User talk:SFJuggler/Archive/2012

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, SFJuggler/Archive/2012, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!Kraang 02:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Omega Science Digest

I accepted the submission adding this magazine record but have a few questions. Is it a nongenre magazine (one that publishes only an occasional piece of speculative fiction)? Is the price in Australia dollars? (If so, the price should be changed to A$2.50. If US, it should be $2.50.) For nongenre magazines, the editor should be entered as "Editors of XXXX" with XXXX being the name of the magazine. The date of the magazine should be given in the title field, so it should be "Omega Science Digest, March/April 1981". In the date field, you should enter "1981-03-00". Also, it's my understanding that Chandler's story was titled "The Way It Was" in this issue. If so, we need to change the content record field. Once that's corrected, we can make it a variant of the title record for "A New Dimension". Please make your responses here on your user talk page. You'll find links for the help page that should answer most of your questions about entering data into the ISFDB. You can also ask questions at our Help Desk. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 03:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded images

I noticed you added a few nice images to the database. To make these visible on the publication page, you need to do one more edit. The process is explained here. The uploads went well, but you missed step 6. I corrected the first three (see The Green Millennium, Gather, Darkness! and Hothouse. Do you want to try "Future Science Fiction, #30" yourself? the image is here, and this is the pub record. One more thing, this publication has been primary verified, and we have the good habit of informing the verifier of changes/additions to their pubs. Please read the text in the blue field here on how he wants to be informed. If there's a problem, or anything else you need help with, respond here by clicking the edit button on the right and adding a message. Start with a colon to indented your response one level. Thanks for editing. --Willem H. 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No response so far, I did the edit for the fourth image too, and informed Swfritter. --Willem H. 20:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand step 6 "Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) If you're adding a cover image to a pub record, this is the URL which you would enter into the pub record's "Image URL" field. " I understand how to get the image URL but I don't see an "Image URL" field anywhere so that it can be added. Is this a tag that needs to be added to the HTML? Does this field only appear when you're updating an existing image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFJuggler (talk • contribs) .
Hello, SFJuggler. This field is part of the 'Publication Editor' screen. You just have to click on 'Edit this pub' on the 'Editing Tools' menu (left), provided you are on the level of the publication. The field is between the fields for Artist and Publication Series. Stonecreek 08:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploading images using the semi-automated method

I see that you uploaded an image (here) to the wiki without using the semi-automated method. It doesn't have a fair-use license attached to the file and there is no link back to the publication record. In most cases it's better to go directly to the publication record for which you wish to upload the cover image and click on the link "Upload cover scan". Using this method, a fair-use license is automatically generated for the image file and a link is automatically created (and it also creates a unique file name to match the publication record). Once the image is on the server, copy its URL and then go back to the publication record (in the case of this image, here) and click on "Edit This Pub" and enter the URL in the "Image URL" field of the record update screen. BTW, you should always sign your wiki messages using four tildes (~~~~) which automatically dates it and gives your user name. Also add a colon (:) before your message to separate it from the previous message, adding one more colon to the number in the message before it. Mhhutchins 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it's been more than a month and you haven't responded, I went ahead and linked the image to the publication record. Mhhutchins 04:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking uploaded images to the publication records

Thanks for uploading cover images to the ISFDB wiki. The next step is to link those images to the records of the books for which these are the covers. As the instructions (step 6) explain:

Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) If you're adding a cover image to a pub record, this is the URL which you would enter into the pub record's "Image URL" field.

So once you have the image's URL, go back to the pub record (it's linked on the image's wiki page) and then click the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu. This opens up an edit page. Under the Publication Metadata section, there's a field labeled "Image URL:" Enter the URL of the image you uploaded into this field, and then click on the "Submit Data" button at the bottom of the page. Once the submission has been moderated the cover image will be linked to the publication record. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 04:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Science Fiction by Asimov

I accepted the submission to add a cover image to this record, but reverted the publication date back to 1986. Every source I could locate gave the date as 1986. Where did you get the publication date of 1984? Mhhutchins 04:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The publication date came from the copyright page of the book itself. I can scan the copyright page if you like. I can put those citations in the notes if you like. I am in the process of catalogging my collection and scanning covers so things are accessible right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFJuggler (talk • contribs) .
In responding to messages on the ISFDB wiki, you should start with a colon (:) which indents it from the previous message. Add one more colon to the number in the previous message. Also, end you message by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will "sign" it with your username and date it.
There are several reliable sources that give the date of Science Fiction by Asimov as 1986, including the Locus database. If the copyright page of your copy gives the publication date as 1984, please scan the page, upload it to the ISFDB server, and link the file's URL in a response to this message. Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing here, keep in mind that the publication date and the copyright date are two different things and have no relationship to each other. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How to Build a Future

Your submission adding this record was accepted, but I had to make some changes in order for it to comply with ISFDB standards. Those standards are spelled out pretty thoroughly on this help page.

I separated the imprint from the publisher adding spaces around the slash. The record type was changed from CHAPTERBOOK to NONFICTION. The first type is for fiction only. The author's credit for the introduction was corrected from "Katherine" to "Kathryn". And the "N/A" in the ISBN/Catalog # field was removed, and a note was added that there is no ISBN.

You should always note the source of your data in the record's "Note" field. For the first few submissions, we are lenient in this regard. But it's important that users of the database believe that our information comes from a reliable source. If you have a copy of the publication you should do a primary verification of the record (see the link to the help page about verification in the Welcome section above.) Let the moderator know that you're working from an actual copy of the book in the "Note to Moderator" field. This will quicken the acceptance of the submission, otherwise the moderator has to research the data to determine if the submission should be accepted. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 04:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fifty Extremely SF* Stories

I have accepted your edit of this pub, but there are a few issues.

  1. The artist field is only for crediting the cover artist, so I have removed the other credits. You entered "George Lallas (Cover)+Larry Dickison - Page 33+Jason C. Eckhardt - Page 23+Steven Fox - Pages 19, 22, 46+Augustine Gauba - Pages 29, 44+John B. Geisel - Pages 3, 15+Michael Gilbert - Page 21+Joan Hanke-Woods - Pages 13, 43+David Heath, Jr. - Pages 14, 26, 48+B. Terry Jeeves - Page 18+Joan Keyser - Pages 7, 37+Robert H. Knox - Pages 16, 31, 45, 51+Allen Koszowski - Pages 5, 11, 41+George Lallas - Pages 9, 35+Colin Langeveld - Pages 20, 28+Linda Leach - Page 27+Pat McCormick - Page 40+Kurt Riechel - Pages 8, 24+Jim Reynolds - Pages 4, 12, 39+D. Carol Roberts - Pages 32, 38+Jane Sibley - Pages 6, 17, 34, 47+Ross Smart - Pages 10, 42, 49+David Waalkes - Pages 2, 25, 30, 36". Interior art is credited by adding contents of the INTERIORART type to the pub.
  2. You changed the author of "Story" from Ray Faraday Nelson to Ray Nelson. This is not the way to change author credits, so I reverted this. Is the author really credited as Ray Nelson? Then the correct way is to add a new contents item for the story and, after this is accepted, remove the wrong one ("Remove Titles From This Pub" is one of the options under editing tools)
  3. You changed the dates from 1982-00-00 to 1982-08-00. Two of the items could not be changed in the pub edit, because they have been reprinted elsewhere. To the Death and Intermission can be changed on these pages.
  4. One last thing, the author of "On the Hoof" was credited as "rod c. walker". This should have been regularised to "Rod C. Walker". I made the change, and made it into a pseudonym of R. C. Walker.

