User talk:P-Brane

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search
Important!

This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here.

If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please:

  • post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes
  • post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard

Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.


Contents

Welcome!

Hello, P-Brane, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BLongley 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Date and note on new Tik-Tok

Hi, and welcome! A question about your proposed new Tik-Tok. The note says "This is a special second printing (dated 2002) of the 2001 Gollancz “SF Collectors'” edition, distributed in the US by Sterling Publishing," - Locus1 Month from Locus1 but the date of publication given is 2003-02-00, not a 2002 date. Is one of these two pieces of information mistaken? Thanks, --MartyD 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there! Both dates are correct:) Pub date is 2003 but stated as 2002. P-Brane 04:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I copied the above from my talk page to here so we have the whole discussion in one place. You can reply by editing this section. Indent your response with colons, adding one more than used on the comment you're responding to. So now my follow-up: If the book is dated 2002, how is the pub date 2003? Thanks. --MartyD 11:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess, it was planned to be published in 2002, but the actual release was delayed till 2003. This has happened to a few in these series. Gollancz has published them in UK, then Sterling wanted to distribute them in US, so a few were given illustrated covers and price in USD. This information is in Locus1. Cheers. P-Brane 23:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Thanks. I think I'll add a couple of extra words to that note for the less-quick-on-the-uptake folks like me.... --MartyD 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Using uploaded images

And a quick note about linking uploaded cover images (thanks for scanning them!).... You need to use the full URL, not the Wiki-style [[ page name ]] embedding. Just as if they came from an unrelated site (the ones you did from Amazon, for example, were fine). On the image page, copy the link below the thumbnail and paste that into the pub screen. It's not very obvious, but the ISFDB database and display/editing software are separate from the Wiki (they just share the username and password). --MartyD 03:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're catching MY mistakes now!

It seems my attempt to credit "Sanda Zahirovic" as cover-artist got into the Pub-Series fields when I attempted to preempt your Pub Series "Space Opera Collection" entries. Well done, and keep up the good work! BLongley 00:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's usual here to carry on conversations on the page they started on - I know I've just responded to you on this subject on my own page, but we normally prefer to keep them all together. I know it's not the Wikepedia way, but it's worked for us (so far). BLongley 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to other servers

We can only link to images on servers which have given us explicit permission to do so. For a list of approved websites go here. Here's the link to the cover of the Sheckley novel on an approved site. Mhhutchins 03:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! P-Brane 04:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Sanda Zahirovic

I accepted the submissions updating this artist's records, but there were no differences between the original records and the updates. What were you attempting to do? Mhhutchins 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

When I was doing it her name was incorrect: Sandra instead of Sanda. P-Brane 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Cordwainer Smith's The Rediscovery of Man

The cover you want to add to this pb edition is identical to the hardcover edition. Are you certain they're identical? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that they are identical, I never seen hc. But pb has the cover I wwas adding. Thanks! P-Brane 00:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
I have the hc so that's why I asked. I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

L'Eternel[le] Adam

Hi. I think I am going to reject your proposed variant and merge the title with "L'Eternel Adam" instead. The source of this title appears to be a misspelling -- the only pub in which it appeared had the Italian title "L'eterno Adamo", and it looks like Ernesto misspelled the original French title when recording it (he made the same mistake in his Catalogo Sf, Fantasy e Horror). Ernesto is unfortunately no longer with us, so we can't ask him, but this one looks like a safe bet to me. Any objections? --MartyD 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct - it's a typo. I should have investigated it further myself. Thanks! P-Brane 12:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I rejected the submission and merged that one into the existing Jules-only "L'Eternel Adam". --MartyD 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To the Sun!/Off on a Comet

Hi. I've put your To the Sun!/Off on a Comet submissions on hold while I ask about proper treatment in this situation. It may be that we have to use omnibus, but I'm not sure. --MartyD 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I was lazy again:) - should've posted a question instead of editing. It's not quite an omnibus, no? It's one novel split into two parts-titles that are published together. I'm keen to learn how to treat it, cos there are a few Verne's novel that was split into parts and published separately. Barsac Mission is one example. Thanks! P-Brane 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC).
See ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Need_help_with_omnibus_vs._novel_submission for the feedback so far (you're welcome to chime in on that). --MartyD 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I accepted these and modified the publication to match the title. It's all "Novel" now. The omnibus did not have contents recorded, so it was an easy change. --MartyD 12:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Chapterbooks

Just a note that I have rejected the submission that would have made the chapterbook "Doctor Ox's Experiment" into a variant title of "Une fantaisie du docteur Ox". Chapterbook Title records (which really should be called "chapbooks") are used to enter standalone publications of short fiction and occasionally essays. They are not the same as the short fiction Titles that they comprise and therefor cannot be made into variants of short fiction Titles. Here is what Help has to say about it:

  • CHAPTERBOOK. This format is primarily used for separate publications of a single work of short fiction, even if bound as a standard paperback or hardcover, or in any other format. Such a publication may contain an essay or essays, may contain interior art, and may have cover art listed. Content records should be used to record the shortfiction, and any essay or interior art, just as with an anthology or collection. This publication type is also used for an ebook or audiobook edition of a single work of short fiction. This publication type may also used for anything smaller or flimsier than a standard paperback. These are often, but not always, saddle-stapled; publications from conventions are frequently in this format. However, if such a publication contains multiple works of fiction, it is usually better to list them as anthologies or collections, with a binding type of "ph" (pamphlet).
    • Note that a CHAPTERBOOK commonly includes a work of SHORTFICTION of the same name - these two records should not be merged. See Help:How to merge titles for more detail.

Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Adventures of Captain Hatteras

A couple of things re: your proposed changes to The Adventures of Captain Hatteras. First, we don't record translators as co-authors (unless they rewrote the book) at this time. This is occasionally a subjective decision, e.g. we list Farmer as J. H. Rosny's co-author of Ironcastle, but one could argue that some early translations of Verne's books were really "retellings" rather than regular translations. For now, translators are recorded in Notes. We hope to beef up translator support in the foreseeable future, at which point they will be credited properly.

Second, you wanted to change Voyages et aventures du capitaine Hatteras to The Adventures of Captain Hatteras in the Contents section. That would have changed the actual French title to The Adventures of Captain Hatteras, which is clearly not what we want to happen. When a publication has an incorrect Vontents item, the way to handle it is to add the correct title and then remove the incorrect one, which is what I did a few minutes ago.

Keep in mind that this case was a bit of an outlier. We didn't have a French publication for the French language Title record, so the software allowed you to change it in the Contents section. Generally, you can't change Contents items if they have appeared in other publications.

In any event, like many other Jules Verne titles, the Captain Hatteras books have a long and somewhat convoluted history. They first appeared as two back-to-back serials and have been reprinted both in volume and in two volumes. I have done a little bit of additional research and set up a series for them -- take a look at what's currently displayed at the top of the Jules Verne summary page. Ahasuerus 09:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lighthouse at the End of the World

After thinking about it, I kept The Lighthouse at the End of the World as a "non-genre" title since it's a plain adventure story. (I read it decades ago, so I had to check the article on Wikipedia to confirm my recollection.)

Granted, Jules Verne wrote many other novels that contained no speculative elements and the definition of SF has changed quite a bit in the last 150 years, so deciding where we should draw the line in each individual case will not be easy. Ahasuerus 09:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Fitzroy Edition of Jules Verne

I have approved the addition of publication series information, but now that I am looking at the result, I wonder if we should split the pub series in two, one for the 63 hardcovers and another for the 10 paperback reprints? Ahasuerus 09:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. What's the definition of Pub series? Maybe even three? 1. UK hc by Arco and others; 2.US hc by AB, 3. US pb by ACE. On the other hand, they all have exactly the same abridged and edited content. If to split into three we should add bib notes on the other series! I also keep track here. Thanks!!! P-Brane 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
There is a brief explanation at Help:Screen:PublicationSeries. As it says:
  • Publication Series generally consist of otherwise unrelated texts that were grouped by the publisher in some way. Sometimes they share the same editor, e.g. Ballantine Adult Fantasy was edited by Lin Carter, sometimes they share the same presenter, e.g. A Frederik Pohl Selection, and oftentimes it's something arbitrarily chosen by the publisher, e.g. Lost Fantasies. Although it is uncommon, a Publication Series may be shared across publishers, e.g. if the original publisher drops it or goes out of business and it is later picked up by another publisher.
At first I thought that we could enter all "Fitzroy" publications in the database, put them into one "The Fitzroy Edition of Jules Verne" Publication Series, add a Note and then see if it makes sense to split the series further. However, after reviewing the list of publishers who reprinted some or all of the books, it would appear that there were too many parties involved to make one series practicable. Still, it will be a start. I have created a a simple Note for now, please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Series numbers

Unfortunately, series numbers have to be integers, i.e. 1,2,3,4, etc. The application uses them to sort titles in the series, so "1-2" and similar values are not allowed. This causes problems on rare occasions when publishers try to be clever about numbering, e.g. one juvenile series uses 1-17, then 17.1, then 18, etc. Ahasuerus 05:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Purchase of the North Pole proposed deletion

Hi. I have your proposed deletion on hold. I noticed you updated the one you cite it as a duplicate of. In that one, do you see a 1960 somewhere? Thanks. --MartyD 12:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Ace wasn't in habit of putting the pub date on the books at that time - my copy has no date. 1960, I think, comes from Ace image library (http://people.uncw.edu/smithms/D-singles.html). My update was also to provide a cover: [1]. Thanks! P-Brane 00:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
1960 confirmed by Jon Warren's "Official Price Guide: Paperbacks, First Edition". Ahasuerus 01:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
World Cat has this record, though: http://www.worldcat.org/title/purchase-of-the-north-pole-sans-dessus-dessous/oclc/7488608&referer=brief_results with [1956?]. I presume UCR stands fro Uni of Calif Riverside. P-Brane 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Yes, UCR is Riverside. UC libraries have a very good SF collection and their catalog is one of the major standard sources. They have a number of good sub-collections, including a very comprehensive set of Andre Norton reprints. Very useful. Ahasuerus 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Its having no date was what I was looking for, since the record has a date but no comment about its origin. The duplicate pending deletion has 0000-00-00 and explicitly states there's no date in the book. Which is good enough for me. Approving away.... Thanks. --MartyD 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

1986 Signet edition of A Journey to the Center...

This printing has an "A" before the title according to OCLC and other sources (see the copyright page in the "Look Inside" of this Amazon record of a recent reprinting giving August 1986 as the first printing). Do you have a copy of this printing? I've placed your submissions on hold. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

yes I have a copy and it has an "A". It's a mistake - I usually have quite a few tabs open, so I corrected wrong publication. I've cancelled the submissions. Thanks!!! P-Brane 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Ant Man of Tibet and Other Stories"

After the last round of changes, we have two versions of this anthology, The Ant Man of Tibet and Other Stories (1999) and The Ant-Men of Tibet and Other Stories (2001). Both pubs have cover scans and both look legitimate, but Locus only knows of the 2001 version. Also, there are reviews of the 2001 version, but nothing for the 1999 version. A Bookwhere search found 5 libraries with a copy of the 2001 "Ant-Men" version and no libraries who would admit to owning a copy of the 1999 "Ant Man" version. All records indicate that the copyright year was 2001.

I wonder if perhaps this anthology was announced in 1999 as The Ant Man of Tibet and Other Stories (and a corresponding cover scan was pre-released), but it didn't appear until 2001 under a slightly different title? Ahasuerus 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I came across this one The Ant Man of Tibet and Other Stories (1999) while going through the output of its publisher: [2] and [3]. Your conjecture (announced but not published) seems almost certain to me. In fact, I was trying to trace the second part of Mysterious Island, announced by that publisher, but it seems it also wasn't published. Also, under 2000 there are 6 publications w/o ISBN and there are no traces of in any library. Possible announced non-prints as well?
What's the current policy on such things? Keep with the note that it wasn't actually published or delete? Thanks! P-Brane 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
It's a known and rather irritating problem which we had to create a special workaround for. If you enter "8888-00-00" in the date field, the software will display it as "unpublished". You can do it for both Titles and Publications -- take a look at the way the David Pringle page looks now. (And yes, this convention will fail miserably when we reach December 31, 8887 AD!) Ahasuerus 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Begum's Fortune

I approved the addition of the 1880 Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington edition of this book and then checked the Library of Congress, which has a seemingly identical record except that the publication date is 1887. It also says "New ed.", so I wonder if the 1887 printing may have been an updated (?) reprint of the 1880 one? Ahasuerus

1887 ed has different cover, I don't know whether there are any other differences. I don't own 1880 first edition (it's VERY expensive), but I have Lippincott's reprint that used the same plates, that's my source for page count and ToC. There are some copies for sale on abebooks, they give the same page count. I'll add Lippincott's reprint soon. Cheers, P-Brane 02:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC).
Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 02:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I approved the addition of "The Mutineers of the Bounty" to The Begum's Fortune, but changed the publication type back to NOVEL. It's a little nebulous, but generally Novel pubs can include introductions, afterwords, excerpts and a "bonus story". It's only when you have more than one "bonus story" that you really should consider making the pub a Collection. Ahasuerus 04:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks! P-Brane 00:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

Recording multiple prices

When a book has more than one price, you can only record one of them in the price field. All other prices must be recorded in the note field. I've adjusted the update that you made to this pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I approved this update as submitted so you can see how the price field is affected by multiple prices. Please make the necessary changes once you checked out the record. Mhhutchins 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Will correct the second one! P-Brane 00:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Major changes in verified pubs

I've rejected your submission to change the publisher of this pub from "Berkley Medallion (3rd Printing)" to simply "Berkley Medallion", even though I agree in principle that the change should be made. (This was an experiment in field multi-tasking which Marc was working on, and which, in the end, proved not to work very well.)

