User talk:Astromath

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Astromath, 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! --MartyD 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

proposed edit to 2001: A Space Odyssey

Hi, and welcome. I have a question about your proposed edit to 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 23rd printing of the Signet / New American Library edition. Did you really mean to edit that edition, or were you trying to enter another edition by cloning this one? If you tell me a little more about what you're trying to do and what your source of information is, I'll be very happy to help. Thanks! --MartyD 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s. You can reply to this by clicking on the "edit" at the top right of this section. You can indent your reply by starting the text with a colon (":") -- each colon indents another level. "Sign" with four tildes ("~~~~") or by using the second button from the right at the top of the editor window. --MartyD 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was supplying missing information from the copy that I have. In fact several of the edits I have/will make are from copies of books that I already have. For example, I have the Ravenloft Baroness of Blood and the publisher listed in it is Wizards of the Coast, not TSR. --Astromath 02:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I will have some more feedback for you about this. But I have to run to work, and I also need to dig up my copy, so it won't come until tonight (+12 hours). Stay tuned, and thanks in advance for the contributions. --MartyD 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
So I have this book (you'll see I verified the record you edited), and now I have two questions for you: Where do you get the ISBN 0451062302? On my copy, there is no ISBN. The only SBN-like number incorporates the catalog number: 451-W6230-150. And where did you get the date? On my copy, the only dates are the 1968 copyright and the "First Printing, July, 1968" statement above the number line "23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31" (showing it's the 23rd printing of that July 1968 edition, but providing no date for the 23rd printing). If yours does not have the same SBN, it may be a different printing.... Thanks. --MartyD 00:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Baroness of Blood

I have the submission you made changing the publisher from TSR to Wizards of the Coast on hold. The original publication was released in 1995. Wizards did not purchase TSR until 1997. Is there a printing line on the copyright page? And does all the other information [price especially] match? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On all the books that I'm replacing TSR with Wizards of the Coast, TSR does not appear anywhere on the copyright page. They have Wizards of the Coast, Renton, WA. Otherwise, everything else matches. --Astromath 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there a number line? Or multiple copyright dates? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Darn, the book is boxed back up. I don't think there was a number line, and there was definitely only 1 copyright date. If you want me to, I'll try to find it again and scan that page for you to see. --Astromath 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is that Wizards re-released many books after buying TSR. Both Locus and OCLC have listings for this pub with TSR as the copyright holder. Wizards phased that out eventually, dropping any mention of TSR by the end of 1997. Check [this] article out. Wizards may not have been diligent is maintaining or using a number line to help place the printing, but it's not possible for the original printing to have them as the publisher two years before they bought the company. Even if the copyright page of your copy doesn't mention TSR, that doesn't make it a 1995 printing. Publishers who are less than diligent about noting things like this are a bibliographic nightmare. Anyway, I don't think the record should be overwritten. A new record with notes to explain the difference is a much more accurate way to go, and keeps the legitimate first printing record intact. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost Years Saga

The note you wanted to add to the particular printing of Flag Full of Stars already exists in the title record of the publication, though not in exactly the same form. If a note applies to a publication in general, that's where it should go. Individual records for different editions/printings should only have notes specific to them. Unfortunately, at the moment, the database software does not support having a title appear in two different series at the same time. Among the many numbered Star Trek series there are sub-series that we can only note for now. Some day! Thanks for editing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Walker

Though the cover has the hyphen, the title page does not, and we always use the title page data. The list of Help pages at the top of your talk page covers the basics of the editing process and explains what gets used and what doesn't. Some of that is not always self-evident, either! But it is consistent for the most part. Thanks for editing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad

I'm holding your edit to this publication. Has TSR only on the title page and as the copyright statement on the copyright page. There are statements that the book is distributed worldwide by Wizards of the Coast and a statement that TSR is a subsidiary of WotC. The WotC addresses are given. The spine and back cover only mention TSR. My first question is whether we both have the same edition. Does yours match the points above? If so, mine also has a full number line. If we both have the same edition, I'm inclined to leave it as TSR. However, if you feel strongly, we could go with "TSR/Wizards of the Coast". Given the title page, I think keeping TSR in the publisher is important. If we have different editions, you can clone my copy and change the record as necessary. Let me know how your copy compares. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I actually have 2 copies for some reason. It is copyrighted by TSR, but published by Wizards of the Coast (see bottom of copyright page, bottom left). My guess is that it was written when TSR owned the copyright, but it was published after WotC bought out TSR, therefore my edit. I guess we could go for TSR/WotC instead of a complete edit to WotC. I figure if it was actually published by TSR, then it would have the TSR address instead of the WotC address. --Astromath 13:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and reject your original edit. You can then resubmit it with the imprint/parent publisher. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

Accepted the submission for [this], but we do not have permission to link directly to that website to display the image. For sites we do have permission to deep-link, see [this] page. There is also a form there for obtaining such permission if you want to try! I downloaded the image to my computer and reloaded it to the record and changed the note. The image is not of the printing in the record as the price on the cover shown is $3.50. Artwork is the same. I'll have a look and see if I can find the correct image with the right price. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Found a good one and replaced the incorrect one. First printing still has the "Timescape" logo on the front cover. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Looks like I need to update the image in my own database then. I have Readerware which autocatalogs from the internet. I did not check to see if the image matched the book I have. Thx. Go ahead and update the publisher so that matches as well. --Astromath 16:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To Ride Pegasus

Made mistake on publisher. It should be "Del Rey / Ballantine", not just "Ballantine". --Astromath 16:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Approved the two submissions regarding [Star Trek Quiz Book] title and new pub record, but had to re-edit the title record. Many of the date fields you will encounter must have a complete date entered or the software sees it as incomplete and reverts it to all zeroes. In this case you entered only 1977 when you should have entered 1977-00-00. I did add in the month of your printing so it now reads 1977-06-00, assuming it's a first printing [don't recall ever seeing this blockbuster printed more than once ;-) ]. Some of the date fields don't cause this zeroing if the date is not complete, but I don't know why the software differs from one to another. It's safest just to enter the whole date each time. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Didn't know. That's what I get for assuming. Mistakes made, lesson learned. --Astromath 19:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You should see some of the doozies I made when I first got here!!! My first archived talk page it a thorough "How-Not-To" bible!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Crystal Shard

There is already a [Jan. '88] pub record, just with a different price. Does yours have a number line? If it does and the lowest number is 1 then the existing record could simply be up-dated, though $4.95 in 1988 seems a little high. It's why I ask. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the number line: 9 8 7 6 --Astromath 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Then it should be entered as an undated sixth printing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with [Streams of Silver] which has an obvious wrong price, but your submission has $4.95 and Locus has the price as $3.95. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the number line: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 --Astromath 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Then it should be entered as an undated third printing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Number lines rule, pre-empting a "First Printing" statement. Some publishers give the printing date of each printing, which is nice, keeps the records in order. I'll accept both submissions and change the dates with a note about the number line. Thanks for checking. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I never new what the number lines were used for. --Astromath 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Line Breaks in notes

Just an FYI: a carriage return/return on your keyboard does not work if the intent is to start a new line inside the notes and have it display that way in the record. Only an html 'break' is recognized by the software. This can be accomplished in different ways/styles, the simplest being <br> either at the end of one line or the beginning of the next. I noticed on a couple of your edits that you had typed them in that way but without the html break they end up reading as one long line. I added the break so they will display the way you typed them. You've probably seen a few different ways notes are done. Just open up the edit window on a few and you'll see how the html codes get them to look like that. Some, like indents, italics, bold require closure, so be careful or they display in very funny ways sometimes!! The learning curve here is steep at first but it looks like you'll be around for awhile, so have fun and ask questions! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little familiar with html code from when I was updating records on a Yu-Gi-Oh TCG wiki. I even managed to modify page code also, but that took a couple of days for me to learn how the page worked and interacted with the other pages. I might not be able to create code, but I can modify something that's already there. --Astromath 04:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rim World Series

