User talk:Wolfram.winkler

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Wolfram.winkler, 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! Stonecreek 09:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sündenfall

Thank you very much for adding this publication. I had to adapt a few fields to the standards of our little database:

1) I changed the price to €15.00, which is the standard for Euro prices (and analog for dollars & pounds: no space between the sigle and the value, old german prices would be entered with a space: DM X.XX or M X.XX).

2) I added the note 'First German edition, first printing' to the book, assuming that this is the case (if it should be a higher printing, please correct the note).

3) I had to remove the German title series: the series of the original English version has the precedence.

Finally I added a note of the translator to the title entry, where it is most meaningful.

Would you like to variant the german title to the original one? Thanks again, Christian Stonecreek 10:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have put your new submission on hold. Instead I varianted the first title to the original English one. I guess you didn't find the title & the publication of your first submission, so I'm inclined to reject your latest one, as it doesn't add a new printing or edition. (But I'll wait one day waiting for an answer). Thanks, Stonecreek 09:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now rejected your submission, but I do think that your first was meant the same. Stonecreek 14:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Christian,

ich spreche leider nicht sehr viel Englisch, daher kann ich jetzt nicht nachvollziehen, warum mein Eintrag "Sündenfall" gelöscht wurde, ebenso sind meine Kenntnisse bez. Wikis eher marginal.

Ich sehe gerade, dass der Titel nicht gelöscht wurde, sondern als Variante des englischen Titels dargestellt wird. Ist zwar in meinen Augen nicht optimal, aber wenn es nicht anders funktioniert, dann ist das OK.

MfG.

W. Winkler Wolfram.winkler 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, Wolfram! Nicht optimal mag es scheinen, aber so ist die ISFDB nun einmal organisiert (umgekehrt wird eine englische Übersetzung ebenso als Variante des Originals aus einer anderen Sprache eingesetzt). Es ist auch die einzige Möglichkeit, den Überblick zu behalten, insbesondere bei vielübersetzten Autoren. Die Umgangssprache hier ist aber Englisch, da alle Moderatoren darüber kommunizieren: nur Mut, es muss wirklich nicht perfekt sein (ich werde deswegen zukünftig auch wieder darauf umsteigen, allein damit die anderen in meiner Abwesenheit beurteilen können, was in konkreten Fällen geschehen ist und reagieren können).
Aufgrund der Organisation der ISFDB musste ich leider auch deine zweite Eingabe ablehnen: wir sind hier auf zwei Ebenen organisiert: Publikationen (ein konkretes Buch oder Heft) & Titel (sozusagen immateriell). Z. B. sind einzelne Stories oder Essays nur durch ihren Titel vertreten, sie tauchen dann mit ihren Titeln in Publikationen auf. Es können aber nun nur Titel zu Varianten anderer Titel gemacht werden, so dass das, was du versuchst, leider nicht funktioniert, da dann ein Titel mit konkreten Informationen zu einer Publikation versehen wäre. Ich werde versuchen, 'deine' Publikation einzugeben, wobei automatisch der zugehörige Titel erzeugt wird, und dann die Varianten in Beziehung zueinander zu setzen. (But from now on it's English). Danke vielmals trotzdem, Christian Stonecreek 10:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Christian, jetzt bin ich ganz verwirrt, ich habe doch extra den Punkt "Add a Variant Title" gewählt, weil die deutsche Fassung ja eine Variante des englischen Originals ist, wie soll man denn deutsche Übersetzungen mit neuem Titel, anderem Verlag usw. eingeben? Zum Thema englische Sprache: Wenn ich englisch schreiben müsste, würde ich eine Menge Zeit damit verbringen, überhaupt etwas Lesbares zu erzeugen. In der Zeit könnte ich sinnvollerweise Daten eingeben. Ich kämpfe schon mit der Übersetzung englisch -> deutsch. Gibt es denn ein deutschsprachiges Wiki mit demselben Thema? Wenn es nichts ausmacht, schreibe ich meine Kommentare weiterhin auf deutsch, ansonsten macht es keinen Sinn soviel Zeit zu investieren, ohne produktiv zu sein.Wolfram.winkler 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Google-Übersetzung: Hi Christian , now I 'm confused , I have specially selected the option "Add a Variant Title", because the German version a variant of the English original is, how are you supposed German translations with new titles , including publishing , etc. enter ? On the subject of English language : If I had to write English, I would spend a lot of time thinking about anything readable produce . At the time I could usefully enter data. I fight already with the translation English -> German. Is there a German-language wiki with the same issue? If you do not mind , I write my comments further on German , otherwise it makes no sense to invest so much time without being productive.Wolfram.winkler 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, for example this is a title with 11 variant titles, and about 70 publications (four examples: here, here, here and here). A NOVEL is a title that exists only as (our/ISFDBs) concept, a publication in this case is a printing of a book; a book nowadays has an ISBN, a title can't have that, because it's a concept. We have different concepts/types of titles, for example NOVEL, ANTHOLOGY, SHORTFICTION, ESSAY etc. I hope that helps. Christian Stonecreek 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ich verstehe die Problematik nicht. Das Buch "Die Prophezeiung der Steine" von Pamela Freeman, welches ich eingegeben habe, steht doch genau da, wo er sein sollte, als Variante vom Original "Blood Ties"! So ganz verstehe ich das System nicht, ehrlich gesagt. Die englischen Erklärungen helfen mir leider nicht weiter, Danke trotzdem. I do not understand the problem . The book "Die Prophezeiung der Steine" by Pamela Freeman , which I have entered, you can read it right where it should be, as a variant from the original " Blood Ties " ! So all I do not understand the system , to be honest . Unfortunately, the English explanations do not help me , Thanks anyway .Wolfram.winkler 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe das Gefühl, dass die Daten nicht von mir stammen, sondern schon vorhanden waren. Ich habe sie aber vor meiner Eingabe über die Suchfunktion nicht gefunden oder falsch gesucht. Ich werde das noch untersuchen. In dem Zusammenhang sind natürlich meine Neu-Eingaben unnötig gewesen.

I have a feeling that the data do not come from me, but were already present. I have not found before my entry via the search function or wanted wrong. I'll investigate more . Of course, in the context of my New entries have been unnecessary. Wolfram.winkler 05:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ken Scholes

Hello, just in case, I've approved your "update" for this author but it didn't change anything as you didn't modify any field in your submission. What were you trying to do? Hauck 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, I don't have changed anything, I don't know, what's happened Wolfram.winkler 05:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps an involuntary click or <enter>, no problem. Hauck 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion : Such empty entries should be ignored by the system.Wolfram.winkler 08:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Canticle by Scholes

I rejected your submission to delete this record. Why do you believe it should not be in the database? Mhhutchins 05:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I wanted delete only the Cover left Picture, because it is twice. It doesn't exist a reference to the associated ebook.Wolfram.winkler 06:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Your submission would have deleted the publication record for the ebook edition. If you wish to remove the cover image, choose the "Edit This Pub" function under the Editing Tools menu. Then remove the URL in the "Image URL" field. Before doing this you should do a primary verification of the record so that the moderator knows that you actually have a copy of this publication and can confirm that there is no cover art associated with it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding cover images to publications

First, an explanation: the publication by Freeman was added by me after I rejected your title varianting.

When you have uploaded an image for a publication, you need to edit that publication to enter the destination URL to the field 'Image URL' (you find this URL by clicking on the blue enhanced (clickable) field just below the uploaded image. Just try it! Christian Stonecreek 10:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope, now its alright. How can I upload the Back-Side of the Cover without overwriting the existing front cover?Wolfram.winkler 14:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is only one cover image per book. In cases of wrap-around art, users will typically scan it all (easier to do if it's a cover jacket) as in this example. You can also scan both sides separately and then combine in an image editing program as in this example. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Der Tänzer der Schatten

As before with Sündenfall I had to repeat the first two items (correct standard ISFDB price in Euro, adding the basic information on edition and printing) for the publication, and the third one (dropping the german title series).

I'm not sure about the german synopsis. Usually, there's only the possibility to add english ones, but as this is only a variant german title, it may stay until another moderator decides to drop it (which may actually occur, so maybe it'd be better to start a discussion at the help desk, before submitting other non-english texts).

The german title still has to be varianted to the English original. Would you like to try?

Thanks for contributing! Christian Stonecreek 12:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to reject your latest submission. It should be varianted to the original English title. If you take a look at the URL bar or at the top right corner of this title, you'll find in both cases the title's number at ISFDB, 1336615. This is the number you should enter into the box 'Parent #' when varianting. Would you like to try it again? Christian Stonecreek 15:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have clicked the wrong Button, now it must be OK.Wolfram.winkler 15:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Schattenklinge

Hello, Wolfram! Thanks for adding that item. It turned out that it was the first book for ISFDB by this author who we had overlooked so far. As there is an original title series, the german one had to be dropped. Christian Stonecreek 05:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Stonecreek, I know, that it exist an english title series, but I hope everytime that my title will be accept with the german title, another mod accept this way with independently german series! For a german user it is easier to find a german title, if it exist the german title series. I mean, something is missing. In my opinion, there is a need for action.Wolfram.winkler 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As soon as there is an original title series, any variant title series will be deleted (overwritten). Only the variant titles of individual novels or other title types can have their individual languages.
Thanks for adding the further volumes in the title series. As they are American publications I had to replace the Euro price with the original US-$ list prices, which can be found at amazon.com. I also replaced the notes on sources with the standard, which is much more eye-friendly (and the sources wouldn't link to amazon, anyway). Thanks again for adding those! Stonecreek 03:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the ISFDB software prevents a variant title from having a different series than its parent title. If you give the German variant a different series name, the system will create a new series. But the moment you variant the German title to the English title, the series data in the German title record is overwritten with the data from the English title record. The German series will remain in the database, but will be titleless, waiting for someone (like me) to find it and delete it. If you strongly feel that the software should be changed to allow different series names for different languages, you should start a discussion on the ISFDB:Rules and standards discussions page. Keep in mind, that even though non-English publications are eligible for inclusion in the database, all other aspects of the database are required to be in English.
BTW, if another moderator accepted your submission that contained a German titled series, it was because he was unaware that it was to be varianted to an English title, or was aware that it wouldn't make a difference since it would be overwritten anyway. Mhhutchins 04:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello stonecreek,
Perhaps the link should refer to amazon.com.
How can I make the links eye-friendly, I don't can see any Difference of the spelling between original display and edited text (http://www.amazon.de/Mindbender-David-A-Wells/dp/1468102494/ref=tmm_pap_title_0), do you understand, what I mean?Wolfram.winkler 11:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, as I see it there's no need to establish a special link as they are provided for publications with an ISBN on the left tool bar.
I rejected your change of price since the prices at amazon.com are not fixed, but vary over time. We record the list price that can usually be found there in the top right corner. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 13:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Christian, thanks for the tip, I've found the list price.
My remarks to the links have done himself, it was a communication error.Wolfram.winkler 16:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Die Elfen

Re this publication: A 2004 publication wouldn't have an ISBN-13. If your copy has a stated ISBN-13, it is probably a later printing. By "10th Edition" do you mean the 10th printing? If so, you should zero out the publication date to "0000" which will be displayed as "undated". Unless your copy actually has a stated publication date. You should also adjust the Note field to state which information comes from Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, if it doesn't come from the book itself.

I will create a record for the 2004 first printing giving data from the OCLC record. (I also had to add Sullivan as author in the title record, as only Hennen was credited. If you change the author credit of a publication record, you must also change the author credit of the title record to match it exactly.) Mhhutchins 22:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In principle I use ever the ISBN-13, because every Book can assigned this one, although at the time of publication don't exist an ISBN-13. If that is not ISFDB conform I will take into account.
"10th Edition" means in german "10. Auflage. This informationen I have assumed from the cover of the book.
The note field have I corrected.Wolfram.winkler 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It is ISFDB policy to record the ISBN that's stated in the actual publication. If both are present, you should enter the ISBN-13. If none are present, the field should be blank, even if a later printing added an ISBN. Just because an ISBN-13 can be created from any ISBN-10 doesn't mean someone should arbitrarily give the ISBN-13 for books published before the ISBN-13 even existed. The software takes the data as entered, then displays the alternate ISBN in squared brackets, thus indicating which ISBN is stated and which one is derived.
More to original question: Is your copy the 10th printing? (I'm not sure if the the English definition of "edition" is the same as the German one.) If so, it probably wasn't published in November 2004. That's the date of the first edition. What publication date, if any, is given in your copy? Mhhutchins 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe, this publication ist the First Edition 10th printing, the year of printing is 2006. Original text is: "10. Auflage...Originalausgabe 11/2004...Copyright 2004 dieser Ausgabe by Wilhelm Heyne Verlag...Printed in Germany 2006". Wolfram.winkler 16:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The date of a publication record should be the printing date, not the date of the first edition. So the record for your copy should be dated 2006, with a Note that it is the 10th printing of the 2004 edition. This is standard ISFDB practice. Mhhutchins 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I will modify this, thanks for your patience with a german newbee Wolfram.winkler 06:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Series data in variant titles

You should remove the series data in this record, and the link to a commercial website (Amazon). The webpage field in title records should be linked to webpages dedicated to the work, not a sales website. There are links to such sites on the publication record. Thanks. 19:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Mhhutchins

Quest

Hello, Wolfram! I had to reject your submission to delete one publication of this title. First, it is etiquette to ask any active primary verifier(s) before changing any fields or for most if you add something new immediately after adding (for me, it's okay if you add some notes or correct the price without notifying me). In this case the verified publication was the fourth printing of that edition, the other one is not primary verified, but is intended for the first printing. (I had made the same mistake when I began). Christian Stonecreek 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Christian, I remember, that I've corrected one evident typing error and delete one space. I am surprised and I don't know that we must ask for this minor edit the
primary verifier or do you mean another case? In Future I'll be more cautious.
Quest: # 411539: I can see Notes: From the fourth printing...
# 411540: I can see Notes: 4. Auflage...
It seems the same data? The Year is 2005, the only difference of both publications is the Month of printing. But the same 4th printing and two different dates is imho implausible.
I believe, I must learn better english to understand your explanation.:-)
Also thanks for your patience with a german newbee. Wolfram.winkler 19:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
As stated in the Welcome section above:
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.
Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I quote:"If you are changing substantive data (not changing a blank to a non-blank field), it is usually a good idea to ask the verifier in advance."
I've corrected one evident typing error and delete one space. These changes are not relevant, in this case is a note to the primary verifier in my opinion not useful, because we are wasting time and resources, in all another cases the rule should be respected. If my interpretation of your rule is wrong, please correct me. --Wolfram.winkler 08:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, basically you're right. Correcting a typo in the Note field doesn't require PV notification. But if you're changing anything (typo or not) in any of the other fields, you should discuss it with the PV editor before doing it. Once you have taken the time and effort to create several hundred publication records and verify them, you may more fully appreciate the notification etiquette. You wouldn't want later editors to come along and change your records without the courtesy of informing you first. Mhhutchins 08:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Short summary: Correcting a typo in the note fields without notification is okay, in any other fields I must inform the verifier, also for example the changing of € 10 in €10 (cancel one space, how it is usual and rule) in the price field? I will do it gladly, but I can't understand the logic.--Wolfram.winkler 15:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Notification of removing a space to conform to the ISFDB standard is not necessary. You're not really changing the data or even correcting a typo, you're conforming to standard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If I look at this discussion, I ask myself, why we discuss generally this? Everything was made almost right. Let us enter some data to the database, it seems to me more productive. Thanks for your information. I wish you a nice day.--Wolfram.winkler 08:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Remark: If the discussion refers to my suggestion to delete the publication "Quest", then you're right. This point was not aware to me.--Wolfram.winkler 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Series data in variant titles, again

Re this record: please do not add series data to records for titles which will be varianted to another title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm also uncertain that the synopsis should be in German. Even though we allow non-English language publications into the database, I believe the records themselves must be in English. I'll ask for a clarification of this matter on the Community portal. Mhhutchins 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the synopsis based on a ruling made on the Community portal. Also, when using another source's synopsis, please provide the source as part of the synopsis. (In English, of course.) Mhhutchins 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
this record I've added the original english series title "Strange Threads", where is the problem, is it a problem of the software?
Now, I understand it so: A German translated publication should be added without series data, also without the original english series title?Wolfram.winkler 19:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with language. The series data of the parent record is automatically displayed in the series data of the variant record, regardless of the language. Adding series data to a new publication record whose title has yet to be varianted to its parent will cause an error until a subsequent submission that creates the variant. Once that submission has been accepted, it doesn't matter because the software discards any series data that was provided in the original submission. That means you're taking the time to add data that will never be used. So if you know that the title record of a new publication will eventually have to be varianted to another title record, don't bother adding series data to the original submission, regardless of the language. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Das Wispern der Schatten

Thanks for adding this item! For the series title: you don't have to enter it, as it will be replaced as soon as the title is varianted (which I have already done here), and '1st' or 'First' is the correct English term. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 05:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ein dunkler Funke

You verified what looks like two identical records for this title. If that was in error, and the editions are identical, please delete one of them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the same, I've deleted one. I don't know, why it appeared twice, perhaps a wrong click?--Wolfram.winkler 08:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Marie Keller

Do you know if she was born after October 1990? If not, her birth country should be entered as West Germany. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I will ask her, but she don't want to say her birthday. BTW for me it was ever Germany and not west or east!--Wolfram.winkler 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
But both parts were in fact two different legal entities, we do reflect the historical facts, whether they were to ones liking or not (so that this author was even born in Germany, somewhat ridiculously to our eyes). Stonecreek 04:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems historical correct, where he was born. The "DDR" has been recognized as a State not 100 percent from the "BRD". But I don't want to start a political diskussion.
I note, that in ISFDB exist two german states for a while, it is ok.--Wolfram.winkler 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The ISFDB has nothing to do with the existence of two German states. We only record a person's birthplace as that at the time of their birth. It's not a political matter at all. Mhhutchins 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is, that in ISFDB it is a difference between East Germany and West Germany (in case of birth), without any political background, but for me in West and in East there had lived and now lives both german people, it is easier for me to say Germany than East Germany or West Germany, without political points.--Wolfram.winkler 16:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Translator

Hi. Just a small language hint for your submissions: the English word for "Übersetzer" is "translator", not "translater". Jens Hitspacebar 20:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Translater" will also used, but rarely, I've corrected these submissions or have I forgotten something? If you find more wrong words, then tell me, please. I'm living in Germany and understand the English language only a little bit. I will make further mistakes. The Google-Translator ist not the best way to translate! Thanks.--Wolfram.winkler 13:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem, just try as good as you can, and mistakes can always be corrected :). By the way: another good source to look up a translation (not of a whole text, but of a word) is http://www.dict.cc. Jens Hitspacebar 14:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know this site, but the problem is less the single word but the complete sentences in context. --Wolfram.winkler 19:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Die letzte Rune

Hello, I've regularized the publisher to Droemer Knaur for this pub. Hauck 11:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already seen, that Knaur don't exist in your database.--Wolfram.winkler 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Cover image for Der Greif

Hello, Wolfram. Please use the 'Upload new cover scan' button when you want to add a cover image. This way the legal template is automatically added, which we need to avoid legal conflicts for violations of the copyright (I have done it for this book). Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 10:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Christian, I've used the button "Upload new cover scan", I don't understand, what is wrong?--Wolfram.winkler 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, since I didn't see your submission to add the cover image I am sorry that I can't tell you what went wrong. Anyway, I used your cover image to upload anew, so all seems okay now. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Christian, I don't understand, what is happen, and that is not satisfying for me. The image must already be uploaded, because you have access to the picture! The next step is to edit the pub and there to enter the link to the picture in the field "Image URL", then click on the button "Submit Changed Data". Is this ok? When yes, than I don't know where it has damped.--Wolfram.winkler 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, this is a 'special' feature: you should refresh your display, then you should be able to see it also (I still don't understand why this is needed in the case of cover images). Christian Stonecreek 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand anything, what is a "special feature", how, where, what? Please, explain it more accurately. I've uploaded more than one picture the same way, without problems, and now...?--Wolfram.winkler 11:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This 'special' feature is a problem that everyone eventually encounters, me too. But the picture is there with the publication, are you still not able to see it (and if so, have you refreshed your browser display)? Christian Stonecreek 13:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just found out that there already was another title entry for Der Greif without a cover image and you may have looked onto the corresponding publication. I have merged the two titles. Maybe that has been the cause of the problem. Christian Stonecreek 13:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've nothing understand from the beginning of this discussion, but if now all is clear than everything is well. Thanks.--Wolfram.winkler 16:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
When you enter a new publication the entry for the title is automatically produced by the software. This has happened with Der Greif before your submission for the first publication from 1989, so that there also were two title entries. Now there's only one which lists the two publications. Christian Stonecreek 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Christian, so it's correct, but I mean, that I've looked for an existing entry before I entered my submission, but couldn't find one, curiously. --Wolfram.winkler 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Der Greif

In the light of the older publication the statement 'Version: 1st German edition' for your verified book seems to be false. It may stem from amazon, which is not a reliable source for such statements: in short, they want to sell, not establish a reliable bibliography. Woukd you like to remove that statement? Christian Stonecreek 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Christian, the data are from the book I own, but on the page of copyright stated "Taschenbucherstausgabe" or similar, I don't know exactly, cause I've only tomorrow access to the book. I will look and then remove or correct the note. The problem is that the book is a tp (trade paperback) and not a pb (paperback), but on copyright page is it a "1st German paperback edition". That does not fit together. I will report tomorrow.--Wolfram.winkler 16:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Stated on copyright page: "Taschenbucherstausgabe 10/2000", I've corrected my note in "1st German paperback edition". Is this ok?--Wolfram.winkler 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but than you should change the binding to pb. It is confusing: An English paperback is called 'Taschenbuch' in German, and an English trade paperback is often called paperback in Germany. Christian Stonecreek 08:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
In ISFDB is a book with the width of 115 mm (exact: 114,3 mm = 4,5" * 2,54) a tp. I cannot change the rules.--Wolfram.winkler 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ovaron

Hello, I've put your submission on hold for this title. Are you sure that "Die Cappins" is a publication series? IMHO it looks more like a "fiction" series (that is a series that is located at title level). Hauck 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, it seems not quite right. Perry Rhodan is a German SF series of magazines, at this time exist about 2800 titles (First print). The publisher decided to publish a hardcover version, one book of this version contains the text of 5 - 8 magazine titles. 3 - 13 books are a cycle. The title "Ovaron" is the 4th book of the 7th cycle called "Die Cappins" and is the 48th book of the main series "Perry Rhodan" look here. I don't know where I should place the information about the cycle and cycle#.
Short: Main series "Perry Rhodan" #48 -> sub series "Die Cappins" 7th cycle #4-> title "Ovaron". Please give me a tipp, what to do, thanks. Perhaps I should use the field "Notes", but this is not perfect.
In ISFDB similar publications appear below Pub. Series: Perry Rhodan, Pub. Series#: 36 like here, but there is no information about the cycle.
There are two different versions, the Blue edition with 2D blue cover and the Silver edition with 3D silver cover with the same text.--Wolfram.winkler 06:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to direct your questions here and approve your submission with the adequate modifications. Hauck 11:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put the title series PR Zyklus 7: Die Cappins into the title's data. This series is a sub-series of Perry Rhodan. I also changed the title's date to 1994-05-00 as it was published then the first time (according to perrypedia).
Two questions remain: 1) As far as I know, this edition wasn't published by Pabel-Moewig, but seems to be a book club edition published by Bertelsmann. Is Pabel-Moewig really the stated publisher? 2) Horst Hoffmann is stated as the editor (and author of the connections between the novellas) at perrypedia. Isn't he mentioned anywhere in your book? Thanks for taking a second look, Christian Stonecreek 09:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Christian, I believe it is my error. Stated on copyright page: Ungekürzte Buchgemeinschafts-Lizenzausgabe der Bertelsmann Club GmbH, Rheda-Wiedenbrück der Bertelsmann Medien (Schweiz) AG...
Further at the bottom: Alle Rechte vorbehalten 1994 by Verlagsunion Erich Pabel-Arthur Moewig KG ...Redaktion: Horst Hoffmann. At last: Printed in Germany 1997--Wolfram.winkler 19:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So, would you like to submit the changes for the publication? Christian Stonecreek 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I will try it, but I must understand the structure of Pub. Series and general structure of ISFDB database, there are still deficits. Z. B. belongs a Pub. Series only to one publisher? It's my opinion that "Ovaron" belongs to the Pub. Series "Perry Rhodan" by Bertelsmann, is this correct or am I wrong? The Pub. Series # 48 belongs to the series "Perry Rhodan". The publication should appear here. I will enter my submission and then we will see...--Wolfram.winkler 05:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Horst Hoffmann is not an author of this publication, "editorial staff" is the correct designation--Wolfram.winkler 06:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, usually a pub. series belongs to one publisher. In this case the numbering of publications at some point differs, because Bertelsmann published the last half of the fourth cycle ('Die Blues'), which Pabel-Moewig didn't in the silver edition of 'Perry Rhodan'. For these reasons it would be better to rename the Bertelsmann series into something like 'Bertelsmann Perry Rhodan' or 'Perry Rhodan (Bertelsmann)'. Which seems better? Stonecreek 09:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is to rename the existing series title Perry Rhodan (by Pabel-Moewig) in "Perry Rhodan Silver Edition" and Perry Rhodan (by Bertelsmann) in "Perry Rhodan Blue Edition". Btw I'm unhappy about the series name "PR Zyklus 7: Die Cappins". This series includes only the magazines of Perry Rhodan, at least must appear the series # 4, But this is a bit confusing. --Wolfram.winkler 15:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
For title series we are a bit more free, but A Publication series is a group of publications marked out by the publisher in some way (from the help pages). As the only name used by the Publisher is 'Perry Rhodan', we somehow have to stick to that. An example for a difference between two pub. series named identical is Perry Rhodan Planetenromane published by Pabel-Moewig.
For the reason of putting the books into the title series of cycles, see this idea behind it. They really belong to the cycles as they tell the same story, only somewhat shorter. Christian Stonecreek 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Btw the pub. series by Bertelsmann also is called "Perry Rhodan". Why we cannot rename both series? If we must exact use the printed series title, consequently we cannot name the Bertelsmann series "Bertelsmann Perry Rhodan" or similar. Btw what means "fix-up"?--Wolfram.winkler 15:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
We do need to establish a difference. Just consider we wouldn't add the publisher to all pub. series that are just called 'Fantasy' (or 'Science Fiction', 'Horror' etc.), and as the numeration differs between Pabel-Moewig and Bertelsmann, we would really get into a kind of chaos after #69 where the contents of the numbered novels begin to differ.
A fix-up novel is a novel that is usually put together from several shortfictions, most often by clipping some material and adding some more text that links the parts. Christian Stonecreek 19:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It's clear, my suggestion is still "Perry Rhodan Blue Edition" for the Bertelsmann edition, is this all right?--Wolfram.winkler 16:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but as I explained above this is not within the rules of ISFDB for publication series, since there's no indication that the publisher referred to the series in that way. We already have series like 'Goldmann Science Fiction' or 'Knaur Science Fiction' that are marked only 'Science Fiction' by the publisher, but would be all part of one publication series, if we would drop the publisher. So, we cling to a publication series as close as possible, but we still need to make a differnece. For that reason I'll reject your submission and ask one more time about a possible name.
It's a similar case for authors. Just search for Ian McDonald and you'll see that we also have to make some adjustments for authors with the same name. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 12:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I suggest "Perry Rhodan (Bertelsmann)", look above.--Wolfram.winkler 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine, that would have also been my first choice. Christian Stonecreek 18:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It was your suggestion.--Wolfram.winkler 07:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wolfram! It seems there are new developments. I have seen the corresponding book published by Pabel-Moewig in a secondhand book shop and there was no credit for Hoffmann and the other authors. Our standard is to put 'uncredited' in the author field and then variant to the actual author. (This was also the case in all other books I took a look into, also some published by Bertelsmann). So, if in your verified book there's also no credit, would it be okay if I take the necessary steps? Christian Stonecreek 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Christian, the infos about the different authors have I seen on perrypedia (please look to the notes). On page 7 and 8 Horst Hoffmann mentioned Ewers, Kneifel, Voltz and Darlton as author from the corresponding booklets. It's ok, if you must change this. Thanks. --Wolfram.winkler 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes, the introduction. What's its exact title (likely it's 'Vorwort' or 'Einführung')? And on which page does the novel begin, is it p. 9? Christian Stonecreek 19:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
And would you prefer a note on the credit for Ewers, Kneifel, Voltz and Darlton and let this credit stay with the book or shall it better be uncredited? Christian Stonecreek 19:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Christian, I don't exactly understand what you mean. I prefer an additional note e.g. "Authors stated on page #7, #8" on the "Title Record" (if it is possible) and on "Publication Record". More information later at home. --Wolfram.winkler 08:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I must change some data. It has to be called: In the "Vorwort": Authors stated on page #5, #6. Then follows on page #7 the "Zeittafel", then on page #9 "Prolog" and last on page #11 begins part one of the novel.--Wolfram.winkler 20:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Prolog" would be considered as part of the novel, so I have changed the book accordingly. Please take a look if all is now in order. Christian Stonecreek 05:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I must sort my notes (following my own rules of notes), but now it's ok. --Wolfram.winkler 17:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Das blaue Portal