When making a change in any of the major fields of a verified publication record, it is ISFDB etiquette to inform the verifier of that pub. Depending upon the change, verifiers have different policies or levels of involvement concerning their desire to be informed (which is usually posted on their talk page.) See this section of the help pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Flowers for Algernon

I accepted the submission that added the 14th printing of Flowers for Algernon, but changed the date from 2002 to 0000-00-00. The 6th and 8th (2004?) printings cost £6.99, while this is the 14th printing which cost £7.99. Could you please check if there is any additional evidence of when this printing appeared? TIA! Ahasuerus 09:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Ditto the 10th printing of the Masterworks edition of The City and the Stars. Ahasuerus 09:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no additional evidence of the printing year. In case of Flowers for Algernon, for example, it states on copyright page that it was published by Gollancz in 2002, but I believe that it refers to the first printing as Gollancz SF Masterworks. Judging from my collection of relatively recent Gollanczes it seems that they never specify dates for later printings of an edition. So dating for this publication is indeed suspicious. I also think that verified 6th printing is dated using the date of the 1st printing. The main reason I added my versions is to record the price change.
What's moderators' view different printings of the same edition? Enter every printing, enter only sufficiently different printings (change of cover, price, etc), enter in notes to the first printing? And what to do in the situation similar to above: enter all printings under the first printing date or as 0000-00-00? Thank you! P-Brane 23:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC).
Generally, we record each printing separately even if two or more look the same except for the printing number. Just how granular we want our data to be is a potentially complex question, but we had to draw the line somewhere and we drew it at the printing level. It so happens that I am working on adding a "printing" field this week, so hopefully we will have a better way to record this information. Ahasuerus 02:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
"Printing" field is good! If it could also used to group publications when looking at a tile or an author it would be great. Thanks. P-Brane 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

audio formats

Hi. Thanks for fixing up a bunch of those "unk" formats. I changed the format specifications you supplied to conform to the "audio (X)" style called for in Help:Screen:EditPub#Pub_Format_.28Binding.29. So "audio (CAS)" instead of "audio cassette" and "audio (CD)" instead of "audio CD". Thanks. --MartyD 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do it properly next time. P-Brane 23:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
I'm not sure that's proper: we did have a little wrangle over such before, and the proponent (DES) doesn't seem very active now. I agree any such improvement is better than "unk" though. BLongley 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Body Snatchers pub edit

I had to hard-reject your edit to The Body Snatchers. When I approved the title merge, which deleted the existing title reference from the pub, it left your edit in an ususable state. Title merges should be done AFTER other edits (or other edits held until the title merge has been approved). But I did save your changes and re-did them for you, so the record should now reflect the changes you submitted. If I missed anything, it was just an oversight and not intentional. Thanks. --MartyD 12:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC),

No worries, will check the pub again, Ta. P-Brane 10:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

ISBN on The Fires of Heaven CD

Hi. Would you check the ISBN on the The Fires of Heaven clone you recently submitted? "1590073942" is giving a checksum error. I see this cassette with a similar ISBN, having the final 2 and 4 swapped.... Thanks. --MartyD 12:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Submitted correction. Thanks! P-Brane 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Changing dates on verified pubs

I'm holding a couple of submissions in which you wish to add a month dating. Do the pubs themselves state the month of publication or is the information from a secondary source? If the latter, you must provide the source for your information in the pub's note fields. Also, you should notify the editor who verified the pub. Some editors have different levels of notification which they've posted at the top of their talk page. If no preference is provided, you should notify them before you make the submission that changes any data in the fields other than the notes field. Here is the ISFDB policy on notification on verified pubs. Here is the ISFDB standards concerning the dating of pubs (go down to the fourth bullet under Year.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! 1. I was following this guideline: (4th bullet under Notes) "You do not need to record the source of data if it is taken from one of the standard bibliographic sources used in verification. For example, if the month of publication is drawn from the Locus index, while the book only shows the year, you do not need to say "Date per Locus1"; the verification flag showing that Locus1 has been consulted provides this information. 2. Only one of the two pubs was verified and I was under the impression that verifier was no longer available (I've left her notes before). But I see that s/he active again, so will leave a note. Thank you! P-Brane 03:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
That's a weird guideline, for several reasons which I'm going to bring up on the Rules and Standards page in a moment. I'll accept this submissions and use them as an example of why that guideline should be changed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Internal consistency of a set of axioms is always a difficult issue:) P-Brane 04:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Looking at Locus1, they give the month of publication as November 1992. Where did the October date come from? The date in brackets is the date of receipt, not the publication date. Mhhutchins 04:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Elric of Melniboné

I accepted the submission updating this pub record, but it appears that the publisher's name is misspelled. Should it be Millennium? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Millennium. Firefox is too clever - some time ago I corrected a couple of such misspeliings - and it remembered, so when I started typing Firefox offered to complete the word and I didnt check. I tried to correct it now, but it seems that server is down. Thanks! P-Brane 05:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Done! P-Brane 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

Three Bags Full

I had to reject your submission updating the SFBC printing of this title. It appears that you meant to update the trade edition. Mhhutchins 05:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kafka collection

I'm holding a submission to add the Schocken edition of Kafka's first collection of stories. Are you certain that this is speculative fiction? Also, you give the title as The Great Wall of China and OCLC (along with Wikipedia) titles it The Great Wall of China: Stories and Reflections. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is first US edition (Wikipedia is of course incorrect here, the first English lang edition is Secker and Warburg, 1933) of stories that are in this collection. It's very difficult to classify Kafka, but I'd say that most of the collection is speculative fiction. The subtitle (Stories and Reflections) is on the title page but not on the dustjacket. Thanks!!! P-Brane 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Per ISFDB standards, credits should be based on the title page. I'll accept the submission so that you can correct the title and add the content stories. Mhhutchins 01:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 AD changes

I have your submission of Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 AD on hold. It looks to me like you meant to do a clone but ended up editing the original instead? --MartyD 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, correct ISBN for this book (Hamlyn, 1978) is 0600383385; the current one, 0-89009-260-5, is for different book in series: Great Space Battles. Thanks! P-Brane 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
Ah, got it. I didn't notice that. I approved it. --MartyD 01:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Children of Morrow

According to OCLC this pub is 20 cm. tall, which would qualify it as a trade paperback. Do you have a copy and can verify that it is 18 cm. or smaller? Mhhutchins 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I'm looking at rebound library copy and it's a bit taller than 18 but it at also seems that it was cut a bit. I'll delete my submission. Thank you! P-Brane 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC).
I'd already accepted the submission, before I thought to check the OCLC record. I'll revert the record back to "tp". Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nightmare

I had to retrieve the URL for the cover-image you submitted for Nightmare - you put it in the "price" field, which got truncated, so needed prompt attention. Do you actually have the price for this pub? BLongley 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. No, I don't have the price, and it's not in BLIC. Thank you! P-Brane 01:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC).
No worries - that's why we moderate things! (Although we must recruit a few more moderators soon, I'm feeling over-worked again...) BLongley 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking OCLC records

I accepted the submission updating this pub with a link to the OCLC record in the pub record's note field. But in many cases, that's not necessary. Are you familiar with the links under "Other Sites" on each publication record's page? If the pub has a valid ISBN it's automatically linked to any number of sites using that number, including WorldCat (a division of OCLC). Users can choose which, if any, sites appear on each page. Of course, pubs without ISBNs can be linked in the notes field. And if there are more than one OCLC record (and if you've used OCLC much you know that happens frequently) you can choose to link the more complete record in the pub's notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Stochastic Man by Silverberg

Was this edition published under the VGSF imprint? If so, depending on your preference, change the publisher field to either "VGSF" or "VGSF / Gollancz". Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is VGSF imprint. Will change. Is there a clean-up "VGSF vs. Gollancz" drive? There used to be dozens of VGSF paperbacks listed only under Gollancz. Thank you! P-Brane 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC).
I was doing that earlier today. Got up to 1991. If you want to start from there please feel free. If any of them are verified, leave a message with the verifier and we'll hold those pubs for later. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you certain that these trade paperbacks were published under the VGSF imprint? I left those because I couldn't find any source that confirmed it. What is your source? Mhhutchins 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
VGSF logo is clearly visible on cover in both cases. Thanks! P-Brane 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Sterling

I believe Sterling was a US distributor, not a publisher, and that their name is not actually stated in the books themselves. It looks like these records came from Locus1 who will recorded them as new books, when they're actually the British printing being distributed in the US by Sterling. Maybe they placed stickers over the UK prices. In any case, I believe these are false records, but have no definitive proof. If we can show that these are the same printing as the UK copies, we can simply record in the note field of the original publication record that the book was distributed in the US and give the US price. Until then I don't think it does any good to change the publisher fields. What is your reason for changing the publisher field? Mhhutchins 02:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I see that there are other titles under "Gollancz / Sterling", so I suppose you're trying to get them all under the same publisher. I'll accept the submissions, and once all of the pubs are under the same name, I'll change the name to "Gollancz (dist. by Sterling)". How does that sound? Mhhutchins 02:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My main reason to change publisher field was to have all these "false" records in one place: currently there are both Gollancz / Sterling and Sterling Publishing/Gollancz, which I think is confusing. I also believe that they are actually the British printing distributed in the US by Sterling. I dont have any copies with either price in USD or with USD price sticker. I bought a few in the series via abebooks in US but all of them only have price in pounds. Thanks! P-Brane 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
See my response written before your response. The submissions have been accepted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
After looking at this "publisher" in addition to "Gollancz / Sterling" and re-reading notes in Locus1 I start to think that maybe the best way to treat these pubs is to have them in the database with publisher as Gollancz and USD price and add note about the distributor. It seems that all Sterling was doing is indeed stickering USD price. I dont think there is any physical evidence in the book that specifies Sterling as distributor. It is copyright rather than bibliography issue, no? Also, "Gollancz (dist. by Sterling)" seems somewhat awkward. Thanks! P-Brane 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
You're right, but I wanted it clear that these books weren't published by Sterling. "Gollancz / Sterling" implies that Gollancz is the imprint and Sterling is the publisher. I could think of nothing better other than eliminating all records entirely and moving the data to the records of the original Gollancz editions. Mhhutchins 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems there is a need for a specific policy about this kind of pubs. There are about a dozen books here with publisher Trafalgar while Trafalgar is not a publisher but only a distributor (and somethimes holder of US copyright)! Should all these pubs be attributed to correct publisher with the note about distribution in US? Thanks!!! P-Brane 05:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
I agree. I'd go so far as to say that there should only be one record, with a note added about US distribution, noting the price and whether they're stickered. Others might disagree, so this should be brought up on the Rules and Standards discussion page. Mhhutchins 14:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Raised the question here. P-Brane 01:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

Publication series vs. title series

You've come upon a situation that might cause some consternation among those of us who have strong opinions on what constitutes a series. I'm not sure who created the two title series from two different publishers titled "The Tale of the Eternal Champion". Technically, these are not title series, but publication series. At the time these were probably created we didn't have publication series, so the person may have dealt with the situation the best way they could under the circumstances. Now that we have publication series, these two title series should be broken down and each pub should be placed into the correct title series (based on its content, not packaging). For example, both omnibuses Von Bek and Von Bek should be placed into the Von Bek series.

I have your submission which wants to remove the three White Wolf publications from Hawkmoon, when actually all six books are identical in content and title. Rightfully, bibliographically, they should remain under the same title record. If you change the title record to the correct series (The History of the Runestaff) the problem is solved. Would you like to make the corrections on these two "title series" or would you like me to do it? It would involve changing the series assignments for the 29 titles which are now under both series titled "The Tale of the Eternal Champion". And adding a publication series to more than 100 pub records. Mhhutchins 04:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed it's a can-of-worms situation. I see the issue but I dont know what's the best way to handle it. (Aside: another small difficulty with pub series, apart from Millennium / White Wolf issue is that several Millenium pubs were also republished by Gollancz later on. So, strictly speaking, The Tale of the Eternal Champion (Millennium) is not a very good name for the series either!) On one hand, quite a few works has been specially edited by Moorcock for the Millenium series and there are also specially written short intros. So, in a very week sense it's a bit of title series.
I'll cancel my submisssions. Let me know what do you think is the best way to go. P-Brane 04:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC).
Do you know if the reprints kept the numbering and series name? If not, we would only have to update those pubs that promote the series. Are you familiar enough with Moorcock's work to reassign the title records to the correct title series? If not, I can work on it in my spare time. It's only 29 title updates. Now entering the publication series will take longer... As for the new Moorcock intros and revisions, they wouldn't justify creating a new title series. It would be like making a new title series each time one of the Dune novels got a new introduction. Mhhutchins 04:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, Gollancz reprints only replaced "M" with "G" and added info on copyright page. You can check this one at amazon look inside. I'm a modest Moorcock fun, so maybe it would be more efficient if you could reassign the title records. I will be happy to enter pub series then. Shall it be just one pub series "Tale of the Eternal Champion"? Or it should be publisher-differentiated?
I think if Herbert himself wrote a new introduction to some Dune novel that would deserve more than a new title series :)). Thanks!!! P-Brane 05:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC).
We could call the series Messages from Beyond, or better Posthumous Posturings, or even Afterlife Afterwords. (But it would still be a publication series.) I'll get to reassigning the Moorcock titles later this week. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You might want to also look at Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser - there's four sub-series in there that look as though they're publisher-based. BLongley 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Robert Howard's Conan is the same. At least in these cases they're all subseries of a larger series which is pretty consistent. The two Moorcock publication series cover such a broad range of work that you'd have to place 90% of what he wrote into subseries of the Multiverse in order to have them appear in the same series. (I'm surprised no one's done it. Look at Asimov's summary page, as he attempted in his last years to bring most of his fiction into one future history.) Mhhutchins 15:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Sub-Series Ordering for Title series so things like this can be placed in order (if there actually is one - the chronological order may be misleading). I'm not sure how much rework will ensue, but it's been an outstanding FR for five years now... BLongley 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted the "Sub-Series Ordering for Title series" changes but think I've probably missed something. :-/ There just doesn't look as if there's enough changes to cover all our display options. Still, hopefully it's a good start, and the testers will tell me what I missed. BLongley 01:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ahasuerus fixed some more stuff, and it's in now. Did this help? BLongley 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I hammer back at one small thing? What's your opinion on pub series name(s) and how many series are needed? Is there sense in separating Millenium ones from Gollancz reprints and these two from White Wolf? I'd rather had just one called "The Tale of the Eternal Champion" with comments explaining that series was published in UK initially by Millennium in hc and tp, and alter in pb, in US by White Wolf, and then some by Gollancz also in pb. P-Brane 01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
The person who created the separate series probably did so because they were numbered differently. Also White Wolf had a couple of volumes that were never published in the Millennium series: Kane of Old Mars, The Roads Between the Worlds. Millennium had one (The New Nature of the Catastrophe) that was never published by White Wolf. This only bolsters the case that they're not title series, but publication series. Mhhutchins 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're addressing. I don't have a particular opinion on Moorcock titles, but if there is a need for differences (as a US Omnibus or Collection may be very different from the UK one) then a Publication series might be in order. We probably need to revisit Philip K. Dick at some point too, the "Collected Stories" are very different. I think the original expert for the Moorcock books was Unapersson. BLongley 01:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Both of you:) I believe content is exactly the same in both US and UK editions. The situation here, as I see it, is very much like this. It currently has the ugliest possible title "Millennium / Gollancz SF Masterworks" instead of plain "SF Masterworks". But I dont see overwhelming reason to add publisher information in the title of series, especially in this case! This series have books by different imprints, but keep uniform title. P-Brane 01:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
Sometimes we have to disambiguate by adding the publisher name because different publishers have similarly named series. Don't know why to do so in this case though. Mhhutchins 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Trigan Empire

