User talk:Linguist/Archive1

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome

Hello, Linguist, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hauck 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

La roue fulgurante/Soucoupe volante

Hello, I've rejected your submission concerning this title. In this case (creating a variant title) there is a number of steps to follow. The first is to enter a record for _Soucoupe volante_ via the "Add New Novel" item (the meaning of all the fields are explained). This will give you a title record (an immaterial object) with "under" it a publication record (a physical item, here the 1952 book). Once this couple Title/Publication is created (this step is moderated by someone like me, which may take time), you'll be able to add the scan of the cover (via the "Upload new cover scan" hyperlink at the publication level), which will create a directly usable image for the ISFDB (to answer your question elsewhere, the ISFDB is sometimes not fond of accents, I've changed the artist to Rene Brantonne allowing the link to work). The link for the image should next be inserted in the correct field ("Image URL"). The last step is to make your newly created title "Soucoupe volante" a variant of the existing "La roue fulgurante" via the "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" link at the "Soucoupe volante" title level which will give you something along the lines of this title where you can notice two variants (one with a slightly different title in french and one in italian). Note that if the texts are markedly different (as they seems to); it's perhaps wiser to keep them separate and mention their connection in the "note" field. Please also keep in mind that you're starting with some of the most complex aspects of the DB. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. Hauck 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've approved your submission regarding this title, the result is here. I've only had to delete the content of the image field (and the image itself in order for you to have a "clean state"). The correct procedure is to upload the scan AFTER the creation of the publication record. You can use now the "Upload new cover scan" and you'll see that everything works fine (fingers crossed). After uploading your image (which will get all the correct caracteritics from the publication like the publisher or the artist), you'll just have to copy the URL for the image (obtained by clicking on the hyperlink) into the correct field and submit the changes. As for your date question, I favor the printing date or Achevé d'imprimer above the Dépôt légal. The use of the copyright date should be avoided. Hauck 13:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Very well, thank you for all your help. Linguist 13:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC).

Cover image for Soucoupe volante

I had to delete the image you uploaded for this title, because it was too large. ISFDB standards ask that no file be larger than 150 kb. (The one you uploaded was 375 kb.) Please resize the file to a lower resolution, although you can maintain a image dimension that is no taller than 600 pixels. Once the publication is in the database, click the link "Upload cover scan" and follow the prompts. After the file has been uploaded to the server, update the publication record to add a link to the cover image. Thanks and welcome to the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 21:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Le cinquième coup de trompette

Hello, I've approved your submission and made some alterations (the result is here) : 1) I've changed "5e" to "cinquième" as the title page trumps all, 2) I've inserted the information about the "collection" (in french) in the "Publication series" field where it usually belongs (note that this is a quite recent development of the ISFDB where, prior to the arrival of european editors, the concept of "collection" was virtually unknown). In this case (there seems to be only a single title in the whole collection), it's perhaps an overkill but each editor is sovereign. Hauck 16:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ravage

I've put your submission on hold as this site seems to imply that the publisher is only "Editions de la toison d'or", can you confirm that both publishers are given on title page as submitted ? Thanks. Hauck 16:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The title page only has « Éditions de la Toison d'Or », but the reverse of the page indicates : « Copyright by Editions Denoël, / 19 rue Amélie, Paris ». Linguist 16:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC).
It means that for the ISFDB, the publisher is indeed just "Éditions de la Toison d'Or" as the copyright holder is not important and sometimes misleading (e.g. like Presses Pocket titles with a Robert Laffont copyright). I've approved the submission and modified the data accordingly. Hauck 17:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the image URL in your submission from http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/Image:LCPDTRMPTT1954.jpg (wrong URL) to [1] (URL of the image proper). Hauck 17:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, and sorry about these mistakes. Linguist 22:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC).
No problem, this mistake : inserting the link of the wiki (which is the first page displayed after uploading) instead of the link of the image (which requires to click on the blue hyperlink just below the cover) is a huge classic. I've made and re-made it regularly. Hauck 06:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cover image for Ravage

The image of the file you uploaded was too large by ISFDB standards. It should be no more than 600 pixels tall. I will resize it, and re-upload it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot, and sorry about that ! Linguist 22:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC).
I rejected the submission to update the pub because there were no changes. When an image is replaced, the URL remains the same, so it is unnecessary to update the publication record linked to it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mhhutchins. I had modified the text in the “Notes” box (rephrasing, typography, etc.). Isn't it possible to do that ? Linguist 09:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC).
Yes. That's very much possible. But according to the moderator's display of the submission, no changes in the record were made at all. Please try again to see if it comes through this time. Mhhutchins 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your questions

Hello, please pose your questions at the Help Desk, not in the note to the moderator field. The risk is too high that it might be lost. I think that Michael Hutchins somehow may have missed the change you intended, because it clearly is possible to adapt notes for a given publication.

Your question about the photo: In theory it would be possible to upload a scanned Image, provided the quality is sufficient. But as is the case with other images: we must be sure that there's no copyright pending for a given photo. Stonecreek 10:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your answers ! Linguist 10:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

L'exilé de l'espace

Hello, I've changed the publication series from "Collection Science et aventures" to the simpler "Science et aventures" as Publication series is a quasi synonym of Collection. I've also approved your correction for _Les visiteurs de l'an 2.000_ (my mistake) but note that it's the correct etiquette to inform the PVs (not only PV1) of a publication of any major changes (each editor has her/his own notification preferences, usually stated on the top her/his talk page). Hauck 15:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well, that's noted. Thank you. Linguist 15:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

Nouvelles du grand possible

I've approved your submission but regularized the publication series to "Bibliothèque Marabout - Géant" see the whole series here. I suppose that you're aware that the dating of the Marabout titles is tricky as the supposed date given on the last page is sometimes misleading as it's not regurlarly updated. Also note that the collection was already entered here, so the best way to proceed would have been to just clone it (it means that you should verify if your intended entry did already exist). You're now ready for a phase of merging as the author's page needs maintenance. Hauck 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it existed already, but as it was an earlier edition, I thought I needed to create a distinct entry (I still have lots to learn…). As for the date, I remember buying the book when it came out for the first time, il should be right (furthermore, the printing date and the copyright match). As far as the publication series is concerned, I had retained the géant spelling, with a small g, because the word is always spelt that way on the publication (cover, inside blurb, etc.). Linguist 11:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
You're now dealing with the database structural choices. In this case (for the collection and the short stories) there should be one title record with two publications record (one for each printing). As there are two at the moment, they should individually be merged. To achieve this there is a simple method : 1) go to the author's page here, 2) choose the "Check for Duplicate Titles" editing tool on the left, 3) you'll have a list off all the (strictly except for case differences) matching items in the author's bibliography, 4) you'll have to check the ones you'd like to be merged and click on the "Merge Selected Records" button (once for each couple), 5) choose the characteristics like the date or length (when at variance) that should be retained by the final result and submit the lot by clicking on "Complete Merge". Please note that in some case you entered the short stories with the length (not the type) "Shortfiction" (sf) or "Shortstory" (ss). In the latter case it means that you're sure that the text is less than 7500 words long. Hauck 11:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. I'll try and do what I can… By the way, the first edition date seems to be 1960, as I found out here, so I'll correct that bit. I'll also update the Author Data. Linguist 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC). Linguist 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
Hope I did the merging all right. Once it's approved, I'll have to check the length of some stories again (I couln't change those that were identical, but there seems to be cause for some correction). Linguist 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
You did fine, all's approved. For the precise classification of the length of the stories, don't sweat too much on it, it's quite an anglo-saxon thing (in fact it came from the Hugo categories). Hauck 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Prices

Hi. The help does not say so explicitly, but all (modern) prices -- any currency having cents or 100 fractional units -- should be entered to the 1/100th, even if there is no fraction presented. For example, instead of F10 we use F10.00 (with a period for the decimal separator). I accepted your submission of Le drame de l'an 3000 but changed the price to have the decimal and zeroes. Thanks. --MartyD 12:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, got that. Thanks. Linguist 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Les conquérants de Mars/Le secret des XII

A question and some comments/answers about your submission of Les conquérants de Mars/Le secret des XII, which I have on hold. The comments/answers:

  • For an omnibus, listing the author(s) of the contained works, as you have done, is correct. That the entry screen labels this "Editor" is a mistake. If you did have information about the editor, you would record that in the notes.
  • You should put a space on either side of the slash in an omnibus title. So Les conquérants de Mars / Le secret des XII instead of Les conquérants de Mars/Le secret des XII.
  • The ISFDB database proper is not part of this Wiki, so you cannot use Wiki-text in the notes to get links, bolding, lists, and other common formatting. You have to use HTML mark-up. So instead of '[http://forums.bdfi.net/viewtopic.php?pid=43361 bdfi] to provide a link, you should do <a href="http://forums.bdfi.net/viewtopic.php?pid=43361">bdfi</a>. You can find more information and examples in Help:Using_HTML_in_Note_Fields if you are interested.
  • And, as I mentioned in a previous message (which I know you did not see before this submission), the price should include the 1/100ths (F300.00).

I will fix these things up when I accept the submission. I only mention them for you to know when you do your next submissions, of which I hope there will be many. Now for my question....

I see you gave the publisher as "Éditions d'Hauteville", but then in the notes you say that's a later name for "André Jaeger", and in your notes to the moderator you say there is no place to record "the 1954 publisher (André Jaeger)". What we want to record in the publication record is the publisher's name, as stated in the book. Is that "Éditions d'Hauteville" or "André Jaeger"? We would not record in the publication record anything about the relationship between the publisher's two names. To record that, we can edit the notes on the publisher record. For example, we could add a note to the André Jaeger page that André Jaeger became Éditions d'Hauteville in 19xx. Once there is an Éditions d'Hauteville page, we could add a similar note there.

