User talk:Boxen

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.

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! --Bluesman 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Darker than You Think
The submission to add another artist to [this] raises a question. From the image it appears that Donnell is on the cover, which would probably mean Cartier did the internal art. Do you have the book? The artist field is just for the cover artist. If there is/are interior artwork[s] then an entry should be made in the "Contents" section. That is done, if the piece[s] is/are not titled, by using the title of the book, then placing the artist's name in the "Author" field and adding "Interiorart" from the first drop-down menu to the right of the line. The date would be the same as that of the publication. I have the submission on hold for now. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill. The original entry had Cartier with the cover credit (it is actually Donnell; Cartier did the interior only). My
 * institution has the book: I'm an archivist at Georgia Tech library, and I work with our SF book/magazine collection. When I went
 * to edit, I found that there wasn't a "cover artist" field, but just artist fields, so I added Donnell as the first one. Boxen 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I accepted the edit and then adjusted the record to show the credits [in the correct places]. I hope your department is large! We are always looking for more sources for data, and the filling in of missing pieces. Welcome aboard! ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Images
Morning! You've got the process correct, but the last step needs the correct URL placed in the field. Once you've uploaded an image, you can see it on the upload page. However, the URL is for the page, not the image. Once you're at that point click on the image and you'll get a new screen with only the image and nothing else. The URL for that screen is the one you want to copy/paste into the image field in the pub record. Otherwise all we get is a pretty little blue-framed box with a question mark in the center! I fixed the Sturgeon submission (the image is in the upload log). Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I'll get that right from here on out (I just uploaded another right before reading your message). Simple mistake... Boxen 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And one most new editors make. Not sure if it's our help pages or not?? Another thing new editors assume is that a carriage return is the same as a line-break. If you want your notes to read as separate lines, you have to type in an HTML line break  is one way and can go at the end of a line or do a carriage return and put it at the beginning of the next line. You had typed in the notes for Dream Park to read separately so I added the breaks. If you open the edit screen for the pub you'll see what I did. Without them the notes read as one long sentence. If you want to bullet-point them there are two ways:  • or  . Either of these would go at the beginning of a line. I learned by opening up records and seeing how other editors got certain effects. Thanks for editing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you're ahead of me on that one! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience! Boxen 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what we're here for! When I first started on this site I made every possible mistake multiple times and got great support from the Mods. Now I are one so it behooves me to do the same. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dick's Clans of the Alphane Moon
You want to change the cover art field from Richard Courtney to "R. Courtney". Is there a printed credit in the book stating that "R. Courtney" is the artist, or is this based solely on a visible artist's signature? If the latter, we have to determine if the artist's name is "R. Courtney" or if that's simply how he signs this art. If it's determined that it's just a signature, we give the cover credit to the artist's preferred name. Sometimes it's difficult to determine this for lesser known artists. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's based solely on the artist's signature, as I stated in the "notes" field. I saw that there were a number of entries in ISFDB for "R. Courtney" and also some for "Richard Courtney". I figured that, because there was no other verification of the item at all (primary or otherwise), that it would be best to consider the item itself as the authoritative source of information. Courtney doesn't appear in either Weinberg's or Frank's biographical dictionaries of artists, which I have on hand, so I couldn't verify the credit in that way.
 * Yes, you're correct. A book in hand is worth more than Tuck, Reginald, Currey, Contento, and ten thousand librarians combined. I'll accept your submission to change the record to represent exactly what is stated in the book. Mhhutchins 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This brings up a question that I have about the item records. In a case like this, where an item is unverified but has substantial bibliographic information, I assume that said information is based on some sort of automated import from a publicly available repository (from the publishing houses or something)? I figured I was the first human to lay eyes on the record for that particular book. How far off base is that?
 * Close, but far enough off base that you would have gotten picked off by a good pitcher. There are thousands of "unverified" records that were created before the use of robots to scour other internet sites. These records may have been generated from secondary sources, even though the sources aren't cited in the records. Some of them were created before the verification system was put into place. You will find records that are 100 percent accurate, looked over by many human eyes, but only a button click away from someone simply doing a verification of them. Mhhutchins 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, based on what little I know about the population of basic item information, I didn't want to assume that it was Richard Courtney. The original credit is probably based on good info, but the item is supposed to be the most important source of information (in the library tradition anyway). Boxen 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct, as noted above. Doing a primary verification on the record will let everyone after you know that the book was physically verified. If somewhere down the road it's determined that "R. Courtney" is the signature of "Richard Courtney", the record can be updated, leaving a note that the identification was based on the signature ("R. Courtney"), uncredited otherwise, and that the attribution to Richard Courtney is based on secondary information. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wyndham's Re-Birth
When you primary verify a record, non-applicable notes can be removed. For example, here the note concerning the page count can be removed. Also, if Powers is credited in the book, then you can remove the source recorded in the notes. The same applies any time you're doing a primary verification. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. Boxen 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