If this is a collection of comics as noted in your submission to update the record, then the record should be deleted. Mhhutchins 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont have the book (I come across it looking at Hamlyn's output), but given the link in my submission (and a review at amazon.co.uk) it seems that almost surely it's a collection of comics.
Btw, are there any explicit rules about inclusion/exclusion of children (as opposed to juvenile) books? Thanks! P-Brane 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
Look under Definitions and Rules of Acquisition on this ISFDB Policy page. Mhhutchins 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That I've seen - it's too vague. A book for 7-9 years old that mentions a witch sounds as if it satisfies criteria for inclusion. P-Brane 06:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
That book would be considered "in". All criteria is purposely vague. We tend to be inclusive. Mhhutchins 06:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What's your opinion on Trigan Empire? Shall I cancel my submission and you delete it? Thanks! P-Brane 06:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
It's definitely a collection of the comic strips from "Look and Learn", I own a copy. Note that it has been reviewed in a genre magazine though, which may be why it was added. BLongley 16:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave it alone and accept the submission because of the review. Otherwise it would not be in the db. Mike Butterworth isn't credited in the OCLC record. How is he credited in the book? Mhhutchins 06:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
He isn't. In fact, Don Lawrence isn't really credited either, although his signature is clearly visible on the nearest thing to a title-page present. BLongley 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So I accepted a submission to change a record's credits based on data that's not in the book and without noting the source??? Guess I shouldn't have done that. It looks like it should be "uncredited" and than made into a variant record that credits both authors with plenty of notes that source that credit. I'll leave that to anyone who has a copy of the book. 13:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fleshcreepers

Just to let you know that I have started a discussion about Fleshcreepers over on the Community Portal. Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan Radnor and date formatting

Just a reminder that "1945" is not considered a valid date by the software (although it read should be.) Most forms, including Edit Author, will convert "1945" to "0000-00-00" although New Publication. I fixed Alan Radnor, but now I have another question: Is Alan Radnor the name that the author used for most of his SF? Based on what we have on file, it would appear that he used Richard Lewis in most cases, right? Thanks! Ahasuerus 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Alan Radnor is the legal name and he wrote most of his thriller/crime output under that name. Seems that Richard Lewis was the pseudonym used for Hamlyn "nasties" (relevant for isfdb). Only this novel was published by both names. This website (generally quite reliable) also supports Alan Radnor as a legal name. Thanks!!! P-Brane 06:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
It sounds like "Alan Radnor" is the legal name, so that's what we will put in the Legal Name field. However, the author's canonical name is a different beast. To quote Help:Screen:AuthorData:
  • "For authors who publish under multiple names, the canonical name is the most recognized name for that author. The canonical name may be a pseudonym, for instance Cordwainer Smith (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Cordwainer_Smith). Where there is any possiblity of debate, an agreement should be reached on the project page for that author. For example, Megan Lindholm has had a successful career writing under her own name, and an even more successful career writing as "Robin Hobb"; a case could be made for either one being her canonical name.
To use another example, we use Murray Leinster as the canonical name because although he published a lot of non-genre stories as William Fitzgerald Jenkins, his legal name, within the genre he is known as "Murray Leinster". Similarly, if Radnor is best known to SF readers as Richard Lewis, we will want to make it his canonical name.
Having said that, as long as we set up all pseudonyms, variant titles and populate the Legal Name field(s), our users can always go from one form of the name to any other! Ahasuerus 07:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess there is a strong case here to have Richard Lewis as canonical name. Thanks! P-Brane 07:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
Done, thanks! Ahasuerus 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Title records and the handling of non-English titles

Every publication has a title record (except for magazines, but that's the only exception). That title record is created when the "Add New Novel" (or "...Collection" or "...Anthology", etc.) function is used to create a publication record. This title record will automatically have the same title and author as the publication record that was created with the submission. When that title is published again, either reprinted by the same publisher or in a new edition from another publisher, the publication records should be entered under that title record using "Add Publication to This Title" function. If an editor doesn't do this, and uses the "Add New Novel" function, a duplicate title record is created and it becomes necessary to merge these two title records into one. They must be identical for this merge, all differences must be reconciled. It's important to understand title records as a different "level" of storing data in the database. I bring this up as a preface to what follows concerning the difference between the way English and non-English title records are handled by the database.

Because the ISFDB was founded primarily as an English-language database, it's become necessary to adapt it to accept any non-English publications. It was determined that parent title records should be the language in which the work was written and first published. If the work was originally in English, any non-English publications must be entered under that English title's title record. If the work was originally written and published in a language other than English, like Frøken Smillas fornemmelse for sne by Peter Høeg, the English-language translation will become a variant title. If a book was published as Smilla's Sense of Snow you can't change that book's title record to the original Danish title, just as you wouldn't change the publication record. You would make the English-language title record into a variant of the original title record. Any work originally published in a language other than English becomes the parent of the English title which becomes a variant of the non-English (original) title record. But, as I explained earlier, this is not reciprocated when it comes to foreign language translations of original English titles, which must remain under the original English title record without having their own separate title record. Mhhutchins 06:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's embarrassing! I dont know what happened today - momentary lapse of reason, I guess:) - I always do it the proper way, by creating a parent. It's a pet project of mine: I often look at the today's birth-death dates and try to add original parent titles and years for non-english pubs. Cheers, P-Brane 11:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Miracle Visitors

You've made a submission updating this pub to make it identical to an existing pub record. In other cases you've deleted the record for the US distribution and updated the UK record noting the US distributed copies. What's different in this case? Mhhutchins 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not identical, the other one (verified) has no mention of US and CAN prices. So, there was a possibility that the one with US and CAN price (the one I have) was actually a different printing, thus deserving a separate record. But I asked Rtrace since and his verified copy does have the same other prices and mentions Sterling on copyright page. I'll cancel my submission, submit deletion request instead and add other prices and note about Sterling to verified pub. Thanks! P-Brane 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Bollywood

Hi. Sorry, but I rejected your proposed change of author on Bollywood from Ashok K. Banker to Ashok Banker. I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but that title is associated with the canonical "K." form of the name, while it already has this variant credited to the "K."-less form of the name. --MartyD 10:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

I approved your edit of this pub, but put the price back in the price field. The note sais it all (Price US $11.95 from unknown source), no need to remove the price. --Willem H. 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Mummy's Foot"

I'm holding the two submissions changing the author credits for this record and this one. The first one should remain as is, because the story is actually credited to Conant (see the scan). The second one is more problematic. The only other record we have for The Mummy's Foot is an English translation by Lafcadio Hearn. Because translators should not be credited at the title level, this record (translated by Goldman) should properly be merged with the one translated by Hearn. Even though the texts are different, they're the same title by the same author and can only be varianted if their titles or author credit are different. The translators should be credited at the pub level. Honestly, I couldn't swear that all of the pubs under this title were really the Hearn version. The only one we're certain of the one that was published in One of Cleopatra's Nights. Do you want to sort it out or shall I? I can do the unvarianting and merging if you wish. Mhhutchins 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still not 100% sure about author credits for this record. The scan doesn't have ToC page, there is only html ToC page, so... I'll try to have a look at the original magazine some day.
For the second one it's probably more efficient if you do it. But I would really appreciate if you could let me know the sequence of edits required: might come useful later on. Thnaks!!! Cheers, P-Brane 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

The Female Man

I added notes to The Female Man. I assume the month and day of publication were there before you got to the record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Same thing with Greybeard. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

La Grande Bretèche

Instead of creating a new parent title which would have to be merged with the existing one, I merged the two, bringing all titles and their variants under one record. I think this was your intention. Mhhutchins 03:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I was going to do exactly this! I'll be back about Gautier's short story - I am investigating the issue in depth:). Btw, could you please point me to any policies/discussions about excerpts. This one presents an interesting situation. There is no "original" (French) title for this one, the novel fro which it's taken is not in the isfdb (and, probably, shouldn't be), and then what's the publication date: date of translation of the whole novel or the date excerpt is published? Cheers, P-Brane 03:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
I'm not sure about the standard, but this is how I handle it. If the piece has its own title I don't add (excerpt) to its title. If it has the same title as the work from which it is excerpted, I title it "Title (excerpt)". I believe dates should be the same as the work from which they are excerpted. So an excerpt from Frankenstein should be dated 1818, regardless of when they were first published (this doesn't apply for translated work, which is dated when it first appeared in English). Also, excerpt records should not be merged, because you can't know which sections are being excerpted.
To the specific one you're asking about ("The Thing at Ghent"): it appears to have its own title, and the title record notes the work from which it was excerpted. I would not create a French title for either the excerpt or the main work. I'm not sure where the date of 1900 came from, but if that's the date of its first English translation and publication it should stay the same date. Mhhutchins 04:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! 1900 indeed seems to be the date of the first English translation of the whole novel, at least that's the dtae of the first translation that I know of (not that I am a huge Balzac fan, though!) Cheers, P-Brane 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

Arslan

I added some note to Arslan. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! P-Brane 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

E.T.A. Hoffmann

Just a note that we always enter spaces between authors' initials -- see Help:Screen:AuthorData -- thus it's "E. T. A. Hoffmann" rather than "E.T.A. Hoffmann". There is no need to create a variant title and/or pseudonym in these cases, "just add spaces" :-) Ahasuerus 03:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, just copied it from Ashley/Contento w/o thinking. P-Brane 03:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Variant of "Anon."

Hi. I have your proposed "Extracts from Gosschen's Diary" variant on hold. My inclination would be to make the Anon. credit a variant of the Wilson credit, treating the one with the actual author name as canonical. Your submission does the opposite, and I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning.... What is your thinking behind having the "Anon." one be the parent? Thanks, --MartyD 09:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the credit to Wilson is based on curcumstantial evidence. But you probably right, future reprints if any, would likely credit it to him, thus making him a canonical author. I'll delete my submission. Thanks!!! P-Brane 02:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

Chesterton titles / pubs

Hi. Don't forget that for the Chesterton titles you changed from NOVEL to Omnibus or Collection, the publications need to be changed likewise, to match. If you need help with that, let me know. --MartyD 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste any time working on Chesterton at all. If it weren't for The Man Who Was Thursday and maybe four other marginally fantastic novels and shorter works, he wouldn't even be in the db. Almost all other titles and their associated pubs should be deleted, including the Father Brown works. Mhhutchins 13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleting them would certainly be one way to take care of it.... :-) --MartyD 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, most Chesterton's should go. Unfortunately mass deletion is a major pain, even for moderators. It would certainly be possible to make Title Deletion more powerful and take all Pubs with it, but we have to balance such power with responsibility. There may be a case for a mass-deletion tool that can't be self-moderated. BLongley 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I was actually preparing grounds for a few deletion requests. P-Brane 23:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

A shortcut

If you're deleting several title records (without pubs, of course), you can merge them all into one record (it doesn't matter that the titles don't match) in one submission, and then delete it once the first submission has been accepted. In other words, you can get rid of a dozen titles in only two submissions, instead of 12. Pretty neat, huh? Mhhutchins 01:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Clever trick. Thanks. P-Brane 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC).
In case another moderator handles one of these and may not be aware of what you're doing, let him know what's going on in the Moderator Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sayers' "Suspision" in Best Horror Stories

Hi. I accepted your content submission to The Best Horror Stories, but I have a suspicion that Sayers' Suspision is misspelled. --MartyD 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction submitted! Thanks! P-Brane 10:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

Chesterton II: Deletion of works about Dickens

Hi. I have your proposed deletion of Chesterton's Charles Dickens, Appreciations ... of Charles Dickens, Criticisms ... of Charles Dickens, and Charles Dickens a Critical Study on hold. If any of those last three cover his works we deem to be SF, I think they are "in" under RoA #8 (works about speculative fiction). Without knowing their content, I would err on the side of including them. Inclusion of the biography is less clear to me. We don't seem to consider Dickens "above a certain threshold", so I suppose we could say he is not an SF author, and from that we could conclude that his biography would not be a work about, or related to, speculative fiction. On the other hand, if some of Chesterton's works are "in", and the three Dickens-study pubs are "in", I'd be inclined to keep the biography as well (a sort of RoA #8 gray area). What do you think? I will solicit opinions from Michael and Bill also, since they weighed in above. Thanks. --MartyD 10:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern. These two Appreciations ... of Charles Dickens, Criticisms ... of Charles Dickens are in fact the same and are in pd, I'll have a look at the content. I am pretty sure that the discussion of SF elements in Dickens' work is not the main topic of them, if existent at all. But I am happy to keep them in. Biography would probably be too much, though, in my opinion. Thanks! P-Brane 11:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
A nonfiction work by a writer with minimal spec-fic writings would only qualify for inclusion if it were mainly about spec-fic. IMHO, a book about the work of Charles Dickens would not fall under that rule, unless it dealt only with Dickens' ghost stories, and it would qualify regardless of who the author was, even if it were a professor at an obscure Midwestern university. These works by Chesterton are only in the db because a robot allowed them here. Having said that, until we know the contents of the Dickens books, it wouldn't hurt to keep them in the database. Mhhutchins 13:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave them until someone reads them. BLongley 16:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I will not be _reading_ them, but I'll have a close look. Deletion requests are cancelled for now:) Thanks! P-Brane 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Converting a novel record to a chapterbook record

There are two ways to do this:

  1. Change the pub type in the record's header field to CHAPTERBOOK, change the pub type in the record's content field to CHAPTERBOOK, and add another content record of a SHORTFICTION type using the same name and author as in the header field.
  2. Change the pub type in the record's header field to CHAPTERBOOK, change the pub type in the record's content field to SHORTFICTION, and add another content record of a CHAPTERBOOK type using the same name and author as in the header field.

