User talk:Oks...

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! --MartyD 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lady on the Gray
Hi, and welcome. Very nice job with the contents of. I have one question: Is it really an "a" in The Lady on the Gray, or might it be an "e" ("The Lady on the Gr e y")? We have a lot of publications giving it the latter spelling, and I am wondering if this is a variant spelling or a typo. You can reply here by using the edit button at the top left of this section. Indent your response by adding a colon (":") at the beginning of the line, and sign with four tildes ( ~ ) or by using the signature button at the top of the editing window. Thanks, and thanks for contributing. --MartyD 10:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Lady on the Gray" does appear to be a variant spelling and not a typo. It is spelled as such all times in my copy (copyright, contents, title, in story). A quick google also shows this as the title for its original publication in "The New Yorker" and in "The Best of John Collier" collection. --Oks... 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for checking. I will link it as a variant.  --MartyD 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Penguin Science Fiction
I rejected the submission to add content records to this publication record. It is better, faster and easier to import the contents from a record that already has them. This keeps you from having to type in numerous contents and then having to make submissions for each story to merge it with the records already in the database. If you would like to import the contents, go to this publication record and record its pub record number from the URL field in your browser's address window. (In this case the number is 25837.) Then go to the record without contents and click on "Import Content" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next screen enter 25837 in the "Import From" field and leave the box checked which will transfer both the page numbering and the content records. On the next page, go to the bottom and click "Submit Data". Mhhutchins 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the tip. Oks... 21:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Retaining messages on talk pages
We ask that users keep the messages that are left on their talk page for future reference. As the page grows larger, you can always archive the messages by moving them to a new page which is linked to this one. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ryman's The Warrior Who Carried Life
I'm holding a submission to update this record, and there's no problem with accepting it (you're adding a day-date to the current month-date). Well, actually there is one problem: you didn't give the source for your changing the date field. That should always be done in the "Note" field. More interesting is what you wrote in the "Note to Moderator" field.


 * Amazon (+ Abebooks and others) shows this as the publish date for this isbn, but show the publisher as 'Grafton', the page count as 184p, and the format as pb and not trade. After an hour, I can't sort this out further. Let me know if I'm way out of line. Note: both Grafton and Unwin (though not the Australian division) were eventually folded into HarperCollins. ps: It seems this pub came via Bluesman from WorldCat, but what I can't find record of anywhere is the '£2.95' price listing.

This is not the best place to ask questions or raise concerns about a record. The moderator who handles a submission has only two options: to either accept or reject the submission. We can not respond directly to questions asked using this form of inquiry. The best place to ask questions is the Help Desk. Also, in this case, you can leave a message on the talk page of the editor(s) who may have verified the record. Since 99% of OCLC records don't give a price, an OCLC verification doesn't mean the price is verified. That's usually only done by a primary verifier (the person with a copy of the book.)

Now about the publisher credit: never trust Amazon (both .com and .co.uk) to give the proper publisher credit for a book more than twenty-five years old. You can use them as a starting point, but you should also get a corroborating source...but not Abebooks. It uses the same database to get publisher credit as Amazon. An Abebooks.com dealer feeds in the ISBN and most of the data is generated automatically. Only conscientious dealers will manually enter the data from the actual book. As you mention, publishers change names and Amazon's database frequently updates older listings to the current name of the publisher. OCLC is much more reliable for publisher credit. Their policy is to record publisher credit from the actual title page of the book (not the spine, cover, or dustjacket.) In this case they show that the book was published by the Unicorn imprint of Unwin Paperbacks, which I'm pretty certain is correct. (This was the paperback division of George Allen & Unwin.)

About the price: an editor entered it without giving the source and/or had the book and didn't do a primary verification of the record...and a moderator accepted it. (Now you see why it's important to source your data.) So there's no way to confirm if the price is correct until a primary verifier comes along. Mhhutchins 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Price would seem to come from BLIC 010022542, MARC display. If I had put it there the source would have been noted. Both BLIC and OCLC have the page count as in the record and have the size of the edition as 20cm, a trade paperback. The British don't always differentiate between types of paperbacks, using the abbreviation 'Pbk' for both trade and MMPBs. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added the BLIC record as the source for the price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

About the ISBN: many publishers, especially British ones, do not get a new ISBN for each printing. That's even more true today than it was in the 1980s. New ISBNs cost money, and publishers can save money by keeping the same ISBN for additional printings, even if the publisher's name changes (e.g. there are titles that were first published by Panther which were reprinted by Granada, then Grafton, then HarperCollins which all have the same ISBN.) So don't date records based on the "date" of an ISBN.

