User talk:GlennMcG


Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, GlennMcG, 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! Annie 04:36, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Novel Ideas—Science Fiction

We go by the title page of books, not the cover or copyright page. So even if books in a series look differently because of that, we do not normalize the title to match.

As it sounds like you may have the book, can you look at this one and check what is on the title page? If the two authors are there, I can approve (and we need to update the book as well); if it is not - then you can add notes but we will need to leave the book as is.

Thanks for the update and welcome again! Annie 04:39, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Both books have just Thomsen on the title page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GlennMcG (talkcontribs) .
Then I will need to reject the edit. Do you have a handy link to the other book so I can look at it and fix it? Also - if you have the book, had you thought of verifying it?
One small operational thing - the plus sign opens a new topic in the Discussion page, if you are responding to an existing one, there is a small "edit" next to the title of the item you are responding to:) Annie 04:59, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Here's the link:

Not sure what your verification operation consists of. I'll have to do some more reading on how the site works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GlennMcG (talkcontribs) .

When you do a primary verification, you are saying "I have the book. All the details listed on this record are as in my book (or I noted the differences in the notes". If you have the book from a library for example, you can do Transient Primary (aka - I checked a real book and the details match - but I do not have the book anymore". When you do a PV (Primary Verification - Transient or Permanent), you will get notified on changes in the record (there is a Changed Primary menu on your page; for big changes people will post here) and if someone wants to change something and you are around, you may be asked if you can check the book again to verify something someone else claims. More details here and here.
About the book - the look inside into the Kindle book shows both names on the title page. So looks like we have a difference between the paperback and the ebook? Won't be the first... We can easily change that - would you like to try? I think I may have this book somewhere as well so will see if I can find it. Annie 17:04, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

It's not clear to me what you're suggesting I try. (Although I'm willing to give it a whirl). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GlennMcG (talkcontribs) .

To submit an update of the authors for the book (as based on what you see on the title page of yours, our record is a bit faulty). Or I can submit it if you prefer? :) Annie 19:08, 11 June 2020 (EDT)


What is on the title page on this one? Thanks! Annie 04:59, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Legends - Edited by Margaret Weis with Janet Pack and Robin Crew
Earth, Air, Fire, Water - Edited by Margaret Weis with Robyn McGrew and Janet Pack
Seems likely to be a typo, but I understand you need rules to prioritize conflicting information.
In support of it probably being a typo, the acknowledgment page credits Weise, Pack, and Robin McGrew as the copyright owners of the prologue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GlennMcG (talkcontribs) .
If the title page says Robin Crew, our record remains like that. But as it is indeed obviously a typo (based on how OCLC had added both books for example and the copyright notes), we variant to the correct author and add a note on the discrepancy. I've done the needed variants and added notes. Thanks for finding this one. Annie 06:00, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

Terribly Twisted Tales

To add the contents to Terribly Twisted Tales, there are two options:

  1. You can go to the publication page and click "Edit This Pub" in the left menu. In the edit screen, scroll down to the "Regular Titles" section and click the "Add Title" button. This will add a row where you can add the page number, title, author, etc. Repeat for each story. If there are reviews or interviews, enter under their respective sections. When done submit.
  2. If the stories are already in the database, they can be imported. This is the preferred method (as the above would create duplicates that would then need to be merged), but is more complex. To do this, also go to the publication page, but click "Import Content" in the left menu. In a separate window, find the title record for a story to import. Copy the URL and past into the "Title 1" box under the "Option 2" portion of the import screen. For additional titles, click the plus sign and repeat in Title 2, etc. When done, click the "Import Titles", add the page numbers on the following screen, and submit.

Hope that helps. Let us us know if you have more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

I guess I should have waited longer, but as I couldn't seem to add a question to the 'help' page, I tried re-adding the book as new entry with interior title info.
Think I'll wait for more instructions before digging the hole even deeper.
See —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GlennMcG (talkcontribs) .
No problem. Sometimes we get a little backed up. You can always post at ISFDB:Help desk which usually gets a faster response. To avoid you having to redo work, I have accepted the new version and deleted the old one. When we have generic titles like Introduction or Foreword, we add the publication title in parenthesis after the title. This is to avoid an author's page being filled with a series of "Introduction" and no easy way to tell them apart. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

I had tried to ask the question on the help page, but got a write permission error.

Also, this move lost the cover art linkage from the old record.

Please sign your name

Please sign your name on talk pages and discussion boards using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 19 June 2020 (EDT)

There is also a button in the toolbar above the edit window (the second to last that looks like a signature) which will insert the syntax so you don't have to type it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2020 (EDT)

GlennMcG 18:00, 19 June 2020 (EDT) Ok

Although it does seem odd that the site software doesn't sign things auto-magically, as you need to be signed in to play the game. GlennMcG 18:03, 19 June 2020 (EDT)

The Edge of Running Water

I accepted The Edge of Running Water, but made a couple of changes:

  • Standardized the publisher to Editions for the Armed Services
  • Removed Armed Services Editions from the pub series. It is redundant with the publisher and not really a pub series since every book published by this publisher was marked as that.
  • Changed the page count to 352. When there is a single unnumbered page after the numbered page, we just include it in the numbered pages. If there were multiple unnumbered pages (say 5, for example), then it would be entered as 352+5.
  • Changed the price to $0.00 and moved the text to the pub notes. Prices should be currency symbol and number only. Any explanations go in the notes.
  • I added the date based on the catalog id as sourced to Wikipedia.