Thanks for the valuable information! --Willem H. 12:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the Ray Faraday Nelson thing. But, yes, he is credited as Ray Nelson and *not* Ray Faraday Nelson. As for "Rod C. Walker" he is credited as "rod c. walker" in all lower-case on the contents page. All other authors in this book are regularized in standard upper and lower case letters. I don't know if this was an oversight on the typesetter's part or just a pretentious "e.e. cummings" thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFJuggler (talk • contribs) .
No problem. It's only that your edit would have made a story by Ray Nelson a variant of a story by Ray Nelson, which is ridiculous. I corrected this for you. About "rod c. walker", the rules are clear about that, see under "case". Again, thanks! --Willem H. 08:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
B.t.w., if you respond, please sign with four tildes (~), which adds name and date to your response. --Willem H. 08:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What Every Young Ghoul Should Know

Your information on first publication of this short story is interesting, and if you own it or have a reliable source, it'd be fine if you would add it. At least, you may add this information to the title notes of the story, just edit the title. Thank you! Stonecreek 14:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical Listing of Published and Upcoming Works

I do assume that this shortfiction in this publication is really an essay (this would be a mistake happening quite often). And do you have any idea who masquerades as 'William Ashbless'? Could it be Tim Powers? Stonecreek 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 18:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Ashbless William Ashbless is a joint pseudonym of Tim Powers and James P. Blaylock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ashbless). They mix up the signatures at random, one signing the "William" part and the other "Ashbless."

As for the shortfiction, yes, it is nonfiction as the whole work is a bibliography. I must have missed the dropdown box on that one.

Accursed Wives

Hi. I accepted your modifications to Accursed Wives but made two small changes: We don't use "N/A" for the ISBN/Catalog #; if there is none, we leave the field blank and just record in the notes that there is none. And I took your notes to the moderator (about the lack of ISBN, and the order of the contents) and put these into the main Notes field instead, as they seemed generally useful to posterity. Notes to the moderator are not preserved once the submission is processed. Thanks, and thank you for contributing. --MartyD 10:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)ISBN/Catalog #.

Noted. I will not do that in the future.

ISBN of Cybertexts

Would you check the ISBN of Cybertexts? You submission uses "0-9626708-4-5", which is not a valid ISBN (but could well be in the book). Google Books gives it as "0-9626708-4-7". Thanks. --MartyD 11:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cybertexts

You're right. I pulled the book again and checked. The ISBN I entered is what is printed on the book...BUT it is not a valid ISBN. The one listed with Google Books is correct with the 7 check digit. I will edit the entry and re-submit.

An aside, a tip about editing the Wiki: You can indent your responses by adding one or more colons (":") at the beginning of the text, one colon for each level of indentation.
If the ISBN is what is in the book, we want to record it that way. If all other sources agreed on the ISBN, then we might correct it and add a note. Here, it's a mixed bag. Amazon has the book under the "correct" ISBN, but has no information about it. WorldCat, on the other hand, has the book only under the invalid ISBN and not under the "correct" one. Since it seems most likely that someone would search by the invalid ISBN, I think we should leave it, and I added a note about it. Under normal circumstances, we would put a "#" on the front of any number that's not an ISBN, but that defeats the automatic linking to various sites, so in this case I left it without the "#" (since at least some links using the invalid ISBN work). We'll see who complains. :-) Thanks. --MartyD 10:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates for stories in Houses & Other Stories

I Googled around a little in response to your note about the dates of the short stories in Houses & Other Stories and found these references to the Z Miscellaneous publications:

I couldn't quickly find "From the Groves of Acanemia to the Shores of Thermopylae", and I ran out of time this morning. I will modify the dates for the other two. --MartyD 11:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental submission

I saw your note with the second submission of this pub. There's no need to depend on a moderator for this. Accidental (or wrong) submissions can be canceled by the submitter. Just hit "My Pending Edits" and "Cancel submission". --Willem H. 20:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Accidentals

Will do in the future.

Cover of "Tomorrow May Be Even Worse"

I accepted your submission adding data to Tomorrow May Be Even Worse, but reverted the arties from your proposed "ATom (Arthur Thomson)" to "ATom". We present most data exactly as stated in the pub. There is a pseudonymous relation between ATom and Arthur Thomson. --Willem H. 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC) SFJuggler 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Pseudonyms Noted!

Informing primary verifiers

As stated in the welcome text above, you should be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. I informed Michael Hutchins about the added scan to Non-Literary Influences on Science Fiction. --Willem H. 12:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Submissions on hold

I have three of your submissions on hold, for several reasons.

  1. Your update of Witches of the Mind: A Critical Study of Fritz Leiber. First, this pub has been primary verified by two other editors. You should have informed them. Second, you want to add contents of the NONFICTION type. This is only for book lenghth works, ESSAY would have been better. Please read this helptext.
  2. You want to add the chapterbook "The Song of Earth" by Michael Coney. First, you use "pamphlet" for the binding. This should be "ph". Read this helptext. Second, you add "N/A" in the ISBN field. If there is no ISBN, leave this field empty, there's only one exception. Read this helptext. Third, you entered the publisher as "Houghton Mifflin Company". We try to regularise the way publishers are entered. This should have been "Houghton Mifflin". And, again you want to add contents of the NONFICTION type. See above.
  3. You want to add the chapterbook "Through the Walls" by Ramsey Campbell. Again N/A in the ISBN field, and you put "50p ($1.50)" in the price field. Only one price should be entered here, the other should be in the notes. See this helptext.

I'll approve and correct them after you have responded here. --Willem H. 13:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)I will print out the binding types to make sure I'm entering the proper type.
If I understand you correctly even a bibliographical listing in a volume would be categorized as an "essay"? Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
As for price, I was listing it as it appeared on the publication itself. I guess in future I'll just list the native monetary unit of the publication's country of origin and put the other info in the notes.
In my own collection database I tend to be very strict on listing the publisher's name very literally as the imprints and parent companies change over the years and sometimes the small distinction is important. I will try to adhere to ISFDB's standard but I cannot guarantee that I won't slip from time to time.
All information that I enter is taken from physical copies of the book and notes that I made at time of acquisition or when getting them signed (conversations with authors, publishers, etc.). I can re-check information by pulling the book if necessary.
Just pointing you to the "rules", moderating is easier when submissions don't have to be challenged. The helptext often explains why things are done in a certain way.
I approved and corrected your edits. Result is here (I informed Hauck and Biomassbob), here and here. --Willem H. 07:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Eastercon Speeches

I'm have a submission for this title on hold. There is a note to moderator that sais "What's wrong with this record? Can't add contents, etc". Well, this is a title record, not a publication record. Feel free to add the publication (under editing tools, "Add Publication to This Title"). One question, you want to change the date from "1979-00-00" to "1979-08-00". In my copy, only 1979 is mentioned, no month. If you enter another date than is stated in the pub, you should mention the source of this information in the notes. --Willem H. 08:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob Shaw

I'm holding your submission to add a price to this publication. You should have informed Hauck (the primary verifier), and added the source of your information to the notes, not in a note to moderator. I asked Hauck to handle this. --Willem H. 08:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've approved your submission but the source of your price data should be indicated in the notes, along with the fact that there is no price on the pub itself. Thanks. Hauck 10:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Witches of the Mind

Hello, you've added content to this verified pub, it's always a good thing to add data. In this case, you should perhaps have checked the titles of the chapters and not used what's listed on TOC because they're slightly different. "Early Jungian Period (1958-1974)" is in fact "Early Jungian Period (1958-1972)" and logically "Late Jungian Period (1975-Present)" is "Late Jungian Period (1973-Present)". In case of such divergences, the ISFDB standard is to use the title pages and not the TOC (except in some rare cases -hotly debated-, where it's a typo). I've made the corrections. Thanks for your participation. Hauck 08:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User Talk Pages

When leaving messages for other users, please be sure to use their "User talk:" page and not their "User:" page. The user page is for the user's own use. The user talk page is for notes to the user. Only edits on the user talk page will trigger a new message notice. I moved your note on User:Biomassbob to User talk:Biomassbob. Let me know if you have questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 00:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Whoops.

Chapterbooks and Collections

It's unfortunately confusing and catches many people: The ISFDB's CHAPTERBOOK and a small-sized publication commonly referred to as a "chapbook" are not the same thing. The ISFDB uses CHAPTERBOOK for a standalone publication of a single work that is shorter than a novel. E.g., one poem, one short story, one novella. It's a little like a one-work collection, typically with the CHAPTERBOOK's title being the same as the contained work's title. "One" is not absolute: a CHAPTERBOOK might also contain INTERIORART and/or ESSAYs (e.g., an introduction, foreword, afterword) and possibly even a SHORTFICTION excerpt from some other work, but it really contains just one primary work. If there's more than one such work in the publication, it should be a COLLECTION (all works by same author(s)) or ANTHOLOGY (works by different authors), no matter the small page count or physical dimensions.