Either way you must have both a title record of the CHAPTERBOOK type and a content record of the SHORTFICTION type. You used the second method to convert The Sword of Wood to a CHAPTERBOOK, and you can see that it doesn't have a title record (i.e. it isn't linked to any title record). You must now add a CHAPTERBOOK content record which the system will automatically convert into a title record. Ask if you need help. (You might also want to delete the bad cover image URL link.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Dreem" in Tremendous Trifles?

Should "Dreem" be "Dream" in "Angry Streets: A Bad Dre?m" in Tremendous Trifles? --MartyD 10:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Cheers, P-Brane 11:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

"Proshchanie na Beregu "

You would like to change this title's authors' names from Yevgeny Voiskunsky and Isai Lukodianov to E. Voiskunsky and I. Lukodyanov. We don't have a publication with this original Russian title on file, so at the moment we use the authors' canonical names. Do you happen to have a source claiming that this story appeared in Russian as by E. Voiskunsky and I. Lukodyanov? Perhaps the same source that you are using to change the date from 1969 to 1964? Thanks! Ahasuerus 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have the source (and Russian is my mother tongue). P-Brane 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Excellent! Some of us (including Ron and myself) know enough Russian to be dangerous, but the more breadth and depth of coverage we have, the better off we are. Ahasuerus 01:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the entry in a quite reliable Russian counterpart of isfdb that I noticed you've also used. P-Brane 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Yes, we have dealt with FantLab and have permission to link to their images. They seem to favor a different model -- assign authors to contributors/maintainers -- which, like all models, has its pluses and minuses. Ahasuerus 01:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I can create the record for this pub. Thanks! P-Brane 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
Please do! Then we can create appropriate VTs and tie everything together. Ahasuerus 01:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Feast of St. Dionysus

What is the source for your update to change the page count of this pub from 225 to 255? The OCLC record gives 225, as does the BLIC record. Mhhutchins 04:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The book - just bought it. Cheers, P-Brane 05:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC).
This is where marking a book primary verified really comes in handy. You should also remove the statement "Data from Vector review" if all of the data fields are present in the book itself. It would also be nice to note the discrepancy in page counts between the actual book and the OCLC and BLIC records, to avoid future editors from questioning the validity of your confirmed data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Intended to verify and will do. I'll keep "Data from Vector review" as there is no pub month data in the book. Cheers. P-Brane 05:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

The Worm Stone

I have restored "OCLC Number: 7758440" in the Notes field of this pub since I assume that it was a copy-and-paste accident :) Ahasuerus 05:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no:) What's the merit of explicit listing of OCLC number, isn't it available by clicking on WorldCat link on the left under "Other sites"? Spasibo! P-Brane 05:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
Well, it varies. There are times when the same ISBN may be associated with more than one OCLC number. Also, some users may not have WorldCat enabled in "My Web Sites". And, of course, if a book has no ISBN, there is no easy way to link it to WorldCat short of listing its OCLC number. But there is no strict standard for entering OCLC numbers, so it's up to the editor to decide whether to list it.
Eventually (and I hope in this case it means "later this year") we will add support for "identifiers" at the Title and Publication levels. They will allow us to link to one or more OCLC records, LCCN records, Goodreads, LibraryThing, OpenLibrary, etc much more easily.
BTW, at one point I tried to clean up Russian authors, but never found some of the more obscure VTs. Feel free to take over the list if you want to dig deeper! Ahasuerus 06:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have already copied that list of yours:) The main problem is that in most cases I dont have English translations. Otherwise it would be quite easy - most of Soviet SF in Russian is available online (with different levels of legality:). Cheers. P-Brane 06:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
I thought that list looked familiar :) Ahasuerus 06:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

'The Black Castle addition

You made a submission that would have added The Black Castle by Leslie Daniels to The Black Castle by Les Daniels. You should only add pubs to titles when the author credit is the same. In this case, you needed to do a New Novel, then make the author a pseudonym and the title a variant. I will accept it and fix it up, so just something to keep in mind for the future. Thanks. --MartyD 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Author update for Marc Olden

Please reenter the death date for Marc Olden in the format YYYY-MM-DD. It was reversed in the original submission, so the system was unable to read it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lost

Do you see any reason we should not simply delete Lost instead of making it NONGENRE? --MartyD 12:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, deletion is even better. Wasn't thinking clearly. Cheers, P-Brane 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC).
I rejected the change and deleted the pub and title instead. Thanks. --MartyD 10:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Genesis II

Were you working from a copy-in-hand in creating a record for this pub? Your note indicates Amazon as the source for the publication date, but nothing about the source for the other data. In cases where you're creating a new pub, it would be helpful to indicate in the Note to Moderator that you'll be doing a primary verification of the record. This "Note to Moderator" field is still new and evolving, so I'm trying to figure out the various ways it can be used, and thought this would be a good idea. It would prevent moderators from having to question your source, if we know beforehand that you're working with a copy-in-hand. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have a copy-in-hand. This is from WorldCat record. I'll add WorldCat verification. Thanks! P-Brane 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

Updating title records

Are you aware that when you update title records, you are also affecting the publications in which those records are contents? I'm holding two submissions that want to change the name of the author from "Leo Tolstoi" to "Leo Tolstoy". This one and this one. The first one is the Russian language title record for a story appearing in a Russian language collection credited to Leo Tolstoi. By changing the title record's credit you're saying that the story was credited to "Tolstoy". The second one is the title record for the collection containing the first record, again published as by "Tolstoi". There's a link in the publication record of the collection to a Russian website, but, alas, I can not read Russian. Can you confirm that the original 1886 collection was published as by "Tolstoy"? If not, please cancel the submissions. Mhhutchins 02:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[after edit conflict. Thanks Firefox for keeping proper history!] The original titles has been published in Russian with the name of the author in Russian language which has Cyrillic alphabet. So, strictly speaking all titles and names are wrong! The correct name of the author is, really, Лев Толстой. These are just transliterated titles and my submissions are to change them to canonical transliterations (Tolstoy rather than Tolstoi). The latter one was in use for some time in the early last century so there are some English pubs with that vt name which is as it should be. Cheers, P-Brane 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
I see your point about Tolstoi/Tolstoy, but would still feel uncomfortable accepting the submission. I'm going to refer the situation to our resident Russian expert and see what he thinks should be done. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a native speaker of Russian as well :) Cheers, P-Brane 02:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
I was referring to Ahasuerus who handled many of the Russian names and titles in the db, all of which have been transliterated into the English alphabet. He's not only familiar with Russian, he's even more familiar with how the ISFDB handles Russian titles and names, something I openly admit to which I'm ignorant. Mhhutchins 03:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Changing "Tolstoi" to "Tolstoy" for Russian language Title records should be fine because our canonical name is a somewhat arbitrary transliteration -- there is no universally accepted transliteration convention for non-Latin alphabets (more's the pity.) However, P-Brane's submissions would also change the language of the Title records to "English", presumably an oversight. Ahasuerus 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've accepted the submissions and also changed the credit for the collection's pub record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I also was referring to Ahasuerus when I was saying "as well" in my previous comment:) The best way, IMHO, would be to include Cyrillic names and titles, but it's an issue of a very low importance. Cheers, P-Brane 03:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
Adding support for non-Latin author names is on the list of things to do, but it will take some time because there is a bunch of other things that need to be done first. And yes, I was pretty good back in the day and even wrote a paper about what was then "Soviet SF", but I was never in the same league as Yvonne Howell, Leonid Heller, Patrick L. McGuire and other folks who have spent years studying the subject. Ahasuerus 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to read that paper, please! Seriously! Cheers, P-Brane 01:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Tolstoy's "What Men Live"

I'm holding the submission that wants to change the title of this record from "What Men Live" to "What Men Live By". At least two sources give the first title: OCLC and Locus1. Do you have a copy of the anthology and can confirm that the name should be changed? Mhhutchins 02:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a (reasonably) well known story, and of course it's correct title has "by" ("What men live" makes no sense, no?). I dont have a copy, but its an obvious typo. We can create the correct parent title and make current nonsensical a variant till somebody checks the book, if you think it's better. Cheers, P-Brane 02:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
No matter how well-known the story's title is or how nonsensical is the title as it appears in the db, we have to record the title as it appears in the publication. I find it odd that two different sources would give the same incorrect title, but I suppose it's possible, if one is feeding off the other. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it's not a good practice to change title records simply because an editor knows it's incorrect without having a primary source. This rubs against the ISFDB standard. I'll create the variant and hope someone will eventually verify the anthology. Mhhutchins 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you point, but even the respected secondary source (Locus) is just a secondary source. Of course, if indeed the title is w/o "by" in the publication it must be recorded as variant. But to establish status quo based on, most likely, a typo in the secondary source is another thing. Cheers, P-Brane 02:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
Until it's proven that the secondary source is in error, I can see no other way around it. BTW, it's already recorded as a variant of the Russian title, regardless of whether it's "What Men Live" or "What Men Live By". A title can't be made into a variant of another title which is itself a variant of yet another title, no matter what the language. There can only be one parent title, and in this case, it's the Russian one. Both English titles are now variants of the Russian one. Mhhutchins 03:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. I see the note that you've added to the title. There are couple of copies of the book in AU, so I may try to get it as an interlibrary loan, my overseas ones are all used up:(. Thanks! P-Brane 03:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, all used.addall.com hits list the story title as "What Men Live By", but they too may be copying-and-pasting. Ahasuerus 05:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's only a snippet view, but Google Books shows it's "What Men Live By by Leo Tolstoy" in the TOC and on p. 139 "What Men" (1/2 title shown by that search) over "Live By" (1/2 title shown by this search). I'd venture the missing "by" is a misreading of the double-"by" in the TOC. --MartyD 10:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty, that was clever! Looks pretty decisive to me! Cheers, P-Brane 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
The title has been corrected. This process proved to be a vindication of the ISFDB standard of obtaining evidence, whether it be secondary or primary, before making changes in records. Thank you, Marty. Mhhutchins 16:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyman's Library

Are you certain that this is a publication series and not an imprint? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A little research has shown that it's more series than imprint (although the Wikipedia article calls it an imprint). I'm going to accept the submissions, and ask that you follow through with the titles under this publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact I started with that one. But it's tricky to distinguish b/w series "Everyman", "Everyman's Classics", and "Everyman's Library" w/o having the books. I'll do what I can. Cheers, P-Brane 23:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
Is "Everyman" a different series from "Everyman's Library"? Mhhutchins 01:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. J. M. Dent started hc Everyman's library in 1906, with all volumes numbered. At some point it started to use US "partner" publishers (Dutton at some point, Tuttle more recently). Then in late 70s Dent started tp series variously called Everyman and Everyman's classics. Ultimately Dent was sold to Random House who now, under Knopf, publish re-vamped Everyman's Library. But these latter guys are also bad, because they have different ISBNs for the same titles in US and UK! and different covers sometimes as well. Cheers, P-Brane 01:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
I stand corrected (and slightly confused:) On more careful inspection of actual books rather than my beliefs about them, later tp's from Dent (and Tuttle) have "The Everyman's Library" on the flyleaf(?) and then on title page: Everyman (over) J. M. Dent London (over) Charles E. Tuttle (over) Vermont. Based on that, "THE Everyman's Library" would be pub series and "Everyman" would be an imprint. Note that at that time Dent is owned by Orion, so is an imprint in itself. Anyway, E's library is definitely not an imprint, but Everyman may be viewed as paperback imprint of Dent. Some older titles have "Everyman paperback" on the back. I guess there is a need for at least two pub series. The numbered hardcover one and the paperback one. Cheers, P-Brane 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
I'm going to leave it to you to determine the difference between the series and will accept any submissions updating the pub records. Mhhutchins 04:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Don-Ivan Punchatz

I'm holding the submission to make this a pseudonym until I get confirmation from the verifier of the single pub that uses this version of the artist's name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please also ask the verifier of this pub that uses yet another version of the artist's name :-) Cheers, P-Brane 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
I'll ask him, but he's been very ornery lately, so I don't know what kind of reaction I'll get from him. :) I'll let let know when he gets a chance to dig out his copy. Mhhutchins 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
He's confirmed that the credit is exactly as stated. He made the name into a pseudonym and created a variant for the title record. Mhhutchins 00:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please convey my thanks to him! He might be ornery on occasions but you cant take away his meticulousness! :) Cheers, P-Brane 00:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Cover credit for The Jewel of the Seven Stars

Hi. I am going to reject your proposed change of "Valejo" -> "Vallejo" on this cover. Amazon Look Inside's view of the back cover shows the credit there uses only one "L", matching the notes in this pub (there is also the BORIS ©98 signature on the front). In my opinion, this falls under the "as stated in the publication" rule, and the misspelling should be captured. We'd need to handle this instead with a pseudonym and variant. --MartyD 10:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks! P-Brane 03:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

M. M. Roesnner-Herman

Hi. I noticed the above had two Ns in Roesnner, versus a similar name with two Ses and one N (likewise in the proposed canonical name). I checked with Ahasuerus, who was the verifier of the only appearance with that credit, and he verified it was a typo. His correction deleted the Roesnner-Herman record, eliminating the need for the pseudonym, so I ended up rejecting that submission. The end result, though, should be what you wanted. Thanks. --MartyD 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, Thanks! P-Brane 03:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Alexey Tolstoy vs. Alexey Tolstoy

I saw what you were trying to do with the Tolstoys and it wasn't unreasonable given what we already had on file, but that way lie circular pseudonyms and other unspeakable monsters. When two or more people are known to have used the same name, it's typically best to give them different canonical names, e.g. see David Alexander vs. David Alexander (1907-1973) vs. David Alexander (1950’s).

