ISFDB:Help desk/archives/archive 16


Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page for the Help Desk. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from January - April 2012.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Help desk.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31

Expanded archive listing


Editing Awards

I was going to prep the new Bram Stoker awards from the HWA. I did add in the link (2011), and it goes through just fine. Unfortunately, there are no editing links to add data. The Lifetime Achievement, the Richard Laymon and the Silver Hammer awards were announced. Is this something special where moderators are the only ones allowed to add data? I couldn't find anything in the FAQ. Thanks! GuyAnthonyDeMarco 01:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To add awards given to a book or short story, you go to the title record for that book/story and under the "Editing Tools" section of the Navigation Bar, you select "Add Award Information to This Title". Then proceed from there. Other awards (Lifetime Achievement, Richard Laymon, Silver Hammer, and Specialty Press Awards for the Bram Stoker awards) are referred to as "Untitled Awards". That's a very strange name for this, since the awards all have "titles", but it refers to the fact that these kinds of awards are not associated with a "Title record", they're usually associated with people, but sometimes go to publishers, web sites, etc. So for these, you need to look for the "Add Untitled Award" option within the "Editing Tools". To make life more difficult, this option isn't available in "Editing Tools" on most screens, you need to go to the Awards page for some year of some award. For example, if you go to the 2011 page that you created for the Bram Stoker Award, and look at the Editing Tools there, you'll see it's available to you. When you click on that, it should give you a warning not to use that to assign an award to a book, but then you should be able to follow the directions on that page (and the Award Help page if necessary) to complete entering those particular awards. And thanks for pointing out that this doesn't seem to appear on the Award Help screen. I'll go take a look at that and see if we can fix it up. Thanks, Chavey 04:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Award Editing is still restricted to Mods and Volunteers - and as our only non-Mod volunteer has since become a moderator, it's currently mods-only. But if you wish to volunteer, just leave a message on User_talk:Ahasuerus and he can add you fairly easily. BLongley 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Novel Verification Question

I'm trying to use my books to verify listings. My first attempt is The House on the Strand, which has a copyright date of 1969 and no additional printing data. The isfdb publication listing's data matches my copy. I added the LCCN link in the note based on "Help:How to create a link to a US Library of Congress (Loc) record" which says, "This is generally worth recording in the notes of the relevant publication."

The first two digits of the LCCN, 74, are usually the year for books prior to 2001. The LCCN page shows the Published/Created date as 1969 in spite of the 74 at the front of the number. The Wikipedia article "Library of Congress Control Number" says, "There are also some peculiarities in numbers beginning with a "7" because of an unsuccessful experiment applied between 1969 and 1972."

It looks like I should go ahead and verify it, but I don't want to verify incorrectly, so I thought I'd ask. What should I do? Jmaloney 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Looks like you should go ahead and verify it. The LCCN entry shows the 1969 date for that number, so it seems you shouldn't read 1974 into it. --MartyD 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Jmaloney 03:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
For the librarian in most of us: an explanation of the "interim" system used between December 1968 and January 1972. The first two digits no longer referred to the year of filing in this system. It took them three years to realize they'd made a mistake and went back to the old system (which was slightly revised in 2001 by making the first 4 digits into the year of filing. Mhhutchins 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Does primary verification verify secondary data entered by others?

I have The Tenth Planet with no dust jacket. The isfdb listing has no primary verification. Based on my copy I can't verify the month & day, the isbn-13, the price, or the cover art. The other fields match my copy -- year, isbn-10, publisher, pages, binding.

I'm sure this is a common situation, but I don't know how to handle it. Since I have the book in hand I feel like I should do a primary verification. Does primary verification verify just the data in the book or does it also verify the data others have entered from secondary sources? I think I will encounter this situation with several books so I'd like to know the accepted practice in this situation. Thanks. Jmaloney 04:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary verification means that you have verified each of the ten fields against the primary source (the book itself). If the book does not contain data for any of those fields, you should state that in the Note Field. (For example, the book doesn't print the price or credit the cover artist). If an ISFDB record you're verifying contains data that is not present in the book, the previous editors should have recorded the source for that data. In the specific record you mention, you should add a note that "The primary verifier's copy is jacketless, so the price and cover artist can not be confirmed. Month and day of publication not stated." The previously entered notes give the secondary source for the date (Currey), price (Locus) and cover artist (Abebooks). BTW, the ISBN-13 is auto-generated by the system for pre-ISBN-13 books, so that number isn't present on any 1973 publication, or almost any book before 2005. When entering or updating records use the actual ISBN printed in the book. The system does the rest. Thanks for contributing and welcome to the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 17:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I added the note you suggested and I went back and added a similar note to another book I had verified. Thanks too for telling me the ISBN-13 is automatically generated for pre-ISBN-13 books.Jmaloney 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, ISBN-13s are generated from ISBN-10s and ISBN-10s are generated from ISBN-13s, but that isn't going to be possible forever - eventually a 979 ISBN-13 and a 978 ISBN-13 will both map to the same ISBN-10. So as time goes on it becomes more and more important to record the actual one. BLongley 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Perelandra Verification Questions

I recently performed a primary verification of Perelandra 1950 Avon. I am new here and based on what I've learned in the past few days I have two questions regarding Perelandra's verification.

1. Title
Help:Getting Started:Verify a Novel directs me to read Help:Screen:NewNovel, which states:

Subtitles. If the title has a subtitle, enter it, with a colon and a space used to separate the title from the subtitle. For example, the 1986 edition of George MacDonald's "Lilith" has "Lilith" on the title page, and below that, in a smaller font, "A Romance". This should be entered as "Lilith: A Romance".

My title page has "Perelandra" above "WORLD OF THE NEW TEMPTATION" which is in smaller type. It looks to me like the publication's title should be entered as "Perelandra: World of the New Temptation," but the publications on Bibliography: Perelandra don't follow that convention. Should I change the title on the publication I have verified to obey the help page's rules?

2. Year
The book doesn't show printing data. I feel like I should add a note like, "The primary verifier cannot confirm the year. The copyright page states "Avon Reprint Edition, copyright, 1950, by Avon Publishing Co. Inc.""

Should I add such a note?

Thanks. Jon Jmaloney 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, if there is a subtitle on the title page, it should be enteted. As for the other publications, subtitles are usually not consistent across different editions. If you check out the other publications, you can see the covers don't have the same subtitle so it's likely the title pages do not also.
2. Yes, a note would be appropriate. In similar cases, I normally add something like "No date other than year. Publication date from SOURCE as of DATE." if a alternate source is available. And if no alternate source, then "No date other than year." and then just use the year.
-- JLaTondre (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Jmaloney 02:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comic series "Kosmiczny detektyw" in "Fantastyka"

(Reposting from my Talk page)

Beginning with "Fantastyka 2'82" starts a comic series "Kosmiczny detektyw" ('Cosmic P. I.') by the trio Parowski, Rodek and Polch. Each issue has it's own title (f. e. "Licencja" ('Licence') in "F 2'82" or "Zodiakalna afera" ('Zodiac Affair') in "F 3'82"). All issues tell the story of Funky Koval, ex-Space Force-pilot. Nowadays there are four hardcover issues of the whole series, but it started in 1982 in "Fantastyka". Now comes my question: How do I handle such a series of artwork? Zoltar 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded, I'll make a suggestion. I would enter these in one of the formats:
 Main Title (Issue Title) [comic strip]  or
 Main Title: Issue Title [comic strip]
e.g. as:
 Kosmiczny detektyw (Zodiakalna afera) [comic strip]  or
 Kosmiczny detektyw: Zodiakalna afera [comic strip]
An advanced search for the title "comic strip" finds many examples of the "[comic strip]" element in a name, justifying that use. I would want to include both the series name and the individual strip name in the bibliography, which both of these options do. Either approach should work, and would allow a search to find the title either from the series title or the individual title. Chavey 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions regarding SFBC edition of Magician (1983)