With that in mind, I accepted Lunaria and Other Poems but changed it from a CHAPTERBOOK to a COLLECTION, since it contains more than one poem. --MartyD 16:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Okay. Noted.

The Interpreters submission

I have your submission of a modification to "The Interpreters / A Novacon Garland" on hold. It doesn't change anything, so I'm not sure what you intended. I left it for your reference, but please cancel and resubmit with whatever should be changed. Thanks. --MartyD 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Bad coverscan upload. Scan was to show both sides of the publication as both sides are noted in the entry. Will try again.

Most probably a typo ...

... and though it's not verified by you, I do think you know a bit more about the publication the item appears in (it could be a typo in the publication after all), because you submitted it. See here for the author's name I mean. And don't worry if it's really a typo caused by you: it must be those Gremlins again. Stonecreek 12:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Yep, Typo. I'll fix that.

SF Poetry Association

Hello, I approved your submission of a postcard convolute (there are strange forms of publishing). I'll change one thing: The author should better be 'uncredited'. We do have - mistakenly - some clubs or organisations as authors, but authors should be natural persons and be 'uncredited' when unknown. I hope this changes are OK for you. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 16:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)I'll mark them uncredited in the future.

Harlan Ellison's Chocolate Alphabet

Hi, I changed the type of publication to CHAPTERBOOK - maybe that's what you intended, if not: please complain. Stonecreek 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And I did the same for the two Jack Williamsons (Beyond Mars books). Stonecreek 14:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A Wealth of Fable

I changed all three from Collection to Non-fiction as there are only essays included. The page count on one was "vii + 68" which I changed to "vii+68" [no spaces]. Not sure why that's the preferred way such is done here, it just is. FYI Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 17:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)If that's the way it's done then that's the way it's done. Seems more readable the other way, but...

Gunn essay

You have the concept of the Chapterbook correct, but it is only used for fiction [short story/poem/novelette/novella]. If the author is indeed stated as "Professor James Gunn" on the title page, that name will need to be made a pseudonym of James E. Gunn. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SFJuggler 17:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Yes, it does list him as "Professor James Gunn." On the cover and the contents page.

Bibliography pamphlets

I accepted your Galactic Central bibliography submissions. They look good. In Catherine Lucille Moore & Henry Kuttner, you should disambiguate the "Preface" and "Introduction" with a parenthetical "(Catherine Lucille Moore & Henry Kuttner)" or "(A Marriage of Souls and Talent)" or some such. --MartyD 10:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar disambiguation comment for Remembering Anthony Boucher. --MartyD 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It could be interesting to merge the Galactic Central (Publications) publishers and standardize the series "Bibliographies for the Avid Reader" (it's a series of titles nearly complete and a publication series here, with only two titles). Hauck 11:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was just noticing the duelling series. Looks like Darrah also has a bunch of these, so maybe the three of you could work out how best to do it. --MartyD 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
As some of the titles were issued by Borgo (or just photocopied and stickered by them), the titles' series approach is probably the best one. Hauck 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be great to get this series in order except that I do not have all of them and the early ones were not marked the "Avid Reader" number so I'm not sure where they go. I'll try to make some sense of them as I uncover more of them in my collection. Maybe standardize on "Galactic Central" for publisher except where Borgo is concerned?SFJuggler 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Girl, the Gold Watch and Everything

I accepted your submission of The Girl, the Gold Watch and Everything, but I don't understand the note. On the title page, is "&" used or "and"? If the former, that is how you should record it. In this case, we already have The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything, and we have combined both "&" and "and" under it, so I moved your publication there as well. But if the publication uses "&", you should fix that and remove the note. FWIW, in the absence of the precedent, I would have made a variant. Thanks. --MartyD 10:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I went with "and" due to the fact that the other versions of the book were also "and" even though most of them should properly be "&". Very few editions of this book ever spelled out "and". I will record what is on the title page in the future. SFJuggler 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek Concordance

I accepted both of your submissions for Star Trek Concordance and merged all of the titles, but I can't really tell from the notes which edition is which -- I assume you've got both the first (from March?) and the second (from mid-1969?). Figured I'd mention it. --MartyD 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's rather confusing but I'll clean it up if they have been accepted. I have cover scans that will make it clearer as they were slightly different.SFJuggler 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

On Cats & Dogs

Hi, I have put your submission regarding that publication on hold: First, could the publisher be also named DreamHeaven Books (instead of just DreamHeaven)? We have publications from the former publisher, but not from the latter. Second, under our rules & regulations, this is not a CHAPTERBOOK but a COLLECTION - just because it's not only one story that is incorporated but two. I'll change this for you after you give your okay (or veto) on the publisher. Thanks, Stonecreek 15:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's DreamHaven Books. Greg got a new logo around that time and only credits the press as DreamHaven on the title pages. The only mention of DreamHaven books is on the copyright page. Not being sure, I went with the short version. SFJuggler 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, done! Thanks for your quality input! Stonecreek 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing on the two Drumm booklets by Lafferty. You should always inform the primary verifier(s) of adding cover images. Only when he doesn't wish to be informed you may skip this (maybe you'd like to be informed as well of such additions). In this case he has a special list for this purpose - just look at the top of his discussion/talk page. I've put the submissions on hold. Stonecreek 14:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That just written I've seen that you seemingly don't verify your publications. You don't need to, but that way you won't get information if anybody submits an addition to or alters something in the data of them! In addition, it's our goal to primary verify as much publications as possible, just to make sure that some reasonable person has taken a look in each of them.Stonecreek 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll go back and notify so you can take them off hold. As for verification. As for verification...you're right. I should do that. I'm going through my collection and cataloging it for my own use and thought I should add to ISFDB while I have the book out. It does make sense to do the extra step while I have it in hand.
There's also a comparatively new feature "My Primary Verifications" which could be useful for a cross-check. If you find that you're not one of the first five primary verifiers we could add a few more slots for such... BLongley 16:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Christian, please feel free to accept the submissions that add the cover image to the Lafferty booklets. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, will do. Stonecreek 08:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"All information from examination copy of book."

What do you mean when this is stated in the note field of a publication record? If you verify the record, you're indicating that the data is from a physical copy of the publication. Is an "examination copy" different from an actual published copy of the book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It simply means that I'm holding the actual book in my hands as I'm entering information from it. Is there another way you would like it noted?SFJuggler 05:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "examination copy" has an atypical connotation. As I said, by doing a primary verification of the record you're confirming that the data in all fields are stated in the book itself, and any further note about the source of the data is not necessary. On the other hand, if you've added data to fields that is not stated in the book (a date of publication, for example), you should note the source for that data. If you're creating a record from scratch (not simply updating an existing one), you should leave a note to the moderator in the "Note to Moderator" field that you're working from a copy of the publication in hand. That field is not a permanent part of the record and is discarded once the submission has been accepted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Famous American Science Fiction, #1

I've rejected the submission to update this record by placing it into a publication series. We don't enter MAGAZINE type records into publication series, because, for the most part, their editor records have already been entered into a series. In this case, here. I've updated the record to add a link to the uploaded cover image. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay.SFJuggler 05:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The submission to update this record was also rejected for the same reason. Mhhutchins 04:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unpaginated publications

If a publication's pages are not numbered (unpaginated), you can do a physical count of the pages and give that number in the page count field in brackets. In the case of this record, I accepted your submission to add the page count, but made another submission to give the number in brackets. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll do that from now on. Can I do that in the contents section as well?SFJuggler 05:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If a content item appears on an unnumbered page within a block of unnumbered pages (either the whole book is unpaginated or the front or back sections are unpaginated), you can interpolate the number by going to the first unnumbered page and counting forward, giving the number in brackets. If a content item appears on an unnumbered page that is within a block of numbered pages, you interpolate the number by going to the nearest numbered page and counting forward or backward, and it is given without brackets. Further, if the first numbered page, for example, is 4 and there is significant content on one of the previous 3 pages for which you wish to create a database record the page number is entered without brackets. Mhhutchins 05:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Will try to remember that and do it from now on.SFJuggler 05:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Promotional publication of "Suffer the Little Children"

