User talk:Waldstein

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Help pages
 * Help:Getting Started
 * What the ISFDB Wiki is for
 * ISFDB FAQ
 * Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
 * Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
 * Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

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

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data. 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 (~&#126;); 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! Mhhutchins

Lost Worlds of 2001
I have your submission on hold, as I don't think all of the chapters are separate short stories but indeed are chapters of an unpublished novel. The essays and the one certain short story make the classification of the book a little different. It should probably be a collection. I'm going to read most of it to figure out the appropriate classification. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the mess I've created. I agree that the book should not be classified as nonfiction and that the discarded chapters are not really short stories, or least never were published as such. I will try to do better with my next editing - if there is next one, as I am still rather lost in the complexity of the system. Regards. Waldstein 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please continue - it IS complex, but we're trying to improve Help and Guidance and sometimes even the software, and new Editors are often the best source of information about where we need to improve. Thanks for editing! BLongley 02:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, no 'mess' was created. The book is mis-classified. Being a collector there are often volumes which I own but have never read, and it does help to have other eyes help us see. New editors often ask the best questions, so don't hesitate to do so. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well! Read the book cover to cover last night/today and this is going to require the bending of existing rules or invention of new ones!! The short story "The Sentinel" and the essays are not the problem. AC refers to the other contents as "extracts". Unfortunately they are from an unpublished novel, indeed are different/discarded versions of an unpublished novel [and a seemingly untitled novel as well!!]. And this is not a chapter by chapter alternate version, either. In two different cases, one of seven chapters and another of three the two opposing versions are completely incompatible [one set has the premise of Borman being a sole surviver of the Discovery crew, like the movie, with the other having most of the crew survive]. One chapter gives three different versions of an alien landscape. Even if we invented an unpublished novel record to back the extracts it wouldn't be able to accommodate the various versions. Am copying this discussion to Rules & Standards. Need some input and ideas! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding and encouragement. I am afraid I can contribute very little, mostly in Clarke's bibliography, as I am not very well versed in bibliographical details or large databases. I suppose my questions would be far from helpful; but if I find the Help section unhelpful, I'll ask. I assume there's nothing more that I can do for The Lost Worlds of 2001. So let's see if I can manage better with a modern paperback edition of The Sentinel... So long. Waldstein 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From reading Bill's description, they appear to be fiction, so why not enter them as SHORTFICTION type? If each section, chapter, piece, whatever, is different, create a record for each one. I see that Waldstein's submission does that.  If a large percentage of the book is fiction then the type of the book should be changed to COLLECTION. The other option is to create a fiction content record titled "The Lost Worlds of 2001". I'd be fine with either approach as long as it's clear that the pieces are fiction. Mhhutchins 03:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Same advice here => one record per alternate piece of the SHORTFICTION type (do they have individual titles ?), the lot being a collection, a bit like this pub, although I'm not convinced by titles of the short stories. Hauck 08:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but though each chapter in "Lost Worlds" is numbered and titled, the blocks of material are not, and there are blocks of up to 14 chapters that are continuous in the narrative. Went into the record of [one] of the two editions I have and did a little experimental contents organization with notes. What do you think? I'm open to any suggestions to improve the results. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that satisfied with the (extract) part. To me, extract means that the material comes from a 'finished' (meaning published) product. Why not __The Lost Worlds of 2001 (part X)_, just my 20c here. Hauck 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Hauck here. Extract means it came from a complete work. Go with Hauck's suggestion about the title. (BTW, I don't like the word "extract".  It reminds me too much of ingredients for a recipe!) Mhhutchins 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Went with that as that's how AC describes the 'outtakes' in the book. "Part ..." works just as well. Re-did the same pub from above along these guidelines. And I take it the consensus is the title record should indicate a Collection? --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice. Hauck 15:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. I have just realised that my initial submission was fundamentally wrong as my copy is a reprint (November 1972) which is not listed. May I now clone the Signet pub, change whatever is necessary, leave most of Bluesman's notes about the contents (together with acknowledgment that they are his, of course) and thus create the Sidgwick and Jackson pub? Or is this the wrong way? Waldstein 18:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely clone, which automatically merges the contents. Don't worry about crediting notes, we all pilfer/borrow each other's work once in a while. [Saves typing, too!!] ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sentinel