Hi! The series now needs to be linked to the main Rim World series. On the A. Bertram Chandler[1] page click on the series "The Saga of Commodore John Grimes (Ace Double Set)" then in Editing Tools click "Edit Series" in the "Parent" box type "Rim World" and submit.Kraang 01:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Done --Astromath 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Moonshae Trilogy

In the merge submissions, each is dropping the series number - 1, 2, 3 - was this intentional? If accepted the three will display by date only and the Omnibus addendum (O/1,2,3) won't be accurate. At the moment the numbers indicate the order of the trilogy. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Wasn't sure about the dropping of the series numbers. My mistake. --Astromath 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'll accept them as submitted and add the numbers back in. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Images

You've got the process right, except for the last step. The URL you put into the Maztica book record was for the page that displayed the image and all the related data. No image will display beside the record with it. What you want to do is either click on the image which will cause it to display in a page with nothing else on it and use that URL or just right-click on the image and copy it onto your clipboard and then paste it into the field. In any case the image was still there in the Upload Log so I copied it into the record. Nearly everybody misses this the first time. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Still having problems? First question, are you using images in your computer or at another site? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2001 edit, revisited

Hi. I think my questions above got lost. For your proposed edits to 2001: A Space Odyssey, where did you get the ISBN 0451062302? On my copy, there is no ISBN. The only SBN-like number incorporates the catalog number: 451-W6230-150. And where did you get the date? On my copy, the only dates are the 1968 copyright and the "First Printing, July, 1968" statement above the number line "23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31" (showing it's the 23rd printing of that July 1968 edition, but providing no date for the 23rd printing). It seems very likely that your copy is undated, too. If yours does not have the same SBN, it may be a different printing altogether. Thanks, --MartyD 09:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn. I've got it boxed back up again. It'll take me some time to find it. Once I do, I'll give you the info I have. --Astromath 12:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Myst: Book of D'ni

Myst: The Book of D’ni (with David Wingrove) (Hyperion 0-7868-8942-X, Nov ’98 [Oct ’98], $6.99, 466pp, pb) [Myst] Reprint (Hyperion 1997) fantasy novelization based on the computer game. Copyrighted by Cyan, Inc. - from Locus1, so you could update the new pub record and cite Locus1 as the source. Still leave the existing note as is regarding there being no publication date in the book. [This] is the link to Locus1. A good site for information. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I always wondered what the references under verification status was for. At least one of them is cleared up. Is there a link to explain the rest? --Astromath 01:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Try this. BLongley 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tower of Zanid

Your proposed new edition is priced far too high to be a 1963 edition - 95c would put it more like 1976. Is there a printing date code (Month-Year) on the last page of text? Currently I suspect your copy is actually this one. BLongley 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Date code on last page is 1-76. --Astromath 16:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, date adjusted. BLongley 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Night of the Eye cover

Is this image the right cover for Night of the Eye? --MartyD 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's the cover I have. --Astromath 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with those Amazon LZZZZZZZ links is that they "float" along with the printings, so if a later printing of the same ISBN is issued with a new cover, the link that may have been to the correct cover originally suddenly is to something else. That may well have happened here. Anyway, I added the image above to it. Thanks. --MartyD 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I've finally got the hang of cover uploading. What to do is copy the Amazon image to your hard drive, then upload it to isfdb. That bypasses linking the image to Amazon (or any other "changable" site. --Astromath 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on Amazon, there's usually a different link that is not floating. You can usually find it by searching for the ISBN. See the Amazon section of ISFDB:Image_linking_permissions#List_of_sites_granting_permission for some tips on how to work with Amazon images. You just want to avoid the LZZZZZZZZ links -- those are the ones that float. --MartyD 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copying images from Amazon

It is unnecessary to copy images from Amazon onto the ISFDB server. A link would suffice, saving space on our server. If you have a better image than Amazon's, it would be OK to upload it. In this case, it's not a very good image. It looks like you copied Amazon's thumbnail, when this one (also on Amazon) is a larger and clearer image. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to find a way around Amazon's floating links. --Astromath 15:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Catalog numbers -> ISBNs

I've accepted the submissions which replaced the catalog numbers with ISBNs, but I went back and added the catalog numbers in the note field. In these cases were the ISBNs derived from the catalog numbers or were they actually stated in the pubs themselves? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

When there is, what I consider, an incomplete ISBN on the spine (just lacking the checksum digit), the first thing I check is the copyright page. Sometimes it has the complete number. If not, I use an ISBN checker found here: http://www.sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk/chuff/libdesk.html to find the checksum digit. 99 times out of 100, the number that comes up is a valid ISBN that can be searched for on the net. For books with a letter instead of a number, sometimes (not always) the letter can be replaced with a 0 and the ISBN can be found that way. --Astromath 15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I know I rejected at least one submission of a derived ISBN that included replacing a letter with a zero. While some people may do that and may then use the result as an ISBN, a person searching by the number printed on the book would never find it. This is in contrast with ISBNs derived from SBN-like catalog numbers simply missing the leading zero and the trailing check digit. With those, the number printed on the book is a subset of the derived ISBN, and searching by that printed number would match the full ISBN. Just one man's opinion. --MartyD 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did say that replacing the letter will not always work. :) --Astromath 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that you're removing a valid catalog number when an ISBN is not present, and not recording that fact in the note field. This would (and does) lead to another editor submitting a record for the same book, only with the catalog number, thus creating two records for one publication. Mhhutchins 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cartmill's Space Scavengers

I'm holding the submission that removes the 1975 date of this pub, leaving it undated. When there is a secondary source of a date, you can give that date in the pub's date field, then place a note in the note field that the given date is not stated in the pub itself, giving the source of the date. In this case, OCLC gives the date as 1975. This date is also consistent with other pubs with close ISBNs from the same publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no prob. I tried to find a publication date on the web. All I could find is a copyright date no matter where I looked. --Astromath 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I approved the submission, changed the date back to 1975, and noted the source for the date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Trantorian Empire series

Hi. You modified Pebble in the Sky to be #3 in the "Trantorian Empire" series with a note that this number came from Locus, but now I have another submission that would assign the same number (with the same explanation) to The Currents of Space. I'm guessing only one of these is correct, but which one? I've placed this latter submission on hold. Thanks. --MartyD 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The one for Pebble in the Sky should be #1. When I did the first edit, I made a mistake and didn't know how to cancel and redo. I know now. locusmag.com shows it to be the "first" and I misread it to be the "third". Maybe I need new glasses. The Currents of Space is to be #3. Sorry for the confusion. --Astromath 04:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I approved the Currents of Space change and also modified Pebble in the Sky to be #1. --MartyD 09:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress Catalog Numbers

Hi. In your changes to Dragonlance: The Covenant of the Forge, I see you entered the control/catalog number from the Library of Congress. Since you're willing to take the trouble to record them in the notes, see Help:How_to_create_a_link_to_a_US_Library_of_Congress_(Loc)_record for a "standard" way to label the number and provide the lccn permalink. You do not have to do this, I only mention it in case doing it appeals to you. --MartyD 01:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also a reminder that the Library of Congress Card Catalog Number (LCCCN) is now referred to as the Library of Congress Control Number or LCCN, when linking to the record on the LoC website. Mhhutchins 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to link the LCCNs (I didn't realize they could be linked). As far as the abbreviation is concerned, I was abbreviating it the way I saw it in the books. Now, I know better. I'm still learning the process of editing and creating. So, thanks for all of your help. --Astromath 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I edited it to be a link, so you can see what that technique looks like. --MartyD 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Ok, I'll try to link them, but only to the extent that they are actually in the LCC. Some LCCNs seem to belong to more than one book and/or reassigned. --Astromath 17:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes they are incorrect. In that case, we document the incorrect one (stating that it is incorrect), but definitely do not link it. If you are so inclined you can try to figure out the proper number and note that (and provide a link to it), but sometimes that proves to be difficult, too. Fun fun fun. --MartyD 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just cloned Centaur Aisle and used the linking method to lccn.gov. Let me know if that was right. --Astromath 18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Perfect! --MartyD 20:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

War of the Gods

You submitted a revision to the note for War of the Gods to change "Assumed 1st printing." to "1st printing confirmed by 2nd printing." I approved this but then revised the record so it has both the old note and the one you submitted. I'm thinking that'll be clearer to someone looking at the record down the road as they'll see that the printing is not stated and that a secondary source (the second printing) does state this one is the first printing. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Way Station

I'm holding your submission to add a new publication to Simak's Way Station. I think we already have this publication in the database here. The only difference is the publisher. If you follow the OCLC/Worldcat link, you'll see that Manor Books is right (McFadden is probably a leftover from a cloning operation). You should probably edit the existing pub (change the publisher and add notes). These were the notes for your edit:

A Manor Book.....1973
First printing...November, 1964
Second printing.....April, 1969
Third printing.....August, 1973
Derived ISBN from number on spine is invalid
Title on cover appears to be one word, but the title page separates it into two words.
By the way, the cover artist for the existing pub is now Richard Powers, this should be the cover of your pub, could be Powers, but if the book sais nothing, add a note. --Willem H. 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if was a leftover from a cloning operation. That's why I cloned it. And, yes, that's the cover. Ok, I'll edit the original. --Astromath 00:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I accepted the submission to update the pub, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Derived ISBN" as there is no ISBN either in the catalog #/ISBN field or the notes field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. There's one more thing though. We don't have permission to link to images on the University of Minnesota Libraries website, so I copied the scan to ISFDB here. Thanks, --Willem H. 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean by derived is taking the number on the spine and adding a check digit. If there are any letters in the number on the spine, replace them with the number 0, then add a check digit. If the resulting "derived" ISBN can be searched for, I place it in the ISBN field, otherwise I note that it is not valid. --Astromath 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that. What we mean, is the good habit to mention the numbers that are on the pub in the notefield (and where they are located) if they don't fit in the catalog #/ISBN field (or if there are different sets of numbers on the pub). See this for an example of how to deal with this. All is explained here. --Willem H. 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] Still doesn't answer my original question. My definition of "derived" is "I've created a working valid ISBN from the series of numbers that are printed on this book." Otherwise an ISBN has not been derived. Perhaps you should say "An attempt to create an ISBN from the catalog number on the spine is not a valid ISBN." Maybe I'm just being semantically challenging. But adding a check digit to a series of numbers doesn't make it a "derived ISBN" unless it is a valid, working ISBN. Sorry. Mhhutchins 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's where we differ. My definition for "derived" or "inferred" is that an ISBN is created from the numbers on the spine that look like an SBN/ISBN whether it is a working number or not. My notes only say that an attempt was made and if the number was valid, I put it in the ISBN as a "true" ISBN, and if not valid, the attempt is recorded in the notes as being invalid. If you want me to only add the note if the derived ISBN actually works and to leave the note of when it does not work to avoid confusion, the ok. It's just the way my mind is wired. If I see a note saying that a derived ISBN is not valid, then, for me, that says it all (especially if the ISBN/Catalog field is a non-ISBN number). Oh, well. It's not the first time my Asperger Syndrom got me in trouble. --Astromath 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If your attempt to create an ISBN from the catalog number wasn't achieved, you have not derived an ISBN. You should only make a note if you placed a working valid ISBN in the catalog#/ISBN field. You should also record in the note field the actual catalog number printed on the book, explaining that the ISBN is not stated (according to the entry standards that Willem linked to above "If you entered a value that was not exactly as stated in the publication, then please add a comment about this in the Note field.") If you were unable to find a working valid ISBN based on the catalog number, there is no reason to note that. Thanks for contributing. If you have the publication please consider doing a primary verification of it. This would help any future editors with any questions concerning the pub. Again, thanks. Mhhutchins 03:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have frequently done notes similar to what Astromath did but I also document the ISBN that was derived. The current publication note is a bit mysterious as it does not say what number was derived nor what is meant by "invalid." For example, I could have "The ISBN 0-552-95270-2 could be derived from the catalog number. A Google search finds that this number is not being used as an ISBN." --Marc Kupper|talk 10:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I like that. Your way is better than mine. I'll remember this. Thx. --Astromath 15:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

edit to Flint the King

Hi. Your proposed edit to Flint the King would change a verified 3rd printing to a 2nd printing (per the number line you provided in the notes). Sorry, but I had to reject it. Maybe you meant to clone the 3rd printing but accidentally edited it directly? If not, allow me to suggest cloning it! :-) Here are the notes you supplied, so you can copy them: 

First Printing: May 1990<br />
LCCN: 89-51895 (not listed in LC online catalog)<br />
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Thanks, --MartyD 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I meant to clone it and hit the wrong link and didn't notice. I'll try it again. Thx --Astromath 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Marked Cards

I accepted the update of this record, but there's trouble with the pagination. Each record should only have one page on which the story begins. If the story is split up into several parts, you can create records for each part. You should enter the titles as they appear on each part's title page. Here's an example of how another mosaic novel was entered. If you choose not to create records for each part, simply give the page number on which the first part begins. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Same with this pub. Mhhutchins 23:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I'll try to do better. Fortunately those are the only mosaics I have. --Astromath 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They're a mess to deal with, because there's really no standard on how to enter them. Luckily for us both they're not that common! Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I put forth a suggestion, in addition to NOVEL, COLLECTION, etc., add MOSAIC. The word MOSAIC will trigger a routine that allows multiple page numbers for a chapter mosaic title. --Astromath 15:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Childhood's End

I'm holding your submission to edit this pub. Your edit would change a verified pub from the "First Special Printing" to the "Thirty-first Printing". It would be better to clone the pub, so both would be in the database. These are the notes you added: 

LCCN: 53-10419
First Printing: August, 1953
Thirty-first Printing: June, 1975
First Special Printing: November, 1974

First Canadian Printing: March, 1964
Second Canadian Printing: October, 1972

Thanks, --Willem H. 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited the pub instead of cloning it because the original note said that the First Special Printing made it the thirty-second printing. That cannot happen unless the thirty-first printing occured before November 1974, which it did not. I believe the original note was an error and the original submitter simply overlooked the date of the thirty-first printing. It would have been better if the publisher put a blank line between Thrity-first Printing and First Special Printing to avoid this type of confusion. Of course, the book could be wrong, as well, and the Thirty-first Printing could be June 1974 instead of 1975. I don't have the resources to check this. --Astromath 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not really the point. Your own notes confirm that there was a Special Printing dated November 1974, so it should stay in the database, no matter what the notes say. To avoid confusion, you could add a note to this pub about your 31st printing (and maybe leave a message on Holmesd's talkpage), but there's no reason to overwrite an existing printing. --Willem H. 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I'll clone it. But I still believe that the one he has and the one I have are identical in every way (except for the worn marks from reading). --Astromath 14:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Approved. Thanks, --Willem H. 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ghost King

To whoever is reviewing my recent edit, the cover image of the book I have can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/frnovel/253930000 --Astromath 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend to edit or Clone? The submission came though as a Clone which would mean two records of the same pub. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I intended to clone because the cover images are different. --Astromath 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The original image probably came from Amazon and would have been pre-publication, not necessarily the one the book actually ended up with. Even if the record had been verified, the image might have been added later from an incorrect source [I've done that and after checking with the Verifier searched and found a correct image]. In checking the two, the only difference is the lettering, not the artwork. Updating the current record in this case would be better, but since it isn't verified I'll accept your submission and delete the other record. No extra work on your part needed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm also cloning the other 2 volumes because I have the 4th edition of The Orc King (by number line) and the 2nd edition of The Pirate King (by number line).--Astromath 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Astromath"
Personal tools