I have a submission to add the cover image to this record which appears to be identical to the subsequent publication of the collection Nightmares & Dreamscapes. Is this the actual cover of the booklet as well? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they cheaped out and used the cover of the finished collection as the cover to the promotional booklet as well. I guess they wanted visual recognition when the finished book actually arrived in stores.SFJuggler 05:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dating publications and notifying primary verifiers

The date of ISFDB records is the date of the title's first publication, not their composition. I'll accept the submission to update this record but will revert the dates of the stories to the date of their publication. Also, it is ISFDB policy to notify primary verifiers for any "destructive" submissions to a record, i.e. submissions that remove or alter data in a primary-verified record. Since I was the primary verifier of the record, you can skip this time, but in the future it is very important that you follow this policy. You'll find a notification statement at the top of the most active editors' talk pages, explaining their preferences about notification. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I see that you've corrected the notes also. Thank you.SFJuggler 14:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange Skies

Can you confirm the title of the poem "Strangers From Beyond the Sky" on page 4 of this publication? Your note titles it "Stranger From Beyond the Sky" and there's a confirmed publication of the F&SF publication as "The Stranger from Beyond the Sky". Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 15:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I will pull the book and confirm. May have been a typo.15:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I pulled the book. "Stranger From Beyond the Sky" is how it is printed in the book. Singular, with no "The" at the beginning. It's probably the same poem and should be put as a variant title. I don't have the other publication handy to do a comparison.SFJuggler 03:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

One other thing: it would be appreciated if you could do a primary verification of the record after it's been accepted into the database. This lets the moderator know that you are working from a copy in hand. Thanks again for contributing. Mhhutchins 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I will try to go back through my additions/completions over the next couple of weeks and do primaries.SFJuggler 02:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Holiday

Is Matheson's introduction in this publication actually titled "Preface (to Holiday)" or just "Preface"? We disambiguate generic titles by adding only the title of the publication which contains it. So if it's only titled "Preface" (on the piece's title page, not the contents page), then it should be entered as "Preface (Holiday)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The same situation with the introduction by Gustafson in this publication. Mhhutchins 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.SFJuggler 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pagination

Are there any pages numbered in this publication? If not you should do a physical count, and then enter that number in the page count field with brackets. If there are numbered pages, the page numbers of the content pieces should be interpolated by going forward (or backward) to the nearest number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And the same situation of adding "to" to the parenthetical disambiguation of generically title pieces. Mhhutchins 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FixedSFJuggler 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking images on approved sites

We can only link to images on the servers of websites which have explicitly or implicitly (like Amazon) given us permission to do so. Wikipedia (and by extension, Wikimedia) strictly forbids such deep-linking and is very proactive to prevent such linking, even to the point of banning link backs to websites which violate this policy. Here is a list of websites which have given us permission to deep-link to their servers. I've accepted the submission to update David Ossman's author data, but removed the link to Wikimedia. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted.SFJuggler 17:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Author data

I forgot to mention that the birth place field should always give the country of birth. I've updated the data that you added to the four members of the Firesign Theatre. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. SFJuggler 05:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Ardua Ad Astra 2

I assumed that "Elisabeth Bonarburg" was a typo and corrected it to Vonarburg. Mhhutchins 12:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks for the correction.SFJuggler 17:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Golden Girls by 'Joan D. Vinge'

I accepted your submission, but this looks really more like a CHAPTERBOOK kind of publication. You'll have to change this in both the title and the publication records to have matching entries, PLUS the shortfiction has to be made into a content entry of the publication (and the pseudonym link has to be established, too). Are you up to it? Stonecreek 14:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do it when I can. Right now I keep getting logged out as soon as I hit a link.SFJuggler 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Submission accepted, but, along with changing the publication record from NOVEL to CHAPTERBOOK type, you should have also changed the NOVEL title record to CHAPTERBOOK instead of SHORTFICTION (as Stonecreek suggested), and then create a new content record for the SHORTFICTION. It's fixed now. Chapterbooks are a tricky area and even some moderators have trouble with them. Mhhutchins 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Pseudonym submission accepted. Now you'll have to variant the title records for both the CHAPTERBOOK and the SHORTFICTION, giving Vinge as the parent author. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A few changes...

in your latest submissions. I assumed you intended "hb" to mean "hardback", so I changed it to "hc", the ISFDB standard for hardcover books. I also removed the note giving the original publications of the stories in each of the Asimov chapterbooks. That field should be used for publication specific information, not title specific information which is added to the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wheel of Darkness

The submission to update this publication record was accepted, but the series you placed it into is not a publication series...it's a title series, and as such, is entered into the title record, a series into which it has already been entered. Go to this help page to understand the differences between the two major types of series, and how to work with each. You'll have remove the series from this publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong screen. Guess I shouldn't enter things when I'm home sick from work. ;) Corrected.SFJuggler 02:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Blaylock Bibliography

I've accepted the submission to change this record to the correct type (NONFICTION), but also changed the type of the content records for "James P. Blaylock Bibliography (Chronological Order)" and "Alphabetical Listing of Published and Upcoming Works" from NONFICTION to ESSAY. The first type is reserved for larger works, the second type is for nonfiction pieces contained in a larger work. You'll need to make a few more changes in order for the record to fully comply with ISFDB standards. The titles of the content records that are generically titled ("Editor's Note" and "Afterward" [sic]) will have to be disambiguated by adding the title of the work parenthetically. Please make sure that the piece "Afterward" is entered exactly as it appears in the publication, i.e. "Afterward" or "Afterword". The essay by "William Ashbless" will have to be varianted to be credited to the true authors. Let me know if you need assistance on how to create variant titles. The instructions are here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this is all done now. If so, I'll do a primary verification on it.SFJuggler 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Chief!

I approved your edit to add a cover image to this pub, however if you're working from a copy can I also ask you to please check the title page: the title at the moment contains an exclamation mark while the cover has an ellipsis. It should properly be whatever's on the title page. Thanks. PeteYoung 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Will have to check the title.SFJuggler 05:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Max Smart Loses CONTROL

I approved your edit to add a Catalog ID to this pub, however I've added the necessary hash at the beginning for Catalog IDs, hence "#T-191", as detailed in the EditPub Help Page. PeteYoung 11:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Same with here, and here. Thanks. PeteYoung 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to The Devil With You!

You just submitted an edit with the moderator note '"Introduction (The Devil With You!)" is properly titled "Of Pennies, Pulps and Penury"'. However, this edit didn't actually make any changes. You will need to go back to the pub and use the "Remove Titles From This Pub" link.

Making an edit with no changes is not a good way to get a message to a moderator, because the "note to moderator" is not saved once the edit is processed, and there is no assurance that the moderator who handles the next edit will be the same as the one who handled that one. Instead you could include such a note on the edit removing the unwanted content record ("Introduction...") or on the previous edit (which as it happens I moderated, but I might not have), adding the new, correct record for the introduction.

I hope this is helpful. -DES Talk 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The submission wasn't placed on hold, so I handled it. I figured out your intentions from the note, so I removed the other title record from the pub record and deleted it from the database. I do this for newer editors until they develop a larger understanding of the db. After a breaking-in period, I'll start laying on the "hard stuff". David is correct about the way it should have been handled, especially about the use of the Note to Moderator field. Thanks to you both. Mhhutchins 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The "Remove" screen wasn't coming up as expected so I tried a different way. Just went back and now it DOES come up. Hmmmmm... Only difference was logging out and then back in.SFJuggler 21:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh I want to add a thank you for contributing, and for bearing with our less than perfect interface. The log-in cookies do expire after a time, and sometimes there are caching issues where a log-in problem can be fixed with a hard-refresh (ctrl+F5 in most windows browsers). I hope that helps. -DES Talk 05:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Doing primary verifications

If you do a primary verification of a record you don't have to add notes like the one you added to this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Size limits on uploaded images

There is an established limitation on the size of image files that can be uploaded to the ISFDB server. We ask that you not upload an image of more than 150K in size and that its longest side is no more than 600 pixels. Exceptions can be made for images of wraparound cover art, but should still not be so large that it could be used to create illegal copies of the dust cover. We add a license tag to each image citing the "fair use" standards to protect us against copyright violation charges, but uploading images of larger size and higher resolution doesn't help us in making that claim. The far majority of your uploads have been well within the standards with only a few that fall outside them. Just be mindful of the limits when you're uploading the files. The system gives you a warning but allows you to override the warning. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I try to scan no higher than screen resolution and reduce if necessary but have probably overlooked a couple.SFJuggler 04:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I usually scan scan at somewhat higher than screen resolution then reduce the longest side to say 595 pixels, but whatever works for you. -DES Talk 05:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Posting message on editors' talk pages

You left a message on Scott Latham's user page, which should have been left on his talk page. I removed the message and was going to transfer it to the talk page, but it essentially gave no information about which one of his thousands of verified records that you added the cover image to. So I went back through the recent uploads and saw that you'd uploaded and linked the cover to this record. So I've left a message saying that on his talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That looks like the page I left the message on. And, yes, I realize now that I forgot the leave the URL of the upload. Thanks.SFJuggler 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

After Magic

I'm submitting a later printing of this chapterbook and on the copyright page it is listed as having a first printing in April of 1991. I don't know if your earlier copy is this specific in the date, so I'm letting you know. MLB 11:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Parasites Like Us

I'm assuming you worked from a book-in-hand to create this record. If so, please do a primary verification. If not, add the source of your data to the record's note field. If you could tell us in the Note to Moderator field that you're entering from a book-in-hand it would save the moderator from doing additional research to confirm the data and speed up the submission acceptance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Amazon gives the publication date as 2003-08-18, and OCLC gives the page count as 341. Can you confirm that both secondary sources are incorrect? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The publication date came from Barnes & Noble. However, Kirkus Reviews agrees with Amazon so I would go with the 2003-08-18 date. As for the page count, that comes from the physical book itself so I'm going to stick with it.SFJuggler 07:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Record the source of the publication date in the note field (which you should do for anything that isn't stated in the actual book), and do a primary verification of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
OKSFJuggler 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note to Moderator field

The Note to Moderator field should not be used to give the source of the data that you're adding or changing in the publication record. That information should go into the Note field so that it's visible to all users of the database. Anything added to the Note to Moderator field is immediately lost once the submission has been accepted. Its purpose is to give the moderator additional information (about the submission, not the publication) that will help in the decision to accept the submission or not. It will not become a permanent part of the record. I've taken the information that you gave in the submission to update this record ("Price and printing info from The Science-Fantasy Publishers: A Critical and Bibliographic History, Chalker & Owings, 3rd edition, page 593.") and added it to the Note field. It is important to source all data that is not stated in the publication itself, and the db user should be able to see that in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong field. End of long day for me.SFJuggler 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand. BTW, if you're responding to a specific message you should just click on the [edit] link to the right of the message. This allows those of us who follow the Recent Changes page know which message has been responded to. Doing an edit of the entire page may cause a temporary conflict of edits if more than one person is editing the page at the same time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay.SFJuggler 05:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NESFA Index for 1988

I've corrected the HTML for this record (the unnumbered list tags were missing). Do you have a copy of this in order to do a primary verification of the record? Also, looking at the listing on the NESFA website, this appears to be a pamphlet, not a trade paperback. They also note a limitation, show an additional eight roman numeraled pages, priced at $12.00, and give the publication date as March 1990. If that data isn't stated in the publication, you can give them as the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nesfa.org/press/Books/Index88.htm is [vi]+134 8-1/2 x 11 pages side-stapled. Rather hefty to be a pamphlet but if that's the way you want to categorize it then that's fine. I've updated it with a cover scan and updated the page count plus notes on the discrepancy related to the second printing.SFJuggler 01:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's because of its binding that we call it an pamphlet, not the number of pages. I could be wrong, but that's the most common usage for a publication like this. Another question: why did you place the roman numerals in brackets. Brackets are used in the page count field to indicate unnumbered pages. If that's the case then it should be [8]+135. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing. When you added the last note, you placed it outside the unnumbered HTML list. Look at how it's displayed in comparison with the other notes. Mhhutchins 02:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You also left out the unnumbered list HTML tags in the 1987 index. See how it affects the way the record is displayed. Mhhutchins 02:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, you can use "quarto" as a publication format for stapled 8 1/2 by 11 sheets. I forgot that format. Sorry. Mhhutchins 02:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Changed to quarto.SFJuggler 04:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove the HTML unnumbered list tag? Look at how the notes are now displayed in the record. In order to add bulleted notes in an ISFDB record's note field, you must use the HTML unnumbered list tag. See the instructions here. If you prefer not to use bulleted notes, just use the HTML break at the end of each line. Also, what about the brackets in the page count field? Mhhutchins 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. Going to stop entering info tonight. Didn't see that change. There should not be brackets around the Roman numerals, they are actually printed on the pages. I will change it.SFJuggler 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

[The] High Destiny

I edited the pub record's title field to give the correct title (assuming this is the title that's given on the title page and not the dustjacket). Next I unmerged the publication from the title record of The High Destiny. This creates a new title record for High Destiny, which I then made into a variant title of the original title. Mhhutchins 04:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's "High Destiny" throughout the book (all mentions on jacket and title/copyright pages. I'll do a PV on it.SFJuggler 04:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

pence

I accepted your submission of The Best of Arthur C. Clarke, but I changed the price from "40p" to "£0.40". We use decimal pounds for things priced post-decimalisation pence. See Help:Screen:EditPub#Price for many more details about prices. Thanks. --MartyD 10:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.SFJuggler 14:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

NONFICTION

This has been brought to your attention a couple of times by different moderators: only use NONFICTION as the type for book-length works (within the metadata fields of a publication record). A content entry that is nonfiction should be entered as an ESSAY type. Mhhutchins 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the publication record of this title, you'll see that none of the contents appear because you entered them as NONFICTION, which conflicts with the type of the publication. (NONFICTION publication cancels out NONFICTION contents.) You'll have to update the record and change all of the NONFICTION contents to ESSAY, but leave the NONFICTION reference title (the first one).

Also, please do a primary verification of the record if you have it. If not, record your source in the note field. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 22:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Will fix that. Will do PVs after I see the final version.

Uncredited cover art

I have removed the credit of "uncredited" from the cover artist field of this record. It is the ISFDB standard that this field remain blank if the artist is not credited. You can state in the Note field that the cover art is not credited. Mhhutchins 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

NotedSFJuggler 03:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

HTML list in The Bachman Books

Since you went and added in the missing "</UL>" to The Bachman Books, I assumed you wanted an HTML list there. Besides using the <UL> and </UL>, you need to use <LI> ("list item") for each entry. See this help. I replaced the use of <BR> within the list with LIs. I hope that's how you were trying to get it to be. Thanks. --MartyD 11:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Was just closing unclosed tags. Will check out info.

Interiorart records

...should be titled the same as the work they illustrate. So I changed the title of this publication's interiorart record from "Interior Illustrations (Parasites Like Us)" to "Parasites Like Us". Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.SFJuggler 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Can you please do me a favor? Read the note that I've posted at the top of my Changes to Verified Pubs page, and tell me how I can word it so that editors will understand that if they make any changes other than adding images or notes to a pub that I've primary verified, that they leave the message on my talk page, and not on that page. It's very important that they understand, because I often don't look at the other page for days. But if they leave a message on my talk page about changes other than adding images or notes then I can more quickly respond. If changes are made to my talk page then the "My Messages" link is highlighted when I log-in to the database. Otherwise, it means I have no messages. And I'd really like to know when someone has made a submission to change vital information in one of my verified records. In this case, vital meaning any changes other than adding images or notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay but real life, in the form of death in the family, death of a friend, an anniversary (mine) and a birthday (family friend), have put pretty much everything else on hold for a bit. The wording is clear enough but I think it's confusing to people that each editor has their own preferences for what type of info they wish to be notified of (or not) and whether the notification (or even the edit) should come before or after the actual decision. I agree that notification is a good thing and should be held to but there is the fact that this is an all-volunteer effort to consider. If people get called out too harshly for not following the exact "letter of the law" for each notification they will eventually lose interest in contributing anything at all. I have to admit that I've let a few inaccuracies/omissions that I have run across slide because I simply didn't feel like dealing with the notification peculiarities of the particular verifier. I think I've gone back and gotten most of them but I'm not 100% sure. Just my thoughts for what they're worth.

