User talk:Andrewk

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search
Important!

This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here.

If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please:

  • post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes
  • post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard

Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.


Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Andrewk, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 17:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking cover images to publication records

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. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 17:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian ed. of The Dosadi Experiment

I've accepted the submission to add this publication to the database, but have had to make changes in order for it to comply with ISFDB standards. You'll find a link in the welcome section above to the help pages for entering pubs into the db.

  • Pub Format Field: changed "Hardcover" to "hc"
  • Price Field: moved the note that there was no printed price to the "Note" field and left this field blank
  • Cover Artist Field: moved the note taht there was no artist credited to the "Note" field and left this field blank
  • In the Note field, you should add an HTML hard break (<br>) at the end of each line when you want to start a new one. Otherwise they run into each other. I've done that for you.
  • You used the "Add New Novel" function link which creates a new title. Because this title already appears in the db, you should have gone to its title record (here) and then clicked on the link "Add Publication to This Title" under the Editing Tools menu. I'll merge the newly created title record with the existing one.

Overall, a very respectable first submission, considering the intricacies of data entry for the ISFDB. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rusch's Alien Influences

Another very good submission for this record. I've added breaks in the Note field, and merged this title record with the existing one. One problem though: you gave it an ISBN-13, which didn't exist in 1994. Please update the record (click the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu) and enter the ISBN as stated in the book itself. The system will automatically generate the ISBN-13 based on the stated ISBN. (According to OCLC, the ISBN is "1-85798-105-7".) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the "Note to Moderator" that you posted in the submission to update the date of this record. Because this field ("Note to Moderator") is a temporary one and will disappear when the submission is accepted, it is better to respond to user page inquiries directly on the wiki page on which it is posted. There is a "[edit]" link to the left of each topic. Clicking on that will open a dialogue window, and you'll be able to enter your response, sign it at the end (use the signature tab at the top of the box or enter four tildes, which will sign and date it for your), and then click on "Save page". This gives your response to the original poster. It's not always the case that the moderator (of whom there are several) would be the same person who posted the message. (You can continue to use the "Note to Moderator" field to explain the submission to the moderator who works the submission.)
About the submission to remove the publication date from the publication record, I've accepted it, but want to confirm that the ISBN-13 on the back of the cover is actually labeled as "ISBN-13". Back in the 90s, some products contained an EAN (a product identifying number which became part of the barcode printed on the product.) The EAN was used by the publishing industry as a guide in the formation of the ISBN-13. So many books in the 90s had 13-digit numbers which may be confused as ISBN-13s but were actually just the EAN. Can you look again at the book and confirm (on this page) that the exact term "ISBN-13" is used on the book? Thanks.
One last thing, if this turns out to be an actual ISBN-13, update the record to give the ISBN-13 in the ISBN field. It currently has the ISBN-10. Mhhutchins 15:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Same situation with Legacies by Alison Sinclair. If an actual ISBN-13 is given either on the dustjacket or the book's copyright page, enter that ISBN-13 in the ISBN field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have checked the number on the back of both books and you are correct. They are not listed as ISBN 13's but the EAN numbers (with bar codes) as you noted. I will correct both records. Sorry for the confusion! Thanks Andrewk 15:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. This is a stumbling block to many editors, including the veteran ones. Please do a primary verification of this record for Legacies, which I think may be the same as your copy. Mhhutchins 16:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Solaris artist

Hi. I accepted your submission of the 7th printing of Solaris and based on the notes in the publication, where you expanded on the note about Paul Lehr, I added Paul Lehr as Cover Artist. If the cover looks the same a on this or this, that should be safe. --MartyD 10:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright

It is not necessary to post a copyright notice for the cover image in the publication record's note field. Our use of the book's image is covered by the Fair Use doctrine, so we don't have to give the copyright of the image. We just have to make sure that when we upload the file to our server that we attach the license for Fair Use to the file, which is done automatically if you use the link from the publication record. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 15:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Publication dates

I've added the month of publication to this record. If there is no month of publication (or even a year of publication) stated within the book itself, it is perfectly OK to add the data from a secondary source as long as you note the source in the Note field of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Same thing with this record and this one. Mhhutchins 17:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A Town Called Pandemonium

In the Note field of this record you say that "While this edition was published in 2012, the 'Introduction Café de Paris Edition' is dated January 2013." I'm assuming this record for the hc edition is the "Café de Paris Edition" and should be dated January 2013. Or do you think the date of the Introduction was misdated? Mhhutchins 14:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


Every other reference including the publishers website state publication date as 2012, however being a small publisher it could be quite possible that printing was delayed until 2013. Leave this with me for the moment. I will be adding more Jurassic London publications over the next couple of weeks and as I don't have copies of most of them, I'll see if there are any other questions I need to ask and I can contact them directly. Andrewk 22:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done some more digging around. The publishers have an alternate website where among other things they make announcements and updates on their publications. I have one announcement dated 13 February 2013 stating "We just signed off the final proof, meaning the hardcover limited edition of A Town Called Pandemonium will be with us by the end of February!" and one dated 7 March 2013 stating "We've spoken a lot about A Town Called Pandemonium already. The new, "Café de Paris" edition is shipping now. It is a fat ol' hardcover, our biggest book yet. Lots of (exclusive) new content and a very pretty thing indeed." I think this is fairly conclusive that the book was published between the 13th of February and 7th of March. If you agree, I will change the Year to 2013-00-00 and note why in the Notes field. I will be following up some other issues with them in the future and can try and narrow down the month then. Andrewk 15:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Even being more specific with the date as 2013-03-00 should be fine. And as you mention, just record the source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Back cover artist

Re this publication: We don't credit the back cover artist in the Cover field, otherwise it would appear that the cover (front by implication) was by both artists. You can credit the back cover artist by creating an INTERIORART content record and give the page number as "bc". Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Jurassic London publications

I've accepted the submissions adding three pubs in the Novelette Series, but each will need to be updated to make the following changes:

  • You'll need to add a content record for the title work using the SHORTFICTION type. If you know the word count, you can also fix the length in the record.
  • The publication series name "Novelette Series" is too generic. There is already a series titled "Jurassic London Novelette Series", so each of the pubs can be placed into that series. Overwriting the field will move the pubs into the series.

Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand the need to add a content record but my understanding is that you need to create and add the publication record first and then go back in and add the content records after, is this correct? Also noted about the series naming issue. For some reason I though the series name was automatically joined with the publisher's name even though I must have done it correctly the first record I added. Thanks Andrewk 06:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You can add contents in the submission creating the publication, including the SHORTFICTION record, introductions, interior art, etc. Remember that CHAPTERBOOK is only used for a single work of less-than-novel length fiction, or a single poem. But not for a single essay, which is typed as NONFICTION.
About the publication series name: they are not unique for a publisher. Sometimes series move to a different imprint of the publisher or a different publisher entirely. If one publisher starts a series titled "Novelette Series", that doesn't prevent another publisher from using the same, unimaginative name. The database can't differentiate between one publisher's series and another. Sometimes two entirely different publishers have the same exactly named series, such as "Science Fiction Classics". The system will add all publications with the same name into the same series unless you disambiguate names, usually this means adding the name of the publisher, as I suggested in this case. (In the first record of the series, I updated the record by adding the publisher name, and you probably didn't notice it. I should have informed you.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thy Kingdom Come

I've made a few changes to this record: changed the format from ebook to CD-ROM and the price from £10.00 to £10.00. I've also imported the contents from the 2012 edition. After doing so, I found the pdf on the author's website, and noticed that the titles of the stories are slightly revised, so I'll have to go back and correct that, making variant titles of the 2012 titles. After that I'll clone that record to create a record for the ebook, i.e. the pdf file which is available on the author's website. (I've had to differentiate between the two delivery formats, even though the 2002 edition contained the same pdf file, it was not technically an ebook, or at least by today's standards.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I have the pdf file as well and was aware of the differences in the contents. I was just composing a help desk query covering most of what you've done to make sure I did it correctly so I'll look at what you've done. Following on from what you've just said, as the pdf files are the same, are you creating two records because this is an unusual case? I'm asking because it is not unusual for authors (Charles Stross for example) to offer downloadable copies of their work from their websites. Does this count as a different publication? Thanks Andrewk 06:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In most circumstances, downloadable pdfs are eligible for inclusion in the database as a separate publication record (format: ebook), especially for notable authors. HTML files are not. Mhhutchins 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind I might finish this off. It'll give me good practise in adding in the new titles and making the variant titles. Thanks Andrewk 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Link's Origin Stories

This chapbook is not a CHAPTERBOOK, but a COLLECTION. The ISFDB definition of a CHAPTERBOOK is a publication of a single work of less-than-novel length fiction or a single poem. If there is more than one work of fiction or poem, it should be typed as a COLLECTION. (You'll have to correct both the publication record and its title record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Jelly Ink edition of Stranger Things Happen

Did you intend on adding more notes to this record? 23:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I had not intended to add anything else. I updated the date and cover information because I could check this on the publisher's website but did not update anything else, including the publisher, page numbers etc. because while I'm pretty sure their the same as my edition I can't confirm it. Especially the Jelly Ink imprint info. There's a few years between copies and I was concerned that it might be a new thing. However that said I have just had a look at some of the free downloads, text, pdf, HTML formats and they do seem to be copies of the first edition with the Jelly Ink imprint mentioned (no where on the Small Bear site have I seen the term "Jelly Ink Press"). I guess this also links into my help desk question as to how valid is the data taken from conversions done by readers when they are not 'official'? But getting back to your question, is there something I should have done? Thanks Andrewk 08:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I only asked because you added a half dozen or so extra blank lines to the Note field, which you have now removed. (BTW, you should add a colon to each successive response to a wiki post, which creates an indent and makes for easier reading of the messages. Thanks.) Mhhutchins 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Imprint / publisher question

You asked some questions in the Note to Moderator field in the submission adding this record to the db. Such questions questions are better asked on the ISFDB:Help desk page. Moderators handling submissions have no way to respond directly to question posed in a submission. We can either accept, reject, or hold the submission.