I ended up setting up one of the Tolstoys as Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy and the other one as Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy, so now the Summary page for Alexey Tolstoy tells you that the name has been used by two different people.

For future reference, here are the steps that I had to take:

  • Create VTs for all canonical titles (grandchildren are automatically moved to the new parent record)
  • Break all pseudonymous relationships and set up new ones
  • Move Notes from the old canonical titles to the new ones
  • Delete any old canonical titles which had no pubs associated with them

Hopefully I got them all, but if you could double check, that would be great. TIA! Ahasuerus 08:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good and everything seems to be correct! Thanks!!! P-Brane 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC).

talkback

I've replied to your comment at User_talk:Marc_Kupper#Out of the Silent Planet --Marc Kupper|talk 23:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reply added. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Island of Captain Sparrow

Just a note that the duplicate 1928 record that you wanted to delete contained price information, which is available in the second volume of Tuck's Encyclopedia. I moved it to the main pub record and documented the source before approving the submission. According to Tuck, the publisher released a cheaper hardcover version of the book a year later (a common practice at the time), so in this case price is an important disambiguating data element. Ahasuerus 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I especially want your comments

On ISFDB:Community_Portal#Design_for_phase_4.28.3F.29_of_foreign_language_support, and on phase 3 too. BLongley 03:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes to verified info and "Bill the Galactic Hero"

Hi. As you probably noticed, I have a few of your proposed changes involving "Bill the Galactic Hero" on hold, as the change affects a verified publication. If you're going to alter data that has been verified (vs. merely augmenting it), you should confirm with the primary verifier first. I asked Chris J about it, and he doesn't agree that it's a serial (portion of one work). His assessment is that it's the second work in a series. I will leave the submissions on hold in case you want to discuss it with him further. Thanks. --MartyD 11:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, should have cited my sources as well.
(cross-posted from Chris J.' talk) Editorial is correct, of course: it is the second part of NOVEL "Bill, the Galactic Hero" that was serialized in three consecutive issues of New Worlds.The fact is well documented, see for example, this pub or official HH website (it's frames, so I cannot give you direct link, go Bibliography->Novels->Bill,the Galactic Hero->Publication History). It states:
New Worlds, Part 1 (#153, August 1965); Part 2, "A Dip in the Swimming Pool Reactor," (#154, September 1965); Part 3, "E=mc2... or Bust." (#155, October 1965). Part one was illustrated with two sketches by the author.
In fact, these three installments should be made into variant title of Bill, the Galactic hero. Thank you! P-Brane 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

Variant of "Afterword (The Listeners)"

Should the new author's name have a comma or period in this variant record? Mhhutchins 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, comma would be interesting:) Thank you for noticing! Corrections submitted. Cheers, P-Brane 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

Dean R. Lambe

I have on hold your proposed title-wide change on Lambe's review that would remove the "Dr.", since the title appears in a verified publication. For changes that would alter verified information, you must check with the verifier first. I posted a note on BLongley's talk page. Thanks. --MartyD 10:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill checked and says the "Dr." is definitely present, so I am going to reject this submission. If you think the "Dr." should not be used on some of the other credits, you'll need to replace those instances with a new title credited differently. Thanks. --MartyD 23:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasnt my intention to change credit, I only wanted to make a variant title. Thank you for noticing this! Cheers, P-Brane 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

Amy H. Sturgis

I have on hold your submission that would make The New Shoggoth Chic as by Amy H. Sturgis, Ph.D. a variant of the same title by Amy H. Sturgis. We have no titles by Amy H. Sturgis. Did you mean to make the author credit for the new parent title Dr. Amy H. Sturgis? Thanks. --MartyD 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've done the same thing with the "Dr." title. But we have no titles by Amy H. Sturgis, so why are you trying to make that her canonical name? Canonical names are chosen from among the names used, typically choosing the most widely-used one. --MartyD 10:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to reject these submissions, since we have no existing instances where she is credited without any form of title. I see on her website she refers to herself as "Dr. Amy H. Sturgis". So for now I suggest you make that canonical: make Amy H. Sturgis, Ph.D. a pseudonym of that, and make the one Ph.D.-credited title have a new Dr.-credited partent. I think the help may still give dire warnings about not making pseudonyms unless you're absolutely sure, but any such warnings are outdated. The software has been changed to make pseudonym conversions easy, should we change our minds someday about what name ought to be canonical. Thanks. --MartyD 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging reviews

I have a submission that wants to merge this review with this one. You should not merge review records unless you're certain they're identical. It's possible that a reviewer's opinion could change, or if published contemporaneously, one review could be either abridged, or expanded from an earlier review. Or possibly even entirely different. Because these reviews are in pubs which have been verified by the same editor, it would have been easy to ask the verifier (me) to compare the two. I've placed the submission on hold so that I can pull out the two issues to see if the reviews are identical. Have you merged review records in the past that were accepted by moderators? Mhhutchins 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They're not the same review. The SFR review is shorter and is in the context of the entire series (although Lambe does crib a couple of points from the original review in Thrust). I'll reject the merge and record a note in each record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Mea culpa! I didnt intend to merge them, I was checking for different duplicate title and, I guess, somehow submitted the merge. Thank you! P-Brane 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

Prima che tu dica ’Pronto’

Your edit has a year of "19935-00-00"? BLongley 16:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

just entering some forthcoming releases:) P-Brane 08:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC).
That's some psychic ability you have there! ;-) BLongley 16:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It's 1993. Cheers, P-Brane 08:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC).
Ok, fixed. BLongley 16:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Castle of Crossed Destinies

I accepted your Secker & Warburg edition but changed the date to 1977 based on OCLC Number 4770360. The OCLC 154162959 you quoted gave copyright date, not printing date. BLongley 16:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thnaks ! P-Brane 09:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

Some Chinese Ghosts

I rejected your submission to clone the contents (import from) Some Chinese Ghosts because you submitted it before I accepted the submission to credit the notes and glossary to the original author. If I had accepted it as is.. then you would have imported uncredited titles which would have then needed to be updated. Please re-import the contents again. Thanks Kevin 14:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you, will do. P-Brane 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

Hearn's "The Cedar Closet"

I have a submission that wants to change the date of this title record from "1874-03-01" to "1995-00-00" while retaining the note that "First published in The Enquirer, March 1, 1874." It is ISFDB standard to keep the original date of the parent record when dating variant titles. The only exception (though not stated) is for NOVEL records which have been varianted because of a change of title. This particular rule has been fluctuating recently because of the gradual changes to the software to accommodate foreign language publications, where we want the foreign language titles to show the first date of their publication when it has been made into a variant of the original English title record. Because the variant in the submission's title record is due to a change in author credit only, I'm going to reject the submission. If you feel this standard should be changed please start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Himawari = Hi-Mawari

I have a submission that wants to merge the title record of Himawari with Hi-Mawari, while retaining the latter name. Do you have a copy of the Houghton Mifflin first edition, the only appearance in the database of the first title? According to OCLC record 2354409 the story is titled "Himawari", which may be the source of the record's contents listing. Until we can confirm that the spelling is incorrect, the title records should not be merged, but varianted. (I'll hold the submission to await your response.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a later reprint (1911) from the same plates and scan of the first edition. It's Hi-Mawari, or to be precise, HI-MAWARI. Cheers, P-Brane 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC).
Why haven't you created a record for that printing? Doing that first would have saved me the time and effort of dealing with this submission, having already established that the original record was incorrect. Mhhutchins 03:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It's easier to migrate correct ToC later on. But I should have put my source in the note to moderator - my bad! Cheers, P-Brane 08:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Nightmare-Touch

Hi. Are you working from a copy of Nightmare-Touch? I have your proposed removal of "Stray Leaves..." on hold. According to the Tartarus site's contents, which seems to be the source used for this entry, it's in there. --MartyD 11:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've entered contents a few days ago (using data from tartarus website - I dont have a book) but wasn't careful enough and also enterd "Stray Leaves...". Apparently they have group titles to (broadly) indicate from which Hearn's original collection(s) specific stories are taken. Thus they have Fantastics, Stray Leaves, French Indies, Chinese Ghosts and Japanese Ghosts. All these group titles, except Stray Leaves dont have quotation marks and that the reason for my mistake. "The Stray Leaves from Strange Literature" (1884) is the title of the collection (btw, first book by Hearn, not counting translations) from which four short stories are taken: 'The Fountain Maiden', 'The Magical Words', 'The Bird Wife', and 'The Legend of the Monster Misfortune'. Cheers, P-Brane 13:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC).
Ah, I understand. Thanks, approving forthwith. --MartyD 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Selected Writings of Lafcadio Hearn

Do you know if this is truly an omnibus that includes the entire contents of Some Chinese Ghosts? If not, I'll accept the submission removing the collection from the contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

According to OCLC, it includes the contents of "Kwaidan.--Some Chinese ghosts.--Chita : a memory of last island.--American sketches : Cincinnati ; New Orleans.--Caribbean sketches.--Japan : Stories of Japanese life ; Travel ; Folk culture ; Essays ; Weird tales." Mhhutchins 19:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the six stories from pages 89 - 124 are the same six stories included in the first edition of Some Chinese Ghosts. I think we should keep the record of Some Chinese Ghosts in the contents. Mhhutchins 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Even the Locus source stated in the notes includes Some Chinese Ghosts. Is there any particular reason for removing the title from the omnibus record? Mhhutchins 19:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it includes only part of the contents of "Some Chinese Ghosts", excluding Hearn's introduction, glossary, and notes (which, given the nature of the work, are as inportant as, say Grimms' notes to Marchen). It is even more selective with other colllections, omitting three "Insect studies" from Kwaidan, etc.
I will add Kwaidan stories and ask for deletion of Kwaidan-collection and will check whether any other sf stories/essays should be added - there are lots of nongenre stuff in this collection as well (I'll add a note). Cheers, P-Brane 08:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC).
I personally consider the reprinting of all the stories in the same order in which they appeared in the original collection to be a reprinting of the collection, regardless of the removal of introduction, glossary or notes. That peripheral material is not the story collection. If a later printing adds a new introduction, removes an older one, adds new story notes, etc, it is still considered the same collection, especially if it goes by the same title and has the stories in the same order. By removing the collection title record from the omnibus, the omnibus will no longer appear on the title's summary page. Is there any statement in the book, whether in the table of contents, the copyright page, or the covers, that the collection Some Chinese Ghosts appears in the book. (I don't imagine that the person who created the OCLC record took it upon themselves to add it to their record without some statement in the book itself.) If so, I'd ask you to reconsider the decision to remove the collection's title record from the omnibus's pub record. The same thing applies to Kwaidan. There are dozens of records in the database where a collection is reprinted with new stories, or omitting some stories, They are still considered the same collection. That's why we record the contents, so that the user knows what is actually included in each collection, regardless of the title. Mhhutchins 16:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've rejected the submission to remove the collection's title record from the omnibus, as it's standard ISFDB policy to consider a collection that has the same stories to be the same collection, especially if they have the same title. If you believe this action was incorrect or even questionable, please start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Magazine series

Magazines are placed into a title series through their editor record, not through the pub record. So in order to place this pub into the Atlantic Monthly series, you should update its editor record thusly: click on "Edit Title Data", change the name of the title to "The Atlantic Monthly - 1905", add "The Atlantic Monthly" tot the series field. You can do the same with this title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

SF Masterworks Edition of Simak's City

I uploaded a new cover scan for the SF Masterworks edition of City. The previous Amazon scan was slightly off from my copy. It appeared to have a different font, and was missing the Heinlein blurb. I also added a note about the first printing. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Osama ISBN

Hi, I accepted your Osama ebook submission, but I changed the ISBN from 978848631809 to 9781848631809, based on the page on the PS Publishing site. If that doesn't match the ebook, I suggest recording the broken ISBN in the notes. I also added the £3.99 price while I was at it. --MartyD 11:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed that ISBN was broken, just copied it from the book. Will add note. Cheers, P-Brane 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Tales from the Saragossa Manuscript

Your submission updating this record notes that "Month of publication not stated; Locus1 has November '90 and amazon UK has March '90." So what is the source for the date (1990-10-00) you changed the record to? Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, I believe that November is number 11:) Thanks, P-Brane 06:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Abe's The Ruined Map

You entered an ISBN-13 for this 2001 publication record. Can you please update the record and give the stated ISBN? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Careful examination of my copy showed that I have 5th printing. Cheers, P-Brane 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

Lou[is] Glanzman

It appears that the artist prefers the full name, based on the website's name. If true, then "Lou Glanzman" should be the pseudonym. What do you think? Mhhutchins 00:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right! I am going to add his interior art for a Sheckley story and the signature is even "Louis S. Glanzman". Cheers, P-Brane 00:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Preface to the 1988 edition of The Deep Range

You want to change the title field of this title record to "Preface to the 1988 Edition (The Deep Range)". Is the title "Preface to the 1988 Edition" the actual title as given in the publication? We already have a title record for Preface (The Deep Range) which is dated 1988. We may need to either merge these records and make one into a variant of the other. Mhhutchins 05:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the actual title. And, yes, we will need to make it the variant. Cheers, P-Brane 05:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

A Whiff of Death

What is the source for your data in this record? If you have a copy, please let the moderator know in the Note to Moderator field. If you don't have a copy, please record the source for your data in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Return of the Magi

I accepted the submission adding this publication into the database just because it was reprinted in a publication series that included spec-fic material. This book is nonfiction by an author who is not above the threshold we hold for non-genre writers. As such, we don't add non-genre contents to such publications. I'll remove the contents and then delete them from the database. Mhhutchins 05:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A Pictorial History of Horror Movies

A quick question about the two A Pictorial History of Horror Movies pubs: is the artist's last name spelled "Chantrell" or "Chantrel"? Ahasuerus 04:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Double "L": ChantreLL. It is this guy, quite famous for his horror movies' posters. Cheers, P-Brane 04:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC).
Merged, thanks! Ahasuerus 04:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Land of the Foam"

As per OCLC and the cover scan, I have changed the title from "The Land of the Foam" to "The Land of Foam". Ahasuerus 06:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was compensating for the omission of the in Houghton-Mifflin version :) P-Brane 07:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Fury

Hi, I see you collect second hand books as I do -and you read Kuttner as well-. I have however exchanged your scan of Fury for a scan of my Ramsj copy. --Dirk P Broer 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The War of the Worlds

I rejected the submission to create a variant title record for this novel as by "Herbert George Wells". The only evidence we have of the actual author of this edition, since there is no OCLC record yet, is the listing on Amazon. While they give the author as "Herbert George Wells" there is no "Look-Inside" to see how the book is credited on the title page. We only have the cover which clearly gives credit to H. G. Wells. So I merged the title records without making a variant. We can always change it if we learn through a primary verification that the author credited on the title page is different from the cover credit. Mhhutchins 23:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Time Machine

I rejected the submission updating the title record for this publication. It was incorrectly credited to the author (Wells) and two contributors who wrote critical essays included in this edition. I removed the Panshins' and Cook's credit from both the book and the title record, created content records for the two pieces, and then merged its title record with the 1895 title record for Wells' novel. Thanks for bringing the incorrect pub record to my attention. Mhhutchins 00:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I rejected your subsequent submission to remove the publication series "Phoenix Science Fiction Classics" from the pub record. This is the publisher's name for a series of classic novel reprints. Mhhutchins 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A Meeting Over Tuscarora

Is the introduction in this collection really fiction? Is the title of the story on page 84 actually stated as "Allergorkhoy-Khorkhoy (The Monstrous Worm)"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction is indeed fiction, as (I hoped clearly:) explained in my note. And the title of the story is Allergorkhoy-Khorkhoy (The Monstrous Worm) in ToC and Allergorkhoy-Khorkhoy (in caps) over The Monstrous Worm in the text. Cheers, P-Brane 08:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Kir Bulychev

I accepted the submission updating this author's data, but removed the link to a photograph on a server for which we don't have permission to link. You'd also need permission from the photographer. If the photograph has been released for free usage under a Creative Commons license you can upload it to the ISFDB server and tag it with the CC license. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

H. G. Wells, Chapterbooks and series

In most cases only Shortfiction titles (rather than Chapterbooks) are added to series. The only exception is when the publisher puts out a series of linked chapterbooks, e.g. this Perry Rhodan reprint series, but it's rather uncommon. Ahasuerus 04:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange submission to make a variant

You want to make this record (a novel in Portugese by E. E. "Doc" Smith titled Os Caçadores do Espaço) into a variant of a new record titled Edward E. Smith, a Portugese novel by Edward E. Smith. If anything, it should be made into a variant of this record, the original English novel Spacehounds of IPC (at least according to the Portugese Wikipedia. What was the intention of your submission? Mhhutchins 03:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to make this record into a variant of that record. Cheers, P-Brane 04:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Try again. As I said, you were making it into a variant of a new record for a novel titled Edward E. Smith. I've rejected the submission. Mhhutchins 04:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Jean Francois Podevin

I rejected the three submissions to change the cover credits for the Omni magazines. I have them all and the artist is correctly credited without the hyphen. Have held the other five submissions trying to do the same change. Three of them are verified, two not. These kind of changes need to be passed by the Primary Verifier before making the submissions. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to change the credits, I wanted to make them into variant titles. Cheers, P-Brane 03:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Unmerging cover art records.

Please see [this] discussion. There are three submissions to do this that wouldn't work quite how you would suppose. The discussion gives a work-around. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Done (and few others, as well). Cheers, P-Brane 05:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

An Informal Biography of Conan the Cimmerian

I have your "Make Variant" submission on hold since I can't find any differences between these two records. Well, except for the order in which the authors are listed, but the software doesn't support author ordering (and can change it randomly), so wouldn't we want to merge them instead? Or am I missing some other difference? Ahasuerus 04:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! This is my oversight. My intent was to clear up after the addition of pseudonyms: Dr.Clark, Clark, Ph.D., and such. So I just presumed them different records. Yes, they appear exactly the same. But there is another one with only two authors. Cheers, P-Brane 05:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
Thanks, I have merged the two 1959 titles. As far as the 1953 version by Clark and P. Schuyler Miller goes, it turns out that it's different from the 1959 version. De Camp expanded the text when it was reprinted in Amra in 1959, presumably based on his research for the Gnome Press version of the Conanverse, at which point his name was added to the list of authors. (And Howard fans have hated him for what he did to Conan ever since, but that's a different story.) Ahasuerus 04:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Clark's bibliography is rather convoluted -- take a look at the Notes for this title. It's a good thing that I had all three pubs my library and could compare the texts side by side. Ahasuerus 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There is one more Introduction to Uller Uprising. Cheers, P-Brane 05:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC).
Thanks, I will VT it as well. Ahasuerus 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unicode titles

BTW, you may want to take a look at this discussion, which affects Cyrillic titles. Ahasuerus 05:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Needham

I have your submissions that would turn "Eric Needham [as Patience Feeble]" and "Eric Needham [as Alfred Lord Senapod]" into pseudonyms of Eric Needham on hold. As far as I can tell, these author records were created by a rookie editor who didn't understand how variants and pseudonyms work, so we need to turn them into "Patience Feeble" and "Alfred Lord Senapod" respectively and then create pseudonyms. Would you agree? Ahasuerus 05:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that since this edit was approved, that's the way the attribution reads in the pub: "Eric Needham [as Patience Feeble]". It might first be published somewhere else under pseudonym and then in this pub under that name. Your interpretation sounds more plausible, I agree. But I'd still would check with the PV. Thanks, P-Brane 05:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
It's a good idea although, unfortunately, the verifier doesn't seem to have found his Talk page yet :-( I have left a note and changed the records, so I think we should be in good shape now. BTW, I may be the wayward moderator who originally approved these malformed author records -- I think I was going to fix them later, but got sidetracked... Ahasuerus 04:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Author dates

FYI, the way the software handles dates is somewhat inconsistent at the moment. Four digit dates are accepted by the New Pub form, but if you enter them in Edit Author, they will be converted to 0000-00-00. It's always safer to use the YYYY-MM-DD format for this reason. Ahasuerus 04:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A Book of Strange Stories

Could you please check the note that I have left about this book on User talk:Zybahn? I am thinking that since the verifier is currently inactive and since there is no way of telling whether he may have a different, price-less (no pun untended), version of the pub, we may want to clone it instead of overwriting verified data. Ahasuerus 01:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Limits on image files uploaded to the ISFDB server

It is ISFDB policy that you upload image files that are not larger than 150K in size and no longer than 600 pixels at the longest side. I'm not sure how the standards were arrived at, but I assume it protects us against litigation if the images we upload could be of such a resolution that they could be used to create pirate copies. You should get a warning if you attempt to upload anything that's greater than the standards, although nothing actually prevents you from doing so. An exception is made in some circumstances, such as images of wraparound cover art. Most scanners (or graphics software) will allow you to set the files to these limits without much trouble. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Great Pan > Pan Books

"Great Pan" is printed on the covers of most of the submissions to change the publisher to Pan Books. Do you know if it is an imprint of Pan Books? If so, we need to keep it as the publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always treated it as an imprint. It could be considered a publication series, but not one where we'd want every title. BLongley 13:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
So would you agree that the records remain as is? I don't even see the point in changing them to "Great Pan / Pan Books". Mhhutchins 13:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Or we could give Pan Books as the publisher and add "Great Pan" to the publication series field? Somehow I think it should be part of the record. Mhhutchins 13:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming the list that Bill has linked to includes only the first 100 books, because The Second Ghost Book and Voyage to Venus aren't on the list. Mhhutchins 13:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that the very notion of "imprint" is much later invention having to do with publishers' mergers and aquisitions and marketing ploys:) I agree that there is no point in changing to "Great Pan / Pan Books" but I'd prefer publisher as "Pan Books" with "Great Pan" as publication series (but surely not the one with every title in!). My main reason is that otherwise it's difficult to find these records. I was cheking my Pans against the database and failed to find these records initially (even wanted to add them!), because if you search for publisher all other variants: Pan, Pan Books, Pan Macmiillan, etc are clustered together but not this one. So if Bill doesn't mind (I think he veruified a few of them), I'd change. Cheers, P-Brane 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
Change to what? I still think "Great Pan" should be part of the publication record, when we've determined whether it's an imprint or a publication series. The submissions you made removed it entirely. Any search for publisher "Pan" will bring up both "Great Pan" and "Pan Books" so I don't see that as the problem. It's kind of like hoping that books published by Timescape would show up on the lists of Pocket Books publications. BTW, do you have any Great Pan books? Internal evidence would help to determine whether it's an imprint or a publication series. (I'd lean toward imprint if "Great Pan" appears on the title page, and publication series if it only appears on the cover.) Mhhutchins 02:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Change to publisher "Pan Books" and pub. series "Great Pan". A few Great Pans that I have (not the ones in db, though) have only "Pan Books" on the title page. I'll adjust my submissions, then. (There is a problem with search for publisher "Pan", because word "company" has it.) Cheers, P-Brane 03:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
"Pan" to "Pan Books" I can agree with due to the search problems with short names that you have identified. I also agree that "Great Pan" should still be part of the publication record. I suspect that the catalogue IDs for such might be enough to distinguish "Great Pan" from other imprints, but I'll have to research further. BLongley 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
So can I assume that you two agree that both "Great Pan" and "Pan Giant" will be made into publication series with "Pan Books" as the publisher? I don't have one book published by Pan so I don't have any say in the matter, so I'm going to say it anyway: I think they're both imprints. I'll leave it up to you two to have the final say. But I agree that "Pan" (the publisher) should be merged into "Pan Books". Mhhutchins 22:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd interpret both "Great Pan" and "Pan Giant" as pub series but happy to go with imprints if Bill prefers that way. Many Great Pans have GP as part of catalog number, but not all, I think. It's impossible to tell whether it's "Pan Giant" from catalogue number. Cheers, P-Brane 05:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Pan > Pan Books

It would be a lot easier to ask a moderator to change all of these in one edit. A moderator can change the name of a publisher so that every record is changed with one submission. I'll post a message on the community portal to see if anyone objects to the change. Mhhutchins 07:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my edits wasn't to amend publisher info, that's incidental. The edits were adding covers, cover artist, pub series, and overall check. I am just looking at all pre-ISBN Pan publications trying to figure out if any books are missing and correcting (if needed) the existing records. Cheers, P-Brane 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Variants based on capitalization

Capitalization should not be used as the basis for the creation of a variant. As far as the ISFDB is concerned, "Meeting my Brother" is the same as "Meeting My Brother" so a variant can't be created, regardless of how it actually appears in print. (Imagine the thousands of publications in which every letter in a title is capitalized and how many variants we'd have if they were allowed.) Mhhutchins 02:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization is incidental, the basis for varianting is the different (correct!) first name of the author, "Vladislav" instead of "Vitaly". Cheers, P-Brane 02:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC).
I accepted the first submissions to add/remove, but they did not involve a change in author, just in the title, otherwise I would not have been able to merge them with the records already in the database. I assume the second attempt was the same and rejected them. Please try again, and I'll look more carefully. Mhhutchins 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries, done. Cheers, P-Brane 02:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Wojtek Siudmak

After approving a few VT submissions for Wojtek Siudmak's covers I noticed that the language of the variants is set to English even though in most cases it should be French. Could you please change the records' language?

Also, have you had a chance to review my comment about "A Book of Strange Stories" above? What do you think? Ahasuerus 03:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do the language change! Sorry, I somehow missed your comment about "A Book of Strange Stories", slipped through the cracks. Sure, let's do the clone. Cheers, P-Brane 03:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Arc 1.1

I'm assuming you have a copy of this publication and will be doing a primary verification of the record. Otherwise you would have entered the source for your data in the note field. Mhhutchins 01:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. Cheers, P-Brane 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Supernatural Stories for Boys

I accepted the submission changing the price of this record, but I'm concerned that the amount many not be correct. In 1968, British books were priced in shillings and pence, e.g. 3/6 or 4/-. Are you certain that the stated price of this book is 50p (or £0.50)? That seems to be a post-decimalization price. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I know the British jumped onto ISBNs before Americans, but 1968 seems rather early for a British paperback. Mhhutchins 16:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

My edit was purely cosmetic, to convert price to the standard, I haven't paid much attention to the content of that data. But you are right, this record requires some investigation, I'll look into it. Cheers, P-Brane 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

M. S. Waddell

According to Author:Catherine Sefton:

  • This gives us the convincing evidence we need to connect Catherine Sefton with this Martin Waddell. The links above also include data connecting the "Harriet" stories of our Martin S. Waddell with the same Martin Waddell. However, we have been unable to find definitive links between our M. S. Waddell and Martin (S.) Waddell, so these may be separate writers. The Answers.com link above mentions a 1966 book (Otley) by Martin Waddell, so the time frame for having written as "M. S. Waddell" (1963-65) does not rule this out. At least two horror blogs, Vault of Evil and Pan Horrors claim that M. S. Waddell is Martin Waddell, but it seems we need more definitive evidence before we assert this claim. Chavey 17:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you found additional information confirming that M. S. Waddell was a pseudonym used by Martin Waddell or do you think that what we currently have is sufficient to link the two records? Ahasuerus 17:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I haven't looked at bibliographic comments (will do so from now on!). My submission was based on the two horror websites mentioned and the fact that the stories has appeared in the sequential Pan Horror books (M.S. in #4, then Martin in #5, then M.S. in #6, then Martin in #7). Pity that we don't have those verified as it might be that since the contents come from secondary sources these variant names are just introduced artefacts. Cheers, P-Brane 00:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
I now agree with this conclusion that M.S. and Martin are the same person. I hadn't noticed that interlacing, and the fact that these "two" authors were publishing in the same series so often. To follow up on that lead, I checked and discovered that Contento & Ashley's "The Supernatural Index" lists the story in Pan Horror #5 as being by "M. S. Waddell", whereas whoever entered it with us listed it as by "Martin Waddell". The seems to be conclusive confirming evidence that these two are the same. You can see this yourself at Google Books. Chavey 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Approved and "varianted". Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I updated the description of the evidence connecting Catherine Sefton/Martin Waddell/Martin S. Waddell/M. S. Waddell, and moved it to Martin Waddell's Bibliographic Comments page. Chavey 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Username

Hi there. Although totally off-topic, I would like to thank you. I've been having a pretty rough week and thanks to your wit with your username, you've absolutely made my night! Brought an instant smile to my face. Thank you! ^_^ --Ling 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome! It's also a term for something in string theory. Cheers, P-Brane

Railsea

I added some notes and corrected the pages from 427 to 424 (the last numbered page) for this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Also added a coverscan. --Willem H. 13:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchock Presents Stories They Wouldn't Let Me Do on TV

Hi P-Brane, I just verified your two [4] [5] pubs of this Alfred Hitchock Presents Stories They Wouldn't Let Me Do on TV title, but there are some different and strange capitals in the pubs. Could you please check them again? Rudam 17:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing a publication's type

Hi. When you change a publication's type, as you did for The Windup Girl, keep in mind that publication records "contain" a title record of the same type that also needs to be changed. I did this for its title record, so just something to remember for future changes. Thanks. --MartyD 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Hamilton title variant

Hi. I have on hold your submission that would make Double Year Lost by "Peter Hamilton" a variant of a new title by "Peter F. Hamilton". This is a case where the original "Peter Hamilton" credit first needs to be changed: That "Peter Hamilton" is not the same person as the one who did all that work in the 50s. So I suggest what you do is change the "Peter Hamilton" credit to be disambiguated. See Rules_and_standards_discussions#Proposed_name_disambiguation_help_text for a coincidentally timely discussion. Looks like you could go with the birth year for that. Once that change is accepted, we'll have a new author, and we can make him a pseudonym of Peter F. Hamilton. Then I'll accept your variant submission that I have on hold (no need to change it -- it should follow the other changes without a problem). Thanks. --MartyD 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ellipsis

This ISFDB standard for entering an ellipsis states: An ellipsis should be entered as the sequence "space", "period", "space", "period", "space", "period". If the ellipsis is in the middle of the title, it should be entered with a space after it as well, prior to the start of the following word. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There will be 30 edits instead of 3 then:) Cheers, P-Brane 10:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC).

Kenneth Johns/ Kenneth Bulmer - John Newman Variants

There are two of the submissions from earlier that only made the Variant to Bulmer. Was this intentional or just a miss on adding Newman? They are still in the queue. "Balloons Make a Come-Back" and "Mind Over Matter". --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a miss - I'll resubmit! Cheers, P-Brane 03:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

Updates to issues of Nebula SF

I'm holding the submissions to update issues 21 and 23 of this magazine, because they have been primary-verified by another editor. If you will do a primary verification of the two records, I will gladly accept the submissions. Otherwise, you'll need to give a reliable secondary source to document the changes you want to make in the records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here is the case where PV is not very responsive (and confused gothic J with F). I have a library copy, so will do transient verification. Cheers, P-Brane 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC).
Submissions accepted. You'll need to add the remaining pagination to this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Merged editor records

The format used to title merged editor records is "TITLE OF MAGAZINE - YEAR". I rejected the submissions to change the titles of the Supernatural Stories records to "TITLE OF MAGAZINE, YEAR". Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! There will be more edits then. Cheers, P-Brane 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC).

Nebula #28

Are you certain that "Fanorama" should be typed as SHORTFICTION in this record? Mhhutchins 03:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it should NOT. Thanks, P-Brane 03:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

ifc -> fep in Nebula #30

I accepted your modifications to Nebula #30, but I changed the page number for "Galactic Hive" from ifc to fep, assuming you meant it for inside-front-cover. See Help:Screen:EditPub#Page. BTW, I notice there's still one story with no page number (Aldiss' "Gene-Hive"). Thanks. --MartyD 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Islanders

I've briefly put your pub update of The Islanders on hold... could I ask you to check again the page count? My hc edition issued at the same time has a significantly different page count of 339. Only the last visible page number (or the last page of the actual story, if it's not numbered as often happens) need be recorded. Thanks. PeteYoung 07:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also only have hc version, the page count for tp is indeed suspicious but that's the data as stated on amazon (see the note). I'll have a look in Gollancz catalogue, I should have e-version. Cheers, P-Brane 01:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC).
Amazon page counts of unverified pubs are usually highly suspect. I think they include every single unnumbered page, then add an extra 50 just for fun. I'll accept this update for the artist credit but I'll change the page count to match the hc edition. Thanks. PeteYoung 03:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cheers, P-Brane 04:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

sidoniebb.com

I have held your submission to make "sidoniebb.com" a pesud of Sidonie Beresford-Browne. I see there is only one entry for "sidoniebb.com", and we do normalize art credits to the canonical name for cases like EMSH. I am inclined to think this should be a similar case, so we should change the cover credit for The Separation, but I will ask for more input before proceeding. -DES Talk 13:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also would be happy with "normalized" credit. I just did the lazy thing - make a pseud - so that the mods can notice it and do the hard work:) Cheers, P-Brane 01:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC).
The author has been normalized after consulting the verifiers. The submission has therefore been rejected. Thanks for finding this. -DES Talk 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Gollancz SF Collectors' Editions

Letting you know I've started a discussion on Rules and Standards about the Gollancz SF Collectors' Editions. Feel free to contribute your 2 cents if you have anything to add! Thanks. PeteYoung 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Getty

Please take a moment to read this discussion concerning the credit for "Getty". I'll reject the submission to make it into a pseudonym, because the original verifier will be making changes in the credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it was lazy edit (make a pseud) so that the mods can notice it and do the hard work:) Cheers, P-Brane 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

Hunter

I have your submission to make Hunter into a pseudonym for Alan Hunter. I'm pretty sure that many of the works are by Mel Hunter, especially the ones published in Galaxy. In a case like this, it would be better to change the credit to match the full name, rather than create a shared pseudonym. The primary verifiers of the pub records would have to be notified and asked to change the records and note how the works are credited. Mhhutchins 03:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, I tend to forget that art credits may be "normalized". But there is also a benefit of having Hunter as a shared pseudonym. If and when a new title credited to Hunter is added, the submitter might start think which Hunter it is, no? Cheers, P-Brane 03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
Not really. What if the submitter has no idea that the name is shared by more than one person? He's not going to go to the artist's page. The average editor enters the credits as given and walks away. Nothing requires that they do further research on each credit that they've entered. It's only a later editor who sees the problem and makes the connections, whether they be merges, variants, etc. I'm afraid that if we make Hunter into a shared pseudonym, a uninformed editor might make a variant record for the wrong artist. So rather than doing that, I personally feel it would be better to let there be one author's page for all the credits attributed to "Hunter" whoever that might be. And then let the editors who have the knowledge and the resources to determine which work should be attributed to which artist, and proceed to make the necessary changes to the individual records. We do this with similarly named authors. If there are two authors named John Smith, we create a new name for one of them and then proceed to change the credits using that new name, even though the new name, such as "John Smith (1962-)" is not the way the work is actually credited in the publication. We don't make "John Smith" into a pseudonym for each of the different John Smiths and variant the works to the two authors. Mhhutchins 03:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Title fields of 2 issues of New Worlds

I'm holding the submissions to change the title field of New Worlds Science Fiction, November 1963 to "New Worlds Science Fiction, # 136 November" and New Worlds Science Fiction, December 1963 to "New Worlds Science Fiction, #137 December". I don't understand the rationale of removing the year from the title. That's standard ISFDB practice. And even if it weren't, I can see by looking at the cover scans that the issues are clearly dated with the year. Mhhutchins 06:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at other issues for this title, and can't understand why the primary verifier has chosen not to give the year in the title field. That's not the standard. Mhhutchins 06:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my edits was to make these two issues consistent with (almost) a hundred of others. I'm happy to retract my edits if you'd like to discuss the overall format with (mostly) Herve. Cheers, P-Brane 06:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Removing a publication record under the wrong title record

I rejected the submission to add a new novel content record for this publication record. Here's the steps to move a publication from an incorrect title record:

  1. Go to the title record here. While you're here make a note of the record's record number, i.e. the number after "title.cgi?" in your browser's address window. In this case it is "2471".
  2. Click on the link "Unmerge Titles" under the Editing Tools menus. (This is an incorrectly title function. You're actually separating a publication record from the title record.)
  3. On the next screen check the box of the publication you wish to "unmerge" from this title record. Then submit.

After this submission is accepted, the publication record will have it's own title record, which will match the author and title exactly. If the purpose of the unmerge was because of it being a different language, the next step will be:

  1. Go to the publication record's title record (click on the "Title Reference" link).
  2. Click on "Edit Title Data" under the Editing Tools Menu.
  3. On the next screen, change the language field to the correct language, and submit.

After this submission is accepted, go back to the new title record.

  1. Click on "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" under the Editing Tools menu.
  2. On the next screen enter "2471" in the Parent # field. (This was the number you noted in first step, which is the record number of the canonical title record.) Then submit.

The publication should now be in good shape: the language is correct and it is properly given as a variant of the original title. Mhhutchins 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Combining editor records

You can save yourself a little bit of editing by changing just one editor record to the NAME - YEAR format and then merging all of the others with it (no need to edit each one to the same NAME - YEAR then merge). Just FYI for the future. I merged the four New Worlds - 1939 and changed the date to 1939-00-00 and removed the series number from it. --MartyD 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gollancz SF Collectors' Editions

I've made a first pass at tidying up the SF Collectors' Editions series, although I have a few more minor edits to add once I raid various boxes of books in the attic. As a sample of how I've phrased the Notes for the second impression see Silverberg's Tower of Glass, and I've removed all unnecessary reference to the distributor Sterling from most unverified pubs, but as I say, there's still a bit of work to be done.

