User talk:Pwendt

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Pwendt, 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! --Marc Kupper|talk 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Tough Guide to Fantasyland

Hello, I have left a reply to your note at User talk:Marc Kupper#DAW Tough Guide to Fantasyland. --Marc Kupper|talk 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Regarding your question "Do I need a main User page in order for the four tildes to generate a User talk page link?"

To add a link to your talk page to your ~~~~ signature you edit the Nickname field on Special:Preferences. I suspect at present the nickname is set to:

--[[User:Pwendt|]] which displays as --Pwendt

to add a link to the talk page make it

--[[User:Pwendt|]]|[[User talk:Pwendt|talk]] which displays as --Pwendt|talk

Because this example is on your talk page the example is displaying as "|talk" rather than as a clickable link. On other pages it will be a link to this page.

Some users are adding superscripts or parentheses.

--[[User:Pwendt|]]<sup>[[User talk:Pwendt|talk]]</sup> which displays as --Pwendttalk
--[[User:Pwendt|]] ([[User talk:Pwendt|talk]]) which displays as --Pwendt (talk)

If you don't want a red link then just link to the talk page:

--[[User talk:Pwendt|]] which displays as --Pwendt

Changes to the nickname won't fix pages that you had signed earlier using ~~~~. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Done using 'Pwendt|talk'. This is one test. [[User:Pwendt|]]|[[User talk:Pwendt|talk]] 23:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Following exchange with Mhhutchins at the Help Desk, done with the same nickname and "Raw signatures (without automatic link)". This is a another test. --Pwendt|talk 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As this test show, the "talk" doesn't link when it's posted on the page to which it is linked. Took me a second to realize that! Mhhutchins|talk 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Author data

I accepted your submission to update this author's data, but had to make a few corrections. The Legal Name field should be entered in the format: Lastname, Firstname Middlename. Also I changed the Wikipedia link from the German version to the English version. Mhhutchins|talk 19:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that another reviewer quietly rearranged a First Middle Last yesterday.
I missed your note then, probably because I supposed that my "new messages" notice at the database referred to your preceding note. Now I will learn whether a reply to the *latest* message alone will turn off that notice. --Pwendt|talk 23:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does turn off the notice.
P.S. Just now I submitted a change for that author's book, the correct publ date for book 3 in a series we don't have. Not finding "Add New Series" in the left margin and finding I am too tired to look further now, so i am warned "Unknown Series". Good night. --Pwendt|talk 00:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't be afraid of the "unknown series" warning. It just means we don't have it in the database, or it could be in a different name. The slightest variation will generate the warning, which allows you the opportunity to search the db or to submit when you're certain that the series name you've provided is correct. Mhhutchins|talk 00:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks --Pwendt|talk 18:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you're making an effort to add the Wikipedia link to these author's data summary, you could simultaneously update the birthdate and birth place data as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll use "My Recent Edits" to revisit those people at Wikipedia-EN.
Do I add "language: English" by default because English is my language setting?
I noticed one evident duplicate and didn't quickly find how to merge people, author 77305 author 170359. --Pwendt|talk 16:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Demigod Files

Instead of updating the publication record for the first edition, changing it to a third printing, you should have cloned the record and creating a new record based on your copy. I've created another record for the first printing. Now you'll need to change the publication date to "0000" (displayed as "unknown") if the third printing date isn't stated and update the Note saying the data is from Amazon. Mhhutchins|talk 00:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just now I submitted a next stage with this Note to Moderator:
Augmentation in progress, primary transient verification to follow.
This contents listing omits 5 "interviews" with campers that span p64-76; a puzzle, etc, and answers that span p134-142. None worth the length of their titles but is there an alternative? The text of the first story does run p5-29 as the submitted contents listing now roughly implies but the other two stories run p33-63 and p85-133 which is not roughly implied here.
--Pwendt|talk 02:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And Antonio Caparo, The Demigod Files (character illustrations) ISFDB Title Record # 1933227 --a title that I composed as the 8-page insert is not mentioned in the book table of contents-- update with this Note to Moderator
The illustrations featured in this copy are 8 of the 26 now displayed by Disney at the bottom of its Percy Jackson and the Olympians series page [1]. As these may be the most important 8 among those 26 characters, I suppose that all copies of the book contain the same selection. I don't know whether this Disney page is one that should be linked in the public note; I guess not because I suppose the crucial content is not stable.
--Pwendt|talk 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You should probably add the information that you provided in the Note to Moderator field to the Note field. As I've said before, the Note to Moderator field disappears, and should only be about the submission and not about the publication. It is used to aid the moderator in their decision to accept the submission. Also, you don't have to duplicate the Note to Moderator when responding to a message here on your talk page. It's unnecessarily redundant (which I suppose is unnecessarily redundant itself! :)
You have the option to link to pertinent websites in a special field of a title record, which you can do for the character illustrations if you wish. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Done: submitted extensions to the Publication notes from material in the Moderator notes quoted here. --Pwendt|talk 00:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Foundling

Submission adding this record was accepted, but I made the following changes:

  • Disambiguated the titles of works which have generic titles
  • Changed the title of the map to the ISFDB standard
  • Changed the credit of the pronunciation guide from "unknown" to "uncredited". The former should be used only if the editor/publisher of the work acknowledges that the author of the work isn't known.
  • Fixed the Note field to add bullet points to every note (the last one was entered after the bulleted points.)

Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 02:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you advise me what is to be done when a generic title needs to be reused --further disambiguated again. Or not. If "About the Author" in a book of another title is identical, do we use a single title? and if so fashioned how? If another map of Prydain is not listed in the contents, provided with a heading, or internally titled, what to call it? Reuse "Prydain" (map) with a different date? What if one of those titles if available and with what priority?
For example, the map of Prydain (c) 1964 Evaline Ness, in the same style but different in content, which illustrates The Book of Three *is* internally titled "The Land of Prydain", internally meaning part of the artist's design. And for example, I know by examination that Henry Holt reused "About the Author" in multiple Prydain titles and editions, if not other Lloyd Alexander books too.
Perhaps there is an obvious place for me to read the instructions or the discussion concerning these issues. (I expect to return to Prydain rather fully only in December.) --Pwendt|talk 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Any generic titles, like "Introduction", "Preface", "Afterword", "About the Author", etc. must be parenthetically disambiguated with the title of the publication in which they are contained. If the exact same work appears in other publications, then the records will have to be merged, if they have the same author credit and title, or varianted if they do not. Variants are based on a change in author credit, or a change in title, but not a change in text.
Maps can be titled based on a caption, or a title within the map itself. If they are not titled, they should be given the title of the work they illustrate, just like all records typed as INTERIORART. They are given the title "Title of Work (map)" to distinguish them from other illustrations that may be contained in the same publication. If they appear in other publications, one title should be determined by a consensus of the primary editors, and the records can be merged, otherwise each will retain their title and then varianted to the record of its first publication. If there are specific cases for which you have questions, you can post it on the ISFDB:Help desk. Mhhutchins|talk 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.
By the way, reading Help:Screen:NewPub#General contents i see that I entered correct page numbers for The Foundling (which I primary verified) only by accident, because the table of contents gives the numbers of pages where contents begin rather than the numbers of chapter title pages.
Almost certainly I followed a table of contents that does give page numbers of standalone chapter title pages when I entered The Demigod Files [2]. The last sentence of my careful notes makes this clear, "Text of the first story does span p. 5-29 as this listing roughly implies ..." (listing gives page 3). No disaster. Instructions show that a verifier must also complete the Contents list, whose irritatingly trivial items I passed over (same Note).
Thank you for your time and good night. --Pwendt|talk 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest in the future that you never use a publication's contents page to enter titles into an ISFDB publication record. It may take a while longer to go through each page of a book or magazine, but it makes for a more accurate record of the publication. Mhhutchins|talk 21:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Throne of Fire

I'm holding your submission to add a new record of this title. It appears to be identical to this record. Is there a reason for not updating the existing record instead of creating a new one? Mhhutchins|talk 02:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mhh ;-)
Only that this copy specifies first printing with no date other than 2011 copyrights while the existing record specifies May 2011 without printing number. I know that s/he/we/they editors would not have the printing number in Amazon data but I (mis?)understood that to be the point of your note above that I should (and you did put into effect) cloned rather revision of the first edition ISFDB Publication Record # 547336.
That's because the publication you were working with was clearly indicated as a third printing. We have to assume that records from secondary sources (like Amazon) give the publication date of the first printing. That's why you should not have overwritten that record. Once you did that I had no choice but to clone the original to create a record for the first printing which would have disappeared because of your submission changing it to a third printing. Mhhutchins|talk 19:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I see now that Kirkus did cover The Throne of Fire with a contemporary review and provide Publ date 2011-05-03 that matches both month and day of our "Data from Amazon and Worldcat as of 2012-08-31." in the record we have. Kirkus Reviews The Throne of Fire [3]. This is relevant broadly (had I looked for it yesterday, say) but from you I infer that it is not crucial. --Pwendt|talk 18:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I never thought of doing such a thing, just overlooked. For The Serpent's Shadow last week I replaced citation of Amazon with "Kirkusreviews.com gives publ. date 2012-05-01 from contemporary review (-06-01 in print) as archived."
--Pwendt|talk 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Publication dates are provided by the publisher to both the retailer (Amazon) and the reviewer (Kirkus). So you can cite any reliable secondary source for data that isn't present in the publication itself. I don't know of any publisher who actually states the day of publication in the books themselves. Amazon provides the exact date for 99% of all books published since their inception in the mid-90s, and that date can be used in ISFDB records, as long as you cite the secondary source for data that's not present in the actual publication. Mhhutchins|talk 19:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still holding your submission. If you believe your copy is the same one represented by the current record, regardless of the publication date given in the record, please cancel it. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I am traveling with occasional short stints online, only a moment now. Do you mean cancel this and augment the other record with the new data? --Pwendt|talk 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Title reference content record

When creating a publication record, don't add a content record for the title itself, but only for other contents. The system does that automatically. So when you add a NOVEL-typed record, a title reference record is created for the NOVEL. Look at this publication record and you'll see that there are now two content records for the novel. Let me know when you've read this so that I can remove one of them from the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You made the same mistake with this record. Mhhutchins|talk 06:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, that is because I am not adding a title, which is already in the system (and linked to a series in this case, "Mary Poppins in the Park • [Mary Poppins • 4]"). Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If you use the "Add publication to this title" function, as you did in both of these cases, you shouldn't add a content title for the title to which you're adding a publication. (Hope that makes sense.) In the future, when you're creating a new publication record, regardless of the type of publication or the function you use to create it, do not create a content title for the work itself. I'll clean up the record and remove (and delete) the duplicate titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense. The matter now is to recall the point when looking at an empty contents list. Thanks for your help. --Pwendt|talk 22:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A Wizard of Earthsea

I have provided a partial answer at User talk:Marc Kupper#A Wizard of Earthsea. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mary Poppins in the Park

I've accepted your submission to update this record, but not before cloning it to create another record for what is presumably the first printing. If in the future you see that the publication is not a first printing, either stated or inferred from a number line, you should clone the existing record since it usually represents the first printing unless stated. I also zeroed the date field to show that the publication date of this second printing is not known. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

About the page count field, adding brackets around a number indicates that there is a range of unnumbered pages on which significant content appears. So they should never be placed around roman numbers, since that indicates that the pages are roman numbered. What were your intentions in this case? And what appears on the "+[1]" page? Mhhutchins|talk 01:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Page "+[1]" --or 283, immed. following 282 where the novel ends with "Chelsea, London, etc" in nonfiction voice-- is about the author, untitled and uncredited, in the publisher's voice. Now after rereading instruction on what to leave out --viz. Help:Screen:EditPub#Contents included with exceptions (sec 2.3 bullet 2)-- that it qualifies as "otherwise insignificant". Rereading the same Help, sec 1.5 "Pages", it follows that 282 rather than "282+[1]" is correct.
None of the 20 pages preceding page 1 carries a roman numeral number. The map, pp [iv-v] in my notation, begins on the second sheet of ordinary stock, verso and ends on the third sheet, recto. The primary purpose of roman numerals in the update as submitted is to locate the map on the 4th/5th of 20 pages that precede page 1. I think also that I was pleased to count them, find 20; count the pages beyond page 282, find 2; and calculate 304 pages as stated by Amazon, presumably from the publisher's count of 152 sheets ordinary stock.
On page xvii in my notation there is an untitled note from the writer PLT explaining that Mary Poppins 4 is unlike books 1-3. It isn't a novel in some senses the first three are novels (chronological sequence of episodes, albeit loose; MP arrives in the first one, MP leaves in the last one; etc). I don't plan to suggest that it be recatalogued as COLLECTION, because i suppose it is so commonly considered a novel that it would merely be confusing to say otherwise. But I thought it note somewhere. Possibly I introduced roman numerals because I had in mind citing this later as page xvii of xx.
Help:Screen:EditPub#Pages (sec 1.5 sub-bullet 3) together with sec 2.6.2 "Page" imply that "[20]+282" is the correct format or syntax if it will be done, with "[4]" and "[17]" page references for the map and the author's note if they are entered as Contents.
I will now submit an update that covers incorporates all this as I understand it ... done. Feel free to reject or hold with comment here. I expect to be here for only several more minutes but again in 12 to 20 hours.
Author's Note, Mary Poppins in the Park
Identical in the 1952 American edition and in this 1997/2006? edition/printing.
"The adventures in this book should be understood to have happened during any of the three visits of Mary Poppins to the Banks family [books 1 to 3]. This is a word of warning to anybody who may be expecting they are in for a fourth visit. She cannot forever arrive and depart. And, apart from that, it should be remembered that three is a lucky number.
"Those who already know Mary Poppins will also be familiar with many of other characters who appear here. And those who don't--if they want to know them more intimately--can find them in the earlier volumes. // P. L. T.
--Pwendt|talk 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Time at the Top, Peggy/Peggie Bach

I have replied to your message at User talk:Marc Kupper#Time at the Top, Peggy/Peggie Bach. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I added another reply to User talk:Marc Kupper#Time at the Top, Peggy/Peggie Bach. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Author's Note (Mary Poppins Opens the Door)"

I changed the date of this record from 1943 to 1944. We use the date a work is first published, not when it was written. It's highly probable that this appeared in the first publication of the novel. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I also found the date when this essay was first published. Mhhutchins|talk 22:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact I thought to enter the original paper as a New Essay, based on data in the omnibus pp 1022-24, but I didn't see how to add new essay *and* it occurred to me that, if unpublished, it should not be in the database at all. --Pwendt|talk 23:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was published...but in a nongenre publication. That's why I recorded it in the Note field and changed the date of the record to the date of its first publication. We wouldn't use the date on which the paper was presented, since that doesn't represent an actual publication. Mhhutchins|talk 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

2nd printing of The Black Cauldron

When you cloned the record for the first printing to create this record for the second printing, you kept the original publication date. I have changed it to "0000". Be careful when cloning that you carefully examine the data in each field that is being retained. I personally do not use the "Clone This Pub" function if the publication isn't a container-typed record, i.e. a COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, or OMNIBUS. I use the "Add Publication to This Title" function for NOVEL-typed records. This avoids the strong possibility of copying the wrong data to a new publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 23:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Creating Bibliography and Biography wiki pages

When creating this page, you removed the template which links it back to the author's summary page in the database. There's a warning at the time of creation that tells editors to not remove the header which looks like this:

{{AuthorHeader}}
<!-- DO NOT DELETE the above header template. It is used to link this page back to the author's database summary page. If you remove it, there will be no link. This message will not display once the page is edited and saved. PLEASE start additional text below this message. -->

Once you've acknowledged reading this message, I will restore the template so that the page is linked. Keep this in mind in the future when creating any bibliography or biography pages on wiki. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have read this and I have read the deletion log notice at Bio:Margot Zemach --which turned from blue to red as I was writing you about that very point. Blue preview, red save! --Pwendt|talk 21:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I've restored the link by adding the template {{AuthorHeader}} to the top of the page. If you come across any other Bibliographic comments wiki page without a link back to the database, simply add that template in an edit to the page. By the same principle, you can add {{BioHeader}} to a Biography page with a missing link. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 23:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase

I'm not sure if there should be two separate records for the interior art in this publication. From your notes it appears that the two artists are the same. Also, there's another record for what is almost the same edition. The only difference is the price, and being from a secondary source, it's suspect. 01:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Mhhutchins|talk