Now to your question. If the imprint and publisher are both given on the title page of the book, it should be entered into the Publisher field in this format: "Imprint / Publisher". Note that there are spaces on both sides of the slash. For example: "Del Rey / Ballantine" or "William Morrow / HarperCollins". Sometimes there may be some difficulty in determining whether a name is an imprint or a publication series. If it's only on the exterior of the book, and the book shares a design with other books from the publisher, it may be a publication series and should not be entered into the Publisher field, but into the Publication Series field. From your description this is an imprint, especially since there's a copyright page statement that Jelly Ink is an imprint of Small Beer Press. So the Publisher field should be "Jelly Ink Book / Small Beer Press". Mhhutchins 23:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating generic titles

We only add the title of the work to generic titles such as "Introduction" or "Foreword" in order to disambiguate it and to keep it from being mistakenly merged with identically titled records by the same author. If the introduction has an actual, non-generic, title, there is no need to add the title of the work. In this record, I removed it from the introduction's title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I did the same to the introduction in this record. Mhhutchins 04:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Foreword or Foreward

Is the foreword in this record titled "Foreward"? BTW, I've repaired the HTML in the Note field of your last two submissions. You've left off the first angle bracket before ul>. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks Andrewk 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Imaginings

If I read your notes correctly, those three Newcon Press books could be placed into a publisher series, "Imaginings", and then you would not need the note about their relative order in that series. Note this is the publication, not the title (so you'd have to do it with each edition). --MartyD 10:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Especially since these records are already part of this series. I will remove the redundant info. Thanks Andrewk 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As seen in the Amazon "Look Inside" feature of the first three releases, the publisher states that Imaginings is an imprint of NewCon Press. (They have dropped that statement from the last two releases.) I think they've come to realize the difference, and for ISFDB purposes, it should remain a series and not an imprint. Otherwise, the name of the imprint would be recorded in the Publisher field. Mhhutchins 14:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
First thing to say that Newcon Press is not the most consistent publisher when it comes to publishing information! "Imaginings" is both a series and an imprint. I have all five copies of the hc and they all state "Imaginings An Imprint of Newcon Press" on the title page. This again comes back to the issue as with Sarob Press. If you make the publisher "Imaginings / Newcon Press" you lose the direct link with other Newcon Press books. Plus I would have to alter other established records for "Imaginings". I am happy to do this if it is the appropriate course of action. Would it also then be appropriate to make the series "Newcon Press Imaginings" to make it more unique? Thanks Andrewk 04:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I think Newcon made be confused about what is an imprint and what is a publication series. Most imprints don't get front cover credit or have a shared cover design like publication series. I think it's best to leave this as a publication series. And "Imaginings" is unique enough that disambiguating it with the publisher name is unnecessary. In our previous discussion about titling publication series, the series name was too generic (and had been used by other publishers), so it had to be disambiguated. Otherwise the system would have lumped it together with another publisher's series. Mhhutchins 04:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Publication dates

This policy is not clearly articulated in the help, because a certain someone has it on his list to clarify and hasn't done it yet, but we only augment the publication date from another source when the publication either provides no date or provides only a year. If a month of publication is stated, we keep that as the publication date and do not add the day from elsewhere (such as from Amazon). Part of the reasoning behind that is the day, while more precise, may not actually be accurate: It could be an announcement day, a receipt day, etc.

So for these, where you provided a month-specific date of publication statement in the notes, I changed the dates to remove the day and put the full date from Amazon UK into the notes (replacing "publish day from Amazon UK"):

You don't really need to cite Amazon's dates in notes, I just didn't want to lose any information you had entered. --MartyD 11:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I had been wondering about the importance of adding the day so thanks for clarifying. Actually, thats why I entered the date from Amazon into the notes because I decided not to put it into the date field but wasn't sure if it was important. Thanks Andrewk 12:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ebook of Stranger Things Happen

I could not find the ISBN or price of this record based on the source you provided. The price is currently $6.99, although that may have been changed since 2001. Also, the ISBN shown in the "Look Inside" doesn't match. ISBN-13s didn't exist in 2001. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The ISBN is available from the publisher's web site Small Beer Press. Then I used an Australian (that's where I am) book searching site called Booko and searched on the ISBN. This gave me four sites selling it (Kobo, Dymocks (Australian Bookstore), eBooks.com and Apple iBooks which I searched for information. I then searched Amazon.com with this ISBN (I can't use Amazon UK for prices as they don't sell to Australia) which gave me the Kindle version and the listed price. If you search Amazon using just the title of the book the ISBN does not show up. Sorry, I should have entered all these links into the notes and will do so. I was aware of the ISBN 13 / publishing date conflict and should have queried you on it. As it appears that with older books when converted to ebooks they simply use the original publishing date, I should have just set the date to 0000-00-00?. The ISBN shown by the "Look Inside" search is the tp ISBN. It appears a lot of ebooks of older books simply copy the paper version and don't update the copyright details.The whole ebook thing is a bit of a mess I've found. Thanks Andrewk 04:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, and yes. Ebooks are a headache, and publication dates for older ebooks are always going to be a problem. First, they're almost never embedded in the ebook file, and the publisher's catalog and websites will almost never give the actual date of release of the ebook versions. In this case, it's possible that they released the ebook at the same time as the print book, so you could leave the date as is. But if you do, you'll have to change the ISBN to the ISBN-10. Or you can change the release date to unknown, and leave the ISBN-13 as is. Your choice. Mhhutchins 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll go with the ISBN 13 and unknown date. I think that there were very few ebooks in 2001 and the fact they actually gave it an ISBN 13 makes me think it was published later. Thanks Andrewk 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Parallax View

Re this publication: are you certain that "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy" is an imprint of Sarob Press? Could it possibly be a publication series? Giving it as an imprint removes this publication from the listing of other Sarob Press publications, some of which may also carry this imprint. Other than the copyright statement, how is the publisher given on the book's title page?

Also, interior art work should be titled the same as the work it illustrates. So Harman's work should be titled "Parallax View".

Also, is the foreword spelled "Forward"? Mhhutchins 15:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case both options may be correct. The copyright page states clearly "Published October 2000 by Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy A Sarob Press Imprint" and "This first printing of the Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy edition of Parallax View is strictly limited to 250 copies" . The title page also states: "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy 2000". I only have two Sarob Press books, the other being Year Zero by Brian Stableford which already has a record 55687. "Year Zero" has the same statements in it (date and quantity being different of course). I was aware that my entry conflicted with the Year Zero entry but felt that subject to our previous conversation re imprints that this was the correct entry to put. I had thought of the series issue but as Sarob are a very small publisher doing multiple genres such as scifi, horror, mystery etc, the term "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy 2000" implies the year 2000, in the isfdb these are the only two entries that are science fiction and the word series is not mentioned anywhere, is this enough to determine a series?
Also, I'm very cautious about changing other records such as the Year Zero record outside of the notes area because I am aware of the overall impact.
If I am correct, then both records should have "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy / Sarob Press" as publisher, and I should add "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy 2000" as a series? However this then separates them from the other Sarob books. What is the appropriate course of action? A separate Imprint field would would make this a simpler process I think!
Sorry about the other two errors, my carelessness.Thanks Andrewk 03:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. We've all made mistakes (take a look at my user talk page to see how often errors I've made have been brought to my attention!) In the case of Sarob, we have to decide one way or the other whether "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy" is an imprint or a publication series. It can't be both. Because of the way it's given on the title page, I would lean toward it being an imprint. My personal rule of thumb: publication series almost always get front cover mention and share a design with other books in the series. They are hardly ever mentioned on the title page. In direct opposition to that, an imprint almost never gets front cover credit, there is no shared design, and is prominently given on the title page. There are exceptions, but I feel it's a good rule to go by. Of course, if other editors have done primary verification of records and they disagree with your assessment, then a discussion would be in order. Since no one has done a PV of the Stableford publication, feel free to update it. The OCLC record gives the publisher as "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy". The OCLC standard is to take publisher information ONLY from the book's title page, ignoring the dustjacket and spine for data. Mhhutchins 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've drawn this up into a table but I think I'll pass the odd ones by you before I enter them! So I'll update the Stableford to Imprint / Publisher as with Parallax View. One last clarification. As the copyright page refers to the imprint name as "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy" and the title page as "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy 2000" (same as the OCLC record), from what you've said above, the rule of thumb would be to default to what is on the title page, so the publisher for both would be "Sarob Science Fiction & Fantasy 2000 / Sarob Press"? Thanks Andrewk 10:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "2000" refers to the year of publication and is not part of the imprint name. Notice in the OCLC record, as is usually the case, the give the publisher followed by a comma, and then the year of publication. I'll look for a pub from another year just to confirm this. Mhhutchins 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clone of Pandemonium: Stories of the Apocalypse