small editing comments
Hi, and welcome! I was working with your submissions this morning, and I have some small comments for you.


 * If you change a pub that is verified by someone else, our practice is to notify the other verifier(s) of the changes, via their talk pages. Some folks have special instructions for how to notify them (and of what to notify them), particularly in regard to cover images and notes.  So where you added a cover to, you should have left a note on TFRANK's talk page (I've left a note there, so no need to go off and do it).  If you are ever going to change data (e.g., the page count, author/artist names, publication dates), it's best practice to ask about it first, just to make sure you're really looking at the same book.


 * For, I notice you left the Catalog #/ISBN field blank. The cover has what looks like a catalog number on it in the top left corner ("O5-509").  If you agree (the spine might provide an additional clue), it is ok to record this sort of number in the Catalog #/ISBN field even though it's not an ISBN.  We do this by starting the number off with "#", e.g, "#05-509".  See, for example, the other pub you worked with: .  Older books pre-dating ISBNs often have useful catalog numbers.  For books with ISBNs, we record the ISBN in that field and put the catalog number into the notes.


 * Part of your submission for would have changed the publication date from 1977-11-00 to 1977-00-00.  Dates and the "record what's in the pub" mantra are a tricky thing.  Often the publication itself will lack dating detail.  Sometimes no date at all, sometimes just a year.  We use other sources to get the dates.  If you find a date with a year and a month and a "00" day, and the month and/or whole date is not in the publication, chances are good it came from a secondary source -- one of our verification sources or a later printing.  So what you should do instead is leave the date and add a note about what you actually see in the pub.  For example, "1977 on copyright page; source of month in pub date unknown".  What really ought to have been done is that whoever supplied the date should have added a note about the source (you'll see notes like "pub date from Locus1").  That said, if you come across a book pub with a day in the date (e.g., 2010-03-15), chances are good that date came from an unreliable source, such as Amazon.com, and you SHOULD change the date to what you see in the book.  Clear as mud, no?  Anyway, I accepted this submission but restored the November in the date.  Perhaps you would add a note describing what you see for dating?