The cover designs do not match (re Amazon we have discussed that some online sources mix-and-match cover images and editions/printings; I know that is true of WorldCat also). The cover design of my book matches the 3rd and 5th images in our [ current display of all covers, rather than the 2nd image or the 8th 13th and 15th images, all from the same cover art by Edward Gorey. --Pwendt|talk 20:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I've pointed out earlier that the cover images attached to unverified records should not be the basis for creating separate records, especially if that's the only difference. Mhhutchins|talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought it best to enter interiorart data based on what is explicit in the book. With time for some exploration now, I find confirmation at CopyrightEncyclopedia.com, a source new to me. "The Wolves ... by Pat Marriott, pseud. of Patricia Eleanor Howard". To me it seems clear that both names should be in the database with this note and I will submit the pseudonym--legalname relation now, no action on the two interiorart records. --Pwendt|talk 20:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Now i submitted only Howard as legal name of Marriott. --Pwendt|talk 20:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
But according to your record the book explicitly credits Pat Marriott on the title page as the illustrator. We don't use copyright data to determine credit unless there is no other credit in the publication. If all the illustrations are by the same person, there's no reason to create a separate content record for another name credited on the copyright page. If you've determined that her legal name was "Patricia Eleanor Howard", and unless there is not a record which explicitly credits Howard, then we don't need to create a pseudonym and variant. Mhhutchins|talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I was able to ascertain the identity of Patricia Eleanor Howard and Pat Marriott --that is, to find the one source CopyrightEncyclopedia.com linked above-- only later and upon some investigation. I think you suggest, or urge, that Patricia Eleanor Howard appear in the Legal Name and Note fields of the database only; not Alternative Names until if/when we have some genre publication published under that name. So the INTERIORART title that I created should be deleted rather than "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work", which would make [P.E.H.] one of Pat Marriott Alternate Names. Pwendt|talk 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the publication record should only contain a single content record for the work as it is credited in the publication. Any variants are created for titles but that should be no concern when you're working from a publication. Mhhutchins|talk 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Supposing one INTERIORART content for this book (perhaps to be used eventually for all U.S. eds and some later U.K. eds illustrated by Marriott), I think it should carry the later date 1963. That is, maintain at least two Wolves of Willoughby Chase interiorart titles for Marriott rather than one (merge all) the 1962 date of the first ed. I say this by analogy to the expansion of a SHORTFICTION or fix-up of a COLLECTION (or a collection of SHORTFICTION never published as a COLLECTION) as a NOVEL. Do you agree? Pwendt|talk 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It should carry the date of the publication unless it can be determined that the work appears in an earlier publication. Even if we have yet to create a record for the publication, you can change the date of any later reprints of the same work. Mhhutchins|talk 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere, presumably under Help:, there is stricture concerning the merger of interiorart records for a single fiction title, to proceed iirc only if the full set of illustrations is used in both editions. I don't find it easily now and may recall incorrectly. Pwendt|talk 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
My opinion: This is basically a fiction database (the "F" in ISFDB), and any effort to record individual works of art is beyond the purposes of this database. If we know an artist illustrated a novel, and that a later printing of that novel contain illustrations from the same artist, it's not incumbent upon the editor to confirm that all of the illustrations are identical before merging the title records which represent the illustrating of the novel. Requiring that an ISFDB editor make such positive identification of each interior art record would be impossible. Mhhutchins|talk 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I wait for reply before any editing of The Wolves records. --Pwendt|talk 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

HTML

Hello, in the note field, you should use the HTML syntax (with tags) instead of the wiki one (with brackets). If not, it will lead to such display. Hauck 14:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifying primary verifiers of changes to PV records

It is ISFDB policy to first discuss most changes to primary verified records with the verifying editors before making those changes. If you're adding notes to the record, you can usually do the notification simultaneously with the submission. Most editors have a notification preference at the top of their talk pages. I had to reject the submission to add contents to this PV record for that reason. (Also, because the title and author of one of the content records was reversed, e.g. an essay titled "Bill Fawcett" authored by "Introduction...".) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that had discussed it with the editor. (It was from about a week ago and I missed it.) I will try to reconstruct the changes to the notes, and enter the contents (correctly credited and titled). Again, sorry. Mhhutchins|talk 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you made a subsequent submission to make the corrections. Rejecting the first submission before making a second submission to correct it would have been better, especially if I had accepted the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yearling ed. of Peter Graves

Re this publication: the format of the catalog number as it appears on the spine, "440-6889-075", is an early method some publishers used for paperbacks. The first three digits are the SBN-assigned publisher number which later became part of the ISBN. The second set of numbers is the publisher's catalog number. And the last set of numbers is the price designation. The catalog number, in this case "6889", would usually appear on the front cover as well. If there is no other number on the book, you can enter this number into the ISBN/Catalog # field of the ISFDB record, preceded by the "#" symbol. Mhhutchins|talk 23:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(as I said) Back cover "010-014" may be catalog number but ...
Probably that means recommended ages 10 to 14. I'll get back to it but not today. --Pwendt|talk 00:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cover: The Sea of Monsters

export notes to self [mistakenly posted here last hour 18:36, from both top and bottom of this section to User talk:Pwendt#Rick Riordan --Pwendt 19:38

Hello, I've rejected your submission to change the date to 2014 for a 2006 publication here. Can you be more precise regarding what you're intending to achieve? Thanks. Hauck 19:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My Recent Edits shows that you accepted at 14:14:41 so I surmise that you returned to undo that by hand (and database 14:14:41 is wiki 19:41, or one or the other displays the hour as relatively). Now I see too that the same change of date was accepted 2015-12-17 22:47:28 along with the prose Note (mine).
I was trying correctly to date the cover art by John Rocco whose image we link there, per explanation in the Note. Of course, it was not used on the cover of the listed 2006 publication, which was perhaps the first edition of the novel --not verified, so correction of the cover image is for its someday primary verifier to correct, right?
What happens if the cover record is unlinked from the only publication that currently links it?
FYI the displayed cover is used in the 2014 boxed set where we display an image of the box with three books inside it Publ 445539.
--Pwendt|talk 20:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
As I understand what you wrote, the cover for this publication is not the correct one (it's a later -2014- cover art). If you're sure of this and depending on the data you have, don't hesitate to (either) 1) change the cover of the 2006 publication by uploading the correct one (use the "Upload new cover scan" and enter the URL), 2) link the 2006 publication to another correct amazon cover (just change the URL), 3) completely remove the cover record (via "Remove Titles From This Pub") leaving the 2006 publication as a coverless record (which is perfectly authorized as it's not PVed). Hauck 09:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, I wonder whether moderators (not I) are able to check whether the field Image URL has been revised since a publication record was primary verified? (I know that the manual urges editors to be cautious about revising primary verified records, and to give notice at the user pages of the primary verifiers before/when they submit such revisions, and that some moderators check for such notices before they approve such submissions.)
--Pwendt|talk 18:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
When the amazon (or ISFDB) URL is changed, the submission passes in the moderator's queue and is approved (we saw both the old and new images) so there's a limited check (personally, I tend to trust what's submitted and don't always check the covers' precise dates). The only case when there's no check is when a new image is uploaded via the "upload cover scan" which is a non-moderator-approved process. But, as we're limited in disk space, the moderators "hunt" for images with multiple versions, allowing for some degree of control. Hauck 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
export notes to self [mistakenly posted here last hour 18:36, from both top and bottom of this section to User talk:Pwendt#Rick Riordan --Pwendt|talk 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Harcourt Young Classics ed. of Mary Poppins

Re this record: I changed the publication date from "1934" to "0000" (displayed as "unknown"). Nothing in your notes indicate this printing was published in 1934, and with an ISBN, it's impossible. Also, can you confirm how the publisher is stated on the title page? Harcourt Young Classics appears to be an imprint of Harcourt. According to the Amazon "Look Inside", the publisher is "Harcourt, Inc." which we enter as simply "Harcourt". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 21:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Title page displays "Harcourt, Inc."; copyright page gives street address including "Harcourt, Inc."
I presume that all of Harcourt Young Classics, Odyssey Classics, HMH Children's Books, HMH Books for Young Readers --from this book and other recent eds of Mary Poppins here and at Amazon-- are imprints of Harcourt or prev. Harcourt & World, Harcourt Brace, HBJ; subseq. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, etc. --Pwendt|talk 21:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is ISFDB standard (whether its documented or not) to use the title page publisher credit when possible. So the record should be changed to give "Harcourt" as the publisher. Imprints are entered if they are present on the title page. For example, all current books from William Morrow have the title page credit "William Morrow" (over) "An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers" which we enter as "William Morrow / HarperCollins". If a publisher becomes an imprint (like William Morrow), we can easily track the publisher history by separating the books as published. If a book is reprinted under a subsequent incarnation of a publisher, then the ISFDB record must give the publisher as credited in the printing of the book which it records, whether it is Harcourt & World, Harcourt Brace, HBJ, etc. Mhhutchins|talk 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you refer to your aspiration to get away from entering imprints in the Publisher field, as we routinely do? (Skim 'Ha' or 'Ho' in the publisher directory.) Or growing consensus? --Pwendt|talk 21:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The publisher field is the only place we have to record imprints. If by "you" you're referring to the collective editors, I can't say. I, personally, have no aspirations to change the current way imprints are entered. There may have been some talk in the past to create a separate field but there's been no discussion about it lately. You can raise the subject on the Community Portal page to see if there's a chance of a change in the foreseeable future. If we do create a separate field for the imprint, then it should be easy to do system-generated edits to the records without manually editing thousands of records...but only if the editors who created and/or updated them have used the current method of separating imprint from publisher in the publisher field. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly "Harcourt Young Classics" in the publisher field only as "Harcourt Young Classics / Harcourt". (The former now appears in the publisher directory(*) and the latter does not. I looked this up before submitting Harcourt Young Classics as the publisher.

On the general point, I meant in other words whether this is a plan to curate the publisher directory, presumably to eliminate entries such as "Dell Yearling" (imprint) and "Dell Yearling Newbery" (imprint and publication series) in favor of entries that identify the publisher properly -- with a slash followed by Doubleday, Dell or Bantam, Doubleday, Dell or whatever. (At the moment there is no slash entry in the directory alphabetized with "Dell Yearling".)

For publishers --that is, valid Publisher field entries-- familiar to me from the publisher directory, more often the "Publisher" column of the tables that ISFDB displays in Title records for named contents, often general knowledge or the front cover (as "A Dell Yearling Book" across the top) i usually enter that. --Pwendt|talk 22:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The publisher directory isn't curated. It's generated by the system and includes every unique publisher in the database. If I incorrectly entered the publisher as "Del Ray", it would create a new listing under that name. There are probably thousands of records in the database which should be cleaned up to present a clearer record of how the publisher is stated. Unfortunately, there's not that many editors here who can make the time and effort to undertake such a gargantuan task. That's why we at least try to get the primary verified records to match the stated publisher, and because publisher credits vary from spine to front/back cover, title page, and copyright page, we ask that editors use the credit from the title page, as 99% of all books give the publisher there. As for records sourced from secondary sources, when I stumble upon them, I usually try to change them to the publisher as given in the OCLC record. The librarians who edit that database are asked to use the title page publisher credit, so at least we have their data to fall back on. Using the front cover credit is usually not a good idea, because too often it's a publication series and not the imprint or publisher. BTW, there is only one record now in the database for "Harper Young Classics" (the one you entered), because the only other record which had that credit was a non-verified record, and checking on OCLC, I determined it should have been entered as Odyssey / Harcourt Young Classic / Harcourt. So I corrected it. That leaves yours. And as I suggested above, you should use the title page credit of "Harcourt". If your copy has any indication anywhere else of the imprint of "Odyssey / Harcourt Young Classic" you can add that to the publisher field. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

LCCN and title or publication-specific data

The Library of Congress Control Number should be provided (and linked if possible) in the Note field of the publication record to which the number has been assigned. It should not be entered into the Note field of the title record, since titles are frequently republished with a different LCCN. A good rule of thumb about which data to note in which record (the title or the publication): if it applies to a specific publication, it should go in the publication record; if it applies to the work and not a specific publication, it should be noted in the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Harcourt, Brace & Company

In the 1950s, the publisher was known as Harcourt, Brace & Company. In the 1960s, after it merged with World Publishing, it became Harcourt, Brace & World. In the 1970s through 1993, it added the chairman's name and became Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Then it was purchased by another corporation and became Harcourt Brace. In 2007, it was purchased by Houghton Mifflin with the new company named Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. I've updated or reverted those Edgar Eager records which don't reflect this chronology. Mhhutchins|talk 22:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Three days ago there was greater variation in database use of "Harcourt, Brace and Company" and "Harcourt Brace". Did you revise other records to fit the ideal timeline? Did you overlook the one verified by Nihonjoe 518183?
Given a policy, or consensus, to use in the database a particular name version for a particular book-issuing entity during a particular timespan, there remains a danger in such rationalizing policy. It depends on validity of the Year field as a book-issuing date --that is, a publication date in the sense of database "publication" records, a printing date. (The Year field isn't isn't rich enough to do what we should aspire to do re information about timing.)
I agree concerning "Harcourt, Brace" in regard to the Tales of Magic that LC and ISFDB merely use different canonical names with and without "and Company"; no doubt there are other cases where they differ about "& Company", "and Co.", and so on. Regarding "Harcourt, Brace & World", it's much more likely that different uses of the year fields are the crux of the matter. LC Catalog uses two year fields mainly, perhaps others in freeform notes. "Harcourt, Brace & World" with a year prior to 1961 is evidence that the year is a copyright date or edition date rather than a printing date. Same as ISBN with the same year would be. If we take the year for granted as a printing date and standardize the publisher (value of Publisher field) on that basis, such evidence is lost.
What is your interpretation of the one 1998 and one 1999 publications by "Harcourt" and the two 2000 publications by "Harcourt Brace"? Those records are internally anachronistic --the 1998 and 2000 on basis of year alone; the 1999 because it is 1999-01[4] where 1999-12 would be plausible. (Part of half of the answer is that the 1998 and 1999 are "date unknown" printings, probably 2000 or later if no catalog errors otherwise.)
(I'll get back to the Magic series.) --Pwendt|talk 17:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Mary Poppins and the House Next Door

Re this record which you converted from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK: one thing to keep in mind when doing such conversions: If you change the NOVEL title reference record during the pub record edit to SHORTFICTION, you have to add a new title reference record for the CHAPBOOK. It can be done in the Contents section of the entry form during the same submission. Otherwise the book's title won't appear on the author's summary page. (The story title will.) I'll add the title record for you. Also, I doubt that the book isn't paginated, even if the OCLC's page count number is bracketed. That could also mean that there were 96 pages but the last page wasn't numbered. That happens a lot in books. We'll leave it as is until another secondary source either confirms or denies the page count. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The US edition is paginated. I thought that I would convert NOVEL to CHAPBOOK following the manual Help:How to convert a novel to a chapbook#Converting a NOVEL publication to a CHAPBOOK where instructions begin with conversion of a publication record, so I started there with first edition --EditPub, not AddPub for copy in hand-- and resorted to online catalogue data for more info. I planned to continue with one instruction or another after seeing the result of EditPub. Unfortunately [a] the instructions are not scrutable (bullet point 3: "If the novel has only one publication on record, this can be done from the same Publication Editor dialog where the other changes are made"; not sure whether I did that back at point 1, hoped to see by viewing the relevant records after approval); [b] this was several hours ago at local public library, so AddPub US ed. must await another visit.
I wonder whether you converted one of the two illustration prize-winning picture books from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK yesterday, T170637 and T1766654. I believe I saw one picture book as NOVEL yesterday, one reason I visited conversion instructions today, probably one of these two. --Pwendt|talk 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
oops, fix links to Title records "T" and append five words --Pwendt|talk 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing the three records and the manual, the latter Help:How to convert a novel to a chapbook#Converting a NOVEL publication to a CHAPBOOK remains inscrutable to me. How does one add a Title record? to a Publication record? Perhaps the second bullet point should be deleted and the third rewritten. ... --Pwendt|talk 01:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said in my original post, go to the contents section (marked "Regular Titles") and click the "Add Title" link. A set of fields will open. Leave the page number and date fields blank, enter the title, change the type to CHAPBOOK, and enter the author. I'll read the instructions and see if it needs clarification. Some of these help pages were written before the software about CHAPBOOK was fully developed, and may need to be updated. Mhhutchins|talk 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there a simple change to be entered manually after which a script will complete the conversion per Bibliographic Projects in Progress? --Pwendt|talk 01:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I know nothing about that. It seems to be far out-of-date. I'm thinking that project was all about manual conversion with the hope that it could later be accomplished with a script. I don't believe that ever happened. Mhhutchins|talk 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary Poppins omnibus

I accepted the submission adding this record, but it would have been better to clone the other record of this title. Now you'll have to import the contents, and then merge the duplicate interior art record. Keep that in mind when adding records typed as COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, CHAPBOOK, and OMNIBUS. Saves both of us when you use the clone function. (I don't advise doing it for NOVEL records.) Mhhutchins|talk 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Same situation with this record. You'll have to import the SHORTFICTION title record, and then merge the INTERIORART record. Mhhutchins|talk 03:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Both done. With more data, eg the obvious cover artist confirmed by images on bookseller pages.
Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Instead of importing the contents as I suggested, you created new title records. Those will now have to be merged with the existing ones. (Go to Travers summary page and you'll see the duplicate titles.) Ask if you need help on merging title records. Mhhutchins|talk 19:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you mean Import Content. I overlooked the Export, Import, and Remove screens/tools.
I am familiar with merger of Title records that do show up as duplicates for some author. Last month I cut the number of Mary Shepard Mary Poppins INTERIORART titles from 25 to 10. Now I know how other editors created all of those as we are back to 25 again.
... Import done, for import of novels INTERIORART to omnibus (2). I'll get back to the rest later. --Pwendt|talk 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI: You can also import individual titles (instead of all titles within another pub). If you have many though it can be tedious to find all the title record numbers and paste a long list into the tiny form box accepting such. It is painful but it avoids having to merge titles later. This is one area where methinks there is room for code improvement (one should be able to select one or more pubs to import from and just check which titles from such one wishes to import). I am not sure if there is an existing feature request (FR) for such yet or not. Uzume 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing a publication record before a previous submission has been moderated

If you make a submission to edit a publication record, you should wait until it has been moderated before making another submission editing the same record. Quite often this can cause a conflict which will negate the edits of the first submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 02:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

<br>•

The use of <br>• is not a standard method of separating notes in an ISFDB record's Note field. (Although you will find that one particular editor insists on using it, even though it's been brought to his attention.) If you want to bullet each note, please use HTML as explained here. If that's too complicated, just use the keyboard return to create a new line for each note (they won't be bulleted). Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dell and Yearling

When it was founded, Yearling was a YA imprint of Dell paperbacks. Publications from that period are entered into the database as "Dell Yearling". Later (I don't know exactly when, but it could be researched), Yearling was removed from the Dell paperback division of Random House and became a separate imprint. The title pages then gave the publisher as "A Yearling Book". Those publications are entered into the database as "Yearling". If you find books which give the publisher as Dell, then enter them as "Dell Yearling". If Dell isn't mentioned, enter them only as "Yearling". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


(two months later work in progress-0406)

As of 2016-04-06 the earliest database Year for publisher "Yearling" is 1984. Indeed we have the following (Dell) Yearling publisher names, with yearspans (beside "date unknown"): Yearling 1984-pres [5] Yearling (UK) 1990-94 [6], Yearling / Yearling Newbery 1996 [7], Yearling Newbery [undated 35th printing of April 1990 Dell] [8], Dell Yearling 1968-2007 [9] Dell Yearling Newbery 1996-99 [10].