Hi. I'm sorry, but something happened to your proposed clone of Pandemonium: Stories of the Apocalypse. The moderator review screen said a title involved in the submission was missing (didn't tell me which -- just gave an ID, which no longer existed for me to look up), and the only option it gave me was to hard-reject. It was not even showing me the full contents list.

I think what probably happened is the clone submission was made, then the original's contents were modified, including deleting of a title originally present in it, and the removal + deletion was accepted before the clone submission (which then referred to things present when submitted, but no longer present on review). But I don't know for sure.

Anyway, what I did was make another clone, incorporating all of the information from your submission that I could see. Please take a look, especially at the contents list, where I was not able to tell what changes you might have been trying to make. Thanks, and sorry for the bother. --MartyD 11:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Looks like it's all there with the exception of a story I was adding which I suspect might be the problem. I added a story named "Πανδαιμονειον". I know it's weird but it's in the ebook table of contents. It just occurred to me that the database probably couldn't process these sorts of characters so rejected the record. My fault. Thanks Andrewk 13:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the Greek characters should be fine. This was something related a copied reference to one or more records no longer present (either deleted outright or deleted by being merged with something else). So if the story is really titled that way on its title page in the anthology, adding another content record "Πανδαιμονειον" and removing the content record "All-demon-place" would be the correct thing to do. Then we'd make the newly-created "Πανδαιμονειον" a variant of "All-demon-place". --MartyD 16:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure then because I was planning to do exactly as you outlined. I will give it a try and add the record and see what happens. Thanks Andrewk 03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
According to every source I could find, the story had the Greek characters in the print publication as well. So I rejected the submission to add it to the ebook, and just updated the title record with the name, with no variant necessary. If you can do a primary verification of either and know this is not the case, it will be fairly easy to correct. Mhhutchins 04:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I originally took the english spelling from the publishers website but I just had a look at a few review sites and the strange spelling gets a mention so I think you are correct. As this book is out of print it's unlikely that I'll be able to get my hands on a copy. However once I go through all of Jurassic London's books I'll see if I can get them to verify this. Thanks Andrewk 12:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Suvin afterword in Solaris

I've added a content record to this pub record for Suvin's afterword based on its appearances in other Berkley editions. If the information is incorrect, please remove it, or let me know and I'll do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've checked this and it is correct. Thanks Andrewk 09:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Voyage to the Stars questions

Hi. I have your Voyage to the Stars submission on hold. You gave the author as "Fran" Bramwell; is it safe to assume that is really "Frank"? Also, the ISBN you gave, 0172210110, is flagged as having a bad check digit (the valid check digit would be 9: 0172210119). You don't mention converting an SBN to an ISBN (a 1968 book would not have had an ISBN, I believe, but could well have had an SBN), so I am wondering if you're seeing something that's a combination of catalog number and price? I wasn't able to find any independent source citing the number you gave, and all of the sources I could find for this book list no ISBN. Would you double-check? Thanks. --MartyD 10:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it is Frank. The copyright page and back cover have the numbers '17 221011 0' on it. It doesn't say SBN but I made an assumption, as per the wiki notes that it was a nine digit SBN number and added a 0 at the front. Was this incorrect?. Thanks Andrewk 11:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will accept and fix up the name. Yes, putting a zero on the front of an SBN is the right thing to do (and documenting that in the notes), but only if that produces a valid ISBN. I did a little research, and the publisher group "17" is for Thomas Nelson. So the formatting is correct for it to be an SBN (the "0" at the end is still wrong). A couple of sites (notably Amazon, and one or two others) use 0172210119 and have it associated with Voyage to the Stars. But we don't really know if the mistake is in the check digit or if the mistake is in the catalog number. I think we should record it as seen ("#17 221011 0") and a note about some of the information here. I'll do that, too. --MartyD 10:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
All set. See here. Feel free to embellish or change. Thanks. --MartyD 10:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. In these cases, is there anyway for me to check if such a number is valid, or does it need to be done by the moderators? Thanks Andrewk 12:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The data entry interface doesn't tell you (but the review interface we moderators use does). I use isbn-check.com or this tool. There are others out there. --MartyD 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

UK edition of The Fat Man in History

It is better to create a publication record first for the UK edition. Once that publication is in the database, you can import the contents from the US edition and then make the title record of the US edition (because it's a different name) into a variant of the UK edition's title record. I'm assuming the UK edition was published first. If not, make the UK title record into a variant of the US title record. Let me know if you need assistance. Mhhutchins 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I would add the new "The Fat Man in History" to the Collections section (even though in this case it would result temporarily in two titles called "The Fat Man in History"), and then make either the UK or US edition the variant of the other? Would it be acceptable to use cloning to create the new record? Thanks Andrewk 01:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Cloning would enter the title under the same title as the US edition. It was my understanding that the UK edition had a different title, so you'd be entering it under the wrong title record. You don't "add the new [book] to the Collections section". Here's the steps:
  1. Click on the link labeled "Add New Collection" (on most ISFDB pages), completing the upper part of the entry form (the metadata), leaving the Content section blank.
  2. When that submission is accepted, you go to the newly created record, and click on the link "Import Content" under the editing tools menu.
  3. On the next page you'll enter the ISFDB publication record number "194733" into the "Import from" field, leave the box checked, and click the "Import Content" button.
  4. On the next page, click on the box "Submit Data".
  5. According to Amazon.co.uk, the UK edition was published on October 6, 1980. So it becomes the variant title.
  6. Go to the title record of the UK edition and click on the link "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" under the Editing Tools menu.
  7. On the next page enter "602481" in the Parent# box. This is the ISFDB title record for the US edition. (It was published in August, so it is the parent record.) Click on the "Link to Existing Parent" button.
Let me know if you need further assistance. Mhhutchins 03:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Content records for novels

I noticed this a couple of submissions back and forgot to tell you. You should not add a content record for the novel when creating a NOVEL-typed publication. The system does this automatically, just as it does for COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, and NONFICTION-typed records. You should only add contents for records which are contained within the publication, such as stories, essays, interiorart work, etc. If you look at this record you'll see that there are two content records for the novel. And if you look at the summary page for Peter Carey, you'll see that there are two title records for Bliss. Please use the "Remove Titles From This Pub" function under the Editing Tools menu and remove one of the content titles (it doesn't matter which one.) Once it's removed, you'll have to delete the extraneous title record from the database. If you need assistance, ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected this and the other two publications where I made the same mistake. Thanks Andrewk 15:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Lowest Heaven

Re this record: you'll notice how the "page" number of the foldout map has been curtailed. The field can only hold so many characters, and is restricted to those given in this help section. Because you've explained in the Note field where the map is located, it would be better to blank out the page field for this content. Thanks.

