User talk:RR

Mhhutchins 13:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Three new novels
Hello, and thank you again for contributing. That written, it does seem you may have fallen into a trap nearly all of us couldn't avoid, namely submitting titles that don't belong to the ISFDB. From the descriptions at wikipedia it doesn't seem that either Falstaff, The French Lieutenant's Woman or Creation do fit the Rules of Acquisition. Just that the authors do have works listed here, doesn't mean that we want to list all of their works. (There are exceptions for authors 'above the treshhold' who are important enough for the field: Ursula K. Le Guin, H. G. Wells and Isaac Asimov would be three of them, but we want to have this list of authors as short as possible).

I may be in error, since I haven't read any of the three, and if so, please do explain on the speculative content: I have put the submissions on hold and it is still possible to approve of them. Thanks, Stonecreek 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stonecreek. I shall explain the content of the following:

Falstaff - an alternate history of the late 1300's-early 1400's from the viewpoint of Shakespeare's John Falstaff, as a memoir that could be embellished or delusional, or could be true however improbable.

The French Lieutenant's Woman - a recursive metafiction where John Fowles the author appears in the plot, openly considers which direction his story would go, and loses control over the actions of his created characters. The movie adaptation did away with this since the novel is practically unfilmable.

Creation - an alternate history of the 500's BC from the viewpoint of the fictional grandson of Zoroaster, who lives improbably long and travels improbably wide, meets historical figures who could not have all been alive around the same time, and refutes the history written by Herodotus who was born a century after Zoroaster died.

You may consider these novels as nongenre if you like. RR 00:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining! I will immediately approve of your submissions. Would you like to add these descriptions to the synopses of the titles? (Just use - on the level of title, not publication - the 'Edit Title Data' button on the left tool bar, for example for Creation. (Do you have any further information - like price - for the publications?)
 * And to make it easier for other editors to know who is writing, please use four tildes (~) to sign with your user name. Just imagine a discussion like this without knowing who is writing what. Thank you very much for adding those books! Stonecreek 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I would like to add the descriptions to the synopses. In fact, I find many obscure titles with no synopses. I'd like to ask other contributors about their submissions. RR 00:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please proceed to update the title records (not the publication records) to add synopses of those titles. It is not necessary to discuss this with any editor who may have done primary verifications of the publications of these titles. The synopsis must be objective, and without spoilers. (It's best not to use the publisher blurbs which tend to puff up the quality of the work, unless you edit it to be more neutral.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I want to find out about the fantastic content of other novels, for instance, The Sicilian by Mario Puzo. RR 19:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reason that title is in the database is because it was nominated for an sf award. I have no idea why, since I can't imagine the title would otherwise qualify for inclusion in the database. Do you? (You'll notice that there are no publications in the database.) If you find other titles that have verified publications, feel free to contact the editor who verified them. The verifying editors are linked in the Verification Status of the publication record. (BTW, add a colon to each successive message within a topic, which indents it from the previous message and makes the discussion easier to read. Thanks.) Mhhutchins 20:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I found Puzo listed in the SFE with the novel The Fourth K, which features a fictional US President and possibly a then-future war. The Sicilian, by contrast, is based on a real person and real history, told mostly in flashback. Its framing story involves a fictional bundle of papers, the testament of Turi Guillano, which is desperately sought after and has the potential to disrupt the government of Italy and change history. My guess is this element made the novel considerable for a Prometheus Award nomination. The Sicilian is still very tentatively borderline-speculative, but The Forth K has more prominent content. RR 17:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your explanation about The Sicilian may explain why it was nominated for the Prometheus, but I personally don't feel it would qualify as speculative fiction, and would reject any submission to add a publication to the title. If you disagree feel free to bring up the subject on the ISFDB:Community_Portal to get a broader spectrum of opinion. The case for The Fourth K is stronger, although borderline and very close to an genre which is specifically excluded in the inclusion policy: "Techno-thriller, political thriller and satire works set in a future indistinguishable from the present". I will accept the submission to add the title to the db. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Scarlet Letter
Sorry, but your proposed addition of a website had to be rejected, because this was a website for the author Hawthorne, which is already included on his summary page. But thanks for the addition of Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance, which included a link to the wikipedia entry for the title. Stonecreek 09:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Updating primary verified records
I'm holding the submission to add a cover art credit to this record. If you look at the record, you'll see that it has been primary verified, which means that an editor has determined that the information is correct, based an actual copy of the publication. It is ISFDB etiquette to discuss changes to such records with the verifying editor before you make a submission that changes the records. Some editors have notification preferences posted at the top of their talk page. Most of them don't require prior notification for updates which add data to the "Note" field, or add links to the cover image. Moderators will usually accept such changes if they are not destructive, i.e. removing or replacing data from the record. In this case, you're adding data which is not stated in the publication, so effectively you're replacing the data. You should leave a note on [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Willem_H. the verifying editor's talk page] (click on the plus [+] tab to begin a new topic), giving him the source for your data, and explaining why the record should be amended. The outcome of the discussion will determine if the submission is accepted. I will hold the submission until you've done that. (This policy is explained in the help links which are provided in the Welcome section above.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Fourth K
Submission adding this record was accepted, but there are a couple of problems. We can't link to any image on Wikipedia. They strictly forbid it. You should only link to sites which have given us permission to deeplink to their image files. That list is here. I will remove the link before Wikipedia discovers it.

