User talk:Ofearna/Archive11

Vaughn's Straying from the Path

Can you recheck the ISBN given in this record? It's one digit too long. Also, please see if the story is given as "Silence Before Sunlight" or "Silence Before Starlight". Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

re-entered the ISBN and it is "Starlight"; fixed. Thanks Ofearna 03:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Blue and Grey Undercover

I'm holding your submission to add four content stories to this record. Unless you're absolutely certain that the stories have spec-fic content, I'll have to reject the submission. The ISFDB currently has no way to handle nongenre shortfiction by genre writers and labeling them properly. The NONGENRE type can only be used for novel-length work. Mhhutchins 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get the book from the library and read these stories and let you know, but those 4 authors are definitely SF authors, so I added those 4. Ofearna 19:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

SF authors aren't limited to SF stories, and I as I said above, we have no way to designate nongenre shortfiction. I'll reject the submission. Once you've read the book, you can add any spec-fic stories to the database. Mhhutchins 20:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I read them; all three stories (all the stories in that book, actually) are NON-SF; should the entire book be removed? The stories are about spies during the civil war.Ofearna 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Publication dates

If a book has a month-dated publication date statement, that's what you should date the record. Only use the Amazon provided day-dated publication date if there is no statement of publication date, or if the book only has a year-dated publication date. So if this book states "August 2012" as the publication date, the record should be dated "2012-08-00". If the book only gives the publication date as 2012, or no date at all, use the Amazon date as "2012-08-07" and note the source. In other words, don't use the Amazon day-date, if the publication is already month-dated. And never use the Amazon date for books published before 2000 unless you have a corroborating source. Mhhutchins 08:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The same situation with this record. If the book says "December 2012" as the publication date, then the record should be dated "2012-12-00", not the Amazon date of "2012-11-27". Mhhutchins 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one. Mhhutchins 09:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one. Also, why is there a copyright symbol before the month in the note field? Books aren't month-copyrighted. Mhhutchins 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with the copyright symbol in this record. Is this something new? If not, you need to go back and correct other records in which you've done the same thing. Mhhutchins 09:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Another record with the same two problems: the month of copyright and the use of Amazon's date over the stated month of publication. This one also has another problem: it appears to be a seventh printing which means it wasn't published in May 2006, but a later unstated date which should be entered as "0000-00-00". Mhhutchins 09:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Another one with the wrong date. If you've used Amazon's dates on other records that don't match the stated publication date, you need to go back and make the corrections on all of them. I hope this is something you've just started doing, otherwise I think I would have caught the problem before now. Mhhutchins 09:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Grave Sight

William Harms is not "above the threshold" and any nongenre work by him (including graphic novels) would not be eligible for inclusion into the database. I'm holding the submission to add the work to the database in case you believe it should be eligible and want to start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page. If not, please cancel the submission. Mhhutchins 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've rejected the submission due to no response. Mhhutchins 05:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

De-personalizing notes

I've changed the note field of this record from:

• each page has 1-5 SF illustrations; I've included only the ones with definite ties to other pubs in this DataBase

to:

• Each page has 1-5 SF illustrations. Only those with definite ties to other pubs in the ISFDB have been included.

Please try to make the notes less personal and more objective. (Capitalization and punctuation helps, too.) Mhhutchins 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Land of Froud

There is no reason that the page numbers of the contents of this collection be included in the note field of each individual content's title record. If the work is ever reprinted in another publication, these page numbers (recorded in the title records) become irrelevant. Please remove them when you get a chance. Mhhutchins 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

They're not page numbers, they're plate numbers. Some of the plates take up more than one (up to 4! pages) and some are more than one plate to a page, but the pages aren't numbered.Ofearna 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, they should be removed from the title record. Those numbers are not title-specific. They're publication-specific, and as such, they don't belong in the title record. Mhhutchins 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Links to cover art

Please add links to the title records, not to the publication records. Notes in publication records should be publication-specific. Mhhutchins 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to correct the links since Les Edwards rearranged his website and they're cover image pub links, not book pub links -- the art won't change. Ofearna 04:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Even more reason to link to the records for the cover art, not the publication records. Please see my message below concerning this matter. Mhhutchins 06:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Title-specific data vs. publication-specific data

The problems with your latest submissions concern your confusing title-specific information with publication-specific information. In most cases, cover art data is specific to the title, not the publication, especially because art can be shared by different printings of the same edition or even different publications (such as this one). Before adding notes to a publication ask yourself whether it would better be placed into the title record. For example, the note you added to this publication record was about Jim Burns artwork. This should have been added to the cover title record. (And the emphasis on "LARGE" is too subjective. As I mentioned above, you should be more objective when adding data.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Contents import for Beauty and the Beasts

I have your submissions to import the contents to four other editions of this title from a record which has not only the contents but the page numbers of each content. Why did you choose not to include the page numbers in the import? It's highly likely that with the same page count, the contents of each edition appear on the same pages. By not importing the page number, the contents will be listed out of order, and when a primary verifier comes along, they will have to update the record giving the page numbers for each content, which is a very slow and tedious process for a book with close to 100 content records. If you agree that the page numbers are probably the same in each edition, cancel the four submissions, and make new submissions to import the contents to these records, leaving the check mark which moves the page numbers along with the contents to the other record. Mhhutchins 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Best of Kage Baker ebook

I accepted the submission adding this record, but the publication date and the price wasn't changed from the hardcover edition. According to Barnes & Noble, the publication date should be 2012-09-24, and the price should be $4.99 for the Nook format ebook. Amazon agrees for the Kindle format of the title. I await your submission to make corrections in the record. Mhhutchins 19:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In your update, you state in the "Note to Moderator" when cloning, I can't change details like price and release date; notes re dustjacket remain in e-book even though there is not dustjacket.... First, this is not the best place to leave such a message, as I mentioned to you before. You should have responded here. Second, it's not true. When cloning a record, you have the option of changing every field in the metadata section of the new record, including the date field, the price field and the note field. The only fields you can't change are the records in the content section. Also, you should remove the note about the dustjacket, which you have had the option to do in the last two submissions for this record. Mhhutchins 20:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