To record the fact that the omnibus was first published in 1954 by André Jaeger, we would make another publication record for the same title, citing whatever secondary sources we find to help us construct the record. If that's what you mean. If instead you mean that each of the two novels was first published in 1954 by André Jaeger, we would create publications for each of those titles (which will appear in Jean de la Hire's summary once the submission is accepted), and those publication records would show the 1954 and André Jaeger. I hope that makes sense. If you explain a little more what your notes mean, I can tell you more clearly what should be done. Thanks. --MartyD 13:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the trouble you are going to in order to make sense of my contributions. I had already asked for Hauck's opinion about the matter, and tried to follow his advice (but I must have misunderstood some of it). The two books were published separately in 1954 by André Jaeger (although these were probably not the original publications), then unsold copies were bound together under a new cover in 1955 or a bit later (maybe after his death in 1956), and this time published as an omnibus by Éditions d'Hauteville (same publisher, different name; André Jaeger's address was 19 rue d'Hauteville). Note that “Les Éditions André Jaeger” were created at the beginning of the fifties in order to publish (or re-publish) the works of Jean de la Hire, ostracized for “misbehaving” during the German occupation and collaborating with the Vichy régime. Thanks again for you help.
Note that, regarding the title, the help here is quite clear about the lack of space (that's why I gave this counsel). Hauck 14:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoops! You are quite right. I was remembering Imprint + space + slash + space + Publisher, for which the help is also quite clear (but opposite). Oh well. I apologize! --MartyD 17:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok. you are all set. The omnibus is here. You will also find Les Conquérants de Mars and Le secret des XII, to which you can add the 1954 André Jaeger publications if you want. One question: Why "C"onquérants but "s"ecret? We have agreed to follow native capitalization conventions for non-English titles, but should those two be capitalized the same way? Thanks. --MartyD 00:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your work ! To answer your question : both titles are entirely in upper case the way (title pages, top of each page), except for one instance at the end of Le mystère des XII, where the sequel is announced as Les Conquérants de Mars. I suppose that, if Le mystère des XII had occurred anywhere in lower case, it would have been written with a capital M. On that assumption, should I correct the latter ? Linguist 09:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
I took the liberty to regularize the capitalization as per french rules (only first word and proper nouns in caps), you'll see that there are numerous variants of these rules used in the ISFDB. Hauck 10:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Horizon 3000

Hello, I've approved your submission with slight adjustements : Regularized caps for the Publisher and added decimals to the price. I've also got some questions : 1) what is the exact title of the piece "Les missions de Clay Fal / agent secret de l'espace / Les esclaves de Palum ", if there are three lines of title, it should be entered "Les missions de Clay Fal: Agent secret de l'espace: Les esclaves de Palum", IMHO it's perhaps best to use simply "Les esclaves de Palum" as title, 2) B. Fiarre is likely Bernard Fiarre, how is the text crecdited ? I saw that you entered a length for the short stories (in this case "shortfiction" indicating a text under 7500 words), in the case of the Fiarre text it's perhaps not strictly true (as 16 pages of a magazine may contain more than that amount of words), IMHO again, you can easily stick to the default length. Also, the part of the note about the ancient francs is perhaps supefluous.Hauck 15:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hauck. The title of the short story is « Les esclaves de Palum » (p. 157), but it is presented on the previous page as part of a series “Les missions de Clay Fal (small print) / Agent secret de l'espace (large print)”. This page is made to look more or less like a book cover. The bottom of the page reads : “Récit Spatial-Fiction [space] par Bernard Fiarre” (which answers you next question; I just can't think where I got the B. from, yet I remember saying to myself that the first name was abbreviated). My rough estimate is that the text is about 7200 wds long (there are a few pictures). And as far as the anciens francs are concerned, indeed, that remark may easily be scrapped.
Corrections made (except for the notes, it's your call). Hauck 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Le drame de l'an 3000

Re this record:

  • When entering a record of the NOVEL type, do not create a content record for the novel. That's done automatically in the acceptance process. If you look at the record, you'll see that the novel now appears twice in the contents section.
  • When entering generically-titled works (like "Preface", "Introduction", "Afterword", etc.) the titles should be disambiguated by adding the title of work parenthetically, i.e. "Preface (Le drame de l'an 3000)".
  • When creating a content record for interior illustrations, using the INTERIORART type record, the title field should represent the work which is being illustrated, whether it be a short story, essay, or novel. So the title field of this record should be "Le drame de l'an 3000".

I've left these for you to correct. (You'll have to use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function for the first problem, and then delete the duplicate title from the database. The other two can be fixed by just updating the title records.) If you'd rather that I do it, then let me know. Thank you. Mhhutchins 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do it (I'll try, anyway). I suppose it's the best way to learn… Thank you for your remarks. Linguist 16:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC).
Looks good. You're doing very well, especially with those "gotchas" that get every new editor. Keep up the good work. Mhhutchins 18:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Les peaux froides

Submission approved, I've just changed the price from 2,40 to 2.40. Hauck 09:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Linguist 09:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

SFM #5

Submission approved. Congratulations, a heavy task is now ahead of you. First some remarks on your submission proper :

Due to the possible confusion with the similarly titled but earlier (1953) french magazine published by Edica, the title should be changed to "Science-Fiction Magazine (1976-1977)".
The printing date can be ascertained by using this invaluable reference book here which gives the date of November 1976 to May 1977 for the seven issues, yours being logically the March 1977 one.
The Publisher (as per bottom of page 3) is simply Editions de France (you can drop the S.A.), the collaboration with NEL being, for this field, accessory.
The price is 8.00 instead of 8,00 (anglo-saxon usage).
The binding can be set to "tabloid".
The cover is by Tim White see here.

For the contents, you'll have to make extensive use of the original magazine here, keeping in mind that the french team was sometimes quite creative in the author's attributions (e.g. the Andrew Lester of issue #1 is in fact Terry Greenhough). If you'll need help for the next phases (entering the contents, the reviews, merging or variating texts and artworks), don't hesitate to ask me (I've entered all the british issues and have 6 out of 7 of the french ones). Hauck 10:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll probably need some assistance here; I'll see what I can do, though. Linguist 10:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
Regarding your questions : 1) for the interior art, it's your call, personnally, I tend to skip all the recurring illustrations tied to a particular series of essays (lettercols, reviews, FAQ,etc.), just in case, the artist for the "Lettres" section is Malcolm Poynter (to show that I'm not that coherent, I've entered it once), 2) for the date, it came from the fact that although it was present at the publication level here, it wasn't at the title level (here, now corrected). Normally, this will give the correct date from now on. Hauck 18:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Le drame de l'an 3000

I've approved your submission for this pub because the book is cited on page 171 of _Le rayon SF_ (2ème édition, on page 152 of the first) even with its cover, but I'll advise caution concerning basing data on commercial sites, particularly priceminister where bibliographical data is perforce sometimes completely false (having a few hundreds titles for sale here has teach me to be prudent). Hauck 16:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mandragore

Hello, I've approved your submission for the Limat novel but I didn't check first it the title was already present in the database and I should have. The novel was in fact already entered, as is the case with some Angoisse titles, either because they were reprinted in the Superluxe publication series (and entered by me) or because they were translated (here in italian). I'm going to correct my mess but it means that you should now first verify if your intended submission is not already known. In such a case, you should use the "Add Publication to this Title" funtion. Hauck 15:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Actually, I thought I had checked, but it must have remained a thought ! Linguist 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

The Blue Man

Hello, I've approved your submission but correct the link to WP (there was a superfluous "." at the end of the URL). I don't understand what you mean by "Couldn't find a box for WP URL (or am I dreaming ?).". Hauck 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there usually a special entry for web pages ? Linguist 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC).
IIRC, there's one at author or publisher level but none either at title or publication level. In this case it's not that bad as the WP data is quite misleading (a 1961 book with an ISBN-13 ?). Hauck 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. So I wasn't dreaming after all… Linguist 15:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
In this record, the initials "WP" (the link title) isn't commonly used to indicate the Wikipedia article. (I had to click on it to see exactly what it meant.) Actually, it is better to enter title-specific links on the title record. If a webpage is publication-specific (refers only to this publication) then you can link it to the Note field of the publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Right; thanks for the tip. Linguist 17:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

No artist credit

Hi. One more inconsistency for you to be aware of: If a cover artist is not credited, and credit cannot be determined from some other source, leave the Artist field blank; do not use "uncredited". We use "uncredited" only for authorship. Don't worry, you are not alone in stumbling over this. I removed the uncredited credit from Le Peril Bleu. Thanks. --MartyD 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks ! Linguist 13:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

La nuit des temps

I've approved your submission, regarding the iSBN, IMHO you should use the one on bc as the one on copyright page is visibly a mistake (it seems to belong to a Jean M. Auel book). Hauck 17:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