I have the 1983 SFBC edition of Magician by Raymond E. Feist. The current record has no primary verifier. The problem I have is with the Note that says "Gutter code N01 on page 567." My copy of the book has no gutter code on page 567, or on any of the last 20 pages in the book, or anywhere else I can find. I know I purchased the book in 1983, so either a) the Note is wrong, or b) there was another edition of the book printed in the same year. Without a primary verifier, I don't know where the Gutter code note came from. I'd like to verify the record, but I don't know if I actually have the same book, or another edition. Can someone tell me what should be done? Thanks :) AndonSage 15:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the trouble with accepting submissions to update pubs without sourcing or verification. Does your copy have "3537" printed on the back of the dustjacket (and not "03537")? If so, do a primary verification, and add the note that the "Primary1 verified copy does not have a gutter code." It's likely yours is not the first printing, because "N01" falls exactly into the pattern of it being the first book club printing. Mhhutchins 19:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my copy has "3537" printed on the back, and not "03537." I did notice that according to the Publisher:SFBC 1980-1984 page, two of the four March 1983 books do not list gutter codes, and the other book lists gutter code "N07." The only other book with gutter code "N01" is Floating Dragon, an August 1983 alternate selection. I'll go ahead and edit and primary verify Magician with the note you request. AndonSage 06:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"N01" indicates a printing the first week of 1983. The note for Floating Dragon explains that even though it was first printed in January 1983 for other Doubleday book clubs, it was not a selection of the SFBC until September 1983. Magician may have been printed in January for other Doubleday book clubs, too. There was usually a five-to-six week difference between the week of printing and the week of mailing to members. (This time difference also applies to Doubleday's trade editions as well.) The short lead time for Chalker's The Four Lords of the Diamond is an exception. It was printed in the second week of February and was a club selection in March. Look at the July selection of Michael McDowell's Blackwater, Volume 1. It's early in the year printing also is a strong case that it was a selection of other clubs first. You'll find this is very common for titles that are borderline science fiction, usually horror, or by big name authors whose books went first to the "classier" Doubleday clubs like the Literary Guild. Heinlein's Friday was a selection of the Literary Guild almost a year before it became an SFBC selection. Even Asimov's Foundation's Edge was a Literary Guild selection before it was an SFBC selection. It always has been, and will continue to be, difficult to give the "publication date" for book club editions. That's why we settled for the month of their SFBC selection. It must be remembered that the SFBC lists here are not lists of printings, but lists of the SFBC monthly selections, so gutter codes won't always perfectly match up. If someone wants to create a list of printings based on gutter codes, they're welcome to do so. I'd be interested in seeing such a list, but don't think I'd want to participate in building it. It took us years to build the current list, and there's still titles that we've been unable to find gutter codes for. But I'd be shocked to find there's more than a dozen titles that we've missed entirely. Pretty good for a club that's been around for almost sixty years and published thousands of titles. Mhhutchins 07:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, keep an eye on that BCE of Magician. It's going for between $50 and $75 in good condition on Copies of the trade edition (I have one) are selling for several hundred dollars, even an ex-library copy in fair-to-good condition is asking for $150!. Mhhutchins 08:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info :) Unfortunately, my copy of the book has the glue starting to come lose where the binding connects to the spine at the front cover, so it won't be considered good condition. AndonSage 22:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the biggest problem with SFBC editions before 1990 or so. They weren't manufactured for a lifetime of reading, but then neither were most of Doubleday's trade editions, until their Foundation imprint came along. (Although my copy of the trade edition of Magician is holding out rather well, having been printed in a large-format [24 cm as opposed to their usual 22 cm] on a different press.) The value of the SFBC comes in the club's publishing of so many first editions and first hardcover editions. Mhhutchins 22:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In any case, I still have a Book Club Edition with no gutter code. I've checked all the way back to page 500, and still no code. I've decided it's been long enough that it's time to re-read the book again, so I'll be going through the entire book to see if a gutter code is in there anywhere. If I find one, I'll let you know. AndonSage 22:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If there's not one within the last ten pages, there's not likely to be one, or at least, I've never seen one further back than that. Mhhutchins 22:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Magician--I have a BCE of this book with N01 on page 567. In addition, it would probably sell for about $20 on a good day, considering it is in Mint/Fine condition--because listing it and selling it are two entirely different things. I also have a question about the three listings showing in the ISFDB for the Barnes & Noble printing--0760741778. These are all the exact same edition, but three different printings. It seems unnecessary--? Trisha 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It's ISFDB policy to create records for all printings. Some may feel it's unnecessary...unless they happen to have one of the later printings and want a record of it in the database. In many cases, it's important to have records of later printings in order to create a publication history of the title. It wouldn't do much good to only have, for example, the Oct 1954 Bantam printing of The Martian Chronicles without the user knowing that it was continuously in-print from Bantam for the next 40 years.

Reversing Variants

This is something I've done maybe two or three times, and only where there were just two titles to worry about. A fairly straightforward process. Today I came across Bester's [The Stars My Destination] which should be "Tiger! Tiger!" as the canonical. There are seven Variant titles. More work, but still quite doable. What I'm unsure of is what happens to the Awards? If they were tied to "The Stars..." title when given out shouldn't that still be how they are credited? --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Tiger! Tiger! is the canonical name of the work. We've established in the past that the first published title of a work isn't necessarily the canonical title, and in this case The Stars My Destination is widely accepted as the true name. Even the British have started using that title. That doesn't answer your question about what happens to award records, but it should not be tested in this case. Mhhutchins 22:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree, and disagree with some of the previous disagreement. ;-) "Tiger! Tiger!" as canonical may look obvious to some, but as one of the "Even the British" I can understand that an English-language original is not necessarily canonical, even when the original name seems to be the one that gets translated most. As we get more languages used here, I guess this problem will come up more and more often, and we'll have to deal with it. BLongley 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Having said that, I think such an effort should be tested, as there are many examples of titles in the wrong canonical language still. But I also agree that they shouldn't be tested on the live server. As there's an "Awards" question involved, I think I'll give the testing a go myself - there may be a rather long backlog of software changes involved, but the problem intrigues me. BLongley 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Riftwar Cycle Books and their maps

Mhhutchins explained to me about the proper naming for maps, but I have a question before I continue editing the records.

In the Riftwar Cycle books, there are (so far) two types of the Midkemia map. The first map type can be found in the Riftwar Saga books (i.e. Magician, Magician: Apprentice, Magician: Master), uses a sans serif (e.g. Arial) font, and is uncredited. The second map type is first found in The King's Buccaneer, uses a serif font, and is credited to Claire Naylon Vaccaro in that book. This second map is also used in later books (e.g. Shadow of a Dark Queen) without credit. The two maps also differ in the graphics used for geographical features like trees and mountains. They are the same for the basics, like land and sea outlines, placement of cities, etc. My question is how should these be differentiated? I don't think they should both be called "Midkemia (map)" since they are different.

Also, I'm guessing that Claire should be given credit for the maps even in the books that don't give a credit for the maps, with a note that refers to her credit in The King's Buccaneer? Thanks for the help :) AndonSage 23:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too difficult to disambiguate the maps such as "Midkemia (map I)" by "uncredited" and "Midkemia (map II)" by Clair Naylon Vaccaro...or something along the same lines. Giving them different names is a good idea and noting in the title record's note fields the difference will keep future editors from mistakenly merging the records. I wouldn't give credit where credit isn't given unless the maps published in the different books are identical and the uncredited ones can be attributed to the mapmaker based on the ones that are credited. Mhhutchins 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll use map I and map II to disambiguate the maps. Also, the maps in the books I have after The King's Buccaneer are identical to the maps in that book. I have all the books up through Krondor: Tear of the Gods plus Talon of the Silver Hawk (which has different maps) so I can't comment on any maps used in the other books. I've gone through all my books and only The King's Buccaneer has any credit for the maps. AndonSage 06:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

British pricing

The help page on British pricing tells me that £10.10 would be 10 pounds and 10 pence, and it tells me that 10/10 would be 10 shillings and 10 pence. But I entered a book that was 10 pounds and 10 shillings, and the help page doesn't tell me how to enter that. I used £10 10', but I suspect that's not the best way to enter it. What is the proper way? Chavey 00:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"£10/10/-" would be correct. We don't have many pre-decimal books costing over a pound, so I don't think this has come up before. BLongley 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That format makes sense, and I've corrected it. I'm not surprised that there aren't many ISFDB books at that price; this edition of Le Morte DArthur (sic - how can they miss the apostrope in d'Arthur??) looks like it was really aimed at the top of the 1%. And this was the "cheap" price, they had three versions, at: £10/10/-, £12/12/-, and £63! Chavey 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Data Consistency/Pseudonyms With Titles (update)

I have updated the page ISFDB:Data Consistency/Pseudonyms With Titles, and it now look like it is almost finished. I will try and fix the letter J by myself now, please check my fixes since i only did it once long time ago(I fixed only author 16633, and waiting for OK, before I continue). I will appreciate any help with this project, let's finish it! and we will have a clean DB on this matter. Regards, Qshadow 14:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, this will never be entirely "cleaned" until we know who was the true author of many titles by publisher-assigned pseudonyms (housenames), many of whom have eluded researchers for decades. That shouldn't prevent us from varianting the titles of those pseudonymous works that slipped by after the pseudonym relationship was established in the database. Mhhutchins 17:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with cover upload