[The] Boogeyman

Hi. I have on hold your submission that would merge The Boogeyman with Boogeyman. If one has the "The" and the other does not, we would keep them separate, simply making the latter another variant of the cover. Is the lack of "The" a mistake you are correcting? --MartyD 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just checked -- there's a DEFINITE presence of "the" in Something in my Eye" and there isn't a "the" in Chesley Awards. cancelling merge and varianting Ofearna 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Friday

Hello, I've put on hold your submission to change the ISFDB-based scan of the cover by an amazon one (of lesser quality, may I add). They are not exactly similar (see top right) and as the publication have been PV, please contact Willem to sort this matter. Thanks. Hauck 15:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Amazon image like was broken... and my post on Willem's discussion page is gone... weird. I'll go delete it since the image is working this morning. Ofearna 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing primary verified pubs

You've been informed of the procedure for changing verified records, so I'm not sure why you've made submissions to add artist credit to this record without first notifying the primary verifiers. As I'm sure you'd prefer that editors not change your primary verified records without discussion, it's important that you respect those same feelings in other primary verifiers. I'm holding the submissions and ask that you leave messages on their talk pages. You'll also need to provide a verifiable source for the info that the artwork was credited "to Whelan on the trading card with this image." Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My laptop ran out of battery... I've now informed both SMithais (?) and (missing) Dragoondelight . thanks Ofearna 18:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a more complete source for the cover credit. Do you have the publisher and date for the trading card? We need something more substantial than what you've stated. Mhhutchins 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

To save it so I can add after you've approved (the two covers are the same art) -- Michael Whelan II Other Worlds (1995 Comic Images), card #13. A link to the image is at catawiki Ofearna 19:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You "buried the lead". In the future start off with your evidence. Submissions accepted. Mhhutchins 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Stolen

Is this work copyrighted by the publisher, and not by the author, as you've stated in the note field? Mhhutchins 19:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I typed it exactly as it was on the copyright page... it seemed odd, so I entered it this way. Ofearna 03:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the "Amazon Look Inside" and it is not copyrighted by the publisher, but by the author. Is your copy different from the one here which clear states "First American edition" (over) "Published in 2003 by Viking Penguin," (over) "a member of Penguin Putnam, Inc." (over) "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" (over) "Copyright © Kelley Armstrong, 2002"? Mhhutchins 03:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, it matches EXACTLY what the book says (published in, not ©) Thanks. O'Fearna 03:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing primary verified records, again (final warning)

Please do not make changes to a primary verified record until you've discussed it with the editor who verified it. If you're adding notes or links to cover art images, it's OK to make the submission first, and notify the verifier at the same time. You are changing a record when you add cover art credit to a publication which has no stated cover art credit. This applies to every field of a verified record except for the Note field. Adding credit for cover art to a publication which isn't credited is changing the record. So please discuss it with the primary verifier before you make a submission. I will accept the submissions to change the verified records adding cover art credit to The Planet Savers, but any future submissions that change a verified record before a discussion with the verifier will be rejected without comment. Mhhutchins 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes in cover art credit

I'm holding two submissions: the first one wants to change the credit of this record from Whelan to Sweet, and the second wants to change the credit of this record from Whelan to Herder. In neither submission did you give the source for your data. If you can give it to me here, I will accept the submissions and update the records to give the source for the cover credit.

BTW, I appreciate the effort you've undertaken to merge and variant the title records of Michael Whelan. You're doing a fine job. Mhhutchins 23:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dragon Reborn (Italian) Sweet cover is the same as the english versions from Sweet. Don't know who put Whelan, but ...

As for the Herder, I actually emailed Michael Whelan and (!!!) he told me he has never licensed any of this art for English or foreign-language to Nerilka. AND at librarything.com and goodreads.com that edition has the Herder cover, but the quality honestly SUCKS. It's not any noticeably different from the other Herder covers, but the ones linked to that ISBN/Edition is horrible. Also http://francois.labarbarie.free.fr/covers/ns.html has the US editions all by Herder with the UK covers by Weston. Ofearna 23:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted the submissions. Mhhutchins 23:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, re MWhelan merges... most of the images are in the 4 books, but there are some that are in the card sets but not in the books. Should I create a truncated record for the card sets and only include the images that were covers but not in the 4 books? Or is that something I should ask the ModBoard? Ofearna 23:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain that card sets would be eligible for the db, but there's nothing that I'm aware of that would outright prohibit them. They would seem to be similar to a portfolio of loose prints. And Whelan's stature in the field would warrant such records even if the work is considered "non-genre". If you create a publication record for the card sets (how many are there?) you should create content records for all of the cards, even if they weren't used for book covers. They may turn up eventually in some other form as either interior art or magazine covers. Just be sure to title each card exactly as they're titled on the card itself. Then make the proper variants. Mhhutchins 23:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm now convinced these have been approved by an experienced Mod (actually, probably our MOST experienced Mod!). But surely we need to update the Rules of Acquisition to state that they're in? (Maybe only for certain artists?) I've wasted quite a bit of time discussing them since I saw the first examples: I still have issues with "portfolio" as a binding type, the page numbers don't seem to make sense, etc. I think we do need a discussion about these on Rules and Standards still. I may even drag out some of MY old trading cards to see if they're done by someone famous - I'm pretty sure I've got some Boris Vallejo ones. Ironically, I gave away 6 packs to a charity shop earlier this week - 5 "Lord of the Rings" starter packs and 1 "Magic the Gathering" one. I guess those definitely have some SFnal relevance, although I think the LOTR ones were photos rather than artwork. BLongley 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comic Images did 2 Whelan sets (95 cards and 99 cards with 1 repeat of The Nonborn King) and had a profile set (4 cards) of him included in Artists' Choice and only one of those is "new". Ofearna 00:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Identical cover images