Thanks for adding this. Regarding your note on adding the cover image: Now that the pub is entered, there is a "Upload cover scan" link below he pub notes. You would use that to upload the scan and then edit the publication to add the resultant link to the scan. There is a link to the help page in the welcome message above. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2020 (EDT)

Grantville Gazette VII

I accepted the changes to Grantville Gazette VII, but kept the original "By Hook or by Crook". It was easier to edit the title of the existing record to make the capitalization change. Actually, it would have been easier to edit all three titles instead, but as they appear in other verified pubs, we will have to run that by those verifiers. So I accepted for this pub and will have the other verifiers check their pubs. Once confirmed, I will merge or variant as necessary. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2020 (EDT)

Did you see the response I made in my talk pages? I believe the usual practice is to respond to the question where it is asked. Thanks for spotting the problems. Jack Sjmathis 08:58, 29 June 2020 (EDT)
The cover of the paperback version is slightly different that the covers of the HC and TP versions of this book. I had scanned my cover and added it to the ISFDB, but it disappeared when the incorrect book was deleted. If you copy has a clean cover, can you scan it and replace the cover of the PB version? Sjmathis 10:02, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Just noticed the "Best Selling" medallion is in a different location. I'll upload a scan. --GlennMcG 16:29, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! Much better than my old cover. Jack Sjmathis 12:26, 4 July 2020 (EDT)

The E.S.P. Worm

When changing data in a publication with active primary verifiers, please check with another verifier first. Beyond a courtesy, we have found that this occasionally reveals the existence of a different version (99% of the time it's a database error, but sometimes it's not). I checked with Rtrace and he confirmed your change so I accepted it. I have also unmerged it from the other versions using Robert E. Margroff and created a variant title. Thanks for finding this. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2020 (EDT)

Castle Fantastic

For Castle Fantastic, I have had to reject your edit. Instead of creating a new title, simply edit publication and change the existing title. This avoids having to remove and delete the old one. When a title is only in a single publication, it can be edited from that publication (it will not be grayed out). Please resubmit with just correcting the existing record. After that is approved, it will show up under Linda Dunn and need to be varianted to Linda J. Dunn (as described with Carolyn Gilman's title on my talk page). From you moderator note, it sounds like you have this pub. Please consider primary verifying it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2020 (EDT)

Quest for the Spear

I accepted Quest for the Spear.

  • Title: I debated about this. These days, if a publication title is of the format of "Series Name: Book Name" (or vice versa), we only record the book name and leave the series for the series field. However, this was a one off. There were other films, though. I went with it as a series name. If you feel different, let me know and I will reverse it.
  • Prologue: Does this stand on its own? Like it would be reprinted elsewhere? If not, we would include it as part of the novel and not list it separately.
  • Introduction: Yes, we would normally include essay introductions. If it was a fictional introduction, then it would fall into the same category as the prologue, but an essay gets indexed. As for page number, the preferred method would be to count the unnumbered pages and enter the "page number" in brackets [] to indicate unnumbered. The other choice is to use "bp" to indicate unnumbered pages that precede pagination (this is what I typically do).

Let me know what you think about the title and whether we should remove the prologue. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

It's fine as a series. I'll remove the prologue, as it's not standalone. (Just late 4th century A.D. setup for modern times). 'bp' seems easier, but what would I use for the first of five pages before page one? [i]? [-4]? [-5]? [1]? --GlennMcG 22:01, 6 July 2020 (EDT)
I would probably go with [i] as that implies front pages, but you could also go with [1]. The key is to explain the situation in the notes (ex. "Introduction starts on the first of five unnumbered pages before the novel" or something similar). -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

I tweaked it per your suggestions, but was wondering if there was a way to have the introduction show up before the main novel in the title list. --GlennMcG 02:31, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Use pipe in the page number. [1]|5 will sort as 5 for example. If the page number contains | (pipe), the number after it is used for sorting while the one before it is shown. If there is no pipe, the number is used for both - think of 3 being a short way to write 3|3 for example. Annie 09:21, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Steal the Galaxy!

A few small things:

  • You do not need <br> on every line -- we used to but the software changed 10 years or so ago. We just never cleaned up all the old ones (and some editors keep adding them). The first one (on the first line) is the only one that makes sense and any difference (as it will put you under the line that starts with Notes on the pub page)
  • The issue of Locus where the book was listed is interesting information and I hate losing it when editors edit. So I restored it here.

See the changes here. Thanks! Annie 19:24, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Enemies of Fortune

Putting "Delete" as the page number will not automatically delete a title - we use that when there are multiple changes in the book so we do not lose track (and if the handling moderator decides to, they can do the Remove) but a change that only changes this is unneeded. What you need to do is to submit a "Remove Titles From This Pub" request instead -- go to the left menu and locate the link for that. For this book, it will open this. Select the title you want to remove and submit the removal. I rejected this. I can do the Remove or you can try (so you know how to do it next time) :) Let me know if you have any questions. Annie 13:28, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

I can do that, but when I changed the title the first time following instructions that worked previously it failed this way. (Add replacement title, marking the original to substitute). Am I in this boat because that edit failed to work, and this is the appropriate fixup? Or should I have done it differently in the first place? --GlennMcG 15:37, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
No, it worked exactly as it was supposed to. You just did not have an invisible helper this time. :) If you want a title out from a publication, someone needs to send a Remove submission - you or the moderator who approved that first edit. When you mark the title as you did initially (with *** or deleted in the page number), you have a 50/50 chance of a moderator simply making the Remove for you silently post approval.
Last time it appeared to work because the approving moderator made the Remove Titles submissions after they approved your edit and probably never came to tell you that there is one more step to be done in such cases (which they had done). With new editors, we all try to shield them a bit from the more complicated and annoying parts of the DB so we will do a lot of additional submissions and fixes post approval. I usually would still stop by and explain what I had to do in addition to the already done but... Some moderators will, some won't - depends on how busy one is and sometimes depends on how concentrated one is. Hope that makes sense.
PS: Do not submit Remove in parallel to Pub Edit -- if the Remove is approved first, the Pub Edit will fail. As it is a 2 step process, I tend to assist and make the Remove when I approve such edits - you did the work of marking it, I can as well make the other submission when I do not get distracted. But different moderators work differently. Annie 16:12, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
So, basically double check all my approved edits, and finish up what doesn't happen auto-magically by editor. :) --GlennMcG 16:16, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Yep. Plus this also allows you to spot other things you missed the first time. Annie 16:19, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

The Forge of Virtue

Another little tip: When a submission is approved, the "old" data is lost. So when adding notes in the cases when there is a PV already such as here instead of stating the obvious "Notes update pre-PVing" which is as good as not adding a note at all, list the changes you are making ("copyright, number line, first printing added" for example). This way someone looking at the history can see what data was verified when. Thanks! Annie 19:34, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Sure. I thought I read somewhere that the note to the moderator wasn't retained, and therefore wouldn't show up in history. --GlennMcG 19:39, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
It is not retained as part of the title/publication record itself but if you go to the submission itself (via History (this feature is very new), "My Changed Primary" (a few years old - and which is how now we do not require you to post on every PV page every time you touch a PV-ed publication - which used to be the rule before) or via the Recent Edits), it is there on the submission. :) So you should not put important information there but stuff like "what changed" belongs there. Annie 19:50, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
Will do. --GlennMcG 19:52, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Patricia Mathews