Second, you failed to give the source for your data in the record's Note field. You may have missed the Source section which is part of each submission form. There are five options: 1) I own this publication, 2) I am working from this publication but will not have it permanently, 3) Publisher's website, 4) Author's website, 5) Other website, later printing/edition or another source (please explain in Note). The first four choices automatically add the source in the Note field. The last choice (#5) is the default and leaves the Note field blank, which means you have to provide the source of your data in the Note field. Please update the record when you get a chance to add the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources for data should be given in the publication record, not the title record, because each publication should have a separate source (just because someone has one edition of a title doesn't mean they can verify the data provided in other editions or printings of the same file.) Also, feel free to add the URL of the Amazon image file to the proper field of the publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Still looking for a response to my above request. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Aniara
I'm still holding the submission to add the cover art credit to this record. As I said above, when updating verified records, you should contact the verifying editor about the change. I will continue to hold it until you've done that, or you can choose to cancel the submission. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 21:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have released the hold to the moderator who was the primary verifier of the record. Mhhutchins 13:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's not enough evidence to credit Vicente Segrelles with the cover illustration. Looks like his style, but only a small part of the signature is visible. I've rejected your submission, but added a note to the publication. Please remember to contact primary verifiers about changes to their verified pubs. Thanks for contributing. --Willem H. 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Complete Novels
Hello, thanks for adding this OMNIBUS. I had to make a major change for both publication and generated title. The Help:Screen:NewPub states: If the book is a single-author collection or omnibus, but has an editor, as occasionally occurs, the editor does not appear in this field, the author does (this also encloses the case where no editor is credited as with this OMNIBUS), so I changed the editor/author field to Flann O'Brien.

Now, if you take a look at the author's summary page, you'll see that your submission has generated new titles for every item. You may merge the titles that appear as doubles by clicking on the 'Show All Titles' tool on the left tool bar of this page, then ticking the appropriate two items and submit. You may choose the right settings (language and date) for the new merged title.

However, there are titles that are really new to the ISFDB. Since they were published before the year 2008, you should also enter the year of first publication for them. (For this you have to edit the individual titles - it would have been possible to enter them with your initial submission: there is a field 'Date', which can be filled in the YYYY-MM-DD format). Thank you again for this new publication / title! Stonecreek 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hard Life doesn't appear to be speculative fiction. If not, change the type to NONGENRE. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hard Life is NG. I'm not sure about "The Poor Mouth". That novella was published under another pseudonym. How do I add a pseudonym to author data? RR 05:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd be best to enter a publication of this title published under the pseudonym. After that's done the pseudonym should be made into a variant of the canonical Flann O'Brien and the title into a variant of the parent. Stonecreek 09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Because they're not spec-fic, and Flann O'Brien isn't considered a spec-fic author, I've removed the content records for The Hard Life and "The Poor Mouth", and deleted the titles from the database. Mhhutchins 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your submission to add a publication record for the non-genre title "The Poor Mouth" was rejected, because the title had already been deleted from the database because of its ineligibility (see above). If you feel this was done in error, please bring it to the attention of the moderators on the ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard. Mhhutchins 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

An Béal Bocht by "Myles na gCopaleen"
I'm holding your submission to add a record to the ISFDB for this title, which doesn't appear to be speculative fiction. Because Flann O'Brian is not considered a spec-fic author, only his spec-fic works should be in the database. (We make an exception for non-genre works by spec-fic authors.) Are you certain that this is a work of speculative fiction? Mhhutchins 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You also failed to give the source for your data in the record's Note field. If you don't choose one of the five choices in the "Source of the data" section of an entry form, it automatically defaults to "Other...source (explain in the Note)". In that case, you must enter your source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This book was first published in Irish Gaelic under a pseudonym, then translated into English and published in 1973 as The Poor Mouth by Flann O'brien. Its style might be that of the tall tale, maybe it belongs in the absurdism category more than the speculative, but I'd agree with it being nongenre. It must be a short novel since it is barely 80 pages long in the omnubus. I don't quite have the hang of adding a pseudonym, an alternate title and new publisher.


 * If you believe that it's not sf, then it shouldn't be in the database. We only include non-sf publications by authors who are "above the threshold". This includes authors who are clearly defined as sf authors. So we would include a mystery by Isaac Asimov, or a historical novel by Poul Anderson, but not a mystery or historical novel by an author who only wrote a few pieces of sf, and is not widely perceived to be an sf author. Your description appears to make this work a borderline case, which we usually err on the side of inclusion. I will accept the submission, but change it to a CHAPTERBOOK instead of a NOVEL. This type is used for stand-alone publications of a work of fiction which is less than novel-length (40,000 words). I will add the content record for "The Poor Mouth" back to the omnibus, which I'd removed because you had marked it as NONGENRE. Next, I'll create variants of the English title to the Irish title, and then make "Myles na gCopaleen" into a pseudonym of Flann O'Brien. Mhhutchins 01:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've accepted the submission. You will need to add the source of your data to the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonym
I had to reject the submission to update the author data for, because there was no change in the data. In the Note to Moderator field (a temporary note that doesn't become part of the database), you say "Pseudonym: Myles na gCopaleen". The only way to add a pseudonym to the database is for there to be a publication in the database credited to that name. If this pseudonym wasn't used for a work of speculative fiction, there's only one way to add it to the author's data: create a wiki page for "Bibliographic Comments: Author:Flann O'Brien", which is linked on the author's summary page, and then add a note about his non-spec-fic pseudonyms. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing data
If you're not working from the primary source (the book itself), it is important that you provide the source for your data in the "Note" field of the submission. I've accepted the submission to add this publication to the database, but have had to find a source for the data, making a few additions and changes to the data. I also changed the ISBN-13 to an ISBN-10. A 1973 book would not have an ISBN-13 because they weren't created until the early 2000s, and didn't come into wide use until 2007. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My sources are Amazon and Abebooks. Sorry I forgot to note it. RR 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In the future, keep in mind that neither of those sources (or other retail websites) should be used until all other sources have been exhausted, especially for a book published before 2000. The best online sources are OCLC and the Locus Database (which we designate as "Locus1" when giving it as the source). Thanks again. Mhhutchins 20:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Three Novels by William Golding
I'm holding your submission to add a publication of this title. You did not give the source for your data in the "Note" field, as explained above. Instead you give a source (Amazon) in the "Note to Moderator" field. That field is temporary and should not be used to provide information about the publication because it disappears the moment the submission is accepted. Also, as explained above, you should not use Amazon as a sole source for data. It is very frequently wrong, especially for books which were published before the existence of Amazon. In this case, there is a very good source here: OCLC. It provides the correct publisher name, and the correct title of the book, both of which Amazon has wrong. It also gives an ISBN, and a page count. I will accept the submission, make the corrections and add the source for my data to the "Note" field. Rule of thumb for books published before 2000: Only use Amazon after you've exhausted every other resource in the world. :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the Pub Note where the source data goes, correct? I hope I got it right on my next addition. RR 03:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the field labeled "Pub Note" on the entry form, and that's where you add every piece of data that doesn't fit into any of the other fields, but you believe is necessary for the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers
May I merge certain publishers? Some go by variant names, and some are imprints or subsidiaries of other publishers. RR 22:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This should have been asked on the ISFDB:Help desk page, not on your own talk page. No one is likely to read a post that you've made to yourself. :)


 * As for your question, the quick answer is no. Non-moderatoring editors don't have that ability. You can bring your suggestions for merging to the group on any one of the community pages, which are linked on the Community portal page (linked from all wiki pages.) Mhhutchins 22:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Aerodrome: A Love Story and sourcing from Amazon, again
You've submitted a series of submissions to add new publications for this title, all of which are sourced from data on Amazon. As I've pointed out several times, Amazon's data should not be used for older publications. At it's best, the data is incomplete, and there are several sources which have more complete data, all at the click of a mouse. I'll accept the submissions, but ask that you go through each pub record and add information based on a more reliable source, such as OCLC. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

An example of the problems caused by using Amazon for the source: the publisher given by Amazon for his publication shows "Atlantic". There is no such publisher. The data for older books is entered by Amazon partners (book sellers) who don't feel it necessary to provide complete or even correct data. According to the OCLC record (created by librarians who are more conscientious than book dealers), the publisher is Little, Brown under their Atlantic Monthly Press imprint. A quick search for this publisher on the ISFDB shows that it is given as "Atlantic Monthly Press / Little, Brown" (the ISFDB standard of entering an imprint and its publisher.) Mhhutchins 22:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Another bad publisher given in this record. Mhhutchins 22:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This record is a duplicate of the first one and should be deleted. One Amazon dealer entered the imprint while another entered the publisher, creating what would appear to be two different editions for what was actually one. Mhhutchins 22:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dates and prices sourced from Amazon
This record is for a 1988 publication which has a 2013 price. 99% of the time, Amazon doesn't give the date of each printing, only the first one. Their prices will be for the printing their selling. It's not likely that a trade paperback published in 1988 would have the same price for 25 years. You'll have to blank out the date field (0000-00-00, displayed as "unknown") or find another source that gives the publication date of the printing which is priced at $14.95. Mhhutchins 22:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Martian Chronicles
I've been trying to help figure out the dates of various paperback editions with the Michael Whelan cover. Then I looked in Michaeol Whelan's website for the cover. I found out the illustration is titled "Descent" and is dated 1989. This means earlier editions listed on ISFDb with cover by Whelan are erroneous. The Whelan cover was used at least until 2000, with three variations: the Bantam logo, the old Spectra logo, and the new Spectra logo. During that time, 1989-2000, the book price went from $4.95 to $7.99. The number of printings may be the only way to guess the edition's year. RR 05:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, this should have been posted on the ISFDB: Help desk page instead of on your talk page. (This page is used for other editors to contact you.) To answer you question I'll need the link to the title record for the Whelan work. Mhhutchins 13:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm starting to get it. That sort of info has to go on the Help Desk.


 * If this is the work you're talking about, I don't see any earlier uses of it. The first was in 1990. We date records from the first publication, not the date of its creation. Are there other records for a use before 1989? Mhhutchins 13:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for other records. The Martian Chronicles are to be continued.... RR 18:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You said "This means earlier editions listed on ISFDb with cover by Whelan are erroneous.". I couldn't find any earlier editions. I'm asking you to point out those records so I can see if they're incorrectly dated or have the wrong artist credit. Mhhutchins 19:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm...well, here's Record # 262212, which does not say Michael Whelan, but it says Ian Miller and shows a picture of Whelan's cover. Other than that, I can't find any erroneous listings either. Amazon has some for sure. RR 00:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the bottom of the cover image, you'll see it's courtesy of Amazon. Cover images of books published before Amazon's existence are always suspect. And this record hasn't been primary verified either. Even if the image was correct when it was first linked, quite often Amazon "updates" older printings with the cover of a more current image. I'll remove the link to Amazon once you've read this response. If you find any others like this, feel free to make submissions removing the links to any nonmatching Amazon image files. There are literally hundreds of those in the db.


 * This is another reason why Amazon shouldn't be used as a source for older books and why I've made a point about that, one to which you have yet to respond. Also, those publication records which you added for The Aerodrome have not been updated. If you would rather not to do that, just let me know and I'll do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Paranoid Fifties
I've accepted this publication into the database. There are a few problems:


 * 1) An anthology or omnibus which has no credited editor should be credited to "uncredited".
 * 2) In the ISBN / Catalog # field you entered "none". This field should remain blank if there is no ISBN or catalog number. That fact should be stated in the Note field.
 * 3) The biggest problem: you sourced Amazon and Abebooks. I can't emphasize enough that these two websites, whose only purpose is to sell books, should not be used as the sole source for the data of older books. This has been repeatedly brought to your attention, but it hasn't changed the practice. If you had gone to OCLC (as I've also pointed out previously), you would have found this record. That record also gives the correct title of the publication. Once you've read and responded to this message, I will update the record and use the OCLC record as the source for the ISFDB record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Worldcat rather than booksellers. I bookmarked it. And the Note field is the Publisher's Note. I'll get my act together. RR 05:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Improper image upload
was directly uploaded to the server, which is not the correct method to upload cover image files. It has no image license attached (required for copyright purposes), an improper title (which doesn't match the tag of the publication record), and no direct link from the image to the publication record. All of this would have been done automatically if you'd used the "Upload Cover Scan" link on the publication record. In order to correct the problems, you'll need to go to the publication, click on the upload link, and follow the directions. Once that file is on the server copy its URL, and then go back to update the publication record, adding the URL of the image in the proper field. If you have any questions about how to do this, just ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Research has shown on the server, which is linked to this publication. If the image, catalog number and price are the same, you can link this image to the publication record you intended for the image you uploaded. 03:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Same situation with this file which will have to be uploaded using the publication record link method. Mhhutchins 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes...well, I thought I was uploading my images the right way. I'm not sure I know how they got uploaded to the server instead of the 'upload cover scan' link. Maybe I overlooked a step. I'm supposed to copy and paste the url of a picture file, even after I uploaded the file? RR 06:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. It isn't automatic. Once the file is uploaded (correctly) to the ISFDB server, you will copy its URL and then update the publication record, adding the address to the Image URL field. You start by clicking on the "Upload cover scan" link of the publication. It appears that you used the direct upload method which is linked on the wiki (a link labeled "Upload file" which should not be used for covers, but for other kinds of files.) Ask if you need further assistance. Mhhutchins 13:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I had to reject the submission, because you added the URL of the current file. This file will have to be deleted from the server because it was improperly uploaded. (Compare it with other cover image files and you'll see the problem.) First go to the pub record, and follow the directions from the "Upload cover scan" link. Again, if you need help, just ask. Mhhutchins 04:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there 2 ways to add a cover picture? A, post an URL, and B, upload a file and then post its URL? I might prefer the URL posting because it's easier. RR 05:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is one way to add a cover image to a publication record: adding the URL (web address) of the file in the proper field in an edit to that record. That file can 1) be on your computer's hard drive and you can upload it to the ISFDB server or 2) be on another website, one for which we have prior permission to deep-link to the files on that server. Websites which have given us permission are listed here. You can not link to an image file on a website which has not given us explicit permission to do so. Mhhutchins 05:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
Please use standard English capitalization (explained here under "Case") when entering titles, especially if OCLC is your source. They only capitalize the first word and proper names. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Chapterbooks
When entering CHAPTERBOOK-type records (i.e. books which contain a single work of fiction of less-than-novel length), you have to create a content record for contained work. I've added one to this record for you. I also added the roman-numbered pages (according to OCLC which I linked in the Note field). BTW, what is the source that it is hardcover? Your source OCLC doesn't give the binding (it rarely does). Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I just assumed its first printing was hardcover since it was an original children's book. Haven't such books traditionally been hardcover? RR 05:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're unable to find a source which specifies the binding, leave the field blank. It's best not to assume. Mhhutchins 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Zalma
Submission adding this record was accepted, but it has a couple of issues. According to your source (Amazon.co.uk) the publication date is 2011-03-17 and a page count of 460. Also, you give it an ISBN-10. All books starting in 2007 should have an ISBN-13 (with rare exceptions). Mhhutchins 18:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

La derneir homme
Submission adding this record was accepted, but I changed the ISBN-13 to an ISBN-10. The ISBN-13 didn't exist in 2003. Mhhutchins 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I've changed the title to _Le dernier homme_.

Science Fiction: A Very Short Introduction
I had to reject the submission to change the binding of this publication. You may not have noticed that the record has been primary verified. In these cases, you need to contact the verifier to discuss any changes to the record before making a submission to change it. BTW, "tp" is only used for softcover books that are taller than 7 inches (or over 18 cm), per this standard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with Kafka: A Very Short Introduction. According to OCLC it is 18 cm, which is "pb" per ISFDB standards. Also, this 2005 publication would not have an ISBN-13. That will have to be changed to an ISBN-10. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And this one too. ISBN-13 is OK for a 2010 publication, but according to OCLC, there are xiv roman-numeraled pages which should be added to the page count field. Mhhutchins 00:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I had assumed trade paperbacks have sizes, shapes and features not common to mass-market paperbacks. I'll keep in mind that tp is taller, pb is shorter. I found some listings that contradict the rule: Tales of the Otori, by Lian Hearn, the first 3 novels were split-reprinted as 6 paperbacks, all 5.9"x4.1" and have French flaps and dust covers. This must be a Japanese style of binding, but here it's just pb. # 69043, # 1317209, # 1317210, # 1317217. RR 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You can leave the Format field blank, and use the Note field to describe the binding if none of the ISFDB standard bindings apply. Our usage of the terms "pb" and "tp" are based solely on the size.
 * About the Hearn books: in discussions on the wiki, it's good to link to the specific ISFDB record to which you're referring. Use standard wiki write-up (not HTML): enter the URL of the record between a single set of brackets. It took a while to find the records you're speaking of. The first number is a publication record and the last three are title records, which made it even more confusing. Based on size a book with a height of 5.9" is "pb". Checking the OCLC records, I see they were 16cm, making them "pb", so I changed the two records that were given as "tp" to "pb". Mhhutchins 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing OCLC
When using OCLC (Worldcat) as your source, you should give the record number in the note field in the format "OCLC: 1234567". You are not required to link it, but it would be nice. I have done so for this record. One other thing: you give the binding/pub format as "tp" and the publication series "Faber Finds", but your source doesn't give this data. Please update the record to provide the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the binding format confirmed by Amazon.co.uk, from which I gave the current price (in the Note field), the publication date, and an image link. You'll still need to give the source for the publication series. Mhhutchins 02:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I forgot to list Amazon as a source, but that's where I found out it's a tp. RR 03:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But you still haven't given the source for the publication series. Mhhutchins 04:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Found it mentioned on the cover scan that I linked to the record. Also, as I note above, when you give an OCLC record as your source put it in the format "OCLC: 1234567" (include the colon), and use the HTML break ( " " ) at the end of a line to start a new sentence in the Note field. Otherwise, all the notes run together in one single line as it does here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wright's Laughing Man
I'm holding a submission to make this novel into a variant, but there was no change given in either the author or title field, a requirement for a variant. Mhhutchins 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there was no change, a variant is unnecessary. So I'll reject the submission. If you had some other intention, please make a new submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm holding another submission to make the title into a variant of Earthmun. There is a similar title by Wright already in the database: Erthmun (record 13808). If this is the proper spelling of the title, and if Laughing Man is a variant of it, please cancel the submission and make this title into a variant of record 13808 (in the Parent # field at the top of the "Make Variant" page.) Mhhutchins 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia says it's a US retitling of Erthmun so I rejected the submission and created a variant. Mhhutchins 03:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Create a variant is what I meant to do. I'm rusty at this. RR 03:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'll re-read my message, you'll see that I've already created the variant. I'll reject the new submission that duplicates this action. Mhhutchins 04:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Huxley's BNW & BNWR
I have your submission adding a publication to this title. You give the publication date as 1965, but Harper Perennial didn't exist until the early 1990s. It has an ISBN which weren't used by Harper & Row until the early 1970s. The OCLC record you give as your source estimates it as published by Perennial Library in the 1990s, not 1965. It gives 1965 as the year of copyright, which we can not use as a publication date. A bracketed date in an OCLC record indicates that the book doesn't have a stated publication date. You give the page count as 336, when your source gives it as "xxi, 199, 97" (each work was separately paginated).