When the identical artwork, design, and typography is used in a later printing of a work, it isn't necessary to upload a file for each. You can upload one file and then link it to each of the reprints. (This concerns the three files you uploaded for the Donald Grant edition of The Gunslinger: here, here, and here. They all appear to be identical.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that took so long. A bit of research confirms that while 1stEd (Grant) 1st printing and 2nd printing used the "Slow Mutants" cover, the 3rd printing used the "Dead Town" cover and according to amazon so did the box set of books 1-3. So, I've changed the artwork and now need to unmerge the cover art... O'Fearna 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking images from another website to the ISFDB title record

You're probably not aware but you don't have to create an html link in the record's note field to the image on another website. All you have to do is enter the URL in the "Web Page 1" field of the title record. The system automatically creates a link which opens another browser window. See how I did it in this record and this one. Mhhutchins 18:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Creating title records for translated publications

This is not the correct way to add translated titles to the database. It is better to create a publication record, and then variant its title record to the original language title. I'll accept the ones in the queue, but please don't continue to add titles to the database without publication records. It tends to confuse users when there are title records without publication records. Mhhutchins 04:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just created 4 German, need to add 1 French, but from now on I'll do it that way. Ofearna 04:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

German language Glenraven

I accepted the submission adding this record but made some changes: 1) publisher's canonical name is simply Bastei Lübbe and 2) this book had only the ISBN-10, not an ISBN-13. Please keep this in mind when you're adding data from a secondary source. Also, OCLC is more reliable secondary source than Goodreads. Mhhutchins 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with the ISBN-10 in this 1999 publication. There was no such thing as an ISBN-13 in 1999. Also, if you'd check the OCLC record, you would have got more complete data, including the translator and the page count. Mhhutchins 04:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks O'Fearna 03:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Entering translated publications, again

You entered the Italian translation of Cyrion under the French title record. As I tried to explain above, you should just create a publication record first, making sure to set the correct language, then after it's in the db, variant its title record to the original language title record. I'll accept the submission and then fix it, but please follow this procedure before creating any more records for translated titles:

1. Do a search for the title. If it's in the database with the exact same title, same author credit and same language, go to that title record and use the "Add Publication to This Title" function under the Editing Tools menu.
2. If there is no matching title record (all three fields above are not matching exactly), use the "Add New Novel" link (or whatever type the publication is) on the main page of the database. Enter the title and author exactly as given in the publication or as given in your secondary source (which should be noted), and be sure to set the language field to the appropriate language. Mhhutchins 04:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Italian ed. of Cyrion

The source you give in the note field of this record says the cover art is by Chris Achilleos, but you gave the artist as Michael Whelan. You'll need to update the record to explain that the source is incorrect and add the source for the cover art credit. Mhhutchins 04:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

as soon as it's uploaded I'll variant it to The Vanishing Tower and add the michaelwhelan.com image link. Ofearna 04:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll still need to note the discrepancy between the record and the source. In the meantime, I've written the Tanith Lee bibliographer to inform her of the error in cover art attribution. Mhhutchins 05:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

so did I ^-^ Ofearna 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing source data, again

Another moderator must have accepted the submission adding this record to the database, even though it's not sourced. That's why I rejected it the first two times you made a submission. Why are you unable to provide sources in the record's note field? It should be second nature by now. But I guess as long as you're lucky enough to get a moderator who doesn't care about sourcing data, continue doing as you're doing. I will no longer handle your submissions. Mhhutchins 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That last time I entered it I did source it IN THE NOTES field as you requested (fantascienza.com), but that's gone now... odd. After the cover image is added and it's not pending any more I'll go enter that in the notes field again. Sorry. Ofearna 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'll cancel the image-add and add it now. Again, sorry about that. Ofearna 18:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic Heinlein

I have put your submission on hold. Please, find information how to handle this situation (best to ask at the help desk). I'd say that it'd be better to have the latin lettered name (as you do have in the contents), since we don't have any firsthand source. But it's really better to consult help before submitting such items. Stonecreek 11:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's a bit rough at this time, but there are about 200 submissions in line (underestimated), including sub.s by new editors and it would really be helpful if the editors who are around some time would put some amount of time into their submissions before submitting. This is true at any time, but it's even more so at stressful times. Hope you understand, Christian Stonecreek 14:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it should just be in under Robert Heinlein, too. So, if someone will accept the submission I'll go change it to Heinlein. Thanks ! I've decided to ONLY add books I actually have in hand (not cover scans I've collected since 1990) that way adding them will be SO MUCH EASIER on everyone ^-^ -- and most English-language books I can get ILL or already have, so... I have 40 more Whelan foreigns that are NOT in here (about half would new pubs and about half new titles). But since I don't have the books themselves, they can wait. Ofearna 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Links to Whelan's images

I accepted your (many!) submissions providing links to Whelan's website. For a couple, you provided a link that executes a dynamic search. I'm not sure if that was a deliberate choice or not, but linking to anything dynamic is not a good practice, as tomorrow the link may no longer behave the same way, produce the same result, or even do the same thing. So for those couple, I replaced the search links with links directly to the artwork. --MartyD 12:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

p.s. If you want to provide multiple links, the software supports an arbitrary number of them. You can list as many as you want, using a semicolon (";") to separate them. They'll then be displayed on separate lines as Web Page 1, Web Page 2, etc. This is true for most placs where you can supply links to other sites (perhaps even "all", but I don't know that for a fact). --MartyD 12:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks O'Fearna 23:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Swing Time" note

I accepted a change a little too fast (not enough coffee yet). You added a note to Swing Time saying it first appeared in the August, 2007 Jim Baen's Universe but our title record shows it as first appearing in the June, 2007 issue (matching the title's publication date). --MartyD 12:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added a note to that record. O'Fearna 23:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting the "as by" thingy

The "as by" thing shows up when you have a variant title and its author name(s) don't match the author name(s) on the parent/"canonical" title. When you have a publication that's not credited correctly, there are three things to worry about and deal with:

1. The credit on the publication record (what you get when you edit the publication).
2. The credit on the title record associated with the publication (what you get when you click on the "Title Reference" and edit that).
3. The credits on other publications associated with/sharing that same title record.