You started off correctly editing the parent entries and then veered into editing the variant entries (which is incorrect). I accepted the couple correct ones, but will be rejecting all of the incorrect ones. I will explain the difference in a minute, but want to post this message now as you are continuing to make edits that will need to be rejected. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

I know where I went off the rails. I'll start up again when you give the word. --GlennMcG 18:17, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I typed the following before seeing your response so am going to go ahead and post it just in case: Titles should be credited as per the publication. If the publication uses a non-canonical name for an author, we variant the title to the canonical name. The variant will have the credit used in the publication and the parent will have the canonical author name. To fix these stories, the parent needs to be edited so that the variant keeps the form used in the publication and the parent shows up under the canonical author's page. Most of your submission have been changing the variant which means you are changing the form used in the publication and still leaving it under the Patricia Matthews author's page. I will leave the edits on hold for now. If you click on "My Pending Edits", you will see what you were changing. From there you can go to the parent record and edit it instead. That may make it easier so you don't have re-research each one. When you are done, you can either cancel your held edits or I will reject them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm cancelling now, and will edit the parents. It turns out I can't find any entries that make sense for 'Patricia Matthews'. --GlennMcG 18:31, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
I've edited a parent. When approved, I'll follow suit for the others. Sorry about the extra work for you. --GlennMcG 18:36, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Approved. It's part of the learning process of how things work here, so no problems. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

"There Is Always an Alternative" is an interesting case as there is publication under the parent title as well. The data for publication that comes from secondary sources. I will check into it and see if that credit is correct or not. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

It should have been one "t" as well. Fixed. Thanks for finding these. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Blood Song

I approved your edit to Blood Song. However, you left the prior "Data from Amazon (date) and Locus Magazine #608 as of 2012-09-08" statement, but you primary verified it. When a publication is primary verified, the expectation is that the data is from the publication iteself. If any information in a primary verified publication comes from secondary sources, than it should explicitly state which information (ex. "Cover artist not credited. Cover artist from artist's website."). The statement should either be removed or edited. If the date is Amazon than it should say "Date from Amazon as of ...", but the way it is written says the date is from Amazon and the rest of the information from Locus. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Same with To Dance with the Devil. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Hmmm. I read "Data from Amazon (date) and Locus Magazine #608 as of 2012-09-08." as the entry was created with data from both Amazon(the date), and the rest from Locus, on 2012-09-08. The date in the entry (from Amazon) is more specific than the year/month on the copyright page. Perhaps something like:
  • Exact publication date from Amazon
  • Listed in Locus #608
  • my stuff
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GlennMcG (talkcontribs) .
Looks good. Approved. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Castaways in Time

You managed to double verify Castaways in Time. Not a big deal, but you may want to remove one. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

How would one do that? --GlennMcG 15:51, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
Lol. That's a good question. You could probably unverify (which would hopefully remove both) and reverify. But now that I think about it, it shouldn't be possible to get in that state the way the GUI works these days. I will point Ahasuerus to this discussion in case there is a bug he would want to look into. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't see a way to modify/remove verifications in any way. --GlennMcG 17:43, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
To remove or change a verification, click on "Verify This Pub" this pub again. If you have already verified it, the options will now be "No verification" and "Transient verification" (assuming you permanently verified it). This allows undoing a mistaken verification or changing the status of a verification (in case you are downsizing your collection or have bought a book you previously transient verified). -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
Done. --GlennMcG 18:09, 11 July 2020 (EDT)


I'm holding this edit. It looks like you cloned the second printing to create the first? We already have the first printing. Am I missing something? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Yep, must have missed it somehow. I'll cancel the edit, and PV the 1st printing. --GlennMcG 18:02, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

The Dark Remains

For The Dark Remains & other recent additions, you added a note of "Maps by Karen Wallace". Is there a reason you just didn't add the maps as interior art? -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Because I didn't know that was appropriate. What would you like me to do? --GlennMcG 20:06, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

We generally include them so I'd add them. They are entered as interior art. For title, 1) if the map has title "Given Title (map)"; 2) if the map is not titled, "Book Title (map)"; and if the same map is used in multiple books of the series and is not titled, you could use "Series Title (map)". If there are multiple maps, than use "maps" instead of "map" in the parenthesis. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Replacing cover images

When replacing cover images that are already on the wiki, please don't upload at a new location. Instead, upload over the existing image. To do that, go to the image page (example Image:THRGHTHCTK1992.jpg) and use the "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the page. It will warn you that are overwriting an existing image, but just go ahead. If someone else uploaded the prior image, edit the image page after uploading and change the name in the source field to your user name. You will not need to re-edit the publication entry as it will already be linked. However, due to a bug with our wiki software, your browser may not show the new image unless you force a cache refresh (typically a shift F5). This avoids unused & duplicate images on the wiki.

For Through the Ice, I moved the image you uploaded at Image:THRGHTHCTK1992-2.jpg over to Image:THRGHTHCTK1992.jpg and deleted the former. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

I was concerned that if I used the same name it would overwrite the old image, and make it impossible to refuse the edit. So this is a function that is not moderated? --GlennMcG 16:11, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
Correct. Image uploading is not moderated. But we do pay attention to it so if something goes wrong, it can be fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

The Ancient One

Regarding this submission: Is this 6th printing actually listed in Locus with the specified printing date? Or when cloning this record did the date and note not get removed? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

I missed removing the Locus reference in the cloning process. --GlennMcG 15:02, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
Approved & removed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

Kisssing Sin (excerpt)

In Tempting Evil, should be the second excerpt be "Kissing Sin" (two s's) instead of the current three s's? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

Although 3 times is a charm, 2 is the right call here. --GlennMcG 15:13, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

Changed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2020 (EDT)


For Survival, I accepted the edit, but changed the date to match the publication statement. Per the current rules (Template:PublicationFields:Year, last bullet), we use the date listed in the publication as the official date. If a secondary source provides a more precise date, it is acceptable to refine the precision (ex. add a day to a year & month only). If a secondary source contradicts the publication, we still use the publication's date and the secondary source information can go into the pub notes. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Got it. I think I was intuiting a more numeric approach to approximations, but understand the rationale. --GlennMcG 15:56, 2 August 2020 (EDT)