OK, thanks. Linguist 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

Le Docteur Lerne: sous-dieu

I have your submission to add a publication with this title to the database. Unfortunately, you used the wrong function to add the publication record. No worries, because this happens often with new editors. If a title already exists in the database, you should click on it and then use the "Add Publication to This Title" function. You used the "Add New Novel" function which creates both a publication record and a title record. I'm going to accept your submission and then merge the new title with the existing one. A question: the one currently in the database has a comma between the title and subtitle. Is that present on the title page of your book? If not, I'll change the titles to use the colon, which doesn't have to be stated in the publication. This is standard method of indicating a separation of the main title and the subtitle, which is seen on the title page as a change in size or font. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have an adventurous nature (as a reader of SF, you must), try this guide in determining which function to use when adding records to the database. It's not official, but something I wrote which I thought may be of some use. Mhhutchins 22:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who gave the counsel to use the "Add Title" as the editor's data here seemed to indicate a variant title (with and without comma). Hauck 06:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Since we don't have a publication in the database that actually uses the comma, I suspect that it's incorrect, and that the verified publication's title would be the canonical one. I'm going to merge the two, keeping the colon title. If a publication with the comma comes along, we can then create a variant title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you both for your help. As I explained earlier to Hauck, I had first tried “Add Publication”, with no option for another title, and “Add a Variant Title”, which left no option for the publisher, etc. I was puzzled, not to say mystified. Ars longa, vita brevis ! Linguist 09:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

Jonathan à perte de temps

I'm holding a submission to change the page count field of this record. It is ISFDB policy to notify the primary verifiers of publication records before making submissions that change substantial data. Also, if you're adding unnumbered pages to a publication record, you should provide a note that explains what is contained on those pages and why you chose to record them in the record. If the pages don't have any significant text, or are advertising, we don't include them in the page count field. Is it the uncredited essay which appears on unnumbered pages?

Once you've discussed this publication with the primary verifier, I'll approve the submission or you can cancel it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you have left a message on Hauck's page concerning the "complemented page count" of several records. Again, discussing such changes before making submissions would have been the appropriate action. What are on these "complementary" pages? Mhhutchins 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. The unnumbered pages contain indeed the essay as well as the table of contents, lists of books and some advertising. Linguist 20:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
I never thought adding those unnumbered pages could be something that had to be discussed, basing myself on the cursory remark : « Likewise, you may record the count of unnumbered pages at the end of a publication. For example, [6]+320+[4]. » mentioned here. Linguist 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
If any primary verified record has an error, you must still discuss it with the verifying editor (if they are active, if not on the Moderator page) before making a submission to correct the error. In this case, these are not errors: we don't include table of contents, advertising, etc. in the page count field. The instructions you've linked to refer to adding the number of pages at the end of a book when there is substantial text on pages which are not numbered. Quite often the last page may be unnumbered, or there are excerpts from other works on unnumbered pages. In these cases, we add the number of pages in brackets to the end of the page count. Perhaps the instructions aren't clear and should be further explained. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Mhhutchins 21:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand perfectly. By the way, saying « Perhaps the instructions aren't clear and should be further explained » is a massive understatement : nothing indeed is said about the contents nor the relevance of unnumbered pages at the end of a book in the page I mentioned ! Anyway, I'll be more circumspect in the future (though it tends to slow you down considerably !). Linguist 21:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
You have the option now to either cancel the submission, or discuss with Hauck whether the 14 unnumbered pages are substantial enough to include in the page count field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Journey Into Space

Can you check to see if there is a price printed anywhere on this publication? According to Tuck's encyclopedia, the price is 2 shillings (entered into ISFDB records as "2/-".) Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I found an image of the cover that shows the price. Perhaps your copy is a later printing. Is there a stated date of publication? Mhhutchins 19:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No indication of price anywhere, inside or out. The closest thing I got to was a list of Pan books at the end (but no SF), priced at either 2/- or 2/6. I read on p. 4 : “First published 1954 […]. This edition published 1958 by Pan books Ltd. […]”. In the Pan book list, the first two are dated March 1958, none of the others are dated. That's all I can do ! Linguist 20:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
Perhaps it was printed for the overseas market, probably for continental Europe. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I bought that copy (second hand, of course) in New Zealand; but nothing on or in the book indicates any particular geographical destination. And speaking of travels, I'm off to Florence to-morrow, so I'll be unproductive for the coming week. Linguist 21:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
Have a great trip. I had a wonderful time in Florence back in 2012. Hope you do as well. Mhhutchins 00:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Suragne titles

Hello, I've approved your creation of two Suragne Angoisse titles see here, you should now create the variant titles under the pelot name in order to "transfer" them into pelot's page there. Hauck 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and do that. Linguist 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC).

Capitals

It seems that we regularize the capitals (except for deliberate typographic effects, see here, so IMHO this rule (to conform to the french "official" usage) should apply to all french titles regardless of the typographer's vagaries. Hauck 17:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I had left them just in case. I'll know for next time ! Thanks. Linguist 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

Pardonnez-nous vos enfances

Hello, I'm approving your submissions as they come for this anthology, I was wondering about some of the dates given that are earlier than the publication date itself, particularly the préface (note that, as the title needs not to be disambiguated, the (Pardonnez-nous vos enfances) part is not necessary), can you explain the discrepancies ? Hauck 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was hesitating about which date to chose. The earlier dates are those that appear at the end of the texts, above the signature. But I probably should have stuck to the general publication date. I'll also correct the bit about the preface. Linguist 14:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
You're right, the publication date trumps the writing date. Hauck 14:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Marabout printings

Just in case, note that the mention "Inédit" or "Inédit en langue française" doesn't mean that the book is a first printing, cf these two printings that have both this indication. The year sometimes found on the last line of last page of the text is a better clue and the catalogue is (IMHO) the best one. Hauck 11:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Le maître du jugement dernier

This publication should be part of the "Le Masque - Fantastique (2ème série)" publication series (the black ones) instead of "Le Masque - Fantastique" (the red ones). I've made the correction. Hauck 11:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks (and sorry about that) ! Linguist 11:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC).

Sadoul titles

Hello, I've put your submissions on hold as I'm not that fond of your proposed publication series (J'ai Lu - Fantasy) on two counts : 1) this publication series was used only for one book (which is not even PVed), I've regularized it based on the principles explained here; 2) the novels were explicitely (probably by Sadoul's fiat) NOT part of the SF-F line as is clearly the case in (just one example) the 1999 J'ai Lu catalogue where they're in the "Littérature" section. I tend to put such titles in the simple "J'ai Lu" or in the "J'ai Lu - Roman" publication series. Hauck 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Linguist 11:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC).
All approved. Hauck 14:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Le vallon

I tried to merge the two titles, but they just wouldn't. How did you do it ? Linguist 22:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC).

Yes, done (IIRC they were not "mergeable" because they were declared with different langages, one in french the other -wrongly- in german), if the titles are not listed as candidates, you can try the "advanced search" (blue button on top left) which will allow you to merge different titles (caution here). Hauck 08:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. Actually, I had tried that option too, but nothing came of it. Thanks. Linguist 08:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

Henri Maisongrande's collections

Hello, can you confirm that these collections contain indeed speculative fiction elements as per the acquisition rules here. Hauck 09:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Some stories are set in the future. Others definitely contain fantasy elements. Linguist 09:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
OK, approved. Hauck 09:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've included BNF links at the title level. It seems to me that they point to a specific publication. In this case, these books will likely never be reprinted or republished so it perhaps doesn't matter but I'm not sure that they (the links) are pertinent at this level. Hauck 10:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll move them to publication level, then. Linguist 10:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
Except that it's not possible ! Do you want me to remove them ? Linguist 10:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
Yes (it's not possible, except in the publication's notes) and No (let them stand as they are). Hauck 10:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Les chevaux de la nuit et autres: Récits cruels

Hi. Why do you want to make Les chevaux de la nuit et autres: Récits cruels a variant of Les chevaux de la nuit: et autres récits cruels, for which we have no publications? I don't quite see what you are trying to do, so I am not sure what to suggest yet. Thanks. --MartyD 12:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The original title of the book is Les chevaux de la nuit (subtitled et autres récits cruels). It seems to have been published the same year (1967) by Marabout. The title had to be changed rapidly, because of a conflict with another publisher, and became Les chevaux de la nuit et autres: Récits cruels, “Récits cruels” becoming the main element of the title; the cover changed as well (see the original version here). Linguist 12:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
Ok, I have accepted the submission. It would be good to find and enter the publication under that other title/subtitle arrangement. --MartyD 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was going to do, but I started with the copy I had ! Linguist 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC).