Also: In Gardner Dozois's review in the latest issue of Locus, he titles the work Pandemonium: The Lowest Heaven. Is there any indication in the book that this is part of the series? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 15:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the page number, I had been meaning to sort that out. There is no use of the term "Pandemonium" in reference to "The Lowest Heaven" either in the book or on the publisher's website. While it is true the previous three anthologies composed of individual short fiction were prefaced with "Pandemonium:" ("A Town Called Pandemonium" is not and is different as the stories are written around a common theme of the town of Pandemonium while the others had the stories about a single theme) this does not appear to have been carried through to "The Lowest Heaven" (I'm leaving Thy Kingdom Come by Simon Morden out of this discussion because as up untill now it's a one off collection unrelated to their anthologies).
"Stories of the Apocalypse" is out of print and I can't see a copy of it but "Stories of the Smoke" and "Lost Souls" can be seen using the ebook "Look Inside" feature on Amazon UK (not Amzon.com). They both use the term "Pandemonium" on the title page ("Lowest Heaven" does not). Also, as far as I know (I have a copy of "Lost Souls" on order), all three "Pandemonium" anthologies were issued without a dust jacket and had the word "Pandemonium" on the front board ("A Town Called Pandemonium" was also without dust jacket with the title on the front board). "The Lowest Heaven" is the first anthology issued with a dust jacket and has planetary graphics on the front board.
I don't know why this is the case (there may not even be one), but perhaps because "The Lowest Heaven" is straight science fiction and the others were a mix of science fiction/fantasy/horror they took a different direction.
Also, they have announced "The Streets of Pandemonium" for 2014, which is a continuation of stories about the town Pandemonium in 1923. That might suggest that "A Town Called Pandemonium" would then be in it's own anthology series?
I'm still working on the Jurassic London publications and when I get a chance will go through their blog site (going back a few years!) as it's a good source of information of what happened and why versus the official facts (i.e. the publish date for "A Town Called Pandemonium"). If I come up with anymore on this I'll let you know. Thanks Andrewk 03:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said, it was only Dozois' review that brought this to my attention. Perhaps the review copies had a different title. I just wanted to confirm how the published work was titled. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ebook of The Gone-Away World

Re this record: According to the link you give in the Note field, and Amazon.com, the price is $11.99. What is your source for the price? It's not a usual amount. Mhhutchins 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, more questions: the ASIN you give (B0031RS8JE) isn't on Amazon or I can't find it. According to this Amazon listing, the ASIN is B001EL6R9W. This is becoming terribly confusing. It's like we're working on two different internets. I see nothing about "RRP" and Amazon would not give any data for Epub editions, a format which competes with its Kindle (Mobi) format. Please give me a link to the Amazon listing from which you sourced this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I found B0031RS8JE on Amazon.co.uk. But no "RRP" only a Kindle price of £5.22 and a "Print List Price" of £7.99. If you're using Amazon.co.uk as your source for data, give that in the Note field instead of Amazon.com. Also, try not to use one for a book published in the other territory. That causes a lot of problems with the pricing as well. The UK listing gives the publisher as Cornerstone and 2008-09-04 as the publication date (as does your ISFDB record), but the US listing gives the publisher as Vintage and the date as 2008-09-02 and with a different "cover" art. This confusion is why adding ebooks to the database is such a headache. Mhhutchins 04:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And the Ebooks.com listing you link to gives a different publisher and a different ISBN. Looks like there should be at least three different records for this one ebook. I feel another headache coming on. Mhhutchins 04:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the look-inside on Amazon.com the publisher is "A Knopf E Book". On Barnes & Noble's sneak the publisher is Alfred A. Knopf. And the look-inside on Amazon.co.uk gives the publisher as Windmill Books. I give up. Mhhutchins 04:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It gets better! I will get back to you but I've been trying to sort this mess out. I've even found another ISBN number. Thanks Andrewk 06:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It was a bit hard to work this out last night as the Random House UK site was down, also, certain ebook information is blocked to Australia to force purchase through specific sites, but here's the story as best I can figure it. There are two ebook editions of this book, basically a UK and US edition. Not every book sites agree on all the details but generally it follows:
UK Edition (starts from the UK site Random House UK. ISBN 9781407005621, EPUB format sold by Random House / Cornerstone Digital.
US Edition (starts from the US site Random House US. ISBN 9780307270375, EPUB & Kindle sold by Random House / Knopf Doubleday / Vintage.
Amazon.com for some reason defaults to the UK edition unless you search on the US edition ISBN number (which if you then click on the kindle link takes you back to the UK edition). I can't see Amazon UK pricing in Australia as we can only buy ebooks from Amazon.com. I did not realise in the beginning that I was dealing with two different ebook editions (didn't know they did multiple editions) so it took me a while to put it together (plus a big piece of paper).
I will update the existing 9781407005621 to be: Random House / Cornerstone Digital, £5.22 plus update the notes and create a new one for 9780307270375 : Vintage , $11.99 (from the publisher's website). I think that using Random House / Cornerstone Digital and Vintage as the publishers is best as they are the ones most often listed ( most EPUB sites for the UK edition use Random House as the publisher). Thanks Andrewk 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
But wait, there's more....Yes there is a Windmill Books edition Windmill Books which is a tp (Random House - Cornerstone Publishing - Windmill Books). I think the Amazon Look Inside is a bit screwed up as on the publisher's site for this book if you click the ebook option it takes you to what I'm calling the UK ebook edition, not another new one. I have added it in. Thanks Andrewk 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

ebook of The Glass Republic

I could not find a listing for this on Amazon.com (although there was one on Amazon.co.uk). I need to confirm the odd pricing, but a search brought no results. Can you provide the link to the Amazon listing here? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Still holding this submission. I found an ebook edition on Amazon.co.uk, but it has UK pricing. Also, if your data is from Amazon.com (as the Note states), then what is the source that the ebook comes in Epub format? Please respond when you get an opportunity. Mhhutchins 04:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link: The Glass Republic. EPUB info probably was from ebooks.com (is there anyway to look at my pending submissions to see what I entered?). however subject to what I have learned with The Gone-away World I will be reviewing this publication again. Thanks Andrewk 09:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the Amazon listing you linked here, I could get no pricing. I think the problem we're happening may be caused by Amazon blocking prices (or changing them) based on where you are located. If that's the case, we should put all pricing in the Note field until it can be straightened out, maybe sourcing the publisher's website and not the seller's website. I'll accept the submission and let you make any necessary changes. Mhhutchins 15:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Audiobook of Angelmaker

Re this record: I added the US price to the Note field as it seems a more "natural" price. Do you know if AudioGO (I changed the record to reflect its usage) is a UK company, or a US one that exports its products to the UK? Mhhutchins 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Research has shown that AudioGO is a UK publisher which exports to the US. Those prices still look very strange. In most cases, prices like this are a conversion from one currency to another based on the suggested retail price. What is an "RRP"? Required retail price? Also this record has an odd price. And the UK listing only gives it as "List Price", not "RRP". Mhhutchins 16:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RRP stands for "Recommended Retail Price". It represents the publisher's (or manufacturers) list price however the seller is not obliged to stick to it. It is generally the price at which a book is sold. Generally RRP and List Price mean the same thing. I don't know why they switch between the two. I will be doing more work on this record to make sure there is no ISBN. The problem with digital editions is that the sellers always discount the price so it's hard to pin one down if the publisher doesn't list one. Thanks Andrewk 09:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Defence of Guenevere

I've made the following changes to your verified pub: changed the publisher to "Scolar Press", added a note about the OCLC record dating it as 1979, changed the page count field from "41 + 2" to "41+[2]" (note the absence of spaces), and added content records for the poem and the interiorart. CHAPTERBOOK type books require a content title record for the shortfiction or poem. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the publication year omission was my mistake, it is on the copyright page. I was having some connection problems to the database last night and had to redo a few things. A couple of questions. If the publisher's name on the copyright page clearly has (as in this case) "The" in front of it, i.e. "The Scolar Press", is the convention to drop the "The"? Andrewk 03:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No convention, except that other records in the db only give it as "Scolar Press". How is the publisher credited on the book's title page? It's "Scolar Press" according to the linked OCLC record (and the note you added to the ISFDB record.) Mhhutchins 03:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, I take your point about the content records, however I added this record using the 'Add Publication to This Title' option which does not allow adding content. I need to come back after the record has been approved and entered and add the content, or am I missing something? Andrewk 03:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You used the wrong function. You should have cloned the original publication record, which would have cloned the title content and allowed you the chance to add other content records (like intros, art, etc.) Mhhutchins 03:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I have left your OCLC record in but removed the bit about the date as I thought it could lead to confusion that there was no date in the book. Thanks Andrewk 03:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As you said, at the time I added that note the record wasn't dated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It does say "This Scolar Press edition....." but for the publisher details (name and address) it states "The Scolar Press". I normally do check what the common consensus is though didn't in this case. Thanks Andrewk 04:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
But, again, how is the publisher given on the title page of the book (not the copyright page)? Mhhutchins 06:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, "The Scolar Press" on the title page. Thanks Andrewk 06:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yours is the earliest publication by this publisher in the db, so it's possible that the "The" was dropped later on. In order to keep it with other books from the same publisher, it's better to leave it as it is, and make a note about how the publisher's name is given in your copy. If more titles appear that give the "The", we can split it off as a separate publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Page count

Why are the roman-numeraled paged bracketed in this record? (Also, there should be no spaces in the page count field.) Mhhutchins 18:22, 18 August 2013

A formatting error, I have corrected this. Thanks Andrewk 04:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)(UTC)