I have twice uploaded a cover scan for the book "Dimension X" by Damon Knight showing the "Library Edition Cover" that did not seem to load correctly. All the information for my upload is there but it is the wrong picture. When I upload a picture that is to replace one that is on file I am asked if I want to contenue. This seems to be the point where I do something wrong. --RUSSWOTHE 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your image (the one with the library sticker) replaced the one that didn't have it. Because two editions of this title don't have the sticker, I copied the original image and reloaded it to the server (your submission had replaced it.) I then linked the stickered image to the library edition's record. I reverted the records for the trade edition and the book club edition back to the original cover image, the one without the sticker. I don't believe this had anything to do with the upload problem, but everything appears to be OK now. Please verify the record that matches your copy of the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: to initiate a new topic on any wiki page (whether it's a community page or a user page), you should click the + (plus) tab at the top of the page (or click the "Post a Comment" link in some wiki skins). Give a name to the topic in the "Subject/headline" box, and then start your message in the box below. Then just "Save page". Mhhutchins 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tractrix verification advice requested

I have this book Tractrix. The book does not show the publication month or price, and the ISFDB record does not attribute sources for those values. (The month and price do match Amazon's data: The book states, "Published 2004 by Publishing Inc...." Since I have the book I feel like I should do a primary verification, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Please advise. Thanks.Jmaloney 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The data in fields that do not match what is stated in the actual book should be sourced in the note field, e.g. "No stated month of publication or printed price. Both given in this record are from". If you can't find a source, leave the field blank. If the cover artist is not credited, leave the field blank and record in the notes "Cover artist not credited." If a reasonably reliable secondary source credits the cover art, then enter the credit in the cover artist field and note "Cover artist not credited. Credit given in this record is from [source]". In other words, when you do a primary verification, you're confirming that either the data in every field is stated in the book, or otherwise sourced in the note field. Mhhutchins 05:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Jmaloney 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Publication Note Field

Can wiki editor conventions be used in this field or is it strictly html? John L Syzygy 01:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is strictly HTML. --MartyD 01:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Marty. It's back to the tutorials for me. John L.Syzygy 02:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You might find Help:Using_HTML_in_Note_Fields helpful (no pun intended). --MartyD 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of Eos / HarperCollins Number Line

I have what looks like Paladin of Souls except I don't know if my copy is also the first printing.
My number line is "03 04 05 06 07 JTC/RRD 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1". Is this a first printing? What does the first number series mean? Thanks. Jmaloney 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an especial expert on such, but I'd say that's a first printing, and the "03 04 05 06 07" indicates 2003 - with possible intention to reprint in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. "JTC/RRD" is a complete mystery though. BLongley 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll upload my cover scan and notify the primary verifier.Jmaloney 21:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How to add a new magazine to the magazine list?

I would like to add db information about The Infinite Matrix, an online magazine (2001-2006) that published professional writers (Ursula K. Le Guin, Gene Wolfe, Wm. Gibson, etc.) and paid professional rates. The SFE terms it "a vibrant magazine and one of the best to appear on the internet." [ ] However I apparently am not authorized to edit the magazines page. (It's been at least an eon since I have contributed anything to ISFDB. Sorry.) What do I need to do? The directions at the bottom of the page do not work for me.

The magazine is no longer actively published, but it is archived at

Also, am I correct in assuming that I would only enter a link to the site, not create an ISFDB page for the magazine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gunn (talkcontribs) .

The main ISFDB database, where you would do Add New Magazine, at and this Wiki, where you would make a page for additional information about the magazine, at . . ., each require logging in -- separately -- even though the username and password are the same, and you only had to register once. I can't tell from your question what problem you had, so please provide more details about what does not work. I know yours is a "genre" magazine, but Help:Entering_non-genre_magazines has some useful instructions for adding any magazine. See also Help:How_to_link_a_magazine_to_its_wiki_page_and_add_it_to_a_magazine_series. --MartyD 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Because of spam attacks in the past, the Wiki software is configured not to allow editors with very few posts to change most Wiki pages, including the magazine page. If you would like to enter individual issues into the database using the New Magazine link that Marty provided above, the resulting discussion will quickly increase your number of Wiki edits and you will then be able to add the magazine to the Wiki page. Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 14:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The bigger question here is whether to allow this web-only publication into the database. According to #11 of the Rules of Acquisition, such webzines are not eligible for inclusion. The few exceptions that have been made are due to each one being shepherded by an editor. I'll look at the webzine's archives to see whether the stories and/or authors have achieved a status that would make it an exception to the rule. If so, I'll create stub records to make it easier for other editors to edit them. Mhhutchins 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow and Tomorrow & The Fairy Chessmen (Lewis Padgett) (reviewer inactive)

For this verified pub, type is omnibus, Tomorrow and Tomorrow & The Fairy Chessmen, The Fairy Chessmen (on cover) is referenced as Chessboard Planet. For this not verified pub, same year, same publisher, type is collection Tomorrow and Tomorrow and the Fairy Chessmen, it is The Fairy Chessmen with some other verified pub in the container. Questions : can we do something for the duplicate data and can we link Chessboard Planet to The Fairy Chessman. Thanks. ChanurBe 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this may be a mistake. It looks like someone did a merge instead of making a variant. Google Books doesn't show the contents, but it does allow searching inside it. "Chessboard Planet" (nor "Chess Board Planet") is not found, while "Fairy Chessmen" has 100 hits. Also, Google does show the title page, and that uses "and" instead of "&". Whether that and the cover is sufficient to remove the verification and combine the two entries, correcting "Chessboard Planet" to "The Fairy Chessmen", I don't know. Perhaps some other moderators have had experience with something like this in the past. --MartyD 12:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
All references give the title as The Fairy Chessmen. I'll correct the record and leave a message on Scott Latham's page, even though it's not likely that he'll respond. Mhhutchins 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made Chessboard Planet into a variant of The Fairy Chessman. One was SHORTFICTION and the other NOVEL, but because it was published as a standalone work by Galaxy, I've made them both NOVELs. Mhhutchins 01:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing canonical name

It seems that this chap first name got an extra n in it, see his entry at SFE. What's the way to fix it? Cheers, P-Brane 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

This is an easy one. Since he never had a book published as by "Dennis Hughes", you can edit the author data for Dennis Hughes and change his name to Denis Hughes. I'll do it to save you some time. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 05:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it was a little more involved that I thought, because there were some pubs published as by "Denis Hughes". Everything should be correct now. Mhhutchins 05:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, P-Brane 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Non-"Thrilling" Wonder Stories

I'm trying to enter a pulp-sized reprint magazine from 1963 called Wonder Stories. The dateis from the publication notice on the bottom of the TOC, there is no other date shown anywhere. But it has the volume and number as if it is (huh... 4 two letter words in a row) if it is a continuation of the Thrilling Wonder Stories series. The last Thrilling Wonder Stories was Vol. XLIV, No. 3 and this is marked Vol.XLV, No. 2 (which means of course there's was a No. 1 also).

How do I enter this, as Wonder Stories or Thrilling Wonder Stories or as a separate magazine? Don Erikson 19:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Enter it as actually published. If we determine that it's a continuation of the previous title, we can always place it into the magazine's editor series, so that it shows up on that magazine's grid. Mhhutchins 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How to manage alternate covers ?

I have two books which present exactly the same data of pubs present and verified in ISFDB, but have a different cover: which is the correct way to cope with this situation ? --Pips55 23:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Are they verified pubs? If so, ask the verifier(s) to double-check if it's the correct image. I've caught people updating covers from secondary sources like Amazon without realising that there may be multiple variations. If it is the correct image, then clone it, add your cover and verify that. There have been several titles with a choice of covers all published at the same time at the same price. Bibliographical nightmares, but valid publishing/marketing techniques. BLongley 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding an E-Book Novella

Nina Kiriki's last "book" was the e-pub Novella "Ghost Hedgehog".

Since this was published solo, would I add it as a novel or a chapbook or some other format?

She's stated that she intends to expand the story into a full-length novel. Eventually.