I kept the 1983-11-00 date for "Introduction: Of Sand and Stars" - I know it's dated, but we go by first publication date not date written. I also adjusted the prefatory notes from NONFICTION to ESSAY - NONFICTION is only for book-length works. BLongley 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So I'll save all dates of writing for the notes. Waldstein 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountains of Paradise
Accepted the submission to add contents and notes to [this]. In this case the publication has already been Primary Verified. It is considered polite to drop a note on the Verifier's Talk page to inform them of added data. If you want to change existing data on a verified pub it is a good idea to ask/inform the Verifier first as sometimes one may think the books each person has are the same, but there could be small differences. The standards/ways of entering data have changed over the years as the DB, the software, and the editors have 'evolved' [the ones who have devolved are kept in the basement and only used to scare new editors...]. Much greater attention to detail is spent now than even three years ago, so records verified some time in the past may not contain as much detail as one generated today [or indeed a year from now]. In some cases the Verifier may no longer be active, but as familiarity with the DB grows, you'll recognize those. If in doubt, ask on the [Moderator Noticeboard]. Better than waiting for a response that will never come. The learning curve here is a little steep, but it's worth the effort. Read my first Archived page from my Talk page and you'll see every error known to Mods/editors. It's still fun! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I knew that, and planned to leave a message, but I got lost - again. But now I've found Ron's page and left a line about the additions I made. Your talk page would make a most entertaining collection of unique - nonfiction that is - short stories. Regards. Waldstein 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. By the way, should this also be done when there are previous verifications from other sources? For instance, I am now going to make some minor changes to a pub that you have verified from two other sources. Later I will make the primary verification. Waldstein 12:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is conflicting data between the actual book and a secondary source, I like to know that so that source can be corrected [Locus1 is an active source that can be changed by e-mailing Bill Contento and letting him know about errors] though of course printed secondary sources can't be changed. I still like to know of errors but as far as adding data to records that have secondary Verifications there's no point in notifying the verifier as they don't have the book! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Collected Stories of Bertrand Russell
Can you confirm that the majority of the contents in this collection are spec-fic (science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc.)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, at least I think so. I submitted the data because I saw that Russell's two volumes of short stories are listed separately and thought that somebody might like to know that they were collected in a finely edited single volume which also contains a number of other 'anecdotes', 'parables', 'dreams', 'cranks', etc. The two aforementioned volumes form the backbone of this collection, and they are very weird indeed. I guess the closest they resemble is fantasy. Waldstein 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask is that I'm not familiar with his work, and want to make sure it's not a case of "mainstream creep", i.e. one or two works of speculative fiction followed by several dozen mainstream titles, enough to the point that it's hard to determine whether this book actually should be in the db. I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, the case here is rather similar. I think this volume of stories is pretty much all fiction Russell ever wrote for nearly seven decades of writing. Even today many people consider it quite an embarrassment that an eminent philosopher should write such stuff, let alone publish it. I don't think the database will loose anything if you delete all collections from Russell: hardly anybody reads them today (save few passionate Russell buffs perhaps). If there were a database specifically about speculative non-fiction, there Russell would be something like what Clark and Asimov taken together are here. In case you decide to keep the collection, I'll add detailed contents in the next few days. Waldstein 21:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We try not to make quality judgments (otherwise, IMHO, half of the database would disappear!) If it's truly speculative fiction please add the contents to the record (I accepted the submission adding the pub.) Mhhutchins 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed - stick to the obvious spec-fic and ask about any borderline cases. It's easier to add stuff than delete stuff here - one bad edit-pub can add dozens of titles that need removing and deleting one-by-one, so we do get cautious at times. Anyway, thanks again for editing - if we haven't scared you off in the first week or two you're probably someone we want to keep! :-) BLongley 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case I will add the contents of the Russell's volume tomorrow. I hope the story fit the spec-fic genre; it certainly seems to me. So far I am actually enjoying myself immensely. The challenge to be accurate and detailed is indeed a great fun. And I certainly don't mind improving my scanty bibliographical knowledge (am very pleased to learn the function of those mysterious number lines on the copyright page). I don't know if you'll want to keep or to kick me, but it seems to me only fair to try to contribute to something I have profited a great deal from. Waldstein 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete Short Fiction by Oscar Wilde
I'm making a few changes in this pub to bring it up to ISFDB standards:
 * 1) Unmerged it from the title record The Canterville Ghost, The Happy Prince and Other Stories because it appears to be different enough to have its own title record.