Disambiguating interior art records

I've noticed lately that you've begun disambiguating interior art records by adding the edition to the title. This is not usually done. The only time I can think it would be necessary is if an artist does completely new artwork for a later edition of the same work. In this record, are you certain that the Tolkien and Riddett artwork is unlike any artwork published in another edition? BTW, Riddett's name was incorrectly entered. There should be a space after each initial, per ISFDB standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Same thing here. Is Tolkien's artwork in the Fourth edition so different that it requires a new content title record? If only some pieces have been added or dropped, this wouldn't mean a new record should be created. This is similar to when an author revises a work, but retains the same title. We don't create a new, separate title record for it unless the revision is substantially a new work. Mhhutchins 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone over this and not having added illustration records for a title with such a large list of publications, plus the incomplete nature of the Hobbit entries made me misconstrue how the database displayed these records, so I take your point. I will go back and make the appropriate changes and also update some of the existing Hobbit/Allen and Unwin entries to provide more information to anybody researching them. As for the Riddett artwork, it does present a major change as I think it was the first time another artist added to these editions. I'll think about it but probably for neatness and ease of search having all the entires together makes more sense for somebody searching the database.
I'll fix up Riddett's name. Thanks Andrewk 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If I could have some advice please on these publications. In the case of the Allen & Unwin editions of The Hobbit I have edited, I have allowed the date for the interior artwork by Tolkien records to default to the publish date of each edition. There is no reason to believe (and no evidence I have seen to the contrary) that they have changed from the original illustrations from the original 1937 edition (the three copies I have show them to be the same). However, over the different editions some illustrations have been added and some removed (though the core b&w 1937 illustrations have stayed the same).
This would make applying the 1937 copyright date to the illustrations difficult as not all illustrations are from that date. However illustrations changes have been noted in the notes I've added to each publication. As I have only added publications for the Allen & Unwin editions that reflect major changes to the edition, is it more appropriate to used the 1937 copyright date as a baseline with the notes informing readers of the changes, or leave the date as the date of each publication treating each set of illustrations as unique (I'm leaning towards the first option)? Thanks Andrewk 05:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I would date them to the first year they were published. The problem arises because some pieces may have been published earlier than others. Unfortunately, there is no way to separate individual pieces of art from others since there is only one INTERIORART record that represents all of them in the publication record. And there is no way to assign "titles" to individual pieces unless the artist has done so, allowing the creating of individual records for each piece. So you have to compromise: create one record, date it to the year that most of them were first published, and explain in the pub record's Note field any discrepancies. Then you cross your fingers and hope that other editors do the same with their publication records that contain the same set of art. Unless one editor has access to all editions, it becomes impossible to know how each set of art differs from the other. So therein lies the main problem with the INTERIORART type record: one record representing all art in all editions. Mhhutchins 14:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Six Directions of Space

You can add a month of publication to this record based on reliable information from the secondary source. Otherwise it is listed before the first printing of the title. The software displays non-month-dated records before month-dated records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting TolkienBooks.net

I have on hold your submission updating one of the editions of The Hobbit with more material quoted from TolkienBooks.net. I'm a little concerned about the amount of copyrighted material quoted, and I'm going to ask the more copyright-versed moderators for an opinion. --MartyD 10:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I'll email them and ask if their OK with what I am using. Thanks Andrewk 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I had a response from TolkienBooks.net, hope this helps....Thanks Andrewk 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
"Hello Andrew,
I am also a contributor at isfdb – mainly on the works of Richard C. Meredith and Philip E. High.
Please feel free to make use of information from TolkienBooks.net. Suitable credits are much appreciated.
If you need images please upload a copy to isfdb rather than linking directly to the image on TolkienBooks.net.
Regards,
Neil"
I accepted the submission. With their permission, it's clearly not a problem. I received two suggestions with regard to my inquiry: If you're quoting large amounts of information exactly, it's better to just provide a link (or links) to the page(s). Also, in a case like this, where the information is not specific to one edition, it's better to use the title record's Web Page n and Notes fields, instead of putting the information on one publication. If you want to provide multiple links, you can separate them with semicolons (they'll then be presented as Web Page 1, Web Page 2, etc., the next time. --MartyD 10:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Where Furnaces Burn

You did a primary verification of this record, but the note says the data is from the publisher's website. If anything specific is not stated in the book, source that specific data, otherwise it appears that all the data isn't present in the book itself. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Shadow of the Wind

You didn't say, but I'm assuming you have a copy of this publication. If it has a year of publication on its title page, that may be used to date the record. Those few publishers who give year of publication on the title page usually update it (or remove it) for later printings. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does have 2004 on the title page. I was a unsure about this one as all indications seemed to suggest a 2004 edition (especially with a lack of a ISBN-13 number). But as I just purchased it would mean thirteen printings in 2004 and perhaps none since then. I thought maybe the publisher didn't get around updating it? The last paragraph on the copyright page does talk about copyright infringement on the internet and I don't know whether that was common in 2004? How do you suggest I date it? If I date it 2004 what month would I use to list it after the 1st printing? Thanks Andrewk 09:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no way that this edition went through 13 printings in its first year. I guess Penguin doesn't change the date on the book's title page, regardless of the printing. Many publishers drop the year from the title page (like Doubleday), while a few update it, (most notably Alfred A. Knopf.) So it's best to leave it as unknown. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating publishers

When a publisher has separate divisions in two different countries, or if two different publishers have the same name, we have to disambiguate one of them to keep their publications separate. I accepted the submission updating this record (assuming you're working from a copy-in-hand), but reverted the name of the publisher to "Pocket Books (UK)". Mhhutchins 01:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I still find the publisher issue a bit confusing at times. I did think about this before changing it as I will be doing a transient verification. In this instance "Pocket Books" is on the title page and in the ISFDB the reference for "Pocket Books" under publishers lists it as an imprint of Simon & Schuster UK (as per the copyright page). Had I been entering this record new this would have made perfect sense to me to list it as "Pocket Books" v "Pocket Books (UK)". Is this just an experience thing or is there a better way to figure it out? Thanks Andrewk 02:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If you had entered it based on the title page credit, it would have been included in publications published by the American publisher of the same name. That's how databases work. If all of the data in a field is an exact match, that's what will be found when searching by that field. Some moderators may not have noticed that this is a UK publication. Frankly, most moderators would not have caught it. When you enter something that is clearly stated in the book but has to be disambiguated because of the reason I gave above, the more meticulous moderators will catch it and let you know, and either change it themselves or ask you to change the record. The more you enter, the more you'll learn these eccentricities of the database. There is no list of these oddities, otherwise it would be too easy and you'd miss out on all of the fun! Mhhutchins 04:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes in Everything You Need and "[And] A Place for Everything"

Hi. I accepted your submission of Everything You Need, and I did two things I wanted to tell you about:

  • You can't use Wiki text in the database proper, so none of the {{x}} templates can be used, nor will ' ' or ' ' ' work, for example. To make a link, you have to use an "anchor" (an <a>...</a> tag). See Help:Using_HTML_in_Note_Fields#Links for more information. I changed the link to "And a Place for Everything" to be done that way.

Please review, and consider making yourself the verifier. Thanks. --MartyD 11:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. If I could ask a question. I noticed that the stories I entered have resulted in duplicate entries under the shortfiction section for the author if the story already existed. I made sure the publication date matched the existing story record so I'm not sure why the record wasn't automatically merged. I'll manually merge them but do have any idea why this happened? Thanks Andrewk 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You're not doing anything wrong. Merging is not automatic. If you enter the contents by hand, then you need to follow up afterward with manual merges. That's a pain, but normal. Sometimes you can avoid the need to merge by using one of the content-copying functions: "Clone This Pub" when making another edition of a publication with the same author(s) and title and having similar content. Or either of "Export Content"/"Import Content" to push/pull contents from one publication record to another (useful when Clone is inappropriate; also for existing entries for which contents were never entered and for "superset" anthologies or collections whose contents encompasses those of several smaller publications. --MartyD 18:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ebook ed. of Unearthed

Your submission to create an ebook edition of this title had to be rejected, because of an error which was caused by previous submissions that changed one or more content records. When you merge a content record with one already in the database, the newest record is deleted. Before the submission to delete this record was accepted, you made a submission which included that deleted record as a content. Thus the system was unable to clone that publication record which contained contents which no longer existed. To avoid this error, please wait until submissions to change or merge contents are accepted by a moderator before making a submission which involves (a) publication record(s) which contain those content records. Now that the content merges have been made, you can now make a new submission to create the ebook edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Donaldson's The One Tree

Please confirm the author credit of this record. It was entered as "Stephen R. Donaldson", but under the title record which credits "Stephen Donaldson". Please use the title page to confirm the credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the title page lists the author as "Stephen R. Donaldson". Thanks Andrewk 07:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Then it will have to be removed from its current title record. I'll do that for you, and make a note that the author is credited on the cover without his middle initial. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