Thanks, and if you have any questions/problems let me know. --MartyD 13:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your guidance. The advice on pub dating is appreciated. And I especially was not aware that other verifiers should be notified of changes.... Does this apply to primary verifiers only, or to everyone? Boxen 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just Primary (and Primary 2-5). These are other people who have the book.  And as for asking about data changes, some verifiers are no longer active.  If you get to their talk page and don't see them actively responding to entries, you can click on the User Contributions at the left to see when they last wrote something in the Wiki.  If it was long ago, chances are good anything you ask will go unanswered, so there it's ok to change and notify, versus asking first.  It is good, however, to notify always, no matter how inactive the editor seems to be.  --MartyD 13:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin Wilson's The Space Vampires
According to Locus #234 (June 1980), this printing was published in May 1980. If the book doesn't state the month of publication, you can use the Locus listing as a source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly added. Boxen 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dream Park
Hi Boxen, you verified the 8th printing of Dream Park. I have the same edition, but there's no publication date stated in my copy, and there's no note about a secondary verification source for the date. If there is a secondary verification source I would love to hear about it. I would also like to add the afterword (page 430) to the contents. Thanks, --Willem 20:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Willem. In this case, I was only verifying a pre-existing entry: I didn't add to or alter the information that was already there. As for the dates, I understand there are lots of entries here with date info of mysterious origin. You might want to add a note along the lines of "Date information from unspecified secondary source," (that's what I have been doing lately). Please feel free to add the afterword to the contents. Thanks! Boxen 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem here. I was just wondering, since we normally check the existing data, and add notes when something is not clear. Edit is submitted, and will be visible shortly. I also found the cover artist (Jim Burns), see the notes here. Thanks, --Willem 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out all of the correct practices around here. The dates and secondary sources thing threw me off for awhile! Boxen 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Village of the Damned
I added some notes to this verified pub. --Willem H. 10:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Begum's Fortune
Just a note that User:P-Brane has added an Introduction to your verified Ace edition of The Begum's Fortune . Ahasuerus 09:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Into the Niger Bend
I expanded the name of the cover artist for your verified pub. I also added the introduction, and the the sketch of Verne as well as a note as to the translator. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Golden Witchbreed
I've added a cover artist to your verified pub by Mary Gentle. Although the copyright page doesn't have an attribution to him, the back cover (at least on the 2nd printing) has "artwork by Michael Whelan" near the top. Chavey 09:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

5 Tales from Tomorrow
I changed the publisher of this verified pub from "Fawcett Crest" to "Crest", and added notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tigers and Traitors
I added the introduction and page numbers to Tigers and Traitors. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The City in the Sahara
I added the introduction and page numbers to The City in the Sahara. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gods of Mars
I've added the frontispiece to your verified publication of The Gods of Mars per Henry Hardy Heins' A Golden Anniversary Bibliography of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Pleas let me know if Heins is in error and we can remove these from the record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Chessmen of Mars
I've added the frontispiece and the chess essay to your verified publication of The Chessmen of Mars per Henry Hardy Heins' A Golden Anniversary Bibliography of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Pleas let me know if Heins is in error and we can remove these from the record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Master Mind of Mars
I've expanded the publication date and added notes to The Master Mind of Mars per Henry Hardy Heins' A Golden Anniversary Bibliography of Edgar Rice Burroughs. I don't know what the source is for the comment that only the title page illustration is maintained from earlier editions. If you can check your copy, we can adjust the notes accordingly. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Begum's Fortune
I added the title page illustration to Verne's The Begum's Fortune. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Genus Homo
I added information to the notes for Genus Homo. Bob 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Added some additional notes and links for Genus Homo. SFJuggler 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Verne's The Hunt for the Meteor
I've added the introduction, appendix and interior art to Verne's The Hunt for the Meteor. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Astounding Stories of Super-Science, May 1930
What is your source for changing the artist credit for two of the interior art pieces in this record? Also, it would have been simpler to update the title record of each one than to use the method you've chosen. In most cases, this is the proper procedure, but not here. These pieces only appear in this single publication, and the Project Gutenberg facsimile of the same issue, so it's OK to change the title records. Mhhutchins 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have the original magazines here at work. The titles are greyed out - I could not edit them. Maybe I was missing something there? Thanks, Ryan. --Boxen 20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you click on the content titles, you go to the title records. There click the link "Edit Title Data" so that you can change the artist credit. Please do a primary verification of the publication record so that we know the source of the changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Heinlein Elsewhen
Hi,

In the Heinlein story is called Elsewhen, but the art still is called Elsewhere. Also there is a unused title entry Elsewhere. Can you correct it in whatever form is correct (I assume fix "Elsewhere" for the art and remove the dangling title entry?) --Stoecker 13:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks for the heads up; I took care of it.--Boxen 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)