Hello. I have your update submission on hold, as I suspect that you inadvertently updated the wrong record. There's a mass market record already available here, PV'd by Taweiss. You may want to cancel your submission, remove your PV from the 2010 record, and PV the latter instead. Regards, MagicUnk 06:41, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Done. In some ways, I wonder whether the 2010 pb existed at all. I actively collect Brust and would have picked up then, rather than waiting until 2018 to grab it. --GlennMcG 16:04, 6 August 2020 (EDT)
Looking at the date of the addition to the site and the date of the book (it is added 2 and a half months before the pub date), it won't surprise me if it was announced but never made it out indeed. Annie 01:10, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

Adding an interview to the contents

Hello. You added in this submission an interview as an essay, with both the interviewee (Robert Buettner) as well as the interviewer (uncredited) as authors. Better is to have this entered as an actual INTERVIEW record - unless of course Robert Buettner happens to be the actual author of the interview? Let me know if you would want to change the title from ESSAY to INTERVIEW yourself, or if you prefer I do that for you. I've put the submission on hold for the moment. Regards, MagicUnk 07:55, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

I'll submit another edit and cancel the first. --GlennMcG 15:31, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Gotcha when changing pub titles

Hi. If you decide to change a publication's title, a subtle gotcha is that usually the associated COVERART record was created using the same title used when the pub was created. It does not automatically get changed after that, so a second edit is required to fix it up as well. I did this for The Witch War Cycle. Just something to keep in mind for the future. Thanks. --MartyD 09:19, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

There's no image on the book that you linked now. But I can't remember if it had one before. --GlennMcG 15:50, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
No image does not mean no Cover Art record - which is what Marty is talking about. :) When a new book is added, the title and the publication title are the same and so is the cover art title of a cover artist is added. Once created, they become 3 separate records - and they all usually need adjustment when you are changing one of them. Annie 16:07, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

I tried with another rename and it's closer, but still an issue. I changed title and cover art in [1], but when I link back through the cover it points at a parent with a title that doesn't exist. How do I unvariant the cover art? [2] goes to, which shouldn't exist. --GlennMcG 19:31, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

The parent needs to exist as the pub artist credit is "Ken W. Kelly", but our canonical name for that artist is "Ken Kelly". Instead of unvarianting, you need to edit the parent. Go to that last link, click the edit button in the top right, and change the name to match the pub. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
Got it. --GlennMcG 21:08, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

Carson of Venus omnibus price

Hi. In your submission for Carson of Venus: Volume 1, you give a price of $0.00, but then the notes say it is POD and prices vary, which is different from a $0.00 price. Which is correct? I think if the price is varying, we'd leave the price field blank. We do have free publications where the price is literally zero. No need to do anything: I will adjust on acceptance according to whatever you say. Thanks. --MartyD 07:01, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

Sorry, missed this one. Blank is fine for price. I thought I had seen bibliographic warnings for missing price and thought $0.00 would suppress them. The old null vs empty-string conundrum. --GlennMcG 15:47, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
It will, unfortunately, show a warning, but we don't have a special non-price price value. Maybe someday. :-) Anyway, it's accepted and updated. --MartyD 17:52, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
If it is a US only book (aka all prices are in $), I would put $ instead of a blank field. It deals with the warning (see for an example and it does show the country the book belongs to (which for languages with multiple countries is a good and useful data point) :) Annie 18:12, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
I've seen US and UK prices for books in different volumes of this POD series. --GlennMcG 18:23, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
Then we are stuck with empty for this one. But keep that in mind for other cases :) Annie 18:28, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
Would '$£' be legal? --GlennMcG 18:34, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
I think it will get flagged and fixed after that. Just leave it empty for now. :( Annie 21:27, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

At the Earth's Core, et al, omnibus

Hi. For this submission, I have two questions:

  1. The ISBN of 0486201510 is flagged as invalid. Would you double-check?
  2. Our standard for naming omnibuses (omnibi?) when they are not specifically titled is to use the titles of the collected works, separated by slashes and spaces. See the second sub-bullet in Help:Screen:NewPub#Title. So if the omnibus you have just lists the three titles, we would use At the Earth's Core / Pellucidar / Tanar of Pellucidar instead of At the Earth's Core: Pellucidar: Tanar of Pellucidar.

Let me know, and I will adjust. Thanks. --MartyD 07:28, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

I've created another 'newPub' and will cancel the old. (I didn't notice your offer to replace in time, and I have more info this go round, anyways). The ISBN is funny, as it's written with transposed digits on the rear cover, which I copied, but correct on spine and copyright page. --GlennMcG 15:39, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
Always good to mention that ISBN funny thinghy in the notes, too :) Cheers! MagicUnk 10:12, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
Done. --GlennMcG 15:51, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
Yeah. If it appears in multiple places and any one of them is correct, we take that one as "the" ISBN and note where we got it and the discrepancy with the others. --MartyD 17:41, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
And correct just means passes checksum algorithm. No convenient way to determine if it's the 'right' ISBN. --GlennMcG 18:25, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

Claimed by Shadow


Can you check again the OCLC number here? I do not see anything in OCLC indicating that this is a record for the second printing. OCLC adds some later printings and the OCLC numbers we add should be for the correct printing, not generic records. In the very least a note explaining that the OCLC record is for an unclear printing needs to be added. Thanks! Annie 05:31, 13 August 2020 (EDT)