O Último Anel variant

I don't know what happened, but O Último Anel is already a variant of Последний кольценосец, so I have rejected a submission from you that would establish the same relationship. We've been having some problems with duplicated submissions (something the system is doing, not you or anyone else), and sometimes moderators go make variants when pseudonyms are set up, without noticing submissions already in the queue to do that. Anyway, let me know if something looks amiss. Thanks. --MartyD 12:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, looks OK. Thanks for the update, explains why things were happening by magic! One question though, I understand why the variant titles are appearing on the parent title record Последний кольценосец, but why on the Author record Kirill Eskov does only "The Last Ringbearer" show up as a variant title? Is there something I need to do? Thanks Andrewk 16:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
By default, only English translations appear on the Summary page. If you would like to see other translations, you can do so on the My Languages page, which can also be accessed from the User Preferences page. (And since this is a frequently asked question, we may need to update the software to display a warning if the currently logged in user hasn't set his language preferences.) Ahasuerus 16:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikitext in pub notes

Hi. Just a reminder: "Wikitext", the special mark-up we use when writing messages and pages here in the Wiki, does not work in pub or title notes in the database proper. So {{T|id}} and {{P|id}} templates cannot be used to link to other ISFDB records. To make such a link, you need to use HTML's A (anchor) tag instead: <a href="http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?id">...</a> or <a href="http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?id">...</a>. I changed the link in the note in El último anillo accordingly. Thanks. --MartyD 12:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. now you've told me twice I might actually remember! Thanks Andrewk 15:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Kirill Yeskov

A few notes re: Kirill Eskov:

1. There is no need to put a link to the English translation in the Notes fields of all related pubs. The relationship is made clear on the main Title page, which lists all translations.

2. The Russian word "кольценосец" does mean "ringbearer". It's similar to "венценосец", i.e. "crownbearer" -- cf. "tête couronnée" in French, "the crowned heads of Europe" and so on.

Thanks for contributing! Ahasuerus 15:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Every translation program I ran failed to translate 'кольценосец" properly and I started to think it was one of those words that did not have a direct translation but had to be approximated in english. It's been interesting tracking down all these foreign language editions and figuring them out! Thanks Andrewk 16:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

American Gods

While a person may be credited for the design of the book, that very rarely means that they're responsible for the dustjacket, unless actually specified. I could find no credit for the book's cover designer or for the cover's photograph in the Amazon "Look Inside" of this edition. Does your copy of a later printing explicitly say that Betty Lew designed the dustjacket? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have the 3rd printing 431510 and while the book does not explicitly state that Betty Lew did the cover and is listed as the book designer, the look and feel of the cover match the interior graphics which she did (I found this listing) [1]. Also, as the copyright page did go to the trouble of listing the photographers of the work she used to compose the graphics, I thought it unlikely they would not list a cover artist. I've come across this before where the cover is not separately credited from the designer because it's more of a composition that an artwork but I felt that in this case there was enough weight in favour of my assumption (plus it was allowed in the record I entered). Either way, listing Kamil Vojnar as the artist is incorrect. Thanks Andrewk 07:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll remove the credit for Kamil Vojnar (he was credited for the first edition cover), but unless Lew is explicitly credited as the designer of the cover, I do not personally feel it should be stated in the ISFDB record. Any assumptions of responsibility should be stated in the Note field. What happens is that another person or website will then use the ISFDB as the source of the data, and such assumptions acquire the authority as fact. I will remove my hold on the submission and allow another moderator the opportunity to handle it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I just checked the copyright page of the first printing according to the Amazon Look Inside, and it does not credit the cover art photographers. If your third printing copy does credit the photographers and credits Betty Lew as the person responsible for designing the cover, it's OK to credit her in the Artist1 field, and then use that as the source for crediting the first printing (because the covers are identical). Mhhutchins 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the Amazon Look Inside doesn't show this information which my copy does except that it does not directly credit the cover to Betty Lew, just the artwork and design for the book. I will do some more hunting around to see if I can find some direct credit, if not I will modify the record. Thanks Andrewk 03:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Scalzi's Lock In

I accepted the submission to create this record, but made some changes. Ordinarily we would not add a record for a publication which is scheduled more than 90 days ahead. So much can change before the actual publication that it's better to wait until the data is more concrete. I changed the date to 9999-00-00 which is displayed as "forthcoming", and corrected the price field from Amazon's discounted price to the retail price. I also adjusted the Notes accordingly. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, wasn't aware of the time limit but I'll keep that in mind. Thanks Andrewk 03:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Upload troubles?

I see you uploaded this image file four times. Each of them appear to be identical. What kind of trouble were you having? Perhaps I can help. You also uploaded another file which looks identical under a different pub record. If two (or more) books have the same cover, you can link a single cover image file to all of the publication records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what was happening. I was trying to load the new cover image (to replace the one I originally loaded) using 'Upload new cover scan' but every time I loaded the new file it came up with the existing cover image not the new one. I tried changing the file name to make sure it saw it as a different file but it didn't make a difference. I have to admit I lost patience and banged the key board a few times which is my way of saying I can't remember what I did to get it to work but basically it would not accept the new file. Thanks Andrewk 09:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Just bang one key "F5" to solve the problem. Because the image URL goes to an image file that was stored in your cache, every time you uploaded it, you only saw the original image, not the new version. All you have to do to refresh the cache is hit the "F5" button on your keyboard (for most browsers, check yours to see what to do to refresh a page.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Should have banged my head instead! Thanks Andrewk 13:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Book of the Dead

Submission to update this record was accepted. Did you mean to remove that note that "This volume is issued bound in cloth and sealed with wax impressed with the seal of the Egypt Exploration Society." Also, does the note of "Price: $49.99" indicate that there are two stated prices or the publisher gives the price in two currencies? If so, it would perhaps help to note "Second price stated in the publication for the US: $49.99" or "Publisher's website gives the US price as $49.99". The Note field as it is now appears to contradict the Price field. Also, did you intend to leave a couple of blank bullet points in the Note field? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a stupid typo on my part. I typed <li instead of <li> and it left the lines blank. I've taken your advice on the pricing and clarified that as well. Thanks Andrewk 09:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Graphic novels / Last Days of an Immortal

I have your proposed addition of Last Days of an Immortal on hold. Your first bullet in the notes says it is a graphic novel, and it certainly appears to be that from the website link you provided. Unfortunately, ISFDB policy generally excludes graphic novels (see main item #2, the "exclude" list, in ISFDB:Policy#Definitions). If it is indeed a graphic novel, is there something about it you think warrants an exception and its inclusion? Thanks. --MartyD 11:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, I was unaware graphic novels were not included. I will cancel the submission. Thanks Andrewk 13:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If the graphic novel is written by (and not just "adapted from a work by") an author who is considered "above the threshold", it is allowed into the database. Just as we would allow a nongenre novel or a work of non-associational nonfiction if it were written by an author whose reputation is built on his/her speculative fiction work. That's why we allow graphic novels by Neil Gaiman and Kim Harrison. They actually wrote the text of their graphic novels. If you have an question about whether an author is "above the threshold", it can discussed on the Community Portal. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, I was wondering about Gaiman and co.Thanks Andrewk 09:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Then Will the Great Ocean Wash Deep Above

Re this publication: a few problems.

  • "Apollo Quartet" is a title series not a publication series, as such it should not have been entered in the publication record. Title series are added to the title record (once created). In this case, the series data should go in the SHORTFICTION content record.
  • The title should be "Then Will the Great Ocean Wash Deep Above" (non-capitalized "the"). Change the title field of the publication record, the title field of its title record, and the title field of the SHORTFICTION content's title record.
  • There's a superfluous character in the author credit of the content record.