If there are no other publications, it's easy: Change the credit on the publication, change the credit on the title. And if the new credit is to a pseudonym, then make a variant between the modified title and a new title credited canonically.

If there are other publications, more care is required, and what you need to do depends on whether the credit should be changed across all of the publications or just for your one publication. Changing across all is similar to changing when there's only one publication, except you have to go edit the author credits on all of the other publications in addition to changing your publication and the title record.

If, however, the credits on the other publications should not be changed, then what you need to do is first unmerge your publication from the shared title record, so that it gets a title record of its own. Now change your publication's credit and the credit on its title record. And finally make either the original title record a variant of your new one or your new one a variant of the original, or, if the original is already a variant of something else, make your new one a variant of that same parent.

In the situation of Cafe Purgatorium, we have a second publication, but it has no verifier. It's from the same publisher, and its cover record displays the same M.-less credit as you have on yours, so it seems a safe enough guess that the crediting is the same as what you see in yours. I.e., we'd want to change all publications. I will go do that, to save a few submit/review cycles. As a final bonus, we will now have a new "Dana Anderson" name. We'd make that a pseudonym of Dana M. Anderson, then make the title credited to Dana Anderson a variant of a new one credited to Dana M. Anderson. That will then show as "by Dana M. Anderson [as by Dana Anderson]". I will do that, too, and you can see how it looks.

Aren't you glad you asked? :-) --MartyD 13:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. If you'd rather, we could make Dana M. Anderson a pseudonym of Dana Anderson and reverse the variants. Then in the contents of the anthology, the story would be "by Dana Anderson [as by Dana M. Anderson]". I couldn't find anything else credit to either variation of the name, so I'd say pick whichever hierarchy you prefer. --MartyD 13:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But now the title record says Dana and the story record says Dana M. O'Fearna

Yes, isn't that what you said? Cover and title page have no "M.", TOC and story header page do? --MartyD 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I was expecting one to say (as by). 00:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The "as by" for the publication itself shows up in the author summary bibliographies. See, for example here or here. --MartyD 00:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Dark Hours prologue title

I have your submission on hold that would add a note to the TITLE Prologue (Dark Hours), "It says...". A title can't say anything. It's actually the publication that is giving the alternate form of the title you cite. So a note like that belongs in the publication record, not in the title record. That said, if your book gives the title as "Prologue: Blood of Ten Chiefs #5", while we could ignore the subtitle and treat it as "Prologue" and then disambiguate by adding "(Dark Hours)", since the subtitle provides good disambiguation, I would just use it as-is and add a note to the publication saying the prologue's title is exactly as given. Since the other publication of Dark Hours isn't verified, you could just change the title record as you did for "In Memory Green". For that, I went and added a note to the other publication, since there's a discrepancy with other sources, but for this one you wouldn't need to do that: Chances are pretty good it's the same, and if not a verifier of the hc will have no trouble figuring out to make a variant title. --MartyD 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So, I should cancel the note and change the title to Prologue Blood of Ten Chiefs? There is no listing on the copyright page and the contents page just has Prologue, but when you go to the Prologue it says Prologue (new line) Blood of Ten Chiefs #5. ? O'Fearna 00:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what else, you should cancel the note: It doesn't belong on the title record. If you want to leave the prologue's title as "Prologue (Dark Hours)", then your note would really belong in the publication record instead. But.... Given what you said in your proposed note and above, I think you could just change it from "Prologue (Dark Hours)" to "Prologue: Blood of Ten Chiefs #5". It's that way on the prologue's "title" page (our standard -- not the presentation used in the ToC), and the subtitle serves the disambiguation purpose nicely (and the "(Dark Hours)" would no longer be needed). Does that make sense? --MartyD 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! O'Fearna 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes on "Weeds"

I have another submission on hold that would add notes to the Weeds title record that refer to the copyright page, and so a publication's presentation of the title. Such a note would belong in the publication record, not the title record. Also, if the author credit doesn't match, you should fix the publication's contents records to match what you see. Since this title isn't used anywhere else, there's no problem with changing it and noting (in the publication) the discrepancy with Locus1's credit. Looks like then we'd want to make Julia West a pseudonym for Julia H. West and make the fixed-up title a variant of one credited using that full name. (See the steps I outlined above; ask if you need help). --MartyD 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tall paperbacks

Any paperback 19cm or more should be given a binding of "tp", not "pb". I changed The First Prophet accordingly. Are you sure it's 45cm? That would be awfully tall (about a foot and a half). --MartyD 12:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'll remove the height -- it's not a tp just a pb that's taller and the ruler I'm using just has "16 & 12 pt" top. O'Fearna 22:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Entering series data into variant records

It's important to notice whether a record may be a variant title before adding series data to it. You should only enter series data to a parent record. Recently you added several titles in Free Amazons of Darkover to the "Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover" series, and two of them happened to be variant titles ("Midwife" and "Girls Will Be Girls") because of a non-canonical author credit. In the future, before adding series data, look to see if the record is designated as a "Variant of". If so, click on the link to the parent record and enter it into the series, not the "Variant of" record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... so I should find the parent record and variant *it*. Cool. O'Fearna 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm asking you to only add series data to the parent record, and not to the variant record. Mhhutchins 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to messages left on your talk page

I know it may be difficult and sometimes time-consuming to response to each of the messages left on your talk page. But it becomes even more frustrating to the moderator or other editor who takes the time to leave you a message that requires some kind of response and to not get any at all. Can you please go back to this message and answer my response dated January 8. Sometimes an extended response isn't necessary, but just an "OK" will let the editor know you've at least read the message. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll go grab the book and answer now. O'Fearna 03:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cover art credit for Clarke's Ladies of Grace Adieu