Just remove it, or I can. --GlennMcG 05:42, 13 August 2020 (EDT)
If you had not yet, I will. Sorry - went to bed last night so did not see this :) Annie 14:19, 13 August 2020 (EDT)
I moved it. If you decide to remove it completely, go away and remove the line I added - especially with a PV, it can go away (if there is no PV, I would leave it this way as OCLC has page numbers and stuff like that). :) Annie 14:24, 13 August 2020 (EDT)
I think the root problem is that I don't know when it's appropriate to check 'reuse external IDs' when cloning a publication for a different printing. --GlennMcG 15:20, 13 August 2020 (EDT)
Personally, I almost always uncheck this one -- if I need to re-add some from the original, I do it while editing the clone. My exception is for non-English books usually - for example FantLab keeps single record for all reprints of an edition -- so this record goes on all of our records. OCLC for Russian books also does not care much about printings.
When it comes down to US books, OCLC tends to keep separate records for printings (not all of printings have it), DNB does the same for German for example (so having the same DNB record for two printings is almost unheard of). LCCN has the first printing(and sometimes later when it is very different but still called printing because... publishers... ) so my rule is to usually just add on the first printing and just note it on the rest but other people do it differently for LCCN (as unlike OCLC, printings and other formats usually will not be issued a new LCCN). Goodreads is rarely per printing unless the cover changes - then they will have both records - but they usually have a date on the record which ties to a printing in most cases. It is a thin line sometimes -- and you will see more than one practice being used.
Hope this makes some sense. Just trust your instincts - if you are looking for information about this specific printing/edition, does this external ID actually describe it and with library sources (OCLC, BL, BNF, DNB, PORBASE and so on), if a book is pulled based on this record, will it be the one you are holding? This is why we allow the templating inside of the notes (what I did when I edited) - so you can note additional records that are related but not exactly matching (but that can add information if the actual version does not have a record) - you won't add these if there an exact one unless it has a lot of relevant information but they are useful in cases such as OCLC having a single record for a series or just records for other printings and so on. Annie 15:42, 13 August 2020 (EDT)


Hello. I have your submission on hold for a moment, as it would be best to ask Holmesd if he's OK to remove the publication date of this 4th printing. He may recall why he has left a publication date of 1996-05-00 for this one. Regards, MagicUnk 14:40, 13 August 2020 (EDT)

I asked, and (s)he's ok with it. --GlennMcG 19:59, 14 August 2020 (EDT)
And approved! MagicUnk 03:01, 17 August 2020 (EDT)

Grimes at the Great Race

In this edit, the proposed new parent is an exact match of the existing record. What are you trying to achieve? -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2020 (EDT)'

It was supposed to point at [3]. ('at' a variant of 'and').--GlennMcG 16:03, 15 August 2020 (EDT)
To do that you need to use the Option 1 section of the variant screen. In the Parent # box, you would place the title number (it will actual accept the whole URL to make copy and pasting easier) of the desired parent. When you use the Option 2 section, you are creating a new record. I've rejected the edit and will let you re-submit the correct form. Let me know if my instructions were not clear. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2020 (EDT)

Upon a Sea of Stars

For this edit, does the publication:

  1. have the novel or does it have the original short stories?
  2. have the collection itself or does it have the stories from the collection?

Only what is actually in the publication should be listed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2020 (EDT)

  1. Yes. The novel, and the components are listed in TOC, and each have separate title pages.
  2. Yes. Same for the collection.
--GlennMcG 16:08, 15 August 2020 (EDT)
It seems unlikely that the novel would fit in 2 pages. Is it really the novel + the novelettes (in other words the full novel plus the repetition of the individual stories that were combined to make the novel) or the novel is formed of chapters that are the same as the novelettes? -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2020 (EDT)
It's nested, like the TOC, which is formatted as an outline.
  1. title page of novel
  2. dedication page of novel
  3. title page of first component and initial text
  4. more pages of component #1
  5. title page of 2nd compononent and initial text
  6. more pages of component #2
etc --GlennMcG 16:21, 15 August 2020 (EDT)
Approved. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2020 (EDT)

Imperial Earth & The Wind from the Sun

Hello. To answer your question Don't know if I'm supposed to add '[verified]' to my G39 printing. in your submission here: No. Since the ISFDB records all distinct printings, I suggest you create a new record by cloning the G10 printing and make it your G39 printing, that you can then verify. Btw, is your G39 printing also an SFBC? (note that I'm not an expert on these kind of printing designations and SFBC, so you may want to consult other moderators that can chime in with their thoughts on the matter, but the basic rule is 'if it's a different printing, then it's a different pub record...). Same for this one, I think. As far as I can deduce, this record is for the first printing (D1). Is your G20 printing a SFBC edition too, or a regular one? MagicUnk 13:42, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

There are special rules for entering SFBC editions. See [4]. One record for all printings. It's just that the instructions don't mention how to use the 'verified' tag when describing the gutter code. --GlennMcG 15:02, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
Yep - SFBC is a bit special on this regard - unless the cover or the ISBN or the SFBC number changes or something else, we don't separate printings here (these indicate something closer to batches and not printings basically). The usual way is to specify that PV2 has gutter code XX, PV3 has gutter code YY and so on -- I like adding the name of the editor as well, especially if it is not PV1 (in case someone pulls their verification - the old system had exact numbers, this one does not). Alternatively just listing them all in a list also works. That can change at some point but I prefer the system as is quite honestly... Annie 15:39, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
I haven't seen linkages to PVers in any of the few dozen i've PVed. Just an occasional 'verified' after the gutter code. --GlennMcG 15:45, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
Some do, some don't. We have other cases with gutter codes which serve as batch differentiators only. The Verified means someone saw that code (aka it is not just from an online source) and decided to mark it that way because they also added some of the others; adding a name helps track down details if it gets to that. Do whatever feels comfortable - I tend to like more information than less. Different editors, different styles. :) Annie 15:50, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
Hmmm, I not necessarily agree with bunching all SFBC printings (don't understand what the difference between print runs & batches really is, especially since it seems that gutter code identifies which batch/printing it is about) into a single pub record, but I'll approve the few records I have on hold (as they conform to the current practice). Regards, MagicUnk 05:28, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Motor-Boat, Motor-Cycle

I noticed that you corrected some pub titles of both Tom Swift novels. However, you didn't change the contents title accordingly. Having done a cursory check on Motor-Boat, I notice that virtually all (if not all?) publications have the hyphen on their title page. Would you think that it is a correct assumption that all existing records must be updated? So, shouldn't we change all pub and title records to the hyphen variant? Thanks! MagicUnk 08:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

At a minimum, at least all the facsimile Applewood publications should match. I missed one, and have entered an edit. Beyond that, I don't see how you're seeing title page info on the others. Now, we could change the title record to have the dash, as then it would match the original (facsimile) edition. --GlennMcG 15:19, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Well, for a few of the others I did check LookInside on Amazon (for what that's worth), and these showed the dash as well. If we're not going to touch the other ones, and only the facsimile ones, we'll have to create a new title record (not change the existing one, otherwise you'll end up changing the title record for all other pubs as well), and then either variant the one with the dash to the one without (or the other way around, depends on which one's older will be the parent). Regards, MagicUnk 16:57, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
I'm new at this and am happy to take direction from those with a more seasoned opinions. --GlennMcG 17:40, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Knight Life

Hi Glenn, I've accepted your edit to change the publisher of Knight Life from Ace Books to Ace Fantasy Books. A quick heads up: you may not know we have a protocol to advise other Primary Verifiers of proposed changes to their verified publications, and this book would be a case in point before submitting the edit. However as you can see, the other verifiers have not shown their faces around these parts for some time (the most recent being March this year), and we shouldn't let your edit to remain unapproved in perpetuity. Please just leave a message on their Talk pages that your edit has gone ahead in lieu of their long absence. Thanks! PeteYoung 04:01, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

A Breach in the Heavens

For A Breach in the Heavens, the notes have "This edition has US, UK and Canadian prices". It would be good to include the UK and Canadian prices in that note. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Done (Although, I did inherit that part of the note). --GlennMcG 21:20, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

The Crippled Angel

Just a quick note. Excerpts get the publication date from the publication they appear in, not the pub date of the original publication (which I guess you've done for 'Druid's Sword (excerpt)' ?). I've updated this excerpt you've added to The Crippled Angel from 2006-05-00 to 2006-08-00. Regards, MagicUnk 14:44, 5 September 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! That makes it easier to deal adding excerpts. My (apparently bad) intuition was that it would be more like a title, than a publication. --GlennMcG 17:26, 5 September 2020 (EDT)
Well, it's a title all right, but one that happens to be published together with the book it appears in. Look at it this way: excerpts are titles in their own right and are, in a way, unrelated to the work they're an excerpt from - much like short stories, really. If you look at excerpts this way, it's easy to see why they receive the date of the pub they appear in. Hope that helps? Regards, MagicUnk 11:02, 6 September 2020 (EDT)
If it were like a real short story, the date would be when the short was first published, not when the collection or anthology it's printing in was. But nevertheless, I understand the process now. --GlennMcG 14:39, 6 September 2020 (EDT)
Yes, exactly so. But unless we know when this exact same excerpt was first published, we have to stick with what we know; ie the date of the publication at hand :) And by the way, thanks for your contributions! Most appreciated! Regards, MagicUnk 14:49, 6 September 2020 (EDT)

Ark Liberty

I've added cover art credit to Ark Liberty since that artwork is featured on page 15 of David Mattingly's artbook Alternate Views, Alternate Universes (the signature is hidden under the publisher's red bar). Susan O'Fearna 17:28, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

Asimov's The Rest of the Robots

I've started a discussion on the Community Portal regarding some changes I'd like to make to the publications of Asimov's The Rest of the Robots. Since you verified a copy, please weigh in there and let me know your opinion on the proposed changes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:25, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

Yaril's Children

I added cover art credit to Yaril's Children with some notes. Susan O'Fearna 21:47, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

Ride the Star Winds

I'm trying to change the cover artist credit for Ride the Star Winds -- the book itself (and the amazon look inside) says cover art by Stephen Hickman, but the art appears on Alan Pollack's website (under Science Fiction) and I pm'd Steve on FB and he says that isn't his art! Susan O'Fearna 14:15, 16 September 2020 (EDT)

Up Jim River

Re Up Jim River: Is there a reason to not include the maps (as by uncredited) in the contents? I recognize the pub note predates your edit, but if there is maps, we would generally include in the contents and you are the only active verifier at this point. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

Having someone to credit is one the factors I use when determining what to add while editing. However, I can go back and add the maps. --GlennMcG 15:17, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

Knight Life number line

I see that you recently added a note to Knight Life indicating that it is a first printing noted by a number line. My copy has no number line. Could I get you to take a second look. If yours really does have a number line, then I would surmise that we have two different variants. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:58, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

You're right, there's no number line. Not sure why I entered it that way, other than I screwed up. Edit entered to remove the number line. --GlennMcG 15:23, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

Tales from Not Long for This World

I'm going to make some changes to our mutually verified copy of Tales from Not Long for This World. The title of the publication is currently listed as "Not Long for This World (abridged)" and there is a note stating "The title on the cover is preceded by 'Tales from' but not on the title page." This statement is not correct. The title page does have the words "Tales from" appearing in a smaller font above the rest of the title. I suspect that with the title depicted in negative space and the size of the font that whoever added that comment must have missed it. In any case, I'm going to alter the title and the note. I also intend to add at least one external id. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:11, 21 September 2020 (EDT)


I approved your submission for Cat*A*Lyst, but you need to now variant that title with Cat-A-Lyst, or be sure to merge it with other versions of the pub with the new title. Bob 15:46, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

You should probably further investigate which other pub records need to updated to the 'dotted' spelling of the title and merge/variant as needed. And by the way, the pub record now has two coverart title records too... MagicUnk 16:31, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

I'm trying to figure out an order to attack this in. I removed the 2nd cover, and did an edit for the Canadian pb. Would it make sense to edit the title record, as I believe that most of the pubs will end up with dots? --GlennMcG 17:12, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Depends. If you can establish that the vast majority of pubs have the dot-title, then yes, you could do that and then unmerge the few that are with a dash. Seems to me the first thing to establish is which pubs have a dot-title... Regards, MagicUnk 15:58, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

Hmmm. 5 dots, 4 dashes, and 1 neither. I am tempted to change the main title to dots, as that would match the first appearance of the title as well. --GlennMcG 16:13, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