Please make the necessary submissions to correct the records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I understand the mistake I made here, but as I did not originally set up the short fiction series I had to stare at it for a while before the light went on and my brain separated the confusion caused by the chapbook and content having the same name and how this all hung together. However, I did start to think that perhaps these three (and eventually four) books do also compose a publication series. Ian Sales (who is the also the publisher) states "It was always my intention to write four stand-alone novellas that were linked only by their use of Apollo hardware and a similarity of theme. I chose the title Apollo Quartet for that reason." So with the exception that somewhere in the story Apollo equipment shows up, these are completely separate stories (in alternate timelines).
As the definition of a publication series is "a set of similarly packaged books designated by the publisher (or publishers), often related only in theme or marketing", could these books fall into both categories? Thanks Andrewk 09:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The easiest rule of thumb is to ask yourself: "If a different publisher [re-]published these works, would the new publications also belong in the same series?" If the answer is "no", then you have a publication series; if "yes", then a title series. --MartyD 11:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I think I finally have my head around this! One more question if I might. I can't figure out why the Apollo Quartet novellas Short Fiction Series don't also appear in the Short Fiction section of Ian Sales Bibliography? I have looked at other examples of chapbooks in the database and sometimes the novellas appear in the Short Fiction section and sometimes they don't. I can't seem to find an explanation for this. Thanks Andrewk 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason is that for title series a section of its own is established. If you take a look at other authors (Frederik Pohl being a prominent example), you'll see that it holds for other title types as well, such as essays/essay series and (book length) fiction/fiction series. Stonecreek 14:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"unknown" vs. "uncredited"

A work credited to "unknown" means that the publisher published it without knowledge of who created it. A work credited to "uncredited" means that the publisher published it without crediting the creator, while still aware of who created the work. With this in mind, I changed the artist credit of the map in Perdido Street Station to "uncredited". (Unless you have evidence that the publisher had no knowledge of the map's creator.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, What is the case of a drawn illustration of the author, where the artist has signed the work but the signature is illegible and there is no other credit in the book identifying the artist? I would assume this is uncredited rather than unknown? Thanks Andrewk 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If there is no credit then the artist is given as "uncredited". You can note that the work is signed by illegible. Mhhutchins 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating titles

We normally wouldn't give the edition of the publication to disambiguate it from other generic titles, unless there are two different works by the same author with the same title. For example, if Isaac Asimov wrote an "Introduction" to Foundation, and then later wrote a different one, still titled "Introduction" to the same work. In that case, we'd title the first as "Introduction (Foundation, 1954 edition)" and the latter as "Introduction (Foundation, 1966 edition)". With that in mind, is there a reason to add the edition in the disambiguation of the generic titles in this publication? Same question about this publication. Is there a possibility that the books were reprinted and the extra pieces were titled the same, but different texts? Are you certain that the introduction by Frank Wells in this publication is different from the one in this one? Mhhutchins 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the publisher/year information because I though it would for example, make it easier for anybody searching a listing as large as 'uncredited' to distinguish various editions, however I understand the convention your outlining and will make the appropriate edits.
Again with the introduction by Frank Wells, I cannot know if they are the same without both editions but again I understand the point your are making.
If I could ask for some clarification. In the record I entered this publication, I entered "Herbert George Wells (Biography, The First Men in the Moon, Collins 1966) • essay by uncredited". In the book the essay is titled "Herbert George Wells" and I entered the word 'Biography' to clarify what this essay was about. In this record you noted this one (which I suspect has the same contents), it is simply titled "Herbert George Wells". Is this the correct way to go and not add the word 'biography'?
Also, with the same example, my Collins edition credits this essay to 'H.d.R.'. I did some searching and could not clarify who or what H.d.R stood for and went with uncredited (though I realise I should have at least added a note to this clarify this). The Fontana edition you reference does credit the essay to 'H.d.R.'. Much like the illegible signature on an illustration, what is the appropriate way to handle this?
I'll make all the appropriate edits once I get your response. Thanks Andrewk 03:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the disambiguation of the biography essay is necessary at all. I understand that finding an item on the summary page for "uncredited" is hard, but it's more likely that a user will be going from the pub record to the summary page than the other way 'round. You always have the option of adding notes to the title record if you need to add further information about the work. Giving it in the title causes too much "clutter" on the publication record's content listing, in my opinion. That's why we allow disambiguation only under certain circumstances: excerpts, maps, frontispieces, and generic titles. About "H.d.R." it would be better to credit the author with initials than with nothing. At least until research uncovers who this person actually is, and then variants to the canonical author's page can be made. This also allows the merging of identically titled and credited records. Art credits are handled differently, as they have distinct standards of their own. That's why we don't enter "uncredited" in the Cover Art field when the work isn't credited, and why we allow entering artist credit even when it isn't credited in the publication but determined by a secondary source. Writing credits, as you have learned, are handled strictly as published, and then varianted as needed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Crediting artists for uploaded cover images

If you follow the required method of uploading a cover image using the link from the publication record, you will find that occasionally an artist isn't credited in the publication record. So the image will be credited to "unknown" in the upload process. If you know the artist and plan to add the credit in the submission linking the image to the record, you can adjust the artist field of template which is automatically generated in the the upload process. For example, you uploaded a few images for the new Discworld series, but the artist wasn't identified during the upload. You could have changed the artist parameter from "unknown" to "Joe McLaren" at the time you uploaded the image. Keep this in mind when uploading images for uncredited records. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Mhhutchins 05:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, if it is evident who did the art represented on a cover as in this case, we really do credit the artist in the publication's field. Would you like to add him? Stonecreek 10:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking to OCLC records

When linking to an OCLC record do not use the URL that's given in your browser's address window. Click on the Permalink located at the top right of the page. This gives you a "clean" URL, without a lot of extraneous characters which are found in a search-based URL. It will look something like this: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1234567890 with the digits after the last slash being the OCLC record number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Feast and Famine

I've approved your submission for this pub but I'm surprised by the page numbers of the first items. Can you check the data, please ? Hauck 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, typo's on my part. I have corrected the entry. Thanks Andrewk 07:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Banks' The Quarry

I'm holding your submission to add a new edition to this title. I'm unable to see any difference between it and the one already in the database. Mhhutchins 05:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, my entry noted that it was the fourth reprint in 2013 making it the 5th printing? Thanks Andrewk 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that note out. I overlooked it. The submission will be accepted, but the record will display before the first printing because it isn't month dated. Do you recall the date of acquisition of your copy? Mhhutchins 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It was purchased this month. Should I note this in the 'Notes'? Thanks Andrewk 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Image for The Angel's Game

Hello, you've uploaded "something" here ;-) as an image for this pub but the result seems not very conclusive. Can you try to reload it ? Thanks. Hauck 08:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is the cover image for The Angels' Game. What seems to be the problem, I can see the uploaded image and it looks OK in the publication record? Thanks Andrewk 07:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, the image is visible under Firefox but not under IE. Hauck 09:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I work with Safari but tried it also with Firefox and Chrome and other than the colour being a bit off it worked. So I don't know why it would not be visible under IE? Thanks Andrewk 14:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, it looks OK in IE 11. A glitch in an older version of IE, perhaps? Also, Ctrl-F5 may help since it tells the browser to refresh all images and formatting (CSS) instructions. Ahasuerus 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Leaves

Is your edition the "remastered full-color edition"? (It would be stated on the front cover.) If so, then the edition was first published in 2006. Like this one, the first Pantheon edition states "2nd Edition" on the title page, but with an unstruck "First Edition" on the copyright page above a complete number line 9 - 1. I believe the number line on yours is a continuation of the one began with that 2000 first printing. But, if it has an ISBN-13 on the copyright page, then it can not have been printed in 2006. (Pantheon didn't start using ISBN-13s until 2007.) Publishers who give the date of the first printing on the dustjacket almost never change that date when the book is reprinted. For Pantheon, they just drop numbers from the number line on the copyright page. Does your copy have "A Note On This Edition" on the copyright page? If so, which of the four "editions" is boxed? What color is the word "House" in the footnote on page 3? This is one strange book, and the printing history is even stranger. It's hard to know what is the truth and what is conceit! Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have clarified the note added to the title record. Mhhutchins 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, after making my entry I started to research the publishing history and spent most of the night trawling the internet trying to find out why the publisher's hated us so much! I think I have started to make sense of this. Following is a summary of what I think is going on.
When first released in 2000, there were two hardcover editions, signed (ISBN-0375410341) and unsigned (ISBN-0375420525). Both editions (and all printed editions since) have '2nd Edition' on the title page. This is because the book was originally issued as downloadable files from the internet and these files were considered by the author as the true first edition (leading to the foreword in my copy by the Editors that the first edition of 'House of Leaves' was privately distributed and did not contain Chapter 21, Appendix II, Appendix III or the index).
Now the fun part. On the copyright page the term 'First Edition" is used (more on that later). To start, there appear to be four 'variations' to editions listed on the various copyright pages (I'm only dealing with the hard covers here, I'll leave the paperbacks for now);
2 Color edition - With 2 variations. the 'Blue Edition' - The word 'House' in blue. Minotaur and struck passages in regular black text and the 'Red Edition' - the word 'House' in light grey. Minotaur and struck passages in red.
Black & White edition - No colored words. Plain black text. House in grey.
Incomplete edition - No color, No Braille, elements in the exhibits, appendices and index may be missing.
Full Color Edition - The word 'House' in blue. Minotaur and struck passages in red. On the jacket, A Novel and the Pantheon logo in purple. In the book, First Edition and the struck line in Chapter XXI in purple. The word Braille in the editions listing is Xed out. Appendices are full color plates.
They seem to apply as follows;
2 Color edition (Red and Blue): Applies to both the early signed (ISBN-0375410341) and unsigned (ISBN-0375420525) editions.
Black & White edition: UK editions.
Incomplete edition: Original internet download files.
Full color edition: Applies to the Remastered Fulll-Color Edition.
Andrewk 08:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