 * 2) Removed the title records of the three collections The Happy Prince and Other Tales (1888), A House of Pomegranates (1891) and Lord Arthur Savile's Crime and Other Stories (1891) because the book was entered as a COLLECTION and not an omnibus (and because you'd removed the pagination of the titles, so I assumed you wanted the titles themselves also to be removed.)
 * 3) Disambiguated the titles of the generically titled content records by adding "(Oscar Wilde's Complete Short Fiction)"

As you enter more publications, these standards will become more clear. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thank you. Waldstein 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pound versus pence
Hi, I changed the price for from 35p to ￡0.35 as is the custom on isfdb. Look e.g. at the listing for the Corgi SF Collectors Library series (lots of missing prices still there, but you'll get the point). --Dirk P Broer 16:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: You can easily get the pound sterling sign by opening the windows character map (hidden in accessories), choosing Advanced View and then Currency. --Dirk P Broer 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "￡" is, but it doesn't display as a valid character for me and I've definitely got a British system that can display "£" correctly! I believe "ALT 0163" generates a pound sterling sign for those not blessed with a keyboard that just has it as "SHIFT 3". BLongley 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Covers
Hello. No problems with your covers. Hauck 13:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Then I'll upload some more. Waldstein 13:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rendezvous With Rama
Just a note that I have changed the six excerpts in your verified Rendezvous With Rama from NOVELs to SHORTFICTION. Otherwise everything looks good! Ahasuerus 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Standardizing Titles"
Big WHOA there! No matter how nice and neat a bibliographic page might look if all the Variant titles were made to disappear by "Standardizing" them, it just ain't right!! Even if the identical text in a story/essay/note/introduction were used in ten editions but were given ten different titles by the author/editor/whoever there would still be ten different records [though nine could be Variants of the original]. And, in order to make such Variants, you would have to be sure the text is the same! A Note in one edition may not be the same as an Introduction in another edition of the same book. Please do not change titles in pubs just to get a "standardized" Title. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All right. I'll use variant titles then. Waldstein 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The NONFICTION title record
Unlike several other types, when you're editing a publication that is typed NONFICTION, the book's title record is visible during the edit. In most cases, it's best to leave this alone. The title record is the part of the publication record that is used to tie it to other publications of the same title. Any changes in it will effect all the publications under it. I've seen in several of your submissions notes to the moderator that you were unable to delete the NONFICTION record. That's good, because if you were able to, the publication would be a stray publication, i.e. one that has no title record and would not be visible on the author's summary page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Indigo edition of Clarke's Profiles of the Future
I'm holding the submission to add a publication by Indigo of this title. You've zeroed out the date, but I'm wondering if perhaps you don't have the first 2000 printing. Unless, it states that it's the second or later printing (or impression), in the case of most British books, the book is the date of the stated year of publication. Is there anything present in the book that makes you suspect that it's not the first Indigo printing? Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed you've manually added the content essays. Besides the extra effort that went into this, you'll have to do even more work to merge all of these newly created essays with those already in the database. I would have suggested that you clone a publication that already has the contents in it, or just as easy, import the contents from an existing record, such as this one. After you'd after cloned or imported, it would be easy to either add or delete any essays that the two do not have in common. Do you want me to accept this submission, as is, or would you rather make a new submission?  As is, you'll have about twenty subsequent submissions to merge the duplicated title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. All right, then reject this submission and I'll do it again, this time importing the contents from the old edition and changing what's necessary. I wasn't sure about the printing, but since there is nothing in the book (no statement, no number line) to suggest otherwise, I guess it may be the first Indigo one; will fix this too. Waldstein 14:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

9,000,000,000 Names