All my edits went through, and now I'm not sure if I'm done or not. Is all right the way it is, or are there further steps? Should there be a variant title? I'm not quite sure what would be expected here. --GlennMcG 15:37, 29 September 2020 (EDT)
If you look at the list there are 3 publications (the UK Orbit ones) where the title uses the fancy character while the publication uses the "-". They need to match so if these 3 really need to have "-" (and it seems so?), the next step is to unmerge the 3 publications out from the title and then merge the 3 resulting titles and then variant the result to the main work. Annie 15:46, 29 September 2020 (EDT)
One more actually: this one needs to be merged into the main work. Let me know if you want to try or if you want me to. Annie 15:48, 29 September 2020 (EDT)
How about Katzenspiel? Do translations have different expectations? --GlennMcG 15:56, 29 September 2020 (EDT)
Technically yes but it is already on its own and varianted into the main title so nothing needs to be changed in it. :) The only ones that were getting changed were the English language ones - the translations are already sorted out. Annie 16:04, 29 September 2020 (EDT)
All approved and I also sorted out the Keith Parkinson covers (two of them were with the wrong separator). What remains now are the three reviews - for which we will need the PVs of the publications they are in to check what the separator is. Unfortunately 2 of the 3 have only inactive PVs so I would just leave the reviews alone (so just mentioning it here for the next time you are adjusting titles) :) Thanks for fixing these! Annie 17:54, 29 September 2020 (EDT)
Looks good! Thanks for sorting these out. Regards, MagicUnk 17:48, 30 September 2020 (EDT)

A War of Shadows

Cover artist of this is Davis Meltzer, his signature is in the middle at the very bottom of the front cover, see this scan. Horzel 17:30, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

HTMLize notes


Changing a lengthy note from non-HTML to HTML format when adding a small piece of information is considered a bit rude and inconsiderate, especially when there are multiple PVs (such as here). We work as a team and one editor's format cannot (and should not) be used to overwrite everyone else's just because they are the last to edit. It will be appreciated if you show some respect to the other editors' styles - not everyone is comfortable working with HTML and we support both types of comments for a reason.

I think I mentioned that once in one of the threads but don't remember mentioning it directly on your page so decided to stop by and just post a reminder. Thanks for the understanding and thanks for adding all the additional information. Annie 18:52, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

Ok, I'll dial it back. --GlennMcG 19:54, 4 October 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! If you are the only PV or you are adding extensive notes (which you often do), it is all yours - the HTML format is supported and acceptable. It is the multi-PVed ones where someone is only adding a small piece of info -- if any of the other PVs decides to, they can just go and undo the html again -- which will lead to editing wars. So we thread lightly. And it goes in the other direction as well - removing html for the sake of removal will be frowned upon as well. :) Annie
I check my altered PVs and use that as a feedback indication, rather than a call to arms. --GlennMcG 20:04, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

Interviews and special naming rules

Hi Glenn,

Interviews and reviews are the two types of titles that seemingly have two authors. However, due to how the DB works, only one can be varianted into a canonical name - the Interviewer and the Reviewer respectively as they are considered the authors per our definition. However - we still show the statistics for the other 2 -- and if we cannot variant, it leaves the DB in a bit of a weird state (with titles on pseudonyms pages). That means that the Interviewee and the author of the reviewed work have to be recorded with their canonical names (a note can be added to specify how they were credited). I fixed it in one of your verified. It is one of those weird rules that make sense but are not intuitive (thus me trying to explain the reasoning). Let me know if you have any questions.

PS: This is one of the rules everyone forgets - so you are not alone in mixing these up :) Annie 01:48, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

For reviews, canonical name is not required. It merely needs to be a form already in the database (see Template:TitleFields:ReviewAuthor). If a review uses a recorded pseudonym, then we use that pseudonym. If it uses a variation of a recorded pseudonym, then we'd correct to the pseudonym. The review would then be linked to the variant title record and the software is smart enough to show the review on both the variant and parent title. See this review, variant, and parent for an example. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (EDT)
Oops. Thanks for the correction and clarification on that one. You are right of course - for reviews the form of the name just need to exist and match the title we connect to. I came to explain the rule for interviews, decided to add the second special type and made a mess of it. Thanks for the catch. Annie 18:17, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

The Gadget Maker

Is this speculative fiction? The Wikipedia synopsis certainly doesn't make it seem so. It would seem to fall into our "Techno-thriller, political thriller and satire works set in a future indistinguishable from the present" (where the present is 1954) clause. Is their synopsis misleading? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

I haven't read it. I bought it many years ago thinking it was, but old-school techno-thriller seems to characterize accurately. I was thinking that stories about engineers making rockets seemed close. --GlennMcG 18:27, 6 October 2020 (EDT)
Okay, let's exclude it until you have a chance to read it. If you find that it has some speculative elements, we can unreject the submission. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2020 (EDT)
Could you point me at where it talks about the scope for the site? Thanks. --GlennMcG 18:35, 6 October 2020 (EDT)
Sure. It's ISFDB:Policy#Contents.2FProject_Scope_Policy. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

Don Lynch --> Howard Koslow?

Hi Glenn, please take a look at this possible finding. Right now, you seem to be the only available PV editor. Would you like to comment over at the noticeboard (and possibly take action)? Christian Stonecreek 04:30, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Cerulean Sins

You really should change the cover here - a /P/ Amazon image can be changed at any time :) Annie 02:22, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Never mind - apparently you did on a next update ;) Annie 02:24, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Novel ending page

Hello. Just a heads-up. For publications where the printed page numbers go beyond the end of the novel, add a note stating "Novel ends on page xxx" (I could swear this is somewhere in the rules, but couldn't find it... ah well... still think it's a good idea to add it to the notes :). Here for example, you updated the page count from 531 to 549, and added an excerpt starting on p535. This leads me to believe that the novel proper ended on p.531, correct? Regards, MagicUnk 10:00, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Same for this one MagicUnk 10:28, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Winter Song

Hi have your submission on hold, as I wonder if it wouldn't be better to state that the US edition has the author's name in Orange, instead of outright deleting the statement? Like you did when you updated the US edition ? MagicUnk 10:08, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Resubmitted per your suggestion. --GlennMcG 14:19, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

King's Property

I approved this one but looking at the one we have here, it seems like it is a duplicate. The 11st seems like a typo for 1st and the price being the same in both Canada and USA kinda points to the original record being also a first edition - an 11th will be much later so at least one of the prices should be different. Would you like to update the old record and add your notes and updates there? Sorry for not catching it before approval. Thanks! Annie 13:52, 25 October 2020 (EDT)

The Sapphire Rose

You are PV2 on the sapphire Rose by David Eddings. Either you or PV1 named the map The Sapphire Rose (maps) with the 1992 publication date. If you check your copy I think you will see it is signed and dated 1988. This map was used in all three books of the Elenium. In fact, the publisher refers to this map as the Eosia map on the copyright page of the first book in the next series. Let me know if you have a problem with me changing this. Scifibones 14:53, 25 October 2020 (EDT)

Fine with me. --GlennMcG 19:05, 25 October 2020 (EDT)


Hello Glenn. I noticed that you added Auto-da-Fé as a replacement for Auto-da-Fe (without accent aigu) to the 1967 publication Turning On, but with the same publication year (1961). However, as far as we know the variant Auto-da-Fé was first published in the 1967 edition of Turning On (or perhaps for the first time in the 1966 edition Turning On: Thirteen Stories), surely not in 1961. So I've updated the year of first publication of Auto-da-Fé as 1967. Let me know if you would disagree (and why).