Croisière dans le temps/L'escalier de l'ombre

I changed the author credit of this title record from "Fleuve Noir" (the publisher) to match that of the publication record. This is required under ISFDB standards. Otherwise the omnibus publication record would not appear on either author's summary page, but on an author page for a non-existing author named "Fleuve Noir". Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. What had confused me (and still does somehow) is the fact that when you create an omnibus, the second entry after the title is “Editor1” and not “Author1” (which it seems to become once approved). Linguist 09:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
I can see how that could be confusing. For ISFDB purposes, editor, author and artist are considered the "author" (creator) of a work. Some record types can obviously be assigned, such as NOVEL (author), ANTHOLOGY (editor), COLLECTION (author). But others are more difficult, because an OMNIBUS could contain works by two authors (in the case of doubles like this one), or be compiled by an editor. The system doesn't know what kind of omnibus you're entering so it has to default to the way you saw it. It's best to think of the second field as the creator of a work which isn't always an author. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll know for next time (I hope). Linguist 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

J'ai Lu subseries

Hello, I've approved your submission for _Malpertuis_ but changed to publication series to "J'ai Lu - Science Fiction" (no dash) as per this very vague guidelines. My main objective is to maintain a certain standardization and just (for the time being) separate the SF(&F of course)-identified titles and the rest of the "main" j'ai lu catalogue. In the future (and when there will be than the two of us working on the french titles), a debate on the diverse publication series (J'ai lu with all its variant -SF, SF&F, F-, but also Presses Pocket where the situation is worse) will probably be in order. Hauck 06:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging of titles

Hello, a tip to avoid the massive merging of titles (in the case of collections) is to create the publication without its content and then use the import function ("Import Content") which will allow you to directy integrate texts without need for merging. You can import the whole content of another publication (top of the page) e.g. another collection with close contents (there will pehaps be some removing to do), or you can import a list of individual titles (bottom of the page) in one go. Note that this will keep the data at title level (the date for example). Hauck 07:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I had toyed with the idea of using that function, but I wasn't quite sure how to go about it. Linguist 09:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Histoires noires et fantastiques

Hello, I've approved your submission for the omnibus. I've just two questions : 1) couldn't D.R. (artist) mean "Droits Réservés" and 2) noosfère indicates here Jozelon as artist, is it mistake ? (they perhaps have copied data from the 1996 printing). Hauck 10:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The credits on back page say : “Illustrations : Victor Sevilla et D. R.”; I assumed the latter was responsible for the cover as a whole. I had also checked on noosfere, and indeed “Jozelon” comes from the 1996 printing, with a different cover; their mistake. Linguist 10:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Harry Dickson XVI

If this pub uses "XVI" on the title page, you have entered it correctly, but I suggest you include a note mentioning that it has "16" on the cover but "XVI" on the title page (of course, if it has "16" on the title page, you should change it). That will help editors and moderators in the future when someone tries to submit a new title using "16" off of the cover. Thanks. --MartyD 11:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Thanks. Linguist 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

Le syndrome E

Hello, I've put your submission on hold as I'm not sure that this book falls into the scope of the ISFDB here. Can you be more precise about it ? Note that the title is not referenced in the main french SF databases and that amazon's resumé hints at a thriller (with perhaps an new illness), but that's not enough to warrant inclusion. Hauck 06:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is, in my opinion, an SF element here, insofar as the story resorts to a hitherto unknown “mental virus” that triggers epidemic mass hysteria and violence (thus explaining historical massacres), and relies upon (as yet) imaginary scientific research in the field of “mental contamination” and violence control. There are also some elements of horror here. But if this doesn't meet the standards, you are welcome to reject this submission. Linguist 09:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
It's visibly a borderline case, but if you think that the title warrants inclusion, I'll approve the submission. Hauck 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deadwalk

Hello, I rejected your submission to drop the month of publication from the mentioned book. Although there's no mentioning of the month in the book, it is very likely that it has some foundation (that's why it is important to source the data one adds to a publication). Best to add something like 'Source for month of publication unknown' to the notes. Thanks, Stonecreek 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Linguist 10:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

Быстрые сны

Sorry about the delay. After consulting my fellow moderators, I accepted your submission of Быстрые сны, but I changed the publisher and series to use just the Cyrillic (I did also convert the publisher name to mixed-case), and I moved the transliteration information into the notes. Ahasuerus hopes someday not too far away to have separate fields for the transliterations. --MartyD 11:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks ! Linguist 11:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

A House Possessed

Hi. A couple of questions about your A House Possessed submission: (1) Is the language really French, or should it be English? (2) The "505-50644-095" you see on the spine is a combination of 505 for the publisher, 50644 for the catalog number, and 095 for the $0.95 price. We wouldn't make that into an ISBN. I took a look at other entries we have for Belmont Tower from the same period, and I see we tend to use a 5-digit catalog number for them. Do you see "50644" on the front or back cover, or maybe on one of the first few interior pages? --MartyD 11:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

1) It's in English of course, I forgot to change the entry (sorry about that !). — 2) No, it only appears on the spine, but might be hidden in the top right-hand corner of the cover by an old sticker I can't remove without damaging the cover. Indeed, in the list of similar publications at the end of the book, all titles have BT 50… as catalogue numbers. Linguist 11:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
Ok, here it is. I will let you decide, but I think #50644 would be better. Take a look at the other Belmont Tower books from 1973 and 1974. Also, one other thing I forgot to mention/ask about: That it has "095" on the spine does represent $0.95. I'm wondering if it might be priced that way, with £0.25 as an alternate, UK price. --MartyD 11:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
All I can say about the price is that it appears as “25p” written vertically on top of the spine. When I come to think of it, it's a bit strange for a book published in the USA ! The price in dollars might be under the sticker; most of the other publications are priced either 75¢ or 95¢. Should I remove the British price and replace it with the American one ? Linguist 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
I am also puzzled by the kind of swan that appears under the sticker, where Belmont Tower books usually have BT. Linguist 11:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

A House Possessed

Hello, I've put your submission on hold on two grounds : 1) the printed price usually trumps the sticker price (note that in this case it's likely NZ$ instead of US$), 2) as per the bird partly visible behind the sticker, your book is likely a british printing, similar to this one, its publisher being thus Flamingo instead of Belmont-Tower. What are you thoughts on the matter ? (perhaps would it be wise to remove the sticker). Hauck 16:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As I explainded in the previous section, the sticker is old, well stuck, and it would damage the cover if I tried to remove it (in any case, it wasn't the reason for my changing the price to $0.95). I had looked for similar covers, but hadn't found the one with the flamingo. I can see now that it must be the same logo. Yet, the thing is that the title page does say “Belmont Tower Books, New York” and nothing else; the back cover says “printed in the U.S.A.”, and all the prices in the list of books at the end are in American dollars. I had accepted MartyD's explanation that the 095 code on the spine indicated a $0.95 price, but I suppose it must be in pence under the flamingo. This is no big help, although it does very remotely suggest 25p rather than $0.95. But all in all, I don't really know any more which price should come first. Linguist 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
I'll reject the submission, the stated price (on spine and quite surely under the sticker) trumps the "pseudo-ISBN-included" ;-) price on bottom of the spine. My own book of this variety shows the same caracteristics (ads for pure US publications). Hauck 18:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
OK, then. Thanks. Linguist 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

Contes Extraordinaires

Hello. If you're in doubt it is always better to first ask at the help text, it often saves time. In this case the correct dates would be in fact the first publication dates of Baudelaire's translations (if known). If nothing is known about their pre-publication it would be best to let the date fields blank, so that the date of the publication in hand would be automatically filled in. Because I'm a bit more accustomed with german publications, I'd like to direct your attention towards the german variants of a novel by the Strugatskys. The first three titles are all dated 1971 though they were actually published in different years; and that's because they all print one and the same translation stemming from that year. There's another (east german) translation from 1975. I hope that gives you some impression. Stonecreek 19:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. I'll bear that in mind in the future ! Linguist 20:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

The Poetical Works of Edgar Allan Poe

Hi. I have a couple of comments/questions about The Poetical Works of Edgar Allan Poe. The question is: Is the title by any chance presented with a comma at the end of "Poe", preceding the subtitle? I notice several other sources use a comma, which may or may not mean anything, so I figured I would ask. If the title is presented with a comma, we would capture it that way.

The comments:

  • I know it's hard to remember when switching back and forth between languages, but English titles should use the stated capitalization rules. That applies to subtitles as well. So in this case, "with Original Memoir".
  • I'm not sure that this is what you were doing, but we wouldn't normally try to add explanations parenthetically to titles. So if this is simply presented as "Memoir" in the book, then you should either just use that or add only the title parenthetically. But not the "(Preface ...)" extra wrapping. If it's presented as "Memoir (Preface)" in the book, I think you should add the title in a second set of parentheses, after "(Preface)". It will look strange, but that's the current method. Be sure you are getting its title from its title page and not the table of contents, too. Not only is that our standard, but often a longer/better title might appear there.
  • A side comment about disambiguation: When you have a title + subtitle, for disambiguation, it is usually good enough to use only the main title, unless the subtitle itself is needed for further disambiguation. That makes for less clutter and shorter/friendlier title displays.
  • When you go to add more contents, I strongly recommend you find one of the existing Edgar Allan Poe collections and import the contents from that, then remove the extras you do not want. It will save a lot of merging. This might be a good one if the titles match up; if not, look for a different one (but something credited to "Edgar Allan Poe").

