User talk:Rtrace

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

• User talk:Rtrace/Archive (2007-2009 [1])
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive2 (2009 [2])
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive3 (2010)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive4 (2011)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive5 (2012)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive6 (2013)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive7 (2014)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive8 (2015)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive9 (2016)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive10 (2017)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive11 (2018)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive12 (2019)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive13 (2020)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive14 (2021)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive15 (2022)
• User talk:Rtrace/Archive16 (2023)

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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 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 ~ Rtrace^Talk 06:29, 1 May 2024 (EDT)