Anomalies from about 3 February in my primary verifications, perhaps to revisit

1. Mary Poppins, 1991 tp edition, all four novels T181986 T181997 (both as Yearling) T29571 T181995 (both as Dell Yearling)
All four first printing publication records give my Note:
(quote) copyright page "Published by Dell Publishing a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc."; Yearling and Dell are two registered trademarks
2. The Wolves of Willoughby Chase T13699, 1987 and perhaps other editions or dated printings (may be a single edition released 1968) [book 2 pv another edition; book 3 not verified]
(in progress) --Pwendt|talk 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

When creating records from secondary sources, it's important to find the most reliable ones available. In the case of this record, I would have first looked at OCLC. Abebooks data is not very reliable since it's from someone who wants to sell you something, and info from auction sites can disappear overnight without warning. I personally consider OCLC to be the most dependable of all secondary source on the internet for English language publications. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For this record, you could have gotten the page count from the OCLC record. Mhhutchins|talk 06:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The LC Catalog is a source of extraordinary quality. WorldCat is not, and it's a shame that ISFDB relies on it so heavily.
Meanwhile the ABEbooks page that I mentioned, as it does provide a cover image, is far more likely to provide an image of the correct book than is worldcat.org. --Pwendt|talk 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
No one is saying that the Library of Congress data is unreliable. Nothing I said even implied that. They never entered the discussion, and are not sourced in your record at all. I'm saying Abebooks is unreliable. Why knock WorldCat when in this case it was the most reliable source at hand? Please only use Abebooks as a last resort. And you should never use auction sites as a source. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Magic Finger

There are several problems with this record, the major one being that it doesn't contain a SHORTFICTION content. Now you'll have to import it. (You also could have cloned another edition which would automatically import the content, like this one.)

Another thing: synopses shouldn't be given in a publication note field. That is title specific data, not publication specific.

Also, you didn't use the correct format for entering the OCLC record number (omitting the colon.) There's also a leading space in the target name that should be removed. You also linked to the browser address and not the Permalink.

And you used Abebooks.com to source the date, and non-data about the possible format. This is probably the last place to source data. They're trying to sell books, and probably not worrying about recording accurate data for bibliographers.

Also, based on the OCLC record showing the book to be 20 cm., the pub format/binding is "tp". (All Puffin books from this period were softcover.)

Please make the corrections when you have time. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Vaguely I recall that the manual somewhere includes generalizations about page size and binding format. Now I append "20cm (implies tp format)" to citations of OCLC records that support tp format by this inference. --Pwendt|talk 18:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That's only true for softcover publications, something that OCLC rarely notes. You need a another secondary source to confirm the binding. Mhhutchins|talk 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
If "(All Puffin books from this period were softcover.)" it will be useful to note that period at Publisher: Puffin. --Pwendt|talk 18:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyone looking at Puffin's books from the early 70s will see that they're all paperback. It would take further research to determine when they started publishing hardcovers. If that could be confirmed, then a definitive statement could be made. Mhhutchins|talk 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Linking to OCLC

Please use the standard format "OCLC: 123456". Also, click on the Permalink for the URL, provided in the upper right corner of the OCLC record. Mhhutchins|talk 22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

El Dedo Magico

This record had the English language titles. I will remove them and add Spanish language titles, and then variant them to the original titles. Mhhutchins|talk 22:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that is a mistake at least for the illustrations. Some time ago I fixed Mary Poppins wraca P547654 to credit the original English-language illustration by Mary Shepard --despite the fact that in that work Mary Poppins Comes Back many of the illustrations have captions, commonly quotations of description or dialogue from the novel, presumably translated into Polish in their use as captions as well as in the novel.
See User talk:JudgeDeadd#Mary Poppins illustrations. As I recall, there were Shepard illustrations of two other Mary Poppins titles in Polish translation, and Barnes illustrations of all seven Narnia novels in Polish translation, all entered as English-language illustrations of the Polish editions of those works. All entered by the same user, as I understood the record; thus I conformed our treatment of Mary Poppins wraca illustrations to the other 9? books.

I also removed the price in US dollars which was there before you edited the record. An obvious error. Mhhutchins|talk 22:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the linked WorldCat record, the publisher is based in Madrid, so the US dollar price is probably a mistake. Not an obvious error, as many Spanish-language editions are priced in US dollars. Thanks for your attention. --Pwendt|talk 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is our record P547918 for Polish-language omnibus edition of Narnia 1-3 as verified (and presumably entered) by User:JudgeDeadd, who does not say whether it includes English or Polish captions or none.
(By the way I doubt the COVERART credit to Maria Izryk for "original work (presumably by Maria Irzyk), although clearly traced from Baynes's covers for the 1959 edition of The Lion... and the 1962 edition of Prince Caspian). --Pwendt|talk 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Even though art doesn't have a "language", and even if the exact same illustration is used in different translations of the work, each work of art should be titled for the work they illustrate. Any interior art records which don't match the titles of the work they illustrate should be corrected when found. (They must have sneaked through, undetected by the moderator.) This would mean the content record would have to be removed from the publication record, and a new content would have to be created. Then, the translated title record should be varianted to the original title record. See how I varianted the [Pat Marriott --Pwendt] interior art record for El Dedo Magico. Thanks.

Mhhutchins 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. I credited also 1995 Spanish-language Tony Ross INTERIORART for El Dedo Magico, now submitted as variant of his 1989 illustrations T925716.
--Pwendt|talk 18:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Viking ed. of The Magic Finger

Re this record: I added the colon after "LCCN", and removed the HTML line breaks. Several years ago they were necessary, and you'll find thousands of records still have them. After a software change a few years ago, they are no longer necessary; a simple keyboard return will display a new line. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I did the same thing as above for this record, and corrected the OCLC link to the Permalink. Please get into a habit of using the Permalink instead of the URL in your browser's address window. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Price field

When entering a price in US dollars, be sure to add the cents. I changed the price of this publication from "$2" to "$2.00". Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My Father's Dragon

What is your source for the interior art credit for the 1948 Random House edition? I particularly wonder why the illustrations are differently credited from the story, if they're by the same person. Mhhutchins|talk 21:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you didn't enter the price field correctly in the submission I'm holding for this edition. Mhhutchins|talk 21:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Further research has shown that the books were illustrated by Ruth Chrisman Gannett, her stepmother. So a pseudonym and variant should not be created. I'll accept the submission and correct the price field. Mhhutchins|talk 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand now what the note meant. You were referring to this artist, not the author of the story. I'll make the pseudonym/variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ruth Adelaide Chrisman later Gannett seems to have illustrated mainly as Ruth Gannett --eg, Tortilla Flat by John Steinbeck (at Wikipedia)-- but also seems to be Ruth Chrisman Gannett as of first collaboration with her step-daughter, per the Project Gutenberg HTML edition/release of the first edition and i doubt that many others of her (mainly earlier) works belong in this database.
I did not link the Project Gutenberg, nor add its cover image [11] of course, because I don't recall seeing other examples of that here and I don't know that ISFDB makes use of the Gutenberg release (lead sentence of HTML ed.: "This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever." ) --Pwendt|talk 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Click on the image link gave here and you can see why we need permission to deep link to images hosted by other servers. You can link the book's title record to the Project Gutenberg page, entering its URL in the title's webpage field. Mhhutchins|talk 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Three Tales...

I changed this publication from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION, since it doesn't include a previously published NOVEL, COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, NONFICTION, etc. A publication of SHORTFICTION-typed works is considered a COLLECTION.

I also went ahead and imported the contents, and disambiguated the generically titled author's note. Mhhutchins|talk 23:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Does a collection of a works in a shortfiction series not carry numerals as "C/1-3"? --Pwendt|talk 23:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No. The software only displays the story length field when the record is typed as OMNIBUS. That's because it's uncommon for collections to contain only series of short fiction works. Also, most short fiction in a series isn't numbered. You can post a message on the Community Portal for a feature request for cases like this publication. Mhhutchins|talk 23:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Illustrator for Wonders, Inc

Re this publication: Both of your sources give the artist name as "John Larrecq". Note the way each source provides the stated credit, and not the canonical credit. You shouldn't use the related names field of the LCCN record, or the author field of the OCLC record. OCLC gives the stated credit in the responsibility field. I've corrected it. Mhhutchins|talk 01:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I also changed it from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK with a SHORTFICTION content record. Mhhutchins|talk 01:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks.
How frequently is there a "Responsibility" field at WorldCat, where there are some John M. L. records like OCLC 429560318.
He is John M. Larrecq canonically at LCCN (and others [12]) but I don't know that other works (incl several picture books from Parnassus Press) will ever be in the database (chiefly stories about anthropomorphic animals, i scanned this hour). So I have simply linked LCCN John M. Larrecq for now.
I merely stumbled upon him in course of correcting one Publisher:Parnasus => Parnassus Press; the former should now drop out of the Publisher directory. --Pwendt|talk 02:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no way of knowing exactly how frequently there's a responsibility field in an OCLC record. I can only estimate that 95% or more of the records created in the past 50 years do have it. That field wasn't always part of the database, and records from the early decades of the 20th century probably didn't have them. Some have been updated from primary data. Others may not. As for whether Larrecq's canonical name includes the middle initial, we can't establish that at the ISFDB until there's a publication which actually credits it that way. OCLC quite frequently gives the middle initial or full names in the author field of their records to distinguish similarly named authors. That's why the author field of OCLC records shouldn't be the only source used to record author credit in ISFDB records. Looking at this record for example, it appears that Larrecq did not use the middle initial in his published works. Mhhutchins|talk 02:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand [13] but as I said above, I don't know that other works by Larrecq belong in the database. Author:John Larrecq.
--Pwendt|talk 02:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
So I repeat, we won't be able to determine the canonical name until or if there are other works by him in the database. We would still have to follow the Rules of Acquisition in determining that.
I think I may have misled you a bit about the term "canonical" when I was referring to the way LoC and WorldCat assign authorship. Their purpose is to distinguish human beings, not to distinguish publication credits, which is the goal of the ISFDB when we use the term. So I'm unsure whether the use of "canonical" in the bibliographic wiki page could confuse some users, especially those who know the ISFDB's use of "canonical". Also, if you look at some of the OCLC records for those showing "John M. Larrecg" as the author, you'll see that many of them credit "John Larrecq" as the responsible party. And that's what's important as far as the ISFDB is concerned. So perhaps the bibliographic notes need to be clarified about the name. Mhhutchins|talk 04:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know how to convert NOVEL to CHAPBOOK/SHORTFICTION deftly. --Pwendt|talk 02:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's in the help documentation, but it's getting late. I'll try to remember tomorrow to give you a step-by-step guide to conversion. (In this case, conversion wouldn't have been necessary if the publication had been entered correctly from the start. Knowing a book has only 39 pages is a rather unmistakable clue that the book isn't a novel.) Mhhutchins|talk 04:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes to primary verified records

I accepted the submission changing the publication date of this record before realizing it was primary verified. It is imperative that you first discuss such changes with the PV editor before making a submission which changes any field other than the Note field.

Another concern: you changed the publication date to "1975-02-00" when your note said it was published on "1975-02-18". Why not go all the way? If the publication doesn't have a publication date stated in the book itself, an editor can use a reliable secondary source for that date. So you leave a note on the talk page of the PV editor: "Is there a day of publication stated in this publication? If not, I've found a reliable source, [Kirkus Reviews, Amazon, publisher's website, etc.], that gives the publication date as [fill in the blank]." Allow the PV editor to make the decision about changing the record. If there is a stated publication date, such as "First Edition: February 1975", then the PV editor should give "1975-02" in the publication date field, but note the exact date as given by the reliable secondary source. If there is no stated publication date in the book, then the PV editor has the option to use the reliable secondary source to give the exact day of publication in the record's date field. But this should be done by the PV editor, unless they have a notification preference at the top of their talk page saying "Anyone can edit my verified records." or something similar. If the PV editor is inactive, there should be a notice at the top of their talk page that directs any questions to the Moderator Noticeboard. Mhhutchins|talk 01:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I summarized for the verifier at User talk:Don Erikson#Z for Zachariah. --Pwendt|talk 16:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
In this case, it's OK to give the full date of publication in the date field, because the record has yet to be primary verified. I'd also question your statement that all data is confirmed by the LCCN record, which doesn't give the publication date you've added to the record. That statement would have to be tweaked. Mhhutchins|talk 02:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hitty, Her First Hundred Years

I could find nothing showing that this is a work of speculative fiction. If the doll is simply the narrator, and with no interaction with the real world, as most reviews I've read of it seem to indicate, then it can't be considered fantasy. Or am I misinterpreting the synopses that I've found on the Internet? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 22:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

submission [14]
Yes, but i'll begin by reading further myself, not today. I know only the first four pages, up to the line I quoted --just before local public library closure this afternoon-- and the Google Books ed. breaks after page 4. Wikipedia says "magical ash-wood" but that isn't in the opening text, only reference to the traditional powers of ash.
I think you mean interaction with the world beyond that of quill pen on paper and turning the pages. I had wondered just what I would say beyond "Borderline spec-fic" if I did say that in synopsis as some others do.
How long is matter "held" in queue? --Pwendt|talk 01:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As long as necessary to resolve the issue. Mhhutchins|talk 02:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Have you been able to determine this work's eligibility? Mhhutchins|talk 08:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I can describe the wooden doll's actions: [a] take up quill pen to begin memoirs; use up paper (by implication use pen, ink, blotting paper); [b] raise and lower both legs together when left under a pew in church, "Clump! clump! clump!"; [c] work up and out of a crow's nest and get both legs over the edge, then to be knocked out by the baby birds. She does not communicate with the crows, wild monkeys, pet cobra, pet cat --nor with modern dolls if i recall correctly. The simplicity of her construction is clear; her inability to bend except at the one hip and one shoulder joint is recurrently crucial to the plot. That she can handle a pen or "work her way" without benefit of other joints is not explained.

So it is spec-fic strictly but I can't say whether it is clearly eligible nor whether it should be in the database. I have not read any discussions of scope. --Pwendt|talk 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be spec-fic unless she actually interacts with or becomes an active participant in the story she's telling. There are many stories told from the point of view of animals or inanimate objects, with the sole purpose of being a silent observer. Unless the story itself or the actions being narrated has fantastic elements (without regard to how the story is being told), I personally don't believe it would qualify as eligible. Here are the definitions, the rules of acquisition, and the scope of the ISFDB. Mhhutchins|talk 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Unless you have some definitive evidence that the work qualifies under the rules of acquisition, I will have to reject the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Substantially I can only repeat myself. Hitty is spec-fic strictly, for the wooden doll interacts with her environment as I described above [a][b][c]. --beyond thinking and four of five human senses, all but taste.
For what it's worth, I consider that a flaw in the work. It doesn't add anything to the story, in my opinion, to make the doll more than the externally passive observer you say is common. In the same way, I consider it a flaw that Alice is not spec-fic, strictly, because the brief final chapter portrays Wonderland as a dreamland only. It doesn't add anything to the story, in my opinion, to undercut the fantasy.
You moderators need to make judgments about scope at the borders. --Pwendt|talk 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Day the World Ended

Please specify the source of the month of publication in the Note field of this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Done a couple hours ago along, with AddPub three other 1930 dollar novels from Doubleday Doran. See also and better, User talk:Mhhutchins#Doubleday, numbered point 2 dollar novels. --Pwendt|talk 21:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Book of Trolls

What is your source for editing the author credit of this record? Both LCCN and OCLC give the current author credit. Mhhutchins|talk 00:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right. As stated in the Note to Moderator: "undo [my own] today's introduction of variant name in preparation for global change to Edgar Parin d'Aulaire --now in database for the one work only" with more detail
The Author name cannot be corrected because 'Edgar Parin d'Aulaire' is already in the database here. --Pwendt|talk 00:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll accept it now that you've explained the note, but the correction could have been done with one submission since all of the titles appear in the same publication. Mhhutchins|talk 00:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
But I didn't know several hours ago, when I added all the other data for both the man [15] and the Publication [16], that I should have submitted a global personal name change first, before the correct name appeared in the database.
1. You say "all of the titles appear in the same publication" which suggests that such a change could have been effected at once for all records of this work (CHAPBOOK, SHORTFICTION, INTERIORART, COVERART titles), if a global change in the personal name were not desired. How is that?
2. Probably this work was first published as D'Aulaire's Trolls? (altho Uniform title is Trolls, which may indicate earlier issue in some European language). Anyway, let's consider the first US edition, LCCN 76-158897, OCLC 86079902 and 410432. What would be the best way to get all of the CHAPBOOK, SHORTFICTION, INTERIORART, COVERART titles into the database as D'Aulaire's Trolls? --where is best to start? --and finally must all be entered anew and then all four D'Aulaire's Book of Trolls titles separately be made variants?
Good night, now overdue for me :-( Pwendt|talk 01:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1. As I said, your "Note to Moderator" wasn't clear enough that I understand what your intentions were about changing the author credit of a publication which didn't match those given in the noted sources. Once you made that intention clear, I accepted the submission. At this point, whether the changes could have been made in one submission is moot. As it was, you could have changed the author credit of the publication, the shortfiction content, cover art, and interior art, in a single submission. Changing the chapbook credit would have taken a second submission. (You saw that it was "yellowed-out" which means you can't edit it during a publication record edit.) In either case, it took two submissions to make the corrections.
2. Add publication records based on the title and credit given in your reliable sources without any concern for how it is titled and credited now. Once the records are in the database, we can determine a) the canonical title, and b) the canonical author credit. Variants and/or pseudonyms will be determined then. Mhhutchins|talk 01:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Children of Lir

I changed this record from a NOVEL to a CHAPBOOK with a SHORTFICTION content, since it appears to be less-than-novel length. If you've determined that it is more than 40,000 words, let me know and I'll reverse the change. Mhhutchins|talk 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, this is fine. Thanks. I am reading this one and I will assess as novelette or whatever length. --Pwendt|talk 22:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
A novella, ~20,000 words. And so entered. --Pwendt|talk 01:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

pb or tp

Re the update you made to this record: Where did the "5.1 inches" come from? The UK doesn't use inches. According to OCLC, the book is 20 cm. which makes it a trade paperback. Mhhutchins|talk 20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I see you got that dimension from Amazon.com (not Amazon.co.uk, which was your stated source). The width is 5.1 inches, the depth is 0.3 inches, and the height is 7.8 inches, making it clearly a trade paperback. I'll correct the record. Mhhutchins|talk 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Making a pseudonym / creating a variant

Re Katie May: When you make an author into a pseudonym, you must follow-through by varianting each of the titles credited to that author into variants of titles credited to the canonical author. Mhhutchins|talk 21:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Before you do that, what is your source that Katie May is the same person as Katie May Green? (This should have been asked before the moderator accepted the submission creating the pseudonym.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably the moderator read the Notes that I submitted at the same times 14:12 14:31 (approval times, i suppose).
I entered the titles as chapbooks where the first eds., British, had been entered as novels. Then observed to the moderator User talk:Rtrace#Magic Ballerina chapbooks that I think I must fix the CHAPBOOK issue before returning to the variant issue.
During the last hour alone moderators Rtrace, Hauck, and Mhhutchins have approved in succession and all may be inscrutable to anyone.
I suppose you converted multiple publications of the one title (#2 the Magic Spell) but not the other (#1 the Magic Ballet Shoes) --or that multiple moderators responded differently-- because my experience was different for the two titles. --Pwendt|talk 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misread my post or have confused it with another post. I was talking about the variant/pseudonym situation, not the conversion situation. These are entirely separate matters. Please re-read my post and respond. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Please read the linked material. --Pwendt|talk 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll ask the same question again: "What is your source that Katie May is the same person as Katie May Green?" That isn't answered in the post on Ron's page. If you have a confirmed source that they are the same person, you should have made the variants immediately upon making that determination. Mhhutchins|talk 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I presumed that you would be able to read the two Notes that I cited, which the approving moderator User:Hauck probably read at the time, 2016-03-06 14:12 and 14:31 per the log "My Recent Edits".

For now I have unlinked May and May Green in the database, but see the wiki Author:Katie May Green; cf Author:Katie May. Perhaps there can be a software solution for generating numerous variant titles. --Pwendt|talk 23:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed. Now that you've confirmed (based on the wiki page you created) that they're the same person, why do you want to remove the pseudonym relationship that you'd previously established?
And there is a software solution for generating variant titles. Unfortunately, a human has to initiate it manually, then the software takes over. We don't want software that will automatically create variants because sometimes pseudonyms are shared by different authors, e.g. Daisy Meadows.
I'm going to reject your submission to remove the pseudonym and then create variants for the "Katie May" titles. Mhhutchins|talk 23:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Converting NOVEL to CHAPBOOK

When changing the type in the metadata section from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK, you should add a CHAPBOOK content record at the same time, saving an additional submission, and avoiding a publication record which doesn't have a title reference link. For example, check out this record which no longer links to its title record...or any title for that matter. Mhhutchins|talk 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, here are the instructions to convert a NOVEL to a CHAPBOOK. Mhhutchins|talk 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that I would Import the one CHAPBOOK title record into successive publications of that title, rather than create a new CHAPBOOK title record for every publication.
Perhaps Rtrace (signs Ron) has experienced what he considers too many editors who don't bother to merge near-replicate titles? --Pwendt|talk 21:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Importing the CHAPBOOK record works if you're a moderator and can do your own approvals. When a non-moderator submits and has to wait, it leaves publication records without title references, and increases the chances that the conversion may not be completed. (Sometimes life interferes during the wait.) As suggested in the help page I linked here, you should change the type and add a CHAPBOOK content record in the same submission. You don't save submissions by importing the CHAPBOOK record. In fact, that increases the number of submissions required to get a publication record completely converted. It only takes a single submission to merge the duplicate CHAPBOOK records, and not doing so isn't as fatal as a publication record without a title reference record. So please follow the instructions provided. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I left a note for Stonecreek (one approving moderator, whom I referred to Rtrace yesterday).
Sorry about the prev and next sections. I am out of time now. --Pwendt|talk 23:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Those records that don't have a title reference are still waiting to be repaired. This proves my point that a CHAPBOOK content record should be added during the same submission that changes the publication type. Mhhutchins|talk 22:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Done some. (generally without adding the original illustrations at the same time)
Do you find such anomalies automatically and currently? --Pwendt|talk 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
No. It's not automatic. There is also a nightly clean-up report which finds publications with this error. Then a moderator has to fix it manually. BTW, I'm not sure how it happened, but now this has two title references. I let you see it before I repair it. Mhhutchins|talk 23:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I see how it happened. You made two successive submissions that added a CHAPBOOK content title, and the same moderator accepted both submissions without question. Even moderators are human. Mhhutchins|talk 23:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I submitted one Remove Title.
I found that lot in reference to my Recent Edits log from a couple days ago, evidently too hastily, as that log includes replications of course. --Pwendt|talk 00:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Submission to remove accepted. I went ahead and merged the two duplicate CHAPBOOK titles created by the duplicate submission. Mhhutchins|talk 01:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Do you plan on converting the other Magic Ballerina publications to CHAPBOOKs? If not, I'll try to find time to do it. (I actually hate wasting so much of my limited time on this juvenalia.) Mhhutchins|talk 01:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I plan to convert only one more -- #4, for which Amazon shows a back cover and thereby identifies cover artist Katie May. On my amateur view, this suggests all six in the first lot, at least, were illustrated cover and interior by the same person, but I don't plan to do more than say so in a series note.
If my local public library owned even one of them, I would augment that record greatly and verify it. But no, and I will not recommend the purchase of one. --Pwendt|talk 18:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This one at Amazon.
By the way, from a sample of one I judge that they are novelettes at ~125 words per unillustrated page, probably about 10000 words each. --Pwendt|talk 18:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Done Magic Ballerina #4 T1063662 including the variant first U.S. title. I specified length "novelette" in one publication record only, may need to end session before seeing the effect (not to mention complete variant/import of the artworks). --Pwendt|talk 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. T1063662
Initially, evidently, I assigned Storylen novelette to one new CHAPBOOK title rather than to the new shortfiction in one of its publications, so I don't know whether the latter would propagate. Later I updated the SHORTFICTION title to Storylen novelette. --Pwendt|talk 03:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Christmas in Enchantia

Re your update to this record: If a reliable secondary source (like OCLC) gives a page count which contradicts Amazon's count, odds are pretty good that it's the correct count. Amazon's page count comes from the total number of pages in a book, based on publisher data, and it is usually in multiples of 4 (because that's how most books are published.) We use the same page counting method as OCLC. Mhhutchins|talk 23:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Tail of Emily Windsnap

The LCCN given in this publication should be "2003065284", not "203-65284". The number you gave is missing a zero, and the LoC removed the dash at the start of this century. The last six digits must also have leading zeros to complete it. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In this record, the Canadian price should be given in the format "C$" instead of "$C". Think "Canadian Dollar$" for the right sequence. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 20:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

done; done; immediately preceding section too --Pwendt|talk 21:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Man They Couldn't Arrest

Re the notes in this publication: The OCLC record to which you link doesn't give the publication date as 1925. It provides the copyright date. The book must be undated, because the other OCLC record linked in the notes gives it as "[c1927]" meaning circa 1927. Mhhutchins|talk 03:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Merrimeg

Re the update to this title: Its type now mismatches the publication under it. You could have made one submission updating the publication record's type and its title reference. Please update the publication record when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Children of Odin

The first note in this record needs clarification, as it appears to suggest that the author's name is given differently and not the illustrator. That should be part of a note about the actual illustrator credit. Mhhutchins|talk 21:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Attempted and I hope done minutes ago ... [17] as approved by Rtrace --Pwendt|talk 22:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I changed the publisher credit to "The Macmillan Company" which was the US publisher's name in the first half of the 20th century. (That's also what is given on the title page.) Mhhutchins|talk 23:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding 'The Macmillan Company' reportedly succeeded by Macm Publ Co aka Macm Inc, Publisher:Macmillan says this is a catch-all; "There is currently no attempt to separate these into two publishers." --Pwendt|talk 23:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes that could be confusing, especially since there is an attempt to separate "The Macmillan Company" for the early 20th century. (Search for it.) Perhaps it's saying that there is no attempt to separate "Macmillan Publishing Company" and "Macmillan, Inc." into two different publishers. They both should be entered as "Macmillan". Mhhutchins|talk 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Earlier today I entered three Publication Series: Macmillan Children's Classics from "Macmillan". --Pwendt|talk 23:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Check their title pages. During this time period, US publications should be "The Macmillan Company". UK publications should be "Macmillan and Co.". Mhhutchins|talk 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've made the changes based on secondary sources, and have updated the note on the publisher page for Macmillan. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins|talk 00:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (i simply dump it and run as i am expected at about 00:00)

Another day I might check HathiTrust for digital copies (which WorldCat or some WorldCat libraries evidently catalog/ue as ebooks, by the way).
Macmillan is well-established in the database; seems to be established just as "Doubleday, Doran" for DOUBLEDAY, DORAN AND COMPANY, INC. (User talk:Mhhutchins#The Autocracy of Mr. Parham) and perhaps alternatives of intermediate length.
For now it's late enough for me to pursue a TV basketball game. --Pwendt|talk 00:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Page counts on Amazon

Re the note in this record: There's no need to record the page count provided by Amazon when you have a reliable secondary source (or the book in hand.) They use the publisher's method of counting all the pages in a book, unlike the method we use. Giving the Amazon data when it's wrong (or anyone's for that matter) would only confuse the user. WorldCat uses approximately the same method as the ISFDB, so it's a pretty reliable source for page counts. Mhhutchins|talk 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. Before I return to that record let me follow-up at one or two removes. This publication record is "Not Verified" with respect to any source. Previously it contained a single Note, "Data from Amazon.com as of 2012-02-13" (and the auto-generated "Cover art supplied by Amazon.com" presumably derived from the Image URL value). Thus Amazon appears to have been the only source; it is the only source if previous editors have done their jobs well.
  2. Would that also be true if the record were Verified w/r one or more secondary Reference such as Locus1? Or does it go without sayin' --without a Note-- that some of the data may be from any one of the "Verified" secondary References?
If it isn't clear what I have in mind, say so simply and I will expound another day. Good night, too late for me --Pwendt|talk 03:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. When a record states "Data from Amazon.com" that means it has been verified against Amazon's data. That doesn't mean it's correct. That means it matches the data given by Amazon. That would be the same for any secondary source. I'm not sure what you mean by "previous editors have done their jobs well." If the note in a publication record states "Data from Amazon.com as of 2012-02-13", there's a 99% chance that the editor was this clever fellow named Fixer. He does a great job creating publication records from the multi-billion bytes of data on Amazon, but I'm not sure if I'd invite him to a party. :)
  2. Yes. Those records that are marked as verified using data from secondary sources means the same thing as the Note about Amazon being the source. When there are multiple secondary verifications marked, it would be nice if an editor would indicate exactly which data comes from which source. Some of us do, but nothing requires that we do so. I've found it's a good habit to get into when verifying from multiple sources. Mhhutchins|talk 04:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Farrar & Rinehart

I've deleted the wiki page for this publisher and moved the data to the database page for this publisher. Keep this in mind when adding publisher data to the database. Wiki pages for data are being phased out. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What about a more complex page such as Publisher:Rinehart, which has an image and two footnotes? --of which the image and one note is the sort of material that "should" be kept somewhere. Does the database have features other than text and HTML markup behind a {BREAK}? Does the medium-term plan for Wiki pages cover some of the Rinehart elements?
What is the medium-term prospect for Author and Bio pages? ...
... (much later) OK, I found and read three sections at ISFDB:Community Portal, currently #81-83 of which the first is 81 Wiki-to-Database migration: Publication and Publication Talk pages. I don't see the practical import. I think maybe "keep in mind" means you hope I will do the migration myself for a substantial Wiki page that is so simple as the former Publisher:Farrar & Rinehart? --Pwendt|talk 01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No. By "keep in mind", I mean don't add data to any wiki pages when it can be easily added to the database proper. The questions you've asked should be part of the discussion on the Community Portal. This migration hasn't been fully discussed, and I'm as much in the dark as everyone else about it. About those images, I have no idea how they're going to be handled. Mhhutchins|talk 04:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

2019-01-26 markup --Pwendt

Verification Sources - What are they? What do they mean? Where can I find them?

Re the question you posted on Chris's talk page just now about the ISFDB list of Verification Sources: I direct you to the answer I supplied to this post. Mhhutchins|talk 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That is no answer. The table in ISFDB Wiki provides no key to use of the sources themselves, nor any remarks about precedence they should take in use for editing the ISFDB database. (As for Amazon, not one of the sources, you have written that other sources take precedence; further, that to provide discordant Amazon data is discouraged.) --Pwendt|talk 02:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I answered the direct question below. The purpose of this post was to point you back to a previous one in which I provided you with a link to a page which explains each of the sources which are listed on the "Verification Status" table of each publication record. Clicking on each of them (under the "Reference" column) gives a pretty thorough explanation, except for Locus1, which is the only online source, so we felt it only necessary to link to that website. Mhhutchins|talk 03:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I followed the linkname "Locus1" that we display on publication pages (not in the ISFDB Wiki table) and poked around that website for a while. There is no key at the head or foot of the index ("The Locus Index to Science Fiction: 1984-1998") nor is any such thing evident in the site index ("The Locus Index to Science Fiction: Site Directory") that we target as "Locus1" on publication pages.
So I asked Chris J about the key, and the dating convention in particular.

In Locus1 listings, the first date is the book's date of publication as supplied by the publisher; the date in brackets is the date a copy of the book was received in the Locus offices. Mhhutchins|talk 01:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is what I asked Chris J in particular.

By "key" do you mean the list of abbreviations used in the Locus database? Mhhutchins|talk 01:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I scanned that as I poked around three hours ago. It covers only abbreviations, no other conventions. --Pwendt|talk 02:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess William Contento, who managed the Locus database, didn't believe a key was necessary. Other than the bracketed date, everything else in a Locus listing is self-explanatory. What are the conventions you were needing to know about Locus1? I've been there thousands of time, so I could probably answer most of them. 03:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
--Mhhutchins
On my first visit, none but the dual dates. If something comes up later, I'll ask you. Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing price on The Minnipins

You have a £ symbol but no price listed for your recently added pub for The Minnipins. Thanks, Albinoflea 22:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I "learned" the blank currency symbol to indicate the US/UK nationality of the publication (granted we may actually need a value such as 2s/6d) from NightBirds on Nantucket T13704 which displays its systematic use evidently by User:Bluesman.
I sometimes use it, after consultation at User talk:Mhhutchins#Price £ or $, but I don't often remember and don't always have the pound symbol at hand, so I don't use it much. Nor did I take the suggestion to raise the convention for discussion by the community. --Pwendt|talk 00:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If you have an American keyboard, you can use the ALT code for the British pound symbol: ALT+0163 (hold down the ALT key and enter "0163" in the number pad.) For other ALT codes go here. Mhhutchins|talk
Ah... I had not seen that convention before. Thanks, Albinoflea 05:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Poppyseed Cakes publisher

Hi. I accepted your Poppyseed Cakes submission, but in the notes you mention it says "A Borzoi Book". If Borzoi is on the title page, I think you should instead record the publisher as Borzoi / Alfred A. Knopf to capture the imprint, especially since we already have an imprint / publisher entry. I'm guessing we are not very consistent about capturing the Borzoi (given the few publications), but I did not find any discussion suggesting we should NOT capture it. See what you think. --MartyD 11:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the "Look Inside!" which does show the title page with no mention of Borzoi
title page bottom: Everyman's Library Children's Classics //
Alfred A. Knopf New York London Toronto
copyright page top: This is a Borzoi Book //
Published by Alfred A. Knopf
In the bullet list I mean initial dashes to indicate second-level items, three sub-points to "copyright page". Now submitted[18] I insert add a first list item "Title page" and add a colon to "Copyright page:". --Pwendt|talk 18:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Placing publication data in a title record

This is not usually done. We try to separate the work (the title record) from any publication of the work (the publication record). Why not just create publication records for these Kennedy chapbooks? Mhhutchins|talk 02:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the latter, maybe I should have done so, or saved more work in progress at Author:Marcia Sewall which I also had open as I gradually closed down. I did want to provide sources for fixing the shortfiction title dates.
  • Is there any way to create at once a new CHAPBOOK from a SHORTFICTION Title record; that is, to create a new container for that work? Pwendt|talk 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is not a way to add a publication to a contained title (SHORTFICTION, ESSAY, INTERIORART), only a container title (NOVEL, COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY, etc.) using the "Add New ..." function. Mhhutchins|talk 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • How to you suggest that a library catalog/ue Summary be noted in container title record? Eg, "Visiting with the caretaker of an empty old mansion, orphaned Jessamy emerges from the nursery closet into the world of 1914 when her namesake lived in the same house and left her adventures and a mystery to be solved again in the present. --Summary from one library catalogue record" without any link?
You don't have to provide a link, just give the source. If the link is permanent, just use simple HTML to create a link. Don't link to an outside webpage if you're not certain that it's permanent. Mhhutchins|talk 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
In user space I have now assembled much data on these story publications. I'll think about how to create database records efficiently.
P.S. I don't know whether we try to write in the database, as at Wikipedia, "catalog" or "catalogue" depending on whether or not some entity is USAmerican. --Pwendt|talk 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Both spellings are acceptable in the ISFDB. Any English reader should be able to understand both. Don't waste time trying to determine if the source is American English or British English (or any other form of English). Use the spelling you're more comfortable with. (I'm puzzled why so many Wikipedia editors use "whilst" instead of "while" as a conjunction. To my American ears, the former sounds so pretentious. But as for differences in spellings, I can look at "flavour", "centre", and "realise" all day long without blinking an eye.) Mhhutchins|talk 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Acknowledged, thanks. I must run now, after completing ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard#Richard Kennedy. --Pwendt|talk 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bedknob and Brookstick(s)

I have no idea what you're doing with these latest submission (adding a new title reference to a record that already has one.) But I've accepted them with the expectation that you'll clean them up (they're in pretty bad shape right now.) Perhaps it would have been better to just delete them and start from scratch. Mhhutchins|talk 21:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably that would have been better. (I'll check back within 24 hours) --Pwendt|talk 01:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing a double-credit

When you end up with an author/artist credited twice, removing just one of them does not work. The software is not smart enough: It finds that each name is still associated with the record and keeps each one. To remove a double-credit, you need to remove all of them, then put one back after the removal is accepted. I did that for you. I hope this is what you wanted. --MartyD 01:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The recent change in software allows an editor to also edit each COVERART record individually. So you can edit one record to give both artist credits, and then use the remove function to get rid of the other one. You also have to remember to delete the record you removed, since it will stay in the database, regardless of whether it is associated with a publication. Mhhutchins|talk 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks --Pwendt|talk 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pippi Longstocking

Hello, please remember to merge the NOVEL titles created when you add an OMNIBUS. I've done this for you by supposing that the translators stayed the same. Hauck 08:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Can you direct me to instructions or discussion concerning multiple published translations into one language?
I do maintain notes on things to do "later", as in Notes to Moderator for two omnibus editions of Pippi yesterday [19] [20].
I do not know the treatment of multiple translations. I see that it may be very complex Title: Voyage au centre de la Terre. For the Pippi Longstocking novel(la)s, where we now have multiple translations merged as one Title, I do have some notes on translations in user space.
Tiina Nunnally 2007 (see below) is the only third translation of the novels in my user space notes. Evidently she also translated some Pippi picture books; maybe some first English editions ...
The two Pippi omnibus editions do not contain original translations but they do contain different translations --1950s US translations in the Viking omnibus and 1950s UK translations in the Oxford omnibus. We now have distinct Title records for the two early English translations only for book 2, Pippi Långstrump går ombord, and only because its was published under two different English titles, US on Board T1998501 and UK Aboard T1462189.
--Pwendt|talk 15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I submitted improvements to the two OMNIBUS Title records only, said in Note to Moderator "in progress; novel Titles 1 and 3 may need un-merge; User talk:Pwendt#Pippi Longstocking (w moderator Hauck)"
Translators are now identified primarily in the 1950s novel publication records. --Pwendt|talk 16:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
For multiple translations, the rule is that there is one translated title record for each translator (that why we're putting the translator at title level, it avoid undue merging), see for example this short story that has three different translations in french and so 3 different title records. Hauck 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Update done, for the two OMNIBUS Title records and four NOVEL Title records. What is the best way to unmerge the two Viking publications of Pippi in the South Seas, for instance. Begin at the first publication P568496 and remove the container NOVEL [21]? Or manually copy all to a New Novel? --Pwendt|talk 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
No, first go to title level (here), then select the "Unmerge Titles" tool (on the right side), choose the two "Viking" titles, submit and then you'll see that the unmerge function is bugged when there's an OMNIBUS present! (I've already alerted to this specific problem but to not avail) Without such a bug (e.g. with only novels to unmerge, you'll just have to "re-merge" the correct newly created titles and re-variant them). I've done this for you (or so I hope), result is here). Hauck 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, H. For the first novel there is a third translation, apparently also commissioned by Oxford. Some data at Amazon are corrupt.

Note to self: Amazon provides Look Inside 978-0-19-278241-0 (paper) --with 2007 transl. by Tiina Nunnally-- for some other editions, at least once without notice. We may have incorrect data (incl cover image?) for 2011 US Viking p530058, 2012 UK Oxford 481286 those records confirmed, expanded -Pwendt

Now I will *add* 978-0-19-278241-0 to the database and then maybe quit Pippi for today. --Pwendt|talk 18:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I've worked a bit on it and created three different and separate translations. Still missing are the translators of the two omnibuses. If you add them, I can do the (bugged) unmerging. See you tomorrow! Hauck 18:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Our records for the two omnibus editions are correct; I switched one of the contained translations, which required several steps because of the bug you noted. I added links to LCCN and OCLC records but Amazon including its Look Inside! is the source of almost all data.
After confirming/correcting our records for the three publications immediately above, all single novels, it was easy to unmerge and merge them, two steps. --Pwendt|talk 16:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Publisher T. Nelson

"T. Nelson" shows up as a new publisher. It looks to me like it is Thomas Nelson. If you agree, and it's ok with you, may I change that to Thomas Nelson on those two submissions (leaving your notes as-is)? We have Thomas Nelson as a publisher already. Thanks. --MartyD 23:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please hold for a few days. Perhaps I will add more Ursula Moray Williams eds. from notes in user space, pass over any "T. Nelson" or make a note to hold those too. I will check other sources for these. LC catalog was down for me Fri/Sat and after end of semester yesterday I have no night/Sunday access to historical newspapers. --Pwendt|talk 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will do that. Let me know when you are done and what you decide we should use. Thanks. --MartyD 20:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • One more submitted and cancelled by mistake [22] "Camden [N.J.] T. Nelson" (other cities are New York and Nashville [Tenn.])

--Pwendt|talk 20:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

All four now in the queue should be "Thomas Nelson".
I added a Note for Publisher: Thomas Nelson & Sons, not yet for Thomas Nelson, and reallocated a few books. A few remain. --Pwendt|talk 21:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Great. I accepted the submissions and changed the publisher in each to Thomas Nelson. I also added the Wikipedia link to the Thomas Nelson page. Thanks. --MartyD 10:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a Note for Publisher: Thomas Nelson, narrowed its target to the Wikipedia section Current United States company, and completed reallocation of all pre-1969 books to the British company (& Sons), which published also in North America. We don't attribute any subsequent publications to & Sons and a glance at ISBN for Thomas Nelson publications suggests that we may not have any in the database. --Pwendt|talk 15:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

[Hamish] Hamilton

Hi. You used Hamilton on this but Hamish Hamilton on this. The LOC records both show London, Hamilton, and I am guessing both should have the same publisher credit. Thanks. --MartyD 23:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hamish Hamilton. At the same time I promoted Reindeer Books from my Notes (as series noted by both LCCN and OCLC) to Publication series.
And i eliminated Reindeer Books from the database as a publisher by revising one record. --Pwendt|talk 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


A Net to Catch the Wind

The system was grumpy about your submission for A Net to Catch the Wind and forced me to reject it. It looked to me like the changes were the notes and the date on everything. I copied the notes over and made the date change. Please check that it's all the way you want it, and if there's something other than the notes and date, you'll have to redo it. Sorry about that, and thanks. --MartyD 00:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I had created the CHAPBOOK title with a redundant copy of the SHORTFICTION and "Note to Moderator: first publication of this short story; later merge them" [23]. Probably another editor merged them, thus deleted the new SHORTFICTION, while my first follow-up was in the queue.
All is well. I restored hyperlinks and on further investigation I found more to be said P571624. --Pwendt|talk 15:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dragon's Nest

I answered your posting on my "Messages Page". When you're right, you're right, and you were right. MLB 02:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Faust submission

Hi. I think your Faust submission duplicates this entry. See what you think. --MartyD 00:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, my submission duplicates the book, 1st ed. presumable 1st printing. I missed it yesterday.
Do we use such longlong titles by policy? I have shortened some full titles that are much shorter than this one. And we now give a one-word title for the companion novel Falstaff (1976) T1612138. For that one I had partly assembled in user space, but not submitted, data for the two 1st eds. thus:
(1st ed.) LCCN: <a href="https://lccn.loc.gov/77352232">77-352232</a> and OCLC: <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2930386">2930386</a>
-- as Main title: "Falstaff : being the Acta domini Johannis Fastolfe, or Life and valiant deeds of Sir John Faustoff, or The hundred days war, as told by Sir John Fastolf, K.G., to his secretaries William Worcester, Stephen Scrope, Fr. Brackley, Christopher Hanson, Luke Nanton, John Bussard, and Peter Basset
-- "/ now first transcribed, arranged and edited in modern spelling by Robert Nye."
and
(1st US ed.) LCCN: <a href="https://lccn.loc.gov/76027765">76-27765</a> and OCLC: <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2373077">2373077</a>
-- (as above)
For Falstaff all four linked records give the long title. For Faust, LC gives one-word title for the 1st ed.[24], longlong for the 1st US ed.[25].
Perhaps the longlong titles should appear only in Notes, perhaps best in both Title and Publication records.
P.S. At the moment Robert Nye A5059 because "merge/variant as approp" remains on my to-do list for three Beowulf titles. --Pwendt|talk 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We want the title as the book has it on the title page. You could raise this question on the Rules and standards discussions page or the Community Portal and see what others have to say. --MartyD 02:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I still have that submission on hold. Since you agree that it's a duplicate, would you copy any information you want to preserve into the existing entry and then cancel it when you do not need it any longer? Thanks. --MartyD 11:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
ok (and strikeout what is long obsolete above) --Pwendt|talk 16:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Copyright dates for some of Kipling's Just So Stories

Hi, I accidentally approved one of your submissions and have put several others on hold: the copyrights of these are assigned for the years 1900 & 1901 to Kipling, but this is not enough to ensure a publication in the respective year. Have you any more evidence for respective publications before 1902? (Per help we assign the original publication date of a title, not the year of copyright or writing.) Stonecreek 17:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I cancelled and resubmitted one of the four (Armadillos) that were on hold because that one alone names a publishing company, Curtis Publishing Company. Five state copyright by Kipling alone, of which four prior to 1902 so that I submitted a change in the "Year" field.
Wikipedia and others say that three of the twelve stories were published in a children's magazine, evidently by Century Company during 1897. Of the other nine Wikipedia says only that they were added to make the 1902 collection, but I suppose Curtis had published the one somewhere.
If I understand correctly, the Notes are OK, and may prompt someone to find a deeper source. But the "Year" 1902-00-00 should be retained/restored for three of those on hold and for one that you approved (Leopard). Right?
Now I must break, perhaps for the day. --Pwendt|talk 19:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Update. Now at the university library where I have access to historical newspapers. Here are the first two of three sentences in one item, "Notes and News" NY Times 1902-04-12 pBR12
"Rudyard Kipling has finished three more stories for the Ladies Home Journal in his series of "Just-So Stories", which he has been writing for the magazine.[retaining copyright evidently] The first of the stories will be called 'The Cat That Walked by Himself'."
--Pwendt|talk 21:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
As this note appeared in 1902, I have restored 1902 as the year of publication: it may be possible (even likely), that some titles were published before the book, but as we don't know yet which of them and when, we better stick with the yet known first publication. Christian Stonecreek 03:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I fully hope and half expect to find some 1900 to 1902 magazine publication dates with university library facilities, but that is not for today. And I withhold incremental update of the COLLECTION Just So Stories for Little Children T39137.
Technically, are you as moderator able to revise my submission? Or do you mean approve what is on hold and then make another update yourself? (I see in the log of my rejected submissions that you did not reject any, and I don't know of any other log available to me.) --Pwendt|talk 19:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's only possible to either reject a submission or to accept it and change the new record afterwards in a second step. Christian Stonecreek 04:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

11 of the 12 stories were previously published in US (9) and UK (2) from December 1897 to October 1902, per Ernest Walter Martindell, A Bibliography of the Works of Rudyard Kipling (1881-1921), Bookman's Journal, 1922 (located at books.google.com).

All 12 short story Title records done, with that information --the first three-part serial with links to digital copies at HathiTrust Digital Library. COLLECTION Title not yet updated.

One month before it published the first of six stories, The Ladies Home Journal April 1900 published an article --not necessarily prose by Kipling-- entitled "Rudyard Kipling's New Animal Stories". That is the top line of the front cover (LHJ 1900-04 cover image).

--Pwendt|talk 01:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Evidently "The Elephant's Child" is the story content published under "Rudyard Kipling's New Animal Stories", April 1900. That explains the 1900 copyright, and I suppose that the title sufficiently explains why the 1926 bibliographer missed it. So I cancelled the submission on hold, focusing on that story's 1902 re-issue in The Windsor Magazine.
LCCN: 2007-586218; 2008-570150
Also I know the original illustrator Frank Ver Beck. That's all for now, no time to write up. --Pwendt|talk 18:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Pearson's Magazine, October 1902

Hello. Re this publication, I have put your submission on hold, as I didn't understand your change from 1902-08-00 to 1902-09-00, given the date of publication of the magazine. If this is not a typo, please clarify in the notes if possible. Thanks, Linguist 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC).

I suppose that is a typo, '9' for '0', as I must have intended to change the date of the Title Pearson's Magazine - 1902 T1049941 from 1902-08 to 1902-00. Probably I shouldn't have tried to change that along with Publication update Pearson's Magazine, October 1902.
Just now I submitted merge of the April 1902 number with the 1902 volumes. The merge tool offered two choices to resolve Conflict, 1902-08 and 1902-04, and I selected the latter.
Probably I should have changed Title Pearson's Magazine - 1902 from Year 1902-09-00 (oversight by previous editor, I suppose) to 1902-00-00 before undertaking to add any more 1902 issues.
Until 1902-08-00 approved by Hauck a couple hours ago, I had not previously added a number to a magazine year that is in the database, only added a year to a magazine series and added contents to number that is in the database. --Pwendt|talk 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A glance at other years shows that we date the Pearson titles by year YYYY-00-00 in some instances, and YYYY-MM-00 in other instances. For the latter, 'MM' is the month of the earliest number that is in the database, and I suppose this to be an oversight by previous editor. The title by year YYYY should always carry Year = YYYY-00-00. Right? --Pwendt|talk 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
My subsequent Pending Title Update Submission includes change of Year from [now 1902-04-00] to 1902-00-00. --Pwendt|talk 00:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a written rule for this. I usually change the date to "YYYY-00-00" (or simply "YYYY") with titles grouped by year but I've seen other strategies. Hauck 06:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering sooner, as I have been unavailable until now. I'll approve your submission; please make the necessary corrections afterwards. Thanks, Linguist 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC).

Magazine submission

This had a problem with an empty, unclosed anchor tag (it was just <a href=") that made a mild mess of the display. I replaced that with XXXXX. It'll need fixing up. I think all of the rest of your note text survived. --MartyD 00:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Harper's Weekly Magazine First Publications

I have three edits by you on hold. In each case, you are adding a statement regarding first published in Harper's Weekly. However, in each of these cases, the applicable Harper's Weekly publication is already in the database and contains the story. First published statements at the title level are only needed when the pub is not cataloged. If the pub is cataloged, they are redundant. You have also added notes regarding page numbers, heading, and illustrations that belong in the applicable pubs; not at the title level. I will leave these on hold for you to move the information into the applicable pubs. When done, please cancel the edits. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

One done in part, using page numbers "1193" and "|1193" Submission 3147240.
Do you think it is reasonable to put all of this info in the Note? (as I have not done; this is copy-paste from deleted submission 3146213):
p1193-94, with 4 illustrations by Richards, uncredited (clearly signed "F. T. Richards")
Commonly our book publication Notes cover attribution explicitly, when that differs from credit per title page (or from general sources such as Amazon or LCCN, if t.p. is not viewed). That is by policy as I understand it. Generally I have not replicated such information in the relevant Title records, in this case the F. T. Richards INTERIORART record, but it seems appropriate to do so. --Pwendt|talk 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that would be appropriate. Stating the book doesn't have a credit statement, but the artwork is signed is valid information. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. I did mean "appropriate to do" it in both records (wording may differ): in the publication record (here, a magazine issue) and the title record (here, interiorart comprising N illustrations). It occurs to me now that we have a very great number of publication records derived from each other by cloning, and many generated partly by importing titles. We cannot practically expect notes on attribution to be replicated for every publication that contains a title, so the title records "need" such notes.
  2. One of the three remains on hold (Submission 146212) because it concerns a story T1016675 published under variant title that is in the database. Here the variant long title is the original, under a natural interpretation of the original heading; see my submitted Note. Perhaps the long original should have been made the canonical title, but suppose we let it be. Moments ago you linked to the current Rules and Standards discussion a 2014 exchange Archive 12#Variant Dating]. Your recommendation, approved by Mhhutchins, as I understand it in this case: "Title: Ghosts That Have Haunted Me" should be dated 1896-12-19 because it's the canonical title and that's the first publication of the work. Right? And "Ghosts That Have Haunted Me: A Few Spirit Reminiscences" should be dated 1896-12-19 too, of course, because that's the first publication under that title.
Good night, late here in USA. --Pwendt|talk
Title record notes should contain information specific to the title. Publication record notes should contain information specific to the publication. Each publication record is supposed to identify the source of the information (either via primary verification or a secondary source note). Publication records missing sourcing does not mean the sourcing should be placed at the title record, it means the publication record should be fixed. In fact moving it to the title record it counterproductive as just because it is one way in one publication does not mean it is that way in all publications.
Re the remaining edit: Based on that edit, the Harpers Weekly edition had the subtitle. Therefore, the current parent should be removed from the publication and the variant with the subtitle added. The note still belongs in the publication. Just because Harpers had the subtitle does not mean every other occurrence used it. I've gone ahead and made the changes.
Yes, both should have the same date. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Preface (Dracula's Guest)

I have your edit to Preface (Dracula's Guest) on hold. Did you mean to add this synopsis and notes to Dracula's Guest instead? They seem meant for that shortstory and not the essay. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you made a subsequent edit to add the information to "Dracula's Guest". As such, I have rejected the edit to the preface since the content is about the shortstory and not about the essay. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No, i submitted different material, citing/quoting the same Summary presumably from 2013 publisher Hachette Audio, to the SHORTFICTION and ESSAY title records, as i deemed appropriate. --Pwendt|talk 22:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Resubmitted in part, with greater clarity i hope. --Pwendt|talk 23:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Catacombs: A Tale of the Barque Cats

A bit late, but I answered your request on my page :-) --Stoecker 18:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


"Smith of Wootton Major" merge

I had to hard-reject your merge of "Smith of Wootton Major". One of the titles involved with the merge no longer exists (probably merged away in another submission). --MartyD 00:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Evidently I submitted it twice, working from a long "Check for Duplicates" report without refreshing. --Pwendt|talk 01:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Philippa Fisher's Fairy Godsister

Found the cover artists of this cover art at iStockphoto.com and changed it. --Zapp 19:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Continued with wikilinks at User talk:Zapp#iStockphoto, Simon Spoon. --Pwendt|talk 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Subtitles

We don't use "A Novel" as a subtitle, ever. Cheers --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Rejected "The Street of Mars"

I rejected this book as non-genre. The story concerns some kids in England, who are fascinated by some Roman ruins in their town. The streets in those ruins are named after various Roman gods, and they have some modest adventures on the street named after the god "Mars". Chavey 01:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You must have a good source for used books. --Pwendt|talk 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron

Cover artist for this pub found and put in. --Zapp 18:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Zapp. Actually I know the Jean-Leon Huens and Jody Lee cover illustrations on sight; apparently so does my correspondent User:Taweiss. See User:Pwendt/People#Prydain covers (data as of 2016-07-07; numerals 1-5 in sublists designate the five novels).
The problems in mid-2010s are how to find sources that are reliable and what to do about all the bad data we have, some from editors who are no longer with us.
We have records such as COVERART 143244 for Dell Yearling The Book of Three with Jody Lee "Author" and a cover illustrated by Huens displayed. The High King is worse, 144106.
The management of Dell Yearling imprint is most to blame, in my opinion, producing books that (a) use one ISBN for multiple designs, different cover artists if not also different sizes; while also (b) do not identify their cover artists and (c) do not date their printings. So we have books with different printing numbers and prices (certainly and almost certainly increasing as time passes, but that isn't good enough).
I never investigated, never started to learn, the process for correcting any records verified by retired editors. Eg User:Dragoondelight --altho I see that one did retire with notice "take over any/all that you might wish".
--Pwendt|talk 20:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A thousand Miles an Hour

After approval, I uploaded a better cover scan, where the artist's signature is visible. See here. Cheers ! Linguist 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. That is better than I found at e-Bay. By the way, the Kindle edition shows bright colors (http://www.amazon.com/thousand-miles-hour-Herbert-Strang/dp/B003UM47G8#reader_B00BWE78AI; Look Inside; scroll up). I will put that in error report to SFE3, which has cover artist D C Eyles elsewhere. --Pwendt|talk 17:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The Last Western

Hello, can you be more precise about the spec-fic elements of this book (I didn't find anything really conclusive)? Thanks. Hauck 17:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know the book but stumbled upon its record in the database, and added more data from libraries, in the course of determining that Thomas S. Klise is the father of Kate and M. Sarah Klise.
Web search hits a fan review-conversation "The Great, Forgotten Sci-Fi Novel About The End Of The World" in which one of them calls it this "Very 1970s Catholic Social Apocalypse/Baseball Novel". I'll read it and try add something to the Title record.
today i can check contemporary newspapers too ... --Pwendt|talk 17:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled on the same page but after reading it (the page not the novel) I wasn't that convinced. The author is not on SFE3 and other usual sources so without any further evidence, I'm going to delete it. Hauck 18:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I find no review in multiple newspapers 1974 (and it was published early in the year). Sometimes I have access to journals and magazines, but not today.
One advertisement by a Chicago bookstore (send $6.95 plus 40c p&h per copy) quotes three reviews and also Walter M. Miller of Canticle for Leibowitz --the most apt author I can think of, but this is what we call "near-future" history evidently, in contrast to Miller's millenia.
The blurbs quoted from three reviews say in part "the most exciting and significant event in religious publishing in many many a moon", "a prophetic statement that dwarfs most others"; and "one of the most important religious books of the decade"; and "speculative fiction at its finest!".
The first Customer Review at Amazon.com [26] reports that it was essentially self-published (thus no reviews) and observies, "The Last Western's near-future setting makes it a speculative science fiction novel as well (R.A. Lafferty and Philip Jose Farmer both blurbed it)." And another says "A moving allegorical tale of grace, sin and redemption", ^a modern equivalent of Bunyan's "A Pilgrim's Progress"^ --Pwendt|talk 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Blind" merges

Hello, I've rejected some of your proposed cover merges as there was no images for some titles so no way to determine if it's indeed the same cover. Hauck 18:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. I resubmitted MakeVariant for the one "Harold Siegel" title that does have a cover image.
For a couple weeks I have the Viking hardcover with dustjacket, library copy in clear plastic wrapper. Maybe I will look up how to make and upload an ISFDB-compatible cover image. --Pwendt|talk 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Dolittle and the Green Canary

Hello, in this pub there seems to be a duplicate. Perhaps is the SHORTFICTION record an INTERIORART one. Hauck 18:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan, July 1889

Hello, I've approved your sumission but deleted the INTERIORART record. Only fiction is entered for nongenre magazines. Hauck 18:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Rose Royal price

Did you mean to include a price on Rose Royal? It came through with just "$". --MartyD 02:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I noticed '$' in the table for another Nesbit book and thought that's a good idea to indicate UK/US ed without opening the publication records. I meant to enter '£' for Dormant too T197008 (altho price surely less than £1) but overlooked it. Should it be deprecated? --Pwendt|talk 19:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I wouldn't submit one that way, but others are, and the submissions are being approved, so you're just following precedent. They are easy enough to find and fix if someone decides we don't want them. --MartyD 02:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Complete Book of Dragons clone

Hi. I don't understand the Complete Book of Dragons clone you've submitted. Doesn't it duplicate this? Also, the notes say "1st US ed." but then you've given "£" as the price. So I'm a little confused. Help? Thanks. --MartyD 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

evidently I did export contents from 1973 us to 1972 uk. So the clone is earlier mistake I neglected to delete.
good night --Pwendt from mobile keyboard without tilde afaik

Earlier Dates

Hello, when you create a new record for a title that is earlier than the existing one (as you probably did with some Nesbit titles), please remember to change all the dates to the new earlier one, if not they will appear on a cleanup report and will have to be changed by a moderator. Thanks Hauck 15:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia images

We can't link to Wikipedia, but generally images posted to Wikipedia are licensed in such a way that you can download them and upload them to the ISFDB (citing the source). Wikipedia provides a link to the license information for the image, so you can check the terms. --MartyD 01:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sequence of URL in Webpages field (Julie/Eloisa)

Hello, I believe I have this issue straightened out. The way that the site orders these links, the last link entered always appears at the left as the first link in the list. So for your links

Vol I http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries00gardgoog
Vol II http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries04rousgoog
Vol III http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries02rousgoog
Vol IV http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries01rousgoog

I entered them into the Title Record in reverse:

Vol IV http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries01rousgoog
Vol III http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries02rousgoog
Vol II http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries04rousgoog
Vol I http://archive.org/details/eloisaoraseries00gardgoog

So that the end result is the display order that you are trying to achieve. Of course, if someone adds another link to the list, it will appear first, but these four links should still appear in the proper order. Albinoflea 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Webpages must frequently be displayed in poorly chosen sequence partly because few editors know this! --Pwendt|talk 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Jena Anderson

I have your edit to add a link to Jena Anderson on hold. There really isn't anything about the artist on that page (other than a statement she did the covers). Did you include the correct link? -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a good resolution, altho it was what I intended in a hasty revisit after poking around the web on my phone. (I'm abbreviated on Tuesdays and I was sharply abbreviated on this one.) --Pwendt|talk 17:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding fictive days in publication date

Hello, I've reverted your changes that wished to add a fictive day (to order the publications). Such a practice (even documented in the notes) is creating new false information. Perhaps would the projected "Printing rank" field help you in the future. Hauck 06:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't me. It was my phone :--;
Thanks. My record of the 1st printing was a complement to that of the 2nd printing by user Chavey, who has not yet replied to my note. Probably its best if you add a comment there too, User talk:Chavey#The Secret Garden.
A printing rank field would have some value. I wouldn't give that change high priority. --Pwendt|talk 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not able to get to that book at present. I did a couple of those "artificial dates" some time ago, but I don't anymore, and don't object to having it taken out (as Hauk did). Chavey 03:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fouqué versus Fouque

The software/database considers "é" to match "e". So because we have an entry "Friedrich de La Motte Fouque", you cannot also create another entry "Friedrich de La Motte Fouqué" -- the software matches that latter accented text to the existing un-accented text. The best we can do is use whichever version is more prevalent and note deviations where they occur. You could try to determine whether changing the name to "Friedrich de La Motte Fouqué" would be appropriate. --MartyD 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Where Magic Reigns: German Fairy Tales Since Grimm

Your recent edits to Where Magic Reigns: German Fairy Tales Since Grimm have left Undine with a publication date later than the anthology it appears in. I have approved it but it will need to be fixed. Thanks, Albinoflea 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Another editor picked it up evidently.
I do proofread much next day but not so much as I do on the 20 minute cycle.
--Pwendt

External Identifiers

External identifiers (OCLC, LCCN, etc.) should no longer go into the notes field, but now into the new External Identifiers field on the publication editing screen. Select the specific type from the pull down, and just enter the number. The software makes the link automatically. If you have more than one, just the "Add External ID" button. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Old Man Gully's Hant

Hello, I've put your submission on hold. I'm wondering what you're trying to achieve. This will create a new canonical for an author that has only one record so is its own canonical. Data about the real name can go in the notes. Hauck 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

My purpose was not to add the writer's real name or full name (for which we have one Author field) but to add the original author and year of this story, in a 1911 collection. LC has records of two books by this writer, both as Sarah Johnson Cocke. Both are also listed at Online Books by Sarah Johnson Cocke.
The collection has been reprinted, in a Kindle edition among others, but I don't plan add it, or to assess its contents. --Pwendt|talk 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, your aims are clearer. Hauck 15:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes templates

Hello,

We have a few new-ish templates that can be used in Notes, including one for LCCN. If you use that one instead of direct links, if they ever change the format of their links or their server, a single change in the template will keep the link correct (as opposed to needing to change them in each publication. The complete list is here. You are writing some pretty impressive notes in titles so I thought I would bring these to your attention. :) Annie 16:48, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

Gentle reminder :) I just changed the direct link to worldcat's OCLC record here to the template. Thanks! Annie 17:15, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
And here :) Annie 17:19, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
Hi. The instruction seems to have publication records in mind. (Maybe the instruction needs expansion.)
"The use of linking templates should be limited to third party records which are not directly related to the publication, e.g. "The skeleton OCLC record OCLC Fiction Finder may be related." (And I don't know the meaning of "skeleton OCLC record".)
Do we have any discussion of how much blue ink is desirable in various kinds of records?
For a story title record --many of my submissions this summer-- frequently the original magazine (eg, St. Nicholas) or original illustrator (eg, W. R. Lohse) is in the database but I do not routinely link them (and never link publisher pages).
Of course the numerical library catalog IDs are meaningless --and stable, we hope?-- whereas magazine and personal names are meaningful --and our canonical names are not stable; poorly chosen canonical names are corrected, albeit slowly. There is a good argument for using in Notes a version that appears in a relevant publication.
If and when we have a "What links here?" feature, it will be desirable that Notes include links to our database pages, especially personal pages. For instance, from W. R. Lohse it would then be possible to list records in which he is noted --such as this one of my recent Notes T1375033. (I didn't provide any internal or external links, nor cite a library catalog record. That one is on my list to add the original 1922 publication to the database.)
Do we have any discussion of these issues?
--Pwendt|talk 17:46, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
P.S. Commonly when I add a Title note that is "complete" rather than "to be continued", I have in hand multiple external source IDs such as LCCN, OCLC, and ASIN. Thus I could provide, or impose, a lot more blue ink. The records you approved this hour, such as T1375484, link (and cite) OCLC rather than LCCN because in this case all three OCLC records list the Contents, and LCCN do not. --Pwendt|talk 17:55, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
The idea of most of the templates is to replace links in all Notes fields - so if you are planning to add a link to OCLC, LCCN and so on in your text, instead of the link, just use the template - thus minimizing the chances for a technical mistake and allowing the links to be changed if one of those sources reindex or change the format of the links without chasing all variations. If you just want to list OCLC records with no link, you still can do that of course. The instructions do need an update - they need to start pointing to external identifiers as well (so people know not to put those in notes anymore). On the publication level, the templates are to be used when the link cannot be pulled into an External Identifier (thus the way the note is written) - related records and so on. I will work on a proposed new documentation (thanks for the reminder) :) So technically it won't have more blue ink - same number of links remain, they just look a bit different.
Think of the templates as links shortcuts - if it is on the list and you are adding a link, use the shortcut instead :) They do not replace all links (if the format does not suit what you are doing, go for a real link), neither they replace non-linked references. They are just links for the references(or texts for a few special cases - the Translator one is a text only but its usage will help us find all records with a Translator note when the feature for that is implemented).
So the note here from me is not about the cases where you are not linking but when you are (I think I changed only those - did I manage to change by mistake something that was not a link initially? Apologies if I did - please send an update removing the template and I will approve it).
If you would like a discussion on when it is worth using those and when not, go ahead. But as I said, my note is just for the case where you already have a direct link. As I said above - I find your notes very informative so I am not arguing why you have the references - I am just pointing out that we have a faster and more stable way to do the links now :) Annie 18:06, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

The Supernaturalist

I thought that only illustrators were classified as Cover Artists and not designers? In your verified version of The Supernaturalist the cover artists are specified as Alexander Garkusha and Stephan von Bolderick. On the back cover of my copy of The Supernaturalist it states Cover design by Alexander Garkusha. 3-D rendering by Stephan van Bolderick. Note it is van not von. So I wonder if they should be removed from the Cover Artist field. --AndyjMo 10:18, 29 July 2017 (EDT)

No doubt van Bolderick, as I wrote in the Note. Certainly I didn't notice that our Author name we have is Stephen von Bolderick, and I don't recall whether that was my typo or whether the Dutch-language cover was in the database, which I imported or merged without seeing the variant spelling.
The Dutch edition is not verified now. I don't how to find any creators of that publication record P528633, nor whether we maintain records from which any administrator can find them. Since I understand van to be Dutch and von German, I suppose the Dutch edition states van.
Main point. See three others of mine, the trilogy Philippa Fisher, re which I did initiate relevant Rules & Standards discussion that you should read, Entering authors as credited--complex attributions. One aspect re The Supernaturalist must be whether "Digital Vision" should be credited as an author, or Garkusha, etc. Probably I judged that discussion inconclusive as a guide to practice. If you "search the database" for probably offending Names --Name search : Digital Vision, and : iStockphoto, and : Getty -- you will probably be offended!
--Pwendt|talk 17:08, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

Answering your inquiries.

Just to let you know I answered your inquiry to best of abilities for now. Please let me know how you want to proceed. MLB 02:17, 28 August 2017 (EDT)

Page Numbers for Ebooks

Ebooks shouldn't have page numbers. Even though many Project Gutenberg transcriptions leave the "page numbers," they don't equate to real pages so we don't record them. I accepted your edits to Edmund Dulac's Fairy-Book: Fairy Tales of the Allied Nations, but edited the publication to change the page numbers from "#" to "|#" (this uses the page numbering for ordering purposes, but doesn't display it). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

OK. Now I submitted the page numbers to the 1st ed. (Hodder & Stoughton, 1916), which are identical, from its HathiTrust e-copy. Submission 3578155
Note to self: identical pagination but extended by one extra story p171-74, namely the lead story in 1915 Edmund Dulac's Picture-Book for the French Red Cross announced The Observer 1915-09-19 p3, promoted -11-21 p5 "should and will be the gift book of the season" at 3/- , with "appeal for funds to be sent to him direct, care of the Daily Telegraph" at HDL
This list of Contents (to be checked tomorrow) is nearly as long as I am happy to fix manually --add page numbers to each record and, as i recall, import one here and two there. Do you think it is reasonable to complete Contents in publication A; remove all contents from publication B; export all contents from A to B with page numbers? --Pwendt|talk 18:48, 25 September 2017 (EDT)
Yes, that works if all the page numbers are the same. Be sure to add notes to the moderator explaining what you are doing when you remove the contents. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (EDT)
I'll try that some next time. Frequently the sequence of Contents is identical in multiple publication records, perhaps because a previous editor has Export Contents or Clone from one to the other, after adding Contents but without page numbers (or sequence as published). In this case, however, the Contents were once as published and once alphabetical by title! (and a couple were missing) --Pwendt|talk 21:17, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

McClure's - 1906

I have your addition of a McClure's magazine on hold. What month is this issue? It should be entered as an individual issue (McClure, Month Year) so the publication has the correct title. The title record would then get merged into a single year title. Also, you did not include a source statement in the pub notes field. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

If it is to be done that way, I need some instruction, not found at Help > New Magazine. After a summer of much reduced activity I have forgotten much that I didn't use frequently.
As I suggest in the Note to Moderator [27], I planned to merge the two "McClure's - 1906" with the old Note and new date 1906-00-00 (rather than 1906-06-00). Offhand I don't know how to merge to Title records that do not share author ("Editors of McClure's") and nearly share title. I merge only via the "Check Duplicate Titles" feature of the summary bibliography [28]. In fact, I don't believe that I have forgotten another way to merge!
Then I would fix the Publication title and give it date 1906-05-00 (rather than 1906-00-00).
Thanks in advance. --Pwendt|talk 18:19, 22 October 2017 (EDT)
While that makes merging the title records easier, the problem is that it creates a publication record titled "McClure's - 1906". The publication record needs to be "McClure, Month Year". I've gone ahead and approved it so you can see what I mean. Please fix it. Usually, the easiest way to combine magazine records into a single title record is to go to the editor's summary page (Editors of McClure's in this case) and use the "Show All Titles" link. That will show the titles and you can select and merge them from there. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2017 (EDT)
Done.
Perhaps in the past I submitted a New Magazine (Publication record) whose annual (Title record) year is not yet represented in the database. Probably Mhhutchins, who moderated most of my first 500, taught the other approach in that context. Of course there would be no Merge step at all: 1. create the annual Title record, 2. fix the Publication record that is automatically generated. Do you recommend another approach in that context? --Pwendt|talk 20:02, 22 October 2017 (EDT)
I would recommend using add new magazine and setting the magazine title to the correct thing (ex: "McClure, March 2018"). Then either use show all titles to merge the title records or change the title record to "McClure - 2018" and then using check for duplicates to merge. I think that approach is clearer. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Frank Adams

I have your Frank Adams related edits on hold. While I agree the cartoon and illustrator are likely to be different people, what is your sourcing for the people you identify? Your moderator notes seems to make it sound like you are assuming they are the respective artists vs. having a source. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (EST)

OK. First I will add another book or three by Frank Adams, at least Alice in Wonderland. --Pwendt|talk 15:57, 6 December 2017 (EST)
Not exactly sure how to interpret that... For now, I rejected the edits & then disambiguated the artist. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2017 (EST)
OK. I see you disambig'd them in the opposite fashion. Last hour I submitted one publication of the 1912 Alice in Wonderland as by Frank Adams. I now know that he is the illustrator of The Wolf-Leader and many nursery rhymes, etc, but I am out of time. --Pwendt|talk 19:36, 6 December 2017 (EST)
I flipped them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2017 (EST)
Thanks

1. Frank Adams, British illustrator of nursery picture book mainly, is clear from the library records i consulted and some crucial images available online. AuthorUpdate submission 3644945 is experimental in format regarding how to use the {BREAK} command; I don't know whether that can be previewed when used correctly.

That update has been approved and I see that I did use {BREAK} adequately, as double-braces inline. ... (continued below)

His Top 20 works/titles at WorldCat appear to be 15 nursery picture books, The Compleat Angler and Alice, and three other books for adults including The Wolf-Leader (and two non-genre). Those three are not in the British Library catalogue as by "Frank Adams, 1871-1944" but the others are, and signatures show that this Frank Adams is the same one who provided a few illustrations for Wolf-Leader (and Barbara). --Pwendt|talk 19:25, 7 December 2017 (EST)

2. Frank Adams (I), creator of two cartoons published in 1950s pulp magazines, I did suppose on Tuesday to be the American WWII cartoonist 1914-1987 with page at English Wikipedia. (I don't say "covered" at Wikipedia and know that that page may be deleted.) I have more data on this Frank Adams but I don't know that any should be used. Perhaps only indicated in a Note.

Only occasionally during the last few months I continue to add content to Author and Bio space in the ISFDB Wiki. Almost always that is update of an existing page, and commonly one that I created myself. (On instruction by Mhhutchins late in his tenure here, previously I used database Note fields where available, Magazine Publisher Series, but the Note field was not available for Author records.) --Pwendt|talk 20:01, 7 December 2017 (EST)

I did suppose the match with Frank Adams (I) on the evidence only that cartoonist and time-period are fitting; American nationality fits the 1952/1953 Ziff-Davis publications; and his April 1953 Amazing Stories title "Lathrop, I'll have to ask you to stick with the rest of the party." (page 105) plus the following story title "The Invaders" (page 107) both broadly fit the war-time cartoonist reputation. Well, it seems likely to me that an American pulp published during the Korean War would run a cartoon by a known WWII cartoonist. --Pwendt|talk 19:44, 7 December 2017 (EST)

I found an example of his signature on-line and it is very similar to the cartoon. Without definitive proof though, I'm leery of bibliography by coincidence. That's an easy path to making errors. I added the info to the author notes for Frank Adams (I). As for the wiki, we are no longer using it for new notes. It is in the process of being phased out (very slowly, content is being copied from the wiki to the relevant notes field & the wiki pages deleted). Mhhutchins instructions would have been before that change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2017 (EST)

The Adventures of a Brownie, As Told to My Child

Hi, I approved your submission for The Adventures of a Brownie, As Told to My Child, but the note contents you submitted look like they are a bit messed-up. Did you probably forget some text in the note (see the "Uncredited" there)? Also, the HTML formatting of the bullet points was not correct. The correct HTML structured is like this (the text goes behind the <li> element, not before):

<ul>
<li>Item 1
<li>Item 2
</ul>

Jens Hitspacebar 15:13, 30 January 2018 (EST)

I did mean the first item simply "Uncredited". I submitted a format fix. Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 15:24, 30 January 2018 (EST)

Project Gutenberg Links

When the Project Gutenberg text has been entered as publication, links to Project Gutenberg test do not belong at the title level as they specific to that single publication. The software will automatically link to Project Gutenberg on the publication page for the Project Gutenberg ebook. And when the Project Gutenberg text has not been entered as a publication, it is usually better to enter the Project Gutenberg ebook as a new publication than to add a title record level link. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2018 (EST)

Hi. Under what conditions does the software provide a link to any Project Gutenberg Ebook? For instance publication record P416826 does not evidently provide a link even to Project Gutenberg itself (that is, I don't know where it is displayed) although the Catalog ID and Publisher fields are completed correctly. --Pwendt|talk 22:01, 26 February 2018 (EST)
It is on the left, under "Other Sites". -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Cloning backward in time

Hello, when you clone a record "backward" in time as you did with These Little Ones, the contents appears on our cleanup report lest you change their dates (that are set the cloned book later date). It means that you have either to change the dates in the to-be-cloned record first (in one go) or to change the individual dates after cloning at title level (which is whay I had to do). Thanks for remembering this potential problem. Hauck 02:01, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Type changes

Hi,

When changing the type of a title with a single publication, you can change it via the "Change Publication" screen together (as it is a single, it does not get greyed out) :) Annie 19:19, 30 March 2018 (EDT)

Hugh Haughton

You mentioned a WorldCat link in the moderator note for the edit of this guy (note visible here) but there was no WorldCat link in the bunch? And all 3 you have added are confirmed - they work and they point where they should :) Annie 20:09, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Thanks. That composition was nearly ready to submit when I discovered and visited the Wikipedia page. I copied that URL and replaced the WorldCat as Webpage 2 but neglected to change WorldCat to Wikipedia in the Note to Moderator.
(I add WorldCat links only to author pages where English[and some other] Wikipedia biography page is not available with that link at the foot, which sometimes but rarely pertains to a second WorldCat page for the same person. Not so for LCCN, as English[at least] Wikipedia routinely provides LCCN link without point of entry to the Online Catalog, which is the main point in my opinion.) --Pwendt|talk 20:30, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
I never use WorldCat for authors so I was not looking for the link specifically - I pinged you only because I saw the note and decided to let you know that I do not see the referenced link - when editors write notes (which is always a great thing to do), I make sure I pay attention :) Annie 20:42, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for the notice. Please continue under similar circumstances.
By policy I begin the line "[br]later" when it and all that follows is a note to self. Since "later check newspapers" is most common and commonly first stated, and I may have 1000 submissions such, I suppose that regular moderators know "later ..." is a note to myself (albeit commonly revealing grounds for more confidence in the submission, even at a glance). --Pwendt|talk 20:51, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
Oh, I know - I tended to do the same :) Still do - even as a moderator - actually. I was coming over anyway to let you know that you are missing a link - so I checked the other 2 - otherwise I would have left it for you to figure out and check (as I usually do) :) Annie 20:55, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Hard Reject on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass

I had to hard reject the edit this title. The earlier merge of the two introductions retained the ID of the title that was not originally in this one - so this submission became invalid. I think I got the idea so I reapplied the |1-4 numbers - can you just verify that I got the order correctly (the submission shows only the first 2 elements - the two novels - and I extrapolated from there). Annie 20:16, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Thanks. It's good. My purpose was only to mimic the Contents display by another editor at the 2010 ed./printing P325659. Sometimes I submit "2nd of 3", etc, in foolish sequence, or neglect to numeral one of them. Even if I were perfect clerically, I would need study to learn when a particular sequence is necessary. --Pwendt|talk 20:41, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
Any merge can cause troubles (depending on which ID remains and which one is dropped - you have a 50/50 chance of a followup update being valid) - so if you are doing a sequence that will contain a merge, either send the Merge first and wait for it to be approved or do all BUT the merge and when all is done, submit the merge. The sequence is good - it tells a moderator that you are working on it so they do not need to jump and do the next steps (and it also tells them to look for the rest of the sequence). Other actions that can cause issues: A date/name change of a story/essay/another element via "Publication Edit" - if someone clones/adds publication (thus making these unavailable for edit from the pub edit page), the edit is also erroring. Any deletes will also cause issues. Annie 20:46, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There

Why are you trying to clone another publication and not just edit this one? What are the differences between the two? It needs a name change from what I can see (title page vs cover) but it seems to be the same book? Am I missing something? Annie 17:26, 10 April 2018 (EDT)

I didn't know the two print publications were in the database when I submitted that, only the ebook.
Please hold the submission. For now I'll fix the ebook instead and leave both print ISBn 978-0-14-310762-0 publications in the database for discussion. I don't know the database model well enough, and don't trust its execution well enough anyway, to judge whether or not those two are "the same book". So ISBn 978-0-14-310762-0 is in the database three times for now, two approved and available in publication view and others, one on hold.
At Community Portal the heading will be some something like "Penguin Books and Penguin Books (US), for instance".
P.S. Only now I discover the advanced publication search by external identifier, eg ASIN B00OQS4C8S. It needs several steps so I won't routinely use it in Note to Moderator but it's good to have.
--Pwendt 14:31, Pwendt|talk 14:51, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
Both the book you are trying to submit and the one we have say Penguin Books (US) so I am not entirely sure what you mean. It is the same ISBN, the same format, the same dates an it is not verified - no reason to believe it is a different book. I can accept yours and delete the one we have but in the future, try to search by ISBN before adding (that would have found the tp) :) Let me know if you want me to proceed with approving and deleting the duplicate. Annie 14:52, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
Our two records of print ISBn 978-0-14-310762-0 publications say "Penguin Books" and "Penguin Books (US)", whose meaning I will pursue. I prefer those two records remain, temporarily. I submitted the Charlie Lovett edition-edition (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) in its digital edition-format if you know what I mean. --Pwendt|talk 20:24, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
One is the US edition, one is the UK edition. They are ok. This is standard handling for the publishers that are publishing on both sides of the ocean. The issue here is the THIRD one you are trying to add, that will be an exact copy to the already existing US one. Which will end up with 2 US and 1 UK edition of the ISBN and the two US ones are exactly the same. Thus one needs to go. Yours have more details so I can accept it and delete the existing US one - so we will still have 2 at the end. Annie 20:35, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

(unindent) I've approved yours, deleted the duplicate. Annie 20:38, 20 April 2018 (EDT)

OK. Having returned from a very long weekend I continue work in progress on the Lovett, Haughton, and Green omnibus eds. of Alice. --Pwendt|talk 12:31, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

About your test

{{LCCN|n79072843}} works in the regular notes; it does not work in the moderator notes :) Annie 18:00, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

Three Gothic Novels

Did you mean to add "1 belated hit 2018-04-26 in US newspapers:" in the NOTES of this one? If so - can you add more notes clarifying what exactly that means because it reads like gibberish to me and it does not connect to the rest of the notes in any way or form :) Annie 18:20, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

("belated" was inspired --or uninspired obscurity as you say-- for the late newspaper date; in notice on the retired verifier's talk page User talk:Swfritter#Three Gothic Novels, I used boldface emphasis to the same effect
Yes, I'll do that--tomorrow unless I must forego the university library until Saturday (*). It turns out that I do hit the book as "Three Gothic Novels" in 1966 newspapers --which I missed in "Castle of Otranto" search yesterday-- so I will rewrite the offending note. But I must depart.
(*) I save links from successful search such as this but they operate only when I am again at the university library, benefiting from a building subscription to ProQuest Historical Newspapers. --Pwendt|talk 19:17, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
And I'll rearrange/format Gutenberg 696 P338196 --Pwendt|talk 19:18, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
. And done. --Pwendt|talk 15:06, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Heartsease

This kind of details belong to the proper pub note, not just the moderator ones. So I moved them in. Feel free to rewrite. Annie 18:45, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

Source

Any source that this does not actually have a cover from Stacey? Just because WorldCat says that there are 6 illustrations, that does not mean that he did not do the cover as well. Or am I missing something here? Annie 18:11, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

The record gives no other source. Probably someone cut and paste hastily to the cover art field; evidently careless as interior art not entered. As I depart. --Pwendt|talk 19:42, 3 May 2018 (EDT)
OK then. I was also looking around and cannot find the attribution. Thanks! Annie 20:38, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

The Beast of Bradhurst Avenue

Hey, thanks a lot for digging through ProQuest for me; I found all the chapters and created serial records for them, so it's all finished now. Best, --Vasha 16:08, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Marianne Dreams

Can you please revise this statement: "Price from capsule in "Briefing"" in Marianne Dreams? I am not sure what capsule would mean here and/or what you meant but as it stands, it is unclear. I can just revise it to read "Price from the "Briefing" section" but if you meant something else, please go ahead and revise it. Annie 17:10, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

Done (capsule review) --Pwendt|talk 17:46, 28 June 2018 (EDT)

Planned Project Scope Expansion

(I am leaving this note on the Talk pages of some of the more active editors to make sure that we are not missing anything. If you have been following this Rules and Standards discussion and agree with the proposal, please ignore this note.)

As per this discussion, ISFDB:Policy#Rules_of_Acquisition is about to be expanded to include:

  • Speculative fiction webzines, which are defined as online periodicals with distinct issues
  • Special speculative fiction issues of non-genre webzines
  • One time speculative fiction anthologies published on the Web

If you believe that this scope expansion may cause unforeseen and/or undesirable consequences, please share your thoughts on the Rules and Standards page. TIA! Ahasuerus 11:20, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

Emer's Ghost

Hello,

Both the cover and OCLC show the author of this one as Sefton and not Waddell. Do you have access to a title page that shows the book credited to Waddell directly? Thanks! Annie 23:21, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

No, Sefton. --Pwendt|talk 12:37, 8 July 2018 (EDT)
I replaced that submission. --Pwendt|talk 13:49, 8 July 2018 (EDT)

Ben Shecter

I have approved the addition of Ben Shecter's biographical information and clarified the nature of his theater/film/etc work. I also replaced the link to this Usenet post with a link to the source of Lenona's information. She posts a lot of useful biobibliographical sketches on Usenet, but her information comes from other sources, which she always credits. Ahasuerus 11:53, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

Thanks. I found the Caddad Gallery page and followed some other links that Lenona provided but I didn't notice any source for "Happy 80th", and thus for the implied birthdate 1935-04-28. Else I would, or should and might, have entered a source URL or two as necessary.
Concerning the other procedure, Shecter and mis-spelled Shechter, I continue at User talk:Ahasuerus#Ben Shecter, Author merge. --Pwendt|talk 12:38, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

A Sensational Trance

I accepted your edit to update A Sensational Trance, but could you please look again at the note as it appears incomplete. I'm particularly puzzled by "8vo.", and the final word '"Downey' Thanks for checking. PeteYoung 18:33, 11 August 2018 (EDT)

done by phone. --Pwendt
Further discussion below. Ahasuerus 18:11, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

Miss Pickerell and the Weather Satellite

I have approved the addition of this record and edited the notes data for readability. Hopefully nothing got lost in the process :) Ahasuerus 15:53, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for your attention. For all three mid-Saturday submissions with that Note to Moderator, "continue on return to library, look for another image", I anticipated that the incomplete submissions would be approved sometime Sunday at latest; I would check against the books, augment or correct as necessary, and format in my usual style, as for the one (of four Miss Pickerell in the Ace series) that is from secondary sources only [29].
The latter is the only one of all Miss Pickerell in the Archway / Pocket Books edition (#1 to #12? or more?) for which Amazon US --on that product page defined by ISBN -- provides a cover image of the US issue, apparently 1st printing.
Now I won't be able to get back to the library copy this fortnight (August vacation looms). I haven't adjusted to the long submission queue, and perhaps I won't need to adjust, if it turns out that other people's August vacation is the primary cause. (In the long shadow of the queue, however, I spent my Sunday time reading wiki pages rather than working here. I was dismayed to learn that Hauck has departed, where I had supposed my own "graduation" to less meticulous or less experienced moderators--supposed that he was continuing to mentor the sophomore class, if you know what I mean.) --Pwendt|talk 17:29, 14 August 2018 (EDT)
The vacation season is likely one part of the problem since a number of our moderators have been on vacation over the last few weeks. Another part -- and I can only speak for myself here -- is that I find your submissions time-consuming to process, so they tend to stay in the queue longer than other submissions. Your notes are usually well-researched and informative, but they can be hard to parse. Much of the time I am not even sure what they are supposed to mean, so I can't edit them for readability. I realize that you are doing your best and I greatly appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately, I don't really know how we could improve the process :-( Ahasuerus 18:49, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

A Sensational Trance - round 2

I have approved your changes to this publication and edited notes for clarity and readability. Could you please clarify "(That is, Crown octavo.)"? Does it mean that "crown 8vo." stands for the Crown octavo book size, i.e. 7½" by 5" (190 mm x 126 mm)? If so, we will want to spell it out. Ahasuerus 18:08, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

The Little Green Man

Thanks for finding the problem with the title of The Little Green Man! I am not sure how we ended up with "Men" instead of "Man", but it was definitely an error. I have checked my copy of Reginald3 and he also says "Man". I have removed all references to the "Men" version.

I have approved and reorganized your notes for the first edition. I have a few questions:

  • What does "intended" mean in this context?
  • When you write that "The listings in Manchester Guardian and The Academy note "[This day.", what exactly does it refer to? Is it the name of the section where the listings appeared?

Also, I have created a new publication record for the cheaper (3/6) edition and moved the second half of the Notes field there. Hopefully everything looks OK. Ahasuerus 23:52, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

It isn't all OK but I don't now have time for any tweaks to the database, nor for whatever reply is appropriate here. It will wait. Thanks for your efforts. --Pwendt|talk 20:52, 15 August 2018 (EDT)

Tales from Eternity publisher

FYI, I found Google Books shows a snippet with the copyright confirming "George Allen & Unwin Ltd." --MartyD 21:15, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

The Time Garden

Hello, this one is both PV verified and OCLC verified by an active editor(Chavey). Can you drop them a note about the changes you are making (I approved them as they are obvious but as it is a verified book, let's make sure we are not missing something? The old OCLC record was 35301743 (in case we need to restore it). Thanks! Annie 20:22, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Merging Interviews

As long as the names match, the duplicate finder does find them (see this. Are these two the same? If there are more of these, you can use Advanced Search to get them into a mergeable position (or just list them here and I will merge). Annie 19:45, 7 December 2018 (EST)

No others. In effect I merged the other "Go Fish" titles manually, import and remove, which was booked once as ESSAY and once as INTERVIEW. I had expected Aggressive mode to identify the ESSAY and INTERVIEW as author [Natalie Babbitt] duplicates, with identical title and author = interviewee, but it didn't.
Evidently I have not noticed that Advanced Search enables selection by checkbox. That will be useful sometimes. Thanks.
(I avoid using the uncredited Author page, and some undated and unknown searches.) --Pwendt|talk 12:39, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Oh, I recall too expecting that last the two listings at Alexander Gordon Smith would be picked up as author duplicates in Aggressive mode. I quote them, just in case someone else completes the merge:
Interviews with This Author
  • Go Fish: Questions for the Author: Alexander Gordon Smith (unknown) by uncredited
  • Go Fish: Questions for the Author: Alexander Gordon Smith (2012) by uncredited
Now I suppose that that fails because he is not the "Author" of the interviews, although they are cleverly appended to his "Author" summary bibliography. --Pwendt|talk 14:57, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Interviews are special - they have two authors connected to them. This is why they are not that easily mergeable with other types - so they are treated differently. Annie 15:21, 8 December 2018 (EST)

Jules Verne

Based on your user page, we may have some overlap in our research. You seem to be focused on the Earth to the Moon volumes (currently) in much detail. My initial goal was simply wanting to enter some Jules Verne books I had. I realized the existing entries did not generally differentiate the translations, so I set out to put the first publication of each in, so mine could be in the right place. Then I realized that most of the French versions weren't there and the English would be the first of any publication. So I dug out the first French publications and realized I couldn't enter them, they were in serial form. So that went in the notes and I found the earliest French editions. That's all done so now I'm going through the titles putting in the first publication of each English translation. Then I'll be able to put my verifiable copies in.

I've run across a few resources that might be of interest. For example this history of the Sampson Low publishers. If you think it's worth comparing notes, it might be easier if you email me directly. ../Doug H 19:59, 23 February 2019 (EST)

Thanks. That info is similar to that Library of Congress provides, citing "Brown, P.A.H. London publishers and printers, c. 1800-1870, c1982", which link[30] is part of my last hour submission 4203099. I must be the author of most publisher pages that look like that one, with heavy use of blank lines to format and template {publisher} to link predecessor and successor publishers.
I am 15 minutes past closing time so let me tonight postpone all matters of ISFDB substance.
1. Do I know where to email you? Are you the maintainer of julesverne.ca, compiled from what you have "run across", or is that one of the resources you have "run across"?
2. I see that you use U Winnipeg and U Manitoba. Perhaps you have access to ProQuest Historical Newspapers there? That is what I use to search newspapers and magazines, largely from 100+ years ago so that the books are likely to be available at HathiTrust or elsewhere online.
Good night. --Pwendt|talk 20:22, 23 February 2019 (EST)
Use the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left from my user page. Include an email address I can reply to, as I'm not sure ISFDB provides one. ../Doug H 22:37, 23 February 2019 (EST)

An interesting source of information based on series publishers available at: Ohio Wesleyan University. ../Doug H 12:05, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Thanks, Doug. --Pwendt|talk 19:46, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Tales of the Supernatural: Six Romantic Stories

Hi, You change the book author to James Platt, Junior, but leave all stories in the book a by James Platt? Father and son?--Dirk P Broer 21:17, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

Dirk, There is only one 19th century James Platt likely to be in our database, as far as I know (sometimes credited/named/reported as Junior, Jun., Jr., or the Younger). Yesterday I revised one title to create James Platt (I) 294141 because I suppose that Letter is contemporary to its 1982 publication.
As I depart today:
James Platt (undifferentiated) remains --to be credited as "James Platt, Junior" for the 1894 edition. Because we have latterday publications of the 1894 stories (and one or two for the entire collection) as by James Platt, and more must be expected, that name should be canonical, I understand.
Today I decided there is no good way to revise the 1894 publication record, so I created Pending New Publication Submission 4302846, which generates new COLLECTION titles and 6 new SHORTFICTION titles. And I prepared to make 6 variants by specifying the matching short story length.
The submission that you have on hold may be canceled. I suppose it should be retained for your reference, so I do not try "Cancel submission" --which may or may not be technically permitted during "Hold", as far as I know. --Pwendt|talk 17:53, 11 June 2019 (EDT)

Old-Fashioned Fairy Tales

Project Gutenberg works (like any other work) should be credited per their title page, not by how Project Gutenberg indexes the author. I have approved the entry of Old-Fashioned Fairy Tales, but changed the author credit to Juliana Horatia Ewing. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Project Gutenberg does index this author as JHGE [31] [32]. I don't rely on the index here (nor elsewhere), however, but on the header in which PG reports
Title: Old-Fashioned Fairy Tales
Author: Juliana Horatia Gatty Ewing
Release Date: April 9, 2005 [eBook #15592]
Before going further here, do you mean to rely on PG representation of the title page of its source text? Is that interpretation somewhere stated at ISFDB.org? It implies that publisher, publication date, and catalog ID are unstated in all PG ebooks, afaik. --Pwendt|talk 18:35, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
We credit authors per the title page. We don't credit per a header, copyright page, or other front material. We credit per the title page. That applies for all publications. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
Thanks but no thanks. The question is whether we have some consensus to consider Gutenberg representation of the original title page as title page of the ebook. It seems akin to the facsimile of original publisher's title page that many reissues contain.
We have many publication records that take Author, Title, Date, and publisher all from the top lines of the Project Gutenberg publication. So I am asking whether we have a consensus. (I know of course that both interpretations are commonly followed.) --Pwendt|talk 13:23, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
ISFDB standards are straight forward. We credit per the title page. Whether the title page is a facsimile or a transcription is irrelevant. Ebooks (including Project Gutenberg's) have a clear title page and that is what is used. The top lines of the file are clearly not a title page. Some Project Gutenberg publications (typically older ones, but can also happen with newer ones) do not have a title page in which case the header is all we can go by. But when there is a title page, it is to be used. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

The Hill-Man and the Housewife / The Hill-man and the House-wife / The Hillman and the Housewife

Hi, I need a lot of more reasons to unvariant these titles as that you are presently giving -none.--Dirk P Broer 19:08, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

As I said, our "one hyphen" canonical title happens to appear in one 2018 publication. The title with no hyphens appears in the undated first collection (1882) and in the collection as first half of undated Works (US), Vol III; page 8, 1st series.
The "one hyphen" 2018 title cannot be relegated to variant in one operation, iiuc; all of its own variants must be undone first. --Pwendt|talk 13:35, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
Dirk, Maybe you can simply do this essentially "at once". There three edits needed to change the canonical title from one-hyphen to no-hyphen, iiuc.
  • undo no-hyphen as variant of one-hyphen "The Hill-Man and the Housewife"
  • make two-hyphen a variant of no-hyphen, rather than a variant of one-hyphen
  • make one-hyphen a variant of no-hyphen
--Pwendt|talk 15:38, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
That rearrangement of canonical/variant relations is complete. The steps listed above make it an overnight (or two) process for me. --Pwendt|talk 19:52, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

She and Allan

One of the OCLC numbers you are adding here says 19 cm, the other one 22 cm. Which is a substantial difference (and usually indicates book club vs mass edition in some cases). Are you sure these are for the same book? If so, we need to note the difference... Annie 16:16, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

I don't yet know much --and nothing about what Library and Archives Canada as an online resource. Two McClelland & Stewart editions are not expected but, yes, let's hold this one. --Pwendt|talk 16:46, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
I do not know the publisher (much) but the big difference in size bothers me - it may be a typo from OCLC (a note will fix that) - but it also may be two editions for some reason (we've seen weirder). If you have time (and nothing better to do), maybe look through other books from the same publisher around that time and compare sizes and so on? I will keep it on hold - feel free to cancel it when/if you need to edit or ping me when you have more details. I will also see if I can dig something out. Annie 17:19, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
OK, I approved it for now (because the rest of the information was good) but pulled out OCLC 1032950781. Once we figure out that size difference, we can readd it (or not). Annie 20:18, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Editing notes and so on

About this one. The Tuck verifier is active. So instead of saying "Tuck probably reports", ask them about it so we can actually have the data properly noted. :) Annie 16:46, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

OK. There is no reason to note such variant reports, of secondary sources that are known to be unreliable, or to adopt other conventions reliably, so I will raise the general questions about Tuck; with some of the Macdonald Illustrated Edition for illustration. --Pwendt|talk 19:43, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

The Cuckoo Clock and The Tapestry Room

You will need to redo the import - it got damaged. I approved the merge of the imterior arts you submitted before that so I suspect that you were trying to import here that ID (and it went away). Sorry -- let me know if you need any assistance! Annie 14:47, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

--Pwendt|talk 14:53, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Lagerlöf and others

Please don't forget that the DB started as an English only DB and then got the other languages almost grandfathered (the ones that do not use standard Latin-1 kicking and screaming) :) This is why we miss a lot of non-English books - including the omnibus of Selma Lagerlöf that you mentioned. And while in some languages we have editors that had made a lot of progress in adding books, Swedish is not one of them. If you can find that original publication somewhere, it will be good to have :) Annie 18:25, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Famous Stories Every Child Should Know

I put your submission for the INTERIORART in this pub on hold. When you refer to an on-line source like you do here, you should make that source reachable from the note by using the following: <a href="here you put the URL for the reference">here you put the name of the source</a>. The result will be a blue copy of the name of the source; when a user clicks on it, he will jump to the reference. You can use this method for items in the ISFDB or outside it. Bob 20:55, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

OK. Now I import of that INTERIORART to our record of the 1907 1st ed., which provides a reference for the Note closing, "See that publication record." I expect to rewrite the Note entirely based on a thorough check of library records for early editions. --Pwendt|talk 12:15, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
O.K., approved. Bob 19:15, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Personal tools