I notice The Metropolitan Museum of Art has this catalogued in their collection. Unfortunately, they only date it "[1857]", which may mean "circa" or may mean "not-dated-but-we-have-determined-the-date-to-be". The Edgar Allan Poe Society dates it circa 1870. They say the memoir is by "F. M. H."; I don't know who that is supposed to be. --MartyD 12:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for all your remarks. To answer your questions :
  • Yes, there is a comma after Poe; I had skipped it, as I thought that --- Poe,: with --- looked strange. Does the colon have to be maintained after the comma ? The subtitle "with Original Memoir" is indeed in smaller case.
Sorry, yes, that would be strange. I meant instead of the colon. You might get different advice from another moderator, but you have me, so... :-) I took the colon out for you. See how that looks. --MartyD 02:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • About the parentheses bit : this bizarre “Memoir (Preface (The Poetical Works of Edgar Allan Poe: with original memoir))” is just a typographic mistake : I copied the contents of the previous box, but didn't “prune” it as I meant to. I just wanted to have : “Memoir (The Poetical Works of Edgar Allan Poe)”, as I supposed it needed a bit of disambiguation.
Oh, sorry again! Now that you say that, I see. It was too early in the morning for me (before coffee). Had I realized, I would have fixed it. --MartyD 02:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • About F.M.H. : this signature doesn't appear anywhere in the publication. I found out it was associated with such pieces as “Critical Memoir” and “Life of Edgar Allan Poe”, which isn't the case here. The memoir in this edition might have been written by Charles F. Briggs, if the following passage (an excerpt from this) concerns it (although the 1853 date doesn't match) :
Following Poe's death, the legal rights to his collected works were secured, somewhat surreptitiously through R. W. Griswold, by publisher J. S. Redfield. Redfield published the first two volumes, containing poems and tales, near the end of 1849. A third volume followed in 1850 and a fourth in 1856. (The final four volume edition is generally listed with a copyright of 1856.) This four volume set was quite popular and is thought to have sold several thousand copies a year. Redfield also published a single volume containing just the poems in 1853, with "an original memoir" (presumed to have been written by Charles F. Briggs). The rights to these collections passed through a variety of hands, but continued to be published until about 1886, when the rights were purchased by A. C. Armstrong, which issued Poe's writings in several forms, most notably a six volume set with additional material and a new memoir by Richard Henry Stoddard.
I presume the lack of certainty in all this prevents mentioning Charles F. Briggs' name (or can it be done in the notes ?). On the other hand, the edition that appears as “The Poetical Works of Edgar Allan Poe, (with a memoir by F. M. H.) London: Ward, Lock, n.d. (circa 1870).” would seem to correspond, apart from the mention of F. M. H. Linguist 13:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
Yes. We cannot credit someone unless we have a reasonable certainty based on something we see in the publication or on some definite statement in a reliable secondary source. But it is ok to record information about the uncertain provenance in the notes. I found this (scroll down a little) corroborating the Briggs reference you found and giving an 1871 date in brackets. --MartyD 02:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Turn of the Screw / The Aspern Papers and Other Stories

I've put your submission on hold as the given author is Henri Vernes, perhaps a trick of your browser. Hauck 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I must have clicked on the wrong Henry that appeared in the box. It's Henry James of course. Linguist 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

The Monk

This publication record was entered under a title record which doesn't match. The publication record gives the author as "Matthew G. Lewis" while the title record is for "Matthew Gregory Lewis". How is the work's author credited on its title page (not the front cover)? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Both title page and front cover have "Matthew G. Lewis". The full name "Matthew Gregory Lewis" is only mentioned cursorily in the Introduction. Linguist 08:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for responding. I'll remove the record from its current title and create a new one for the variant title. In the future, don't use the ADD PUBLICATION TO THIS TITLE function if the author and title aren't exact matches. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Linguist 22:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Asquith's The Ghost Book

As above, can you check the title page credit of this publication? The author credit of the publication doesn't match the title under which it was entered. Also, is the acknowledgements an actual essay, or just a list of name? We ordinarily don't create a separate content record for such items. If it's a true essay, it should be disambiguated with the title of the work, i.e. "Acknowledgements (The Ghost Book)". And if there is internal evidence of the author of the piece, it can be made into a variant of a title attributed to the actual author. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Both title page and front cover have “Lady Cynthia Asquith”. As for the Acknowledgements, they represent indeed the usual list of permissions to quote, although, given the date of the fist publication (1926), they are acknowledged in 1970 by “the Publishers and the Trustees of the late Lady Cynthia Asquith”, and among the copyright holders are many Trustees, Estates and Executors of estates…. Linguist 10:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
As I did above, I'll remove the pub record from its current title record and make it into a variant. I'll also remove and delete the acknowledgements as it doesn't appear to be eligible as a separate content record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Linguist 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Planète Anthology

Hello, there are some things to correct following your submissions : 1) for the Sladek title, you've made a intermediate french variant, it's not useful as you should variant directly to the original title (even if the author's names are not strictly the same), 2) you've intended to variant the Kuttner short story to a collection (I've reverted your move), 3) in Robinson's case, the "Frank-M. Robinson" should be made a pseudonym of the canonical name and the title directly varianted to the english canonical. Hauck 21:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll try and do that. I had doubts about some of these. Linguist 21:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Uploaded images and source/license

When you upload images, you should specify the license and/or source. See Help:How_to_upload_images_to_the_ISFDB_wiki and Category:Image_License_Tags. So for the two author images that you uploaded -- Image:Guy_de_Maupassant_by_Nadar.jpg and Image:Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy by Karl Brullov (1836).jpg -- you should go to those pages, edit them, and insert the appropriate information. If you downloaded them from Wikimedia Commons, you could use the PD-US template, and for the reason give "The image is published on Wikimedia Commons as xxx" or something along those lines. So, for example:
    {{PD-US|This image was obtained from Wikimedia Commons, where it is published as... }}

If you look at the author image entries listed in Category:Public_Domain_images, you can see various examples of things people have done. Thanks. --MartyD 11:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Likewise on Image:Arnould_Galopin.jpg. --MartyD 11:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll try and do that. Linguist 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
This file also lacks a license. Mhhutchins 04:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As do this one and this one. Mhhutchins 04:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I had already forgotten about these ! Right, no problem. Linguist 09:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

Publication format

As the instructions for this field explain: Choose "other" if a publication can not fit comfortably into any of the above categories. This includes publications distributed via e-mail, on CD-ROM and other uncommon formats. Make sure to describe the details in the Note field. Assistance for clarification can be requested at the Help Desk. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I had tried to follow this instruction, but there is no such option as “other” : only “unknown”, which I hesitated to use (it's not “unknown”, it's a broadsheet). Thanks all the same. Linguist 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
Strange. It came up when I just entered it. You have to scroll to the last option. Mhhutchins 06:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Gil Blas

Is this a speculative fiction periodical? If not use the instructions for entering non-genre magazines. I have your submission on hold, but will accept it if you can make the necessary edits to comply with the standards. The issue date should also be given in the title field, e.g. "Gil Blas, October 26, 1886". The editor field should be entered as "Editors of Gil Blas". Mhhutchins 02:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've accepted the submission. Here is the publication record. You'll also have to edit the editor field of the editor record to conform with non-genre magazine standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The submission changed the publisher from Gil Blas to Editors of Gil Blas, instead of changing the editor credit (R. d'Hubert). I accepted the submission, fixed that (restored Gil Blas as pulisher and replaced R. d'Hubert with Editors of Gil Blas), and I also corrected the title/editor record to match. --MartyD 12:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot. Linguist 12:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
The format was changed to "unknown" when it should have been entered as "other". I'll correct it. Mhhutchins 06:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mammoth Book of Best New Horrror 15

I'm holding your submission to add a new publication based solely on your copy not matching the Amazon image for this publication. Keep in mind that Amazon's cover image can be wrong and should not hinder you from otherwise updating the record to match your copy. The publication date is also from Amazon which can be given as the source in the record. If you think you have the same printing as the record linked above (just with a different cover), update the record to remove the Amazon cover link, and cancel the pending submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The same situation applies to your submission to add a new record that looks to be identical to this record. That data appears to have come from Locus1. You can give them as the source for the price and the publication date. Mhhutchins 03:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Once I have made all the possible mistakes, I might perform a little better. Thanks. Linguist 10:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

The Giant Book of Werewolves

You entered this record under the wrong title. You can see that the title reference doesn't match the title of the publication. It will have to be unmerged from this title record. This will automatically create a new matching title record, which should then be varianted to the original title record. Let me know if you need assistance to do this. Mhhutchins 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bright of the Moon

I have rejected the following note addition to Bright of the Moon:

This poem is entitled "Bright of Moon" and not "Bright of the Moon" in The Giant Book of Werewolves, (Parragon, 1995).

If that's the case, then it should be entered as "Bright of Moon" in The Giant Book of Werewolves.

If "Bright of the Moon" is correct for The Mammoth Book of Werewolves, then the proper procedure would have been to add "Bright of Moon" as a new title in The Giant Book of Werewolves, remove the existing "Bright of the Moon", and then variant "Bright of Moon" to "Bright of the Moon".

As the The Giant Book of Werewolves is a reprint of The Mammoth Book of Werewolves, then it's quite possible it was titled as "Bright of Moon" in it as well. That leaves us several choices:

  1. If The Giant Book of Werewolves was unverified, then you could just change the existing title.
  2. If The Giant Book of Werewolves had an active verifier, then you could ask them to double check and then either change or variant based on the answer.
  3. As The Giant Book of Werewolves has an inactive verifier, then we have a bit of a quandary:
    1. Lacking any other evidence, we would variant and wait upon a future The Giant Book of Werewolves verifier to update it if needed.
    2. Or we can find secondary evidence and then decide what to do. In this case, Locus lists the title as "Bright of Moon" in The Mammoth Book of Werewolves[2]. Given The Giant Book of Werewolves is a reprint, I'm going to assume this was an error on part of the The Mammoth Book of Werewolves verifier.

I have changed the title of this record to "Bright of Moon".

This was a bit of a long winded response, but hopefully it helps. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentaries and work ! As I had cloned the pub, I couln't change the title of the poem, but I didn't think of adding another title. Linguist 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Number lines

If a publisher provides a number line to indicate the printing, it usually either ends or begins with the number of the printing. So the number line 20 to 11 in this publication would indicate the 11th printing, not the 10th. And the number line 20 to 12 in this publication would indicate that it's the 12th printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with this publication and this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. A few more corrections to do… Linguist 09:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Watchers

This publication was entered with with the publication format as "unknown". That is usually not given in primary verified records. Perhaps it was a slip of the keyboard? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A mindslip, rather. Corrected. Thanks. Linguist 09:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Cold Fire

Can you confirm the ISBN given in this record? It's coming up as invalid. Also, we usually don't record the number of page before the first numbered one unless it has substantial content for which you've created a separate content record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistake corrected. As far as the pages before the first numbered one are concerned, I thought I should mention them because I refer to them when indicating the printing data. Linguist 09:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC).
Not necessary. It's better to say the data appears on the "copyright page" rather than on "page [4]". Mhhutchins 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Linguist 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Science-Fiction Magazine N° 5

Thanks for visiting my talk page. The reason for the non-linking very likely is that you entered the magazine before the titles existed. If you want to establish a link now you have to link the respective review titles to the titles they review: there's a button 'Link Review to Title' when you are on the title page of the intended review. You'll need the title.cgi no. for the stunt, though. Hope that helps. Stonecreek 11:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip. I'll try that. Linguist 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

Alfred Hitchcock Presents: A Month of Mystery: Book Two

If this is a mystery anthology, it's not eligible for the database. Have you read the stories and can confirm that all of the contents are spec-fic? If only some stories are spec-fic, I will accept the submission, but you will have to remove and delete the title records for the stories which aren't. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As indicated in the notes, this book is categorized on bc as “Ghost and Horror”. I read them about 40 years ago, and remember that some, at least, fall into that category. As for the others, you are well aware that the limit between mystery / terror / horror on one hand, “real” and suggested fantasy on the other, can be very tenuous, and is often a question of personal appreciation, not objective fact. Nevertheless, I'll try and rapidly go through them again, and eliminate what seems to be straightforward mystery. Linguist 09:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
Stories in which it is clearly revealed that the supernatural element is a macguffin or red herring ("Scooby Doo"-type stories) are not eligible for the database. Mhhutchins 16:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand the principle perfectly, and will apply it when necessary (this being said, quite a few titles in this database wouln't probably pass the test). Linguist 17:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
That's understood, and they're in the database because no one took the time to question the submitting editor. Just because some got through doesn't mean we should stop questioning all such submissions. I'll reject the submission and when you've determined the eligibility of the contents please make a new one. If you find stories (shortfiction, not novels since we have a type, NONGENRE, for those) which you feel are clearly not spec-fic, please bring them to the attention of the moderators. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Image file uploads

When upload files of author images, please use a shorter file name. It isn't necessary to give the artist's name and the date of the work within the name of the file. That information can be given in the Summary field of the upload form. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll know for next time. Thanks. Linguist 09:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

"The Amateur Philologist" variant

Hi. I have one of your submissions on hold. It would make The Amateur Philologist by August Derleth a variant of a new title, except that new title appears to be identical to the existing title:


 Make Variant [Record #1705755]Variant of [New Title]
TitleThe Amateur PhilologistThe Amateur Philologist
Year1964-00-001964-00-00
TitleTypeSHORTFICTIONSHORTFICTION
LanguageEnglishEnglish
AuthorsAugust DerlethAugust Derleth


That all looks the same to me, and I can't tell what you intended. Thanks. --MartyD 12:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant to variant it with this title. I must have copied the wrong number. Thanks. Linguist 13:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
I think I know what happened : I must have clicked on the button at the bottom of the page instead of the one that is half-way down (this disposition is somewhat misleading, IMHO). Linguist 17:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
This function has two purposes: 1) The top section is used to create a variant to an existing title record with a submit button labeled "Link to Existing Parent". 2) The bottom section is used to create a new parent title record, and gives you the option to change the fields which make this a variant. Its submit button is labeled "Create New Parent Title". As a newcomer and with fresh eyes, can you perhaps suggest a better way to display the separate functions or to label the submit buttons for each purpose? In almost all other entry forms the submit button is at the bottom, so perhaps that could be the problem. What if the two purposes were displayed vertically instead of horizontally. That's the only way I can think that both submit buttons would be at the bottom of the form. Mhhutchins 18:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Your note arrived just ahead of mine explaining that same thought. The re-submission was fine, so it should be the way you want now. --MartyD 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. Actually, I had thought of a vertical and parallel disposition, that would be slightly more foolproof (but can it ever be completely ?) than the present one. Indeed, you need newcomers to test the extent of Murphy's law. Linguist 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

Les assasins fantômes

The type of the four content records by Francis Lacassin at the end of this book should be changed from NONFICTION to ESSAY. The first type is for book-length works of nonfiction. The second type is for works of nonfiction which are contained in a larger work of any type. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The same situation appears in Aventures incroyables. If you can remember other records in which the same mistake was made (and wasn't caught by the moderator upon submission), please go back and make the necessary changes. Thank you. Mhhutchins 16:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Appendices by Francis Lacassin

Are the appendices for the Gaston Leroux collections by Francis Lacassin the same? If so, please merge them. If not, please give each further disambiguation. There are three for "Télé-filmographie" or "Téléfilmographie", one without disambiguation. If they're the same, and titled correctly as published, please merge the two that are identical and variant the third one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

They are basically the same, but some are regularly updated (especially films and TV dramas). Is it possible to merge them and mention the updating in a note, or is it better to disambiguate them all ? Linguist 09:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

Maurice Leblanc

Do you believe that this author is "above the threshold"? That is, is he chiefly considered an author of speculative fiction? If so, then it's OK to add an omnibus record which includes mostly non-genre work. If not, then only the spec-fic contents should be included in the publication record for the omnibus. SFE3 lists five works, two of which are from the Arsène Lupin series. Tuck lists 4. Reginald1 only lists 2. Of course, this could be because of the natural bias of these references to English language publications. I'll hold the submission to add a record for Arsène Lupin: Les rivaux d'Arsène Lupin until you can respond to this inquiry. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't say Leblanc is “chiefly considered an author of speculative fiction”, although more than the five works mentioned above could easily qualify. I'll thin the submission down to its spec-fic core. But, just for the sake of the argument, what use are the non-genre indications, then ? Linguist 09:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

The Ring of Thoth: and Other Stories

Hello! I have put your submission on hold to clone the above mentioned publication. What's the reason for this step (there seems to be no difference between the two)? Stonecreek 16:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My copy is a paperback; the one I cloned is labeled hc (but it might be an error, as it hasn't been verified). Linguist 17:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
Okay thanks, I approved it. There remain two questions/problems: The statement of a 'pseudonym' constitutes in fact a separate title (variants are also due if the author's name variants); I unmerged and varianted the COLLECTION - please do so for the individual SHORTFICTIONs.
Secondly, it seems somewhat unlikely that an ISBN was already used in 1968. Are there any hints for a later publication? (Possibly some implicit ones like advertisings.) Stonecreek 17:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, nothing indicates a later printing (and I remember buying it new around that time). I assumed “7195 1778 8” on the copyright page was a nine-digit SBN; what else could it be ? Linguist 17:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
Ah, well. This seems to be a (national) predecessor for the ISBN introduced later. I seem to remember that it is okay to transform this digit into a ISBN proper, although a note would be appreciated (and was in fact provided by you, thanks). Stonecreek 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Content title changes

Just to save you a little bit of work: The title you see in the Contents section of a publication and the title you get to from, say, an author's summary page, are the same title record. If you go to the title record and change the title (e.g., "Lot 249" -> "Lot No. 249"), the contents section will reflect that change once the submission is accepted. You do not need to go to the contents section and edit the title there, too. That behavior is why one must be careful when editing title records, as all publications containing the title will reflect the change. --MartyD 11:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip ! Linguist 11:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

How to force a content record to appear in order

I changed the page number field for the interiorart piece in this publication from "[b’n 608 and 609]" to "|608". That's the bar symbol which is the shift key of the backward slash key on a standard US keyboard. It may be in a different place on other keyboards. This is recently implemented feature. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks ! Linguist 21:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Pet Sematary bad ISBN

Please confirm the ISBN as given in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Linguist 22:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC).

Œuvres choisies by Gérard de Nerval

I'm holding your submission to add a new publication in which you've reversed the author and title fields. I can accept it, but will have to correct the generated records (three of them.) My question: is "Les filles du feu" (page 73) a COLLECTION as it is given in the record? If so, you'd have to change the publication type from COLLECTION to OMNIBUS. (The system doesn't like a COLLECTION containing a COLLECTION, and can't display it properly.) Or you can just add the contents of the collection. Mhhutchins 15:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia page, I see that it is a collection, but that there is no indication of it being speculative fiction. Can you confirm that it is? Mhhutchins 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Les filles du feu is a collection of short stories mixing fantasy, dreams, folk-tales, memories, etc.; it relies on the author's clinic inability to tell fantasy from reality, true from false recollections : a constant theme in Nerval's works, be it prose or poetry. The book is usually classified as fantasy, and often appears on sites devoted to SF & F, such as Noosfere for instance. Linguist 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC).
Will you be adding the contents of Les filles du feu to the record? If not, as I said above, you'll have to change the type of Œuvres choisies to OMNIBUS. Mhhutchins 19:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll cancel it, and redo it as an OMNIBUS (to-morrow). Linguist 20:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

Les filles du feu punctuation

I cannot claim even to pretend to be able to work in French, but are you sure the second colon is appropriate in Les filles du feu: suivi de: Aurélia? That is, I wonder if it should be instead Les filles du feu: suivi de Aurélia. I see that the cover visually distinguishes suivi de, but is that a phrase by itself (would it make sense if "Aurélia" were not present at all)? Thanks. --MartyD 01:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The title is written on three lines on the title page, suivi de being in much smaller print than the rest. Furthermore, Les filles du feu: suivi de Aurélia looks stange to me written that way, for if there were no pause between de and Aurélia, you would naturally pronounce and write suivi d'Aurélia, with an elided e. The presence of the hiatus (e A-) indicates there is a pause between the two words, noted by the third line on the title page. It wouldn't be out of place, for instance, to write it suivi de : Aurélia in French. I hope I'm making myself clear. Linguist 10:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
Yes, thank you. I just wanted to be sure. --MartyD 11:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Varianting Agapit's works

Hello, I have rejected your submission to establish a Portugese Agapit variant of A Porta do Espaço. It is not possible to make variants of variants, and the new variant would be a variant of the original French title. It is only possible to variant directly to the original title.