I would question the conclusions drawn above about the four "editions". My copy of the stated "First Edition" with a complete number line has "A Note On This Edition" which notes these four "editions", calling itself the "2-Color" edition. If the "Remastered Full-Color Edition" was published in 2006, why would it be noted in this printing six years earlier? And the one noted as "Incomplete" mentions appendices which for the most part didn't exist in the internet version of the novel. Perhaps there was a "Full Color" edition before, otherwise why call the 2006 one "Remastered"? Or perhaps this note is an authorial conceit? Mhhutchins 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Signed (ISBN-0375410341) Edition
From what I can find, there were two issues or printings with this ISBN. The first printing (and 'first edition') was a 'blue' edition example that had 'FIrst Edition' and a full number line '9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1' on the copyright page and a yellow compass on the front dust jacket. On Abe.com etc this is often referred to as the 'true' first edition. This was followed by a second printing (possibly quite quickly, if not at the same time), a 'red' edition example, often referred to as the 'red first edition'. This had 'First Edition' struck out (i.e. no longer the first edition as defined by the first printing) and the number line '9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2' on the copyright page. It also had a red sticker stating 'Signed by the author' and a red compass on the cover. I believe after this there were no more ISBN-0375410341 signed editions, but I am basing this mainly on the fact that I cannot find any evidence of such.
Unsigned (ISBN-0375420525)
I believe that this was also released as blue and red editions (though definitely red), though how many printings and what mix I don't know. According to this website HOL Editions, by December 2004 there had been 14 printings.
Unsigned (ISBN-0375420525) The Remastered Full-Color Edition.
As you noted, released in 2006 and took over from the older 2 color edition using the same ISBN. Basically a new '3rd edition'. My copy (full color edition with blue 'house' on page 3), which I purchased this month is listed as the 11th printing. I think, when the remastered edition was released in 2006, they reset the number line and started again. I base this on the following;
The website I noted above has both a 12th and 14th printing listed for this ISBN.
I don't think my copy has been sitting in around since 2006 (which started me thinking about this whole thing in the first place).
The ISBN's listed on the copyright page are ISBN-10's as all the other editions / printings but the ISBN on the back of the dust jacket (that has the 5/06 code on the inner flap) is definitely an ISBN-13 (easy enough to change the dust jacket). Which you say wasn't used until 2007. Andrewk 08:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Is the ISBN-13 printed separately from the barcode on the back cover? If it only appears on the barcode, does it actually state "ISBN-13"? Or is the number printed below the barcode as "9 780375 420528"? If so, that is the EAN, which has been used since the 1980s. Mhhutchins 22:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


It makes me think I have the 11th printing of the technically 'new' 2006 edition.
Primary sources I used for this summary were:
The original article you added the the title notes: Biondi Rare Books.
Exploration Z.
Exploration Z Bibliography.
HOL Editions, Mark Z. Danielewski Forum.
'Look Inside' functions on Amazon.com and Amazon.uk.
Photographs currently shown on Abe.com for editions for sale.
I'm not even going to try and sort out the various signature combinations for the signed editions!
If you think this sounds OK, I would like to add a summary to the title notes. Thanks Andrewk 08:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I've updated the title field to account for some of my own research, linking a source. If you wish to add further data to the title record, make sure it's title related. Much of this data should be added to the note fields of the various publication records (which I tried to do with the first two hardcover editions, one of which is for the signed version.) I've added extra notes to my verified record of the softcover variant of the first printing of the first print edition. Thanks for going the extra mile. Some good research here. Mhhutchins 21:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Codex Seraphinianus

I'm holding your submissions to add two records to this title. A book published in 1981 would not be priced in Euros. Also, the page count for each volume is suspect. According to OCLC, the page count is 186 and 189 respectively. Also, you should not use Wikipedia as a source, as it is not original research. You should use the sources cited in Wikipedia. If you look further down on the Wikipedia page under "Editions" it shows the page count as "127+127 pp., 108+128 plates", but I can't find where it is sourced. I'm not sure how the OCLC record arrived at its page count, but at least it's a secondary source. I'll accept the submission if you make changes and provide sources other than Wikipedia. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Can I edit the existing submission or do I need to delete and redo it? Thanks Andrewk 05:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I'll accept the submissions so that you can make the changes. Mhhutchins 05:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I did a fast currency conversion, based on 1981 Italian lira, and 200 euros converted to about 234,000 lira. That may seem like a lot, but a standard hardcover published in Italy in 1981 was 9,000 lira. I don't suggest using that in the record unless you can find a secondary source for the price, but just thought it would be a good exercise to get a ballpark figure of the price. Mhhutchins 05:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any additional information regarding page count and price so in the mean time I have tidied up the information as you requested. I'll do some more hunting around and see what I can find. Thanks Andrewk 10:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Trouble with drop-down menu

I'm not sure what happened with adding the pub format to this record in the initial entry form. If it happens again, please report it on the ISFDB: Moderator noticeboard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A Long Trip to Teatime

Hello, do you know if this novel is speculative? There was a discussion sometime back about Burgess to be regarded as 'major' author of speculative fiction, that is if the majority of his fiction falls into our area. Thanks, Stonecreek 13:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is a childrens fantasy book. From the dust jacket: 'A Long Trip to Teatime is a sort of through-the-looking-glass tale in which Edgar vanishes through the inkwell in his school desk, and from learning about the Anglo-Saxon kings of England, comes to meet them in person.'
'This is after negotiating such matters as free will, predestination and the expanding universe, not to mention the Blatant Beast and his mother, and having the theory of relativity explained by a mouse called Alfred.'
Not quite 'A Clockwork Orange' but I would say it falls into the speculative category! Thanks Andrewk 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! Stonecreek 19:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Zima Blue and Other Stories

Just to let you know that I have assigned page 7 to "The Real Story" in your transient-verified Zima Blue and Other Stories. It was the only story without a page number in the collection and, since all the other page numbers are the same as in the first printing, I figured that it was safe to make this change. Ahasuerus 04:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sorting that. I still have access to the copy and confirm your correct with page 7. Thanks Andrewk 13:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Essay or Interview?

Hi! I just wondered if this item wouldn't have better been entered as INTERVIEW instead of ESSAY. If it has the structure of an interview, there's no reason not to denominate it as such. Christian Stonecreek 14:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes your right, silly mistake on my part and I have corrected it! Thanks Andrewk 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Crock of Gold

Just an FYI that I have changed the publisher of this pub from "Macmillan Publishers Ltd" to "Macmillan". This mega-publisher has a rather complex history -- see the Note field of our publisher record -- and our attempts to separate its incarnations have had only limited success so far... Ahasuerus 05:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't quite sure which way to go with this so I'll keep this in mind in the future. Thanks Andrewk 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Watership Down - Kestr[a|e]l

Would you double-check your copy of Watership Down and see if the spelling is "Kestral" or might in fact be "Kestrel? I suspect the publisher in your submission should be credited as Kestrel Books / Penguin (UK). Thanks. --MartyD 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, typo on my part, it is 'Kestrel'. Thanks Andrewk 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I accepted the submission and fixed up the publisher and the typo in the note. --MartyD 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maps

Re this record: Maps should be titled in the format "Title of Work (map)" (or "maps" if there are more than one of them.) I will make the correction for this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Changing primary verified records

It is important that you discuss any changes to primary verified records with the editor who verified it. I accepted the submission adding an ISBN to this record, but have left a message on the verifier's talk page about the change. Any future submissions which make changes to primary verified records will be held until you have posted a message on the verifier's talk page. Your cooperation is appreciated. Mhhutchins 05:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover art credit for Finch

Can you confirm that the cover art is credited correctly on this record? Almost every resource I can find say that Adam Tredowski was nominated for BSFA for the cover art of this edition. This looks like the work of Kai & Sunny, so that leaves us with a dilemma. Perhaps they're credited as the designer and not the artist? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the image of the rear cover at Amazon, it says "Illustration + Design: KaiandSunny.com". On their website, they show the book with statement "Illustration/Design/Art Direction"[2]. It would be nice if Andrewk could weigh in with anything more that the book might say, but seems likely this was an error in the nomination that was propagated through the internet. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more than just an internet error. It seems to have originated with the BSFA itself. Sadly, (and oddly), there is no list of nominees on the BSFA website. Mhhutchins 02:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RIM

Hello, can you have a look at your copy of this book. Mine is quite similar except for the price in Australia which is $14.95. Can you confirm your $19.94. Thanks. Hauck 14:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor additions to Notes on Three Parts Dead

I have added the following to the Notes on Three Parts Dead:
Cover artist per inside back flap of dust jacket.
LCCN: 2012019876 per copyright page.
Exact publication date 2012-10-02 per archived Amazon.com.
BungalowBarbara 02:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Beloved Son

Hi, I found the cover artist for Beloved Son. It is Angus McKie, who also did this.--Dirk P Broer 12:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools