User talk:Sjmathis

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ahasuerus 12:17, 15 Feb 2008 (CST)

Emphyrio

Thanks for submitting the Dell edition of Emphyrio! I have approved the submission and changed the binding from "paperback" to "pb" as per our Help pages. I also changed the catalog ID to "#2345" as per our Help and moved the SBN, i.e. "0-440-02345", to the Notes field. The early 1970s were confusing in that paperback publishers like Dell began moving from publisher-specific catalog IDs (like "2345") to the ISBN system, but it took them a number of years to start using the same system as the one that hardcover publishers use. The "SBNs", which were basically abbreviated ISBNs, were used in parallel with catalog IDs for a while and are a pain to catalog -- see Help for details. Thanks for the submission! :-) Ahasuerus 12:23, 15 Feb 2008 (CST)

P.S. And could you please check the price on the cover of the Dell edition? Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:25, 15 Feb 2008 (CST)
Sorry, I didn't enter it because it was carefully blacked out by one of the used book stores it went through. However, I see that someone has entered it since then. Also, my apologies for taking so long to answer this question, I've only very recently figured out how to use the wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talk • contribs) .

Scholastic printings of The Missing Persons League

Hi. I accepted your submissions of Scholastic printings of The Missing Persons League. Do you know that they really were printed in 1976, or do you see no date in the books? We have discovered that the number line encodes the date. If you let me know what the number lines are for the two books (if they are present), I can help you decipher them. Thanks, and thank you for the contributions. --MartyD 10:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm copying your response here, just to keep the whole discussion together. You can "reply" to messages by editing the section (click on the "Edit" link to the far right of the particular section header. Protocol is for people who leave messages on someone's talk page to watch that page for a response. So you should just reply right here. Colons (":") at the beginning of a block of text indent it, one level per colon. Use one more colon than the previous message did. And "sign" your message using four tildes ("~~~~") or the 2nd button from the right at the top of the editor window (the icon looks like a scrawled signature). --MartyD 19:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is your response to the above questions:
You left a question asking if the "date of printing" of "The Missing Persons League" was really 1976.
I don't know, the book says: "Copyright (C) 1976 by Frank Bonham" and I assumed that was what I was supposed to fill into the spot where I put it.
The number line looks like this: 
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1    3    8 9/7 0 1 2 3/8
Below that is: 
Printed in the U. S. A.                     06
Hope this is helpful. If you have another question for me, please just send an e-mail: sjmathis (at) verizon.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talk • contribs) .
Yes, this is very helpful. Here are a few tips:
  • The date to enter for a book is its publication/printing date, which often is not the copyright date. For example, reprints usually carry along the original copyright date (because that doesn't change), while stating a new printing date. In the case here, where you have multiple printings, one of them is unlikely to be 1976 (and perhaps both). If it's not a first printing, we would use "0000-00-00" (indicating an unknown publication date), not the copyright date.
So the correct date to enter would be 1978-03-00? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talk • contribs) .
  • I asked about the number line because Scholastic encodes the printing date in the number line. Check this out. So in the number line above, we see it's a 1st printing (from the 12...1 -- the lowest remaining number in this sort of pattern indicates the current printing number; 12...2 would indicate a 2nd printing) in March (that middle "3"), of 1978 ("8 9/7 0 1 2 3/8" means "1978 1979 1980 1981 1983 1983" and, again, the lowest number indicates the current year; a 1977 printing would be "7 8 9/7 0 1 2/8"; a 1979 printing would be "9/7 0 1 2 3 4/8").
So question 1: Which of 0-525-35030-6 or #TK 4102 does the above number line go with? And question 2: What does the other one have for a number line? Thanks! --MartyD 19:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it goes with the TK 4102 book. I only have that one.
Many thanks for your patience. I've figured out that the reason I couldn't edit a talk page was that I wasn't logged into the wiki. I assumed that logging into the ISFDB was enough to get you into the wiki, but I see now that it is a separate process. I've cleared that hurdle, so perhaps I will be able to join in on some of the discussions. Between now and next spring, we plan to re-wallpaper the room that holds my SF books. This means that they have to packed up and moved down the hall, where they will sit in boxes until we finish. As they go back onto shelves, I plan to check everything against my database, so perhaps I will be able to check things against the ISFDB also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talk • contribs) .
No problem! I hope you'll be doing much contributing and checking! :-) It takes a little getting used to, but eventually it all makes sense. So yes, the date should be 1978-03-00. You can go ahead and update it. It sounds like the other pub got entered in error, so I will remove it (no harm done). Thanks! --MartyD 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images

The Step-by-Step Procedure is for uploading images directly to the Wiki pages. The "Save" refers to adding a license tag to each image. We have added an easier method since that procedure was first implemented. In the instructions for the procedure below ("The Semi-Automated Procedure", which you used) there is no need to add a license because it's done for you. All you have to do now is make a submission linking the image you uploaded to the publication record in the db. First copy the URL of the image you uploaded (here), go to the publication record, click on "Edit This Pub" under the Editing Tools menu, go down to the field for "Image URL", and paste the URL into it, then "Submit Data". Mhhutchins 19:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see. Not hard once you know how to do it. Thanks for the quick response. Sjmathis 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Empire Builders by Bova