As an aside, there seems to be a similar problem with Semper Fi, which seems to have been first published as Satisfaction in 1964-08. The first occurrence of Semper Fi (at least in our DB) is not earlier than 1966-08 (the first edition of Turning On - so seems like Satisfaction is a variant of Semper Fi instead of the other way around. Regards, MagicUnk 16:28, 23 November 2020 (EST)

When a story gets more popular under a later title, we use the LATER name as a canonical title. This is the case with Semper Fi so reversing the variant is not needed even if there is a SINGLE publication under a different title before that. Canonical title does not always mean "first title". Annie 17:12, 23 November 2020 (EST)

Sun in Glory: And Other Tales of Valdemar

Regarding this and this - are "Sun in Glory" "And Other Tales of Valdemar" exactly the same size on the title page? If not, then the way we have it now is correct - a subtitle is added by adding ":" between it and the title. The only case when your proposed change will be valid is if "and..." is not a subtitle but appears as part of the title itself (same font, same size) on the title page. Thanks! Annie 23:35, 17 January 2021 (EST)

It's a different font size, but the 'and' is lower case. My feeling is that the font is smaller on the second line because the words wouldn't fit otherwise. I took the subtitle instructions It is sometimes a judgement call as to whether a change of font or a colon indicates a subtitle or just some creative license on the part of the typesetter. If in doubt, take your best guess and document the guess in the publication's notes. as an indication of some leeway allowed in the rule.
There's some additional rationale I left on on Marc Kupper's talk page. --GlennMcG 05:00, 18 January 2021 (EST)
Yeah, I know it is a subjective clause and I saw that we have the rest of the series in a different way. However both OCLC and LCCN threat is as a subtitle and inject the ":" in there. The lower case is not that unusual - capitalizing the subtitle's first word when it is one of the small words is not the rule in all the style formats... Let me think on that for a bit. Annie 17:00, 18 January 2021 (EST)

The Horse and His Boy

Hi Glenn, I've accepted your submission, but can you double check this pub record's date, as I suspect that the pub date must be 1976-00-00 (per your notes) iso 1974? Thanks! Regards, MagicUnk 11:49, 5 February 2021 (EST)

Thanks! Edit submitted. --GlennMcG 16:18, 5 February 2021 (EST)

Publishers vs Publication series

Hi, why do you want books published as Ace Fantasy to be under a separate publisher 'Ace Fantasy Books', instead of putting those books in the publication series 'Ace Fantasy'. Is Ace Fantasy Books at a different address than Ace Science fiction, or are they in fact two desks in the same office? Please explain.--Dirk P Broer 08:07, 6 February 2021 (EST)

The same with Tor.--Dirk P Broer 08:09, 6 February 2021 (EST)
For the Ace ones, they are listed as Ace Fantasy Books on the cover, title page, and copyright page. The only address given is for the Berkeley Publishing Group. It is a separate imprint and not a pub series. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (EST)
If the same holds true for the four that are now given as pub series we have to enter them likewise, not like the hodge-podge it is now.--Dirk P Broer 08:57, 6 February 2021 (EST)
To complicate matters, there are Ace 'fantasy' books that really seem to be a publication series, in that they say 'Fantasy' on the spine, but not the title page. Tor seems to be more consistent, in that the spine and title page always matches, at least that I've seen. --GlennMcG 18:28, 6 February 2021 (EST)
I just noticed the edit [5] from Dirk that removed the pub series marker. However there is a 'Fantasy' marker on the top of spine (but not the title page). Not sure what the rules are for pub series. --GlennMcG 18:38, 6 February 2021 (EST)
See our wiki.--Dirk P Broer 10:46, 7 February 2021 (EST)
If there exist fantasy pubs published by Ace Books (and not by Ace Fantasy Books), then I guess that edit should be reversed, and notes added to both the pub and the pub series record to clarify. (And perhaps a note cautioning editors not to delete the pub series)MagicUnk 02:54, 7 February 2021 (EST)
Sounds like a good idea, explaining in the notes why the book should be in a publication series named 'fantasy' while such is not evident from cover, nor title page.--Dirk P Broer 10:44, 7 February 2021 (EST)
It's not clear to me what criteria should be used to decide something is a publication series. It seems obvious with cover markup like Jim Baen Present or Ace Science Fiction Special, but is a single category word like Fantasy on the spine enough? My assumption is that the imprint takes priority over pub series, e.g., publications wouldn't be both in pub series Ace Fantasy and imprint Ace Fantasy Books simultaneously. --GlennMcG 15:42, 7 February 2021 (EST)
There is no restriction imposed, so it is possible to have pub series Ace Fantasy and imprint Ace Fantasy Books simultaneously. Whether that is the right choice depends on what's on or in the books, even how the series is perceived, how it is marketed, etc... If there's fantasy on the spine of publications by imprint Ace Fantasy Books, I'd record it as such - and add clarifying notes all over the place :) One advantage of doing so is that you could link fantasy pubs by Ace Books with fantasy pubs by Ace Fantasy Books when using the same pub series name (provided of course these can be considered part of the same publication series, only published by (slightly) different publishers) - it has happened before (for example when a publisher started a series, which later became an imprint of another publisher who took over/merged with the first). MagicUnk 08:04, 8 February 2021 (EST)

ISBN 0-87997-133-9

Hi, For both the DAW publications The Stone That Never Came Down UY1150 and Spawn of Laban UQ1133 you derived the ISBN-10 from the catalog number. Problem is that the ISBN-10 is in both cases 0-87997-133-9...--Dirk P Broer 05:13, 23 February 2021 (EST)

Ooops. Accidently used the DAW# instead of the catalog number when generating. Edit submitted. Thanks. --GlennMcG 15:34, 23 February 2021 (EST)
Personal tools