I have left a message on the talk page of the editor who PV'd the hardcover edition to see if there's any mention of a simultaneous paperback printing (some publishers do that, rarer today than it was in the 1980s though.) If he responds in the affirmative, I'll accept the submission, but will go back and change the publisher to match the OCLC record (I'm not sure why Bluesman did a OCLC-verification and didn't change the publisher.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Verification was over 2 1/2 years ago, no telling if the publisher was as it is now back then. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * True, it may have been corrected since. I've found this listing from an Abebooks dealer (one of the "conscientious" ones) that confirms that Unicorn is the publisher. I will accept the submission and change the publisher. And I've removed the image which was for the Allen & Unwin hardcover edition. Mhhutchins 02:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the direction. I wasn't sure the best way of inquiring without a public post, of which I do have a reluctance... I'll try to bite the bullet in the future or use a talk page. Oks... 02:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * [Posted after a conflict with the previous edit.] Go to the book's title record. You'll see that there is another record for a hardcover edition that was published the same date that you changed the paperback edition's record to. And it was PV'd by Ron. If you've read the message I left on his page, you'll know why he was brought into the discussion. Mhhutchins 02:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, I figured that out eventually! Oks... 02:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. BTW, You should have no concerns about posting public messages on this wiki. It's the best form of communication we have. Messages through database submissions just don't work. You're only getting one person's response (the one moderator who handles the submission). Posting on the community pages will provide you with a more diverse difference of opinion. :) Mhhutchins 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover art for Stand on Zanzibar
I have your submission on hold, because it is not clear where the information of the assumed cover artist is from. You have the option to add a note to the moderator or to the publication notes (that would be much better). See for example this publication for a possible statement. You may answer here or decide to add the information afterwards by yourself. Thank you nevertheless for submitting, Stonecreek 14:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From back cover: 'Cover design by Jamie Stafford-Hill' Oks... 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I have approved of your submission and already added the information. Stonecreek 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

World War Z
I'm holding a submission to add a new record for this title, but it identical to this current record in all fields other than the price field. You can see that the current record hasn't been verified and its data comes from a secondary source (Amazon). Since it represents the first printing of the mass market edition, and your copy is the first printing (as your submission provides evidence that it is), then it would be better to update that record's price, changing the price, removing the secondary source, and adding the notes that you gave in the submission for the new printing. You would also have to cancel the current submission, or I can reject it. Let me know of your intentions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I cancelled my submission and updated the existing publication. Oks... 16:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing content from Love Ain't Nothing...
I'm holding your submission to remove the introduction on page 37 of this record. Is this piece not in the book, or is it under a different name which you will be adding later? If the latter is true, it's best to first add the new content record before removing the old one. This let's the moderator know what you intend to do. Also, do you have a copy of the book? If so, please do a primary verification so that the moderator knows you're working from the actual book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am working from an actual copy and this will be the first of a few changes. And there is only the 'new' introduction titled 'Introduction: Having an affair with a Troll' pp17-37. Oks... 19:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A Case of Conscience
The pricing in this record should conform with ISFDB standards for entering British currency: £0.85. Also, if the publication states it was reprinted in 1979, then that should be sufficient to be stated in the notes as the source for this record's publication date. The fact that it was reprinted in 1984 is irrelevant in a 1979 record. (Notes in publication records should be specific to the publication and not the work.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I accepted the submission to correct the entry format of the price, but still wonder if the statement "2nd reprint of the 1972 edition" is based on a statement in the book. If so, then that is what should be given. For example, if there's a statement "Published in 1972, Reprinted 1975 and 1979", then that should be shown in the note field, allowing the user to reach the conclusion that this is the second reprint of the 1972 edition. Thanks. (To reply to comments left on your user page, click the "[edit]" link to the right of the message.) Mhhutchins 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)