I'm holding the submission to update this record by removing Charles Vess as the cover artist. There is another record that is primary verified giving Vess credit and the covers appear to be identical. Locus1 also credits Vess. Perhaps this may be an error as well. Mhhutchins 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed... the cover is the bottom half of the title page illustration edited down to just the flowers adn colored by SOMEone. I'll cancel that. O'Fearna 03:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic Heinlein - again

Sorry, it took some time to realize that I didn't approve your submission for this until now. I intended to do it directly - well, now it's waiting for your changes and varianting. Stonecreek 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope that takes care of everything... O'Fearna 16:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Pub-specific vs. Title-specific data, again

You've started adding descriptions of the contents in the note field of the pub records (as here). That information is not publication-specific. It should go in the note field of the title record. If you're unable to determine if data is pub-specific or title-specific ask yourself: "Will this same data apply to another edition of this work regardless of the publisher or the format in which it is published?" If so, then it is not publication-specific and the data should go into the title record. (I'm hoping at this point you understand the difference between a title record and a publication record. If not, just ask on the help page.) Mhhutchins 03:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

since the notes I'd added are gone, I have no idea what I entered that you're objecting to... O'Fearna 18:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not removed anything from the record...and the notes are exactly as you entered them. Look again. It's the line that starts "17 original tales of those mythical beings..." which should be in the synopsis of the title record, not the pub record. Mhhutchins 19:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OH! ok... I added the info from the cover. O'Fearna 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And that info is about the contents, not the publication. Info about the work, not the book, should go into the title record, not into the publication record's note field. Mhhutchins 20:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of Avalon

I should not have accepted the submission you made to update this record. You made the record for the first printing into one for the second printing. It was my mistake to accept the submission, so I'll fix the problem. In the future, you should clone the record for the first printing to create a record for the second printing. There are still some problems which you'll have to fix with this record. You'll have to change the date to "0000-00-00" because this printing isn't dated. You'll also have to change "Second edition" to "Second printing" which is not the same thing and something you should be familiar with by now. I'll await your submission to correct the record. Mhhutchins 03:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

done! O'Fearna 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But you left it as "Second edition" when it's the second printing. Try again. Mhhutchins 20:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Return to Avalon

If Greenberg isn't credited as editor of this publication you'll need to remove his name from both the publication record and its title record. We don't use copyright page to credit authorship. Mhhutchins 03:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

removed his name and the note about him from the notes... O'Fearna 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And as I said above, you'll have to remove his credit from the title record as well. Mhhutchins 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Silhouette Books

The standardized name for this publisher is just Silhouette, so I've reverted the name given in the publisher field in this record. If you strongly feel that the complete name should be given, start a discussion on the Community Portal. If it's decided that the full name is more correct, it would only take one moderator submission to change all records. Mhhutchins 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Title page stated "Silhouette Books" , but I'm not picky ☺ O'Fearna 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Title-specific data, again, again

This is the third time I've tried to explain the difference between title-specific data and pub-specific data. So I'm not sure if you either refuse to listen to what I'm trying to say, or you really don't understand. Any description of the text of the work is considered title-specific, and should go into either the synopsis or note field of the title record, not the pub record. I've removed these descriptions from your last four pub-record updates (e.g. this one), and copied them into the title field (e.g. this one. Please let me know that you understand what I mean by title-specific data. Mhhutchins 20:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought putting the note (from the cover) made this ok. I'll stop. O'Fearna 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's like entering a synopsis of the work in the publication record. That's not done. Describing the work in the publication record isn't done. That's why we have a synopsis and note field in the title record. Thanks for understanding. Mhhutchins 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NP, I just thought since it was printed on the cover it was pub-specific. O'Fearna 20:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Drawing Down the Moon

I'm holding a submission to update this record in which you've overwritten about 20 content records, changing them to different names and different page numbers. I really don't think you meant to do this, but I'll accept it if you want me to, otherwise you'll going to lose all of the new data you added (more than two dozen new contents). Let me know and I'll do whatever you want. Mhhutchins 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember, we decided that internal art from comic books didn't really belong here? My options were to remove from publication and then delete or overwrite in the way I did... hope it works ^_^ -- just got back from a root canal, so kinds woozy. I'll see ya'll later. thanks O'Fearna 20:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall that conversation. (Please point it out if you can find it. Maybe it was another moderator?) This is a collection of Vess's art, so where it was originally published is not pertinent to whether it should be included in the database. (Similar to the situation for the science articles by Asimov published in his essay collections. We don't create pub records for the nongenre magazines in which they originally appeared, but we would create content records for each essay). I see no problem if you want to create a content record for each work. That's up to you. Mhhutchins 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find that discussion on *my* talk / archive, so it must have been somewhere else. The mod I was talking to decided that internal art from comic books (we were talking about Charles Vess should not be included -- covers and specialty art only. If you think I should leave those and just +add the other stuff, I can do that, even though the edit I did last night finished the book -- all but internal comic art, etc. LMK and I'll continue from there. O'Fearna 21:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If I accept the submission as submitted, you'll have to reenter those 20 content records again. Just say the word and I'll do it. (In the future NEVER overwrite a content record unless you're editing it for the same content. There can be several dire consequences for overwriting, especially if the record had been varianted to a parent record.) Mhhutchins 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

if you'll accept the current submission, I'll go re-enter those and the rest of those I left out b/c of that reasoning. Night! O'Fearna 13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Whelan's Enchantress of World's End

Are you certain that the image on page 41 of this publication is the same as the B&W frontispiece that was published in this publication? Or is it the cover art? If so, please cancel the submission. Then make a new submission varianting it to this parent title record for the cover art: 836860. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, hell! I thought that WAS the cover image I liked to the Wonderworks art. Fixed? O'Fearna 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Fuzzy Face" merge