Upload away! Any visible difference in a cover deserves it's own image. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you upladed the image but did you enter other data to the record for this printing?  If so, and if you have the book, it would be nice to do a primary verification so that users know the info has been checked against a physical copy of the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I added everything of the notes but the first two lines. Of these two I can verify only the first, as I can't find any indication about the year (I don't know who added the 1980-09-00 from Locus). I would be only too glad to do a primary verification, but then I have to zero the year and delete the reference to Locus. Should I? Waldstein 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Information from reliable secondary sources (such as Locus) can be used to fill in missing information. (I would thank heaven if there were reliable sources for printing dates for the thousands of zero-dated pubs in the database.) You just have to adjust the notes to indicate which information is from which source.  In this case, I created the record based on the Locus listing, along with the first two lines in the Note field.  Your following note makes it clear that the info is not stated in the pub itself, thus we know the source of the date is from Locus (as stated in the record). Does the number line indicate it's the 8th printing?  If not, remove the first line and indicate the printing number. A primary verification of a record indicates that every field of this record is correct based on a) data from the book itself and b) reliable secondary sources which I have indicated in the note field. You can also use the Note field to indicate when a reliable secondary source is wrong. Mhhutchins 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the number line indicates 8th printing and there is a statement that the first one was in June 1974. I also thought that the Locus should be reliable and would thus be better to edit this pub, since the printing is the same, instead of making a new one with zeroed years. So I'll verify the pub as it is. Waldstein 19:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That was the right thing to do (editing the same record). There are thousands of unverified records, and many without dates (verified or not). If possible, we try not to duplicate records if we can determine that any existing record might actually the same as the book in hand. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

3001: A Final Odyssey
You left a moderator note on the submission to update this pub that "978-0-345-42349-6 should be either 0-345-42349-6 or 978-0-345-42349-8". Actually, it should only be one of the later numbers, whichever is stated in the book. In cases where both are stated in the book, use the ISBN-13. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Challenge of the Spaceship
I approved your changes to, and based on the page numbers you added and other comments, it seems like you have a copy in hand. If so, it's entirely acceptable to remove the note that states "Contents entries copied and edited from the 1961 Ballantine edition. OCLC record does not show detailed contents". Because you have a copy in hand, it means we are no longer in doubt and the errors from copying the data from a different edition are presumably fixed. I will leave it to you to submit an additional change if you agree that the note should be removed now. Thanks again, Kevin 13:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very wary of removing anything that I haven't added myself, but if you think it's all right, I'll submit the removal of the note. I may use the opportunity to add a few notes from the copyright page more which may be of some use. I would also submit removing the Revised 1961 Preface which is substituted with a short Introduction in this edition; whether or not both are the same piece I do not know. But yes, I have a copy in hand and would be glad to do a primary verification later. Waldstein 13:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I approved the notes update but I put the removal of the essay on hold. The great thing about the ISFDB is that you can check to see if someone active has verified the other edition.  You can then ask them to compare a few words.. (first and last sentences usually) of the introduction to determine if in fact it changed between the 1961 edition and the 1980.  In this case, it looks like Bluesman has Primary verified .  You can go to his Talk Page and start up a conversation by adding a new topic. Just click the + sign at the top of the page to add a new topic.  I will leave your submission on hold until you figure out for sure what you want to do with that essay. Kevin 13:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All right. That's another thing I am wary of, but I will try it. I think the Revised preface should be removed anyway as I am quite positive that it is not the Pocket edition, not under this title at any rate. If it turns out to be the same piece as the Introduction here, then I guess both can be linked together as variant titles. Waldstein 14:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw where you've confirmed now that the introduction is not the expanded one, and I've removed the hold and approved the edit removing that title from that publication. Thanks for taking those extra steps... and now you have another tool for future questions.  Another thing I noticed... you were waiting until the book was 'correct' to log your verification.  I understand your hesitance to put your name on something that isn't right yet, but it helps us moderators out a bunch when we see that you have a copy right there with you. Thanks again! Kevin 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Dorian Gray
