to 2 title records and added Notes explaining that users may need to highlight the text in order to be able to see it. Always something... Ahasuerus (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (EDT)

The Sea Raiders - or - The Sea-Raiders?

Hello Ron, could you check your PVd pub here to see if "The Sea Raiders" and "The Man Who Could Work Miracles" should be titled as they are here? Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2024 (EDT)

You're correct. I've swapped them out. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:29, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Rtrace&oldid=685390"