One of your merges involving Fuzzy Face couldn't be processed because the title being merged with it no longer exists. It's likely that was merged away in a previous submission that I accepted. You may want to double-check that everything you intended to have happen with that one indeed did happen. --MartyD 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy Face was not a cover image and I don't know if it was an illustration from INSIDE one of the Fuzzy books. It appeared in Wonderworks and on card #59 of the Adventure in Fantasy set -- which reads "Whelan's studies and concept renderings are often small paintings in themselves. This one was done for the second book in the Fuzzy series, but was never used." So only the one merge should exist... O'Fearna 12:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, I think trading cards are out of scope by our Rules of Acquisition. At best they could be mentioned in notes. For things never actually published, we have special date "8888-00-00" - please look up the help on that and see if it applies here. BLongley 07:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion with another mod the decision was to add the Whelan sets as portfolios... O'Fearna 07:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you remember which mod it was? I think I need to have a discussion with him. BLongley 11:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The original discussion was here. Personally I am all for inclusion of these (and other portfolio's as well). I can't find anything in the Rules of Acquisition about separately published artwork. --Willem H. 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I now appreciate that they're often considered "in". But I do think we need to clarify the Rules of Acquisition, and set some standards for their entry details. BLongley 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Burns cover for Born with the Dead

You should only link an image of the art in the Webpage field of this record. The link to the Heavy Metal toc should have been given in the Note field to explain that it was later used as the cover of that issue of HM. I'll adjust the record. Mhhutchins 03:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I used the ToC b/c it actually *says* Jim Burns... the cover image was already at the ISFDB site. Should I change it, add it? O'Fearna 03:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I've already changed it. Mhhutchins 03:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! O'Fearna 04:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Passage" variant

I have on hold your submission that would make the interiorart The Passage a variant of the non-fiction The Art of Michael Whelan: Scenes / Visions, which isn't right. I didn't know if you meant to go to the cover or to something else in the book. I left it on hold for your reference. Please cancel and resubmit. Thanks. --MartyD 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry, cover variant... i'll cancel & re-do O'Fearna 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonderworks

Your use of brackets for disambiguation of titles in this record are incorrect. You should use parentheses. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And here as well. Mhhutchins 17:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But you should use brackets for the numbering of multiple interior contents which are titled the same as the work they illustrate. Mhhutchins 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I fixed this? O'Fearna 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not completely. As I said above, you changed the brackets that were rightfully used to number the pieces which are identically titled. Disambiguation of a title used parentheses. The numbering of different interiorart pieces which illustrate the same work is bracketed. Mhhutchins 22:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They're pending. O'Fearna 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Whelan's "Under the Green Star's Spell"

I will have to delete this image from the ISFDB server. We cannot claim "Fair Use" in order to host copyrighted material that is not the cover of a book. So do not upload any artwork to the ISFDB that is not the cover of a book or magazine. You can upload it to any other server (with that host's permission) and then link to it in the ISFDB title record (no "deep-linking"), but you can not upload copyrighted images directly to the ISFDB server. I hope you understand the difference. Mhhutchins 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a temp for questions so ... Bluesman says this is actually from within the other book. So, sure. Go ahead thanks O'Fearna 22:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OCLC Link labels

I added an "OCLC:" label to the OCLC number link you provided in Warrior Fantastic. --MartyD 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise to Warrior Princesses. --MartyD 22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And to Warriors of Blood and Dream. --MartyD 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope I'd've caught them in review, but you saved me the time ^_^ O'Fearna 23:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:SkolianWeb

This page was created under the wrong wiki category (user talk page, but the user doesn't exist). What exactly is it? I can suggest the best placename to move it, probably a series commentary page for Saga of the Skolian Empire. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, you asked me before I had the chance to ask you. This is the time line for the Skolia books by Catherine Asaro (she calls them the Skolian Web and her publisher calls them The Saga of the Skolian Empire. But... the stories and books are interwoven time-wise and are written all out of order (like Alan Dean Foster did with the Humanx Commonwealth Universe). Is there a place to put this? Or should I move it to my website and reference it with the Skolia books? O'Fearna 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Go the series (link above) and click on the link "Add new Series comment". That will start a new page which will be linked to the series. (The method you used creates a user by the name of "SkolianWeb".) Once you've moved everything over to the series comment page, delete the user talk page you created. In the future ask for help if you're not sure how to create a wiki page. Mhhutchins 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

says I can't delete... O'Fearna 22:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess only mods can delete pages. I'll do it. Mhhutchins 22:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SO much O'Fearna 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Title record links

Please don't link title records to the publisher's sales page. Not only is it promoting the sales of the work (we try to be as non-commercial as is possible), but more importantly titles can be published by more than one publisher, returning to the ongoing problem of determining if data is title- or publication-specific. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So, I should put SubPress links on P records, not T records. OK. O'Fearna 03:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I feel these links to the publisher's sales pages are not appropriate anywhere in the db (unless the book is no longer for sale). An ISFDB editor might be persuaded by the publisher with the promise of compensation for adding such links to the db. Feel free to start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page if you would like other opinions on the matter. Mhhutchins 03:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Labeling links

In this record you give two links without labels. The first should be given as "OCLC: 303039812" and the second should be given as "LCCN: 2009009862". Otherwise a user has no idea what the numbers mean. Also another moderator told you in the past not to use the "target" method of opening a new tab/window in the links. I'm not sure exactly why (something about interfering with the record display), but if you think it's necessary to do this, please start a discussion on the Community Portal. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

K, I'll stop O'Fearna 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In this record, you've added an extra space before the colon in the OCLC and LCCN links. This may seem trivial, but if you use the standard "LCCN: XXXXXXXX" it will be easier, if we ever get another field for outside catalog numbers, to do a universal change so that each record wouldn't have to be manually updated. Mhhutchins 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, no x : xv O'Fearna 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This record has an unlabeled link, and the one that is has an extraneous space. Mhhutchins 04:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed that one, to... I'll review the rest in the am. O'Fearna 05:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Land of Painted Caves

You gave the map in this record as SHORTFICTION. Should it not be INTERIORART? Mhhutchins 04:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn! yes, interior... fixed O'Fearna 05:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

X: A Novel

We don't add this subtitle to titles regardless of whether there's a SHORTFICTION record in the database with the same title (the type should be sufficient to distinguish the two records). You'll have to correct this record. Mhhutchins 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have included it, but it was on the title page, which is unusual... LMK if you still want me to remove it. O'Fearna

I've removed it, and it's not that unusual to appear on book's title pages. It's just ISFDB standard not to include it in the title. Also, is the LCCN of the Tor edition stated in this edition? If not, you should add that information to the note. Mhhutchins 05:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, I should add what to the notes -- that only the TOR edition *got* an LCCN? O'Fearna 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't clear enough. If the LCCN is not stated in the Subterranean Press edition of this novel, you should state that in the Note field of the record for this edition: "LCCN: 2008050606 (from the Tor edition, not stated in this Subterranean Press edition)". Actually, I don't see the point of adding an LCCN in a record for a publication in which it doesn't appear. Mhhutchins 17:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I added your notes... !!!!

Primary Inversion

Can you recheck to see if there is a stated publisher in this publication? Spectrum Literary Agency is Asaro's agent, not a publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

TITLE PAGE W/PARTIAL COPYRIGHT AND REST OF COPYRIGHT SCREEN -- what to do? There's also a look-inside at Amazon ASIN = B00AFGKJHI O'Fearna 19:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So technically, I suppose Asaro self-published this, but since no publisher is given in the ebook, the field should be blanked. Just note the lack of a publisher in the Note field. Mhhutchins 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cover scan for 2061

What is your source that this is the cover of the Del Rey paperback edition? First it has the same text and graphic design as the UK hardcover edition published by Grafton. And more importantly there is no Del Rey logo or price visible on the cover. US paperbacks, especially those published by Del Rey, almost always have the publisher's name on the cover. This is the cover that appeared on Del Rey's first domestic paperback edition. Mhhutchins 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Until I get a chance to check specific details and re-scan the cover matches the image I added... my copy is damaged -- about half the cover got some acid on it when I was moving from Texas and to keep that damage from spreading, I tore the cover in half. BUT... this is the same image and FantasticFiction confirms that. The local library's paperback edition of this book matches mine, according to the librarian, but until I can go pick their copy up on Saturday I can't use theirs... O'Fearna 06:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That cover doesn't match the one you're adding to the record. It's the same art, but it's not the cover of the Del Rey printing. I'll reject the submission, delete the uploaded image file, and ask that you start over once you get a copy of the actual book. Mhhutchins 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Varianting artwork

We've discussed this before: don't make a record for an early version/sketch/study of the work of art into a variant of the finished/completed/final work (the one used for the book cover). We only variant if there is a change in either the artist credit or the title of the same work. You can link the records for the finished work in the note field of the earlier version. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was don't variant them to the art (not parent record). But I see that you've rejected those and won't do any more... I think the notes should be more than sufficient. Thanks. O'Fearna 17:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Submission typo

I changed "Fantawyworld" to "Fantasyworld" in the note you submitted for Atlantis, Beneath the Waves. Sorry if that wasn't right, but from Google it looked appropriate. --MartyD 12:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for catching that... saved me a check&change. 12:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Vess photograph

I accepted your Charles Vess photograph addition, but it makes me a little uncomfortable to use a photo for which permission to use it is neither explicitly granted nor apparently implied. Yes, I see there's no copyright stated on it, so technically it's probably fine. But how about using the photo from Wikipedia instead (suitably reduced), where reuse rights are granted explicitly by the photographer? --MartyD 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

can do... i'll swap them. O'Fearna 12:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird Business

Weird Business is a one-off comic book, or an anthology of "graphic stories", or whatever you want to call it. Its contents may or may not have been adapted by the original authors, and regardless these contents would be ineligible for the database. There is currently no way to handle nongenre shortfiction, if we consider a graphic story adaptation as the shortfiction counterpart to a graphic novel. Actually, the book itself, entered as NONGENRE, would be eligible for the database (but without content records), because it was edited by an "above the threshold" author, Joe R. Lansdale. This may be a Rules discussion, but I see no reason to note in the prose stories' title records that an adaptation of them was published in a comic book. Mhhutchins 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I only added notes to the stories that were already here, and did not add the book or the non-SpecFic stories. O'Fearna 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of misplaced title notes

I'm suffering a little bit of moderator's remorse. I accepted a bunch of Vess artwork title updates, but I think a couple of notes are more appropriately handled differently:

• The Great Selchie of the Sule Skerry - Previously unpublished is only going to apply to the appearance in Drawing Down the Moon. If the same piece gets published again under the same title, the note won't apply to that second appearance.

• Troll - Similar to the above, the Previously unpublished portion of the note only applies to this DDtM appearance. The rest of the note is applicable wherever/whenever it appears, but that "previously" information belongs in DDtM's notes instead.

• Water Child and A Peaceable Kingdom - Interior art from Blueberry Girl (HarperCollins) is unnecessary with the recording of the artwork in Blueberry Girl. They just need to be linked up to convey the information. "Linked up" might be by merging or making variants. See the next item below.

• Blueberry Girl's Water Child and A Peaceable Kingdom - I was asleep at the switch and should have asked: Do these illustrate the Blueberry Girl story? If so, in this publication they should be named "Blueberry Girl [2]" and "Blueberry Girl [3]". Then you should variant these to the ones above, or vice versa. If they are independent of the story, using the titles as you have them is fine, and then you should merge with the ones above. (Either way, you'll end up having documented that the ones in DDtM are the BG interiorart).