SusanOfearna 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You would add it as a Chapterbook. There are lots of examples where someone develops a short story into a novel, and we really want to keep track of both the original short story and the novel (or, in this case, novella and novel), so we would want them listed as such. If Nina develops it into a novel, then we would keep this chapterbook, but then add a Note that it was expanded into the novel. An example of this is the novelette, then novel Monument, by Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Chavey 22:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology (French edition)

There is french edition of anthology, but it hasn't [French] attribute and hasn't french titles of shortstories. How can this be fixed? BarDenis 16:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a multi-step (and quite tedious) procedure at this stade of the ISFDB (e.g. without full language support). 1) Unmerge (french) anthology title from the (english) original. 2) once done, change language to french at the title level and don't forget to make it (the french anthology) a variant of the english one. 3) Enter each short story in French then change each title's language to French (they'll probably be set to english by default) then vt each one (use caution not to have vts of vts), it'll give you a publication with twice the number of texts (one in each language). 4) delete from pub the english texts (with "Remove titles from this pub"). You've now finished your task (note that it'll mean about forty edits). Perhaps are there simpler ways, but, having already done this with some french anthologies and with a moderator status (that speeds things vastly), I'm quite convinced that the easiest way is simply to start from scratch and enter (in one go) the whole anthology directly in its language, vt the individual titles and the book and delete the first occurence. Hauck 16:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it will be easier. Thank you. BarDenis 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid Hervé is correct. We should at least be able to improve the addition of contents to set them to the overall title language: and for existing contents, to allow you to unmerge to a different title and language. But it's difficult to say when such improvements can go in. BLongley 16:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We need to get the current batch of software changes tested and implemented first and, unfortunately, I am the bottleneck du jour. I am currently wrapping up a very big project at work, which should be over in a little over 2 weeks, and then I should have a week or two to work on the ISFDB software. Ahasuerus 07:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover Art?

This may be in the help if I knew the right term to search on, but Rise of a Merchant Prince is one of those publications where the cover is slightly narrower than the book and there is artwork which spans the inside of the cover and the next page which is also cardstock. Is this considered cover art or interior art? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's even brought up on any of the help pages. Personally, I'd call it cover art and leave it at that. Technically, it's still the cover based on your description of the paper on which it appears. Mhhutchins 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How does one remove a tag?

The bibliography entry for The Darkwood Mask has been given the tag "novelization." And it certainly is not a novelization. How can this be removed? Shuulinific-Lul 04:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess it depends upon the definition of "novelization." In this case, I think the tag came from the Locus description. They consider any work based on a someone else's work or a "bible" (for a shared world) to be novelizations. If I were defining the word, I'd be more restrictive, having it mean a novel based on a screenplay...but that's just me. Maybe someone here can tell you how, or even if, a tag can be removed. I tried myself and wasn't able to do it. There are some editors who have used this tag system as a personal reading list, and I don't really like it being used that way. So if I knew how to remove tags, I already would have. Anyone else know how to do it? Mhhutchins 05:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Odd that this title got stuck with that tag when the other books in the same series did not. It sounds like there is good cause for the introduction of "tie-in fiction" as a tag. Because "novelization" an unfortunate label to to stick on a an original story (even if the setting itself is from a shared setting.) Anyway, it appears that you can remove your own tags, just not someone else's. I hope that's not the case! Shuulinific-Lul 05:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That's right, you can only remove your own tags. We implemented "tags" a few years ago when Amazon and other places began using them extensively. Like "votes", they are always user-defined and are not approved or reviewed by moderators. In theory, it makes them open to abuse and at first we weren't sure it was a good idea, but we haven't run into significant problems so far.
We can certainly allow moderators to remove tags if we find that they are being abused. In this case, however, the issue is the meaning of the word "novelization", which seems to be a case of reasonable people disagreeing about a definition. Ahasuerus 06:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You can leave a message on the talk page of Al von Ruff, the editor (and founder of the ISFDB) who tagged the title as novelization. He's not here often, but I'm sure he'd be open to your opinion. Mhhutchins 06:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
About your suggestion for a tag for "tie-in fiction": go ahead. There's nothing that prevents anyone from tagging any record anyway they want, such as "The books Mike read in 2011" or "Stories that disgusted Mike". There's no moderation over this function. Mhhutchins 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
When I submitted software changes to allow for the removal of tags they were rejected. I didn't suggest them because the tags were being abused, but because other software changes made a lot of tags redundant: e.g. someone used Bram Stoker Award nominees as a tag before we re-enabled some award editing. And Publication series and suchlike improvements have made many tags redundant. So I'm not against them, but it would be nice to replace them when we can do their function in a better way. BLongley 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point, and very diplomatic. I guess I'm just not very diplomatic when I see something stupid and find it hard to resist the urge to point it out. But then, I think most of the editors on the ISFDB already know that about me. Mhhutchins 23:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User Unfriendly

I have a copy of User Unfriendly that seems different than the one on your site. The cover is still Cliff Nielsen, but my copy's art is flipped, the image is warped, the image is darker than yours, the font for the title and the writer (Vivian Vande Velde) is totally different and she has the legend "Edgar Award-winning author of Never Trust a Dead Man" printed underneath her name. This copy also has the imprint name and logo Magic Carpet Books in a black box in the upper left hand corner.

This book also has no ISBN-13 number on the copywrite page. Instead it has two ISBN-10 numbers listed there. They are 0-15-200960-4 and 0-15-216353-0. There is also another number on the bar code and it is 9-780152-163532. Is this the ISBN-13 number? The price on mine is also different. You list the price as $6.00 while mine is $6.95. There is no Canadian price listed. Is this just a variant copy of yours, or a later edition, and does it need a new publication record? MLB 14:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to this record (it helps to link the record so that we're all talking about the same book). You'll notice that it's not been primary verified, meaning that all data is from secondary sources. The cover image was uploaded by a user who doesn't have the book (otherwise it would be primary verified), and there's always a possibility in a case like this for it to be wrong. And no book published in 2001 had an ISBN-13. The ISFDB automatically generates one for all records (someone may have mentioned why, but I don't recall the reason.) The two ISBNs on your copy are probably for the hardcover and trade paperback editions. Publishers do this often when both states are published simultaneously. The number on the barcode (the sku) is a precursor to ISBN-13 which were not widely used until 2005 and after. There's no reason to use it unless there's no ISBN or catalog number stated anywhere in the book. If your copy has a publication date of September 2001, it's probably the same printing and you should update the record. If there is no stated date, you can create a new record (use the "Add Publication to This Title" function when you on the title record page).
BTW, you should always use the plus tab (+) to start a new topic. Your message was added to the bottom of the previous topic and it would have been almost impossible for someone to know you've posted a message without checking on the "Recent Changes" page, the only reason I know about it. Mhhutchins 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems the data for that record is based on Locus, which had several errors. I've corrected the price and the format size (it's really a paperback). And I linked the image from Amazon. See if it matches your copy. Again, if your copy doesn't have a stated publication date, you can clone this one and make it match your copy. Mhhutchins 17:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel a headache coming on. The stated date is merely "First Magic Carpet Books editon 2001" and the price on the book is $6.95 not $6.99. Other than that the cover looks identical. MLB 08:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Length mismatch between English and Foreign version of a story in a collection

While making this story a variant of this parent story, I noticed a mismatch between the story length attribute (novelette vs novella). Since the parent record has been multi-verified in this pub, I think I should change the length of the Italian one even if the number of pages is similar and the Italian version is not a condensed one, as far as I know. --Pips55 21:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Word count comparison between the original and the translated work is fruitless. Just contact the verifiers of the pubs (the magazine and the book) containing the original work to see if they confirm the length. A 42-44 page story is very likely a novella (the average book prints 400-500 words per page.) Or you can just change the Italian record to a novella and leave it at that. Mhhutchins 22:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Note also that there is a sort of "natural inflation" during the translation process from english. I've noticed that when translating from english to french (profesionnally of for free), there is an (about) 20% increase in the text. It manifests itself not strictly in word count but in overall length (probably due to the fact that latin tongues tend to have longer words). Hauck 16:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a problem for German publishers too. Some of the recent "doorstop" novels (e.g. Jordan) have to be split in two because the greater length makes it impossible (or at least impractical) to squeeze the text into one mass market paperback. Ahasuerus 19:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
And Portuguese too. See The Reality Dysfunction - split into two for US publication, but into four for Portuguese! BLongley 14:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Variant of a collection with a few stories missing

I have submitted the translation of a collection, but a few stories and the Introduction of the original book are missing: should I variant the tile the same ? I already added in Notes the difference. --Pips55 22:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the magazine pub in question. I approved the submission a few minutes ago and then noticed that it also contained a Collection title. I suppose nothing prevents us from having a Collection title within a Magazine pub, but it looks a little weird. On the plus side, once it's been turned into a variant of The Marching Morons, it will appear on its parent's Title page. Can anyone think of any issues with this approach? Ahasuerus 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's the best we can do under the circumstances. Back when I was working with Ernesto Vegetti on other similar cases, I remember we decided not to enter a title record for the collection (look at case) but now I'm thinking we may have been playing it too safe. Without the collection title record as a content in the magazine record, there is no way to connect the magazine publication record to the collection. And regardless of the form which it takes, the magazine did reprint the collection. Think of it as similar to the way we handle omnibuses (omnibi?) that reprint collections: we not only enter the contents of the collection, but also create a content record for the collection's title record in order to link it to the other publications of the collection. Mhhutchins 04:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
We'd need to suppress the bibliographic warning "Type Mismatch (Pub=MAGAZINE, should be COLLECTION)". An alternative would be SERIAL with a "(Complete Collection)" suffix? This also helps with serialised collections, e.g. Urania 568, Urania 569 and Urania 570 reprint Nightfall and Other Stories in 3 parts. BLongley 12:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As in this case: this collection was split into this two pubs Galassia #151 and Galassia #158. Can I add both Galassia as VTs ? --Pips55 22:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing that prevents an editor from varianting two records to the same record. Multi-part serial records are varianted to the same parent record. Think of two publications as serial publication of the collection. Mhhutchins 23:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Who gets author credit?