Further research has shown that the first Perennial publication of Brave New World Revisited was in 1965, so it's not likely that an omnibus edition with the novel was published in the same year. When you're not working from a primary source, you must be twice as careful about creating publication records from secondary sources. If you choose to use a secondary source, you should not cherry pick the various bits of data, but use all of it...or none of it. Secondary sources are neither infallible nor invaluable, so caution must be taken. I will reject the submission and create a publication based the OCLC record, giving the publication date as unknown. Mhhutchins 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the record I created from the same source that you had in your submission. Please take a moment to compare it with the source and use it as a guideline for any future submissions based on secondary sources. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the first omnibus publication of this (1960) and created this record. Mhhutchins 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Animal Farm and 1984
I'm going to reject the submission to add a new publication record of this for the same reason as above: bad sourcing. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt didn't exist until 2009. A 2003 publication wouldn't have an ISBN-13. You can't rely on Amazon data (as I've said many times) when they are known to update publisher's data when a book is reprinted, or when a publisher changes their name. I believe this existing record is for the publication you were attempting to create a new record for.

Also, I'm holding your submission to change Animal Farm from novel to novella. It may technically be a novella, but changing it will effect the almost 50 publications which are now in the database. I will accept the submission if you're willing to notify each of the dozen or so primary verifiers of your intention, change each of the 50 records into CHAPTERBOOKS, and create a CHAPTERBOOK title record for each one. It's up to you. If you agree, let me know. Otherwise, you can cancel the submission and just make a note in the title record about the word count. Mhhutchins 04:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's go with plan B and cancel the submission. I'm not in the mood to re-write publishing history. RR 04:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork Angels
Why reject my edit? I meant to credit Neil Peart as a co-author, not because he's the audiobook reader, but because the novel is, as the cover says, "From a story and lyrics by Neil Peart". The Worldcat listing credits Hugh Syme also as co-author of the book because Syme did the interior illustrations. Also, the novel is a companion to the music album Clockwork Angels by the band Rush, in which Neil Peart is the drummer and one of the songwriters. It is a rarity for an original album to have its own literary adaptation. Clockwork Angels is not bad for a novel, and those who are not Rush fans may appreciate Anderson's writing and Syme's art. RR 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This should have been posted on the talk page of the moderator (me) who rejected the submission, because it's not likely they're going to go through all of the talk pages to find such a message that's directed at them. I just happened to stumble on this because I came to check on a previous submission.


 * Now to respond to your message: based on ISFDB standards only Kevin Anderson is credited as the author of this title and all of the publications listed under it. When I researched your submission, I looked at the first publication (here), and the only mention of Neil Peart is that he's the narrator of the audiobook. Narrators occasionally are credited in Amazon records in the author field, so I thought that was the basis for your submission to add him to the Author field.


 * If you look closely at the OCLC record for the print book, you'll see these credits: "Kevin J. Anderson ; illustrations by Hugh Syme ; from a story and lyrics by Neil Peart." It is listed under "Responsibility", and this is where all author credits should be taken from an OCLC record, not those listed at the top of the record under "Author". (The ISFDB help page for sourcing records from OCLC explains this.)


 * Only Anderson is credited as the author of the work, and that is how it is credited in the ISFDB record. You may update the Note field of the publication records to credit Syme and Peart for their contributions, but not in the Author field. You can also update the title record to credit Peart's story and lyrics as the basis of the work, but only in the Note field. This is similar to how we credit other novelizations (which is basically what Clockwork Angels is.) For example: Willow and Starman. Mhhutchins 21:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest submissions
Your latest set of submissions have been sitting in the queue for a number of days, I suppose because no moderator wanted to handle them. I'm going to accept them and make the corrections, and ask that you use the advice that I'll provide when making future submissions.

Warped Factors (repaired)


 * Titles: You should use standard English capitalization rules which are explained here. The librarians at OCLC use a different standard for capitalization (only the first word and proper nouns). So OCLC's "Warped factors : a neurotic's guide to the universe" should be entered in a ISFDB record as "Warped Factors: A Neurotic's Guide to the Universe" (note that we don't enter a space before the colon.)


 * I changed "Taylor Publications" to "Taylor Publishing". The OCLC record gives it as just "Taylor Pub.", and that is what you should have entered into the record since you give OCLC as your source. Further research shows that it's "Publishing" and not "Publications".


 * When the OCLC record gives the page count as "xii, 316 p." it should be entered into the ISFDB record as "xii+316", not just "316".

I had to reject the second submission to add a record for this same title. You meant it to be an update to the original submission, but that's not how the system works. You can only update a record that's already been accepted into the database. Otherwise you're creating two records. If you find you've made a mistake with a submission, you always have the option to cancel the submission. Go to the "My Pending Edits" link on the Home Page and select which submission to cancel. Then create a new record that has all of the data instead of two that each have partial data.

A Tribute to Walter Koenig (repaired)


 * I had to change the ISBN-13 to an ISBN-10. If you look at your source (the OCLC record) you'll see two ISBNs in the ISBN line. The first one listed is the one that appears in the book. The second one provides the nonstated ISBN-13 (or ISBN-10 if the ISBN-13 is stated). You should always use the first ISBN. There are rare mistakes in which the numbers have been reversed, but for the most part, that's a safe rule to follow. Also keep in mind, that the ISBN-13 didn't exist before 2005, and wasn't required until 2007 (although some publishers, usually small ones, or self-publishers, were even slower to make the change.)


 * The source was changed from "OCLC #62757051" to "OCLC: 62757051" which is the standard format for entering record numbers from an outside source. (I've made this change in all of these submissions.)


 * I added a note that the publication date was from Amazon, since OCLC doesn't give the date in their record, and the current Amazon price in the Note field. The latter was done because the price may have changed in the 8 years since publication.

A Tribute to Spock (repaired)


 * Corrected the capitalization and the position of the colon (see explanation above).


 * Changed the ISBN-13 of this 2003 publication to the ISBN-10 (see above).


 * Changed the publisher from "1st Book Library" to "1stBooks" (based on the OCLC record), and noted the discrepancy in the Amazon's listing for the publisher.


 * Changed the page count field from "103" to "xiv+103" based on the OCLC record.

The submission creating a record for Walter Koenig's Things to Come was rejected because, other than rare exceptions, graphic novels are not eligible for the database.

Please take some time to read this page which explains how to enter each field of a publication record. This is very important when you're using secondary sources to create records. As I advised earlier, it is better to become acquainted with the intricacies of the database when you're working from a book-in-hand. After you've become proficient at that, only then turn to creating records from secondary sources. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Improper uploading of cover image files
Your last two cover image files were incorrectly uploaded. You must follow the directions which were given here. You should use the link on the publication record to upload files. DO NOT use the "Upload file" link on the Wiki pages to upload cover image files. I've deleted the two improperly uploaded files and rejected the submission to add them to the publication records. Mhhutchins 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to figure it out. The link that says 'upload new image scan' always takes me to a certain upload place on the Wiki pages. Sometimes it takes me to a 'log in first' place followed by a link to the Wiki. Are there two upload places? If so, I can't tell them apart.


 * Maybe my mistake is this: I click the 'upload' link before I log in, then I log in, then I upload the image - in the wrong place. The correct way should be: log in first, then edit the pub and click the 'upload' link, then upload in the right place. The upload place has a window below it that has to have text in it, or if it's blank the uploading is wrong. Could that be it? RR 00:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Step by step instructions.
 * You should be logged-in to both the Wiki and the Database. If you check the box, you will remain logged-in and will not have to log in again.
 * Go to the Database publication record for which you have a cover image file on your computer.
 * Click on the link "Upload cover scan" (or "Upload new cover scan" if there's one already linked to the record.) This opens a new tab or window.
 * This new tab (or window) is on the Wiki side of the ISFDB. Click the button labeled "Choose File" and a browser "Open" box for your computer opens. You will go to the folder on your computer where the file is located. Click on the file that matches the publication record from which you just came. (This file must be less than 150K in size and no taller than 600 pixels. Otherwise, you will get a warning when uploading.) The summary box is pre-populated with the data from that record. If the box is empty, you've made a mistake. Go back to the publication record and start again.
 * Click on the button labeled "Upload file"
 * Once the file is uploaded to the ISFDB server, you are sent to the Wiki page for that file. It will have the proper license tags attached.
 * Left click on the cover image and you're taken to the file (the cover of the publication). Copy the URL in your browser's address window. Or you can right on the cover image, and in the pop-up menu choose "Copy Image URL" (or something similar, depending upon your browser).
 * Go back to Database publication record (the tab for it should have remained open). Click on the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu.
 * On the next screen, the update screen, go to the Image URL field and paste the URL of the image you just loaded. (Make sure it's empty before pasting the new URL.)
 * Go to the bottom of the screen and click the button "Submit Data" and wait for the submission to be moderated.
 * After following these instructions, and you're still having problems, please post a response here. Mhhutchins 01:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing primary verified records
Before making submissions to modify or add data to a field other than the Note or Image field in a primary verified record, you should discuss it with the primary verifier. I accepted the submissions to put the Moorcock publications into a publication series, because I'd primary verified them. But in the future, I will hold any such submissions until it's been discussed with the record's verifier. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Le Comte de Monte-Christo
I have your submission on hold to add this novel. As to my knowledge this is an adventure novel and as such not per se eligible for our database. Do you have more information about speculative content? Thanks, Stonecreek 09:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that it's _Le comte de Monte-Cristo_ (from the Montecristo island) and that there is indeed no speculative elements. Hauck 14:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to find this work listed in the online Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. It is a classic, but it's plot is driven by an adventure formula that is very straining on credibility. Think about it: two men are send to the bottom dungeon of the Chateau d'If, an actual island fortress turned prison that is surrounded by steep cliffs, known to be impregnable and inescapable. Their cells are connected by a hand-carved tunnel. It's just them, what few materials they have, and their wits. Realistically, they'd only languish and eventually die. But one of them is intelligent enough to teach and train, and the other, the main protagonist who is already above average, is bright enough to learn and adapt. The escape requires a fall that should be fatal, but he survives it and with not enough injury to impede his untying the death shroud and swimming to safety. Then he happens to be incredibly improved physically and mentally, has hidden resources, a secret identity, a secret hideaway, a costume, and a plan to sleuth, spy, infiltrate, wage a one-man guerilla war, and prove himself to be unstoppable against some devious figures in high places.


 * However, he has no magic, no arcane ways, no gadgets or inventions, just what any ordinary men had on Earth in the early 1800's. This novel was published as plain fiction and not of any specific genre. It reads like borderline fantasy, and it has many stock ingredients and cliches that are familiar in much later entertainments. Dumas may have invented them. I'm not sure what elements could be speculative or counterfactual. They may be tenuous at best. I guess it remains non-genre.


 * For the Count of Monte Cristo to be on ISFDB, is being cited in SFE a good enough reason? RR 21:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. We don't have the same standards as the SFE. Should Dumas's supernatural work be removed from the ISFDB because the SFE doesn't include it? Mhhutchins 21:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. SFE errs on the side of completeness. Dumas' supernatural fiction is cited on SFE's online Enycylopedia of Fantasy, by the way. RR 01:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know that the Encyclopedia of Fantasy is now online. I must have missed that announcement. It appears that it's basically the print edition from 1997 with only a few updates. I guess they're spending the bulk of their time updating the SFE. Mhhutchins 01:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the reason SFE included the novel is that it had some influence on notable works (Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination maybe the most prominent one). But we really do have to draw a line. We simply just can't list all the works that had influence on sf authors. I'll reject the submission. Stonecreek 23:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you too. RR 01:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Strange Affair of Spring Heeled Jack
Hello, with your submission you are trying to change a primary verified record with a substantial change of the page count. It is essential to ask the primary verifier before submitting such a change, so I have put the submission on hold. Please ask the verifier about the given page count. Thank you, Stonecreek 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll reject the submission due to no response. It seems more likely that the page count is as stated by the verifier (after all, he took a look at the book). Stonecreek 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Angelique" and Publication Series vs. Title Series
I accepted your changes to, but I removed the setting of the Publication Series to "Angelique" #6. There are two types of series: Publication (also referred to as Publisher) and Title. The former is used for an edition of a work, while the latter is used for the work itself. An easy rule of thumb for determining which type is to ask yourself if another publisher published the book, would that edition belong in the same series? If so, it's probably a Title series; if not, it's probably a Publication series. In this case, "Angelique" is a title series, and we already have the title recorded as in that series at #6. If you go to 's page, you'll see it's shown that way. See Help:How_to_work_with_series for more details, if you're interested. Thanks. --MartyD 11:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a title series, not a publication series. Thanks for the correction. RR 06:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also question the change from NOVEL to NONGENRE, especially because of its nomination for the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award for Best Classic Libertarian SF Novel. Are you certain there are no speculative elements in this work? Mhhutchins 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am aware that the Libertarian Futurist Society nominates and awards works of SF and fantasy as a rule, but their preliminary nominations for classic novel have included a non-genre work once or twice (in 1985, Mario Puzo's The Sicilian, and Cameron Hawley's Cash McCall). That, and I have searched the internet and could not find a synopsis or review of The Countess Angelique that points out any speculative or fantastic elements, nor any in the other Angelique books. I think that might be reason to doubt whether The Countess is genre, or reason to suspect another hiccup in the Libertarian Award's nomination process in 1996. I can't be completely sure until I read the novel myself, of course. RR 06:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose we can leave it as is until there is something more definitive about its contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

James Havoc
I had to remove the author photo image which you linked to this author. We do not have permission to deep-link to files on that website. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)