For the same reason I have put the Italian varianting of L'universo fantasma (Complete Novel) on hold, assuming that there's an original French title. If so, please delete your submission and better variant directly to the original. Thanks, Stonecreek 17:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll see what I can do… Linguist 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
I've just submitted Les cuisines de Sirius as the original French title. One problem though : the novel was never published in French, but translated into Italian straight from the ms under the title Universo fantasma. Does that matter ? Cf. the very thorough study on Agapit here, p. 12, note 15 (yes I know, it's in French…). Linguist 17:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
Well, I have changed it to unpublished (8888-00-00), the same as for this shortfiction. This happens from time to time. Stonecreek 17:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot ! Linguist 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

Dark Tower II

I think your Dark Tower II submission duplicates this. Are they different? --MartyD 00:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The cover is completely different, that's why I cloned it instead of updating it. But I did wonder about the possibility of a wrong Amazon cover. Linguist 09:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Dark Tower III

And I think your Dark Tower III submission duplicates this. Let me know if you think otherwise. Thanks. --MartyD 00:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Idem, same thing and bis. Linguist 09:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC).
I see. Ok, I accepted them. I suggest including notes in each of the four pub records noting the corresponding other entry and the fact that the covers are different. The problem with those Amazon LZZZZZZZZ image links is that they float along with printings of the same ISBN. But I cannot tell whether that's what happened here or if these entries and yours represent different editions. --MartyD 11:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll do that. Linguist 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. I merged the The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands title into The Waste Lands. It's acceptable to have the publication record's title text differ by series identifier or subtitle from the associated title record's text. You can see all of these Dark Tower publications use title records without the leading "The Dark Tower III:". --MartyD 12:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cell

Re this record. This record has a bad ISBN and the Note field has bad HTML (italics not closed). Mhhutchins 23:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Corrected. Linguist 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
Forgot to add: the second printing would be undated, since there is already a record for the December 2006 first printing. I'll zero out the date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Duma Key

Hello, I've put your submission on hold as perhaps is your book the same as this unverified one. Hauck 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had seen it. But copyright page does say “November 2008”. Linguist 11:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
IMHO, it's the same book (data from amazon doesn't really match with the physical objects). Yours being the first printing, I'll delete the unverified record. Hauck 11:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Linguist 11:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

Blaze and Bachman vs. King

I accepted your change-of-authorship submission. If the title page's credit differs from the cover's, please be sure to note it. Thanks. --MartyD 11:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Variants and pseudonyms

Some information about variants for you to keep in mind for your future edits. You can save yourself some work and edit-approval cycles. We do not use variants of variants. That is, any variant title is made a direct variant of the canonical title. If you make a once-canonical title having a variant of its own a variant of some other title, all of the once-canonical title's variants are moved to be variants of the new parent, leaving the once-canonical title as a variant with whatever publications it appeared in.

When you have a pseudonym, such as Bishop Francis Godwin, and you have an otherwise non-canonical title by the pseudonym, such as The Man in the Moone Or a Discourse..., there is no need to perform the step of making that title a variant of the same otherwise non-canonical title by the canonical author name (here, The Man in the Moone Or a Discourse... by Francis Godwin). You should just make it a variant of the canonical author's canonical title (The Man in the Moone by Francis Godwin). By doing it in two steps, we are left with The Man in the Moone Or a Discourse... by Francis Godwin as a "dangling" title -- a title having no publications associated with it -- that then needs to be deleted, as a third step.

I am just explaining this in case you run into a similar situation in the future. I took care of deleting the dangling title here, and it all should look good. Thanks. --MartyD 11:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. I think I've had that problem before, and I'll try and be careful about it in the future. Linguist 11:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

Grant / Donald Grant

I've put your submission on hold as you didn't give the source for your intended pseudonym link. Can you give me more data ? Hauck 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Grant and Donald Grant are used alternatively on bc of some volumes of the series, after the mention of “Pierre Faucheux apf”; cf. for instance Histoires de demain. Linguist 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I know this (I've entered the data myself), but it's not a proof that they're the same person. Hauck 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There's circumstancial evidence : similarity of style (sleek, glossy look of objects, for instance); this anthology tends to use a narrow (or should I say shallow ?) pool of artists for its covers; the credits are usually shortened to one single name. But you're right, there's no definite proof, just a very strong presumption. Linguist 22:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
That's also my opinion but alas it's not a fact ISFDB-wise. Hauck 14:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Posts to BLongley's talk page.

You have recently posted 6 times to Bill Longley's talk page. Bill is no longer able to respond to your posts, or verify the changes you have made. The instructions at the very top of the page, in yellow, provide you with instructions on what to do instead of posting there. Chavey 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. But for the record, I followed the instructions in yellow to the letter : “If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please: post only notices here concerning the addition of images and notes”. This is exacly what I did. If these instructions are not valid any more, maybe they should be modified or suppressed. Linguist 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
The operative word here is "sole". He wasn't the only verifier. The message goes on to say "Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries on the talk pages of the Primary2 (or other) verifiers." Mhhutchins 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Argosy, February 1952

Is the author credit for "Asleep in Armageddon" in this record as it is given in the publication? If so, you'll have to create a variant. If not, merge its title record with this one which will correct it. Mhhutchins 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I must have been tired… Another slip of the keyboard (or the thumb, rather). Thanks. Linguist 08:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
This being said, once on the title page, there seems to be no option for merging titles directly, only unmerge. Isn't that something moderators can do but commoners can't ? I suppose I'll have to correct the spelling first. Linguist 08:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
It is not possible on the title or author summary page (even so not for moderators), but it is possible when you use the Advanced Search function: just search for Asleep in Armageddon and choose the correct two titles. Stonecreek 09:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ! I'll try that (oops, too late). Linguist 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

Argosy (UK)

It just occurred to me that you're entering the UK editions of this periodical. The title field should make that explicit, e.g. Argosy (UK), September 1953 and the editor field should be "Editors of Argosy (UK)". I'll go back and correct the records you've entered. Please keep this in mind for future issues. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I also need to point out that this should be handled as a nongenre publication, so you don't give cover art credit unless the cover art illustrates a spec-fic story for which you've created a content record. Mhhutchins 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. Linguist 09:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

CC Licensed Photos

Please note that Creative Commons licenses are not the same as public domain. When uploading author images, you need to use the correct template that matches the copyright status of the picture. For Image:Ray Bradbury.jpg, I have changed the template from PD-US to CC-by-2.0 (including the details parameter to have the correct attribution in the template). It is good that you are providing the details in the Description section, but marking a licensed image as public domain is problematic. By the way, I appreciate you importing images from Wikimedia Commons. That has been on my someday list, but I've never gotten around to it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll try and bear that in mind when I come upon similar licences. Thanks. Linguist 22:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

27th printing of Different Seasons

I'm pretty sure the date you've given this record isn't correct. First, the price is too high; second, the ISBN is higher than the one given for the 22nd printing. Without a reliable secondary source, I would suggest giving this an unknown date (as "0000-00-00").

BTW, is New American Library mentioned at all on the title page or the copyright page? That might be an indicator of printing date. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Title page only has “A Signet Classic”, but copyright page mentions : “Published by Signet, an imprint of New American Library, a division of Penguin Books USA Inc.” Whatever the implication of this may be, I'll change the date to unknown for the time being. Linguist 09:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Stand by Me

There's still a reference to a date in the notes that should better be removed since it is now meaningless. Thanks, Stonecreek 10:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant to do that, but I forgot. Thanks. Linguist 10:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Best Fantasy Stories

According to the OCLC record, this publication is 20 cm tall, making it a "tp" instead of a "pb". Can you check your copy? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. I must have forgotten to change it when I verified it. Thanks. Linguist 09:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC).

Best New Horror 24

Your copy appears to be the same as this one except for the price. It appears that the source for the data is incorrect. Anytime you have the actual publication and it differs only slightly from the non-primary verified publication (especially if it's only one field), feel free to correct the record and do a primary verification of it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll cancel the submission and correct the other one. Thanks. Linguist 09:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC).

L'envers du masque

I accepted the submission to add a new publication of an existing title using the "ADD NEW NOVEL" function, when the "ADD PUBLICATION TO THIS TITLE" function should have been used. Now there are two title records for the work which will have to be merged. Go to the author page for "Kurt Steiner" and click on the "Check for Duplicate Titles Link". Ask if you need help. Mhhutchins 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to check. I'll merge the titles (I think I've got no problem with that…). Thanks. Linguist 21:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC).

Dark Visions

Your publication is under a title record which gives the editor as "uncredited". Are you certain that Winter is explicitly credited as the editor of your edition? It is my understanding that the ghost editor was Paul J. Mikol, the publisher of Dark Harvest. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The title page has explicitly : “edited by Douglas E. Winter”; bc also has : “edited and with an introduction by Douglas E. Winter”. It is my understanding that Winter had asked from each of the three writers to contribute to the collection by one third. Linguist 08:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
Actually, I had signalled this to Darkday, whose earlier verified pub also had an “uncredited” editor — which surprised me. Linguist 08:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
I'll remove your publication from its present title record, and then variant it to the work's parent title record. Remember in the future, if the title and author/editor don't match exactly, do not use the "ADD PUBLICATION TO THIS TITLE" function. You must use the "ADD NEW...." function and then variant the new title to the parent title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It may be that you updated a record that was already in the database, and corrected the editor credit. If that's the case, the moderator should have caught that and either unmerged the record from its parent or asked you to do the follow-up. Any change in the author field causes a mismatch between the parent title and the publication record. This makes it harder to find a publication when searching by author. The OCLC record for the edition that Darkday verified confirms that Winter was credited as editor. I'll correct both the publication record and move it to proper variant title. If you find a similar situation again (a miscredited publication record), leave a note to the moderator to alert them to make the proper follow-up. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot. Yes, I think I had updated an existing record. Linguist 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Lair by Herbert

This record for a 1999 publication has an ISBN-13. Can you check to see if this matches your copy? The ISBN wasn't created until 2005. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 22:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ISBN on my copy has 13 digits. On the other hand, copyright page does state : “this edition published 1999” + complete number line. No other mention of a later date, but the bc also refers to a website, www.panmacmillan.com, which might (or not) suggest a terminus a quo, if it was created later. Linguist 08:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
If it explicitly states "ISBN-13", and is not the EAN (a 13-digit number that began appearing above barcodes in the 80s/90s from whence the ISBN-13 evolved), then it was not printed in 1999. Where is the number located? Mhhutchins 13:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I found a record on OCLC and matching listing on Amazon.co.uk for the 1999 first printing and created this record. Note the earlier ISBN. Mhhutchins 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The ISBN on my copy reads “ISBN 978-0-330-51939-7”, just above the barcode. It is repeated on the copyright page. Does this mean the date should be corrected to “unknown” ? Linguist 14:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
Based on the ISBN, this must have been published after 2005. Look at this listing of publications from Pan Books in 1999. The ISBN for your printing is much higher than the others. I would suggest changing the publication date to unknown, with an explanatory note. Thanks. Mhhutchins
OK, I'll try and do that. Thanks. Linguist 15:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Jose Michel

I accepted the submission to add a webpage link to this author, even though it's to a forum. In most cases, forums are not permanent, or the URL changes as more comments are added to a page, or even removed entirely. So it's not always a good idea to link them to the ISFDB author summary page. You have the option to copy the data and add it to the author's bibliographic comments page on the ISFDB wiki, which is linked to the author's page. (To create one, click on the "Bibliographic Comments" link.) Consider doing that if such cases arise in the future. Thanks.

OK, thanks. I'll try and do that. Linguist 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
As the data given by this forum came from the Bibliothèque nationale's catalogue, I only referred to the latter. But since the BnF provides no individual authorship notice for this particular writer, I couldn't add any link to it. Linguist 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
If you believe it is valid data, and not copyrighted, then you can copy the text and add it to a comments page as I described above. (I suspect data from a national library wouldn't be copyrighted, so sourcing it would be fine.) That way it wouldn't matter if the forum disappeared tomorrow. The data would be preserved on the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Anticipation format

Hello, I've approved your submission for this pub, but reverted the format to "pb" (as I've entered it for the whole series). Even if technically the first "black" volumes can just be placed in the tp category, for diverse reasons (consistency, "spirit" of the series, maketing niche taken by the Publisher and even to avoid confusion for persons not familiar with the vagaries of the french publishing industry) it's better to stick to pb in this case. Of course, it's the same for parts of other series that I've entered as pbs (the first two GB, the first 24 Pdf and the other larger ones, the later JL or LDP) even if they're above the dimensions stated in the help. Hauck 11:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll bear that in mind in the future. Linguist 12:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

Planète

Magazines aren't entered into publication series. Their editor records are entered into editor series. I've done that for the two records you've created for Planète. Mhhutchins 00:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Linguist 09:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
In most cases, when a magazine publishes more than 2-3 issues per year, we combine the editor records to form a single record for each year. See how I did it for Planète. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. So what happens to the individual issue numbers, then ? Aren't they taken into account ? Linguist 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
Issue and volume numbering should be given in the Note field of the publication records of each issue. If the issue number is prominently displayed on the cover, then you can give the issue number in the title field. See Interzone or Locus. Mhhutchins 20:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, do you know the original English title for this work? Mhhutchins 21:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't (otherwise, I would have varianted it). I hunted for it for some time. It is also unknown to Noosfere, where such data can usually be found. As far as Planète issue numbers are concerned, they do appear in big bold lettering on each cover (as you can see on Noosfere). I guess I'll have to redo the titles, then. Linguist 21:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
Have you tried doing a basic English translation of a few lines and enter them into a Google search? Most of Bierce's work is available online. It may be extreme, but I can't think of any other way of finding the original title of the work. Mhhutchins 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I can always try. This being said, the French title contains a pun (saut / sot), and therefore could be a very free translation (or no translation at all) of the original title. Most of Pauwels' and Bergier's translations in Planète have French titles that differ considerably a) from the original, and b) from other French translations. The key-words of the story would be railway, track and somersault. I can try along those (railway) lines. Linguist 08:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

OK, I finally got it : it's “Mr. Swiddler's flip-flap”. Linguist 08:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. I realized there was a chance that the translation might not be exact, so I appreciate the effort. Mhhutchins 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Colpo di sole

Hello, you intend to make this italian title a variant of this "void" title, I suppose that you were thinking of this one. Hauck 12:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant ! Thanks ! Linguist 12:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

Cover image for Cities in Flight

You seemed to have had some trouble with this image (uploading it twice). The publication record for the 2nd printing was linked to the image file which was uploaded for the 1st printing, which is fine because the covers are identical. It wasn't necessary to upload another file, even though the one you uploaded is somewhat larger. It would have been better to replace the original file which would have made it unnecessary to update the URL of any associated publication records. In fact, if you have a better image of the cover, you're encouraged to replace it. I'm going to accept the submission to change the linked image file of the 2nd printing. (I'll also delete the second attempt at uploading the file.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The second attempt was just a mistake; I tried to suppress it, but it obviously didn't work. Linguist 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
I also uploaded the new version because the original one didn't mention the name of the artist. Linguist 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
I believe non-moderating editors can edit an image file (but they can't delete it). Can you do me a favor by attempting to edit this one to add the artist credit? If you're unable to, I'll do it and know that editing is restricted to moderators. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to tell you how. Click on "Edit this page" and replace "Unknown" in the author field with "John Harris". Mhhutchins 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Linguist 15:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

Penguin "series" number

The number you give as the publication series number in this record is more likely the catalog number, as seen in this record from the same year. British and American publishers aren't as likely to give numbers to publication series as Continental European publishers. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with this record. Mhhutchins 00:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. I suppose this data goes in the notes if there is already an ISBN number ? Linguist 08:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
That's correct, as explained here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Grafton / Collins (UK)

I accepted your clones and your updated Prelude to Foundation. But if the statement is as you say in the notes, the publisher should be recorded as "Grafton / HarperCollins" (or "Grafton / HarperCollins (UK)"). "Collins" is pre-HarperCollins. --MartyD 11:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll correct them. I had looked through the different Grafton variants, but hadn't found that one, so I went for the closest. Linguist 13:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

Publication titles

Don't forget that if you want to change a title (such as "Le Passe-Muraille" -> "Le passe-muraille"), you need to change both the Title record itself (as you did) and the title of each publication. They are double-entered because sometimes the publication's title will differ (for example, it may include a subtitle), but that requires extra effort to maintain. I changed the two publications of that title to match the change you submitted. --MartyD 12:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot ! Linguist 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC).

Ayme stories

You could have changed the dates of all of the stories in this publication in one submission to update the publication record, instead of separate submissions to update each of their title records. This can be done only when a title appears in a single publication record in the database. Keep this in mind in the future to save time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip. Linguist 21:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC).

"La petite Roque"

A couple of questions/comments about La petite Roque:

  • Since the Synopsis field says that the collection was "published on May 10th", shouldn't the date field say "1886-05-00" rather than "1886-04-00"?
  • The Synopsis field is generally used to describe the work's plot. Publication information is typically listed in the Note field.

Ahasuerus 20:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I had chosen 1886-04-00 because it's the printing date (it was printed between March 24th and the end of April), and I was given to undestand it prevailed upon the publishing date. Did I get that wrong ?
  • OK, I'll move the pub info to the Note field.
Linguist 21:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC).
In general we use the publication date as discussed in Help. However, I wonder if there may be a terminological issue here since the term "printing date" can have two different meanings in this context. It may refer to:
  • (A) The date(s) when the books were physically printed, which can happen weeks or even months before official publication. For example, a book may have been printed in November 1968, but officially published (and appeared in bookstores) in February 1969. In this case we will want to use the publication date (February 1969) rather than the date when the books were physically printed (November 1968.)
  • (B) The date of a particular "printing" when an edition has had multiple "printings". When this happens, the copyright page may state something like "First edition: November 1968 Third printing: June 1971". In this case we will want to use the "printing date", i.e. June 1971 instead of November 1969.
Come to think of it, we may want to expand the Help template that covers dates to do a more through job of covering different kinds of dates associated with publications: publication dates, "on sale" dates, copyright dates, etc. Ahasuerus 23:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanations. I'll change the date to 1886-05-10. Linguist 08:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Linguist/Archive1"