I accepted the submission adding this second printing to the db, but changed the date to 0000-00-00, which indicates an undated printed. Tor will give the date of the first edition, but remove a number in the printing line to indicate a later, undated, printing. If the source of your data is the pub itself, please do a primary verification. If it isn't, please give the source of your data in the record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have the book itself, but I'm not sure what you mean by "a primary verification". The verification process is baffling. I have copies of many of the books that I see in the database that are 'unverified' but I haven't been able to figure out what I'm supposed to do (if anything) to "verify" them, so I haven't tried to do anything. I don't know what "primary" means. I'm not sure what all the other kinds of verification involve. I'd be happy to help confirm things, but I can't find any basic instructions on how to do that.
The real reason that I dropped the book into the database was to attempt to get a response from someone, since I couldn't figure out how to send a question to whoever maintains the page for Ben Bova's work. I have a database of my own books that I'm working on and I'm trying to figure out what the sequence of Ben's Grand Tour books should be. I have a field in my database called 'series' where I record the name of the series and the sequence number. I use this to control the shelving of my books, since I like to keep the series together. Anyway, I was working on the Grand Tour series, and the ISFDB lists the book "Empire Builders" as part of the series (but doesn't give it a sequence number - not sure why some in a series have numbers and some don't?). However, if you look at the cover scan, you'll notice that it says the book is a sequel to the book "Privateers", which is NOT included as part of the GT series. Why not? I would include it.
Another question I had was why the GT number sequence in the ISFDB was missing entries between 5 and 16? I can see that the 'Moonrise' and 'Asteroids' series fits in there somewhere, but that's only 6 books. Where are the other 5?
Thanks, --Sjmathis 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a page which provides a list of links to specific areas in the Help section. Among those links you'll find a answer to most of your questions. For example: How to verify data.
About the Grand Tour: it's a mess and the author hasn't helped the situation. I've come to the conclusion that the numbering is entirely arbitrary. On the author's website, he insists there is no internal order, and it's not necessary to read the books in order. And since their his books, I think we need to use the order as they're listed on his website. The trouble occurs because there are subseries ("Moonrise" and "The Asteroid Wars") within the overall title series. A title can't have two different numbers so that causes another problem. I'm going to give Empire Builders and others the number given on the author's website but leave the subseries as is. That will leave gaps in the numbering but I can see no other way around it. Thanks.Mhhutchins 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the reason Empire Builders is a sequel to Privateers, and the latter is not a part of the Grand Tour series, is because real-world politics caught up with Bova before he wrote the sequel. According to the Wikipedia article, the Soviet Union's collapse made Privateers into an alternate reality. I also found another problem. The Return (2009) is listed as number 17 on the author's Grand Tour list, but it's also the fourth volume of the Voyager series. So why aren't the first three books part of the Grand Tour? Now you see the problems with trying to order Bova's titles. Mhhutchins 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments and assistance. I hope to be able to repay some of the help people have given me by adding information to the ISFDB, once I get my collection back onto shelves. Right now my priority has to be getting the rest of my shelving stained and assembled. My worry is that despite increasing my shelf space by nearly 50%, I still don't have enough space, so I may still have problems in that regard.
I had read the wiki help pages on verification, but either they've improved or I didn't read them closely enough, as I understand the process now, I think. Again, I plan to pursue that as soon as my books are out of shopping bags and back on shelves. I went through the verification process for 'Empire Builders', and it seemed to go smoothly.
I see the problems in trying to order the GT series. I had seen Ben's Chronology page some time ago, but I had forgotten that it existed. If you're going to use his chronology for the ISFDB numbering and leave some spaces, then perhaps you could indicate that the blanks are there on purpose and don't represent missing books. A pointer to his page might help, maybe on the series page. Sorry if I've opened a can of worms, but the series information is important to me in helping to identify things I'm missing and would like to have, so I'm making an effort to get it into my database.
Thanks again. --Sjmathis 14:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We can't leave notes directly on author pages, but we can create a Series Comment page and there already is an author's Bibliographic Comments page (which has no data currently). When I get a chance I'll create the Series Comment page and note the source of the sequence (with a link to Bova's website) and explain the missing numbers. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Your comment "I have copies of many of the books that I see in the database that are 'unverified' makes me think you'll be a very useful addition to our editing staff! Please do keep commenting on the editing/verifying processes, or about the help - us old fogies have got far too used to the current situation and are not in the best position to see where we could improve - newcomers almost always provide the better suggestions. Welcome! BLongley 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Centrifugal Rickshaw Dancer

I saw that you'd created a comments page for this publication. It's perfectly OK to place such information in the record itself. Click on "Edit This Pub", and in the Note field enter "Cover design by Richard Corben", This way it's actually part of the record and visible for all users to see. The comments page is usually reserved for questions, concerns, comments, etc about the publication. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I was doing that, but it didn't turn out that way. Must of missed something in the process of adding the information. I wasn't sure how to handle it, since the database showed a different artist than what the copyright page of my book said. I didn't see any reference to the artist shown in the database in the book itself, yet the book has been verified, so I assume the info in the database is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talk • contribs) .
Actually the only verification is yours. If James Gurney is not credited in the book, you should remove it from the record and credit Corben in the cover artist field. (BTW, don't forget to sign your Wiki messages with four tildes.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. My memory isn't what it used to be. Anyway, I went ahead and made the change in the cover artist. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to do that, since it wasn't clear to me that the cover 'designer' was the same as the cover 'artist', and I was assuming that the person who entered that information had a source of data that wasn't from the book. I guess if that is the case, they will explain it in another 'note'? Is there a way to tell who entered the original data and ask them where they got the idea that James Gurney was the artist? Also, thanks for the reminder about the tildes. Sjmathis 13:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No, there's no way to tell who entered the original data (well, there is one that would take so much time and effort that it wouldn't be worth it.) As a moderator, I try to encourage all editors to record their sources in the record's note field. Other moderators aren't as insistent as me. So we get situations where a record is updated, without sources and without a verification. That's why it's very good that another person with a copy of the same book can look over the record and verify it. As for "design" or "artist": some credits are ambiguous, so I've set up my own personal protocol. If a book only has the cover designer, I give him/her credit in the cover artist field. If it credits both designer and I artist, I credit the artist in the cover artist field and credit the designer in the record's note field. Can you look at other covers by Corben and see if the cover of this book could be by the same artist? His work is very distinctive and should be recognizable. Unfortunately, the image for this record is so small, it's hard for me to see enough detail to determine if Corben was the artist (although from what I can tell, it looks like his work.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that I accepted the change of the artist to Corben based on this page. Hauck 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded a new cover scan, and in the process, noticed a partial signature on the back of the blue helmeted guy in the lower left corner: "@ 1985 Corb...". Anyway, it's pretty clear now that the correct artist is Corben, which still leaves me wondering how Gurney's name got put in there. Thanks to all for the help. Sjmathis 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Earthworks

Hello. I've just approved your sub for the Avon 1980 edition but the information you added : "Based on material appearing in 'Science Fantasy' as "Skeleton Crew", 1963" is already avaliable at the title level here, so it is perhaps redundant. Hauck 17:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Didn't see it before. I stuck it in because it was stated on the copyright page. I also just uploaded a cover scan for it. Don't see an artist anywhere. Sjmathis 18:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Help! I've uploaded a cover scan for this printing of Earthworks, but I don't exactly know how to get it to appear in the ISFDB. I gather that I need to "paste in the URL of the uploaded file" using "edit this pub", but I'm at a loss as to how to determine what the URL of the file that I uploaded is? Sjmathis 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The URL you want is http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/5/5a/RTHWRKSHPB1980.jpg. You can normally right-click on the image when you've uploaded it and choose "Copy Image Location" (or the equivalent in your browser) to get it. BLongley 20:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that I closed the page that had the image on it and then I couldn't find it. When I did find it, or so I thought, I did what you suggested and it gave me an error message to the effect that I was trying to insert a URL that was from the wiki and not a file reference. I see you have inserted (or the system did) the 'nowiki' tags around the URL that you entered above. Do I need to do that? When I cut and pasted the URL as it appears in my User Talk (where I can't see the 'nowiki' tags), it seemed to work fine and I got the usual message that my edit of the pub needs to be approved by a moderator. Baffling. Sjmathis 21:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
You can find uploaded image files by clicking the link labeled "File List" on most wiki pages and you'll get this page. Submissions updating or adding database records are moderated. Uploading of images files to the ISFDB server and the editing of wiki pages are not moderated. Your submission adding the image to this record has been accepted. Mhhutchins 22:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Second printing of Who Can Replace a Man?

You've made a submission to update this record, but I believe you're misinterpreting the data. This record is for Signet's second printing. Even though it gives the publication date of the first printing (for which we have a record), it does not give a date for this second printing. Every publisher has a different way of indicating editions and/or printings. This is Signet's method. Please confirm the data, and then, either cancel the submission, or post your response here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I was trying to reflect the fact that the second printing has a line on the copyright page that states: "First Printing, November 1967". The fact that it's the second printing, appears on another line. How do I cancel the submission? Sjmathis 18:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
On the front page of the database, there's a menu under the name "Logged In As". There's a link to "My Pending Edits". Click on that and then there should be list of all pending edits. As there's only one in the queue, that's the one you cancel. I can also reject it from the submission queue, but it's good to know how to cancel submissions if you realize you've made a mistake and want to resubmit. I'm going to copy the new data you entered into the submission's note field and place it into the record, but keep the unknown dating. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Omega Cage - notes

I added notes to your verified The Omega Cage. AndonSage 12:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A Midsummer Tempest

Your attempt to add an image to this record was rejected because the data entered into the Image URL field was incomplete. You only gave the file name: MDSMMRTMPS1978.jpg, and should have given the entire URL: http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/1/1b/MDSMMRTMPS1978.jpg Please try again. Thanks. (The reason we have to put the nowiki tags around URLs here on the wiki pages is because they would appear as links, and not the actual URL.) Mhhutchins 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tried it again. I still don't see the link "File List" anywhere. Sjmathis 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what skin you're using. I use Cologne Blue and the link is under "Special Pages" on all my wiki pages. If you use the default skin (Monobook), you have to click on "Special Pages" and go down to the "File List" link. Mhhutchins 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see it now. I didn't realize that I had to open the Special Pages link first. The Special Pages link is inside a box called Toolbox. Many thanks for your patience. I'm running Mozilla Firefox with whatever the default skin is.Sjmathis 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe I found it earlier, but I don't see it now. I did open the link to it that you gave in the other edit above, but again, all I see is the file name. I was doing two things at once, so I'm not sure exactly what I did to get the URL entered for Earthworks. At one point I tried putting "image:" in front of the file name, since that seems to be what the instructions say to do when you upload a file, but I guess that didn't work. Sjmathis 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Click on the word "file" next to the name of the file. This will open the image in your browser. Just copy the URL that's in your browser's address window, and this is the URL you should enter in the URL Image field in a pub record update. Mhhutchins 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, thanks for restoring the rest of my talk page. In the discussion of Earthworks, I used the nowiki tag with angle brackets around it and I guess the page interpreted it as a command to take things literally, or else it screwed things up because I didn't have a closing tag. The 'four tildes' didn't work, and I couldn't figure out what was going on. I dropped the rest of my page in desperation, and couldn't figure out how to get it back after I had saved my edit. Anyway, things seem to be working now, and I'll keep trying to upload properly. At least I learned to always use the Preview option to make sure that my page isn't messed up. Sjmathis 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, everything looks good now. The submission's image came through. Mhhutchins 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sunborn

Your note to the moderator said that you'd changed the ISBN for this record, but the submission only added the Canadian price, without any change in the ISBN. Mhhutchins 05:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm holding another submission to change the spelling of the cover artist's name from "Stephan" to "Stephen" based on a third-party site. If the book's cover art is not credited in the book itself, you should use a primarily-verified source in which the same artwork is credited, such as the record of the hardcover edition. Mhhutchins 05:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I forgot to hit the 'submit' button when I changed the ISBN. I'll try it again. The record shows 978-0-812-57120-2, whereas the book has 978-0-8125-7120-2. Perhaps the position of the dash isn't considered important? I realize that it is ignored when computing the check digit, but I thought it should match the book. Sjmathis 13:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
ISBNs are stored without hyphens internally, then reformatted by the software into ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. So a difference in hyphenation in the book won't show up as a change. BLongley 14:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks very much for the explanation. I guess the 'software' isn't smart enough to realize that different publishers format the ISBN in different ways. In the old days, it used to be '0' - 'Publisher code' - 'book number' - 'check digit'. Now I've seen them in several formats, even from the same publisher. I was wondering if the 'software' re-computes the check digit, or is it stored with the numbers? Sjmathis 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could code exceptions in for certain publishers that don't follow the rules, but it's never seemed worth the effort. Especially now we're coping with non-English editions a bit better - we've got over 12,000 publishers and that will only increase. BLongley 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We do store the check-digit entered, and warn when it's invalid, but re-generate it when creating the other ISBN: so we'd spot an ISBN-10 with an invalid check digit, but if it's valid then we can generate the ISBN-13. Or vice versa. There was a bit of an argument over what to do when the publisher gets it wrong (we all agree the error should be recorded, just not how to record it) and we do have problems with some "rebound" editions where they have different ISBNS externally on the new covers and internally on the copyright page. BLongley 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the spelling of the artist's name, I agree with your comment. I didn't think to look at the other edition. In fact, now that I look again, although the name doesn't appear on the copyright page, I found it on the back cover of the book, and it's spelled with an "a", not an "e". I presume Carver spelled it incorrectly on his website. Sjmathis 13:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. This time I looked carefully at the submission of the record after I had changed the ISBN, and the change I made doesn't appear in the record that I submitted. Again, perhaps the ISFDB has a standardized way to present the ISBN and it has to have the dash after the three characters of the publisher code? I'm not sure what's going on, so I'll defer to your decision as to what to do next. Anyway, the record as presented doesn't exactly match the book. Sjmathis 14:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Images/moderator note

Any time you have a book which record does not have an image or an incorrect one then please upload one, regardless of how minor a difference between it and another edition/printing. Also, it is considered polite [and sometimes necessary] to inform an editor if you have added an image to a record that has been Primary Verified. Not all publishers are consistent with printing information and while a book may seem to be identical to the record, that may not always be the case. By letting a Verifier know, so he/she can check, it lessens the possibility of attaching an image to an incorrect record and sometimes points out the need for an additional record for an slightly different edition/printing. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, I was the Primary Verifier, so I didn't bother to mention it in the "Notes to Moderator". Hope that's OK. Sjmathis 21:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
But in [this] case, another editor had previously verified the record. That's the one I was thinking about in the above note. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry, I was doing several things at once. Can you explain how I go about contacting him? I tried clicking on his name in the verification record, but it just brings up a blank page, where I was expecting a User Talk page? Sjmathis 02:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Don's a bit shy it seems - his "User page" is still blank, but click the "Discussion" Tab next to it and you can leave him a message. BLongley 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon Images

Any Amazon image that has ZZZZZZZZ as part of the URL is inherently unstable. Amazon doesn't use such URLs any more but there are perhaps thousands still on our database. Such were generated as pre-publication images usually and as soon as another edition/printing came out the image would be changed or at least given a different URL. At that point the previous ZZZZZ URL links to nothing, thus the blank image. If you run across such URLs, whether it's become blank or not, and you have the book, definitely upload a new image or just replace the one that's there [sooner or later all ZZZZZ URLs will become unstable]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line breaks in notes

If you want the notes to appear as separate lines a simple carriage return/return from the keyboard doesn't suffice. The software simply doesn't recognize it. You have to use an html break, the simplest of which is <br>. [This] will give you the idea, if [this] is how you want the notes to appear. Otherwise the notes will read as one long line. FYI! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks very much. Sjmathis 02:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthology/Omnibus

See [here] under Publication Type for a general explanation. Tor Doubles never printed novel-length pieces while most of the Ace halves were touted as novels [we know quite a few weren't...]. It's not always black and white. In future, if you have such questions, it gets more attention if you use the [Help Desk] or [FAQ] page. We also have the [Moderator Noticeboard] and the [Community Portal] for specific requests and general discussions. For policy questions/discussions there is [Rules and Standards]. The advantage of any of these is more input. Only one Moderator would see a question in the notes as you've done a couple, whereas any number of editors/moderators will see something posted on any of the above pages. It's worth just browsing some of the discussions on each just to get a feel for the place. Easier to direct the next question, too. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony's Mute

A suggestion: if you're verifying a pub record (like this one) and if there are fields which include data that is not stated in the book, you should mention that in the record's note field. So if the date isn't given in the book, add something like "Publication date is not stated. The source for this record's date is ..." (either give a source or say it's unknown.) In this case, the source is Locus1, which unfortunately, the editor before you failed to note. (We're trying to crack down on these situations but that's a hard row to hoe.) Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 18:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You say in the moderator note that you don't have access to Locus, but the source is Locus1 which you do have access to if you have an internet connection.  :) Click on the link I gave for Locus1 above. Mhhutchins 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. I see. More to learn about. :) Sjmathis 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Co-author credit order

Sorry, the ISFDB software doesn't recognize the order in which co-authors are credited. Any attempt to "re-order" will, most of the time, be fruitless. Mhhutchins 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I guess that when you're dealing with 'virtual' books it doesn't make much difference. For Lee and Miller, it also doesn't matter much, because they write everything together, but for many other authors, who write with others and independently, I have to decide how to shelve the book, and generally I go by the senior (first listed) author, so the order matters to me.
Do you have any idea why the same book is listed differently in the ISFDB HC, TP, & PB versions? I was assuming that it is stored separately, which is reasonable, as I could imagine two authors talking, "Well, I was first on the HC release, you can be first on the TP and MMPB version." Since I generally only see the PB version, I was assuming that the other formats really list the authors differently. --Sjmathis 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No, ISFDB cannot and probably never will tell you the author-ordering. I suspect it's because we do author-pages but not collaboration pages - so on Pohl's page, books with Kornbluth get "with C. M. Kornbluth" and if you look at it from Kornbluth's side you get "with Frederik Pohl". If, as I suspect, we have totally given up on the idea then we need to stop reporting a mismatch when merging "A&B" titles with "B&A" ones. BLongley 17:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. It's important to me, since my database has to be able to tell me how the book should be shelved. I keep track of author order and whether or not the book is shelved by that author. So for example, for an Ace Double, I pick one of the authors to shelve the book, and indicate that in my database. For a multiple author book, the senior author gets a flag indicating that the book is shelved under this author, and the other authors have a blank in that flag. I keep track of the order by a pointer that points to the next author, and when it is null, you're at the end of the chain. It isn't that complex, but I realize that adding that to your schema would be a very serious project. Thanks for the info. --Sjmathis 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing images hosted by ISFDB

When you are replacing an existing image that's hosted by the site, always hit/click the "Ignore Warnings" button. The software always warns when there is an existing image linked to a particular tag/record. Once the image is changed it will automatically be displayed in the record. There's nothing you have to do at that end. However, the old image should be deleted, though it doesn't have to be. I went into the Upload Log and got rid of the original image, edited the data so you would appear as the uploader. Then I deleted the image with the 'x' appended to the tag as that one wasn't really directly linked to the record. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Didn't see a "Ignore warnings" button, but I'll look carefully next time. Anyway, the result of your changes is that we have the old image back. The file I uploaded seems to have been replaced by the old image. This happened before you did anything. I assume this was because I hit the wrong button when it warned me that a file of that name already existed. When I edited the record, and went to retrieve the full file I could see that my file had been replaced. So I uploaded the file a second time, this time changing the name so that it would upload correctly, and I used the "x" file to update the record.
If you can retrieve my file with the "x" in it, and rename it properly, and replace the old image with it, that would fix the record. If not, I can rescan it again (I already tossed my scan), and upload it again. I realize they images look very much alike, but my image was 3-- x 600 and the old image is 3-- by 500, and my image has the Baen logo on it (which is what the original note mentioned) and the old one didn't.--Sjmathis 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Gone is gone. The [image] on the record is the one you uploaded, 300x600, with the Baen logo. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This happens to me (the old image still appears even after I replaced it) until I realized that the software sends you back to the original page without refreshing your cache. So what you see is the old image. Just refresh your cache (F5 on most browsers) and you'll see the image has been replaced by the new one. Mhhutchins 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
OF course! The old 'you have to hit refresh' trick. It looks fine. Thanks to all--Sjmathis 17:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dating later printings

Sometimes at least a year can be determined for an undated printing by checking out the Publishers lists we have. For [this] Blish, publisher is Signet. Click on that in the record and you will get [this] page. I checked a few and for [1972] you can see that the number of your pub fits nicely into early 1972, month is probably April, but that's pushing it. The best part is that all the other publications we have records for from 1972 are Verified. If none of them were I'd be more hesitant, though at that point I would check out a few and see if the dates used were accurate [lots of times there are records created from printing histories on later printings' copyright pages]. Just an additional tool to use/check. If you do use such pages for a date, be sure and cite the source! FYI! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LCCN

I've noticed on a few submissions that you're adding the LCCN (should be only 2 "c"s since the Library of Congress "card catalog number" became the "control number") like in this record. In case you're interested, you can link this number to the record on file with the Library of Congress using the method described here. So LCCN: 93-22096 can be entered as LCCN: <a HREF="http://lccn.loc.gov/93022096">93-22096</a> and this is what it links to. Pretty neat, huh? Of course, none of this is mandatory. Mhhutchins 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Very interesting.--Sjmathis 20:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Frontier

I accepted the submission adding a new publication to this title but made a few changes to conform to ISFDB standards. The synopsis was removed from the pub record to the title record (the proper place for information that concerns the title, not just this one pub). I've place the # sign before the catalog number (this ISFDB standard is used to indicate a catalog number that is not an ISBN). One question: what is the currency? If this was published in Britain before decimalization (1971), the price should be entered in shillings and pennies. For example, "3/6" was a common price for paperbacks in 1967 England, meaning 3 shillings and 6 pennies. If it's a US price (60 cents), it should be entered as "$0.60". Because the book was printed in Great Britain (as your note states), it was probably intended for the Canadian market, so the price should be entered as "C$0.60". Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I see you uploaded an image, and the 60¢ is visible. I'd bet this was meant for Canada. Is there anything stated in the book that might indicate that? Mhhutchins 15:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Ambler is a secondary interest of mine. I have most of his older publications, and I was surprised to see his name listed on the front page of the ISFDB today and learn that one of his books was considered a Spec Fiction book. Anyway, I loaded what I could, creating a new pub, since the Fontana edition wasn't in the database. The synopsis was present in the pub that I used to make the clone, so I left it in there, as I didn't know how to get it into the title record. Thanks for the info regarding the ISBN and catalog numbers, I'll keep an eye out for that in the future.
The price is as shown on the cover, which I just uploaded. Didn't occur to me that it might be intended for Canada, and I wasn't sure about when they went to decimal currency. There is no price on the spine (nor much else except for "Fontana" and the catalog number). The note about printing in Great Britain appears on the copyright page, with very little else. Another possibility is that it's a later printing, post 1971, as what I took for a date actually says "First printed by Fontana in 1967". In that case, we should drop the printing date and include a note about it being a later printing. Also, I guess it could have been intended for sale in the US or Canada. I don't know enough about Fontana's business practices to even hazard a guess. If you want to change it, it's fine with me.--Sjmathis 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The Catalogue number is the right sort of range for 1967, so I think the date is good. I can't tell if it's for the USA or Canada, but in my experience British books were rarely priced for the USA - indeed, they often state "For Copyright reasons, this edition is not for sale in the USA". (Canada has been decimal since the 19th century so that's no clue.) BLongley 16:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps they simply reprinted it after 1971 without changing the catalog number? Did they do that? Possibly this is not going to be clear until someone comes up with another publication that has some more data. --Sjmathis 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
By then Fontana books had ISBNs rather than Catalogue numbers. BLongley 18:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ISBNs and Catalog Numbers

If a book has both ISBN and catalog numbers (as in this recently updated record), you should record the ISBN in the ISBN/Catalog # field, and the catalog number in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, Will do. I thought I had seen a couple that were like that, but perhaps not. If I do see others like that, I'll correct them if I'm working on the book.--Sjmathis 19:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There probably are records in the db that include both. If you see any, please update them to the current standard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"C. W. Cody"

The signature you see is that of Ken W. Kelly. The ¢ [can't make a different symbol, but you know what I mean] is a stylized 'K'. FYI! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll fix the record, if you didn't.--Sjmathis 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources

Since you didn't verify [this], I assume you got the artist from another source. It is important to cite that source in the notes. Helps any future editor/verifier that may edit the publication record, especially if that information is not actually in/on the book. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The publication you referenced isn't one of mine. Either you are referencing the wrong pub, or the wrong user. Since I'm not aware of many other sources, I usually don't try to insert anything that isn't actually in or on the book in front of me. I've been going through my books, looking for items that haven't been verified and verifying them. When I find errors, I try and correct them. When I find things that are out in left field, I clone the pub and let you folks decide what to do with it. When I clone a pub, I normally come back and verify it after the moderator accepts it, generally entering a cover and notes as appropriate. When I put in an artist that isn't identified, it's because of a signature on the cover, and I usually try to leave a note to that effect. If I missed one, I apologize. Thanks for all your help. --Sjmathis 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I definitely put in the wrong link, and now can't remember which record I was referencing.... Apologies. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It may have been one of the things I cloned. I don't know how to put in a cover for a cloned pub, until after the pub is accepted, so I normally go back and put in the cover once the clone is accepted. Sorry if I missed one - doing too many things at once, I guess.--Sjmathis 13:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That's the best way to add an image to a pub record. There's a way to add it without there being a pub record in the database, but it's very complicated. Using the "Upload cover scan" function from the pub record does a lot of behind the scenes work: adding the license tags, creating a unique file name, linking the image's wiki page to the pub record, and more. Continue uploading from the pub record. It saves you a lot of work. Mhhutchins 18:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if my colleague and namesake erred. We Mods aren't perfect - just generally trusted to be "significantly above average" in accuracy. I've got my eye on you as someone that will make the grade sooner rather than later. BLongley 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ring of Fear [ACE]

There were two images on AbeBooks, both with $1.95. Added that to the record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked the ABE images, and they match my cover. Should I upload a 'damaged' cover?--Sjmathis 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Nicer to have one that matches the data, but if your image is better than either on AbeBooks [the one wasn't bad] go for it and just note the source of the price. Sooner or later someone else will come along with a complete cover. I've even seen editors request the scan be replaced in the notes if someone has a better one! Your option. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A Canticle for Leibowitz

Hi. I made some minor tweaks to your A Canticle for Leibowitz submission: I added "#" on the front of the catalogue number (non-ISBNs should have that "#" added to the front), and I changed "$.95" to "$0.95" to explicitly include the zero dollars; the help doesn't explicitly say to include the zero, but its only example does that, and you should include the zero. :-) I didn't change any of the data you provided, just those two formatting things. Thanks. --MartyD 10:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Knew about the "#", but just forgot. Didn't know about the leading zero, but will try and remember. :) --Sjmathis 13:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Trey of Swords

Shouldn't the notes of [this] say "Fifth Printing/June 1983"? to match the date? And did the fifth printing have the same ISBN as the sixth [the one you cloned]? Lastly, the OCLC # in the notes is for the sixth printing and should be deleted. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Yes and Yes. I fixed the Note to say June. The ISBN is the same so that is OK. I dropped the OCLC from the Notes. I assumed there is a way to look up things in the OCLC, but I don't know how to do that, another thing I need to learn :) --Sjmathis 19:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Creating content records

The submission updating this record was accepted and I noticed that you added a note that the book contains maps by John M. Ford. Although not mandatory, it's nice to create records for certain contents in order for the author/artist to be credited on their own summary page. In this case, you could add a content record titled "Songsmith (maps)" with the INTERIORART entry type, and John M. Ford as Author1. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Done. I left out page numbers, since the two maps are on the three (un-numbered) pages before the first page. --Sjmathis 02:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. There is a way to add page numbers for substantial content that you wish to include in the record that appears on unnumbered pages. Count the number of pages before the pagination begins (if there are unnumbered pages that precede page 1). Then add these pages in brackets to the record header's page count field, e.g. [12]+274. Then determine the page number of the map (or introduction, acknowledgments, etc) by counting forward from the first page (don't count the cover of paperbacks or the endpapers of hardcovers). Enter that number in brackets in the content record's page field, e.g. [7]. This is not mandatory, but it does help place the contents in relation with the first page of the work. An exception: if the novel starts on page 9 (for example), which is the first numbered page, you can count back to get the page number of the content you're adding to the record. Still record this number in brackets in the page number field. Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 03:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking up names

You said in a moderator note "I don't know exactly how to search the data base for artists named Kelly". Easy as pie. On every page of the database there is a search box in the upper left corner of the page. Enter what you're looking for into the box, choose which field to search using the drop-down menu, and click "Go". In this case there are so many people named Kelly and the search only returns the first 100. So you have to do an Advance Search. Click on that link (below the search box), and go down to the ISFDB Author Search Form (second section). Enter "kelly" in the first box with the drop-down menu as "Canonical Name". This will return all persons in the database (authors, editors, artists) that contain "kelly" in their name. You'll have to go forward one page to find all those who have "s" first names. I looked and not one of them are artists, so that didn't help much. At least in the future, you'll be able to search if something like this comes up again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, that's almost exactly what I did, and I came up empty also. I was hoping there was a clever way to restrict the search to 'artists', as opposed to 'authors', but I guess that's not as easy. Glad to hear I was at least on the right track. --Sjmathis 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Separating "artists" is something I've wanted to do for a long time - but I've held off until we sort out "translators" and "editors" too. BLongley 18:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You can also try searching by title. In Advanced Search, use the top section. Make Term 1 be Author and enter the name there. Between it and Term 2, make sure "AND" is selected. Make Term 2 be Title Type and enter COVERART there. Between it and Term 3, select "OR". Make Term 3 be Title Type as well and enter INTERIORART there. I.e., "Kelly + Author" AND "COVERART + Title Type" OR "INTERIORART + Title Type". This translates to Find titles whose author name contains Kelly and whose title type is either COVERART or INTERIORART. Kelly still doesn't work out so well here due to Mr. Freas. You can use a wildcard ("C*Kelly" or "C%Kelly", for example) -- you can do that in the author search as well. --MartyD 11:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks very much. --Sjmathis 14:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to the moderator in a pub update that doesn't update the pub.

In a submission to update this pub, you placed this note in the "Note to Moderator" field:

I don't think these volumes (4,5, 6, 7, & 8) were ever printed. There were plans to print them, as evidenced by the statements at the end of volume 3, but I don't think they ever made it into print, so perhaps they should be deleted.

This is not the best place to present your concerns about this pub. It would have been better to leave a message on the Moderator Noticeboard, where any moderator or editor would have been able to respond. A submission to update the pub record should do just that: update the pub record. The "Note to Moderator" field is used to give additional information about the submission, not the publication. This submission made no changes in the pub record, so I had to reject it.

Now to your concerns: After a little research, I agree with you and believe the later books in this series were never published. If cases where a book was announced, especially if assigned an ISBN, it's better not to delete the record, but to change the dates to 8888-00-00, which the system will display as "unpublished". Keeping the record in the db as unpublished, helps insure that no later editor, seeing the listing in Amazon, will add a new record stating the book was actually published when we know it never appeared. I'll correct the later records in the series. Mhhutchins 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll remember your suggestion regarding contacting the moderators. Keeping a record that indicates that they are unpublished sounds like an excellent solution. I can recall waiting months in an attempt to get copies of the volumes, and finally throwing in the towel and checking them out of the library.

Pan Sagittarius

Please recheck the ISBN stated in this pub. It came up as an invalid number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To be exact, the copyright page states: "SBN 425-02659-7". I assumed that was an ISBN, but perhaps it means something else, or perhaps Berkley wasn't very good at calculating check sums in those days. The spine has "425-02659-095" on it, so I assume the number itself is OK. According to my Excel check sum calculator, the check digit should actually be "0". Seems to me I saw something that suggested that there was a way to look up an ISBN and see if the book matches the number, but I don't know how to do that. --Sjmathis 19:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Some publishers, especially Berkley, was quite late in the transition from SBN to ISBN (most had converted by the early 70s). Berkley continued to give the SBN in their books, and 99% of the time the ISBN can be derived by just adding a leading "0" to the number. I would suggest giving "0-425-02659-0" in the ISBN field (because it links with outside databases) and then record in the note field that the number is derived from the stated SBN: "425-02659-7". Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Done. Thanks for the info. --Sjmathis 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding content to a pub

It's always better to import the contents into a record if another record exists that has the same contents. In the case of this pub, you could have imported the contents from this record. This avoids having to merge the new content title records with existing ones. Do you know how to merge title records? If not, I can step you through the process. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the offer of assistance - Seems I need a lot of it. However, I won't trouble you right now. If I run across another situation like that I'll send a plea for help. :) --Sjmathis 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll go ahead then and merge the title records for you. When you get a chance, look over this page on how to merge titles and this one on how to import contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I didn't understand that there was something else that still needed doing. I thought you were offering to show me how to avoid re-typing all the contents of the pub. Since I had already typed it, I thought we were done, and this was for the next time I needed to do this. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "merging the title records". I'll look at the help files. Thanks. --Sjmathis 20:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. Whenever you add new content records, there's a very likely chance that there are already records in the database for those titles, especially in a reprint collection like the Weber collection. These new records should always be merged with the existing ones so that all of the appearances of the story will appear on one title record's summary page. Otherwise they would be spread around the database and be hard to search for. Some editors mistakenly believe this is an automatic process, because moderators tend to follow up new editors by merging their records for them. Unfortunately, it's all manual. Fortunately, in some cases, you can avoid having to merge records if either of these cases exist: 1) you can clone an existing pub record that already has the contents or 2) you can import the contents from an existing pub record, if the pub record you're updating doesn't already have contents (as in the case of the Weber collection.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've now looked at the help files, and I see that I could have saved both of us a lot of work by simply copying the contents of the hardcover version. I now realize that I need to examine the other printings of a publication that I'm editing more carefully. Thanks again. --Sjmathis 21:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tried it on this pub. I realized as I got down to the bottom of the editing screen that the Maps and excerpts were missing. Rather that re-type them, I finished the edit, then went back and imported the content from this one. Now my only thought is whether the second edit will wipe out the work done by the first - we'll see. --Sjmathis 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming records for maps

Maps are a specialized form of interiorart, so we use the same standards for naming them as we do for other interiorart records: give the name of the book, but then add "map" at the end in parentheses. So the record in this pub should be "In Enemy Hands (map)". Its type should also be changed from SHORTFICTION to INTERIORART. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This one will have to also be corrected. Mhhutchins 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I knew about the (Map) convention but mixed it up, and also forgot to fix the type. I'll have to go back and see where I started mixing up the (Map) thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talk • contribs) .
One other thing, we don't capitalize "map". No big problem. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

War of Honor

The page number for the excerpt (945) is greater than the number in the page count field (939) in this pub record. When importing records you have the option of retaining the page numbering from the original record. Sometimes when a book is reprinted the pagination changes, especially from hardcover to paperback reprints. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, Done. Forgot to check the page count.--Sjmathis 22:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image?

Your updated image for [this] is of the wrong book. Sure it's just a copy/paste error. Since you added notes I accepted the submission to keep them, but the image needs replacing. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just checked the Upload Log and the image was there so corrected the record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dan Dos or dos Santos

In your submission to update this record, you changed the cover artist credit from "Dan Dos Santos" to "Dan dos Santos". The ISFDB software was designed to ignore case in person's names, and makes all names conform to the one already in the database. So you could have entered "dan dos santos" and the system would still match it with the ISFDB author data for "Dan Dos Santos". (You could even enter it as "DAN DOS SANTOS" and it would not have made a difference.) There is a way to change all of the records currently in the db to "Dan dos Santos". Doing a little research, I find that form of his name is his preference. And I learned that he is more often credited as Daniel Dos Santos. I'll try to determine which name should be made into a variant. He uses "Dan dos Santos" on his website. Mhhutchins 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just matching what it says on the copyright page - it gives it as "dos". --Sjmathis 18:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
According to this note, it's displayed both ways in the hardcover edition of the same title. Mhhutchins 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't "dos Santos" the last name? BLongley 19:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That's my impression. --Sjmathis 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
We're not that good at recording official "author" names - or indeed, distinguishing "authors" from "artists". As we get more editors whose native Language isn't some English variant, we keep finding problems. Dirk has been doing a lot of Author edits to work around our software limitations, but we really should sort out the problems rather than work around them. We don't seem to have language experts with development or testing skills though, so language support is rather behind. :-( BLongley 01:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is

We try to use the standard capitalization rules when it comes to titles...regardless of whether a word is capitalized in the actual publication or not. As you point out, many times all words in a title are caps so we can't determine how the author intended it actually to be displayed. Because of this we've chose to capitalize the initial letter in all words of a title except for "and", "the", "a", "an", "for", "of", "in", "on", "by", "at", "from", "with", and "to" (Unless those are the first word of the title.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Same mistake as I made in my early days - I couldn't understand why "Is" is preferable to "is". (After all, "I" is better than "i" as a word, isn't it?) We have changed a little in the last few years - "with" wasn't on the list when I started. Not a major issue, foreign alphabets are going to be far more complicated as they won't search right. BLongley 02:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Weapon

Go ahead and upload your image to the pub record. It's possible that the one there is for the hardcover edition. Mhhutchins 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Done. It replaced the file that was there before, and it took me a while before I remembered to hit the refresh button so I could see the change. The previous image was exactly like the image used for the HC version, but it had been scanned and uploaded to the PB version, according to the file name. Anyway, it looks good now. Hopefully I haven't screwed up the HC version. --Sjmathis 20:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you uploaded two different versions of the cover. The current one is here. And one uploaded a few minutes before is archived here. Which one is the actual book cover? Mhhutchins 21:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I did the same thing as you. Forgot to reload the page to clear the cache. They're now identical. Nevermind. Mhhutchins 21:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After Worlds Collide

I replaced the link for the cover image of this record. The one on the Trash Collector website was considerably smaller. Thanks. Mhhutchins

Airmont Science Fiction series

I am organizing the Airmont Science Fiction series, and have added your verified pub The Tower of Zanid to this series.

Center of Gravity (Star Carrier #2) - cover image and notes

I replaced the Amazon cover image with a scanned image, and added notes to your verified Center of Gravity. AndonSage 06:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agent of Change

I added the LCCN to the notes of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?1810 Agent of Change. Bob 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Carpe Diem

I added artist crediting to the notes on http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?6155 Carpe Dium, which you verified. Bob 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

White Moon, Red Dragon David Wingrove 1997

Uploded new cover image and added cover artist for this pub BarDenis 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Forge cover image and artist

Could you please verify the cover artist for your verified The Forge by S.M. Stirling & David Drake, and match it to the cover image? I have the third edition (Nov 1998) of The Forge, and the cover on my book is the same as shown for your book. However, the copyright page in the third edition says "Cover art by David Mattingly" and you have Paul Alexander listed as the cover artist. Thanks! AndonSage 07:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My copy has "Cover art by Paul Alexander" on the copyright page. I don't see a signature on the cover. My copies of the rest of the series are second printings, but they also list Alexander as the artist. Perhaps the third edition is a correction, or perhaps it's simply an error. I've seen examples of artwork for both artists, but not enough to distinguish their work. Sjmathis 13:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well if the cover on your first edition and the cover on my third edition are the same, then one of the books has a misprint. Since Paul Alexander is listed as doing the covers for the other books in the series, I'm gonna figure the third edition is the incorrect one. However, to try to verify this, I'm going to post the question on the Baen's Bar forum, and see if anyone can answer there. David Drake is active on Baen's Bar, so I'm hopeful of getting an answer. Thanks for checking your book :) AndonSage 14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to give an update to this issue. The only response I received on the Baen's Bar forum was to e-mail info@baen.com, which I did a couple days ago. I'm still waiting for a response. AndonSage 16:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I finally received a response, and they confirmed David Mattingly is a misprint. I'll go ahead and edit the record and add notes. AndonSage 23:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hammer - notes and content

I added notes and content (maps) to your verified The Hammer by S.M. Stirling & David Drake. AndonSage 09:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Anvil - cover image, notes and content

I uploaded a scanned cover image, plus added notes and content (maps & excerpt) to your verified The Anvil by S.M. Stirling & David Drake. AndonSage 08:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Steel - cover image, notes and content

I uploaded a scanned cover image, plus added notes and content (maps) to your verified The Steel by S.M. Stirling & David Drake. AndonSage 09:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Steel - cover image, notes and content

I uploaded a scanned cover image, plus added notes and content (maps) to your verified The Sword by S.M. Stirling & David Drake. AndonSage 09:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter note

I have added a note to your verified pub of Ben Bova's Jupiter stating a discrepency in the page count. John L. -- Syzygy 03:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

W3: Women in Deep Time

I have added an OCLC catalog number to the note field of your verified pub of W3: Women in Deep Time. --John L.-- Syzygy 02:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hegira - Tor Edition

I have added an OCLC cat# to the note field and added the map on page 6 as content to your verified pub of Hegira. --John L.-- Syzygy 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oath of Swords

I changed the number of pages for http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?24657 Oath of Swords to match the page numbers in the pub. Bob 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stainless Steel Visions

Expanded the notes a little for [this]. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Encounter With Tiber

I have added an OCLC cat# to the note field of your verified pub of Encounter With Tiber. --John L.-- Syzygy 02:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Atilla Hejja / Attila Hejja

Hi, there are as of this moment four occurences of cover art by Atilla Hejja in isfdb, and you are the only one who managed to verify one, this. Could you please check it and look whether the name is a typo for Attila Hejja?--Dirk P Broer 01:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no credit for the cover artist, and no signature is visible. I added a note to that effect to the listing. I don't remember how long ago I verified the book, but I assume that the artist was listed before I did, and I didn't change it, since I didn't have any evidence that it was wrong. It could easily be a misprint. Sjmathis 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the other entries for Atilla Hejja, and the only other one I have is Brunner's "The Wrong End of Time", but mine is a third printing, the cover artist is credited to Rick Sternbach, and the cover is also signed by him. The fifth printing is credited to Atilla, but not verified, and there is no image in the record. Looks like I can't help very much. Sjmathis 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
But you did! I think you mean this cover, and the style is definitely Attila Hejja's.--Dirk P Broer 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Right. I didn't think of "Goodreads", and I didn't realize that they had a lot of artwork. Although they don't list the artist, it certainly looks like the Brunner entry is spelled wrong, which would imply that the other entries are probably typos also.Sjmathis 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rocannon's World

Identified the artist for [this] printing. There is a signature on the animal's left wing [right side of cover]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Paying the Piper

I entered the hc version of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?25774 Paying the Piper by David Drake. This novel is composed of three linked novellas, the first of which was actually published before the novel (Choosing Sides appeared in "The Warmaster", published in May 2002). You may want to include those novellas in the contents of the pub you verified. Bob 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I did that with some misgivings, since the copyright date is also 2002, and I don't know how to tell which came first. There's nothing in the book to indicate that they were published earlier. I read the book back in 2007 and I don't remember details. Were you going to add them to the hardcover version also? Sjmathis 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw this message after posting the one below. You both will have to figure out whether this is a fix-up novel or a collection. Pub records under the title must be the same type. And novel records that are fix-ups don't have the constituent parts as content. Look at this pub record and this title record to see how fix-ups are entered. Mhhutchins 13:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Since there isn't any indication that the other stories were published independently, I would be inclined to leave it a NOVEL, with the note in the title record (I fixed a typo) to the effect that "Choosing Sides" was also published elsewhere (should it have a reference?). Thanks.Sjmathis 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you don't have to link it to the other title record. Do you agree that the record should remain typed as a NOVEL, Bob? Mhhutchins 15:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Drake's Paying the Piper

Is this a novel or a collection of related stories? We can't add shortfiction records to a NOVEL-type record, but we can change the type to COLLECTION and add the shortfiction records as contents. Mhhutchins 13:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have another submission adding similar content to this edition. His notes describe it as three continuous novellas. (In fact, see the entry immediately above). I took a look at the ebook, and the three do read as related but separate. It seems we should accept both submissions, change the main title and the pubs to COLLECTION, and import the novellas into the Hammer's Slammers omnibuses (omnibi?). --MartyD 10:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The other editor disagrees (see the above topic). She believes it should remain a novel. The two will have to come to a decision. In the meantime, I'm stepping away and removing my hold on the submission. Mhhutchins 15:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Charmed Sphere", by Catherine Asaro

I've raised a discussion about books published by "Luna", suggesting we change this to "Luna / Harlequin". This includes your verified Charmed Sphere. If you can, please visit this discussion. Chavey 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Saint Antony's Fire

Go ahead and change the image for this. The one there was purloined from Amazon, definitely disposable if not correct. As for the tag, I don't know what will happen if you change it. The image is tied to it, but I don't think anything else is. Another method to do both would be to create a new record with the correct information, which will generate a 'correct' tag, add the proper image to that record and then delete this one. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded the correct image. It replaced the old image, and didn't affect the images that were associated with the other two editions. Hence all is well, despite the tag being off by a year, which I don't think will hurt anything. Sjmathis 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Sjmathis"
Personal tools