Hello, I've approved your submission but it seems to me that both publications here are for the same book. What is your opinion? Hauck 12:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello I don't know, what is happened, my last two submissions appeared twice, you are right, it is the same publication. I will delete one of it.--Wolfram.winkler 17:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Printed in Germany 2006 for a May 2007 publication

Yes, it's possible: maybe the publisher waited for a special date of publication (or maybe it's just a misspelling for 2007). Christian Stonecreek 10:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK.--Wolfram.winkler 12:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Die Strasse der Plünderer

Hello, I've approved your submissions for this title but it seems to me that the result are two strictly similar publications. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Hauck 08:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to me it looks like a doublette. Perhaps you submitted it twice by accident?
You should also consider two additional thoughts: 1) The translator may be added to the publication, but the credit even more belongs to the title. This is extremely helpful for cases where a translation is published again under a different title (see this example) or different translations are published under the same title, like here for 'Unternehmen Schwerkraft'. 2) The publication(s) seem to belong to this pub. series. Stonecreek 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what happens, all my new submissions appear twice, e. g. look above.
The publication could belong to "Bastei Lübbe Fantasy", look to the publisher code 20614, I will correct it.
My opinion is, that the Translator belongs only to the publication, but I must think about it.--Wolfram.winkler 11:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC).
IIRC a recent ruling states that the translator must be given at title level (as said above it's in order to avoid merging two similarly titled translations by different translators). Hauck 12:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Les/Lee Gibbons

Hello Wolfram, can you confirm the name of this artist, it's perhaps a typo for this one. Thanks. Hauck 13:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hauck, in all Weltbild publications, which I bought recently the name is LES GIBBONS, e.g. in "Die Bücher der Wahrheiten" by Dawn Cook, "Der Orden der edlen Krieger" by William Nicholson and "Die Insel der Stürme" by Heide Solveig Göttner.The original text on copyright page is: "Einbandgestaltung: Nele Schütz Design, München unter Verwendung eines Motivs von Les Gibbons". But Weltbild published several false data, e. g. wrong original title on copyright page, perhaps it is really a typo, but not from me. --Wolfram.winkler 19:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look, I'll let matters stay this way. Hauck 14:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the publication series & no. to ...

... In fremderen Gezeiten. Cheers, Christian Stonecreek 15:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Christian, thanks, I hope, I will do it myself in future.--Wolfram.winkler 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Der Feldzug

Hello, Wolfram. We alread have two publications of this novel that appear to be the same and I have yet a submission for a third on hold. Is there somethin I am missing? Christian Stonecreek 10:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Christian, I've suggest only one submission, no idea what is happened. You can delete the other two.--Wolfram.winkler 10:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Must be a browser problem.--Wolfram.winkler 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Double submission

Hello Christian, here appears my submission two times, I don't know, why? It's not the first time.--Wolfram.winkler 09:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Unter Dieben

Hello, I've put one of your submission on hold for this title as it seems to be a duplicate of the one that led to this pub. I'm also surprised that you set the flags "Nongenre" and "graphic" to yes for a title that is perhaps a translation of this one. Hauck 10:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hauck, please look at the post above. I don't know why my submission appears two times, it is not my input. As well I don't have set these flags! You are right, it is the German translation from the title "Among Thieves". It seems to be a Browser problem (Firefox).--Wolfram.winkler 10:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the previous threads. I've changed the flags (there seems to be a bug) and rejected your extra submission. Hauck 10:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Wolfram.winkler 12:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rune der Knechtschaft

Hello,

I am trying to figure out if Rune der Knechtschaft is just the first novel or the whole "Les trois lunes de Tanjor" series (collected in French in "Ayesha: La légende du peuple turquoise series". Can you check your book? Thanks! Anniemod 20:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Anniemod, stated on copyright page "Ayesha. La Légende du Peuple turquoise", copyright der Originalausgabe 2005. But it is the first part of the German series "Die Legende von Ayesha". Further parts are 2. "Pakt der Könige" and 3. "Volk der Verbannten". It is no omnibus like shown by isfdb?! It seems to belong to "Le peuple turquoise" part one of the original french series.--Wolfram.winkler 08:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't you love vague translator notes? :) So the question now becomes if the German publisher split the whole thing into the same 3 parts as the original French edition (in which case your book is a translation of Le peuple turquoise or if they got creative and did a different split. If you think that it is exact match, I can variant the French and the German title (and then the German series will need to become a publication series). What do you think? Anniemod 17:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
New mod?--Wolfram.winkler 20:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hm, what? Anniemod 23:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you a new isfdb moderator? I don't have seen you in the list.--Wolfram.winkler 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Just an editor trying to connect orphaned translations. :) Anniemod 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Die Gärten des Mondes

Hello, I've approved your submission but this makes now three similar titles: the one just created and two there. Can you have a look to see if there's not some merging to do? Thanks. Hauck 10:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hauck, I will take a look, but first I must read the rules...--Wolfram.winkler 13:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Done--Wolfram.winkler 13:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I've approved your submission, thanks. Hauck 13:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Die Einhornpirsch

I added the publication series (and no.) to this. Christian Stonecreek 18:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Der magische Dorn

Hello,

Can you verify which is the original title of Der magische Dorn? Thanks! Annie 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Community Portal Edit

Hi,

It seems like your last edit in the Community portal was based on an older version of the page and it wiped out the conversations from the last few days. I've restored those and copied your comment back in the conversation where it belongs. Annie 04:11, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

Blanvalet and Star Wars

I accepted all but one of your submissions to add Star Wars as the publication series to the Blanvalet publications. I realize other moderators had already accepted some of these, but I must ask if Star Wars is truly a Blanvalet series, and if those numbers are true series numbers. 36470 (for example), does not look like a series number (I doubt they have 36000 different Star Wars books), but rather a catalogue number. I am wondering if these are simply "Star Wars" universe titles (that, is a "Star Wars..." title series) and are not part of any Blanvalet publication series. I notice on the randomhouse.de site, Star Wars is presented with a trademark: "Star Wars™", and I doubt Random House owns that trademark. My German is not good enough for me to understand everything on the website. Let me know what you think. I can also ask a German-speaking moderator for help.

For the submission that I have on hold, I realize including the "Star Wars" on this one is inconsistent with the way the others have been recorded, but you should notify the primary verifier of your proposed change and give him a chance to agree or disagree.

Thanks. --MartyD 07:59, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

I'd also say that 'Star Wars' is only the reference to the title series. Christian Stonecreek 06:07, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm in the process of removing this publication series. Stonecreek 03:09, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
Hello MartyD, the changes have been undone by moderator, I agree to Christians opinion, there is no more reason to discuss, but the term "Star Wars" should be a part of the title or belongs to the notes as series title (or title series?). Thanks.--Wolfram.winkler 12:58, 29 June 2017 (EDT)
My goal was to get you to notify the primary verifier. Your change to remove the "Star Wars:" from the title is ok, and it makes the title consistent with how the other titles in that series have been handled. I will approve your change, fix the related title, and notify Stoecker. --MartyD 06:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
To notify Stoecker is no problem (but Stoecker don't answer, as far as I know), but I thought with introduce the new button "My Changed Primary Verifications" we don't need to notify? Furthermore when I take a look to my changed pubs I see many submitter, who not notify, too. Equal rights for all:-)? But I've no problem to do this in future.--Wolfram.winkler 04:08, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
You should check with the verifier before changing information that is already present, unless the verifier has talk page instructions telling you otherwise. In practice, minor, presentation-only changes, such as capitalization and punctuation, usually go without notice. In theory, you should also notify verifiers of additions you make, but more people let the "My Changed Primary Verifications" mechanism handle that. --MartyD 09:10, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
It seems, we have a problem with the discipline of users submissions.--Wolfram.winkler 03:15, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

CreateSpace

I may be telling you something you already know... but according to discussions here and here, CreateSpace isn't a publisher, but rather a printing and production service (a subsidiary of Amazon, which is probably why they insist on naming it in the "publisher" space on their pages). So we don't list it as a publisher here. Therefore, I'm going to change all of your verified publications that list it -- Kristallgeboren and maybe others I haven't found yet. Thanks! --Vasha 18:04, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

As there was no positive answer on that item by Wolfram, and the outcome of the discussions was inconclusive, I have restored the publisher and removed the note on data sources (the amazon link seems to be to a slightly different edition). Christian Stonecreek 06:06, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
Also, could you please take a look at the assigned copyright, Wolfram? As per today, at amazon the author's name is now Jutta Ahrens and the copyright is assigned for the year 2017 to her. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 06:22, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
Hello, I couldn't answer, because I don't get a message. As well I've a real life, too, I cannot always answer immediately. Thanks for your understanding.--Wolfram.winkler 16:14, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
Hello Christian, © 2016 J. B. Eyries (asirdahan@icloud.com) stated on the copyright page, perhaps a pseudonym? The cover at Amazon ist another version of my book cover--Wolfram.winkler 09:23, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
Verlag: Independently published (but this is no publisher). Therefore is CreateSpace not correct, I don't have read the discussions about this theme, I will do it, if I have a lot of time, but not today.--Wolfram.winkler 09:41, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Conan anthology

Hello, Wolfram. I'd think your latest addition (thanks for it!) should be regarded as pb (not as a tp). Christian Stonecreek 12:08, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