The Illustrated Challenge from Beyond

You verified http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?390646 The Illustrated Challenge last month. I think the "editor" or author should not be Marc A. Michaud, who founded Necronomicon Press, but the five authors of the story. Further, I don't see that the sections are variants of the whole; each "chapter" should be by a single author. I'm not sure if I would list the separate sections; presumably that led you classify the pub as an ANTHOLOGY. All other copies of the "Challenge from Beyond" that are published by themselves are listed as CHAPTERBOOKS. Bob 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree but this particular publication is copyrighted to Michaud due to the fact that he commissioned illustrations for it and that's the way it's credited on the copyright page. I've seen the discussion going on this type of publication and will look at it again as soon as this note is finished. I would be much happier myself if the wiki software was updated to handle this so that the proper author's were credited. This type of publication has been around for some time and there will doubtless be more in the future, especially with web-based publications being included.SFJuggler 04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Challenge from Beyond

Please join in this discussion when you get a chance. Mhhutchins 05:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A possible typo

Hello! I suspect an error in the author of the introduction of this pub. Could you please check? - Typos do happen to everyone of us. Stonecreek 09:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Very much a typo. Fixed. Thanks for the catch.SFJuggler 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Sheep variants

Hi. I have your two submissions that would add Outlaw Deputy as variants of Black Sheep on hold. It looks like the one that would be credited to "Murry" Leinster is a mistake and should be canceled (or I can reject it), right? For the other one, we don't have a publication using that proposed variant title. Are you planning to add it? "Dangling" variants (non-canonical titles with no publications of their own) are something we prefer to avoid. Thanks. --MartyD 11:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to add the publication information. I was just waiting for the variants. As for the "Murry" Leinster, it is credited that way on the cover of the News Stand (Canadian) version. Info and cover scans to follow.SFJuggler 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will approve them. As for the cover credit, be sure you're going by the title page, not by what's on the cover. If the cover has something different, record the discrepancy in the notes (and stick with the title page's info). --MartyD 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Crimes & Choas [sic]

Please check the spelling of the title as given in the submission to add this record to the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Several sources give it as Crimes & Chaos so I corrected the record. Mhhutchins 03:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Outlaw Deputy

I'm holding two submissions to add two new publication records for this title. Both are being added to this record. The first one, published by News Stand Library, states the author is credited as "Murry" Leinster on the front cover, which should only be noted if he is credited differently on the title page, which is the source for author credit in all ISFDB publication records. Is the author credited as "Murray Leinster" on the book's title page? Also, neither book gives a source for your data, so I'm assuming you're working from copies of both books in hand. Could you please do moderators a favor and note that in the field labeled "Note to Moderator". It keeps us from having to do additional research. I've asked you to do this in this past, but it just doesn't seem to have "stuck". Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted both submissions, made corrections to the News Stand Library edition, and then found sources for data of both records. Mhhutchins 04:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Works for me.SFJuggler 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Travels Through Time

I'm holding a submission to add a price to this record which contradicts the note that states there is no stated price. What is your source for the date if it is not stated in the book? Mhhutchins 04:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I accepted the submission to add the cover image but removed the price of $5.95. Please make a new submission that reconciles the note field and the price field and give the secondary source if the price is not stated in the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Works for me. SFJuggler 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that note was for another entry. The price came from a publisher's catalog. I'll have to go back and find it again.SFJuggler 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mutant Weapon / The Pirates of Zan

I'm holding a submission that makes no changes to the record. There's a note to the moderator that you've "PV notified.", but I have no idea what you're attempting to do with the record. If you intended to make changes to it, cancel the submission and make another one that actually changes the record. Mhhutchins 04:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've rejected the submission. Please make another one if you were trying to making a change. Mhhutchins 03:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I know what you meant by the submission, even though that was not the way to go about doing it. You replaced the image for The Pirates of Zan with one for both covers in one image file. Instead of replacing it, you should have uploaded it as a new image (because it included both covers), and then you could have updated the pub record with the URL of the image that included both records. I'm going to revert the URL to the original single image, copy the file you uploaded, and re-up it as its own file. Then link all three files to the pub record. Mhhutchins 03:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. SFJuggler 19:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Science Fiction of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

The existing record of a trade paperback edition for the above title should not be overwritten. The edition does exist [even if the price in the record is wrong, which I'll fix]. Please clone that record to create a separate one for the hardcover edition [thus no merging of contents required]. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Science Fiction of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

I think you wanted to clone this record instead of updating it to make it the hc edition. If so, I'll accept the submission, but will clone the original record first so that we can retain the tp record. Mhhutchins 20:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Bill and I saw this at the same time, and came up with different methods of getting the same result. I placed the submission on hold before I wrote this message. I'll release it for Bill, or you can choose to cancel the submission and start all over. My method won't require you to do anything but acknowledge that you did not intend on updating the original record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The idea was to clone it and make the clone the hardcover. If that's what you want to do I'll look over both of them and update what needs to be done. Thanks.SFJuggler 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wolfe Archipelago

I take from the notes you added that this book doesn't have a stated price. That is an essential point that should be added to the notes. In my research I learned that the bookplate is illustrated by DeMarco which should be noted. You should also do a primary verification of the record so we know which purchaser the notes are referring to. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Please take a moment to respond to this issue. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing your submissions

All submissions to update records must be sourced. You must provide us with the source for the data you're adding or correcting. If you are working from a copy of the book, you must notify us of that fact in the "Note to Moderator" field. If you are not working from a book-in-hand, you must give the secondary source for your data in the "Note" field of the submission. Please believe me when I say that your contributions to the database are appreciated, but in order to maintain the integrity of the database, it is important that users believe that every effort has been made to ensure the data is as accurate as it can possibly be. I very much appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Mhhutchins 04:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I will do what I can.SFJuggler 00:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Price of Easton Press editions

When adding a price to an Easton Press edition, it's a good idea to add the date of your source to the note field if possible. So in this record, you can say, for example, "Price from the Primary Verifier's purchase records, dated 1990-01-04." Another thing, I'm not sure why it's necessary to add the bookplate to this image, but I'm open to persuasion. Thanks. (Don't forget to do a primary verification of the record. And as I've pointed out before, you should tell the moderator you're working from a copy of the book. I accepted the submission under that assumption.) Mhhutchins 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll change the note to add "primary verifier" to the purchase record comment. I don't want to do a primary verification until I know what's actually in the record. SFJuggler 19:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Just tell the moderator you're working from the book. I'm not asking you to do a primary verification before you're willing to. Again, do you have the date of purchase? Easton Press doesn't print the price in their books, because they can change the price anytime they want to (and do!) Giving a date makes the price more relevant. Otherwise, remove the price from the Price field, and record it in the Note field. Mhhutchins 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As for the bookplate, I added it for the same reason I added the manila envelopes in the Chris Drumm scans, simply because it was issued as part of the whole package by the publisher and is a point that collectors may want to know. If you want to cut it out then that okay, too. I just thought people should know what was there and what it looks like.SFJuggler 19:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That's OK, but there's a lot of things that come with a book which can be noted in the record without adding it to the cover image. The primary purpose of that link is to give an image of the publication's cover. Mhhutchins 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Society of the Mind

What is the "[1]" that you've added to the page count of this record. Ordinarily we only add unnumbered pages to a record when we wish to record content which appears on it, such as a map, or frontispiece. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Same situation with the "[2]" added to the end of this record's page count field. Mhhutchins 06:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Both are pages of author acknowledgements and further reading. They can be dropped if you like.SFJuggler 03:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it's OK to add unnumbered pages to a record, but there should also be an explanation in the note field, or a content record for substantial material. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Invalid ISBN

Can you confirm the ISBN as given in this record? If it's entered as stated in the pub, please note that. You can remove the "Bad Checksum" warning and the improperly derived ISBN-13 by adding a "#" before it. Or leaving it like it is will create a link to other online databases that may have recorded the same number. At the moment the only db it links to is WorldCat (OCLC) which confirms that the ISBN is entered correctly into the record. Mhhutchins 03:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The ISBN entered is exactly as printed on both the copyright page and the back of the dustjacket. The checksum should be "4" but it's printed as "7" in both places. I will change the notation.SFJuggler 17:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Submission accepted. How certain are you that the "correct ISBN is 0-394-48167-4"? Is there a secondary source that suggests this (other than an online bookdealer listing)? Correcting the checksum and making it into a valid ISBN doesn't necessarily make it the "correct ISBN". There's always the possibility that there was a transposition of numbers. For example: 0-394-47168-7 is a valid ISBN, and could just as well be the intended ISBN for this edition. It's probably best to just give the facts and not speculate without a reliable secondary source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I was just indicating that the proper checksum should be 4 and not 7. I'll keep my mouth shut. ;)SFJuggler 17:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's been discussed before, and I don't know why it hasn't been changed, but the "Bad Checksum" warning is badly worded. It should say "Invalid ISBN". As I said, the checksum number could actually be correct and the error could be in the item number section of the ISBN. There's no need to keep your mouth shut. We try to encourage discussion, especially if there is a difference of opinion (some editors would say I thrive on it!). So feel free to speak up whenever you like. There are no thought police here. We all make mistakes. Heaven knows, I do...just take a look at my talk page! I try to believe that any concerns brought to my attention aren't personal attacks. But being human, that can be difficult. I apologize for making you feel a need to suppress your opinion. Mhhutchins 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess the ";)" got lost in the reply. SFJuggler
I saw the winking face, but the subtleties of such are lost on me. Even in real life a wink can be misconstrued. If I can't say it with words, I'm just a bad communicator, and no amount of typography can cover that up. I'm also immune to subtle forms of sarcasm, especially those delivered in a deadpan tone of voice. Admittedly, a failure on my part. Mhhutchins 18:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to make it clear in notes to the moderaters about corrections. In my personal catalog I'm very strict about "correct" ISBNs and put notes about incorrect check-sums in the notes. I also note all inclusions issued with a book so that's why that stuff shows up in my edits here even though it's overkill. Some people don't care about it but my personal view is that the information should be out there. People to use it if they want or ignore it as they see fit. SFJuggler
Exactly my approach, too. If you've ever seen the note fields of my verified records, you'd know what I mean. Mhhutchins 18:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Author Credit

The ISFDB standard is that the author credit given on the title page trumps all other appearances within the publication: copyright page, dustjacket, spine, etc. So you would have to update this record if the title page credit differs from the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done.SFJuggler 18:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Submission accepted. You'll also need to correct the credits for the contents, unless each piece on its individual title page credits the author differently. We assume that the credited title page author is the same credit for each content, even if that content's title page isn't credited. Mhhutchins 18:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If you do have to change the contents' author credit, you'll see that some of the records are "greyed" out. They can't be edited in a publication record update because the story appears in another publication. You will have to remove these greyed titles and create new content title records for them. If you need assistance on how to do this, just ask. Mhhutchins 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm poking you on this again, because I'm not sure if you'd read it. Mhhutchins 21:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry for not acknowledging. Dealing with sick wife this weekend.SFJuggler 06:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope she's feeling better soon. Mhhutchins 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited cover art

The ISFDB standard is to leave the Cover Artist field blank when the art is not credited. This fact can be recorded in the Note field. I've removed the "uncredited" from the Cover Artist field of this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I also removed it from this record. Mhhutchins 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.SFJuggler 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Discovery of the Future

Can you confirm that the title page credits "Professor James Gunn" in this publication? OCLC gives the author as just James Gunn, but I don't know if they have a policy of removing such titles as "Professor" from an author's credit. Thanks for looking. (I'm assuming you may have a copy of this even though it's not been primary verified, and there's no way of knowing that you were the person who added the note about an "examination copy" which is still something I'm still trying to figure out.) Mhhutchins 00:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Chief . . .

I corrected the way the ellipsis is presented in the title of this record to conform to ISFDB standards. Mhhutchins 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And Loving It!

I added the # symbol before the catalog number of this record based on ISFDB standards. Mhhutchins 00:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Would you believe...I knew that?SFJuggler 00:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dark Forces

I believe there's an error in the page listings for Dark Forces, which you recently verified. Right now it shows Stephen King's long novella "The Mist" at two pages, and Gahan Wilson's short story "Traps" at 140 pages, which can't be right. Best, BrendanMoody 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You believe correctly. King couldn't be that terse. I'll have to dig out the book and check. Thanks for the heads-up.SFJuggler 04:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Submission on hold

I'm still holding the submission to variant the James Gunn title ("The Discovery of the Future") that I questioned you about a few days ago. I also never got a response to my question about the content credits for the Tsiolkovsky collection. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I did respond to the James Gunn question but I see that it did not save. I guess my connection must have flaked out. He is credited as "Professor James Gunn." The publication is very informal for an academic publication. It's closer to a fanzine than anything you'd expect out of a university. I'll do a PV on it as soon as it's finalized as I was the person who added it. As for the Tsiolkovsky, it's okay the way it it.SFJuggler 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless the stories in the Tsiolkovsky are credited individually and differently than the credit on the book's title page, the ISFDB standard insists that the author credit is the same. It's going to take quite a number of submissions to do this, and I'd gladly do it for you if your prefer, but the record should match the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no actual credit to the author on the individual stories in the book. They simply credit the individual translators. My take on this is to just let the individual stories stand as they are since there's nothing to say otherwise. What does ISFDB do in this case?SFJuggler 18:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said a couple of times here: the credit for uncredited stories is taken from the book's title page. 99% of all collections don't credit individual stories unless they are collaborations. I'll make the necessary changes to the record. Mhhutchins 19:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.SFJuggler 19:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Novel content records

You should not add a NOVEL content record to a newly created record for a NOVEL type. The system automatically creates a title record when you use the "Add New" or "Add Publication" functions. You'll need to remove the extra content NOVEL title record from this pub record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what is the source for the date of publication? The film came out in 1981. Mhhutchins 21:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Linking to transient sources

It's not a good idea to link ISFDB records to webpages which aren't stable or transient in nature. For example this record gives the source of the cover artist as a link to an auction site. Once the piece is sold it's possible that the page will be removed from the internet. This would also apply to book dealer listings and blogs. Because this listing has been around since 2007, there's a good chance it may be a permanent link. So we'll keep it as a source for the cover art credit. Sometimes we're not so lucky. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Worlds of A. E. van Vogt

A couple of questions about this record. You say the ISBN is from "441-22813". That is a catalog number with a publisher prefix, and should not be the basis for a derived ISBN. The number that you created does not link to any records on Amazon, Abebooks, or OCLC. The catalog number "#22813" should be returned to the field. Also, what evidence is there that this is a possible Canadian edition? Another thing: this appears to be a second Ace printing that mistakenly retained the copyright page of the first one. The price and catalog number agree with this hypothesis. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I can change the catalog # field. The Canadian hypothesis is based on the practice of Ace (and later, Tor) of assigning a catalog (ISBN) number next in sequence for Canada. That, along with the higher price may mean it's an export for Canada. That's why I put a question mark out there. Can anyone confirm this or was it just Ace being lazy, which is always a possibility. I'm not asserting anything, I'm just asking a question and posing a possibility.SFJuggler 00:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I would rule out the Canada theory because of the different catalog number. And I'm not aware of any Ace Canadian printings (but I'm not saying that is an absolute fact). There are quite a number of documented cases of later printings in which Ace failed to update the copyright page. The new catalog number and higher price is a good indication that this is what occurred in this case. I would suggest zeroing out the date (0000-00-00) and recording in the note field all information as stated in the publication (date and printing) and then noting the corresponding data that was present in an earlier-numbered and lower-priced record that leads to the conclusion regarding publisher error. (And return the catalog number to its original form.) Thanks.
Done.SFJuggler 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing, again

Please let me know what I can do to convince you that your submissions must be sourced, or contain just a simple "Have the book" in the "Note to Moderator" field. These three words will keep the moderator from having to research the submission. I've had to research the Mad Max records you've entered, and in doing so I see that Terry Kaye isn't credited as the author of the 1985 QB Books edition, at least according to the OCLC record. Does your copy explicitly credit Kaye as the author? Mhhutchins 01:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, gave the book back after taking notes (not thorough enough obviously). Here's an alternate source for author and ISBN: http://www.madmaxmovies.com/archives/web-pages/alex-maddison-mad-max-chronology/mchron.html. SFJuggler 01:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing here doesn't help. This should have been provided in the note fields of the records. I'm going to do some research, source the data, and update the records. I will no longer accept any unsourced submissions. Mhhutchins 03:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay.SFJuggler 03:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Message leading to "Changes to Verified Pubs"

Thanks for the message about Ptath, but please read the message in yellow on my talk page before putting another message on the "Changes to Verified Pubs" page. That page is for notes and cover art only, all other additions, changes or questions should go to my regular talkpage. Thanks, --Willem H. 10:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding unnumbered pages to a record

In this record the page count would be given as "347+[1]" to indicate an unnumbered page that is not part of the novel, but contains substantial information, as is done for the record of the first American edition. If you don't wish to acknowledge the non-novel data to the record's note field then the page count would be 347. The only time you don't do this is when the last unnumbered page is actually part of the novel and the page count field would be recorded simply as 348. Mhhutchins 20:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed.SFJuggler 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Cancelled submission for the moment. The content is the same as first American edition but page is actually numbered in this edition. How about if I put a note in the Notes section detailing the content of page 348? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFJuggler (talk • contribs) .
Please explain as much you want in the Notes field. That's the purpose of the field. Maybe I misunderstood your note to the moderator that the last page wasn't numbered. Otherwise I don't know why I would have brought up the problem with the page count field. Mhhutchins 19:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to rewrite it in a way that makes sense and re-do the submission. Probably won't be until after Thanksgiving.SFJuggler 04:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Other Dimensions

Please confirm the spelling of the cover art credit in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, fat fingers. Should be "Tetsu Constructions".

No Mind of Man

The page count of "[vii]+182" in this record breaks ISFDB rules. Any number given in brackets is an indication that the pages aren't numbered. Pages with Roman numerals are considered numbered and are entered without brackets. If the pages aren't numbered, they should be entered as "[7]+182". Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I can change that. The Foreword is given as being on page vii in the table of contents but the actual page that it is on is unnumbered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFJuggler (talk • contribs) .
Are any of the seven pages Roman numeraled? If so, remove the brackets and enter it as "vii+182". Also remove the brackets from page number of the foreword. Mhhutchins 04:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

White Chappell Scarlet Tracings

In the "Note to Moderator" field of the submission to add this record, you state "No price printed on dustjacket." This has nothing to do with the submission, but with the publication itself. Thus it belongs in the "Note" field so that it can be visible to the database user. The "Note to Moderator" field should contain information about the submission, not about the publication. For further information on how to use this field go to this section of the help page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted the submission to add a price to this record based on your purchase records. If you are certain this is the publisher's retail price and not the bookseller's price, please note that in the record and also give the date of purchase which is important in this situation. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Purchased at time of publication. The price was full RRP (Recommended Retail Price, the British equivalent of our Suggest Retail Price). The "no price" thing was supposed to go into the notes but I missed the field, I guess. There was a price listed for the limited edition also but I can't locate the catalog at the moment.SFJuggler 04:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Please add the information you've given here in the note field of the record. Mhhutchins 06:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay.SFJuggler 08:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Improper HTML in the Note field

Please look at how the list in the note field of this record is lined up with the other fields of data. Ordinarily a list in the note field is indented when using HTML to create an unnumbered list. In this record, you started the list with a break tag: <br> and ended it with a line closing tag: </li>. Proper HTML requires this tag: <ul> at the start of an unnumbered list and this one: </ul> to end it. Here is a link to the help page that explains how to use HTML in the note field of an ISFDB record. Please make the correction at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Brain fart. Fixed (I think).SFJuggler 07:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes in Junior Intern

Not a big deal by any means: You should make one other update to the notes in Junior Intern, fixing up the first "[Currey]" bullet. If your copy does have the statement, remove the "[Currey]". If your copy does not have the statement, you could either delete the bullet entirely or reword it to note that while Currey claims "First Edition" is stated, there is no such statement in the book. Leaving it as-is and marking the book verified somewhat implies the latter, as there is no need to document redundant secondary source information. --MartyD 11:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it.SFJuggler 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Gunn essays in The Road to Science Fiction 4

It's my understanding that there are substantial introductions/essays (5-10 pages long) for each of the stories in this anthology, according to the German-language reprint of the anthology. Can you confirm this and if so is it possible to add them to the record? I need to variant the German-language records to the English records and at the present there are no English records. The essays appear to have their own title which would make them eligible for inclusion as the content records regardless of their length or importance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That may take some time. I've put the box away. I know approximately where it is but will take a bit to get it back out. I'll put this on the to-do list.SFJuggler 03:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No rush. Just when you can find the time. I know very well what it means to be searching for books to answer other editors' questions. Hardcover novels and collections are easily accessible on shelves, but magazines, paperbacks and anthologies (both hard and soft) are packed away in boxes. And the book I'm looking for is always at the bottom of the box that's on the bottom! Mhhutchins 03:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Roads of Heaven

In the "Note to Moderator" of the submission to update this record, you say "I don't know where the price came for this entry." Well, before you updated it, the record gave the source: "Data from Locus1". By removing that source, you're saying that everything in the record is sourced from the book itself, including the publication date and the price, neither of which are actually stated in the record. Mhhutchins 04:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't actually being literal. I meant I don't know where Locus got it since the club flier put the price at $10.98 and that's the note in my copy of the book. I'll change it to $10.98 and put a note in if you want.SFJuggler 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Locus gets its information directly from the SFBC. But they could have made an error. If your info is from the Spring 1988 flier feel free to change it and give that as the source for the price and date. If it's from a later catalog, keep the price as is (sourcing Locus), and note the date of the later catalog and the higher price. $10.98 seems a little high for a book club edition in 1988. In any case, you need to update the record to give the source for the price and date. Mhhutchins 06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Will make the changes. Yes, the price was high. I was a member of the club for a number of years and still have the fliers around somewhere in my files along with a number of publisher's catalogs (I managed a bookstore for most of the '80s and still set up at the occasional Worldcon, Bouchercon, etc.). I got into the habit in the mid-'90s of pencilling the price and month/year of receipt on the back page of the book as soon as I opened it. That's where these dates and figures come from. End of backstory.;)SFJuggler 06:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Proteus in the Underworld

Purchase records can only give the date of the purchase, not the date of publication. Books are often available for purchase before the actual publication date. Only use purchase records when there is no other source for a date. For SFBC editions we use the month in which it was a selection of the club. This edition was a selection of the club in the Summer 1997 catalog, with an official publication date of July (according to Locus1, they received their copy of the book in May). Because book club printings lack so much bibliographic information, we've had to create standards for entry and they can be found here. One more thing: record the stated ISBN of the trade publisher in the note field. This will inhibit someone from coming along later and replacing the SFBC ID number in the ISBN/Catalog # field with the trade publisher's ISBN. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will try to follow the guidelines on the SFBC stuff. I never actually went back and purchased anything from their back catalog, just accepted the new stuff as it came out if it was something I wanted. The dates in the book would therefor be date I received the main/alternate selection and the price was from the invoice included with the book. Just an FYI. The SFBC nunber for the "Proteus in the Underworld" entry is in the Catalog ID#. I've removed the remark about the ISBN to avoid any confusion and added a note about Locus receiving their copy earlier.SFJuggler 06:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Transcendence

I've never known a Del Rey edition that didn't give the publication date on the copyright page. Is it missing from this edition? Mhhutchins 06:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sheffield's Space Suits

Please check the spelling of the publisher's name in this record. There's also a problem with the HTML (see how the display aligns everything after the Notes as if they are part of the note field.) I could fix it but thought you might want to give it a try. Also, this would be a good time to learn how to merge newly created title records with those already in the database. If you need assistance, just ask here. Or you can check out the instructions here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the HTML issue but I had to go to work. It's corrected now as is the typo in the publisher's name. I'll try the merge a little bit later after I read the instructions.SFJuggler 04:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

10,000 or Ten Thousand

Can you confirm that the title of this record reflects the title that's printed on the book's title page? If it's correct, please note the discrepancy between the cover title and the title page title, and then remove the note sourcing BLIC. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 06:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed and updated.SFJuggler 05:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sinister Barrier

Please create a content record for the author's introduction in this book when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Done.SFJuggler 05:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:SFJuggler/Archive/2012&oldid=652307"