Please disambiguate the generic titles in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"titled figures"
I'm not sure what is meant by the expression "titled figures" in your notes for this publication. Thanks for an explanation. Mhhutchins


 * I mean technical drawings, schemes and diagrams titled, for instance, "Figure 17. Map of the Moon". Can't find any credits for them in the book. Waldstein 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. It's not a term I've ever seen to describe such illustrations. Mhhutchins 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit with a more appropriate one. I am always eager to improve my rudimentary knowledge of English. Waldstein 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that "illustrations" or "drawings" better describe the work. Mhhutchins 15:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke
I see that you removed the quotation remarks around the statement in the third bullet point in this record. These indicate that it is a direct quotation from the book itself. Is this statement not in the book? Mhhutchins 15:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is. I removed the quotation marks because I think the italics are sufficient for the purpose. Waldstein 15:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been my experience that quotation marks indicate a quoted statement better than italicization. It can stand as is because it's your verified pub. Mhhutchins 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a statement I rather agree with. I'll change both italicized passages in the pub to quotation marks only. Waldstein 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your update submission asks whether you should remove the primary verification once the book has been sold, given away, discarded, etc. Yes, remove the primary verification (this means you have a copy and you can answer questions about it.) Move your verification to the Primary (Transient) bullet.  This means, among other things, that you had a copy a one time and am able to verify that the record was correct at the time of the verification. Mhhutchins 17:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed. Waldstein 18:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarke's duplicate titles
As someone who's made many additions and updates to the Arthur C. Clarke bibliography on the ISFDB, you're the person who best be able to ask a favor: could you check all the duplicate titles for the author and determine if they should be merged? Go to his and click on "Check for Duplicate Titles". There are several that I believe should not be merged but I don't have the texts to compare. If you do, please update the note fields of each if you determine they're different, and warn future editors not to merge the records. For example, there are two works titled "Reunion" (here and here). Are they the same and should they be merged? You've warned in a note field of one of the pubs that the two essays titled "The Rocket" are two different works (here and here), but if you don't note that on each of their title records, it's very likely that a future editor will merge the two records. Thanks for any help you can give. Mhhutchins 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By some uncanny coincidence, that's exactly what I was planning to do in the next few days. It will be my pleasure. I will make a point of finishing it as soon as possible, including disambiguation notes to all works that are different and should not be merged. If my memory serves me right, the two Reunion piece are completely different pieces of shortfiction, but I'll check with the books before submitting anything. Waldstein 21:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Son of Dr. Strangelove
I believe there's a current Bug in umerging of Content titles that means that unmerging "Son of Dr. Strangelove" won't work as desired. Please do the Add/Delete contents shuffle for now. Sorry! BLongley 19:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand this correctly. If I remove the piece from here and then add it again, it would appear as a separate piece? Of course I will do the same with the other pub of the same book (notifying Bluesman) which lists contents and will add a note that the pieces are not to be merged. Waldstein 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But then I'll have to merge the two new pieces, I think. Is the merge of titles working? Waldstein 13:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes you will, and yes merges are working. It's only some types of unmerge that are broken. BLongley 14:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will try it. Waldstein 14:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How the World Was One
Approved the submission, adding contents to [this]. When you go to merge the essays, you'll find that some won't seem to have duplicates. You used single quotes where the usual method is double quotes. If you use the "Similar Title Search" both ways will show up but exact title match won't. Just an FYI. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that you mentioned that, am I allowed to merge this and this in favour of double quotes or should I make a variant title? Waldstein 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to Methuselah