Just entered [The Masque of the Red Death] into the db. It is an adaptation of a screenplay that in turn was very loosely adapted from a short story by Edgar Allan Poe. Couldn't find anything in the Help to cover this. The only name on the title page is Elsie Lee. The screenplay writer is mentioned on both front and back covers, but just in a blurb. Poe is noted on the cover and is the only name on the spine [a little marketing ploy there]. The Poe story is very short with virtually no dialogue. This adaptation is of novel length with lots of dialogue. Most probably came from the screenplay. Question is: who gets author credit? I added Poe to at least have this show up on his page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go strictly by the title page credit. If Poe's not credited there, I see no reason in crediting him as a co-author in the db record. (Perhaps if he were to speak from the grave, he'd not want us to credit him as well. I've seen the film.) If we ever have the ability to connect titles based on text, we can use that function to connect the book to the original story. I've been pushing for such a relationship function for years. Maybe one day... :> Mhhutchins 04:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That lack is why I added Poe as co-author. Seemed like he should be linked in some way, regardless of the 'attributes' of the film. --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not the film that informed my opinion, it's the ISFDB rules about author credit. Mhhutchins 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd also go with the title page credit. If the work is that little based on Poe's text, I see little value of adding a non-credited authorship just to have it listed on Poe's page; it's not Poe's work. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Covenant (again) - maps and other gubbins

I'm trying to get the information for at least my own copies of the First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant into some sort of order, but the more help and discussion I read the more confused I get. These are all UK Fontana printings from the late 1980s. They have maps in them. In the First Chronicles (here, here and here), there is a map of The Land, not appearing in the table of contents nor individually titled, but credited to "Lynn K. Plagge". Two of the books of the Second Chronicles (here and here) have slightly different maps of The Land, titled "The Land", uncredited. The remaining book (here) has different maps (it is the only one of the six not to take place in The Land).

Normally, AIUI, a map in a book is entered as "A Book (Map)" as INTERIORART. I could title the maps of the Land in the Second Chronicles "The Land (Map)" as by "uncredited" and merge them since they are in fact the same map. But what of the Plagge maps in the first series? I can't really call them "The Land" since those words appear nowhere on the maps or in the table of contents. "The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever (Map)" seems a little unwieldy (and again, isn't a real title). Title them after their individual books and make them variants? Where the maps are included in existing pubs, they use the titles of the individual books; I can't see anywhere that notes where the artwork is the same, by varianting or merging. Of course, I only have the books I've got in hand, so it's hard to verify that the artwork in another book on a different continent is identical :) Jcameron 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggestion using the usual form "Title of Novel (map)" (unwieldy or not, and small "m"). If the map is the same as one in another book, the records should be merged. If the map is credited in one and not the other (but is the same map) then a variant record is created. And it's no problem that you can only verify the data in your copy. If someone wants to later connect the different records, either merging or varianting, at least there are records to work with. Mhhutchins 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, all the books contain a glossary, and all except the first have a "What Has Gone Before" section; these appear in the table of contents and are not credited but are presumably by the author. These are included in some existing pubs, but as ESSAY, where I should have thought they'd be SHORTFICTION (since the words and events they describe are not real). I'd be inclined to include them since they are listed in the table of contents, but should their types be changed? Jcameron 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely hate the idea of creating records for such material (the note field is sufficient, IMHO), but there's nothing preventing you from doing so. A list of words is not fiction, nor is it an essay. That's why I don't think we should create such records until we actually have a record type to cover it. The fact that they're listed in the TOC is irrelevant. We don't create records for chapter titles that are listed on a contents page. Mhhutchins 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Donaldson's publishers are still trying to confuse me

All my copies of the books in the Gap series contain the following on the copyright page:

Special overseas edition 199x

This edition published by (imprint) 199x

and a full number line. (HarperCollins changed imprint twice while the series was being written.) 'x' varies from 1 to 5 but is always the same for a particular book. Am I right in taking this to mean that the book I have in hand is not the "special overseas edition", but rather that a separate "special overseas edition" also came out the same year? The ways of publishers are a mystery to lesser mortals, but certain hints I find online suggest that the "special overseas edition" is an Antipodean edition printed separately so that it can be released in Australia within a certain time window outside which the publisher would lose exclusive rights under Australian copyright law. Can anyone confirm this?

There are existing entries in the db for the "special overseas editions" of each book, apparently entered from a book in hand but not verified. The above leads me to believe that I have the first UK mmpb printings which are not the same and should enter them separately. Jcameron 22:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a habit of Grafton/Voyager/HarperCollins/whatever. I have a copy of The Sapphire Rose that does the same. (Though later printings of other books in the series don't mention the overseas edition at all.) Apparently the overseas edition of The Diamond Throne had a different price from the first UK pb edition and is listed separately by Locus. It seems clear now that they're separate printings and I'm going to treat them as such. Jcameron 13:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you is to fully document with as much detail as possible each record that you create. Don't worry about whether it matches a secondary source's description. You have the book itself, which is a million times more valuable than any secondary source. Mhhutchins 20:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Promotional Copies of Books

I have a number of promotion copies of books. They have the same ISBN numbers as the first printings of the books. How do you list these? Do mention that they are promos and leave off the ISBN numbers and the publishing dates (they are usually issued before the official first printing) off the listing? MLB 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Such publications are not allowed in the db. One possible, but rare, exception: if an ARC was printed, but the title was never published (like this one). There may be other exceptions, but if the book was eventually published, you shouldn't create records for promotional copies. I also responded to the question you left on the Moderator Noticeboard. Mhhutchins 20:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I did one before I saw your note. I'll just cancel it. MLB 12:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there someplace in the [anything but] Help[ful] pages [and I did check] that states this? Came across a record for an ARC and would like something to point to for the perp/editor to see when I ask him to delete it. ;-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of definition, an ARC has not been published, so that makes it ineligible for inclusion under the current Rules of Acquisition. By the same policy, an unpublished manuscript would also be ineligible. Mhhutchins 04:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I understand that, by definition, they are unpublished but our Help pages don't even mention them. And the inevitable argument with Dirk will be there because of that. Getting that deja vu feeling I'm certain was experienced by the sabertooths as they were sucked down into the la Brea morass ..... --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Non fiction content in magazine

I have some magazines with consistent (many entries) content which is non fiction or unrelated to the fiction in the mag, as news, book and film reviews. This material being included in the table of content, rules say I should include them (except maybe the section devoted to selling-exchanging books between readers): is this right ? --Pips55 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it a speculative fiction magazine? If so, you can add most of the nonfiction as ESSAY types, the reviews of books as REVIEW type, film reviews (and other non-book reviews) as ESSAY type. Advertising is not recorded. If it's a non-genre magazine, only the speculative fiction is recorded. What magazine(s) are you thinking about? Most older spec-fic magazines are already in the db. Mhhutchins 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
They are the last issues of the Italian magazine Galassia: after years of (mostly) fiction, they decided to host the SFBC bullettin, which brought into the magazine the contents I described. You can have an idea in this. --Pips55 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be better to record the pieces on pages 151-156 in the record's note field. Making a record for each is overkill, in my opinion, especially since none are credited. Mhhutchins 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, let's see how it will come out. --Pips55 23:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Listing Letters