Hello Christian, pb max. length x width = 184 x 114 mm. This publication is 180 x 115 mm -> tp.--Wolfram.winkler 12:45, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
As most books published in this pub. series it still is regarded as paperback (Heyne speaks of 'Taschenbuch'). Our help page speaks of 11.5cm (= 115 mm). I'll try to work out the month of the first printing and change the publication. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 02:49, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
Hello Christian, on the help page I can read "For books as tall as 7.25" (19 cm) or as wide/deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp"" or have I misunderstood?--Wolfram.winkler 03:08, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
Well, that means that this is the limit / border. As the book is smaller in height this fact means that it is to be regarded as a paperback. Aside from that, I think that European paperbacks may vary in definition. For example this publisher's books have a quite higher height than other paperbacks. All the books published in the first decades of activity by Rowohlt Taschenbuch are referred to as pbs nevertheless, as history and the publisher's name do suggest (as are several others by more European / German publishers).
I have changed the publication (this way it was also easier to change the dates of the original German appearances for the individual contents). Please do variant the items to their originals. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 06:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
Hello Christian, and what is this, pb, too? We must look at all Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy books, to verify wheather it is pb or tp. But my opinion is, if Height or width is larger than the limit, then it is tp. Can you tell me, where I can read your definition in the rules, perhaps we must modify the rules? Easier is to change the limit for pb to max. 111 mm (with tolerance max. 116 mm), that is the solution for the most borderline tps/pbs by Heyne. What do you mean with "...do variant the items to their originals"? By the way, 7.25" = 18.415 mm--Wolfram.winkler 03:14, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
The problem is that paperback has a slightly different meaning than Taschenbuch (= pocket book), the latter meaning that it has to fit into a pocket (of trousers or a shirt). Nevertheless it is the German equivalent of the English / American paperback.
Thanks for catching the Kress novel, it does seem to have been assigned a false binding (likely because that part was taken from amazon, which should always be the last possible source for data: the older the publication the more amazon is likely to fail on all or part of the data).
The items (like this one) still have to be varianted to their original titles. Christian Stonecreek 04:22, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
Another thing: Is the art really by Bruck? It does seem to be identical to the original artwork by Frazetta. Is there any signing on the cover (as with the original piece)? Thanks for looking, Christian Stonecreek 04:48, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
Hello Christian, I variant automatically after my last input (usually picture upload) and approving by moderator, you wrote items instead this item, I was confused (blackout?), I've missunderstood it, because I've seen no context with our discussion about tp.
pb or tp: I think a note about this is necessary in the rules. If it is enough to classify as pb, if one dimension is smaller than limit (and the other one larger...), it should be mentioned! Otherwise I'm not convinced that your opinion is right, but this is a matter of definition.
Stated on copyright page: "Umschlagbild: Herbert Bruck", there are no further information. You are right, both illustrations are similarly, but not identically. --Wolfram.winkler 03:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
Well, all the things we wrote about have to do with the Conan anthology. I really meant items, as all the shortfictions of the anthology are not varianted to their original titles.
From time to time it happens that an artist copies the original art (as seems to have happened here). Maybe it would be better if you add a note to the publication? Christian Stonecreek 15:11, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I didn't know, that I must variant all shortfictions, I will do it soon. A note above the "really" cover artist would be speculative, the only fact I know is stated on the copyright page, black on white. I have to think about it.--Wolfram.winkler 03:25, 17 July 2017 (EDT)
I've rejected the joint credit to Bruck & Frazetta, let the speculations be speculations (your note is IMHO enough). Hauck 03:40, 17 July 2017 (EDT)
The note is online. The first think is ever the better think.--Wolfram.winkler 04:14, 17 July 2017 (EDT)

Story lengths (Conan)

Hello Wolfram, I've put your submission to change back (it's me that corrected them) the lengths of these texts Im Saal der Toten and Die Stadt der Schädel. Your submission would have the effect to have different lengths for the original text and for the translated one. To the best of my knowledge one of our presently unwritten rule is that the translation inherits its length from the parent, regardless of its "real" length (variations in length beetwen some languages being quite well known, a given text being for example significantly longer in german or french than in english, typically by 20%). There was some quite heated discussion on the subject due to the possible transition of books from the CHAPBOOK category to NOVEL when translated. As usual, it went nowhere and no clear decision was made except that the more vocal option was that (IIRC) novella-length texts that became novel-length in translation should still be treated as novellas. It may be interesting for you to bring the matter on the R&S page. Good luck. Hauck 03:26, 18 July 2017 (EDT)

Hello Hauck, I did not know this unwritten rule, but my opinion and surely the opinion from the most database maker is that we only submit real, correct data. I'm wondering that here on the one hand we discuss every little thing on the other hand we manipulate data. Fact is, I can count e. g. 23 pages (Die Stadt der Schädel) then it is real a novelette and not a short story! All other interpretations have nothing to do with databases.
I probably don't start a new discussion, because my English is not so good, that I can represent my opinion reasonable. This is too tiring and time consuming.--Wolfram.winkler 03:45, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
Well, I was also thinking along your lines (we're here to transcribe the strict reality) but alas it seems that it's not entirely our way of doing thing (a fact that I deplore). I've released your submission just in case another moderator has a more clear opinion on the subject. Hauck 08:47, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
Thanks, I ask myself, whether we need the distinction between short story, novelette and novella? Less is sometimes better than more.--Wolfram.winkler 04:28, 20 July 2017 (EDT)
It seems to me that our american users are quite fond of this separation, IMHO it's because of the main award's structure. Here (in France) we usually only distinguish between short fiction and novel.Hauck 06:39, 20 July 2017 (EDT)
This is my opinion, too.--Wolfram.winkler 04:26, 21 July 2017 (EDT)

Michael Whelau

Hi, I saw you are the verifier of Die Königin des Chaos, where Michael Whelau is given as cover artist. As it differs only in one position, could it be a typo for Michael Whelan?--~~

My suspicion got confirmed at Bibliographie deutschsprachiger Science Fiction-Stories und Bücher (3rd hit 'chaos' on that page).--Dirk P Broer 20:11, 13 August 2017 (EDT)
Hello, at this time I'm on vacation, I will check, when I am back.--Wolfram.winkler 14:17, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
"Michael Whelau" is stated on copyright page, but it seems to be a typo. I will accept your submission and make a note to this publication. Thanks for your hint.--Wolfram.winkler 13:27, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

Hello, Wolfram! There's another falsely credited cover art (for Der scharlachrote Prinz). Thomas Schlück isn't an artist (maybe only early in his life he did some pencil drawings for fanzine--Wolfram.winkler 11:39, 16 September 2017 (EDT)s); he only has an agency for art & fiction. This art is also by Whelan. As there are some other issues with your latest additions for Bastei Lübbe Fantasy (thanks for them!), I'll correct & variant this to the original (you may want to add a note as for Die Königin des Chaos).

You have added the ad pages at the end of the books to the page count, but the help section on that theme says otherwise. I'll correct this and change the format to pb for some publications erroneouslsy entered as tp. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 09:14, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

Hello Christian, Der scharlachrote Prinz: on the copyright page is stated "Titelillustration: Agentur Thomas Schlück", I don't can read another data. If the illustrator is really Michael Whelan please tell me your data source, then I can change my notes.
For the data source see the cover title's parent.
Die Königin des Chaos: the never ending story, it is no error, that I have entered the format as tp, in your Rules is stated: For books as tall as 7.25" (19 cm) or as wide/deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp". Note the logical connection with "or". This means that one value outside the border is sufficient to declare the book as tp. The width of this pub is indeed 1 mm wider (115 mm) than e. g. "Der scharlachrote Prinz". Although both books belong to the same pub. series, they have a different binding and that is fact. Any other statement is not conform.
See earlier comments. Also, the publication series is a paperback series. The only trade paperback series from this publisher at that time (last century) was this.
Additional pages: I've read the helping page several times, but this page is not very helpful, this confusion with numbered and unnumbered pages [] bracket or not is only confusing.
I've only seperated the story length from another additional pages, which don't belongs to the story (acknowledgement, publisher's list, preview, afterword, extract and so on). So I can see simply 123+[2] That means story=123 pages and any other pages=2 pages. It is my opinion, that this schema is simple, but understandable. But sometimes I've the feeling, that simplifications are not desirable. Perhaps the rules must be revised (recently I've read a discussion with this theme, but there was no result).
I think the rules are quite clear to not include ad pages at the end of a book. Christian Stonecreek 04:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
In the end my motto is: enter data correctly, rather than bend data.--Wolfram.winkler 03:41, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
pb or tp: Sorry Christian, I can not tolerate false data to be published under my name. The rules are unambiguously: For books as tall as 7.25" (19 cm) or as wide/deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp".
I will one more time correct your submission in my verified pubs, if this will not accept, it is the only way to delete all these false pubs, I think, this is my right. Too bad that your rules may not be applied correctly, this is my opinion. If there is another solution, please let me know. I would gladly continue to work here, but not necessarily under such conditions. I hope you understand.--Wolfram.winkler 11:39, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
Well, another solution would be to unverify the publications. But I'll try to change your mind about the matter.
To leave a publication as tp invariably makes a statement of the publication series, i.e. all the other books of that format by a certain publisher in a time period. The best way would be to persuade the other verifiers of a publication series (like 'Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy') that these books are really trade paperbacks.
To clarify the confusion, please also read the Wikipedia article on 'Taschenbuch', then click on the left link bar of that essay on the English version and see to which article that leads to. Please note at its end the different characteristics of British and US paperbacks. Christian Stonecreek 11:48, 15 October 2017 (EDT)
Hallo Christian, ich versuche es mal in deutsch, ich habe das Gefühl, es versteht mich keiner. Ihr, die Macher dieser Seite, definiert pb und tp über die Maße Länge x Breite. Und ich kann mich nur wiederholen, in den Regeln steht folgender Originalsatz: For books as tall as 7.25" (19 cm) or as wide/deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp". Das bedeutet für mich übersetzt: Bücher welche eine Breite von 11,5 cm (eigentlich genauer 11,43 cm) aufweisen werden als tp bezeichnet. Das habe ich mir doch nicht ausgedacht. Wenn allerdings diese Regel nicht gelten sollte, müsste sie korrigiert oder entfernt werden!
Ich bitte doch darum, dass Du auf diesen Punkt in Deiner Antwort eingehst, es hilft nicht auf Links zu verweisen,in denen die Historie der Formate beschrieben wird, das hat doch mit Euren selbstdefinierten Regeln nichts zu tun. Fazit: Auch unter Ausschöpfung aller Toleranzen bleibt es dabei, ein Buch mit der Breite 11,5 cm ist ein tp.
Und hier die Google-Übersetzung: Hello Christian, I try it this time in German, I have the feeling, no one understands me. You, the creator of this page, define pb and tp over the dimensions length x width. And I can only repeat myself, in the rules is the following original sentence: For books as tall as 7.25 "(19 cm) or as wide / deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp". This means for me: books which have a width of 11.5 cm (actually more precisely 11.43 cm) are referred to as tp. I have not figured that out. However, if this rule does not apply, it should be corrected or removed!
I would ask you to point to this point in your reply, it does not help to refer to links, in which the history of the formats is described, but has nothing to do with your self-defined rules. Conclusion: Even with exhausting all tolerances, it remains a book with the width 11.5 cm is a tp.--Wolfram.winkler 03:11, 17 October 2017 (EDT)
Yes, maybe the rules have to be corrected, they were established for the US market, where the boundaries are much more clearer. And the European (or German) 'pocket book' is the equivalent of the English paperback. Stonecreek 03:52, 17 October 2017 (EDT)
If I may chime in here: the rules have definitely to be corrected. If I remember correctly this topic has been brought up several times already and it seems to be a constant cause of data inconsistencies (some people stick to the size rules, others use some unwritten rules). One year ago is has been discussed extensively, but the long discussion petered out without results. This problem should really be solved and settled for good and the results documented in the wiki because right now it's a frustrating situation which consumes time unnecessarily. Jens Hitspacebar 05:51, 17 October 2017 (EDT)
I have made a proposal to change the rules, see here. Christian Stonecreek 16:07, 17 October 2017 (EDT)
On a related matter: I have removed the stated German series title from the noted for the Corum publications (Bastei Fantasy #s 20001-20003 & 20005-20007, as they are nowhere stated on the pages containing editorial matter (covers, title & copyright pages); they only do appear as footnotes for the fictional intoductions (so, they could be made into a title series for these, if we would index them as entries on their own). While the novels are considered as fantasy, the notes are not. Christian Stonecreek 06:30, 9 February 2018 (EST)
Der scharlachrote Prinz depth is wrong, maybe you mean thickness, if your notes in this form are ISFDB standard, then I really not belong to here.--Wolfram.winkler 17:31, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Incorrect price for Das Komplott

Hello, Wolfram. The price in Euro is incorrect since there still was DM as valid currency in 2001 (Euros became the currency on 2002-01-01). Please do enter the correct price. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 10:25, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I also corrected (and will do so in the future) some formats (tp --> pb) and notes to the correct English capitalization. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 10:39, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Hello Christian, the price is correct and is stated on the back cover, have a look.
The format of this publication is correct as pb (114 mm), other formats with 115 mm I will change occasionally to tp, as long as it is in the rules or has that changed in the meantime?
What do you mean with "...notes to the correct English capitalization"?--Wolfram.winkler 05:44, 22 November 2017 (EST)
Correct capitalization is the art of using the right BIG or small letters.
I changed the uncorrect / invalid Euro price to the correct / valid DM price as stated on the back of "Das Komplott". Christian Stonecreek 11:00, 22 November 2017 (EST)
Both prices appear on the back cover, why is one of them wrong?
Now I see your corrections, but the capitalization is intentional like as with headlines. I hope you have seen that the capitalization is only until the colons! This is similar like the links on the left side e. g. here or is this wrong, too?. In headlines all first letters are uppercase with exceptions. I have my own style to present my notes that cannot be wrong. Please tolerate it and better fix format errors, these errors are more important like this formatting styles.--Wolfram.winkler 17:43, 25 November 2017 (EST)
Hello, Wolfram! The Euro price was not valid upon publication, it became only valid in 2002. And the notes are no headlines, they are comments. Christian Stonecreek 03:35, 4 December 2017 (EST)
Hallo Christian, es geht nicht um die "notes", sondern um meine "Struktur" der notes und diese Struktur ist so aufgebaut, dass die Bezeichnungen vor dem Doppelpunkt als Überschriften zu sehen sind.
Sollte das in dieser Form nicht möglich sein, werde ich in Zukunft keine Eintragungen mehr vornehmen und mich vermutlich aus diesem WIKI verabschieden. Es ist ein Unding, dass in einer Datenbank strukturierte Formatierungen nicht toleriert werden, dafür aber Falscheingabe von Daten und nun die Übersetzung in Englisch:
Hello Christian, It's not about the "notes", but about my "structure" of the notes and this structure is structured so that the names before the colon are to be seen as headings.
Should that not be possible in this form, I will make in the future no more entries and probably say goodbye to this WIKI. It is unfortunate that structured formatting is not tolerated in a database, but incorrect input of data.--Wolfram.winkler 05:38, 8 December 2017 (EST)
Notes are per se not headlines, they are only notes. Headlines are for titles of title types. It's not okay that one editor decides otherwise than all the other editors. Regards, Christian Stonecreek 09:27, 8 December 2017 (EST)
Links are no headlines, too, but the links here on the left side are capitalized, e. g. "Help Navigating", "My Messages", "My Preferences" and so on , how can you explaine this?
By the way, I wonder why suddenly my wanted capitalization was so meticulously criticized and corrected by you. I can gladly send you alternative links with real spelling errors, if you're bored. I have no interest in creating tediously structured, time-consuming notes that are then destroyed by you, I do not have that time! In any case, I have no great interest in continuing to work here. Merry Christmas.--Wolfram.winkler 17:15, 26 December 2017 (EST)
Merry Christmas to you, too! I'd like to see you continue your work, but we do need some overall common standards. So, I didn't destroy any notes, I only adapted them to this standard. Christian Stonecreek 23:27, 26 December 2017 (EST)

(unindent) Wolfram, I try to explain why the IFSDB uses what you call "headlines" (which are better called "labels"; in German "Beschriftung") in a capitalized form and why written text in notes shouldn't use it:

Some (not all) design guides say that some labels (not all labels) which describe user interface elements (like links, tables, edit fields, buttons) should be capitalized. I don't know which design guide is or was the basis for the ISFDB web site, but an example for a capitalization guide (using slightly different rules than the ISFDB) is this one. Other web sites use regular grammar instead, and no capitalization, for example see how Wikipedia looks like.

So, why is something like Pub. Series capitalized if you view a publication like this one? This maybe become clearer if you click the "edit" link in the publication record: the view turns into an edit form, where Pub. Series is the label for the edit field, it describes this user interface element.

Notes, however, contain free written text which uses regular grammar. So far I've not seen a design rule which recommends to use this kind of capitalization in notes.

Personally, I don't like this kind of capitalization in web sites very much and prefer regular grammar for the whole user interface the way Wikipedia uses it. But that's maybe because of my German point of view, which is already used to the (different) capitalization in German grammar.

Jens Hitspacebar 06:13, 27 December 2017 (EST)

Hallo Jens, ebenso gibt es keine Regel, die solch einen Stil mit Großschreibung explizit verbietet, oder? Vielleicht sollte man da etwas toleranter sein und sich den echten Fehlern zuwenden.
Ich habe bewusst diesen Stil gewählt, damit die notes nicht so unstrukturiert geschrieben werden, etliche Punkte (oder Labels, Überschriften), die ich aufführe, könnten auch genau so gut in die Eingabemaske übernommen werden, darüber gab es auch schon eine Diskussion. Leider scheint Ahasuerus damit ein Zeitproblem zu haben, es geht nicht voran. Das ist allerdings ein anderes Thema. Ich bin der Meinung, dass meine Art der notes-Darstellung nicht falsch ist, eher nicht gängig. Leider sitzen ja die Moderatoren am längeren Hebel, falls ich hier noch einmal Daten eingeben werde, wird das generell ohne notes geschehen. Das ist zwar schade, denn es fehlen dann doch einige interessante Daten, aber leider unvermeidlich. Wie ich schon angedeutet habe, ist es eher unwahrscheinlich, dass ich weiter hier tätig sein werde. Es gibt da noch einige Dinge, die mir nicht gefallen und die nicht geklärt werden können.
Und das Ganze mit Google-Übersetzer:
Hello Jens, also there is no rule that prohibits such a style with capitalization explicitly, right? Maybe you should be a bit more tolerant and turn to the real mistakes.
I have deliberately chosen this style, so that the notes are not written so unstructured, a number of points (or labels, headings) that I perform, could also be just as well in the input mask, there was already a :discussion. Unfortunately, Ahasuerus seems to have a time problem with that, it is not progressing. That's another topic, though. I think my style of notes presentation is not wrong, not common. Unfortunately, the moderators sit on the longer lever, if I will enter here again data, this will generally be done without any notes. That's a pity, because it lacks some interesting data, but unfortunately inevitable. As I have already suggested, it is unlikely that I will continue to work here. There are some things that I do not like and that can not be clarified.--Wolfram.winkler 16:14, 30 December 2017 (EST)
Sorry, Wolfram, but there are the English rules of writing that explicitly outrule your idiosyncratic style of notes. There's not only your side, but also the side of other users: the average one would think that we, the editors of ISFDB, can't even write English in a correct way.
Also, you may enter data with less information, but we'd still need some sources in the notes.
Have a nice end of 2017, and I hope to see you around here in 2018. Christian Stonecreek 06:14, 31 December 2017 (EST)

Change of a publication series

Hello, Wolfram! Due to this discussion we (the German moderators) came up with the change for post mid-1990s publications of Bastei Lübbe. This will also affect some of your verified ones, so don't be surprised. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 02:42, 4 December 2017 (EST)

Die Gärten des Mondes, anew

Hello Wolfram, just to be sure, do you really want to delete nearly of the notes of this pub? Hauck 03:38, 18 January 2018 (EST)

It seems so, but I recommended to just withdraw his primary verification (see two items above). I'd think we do need some of the stated information. Christian Stonecreek 03:42, 18 January 2018 (EST)
I have rejected your submission. Instead, there was the need to correct the entry: you stated it as a first printing, but that was priced in DM, not in Euros. Yours turned out to be the second printing: you may want to state the right date of publication. Stonecreek 16:02, 21 January 2018 (EST)
Hello Hauck, there are a lot of wrong data, which I did not enter, I will delete the complete submission. Other corrections of my primary verifications will follow. Please don't change my notes or other data. Thank you and bye bye.--Wolfram.winkler 03:35, 24 January 2018 (EST)
No problem, I nearly never change the contents of the note field as I think that's the only place where contributors can put what they want in the form they want (except offensive things) even if I do not agree with them. I see that's you're leaving us, it's always a sad thing to loose such a meticulous contributor as you.Hauck 04:07, 24 January 2018 (EST)
No, that he does not, he only deletes verified publicatons without telling the primary verifier.
I've rejected some of your submissions but have done the deletion afterwards for you. Some others I've put on hold: it really seems better to do a removal of your primary verifications, if you don't subscribe to the correct English text. I'll also do a primary verification for those volumes I have in my stack. As you do want to delete them anyway, it sure is okay if I change the notes according to our standards (please do a removal of the pv if it still does not fit your copy/copies - but you might want to add your different ones). Christian Stonecreek 04:14, 2 February 2018 (EST)
I have corrected the entry for Der Herr der Dunkelheit, so that it fits our standards. Christian Stonecreek 02:00, 19 February 2018 (EST)
I've only tried to delete my own submissions, but you change the notes of my verified pubs without my ok and these changes have nothing to do with standards. That is not tolerable for me. By the way, note the order, first came your changes and then my deletion attempt and not vice versa. I only responded to your curious changes! --Wolfram.winkler 03:13, 8 March 2018 (EST)
My changes only deal with our standards. I think the problem is that you neiter studied completely the standards of our database nor what others entered, and you have some of our concepts not right (publication vs. copy). It is a long process to get things right, and it takes a lot of time. Christian Stonecreek 03:33, 8 March 2018 (EST)

Further bad news

Hello, Wolfram! On trying to verify some of the data you entered I found that some of them are only copy-specific: these are the measured ones (Length x width x depth & weight). I did measure some of my verified copies, and there were slight differences (likely due to the process of production). As they are valid only for one specific copy and not for the publication as a whole, it really seems better to specify or delete this information. What do you think?

(We do use copies to verify publications, but we don't verify single copies). Christian Stonecreek 11:42, 19 February 2018 (EST)

I don't know how to take your reaction: but it surely seems best to delete this copy-individual statemnets? Stonecreek 23:39, 20 February 2018 (EST)
I don't understand what you mean?--Wolfram.winkler 03:17, 8 March 2018 (EST)
Sorry to intrude, but parhaps should you switch to german to try to understand each other. These are the joys of our multinational project. Hauck 03:26, 8 March 2018 (EST)

Willkür

Hi, you enter a submission stating: Da sowieso die Formatangaben willkürlich korrigiert werden, wähle ich "other". The three options are ’pb’ for paperback; ’tp’ for trade paperback (bigger than 18cm), and ’hc’ for hardcover. You may want to read the field-by-field help in other to see that 'Willkürlicheit' is not the issue.--Dirk P Broer 18:02, 20 February 2018 (EST)

He was probably referring to border cases where the sizes given in the rules for the pub format don't exactly match what we consider paperback ("Taschenbuch") and trade paperback in Germany. Alas, is not as simple as just "bigger than 18cm" and leads to some paperbacks ("Taschenbücher") being entered as "tp" whereas other editors use "pb". See Rules_and_standards_discussions#Format_pb_vs._tp for the last discussion about it. I will forever cherish the day this time-consuming source of frustration will finally have been resolved. Jens Hitspacebar 11:10, 21 February 2018 (EST)
I'd prefer a drop-down box -with a clear choice as to what to enter in the format field- myself too.--Dirk P Broer 09:47, 22 February 2018 (EST)
Your statement tp is bigger than 18 cm is wrong, the rule say exact: For books as tall as 7.25" (19 cm) or as wide/deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp", there is no reason for discussion. By the way 18,415 cm = 7,25" and 11,43 = 4,5".--Wolfram.winkler 03:35, 8 March 2018 (EST)

Pub Delete(s)

Hello Wolfram, I'm probably a bit dense, but why do you want to delete some publications? Do you mean that the books themselves don't exist? Is it just a question of formalism? Do you want to suppress from the db the data that you entered? Thanks. Hauck 12:03, 22 February 2018 (EST)

More and more I have the impression that you, Wolfram, participated here under false ideas of the purpose and the standards of ISFDB:
1) You seem to take this as an extension of your privacy (or at least the publications / copies you verified). This is not the case: primary verified records are bound to be changed for some reasons: most notably the correction of typographical errors, the addition of notes, the correction of false data, and the addition of missing contents. Every editor has the right to submit such changes; the first two types will be approved of by moderators without further discussion in most cases, the latter two usually need to be discussed with the primary verifiers. Since you have multiple cases of the latter two I notified you that I'll make corrections regarding the third without a special notification for each case to save time. For the fourth kind I did some additions that you mistakenly only noted but did not enter as contents.
2) It is not okay to delete existing publications, so please stop trying to do so; you may delete your primary verification if you can't subscribe to the correct data.
3) It is also not okay to try to implement formats that are regarded by all (or the vast majority) of editors (and publishers and authors) as a different kind: it is not just me who regards the softbound pocket books as equivalents to the paperbacks; in fact, you will have difficulty in finding a second voice speaking for your position.
So, it's up to you to decide if you still want to take part in our joint effort or not. Christian Stonecreek 03:49, 23 February 2018 (EST)
I concur with Christian, I suppose that you want to "retake back" data that you entered. Alas, this data is no more yours to dispose of, it's now the "property" of our shared project and you can't delete it because you entered part of it. Even if I may understand and share your feelings of exasperation about the db and its way of working (too much talkers and not a lot of doers) as I sometimes share them and have been tempted to walk away, deleting exact data is simply not correct. Hauck 04:12, 23 February 2018 (EST)
I've put a new batch on hold, on what grounds do you want to delete these publications? Thanks. Hauck 07:48, 2 March 2018 (EST)
Google Übersetzung:
@Hauck, I would like to delete my data, because they have been changed in a form that neither my approval nor have been accepted by me.
I think that is part of the intellectual property right. In any case, thank you for your support.
@Christian, 1. It is true, I see my submissions as my intellectual property, which should not be distorted or changed contrary to my principles.
2. See point 1.
3. See ISFDB Rules.
I will not make any further entries in the future, if necessary correct data. A pity, at first it looked quite good. But over time, it has turned out that my view of correct data and formatting does not agree with your view.
It's just useless to support a database where wrong data is entered. I hope you can find many spelling mistakes, maybe with other users.
Maybe there will be times when I will be active again, but that is unlikely.
Despite everything, I wish you all a lot of fun and success in entering correct data.--Wolfram.winkler 05:36, 8 March 2018 (EST)
Sorry, but all the data really seems to be correct. I'm sorry if I should have introduced any new faults while correcting your mistakes. Please state where there is incorrect data or wrong notes. Thanks for your upcoming cooperation. Christian Stonecreek 08:59, 8 March 2018 (EST)

"pb" vs. "tp" (again)

Hi Wolfram, it's been discussed several times already that the current definition for "pb" and "tp" in the help doesn't match exactly what we call "Taschenbuch" and "Paperpack" in German, and that a solution has to be put into the help. Please remember that sometimes the help simply is not up-to-date (or does not match a specific market yet, like the German one in this case) and that there's something called "current practice" or "best practice" (unwritten rules which are considered by moderators to be correct). As for "Taschenbuch" it's just common sense: in Germany a "Taschenbuch" with a width of 11.5 cm is not a trade paperback, no matter what the currently written rules say. Example: first there was a "tp" edition of Am Ende aller Zeiten by Fischer Tor, and it was later re-issued by Fischer Tor as "Taschenbuch". According to the current help, both should be "tp" because of their size, but this would obviously be wrong because the second one is a "Taschenbuch". Jens Hitspacebar 06:36, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Hello Jens, but a book with the width 115 mm isn't a pb, but anything other. If pb means in Germany "Taschenbuch", then all softcover books are pbs? It is difficult to work with data, if the rules are not valid. I think common sense has nothing to do with a database. It seems to be chaos. What is the exactly definition of "Taschenbuch" in German?--Wolfram.winkler 13:33, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Good question. If every country (via the moderators that live there) is free to add its own idiosyncratic formats, this is the perfect way to have a maximum and splendid chaos. For those not used to moderate other people submissions, just be aware that this will be a nightmare to explain.Hauck 13:52, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
We're in the process of finalizing new rules especially for German "Taschenbuch" and "Paperback" and it looks like the software will also get special entries to select from for the publication format. See Rules_and_standards_discussions#Format_pb_vs._tp__-_interim_solution_for_German_publications. Hopefully we will have a documented definition for German formats as soon as all is finished. Jens Hitspacebar 14:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I rest my case, the multiplication of "national" formats is really not a good idea (for example, in France we've got the "semi-poche" format, should it be added?). It's complicated enough to make new contributors correctly use the three (just three!) main formats (pb, tp, hc) without adding a new layer of complexity. This choice of complexification over simplicity is alas quite typical of the R&S discussions, that usually are not very perceptive of the difficulties encountered in contributing to the db. This is not directed against you (as a new moderator) or against Christian (that has done his share) but usually the louder advocates of complexification are those that are not frequently on the front lines to explain their brillant rules to the newbies. Hauck 14:26, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I see you point regarding complexity. Personally, I'd actually prefer to even get rid of the current complexity with "tp" and "pb" and merge them together to just "sc" (for "softcover"). Librarything does it this way. "hc or sc" - that'd be pretty easy to decide for a book. But since this is not going to happen I really like a solution to get rid of the recurring, time-consuming discussions about "pb or tp" for German softcovers, which only emerge because of rules not matching the German market. Jens Hitspacebar 15:25, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Entirely OK with you for the "sc" idea. As this unlikely to happen, I'd just wish for a precise enough set of criteria that will put any book in one and only one of the existing three main categories (including our elusive german taschenbuch). Alas, this will never happen, there will be talk and talk and talk, no vote of the community, no decision and we'll be back to square one. You'll understand why I've decided, a few months ago, not to participate in R&S discussions. I feel (perhaps wrongly) that my ISFDB time is better used to help other contributors. Hauck 04:41, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
I completely agree with you Herve. Rudolf Rudam 15:05, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Das ist doch relativ einfach: Wenn Regeln erstellt werden, die ein Format nach den Maßen definieren (Länge x Breite) und diese Regeln dann nicht befolgt werden dürfen, weil sie nicht passen, dann müssen diese Regeln geändert/ergänzt werden. Das ist Sache der Administratoren.
Ich habe gerade gelesen, dass es da gute Ansätze gibt, bis dann irgendeiner wieder daherkommt und sagt, dass alles so bleiben soll wie bisher. Und wieder ist alles vorbei...
Übrigens, zum Erstellen von Regeln braucht man einen gesunden Menschenverstand, aber nicht zum Befolgen der Regeln!
Wenn jemand an meiner Meinung interessiert ist, dann bevorzuge ich die Unterteilung in Softcover und Hardcover, das wird ja wohl jeder begreifen. Die Maße, die meiner Meinung nach auch recht wichtig sind, können dann ja, wenn bekannt, in die Eingabemaske eingetragen werden.
Google Übersetzung:
This is relatively simple: If rules are created that define a format by measure (length x width) and then these rules can not be followed because they do not fit, then these rules must be amended / supplemented. That's the responsibility of the administrators.
I have just read that there are good approaches, until then someone comes back and says that everything should remain as before. And again everything is over ...
By the way, to create rules you need common sense, but not to follow the rules!
If anyone is interested in my opinion, then I prefer the subdivision into softcover and hardcover, that will probably understand everyone. The dimensions, which in my opinion are also quite important, can then, if known, be entered in the input mask.--Wolfram.winkler 11:42, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
Once again: paperback (as standard for the USA) means here at ISFDB mass market paperback (that's why the term was changed), and that is exactly the idea for 'Taschenbuch', when Rowohlt, Heyne and others started their lines in the 1950s. The format rules were derived from the givings of the US market, but the formats do differ in other countries. The trade paperback isn't aimed at the mass market and has a somewhat different philosophy of publication. Christian Stonecreek 12:50, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

Dann wäre es konsequent alle länderspezifischen gängigen Formate in die Auswahlliste zu übernehmen, für GB: z. B. A Format, B Format, C Format. For USA: Mass Market Paperback, Trade Paperback, Hardcover. Germany: Taschenbuch, Broschur, Klappenbroschur, Hardcover (oder Gebundene Ausgabe) und so weiter.
Google: Then it would be consistent to include all country-specific popular formats in the selection list, for GB: e. g. A Format, B Format, C Format. For USA: Mass Market Paperback, Trade Paperback, Hardcover. Germany: Taschenbuch, Broschur, Klappenbroschur, Hardcover (or Gebundene Ausgabe) and so on.--Wolfram.winkler 07:27, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Um das Ganze übersichtlicher zu machen, könnte man zwei Dropdown-Listen erstellen. Liste 1 mit der Angabe des Herkunftslandes und Liste 2 mit den dazugehörigen länderspezifischen Formaten. siehe Wikipedia
Google: To make the whole thing clearer, you could create two dropdown lists. List 1 with the country of origin and List 2 with the corresponding country-specific formats--Wolfram.winkler 02:01, 10 April 2018 (EDT)
@Hauck, it should also be expected a newbee to make a choice of format from several possibilities.--Wolfram.winkler 08:05, 10 April 2018 (EDT)
Hi, Wolfram! In a way, this would be the best thing, but according to this parallel discussion there doesn't seem to be a majority in favour of this. To avoid two threads you may want to join in over there. Christian Stonecreek 09:03, 10 April 2018 (EDT)

Notifications for verifiers and sources

Hello Wolfram,

Can you please notify the verifier for this change and indicate (here, in this message) the source for this publisher change? I know that our Goldmann/Blanvalet records are a bit... mixed up but just randomly changing one book (a verified at that) does not make much sense without at least mentioning why. Do you have the book at hand and if so, what is in the book itself? Thanks! Annie 13:49, 2 May 2018 (EDT)

Hi, Annie recruited me to help with this while she's away. If you answer her questions, I can help figure out what to do with the information. Thanks, --MartyD 22:09, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
How many times I must notify the verifier, two times or more?
Blanvalet is no pub. series, the publisher is Blanvalet, look at the front cover.--Wolfram.winkler 13:06, 10 May 2018 (EDT)
Sorry, I see you discussed this with the primary verifier last year. I think Annie did not see that. I will accept the submission. --MartyD 07:23, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
Annie ist a little bit hyperactiv, the permanent reminder of notifying is sometimes unnecessary, I think.--Wolfram.winkler 11:12, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

The last post

Do not worry, the only reason why I am still sporadically active here is my promise to Kelly McCullough to publish his German translations of the series "Fallen Blade". After completion I will say goodbye. But that can take longer. --Wolfram.winkler 11:33, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

Personally, I think that you should stay. Even if, as I said above, such a project can be exasperating with a bit too much talk (and too little action) and a certain tendency to avoid taking decisions and organising kangaroo courts for those who do and a general lack of support for those in the front lines (I just only hear a very loud silence when I read this in spite of very nice speeches about respect and so on...). But such a project is, IMHO and AFAIC, SF-bibliographically-wise important enough to carry on regardless of such inconveniences. Hauck 12:45, 20 May 2018 (EDT)
That is the lowest level, what was the consequence?--Wolfram.winkler 15:52, 6 June 2018 (EDT)

Schwarze Tränen

Hello, Wolfram! Welcome back, what did make you change your mind?

I just added notes to the Thomas Finn novel and changed the publisher (per DNB), as you seem to have missed out on this, and had just "Data from Deutsche Nationalbibliothek", which becomes meaningless upon verifying. Take a look and correct if the publisher is in fact stated otherwise, Christian Stonecreek 10:19, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

I can reassure you, I'm not back. I've only change the pages, the other data doesn't interest me. If this is not right, delete my submission.--Wolfram.winkler 11:49, 6 July 2018 (EDT)
For an inactive editor, you've become quite active again. ;-) Christian Stonecreek 14:25, 6 July 2018 (EDT)
Only rest of work, active looks different.--Wolfram.winkler 15:51, 7 July 2018 (EDT)

Drohende Schatten

Hello, It seems that the German order of the Wheel of time series of Bechtermünz is different than in English. Your Drohende Schatten pub is probably the translation of The Shadow Rising. --Zapp 04:45, 7 July 2018 (EDT)

I corrected various errors for this publication (especially the page count: if pages are numbered we don't use the [] for them, as communicated to you before, see also the help on this). There also was content to be added, which you missed out on. Please try to maintain the standards that are common for ISFDB. In addition, as this is not the first edition, it would have been much better to add the first Heyne edition from 1993 before, or at least date the titles to their first appearance in that year: I have done that for you. (The original title seems to be right, according to the Heyne bibliography, though). Thanks, Christian Stonecreek
Google translator: Unfortunately, these changes of my notes are not consistent with my level of quality (wirres Durcheinander/confusion), which is one of the reasons for ending my productive activities, and unfortunately that is closely related to your person.--Wolfram.winkler 16:09, 7 July 2018 (EDT)
The notes had to be changed due to various errors, mostly connected with the erroneous page count and the omitted contents. In this case you gave 489 as standard page count plus more than [20] unnumbered pages, which were in fact numbered as per your notes. So, the quality of your not-up-to-ISFDB-standard has been improved. Please do a thorough study of how we do enter page counts: if your standard for that and ours do not match, it is in fact the unfortunate task for us moderators to improve entries that don't fit with ISFDB, as different standards would in fact lead to chaos in our database. You should try to understand this. Christian Stonecreek 04:25, 8 July 2018 (EDT)
I don't mean the change of data, this may be correct, but you change my style, e. g. I wrote "Cover Design (Umschlaggestaltung): Adolf Bachmann, Reischach" you changed this in "The cover design ("Umschlaggestaltung") is credited to Adolf Bachmann, Reischach." This is a manipulation of my original text and a bad style, this is only one example, the most of my notes were changed in this format (from you), you change permanent my primary verified submissions without sense and reason, like you use it for your own submissions and this is one reason to end my activity. These changes I called bad level of quality.
I could complain about that or about you, too, but it is better to finish here, as annoying oneself permanently and wasting time pointless, I feel with Hauck (partly Google translator).--Wolfram.winkler 03:35, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Template talk:TitleFields:Length‎

Please note that the Wiki page which you edited earlier today, Template talk:TitleFields:Length‎, is a Help Talk page, i.e. a page where editors discuss what Help should say. Historical discussions posted there should not be altered by other editors after the fact. If you would like to suggest a change to Help, please post a separate proposal on the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus 12:04, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

I don't want to start a discussion about logical errors, there is no doubt that e. g. one and one is two. Feel free to undone my changes. BTW I had started a discussion, but without answer/comments.--Wolfram.winkler 13:45, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Even if you think that an editor has made logical errors in a Wiki comment, please do not try to correct them. Ahasuerus 14:04, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Sorry, I forgot that such decisions are not welcome. Another reason to end the active phase.--Wolfram.winkler 04:00, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
If you believe that another editor's argument is flawed, please feel free to respond and explain the flaw. However, changing other editors' arguments on discussion pages is not allowed. Ahasuerus 11:44, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
I've understood. Moderators can change data and formulations without justification (look theme my "notes") a normal user is not allowed to do that. --Wolfram.winkler 16:04, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
There is a difference between:
  • moderators editing submitted data for clarity and readability, and
  • changing the contents of other users' discussion posts
The former is allowed and encouraged. The latter is not allowed. Ahasuerus 16:22, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
I have invested a lot of time to make my submissions clear, logical, informative, understandable and then they are changed to look like kindergarten, but there is no comment from you. I've tried to clear discrepances between pb/tp without result. No wonder, that I'm frustrated and want to give up to work here. The only help from you is the tip to start a new discussion. Thanks.--Wolfram.winkler 16:04, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

This is the end...

I will no more act as active user, some times I will give a comment or correct wrong data, typos or other mistakes (perhaps fire? moderators). Unfortunately, it did not work out the way I had imagined, although I was thrilled at first, but my motivation dropped rapidly. Guilt is diverging opinions about true and false data and unjustified changed data from my submissions. Add to that the language barrier, because my english is very bad (most of the time I use the Google translator). The permanent discussion without results is another reason to stop working here and some other reasons, but I've no time to explain all this.--Wolfram.winkler 16:38, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for your contributions and good luck. Ahasuerus 16:41, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

Der Pfad des schwarzen Lichts

Sadly, again vital information (edition no., cover artist, map) was missing from this publication. I added those. Please think about adding the other content you mention and also to other publication you added. Christian Stonecreek 14:10, 27 November 2018 (EST)

This is my original text of notes:
  • Other Price[s]: €18.50 (Austria)
  • Cover:
    • with front and back flaps
    • front partly coated high gloss
  • Height x Width: 215 x 135 mm
  • Weight: 705 gram
  • Table of Content: on unnumbered page[s] #7 - #9
  • Additional Page[s]:
    • 1 unnumbered page[s] #569 with “picture”
    • 4 unnumbered page[s] #570 - #573 with “map”
    • 1 unnumbered page[s] #574 without content
    • 1 unnumbered page[s] #575 with “note of thanks”
  • Data Source: price[s] stated by “Deutsche Nationalbibliothek”
What is your reason to change these correct data?
I can see "map", but where you see the 1st edition and 1st printing, what's the meaning of "aparent"?
You are welcome to insert data but without changing my existing correct data. I feel that as impudence and it is not in the sense of the existing rules.
Nor is it in the spirit of a primary verifier to gather all the important information not found in the book. That would be secondary verification.
Maybe Ahasuerus should intervene here and speak a word of power!
Since I'm no longer actively involved, I only react to unjustified changes to my data.
Finally, I will delete the primary verification, since your changes do not match my level. Happy new year. (Google Übersetzer).--Wolfram.winkler 13:52, 1 January 2019 (EST)
A happy new year to you! The reason for changing the entry was the same as for previous ones, which have been communicated to you before quite often: you seem to be content with it and the data may be sufficient for your purposes, but it is insufficient for ISFDB and its users, as the record(s) miss out on listing all the contents, the editions & printings, and the correct pagination as well as the correct English spelling. For all of this reasons the entries and their accompanying notes have to be adapted to ISFBD standards, and since you have chosen to retreat from contributing (not to speak of correcting your verified publications), it is the moderators sorry task to care for the betterment. Please do consider to come back and help. Christian Stonecreek 03:03, 4 January 2019 (EST)

I have also corrected your insufficient entries for Das Königreich der Lüfte and the follow-up Das Königreich jenseits der Wellen. For the first you only entered the following (similar to the second volume)

   Other Price[s]: €10.30 (Austria)
   Publisher Code: 53376
   Translator: Kirsten Borchardt
   Cover: front partly coated high-gloss
   Height x Width: 186 x 118 mm
   Weight: 633 gram
   Last Unnumbered Page of Text: #781 contains the rest of the novel
   Additional Page[s]: 1 unnumbered page with "acknowledgement"

As it's plain to see you missed out on the edition & the printing rank; you also had entered a wrong page count of 781 & the erroneous format of tp. If there are more of those insufficient entries please do correct them. Christian Stonecreek 02:31, 5 January 2019 (EST)

Wenn ich keine Daten eingetragen habe, dann gibt es auch keine Daten im Buch (kann natürlich sein, dass ich das übersehen habe, kann ich momentan nicht überprüfen), übrigens, Daten mit "apparent" entsprechen nicht unbedingt meinem Qualitätsniveau (mit einer unglücklichen Ausnahme)...
Bleibt immer noch die Frage, mit welchem Recht Du meine Notizen veränderst? Und damit meine ich nicht die Eintragung von Daten, sondern das Verändern meines Schreibstils. Wo steht geschrieben, dass Deine Art zu schreiben richtiger ist als meine? Bitte zeig mir die entsprechende Hilfeseite.
Warum ist z. B. "Cover: front partly coated high-gloss" falsch, was ist an "The front cover is partly coated with high-gloss." (Deine Variante) richtiger? Warum darfst Du [ ] benutzen, ich nicht? "#", ":" sind anscheinend auch nicht erlaubt und so weiter...
Bleibt nur noch der Kindergartenstil.
Alle meine Eintragungen werden von Dir in dieser Form verfälscht. Das kann ich nicht tolerieren, denn schließlich verändere ich ja auch nicht grund- und sinnlos Deine Notizen nach meinem Geschmack!
Da ich aber keine Zeit habe, Deine Korrekturen wieder rückgängig zu machen, werde ich nur den PV löschen und hoffe, Ihr werdet glücklich mit meinen Daten.
Ich würde gerne weiter mitarbeiten, aber Dein Verhalten und auch das des Administrators Ahasuerus verhindern das. Warum sollte ich Zeit für die Eingabe von Daten verschwenden, wenn die Daten doch wieder gelöscht, geändert, verfälscht werden? Was soll man mit einem Administrator anfangen, der nur diskutiert und keine Entscheidungen treffen will oder kann?
Pech für Euch, Ihr verliert einen engagierten Mitarbeiter.
Google Übersetzung:
If I did not enter any data, then there is no data in the book (of course I can not see that, I can not check right now), by the way, data with "apparent" does not necessarily match my quality level (with one unfortunate exception ) ...
The question still remains, with which right you change my notes? And I do not mean the entry of data, but the changing of my writing style. Where is it written that your way of writing is more correct than mine? Please show me the corresponding help page.
Why is e. g. "Cover: front partly coated high-gloss" wrong, what's wrong with "The front cover is partly coated with high-gloss." (Your variant) more correct? Why are you allowed to use [], not me? "#", ":" are apparently not allowed and so on ...
Only the kindergarten style remains.
All my entries will be falsified by you in this form. I can not tolerate that, because after all I do not change your notes to my liking!
But since I have no time to undo your corrections, I will only delete the PV and hope you will be happy with my data.
I would like to continue to work, but your behavior and that of the administrator Ahasuerus prevent this. Why should I waste time on entering data when the data is deleted, changed, and falsified? What should you do with an administrator who only discusses and can not or will not make decisions?
Bad luck for you, you lose an involved employee.--Wolfram.winkler 13:58, 7 January 2019 (EST)
It's always sad to lose an editor. But to talk of being engaged is not true, for somebody who shows absolutely no engagement to correct the corrupted data & notes entered in the first place, after being told quite often what is correct and what the standards of ISFDB are. Getting loud only when somebody goes to apply the standards, but putting the sand in the head (or was it vice versa?) for the rest of the time, seems to be miles away from a constructive engagement. So, it was again left to us moderators to correct the erroneous page count and non-standard use of the English language for some of your verified books. I am sorry for that, but your politics of irresponsibility for ISFDB leaves not much choice.
If there are other publications with erroneous informtion PVed by you, you might still be able to become constructive. Thanks, Stonecreek 05:07, 1 February 2019 (EST)
Ich werde hier nur noch aktiv, wenn meine korrekt eingegebenen Daten verändert werden, wie Sie es wieder getan haben.
Meine Notizen sind in Aufzählungsform dargestellt, da kann man eigentlich keine Fehler bemängeln, tatsächlich gibt es auch keine. Warum Sie die Aufzählungstexte verändern ist mir schleierhaft. Eine Vermutung habe ich ja, das habe ich aber schon an anderer Stelle kundgetan.
Wenn es Regeln für Notizen geben sollte, dann bitte ich um einen Link, der dahin führt... Ich bezweifle aber, dass es diese Seite gibt, verwechseln Sie vielleicht Ihre Regeln mit denen von ISFDB?
Wie schon mehrmals bemerkt, falsche Daten ändern ist in Ordnung, fehlerfreie Texte ändern ist eine Unverschämtheit und hat mit Fehlerkorrektur nichts zu tun!--Wolfram.winkler 13:10, 4 February 2019 (EST)
As explained numerous times above: Faults in your verified publications include: erroneous formats & page counts (every time contrary to the help pages), mistaken use of English spelling, false print rank, missing contents, unsourced data (for edition, printing, cover & interior art), missing accounts of dimension statements. Since you only become active when those faults get corrected, but prefer to don't do anything about it the rest of the time, your complaints seem pretty much without any substance. Stonecreek 14:38, 8 February 2019 (EST)
Das ist ja merkwürdig. Alle angeblichen Fehler wurden nach meiner Eingabe von den Moderatoren geprüft und akzeptiert, auch meine Schreibweise, meine Listendarstellung und alle anderen Formatierungen.
Auf einmal ist das alles falsch? Das nenne ich unerklärlich (armselig). Ich warte immer noch auf eine Antwort auf meine Frage.
Und noch einmal der Hinweis, ich werde hier nicht mehr aktiv agieren. Fast 100 Eingaben und alles umsonst, reine Zeitverschwendung. Wenn denn Ihr Schreibstil die Regel/Standard sein soll, dann habe ich hier nichts verloren. Wenn weitere ungerechtfertigte Änderungen vorgenommen werden, distanziere ich mich von diesen Eingaben, mit diesem Kindergartengeschreibsel (anders kann ich das nicht ausdrücken) möchte ich nicht in Verbindung gebracht werden.--Wolfram.winkler 05:43, 28 February 2019 (EST)


And again you did not correct the relevant data for Dämonentränen
You stated
- 1 numbered page #381 with "preview"
- 4 numbered pages #382 - #385 with "afterword and note of thanks"
- 3 numbered pages #386 - #388 with "publisher's list"
but as usual with the data you supply that's not as per our definition of the page count. Please take a look at our rules. I'll correct the page count & the notes for you again (also as per ISFDB nomenclature and a correct use of the English language). Christian Stonecreek 04:20, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
While at it I coorected the other novels by the same author accordingly. And let me add a personal note: if the correct use & understanding of the English language is not your highest capability, why don't you take on the help that has been offered to you? Christian Stonecreek 04:45, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
Es geht hier nicht um die englische Sprache sondern um das willkürliche Ändern von Formulierungen und Daten in den Notizen (ähnlich wie bei Rudam), alles Weitere wurde bereits mehrfach gesagt.
Die Definition der Seitenzahl ist so ziemlich das Schlimmste, was ich in den Regeln gefunden habe, so uneffizient und undurchschaubar, dass es weh tut. Allerdings lohnt es nicht darüber eine Diskussion zu beginnen, es wird sowieso kein Ergebnis geben (u. a. siehe Diskussion pb/tp). Übrigens, hinter meinen Angaben zur Seitenzahl steckt schon ein System. Finden Sie es heraus. Bitte achten Sie auf Ihre Rechtschreibung.--Wolfram.winkler 04:24, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

Dunkle Schuld

Hello, Wolfram, I have put your submission on hold as it tries to change the format to tp, whereas it seems to be a pb as recorded at DNB and amazon. Do you own any special, different edition? Christian Stonecreek 12:31, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

Erledigt. Die falsche Seitenzahl kann auch so stehenbleiben, passt schon zu ISFDB.--Wolfram.winkler 15:19, 24 May 2019 (EDT)

Der Herr des Feuers

I enhanced the stub record for this publication. Christian Stonecreek 02:08, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

...und ich habe wie bereits angekündigt meinen primären Überprüfungsstatus geändert/storniert. Ich weiss auch nicht, warum ich mir dieses Theater immer wieder antue...--Wolfram.winkler 13:07, 9 June 2019 (EDT)

Anna Smith Spark

Can you please share the source for your update of the birthplace of Anna Smith Spark to London? I approved it by mistake but then pulled it out as I can find no reference to her being born there (all references are about her living there). Also can you also please use the proper format: "London, England, UK" and not "London/England/UK" when updating birthplaces. Thanks! Annie 17:53, 24 July 2019 (EDT)

Quelle Geburtsort: "Das Reich der zerbrochenen Klingen" Seite 02. Das Format "London/England/UK" gefällt mir persönlich besser, Komma als Trennzeichen ist eher unglücklich.--Wolfram.winkler 15:49, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for citing the source, I will restore it and add the source in the notes. As for the format of the field - this is a community project and personal preferences in formatted fields are not in the spirit of it - every time you use /, you are requiring a moderator to update after you to fix the record so it is consistent with the other books. While the Notes field is free text, most of the other fields have their rules (most of them so they are parseable for Statistics and so on). So please consider actually using the correct format. Thanks in advance! Are you planning to add the German version of the book or do you want me to?
PS: And please, use English :) Even if quite a lot of editors around here understand German. Annie 16:53, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
Auf meiner Seite wird deutsch bevorzugt, ich empfehle den Google Übersetzer.
Was die Notizen angeht, muss ich widersprechen, es gibt nach Aussagen des Nutzers Stonecreek Regeln, nämlich seine eigenen. Wo diese Regeln nachzulesen sind konnte (wollte) er allerdings nicht beantworten.
Das ist auch der Grund, warum ich hier keine Daten mehr eingeben will (bis auf seltene Ausnahmen), da diese sowieso wieder geändert, manipuliert, gelöscht oder auch verfälscht werden. Fairerweise möchte ich hinzufügen, dass es bisher nur einen Moderator gibt, der das praktiziert.--Wolfram.winkler 03:27, 30 July 2019 (EDT)
The official language of the DB is English so instead of sending me to Google translate, why don't you take your own advice and use it? I read German just fine but not everyone does.
We are not discussing the Notes here, we are discussing a structured field (birth place) where you have a preferred format that is at odds with the expected one. So I will just ask you again to use the expected format in this field. Thanks! Annie 14:26, 30 July 2019 (EDT)
Es handelt sich um eine falsche Aussage bezüglich der Notizen, die ich kommentiert habe.
Das Thema "Geburtsort" ist abgeschlossen und muss nicht weiter diskutiert werden.--Wolfram.winkler 02:30, 6 August 2019 (EDT)

Die Hüter der Wolken

What is the size of this one? The rest of the series seem to be all pb so making sure we have the correct formats. Thanks! Annie 22:47, 9 November 2019 (EST)

186 x 125 mm, gemäß Regeldefinition von ISFDB ist das ein tp. Aber da gibt es ja verschiedene Diskussionen!--Wolfram.winkler 11:09, 10 November 2019 (EST)
As the answer is incomprehensible for non-English speakers, I'll correct the entry per ISFDB standard. Christian Stonecreek 11:51, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Ich habe nichts anderes von Ihnen erwartet, aber gerade nicht englisch sprechende Nutzer können meinen Beitrag verstehen! Das Umschlagbild wird hoffentlich noch geändert oder ist das auch nicht regelkonform? Aber was rege ich mich auf, ich bin es ja gewohnt, dass Daten willkürlich geändert werden.--Wolfram.winkler 13:06, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Wolfram: As noted above (by AnnieMod): It is necessary to phrase your answers in English, because the majority of moderators, editors and users don't understand German. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 13:20, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Why “correct” it, a width/height/smaller dimmension of 125 mm makes that a tp indeed. I will reverse the change. Annie 13:39, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Since when does it do that? This are 12.5 cm ! Christian Stonecreek 13:46, 10 November 2019 (EST)
yes. 1 cm too wide to be pb. The cutoff is at 11 cm, with a grace size till 11.5. 12.5 is 1 cm too wide. See the rules page: "For books as tall as 7.25" (19 cm) or as wide/deep as 4.5" (11.5 cm) use "tp"." It is annoying that this makes almost all European books tp but until the wording is changed, 12.5 makes a book a tp. If you want to start a R&S discussion for changing that and adding an exception for European books to fit the 12.5s in, I will support it. But under the current rule, it is a tp. 13:52, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Removing first printing

If this gets approved, we will need to also set the date to 0000-00-00 (unless you have a source for the date in your book). Any source or should I make it 0000-00-00? And is there nothing in the book to show printing order? Usually for most publishers, that would mean first printing...Annie 05:02, 11 November 2019 (EST)

The first part (first edition) that you are trying to remove is visible on the back cover scan and I cannot imagine a better source than that. So why do you want to remove it? Annie 05:04, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Alle Daten, die ich als "Primary verifier" eingebe stammen zwingend aus dem Buch anderenfalls wird eine Quelle angegeben, andere Nutzer, die das Buch nicht besitzen, sollten schon dazu schreiben woher die Daten stammen (auch wenn sie in diesem Fall auf dem Cover zu erkennen sein sollen), z. B. source: backcover.
"Originalausgabe" bedeutet nicht unbedingt "first edition" oder irre ich mich da?--Wolfram.winkler 05:42, 11 November 2019 (EST)
From what I had seen in the German pubs, Originalausgabe (aka "original edition") means exactly what first edition means. We can change that to "Original/First edition" if you prefer.
And removing the data when it is visible on the cover is not really a good idea. Add to it to mention the source of you must but flat removal is counterproductive.
Back to that date: So can you please cite the source for the date? Is it on the copyright page? Somewhere else? Even as a PV, you should say where each piece of information is coming from - which part of the book. If the date is printed as is, then you are very likely to have a first printing. We can add a "non-stated" if you want to but unless you are claiming 2 printings in 1 month (source?) which are unrecognizable from each other, the date is enough to identify it as first printing. So you cannot have it both ways - either the date is correct and it is a first printing or it is not and we change to 0000-00-00 (and we create a separate record for the first edition) or you provide a source that says that there were two printings in that month and we mark this as unknown printing and add a new one for the first. So what is the date of that book? Thanks! Annie 11:50, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Siehe oben. Die Daten stammen alle aus dem Buch (Primary verifier) und benötigen keine Extra-Quelle. Ob die Daten auf Seite 10 oder sonst wo im Buch stehen ist völlig irrelevant. Ich kenne keinen Hinweis, dass das Buch die Erstausgabe und/oder 1. Auflage ist, an Vermutungen oder Hypothesen beteilige ich mich nicht. Das ist keine gesunde Grundlage für eine Datenbank. Da es aber anscheinend bei manchen Nutzern üblich ist, Daten zu "verbiegen", wundert mich gar nichts mehr.--Wolfram.winkler 08:01, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Das ist auch der Grund, warum ich hier kaum noch Daten eingebe.--Wolfram.winkler 08:08, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Except when tries to figure out if they have the same book - when you do not enter where the data is, that is impossible. This is the whole point if the details we record - to find all the possible printings and editions. At this point we know that :
  • There is a first printing with that date (which you claim is not your book)
  • There s your book (which you refuse to add details about)
The date belongs to the first book for sure. If it belongs to yours as well, we need to know how it was determined so someone can match theirs to yours. Clicking a box that says "I have the book" does not mean "and I do not need to tell you anything about it". It means "I have and and I want to share all the information it contains". We have a rule for undated printings - they do not get a date from their first printings.
So please share where the date is printed exactly and I will be more than happy to accept the change, add this to your notes and create another unverified copy for a first printing (which must exist if there are later ones). If the data is there, it will take you a lot less time to just answer than it took you to argue that you have the right not to answer that questions. Thanks! Annie 11:57, 12 November 2019 (EST)
Abgesehen davon, dass ich nur die Hälfte verstanden habe, auch der Google Übersetzer ist nicht sehr hilfreich:
1. Ich habe alle relevanten Daten aus meinem Buch eingetragen
2. Ein Klick auf den Button "I own this book" bedeutet nur, dass ich das Buch besitze und alle Daten daraus stammen
3. Die Notizen stammen nicht von mir
4. Notizen gebe ich generell keine mehr ein, da sie sowieso durch einen Moderator verfälscht werden (dazu gehören auch Änderungen des Schreibstils und der Formulierungen!)
5. Ich habe nichts abgestritten
6. Weitere Hilfe kann ich Ihnen nicht anbieten
7. Warum wurden meine Daten bezüglich der Autorin geändert? Ist es neuerdings üblich, Daten willkürlich zu löschen?
8. Gerne verschwende ich weiterhin meine Zeit, um diese Diskussion weiterzuführen--Wolfram.winkler 15:25, 13 November 2019 (EST)
I had not changed any of your data here. I asked a single simple question - where is the date coming from. That's all. It would have taken a LOT less from your time to just answer my question so I can act accordingly. It is all about the consistency and accuracy of the data, right? So I am asking you for more details on a certain element of your data. If you have a problem with someone changing data, discuss it with them. As I said:
  • If this is not the first edition, I will add a new book for the first
  • We have a rule for undated printings.
If you answer that the date is printed on the copyright page (or somewhere else), that would have finished that whole bilingual discussion, I would have approved your edit, added the note on where the date is noted and created another record for the first printing. Unfortunately you decided not to answer the question -- at which point leaving the record with the date and without the notes will end up with someone deciding it is a duplicate for the first printing and again reedit.
If the date is NOT in your book, then we need to put the date as 0000-00-00.
So - the question is still the same: is the date printed in the book and where in the book? Annie 12:49, 14 November 2019 (EST)

(unindent)One more note - if we have a record that says "first printing" and yours is not, then you should clone and create a separate record and verify that. I am not sure what the timeline of this one is (so if you created and someone added "First edition, first printing" that does not apply but just adding a note in general). If you try to use the date of the first printing, you will get the same question I am asking you here -- but other from that, you verify what you have. Annie 12:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Wenden Sie sich bitte an den Nutzer, der die Notizen eingetragen hat, derjenige wird Ihnen seine Quellen mitteilen können!
Auf meiner Diskussionsseite wird bevorzugt deutsch geschrieben. Sollte das gegen irgendeine Regel verstoßen, teilen Sie es mir bitte mit.--Wolfram.winkler 03:22, 19 November 2019 (EST)
I updated the publication with the missing contents, the correct page count, and helpful notes, since the printing no. was clearly stated on the copyright page (as this publisher uses to state for all of its publications since the end of the 1980s).
Wolfram, this site is about sharing bibliographic information, not about hiding it! If we know that you own a particular publication, this is not enough if you don't also supply the printing number if asked to (as we break down to that level). Christian Stonecreek 15:13, 22 November 2019 (EST)
Daten eingeben ist kein "muss" sondern ein "kann". Es liegt in meinem Ermessen, welche Daten ich verwende. Meine Eingaben sind beschränkt auf die Eingabefelder. Notizen schreibe ich nicht mehr, da sie sowieso von Ihnen verfälscht/umgeschrieben/umformuliert/gelöscht werden. Wie ich in den aktuellen Diskussionen hier sehe, ist das ja auch keine Ausnahme. Sie sollten Ihr Verhalten anderen Nutzern gegenüber einmal hinterfragen und die nötigen Konsequenzen ziehen. Ich bin ja nicht der einzige Nutzer, der hier vergrault wird. Übrigens, meine Seiteneingabe 715 ist das Ende der Novelle, nachfolgende unwichtige Daten habe ich ignoriert. Sie selber haben auch vergessen das Autorenportrait, die Karte und den Prolog zu erwähnen (this site is about sharing bibliographic information, not about hiding it!).--Wolfram.winkler 09:55, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Please do not edit archived discussions

As you did here. It is unlikely anyone will see your comments (I only saw them because I archived the comments back in 2018). You're welcome to start a new discussion if you think the topic still needs to be addressed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:28, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Darauf habe ich leider nicht geachtet.--Wolfram.winkler 12:39, 14 November 2019 (EST)
No problem. Please pay closer attention in the future. It's all good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:22, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Es wird keine Zukunft mehr geben.--Wolfram.winkler 03:01, 19 November 2019 (EST)

Schwarze Saat and Schwarze Frucht

Hello! I hold the submissions of your two entries. You want to change the titles of this pubs. What is your actual source? Rudolf Rudam 15:18, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Both edits were rejected before. Trying again with another moderator? --Willem 15:44, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Auf dem Cover steht der Titel, wie von mir angegeben (allerdings ohne Doppelpunkt). Wo liegt das Problem?

@ Willem: Trying again with a moderator!--Wolfram.winkler 03:10, 19 November 2019 (EST)

Hello Wolfram! You ask what is the problem:
1. Per ISDB policy is the cover title irrelevant. The title on the title page is valid.
2. The name of a series is never part of the title.
3. You didn't inform the PV that you want to change the title.
BTW: The general policy is to communicate in English and it's not kind and very impolite not to answer in English. For many non-English-speaking editors and moderators it is not always easy, but EVERYBODY except you respects it. It's puzzling that you don't want to follow, because you pose as an advocate of explicit rules and insist that they should be followed. Somewhat paradoxical. Regards Rudolf Rudam 04:34, 19 November 2019 (EST)
I' ve just discovered that you answer in other threads on English. if you keep that up, that would be nice. Rudolf Rudam 04:44, 19 November 2019 (EST)
Auf meiner Diskussionsseite wird bevorzugt deutsch geschrieben, da das effizienter ist. Sollte das gegen irgendeine schriftliche Regel verstoßen, teilen Sie es mir bitte mit. Wer Interesse an meinen Beiträgen hat, kann den Google Übersetzer benutzen, handhabe ich ja genauso. Ich respektiere, dass auf anderen Seiten englisch geschrieben wird, dann sollte auch respektiert werden, dass hier deutsch erwünscht ist. Das ist eine Frage der Toleranz.
zu 1. Den Titel auf der Titelseite kenne ich natürlich nicht, ich ging davon aus, dass beides der Gleiche ist.
zu 2. Der Name der Serie lautet "Perry Rhodan universe" (warum universe und nicht Universum?). Bedeutet das, es darf kein Wort, welches in einem Serientitel verwendet wird, in einem Titel benutzt werden? Das wäre interessant.
zu 3. Warum sollte ich einen PV, der ebenso meine PV-Daten, speziell Notizen, ungefragt manipuliert/löscht/umformuliert, benachrichtigen? Gleiches Recht für alle. Sie hatten doch auch zu diesem Thema Probleme mit einem wohlbekannten Moderator, wird das verdrängt? Übrigens, wozu ist der Button "My Changed Primary Verifications" vorhanden, der macht eigentlich Benachrichtigungen überflüssig?
Wichtiger als diese Diskussionen über Höflichkeit und Nettigkeit ist das korrigieren von falschen Regeln, z. B. Format pb/tp.
Ihr Problem der verschiedenen Sprachen wird es in Zukunft auch nicht mehr geben, da ich sowieso nur noch sporadisch Daten eingeben/korrigieren und potenzielle Diskussionen darüber meiden werde.--Wolfram.winkler 01:59, 20 November 2019 (EST)
Personal tools