Hi. I have on hold your proposed removal of the NOVEL title record from. Doing that removal would leave the publication with no "container" title, which wouldn't be good (although that could be fixed). If you wanted to change one container title without affecting other publications, you should visit the title itself and pick "Unmerge Titles", then select the one publication from the list. Once that is approved, you could edit the resulting new, separate title. But here, it looks like this work should be a COLLECTION instead of NOVEL. Is that what you are trying to achieve? If so, I think we should change all of the publications to be that way. In that case, what we want to do is change the existing title's type to COLLECTION (instead of removing it), and then edit each of the publications to be COLLECTION likewise. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --MartyD 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, more or less that's what I have been trying to do, rather lamely I'm afraid. I guess COLLECTION would be the best description; it is certainly better than NOVEL or OMNIBUS. If we change that in the title itself, would it not affect all publications listed? I can also add a note about the contents and the nature of the work, a little elaboration on the current play. I will cancel the TitleRemove. Waldstein 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would affect all of them. But in this case it looks like what you have is a later edition of those, and they're rightfully a collection, not a novel.  So here we actually want to affect all of them.  Would you like to try your hand at it, or would you rather I did it?  It will take 5 edits (the type on the title itself and the type on each of the four pubs), but they're independent of one another, so they can all be submitted at once.  --MartyD 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, my edition is rather new, though it is uncertain when it was first published and reprinted. I expect all older editions contain the same five plays, or parts as they are referred to in the book, and that's why I think it may be better to change all pubs; the differences between them are most likely to be in the presence/revisions of the preface and the postscript. Since I am not well-versed in the ISFDB system, I guess it would be better if you make the necessary edits - if it's not too much trouble. Thank you. Waldstein 15:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I just didn't want to deprive you if you were interested in doing it. :-)  Anyway, I have changed everything to Collection.  I suggest adding notes to the title.  If you are happy with the contents, we can import them into the other publications, too.  --MartyD 00:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually when I try to do something, there should be somebody around to clean after me. But if you agree to be the cleaner (you know, the guy in the movie who comes with a big tube of strong acid to get rid of the body), I can try to import the contents into the other publications. I will also add a note to the title about that. One question: should the two versions of the preface, 1921 and 1944, be regarded as two different works or not? Unfortunately, I've never seen the early version and don't know how different it is; but I guess it must be significantly so, as the later version is signed with 'Revised 1944'. At least all of the postscript surely was written in 1944. I will assume that the guys who produced the e-book were smart enough to use the last version of the text. Waldstein 18:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Challenge of the Spaceship - Year and Notes
I accepted your submission to update the title of The Challenge of the Spaceship, but I then changed the date back to December 1946, and rearranged the notes. Please check to make sure I didn't mangle anything. Remember.... the original publication is the primary title unless there is compelling evidence to make a different publication the primary title. If it is changed significantly then you what to add Variants... but the original Title should always keep its original publication date. In the case of this title.. the date is significant, being on the heels of WWII, as opposed to immediately prior to the US / Russian Space Race. The world was different, much different between those two dates.

If you want to split off a version of this title and create a variant, take a look at some of the help files and ask if you want some more detailed guidance. Thanks - Kevin 21:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A good point. Since I don't know how different than the original the 1959 version is, although I suppose it is very different as the world, I agree, changed a lot during that time, I guess it is better to leave it as it is. I would like make few minor edits of the notes but won't touch anything else. Waldstein 21:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I approved your revised notes. Thanks Kevin 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Standard" titles in 1984: Spring - A Choice of Futures
Hi. I accepted your changes to, but one further thing you should do is disambiguate the "standard" titles -- the generic essay titles that might be used again in different books over entirely different text -- by putting the containing book's title afterward in parentheses. See the "Standard titles" bullet of Help:Screen:EditPub. So, for example, "Preface" would become "Preface (1984: Spring - A Choice of Futures)". The same would go for the others. If you need help, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've missed that. I'll correct it right away. Waldstein 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's Afraid of Leonard Woolfe?
You want to merge this with "Who's Afraid of Leonard Woolf?", keeping the one with no final "e". Are you sure about this, as Phileas has verified the longer title? BLongley 15:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have my copy of Greetings... with me, but Amazon Look Inside shows the title of the piece without the final 'e', as is in 1984: Spring... Waldstein 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarke "essays"
Are the contents that you're adding to the Arthur C. Clarke books truly individual essays, either original to the book or first published separately and later collected in the book? Or are they named chapters? Mhhutchins 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean Astounding Days? Except for the two fictional pieces, I'd say the rest consists of chapters. Should the 'essay' be changed then? Waldstein 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't create records for book chapters. And we don't have any other record type for nonfiction contents other than ESSAY. Mhhutchins 22:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. In this case cancel the submission. It would be nice, if possible, to keep the additional notes. Waldstein 14:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't cancel a submission, only accept or reject. Only you can cancel it. If I accept it, then all of the content records would have to be deleted from the database. Before I reject it, I'll copy and paste your notes into a new submission. Then you can go back and add the shortfiction to the record. Mhhutchins 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Coming of the Space Age
I accepted the submission adding the individual essays to this collection, even though the essays themselves are only associational (non-genre). My question: is the piece you've entered as "1: The Coming of the Space Age [Introduction]" (and others similarly titled) actually titled that way on its title page? Same for the excerpts, I assume, from Perelandra and Star Maker? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What appears in the square brackets is not in the titles; I added it as a kind of clarification. I guess the 'Introduction' might be removed without any great loss; then the title of each part may serve as a title of the essay, as is the case in the book. Waldstein 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can add notes to the individual title records. We usually try to record titles exactly as given, and only disambiguate generic titles, like "Introduction" by using a parenthetical appendage.  Are the numbers also part of the titles? And about the excerpts: are they titled with the work from which they're drawn? Mhhutchins 22:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the numbers are there. The titles of the novels appear back in Acknowledgements. Then I will remove all square brackets. Waldstein 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ascent to Orbit
You asked whether you should add content essays to this record. If they were previously published and are actual essays, and not chapter titles, please proceed to add them. (That would make this an essay collection, such as the Asimov collections of essays from his F&SF column.) Do not create records for the publications in which the essays originally appeared. Just update the contents' title records to indicate their original publication. If the essays were written especially for this collection, do not create content records. Just list them in the note field. Mhhutchins 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. Let's see if I can manage that. Waldstein 14:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Variants based on quote marks
We don't make variants based on quote marks. Those choices are almost always editorial, not authorial. Please merged the two, choosing the double quotes. Feel free to note in the pub record about which form is used, if you wish. Mhhutchins 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I was afraid of being accused of standardizing titles. No need to note the type of quotation marks. Waldstein 13:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Treasure of the Great Reef
Where is the catalog number located in this book? Ordinarily hardcover books don't have catalog numbers, and if we determine that it's "YA 0364", you should add the symbol # before the number. Mhhutchins 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on the dustjacket. I may well be wrong that it's a catalogue number at all. Waldstein 17:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added the number sign (#) before the catalog number in the record, per ISFDB standards for handling catalog numbers. Mhhutchins 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Treasure Island
I accepted your submission adding a new record for this title, but it's rather pointless. The work is not spec-fic, and the title is only in the database because of the few spec-fic works by Stevenson. Ideally, all of the publication records for Treasure Island would be deleted from the db. It doesn't make sense that the ISFDB should have records for dozens of publications of a non-genre work like this. Mhhutchins 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, partly. It doesn't make sense to have so many pubs for "Treasure Island", and I was wondering who entered them and why, especially since almost none of them is verified; ideally these would be deleted. But it does make sense to have a few well-presented and verified pubs, no matter how "non-genre" the work, as long the author also has some "spec-fic" in his bibliography; ideally, these would not be deleted. Waldstein 17:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's better to ask "What entered them?": a software robot searching for publications by Robert Louis Stevenson wasn't smart enough to figure out that not all of his work is spec-fic. The robot that searches now is much smarter. We're still trying to remove much of the records that was brought into the database by mistake. And I agree that we should have the first edition of a non-genre title by an author who is mainly known for his spec-fic work. That's why the criteria is that the author be above the threshold that would make him a spec-fic author. Mhhutchins 15:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Live from Golgotha
I removed the "subtitle" you added to this record. If it isn't stated on the book's title page, it doesn't belong in the record's title field. It actually appears to be more of a publisher's blurb than the author's subtitle. Mhhutchins 17:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be a publisher's blurb on the title page as well, as indeed was in this particular case. But no matter. Waldstein 13:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It does matter. I took you for your word when you state in the notes that it only appears on the cover and "does not appear inside the book". Is that not true? I wouldn't have removed it from the record without that statement. Mhhutchins 15:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The notes are true. I meant that, as far as I know, the subtitle was a publisher's idea in the first place. Even if it appears on the title pages of other editions, it still remains a publisher's addition. But yes, I guess it does matter for collectors' purposes, if not for any others. Waldstein 15:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Magician
I've changed the publication format of this record from "pb" to "tp" based on the dimensions provided by the OCLC record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Collected Stories of Bertrand Russell
Can you confirm that the stories in the nightmares section (page 213-262) of this collection use the shorter titles on their title pages (not the contents page)? Some editors have chosen to variant these shorter titles with the longer ones and I want to make sure that's the correct thing to do. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you also check the spelling of ""Newly discovered Maxims of La Rouchefoucauld"? Most sources spell the last word as "Rochefoucauld". Mhhutchins 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right about both things. All 'nightmares', except the last one, do have subtitles on their title pages, and 'Rochefoucauld' is the correct spelling. I will make the necessary corrections. Waldstein 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't fix 'The Queen of Sheba’s Nightmare', but the subtitle in the book is the same as in the alternative title: 'Put Not Thy Trust in Princes'. Waldstein 11:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It had been made into a variant of the longer title, so it had to be unvarianted. Fixed now. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Treasure of the Great Reef - Clarke & Wilson
Uploaded a new cover scan. I also believe that the YA0364 is not a catalog number. If you look at it the "YA" is on the left side of the flap and the "0364" is on the right side. I believe that this is the publishing category ("YA" = "Young Adult" and the "0364" is the publication date (March, 1964) as is standard practice. I've posted this with a moderator but as you are the primary verifier I'm sure they'll come to you for verification again.SFJuggler 04:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cover; the one of my copy is not worth uploading. Your theory about "YA3064" sounds very plausible. I probably misunderstood it. Waldstein 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Vonnegut's Welcome to the Monkey House
Can you confirm that the author is credited as a "Jr." on the title page of this collection? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 23:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I can't. He is credited as a "Jr." on the copyright page only, not on the title one. Waldstein 18:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed "Jr." from the record's author credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Profiles of the Future
Is the price on your edition £7.99 or £6.99?I have what appears to be the same edition but the price is the lower one. Locus1 has £7.99 but they often get pre-publication data that gets changed before actual publication. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The price on my copy is £7.99, CAN $16.95. Waldstein 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mine has no Canadian price, and I just realized yours is a trade paperback! Explains the higher price. I'll create a new record for my pb. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Piece in Clarke's The Coming of the Space Age
Can you confirm that the author of the piece on page 236 of this publication is correctly credited to "Eugen Saenger" and not Eugen Sänger. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The name in the book is "Eugen Sänger". Waldstein 11:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll correct the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarke's The City and the Stars
Your verified pub The City and the Stars is listed under the Millennium / Gollancz SF Masterworks series as #39, but if your copy has the newer yellow/green version of the cover then it more properly appears under the series Gollancz SF Masterworks (II). This series, which includes re-issues of older titles from the original Masterworks series, is also not numbered. I suspect it will need to be re-listed under the newer series, but as your copy has an unknown date and I don't know which version of the title you have, it's essentially your call. What do you think? PeteYoung 14:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that I have a copy from the newer series, so the pub, as it stands now, is wrong. Would it be enough if I edit it and change the series to "Gollancz SF Masterworks (II)" and remove the number? Waldstein 08:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be ideal. Thanks. PeteYoung 10:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)