I have a number of pulps and pulp reprints in which there might be letters of interest. An example of which is a reprint of Planet Stories: Summer 1942. The column is The Vizigraph, then each letter is titled. Some of these letters in this issue are from Manly Wade Wellman (who also contributes to this issue), Guy Gifford (who also contributes to this issue), Henry Hasse (see Wellman & Giford), Milton Lesser and a few others. I know that there has been some discussion as to include letters at all in the database, but if you do, how would I list these? The Vizigraph: letter (title of letter) essay? Also, since I have the reprint, but not the original would my entry be imported into the original? Adventure House seems to reprint virtually everything, including the ads, so I'm assuming that the letters in the reprint are also in the original. MLB 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The help section about entering letters is here and entering such letters by "well-known sf personalities" is fine and the format for titling them is on that help page. My own method of determining whether the writer is well known is to search for them and if they are already listed in the database, then I go ahead and add the letter. I also think adding from facsimiles is fine. I the record for the facsimile does not yet exist, I would add the letters to the original first, and note your source (the facsimile) in the notes. You can then import all of the content into the facsimile record without having to worry about merging. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about entering a Short Story

From what I can tell, a short story that is simply published as an e-book should be entered as a Chapterbook. What I'm wondering, though, is if when entering the Chapterbook title info, the title should also be added as a content line. I found out tonight that for novels, the title is NOT to be entered in the Contents, but I don't know if that applies to entering Chapterbooks (or any other entry where the only Contents are the same as the title information). BTW, this is in reference to the novelette Rainy Daze by Dan McGirt. Thanks :) AndonSage 06:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon acceptance of a submission for a new NOVEL publication record using the "Add New Novel" function, the system will automatically create a NOVEL title record. (It won't do this using the "Add Publication to This Title" function.)
By the same token, a submission to create a new CHAPTERBOOK publication record will automatically create a CHAPTERBOOK title record. In fact, you should never create a content record for the title of a COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, MAGAZINE, OMNIBUS or NONFICTION.
BUT, because a CHAPTERBOOK is a container record, you should at the time of submission add a content record for the title of the work, giving it as SHORTFICTION. If you know the length of the piece, you can assign that as well. At the same time you can add other contents: introductions, interiorart records, etc. If you don't add a content record for the title work, there will be no record of the work under the SHORTFICTION listing of the author's page, and you won't be able to merge it with other publications of the story, regardless of whether it appeared in other chapterbooks, anthologies, magazines, or collections. Mhhutchins 06:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded image does not appear

Hi all, I am new to this site and do not know for sure if this is the right location for my query...

I just acquired an account and added two missing images here: and
I also verified the editions the images belong to. Somewhat to my surprise, the verifications do show up on the pages for these editions, but the images do not. What am I doing wrong here?

Thanks.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karamazow (talkcontribs) .

Thanks for uploading cover images to the ISFDB wiki. The next step is to link those images to the records of the books for which these are the covers. As the instructions (step 6) explain:
Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) If you're adding a cover image to a pub record, this is the URL which you would enter into the pub record's "Image URL" field.
So once you have the image's URL, go back to the pub record (it's linked on the image's wiki page) and then click the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu. This opens up an edit page. Under the Publication Metadata section, there's a field labeled "Image URL:" Enter the URL of the image you uploaded into this field, and then click on the "Submit Data" button at the bottom of the page. Once the submission has been moderated the cover image will be linked to the publication record.
BTW, the two images you uploaded were quite small. Is it possible to replace them with a larger scan? We ask that you not exceed 600 pixels in height, but anything over 400 would be great. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I do a group discussion correctly?

I have an anthology that has multiple verifications to it. I was going to just add a note until I spotted a small error in the contents field. My first intent was to notify all verifiers to check their copies of this publication as to this minor error, then realized that I would be the only one at both ends of the communication, whereas a consensus would be better. Now I want to leave a note on the verifier's talk page to "see this discussion", however, I am not sure on which page this discussion should go. My third option was to go ahead and make the changes and notify the verifiers immediately after. Which would be the correct process for this situation? John L.-- Syzygy 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You should hold off making changes to a submission until the completion of the discussion. Most verifiers don't mind if you add links to a cover image or add notes. You can make the submission before leaving a message. But if you change anything, don't make a submission. You may find that the verifiers are currently inactive. Go to their user talk page and click on the "User Contributions" link. If they've not made a wiki update in less than six months, go ahead and leave the note, but don't expect to get a response. If you need a response, because you want to make a change in a record that was verified by an inactive editor, leave it on the Moderator Noticeboard. If there are more than a couple active verifiers, and you want to start a discussion, pick the most active one (again, check their user contributions), leave a message on their talk page and then link to that message from messages left on the other verifiers' talk page.
What specific record do you wish to change? Mhhutchins 00:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It is Science Fiction of the 30's, and since your one of the verifiers, I don't think I have to check your contribs page. The others are Bluesman and Kpulliam. Harry (Dragoondelight) I know is inactive. I set up my talk page for discussion and will notify the others (Now, why didn't I think of this?). Here's a link to the discussion. I'll consider you notified. I know this might take a couple of days or more to resolve, but this also answers a few questions I have on other pubs, too. Thanks again. --John L.-- Syzygy 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Identical Books with Slightly Different Content

I have several books with identical ISBN numbers, prices, etc., but with slightly different content. One is a copy of War of the Worlds published by Aerie. The copy that is validated on this website and has an uncredited Introduction and an uncredited Afterword. Mine has a short essay on H. G. Wells, and an Introduction and an Afterword, with all three being credited to James Gunn. Yet all the rest of the information dealing with the book is identical. There is no copywrite on the Gunn material. How does one enter this? I suspect that this is a throw-away edition. Printed up in when ever they wanted to have a sale (probably for schools) for their stores. Another book is a library edition (from 1951) of Robert A. Heinlein's novel Between Planets. There is no dust jacket, the art is printed right on the cover, and all copyright information is missing but the date. It seems to be a first editon of something, but how do you enter this, if it should be entered at all, or find out any information about it? I'd like to enter the illustrations. Publishers can be be confusing! MLB 16:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

When there's a record in the database that differs slightly from your copy, check to see if it is verified. If so, talk to the verifier and discuss the situation. If it's not verified or the verifier is inactive, leave a message on the Moderator Noticeboard. If the discrepancy between the record and your book is greater, just go ahead and create a new record. The moderators will determine whether there should be a separate record. About library editions, if the publisher has explicitly published two editions (one for bookstores and one for libraries), definitely create a record for both. Don't create records for paperbacks that have been rebound in a hard cover for libraries. I would definitely create a record for the Heinlein novel if it's that unique. Just give as much detail as possible in the note field. Mhhutchins 16:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Difference Between a Novel and a Collection

I have several books like Hiroshi Yamamoto's 'The Stories of Ibis' which are essentially collections masquerading as novels. This book has seven stories, with a detailed 'first publication listing' for each story. They are bound together with a connecting story, and each part of the connecting story is generically titled (Intermission 1, Intermission 2, etc.). You have this listed as a novel, but isn't this a collection? Or would I just list the stories that make up the book in the 'Note' field, along with their first publication? Or would I list this as a fix-up novel? MLB 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Publishers and authors try to play games with such designations. When the situation is not as clear-cut as we would prefer it to be, we're forced to lean toward what the publisher and author are wanting it to be, or how the book is promoted to be. In the case of Yamamoto, we should leave it as a novel. It appears that the pieces are intended to be read together as one work. You can describe the "contents" in the note field but don't create separate content records. Other cases may not be so clear-cut, but we'll have to deal with them on an individual basis. In the note field of the title record you can give the fix-up data, such as in this record. Mhhutchins 16:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Another way to handle it is indicated in The Starry Rift. This has 3 basically independent stories, with an attempt to connect them via another linking story that appears in segments at the beginning of each of the three stories. The book is listed as a collection of 4 stories: 3 three main stories (2 novella's and a novelette) plus one short story. The pages for the short story, split across 3 segments, are indicated separately in the notes. But this is an example that's clearly on the "collection" side -- each of the stories could easily stand on their own (they're just three stories in the same universe). It sounds like your example here is a much more integrated "collection", so the "Missing Man" example of Mike's is more likely to be the appropriate model. Chavey 19:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Review and Essay

While adding this pub, I inserted into contents a work of Blish cited in the source 'Presentazione' (Presentation) as an essay.
Looking for the original to variant it, I could not find any essay of Blish about the pub, but looking better I found a review which probably is the real source. Should I leave to verifiers (I do not have the book) the correction, or proceed to add the review myself ? In this case, the review should be cited both in the contents as an Essay and in the Review section, as the Help page about new publication seems to suggest (Review columns are entered as ESSAY types in the general content record, but you should also record the books reviewed, and who reviewed them) ? Thanks --Pips55 21:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it up to a primary verifier to determine if they are the same work. It would be a good idea to place a note in the title record of the introduction about the situation and ask that the primary verifier examine the two works for a possible connection. Mhhutchins 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will add the note. --Pips55 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Listing a Story as Part of a Series

If you are entering a story that is part of a collection or anthology how do you enter that this story is part of a series? I can keep bothering the moderator about this, but shouldn't I be entering the series information for the story as I am entering the story? Do I have to wait until the story, and the anthology or collection is okayed and then do it? MLB 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do have to wait till the title exists. BLongley 20:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Virago Book of Ghost Stories

I have a copy of The Virago Book of Ghost Stories from 2009. It clearly says on its back cover that it collects the finest tales from The Virago Book of Ghost Stories (Volumes 1 & II) and The Victorian Book of Ghost Stories. The original Virago Book of Ghost Stories was published in 1987 and is sometimes known as The Virago Book of Ghost Stories: The Twentieth Century. My copy states that it was originally published in 2006, published twice in 2008, and once more in 2009, this means that my copy can not be the original, but a seperate title, as stated on the back cover. Because of the similarity in titles I think that both books have been mixed up on this site. The contents are different. If my copy has the same ISBN number that a 2008 entry does, but is copyrighted in 2009, do I create a whole new entry? I don't have a copy of the first book, so I can only go by what is on this site. This is very confusing. MLB 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless the 2008 entry's notes mention a 2009 copyright (which is possible), you likely have a later printing, which merits its own entry. You should start by cloning an existing one to make your new entry; this gives you a new copy to work on, starting with all of the information the existing entry had. You'd prefer to clone the 2008 one sharing the same ISBN, but if it doesn't have contents, you might consider cloning one of the others that has much/most of the contents you need (getting rid of a few extra content titles is easier than all of the typing and later merging that would have to be done to hand-enter the contents).
For whether they should be separate or not, the first trick is to decide if they are the same anthology, with contents slightly altered by the new publisher, or if they are two different anthologies that happen to have the same name. If, for example, the original has 34 stories, while yours has 31 of those but omits three, we would treat these as the same anthology (have them share the same title record) and simply adjust the contents on each publication, adding some notes (and perhaps making further notes on the anthology title record). If, on the other hand, there is a lot of difference between the contents of the two, we would make a separate title record with the same name and record in each title record's notes the existence of the other one and a summary of the differences between the two. If there should be two different anthologies where we have only one, "Unmerge Titles" can be used to separate out one of the sets, and those then can be merged together as the second title of the same name. --MartyD 20:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a cover image

I uploaded a wrong cover image for the tag I wanted, however, I didn't tie the URL to the pub listing. I want to delete that image for that tag, but I couldn't find anything specific in help on How to... do this. Can I just overwrite with the correct image or is there another method to go about this? --John L.-- Syzygy 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the image's Wiki page, which will be Image:..., you can upload another, delete the old one, etc. A simple way to find it is to click on the "my contributions" link at the top right of any Wiki page (for you, it will take you to Special:Contributions/Syzygy). You should see it in the list. --MartyD 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I can get this far, in fact, I used the wiki search, flagging the image parameter and pasting in the tag # in the search box. But, anyway I get there, once I'm there, what do I do? I don't see anything that says "delete me", or am I being dense? --John L-- Syzygy 00:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Scroll down past the licensing info, and you should see a File History table. In that table, you should see the option to delete the image, and below it you should see the option to upload a new version. --MartyD 10:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to delete the image to keep the same tag. Go back to the pub record page and you'll now see that the link says "Upload New Cover Scan". Follow the same directions as the first upload, but you will receive a warning that an image with that tag already exists, and it will be replaced. Click on the button that accepts the replacement. You will have to refresh your cache in order to see your new uploaded image. (Press "F5" on most keyboards.) You will not have to update the pub record because the link remains the same. BTW, Marty, the last I heard non-Moderators don't have the ability to delete a wiki file. It may have changed since I discovered that. Mhhutchins 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Marty and Michael. I did not see an option to delete on the image page, just "upload a new image" and "edit using external application", so it looks like a non-mod cannot delete is still in effect. I used "Upload new cover scan", overrode the warning, copied and pasted URL to the pub listing. All is well other than my images aren't topnotch, but something is better than nothing. --John L.-- Syzygy 14:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I repeat: You will not have to update the pub record because the link remains the same. Mhhutchins 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Le missioni di Capitan Ken libero agente spaziale

I have just added this original Italian Omnibus and its four component novels. Since the novels are the first four in the Cap Kennedy series, I was thinking to add "/1,2,3,4" as storylen, but since the Omnibus entry has no variant, to link the information to the series, I think I should add the series too in the record. Is it Ok ? --Pips55 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Adding data to the storylen field has no effect unless the title is also in a series. Mhhutchins 21:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


I am in doubt about three authors in this pub I recently added: Arkadij Strugatskij, Boris Strugatskij and Sridhar B. Rao (the spelling is straight from the source). They are of course already present in ISFDB, with differences, so I was going to declare them pseudonyms. Is it Ok ? --Pips55 20:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you should list them as they're credited (as you've done), and then create pseudonyms to their "standardized" spelling. This happens fairly often with names that have to be transliterated from one alphabet into another, as you can see by doing an author search for "Boris Str" and seeing the 9 variations we now have for "Boris Strugatsky". Chavey 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And that's not counting Borys Strugacki! :-) It's a bit awkward to have that many pseudonym records, but it's the only way a "naive" user can find this author if all he is familiar with is one of the permutations. Ahasuerus 05:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Ethshar submission delayed?

It's been a couple of days since I submitted the new Tales of Ethshar by Lawrence Watt-Evans, and it's still in my Pending Edits with no indication of why it hasn't been accepted. Can someone let me know if there is a problem? Thanks :) AndonSage 10:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No major problem - slightly non-standard version of the publisher name, and it shouldn't have the ISBN of a different edition. Corrected now. BLongley 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful editorial choices (Gli avventurieri di Riverworld)

I was making variants of the first two stories in this recently added pub, an Italian collection containing three stories of PJ Farmer. An editorial choice (or laziness by part of the translator) has translated the title Crossing the Dark River as Parte prima ('First Part') and Up the Bright River as Parte seconda ('Second Part')(source). List of contents look ugly and bibliographic records even uglier: I was thinking of disambiguating them as Parte prima (Gli avventurieri di Riverworld) and Parte seconda (Gli avventurieri di Riverworld). Is there an established way to handle such situations ? --Pips55 15:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're in the wonderful shadowy area of new rules needed for new situations due to the new(ish) language support. So I don't think we have an established way yet. I think the English guidelines would suggest "Gli avventurieri di Riverworld (Part 1 of 2)" and "Gli avventurieri di Riverworld (Part 2 of 2)" SERIAL types, but I'm open to suggestions - although I've been working on Italian titles for a few weeks now, I'm sure many will need reworking when the Italian capitalisation rules are established, and we figure out serialisations or subsets of Collections and Anthologies. Unless someone can point out a current standard, feel free to suggest one - you're more expert than I am! BLongley 15:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The bigger question: how are each of these works related to the original English titles? I can't find an English equivalent for "Crossing the Dark River" and "Up the Bright River" is the first story in the original anthology. Are you certain you've found the proper English titles? If so, I see not problem of leaving the titles as "Parte prima" and "Parte seconda" if those are the actual titles used in the Italian translation. Mhhutchins 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just found the English of "Crossing the Dark River". My suggestion still stands. I find no problem with leaving the Italian titles as is and without the need for further disambiguation. Mhhutchins 16:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not feel at ease with a title just like 'Parte prima', an expression without any relation to the content of the original story that leaves the reader with the question "of what ?". I know disambiguation has its rules, and the use of it I was thinking of is outside the line, but it is the only way I can imagine to provide at least some useful information that would come convenient, for instance, on Farmer bibliography page. --Pips55 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the link to the original title be sufficient? It will be displayed prominently in both the pub record and each title's title record. I've had my say on the matter. Feel free to do as you wish and maybe another moderator will agree and accept the submission. Mhhutchins 02:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the disambiguation could turn out to be useful, although there's not enough evidence yet. I know that I would not be happy entering just "Part One" and "Part Two" as titles if it was in English. There are other phrases like "Note Sui Racconti" ("Story Notes") that I think could do with disambiguation. But I've only been working on Italian titles for a month, and there's much still to learn. BLongley 23:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding a superscript to a title