Please cast your eye over it and see if you have anything you can add from the editions you have! Cheers. PeteYoung 11:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Will have a look soon. Cheers, P-Brane 01:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

Issue numbers in the title field of magazine records

We ordinarily only add the issue numbers in the title field if that number is present on the issue's cover. That doesn't seem to be the case for the some of the post-Carnel issues of New Worlds. Mhhutchins 15:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, issue numbers are not necessarily present on the issue's cover. But, 1. as far as I know, issue numbers are present on ToC page (cf. cover vs. title page for books) and 2. issue numbers are very important (at least ex post) in MM's view. In so-called #212 he states in editorial: "This is the first issue of NEW WORLDS to follow NEW WORLD QUARTERLY , which we have decided to discontinue. The numbering goes from the first issue, counting the quarterly issues as nos 201-211." Cheers, P-Brane 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC).
Well, we do have a Note field to record such information. The standard has always been to record the date of an issue in the title field, and only resort to numbering when the issue isn't dated, either monthly or seasonal. Otherwise, volume and numbering should be entered into the Note field. The only reason we put the date into the field at all is to disambiguate issues, because, technically, the date of the issue is in another field entirely. Awhile back when a relatively new editor was updating issues of Interzone, we were convinced, by a very good argument, that because the issue number is prominently displayed on the cover of each issue, then it should be part of the title. So an exception was made. Now it appears that that has set a precedence where other titles are being converted to add the volume numbering. One editor in particular feels all fanzines should have their volume numbering in the title field, even if that volume numbering is buried deep inside the issue, and the date is prominently given on the cover. That's the problem with allowing exceptions: it creeps over to the point where it becomes out of control. Have you notified the primary verifiers of your intention to change the titles of their records? I'm speaking specifically here of the issues published as paperbacks by Roberts & Vinter (1964-1967). It appears that after that they returned to giving the issue number on the cover (starting in December 1967). And it's not necessary that every issue of a title be handled the same way. If the data is not there, an editor shouldn't feel the need to make the issue conform. If you feel strongly enough that an exception for those issues should be made, you can bring up the topic on the Rules and Standards page for a group discussion. Mhhutchins 01:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont see we magazines should be treated any different from, say, books. Cover of magazine should be treated as book cover is treated and title page of magazine should be treated as title page of the book. If we base the record on the cover of the magazine, then, for example, most of Carnell-era NW's shouldn't have month and year in the title as this information is not on the cover. Cheers, P-Brane 04:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC).
Then, if we are to follow the standards, they should be corrected as well. If you want to create an exception, and I'm repeating myself here, this discussion should be taken to the Rules and Standards page. It's nonsensical to believe that magazines should be treated the same as books. Should the dates for book publications be given in the title field as well? We only give dates in a magazine's title field because every issue has the same title. Nothing in the rules state that you should also give the volume numbering within the title field. I've given you my interpretation of the standards. I'll be removing my hold on the submission and let another moderator take over. Mhhutchins 05:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
NO, I don't want to created an exception, you are arguing with yourself. If you read my last post it says that the titles of magazines should be entered from TITLE page of magazines, not from the COVER! And it is not true that every issue has the same title, because either volume, or issue, or number, or month is given on TITLE page of every magazine. Cheers, P-Brane 05:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC).
It makes every sense to treat any publication in the database the same way, be that book or magazine. And, yes, dates for book publications be given in the title field as well if they form the part of the TITLE of the book. Cheers, P-Brane 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Cores

Wouldn't this author have been born before the USSR was formed? Mhhutchins 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good ten yeArs before! Thanks, I'll correct. P-Brane 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

Series and excerpts

It's not usual practice to create a series just in order to place excerpts from a novel. I'm holding one of the submissions though. Is "The Secret of Life" an excerpt from Earth or is it a story set in the series? Mhhutchins 03:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Locus1, it's an excerpt. I'll update the title record to note that, but reject the submission to create a series. If you believe this is a candidate for a series, please start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When saying "usual practice" do you mean: 1) isfdb policy; or 2) your own idiosyncratic feeling? Cheers, P-Brane 03:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
I mean it's not usually done, and I've handled enough submissions to have a good idea about the "usual practice". If you feel strongly that I've handled the submission wrongly, whether idiosyncratically or not, start a discussion. I will bow to the general consensus. Mhhutchins 05:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess you haven't moderated this and this series:) Cheers, P-Brane 06:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
By my response to your submissions, you don't have to guess. The rules don't explicitly forbid the practice. Rules are usually made to tell you what to do. It's impossible to list all the things that shouldn't be done. So you've found a couple of exceptions, which only goes to prove they're not the "usual practice". Thanks for proving my point. I suspect the "series" you cite were made for the purpose of organization, and even the moderator and/or editor didn't truly believe that they are real series. Mhhutchins 15:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
you beating straw man of your own construction, i wasnt "proving" anything. Colon and parentheses and the end of my post mean it to be a joke. Cheers, P-Brane 01:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
Nevertheless, whether it was your intention or not, your citation of a couple of series still proves the point I was trying to make. Colons and parentheses don't mask the passive aggressive attitude of either of your responses. Your proficiency in English would not lead anyone to believe the first question was truly a request for a definition. We both know what "usual" and "practice" mean. In the future I'll leave your submissions in the queue for other moderators to handle. I'll be somewhere else, constructing straw men to beat. Mhhutchins 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am truly sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention in the least. Cheers, P-Brane 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
I accept your apology, but will avoid moderating any controversial submissions, for the sake of both of us. Moderating is starting to really take a toll on me, so I will try to direct my efforts on the ISFDB toward other areas. Thank you. Mhhutchins 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Webzine

The current policy (#11 of the Rules of Acquisition) concerning webzines is that they are excluded, with only a handful of exceptions. If you feel an exception should be made for The Orphan, please bring it to the attention of the group. I'll keep the submission on hold. Mhhutchins 05:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are much more than a handful of webzines now in the database (happy to provide examples, if needed). Some are even registered as "MAGAZINE". My reason for the inclusion of the specific issue of The Orphan was that it contains the story by Madeline Ashby. In general, instead of making ad hoc exceptions, sensible policy would be to include 1) all webzines that are listed in Locus and 2) specific issues of all the rest that contain stories by the authors otherwise well present in the database. Cheers, P-Brane 06:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
There is an editor who curates the "magazine" which you cite, which involves more than just creating pub records. If you personally feel The Orphan deserves inclusion for reasons other than just to have a single publication record in order to include one story by a relatively obscure author, make your argument to the group. You must be aware that there are thousands of stories by thousands of authors on thousands of websites that are also ineligible. Should all of these be allowed into the database? Will you want to moderate them? Please start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page if you feel the current policy should be changed.
I curate(d) SciFiction (dead), Omni Online (dead), Subterranean Online and Flurb (dying). Other moderators curate(d) Strange Horizons, Clarkesworld, and Helix (dead). I think our records for Daily Science Fiction are based on the email publication, not the webzine, but I don't handle that one and can't be sure. If you can provide a list of other webzines I'd appreciate it.
In the meantime, I've added a title record for the Ashby story without having to create a publication record for the webzine. I dated the story 2011, but could find nothing in the webzine to confirm that. (This is one of the reasons, among others, why we exclude webzines.) What is your source for the date? Mhhutchins 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
On date: that's a good question, I have it in my own db, so it must be the date when I downloaded it. Might need to use wayback machine to check.
I'll try to find the other webzines I've seen in the database. Cheers, P-Brane 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

Talks With the (a?) Devil

I have approved the addition of the 1980 Pocket Books edition of this collection, but I have a few questions:

  1. Amazon's cover scan and Look Inside from a 2000 reprint show the title as "Talks with a Devil"
  2. The amazon cover scan has a different price, $1.75 (?) vis a vis what Locus claims. A different printing, perhaps?

Could you please take a look? TIA! Ahasuerus 04:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My edit was just to import content to the existing pub. Now I need to look carefully at the pub itself. Cheers, P-Brane 05:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 05:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

E. Zelikovich's "Opasnoe Izobretenie"

As far as I can tell, the canonical title of E. Zelikovich's A Dangerous Invention is "Опасное изобретение (шуточная фантазия)" rather than "Невидимый свет". The latter appears to be the title of the 1959 anthology where the story first appeared. Would you agree? Ahasuerus 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are correct. It's copy-paste error. Do you know, by any chance, where the story was first published? Cheers, P-Brane 05:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
According to this page:
ЗНАНИЕ-СИЛА (Москва)
1938
6 Опасное изобретение: Науч.-фантаст. повесть /Рис. А.Лаврова. -C.22-24.
7 Опасное изобретение: Науч.-фантаст. повесть /Рис. А.Лаврова. -C.21-24.
but note the following warning: "довоенная фантастика до конца автором не выверена и за основу взяты списки, составленные совместно с И.Г.Халымбаджой в конце 80-х годов." Ahasuerus 05:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That'a a good resource I didnt know about. My collection of "Знание-сила" doesnt go before 1950s. Cheers, P-Brane 23:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

Fantastika 1963

A quick note that I have changed "Когда задают вопросы..." to "Когда задают вопросы" in Фантастика, 1963 год. I also converted the pub series to a regular series, which is what we generally use for anthologies. Also, I have Soviet Literature, No. 6, 1985 on hold, but I am running out of time, so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Ahasuerus 06:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've changed the number of Фантастика, 1963 год to 2, since the first one was Фантастика, 1962 год. Dneprov's story has ellipsis both in ToC and story's first page, it might be that we have a different printings if yours doesn't. P-Brane 06:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
Sorry, I didn't realize that you had a copy of the pub. I was going by secondary sources which were apparently wrong. I have changed it back. Ahasuerus 06:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am working an actual copy of Soviet Literature, No. 6, 1985 and hope I entered everything right:) In fact, turns out that my library at work has quite a few issues of Soviet Literature so I'll be entering and verifying more of then later. Cheers, P-Brane 06:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
I had to make a few changes since two title records had their respective authors and titles transposed, a common data entry problem. I also changed "Vitali" to "Vitaly", but otherwise the pub looks good. Have fun setting up VTs! :-) Ahasuerus 06:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ariadne Gromova"

Should we turn it into a pseudonym of "Ariadna Gromova"? Ahasuerus 02:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say "yes". Cheers, P-Brane 03:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
Done! Ahasuerus 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing data

I've noticed that you've been working lately on updating Russian-language records, and that most of the records do not give sources for their data, nor are they primary verified. Do you know if these records were already in the database when you started working on them? It's very important that the data be sourced, even if you're updating previously entered records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Michael! Can you be more specific? Which records are you concerned about? Mostly I'm just creating the original cyrillic titles, sometimes transliterated english titles previously existed, sometimes not. Cheers, P-Brane 07:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
[6], [7], [8], [9]. These records may have existed before you updated them, maybe Ahaseurus worked on them as well (he's the only other editor I'm aware of who works on cyrillic titles.) None of them are sourced or verified. Thanks for looking. Please pardon if you had nothing to do with the records. Mhhutchins 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I recognize at least two of them as recent additions. Based on some discussions above, it sounds like P-Brane has access to a library with a fair number of Russian pubs and he has been entering them as time permits. If so, then Transient Primary verification would be the best way to handle them. Ahasuerus 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, first two are recent additions. Unfortunately, it's impossible to verify a new pub at the same time as one enters it. Cheers, P-Brane 02:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC).

Tau Zero

According to most sources this edition is 20 cm. tall, making it a trade paperback. Also, the extra character (a comma) at the end of the ISBN makes it default to a catalog number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's indeed a tp, as is the rest of the series. Cheers, P-Brane 00:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

Шесть спичек

The currently stated price of this publication is R4.20 and I see that the online catalog of "Саратовская областная библиотека для детей и юношества им. А. С. Пушкина" confirms it. However, checking other Strugatsky books published in Moscow ca. 1960, I see that they were all under R1, so I suspect that it's a data entry error and the actual price was R0.42. What do you think? Ahasuerus 06:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this is the result of this. Starting from January 1, 1961 the Russian ruble was devalued 10 times. Some books from 1960 have double price, see for example this. Cheers, P-Brane 06:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC).
Duh, I should have thought of that! Thanks for clarifying! Ahasuerus 06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I myself only remembered it recently while entering price for a '59 issue of "Znanie-sila". It looked very expensive at R3.00! Cheers, P-Brane 06:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

The War of the Worlds

I added some notes to the SF Masterworks edition of The War of the Worlds. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be adding similar notes to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Sarah Canary and Synners (I got a partial shipment today!). Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Lucky man. :) PeteYoung 06:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Windup Girl

Hi, I've got a question about the page numbering and contents of The Windup Girl. You state 508+[26] and only list the novel. My copy has as last numbered page 505, after which 29 unnumbered pages follow: Acknowledgments [507] extras [509], About the author [511], Interview [513], Mr. Shivers by Robert Jackson Bennett (excerpt) [519]. Do we both have the same copy or not? isbn checks: 978-0-356-50053-9, price checks. BTW: I think the cover artist is Raphael Lacoste.--Dirk P Broer 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This editor hasn't been around in a few months (you can click on "User Contributions" to see when an editor last posted on the wiki.) I'd suggest asking either of the other two primary-verifiers of the record, both of which are active. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover image for Nostrilia

Hi. I added a cover image to this pub record that you verified. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Aways vs. Always

Please take a look at your verified pub. The cover image (and some internal logic) let me think that a typo crept into the pub (and the title). Stonecreek 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

VGSF Classics

A couple of your verified records are in this series when it appears that they should more properly belong in the Gollancz Classic SF series. The records are for Flowers for Algernon and Babel 17. Can you confirm how the series is titled in your copies? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

One other thing to check: the publisher seems to be Gollancz, not the VGSF imprint that was used for later volumes in the series, starting with Volume 21 when the name changed to "VGSF Classics". Mhhutchins 07:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made the changes to make them consistent with other titles in the series. If you find this is incorrect, please make a submission to change them back. Mhhutchins 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Page count changed . . .

. . . from 144 to 143 for this book. And publisher changed to just Gollancz based on statements on back and on copyright page. Stonecreek 05:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Expedition to Earth

Hello, I've replaced the amazon scan and added notes for your verified here. Hauck 18:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarke's The City and the Stars

Your verified pub The City and the Stars is listed under the Millennium / Gollancz SF Masterworks series as #39, but if your copy has the newer yellow/green version of the cover then it more properly appears under the series Gollancz SF Masterworks (II). This series, which includes re-issues of older titles from the original Masterworks series, is also not numbered. I suspect it will need to be re-listed under the newer series, but as your copy has an unknown date and I don't know which version of the title you have, it's essentially your call. What do you think? PeteYoung 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Timescape

Added a cover image to your verified SF Masterworks (II) edition of Timescape. PeteYoung 04:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Greybeard

Added a precise date of publication to your verified Greybeard. Thanks. PeteYoung 04:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Female Man

Replaced the Amazon image for our verified The Female Man with a scan – the Amazon image does not contain the cover blurb and the illustration is positioned differently. PeteYoung 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Arslan

Replaced the Amazon image for our verified Arslan with a scan – the Amazon image does not contain the cover blurb and the illustration is different around the author's name. PeteYoung 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Greybeard

I've replaced the Amazon cover image for our verified SF Masterworks edition of Greybeard with a proper scan. The Amazon image did not contain the cover blurb and the type is positioned differently. PeteYoung 18:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction: Shortstory vs. Essay

Usually, the introduction to a book is an essay, but your verified A Meeting Over Tuscarora lists its introduction as a fictional short story. Could you check this and, if it really is a short story, add a title note to the Introduction record noting something like "Fictional introduction"? And of course if it actually is an essay, then correct it? Thanks, Chavey 06:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Silverberg - The Feast of St. Dionysus

Added cover art to this book. --Mavmaramis 14:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sladek's The Reproductive System

Added a note re the cover design for our verified pub. PeteYoung 07:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools