User talk:Dirk P Broer

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Dirk P Broer, 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! BLongley 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)



Cover artists

On the cover of A Voyage to Arcturus, wouldn't it be better like Arnold Kohn as coauthor?

I was in doubt with The Year 3000: A Dream and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders: Volume 2, at last credited Forrest J. Ackerman, but searching, I saw that they look like Wonder Stories, July 1934 by Frank R. Paul.Hyju 08:59, 2 January 2020 (EST)

That is a good catch. I already wondered about the unknown artistic career of Forry, but it all comes from his collection. They are all variants of the Frank R. Paul art!--Dirk P Broer 09:09, 2 January 2020 (EST)

The Number of the Beast - Heinlein

Hi Dirk, I've submitted changing the page count here from 355+[1] to 356 and added an explanatory note, as per case 2 here [1]. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:33, 2 January 2020 (EST)

The Bohr Maker art: variant vs. merge

Hi Dirk. Any particular reason you varianted this art with this art record instead of just merging? Imo there's not enough difference to warrant varianting (although you could) - I myself tend to rather merge. Thanks! MagicUnk 05:55, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Background not only has a different colour, but also has a different design.--Dirk P Broer 05:58, 3 January 2020 (EST)
OK. Makes sense. Fine with me :) MagicUnk 06:22, 3 January 2020 (EST)
But that is not what variants are for - we do not variant slightly different images. They are either similar enough to merge or they are not and then they do not get connected. We variant for title, author and language change only. Annie 06:36, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Nature Futures • 1

Hi, please approve this to continue editing. --Florin 05:21, 6 January 2020 (EST)

Thanks, I believe is done. --Florin 05:37, 6 January 2020 (EST)

De Wereldbrekers

You have this submission on hold. Can you reject it? I already adapted the credit and the notes. Thanks, --Willem 15:29, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Done so.--Dirk P Broer 18:23, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Wonderwaan magazine

Hi Dirk. This might be of interest to you (see also here). Any advice? MagicUnk 17:44, 8 January 2020 (EST)

Franz Kafka: The Metamorphosis, including "The Retransformation of Gregor Samsa" by Karl Brand

Hi, Dirk! I do wonder where the credits for the two editors is from. There's no hint at DNB or within our entries, causing stray pulications for the editors. Can you take a look into the matter? Christian Stonecreek 02:41, 9 January 2020 (EST)

Their names are on the copyright page, between the translator and the illustrator.--Dirk P Broer 07:09, 9 January 2020 (EST)

The stray publications were caused because someone varianted the bi-author anthology to the Franz Kafka story.--Dirk P Broer 07:14, 9 January 2020 (EST)
Ah, that was the cause. Thanks for the inspection! Christian Stonecreek 15:45, 9 January 2020 (EST)

BNB vs. BL

Liking BL links better than BNB just because one targets end record with fewer clicks is not really a very good reason (this is a similar argument to liking ISBN-10 over ISBN-13 because Amazon makes their ASIN the same as an ISBN-10 for most published books and their product detail pages can be reached by ASIN; I am sure you probably have noticed ebook ISBN-13s that can be resolved to lettered ASINs often exist and why our software has carved around that; frankly I believe we should just search by ISBN period even though it takes another click to get to the detail page).

I can't follow you here. ASIN (Amazon Standard Identification Number) is alphanumeric, ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 (International Standard Book Number) are purely numeric. Part of the moderating job is to remove ISBN-10's from the ASIN field.--Dirk P Broer 18:55, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Yes, ASINs are alphanumeric identifiers, but for published printed books the vast majority of them are entirely numeric and match the ISBN-10. —Uzume 21:42, 15 January 2020 (EST)
It explains why some editors enter ISBN-10 in the ASIN field. It does generate maintenance reports though, so we erase them on daily basis. Only standard alphanumeric values are allowed in the ASIN field. It looks like Amazon is the inconsistent one here, using ISBN-10 as ASIN.--Dirk P Broer 04:24, 16 January 2020 (EST)
No, Amazon started selling printed books and ASINs started out as just an ISBN-10, but then they added other things and ISBNs went beyond the ISBN-10 (e.g., French ISBN-13s that starts with 979- and thus have no way to even be converted to an ISB-10, etc.), so Amazon extended their ASIN making it alphanumeric instead of just ISBN-10 numeric. I am sure you have noticed how most of the non-ISBN-10 ASINs you have seen start with "B"? There is some methodology to it. —Uzume 00:39, 17 January 2020 (EST)

For one these two things are actually quite different things (I realize that the British Library's main search basically displays these in the same way currently). BL identifiers are basically OPAC identifiers for the BL's holdings where as BNB identifiers are entries in the British National Bibliography. It is theoretically possibly to have one without the other (although I have not seen the BL do this yet). As comparable example, we also have NDL bib and JNB/JPNO identifiers. In a similar fashion the NDL bib is about NDL OPAC entries and JNB/JPNO are about the Japanese National Bibliography entries. The NDL tracks holdings from other Japanese libraries and I have found JNB entries for books at other libraries that the NDL does not seem to have any of its own records for. Typically the national bibliography concept is more encompassing, however, I have noticed the BL does not does a very good job and differentiating these two concepts. —Uzume 18:48, 15 January 2020 (EST)

Yes, there are entries in the British Library that do not have a BNB, and only a BL, I've encountered them. Ultimately you arrive at the same page and BL is leading you straight there, while you have to click yourself from the BNB-link to the very same page as the BL-link would have brought you. I can live with adding one to the other, I can't live with BNB replacing the BL.--Dirk P Broer 18:55, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Yes, I know that but I meant the other way around. In theory you can have a BNB without a BL entry but so far the British Libary does not do that much (if at all). The fact they are the same page is also just how the British Library does things now. That is not true for the general concept of a national bibliography. I cited the NDL and the JNB as a counter example. —Uzume 21:42, 15 January 2020 (EST)
I still see absolutely no reason to replace the BL with the BNB, as you did.--Dirk P Broer 04:24, 16 January 2020 (EST)
Just to throw a few thoughts here. We support both - adding both is fine. Adding just one of them is fine. Replacing one with the other when both are correct is not. Personal preferences are just that - you are free to add whatever IDs you want, you cannot remove a valid is someone else added just because you think it is useless or you do not like it. This is a collaborative DB. Removing valid IDs is destruction of data and should not happen. Annie 09:59, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Rocannon's World - Lumea lui Rocannon (excerpt)

Hi, about this note: With taking 15 magazine pages (at most) this has to be an excerpt of the novel. (I think it's yours.)

I checked twice Orion Orfeu, #4 (pp. 17-32 minus 2 pages in total of Barbarella comics) and this book (Editura Orion, 1990, Pages: 160) and contain the same text: Prologue: The Necklace; Part. 1 Lord of the Stars with chapters I-V, Part. 2 The Wanderer with chapters VI-IX and Epilogue. Some text, some translator.

Image:Orion 4, pp 21.jpg

Image - one page from issue = cca. 18 or 20 pages on book (Pages: 160). Conclusion - 100% is not a excerpt. --Florin 10:01, 17 January 2020 (EST)

A3 is gigantic in size (29.7 x 42.0cm; 11.69 x 16.53 inches).--Dirk P Broer 12:16, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Exactly. And it is published in very small fonts. The magazine contains the whole novel in a few pages, novel which is not too big. So, what next... --Florin 12:52, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Is the same situation like Roadside Picnic in Almanah_Anticipa.C8.9Bia_1985 (the difference is that it is not A3). --Florin 12:55, 17 January 2020 (EST)
A novel it is now.--Dirk P Broer 13:11, 17 January 2020 (EST)
And as NOVELs do not go into MAGAZINEs I had to make it a SERIAL (complete novel). I also looked up the format for A3-sized magazines: tabloid.--Dirk P Broer 13:24, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Sorry, it was me who started this fuss. I thought it wouldn't be possible to fit the novel in the space of less than 20 pages, and had changed the title type & added the note (the format wasn't stated at that time). Learned something new! Christian Stonecreek 13:30, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Fixing broken links

You rejected my 4551773 based on your understanding that the NDL external identifier was still linking to a record correctly. Unfortunately, I was removing that because it links to the *wrong* record for a different issues of the magazine than the one it was attached to. This means the link was still broken, just not a 404 not found. In the future, if you cannot read the NDL records, then please trust someone that can. You needn't preemptively try to fix this as I already have submission 4552635 to rectify this. Thank you. —Uzume 17:14, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Incomplete template

I removed the incomplete template from this pub. The help text makes it clear it should not be there. --Willem 05:35, 25 January 2020 (EST)

That sounds just like the text I left in the 'note to moderator' field when I checked the 'incompletes'...-Dirk P Broer 10:53, 25 January 2020 (EST)
I was wondering about the note to moderator, and how the template came in the notes in the first place. your edit looked a lot like you did it , so I searched for earlier edits to this pub until october 2016, but couldn't find any. --Willem 15:02, 25 January 2020 (EST)
I can assure you it wasn't me (Zapp?). I just placed a [li] between the template and the explaining sentence -and wrote the note.--Dirk P Broer 22:49, 25 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks, it looked unlikely, but I couldn't find any proof. --Willem 04:34, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Found this thread by chance. The Edit History shows I didn't make any submission to that pub. --Zapp 14:54, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

rejected edit to Dobson 1970 'World of Null A'

you rejected because "Decimal Day in the United Kingdom and in Ireland was on 15 February 1971, so the price of a January 1970 book can not be £1.50, this has to be a later edition." In my edit I added pub note 'On jacket front flap: ... "£1.50 net" and "30s net".' The year before "Decimal Day" Dobson was including both prices in anticipation of the switch. There's no clear ISFDB standard here: note prices on 1970 Dobson books http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisheryear.cgi?2358+1970. If you'd prefer I use the "30s" price, then please make that change and accept the edit. I'd rather not have to re-enter it, if that's avoidable. Markwood 14:24, 26 January 2020 (EST)

It is the fact that you wanted to change the price to a format that does not fit with the publication date that made me reject your submission, note that you mention two prices in the note. If we are not consistent we should at least try to be more so, e.g. for people born in either West or East Germany we also try to be precise -even for people born in villages around London that at the time of their birth belonged to other counties.--Dirk P Broer 21:17, 26 January 2020 (EST)
I've re-entered your submission, except for the price (obviously) and the faulty HTML.--Dirk P Broer 21:28, 26 January 2020 (EST)

Dead Reckonings, No. 26, Fall 2019

Looking it over you're right on the reviews, I'll revise those entries later. Also yes, "The joey Zone" is indeed the credited author. Eguimont 10:07, 27 January 2020 (EST)

Greetings

Hi, Dirk (I suppose you must be)
Happy New Year. Or Fabulous February!
Probably you re-located one of my source notes to the parent ESSAY record (T973869), along with approving the submission yesterday. Thanks. I am rusty after most of January immersed elsewhere.

Congratulations on your upcoming 100,000th. --Paul Pwendt|talk 22:00, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Unliked Foss covers

Hello Dirk

this cover and this cover are identical except for being flipped horizontally. --Mavmaramis 01:37, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 19:03, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Nico Keulers duplicate art

Hi Dirk.#

Found another here and here

And other:

here; here and here all seem to use portions of the same image. --Mavmaramis 14:45, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 19:03, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Sideman by Bryan Thomas Schmidt

The correct ISBN for this submission (you have it on hold) is 978-1-62225-7539. The correct series is John Simon. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:47, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Also, this is the correct image URL: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/8171NventOL.jpg. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:48, 5 February 2020 (EST)
Already done with the exact same info as you supplied.--Dirk P Broer 18:57, 5 February 2020 (EST)

A Circus of Hells

Hi, the cover artist of this is Ian Craig, see crashonline.org.uk. Horzel 14:15, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 14:19, 7 February 2020 (EST)

The Moon Hoax

Dirk, "The Moon Hoax" is a title coined in 1852, whose first publication is the one whose ISFDB publication record update I submitted hours ago Canceled/Rejected 4571016. Perhaps I should not have noted to Moderator "(note to self)". --Pwendt|talk 20:32, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Better do a title search on 'Moon Hoax' before making a remark like this....We do have interior art dated 1835 with that title. Perhaps your notes to moderator should be to the moderator, and not notes to yourself. You know your intentions, we have to guess them.--Dirk P Broer 20:34, 7 February 2020 (EST)
(edit conflict last hour) OK, I retract. 1852 "The Moon Hoax" may well be the presumption or inference of Rtrace or Chris J, or the same, or a misunderstanding, by one of their sources TitleUpdate submission. I may be able to investigate by online research as early as tomorrow (Saturday here). Today no more than inquire at those two User talk.
Let's suppose 1852 first publication of The Moon Hoax is genuine (and without subtitle) on the one hand, and spurious on the other hand. What does that imply for our 1859 record as "The Moon Hoax" (CHAPBOOK title) and "The Moon Hoax; or, A Discovery That the Moon Has a Vast Population of Human Beings" (publication title, known from title page image). I am inclined not to use the short CHAPBOOK title --a day or three from now-- if we have no publication under the short title. --Pwendt|talk 21:36, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Edit to tile of Relapse

Hi Dirk -

I've reverted your edit to my verified publication, the Spring 2013 issue of Relapse. First off, I would have preferred that you had discussed this with me before making the edit. I don't mind when minor corrections are made without notification, but changing the titling of of a publication is certainly not minor. The reason I've rolled it back is that you changed the title to a format that is not standard. Per the help page, the format of magazines should be Magazine Title, Date. There is an exception when the date can't be found, for French magazines, or ones like Interzone, to use the issue number and title in place of the date. Since we have the date here (Spring 2013) that exception wouldn't apply. Regardless, there in no stated standard that allows both the date and the issue number. I am aware that several records have crept into the project using both date and number, but these are incorrectly entered. There was a discussion in 2018 about this issue, but it resulted in no changes to the standard. In any case, that's why I've reverted the edit. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:39, 8 February 2020 (EST)

I tried to make the entries for Giles look more like each other, but we can make #19 Spring 2011 just like your Spring 2013 too of course.--Dirk P Broer 18:11, 8 February 2020 (EST)

The Best of If Volume 1

Cover artist of this is currently given as Brian Boylan, while the cover artist of Donovan's Brain is given as C. Achilleos. Achilleos must be correct, see his site. Award Books and Tandem Books shared quite a few covers. Brian Boyle (Studios) was Achilleos' agency or employer or something. Horzel 09:48, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Now there's a funny one...I hope they are still on good terms.--10:36, 10 February 2020 (EST)~

Golden Age Masterworks x3

Hi Dirk, thanks for adding the "Cover design Tomás Almeida." to the pub notes through the series. However, my last three submissions were to remove your added line from just those three, as the cover design credit was already in the pub notes. If left to stand as is, he is credited twice. Thanks, Kev

I just discovered and rectified it, but thanks anyway!--Dirk P Broer 08:21, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Patreon links

A quick question re: this rejected submission, which would have added a Patreon link to an author record. According to Advanced Search, we currently have 37 author records with Patreon links. Do you happen to recall if we have had a discussion of this topic? Ahasuerus 12:01, 24 February 2020 (EST)

Hmmm, that's an interesting one. As Patreon is soliciting payments, I'd stay far away from it, lest we'd be accused of luring people to pay sites to rid them of their money :) MagicUnk 13:24, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Patreon is a platform which lets authors set up Web pages and facilitates accepting donations. Some Web fiction authors that I am familiar with have Patreon pages but no author-specific sites, so their Patreon pages are effectively their primary presence on the Web. It's similar to the way some authors who mostly sell on Amazon have Amazon pages instead of traditional author sites and we have 995 author records with Amazon URLs. We also have 196 Smashwords pages, which also "rid people of their money" :-) Ahasuerus 14:14, 24 February 2020 (EST)
LOL. I should have know that it is never that clear cut :) It might be more of a gut-fill than anything else, but I think the difference is in the 'donate' vs. 'buy'... MagicUnk 14:27, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Well, it's a different business model. For example, consider John C. McCrae aka "Wildbow". He creates speculative Web serials, which are posted on the Web. The reason he can make them available for free is that he has a Patreon account, which nets him $5,851 per month. Or consider the award-winning author Seanan McGuire, whose SF novels are published by traditional publishers. She makes her SF stories available via her Patreon, making $11,056 per story. It's a very different way of making fiction available to the public, but it's proven its viability and we'll need to account for it in some fashion.
There are other issues to consider, e.g. we currently ignore most Web-published fiction even though one of Wildbow's serials, Worm, has spawned more than 7,000 works of fanfiction, but that's a whole different can of worms. Ahasuerus 15:12, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Said submission would add the Patreon-link as 8th author link. I agree with MagicUnk's argument "I'd stay far away from it, lest we'd be accused of luring people to pay sites to rid them of their money".--Dirk P Broer 16:01, 24 February 2020 (EST)
One of the existing links already has the Patreon link, another leads to the page where that link is. I wouldn't have batted an eye if it would have been the sole link, but in this case I draw the line.--Dirk P Broer 19:39, 24 February 2020 (EST)
It looks like there are a couple of different (but related) issues here. The first one is whether Patreon links should be eligible given that Patreon facilitates donations to authors. The second one is whether the total number of author-specific links to third party sites should affect our decision to include or exclude additional links. I guess I'll wait for the current crop of Rules and Standards discussions to wrap up and then start a discussion of these issues. Ahasuerus 13:11, 25 February 2020 (EST)
It would be fine to have a guiding line. Some editors throw in everything, but [and sometimes including] the kitchen sink, when it comes to author links.--Dirk P Broer 14:53, 25 February 2020 (EST)

The Rest of the Robots - Asimov

Hi Dirk, regarding your PV here, I've recently added the 8th and 9th printings.

Your copyright page omits the 1970 (4th), 1974 (7th), 1975 (8th) and 1976 (9th). From the wording in your pub notes I think you're already aware of probably two of the omissions, but would it be alright with you if I change the printing to 11th and add an explanatory note as I've done, for example, 7th printing here and import the additional Introduction contents? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 07:46, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Alright by me, if we have a clear path up to and including the 11th printing.--Dirk P Broer 07:48, 26 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks, and yes, I've checked all the printings and I've got them clear to the 1981 12th printing which is currently tagged incorrectly as the 8th printing. I'm working to get them all straight. Kev. BanjoKev 07:52, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Jules Verne (in error)

You approved my submission for Package Holiday. I just noticed that the author has been changed from Jules Verne to Jules Verne (in error). Do you know anything about this? ../Doug H 10:22, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Yes, it is the only way to prevent massive maintenance reports because this title gets varianted against the original author, Michel Verne, who actually wrote it. We can't make Jules Verne a pseudonym of Michel Verne -that would create a real mess-, so we have to give the author another name than Jules Verne. Another option is Jules Verne (I).--Dirk P Broer 11:22, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I'm not sure I understand how this is different than the books where Michel made uncredited changes that get ascribed to Jules Verne and varianted to titles with both of them, or ghost written volumes such as Alan Dean Foster for George Lucas on Star Wars. This approach seems to hide titles that have long been attributed to Jules, and indeed, if not for some fortuitous circumstances, would still be credited to him. It shouldn't take a Verne scholar to find these books. Are the maintenance reports reacting to the complete name change, where these other examples have a name in common? ../Doug H 12:24, 26 February 2020 (EST)
In both these case the canonical title (against which the variants are made ) is the one with two authors: either Jules and Michel Verne or Alan Dean Foster and George Lucas. Here the canonical is only by Michel Verne, and the Variant by Jules.--Dirk P Broer 21:20, 26 February 2020 (EST)
It was already causing maintenance reports, as Jules Verne is not a pseudonym for Michel Verne, but Jules Verne titles were varianted to Michel Verne titles. Normally we solve that by making the one author a variant of the other, but that would in this case mean that all Jules Verne titles would have to be varianted against Michel Verne, an absurdity. Believe me, either 'Jules Vene (in error)' or 'Jules Verne (Michel Verne Pseudonym' or Jules Verne (I) is the only solution for this. I choose 'Jules Vene (in error)' as it offers a partial explanation of what is going on.--Dirk P Broer 19:34, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I found another solution: set all the warnings we get when using Jules Vernes for Michel Verne's work to 'ignore'. I think you'd prefer that.--Dirk P Broer 21:15, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I'm looking at Kenneth Robeson, which seems to be an alias used by multiple authors. I'm guessing that to make that work for Jules Verne, we'd need to use 'Jules Verne' as an alternate for both 'Michel Verne' and a '(real) Jules Verne) and variant every title to one or the other. And it looks like the alias name doesn't get an author summary page. So, yeah, if it's as easy as using ignore, that's preferred. Just curious - do you annotate 'ignore' settings? And when is a good time for me to reset the TITLE records (with a link to this conversation in the moderator notes)? ../Doug H 22:34, 26 February 2020 (EST)
You're not getting it. Kenneth Robeson IS an alias. Both Jules Verne and Michel Verne aren't, that's the whole point.--Dirk P Broer 07:35, 27 February 2020 (EST)
Sorry, but the last section was the process of my getting 'it' - the distinction between author and alias - as it isn't really explained anywhere I've run across. Anywho - back to my question - When should I reset the TITLE records? Do you need to do anything first or is it something that gets dealt with after I've committed the deed? ../Doug H 08:26, 27 February 2020 (EST)
I've already done it.--Dirk P Broer 09:35, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Title of Farmer essay

Hi Dirk, I noticed you make the title "Hayy ibn Yaqzam" by Abu ibn Tufayl: An Arabic Mowgli a variant of this Hayy ibn Yaqzam by Abu ibn Tufayl: An Arabic Mowgli. Although i have two questions: 1 - The title is with quotation marks only in the index of the web page, the preview on the bottom, the actual page of the magazine where the essay begins, doesn't have any quotation marks,(see here), but, although is in Italic. So my question is: Is a standard rule here to put italic text between quotation marks? 2- If it is, and that make the title different, shouldn't be the title with quotation marks the original title and not a variant? Since it is the first publication of the essay? Thanks, Best regards--Wolland 11:09, 27 February 2020 (EST)

You may have a subscription to JSTOR, I come no further than the web page, so I made it a variant. We variant to the most common version, not to the first version per se. Funny thing is that I can set a line in Italics by putting quotes around it look how this shows up -but no single user will look for titles that way. I'll un-variant the original story.--Dirk P Broer 16:41, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Changing a PV book

Hello Dirk! I'm confused why you changed my primary verfied book Das Weltraum-Abenteuer from chapbook into novel without asking me first. I've estimated the words of the book and they are approximal 35.000 words. Rudolf Rudam 07:57, 28 February 2020 (EST)

It is a variant title to a novel, and so creates a maintenance report. 148 pages is long enough for a novel. It is either this, or making the canonical a novella too.--Dirk P Broer 08:33, 28 February 2020 (EST)
I guess I forgot to change the canonical title. I have corrected that. Though I would have appreciated to be asked first. BTW it has 143 pages. Rudam 09:11, 28 February 2020 (EST)

Question

Hi there, I was wondering about a recent change to a PV ebook (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4595057). While this author has self-published several of his own works, he doesn't credit himself (or anyone for that matter) for the Cover Art. For the ebook in question, there's no mention whatsoever about who created the Cover Art, thus I initially indicated so in the Publication Note before marking it PV. So, why was the change request accepted without the editor giving a reason? Anyway, actually I don't doubt the author might be the actual artist, and he even explains where the design comes from in a tweet replying to a user: https://twitter.com/wooshkim/status/1220698546497699840. I guess a note indicating this might suffice. In this situations, would you suggest removing the Cover Artist and putting back the Pub Note along with a link to the tweet to clarify this on the entry? (not sure if adding external tweet links is acceptable on isfdb). Let me know and I can help submitting the change. Arctorbob 07:36, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

User Yeahfine claims he has the ebook and that the artist credit can be found in it. He won't primary verify for some reason though. I you have the ebook and are to primary verify, feel free to change the note. Yeahfine can't claim any rights by not verifying.--Dirk P Broer 07:54, 10 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks. I've added a note to the publication to explain more clearly (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4596847) as well as removing the cover art title (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4596848). Arctorbob 19:15, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

Change of Pub Type to OMNIBUS

Hi Dirk, I have just come across your two updates for Peter Terrid Gedächtnisband and Voltz Gedächtnisband 599042 and was a bit surprised to see the changes. The way that I understand an omnibus is that at least one of the major contents was previously published independently. Virtually none of the pieces in the two pubs were so, practically all of them are from magazines, fanzines, or even previously unpublished. Please help me understand the rationale. Cheers, John. JLochhas 16:31, 11 March 2020 (EDT)

Both titles appeared on a new maintenance report as having the wrong content. They both were NONFICTION, and NONFICTION titles should have ESSAYs as content. Clearly, this is not the only type for these titles, there's fiction too, only by Terrid in one case, by various authors (only Voltz and Gries though) in Voltz case. They even contain a complete novel, both, so COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY are both out of the question. I am afraid only OMNIBUS rests as possibility, or you must have another solution.--Dirk P Broer 20:48, 11 March 2020 (EDT)
I don't have a better approach - technically, the Terrid book is a fan publication but FANZINE doen't really make sense. So OMNIBUS it is. We'll be seeing a whole bunch of slightly weird to look at omnibuses... JLochhas 17:03, 12 March 2020 (EDT)
We had some slightly weird to look at NONFICTION before...--Dirk P Broer 20:15, 12 March 2020 (EDT)


General advice

Hello there, I am new to new to editing the ISFDB. With regards to tags, on some titles the option to add or delete tags are not available. For example, the short story "The Snail Watcher" by Patricia Highsmith is wrongly labelled as fantasy (it is in fact horror), and I don't know how to change it. Some general advice and help on this would be helpful, thanks. --RedWizard98 14:15, 16 March 2020 (EDT)

Tags are on (top)title level, not on publication level (one title can have lots of publications/variants). Tags are a kind of personal information, you can add your own tags too, and choose to have them public or to remain personal. Tags are not removable, one person's tags needn't be the same as the tags for others. The definitions of both 'Fantasy' and 'Horror' are not absolute, just as the definition of 'Science Fiction' isn't. I hope this answers at least part of your questions.--Dirk P Broer 17:30, 16 March 2020 (EDT)

Approved submission

In this approved submission, it looks like you added the OCLC number, as I have no record in my research for it and there are no subsequent edits. I followed the link and found it was for the Seaside Library Pocket Edition, not the magazine edition published 10 years earlier. Can you explain? ../Doug H 12:03, 17 March 2020 (EDT)

It looks like I approved the submission. You have to ask the submitter for the reason why he did not submit OCLC 1129395431 instead, not me. You can hold me accountable for letting it slip through though.--Dirk P Broer 12:05, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
I was the submitter. I was wondering if you would have added the OCLC? ../Doug H 13:27, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
Doug, as of a few days ago, all edits will show up on the pub edit page: here. Annie 13:35, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
Moderators edits show up as regular edit - we cannot change anything during approval. If we want to add something, we do a regular edit after that. So if someone else had added it, there would have been an EditPub. Annie 13:37, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
Then it's my mistake and I apologize for any inconvenience. It appears I missed that OCLC is not mentioned in the raw XML - it's external ID 12. Thank your for your patience. Yet again. ../Doug H 13:51, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
No problem.--Dirk P Broer 16:35, 17 March 2020 (EDT)

Author's name

Marion Stamatu-Witting is Marion Stamatu-Wilting, see here and here --Zapp 08:57, 18 March 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, corrected.--Dirk P Broer 09:13, 18 March 2020 (EDT)

Title merges on collections today?

Hi,

I just logged back into ISFDB to see if the two new collections I submitted earlier today had been accepted, and to do the TitleMerges necessary on the stories that were previously published and already in ISFDB - but I see that you've already done them! That's great, and much appreciated, but can I just check - as someone who's really only looked at comparatively simple publications like novels in the past, am I submitting these collections correctly, and not inadvertently creating extra work for mods? Submitting a new collection, and then doing TitleMerges afterwards to clean up the dupes, felt a bit wrong when I'd previously tried - and ultimately retreated from - adding a collection, but it seemed like that was the only way?

Thanks ErsatzCulture 18:47, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

The alternative is to first submit an empty collection, then lookup the title records for the stories that are in that collection (with the exact same author name and exact same title -try it with e.g. Edgar Allan Poe to really freak out) and add these title record numbers to the publication record. The usual method creates a little bit of extra work for the mods, but can be quite rewarding, database-wise.--Dirk P Broer 21:53, 21 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks - I presume by "usual method", you mean the way that I submitted those collections yesterday, with the stories in the initial submission, right? (I'm querying this because I only submitted a collection for the first time today, so I'm not sure if that's the "usual" way or not...) ErsatzCulture 04:57, 22 March 2020 (EDT)
Yes, that's the usual and fastest way to enter a collection.--Dirk P Broer 04:59, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

my PKD submissions

Hi Dirk, could you tell me what you've changed and why in these two pubs 301383 and 567038? Your edits give no hint. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 13:50, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

The first had a mentioning in this maintenance report, so I changed the LCCN link Note to Moderator: Template:LCCN, which is for the 1992 1st printing, the second had an ISBN-13 where an ISBN-10 was needed, so featured in this maintenance report Note to Moderator: ISBN-13 to ISBN-10 (2001 publication date). So you see where to look for in the future.--Dirk P Broer 20:02, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

Copyright registration versus publication date

Hi Dirk, you accepted a number of edits by new user SPGraham1957, changing the publication date of a set of Heinlein novels, with a note saying 'Publication date from Catalog of Copyright Entries (Third Series)'. One of these shows up on the Title Dates after Publication Dates cleanup report. Please remember we do not register the copyright registration date, but the publication date. These edits should not have been accepted, and should be reversed. --Willem 05:01, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

I've notified user SPGraham1957 and reverted this case, as it was easy. How do I revert the other ones. I am under the impression that the others merely added an exact day to the date as we already had, but I'm not 100% sure.--Dirk P Broer 07:14, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
Googling on the internet gave this "if the book is a first edition, the copyright date will be the same as the date published." in the defense of SPGraham1957, who only edits first (Heinlein) editions.--Dirk P Broer 11:09, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
Not true! In most cases the year will be the same, but even that is uncertain. We do not ever use the copyright registration date, just like we don't use the printing date. I'll see what I can do about the wrong dates, and else ask Ahasuerus if the overwritten dates can be extracted from one of the backups. --Willem 15:12, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
If we, as you say, don't use the printing date, I would like you to look into your verified copy of The Menace from Earth that says on its copyright page "First Printing, April, 1962", a date exactly as the publication date 1962-04-00 in isfdb. Perhaps the soup isn't always eaten as hot as it is served?--Dirk P Broer 18:47, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
I sure hope this is a joke, or do you really not know the difference between a publisher's statement about when a printing was published and the printer's date stamp as seen in gutter codes? --Willem 05:33, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
There is no mentioning of gutter code in the notes for The Menace from Earth, there is the "First Printing, April, 1962" on the copyright page. It nowhere says 'Publication Date'.--Dirk P Broer 07:28, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
So you really have no idea. Worrying. Read this about gutter codes, it also explains the difference between the date a book was manufactured (printing date) and the date it was made available to the public (publication date). If you want to challenge that the term "First Printing, April, 1962" means the book was published in April 1962, go ahead on one of the community pages and see what happens. Don't bother me with such nonsense. --Willem 15:56, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
From the wiki you cite: "Please note that "gutter code" is an informal name used by book collectors. Doubleday and the Science Fiction Book Club (SFBC) have never formally acknowledged their existence." You are holding unto an interpretation of a value that might be denied by reality. Likewise with "First Printing, April, 1962" it is an interpretation that they mean "publication date", and that Signet books themselves might deny that. I'll write them too.--Dirk P Broer 16:54, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
The date as given by SPGraham1957 is the publication date according to SPGraham1957's source, as you can read here on page vii. It looks like we have dated 'The Door Into Summer' by its first review.--Dirk P Broer 21:14, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
If you read a little further, it's 'Date of publication as given in the application', which registers the date a publication's copyright is registered.
If you want this to be accepted as a source for publication dates, I suggest you go to the rules and standards page, and seek consensus. --Willem 05:33, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
Another question then: Where is the evidence for June 1957 in the case of the 1st hardcover edition of The Door Into Summer? I can only find this review on page 120 to support the date can't be later than 1957-06-00. BTW: On the preceding page 119 it is stated at the bottom "The next Infinity goes on sale April 30!" -it is also on the inside front cover. There is no mentioning of gutter code with the record for The Door Into Summer either. Perhaps I'll contact Doubleday about their actual publication dates as compared to the date in the copyright catalogue.--Dirk P Broer 07:50, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
Why ask me? You can see the edit history of the publication these days, so you can easily find that the initial pub entry was by user Grendelkhan on 2006-05-17, and that 'Doubleday catalog #57-5529' was given as the source. I have no idea why this note was removed in a subsequent edit, and have no reason to doubt the June 1957 publication date. --Willem 15:56, 25 March 2020 (EDT)

Hello, I wanted to post a comment, because it was me that started all this trouble. As mentioned above the dates in the early copyright catalogs are described as 'Date of publication as given in the application'. I take this to mean that the date is the intended publication date as entered by the publisher on the copyright application form. If Willem is correct, it is also the copyright registration date, but that does not mean it is not the date of publication. I'm a little bemused as to why a date described as 'date of publication' cannot be regarded as the date of publication. At least things are a little clearer in the post 1978 copyright database (https://cocatalog.loc.gov), here the date of publication and the registration date are separate and often quite different. Evidence that the dates in the catalog are publication dates can be found by comparing them with sources. Here are two examples:

Heinlein - Rocket Ship Galileo: Heinlein's biography by William Paterson contains the statement (Vol. 1, page 437): "Rocket Ship Galileo came out on October 13", which checks with the date of 13 Oct 47 in the Jan-Jun 1948 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Asimov - Pebble in the Sky: Asimov's autobiography "In Memory Yet Green" contains the statement (page 580): "On January 19, when Pebble in the Sky was first published...", which checks with the date of 19 Jan 50 in the Jan-Jun 1950 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Can you suggest how to get the copyright catalogs accepted as a source of publication dates? It seems perverse to not take account of this valuble source of information. Note, I've also posted something about this on the moderators board, so apologies for the duplication, I'm still finding my way around your site SPGraham1957 15:32, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your reaction, and you did the right thing to get this to the moderators board too.--Dirk P Broer 20:27, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Judith Merril 9th Annual S-F

This book has the same cover art as this http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1360201]. Credited on the later. --Mavmaramis 12:27, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

Machine's Last Testament - duplicate pubs?

Hi, I noticed there on the May Forthcoming Books page a title with 2 seemingly identical pubs (and where the pub IDs are consecutive, which might hint at an accidental repeat submission): http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2706460 Tocchan was the editor and you were the approver - is there some difference between these pubs that I haven't spotted, and if not, any reason why they shouldn't be merged?

(Also, how would I go about merging 2 pubs - is that something that only mods can do? I can see tools for publication comparison, but not anything that would allow me to do anything based on that.)

Thanks ErsatzCulture 03:31, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

The publications are already merged into one title. I'll delete one.--Dirk P Broer 16:52, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! ErsatzCulture 03:27, 21 April 2020 (EDT)

Mindbridge - Haldeman

Hi Dirk, could you please let me know what the 'other prices' are on your printing? I'm preparing my copy of this title which has the same cover and price as yours but lacks the "(Reprinted 1979)". The Australia price on mine is $2.85 and New Zealand price is $2.60. I suspect this may be a missing 1977 2nd printing. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 08:15, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

The Australia price on mine is $2.95 and New Zealand price is $2.60 -The Eire price is 93½p.--Dirk P Broer 16:47, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Dirk, that definitely places my copy between the known 1st printing (with the different cover) and yours. Kev. BanjoKev 07:08, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Jules Verne Translations

I have been documenting the various translations of Jules Verne's works and trying to identify a piece of text from each translation so editors can position their publications under the correct title record. You are on record as a primary verifier for one or more publications for which I am looking for text or which are placed under a generic translation title. I would be grateful if you could assist in this by checking your copies, as listed below, and providing the initial text for missing translations or an indication of the translation for those unspecified. These are listed on the Jules Verne Translations wiki. Thank you. ../Doug H 15:01, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

I don't quite understand your problem. Op bezoek in de toekomst is the sole Dutch translation of Hier et Demain. That same fact goes for all stories in this collection. All have been varianted against their original French title record, complete with translator. What is missing in the present situation?
Van de aarde naar de maan is the first full Dutch translation of De la terre à la lune, as was already present in the publication record. I have added it to the title record too now.--Dirk P Broer 16:37, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Not so much a problem as a desire for completeness. The English reprints are notorious for not crediting translators, and there has been a recent upsurge in re-translating Jules Verne. I know there have been multiple Dutch translations of various Jules Verne books and didn't know how much of this dastardly English behaviour carried over to the more civilized Dutch. By including text for each translation, I was hoping to encourage editors to check their copies, so that if a new translation appears, it will not be lumped in with the existing publications. My understanding is that at some future time, support for translation will be incorporated into ISFDB and I'd hoped the wiki template would help by illustrating some of the complexities and required supporting data. By the time that happens, some of the primary verifiers of these publications may no longer be available. My apologies for not having read the notes on the Van de aarde naar de maan publication. With hundreds of title / translation / publication combinations to track down, I've been doing some things on autopilot. I hope this provides a bit more context for my request. ../Doug H 15:33, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
The Loeb editions are, to the best of my knowledge, all-new translations. I will dig them out and add to your wiki translations page.--Dirk P Broer 22:50, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

New Worlds SF, February 1966

Since I found in Your pv pub an essay by A. F. Hall, I wonder if the spelling of A. R. Hall is wrong. Maybe it's a fault of printing. A. F. Hall has no other publications. --Zapp 08:48, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Sorry, A. F. Hall, both in TOC and on page 101. And mind you, there's some 50 years between A. F. Hall and A. R. Hall...--Dirk P Broer 13:09, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Highway of Eternity

Cover art for this confirmed as Chris Moore by artist himself via email correspondance. Removed the note containing a dead link to a Tumblr site. --Mavmaramis 18:11, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

David R Bunch

Hi Dirk,

I'm looking for more information and insight into sci-fi writers similar to David R Bunch. Do you have any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keaton (talkcontribs) .

The above unsigned note was not put here by me. --Mavmaramis 02:08, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
Nope - a new member. I've added their name the usual way. Annie 02:25, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
R. A. Lafferty and Walt Whitman are both mentioned in his SFE3 lemma.--Dirk P Broer 13:15, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Layzell duplicate art

this cover same as this. Note for the former references 70s sci-fi art tublr site which I suggest should be removed as it's credited in later. --Mavmaramis 18:54, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

If you click on the cover record in the first book, you will see that they are already connected - we variant art that is the same but with different title, language and/or artist name pseudonym). I will leave the site reference for Dirk to review. :) Annie 19:42, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
Yes i was aware that the image shows up on three publications when you do that. Melted brain due to heat and isolation. It caused a wee bit of confusion. The note for that and for this both link to the tublr site whereas it is actually credited to Layzell in this publication. --Mavmaramis 07:28, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
I find the inclusion of the art on his own facebook page more re-assuring.--Dirk P Broer 21:35, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Found credit

Cover art for this is Robin Hiddon. It's this artwork only mirrored. --Mavmaramis 19:04, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks.--Dirk P Broer 13:23, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Night of the Dragonstar

Cover artists for this identified as Alan Guitterez. Credit from the same art used on Altan no. 836 ebook from here --Mavmaramis 19:17, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks again.--Dirk P Broer 13:23, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Uller Uprising

Hello, I noticed that there's an excerpt of Steven Barnes's Streetlethal in this edition of Uller Uprising that you've verified (pp 191-201). If you think it's advisable, you could add this as a new title in the publication, or I could do it if you prefer. All the best, Ldb001 21:56, 24 June 2020 (EDT)

Excerpt added--Dirk P Broer 13:05, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Tubb - Dumarest

Hi Dirk. Could you check the following Dumarest saga book covers please for any evidence of a signiature - FJG. The cover art for all of these is by Fred Gambino (Wallcae & Harbottle claims Blas Gallego but that is patently wrong).

  • Prison of Night.
  • Incident on Ath.
  • Iduna's Universe.
  • The Terra Data.
  • Nectar of Heaven.
  • The Terridae.
  • The Coming Event.
  • Thanks --Mavmaramis 11:54, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
    Will do, look tomorrow.--Dirk P Broer 20:20, 4 July 2020 (EDT)
    I agree as to one common artist, but only found two signatures, Prison of Night and Iduna's Universe.--Dirk P Broer 03:51, 5 July 2020 (EDT)
    Thanks Dirk. No idea where Wallce & Harbottle got the idea they were by Blas Gallego from as they are totally different styles. Gambino is on Twitter but I don't really want to bug him regarding them as I don't actually own those books. He was kind enough to inscribe my copies of Ground Zero and Dark Shepherd Limited Edition. --Mavmaramis 06:47, 5 July 2020 (EDT)

    Thuvia Maid of Mars

    Cover art credit Bruce Pennington for Your pv pub from Pennington: A Portrait of a Master Fantasy Artist. --Zapp 15:02, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

    Suspiciously similar cover art

    Cover art of this totally looks like this --Mavmaramis 13:50, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

    I totally agree. I think Werner Sramek was only responsible for the cover design, not for the cover art.--Dirk P Broer 11:03, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
    I've amended the cover art credit to Chris Moore and editied the note re Werner Sramek. --Mavmaramis 14:34, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
    So the coverart note should also be updated. --Zapp 10:45, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
    No need for that, the main title is still 'Colony', it is just that there's a variant made to it. The other Chris Moore cover is also titled 'Colony' and the text adequately deals with that -just try to look for duplicate Chris Moore art.--Dirk P Broer 07:12, 22 July 2020 (EDT)
  • Personal tools