Is it possible? I know how to enter "to the second power" (with ALT+253) but how would one enter the title correctly for this reocrd? Mhhutchins 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You can embed subscripts and superscripts in html by using <sub> </sub> and <sup> </sup> to get things like H2O and E = mc2. This works perfectly fine in publication and title names, although you should be careful with its use because it could cause searches on the name to fail. Chavey 07:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Not "could", it will cause searches to fail. I recommend against this (though I see will already have some <sub>s and a lot of <i>s). Unless the developers are willing to take on search improvements to compensate, this is user unfriendly. A user should be able to search on "Golem 100" and not have to know they have to search using "Golem <sub>100</sub>". -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I think I'll leave it as is for now. I think searches are more important than displays. Mhhutchins 14:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The reason I said "could fail" is that a search for "Golem" would still find it, and an Advanced Search with "Golem" in one name field and "100" in a second name field would find it. I have often found books/authors using such searches when the name I think the book/author is called by isn't quite the right name. Many site searches (including Google and Amazon searches) are implemented by looking for each of the words in the search and finding the intersection of those searches. (The implementation is actually a bit more efficient than what I just described, but has the same effect.) If we implemented searches that way then, for example, a search for "Elizabeth Lynn" would actually find that author (it doesn't now), and a search for "Golem 100" would find "Golem <sup>100</sup>". So I don't think this idea should be dismissed out of hand. But (as I suggested), we should tred cautiously. What I would suggest for now is to enter the book BOTH ways, with one as a variant of the other. Heck, you know there have to be reviews or other references that list it as "Golem 100", so there's nothing inconsistent with listing it with that as a variant of "Golem100". Then it appears correctly, and is found by any search. Chavey 16:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You could also find it in the simple search with "Golem%100". We're very inconsistent with special characters and formatting - e.g. 1077019 needed a bit of formatting as (10 to 16) to 1 is different from 10 to (16 to 1). And only today I was working on a title with a "TradeMark" symbol or "Registered Mark" symbol. These are some of the things I leave till we sort out the database character coding, which will eventually happen. (I hope.) BLongley 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A review with a name

In an Italian book I have found a review with a name (different from the title of the novel reviewed). Specifically, it is the Milicia review of The Dealings of Daniel Kesserich which has been translates in Italian with the title 'Un classico ritrovato'. I checked that it was the review in question here. I entered it absentmindedly with the Italian title, but then, when I was adding it as a variant, I realized that the rules for reviews call for the title of the work being reviewed, so I removed the title and now I am not sure how to proceed.--Pips55 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can give you an example that I worked on personally. When Michael Bishop and I were putting together a collection of his nonfiction, we decided that the reviews should have titles, unlike when they were first published. So look at the contents of A Reverie for Mister Ray, in particular pages 388, 393, 407, 410, 449, 468, and 474. Each of these essay records are varianted against the review records. Not so pretty, but it works and is similar to the case you're talking about. Mhhutchins 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely; it was also my first try (I tried a few different combinations ...) but I was not sure about varianting essay records against review records. Thanks --Pips55 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A novel split in two in the same publication

I was considering to add Notte di Luce, a collection containing a novel and a few short-stories. The novel (Night of Light) was, for some reason, split in two parts, placed at the beginning and at the end of the pub, with the short-stories in the middle. I was thinking to consider the novel as a whole, specifying in notes the editorial choice, but it will not do because in the contents section two entries with the same name and type would be present at different pages. Did someone encounter a similar situation ? --Pips55 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd enter it as one record, varianted against the original English title, and then note that it's split in the collection into two parts, giving the page number of the second part in the note field. Quite often, a novel has chapters or "parts" or "books". We would not create separate records for each of those and probably shouldn't for this publication either. Mhhutchins 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Data Thief just came across that publication. I'd say two entries, SERIAL type, disambiguated with part numbers. I know that will make them appear as "Magazine Appearances" but it seems there is a disagreement over whether Urania Collezione is a magazine or a publication series of books. We have stubs for about 70 as books but Ernesto verified a few as magazines. (Also, is incomplete and later books/issues may have to come from BLongley 13:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Doing it this way makes it appear that the novel was published twice in the book. Look at the pub records under the title record. And who believes that Urania Collezione should be a magazine? Mhhutchins 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ernesto entered two issues as MAGAZINE, which I only discovered when I was adjusting Data Thief's submissions. I'm not sure if Andrea agrees? But we obviously don't want them twice. BLongley 16:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any of the titles published contained any material (like regular columns, essays and short fiction pieces unrelated to the titled work) that would make someone call it a magazine. And shouldn't serial type records follow the standard "Title (Part X of Y)" or "Title (Complete Novel)"? So if this is a book series, and not a magazine, (that's how they're currently in the db) what keeps anyone from entering the "Books" or "Parts" of novel records as content records? Mhhutchins 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, they're currently in as books because that's what I thought they were when I let Data Thief loose on (some of) them. This is still very much an experiment and I'm willing to listen to any views: I know "(Part X of Y)" is standard for magazines but I don't think we've defined that for books. We've used things like "reprised" SHORTFICTION at times for part-works in books, which is why I think an entry for each part is OK. I have no particular preference myself though: we have bigger issues like how to deal with serialisations of Anthologies and Collections, both of which throw up Bibliographic warnings however we treat them. BLongley 16:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't think of a better way than as I first suggested. Let the note field handle it. As for the reprise solution: what a mess! If it's one continuous story that is broken into parts like that I don't see any purpose gained by cluttering up the pub record and the author's summary page. Just my two cents. Mhhutchins 16:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If we go by magazine rules, even a note is over-the-top: we've never bothered with "continued on page x" entries in magazines. Which means we can't even attempt to guess lengths on the basis of page numbers (not that I'm particularly bothered about the sub-categories of SHORTFICTION). I'll let Andrea or any other Italian expert have final say on this one, my opinion isn't worth two Lire, let alone cents. The best reference I'm aware of so far records the separate parts. BLongley 16:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Then it makes even more sense not to create records for continuation of a story within the same publication. There were some issues of British Astounding that split the editorial into two parts, until someone finally did a primary verification of one and I was able to determine it was just a continuation of the piece on a later page in the magazine. I think the page numbers should be only a guideline to determine the length of a piece in an anthology. It's never, to my knowledge, been used in magazines because of the situation you cite. The purpose of page numbers is simple: on what page does a story begin. Period. I believe sometimes we make things more complicated than they should be. How does it benefit the database user to see how all of those parts on an author's summary page? Just clutter, in my (decidedly less than) humble opinion. Mhhutchins 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Throwing in my two eurocents, I'd say go for one record and then remark that it's split into two parts, giving the page number of the second part in the note field. It's cleaner this way and informative just the same. About Urania Collezione, I do not have the pub and I cannot say if it is a magazine or not (Mondadori has a very free way of publishing, there are 20 series with 'Urania' in the title, with supplemental collections and subseries, see here); from the look of it, I would say it is a Publication Series. Sorry to have returned so late on this discussion. --Pips55 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll let you update it. Glad to know that you prefer publication series in this case, that saves us updating 80 books into magazines and we can just change Ernesto's two magazines. By the way, I know the series isn't up to date but the sources for later issues aren't as bot-useful and they'll need manual entry. BLongley 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Multi-volume books

Usually, when I enter a 2 or 3 volume work (i.e. one that's also been published as a 1 volume novel), I enter it as a single publication, use a pagecount like "232+245", and add Notes about the details. But right now I want to enter a 4 volume work, each part of which has a separate sub-title. The separate page numbers for all volumes won't fit in the field (xii+208+vii+268+...), and limiting the sub-titles to the Notes seems inappropriate. Thus it seems like I should enter them as four volumes. So what do I do with the overall boxed set? Two options suggest themselves to me: (1) Treat the 4-volume work as an omnibus; (2) Treat the 4-volume work as a publication series. I'll note that the 4 volumes were published at the same time, were sold together, and WorldCat knows of no library that has 1 volume without having all 4. Chavey 17:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd enter four separate publications and create an Omnibus record for the set. Just because libraries only ever have the complete set doesn't mean that individuals do - they may have only one or two of them at hand to verify. I'm constantly being annoyed by charity shops that have sold the first volume of several without considering how unsaleable it makes the rest of the set. BLongley 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Importing a Cover Image

I know this has probably been asked before, but if an entry does not have a cover image, but has been verified, do I have to ask the verifiers permission to import the cover as long as I don't touch or re-write anything else? MLB 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to the verifier's page and see if he has a notification preference (usually in a highlight message at the top of their user pages). If they do, follow their directions (some verifiers ask not to be notified for image links). If there is no preference notice, leave a message on their talk page, and then make the submission. You don't have to wait for a response. BUT this is only if you're going to add a link for a cover image, NOT if you're going to add or update data in any fields other than the note field or Image URL field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally it can happen that there are two different editions of a book that otherwise look alike. Having that verifier compare their cover with yours may discover an error, or an interesting variant. Giving them the chance to compare covers may be the only way to find that. Chavey 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools