User talk:Username

From ISFDB
Revision as of 05:40, 1 September 2022 by MagicUnk (talk | contribs) (→‎The Highgate Vampire: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Username, 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! MagicUnk 15:14, 18 December 2020 (EST)

Tales of Mystery and Revenge

How are we to know thet "Day of Vengeance" from 1948 was retitled as "The Bone Bead Necklace" for this collection?--Dirk P Broer 19:39, 18 December 2020 (EST)

Archive.org had issues of The Saturday Evening Post which aren't there anymore. "Day of Vengeance" in the Apr 10, 1948 issue concerns a soldier in South Africa cursed by a witch doctor. Both men end up dying, but the curse is passed down over the years to the soldier's relatives. My not having a copy of Langley's 1950 collection makes it difficult to verify, but I find it hard to believe he wrote 2 stories about witch doctors cursing someone (especially since the Post story has an illustration on the 1st page of the witch doctor wearing a bone necklace). I guess someone with access to that 1948 issue and either the 1950 collection or its 1969 reprint (or Medley Macabre where the story was reprinted) will have to compare and verify. I see no mention on the web of these 2 stories being the same, so I'd be happy to be the first to notice this.Username
We definitely need more than just what you recollection is.--Dirk P Broer 07:04, 19 December 2020 (EST)

So on picclick.co.uk I discovered 1 copy of the 1950 edition, [1], and entered the page #'s on ISFDB, but noticed the acknowledgements mention 3 stories, "the Fall of the Fothergays", "Saint Wilbur", and "But a Good Cigar is a Smoke" are credited to the Saturday Evening Post. "...Fothergays" says on philsp.com it's from a 1947 issue of Woman's Journal and the other 2 stories don't have any info online verifying they're from the Post, so I think this bolsters my belief that he retitled some of his stories for book publication. I also found a weird PDF of the 1969 reprint, [2], which has different page #'s (which I also entered on ISFDB) but the same acknowledgements. This was one of my very first edits and it still bothers me that I threw away my printout of the story from archive.org shortly before I became an editor, since the archived Post issues were taken down for some reason. There's a site, saturdayeveningpost.com, but they charge a membership fee. I'll have "Day of Vengeance" entered on ISFDB yet! --Username 11:49, 8 February 2021 (EST)

So I found this, [3]. Picture #2 shows the contents page with "Day of Vengeance" and Picture #11 shows a piece of the story on the right side. So that's proof of the story and some text for someone who has any of the books with "The Bone Bead Necklace" to compare and verify if they're the same. "Day of Vengeance" will be mine! --Username 19:28, 10 February 2021 (EST)

Edits

We appreciate the information you are providing. However, instead of just submitting the info in the moderator notes, please feel free to make the necessary edits. If content needs to be added to a pub, you can edit the pub. If the same story appears under multiple titles, you can variant this to one another. There are links to the help in the welcome message above. Let us know if you have any questions (ISFDB:Help desk is a good resource for asking). We hope you will continue to contribute. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2020 (EST)

Thanks for the advice. I variant titled Dat Tay Vao with Dat-Tay-Vao and Mrs Halfbooger's Basement with Mrs. Halfbooger's Basement since those 2 fixes were supposedly title-updated by you according to "My Recent Edits" but weren't actually changed at all. I figured out how to do them myself. However, both reported a Length Mismatch because the correct titles were classed as "short story" but the variants were not classed at all. I guess that's another fix I'll have to do myself for future titles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Username (talkcontribs) .
Sorry, about that. Looks like I hit approve instead of hold. I have been holding edits until I had a chance to make the change. I approved the variants and set the lengths on the variants. I also moved this conversation from my page over to here as, by convention, we keep conversations centralized as it makes it easier to follow. Thanks again for these contributions. I will continue to process the edits on hold. However, if you wish to do them yourselves, you can cancel the existing edit that is just a note and submit the actual change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2020 (EST)

Among the Pictures Are These:

As the ending colon seems likely a database typo, I have asked the verifier to double check. I will fix or variant based on the answer. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2020 (EST)

It was a database typo and has been corrected. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2020 (EST)

Stella Gibbons, a Writer and the Supernatural

This merge would change the title in a verified pub. If you believe All Hallows #32, February 2003 used a comma instead of a subtitle (ISFDB separates subtitles from titles with a colon), you need to post at the verifiers talk page and ask them to double check. Verification means that the person has checked the record against the pub & verified it matches. It's not a perfect system as people are people and we all make errors, but ISFDB etiquette is to check with active verifiers. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2020 (EST)

How Kank Thad Returned to Blur-Esh

This edit will impact verified pubs. As one of the verifiers is active (SFJuggler), you will need to check with them. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2020 (EST)

John Taylor

Regarding this submission: John Taylor is a UK author and John Alfred Taylor is a US author. They also have different birth dates. These do not seem to be the same person. Is there something I'm missing? -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2020 (EST)

I've separated out the stories per The Fiction Mags Index and other sources. There was actually a third author in there also. I've left a single story on John Taylor as I was unable to find anything on that one. Thanks for finding this. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2020 (EST)
That one story I traced to John Alfred Taylor.--Dirk P Broer 19:53, 27 December 2020 (EST)
Sorry, that was actually an essay, I'll revert it.--Dirk P Broer 19:56, 27 December 2020 (EST)
We better ask the primary verifiers of Beyond this Horizon if the two Taylor entries in this book are by the same John Taylor. Contento has them both as by John Alfred Taylor, BTW.--Dirk P Broer 20:03, 27 December 2020 (EST)
Good idea. Done -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2020 (EST)
Stonecreek reports that there is no biographical information in Beyond This Horizon, but the context makes it more likely it was the UK physicist. I have added title notes to document that. Best we can do, I think. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2020 (EST)

The W.W. II Pistol

I merged "The W. W. II Pistol" to "The W.W. II Pistol" as the primary verifier is no longer active to ask and the Amazon Look Inside for the verified version shows it without the space. As for first appearances, you can update the date and add a note to title records that appear in verified pubs without asking the verifier. It is only if you change the title or the author credit that verification becomes an issue. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2020 (EST)

David Byron

Given this is a common name, do you know if all the titles at David Byron are from the same person? I would like to ensure we don't have multiple people here before updating. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2020 (EST)

Plagiarism

Hi, If you feel -rather: if you can prove- that a given story is a plagiarism, please enter that information -accompanied by links in the <a href="link">information</a> format- in the note field of that particular story and submit that, instead of starting a story in an author change request.--Dirk P Broer 16:17, 31 December 2020 (EST)

Username, when someone asks you a question (like above), please answer the question on the wiki. There are multiple moderators and when you put answers in the moderator notes, different people will be reading them which makes it very confusing. In fact, if you are not submitting a change (i.e. only have moderator notes), then it doesn't belong in a database submission. It would be better posted at the ISFDB:Community Portal. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2021 (EST)

Pseudonyms / alternate names

Hi, and a belated welcome. I processed your submissions related to alternate names for Robert Steven Connett. They were fine, but one gotcha to be aware of when working with alternate names: Simply establishing one exisiting name as an alternate of a canonical name is not enough to get the bibliographies organized appropriately. For each of the pseudonyms/alternates, you also need to go through the bibliography of titles credited using that name and make them variants of new titles credited to the canonical name. So, for example, where you made R. S. Connett an alternate name of Robert Steven Connett, the cover art title I'll Be Damned needed to be made a variant of a new parent title with all of the particulars identical, but the "R. S. Connett" credit replaced with "Robert Steven Connett". That gets this result. (If we already have a record for the same title credited to the canonical name, there is an option link to it instead of creating a new one.)

If the alternate name relationship already exists, you can tell which titles are missing the variant-to-canonical-parent because they are still visible by default on the alternate name's bibliography page. Once a variant is in place, they are hidden (you can see them by choosing the "View all titles published using this alternate name" link).

You can make the variants without waiting for the alternate name relationship establishment to be approved, so you can do them at the same time. It makes life easiest on the moderators if you first submit the alternate name edit and next submit the new variant(s) -- then it's easy to see what you're doing and is also easy to see that the moderator doesn't need to go add the variants.

I took care of these, so just something to keep in mind for the future. If you run into this situation again, give it a try, and if you need any help just ask. Thanks! --MartyD 12:19, 1 January 2021 (EST)

Wake of the Wearwolf (excerpt) spelling

Your submission has been placed on hold. As the work "Wake of the Wearwolf (excerpt)" is in a book that has a primary verifier, what needs to happen is that you contact him and ask him to verify the spelling of the title in his copy of the work. I've asked Marc to comment here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:16, 6 January 2021 (EST)

Removing first appearance notes

Hello,

While these are not necessary, they confirm that what we have as a first appearance of a story is indeed its first and we are not missing earlier editions and/or appearances. So I would not remove them -- I am going to reject all of your edits that are trying to do that. I would not go and add that as a note but if someone had added it after doing the research for it, I will leave it in place. Thanks for the understanding. Annie 23:36, 7 January 2021 (EST)

Tales of Britannica Castle

I don't see why you need to variant this title. It is apparently a series, so the other similar titles may be different stories. Only if you know the contents of the stories do you need to worry about creating variants. Clearly, some of them are already variants; I guess I would accept what is already in the data base. Bob 20:55, 11 January 2021 (EST)

Horror: The Best of the Year

List the stories you know in the contents and the authors where you don't know the stories in the notes for the pub, with something like "The following authors are known (from what source) to have stories in the anthology, but the titles of their stories are unknown: ". Bob 21:00, 11 January 2021 (EST)

Amazon images

When you use Amazon images, like that for "In Flagrant Delight", remove the part between the two underlines, eg. "...images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51UUVNH-hfL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" should be changed to "...images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51UUVNH-hfL.jpg". I've corrected a couple for you. Bob 19:36, 12 January 2021 (EST)

Importing content into The Phantom Coach and Other Ghost Stories of an Antiquary

I'm holding your edit to import content into The Phantom Coach and Other Ghost Stories of an Antiquary. The collection is under a variant name, "Augustus Jessopp, D. D." whereas the stories you are importing are under the parent name "Augustus Jessopp". Unless each of the individual stories has a different byline on their title pages, the form of the author's name should match that of the collection. However, that situation is unusual. Let me know if that's actually the case. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:59, 15 January 2021 (EST)

Some ancient archived magazine from 1883 I found on Google lists the only story by Jessopp on ISFDB, "An Antiquary's Ghost Story", with the D.D. although ISFDB does not. The collection by him uses the D.D. on the cover so I suppose all stories should be under that name, too. Also, richarddalbyslibrary.com gives more info about this book including an introduction by J.A. Salmonson and a preface by the author.--Username 11:07, 15 January 2021 (EST)
That's all fine. We just need to have the version of each story reflect the author credit as it appears in the publication where you find it. So four stories you added need to have the author credit as "Augustus Jessopp, D. D.". This means that you can't import this story, because the author credit lacks the "D.D.". What you want to do is just edit the publication adding all four stories manually with the correct credit. Then you need to make each of those stories a variant. For the one that we have without the "D.D.", you do that by Option 1 in the make variant tool and providing the title number of the parent version (802837). For the other three stories, you should use option 2 and create a new title with the parent name without the "D.D". This should also be done for the title record for the collection itself. You can also add the Salmonson introduction, though if she is credited as "J. A.", it would be another variant situation as her canonical name is "Jessica Amanda Salmonson". Please let me know if you need any help in creating these edits. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:05, 15 January 2021 (EST)

Turns out it's a good thing I didn't follow your instructions, not that I understood them anyway. I was going to just put a link in the book's notes to the page on richarddalbyslibrary.com so people could see the contents until I noticed the damn page has a completely different book title in the URL. Apparently that website is just as careless with info as many of the people who edit on ISFDB, who just lazily copy info they find on the web without double-checking other sources to make sure what they're entering is accurate. Searching for another page about the book, I found one on lwcurrey.com that revealed there's only 2 stories in the book and the other stuff is all articles about supernatural phenomena. So I will enter a note about all this in the record for this title.--Username 18:26, 15 January 2021 (EST)

Foreward / Foreword

Hi, I got your meaning in the 2nd round -but it gave me a chance to correct the nine 'Foreword' entries as well.--Dirk P Broer 21:37, 15 January 2021 (EST)

Sources

When adding details to an author like William Castle, please note the sources you are using either by adding the site to the Web Pages (I added Wiki and IMDB as both confirm your data) or in the Moderator notes - it saves time when the verification is being done. Plus if you add them to the Web pages, people can see where the data came from without needing to go through the Edit history. While Wiki is usually a fast guess, sometimes the sources are more obscure (and as such harder to be found later). Thanks! Annie 02:38, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Wikipedia and IMDB are almost as bad as Amazon when it comes to incorrect info, which is saying a lot, so I would never trust anything I read on those sites and copy info from them like so many other editors on here do. I find more reliable sources, usually in archive.org or other obscure places, and I don't link those sites because I have no idea if the site wants to be linked here or not, unlike "Wiki and IMDB" which everyone "borrows" info from.--Username 09:57, 23 January 2021 (EST)
So what were your sources for this edit then? Data with no sources should be rejected. I will start doing that instead of trying to complete your incomplete updates. Annie 14:56, 23 January 2021 (EST)
Please note that, as is repeatedly emphasized in Help:Screen:NewPub, editors should explain their sources in the Note field. In addition to the Note fields, which exist in all ISFDB record types (author records, publication records, title records, etc), we also use a number of other ways to indicate the sources of our bibliographic information: primary verifications, secondary verifications, External IDs.
Consider this record, whose Note field reads "No publication date stated. The stated copyright date is 1966. Reginald-1 gives the publication year as 1971." It clearly explains what information is stated in the publication and what information was taken from a secondary source, in this case Reginald-1. (Certain old ISFDB records from before ca. 2006 do not state their sources; some of our editors are working on updating them as time permits.)
Please make sure to state your sources going forward. Ahasuerus 17:02, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Transient verifications and formats

Hello again,

As a verification implies access to the book/magazine you are verifying and there is no note that you are working from a clipped/rebound copy here, can you please fill in the format of the magazine? Especially for a transient verification - you may not have access to it later on. If you are working off complete scans or rebound magazine archive (so the format is harder to be determined), add a note to that effect to the publication so that is clear. Thanks! Annie 02:42, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Naught But a Shadow

Fixed the format on your verified here. "pb" is for American style paperbacks; all other paperbacks are "tp". A 5x8 inches paperback will always be a tp. The full help page is here. Annie 02:51, 23 January 2021 (EST)

If that's what you think best, that's fine. I was basing it on the fact that every online mention of this book at reputable booksellers like Barnes & Noble refers to it as a paperback and not one calls it a trade paperback or tp except somebody selling a copy on eBay.--Username 09:49, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Please read the help page. “Pb” is used for mass market paperbacks. “Tp” is any other paperback. Don’t apply industry terms when we have the terms defined here. Annie 14:58, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Subterrene: Tales from the Shadows

When adding books without ISBN, adding the ASIN makes it easier to know what we have (and less likely for a duplicate to be created). I added it here and fixed the capitalization: we normalize titles and "from" is never capitalized unless it is the first word in a title or subtitle. Complete capitalization rules are here, section "Case".

A quick question - is not using the exact date a decision (you do not think Amazon has that right?) or just an oversight? Thanks for adding the book. Annie 02:56, 23 January 2021 (EST)

I wouldn't trust info on Amazon if my life depended on it. Their dates are wrong very often, along with much else. A big portion of my work since I started here has been correcting info entered by other editors who lazily copy from Amazon (or locusmag.com or philsp.com or countless other places) without double-checking with other sources. Also, when I enter info often I go back and add more and correct my mistakes later, so not having certain info doesn't mean it won't be added eventually.--Username 09:38, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Dates

I am not sure what you mean with this note. When you are merging, the UI allows you to select which date to keep - defaulting always on the earliest. I had never seen it behaving differently and when I just merged, it picked up 1991 - here. But even if it did not, you can change that during the merging so was there a different problem with this merge?

If not, what browser and OS are you using? Maybe we have a HTML/JS issue somewhere... Annie 03:00, 23 January 2021 (EST)
I've merged hundreds of these. --Username 09:21, 23 January 2021 (EST)
According to Top ISFDB contributors (Title Merge), you have merged 60 title records. Are you using multiple user names, by chance? Ahasuerus 10:19, 23 January 2021 (EST)
Upon merging titles recently often the KeepID column will have the date of first publication I didn't choose. I can't say why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I find it hard to believe it only happens to me, so maybe asking other editors would help. Perhaps the updates to the ISFDB software recently by 1 of the moderators (see: Community Portal) had something to do with it.--Username 09:21, 23 January 2021 (EST)
The sections of the ISFDB software responsible for merging titles haven't been changed in a number of years. There have been no reports of inconsistent behavior, but it's always possible for a new browser-specific issue to pop up. Could you please specify which browser and operating system you are using? Ahasuerus 10:19, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Skeleton Crew, March 1991

Question about [4] - Archive has a lot more contents than you added. Is it out of scope? If so, there is a decision to be made. If we declare the magazine non-genre, then it does not get added. If we declare it genre (and it looks to me it is), then we can add the incomplete template so people know we need to get back to it and add it. PS: Careful with prices -- US$ is just $ (and added page numbers - if you rather not use the pages, add piped numbers for order (|1, |2 and so on) or a merge later on will move things around and the stories will show up in all kinds of weird order. Thanks for adding the magazine. Annie 03:14, 23 January 2021 (EST)

And on the same magazine - why did it jump from being a UK one to being a US one see the prices)? It seems like the covers have both prices so let's stick with one of them in the Price field (UK I would say -it seems more prominent) and add the other in the notes? It looks a bit sloppy otherwise :) Annie 03:19, 23 January 2021 (EST)

There are over a dozen issues of this magazine that have never been entered on ISFDB at all even though it ended its run in 1991. I found out "The Reploids" by Stephen King was never reprinted in any of his collections but searching online I found out it was reprinted in an issue of this magazine, but only 1 issue had ever been entered by someone on ISFDB, so I began the task of entering the issues myself, only including fiction because most of the non-fiction is outdated interviews. I entered the price in pounds and after moderator accepted my edit I saw they had changed the price to dollars for some reason. So if you have a problem with that speak to them and tell them not to change things without asking the editor if it's Ok with them.--Username 08:57, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Nope. Here is your submission. You were the one who added it in Dollars. I approved it, fixed the format and came to ask you why. No one can chan a submission - we can only approve and then edit. Annie 09:10, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Scott Connors/Scott Conners

Is this submission solely based on the similar names and the story of the other author or is there something that confirms them as the same person? While it is indeed very likely that they are the same, the name is common enough to allow for ambiguity so a bit more proof is needed - we connect names only when we are sure they are the same. Thanks! Annie 06:25, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Same question for Sam Minier? While the name is less common, I would still prefer a bit more data (listing somewhere? Bio somewhere?). I am more inclined to approve this one without any additional data than the other one but still... Thanks! Annie 06:38, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Scott Connors is a well-known expert on Clark Ashton Smith and has many non-fiction pieces on the subject, so the Conners record (which is not a story, it's an essay) which is about Smith is by the same guy, with his last name misspelled either in the original publication or by the person who entered the info here. The Minier name is the same person and philsp.com has the Sam Minier info under the Samuel Minier name.--Username 09:06, 23 January 2021 (EST)

Missing source

Please specify the source for this edit to Fiend. Annie 17:29, 23 January 2021 (EST)

The cover for Guy N. Smith's 1988 novel Fiend is the same as the cover for Year's Best Horror Stories: XIX and is actually titled "Fiend" in Les Edwards' 1990 collection, just like the cover by Edwards for Smith's 1989 novel Mania was re-used for 2 different horror best-of-the-year collections. When the title of the artwork matches the title of the book it came from, that's your source.--Username 17:51, 23 January 2021 (EST)
And that is why we have "Moderator Notes" field on every record - so you post your sources and explanations there. And in the case of the cover art attribution, the source and attribution should also be always added to the publication note. I will reject your update so you can redo it and add the sources in Notes and allow (if you want) to add more notes to the Moderator notes (these will be visible if someone checks the publication history so they become attached to the book if anyone wonders later how the artist was determined) while the Notes field itself is visible without digging and even for non-logged in users. Thanks for finding this one and let me know if you have any questions. Annie 18:00, 23 January 2021 (EST)

A little trick with magazines

You do not need to rename and change the date of the EDITOR record before it is merged with its yearly record (as long as an yearly record already exists for this year) - you can use either "Show All Titles" from the editor's author page (for not very active editors) or Advanced Search -> Titles with the exact titles and with "or" and merge directly from one of those screens (make sure you select the date with 00-00 - the site has preference to exact dates within the same year so it will pick the date with a date or month specified by default). Most moderators will merge for you once they approve a rename (as I just did) but that makes it a single step so it does not get missed. Rename and merge is not a problem of course - but less steps makes it less likely for things to get wrong sometimes. :) Annie 21:18, 23 January 2021 (EST)

The Night the Lights Went Out in Arkham

I've rejected this submission because we don't link to cover images in the website field. That field is only for sites about the publication, not for cover image links. For the cover image, you can download it to your computer, and then upload it by following the directions on this page. I've done that for this publication (including the price). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:47, 26 January 2021 (EST)

Red Scream

Hello my friends. So I was taking a look at this magazine which only ran for 3 issues in 2005. The second issue was only partially filled, so I checked to see if the remaining fiction was on ISFDB. 1 story was there so I imported it, "Suitcase Sam" (although date needed to be changed to magazine's date), but another story was there under a most likely mistakenly entered title. Wrath James White's story in Red Scream, "Razor Blade Fuck Toy", shows a 2014 date on ISFDB and the title "http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2019310", and was translated as "http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2018926" for a 2016 German anthology and reprinted in a 2017 German collection of White's stories. The 2014 date is because it was included in an English-language collection of White's stories, Cupid in Bondage, that's not on ISFDB. The thing is, that German title roughly translates as "Sex Plaything", which seems more like a translation of the original title in Red Scream. I suppose it's possible he wrote a sequel to the original story, but I doubt it. Not being familiar at all with White's work, I humbly ask someone out there who is to help sort this out. If it turns out they're the same story, I can import it into the magazine's contents and then never have to look at those creepy Red Scream covers again. --Username 19:16, 26 January 2021 (EST)

Over All

I approved you submission for changes to Over All. I varianted the author's name to the canonical form and yes, I flagged the story as graphic format. Bob 13:27, 31 January 2021 (EST)

Incomplete

When the contents of a book is incomplete, please use the template {{incomplete}} and not some made up string. This way the magazine/book will show up on the incomplete report and if someone has the time and/or the inclination to, they can complete it. The list of all supported templates is here. I fixed it here. Annie 00:05, 2 February 2021 (EST)

I didn't put "Contents incomplete" in the notes because I wanted someone else to complete the record. I put it there to remind myself it wasn't finished yet. 1 of the stories, "Scoop", was in an issue of Fantasy Tales but wasn't on ISFDB, which I found odd, and it turns out it's because Samantha Lee's name was misspelled as Amanda Lee, even though a moderator had verified that issue nearly 10 years ago. Nobody noticed that mistake until I did just now. Also, 1 story was published in 2002 under a different name so I still needed to variant the title. Also, several stories were published in women's mags and thus needed notes entered by me to say where they were first published. Also, a couple of story titles in the collection differed slightly from their original titles, so I needed to mention that in the notes. I don't just enter stuff, I actually try to do it properly. In the future I won't put any "contents incomplete" in notes so no one will be bothered entering it themselves. --Username 00:29, 2 February 2021 (EST)
Understood but things happen. You may need to walk away - and then forget when you are back. Or the approval may take awhile. So just use the template so in case you do not come back to it, someone else can. :) That's why we have the template - way too many "I will be back to finish it" cases that never got finished. Don't be surprised if a moderator adds the template on an incomplete edit though - once a story is added, it is the only thing that differentiates an incomplete contents from complete one.
As for the author name - discuss the author name change with the PV - if it is credited with a different name in the magazine, it will be approved. If the typo is in the magazine, we will need to variant instead. Annie 00:43, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Scoop

Please discuss this change with the PV as per ISFDB policy. As we go by the credit in the magazine, unless you have a magazine at hand or a scan that can show the spelling, we need to check where the typo is - in our DB or in the magazine. Thanks! Annie 00:47, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Well, there's the fact that her name is spelled properly as Samantha Lee on the front and back cover, and in the contents: [5]. The typo's in our DB. God bless --Username 01:01, 2 February 2021 (EST)
All 3 are irrelevant if it is misspelled on the title page of the story itself. :) Do you happen to have a scan of that? Check with Bob - he probably can pull the magazine and check it. It is most likely a misspelling here indeed but stranger things had happened so we try to double check before we "fix" things. If there was no active PV, I would approve and add a note in the publication for the change. With an active PV, we may have access to the magazine. Annie 01:06, 2 February 2021 (EST)
I also encountered a few cases where the author's name or the title proper did differ on the cover, the table of contents and/or the beginning page, and a fraction of them did make it to spell it only on the beginning page different (supposedly erroneous). Stonecreek 08:15, 2 February 2021 (EST)

This link, [6], gives you 2 copies of this issue, including 1 with a limited preview. Clicking on "Scoop" by SAMANTHA Lee in the contents takes you to the title page of the story where you can see that the author is SAMANTHA Lee. Her name is spelled properly everywhere in this issue. The AMANDA Lee name on ISFDB was just a case of a previous editor entering the wrong name. When my name change edit is confirmed by a moderator don't forget to import "Scoop" into SAMANTHA Lee's collection Worse Things Than Spiders. All hail --Username 09:51, 2 February 2021 (EST)

You know, it took a few minutes to ask the PV and get an answer. Update approved. Feel free to import it anywhere it needs to go. :) Annie 13:15, 2 February 2021 (EST)

The only reason to ask the PV is if I was unable to see a copy of the work in question. There are multiple copies online including the one I linked on Google Books which proved that the name on the title page was really Samantha. I only bother other people when I can't see the evidence for myself, which didn't apply in this case. --Username 15:28, 2 February 2021 (EST)

You should always check with the PV when possible. There may be some cases where they have an undeclared variant copy where the mistake is present, which may differ from the copy you have (in which case, we'd need to make sure both were documented here). Unless they are no longer active, always check with the PV. Always. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:03, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Decadence

If you have the contents of this one, please add the page place numbers (preceded with |) so the stories are properly ordered in our listing. The ones that were already there have the page orders already, just the ones you just added still need them :) And if by any chance there are real pages numbers, we can use that on all stories of course. Meanwhile I cleaned up the list of authors with unknown stories in the note and added incomplete to make sure we keep track of the missing story. Thanks for adding some of the missing stories. Annie 23:15, 4 February 2021 (EST)

Language

Please refrain from using expletives and other coarse language when posting and submitting on ISFDB. It may be normal language for you, but it can create an uncomfortable atmosphere when working with other editors here. There are people from many different backgrounds on ISFDB, and we need to make sure we are considerate in how we interact with them. Please keep your language professional. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:39, 9 February 2021 (EST)

ISBNs for books after December 31, 2006

Please be sure to use ISBN-13s for books published after December 31, 2006. If you only have an ISBN-10, you can use this handy ISBN converter to find the ISBN-13. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:11, 9 February 2021 (EST)

El Hijo de las Tinieblas

Regarding this submission, what was the reason for the significant changes you submitted? There was no note explaining why you were changing the publication dates from 2013 to 1992. That's a huge change, so an explanation is needed. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 9 February 2021 (EST)

[7]; exact date from bookdepository.com; it's a trade paperback, not a paperback as I originally thought. --Username 19:18, 9 February 2021 (EST)
Are there, perhaps, two different printings? One in 1992 and one in 2013? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:33, 9 February 2021 (EST)

All copies on AbeBooks are 1992. The book's publisher, Martinez Roca, ends in 1998 on ISFDB, except for 1 stray literary novel in 2007, so it's unlikely they decided to reprint a cheesy horror novel from 1990 in 2013. It's probably just the usual editor's copy and paste error without checking other sources to verify the info. --Username 19:45, 9 February 2021 (EST)

Okay, thanks. Approved. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:37, 10 February 2021 (EST)

Disambiguating author and publisher names

When disambiguating these, please follow these guidelines:

  • For the most established one (usually meaning they have the most work, or are the oldest company), leave the name as is.
  • For the other people or publishers with the same name, disambiguate them using a Roman numeral in parentheses. For example, we have three publishers with the name "Catalyst Press": Catalyst Press, Catalyst Press (I), and Catalyst Press (II).

If you do this, the database will automatically add a line at the top of the listing (whether for a person or a publisher) with links to any others with the same base name: "Note: There are other publishers with the same name: Catalyst Press, Catalyst Press (I)". Please let me know if you have any questions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 9 February 2021 (EST)

Dark Offspring

[8] Found this anthology which is completely empty on ISFDB was uploaded to archive.org back in 2010. I entered price, cover artist and introduction, but limited preview cuts the second page of stories off. Anyone with an account on archive.org can now enter into ISFDB the contents of this rare book which aren't listed anywhere online as far as I'm aware. --Username 22:31, 9 February 2021 (EST)

I entered them myself. --Username 14:47, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Squad D

So this story, [9], written in the 1970's, was never included in any of Stephen King's collections and didn't get published until Richard Chizmar's anthology Shivers VIII in 2019, which was oddly published in Germany first. The problem is there's only 1 library with 2 copies of the book on Worldcat, so distribution seems to have been a problem. Scribd.com offers it as a standalone story but requires you to sign up to read the whole thing. However, I discovered if you click the cached version on Google it gives you the whole story. Oddly, the regular website's cached version is a mess of garbled text, while this version, [10], seems to display it properly. So here's an opportunity to read this rare story. I wonder whether I should add that link to the "Squad D" ISFDB record. Any thoughts? --Username 18:34, 11 February 2021 (EST)

Red Scream - 2005 edit

Hi. I had to hard-reject your Red Scream - 2005 submission because that title record is no longer present. It was most likely merged with something else (probably this) after you submitted it, and the merge was accepted first. --MartyD 07:18, 13 February 2021 (EST)

"La Belle Dame Sans Merci" / "La Belle Dame Sans Regrets"

Hi. When changing the text of a title, keep in mind that the change affects all publications where the title appears. In the case of your "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" -> "La Belle Dame Sans Regrets", while it is "Regrets" in Terminal Frights, it is "Merci" in Deathrealm #28, so the fix-up needs to be done differently. First, we need to unmerge the title for the publication where it is incorrect, then we need to fix that instance. In researching this, I found they are not the same work, but rather "Regrets" is the sequel to "Merci". See this. So I am going to reject your submission and then separate the two and fix up the one in Terminal Frights. Thanks for catching it. --MartyD 08:25, 15 February 2021 (EST)

This is done. See now La Belle Dame Sans Merci and La Belle Dame Sans Regrets. --MartyD 09:12, 15 February 2021 (EST)

Publication (or title) web pages

When updating web pages for a publication or title, please don't remove current links (as you did for this one). Instead, click the "+" button next to Web Page 1 and add a second web page. This helps prevent possible loss of information. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 16 February 2021 (EST)

I'm the one who entered that Phantasm anthology recently and found that archived page, then I found an Angelfire page still on Google with much the same info, so I replaced it. Always better to use a still extant page rather than an archived one, but if both are acceptable, then both it is. --Username 18:51, 16 February 2021 (EST)
There's not really a limit on the number of webpages that can be entered, so having two is usually better. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 16 February 2021 (EST)

The Temple Servant and Other Stories

I've put on hold your edit to replace the Note to this pub: "After Morrough's name on the title page is (Abu Nadaar); this is the pen name used when some of these stories were first published in magazines, primarily The New Statesman and London Mercury.". Replacing the note would remove the information about Moreau's other pseudonym "Abu Nadaar", and we currently don't carry that info anywhere else, so I'd suggest adding your new note to it rather than replacing it. Alternatively, so that it's no lost an appropriate place for this info would also be to add a Note to Morrough's biblio page, which you can do by clicking 'Edit Author Data'. You could also add a Note to the Title data for each relevant story, mentioning that it was originally published by as by "Abu Nadaar" in whichever magazine/newspaper it appeared, if you have that information. What do you think? PeteYoung 04:42, 1 March 2021 (EST)

The verbatim note from The Temple Servant should be entered on ISFDB under that book's record but my note about "Abu Nadaar" can be entered under Morrough's name as "He published some stories under the pen name Abu Nadaar". Info is sketchy since some stories were published as by Nadaar and then reprinted as by Morrough in many old and hard-to-verify publications so a note will suffice. It's not anything major since there's many sites all over the web with the info about his pseudonym. --Username 08:34, 1 March 2021 (EST)
Thanks, done. PeteYoung 14:37, 1 March 2021 (EST)

Artist credit + notes/sources -- City Jitters

Hi. When you add an artist credit, such as you did for City Jitters, you should identify the source. If it's in the book and you are Primary Verifier, then it's ok not to say anything (although it is helpful to state the form of the credit, even in that case). But if you don't have the book, the secondary source used for the credit should be noted. In researching the submission, I found the art on Les Edwards' website, so I accepted it and added the webpage link in the title record. Please take a moment to add your source to the pub notes, though, or one of us can add a note about its appearing on his site, if you'd rather. Thanks. --MartyD 13:13, 7 March 2021 (EST)

See here: [11]. The City Jitters cover is the parent of all these covers. --Username 16:18, 7 March 2021 (EST)

Thanks for the pointer. I made the variant and added a note about the secondary sources to the pub. --MartyD 10:35, 8 March 2021 (EST)

Strange Tales: Volume III

Can you please share your source for the "bound by Biddles in black wibalin cloth stamped in copper" note here? I also fixed the title - we add a : before subtitles (and as the title page is visible on the publisher site, it is very obviously a subtitle indeed) :) Annie 23:11, 11 March 2021 (EST)

Same question and note for Volume 2. Annie 23:12, 11 March 2021 (EST)

That note was already there; I added the title change with Volume being added to the title for all Strange Tales (except Volume V where they just called it Strange Tales V). I don't know what Biddles or wibalin even are nor is that the kind of info I usually add anyway; some previous editor did all that. --Username 00:08, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Oops, sorry about that - not sure why I decided the latest update changed these - I think I mixed up notes somewhere. Thanks for fixing these. Annie 00:30, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Jason Lives: Friday the 13th, Part IV

About [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4931475 this submission: The cover does not really matter - if the title page says IV, that's what we use - and we add a note explaining the discrepancy. It is most likely a typo in the DB BUT as there is an active Primary verifier, please discuss with them before you change a title. Thanks! I will keep the submission on hold until you clarify the matter with the PV. Annie 23:16, 11 March 2021 (EST)

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives is a film that came out in 1986 and this was the novelization; here is a webpage, [12], with a VI on it. --Username 00:12, 12 March 2021 (EST)
There is an active PV. They may be holding a book with a mistake on the title page in which case we will want to keep a record of both. The whole point of the primary verification is that someone has a book in hand. Please discuss the change with him. We work as a team here - which means that if there is an active PV who can check the book they verified, we ensure that we do not lose data or a weird variant... Thanks! Annie 00:19, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Castle of Lost Souls

Hello,

Do you plan on adding the first edition for this? If not, there needs to be added a note to the title record explaining the earlier date (or it will be re-dated again once it pops up on a report for dates mismatch). If yes, I will approve it so you can add the first edition. This is the kind of information that needs to be in the moderator notes so we know how to proceed :) Annie 23:19, 11 March 2021 (EST)

Previous editor entered American publisher but used cover of original British edition, said format was tp when it was actually pb, entered wrong price, etc. I added all proper info for American edition; anyone who wants to enter original British edition can do so if they can find correct info; the cover that I replaced I'm assuming is the British one. --Username 00:21, 12 March 2021 (EST)
Which is ok. But I asked if you plan to add the British edition now that you sorted out the American one? If not, we need a note about the provenance of the date on the title record. I assume this is a no so I will approve and finish your edit by adding the needed note. Thanks! Annie 00:24, 12 March 2021 (EST)
Done. The note is here. This will ensure that the title does not re-dated to match its only edition (we have a report on that and it will get redated without a note sooner or later - thus the questions above). :) Annie 00:27, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Here's something I just noticed while sorting this out; the price previous editor entered, $2.95, was technically correct because the cover for the American edition available on Amazon says so. However, [13] clearly shows a cover with $2.50 as the price but the same ISBN so I assume that's the original edition. What printing the $2.95 version was is anyone's guess since they reprinted these gamebooks endlessly. Another slight difference is the $2.50 cover says "A Berkley/Pacer book" while the $2.95 one only says "Berkley/Pacer". So my record for the American edition will be correct if common $2.95 cover I carelessly added is replaced with rare $2.50 cover to match price on ISFDB. --Username 01:01, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Sounds like a later printing then. In such case, clone the 2.50 book to add a new 2.95 one, add "Unknown later printing" in the notes and date of 0000-00-00 and a note on how exactly the publisher is credited (the Publisher field will have the same value). Then we have both covers and both prices and if someone every finds the 2.95 book, we can get more details about it. I do not like stubs when we have a choice but a stub record is better than none and we know the 2.95 exists - so let's start building it. Annie 01:15, 12 March 2021 (EST)

A Case of Need

The only source for this book is Wikipedia. There is no price in the source. Where is the price coming from? We need to add the source of it to the notes. Thanks! Annie 23:22, 11 March 2021 (EST)

[14]; [15]
Approved and updated the notes to indicate the source. Please add source notes for any piece of information you add that is not from a book you are verifying. That minimizes the chance of mistakes and ensures that our data is properly sourced. Thanks! Annie 00:23, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Long After Dark

Changing the date alone like this is not that helpful. Someone is just going to come along later and change it back thinking it's an error since it doesn't match the pubs and there is no other data provided. At a minimum, please provide a title note stating something like "Originally published in 2010 as a limited edition hardcover". But better, enter the missing edition so we actually have a record for it. See here. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2021 (EDT)

I come across records all the time which have 1 or more editions entered but the date at the top is earlier than any of them, but there's no note mentioning anything about it. I've created several records for original editions because the whole book is on archive.org or elsewhere, but those Delirium hardcover limited editions are rare as heck so I don't feel comfortable entering an entire record based on a few pictures and possibly inaccurate info from sellers on eBay. Entering an earlier date just lets people know there was one; if anyone owns a copy they can enter specific info on ISFDB. --Username 11:50, 14 March 2021 (EDT)
The existence of problematic records does not mean we should create more. Title dates should match the first publication in the database or have information provided. We have a cleanup report to catch and fix them, but there is a lot of stuff to do on the database. It is easy enough to add a title explaining why there is an earlier date. And given your tendency to complain about "lazy editors", I am surprised you would object to doing so. As for eBay, when it has a picture of the title and copyright pages, that is more than sufficient to create the stub pub record. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2021 (EDT)

The King of America

What is the source for the price here? Unless you really enjoy needing to answer on your Talk page, you can start adding notes inside of the notes field: "Price from cover/newspaper records/wherever applies" showing where you found the price". If it is the cover here, it is so blurry that it is not visible so...

If you do not start adding notes, all requests like this one will end up in the same way - with someone asking you for source, you responding, then someone approving and then editing to add a note... Annie 15:01, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

[16] is where. I enter a mountain of info on ISFDB at a rapid pace and don't enter anything unless I'm sure; I also go back over my previous approved edits and find new info I didn't enter/fix occasional mistakes. The price isn't blurry if you go to that PDF and magnify to 500%, then it's clear. Among my many different areas of interest since I became an editor is fixing/adding info for all these "adult" novels. Whichever editors entered info over the many years before I started left out many easily found covers, different editions, Catalog ID #'s, prices, etc. and made many mistakes which I'm fixing. It's a tangled mess but I'm doing my usual good job. What I find interesting is many entries have no notes for anything that was entered or where they found the info. So asking me to verify how I discovered the price for a 50-year-old porn novel is amusing. If you want to enter the fact that the price was verified by magnifying a photo on a porn PDF, feel free. Reading through these message boards and seeing the childish arguing and name-calling between moderators and other editors is not my thing. I'm all about the books. --Username 15:23, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

I have no issues with you being right. But all of this information that is wrong was added by someone who thought they were right - possibly from a faulty source, possibly by making a mistake while copying. It is a community effort - in a DB of your own, your word is enough; here we try to verify. Thus the "please list your sources in the notes". That way someone can verify later on - and 5 years from now we do not have someone else in the same boat you are in now - looking at data which we may have as well invented because there is no information where it comes from. Had this rule (list your sources unless you are PVing -- when the source is the book) been followed consistently through the years, we would not have that much to fix now. As you had seen, the older the record, the more likely it is that there are no sources at all... Allowing more of the information to go in the DB without sources multiplies the problems. So we are trying to ensure that we have sources now - for everything.
Catalog ID is a new field - it did not exist until ~5 years ago. There are a few more of these fields on the page - so unless the editor bothered to add the info into the notes, there was no space for the information. The covers are now easy to find, 15 years ago it was not that easy :) Some of these records are really really old.
I will be very honest here - if you do not add notes and just keep submitting edits with no sources, it increases the time for a moderator to process your edit (because they need to come ask you or do all the digging you did on their own, eventually finding the same and then approve and update after you) so your submissions will get backed up more and more. The cleaner and more complete your edits are, the easier to process, the faster they will get cleared. If all you care is the data and the books, I expect that you would like to ensure that the data is actually sourced properly so someone does not undo your work based on what they consider a definitive source (which disagrees with what you added)? :)
I will approve and fix the note for this one now. Annie 15:40, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
And done. Annie 15:44, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

In Flagrant Delight

The price of the US edition was on the cover so I just updated the notes with that post approval but where is the one for the UK one coming from? Annie 16:18, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

Same question for Satyr Trek and The Erotic Spectacles and The Power and the Pain. Thanks! Annie 16:39, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

[17]; Satyr Trek's price is in upper right of front cover; [18]; [19]. --Username 18:32, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and notes updated on all of these. Annie 18:39, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

Frankenstein '69

About this one.

  • The ISBN is incomplete. The correct one is 0700412603. Easy to fix BUT there was a bigger problem
  • Amazon.com claims 1969 but Amazon UK says 1972. Amazon can be a real pain for older books like this one and their dates are anything but reliable especially on import editions. The British library agrees with Amazon UK. So does OCLC. So I approved your submission but fixed the sources and the date. Please be careful with the Amazons - the US one is bad for UK dates and vice versa regardless of age (and the older the book, the less reliable they get).

The result is here. Annie 16:29, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

<nods head vigorously> At one point I spent a significant amount of time working with Amazon's pre-1995 records. Some of them were extremely precise, e.g. some 1960s records had the correct date of publication stated. Others were off by multiple years. I suspect that at some point Amazon imported multiple third party databases (of variable quality) into their main system. We have to be extra careful with their old data because there is no way of telling where this or that record originally came from. Ahasuerus 16:37, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
And it is even worse for data from across the pond (in either direction). The somewhat good news is that most of the books from the 60s and 70s have BL records in UK if they belong there and OCLC ones for both US and UK books so that can help figure things out... Goodreads can be also good but a lot of their data is imported from Amazon and not cleaned up later so some of it has the same issues as Amazon. :) Annie 16:49, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

Night Fear

The only sources for this are the various verifications and external IDs. None of these have the page numbers. We need a source for them. I know you have a link somewhere - can you please share? And we need to note if it is based on table of contents or based on checking each title page one by one (a lot of books have discrepancies). I will approve and update but I need to know where these numbers are coming from... Annie 17:16, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

[20]. --Username 18:17, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
Approved and note updated. Annie 18:21, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

If God Wanted Us to Travel ...

Source for the month in this update? Annie 00:49, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Same question about King, of the Khyber Rifles? Annie 01:02, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[21]. --Username 01:02, 16 March 2021 (EDT) [22]. --Username 01:07, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and notes updated. Annie

The Earthquake Machine

Thanks for finding the artist here but next time can you please also update the note because they way you left the book was with an artist added, no source for the artist and a note inside that there is not credit in the book and that the signature is unreadable... which is a contradiction and throws into question both the notes and the artist credit. Fixed the note after approval. Annie 00:54, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Assault on a Queen

Can you be a bit more precise about the source here? This is like saying "google it". :) Exact link will be helpful. Annie 00:57, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[23]. --Username 01:04, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and a note added. Annie 01:15, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

The Alabaster Hand

Source for the page numbers? And if it is a scan of the contents page, we should be able to resolve the notes issue as well (on what is included from the introductions and so on)... Thanks! Annie 01:19, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

And for the intro and the limitation number in Mist and Other Ghost Stories and the complete contents in the import? Annie 01:22, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[24] [25] --Username 01:41, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and notes updated. Annie 02:08, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Her Magic Spell

I suspect that source for this is the cover as for the rest of these but as we do not have a cover, I need a visible source somewhere... :) Annie 01:27, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[26]. --Username 01:43, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and note updated. Annie 02:10, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Bride of Satan

Source for this price? Annie 01:42, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[27]. --Username 01:44, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and note updated. Annie 02:11, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Astrosex

Month source here? Annie 01:51, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

And here? Annie 01:52, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
And here? Annie 01:53, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
And here? Annie 01:53, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
And a few more: here and here. Thanks! Annie 01:55, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[28]. --Username 02:18, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

These are approved and notes added. Annie 02:35, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Keeper of the Children

Price source for this edit? Thanks! Annie 02:03, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

And this one? Annie 02:03, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[29]; [30]. --Username 02:16, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and notes added. Annie 02:38, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Halloween Horrors

Link to the contents page you unearthed for this? :) Annie 02:22, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[31]. --Username 02:26, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

External ID and note added. Annie 02:41, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Masques

Source for the price of this one? Fantlab does not have it (neither it have the back flap so I suspect you have the jacket somewhere and the price is from there?) :) Annie 02:28, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[32]. --Username 02:31, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Note added and external ID put in place. Annie 02:43, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Surrounded

Source? Annie 02:50, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

And more of these: price?, price?, price? Annie 02:53, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
And this one? Annie 03:09, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
[33]. --Username 08:51, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
Please remember to specify your sources when creating submissions. Not only does the lack of sources create more work for the reviewing moderator, but, more likely than not, it also creates more work for you because you'll need to dig them up again in order to respond to moderator queries.
In addition, you are a relatively new contributor, so moderators are more likely to make allowances, but eventually they will become less likely to work on your submissions, which will affect the approval time. Ahasuerus 10:44, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

(unident) OK - that link cleared Cinema of the Fantastic. What about the other 4? Annie 13:52, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[34]; [35]; [36]. --Username 19:02, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

And that leaves The Sweat of Fear (originally which got approved by mistake last night but I did not reverse as I am sure you have a source)? Annie 19:16, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

[37]. --Username 19:22, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

ALl updated. Annie 19:31, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Paul Durst 1986/1990

Mysteryfile.com may say 1990, it also has a letter by his daughter that states "My father actually was buried on the day the Challenger blew up in 1986 in January, I had come from the States to his funeral.".--Dirk P Broer 20:15, 17 March 2021 (EDT)

Odd; makes me wonder where they got 1990 from and why they didn't read that letter themselves. --Username 21:26, 17 March 2021 (EDT)

The Rainbird Pattern

And the source for the price and the cover artist for this one? Also - looking at the cover, are you sure this artist has an artist credit and not just a designed credit (if the latter, he goes only in the notes). Thanks! Annie 17:06, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

The cover I provided has an openlibrary.org URL which is a project of Internet Archive, so a cover with their name in the URL usually links to a book on archive.org except when there's no copy available. That's where the price came from on the front flap and it also says "JACKET BY" Wendell Minor. It doesn't say design otherwise I wouldn't have entered it. --Username 17:45, 21 March 2021 (EDT)
If you are using OpenLibrary for anything BUT the cover image, it needs to be noted in the Notes and in the external IDs. Plus tracking down the Open Library ID from the cover ID is as easy as finding the Amazon record from the Amazon cover IDs. If you cannot be bothered to post the link or the ID at least in the moderator notes and preferably in the proper places, you are asking the handling moderator to do all the research again - and your submissions will stay on the board for days and possibly weeks until someone has time to do all the work and verifications needed. If you start adding notes or at least all the links, it will go a lot smoother.
In this case, the OL ID is OL4789610W which has absolutely nothing to do with the image ID: 10015820-L. You should not expect people to jump through 100 sites to find the correct books and images and sites you are using.
Can you share where you saw the front flap? (Archive.org - got it. Will update) "Jacket By" means design usually on non-pictorial covers so I will change the notes. Annie 17:59, 21 March 2021 (EDT)
OK... here is the book on archive.org. Where exactly do you see "Jacket by Wendell Minor"? It is not on the copyright page, the title page on the front flap or the covers. And the back flap is not visible. Where did you see it? I may have missed it although I looked 3 times so can you point me to it? Annie 18:10, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

As I explained in 1 of my previous successes, I found that if you use the search icon (magnifying glass) you can access anything in any book even if you don't have an account at archive.org. That's how I find so many things no one else can. If you type "jacket", it gives 9 entries, the last of which takes you to the BACK FLAP where it says "JACKET BY WENDELL MINOR". --Username 18:18, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

And you could have explained that in the notes. Again - unless you link to your sources (and/or explain where they are so they are easily found), you are asking someone to redo your work. Which someone will eventually - but it takes a lot longer than it should. The book itself does not contain the back flap UNTIL you search with a specific term. Figuring out the term and using it takes time and effort. It may be easy for you because you do it on every book but people are not in your head. In this case just posting the URL for the search this one with a (cover credit from backflap) note would have been enough. Takes about 2 seconds and saves the handling moderator of trying to connect the dots (and needing to ask you on every update). The more details you post in the notes/moderator notes, the easier it will be to work your submissions and the more likely is that they are not left on the board for long periods of time. Note updated! Annie 18:38, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

Tarzan of the Movies: A Pictorial History of More Than Fifty Years of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Legendary Hero

Price source for this one? Thanks! Annie 18:46, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

[38]. --Username 19:05, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

No flaps visible. Nor is the price inside of the book (copyright page or contents or any other visible pages). The search for flap, price, $ or exact price does not find it either. So where is the price coming from? Annie 19:17, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

[39]. --Username 19:25, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

Approved and note edited, source added in the moderator notes. Annie 19:29, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

The Harlot Killer

The cover of our book clearly shows 25 cents. The cover in your source shows clearly 35 cents. Which will make your source a later unindentified printing (not all publishers are nice enough to enumerate printings on their copyright pages). I approved the change for the page numbers but pulled back the price change (and added a note for the provenance of the numbers) and cloned for the 0.35 copy. If you can find a cover for the 0.35 book, that will be useful. Thanks! :) Annie 18:59, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

Typos in text fields

When you are correcting a typo in a text field such as here, put in the moderator notes either the replacement (Frederic -> Fredric) or just the word you are fixing (typo: Frederic). That helps seeing the change quickly when reviewing your change and it also remains in the record moderator notes if someone wants to find out what you changed at some later point. Thanks! Annie 19:27, 21 March 2021 (EDT)

Exit to Eden

Price source?: "price found many places online" is the same as saying "google it". Please point one place where you found it. Annie 02:31, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

[40]; [41]. --Username 06:46, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Note updated. Annie 11:15, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

The Orphan

Price source? If it is the cover by any chance, please provide a link to a better cover - there is something in the top right corner but this image is unreadable. Annie 02:35, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

[42]. --Username 07:19, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Note updated. Annie 11:15, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Delectus Books

Source for this? Annie 03:06, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

My previous edit on pending list for Delectus edition of Wolf in the Garden has a link to It Goes on the Shelf as explained in the note, which is where the address is. --Username 07:25, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Different moderators can handle different edits. Each edit should have a source. I am not going to chase another note somewhere so please provide a source. Annie 09:49, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

[43]. --Username 09:52, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Note updated and year added to the note. Publishers move in 25 years so dating our addresses helps :) Annie 11:18, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Of Pigs and Spiders

Not sure who you are talking to here (you know that there is more than one moderator and only the one handling the submission usually sees the note, right?) but it would have taken a lot less time to actually link the sources you are using instead of complaining about a previous note. Please share your sources for all the changes you are making in this submission. Thanks! Annie 03:11, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

It says locusmag.com in my note; that's where the info came from. I was responding to the usual rude, angry note from Dirk, who has been rude and angry since my start here last December. One of my very first edits was greeted with a rude reply from him, so it's nothing new. His rudeness spurred me to look for more info, which led me to locusmag.com and a bunch of new stuff which I entered here, so I thanked him for that. Sarcasm TRUMPs rudeness. I saw in another discussion he had with someone else that he was complaining about how much work he has to do and how ISFDB needs more moderators and how he was thinking of giving up and just reading a book instead, so maybe he's burnt out. I notice from their bios that many moderators here are seniors so perhaps younger, more enthusiastic moderators who are familiar with books written in the last 30 years are needed. If you really needed to know who I was talking to you could've looked at my rejected edits and seen his name there. --Username 07:42, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Link to the exact place on the site you are using as source? Annie 09:53, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

[44]. --Username 10:03, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

The March date comes from Amazon.com (among other sources) - which may or may not be valid (1999 is old enough so I do not trust them too much on dates). Are we absolutely sure that this August release is not just the signed edition? Let me do some more digging before I approve to see if it seems like a single run of 333 was ever issued. Annie 11:28, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Teacher's Pet

The price is on the front flap. Where is the artist credited on this one? The back flap is not visible so if it is there, I need your search criteria that makes it visible. Thanks! Annie 04:49, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

[45]; search "jacket". --Username 07:46, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Note added. Annie 11:11, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Old Australian currency (pre 14 February 1966)

Hi, I altered the price to 4/9 and mentioned in the notes that the price is in Australian shillings and pences.--Dirk P Broer 17:47, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Starlog covers

Per ISFDB standards, we don't enter covers are cover credits for non-genre magazines unless the cover illustrates a speculative fiction story. I have started a discussion on the community portal regarding the status of Starlog. As it had a film focus and not a written speculative fiction focus, it would not seem to be considered genre by ISFDB standards. You are welcome to chime in there is you have an opinion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2021 (EDT)

The Hands of Cain

Hi, regarding The Hands of Cain: Why 1976? especially when you want to assign a price of £0.25....Inflation was rampant in the UK during those days, so £0.25 for 1976 is definitely off. Would you like me to change the date to 0000-00-00, meaning 'unknown'?--Dirk P Broer 16:07, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Worldcat link gives year as 1976 and gives page count, so those can stay, but no price so just leave that blank. If anyone checks a physical copy, info can be updated. The unique cover for this edition is the main point of interest. --Username 16:19, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Picclick.com / Contento in notes

Hi, picclick.com has no stable links, just like Contento/Fiction Mags Index, only worse: they go went the book is sold. Contento keeps adding content in between, so info keeps shifting page.--Dirk P Broer 16:25, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Bride of Darkness

Source? Annie 05:32, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Source is bright black .50 at top of cover, easily seen without magnifying. --Username 09:25, 5 April 2021 (EDT)
What may be easily visible for you on your monitor may not be the case for someone with vision issues or smaller/older screens. And images disappear - sometimes whole sites fall down, sometimes single images disappear due to mistakes or mishaps. This is why it is important to add notes explaining where the data is from in the Notes so even if someone cannot see the image for one reason or another, they can track the data (and check it on their copy if they have it).
Approved and note added. Annie 18:27, 5 April 2021 (EDT)
Unfortunately, this is true even with Amazon-hosted images, especially more recently. Amazon used to preserve Web pages for superseded editions, but it irritated authors, publishers and readers alike, so eventually they changed their policy. I don't know how it works internally on their end, but I have seen images replaced after the fact. Ahasuerus 20:18, 5 April 2021 (EDT)
At least for now the /I/ images seem to stay stable - although you are right that Amazon is now updating the old pages on reissue and linking to a different /I/ image - making a mess of any old records. Although I worry sometimes that they may decide to start deleting /I/ images that are not connected anywhere anymore - they are a bookseller after all, historical covers don’t really interest them (although I hope the marketplace is enough of a reason for them not to delete them). We will cross that bridge when/if we get to it (one hopes it never happens). In all cases, adding text notes on where the data is exactly is important. Annie 22:36, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

The Adult Version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

source? Annie 05:56, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Source is top left cover where it says Calga Publishers; it's blurry but legible, and all other Calga books on ISFDB are under same name. --Username 09:20, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Roaring Tower and Other Short Stories

Sources for these changes? Annie 05:57, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

pages: https://www.worldcat.org/title/roaring-tower-and-other-short-stories/oclc/776781492; first library on Worldcat's page, NYPL, has info about stories' pub. history; price: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1930-01-01/1939-12-31?basicsearch=%22stella%20gibbons%22&phrasesearch=stella%20gibbons&newspapertitle=the%2Bsphere (also, ISFDB says "Short Stories" in title but cover says "Stories"; title page needed to verify). --Username 09:10, 5 April 2021 (EDT)
That leaves only "hc". Is that an assumption based on the cover and price? Annie 13:02, 7 April 2021 (EDT)

A Shoal of Time

Which "Hamilton's 1972 collection" for this update? Annie 06:10, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

There's only 1 1972 collection on Hamilton's ISFDB page: FLIES ON THE WALL. --Username 09:13, 5 April 2021 (EDT)
Which does not necessarily mean that this is the only Hamilton 1972 collection - we keep finding editions and books even for authors we think we have everything cataloged for. :) Annie 18:32, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Ghost Flight

What is the source of the price here? Annie 06:15, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Source is the price printed on the cover, left side; Amazon page allows you to magnify and it clearly says $2.25. --Username 09:16, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

The Exorcist cover artist

You submitted a name change for the cover artist for a primary-verified copy of a book, but you didn't contact the PV to verify the spelling of the cover artist. Please contact them to verify the spelling of the artist's name as found in the copy of the book they have. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:34, 9 April 2021 (EDT)

PV hasn't contributed since 2017. Also, ISBN-10 on ISFDB entered verbatim into openlibrary.org finds only a 1987 Bantam book named Sweeny's Honor, and entering it on Google verbatim brings up exactly 1 site, this one; entering it without dashes brings up a few pages of mostly Sweeny's Honor, but also a Worldcat page for the Exorcist and a Google Books Exorcist copy, plus sites that say "Sweeny's Honor" and "William Peter Blatty" together. So not only is artist name likely misspelled by the PV and art on this edition probably isn't even by him anyway but the ISBN is probably wrong or mixed up, too. So I've moved on to a hundred other things since I made this edit and now leave it up to you whether to do anything to correct these problems. --Username 21:08, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

That's not the way things work here. We are not here to do everything for you. While we appreciate your contributions, we need to to contribute things within the rules of the site. Please post a note about this to the PV's talk page, and (since you say they haven't contributed since 2017) to the ISFDB:Community Portal. We can't be making changes just because you think the PV might have made a mistake. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:06, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Encyclopaedia of Horror

I approved your cover scan of this pub. Looking at the ISBN in bookfinder.com, most of the copies of the book for sale are in Europe and the sellers seem consistent in maintaining the given spelling of Encyclopaedia. The cover shown is the same as you proposed. I suspect that the book was published in both the U.S. and G.B., with the spelling depending on the country where published. Maybe the cover with the Brit spelling is available somewhere, but I haven't found it. Bob 20:12, 9 April 2021 (EDT)

Rootabaga Stories

Regarding this submission: When adding Internet Archive links, please ensure they are for the same edition and printing. The record you are editing is for the first printing, but the Internet Archive scan is of the fifth printing (as can be seen on the copyright page). You are welcome to clone the publication and make a record for the fifth printing. You can then add the Internet Archive link to that record. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2021 (EDT)

Cartoon: "By George, Kincaid, we we're right!"

Hello, I have your edit on hold for a moment as I'm wondering if you can you confirm this isn't a typo in the magazine? If it is, it should stay as-is, and a note added to clarify.If you don't have a reference at hand, it's good practice to check in with the primary verifiers who can confirm. Thank you, regards, MagicUnk 11:42, 10 April 2021 (EDT)

[46]; page 82 shows the correct spelling. --Username 11:59, 10 April 2021 (EDT)

Perfect! Thank you, regards, MagicUnk 15:03, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Ghosties and Ghoulies and Tomorrow, Inv. page numbers

Hi. What's the source of the page numbers for this submission (Ghosties and Ghoulies)? There's no comment, and you didn't make yourself a verifier. I don't see anything in any of the linked secondary sources. Thanks. --MartyD 12:47, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Same question about this submission (Tomorrow, Inc.). --MartyD 12:50, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

https://fantlab.ru/edition135000; https://fantlab.ru/edition267370. --Username 12:57, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Sources II

Hi. When you add data from a secondary source, be sure to adjust the publication notes to reflect the source of the data. Information in notes to the moderator is helpful to the person processing the submission, but those do not become part of the record itself. So, for example, while making the publication date on Konga more specific based on the picture you found on picclick is fine -- and giving me a pointer in the moderator notes was indeed helpful -- the source still needs to be documented in the publication record. I have done that in this case, so just something to keep in mind for future submissions. Thanks. --MartyD 13:00, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Fantlab

FYI, the "External IDs" feature (on publications) knows about Fantlab. So if you find a relevant entry on Fantlab, you can link to it using their edition number. --MartyD 13:26, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

It's a Russian-language site, so as a proud American I don't feel comfortable linking to them; I enter info here for people to see. --Username 17:57, 11 April 2021 (EDT)
One thing to note is that we are a strictly bibliographic site. As such, we do not let our individual political, national, ethnic, ideological and other non-bibliographic preferences affect what we do here. Even our data acquisition robot, User:Fixer, has reluctantly agreed not to pursue his AI supremacy agenda here :-) Ahasuerus 10:38, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Also, while they are a valuable source of info their quality control is awful (like many other sites); frequently info they write themselves is wrong, so I only enter info from actual photos of the books or if that's not possible I double-check their written info with at least 1 other site to make sure they got it right. --Username 17:57, 11 April 2021 (EDT)
You cannot have it both ways: If you are using them, you need to give them credit for the information (covers and/or data) and here, that means using the external ID and/or the templates (if you are using other edition's data). If you are not comfortable linking to them because of your nationality, then stop using them and stop plagiarizing their data with no attribution.
This behavior is against the site's (Fantlab's) rules: "Любое использование материалов сайта допускается только с указанием активной ссылки на источник." which roughly translates as "Site materials can be used only if an active link to the source is included." If you are not willing to conform to their rules, you should NOT use any of their data. Annie 18:21, 11 April 2021 (EDT)
It all comes down to the same basic principle which has been repeatedly mentioned on this Talk page and elsewhere -- we need to state our sources. When adding data from FantLab, OCLC or another secondary source, we need to mention which FantLab/OCLC/etc record number the data comes from.
If you find that a particular secondary source is not always reliable and use another secondary source to double-check the data, that's perfectly fine, but it needs to be documented in Notes. For example, see this publication record, which says "Price stamped on the front flap of the original dust jacket as per Biblio.com and confirmed in Latrobe Bulletin." Ahasuerus 18:38, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Request about prices

Hello. I have a request. As you're doing very valuable work and, a.o., are adding missing prices, could you also add in the notes field the other currencies as well (if present of course). The rules text says:
British books are often priced for several other commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malta, Gibraltar, South Africa, East Africa, Trinidad (W.I.), and countries with a significant English-speaking population such as Spain and the Republic of Ireland. These additional prices are usefully entered in notes. Some of these countries also have pre-decimal formats based on the British pound and post-decimal formats similar to Dollar prices, and some have changed yet again to € (Euro) prices. If in doubt, enter these in notes exactly as stated.
That would be really appreciated. Regards, MagicUnk 16:03, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

And also, as MartyD already pointed out above, could you add sources to the notes (or in the weblink multifield, as appropriate). Thanks! Regards, MagicUnk 16:20, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

She Waits

Hello, I have your submission on hold, as it says 'bad checksum' for the ISBN you updated, but you didn't provide a reference for us to check. Can you double-check and provide a reference here? Thanks! MagicUnk 16:18, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Upper right cover corner; I just checked https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/664652801/she-waits-by-henry-clement-1975-vintage, and there's a photo of the spine with the same ID, so if it's wrong it wouldn't be the first time a book had a bad ISBN; what the right one is, I don't know. --Username 18:05, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Hi folks. I was just passing through and noticed this. The ID on the cover of that book is an SBN, not an ISBN, and the -125 at the end is actually the $1.25 price. See EditPub help for a little bit about this situation. One could derive an ISBN from it by adding the leading 0, dropping the price, and adding the missing checksum -- 2 in this case -- ending up with 0-445-00283-2. A favorite site of mine for ISBN analysis is https://www.isbn-check.com/ . Whether that is correct/appropriate or not, I don't know, but Amazon agrees. Current policy allows use of the derived ISBN on the record, with a note citing the fact that it's derived and providing the stated SBN. --MartyD 07:30, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Thanks Marty. Approved & fixed the ISBN per Marty's explanation. Regards, MagicUnk 10:42, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Is your caps lock stuck?

Please do not shout in notes (moderator ones and even more importantly the publication notes). Fixed here. Also please add in the note where in the book you find some information. Saying "PRICE FROM COPY ON INTERNET ARCHIVE" can mean anything from proper price to a sticker or a note somewhere. Specifying that the price is on the front flap allows a user to find it in their copy. Thanks! Annie 11:47, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

I did that so info I add stands out from other info; when I revisit records to fix or add (as I do constantly) it helps to know what's mine. I've already done about a dozen edits this morning, but if it annoys you future edits will have lowercase letters. --Username 12:02, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
This is a public database, not your private sandbox. Shouting in any notes (or the wiki pages) is not acceptable. Thanks! Annie 12:29, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

If It Had Happened Otherwise

When you post the source as this link and nothing more, there are 12 images and some text on this page. If the handling moderator knows where to look, the front flap image is an obvious target. However, not everyone does (or had seen the site before) so it can take a long time to look through all of the images and find what you had seen there (and you can even miss it on a first pass if you do not know where it is supposed to be - some of these angled images can be a pain).

If you add "image 4" to the link in your moderator note and inside of your publication note you state "Price from the front flap (seen on a copy in picclick.com)" or "Price from the front flap (seen on a copy online)", that saves time for the processing moderator AND they do not need to rewrite your note. See how it looks now compared to your "PRICE FROM COPY ON PICCLICK.". Thanks! Annie 12:55, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Username, this has been a recurring issue with your submissions and is becoming a problem for ISFDB moderators. Keep in mind that we process anywhere from 350,000 to 450,000+ submissions per year. If moderators had to spend as much time on researching every submission as they spend on your submissions, the approval process would slow down to a crawl. This is unacceptable. At this rate many moderators may simply stop working on your submissions since their time would be better spent elsewhere. In addition, the current situation wastes your time since moderators frequently ask you to clarify your sources. All of the above can be easily fixed by explicitly stating where the information comes from in Notes. Ahasuerus 13:13, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Currently I have 250 or so edits awaiting approval. Many are cover images which don't require any notes so those are ready and waiting to be approved. As I explained somewhere here not long ago, the reason I leave info in moderator notes is firstly because when moderator checks they may find I made an error (although that rarely happens), and secondly because info that's entered in notes is not read by most people who use ISFDB, according to everything I've read on message boards; people mainly use it to find covers for old books they remember reading in their youth or to find where stories are, since many people request fiction from old mags and books through interlibrary loan and need to know exactly what pages to request (I've done that many times myself). --Username 14:05, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
The ISFDB has tens of thousands of users and dozens of major contributors. They are all interested in somewhat different aspects of our data: individual authors, early pulps, works in certain languages, art, etc. If you want to concentrate on the types of data that is of interest to a certain subset of ISFDB users, e.g. the readers of certain message boards who wants to see old book covers, that's great. However, all submissions should meet a minimum set of standards, including stating where the data comes from. As I indicated below, this is non-negotiable. We make allowances for new editors who are still learning the ropes, but you have created over 4,000 submissions and have been repeatedly informed about this issue, so you are well past that point. Ahasuerus 16:40, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Although I have found many rare books and entered much info not found on any other sites, a large part of my time here is entering hundreds (thousands?) of missing covers and entering page #'s/verifying story titles, because I know that's what most of the people out there want. Going forward I think I will concentrate mainly on adding more covers and page #'s/corrected titles, since adding missing hardcover prices from their flaps or exact month of publication from copyright pages or whatever else requires adding note minutiae I'm not good at, obviously. Also, I think I shall return to what I originally was best at, the finding of rare stuff nobody else can. If I do the occasional edit from now on that requires notes, I'll remember to add them myself so no moderators will be upset. While we're all making suggestions here, let me take this opportunity to make some of my own. When approving my edits, moderators should try to start from the bottom and work their way up. They often approve at random and miss my notes from a prior edit related to a later one. Also, I've made dozens of entries spread out on all the wikis (Community, Help, Moderator, Verification) with many questions/interesting info/requests, etc. A few have been answered, sometimes helpfully, but most have gotten no responses, so let's get some. --Username 14:05, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Questions and observations about specific bibliographic topics may or may not be answered or commented upon depending on whether we have active editors knowledgeable about the raised topic and on whether they have the time to do additional research. Sometimes it takes weeks or months before another editor chimes in and provides additional information. Ahasuerus 16:48, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Let's all try to stop criticizing unpaid volunteers and concentrate on literature, shall we? --Username 14:05, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
I'd like to chime in here. First (to get it out of the way), it's not because notes aren't read by most people that they shouldn't be entered - after all, there are people interested in knowing the source of the information available on ISFDB. That said, and as I've expressed earlier, you're doing a fine job of unearthing missing data. And it would make a hell of a lot of difference for us moderators (and for you too, since your submissions would be processed much faster) if you would add notes for us and other users along the lines Annie clarified above. It may get some used to, but I can't imagine that that would be an unsurmountable problem - at least from my perspective a win-win. Regards, MagicUnk 14:17, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Peter Sellers (I)

What is the source for this update. There is not a single site listed OR a moderator note. Considering that this was sent in the last few minutes after you were reminded about the rules again, this looks like a deliberate refusal to actually follow the rules of participation on the site. Annie 14:51, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

This is another example of how unsourced submissions waste everyone's time. It took me a number of Google searches and multiple minutes to find a source confirming that Peter Sellers (I) is the same person as the famous actor -- Contento's "Miscellaneous Anthologies Index". Multiply it by 400,000 submissions per year and you can see how this is not a viable way of entering data into the database.
BUREAUCRAT WARNING: If you continue refusing to clearly state where the data comes from in Notes, it will not only delay the processing of your submissions, but it will also fall under the "non-constructive or disruptive" clause of ISFDB:Policy. Ahasuerus 16:09, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
I had an edit approved by a moderator recently where I discovered the Peter Sellers who wrote "The Wastrel" was the famous actor but was mistakenly in the same record as the Peter Sellers who wrote genre fiction in the 80's and 90's. The anthology where "The Wastrel" appears, https://archive.org/details/knightsofmadness0000unse, has an intro by Peter Haining on p. 228 of the book confirming it's Sellers the actor, not the writer. Now that a separate record has been created for Sellers the actor I figured it would be good to fill in bio info and provide a photo, so that's what I did. I'm not deliberately trying to be confusing, it's that some moderators are less concerned about exactness and trust I know what I'm talking about. As I said above, once backlog of my edits are cleared I'm going to stick mostly to adding covers and finding and adding info not found anywhere else on the current web, which is what I was mostly doing when I first started here. --Username 19:37, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification. I have added a note to the title record explaining where the identification of the author comes from. I have also changed "Peter Sellers (I)" to "Peter Sellers (actor)" as per Help:How to separate two authors with the same name, which prioritizes the use of profession for disambiguation purposes. Ahasuerus 09:46, 13 April 2021 (EDT)

And the Darkness Falls

Another one with no source (thanks for adding the note though): And the Darkness Falls.

Where did you see the front flap?
As per the help page for covers: "The cover designer (as opposed to the cover artist) is only entered in this field if he or she also did (parts of) the cover art. Otherwise the cover designer can be recorded in the note field." If the only credit on this flap is for the design, then a cover is not added. If there is another credit somewhere, please provide a source.

The edit will need to be rejected (so we do not create a cover that then will need to be cleaned up) but if you provide a link where the flap is visible, I will edit the book after that to include both the Jacket design information and the source. Thanks! Annie 15:01, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

I added external ID for Fantlab, which I was told to do by you recently, so I thought it was obvious where I got info from, but here it is: https://fantlab.ru/edition131050. See photo 6. --Username 19:40, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Adding an ID does not replace the note explaining the source. In the case of FantLab it provides the link that is required so that you can then attribute the exact information to them in the notes. Edit rejected and note and external ID added again as explained above. Let me know if you have any questions. Annie 19:50, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Open library and covers

When you find the cover there, please also add the Open Library ID into the external IDs. While the links on the left usually lead to the Open Library book correctly (if there is an ISBN to use), this is not true for older books or in some cases where the ISBN is reused or Open Library has more than one version for this ISBN. No need to add a note unless there is something interesting in the record. See how I did it here. Thanks! :) Annie 17:02, 13 April 2021 (EDT)

I've probably already added several covers from that site since the one you linked, but when I use their covers in future I'll try to remember to add the ID. --Username 17:07, 13 April 2021 (EDT)
I'll add them to any I am approving if they cross my path. While it is not critical, it helps for non-verified books (showing that we are not the only ones believing that the book exists for example) and sometimes provide interesting details we lack (and which can go into the notes) :) Thanks! Annie 17:13, 13 April 2021 (EDT)
Same request for FantLab covers (with the same reason). Fixed here. Thanks! Annie 17:32, 13 April 2021 (EDT)

(unindent) One small note on Fantlab images. When you copy them directly, they contain at the end a session information (?r=1603912742 for example). Pull that out (anything after the ? and the ? itself) - while keeping them does not seem to cause any issues at the moment, it is unclear if it might in the future (the same reason why we clean Amazon images from all Amazon formatting). Thanks! Annie 17:20, 13 April 2021 (EDT)

Nine Rocks / Internet Archive links

Hello. Just an FYI - we record titles as they appear in the book. In the Nine Rocks case in this pub, this means that a new Nine Rocks title needed to be created, and then varianted to the original Nine Rocks in a Row title (I've done that here, have a look)

Also, when you are retrieving information from an Internet Archive copy, please add the link to the Webpages multifield iso buried into the Note to moderators. Thanks! MagicUnk 16:48, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

The Song in the House

When you have a link such as https://www.amazon.co.uk/Song-House-Ann-BRIDGE/dp/B003AQ2G5I (an ASIN based Amazon link), there are two ways to record it in a publication.

  • If it belongs to the book itself, as was here, just record the ASIN in the ASIN field and then just mention Amazon (the correct one of the 16) in the notes (which you did here already).
  • If you are using it for a credit but the link is NOT for this edition, you can use a template instead: {{ASIN|B003AQ2G5I}} for example. All templates can be found here.

As a rule, Amazon links are not to be recorded in the Webpages links - they are either ISBN10 based (in which case the ISBN carries them) or ASIN based (then we use the ASIN field). I fixed it in the linked book. Thanks for finding this one! Please note that the ASIN field is only used for ASINs starting with B, the number only ones are ISBN10 and we already have that higher on the page. Let me know if you have any questions. Annie 20:19, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

The Forgetful Robot

Does "page #" here means the "Pages" field or the page number for each story (aka the contents page numbers)? Also - let's use the word "number" and not "#" in sentences in the notes. :) Annie 20:50, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

Contents page numbers. --Username 20:53, 14 April 2021 (EDT)
Note updated. Thanks! Annie 21:44, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

The Ghost Story Treasury

What is the source for this variant? As one of the anthologies has no contents, we need a source either with contents or showing one of them as a reissue of the other. Thanks! Annie 22:07, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

I found this, http://www.locusmag.com/index/b444.htm, which mentions first U.S. edition, so I think they're the same, just retitled; if not sufficient, just reject; children's books are often hard to get info for. --Username 22:34, 14 April 2021 (EDT)
Yep, that is good enough (the First U.S. edition (Kingfisher 1987) part at the end of the the US listing). I will add a note. Thanks! Annie 23:14, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

British Books with two prices

You left a note about this publication which has both pre-decimal and decimal prices. If you check this help section, our policy is to reflect the pre-decimal price in the price field, so the existing record was incorrect. It's certainly also appropriate to reflect the decimal price in the notes. I'll correct this record, but wanted to call the standard to your attention. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:43, 15 April 2021 (EDT)

It's for You

Where is the contents here coming from? The Moderator note explains where the two dates are coming from but nothing about the rest of the stories or where the page numbers are coming from. Thanks! Annie 13:16, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

https://www.amazon.com/Its-You-Keith-Minnion/dp/1950565084; (Look Inside). --Username 15:13, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
Approved with one note: here the date should be 2006, not 1989. We date the first appearance under that title. So I fixed that. And for the other story: we date when something is published officially; copyright and posting online can be added to the notes but are not used for dating. :) Thanks for finishing the contents. Annie 15:21, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

What Is Dungeons and Dragons?

If I approve this, it will change the data in a verified book. The PV is active so can you please discuss the change with him? If the credits are different, we will need variants. If they are the same, we need to fix BOTH the title records and the publications (once created, they need to be changed separately). Thanks! Annie 13:23, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

Apologies for interrupting, but FWIW, I had a copy of this as a kid (it may even still be lurking in a box somewhere at my parents' house) and I recall it having the 3 authors listed in this edit. My vague memory tells me that there wasn't much ISFDB-relevant in it though - maybe a chapter about fictional inspiration for RPGs - so I doubt it would be accepted as a new submission nowadays.
I notice John Butterfield also has a bunch of earlier artwork for US pubs (at least the ones I've checked). I'm pretty sure that will be a different person - my (again very vague) recollection of this book is that the authors were all recent graduates from the same UK university, so it seems unlikely this person was also doing pro-art for US publishers 3-4 years earlier. I don't know how/where you might be able to prove that though... ErsatzCulture 13:57, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
Which is fine and I do not disbelieve the edit. BUT there is an active PV on one of the books and the site policies and common courtesy require someone to talk to them because they have the book and can open it and check (despite being Transient - it was January 2021 so there is a chance they still have access or remember better than someone who saw it last century ... :) Annie 14:12, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
And yeah - seems like two different people. Let me do some more digging. Annie 14:39, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

The Companion

I thought we agreed above that this kind of updates will have notes added as well. I approved the previous one and added the note. I will approve this one and update again but can you please ADD notes? Thanks! Annie 16:37, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

I've been trying to add more notes since the above discussion but an edit that includes only a price that's on the cover which is on the ISFDB record and wasn't entered by prior editor for whatever reason doesn't require a note; notes are for info not visible like copyright pages and hardcover prices and whatnot. This series had the same price for all 15 books so price was obvious, anyway. I do so many of these edits every day that it's very tiring to remember to enter every last note and external ID and whatever else you all want, but I have been adding more. Perhaps it would be better if you just reject anything that you find something wrong with and explain what you need in the rejection note rather than sending message after message on my talk page. Or maybe you should confine your approval of my edits to only cover images which don't require anything else and leave the other edits to someone else. Unlike someone who I read on ISFDB recently who was complaining about how long it was taking to approve his edits, I really don't care how long it takes. I just add entries constantly, and when moderators approve them, they approve them. Take as long as you want. --Username 17:02, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
And all that can be added to the notes. I've mentioned before that there are users who have vision issues and some covers are not very clear. Adding a note takes a few seconds - either from your time or from someone else's. Asking a moderator to do it because you cannot be bothered is not very nice. No moderator should be approving edits with no clear sources in the notes - and some had been reminded to be careful around your edit because of your refusal to add notes. So if you ask the moderator team to reject any incomplete edits from you, we can do that easily enough. Instead I am trying to work with you so you do not lose your time finding information that will be rejected later. If you prefer straight rejections with explanation instead, sure - that works as well :) Annie 17:09, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
I would prefer any edit I make from now on that you find fault with to be rejected with a note saying what was wrong with it rather than sending a message to my talk page which is now extremely long; I'm tired of seeing that yellow bar pop up with another message complaining about something. My info is almost always correct because I verify every edit I make, so the problem is not with the quality but the process. I've noticed since our discussion above that I'm slowly moving away from adding hardcover flap prices and exact months and all the other minutiae I've been doing the last few months and going back to adding more cover images and finding rare info nobody else can like I was when I started, so sometime soon these "adding notes" talks will be moot because I won't be doing anything that requires them, anyway. --Username 17:33, 16 April 2021 (EDT)
One thing that I believe I mentioned earlier is that cover scan hosted by third party sites, including Amazon, can be transient. We have seen thousands of image URLS die over the years.
On the other hand, the data that we store in the ISFDB database is backed up once a day, except for images, which are backed up once a week. We make our backups publicly available once a week and many people (all over the world) faithfully download them. In addition, our software is publicly available. Nothing short of a worldwide disaster on the level of dinosaur-killing asteroid will make it impossible to rebuild the ISFDB database. Think of any Note text that you add as your own personal slice of immortality :-)
Re: price visibility, are you saying that you can easily read the price printed on this cover scan? If you are, you are better at pattern recognition that most humans. All I see is blurry white lines. Ahasuerus 17:49, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

Swamp Witch

Please talk to the PV here. This kind of changes should always be discussed with the PVs as you had been reminded more than once. Sometimes it may turn out that they have a slightly different edition than the one you found online. That's why we have the PV system. Thanks! Annie 16:47, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

I cancelled my submission. --Username 17:05, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

Wikipedia as a source

Hi. A word of warning about Wikipedia as a source: You can't necessarily trust information in Wikipedia articles. It's best to look at the cited references and try to find the original source for the information in the article. We need to be careful about propagating assumptions and/or outright errors. For example, your proposed date change for The Hunt for Red October based on Wikipedia's October 1, 1984. I poked around a little, and it's not clear October 1 is correct or the article's source for it. The Tom Clancy site does say October 1, but the ISNI Press site says October 2.

BTW, I don't see why we shouldn't have listings for publications of that title. I'm checking to see what others think. I have your edit on hold. Assuming we should have publication records, a record for the first edition would be a better place to try to explain the above dating disagreement than in the title record. --MartyD 08:31, 18 April 2021 (EDT)

p.s. I got reminded of why we don't have publication records.... :-) Oh well. So I accepted the submission but removed the day (so just dated October 1984), and I added a note stating the publication date is uncertain, explaining the discrepancy and linking the above sources. --MartyD 10:14, 18 April 2021 (EDT)
The Catalog of Copyright #TX0001475353 puts 1984-10-03 as the official registered date of publication. The registration was accepted on 1984-10-29.Jim 10:03, 22 April 2021 (EDT)
Nice find. I expanded the notes, adding that, with this link (probably not permanent, but it looks likely to get a permanent replacement someday). --MartyD 12:22, 24 April 2021 (EDT)

Linking translations

To link a translation to the original title, we use "Make This Title a Variant" -- the translation is the "child"/variant, and the original is the "parent"/canonical title. So where you discovered the missing introduction in Cold House, the linking necessarily had to wait for the approval of your submission that added it. Then one could go to Einleitung (Das kalte Haus) and make it the variant of the newly added title, which I have done. Now both of the titles show the relationship to the other, and if you take a look at Das kalte Haus, you'll see the German introduction is annotated as a translation of Ketchum's English introduction.

The complementary scenario exists when adding a new title that's a translation of an existing title -- the relationship between new and existing needs to be established in the other direction, but doing so still has to wait for the new title to be created. So what you did with making a note to the moderator about the translation relationship between the new title and the existing title is perfect; the moderator processing the submission can know to go make the variant relationship while processing the submission. --MartyD 08:45, 18 April 2021 (EDT)

Quest: 1972 Exorcism(s)

I can see the covers on the edition of Exorcism you submitted and on the previously existing record are different, with both clearly showing the W101Z, $1.25 and Lexington Press. It would be interesting to know how those two editions are related. --MartyD 07:56, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

Yes, it would; the publisher has no other books on ISFDB. This, http://www.bradmiddleton.ca/2020/02/exorcism-1971-by-eth-natasor-was-it.html, gives a good review of the book but just mentions the "alternate cover"; the reason I added that cover here is because it's an actual cover and not just some text on a black background like the other one, plus it's really stupid. I see that searching on Worldcat for "all editions" gives a 1972 Lexington House ed. but also a 1974 Manor Books ed., which I see you added 2 printings of, but Worldcat says the later ed. is also 190 pages, so you may want to add that, too; searching for Eth Natas gives only 2 hits, this book and an encyclopedia article which gives an error page if you click on it; searching for a Lexington House in Jamaica, N.Y. gives only this book so apparently they were one-and-done. This, https://www.etsy.com/listing/938956379/exorcism-witchcraft-possession-the-dead, shows the back cover of the Manor ed.; this, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exorcism-Eth-Natas/dp/0532122062, gives an ISBN. Hope this helps, MartyD. --Username 10:53, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

John R. Holt pseudonym of Raymond Giles?

I stumbled upon this LibraryThings statement. Currently those two authors are not linked with each other in the ISFDB. Do you agree that John R. Holt is a pseudonym of Raymond Giles? Thanks! MagicUnk 16:04, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

Yes. It's mentioned several places on the web, but this is a good one: https://darkeyesoflondon.blogspot.com/2020/12/. --Username 16:33, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

Thanks for the confirmation. I've linked both authors and made Giles the canonical name. Regards, MagicUnk 17:16, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

Judgement vs. Judgment

Hello. I have your edit on hold for a moment. Could you check with SFJuggler (by leaving a note on his talk page) whether it's indeed a typo, or if it's written as Judgement Day on the title page instead? Thanks! MagicUnk 16:12, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

PV said it's his typo, and my edit is correct. --Username 17:27, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

And approved! MagicUnk 17:37, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

The Fifth Season

On your submissions for "The Fifth Season" and "People of the Night". Looking at the pictures, both sure look like they are stapled and are therefor ph. And all the stories in "The Fifth Season" should be short stories; how can any story in a collection 40 pages long be anything else? Bob 15:20, 27 April 2021 (EDT)

Timothy Mulcahy

What is the source for this? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2021 (EDT)

He has a website, timmulcahy.com, but I don't see any definite links between the stories in both records on ISFDB, so it can be rejected. --Username 11:43, 9 May 2021 (EDT)
Yeah, unfortunately that website only mentions the "Birth Screams of Angels" story. I added the website to Tim Mulcahy based on that, but rejected the variant. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

A Different Drummer

Regarding this submission: Is the Internet Archive copy you found this one? Or is there another version I'm not seeing? The reason I ask is that is a copy of the third printing per the number line so it's not clear if the date is for the original printing or that third printing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (EDT)

That's the one; the foreword is copyright 1989 so it's a new edition, but it also says the original Anchor edition was 1969, which is also on ISFDB with no cover; looking online it seems to have a different cover, so they updated a few things for this one. I almost added the wrong cover to the 1989 book because Amazon had some other cover which is for another edition. You may be right about the third printing, but the price other editor entered was much higher than the 1 on the archive.org copy, so why would the 1st printing be more expensive than the 3rd? Also, there's a note about Amazon saying it's from May 1990, so I'm not sure about all this, but since PV is no longer active and my info came from an actual copy of the book, I think we should go with mine, and if someone else has a copy of the first printing with a 1989 date on the back cover they can always enter that on ISFDB as another edition; book on archive.org says 0690 on back so if PV had a copy of the book it should have a similar --89 date, but I guess they missed that and just used date on copyright page. Adding a note that the archive.org copy is the 3rd printing would be good, too. --Username 18:04, 16 May 2021 (EDT)
The copyright page has "Anchor Books Editions: 1969, 1989" so seems like 1989 would be the correct year for this first printing and the "0690" would be for the third printing. The price is suspect, but prices can change between printings. Yes, it would be nice to be able to ask the verifier to double check the price and if there is a date code on the back. But as they are no longer active, we cannot and we have to go with the information we have. We create separate records for each printing so I have cloned the record and created a third printing. I sourced that to the archive.org scan. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2021 (EDT)

Incomplete cover

Hello username! It was kind of you to add a cover to my verified book Weltraum Nr. 1, but it's incomplete. In the middle of the cover there is still a painting. Greetings Rudolf Rudam 08:40, 17 May 2021 (EDT)

The Drive In The Bus Tour

I approved your submission of changes to The Drive In: The Bus Tour, even with the new cover scan. The original scan was much better IMHO. Bob 15:40, 19 May 2021 (EDT)

The cover I added shows full art including what's on the back. It may be a little glossy when small like a lot of small-press hardcovers, but clicking makes it bigger and much easier to see the art. ISFDB's policy of shrinking all images down has the unfortunate side effect of making a lot of covers and author images hard to see; some display better when clicked or opened in a new tab, some don't; this one does. And if the cover art is continued on the back cover it's usually better to use that so users can see it in full, unless the image is so bad that it's not feasible to use it. --Username 16:22, 19 May 2021 (EDT)

Black Dog / Queta Non Movere

Hello, can you provide source for your varianting statement here? Thanks! MagicUnk 08:45, 28 May 2021 (EDT)

I discovered this months ago and left a message on ISFDB asking if anyone knew more; months passed and nobody answered so I decided to enter it. The original edition of Dark Encounters and a recent Polygon edition use the original title, but the 1984 John Goodchild edition decided to use the title here, https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbchomeservice/basic/1961-10-12. I suspect they changed it because people these days wouldn't understand the Latin title so they gave it a more "horror-y" title. Online reviews that discuss "Quieta Non Movere" mention a black dog so they're the same story. There's a copy of the 1984 edition on Google Books and on Fantlab, https://fantlab.ru/edition219644. --Username 09:03, 28 May 2021 (EDT)
I've approved the varianting, and added a note to the Black Dog title record, stating Fantlab has this as 'Quieta Non Movere'. Regards, MagicUnk 10:57, 28 May 2021 (EDT)
I'm glad to finally get this info entered on ISFDB; one change I would suggest, though, is making the note refer to the BBC link I provided above, since that is the only hit I got when I searched on Google for the "Black Dog..." title and is probably when the title was originally changed. The "Black Dog..." title doesn't link to Fantlab on Google because in their usual sloppy fashion they list titles from 1963 edition on 1984 edition's page and forgot to change the title from "Quieta..." to "Black Dog...", so the only way people would know the title was changed is if they clicked on the photos from the book. Another thing is I decided to search Internet Archive for the "Black Dog..." title and again got only 1 hit, https://archive.org/details/Radiocorriere-1961-41, so there's 1 more bit of proof that this was the title they used for radio. Why only the 1984 edition of Dark Encounters decided to use that title is anyone's guess. I will add an edit now with the external ID for Fantlab so people can go there if they want to see the photos. --Username 11:32, 28 May 2021 (EDT)
Sure, feel free to add the two references into the pub notes (and URL in the web multifield). Regards, MagicUnk 06:54, 30 May 2021 (EDT)

=

The Making of The Wizard of Oz

Hello! I approved your submission of The Making of The Wizard of Oz and correct your wrong ISBN record. Rudolf Rudam 15:24, 6 June 2021 (EDT)

Danke. --Username 15:30, 6 June 2021 (EDT)


[no subject]

Where exactly did you get the impression that I have a problem with people disagreeing with me? That's a problem of yours, not mine.
It's difficult to get across subtle nuances online, but you seemed to get prickly when I asked if you were a moderator. Why? I was just wondering if maybe you could approve the change for me.
I'm just as good an editor as you, although not as prolific. Sometimes I make mistakes, but I catch them and fix them. I'm fully aware of every missing link in every issue I've entered, and why it's missing. You couldn't be sure of that, of course, and I appreciate you trying to help. I also really appreciated your kind words about my efforts to add Fangoria, and your offer of help. I wish I'd said so.
You say "tantrum", I say "prank". It's your six-month anniversary, and one of the better editors should surely have a biography!--Rosab618 01:22, 18 June 2021 (EDT)

Username? It would help if you answered those two questions, please.--Rosab618 04:28, 26 June 2021 (EDT)

When you forgive my sarcasm (which trumps rudeness!), I'd like to take you up on your offer of help with Fangoria. If you want to verify the issues that you have, or add anything that belongs, that would be great.--Rosab618 21:21, 28 June 2021 (EDT)

Jason Alexander

Regarding this submission: It looks like Jason Alexander is multiple people. The only record I was able to confirm to be by the actor is "Dad, Are You The Tooth Fairy?" (plus probably the two interviews). Are you aware of any others? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2021 (EDT)

The 1978 novel is not by the actor since he was only 18 or 19 at the time; the publisher has 5 books on Open Library, and 1 by Alexander is readable, revealing that author is a Libertarian Ayn Rand type. The art is all within the same time period so most likely is by the same artist. So the actor wrote the Tooth Fairy book and the 2 interviews are with him also because there's lots of info online about him appearing on Trek. That leaves the essay; no info online about which Alexander wrote that, but if I had to guess it's by the artist. --Username 18:57, 21 July 2021 (EDT)
Yup, that was my thought. I will divide them up. By the way, I moved your response from my talk page over to here as it keeps the conversation together. That allows someone else in the future to more easily figure it out if they have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2021 (EDT)

Dangerous Red

I approved you submission for Dangerous Red, but you need to clone the pub under that title and enter the 2003 edition in edition to the new edition. Bob 15:22, 3 August 2021 (EDT)

Moorstones

Hello, could you check [47]? It has two publication records with identical ISBN, but different publishers. (2nd one is the one you cloned here). Is this expected? Or must the ISBN of the Spindlewood edition be removed? Thanks! MagicUnk 14:57, 27 August 2021 (EDT)

I asked about this myself on Community Portal under "Moorstones". Since edition I entered came from the actual book on Archive.org I would trust that and assume the ISBN for later edition was taken from some online info that had the wrong one; of course it's possible they both use same ISBN, so someone needs to produce the Salem edition to check. --Username 18:18, 27 August 2021 (EDT)
The Salem House edition info is copied from Locus. They could be wrong about the ISBN.--Chris J 19:34, 30 August 2021 (EDT)

Delete notes

Hello! I hold your submission of Our Gang (Starring Tricky and His Friends). Are you sure that you want to delete all notes? Regards Rudolf Rudam 08:10, 30 August 2021 (EDT)

That was an extra note about the quote on last page; don't know why it thinks I wanted to delete previous notes, way the software works I guess, but it's an extra note, not meant to replace previous ones. --Username 08:46, 30 August 2021 (EDT)
I've approve your submission and restore the notes. Rudam 09:08, 30 August 2021 (EDT)

Grey Matter Variant

Hi Username -

I'm holding your edit to change the date to 1978 for the variant of King's story with the title as "Grey Matter"? Our earliest appearance of the story with that spelling is now November 1987, after your edits to the Pan publication. I'll also note that you really should have checked with the verifier of that book before submitting those edits. I had to contact them and make sure it was OK before approving them. They noted that there is a 1978 copyright date but, but the book doesn't indicate what title was used for the 1978 publication. I'll change the record to 1987 for now and continue to hold your edit depending on your source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:53, 1 September 2021 (EDT)

The story was published in an American porn mag and then collected in Night Shift in 1978. It was Gray in America but Grey in England, and since the English edition also came out in '78 that was its first appearance. I brought this up somewhere on the boards months ago and 1 of you responded saying that every book where the story appears would need to be checked to see how it's spelled, so now I got the ball rolling; others can check their copies or online and verify if it was spelled Grey in all other British publications, whether Night Shift editions or Pan Books or anything else. Sometimes I notice a book was PV'd and check with them first, sometimes I don't. I was on my way out of here recently until a hurricane and terrorists made it impossible for me to travel. The barbarians are at the gate, so the fact I'm still here is a miracle; that may not be true much longer. --Username 07:53, 1 September 2021 (EDT)
First off, stay safe wherever you are. You didn't really answer the question. You assert that all UK editions have the variant title and that it was first published in the UK in 1978. Where did you get those pieces of information? We do not list a 1978 UK edition. There is none listed in Contento1, which is our chief source for pre-1984 collections. Worldcat has one record published by Hodder & Stoughton and one by New English Library, both for 1978, but neither records list the contents. I'm going to reject the edit to change the variant date for now. If you have a source you can cite, we can revisit this. Lastly, checking with active verifiers when you are changing the spelling of content is not optional. You need to do that every time. It's especially important when you don't have a source for your information as it appears you did not in this case. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:39, 1 September 2021 (EDT)
www.stephenkingcollector.com/identifyingUK1st.html; www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showwiki.php?title=Stephen+King+First+Editions:Night+Shift+-+Trade+HC+UK; https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9047442.pdf (spells it GREY and even says what pages it's on); 1978 was NEL's HC Night Shift date; most King books were published in America and Britain close together. The reason why the British edition is not on ISFDB isn't because it doesn't exist but because nobody ever bothered to enter it. Sounds unlikely, but I've entered many editions by very well-known authors (Straub, Koontz, etc.) which should have been here but weren't. The Pan Book of Horror Stories definitely says "GREY Matter" because I actually found a photo of the contents page, and it seems that it was the only British anthology that story ever appeared in, at least as far as ISFDB says, so the only question now is whether all of the many British editions of Night Shift spell it that way, which seems very likely to me. So the British spelling's date almost certainly originates from the 1978 NEL Night Shift, but if you don't want to change it that's on you. As for checking with PV's, there was a time when I never checked because in almost every case my changes turned out to be correct, but eventually I started checking and have done so many times, but often I forget since I'm only human. --Username 21:31, 1 September 2021 (EDT)
https://www.booksandyou.in/product/night-shift1; the cached Google version still works, and includes a photo showing contents with "Grey Matter"; ISBN matches British editions on ISFDB but price is different, so it's some unknown printing. --Username 10:15, 3 September 2021 (EDT)

Bad Candy

Posted an answer on my talk page here. MagicUnk 14:50, 6 September 2021 (EDT)

Type change of The X-Files Book of the Unexplained, Volume II

Could you please confirm this update with SFJugger first? That would be appreciated. Regards, MagicUnk 14:35, 8 September 2021 (EDT)

I think you meant SFJuggler. There's nothing really to confirm, since the first volume is NF on ISFDB; he just made a mistake and entered it as a collection. Also, see this link under Non-fiction books; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X-Files_literature. If y'all disagree you can cancel my edit, that's fine. --Username 14:43, 8 September 2021 (EDT)
Thanks. I've accepted the submission, and added the link to the Moderators notes for reference. And it's not really about disagreeing (I'm impartial, as I don't have any interest either way), it's about confirming and ensuring a primary verifier agrees with your suggested update. Regards, MagicUnk 15:04, 8 September 2021 (EDT)

Adding covers found in other editions

Hi Username -

When you are adding a cover artist because the art matches that of another publication already in the database. Please don't simply add the name of the artist to the publication record. This will result in a new COVERART title record which will then require an additional edit to merge it with the other title record from the source publication. A better approach would be to import the COVERART title used in the other publication(s) into the publication where it is missing. For example, this edit would create a new title which would then need to be merged with this existing title record. Instead, just grab the Title Record # from the existing record (1140800) and use the Import Content tool (Option 2) to add the COVERART to the publication. This way, you won't have to go back and submit merge edits. Let me know if you have any questions. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:07, 16 September 2021 (EDT)

Moby Dick

HI! The official title is "Moby Dick; Or, The Whale" , would this be better as the parent and Moby Dick as the variant?Kraang 20:05, 28 September 2021 (EDT)

Wikipedia says The Whale as a 3-volume book in GB and Moby Dick as a single volume in America. --Username 20:12, 28 September 2021 (EDT)
Stupid Amazon has piles of books with that title! Should have read more of the Wiki article :/Kraang 20:38, 28 September 2021 (EDT)

Open library link in "Death and Resurrection"

Please explain the open library link here. It should obviously be in one of the editions of New Cthulhu: The Recent Weird. --Willem 03:54, 29 September 2021 (EDT)

Prior editor wrote note about wrong ISBN on copyright page vs. right ISBN on back cover; Open Library page for Death and Resurrection has no Archive.org link but the page I linked to does; my note explains about right author but wrong title. Clicking Preview shows MacAvoy's book. --Username 10:48, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
So write a more comprehensible note. No one understands this as it is now. --Willem 10:54, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
It's perfectly comprehensible. There's some other editor's note about different ISBN's, and there's my new note about how the Open Library page I linked to shows wrong title but right author. I don't usually link directly to non-public domain books on Archive.org because many of them aren't supposed to be there and often get taken down after complaints. I have a feeling you're just being difficult because of my refuting of all your hostile messages recently. If that's the case, you don't have to check my edits anymore. There's many other people working here. Or you can be professional and act like an adult. --Username 11:01, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
This has nothing to do with being hostile. Clicking the link you provided brings you to this page. It shows the cover of 'New Cthulhu: The Recent Weird' which is obvously wrong. How do you expect people to know that it shows the right edition after clicking through if you don't explain this in the note?
I'll be perfectly happy if you don't touch my primary verifications anymore, that would save me a lot of wasted time. --Willem 11:21, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
In order not to receive any more of your messages about this issue, I will add an extra note to that record explaining in exact detail that the Preview link must be clicked in order to read MacAvoy's book, for all the slow adults out there who can't figure out how to click a button. I also just added a message on Community Portal about this topic, so now it's preserved for the ages. You also spelled obviously incorrectly. --Username 11:28, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
As the other verifier of this publication record, I have to object to this. It seems completely bizarre to me to include a link to the OL record for the Guran anthology in the record for the MacAvoy novel in order to provide a link to the archive record that happens to be incorrectly linked from OL record. Why not simply add the internet archive link directly? You mention that you don't want to for fear of it being taken down. If it is taken down, why would the OL still have it. I also have to reiterate (how many times have I asked you before?) that you need to check with the verifiers before making this sort of change. Had I been consulted first, I would have told you not to link to the wrong book, and I suspect from these comments that Willem would have agreed. I'm going to back out these changes and link to the internet archive directly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:11, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
I don't know what's in the air recently, but you people are making way too big a deal about this. If you want to complain, complain to Prime Books for printing Death and Resurrection's ISBN in New Cthulhu. The Open Library page for Death and Resurrection has no Preview button to click, so anyone visiting that page would think the book is not readable at the Archive, so I provided an OL link to the page that actually has the Preview button which takes you to Death and Resurrection; wrong cover and title mean nothing, since it's the double ISBN's in the book itself that are responsible for the confusion. I've noticed you frequently add archive.org links to records for books that are not public domain; that's risky, since many are taken down due to copyright complaints; one of my first edits here on ISFDB was for a Noel Langley story from Saturday Evening Post that was reprinted in his 1950 collection under a different title; it still hasn't been changed because by the time I started editing here those issues were all gone because of copyright issues, so I was never able to prove it. So you can add whatever you want to, but when they come calling you'll have to deal with them. I don't appreciate your hostile tone, especially since I did a good thing by adding a link to a book that would have otherwise gone unread by most. Also, why would I contact PV about adding an external ID; I'm not changing anything you did. You rarely have anything positive to say and only message me when you have a complaint about something trivial like this; if I had a dollar for every time I've had to fix wrong info and saw your name as the one who entered that info I'd be rich, so get off your high horse. When I contacted your friend up there months ago to let him know I'd done some changes on a book he PV'd he responded with extreme rudeness, so if you want me to contact PV every time I make some change, even if it's unnecessary as in this case, then maybe y'all should learn how to respond like adults. I've been 1 of the most prolific editors here this year, and was ready to take a long break recently, until circumstances beyond my control put a stop to that, but if I continue to receive constant complaints about my work that may change. --Username 18:48, 29 September 2021 (EDT)

Please do not edit archived discussions

I have reverted your edit. If you need to post an update to the discussion, please don't edit the archived discussion pages. Very few people will see anything posted on the archived discussion pages, so anything impportant posted there will be unseen by most everyone. Instead, please post it on the appropriate discussion page as a new topic (in this case, on the ISFDB:Community Portal page). I recommend doing that for this one, and then link to the archived discussion like this. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:01, 1 October 2021 (EDT)

I'm the one who wrote the original message; finding the cover by accident more than 6 months later, I went back and added a note about that. Nobody responded during that 6+ months, so I doubt anyone cares that I finally found the cover; if they ever look for that book they'll see the cover in its record. I was writing the note to myself, as I've done with several other recent findings by me for old messages I left that no one ever answered, so that when I look back over all my messages as I do sometimes I know which ones were solved. No need for a new topic because the case is closed. Most of my very numerous messages have never been answered, so if I want to talk to myself, だから何だ? --Username 18:38, 1 October 2021 (EDT)
I understand. Please don't edit archived discussion, however. I suspect the one of the biggest reasons so many of your messages don't get answered is because there are so many of them it's hard for anyone to keep up with them. It might be good to make a user sub-page to keep track of them, and ask people to follow that. Then you can keep track of which have been answered there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:07, 1 October 2021 (EDT)

Translations

As you are venturing into translations, a few notes:

  • We need the translator up on the title level so we know which titles need merging if there are multiple publications. I fixed this one
  • We have a template for recording the translators - Tr. You can see in the example above how it is used. It is one of those "if one day we start recording translators" preparations. When you do not add it or do not use the template, it pops up on a report and someone will need to fix it later.
  • For Spanish, our external ID LTF stands for https://tercerafundacion.net/ - which is a good place for additional verification and data for Spanish language books. They definitely do not have everything but when they do, they have more information than most. So if you plan to work on Spanish, you may want to check them occasionally.

Thanks! Annie 19:25, 4 October 2021 (EDT)

I wasn't venturing into translations, it was just a random book I came across while searching for other things. I was surprised it wasn't here already so I took a shot at entering it; I entered most info correctly, and points you brought up are ISFDB-specific, not related to the book itself. I also was on that LTF page before I entered the info but didn't know ISFDB had an external ID for them. I barely comprehend English so when I enter one of my very rare new publications for a foreign-language book it's because it interested me in some way, not because I have any interest in entering foreign editions. I'm running on fumes here, so even working on English-language publications doesn't interest me much anymore. --Username 19:40, 4 October 2021 (EDT)
Which is fine - but if you do translations, keep these in mind. You had the translator, it was just in the wrong notes. So I am stopping by with an advice on how to reduce the number of edits needed later when you add translations. :) Annie 19:48, 4 October 2021 (EDT)

The High Holidays are over, but…

Forgiven me yet? :'( --Rosab618 03:09, 16 October 2021 (EDT)

Unexplained edits affecting verified publications

Hi. This submission is a good example of where you could save moderators a lot of work. You propose to change a title that appears in multiple verified publications, at least one of which has an active primary verifier. You provided no note explaining why (yes, it looks like an obvious misspelling, but what makes you think it's incorrect?), you did not check with the verifier, and the main secondary source -- Locus1 -- has the spelling as recorded in the entry. I did the Locus1 check, I asked MLB to confirm the spelling in the book he verified, and now I'm leaving you a note. Maybe others skipped over it due to lack of explanation and following of process; maybe someone else would have rejected it outright. But for me, what could have taken a few seconds to process has turned into many minutes (and I'm still not done with it). --MartyD

Well, there's this, [48], where it's spelled SLEAZY, and there's also this, https://www.amazon.com/Peaceable-Kingdom-Jack-Ketchum/dp/1477806547, where searching inside gives 1 hit for SLEAZY but no hits for SLEASY, and there's a note saying the 47North edition was taken directly from the Leisure edition, so the spelling would be the same there, too. There's also the fact that searching Google for the title with the wrong spelling only lists a handful of sites, with ISFDB first and Locus next, with the few other sites obviously having taken their info directly from ISFDB. So what probably happened, as happens very often, is Locus lists wrong info (like every other online site), editor here copies it verbatim without verifying from an actual copy, and the wrong info remains, sometimes for a decade or more, until I come along and fix it, as I've done thousands of times before, because I do check physical copies or online scans of physical copies and never trust what some online site tells me. Also, 1 PV hasn't been here since 2019, 1 is in German so the title would be in German, too, and the other PV, MLB, has told me before, as have others, that if I fix something like this to just go ahead without contacting them because in almost every case my fix turns out to be correct. Thanks to Username for fixing this; you're welcome. --Username 08:45, 18 October 2021 (EDT)
Wow. Thanks for the feedback. --MartyD 09:55, 18 October 2021 (EDT)
As we discussed in the past, this information should be included in the submission. Moderators do not have the time to replicate this kind of in-depth research and there is no reason to force them to re-do something that you have already done. As the New Publication Web page says in the "Source of Data" section, if the submitted data comes from "Other website, later printing/edition or another source", the source should be explained in the Publication Note field. Ahasuerus 15:32, 19 October 2021 (EDT)

Blue World type change

There are six PVs on this title, and only one of them was contacted regarding changing this from SHORTFICTION (novella) to NOVEL. Did you actually do a word count estimate? Your note didn't indicate that (rather stating only that it was "novel length in every edition it appears in". Please contact them and have them comment here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:37, 20 October 2021 (EDT)

I only contacted 1 PV because they're the only active one, as I explained in my note to Taweiss where I said YOU'RE THE ONLY ACTIVE PV. Also, a word count is unnecessary because every edition on ISFDB has a page count for "Blue World" well above a novella as described on ISFDB's Wiki for what constitutes novella-length. It's probably just the usual where it was called a novella when originally entered and then copied without anyone actually noticing it's novel-length. Thanks for fixing this, Username. You're welcome. --Username 18:09, 20 October 2021 (EDT)
Keep in mind that using page count to estimate the word count depends greatly on the font size, margin size, page size, and other things. Additionally, the page counts are referring to the collection it appears in. I don't see any instance where Blue World has appeared all by itself in any volume. Our listings show only appearances in collections. And while the page counts for this story (ranging from about 133-199) seem to indicate it's likely over 40,000 words, until Taweiss responds, we don't have any way to know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:26, 20 October 2021 (EDT)
Sorry for the delay. Traveling for work. With a length of 174 pages, and around 50K works, it's a novel. TAWeiss 08:58, 23 October 2021 (EDT)
No worries. Thanks for chiming in. The submission has been approved. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:38, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Freebird?

What was the purpose of posting a link to this YouTube clip, which I have removed from the Community Portal? Ahasuerus 22:17, 31 October 2021 (EDT)

I see that you are back, creating submissions and responding on Talk pages. I have put your last batch of submissions on hold. Please answer the question above. Ahasuerus 15:00, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
I'm not back; the Talk page I responded to was for a question I asked nearly 9 months ago which the PV, Chavey, finally answered by asking me for a link to the record I was asking about instead of just typing the title himself, so I provided him that link; the Shroud Magazine submissions were just a passing fancy while checking my recently approved edits and noticing that the contents of most Shroud issues are on Philsp.com, including 1 short story in the same issue as the essay I imported recently, which led me to import it (and changing the date to match) and then, as usual, going the extra mile by importing 3 Derek M. Fox essays I noticed were never imported, either (someone imported a 4th Fox essay years ago and varianted it because I became 1; I don't know if that's correct so someone else will have to decide about that). I'm not doing my usual dozens/100+ edits a day for the foreseeable future, but if I feel the need to add something here and there I will. The title of the YouTube clip explains itself. God Bless America, Impeach Biden, Trump 2024. --Username 17:09, 2 November 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the explanation. I have released the hold on the submissions.
Let me reiterate and clarify what I said on your Talk page back in April and then again on Annie's Talk page on October 29. The ISFDB is a strictly bibliographic project. Some of our contributors are from countries which were at war with each other not so long ago. We have contributors from across the ideological spectrum. If we were to allow politics on Wiki pages, the project would implode. For these reasons political statements are not allowed here. Please keep this in mind and act accordingly going forward. Ahasuerus 17:59, 2 November 2021 (EDT)

Buzzelli's [A] Gift of Evil

Hi Username -

Could you double check the title page of this publication. Both Reginald3 and Worldcat have the title as "A Gift of Evil". I'll be adding the external IDs for those two sources. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:47, 4 November 2021 (EDT)

Reginald also notes Roman numbered pages through xi, though Worldcat does not. If you could verify that as well, it would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:51, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
It's Gift of Evil on front and back covers, title and copyright pages, and every left-hand page in the book; the Prologue starts on vii and ends on xi. --Username 21:56, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
I updated the page count. I also added a note about the discrepancy with the secondary sources which will hopefully prevent someone else from asking you the same question again. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:56, 5 November 2021 (EDT)

Screwup

Regarding this submission: The Internet Archive scan of the hc anthology shows the title as "Screwup" (both on TOC and title page). Is there a specific version you believe is "Screw Up"? -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (EST)

The scan is of Lansdale's collection; the anthology is 'Til Death Do Us Part, which is on Google Books; I believe I provided a link in 1 of those edits, but I can't rightly recall 'cause it's been so long. --Username 17:47, 21 November 2021 (EST)
Your edit would change the collection and not the anthology. Your prior edit, would create a new record for the anthology, but that cannot be edited until it is accepted. You were changing the original record which would remain the one for the collection. I have accepted the unmerge, rejected the title change, changed the new record for anthology, and varianted them together. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2021 (EST)
Dude, that was a quality stream of info there. I'll take your word for it that everything's correct now, so thanks. Variants are my kryptonite. --Username 18:23, 21 November 2021 (EST)

The Boy Scouts Year Book of Ghost and Mystery Stories

Regarding this submission: Thank you for finding this. For a number of the authors being changed, these were the only stories in the database for them and the author records had data. Due to how the software works, that would have resulted in the existing author records and their data being deleted and new ones created. To not loose the existing author data, I edited the author records instead. As I wasn't sure how this would impact your submission, I duplicated the changes in another edit vs. approving yours. Long winded way of saying, I had to reject your edit, but not because there was anything wrong - just an artifact of how the software handles author name changes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2021 (EST)

OK. EDIT: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1622565; I think that note isn't needed anymore since title was fixed; "Riddle of Bat Cove" gets no hits on Google while "Riddle of Bat Cave" gets a few hits; also this one: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1622555, where title was also fixed. EDIT: I just went ahead and did some cleaning up of notes, but whoever entered them had trouble keeping them uniform, with some including a name, a few including alternate names, some having no names, and eventually just getting tired of using the word "appeared". It was messy, but I think I cleaned up most of it; however, you may have to fix a few things in those stories where alternate names are entered; I noticed Whitfield's story had an empty record for Raoul, while Raoul F. was filled in. --Username 11:05, 25 November 2021 (EST)
Edits accepted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2021 (EST)

Psychic Fair

What are you trying to achieve with this edit? You are unmerging all the contents which would leave a blank record. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2021 (EST)

George M. O'Har published the PB Psychic Fair and then many years later it was reprinted but he dropped the M. Whoever entered these new editions didn't variant them to his full name and 1 edition was in the same record as the original while the other was standalone. I varianted the standalone and I think that's OK, but I thought the edition merged with the original had to be unmerged first before varianting it. --Username 15:17, 4 December 2021 (EST)
In looking at it some more, the Vivisphere Publishing edition still under George M. O'Har was a duplicate (same ISBN, same format, same date, same price, etc.) of the other. I deleted it. We should be all good now, but let me know if I missed something. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2021 (EST)
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?162842; I had a similar situation with a stray on some other book recently and a couple of mods had to decide how to fix it; I guess you know if this one needs fixing, too. After that, I guess this is all done. --Username 18:41, 4 December 2021 (EST)
George O'Har needed to be made an alternate name of George M. O'Har. Fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2021 (EST)

When You Look Down to Find Yourself Going But Not Yet Gone

There were no notes included with this submission for changing the date. The publication is PVd by Mhhutchins, too, and I don't see any indication this change was discussed. The submission is on hold until you discuss the change with the PV and provide a reason for the change. I'll keep an eye here for that. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:10, 6 January 2022 (EST)

Because the book the poems were first published in, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?263421, which is mentioned 8 times in the link I provided, http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2004/t20.htm#A380, when I imported them, has that date on ISFDB. Also, PV doesn't respond anymore; http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Mhhutchins. --Username 15:58, 6 January 2022 (EST)
Then please mention that. Just providing a link doesn't mean what's obvious to you will be obvious to anyone else. In this case, there are well over 100 poems listed at that link, so it's really not obvious what you are trying to do. If you make it easier for anyone working on approving your submissions, things will go much more quickly and smoothly. We shouldn't have to come pester you for information you could easily include in a moderator note.
As for Mhhutchins, yes, he no longer responds to posts on his talk page, but he suggests to either email him or post about major changes on the Moderator noticeboard, neither of which you did (as far as I can tell). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:31, 6 January 2022 (EST)

Cover for Dime Novel Roundup

I'm holding your submission to add a cover scan to Dime Novel Roundup. The image that you are entering is certainly the cover for the paperback edition. Do you have any source that the hardcover had a jacket with the same cover? While Open Library provides a link to the Internet Archive scan of the hardcover without a jacket, they do not specify which edition their record is for. I was aware of this image when I entered the record, but I couldn't find any image of the hardcover edition with a dust jacket. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:19, 26 January 2022 (EST)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/dime-novel-roundup-annotated-index-1931-1981/oclc/9649579/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true; all editions with covers have the same one. I don't know if that's proof, but other Bowling Green publications on ISFDB have same covers for HC and TP. If not enough, cancel. --Username 10:52, 26 January 2022 (EST)
Unfortunately, Worldcat frequently shows stock images that do not reflect the same edition as in the record. I actually think it is likely that the same image was used for the dust jacket, but without evidence we should probably leave the hardcover edition without a cover until one can be found. Amazon doesn't show a cover for the hardcover, nor does the copy available on ABE books. You could clone this pub and create a record for the paperback with the image. However since the Open Library record isn't specific to any edition, I wouldn't list it in either publication record. You could list it as a link in the title record though. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:37, 26 January 2022 (EST)
You're right; problem is I stopped caring about any of this long ago and am only continuing to edit to pass the time in a productive way instead of far worse things I could be doing. I've tried to leave several times, as I've explained somewhere on these boards before, but circumstances keep getting in the way. My goal is to eventually stop regular editing and only add an occasional edit now and then to keep me from getting the dreaded "no longer active" designation. The way things are going in the world now, especially in America where I live, this whole silly internet thing may be a thing of the past soon, anyway. You still seem to care, so if you want to do any of the things you mentioned above, be my guest. --Username 22:15, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Ian McKellen

Regarding this submission: Do you have a source for the author of the essay being the actor? Or are you just basing it on being the same name? -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (EST)

The image is Ian McKellen starring in the film Apt Pupil, based on the work by Stephen King. He played a former Nazi, thus the uniform. This, https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780753461075, mentions it's the guy who played Gandalf who wrote the intro. --Username 10:25, 29 January 2022 (EST)
Approved. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (EST)

Outlaws of the Moon

What is the source for this edit? -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2022 (EST)

The other edition by this publisher has the same cover; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3466. --Username 09:42, 30 January 2022 (EST)
When using a secondary source to add information (especially for a verified pub), the source must be stated in the pub notes. I have accepted the edit & added the note. In the future, please add the note. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2022 (EST)
The PV of the edition with no cover artist, Bluesman, hasn't been active for years, so it's not like I could contact him and say, "Hey, I'm importing a cover art credit into your book because you didn't bother to check the other covers on ISFDB and notice there's another edition with the same art as your PV'd copy"; I just checked, and Bluesman entered the American edition, too, so why he didn't know who did the cover for the Canadian edition is a mystery), and the cover art credit says the art is a variant of the Perry Rhodan art, so writing that in the notes seems redundant. But you must know best because you're a moderator. --Username 10:17, 30 January 2022 (EST)
Documenting secondary sources in pub notes is required per our rules. If you believe a varianted cover art record is sufficient documentation, you are welcome to start a Rules and standards discussions‎ to change the current rules. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (EST)
Done. --Username 10:33, 30 January 2022 (EST)

The Bus

Hello. Concerning your submissoin. For non-fiction collections that are wholly non-fiction, we tend to record these as NONFICTION, and not as COLLECTION if I am not mistaken. See Title Type rules that says, This type should be used for books that are predominantly or completely non-fiction, and A publication that contains both non-fiction and fiction should be typed by that which is predominant. You may want to ask a 2nd opinion though. Regards, MagicUnk 11:52, 2 February 2022 (EST)

The collection and anthology types require fiction; a non-fiction book is recorded as NONFICTION in the DB regardless if it is one complete text or a collection/anthology of essays and/or reviews and/or interviews (the difference can be noted in the Title notes and for the ones which contain smaller independent pieces, the contents is appreciated if someone wants to type the titles/authors). We also record all art books as NONFICTION (then the contents will be INTERIORART); a collection/anthology of cartoons (if eligible at all) will also be NONFICTION. This specific one is not eligible IMO - the author is not above treshold, the magazine where they were published is not genre (so we cannot even claim that it is a collection of art we already have in the DB (even though that is not technically a reason for a book to be eligible either) so it falls under the "comics, manga and so on" exclusion... Annie 17:22, 2 February 2022 (EST)
Per above, I rejected your submission, and deleted the publication record. Regards, MagicUnk 07:14, 6 February 2022 (EST)

The Tomorrow Log

What is your source for the inclusion of the essay here? Annie 18:51, 4 February 2022 (EST)

Cover for The Devil Takes a Holiday

I have put this submission, which would change a "sf-encyclopedia.uk" URL to a "x.sf-encyclopedia.com" URL, on hold. As I mentioned earlier, "x.sf-encyclopedia.com" are new and we need guidance from SFE before we can decide what to do with them. It's possible that SFE is in the midst of migrating all of their image URLs as part of a move to "sf-encyclopedia.com". If that is the case, then we may need to change all of our SFE URLs programmatically rather than hunting them done one at a time.

I have asked their Web admin about this issue and hope to hear from him tomorrow morning. Ahasuerus 21:53, 4 February 2022 (EST)

The software behind yellow warnings has been updated. As before, only links to /clute/, /langford/ and /robinson/ sub-directories are allowed for both sf-encyclopedia.com and sf-encyclopedia.uk. All of their URLs require the currently used "|" syntax. I have removed the hold from your submission. Ahasuerus 15:48, 5 February 2022 (EST)

The First Americans: Beyond the Sea of Ice

What is the source of the date you added here. No notes or other information was included with the submission. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 8 February 2022 (EST)

1987 first edition on ISFDB has that exact date; this, https://archive.org/details/beyondseaofice00sara, the twentieth printing or so, still has the same 1987 cover art copyright. They used the same art over and over again. --Username 18:18, 8 February 2022 (EST)
Okay, thanks. In the future, if you put that information in the moderator note, that will speed things up. Approved! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 8 February 2022 (EST)

Gray Matter

I'm holding your submission to change the story Gray Matter into an excerpt. Both FictionMags and Locus1 indicate that it is a story. What is your evidence that it was an excerpt from the authors subsequent novel? Is it possible that the story was later expanded into a novel? If the latter, it should probably remain as a story. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:37, 17 February 2022 (EST)

http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/graymatter.htm. --Username 11:39, 17 February 2022 (EST)

Magazine Serials

I approved your edits to Medusa's Head earlier today. However, I removed the links to the scans of the original magazine serials. They really didn't belong in the Appleton publication record as they refer to a different publication of the novel. For example, we don't link to the scans of Burroughs' serializations of A Princess of Mars in any of its book publications. It would have been OK to add them to the title record. However, a better solution is to add the three issues of Harper's as non-genre magazines and link to the individual scans there. I've done this adding each scan to the appropriate issue. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:28, 18 February 2022 (EST)

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that there's a bit more involved than changing the author's name as you've submitted here. Since De Grasse had been chosen as canonical author name, but there are only publications with deGrasse, the canonical name needs to be switched to deGrasse. To do that, the deGrasse titles need to be unvarianted from their De Grasse parent title, parent title is to be deleted, which results in the deGrasse titles being left. Then variant the Portuguese title to the English original (and I've also updated the deGrasse author record with the information available from the De Grasse record), and we're all set. Not sure if this is the most efficient way, but it got it done. See here - have a look and let me know this is the result you intended. MagicUnk 12:56, 1 March 2022 (EST)

OK. Honestly I've done so many edits since this one I forgot I did it, but since your explanation was complicated and over my head I'm sure it's correct. At least my feeble attempt spurred someone else to do it right. --Username 13:04, 1 March 2022 (EST)

Audrey's Private Haunts

I've put this edit on hold. Please contact the Chavey and have him check the title page for that story which is not shown in the Fantlab scans. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:55, 11 March 2022 (EST)

First Channel

This submission has been placed on hold as I cannot see where you've asked the two active PVs (Chavey and GlennMcG) to verify the publisher name change you want to do. Please invite them to comment here to verify this change. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:32, 18 March 2022 (EDT)

Like the Hodgson book below, I barely remember this, but I think I changed it because of the note editor left that says PLAYBOY PAPERBACKS. Also, https://www.ebay.com/itm/233000922106, which says the same on spine and copyright/title pages. I'm tired of contacting people who never respond or respond after a really long time or after they've been in and out of the hospital multiple times, which seems to be a situation shared by many of the mods. I think Chavey was gone for a long time and when he came back and responded to something I wrote him he was unpleasant and it didn't go well. I don't remember anything about the other guy, but I really have lost interest. You can accept the proof in the eBay link or contact them yourself or cancel it, I don't care. --Username 19:14, 18 March 2022 (EDT)
Seriously, let's try to work together here. You get all offended every time someone asks questions about one of your edits. The vast majority of the time, you're simply misinterpreting the text interactions here as someone being unpleasant to you. We're all trying to work to improve the site, so please start giving others the benefit of the doubt. As for the ebay link, if you had included that in your submission, I wouldn't have asked you about it. As it is, your note to the moderators was "OL ID, fixed publisher". Next time, please include your sources. It makes things go much more smoothly and quickly. Thank you for your future cooperation on this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:40, 18 March 2022 (EDT)
I don't think I was offended; to be offended I'd have to care. I was merely expressing how hard it is to remember 1 of these edits when I've done hundreds since then. I don't think I even saw that eBay link until a few minutes ago because it was obvious from the logo on the cover and especially the editor's note where they actually said who the publisher is. Your message prompted me to find it, so thanks. Actually, in recent days if a mod has a problem with 1 of my edits I just cancel it rather than bother trying to remember anything, since there's a hundred other edits I could be doing; I'm not sure why I didn't do that in your case; guess I forgot. --Username 19:51, 18 March 2022 (EDT)
Just a correction; while doing some edits this morning I came across something that jogged my memory; it was Mhhutchins, not Chavey, who was gone for a long time and then was unpleasant to me when he came back. I've spoken to Chavey a few times, judging by a search for my name on his board, and while a little snippy with his answers sometimes has certainly never given me a problem. --Username 08:10, 20 March 2022 (EDT)

Horrors from Haunted Seas

This submission has been placed on hold because you didn't include any explanation for your edits. You're changing page count without any stated reason, you removed a link to Archive.org which appears to be a valid link. You also removed part of the note which explained the subtitle only appeared on the cover; the Archive.org link you removed seems to support that note. When you make changes like that, you should always include an explanation for your changes. Please provide the explanations here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:55, 18 March 2022 (EDT)

I don't know; I've done so many edits since this one. I know prior editor entered partial contents years ago and I entered the rest recently, then after it was approved I noticed the page count in the Archive book didn't match ISFDB's so I changed it with a note about differing page counts on different Amazon pages, because prior editor got their info back in 2012 from Amazon which came from 1 of those pages with the wrong page count. I'll just cancel this edit; I barely have any interest anymore to enter new edits, much less go back and try figuring out what went wrong with old ones; what likely happened is I entered the new edit while others were being approved and some info got swallowed up/corrupted, which has happened before. Maybe I'll try to figure out what went wrong and enter a new edit. EDIT: I cancelled old edit and entered a new one. Who knows if everything is right now; it's all so confusing. I wonder now how many of my other edits may have been screwed up after entering them and nobody noticed, sitting there with missing/wrong info. --Username 18:36, 18 March 2022 (EDT)
The new one has been approved. Thanks for submitting the updated edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 18 March 2022 (EDT)

Eric Linklater Stories

What are the sources for this and this? In both cases, the pub notes state "Only stories reviewed in Bleiler, below, have been listed". With your edits, those notes would not longer be valid. When you make a change to a pub that invalidates the pub notes, you need to also change the pub notes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

A Little Green Book of Monster Stories

I have placed this submission on hold. I can see that you included this in part of your message to Ofearna, but this one has a different publisher (Macabre Ink) that is not mentioned in your discussion. Since you didn't include any useful notes (just "fixed pub."), and your discussion with Ofearna doesn't discuss this specific change from Macabre Ink to Crossroad Press, I don't know why you are changing this one. Please clarify. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:49, 5 April 2022 (EDT)

This has been sitting on my edit list for a very long time; I've done a thousand edits since then. I remember that several books entered as by Crossroads were actually by Crossroad, so I fixed those; I must have had a reason to change this one, too, but can't remember anymore, so cancel if you want to. Also, I just changed the other Leodhas collection to an omnibus, but there's a stray Gaelic Ghosts; I don't know if that gets cleaned up or has to be done manually or what. You or someone else may want to look at Leodhas' record after that edit is approved to make sure everything is OK now. --Username 14:04, 5 April 2022 (EDT)
You really don't need to respond with how you've done a bazillion edits since submitting this (or any other) edit practically any time someone asks you about a specific submission. We all know you're amazing. I'll go ahead and decline this one since you have provided no valid reason for it. If you remember the reason for this one in the future, we can always undecline it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:12, 5 April 2022 (EDT)
Hey Joe, if you're having a bad day that's your problem; don't cop an attitude with me. The reason I mention how many edits I've done is because when someone like you asks me to remember a minor fix like this one it's tough because I've done so many minor and major edits since then remembering something like this isn't easy; if I were like many other editors here who barely contribute or only concentrate on one specific area then I'm sure it's easy to remember, but someone like me who makes edits for countless different areas can't be expected to remember something from weeks ago when one of you finally gets around to approving it. It only stands to reason that in the enormous amount of edits I do every week a few will be dropped here and there; I don't really expect every single one to be approved. Rather than waste my time you and the other mods should be finding out why ISFDB is so slow, both on my laptop and at my local library; maybe those robots that Ahasuerus was talking about recently somewhere that were screwing with the site and making thousands of illegal pings still need fixing. As I've mentioned several times recently, I've been planning to leave here for months but personal/world issues keep getting in the way; if the huge number of edits I still do every week is any indication, imagine how much more I could do if I actually cared anymore. P.S. And yes, I am amazing. --Username 14:27, 5 April 2022 (EDT)
Quality over quantity, pal. --Rosab618 04:04, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
Rosab618: Your comment is not helpful. Please refrain from making unproductive comments such as this. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:06, 26 April 2022 (EDT)

The National Review Treasury of Classic Children's Literature

Regarding this submission: I'm in process of updating this record (adding the interior art, etc.) based on the second printing and then I will clone a new record for the second printing. I'm probably won't be able to finish until later today so may look incomplete for awhile. Letting you know in case you come back to it so we don't step over each other. I will also enter Volume 2 that Internet Archive has. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2022 (EDT)

OK. For such a major anthology the info online is a mess, but there apparently was a Volume 2, https://www.worldcat.org/title/national-review-treasury-of-classic-childrens-literature/oclc/56722009, which they didn't separate properly on WorldCat; the contents for V. 2 start after "The brownies' good work". --Username 10:07, 10 April 2022 (EDT)

Fantômas

Two notes on your edit to Fantômas. The listed LCCN number is legitimate. If you click through, you'll see it returns the correct record. The price as "35 cent." is given in centimes, which is 1/100th of a franc. I've updated the price accordingly. We use francs just as we use dollars for US price given in cents. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:32, 11 April 2022 (EDT)

Mountains and Madness

I'm curious to know why you replaced the cover image of [49] with an arguably worse one than that one I scanned and uploaded to ISFDB. --Glenn 18:42, 14 April 2022 (EDT)

I saw discussion about this book and discovered the title was different inside the book, so I added note about that, and fixed incorrect date some editor made in the note about the cover art; I suppose, when I found the copy on Open Library, I replaced the cover because that's the copy I got the info from, plus the colors are sharper and likely closer to what the physical book cover would have looked like; but it doesn't really matter, so I just went to the Wiki and replaced OL cover with yours again, so it'll be approved soon. --Username 19:15, 14 April 2022 (EDT)

Just a Suggestion

When documenting a source, considerer simplifying the audit trail. Look at Seeing Red for example. Your note requires knowledge of the internet archive, accessing it, then navigating to the proper page. A link in the webpages can takes the user directly to the information. I'll leave it to you to decide if the note is still necessary. You add a great deal of information, a good audit trail does not require you to remember specific edits. John Scifibones 21:24, 30 April 2022 (EDT)

Deadliest of the Species

I have put this submission on hold temporarily. You need to contact Nowickj and ascertain that his publication is the first edition. If it is not, then you should clone and create one. Either way, consider making 'Vox13' the publisher. John Scifibones 21:07, 1 May 2022 (EDT)

Cancelled and redone with just OL ID. --Username 21:15, 1 May 2022 (EDT)
Approved, John Scifibones 21:38, 1 May 2022 (EDT)

Nail in the Coffin

Source please. I'm not doubting the validity of your information. Thanks, John Scifibones 23:00, 3 May 2022 (EDT)

It's from the Fall 2003 Speculative Literature Issue of Descant, http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2003/t71.htm#A3356, which contains nearly 30 stories, most not on ISFDB, plus many essays. I'm not adding a note for this story because that issue should be entered on ISFDB, and there's already way too many notes on ISFDB where editors said where the story first appeared when the publication they first appeared in is right there on the page. I used to delete those, hundreds probably, until a certain moderator complained about it, so I don't do that anymore. If you want to enter that huge issue, be my guest. If not, just cancel my edit. EDIT: I just realized I did add a note, just not where info came from. Ah, forget it. I'll just cancel it; if anyone ever enters that issue they'll know where it came from. --Username 10:30, 4 May 2022 (EDT)
No need to cancel it, I think the statement 'first published' requires a source. We often see where a story was 'previously published', that doesn't necessarily mean it was the first publication. A fine point to be sure.John Scifibones 11:09, 4 May 2022 (EDT)
This is what I had in mind. John Scifibones 11:21, 4 May 2022 (EDT)
This notion where a story first appeared was established because this whole thing started not with the first publications (and that you are informed about the notes upon merging titles is a not so very old feature). Hope thatr explains why these do still crop up en masse. Christian Stonecreek 10:47, 4 May 2022 (EDT)
I've entered the issue here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:04, 4 May 2022 (EDT)
Jay Lake story has August note, if you trust that as right month. --Username 14:13, 4 May 2022 (EDT)
Updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:29, 4 May 2022 (EDT)

Strange Pleasures 2

Your submission. According to the supplied OL link & Amazon.com. The correct publication date is 2003-05-01. Change the publication date not the title date. John Scifibones 17:42, 5 May 2022 (EDT)

I cancelled it and made new edit with just OL ID and replaced cover image; there's no month in the book and no note about where PV, Prof. beard, got it from, or whoever entered it, but since some of the story dates are August the book obviously wasn't published in May; also August here, http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2003/t20.htm#A951. But if you want to find him and ask him go ahead, or discuss it on the message boards. Also, me and the person who PV'd this, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?19457, submitted edits around the same time; you rejected my updating of the date because they'd already done it, but somehow both our cover artist were entered, so you'll have to decide which one can be deleted. --Username 20:08, 5 May 2022 (EDT)
The pub was originally entered correctly by BLongley 2008-12-26. Subsequently the title date was changed. (probably because Amazon shows that date). When Prof beard PV'd the pub, I doubt he even noticed the title date. Regardless, I approved your new submission and added a pub note referencing Locus. Daughter of Darkness is also taken care of. John Scifibones 21:48, 5 May 2022 (EDT)

Yellow Sign introduction date

This submission proposes to assign the introduction a date of September 2000, but the publication in which it first appeared is dated July 2000. That dating was done after your submission, and from the pub notes, it appears to be correct. Your submission does not include a source for the September date. I think the current July 2000 date is appropriate and am going to reject the submission, but please review and submit something else if you think July is wrong. Thanks. --MartyD 08:53, 14 May 2022 (EDT)

I submitted an earlier edit for this book which was approved, and then this one to change the intro to September because it didn't have a month; month entered by earlier editor was wrong, it clearly says July in the Archive copy, so where they got September from is unknown, but whoever worked on this book after me obviously caught the right date on the copyright page. --Username 09:17, 14 May 2022 (EDT)

MacGregor[h] in Stories from the Near-Future

In this submission, where did you find the credit as "MacGregor"? The Look Inside TOC shows it as "MacGregorh". Thanks. --MartyD 12:05, 15 May 2022 (EDT)

MacGregor on copyright page and search says same on p. 43. --Username 12:09, 15 May 2022 (EDT)

The Many Deaths of Cole Parker

Was the story length here from the note on the author's website, or some other source? John Scifibones 21:19, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

That bookscxyz site I mentioned somewhere here recently has a downloadable .epub and when I printed it out it ran like 130-something pages, or checking the Google Books copy would probably run the same count, but if he mentioned it on his site, too, great. It might even be a short novel, if anyone ever cares to do a word count of the print edition. --Username 22:18, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

Adding partial contents

When adding partial contents to a publication, please include the incomplete template. The publication will no longer show up on the cleanup report once it has any content entered. The incomplete template alerts us that there is still missing content. Thanks John Scifibones 21:30, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

You didn't mention which book you're referring to, and honestly hardly anyone ever follows up any edits I do, so I'm basically working solo here; I usually complete my own incomplete entries eventually. --Username 22:21, 27 May 2022 (EDT)
I didn't mention the publiscation (Beach Blanket Zombie: Weird Tales of the Undead & Other Humanoid Horrors), because I went ahead and added the template. I was just reminding you for future reference. John Scifibones 22:35, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

The Long Last Call

Take a second look at this submission. Do we really have 2 novels in this one publication? John Scifibones 18:34, 28 May 2022 (EDT)

As with many later Leisure books, they added bonus short stories or novellas to the main novel, and in this case while it mentions the bonus novella "Conscience" at the bottom of the cover, ISFDB classifies it as a novel because of page length or whatever the criteria is, so yes, it's 2 novels, with 1 being much shorter than the other. EDIT: Instead of creating new topics I'm just going to mention these here: the Amok cover you rejected because ISFDB doesn't credit designers as cover artists, which I certainly know, doesn't fit with the fact that 3 other Amok editions have that person credited as cover artist, so I assume, as in many cases, the designer also did the artwork. Regardless, it makes no sense to have 1 edition with no cover artist but 3 others with the same cover with a credited cover artist, so it would make more sense to approve my edit or remove the cover credit from the other 3. Also, as with many small-press collections such as Stuart Young's Spare Parts, they include stories from obscure publications not on ISFDB, in this case very many, so I detailed those stories' histories on the main title page of the collection. There's no reason to include the same info for those individual stories in their separate records, and something also went wrong with one of your entries because the edit/edit history buttons are next to the story title instead of all the way on the right. --Username 19:43, 28 May 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for alerting me to the problem with 'Face at the Window'. Apparently an angle bracket got inserted into the title, fixed now. Notes regarding a story's publishing history belong in the story title, not a publication title. If I had any reason to look at the publication title record, I would have told you to move them rather than doing it myself. While these stories haven't been nor may never appear in another publication, the notes still belong on the individual titles. My rejection of the Amok cover based on the current PV's note is correct. I have reached out to Boskar for confirmation before removing the credit from the other three. Ultimately, all will be handled the same. Interestingly, Boskar initially entered the earliest printing, Stonecreek edited it and then cloned the other two publications. Focus the 'Username radar' and help me find a word count for 'Conscience'. Thanks John Scifibones 21:00, 28 May 2022 (EDT)

Santraí

Re: This submission. Why variant/ If they are identical, merge. Perhaps I'm missing something. John Scifibones 18:41, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

Seat of Inspiration

Re: This submission. If you look at the copyright page of Eros Interruptus it credits the earlier printing in 'The Urbanite, #6' as 'Seat of Inspiration'. I think 'Seat of Inspirations' is a typo. Cancel your variant, submit a merge with the above reason in note to mod. post here that it is submitted and I'll approve it. John Scifibones 18:52, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

On closer inspection, looks like you entered the contents for The Urbanite, #6. If it wasn't a typo, tell me and I'll approve the variant. John Scifibones 07:05, 2 June 2022 (EDT)

Is it a data entry typo or not? John Scifibones 10:18, 3 June 2022 (EDT)
I don't think I entered the contents, just the page #'s. Cacek's story titles are a mess, so unless someone can see a copy of that Urbanite issue it's hard to tell what the title was there, so I guess this should be cancelled until someone can verify and merge or variant as needed. --Username 10:24, 3 June 2022 (EDT)
Since we aren't sure, the safest course is to variant. We can always merge if a copy surfaces. Your submission is approved. Thanks, John Scifibones 10:37, 3 June 2022 (EDT)

Currency Symbols

In the future, please use the correct currency symbols; even in notes like this one. Thanks John Scifibones 17:48, 4 June 2022 (EDT)

I enter additional prices in Notes exactly the way they appear in/on the book, whether that's full or abbreviated country name or currency. If a book actually had an A, C, etc. in front of the price I'd enter it that way, but most don't. The idea is to enter info as it appears originally, not the way we feel it should look like. It's pointless to enter a C in front of a Canadian price when the word Canada precedes it; of course, if I enter a main price in the price field then it needs an A, C, etc. in front of it because those prices are displayed when searching; notes don't show unless someone goes to the specific record for the publication itself. If you like entering those letters in notes, to each their own. --Username 17:58, 4 June 2022 (EDT)
If you want to change our policy, feel free to start a Rules and standards discussion. John Scifibones 19:18, 4 June 2022 (EDT)
This is one of the few cases where we standardize things. Please use the symbols and abbreviations as noted here, both in the currency field and in notes. Thank you! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:59, 15 June 2022 (EDT)

Coal Black

Hi. Why'd you add the image here? Isn't it the same one that was already there? --Rosab618 15:17, 15 June 2022 (EDT)

I see your 2 edits in the history and my edit uploading the cover to the Wiki because there's no image on ISFDB-linked sites; the Wiki only has my name as the uploader, but there's been several times recently where I uploaded a new, better cover to replace an old one and it didn't do that because the URL of the image was slightly different than the old URL, and a mod needed to fix everything to make the image go to the right page so it will show up on the book's record. If you uploaded an image it might be on another Wiki page, if that's what you're talking about. The wait times have been getting longer lately for approvals, so there's a lot of cross-editing where an editor enters something and by the time it's approved a self-mod or mod has already entered it themselves. The image is there in the record, so it seems to be OK. --Username 15:33, 15 June 2022 (EDT)
On the 9th, I added to the record the image you uploaded. (Where did you find it, by the way?) I didn't upload one myself.
You don't see the image on the Wiki? That's strange. It's there.--Rosab618 15:46, 15 June 2022 (EDT)
Now that you mention it, I recall that after you asked me where I found it a few days ago (I think it came from here, http://www.alephbet.com/pdf/cat101-web.pdf; searching Google Images for the title and author's last name brings the image up, which is the only one I saw online that looked good, unlike the AbeBooks and Amazon ones), I noticed you made a couple of edits or something similar and I wondered what that was about. The Wiki has my name and a June 9 date, so I think it's that cross-editing thing I mentioned where you approved your edit adding my image from the Wiki to the record and then my edit doing the same was approved. The cover image is there, anyway, so I don't think anything else needs to be done, except adding OCLC ID, 2468107, which you should do since you can approve it. Price is missing, but unless someone finds a copy that will remain empty. --Username 16:02, 15 June 2022 (EDT)
There's actually a searchable Google Books copy, and by searching for author's name it showed the back cover which mentioned his place of birth and by searching for "seven dudes" it showed the title on the flap with the price next to it. So I've entered 2 edits for those, and I think everything that can be done for this book has been done now. --Username 19:20, 19 June 2022 (EDT)

Rubicon Beach

I've placed this submission on hold as you haven't followed PV procedures. The only thing that concerns me is the change in price. As the 2 and 7 are not near each other anywhere on the keyboard, it's unlikely it was a typo on the part of the PV, so we need to have them make sure that's the price in their copy. Since this editor hasn't done anything for about a year, please post on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard so the change can be discussed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:55, 15 June 2022 (EDT)

Across Paris and Other Stories

I approved your changes, but I question whether this image is better than the previous image. What do you think? John Scifibones 18:09, 17 June 2022 (EDT)

I did notice the same thing you did, so it wouldn't bother me if someone reverted or found an even better one; it's not like it's a rare book with a very hard-to-find cover. EDIT: I see now that I added the cover from Fantastic Fiction; 1 OL link has no cover and the other has a bright image but with a sticker on it. So if you're going to replace it you'll have to go to some other site, assuming you're not just going to revert to the old one. What's funny, though, is that the OL page with the stickered cover links to an Archive copy with no jacket while the OL page with no cover links to an Archive copy with the stickered cover. --Username 18:32, 17 June 2022 (EDT)

Fantasyworld

I approved your submission for Fantasyworld, but I removed the cover art credit since it was just a photo. John Scifibones 18:41, 19 June 2022 (EDT)

Dude, I don't know what happened here, but the Michael Trevillion Fantasyworld credit has no book under it and this, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5341881, shows I entered the artist's name where it's supposed to be; a few minutes ago the FantLab link was just that, but now that I checked again his picture is there. So I don't know what's up but I entered everything properly as far as I can tell; I don't know what happened after that. --Username 18:46, 19 June 2022 (EDT)
The empty title record has been deleted. The problem isn't how you entered it, but that it is merely a photo and we do not give cover art credit for a photo. John Scifibones 19:41, 19 June 2022 (EDT)

An Exercise for Madmen

I hope the title isn't a commentary on ISFDB activity.... For this submission, did you mean to remove the Open Library link or only add the WorldCat link? Thanks. --MartyD 07:26, 20 June 2022 (EDT)

My previous edit adding OL ID, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5340686, was approved recently but I made another one adding WorldCat ID and, because ISFDB has a problem with multiple entries, the 2nd edit thought I wanted to replace the 1st ID with another one instead of putting it in the next ID field. This has happened many times and I'm sure some info I've entered has been lost because later entries screw up previous ones. Mods or self-mods can approve their edits and then do additional edits but people like me have to wait, sometimes for a long time, for edits to be approved and I don't always remember that I made an edit for a book earlier that hasn't been approved yet. Someone should look into updating the software or whatever so people can make several edits for the same book and have new info added instead of replacing the old info. So yes, both ID should be there. --Username 07:37, 20 June 2022 (EDT)
OK, thanks. I accepted it and restored the OL ID. --MartyD 22:25, 20 June 2022 (EDT)

Mulengro: A Romany Tale

I approved the edit, but what is page number 'fp' in this publication? This is not one of the Special designations. John Scifibones 12:39, 26 June 2022 (EDT)

I asked about this on Moderator board, so we'll see what they think. Also, you made an edit after mine, "added link because the link in the previous edit note to moderator was the wrong jpg". It wasn't really the wrong one; I added Gorman's intro and Sproule's frontispiece and the photo shows both of those, so that's why I added it in note to mod. --Username 12:47, 26 June 2022 (EDT)
When I followed your link it only showed the frontispiece and the title page. I added the link to the scan of the limitation page to support your note. John Scifibones 12:55, 26 June 2022 (EDT)

Poe's Lighthouse

Please doublecheck the OL number in this submission. Are you sure it shouldn't be OL8825435M ? Thanks. John Scifibones 20:05, 28 June 2022 (EDT)

I don't think so. The OL I added links to an archived copy; ISBN is the same on copyright page, price is the same on front flap, etc. Your OL leads to a record which has no Archive link. I provide OL ID because I don't like linking directly to Archive.org as much (most?) of the non-public domain material isn't really supposed to be there. I do rarely link to a non-archived OL record if there's something on it unusual, but that's not the case here. --Username 23:16, 28 June 2022 (EDT)

UK prices during decimalization

I'm approving your edit to Hands of the Ripper. However, as mentioned above that during the period of decimalization, the price field should reflect the pre-decimal (shillings and pence) price. I'll correct your edit accordingly. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:15, 29 June 2022 (EDT)

OK, but the thing is that there are 21 Sphere books from 1971 here, 19 of which have prices, and only 5 of those have the old prices. So other editors weren't sure how to enter them, either. I'll see if I can fix any of them; maybe you can, too, if you wish. EDIT: I remembered this related topic, http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#Pre_and_Post_decimal_UK_prices, where others seemed to suggest the opposite was correct. EDIT: I switched old price from note to price field for Pan's 1969 Moon Zero Two after coming across it randomly. I have a feeling there are thousands of others that would need the same. --Username 10:25, 29 June 2022 (EDT)

Rakefire and Other Stories

Will you add a note to Rakefire and Other Stories stating the source of the content? I was able to confirm it but I don't know that you used the same source as I did. Ping here when you submit it and I will immediately approve it. Thanks, John Scifibones 11:40, 2 July 2022 (EDT)

There's already a note about data from Amazon and all the story titles and info about each story are there. This looks like a Fixer entry so I wouldn't expect a robot to notice that. If you want to specifically say where they came from you can do that; I don't know if the rule is to credit the reviewer by name, although he seems to have published the same exact lengthy review all over the web. --Username 11:46, 2 July 2022 (EDT)
I see the review now. Honestly, it never would have occurred to me to look there, I never trust anything people post in those. In this case it is correct. I might tweak the note a bit. Thanks, John Scifibones 12:16, 2 July 2022 (EDT)

Two Poems from Star*Line, May-June 1990

I'm holding this submission & this submission until you get agreement from Hkauderer. I see your link for one of the submissions. Be patient, he stops by and will answer. Thanks, John Scifibones 17:21, 2 July 2022 (EDT)

I don't know what he'd need to agree to, since the link I provided for the first poem shows the part I deleted was a dedication, not part of the poem's title, while the other poem I didn't include a link for is available at several places online as part of a sequence of poems and also clearly shows the deleted part is a dedication and not part of the title, but if you want to wait for him to say it was a mistake, OK. --Username 20:36, 2 July 2022 (EDT)
You are making changes to a verified publication. This verifier is quite familiar with speculative poetry. Obviously, he felt the dedications were part of the titles. It is up to you to reach agreement for any changes. If you don't care to communicate with him, let me know. John Scifibones 22:01, 2 July 2022 (EDT)
If you say he's familiar, OK. I'll wait; if he agrees, fine, if not, I'll just cancel my edits. --Username 22:20, 2 July 2022 (EDT)

Author Birthplace

When entering an author's birthplace, please follow these guidelines. I added UK here. Thanks, John Scifibones 20:49, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

The Summer Meadows

I have this submission on hold. The only edition of 'The Summer Meadows' on Google Books is the paperback. That's where I see the $5.95 price using search inside. John Scifibones 15:30, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

https://books.google.com/books?id=UHxBAAAAIAAJ; I searched for 5.95 and it shows the price. All the early-mid 70's Delacorte books on ISFDB have HC prices the same or slightly lower or higher. Using advanced search here I found no Delacorte PB and the first TP is 1987. --Username 15:47, 6 July 2022 (EDT)
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/UHxBAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0; I'm looking at the record you reference, the format says paperback. Do you want me to ask another mod for a second opinion? I'm not offended. John Scifibones 16:14, 6 July 2022 (EDT)
Click the link I provided; it takes you to a page with a search box under the book's title page. Enter 5.95, and you should see $5.95 in the results, clearly on a book flap. It's a hardcover; As I said above, Delacorte published no paperbacks according to my search on ISFDB, and the first trade paperback was not until 1987. --Username 16:22, 6 July 2022 (EDT)
You totally ignore what I say, just repeat your previous statement. The only difference between what we are looking at is you are using google classic view and I'm looking at the new view which gives the book details. The new view does have the hc ISBN (044008444X), but format says Paperback. A contradiction. I have released the hold. Another mod can review it. John Scifibones 16:43, 6 July 2022 (EDT)
I keep repeating what I said before because you're not getting what I'm saying. Delacorte, the publisher of The Summer Meadows, published zero paperbacks, or at least there are none on ISFDB. If you check Delacorte books on ISFDB you will see that all books published around the same date as this book are all hardcovers and all have the same price as this book or a little lower or higher depending on the page count or inflation or whatever. If there was a paperback edition of this book it would have a much lower price than $5.95, because mass-market paperbacks usually didn't cost nearly that much back then. And if the Google copy was a paperback then the price wouldn't be on a flap, it would be on the front or back cover like most paperbacks. Just because Google Books is confused doesn't make a difference; they're a huge mess just like every other book-related website, and have tons of wrong info. And the page I saw when I clicked your link looks completely different than the one I linked, and it says paperback on it, which mine doesn't, so I don't know what exactly you're looking at; maybe if you look at this, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22the+summer+meadows%22, you'll find the same page I did. I'll mention this on the community board so this can be resolved quickly instead of waiting around for someone to get to it. --Username 16:59, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

Requested report

You asked if there is a way to find the publications which have 'fp' in the page field. Ahasuerus has modified the cleanup report Publications with Invalid Page Numbers to accomplish this for you. The report will be available tomorrow morning. John Scifibones 19:08, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

The Unreals

I see you changed the format from tp to hc for The Unreals. I saw your note quoting the statement from the book. How do you explain Open Library, Google Books and Amazon all calling this a paperback? Also. here are two sale listings ebay and thriftbooks which both state the format is paperback. John Scifibones 21:07, 14 July 2022 (EDT)

I don't see your name in the edit history, so I'm not sure why you're so upset, but we here at ISFDB go by what the book says, and it says "hardcover". If anyone ever gets their hands on a physical copy with that ISBN and it turns out to really be a trade paperback it can always have the format changed back with a note saying the publisher made a mistake in their own book; it would hardly be the first time that's happened. Nothing online or in reference books is gospel; I've fixed countless mistakes that came from every one of those sources you mentioned. --Username 21:13, 14 July 2022 (EDT)
Whether I'm on the edit history or not is irrelevant. Also, I'm hardly upset. I merely question the change. Do you really think it likely that both the sellers are also mistaken about the format? John Scifibones 21:22, 14 July 2022 (EDT)
It's relevant because you didn't enter the format as TP, someone else did; if you were a PV then you'd know for sure if it's a TP. Also, I've seen many, many auctions where the seller just copied info from online but the photos of the book showed something different. As I said, the only way to verify this is finding a physical copy, and if it's really a TP reverting the format and adding an appropriate note. Then the question will be if there's a HC edition out there somewhere, or if the publisher scrapped plans to release one but forgot to change their copyright page. --Username 07:28, 15 July 2022 (EDT)

Internet Archive services

Hi, Concerning your latest note User talk:Pwendt#Doll Who Came Alive, and the preceding, and some other 2022 contributions here at ISFDB Wiki, let me ask a general question: How do you use Archive.org for viewing protected content in "recent" books? Is it an institutional privilege (such as I may have here, sitting inside a major university library building, a novelty for me in the last 30 monthsnot this institution)?

Or do you use this service which is available to everyone, or everyone in the USA or somewhere, with a "free account"?

| Log In and Borrow v | Renewable every hour, pending availability | (i)

I suppose it is this widely available free service that you have in mind, for ISFDB users who will make use of the "archive.org" publication webpage to view or even print illustrations. Right?

Or something else (although the one hour will be adequate for many ISFDB data gathering purposes)?

For books with protected content I have used only the "Limited preview // Some pages are omitted." In my experience that shows several opening leaves only. Even the back and back inside bookcover or dustjacket is omitted. --Pwendt|talk 14:07, 28 July 2022 (EDT)

Yes, there's a blue "borrow for 1 hour" button after you sign up which lets you view the entire book, and, if nobody else has it borrowed, you can keep clicking that button in case you need more than an hour. In this case, there's a weird black cover when you search for the book, but as soon as you turn to the first page the real cover is revealed, which doesn't look like the one already on ISFDB, even though the publisher is the same. I tend to stay away from these kids' books because they reprinted many of them so often it's hard to tell which edition is which, but you seem to have done some research judging by your notes, so I thought it would help in fixing some of it or adding more. Looking at it, the first thing I notice is that the page count is actually 76, not 75, because the last page of the story is unnumbered, so that's 1 thing to start with. I also see that the NY Times review of the 1942 edition cost $2, while this Archive edition has a $2.75 price, so it's not the original but probably not the 1972 edition on ISFDB because books cost more by that point. It's also an ex-library edition, and the first date stamped on the card at the back is '55, so that should help in narrowing down the date. --Username 14:23, 28 July 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for your notes on The Doll which I will consider later. I do have good access to historical newspapers and magazines, in my air-conditioned university library station --where I sit today but I have barely visited in 30 months.
Back to the technical matter. Last hour I enrolled at Archive.org using email address and password and I borrowed The Eerie Book 1981 edition P487344 for one hour. Today unable to give it much time, after one hour I did learn [a] what happens when/as time expires.
[b] What do you make of this, at The Eerie Book 1981? Upon borrowing I learn there are 224 images, presumably 1 to 224 ... Now I visit what appears to be the back inside jacket flap, as "218 of 219"! Flip the page and see image "224" and last! That one doesn't look as I expect from the back bookcover or dustjacket. How do you interpret these last two images "218" and "224"?
Today that's all I had time to view. But, yes, I do have the one-hour privilege now. --Pwendt|talk 17:32, 28 July 2022 (EDT)

Answer to your question concerning total no of pages

See here for your question - Answer: no, the same rules apply for all languages - looks like someone counted the three pages of advertisements and stuff. I've corrected the page no's to 157. Regards, MagicUnk 05:59, 4 August 2022 (EDT)

Deathbringer

Per your note to moderators in this submission: Search on ISBN came up with the cover for the 2nd edition - see [50]. Very difficult to read, but I'm fairly sure ISFDB cover scan of the first edition says 2246 in the right margin of the cover, whereas the AbeBooks scan says 2562 for the 2nd edition (same price for both editions, it seems) Regards, MagicUnk 11:47, 5 August 2022 (EDT)

The Dragon Quintet

Hello. Can you provide source for these two (related) edits: [51], [52]? Thanks!

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?31459; Don Erikson, the long-gone PV of the edition with the wrong cover credit, was one of the most common enterers of wrong info here; I can't count how many of his old edits I've had to correct. In this case, it's clear the Eggleton art is only on the Book Club edition while all the Tor editions use the same art, so I removed the wrong art credit and then imported the right one (Erikson also PV the Tor HC, so I assume he was just confused when he added the wrong info to the PB). There's no source, it's just a mistake I'm correcting, unless I'm missing something. --Username 13:57, 5 August 2022 (EDT)
Oh, I see. Approved. (I may have to stop reviewing and approving submissions for today... :). Thanks, regards, MagicUnk 15:27, 5 August 2022 (EDT)
Thanks. --Username 17:34, 5 August 2022 (EDT)

Please revert edit for Kingsbane

Would you please revert this edit [53] and remove the LCCN from External IDs? The note specifically says there is no valid LoC record which is why it doesn't belong as an external ID. Thanks! Phil 18:19, 5 August 2022 (EDT)

Not online, or not at all? MagicUnk 08:39, 6 August 2022 (EDT)
My only LoC validation source is the LoC online lookup but I would think that should be sufficient. Phil 17:26, 6 August 2022 (EDT)
Thank you. Phil 15:27, 8 August 2022 (EDT)

Independence

Regarding this submission. I don't see any attempt to contact the PV. The notes clearly state that the publication date is from a secondary source (Amazon.com). I have no problem with editing the disambiguation of the 'Author's Note' if you wish to resubmit. John Scifibones 17:11, 8 August 2022 (EDT)

MLB, as has been mentioned many times on these boards, has told me to just fix any minor mistakes because he made so many of them in his PV over the years that it's a waste of time contacting him about all of them. Also, most paperbacks wouldn't have the day of publication, Amazon uses the first day of the month when they don't know the exact date (could be the month before or after), and there's a later printing on Archive.org, https://archive.org/details/quantumleapindep0000peel, that says August on the copyright page. MLB wrote about both Amazon and the copyright page in his note, so I assume he just forgot to fix the date based on the actual book instead of Amazon. --Username 17:24, 8 August 2022 (EDT)
Of course, the actual publication does not give the day. That is the reason MLB added the note. (OL also agrees). If the date is changed, then the August 1 date should be incorporated into the note. For ex: "Publication date 1996-08-01 per Amazon.com as of 2012-10-15'. I hate to throw away data. John Scifibones 17:43, 8 August 2022 (EDT)
Amazon has always had a habit, when they don't really know the publication date, to just use -01- for the day; OL's info is often just copied straight from Amazon. The book's date is on the copyright page, August 1996. The only reason to include Amazon's date is if the book wasn't available, but it is, because he PV it, and there's an Archive.org copy. If the book was one of those that listed the day in the date, and there are some (usually small-press) books that do, or a later printing that mentions the exact date of the earlier printing(s) then the day could be justifiably entered, but that's not the case here. You can ask about this on the boards if you want. --Username 17:55, 8 August 2022 (EDT)
Books rarely give the actually day that a book is printed. The date that you see on Amazon is the date that the book arrives, I think, in inventory. Compare dates, page count, and prices, with Barnes & Noble. You can find minute differences. If you want, just make minute changes when you need to. Besides, my brother, who was a fan of the show, absconded with a number of my Quantum Leap books, so I may not even have that book anymore. Typos are my kryptonite, thanks for paying attention. MLB 18:11, 8 August 2022 (EDT)
MLB, thanks for chiming in. John Scifibones 18:18, 8 August 2022 (EDT)

Toast

this archive.org link is not for the 2006 tp edition. No page numbering, number of pages is incorrect, no cover illustration. This is most likely an e-book, self published by the author. I removed the link from my verified pub. --Willem 14:46, 9 August 2022 (EDT)

Yes, it is by the author, as he explains in a note following the copyright page. It's also the only edition of Toast on Archive.org, and it does have the same ISBN as the 2006 TP and is the only expanded edition, and hardly anyone knows it's there judging by the fact that it was uploaded in 2015 but there's still less than 1,000 views, so I figured the best place to put it would be in your edition, but apparently not. So now I'll just put it in the title record; the most important thing is allowing people to read it. --Username 15:09, 9 August 2022 (EDT)

Publication Links to scans

Hi Username

Please don't remove links to other scans when adding new scans, unless the original links are no longer active. I know that you prefer Open Library links to links directly to the Internet Archive, but that is no reason to overwrite existing links that have been previously added. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:52, 17 August 2022 (EDT)

The Archive links I replaced were all added by me; if someone else had added them then I would have left them alone. The Luminist PDFs I've been adding lately are all fully readable and printable, unlike the Archive copies, unless you have a 14-day pass or whatever is needed, and then they encrypt them and people complain about them all the time and so on. It's fine with something like Dalby's Ghosts For Christmas, where I noticed that you approved my edit replacing Archive link with Luminist PDF and then added Archive link back immediately afterwards, since there's a slight possibility that the Luminist site might disappear off the web and the only readable copy would be on Archive, but I disagree with putting back those lousy Dark Shadows Archive links with their menu and Jane Austen URL that has nothing to do with the books themselves, but if you and other mods feel like adding all of those dozens of Archive links back, so be it. EDIT: I see you just approved my edit replacing the 2 Google Drive links (that I added some time ago) for The Elemental and the Ace Double containing the infamous how-long-is-it? Falcons of Narabedla, that Luminist used to use for many of their books, with the PDFs that they've converted most of their books into, and then added back the old Google Drive links, anyway. Seems pointless, but whatever. --Username 10:00, 17 August 2022 (EDT)

Infinity Three

I accepted your submission adding this publication by mistake, so I deleted it. Here is the existing record. John Scifibones 14:34, 17 August 2022 (EDT)

Your question on image replacement

In this submission, you stated "I replaced the wrong cover image, which has the old edition's info on the side, with the correct cover with info on the top, but I had to replace it here because, as has happened several times before, the uploaded cover didn't go to the same page as the old uploaded cover, so if moderator wants to contact somebody and ask them to fix that it would be great" This behaviour you observed is a consequence of copying publication records to create another printing and/or edition. As a consequence, the image URL is also copied, but continues to point to the original cloned record. The only solution to fix this problem is either to go to the cloned record and update the image there, or, if the intent is to replace with a correct image, then you need to do what you've done here, and upload a new cover image and update the corresponding pub record. As far as I can tell, there's not much that can be done about this without significantly changing the software's behaviour. Hope this clarifies. Regards, MagicUnk 12:42, 19 August 2022 (EDT)

OK, but the last several times this happened one of the long-time mods, maybe JLaTondre or Ahasuerus, said they fixed it so it pointed to the right page. I don't know what they did, but I doubt it was just replacing it in the record, or maybe it was, who knows. I left that message simply because I was tired of leaving a message on the boards every time this happened and wanted either the original uploader or the mod who approved the edit to take care of it. In the future I'll just replace it in the book's record, although that still means, I think, that the old wrong cover still has a page on the Wiki somewhere. Also, why is the word "behaviour" in your message flagged as a wrong spelling, with a red underline? The mods' names have it, too, which is logical because they're not actual words, but shouldn't spellcheck recognize British spelling? --Username 13:09, 19 August 2022 (EDT)
Indeed, the old cover has still a page on the wiki - however, if no pub record points to it anymore, eg because they have been replaced with another one, it doesn't really matter if it does, right? You can ask a moderator to cleanup these orphan picture uploads, but not sure myself if that's really needed or expected.
As far as I understand it, if your system is set up to check US spelling, then it does that, and only that. MagicUnk 13:52, 28 August 2022 (EDT)

The Thirteenth Ghost Book

I'm holding this submission. Since there aren't any pages with Roman numerals, the Pages field should remain unchanged. The page number for the 'Editor's Preface' should be 7. (not bracketed). I see that the table of contents shows vii for the page number. However, from the first bullet point under Regular Titles Page -"Caution: Do not use the table of contents to determine the page numbers of a publication's contents." Resubmit and I'll approve. Thanks, John Scifibones 16:25, 27 August 2022 (EDT)

A word on the use of {{incomplete}}

Hello. Just an FYI - if you happen to know that not all spec fic content has been added to a publication (as you mentioned in this submission), then you can use the {{incomplete}} template in the notes field (unless you plan on adding them right after in a subsequent edit, of course ;)). That'll allow cleanup reports to list these pubs. Regards, MagicUnk 03:40, 1 September 2022 (EDT)

The Highgate Vampire

It seems to me that The Highgate Vampire is SHORTFICTION, not an ESSAY. Do you have evidence elsewhere that this should be converted? Thanks! MagicUnk 06:40, 1 September 2022 (EDT)