I hope that all makes sense. Please ask if it doesn't. Thanks. --MartyD 13:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Blueberry Girl was an illustrated story for children with Gaiman/Vess... These two images are named here in Drawing Down the Moon but they wouldn't have been named in Blueberry Girl. I didn't want to bog down the mods by adding details to a children's book that wasn't otherwise SpecFic.O'Fearna 17:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Vess photograph

I see you "swapped" the original photograph for another, but you failed to change the license. Currently the file states that the photographer is unknown and that it was published by GreenManPress.com. That was part of the original license of the first photograph which was uploaded. This second upload was from Wikipedia which clearly gives the photographer as Wildwose, and it has a Creative Commons license. You should have deleted the original photograph (not "swapped" it), and then uploaded the new image with a new license (for Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0). Replacing an image file retains the original license tag and all of its data. You have to be very careful about using other person's creative work. Too often internet users have very little or no respect for the work of another person, and will upload it without regard to any moral or legal obligation to the artist. We have a strict policy against this practice at the ISFDB. If you need help, ask or if you like, I can correct the photograph's attribution and license tag. Mhhutchins 15:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added the proper license and deleted the old image. Let me know if you have any questions. Mhhutchins 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Thanks!O'Fearna 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Vess "unpublished" artwork

I'm holding two submissions that want to add notes that the works were unpublished until their appearance in Drawing Down the Moon (2009). Yet the two pieces are dated 1998 ("The Great Selchie of the Sule Skerry") and 2005 ("Troll"). If this is their first publication, then the records should be dated 2009 as well. We don't date a record based on the work's "creation date" but the first "publication date". Mhhutchins 18:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you'll approve them, I'll change the date to 2009 on both of them... O'Fearna 21:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OH! you fixed them; thanks so much O'Fearna 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

McCammon's I Travel by Night without source data

I have a submission to add a record for a book that will be published in May, so I'm assuming you got the information from a source other than the book. Yet, you still don't give the source for the data. Please help me understand why you're unable to take less than one minute to add the source for your information in the record's note field. If this were your first submission I'd understand. But you've made more than 6000 submissions and I can't seem to get this point across. I've taken the time to research and have found the data on the publisher's website. The synopsis you've given is taken directly from there, and that will have to be attributed as well (DON'T steal another person's work without crediting the source.) I'll also have to make it less promotional and more objective, another problem I've seen with your synopses. So I'm going to accept the submission and add the source. This is NOT the moderator's responsibility. Don't expect this kind of treatment again. I've said it before, but next time, I will reject any unsourced submission. Mhhutchins 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this was actually the first not-yet-released book I've posted. I just finished placing my pre-order and was excited. O'Fearna 21:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Frazetta's "The Sea Monster"

The two links you added to this record are for two similar, but different works. Which one was reprinted in the Chesley Awards book? You should remove the link to the other one. Mhhutchins 04:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The image was edited for the Eerie cover, but the artwork showed here is the 1966 one; I removed the magazine/comic cover.O'Fearna 04:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Schomburg variant

I'm holding the submission to make Schomburg's artwork for World at Bay into a variant of A World at Bay. Those are two different novels by two different authors. The odds are very much against the same publisher using the same artwork by the same artist for two entirely different novels by two entirely different authors. It seems to be an error in a secondary source for which I've made an inquiry to the original editor of the record. In all likelihood, I'll be deleting the Schomburg credit from the Tubb novel (and probably even deleting the record for the Holt edition of that novel). This will make the submission to variant moot. Mhhutchins 05:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, dang. I agree... sorry. I cancelled it. O'Fearna 05:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Savage Pellucidar

There are two records with this title with different artwork: this 1964 record, and this 1973 record. Is this record titled "The Huntress" varianted to the correct record. I'm holding the submission to change its date to 1964 in case it's the 1973 artwork. If it's the latter, you should cancel the submission and make another if you need to change its date. Mhhutchins 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who varianted this art to the 1973 record, the cover is for the 1964 record and you can see the art here. O'Fearna 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Smaug

Please check the website link you added to this record. It redirects to another address to which my browser can not connect. Mhhutchins 22:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird... it works for me. It's the canvas cover (under the dustjacket) for the earlier hardcover editions with the dragon and mountains by Tolkien. Should I upload it to ISFDB? O'Fearna 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My browser stops a redirect to a website address for blog.fantasygifts.com. I went directly to http://tolkienbooks.net/ and my browser will not load any images from that website. Perhaps it detects a security risk. If it's the cover of a book feel free to upload it to the ISFDB server using the standard protocol. Do not do a direct upload. Upload it from the publication record. Mhhutchins 22:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I upload from the publication record? O'Fearna 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The same way you always upload a publication's cover art. Go to the publication record and click on "Upload cover scan" link. Follow directions, etc. Mhhutchins 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But there isn't an "upload cover scan" link on interior art... O'Fearna 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Publication record...not interiorart title record. Didn't you say the art was used as the cover of a book? Go to that book's publication record. Mhhutchins 23:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

it's not dustjacket art, but the canvas under cover for several of the earlier versions of The Hobbit.O'Fearna 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When you said "cover" I knew exactly what you meant. (The front "cover" of a book doesn't always have to be a dustjacket.) If you have the book, scan the "cover" of the book and then link it to the publication record, just like you would any other record. If you don't have the book, or you don't know the exact publication which used the art as the "cover" of the book, then don't bother. I'm going to remove the link. If you can find the image on another website, presumably safer than this one, update the record again. Mhhutchins 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I swapped it for another link; wonder if it works now... O'Fearna 00:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

<u>

Do not use the HTML underline attribute in a database record. It can be mistaken as a linked word. For container titles (e.g. books) use italics. For contained titles (e.g. stories) use quotation marks. Mhhutchins 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

KO'Fearna 00:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dimension limits

According to the current standards for uploading image files: Cover images should be no more than 600 pixels along the largest dimension. Your last dozen or so uploads (I haven't gone back further) have been 635. Mhhutchins 02:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

K should I resize them? O'Fearna 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the ones you already uploaded. Just remember it for future uploads. Mhhutchins 02:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Whelan's "Paradise

You have linked two different images to the record for this work of art. Please remove the one that isn't the art represented in the book for which you've created this record. Mhhutchins 20:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The front of the card shows the finished work and the back shows the study... so both. The second one's the study for the first. O'Fearna 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are two images, you should have a record for each. Mhhutchins 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just remove the study. O'Fearna 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)