User talk:Anniemod


(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Series name: posted)
(Multilingual publications: new section)
Line 675: Line 675:
:See also [[User talk:Rudam#Die Totengr.C3.A4bersohn-Saga|this]]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:40, 5 January 2020 (EST)
:See also [[User talk:Rudam#Die Totengr.C3.A4bersohn-Saga|this]]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 12:40, 5 January 2020 (EST)
:: Posted about the series names themselves - Ahasuerus got the book title covered and Talk language :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:20, 5 January 2020 (EST)
:: Posted about the series names themselves - Ahasuerus got the book title covered and Talk language :) [[User:Anniemod|Annie]] 15:20, 5 January 2020 (EST)
== Multilingual publications ==
Hi, I get stuck with [ this maintenance report]. I am the culprit, but I just imported the titles from another edition (the same) for both the entries that now come up as being 'multilingual'. Can you give additional data?--[[User:Dirk P Broer|Dirk P Broer]] 10:05, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Revision as of 15:05, 16 January 2020



Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, 2018-part2

Author correction 1/4

Lemuel de Bra should be Lemuel De Bra (it's printed that way in the only publication we have for him, and elsewhere too). --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 12:24, 4 January 2019 (EST)

Done. I checked the legal name and the directory one as well - let me know if I need to change them back. Annie 12:27, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Slight problem: I am looking at the American edition of Twenty-Three Stories and it has his name printed "L. De Bra." But earlier, someone added the British edition (unverified) with "Lemuel De Bra." I can't find any text view of the British edition, so I don't know if that's accurate. I suppose I should keep the British edition the way it is, for the moment, and variant the two forms to each other ...
This would be a non-issue if I removed the nongenre stories from the contents of Twenty-Three Stories (Lemuel De Bra would vanish from the database then because he has no genre stories). But I am reluctant to do that because the complete contents of Twenty-Three Stories are listed in The Supernatural Index with no indication as to which of the stories are supernatural (in truth, only half of them are). I feel like we should have those stories in the DB with a note so as to correct the record. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 12:38, 4 January 2019 (EST)
The someone is probably the person that did all the secondary verifications :) So someone was working off secondary sources and probably had never seen the book. Post on the Verifications board to see if someone on the other side of the pond can get a copy of the book to look at it? Annie 12:42, 4 January 2019 (EST)

Kaleidotrope Winter 2019

I always get confused adding new e-mags... can you add the Winter 2019 Kaleidotrope with a new NKH story? Thanks Susan O'Fearna 15:46, 10 January 2019 (EST)

I will add it tonight. Annie 16:21, 10 January 2019 (EST)
done. I will be adding some more links in a bit -- but the magazine is in. Annie 18:29, 10 January 2019 (EST)

Speculative FICTION

Touche! :) --Galacticjourney 23:46, 11 January 2019 (EST)

Magazine tracker

The 2019 magazine tracker is up and running. I have moved 2018 to an archived page. It still shows a bunch of December issues needing to be added to the database. Plus, I am still waiting to see whether the December issues of LampLight and Leading Edge will be published late. --Vasha (cazadora de tildes) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (EST)

American Gods and both say 5th printing... should one be deleted? Susan O'Fearna 15:08, 21 January 2019 (EST)

Yep, look like duplicates. Both are verified from the same PV so let me ping them. Annie 08:02, 22 January 2019 (EST) -- Lookit the pretty new book! Susan O'Fearna 11:41, 24 January 2019 (EST)
There went my "I am not buying new books this month". Pretty :) I hate their font choice inside of the book but... pretty.
PS: Sorry for the delay - had been traveling (work-related). Annie 14:31, 28 January 2019 (EST)

Transliterated series names added

As per our discussion last year, transliterated series names have been added -- see ISFDB:Community_Portal#Transliterated_series_names for details. Also, I am not sure if you are aware that Advanced Publication Search has been updated to support "Language of an Included Title" as a selection criterion. Ahasuerus 14:41, 7 March 2019 (EST)

Yey! Thanks. I had been dealing with some work related stuff and not around lately. Annie 11:59, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
No worries -- we all do what we can :-) Ahasuerus 12:18, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Buy or Die: There Cometh a Time of Ruthless Advertising

Hi. I recently added Buy or Die: There Cometh a Time of Ruthless Advertising and it seems to have been originally published in Russian. Any chance of you creating a page for the original, and then linking them to the English translations? MLB 15:47, 14 March 2019 (EDT)

Let me dig a bit further over the weekend and if there is an original, I will get it created an added. Annie 21:06, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Done! Annie 21:12, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Awesome. Thanks. MLB 21:16, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Curiously, unlike the current version of this author's Amazon page, Google's cache says that "Theodor Ventskevich" is a pseudonym used by "Igor Borisov". Ahasuerus 21:19, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
I would not be surprised to find that this one is a pseudonym based on a few more things I saw around the Russian sites and how all of the personal sites are setup - will do some more digging to see if I can definitely connect them... Annie 21:21, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Anytime. Took me a few minutes to remember that the name Fyodor gets changed to Theodor when going into English (to sound less Russian? I don't know...). Then it clicked. Thanks for pinging me about it. Annie 21:21, 15 March 2019 (EDT)

Sítio do picapau amarelo

Hi Annie! I was seeing about this series again and I (finally) noticed that a good number of these books are "Collections of Chapbooks/Short stories with chapters". I saying that because Recreations by Retroussy Book One (Amazon) translates some of the stories (not all) from Reinações de Narizinho and would be nice to connect the translations with the originals, but I can't find how the titles were back in the 30s, only how we write they with currently Portuguese (here). That's a problem or I can just send how the stories are know now, and insert that they were released in 1931? Now that this author entered in Public Domain here, more translations may be released. Thanks, ErickSoares3 15:35, 21 March 2019 (EDT)

Back from vacation - let me look into this :) Annie 11:42, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

The Stone in the Skull

I added "Stated First Edition" to the notes, the map to the contents and a scan for your verified The Stone in the Skull. Bob 20:19, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

Not sure how I missed to add that when I added all the rest. :) Thanks! Annie 18:05, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Children of Time

Hi Annie, I just noticed that I created a duplicate (see here) of your verified Children of time. Don't know how I missed that - ugh! :-( I'll copy over my notes to your PVd record and delete mine, if you're OK with it? (or the other way around... ;-) MagicUnk 07:25, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

I moved the notes over to mine. I would rather not lose the date of the first verification (it shows when an otherwise dateless edition was out) - if it was not a dateless one, I would have just moved to yours. Do you want to re-upload the cover (I can just move the link but then the naming won't be right for that edition). :) Annie 15:30, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Sure. I re-uploaded the cover, and submitted a delete for the duplicate. MagicUnk 16:18, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
And approved :) Thanks for writing the long note - I think I got lazy when I was adding it :) Annie 17:23, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Regular Titles

I have tried adding the regular titles to Birthright: The conmplete trilogy. Hopefully I am getting better at this? On3man 22:55, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

You are doing fine - the DB can be complicated. You can also answer to me on your own page - I am monitoring when I leave a message :) Annie 23:14, 16 July 2019 (EDT)


Hi Annie. Following User talk:Chris J#Shorter Novels: Eighteenth Century
I did hope/pray that the two container Titles, originally ANTHOLOGY/Henderson and OMNIBUS/Rhys would be merged somehow, and hint/urge that in multiple Note to Moderator that mentioned the Anthology/Omnibus issue.

I have supposed that Type = OMNIBUS implies Author (in this instance)

Author = Samuel Johnson and Horace Walpole and William Beckford

so that the anthologist, pardon the term, is credited only for appropriate ESSAY contents that are entered in a publication record. --Pwendt|talk 21:37, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Usually yes but it may depend on how the book itself has the authors on the title page - omnibus is one of those weird formats that... are annoying. Let me look into it later today - I will probably end up adding the three authors so the book shows up on all 3 authors page.
As for the hints, feel free to just drop me a message in such cases here - I will be more than happy to see what I can do about things like that :) Annie 14:30, 30 July 2019 (EDT)
The three fiction writers are not named on the title page. Nor is Henderson named on the print title pages, from the following evidence.
You see how Gutenberg represents the v3 Eighteenth Century title page. Evidently the source for Gutenberg's title screen is several front pages of Everyman's #856 in 1948 printing.
Compare print title page, similar design, of vol 2 (non-genre?) as Everyman's #841 in 1949 printing. v2 Jacobean and Restoration, t.p. 1949
Contrast the radically different original 1929/1930 design, which shares no mention of the three fiction writers. v3 Eighteenth Century, t.p. 1930 (and v1, t.p. 1929)
See t.p. verso and the preceding leaf or two, for Everyman's entire presentation of the bibliographic data. (Unfortunately I don't find at HathiTrust multiple printings for any of the 3 vols.) --Pwendt|talk 16:33, 30 July 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for the research. :) That almost sounds like an argument for making that "uncredited". Let me think a bit more and look up some help pages. Annie 16:36, 30 July 2019 (EDT)

"They" They 'They'

Anniemod and Stonecreek, Thanks for your prompt attention today. Last hour I quit database submissions related to "They" &c when I noticed how much variety there is in usage, and the number of title records including CHAPBOOK, COVERART, etc. I will need to re-visit several of today's, after advice the back pages including Community Portal. --Pwendt|talk 18:17, 30 August 2019 (EDT)

That's fine :) Things need redoing now and then :) Annie 19:54, 30 August 2019 (EDT)

Seven Doors in an Unyielding Stone

I've submitted the collection as well as the seven individual titles. The essay on "Seven Windows..." could be changed back to a review and linked to the limited edition set that I submitted as that is the one he is talking about specifically. I will also submit the unlimited book bundle once the limited is accepted.Jim 19:42, 31 August 2019 (EDT)

Everything's been accepted and updated now. The essay on "Seven Windows..." can be removed as there is now a review linked to the new entry.Jim 00:50, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
Thanks! Annie 13:59, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

Snow Glass Apples

Snow, Glass, Apples

This chapbook is TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT BOOKS. The 1995 chapbook illustrated by Charles Vess has spot-illustrations, but the prose of the story has not been changed. At all.

The new one, adapted by Colleen Doran, is a graphic novel adaptation of the story by Neil Gaiman.

How do I get them separated & fixed?

Thanks Susan O'Fearna 17:23, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Yeah, they are different... Do you want me to split them or do you want me to explain how to? I can do either :) Annie 17:26, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
If you can split them, maybe I can see what you did... Susan O'Fearna 17:33, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Step 1: Umnerge the Chapbooks. Because the review is for the older ones, I will pull the new ones instead and merge them together. So you have umnerge, followed by a merge.
Step 2: Unmerge the stories: as there are a lot of them, I pull only the two that are the graphic ones and them merge them together
Step 3: Mark the story and the chapbook as graphic format so it is clear they are different. Add notes to the same effect.
Now you have the graphic story and the original one.
I need to think a bit on varianting the stories together - let me read some of the guidelines. That's it. Annie 18:15, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Let me know if I missed something Annie 18:15, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

De reiziger Graphic Novel

Non varianting of a graphic novel to the original novel it is based off of? MagicUnk 18:04, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

We do not variant graphic adaptations to their non-graphic counter parts (they are adaptations/retellings in a new format and not variants). I've put it on my "check later again" list in case my memory plays tricks - if so, I will reconnect them and drop you a note. Wrote you a note and then found a Moomin book and you beat me to it (apparently I never posted the said note). :)Annie 18:08, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
A graphic novel is a variant of the original it is based off of if you ask me :) No big deal though. We can always go back and variant if needed. MagicUnk 18:12, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
Well, yes - if you look at the word at face value. But remember that the variants are also used for changed names and what's not. So here, in this DB, the line between what we variant and what we leave as a new title is a bit different from what the word variant implies. One of those... funny things :) I will do some more checks later today :) Annie 18:14, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Weird Tales Publisher

Hi Annie. I'm happy to see that you made it back from Dublin safely. I noticed the edit you made to the publisher of the latest issue of Weird Tales. I had intentionally entered "Weird Tales, Inc." with the intention that it should be separate from Weird Tales. I'm fairly certain that the current publisher is a different entity than the publisher from 1938 through 1953. I also suspect that publisher from 1973 and 1974 is yet a third entity. The current publisher who is listed as "Weird Tales, Inc." on the magazine, is likely only a name change from Nth Dimension Media which published the several preceding issues, all of which also list the publisher (person) as John Harlacher. In any case, I wanted to discuss this with you before changing the publisher back. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:12, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Same here - looks like you managed to get on a plane as well (heard that on Monday and Tue the airport was overrun by too many leaving people) - it was nice meeting you.
So... last night the two publishers popped up on a report and I went investigating. 99 Weird Tales issues on one side, 1 on the other. Seemed straight forward. So I considered merging the publishers outright - but with the PV there, I figured I should let you know what happened. merge + note vs update on the pub with a moderator note made it an easy choice.
What I missed to see - it did not register at all until you pointed it out this morning and I looked at the magazine grid after the merge - was that this is not a missing issue from the 50s but yet another revival. So... my bad. Change it and when it pops up on the report again, I will just ignore and add notes. Sorry about that! Annie 12:38, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Nate Southard

I took your advice, and looked at the list you steered me towards and did the Nate Southard listing. With the currant edits, I believe I have completed his listing on this site. All of his books are now listed, except Brian Keene's Fear which is ineligible for this site. Southard adapts three of Brian Keene's stories into comic/manga form, and adaptations, except for textual forms, are ineligible for this site. If so, think of all the Lovecraft and Poe adaptations that would be here. A slippery slope I wish not to take. Anyway, I'll check out some of the others on the list in the future. Your wish is my command. MLB 20:14, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Thanks and I saw all of them going through! Yes - these would be uneligible. Don't forget to edit the list thus one in this case and just delete the list of books so someone (most likely me) do not try to readd them just to find out that we have the ISBNs already. Or I can clean it if you prefer? :)
Also - if the format helps you, lists can be created for authors you want to work on :) Annie 20:25, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
Maybe you should, I'll be busy for awhile today. MLB 20:38, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
The grand total of editors working on this is 2 so no much problem :) I will clean it up. Thanks again for helping with that (and all the other missing authors) Annie 20:40, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

J. H. Sweet

Well, you got me started, so, unless you can spot something I missed, I do believe that J. H. Sweet's page has now been updated and you can eliminate this author's page here. It's now five ayem here and I need some sleep. MLB 04:58, 20 September 2019 (EDT)

Got it. You can always just edit the page and delete the contents :) I will get to deleting the empty pages in a bit - I am trying to decide if we will need them.
Thanks and even though I do appreciate it, please take care of yourself! Annie 13:08, 20 September 2019 (EDT)


Don’t ask me why this book is so hard to find, but it is. MLB 01:35, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

Hm? You mean on the site here? Yeah - looking through the numbered pseudonyms is never fun. Took me awhile to realize why that ISBN was telling me we have it already. I tend to search by ISBN on the site before adding books - just in case it is hiding like this one :) Annie 02:39, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
And when you're juggling a number of books by the same auther late at night with same name you tend to make mistakes, I made some, and I hope I've corrected them. MLB 16:48, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
if someone claims they never make mistakes, they are not very honest. :) All is good. Annie 17:00, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

Could you check on my first Fixer batch?

Hello Annie, if you feel like it, could you have a look at my first batch & assess the quality of my submissions? And while you're at it, have a look at my reasons for the few rejections as well? Would be most appreciated! Regards, MagicUnk 13:22, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

I had been checking all along and if something was weird, I would have already mentioned it. Definitely no karate bunnies :) thanks again for helping with those and if you would like to work on a specific author that we do not have a list for, just ask. Annie 13:34, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for the confirmation Annie. MagicUnk 16:10, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
I need to remember to post more often when things look fine. :) The author and publisher lists are generally a bit easier to work on - more patterns and less weirdness - the dated ones are basically books that had been classified late so they did not make their usual window - so there are more weird ones. We need them all if someone wants to add them but just in case you want something a bit less exotic. :) Annie 16:58, 23 September 2019 (EDT)


Hi Annie, If it is possible could you archive my user talk page like you did Bob's. Mine has never been done and I have no idea how to do it. I'm a bit too old to learn now. Thanks --Chris J 21:24, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

Hi, Wonderful. Thanks for that. --Chris J 21:59, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Glad you like it. If I remember to, I will archive it when it gets long again - if not, just ping me. Annie 22:01, 26 September 2019 (EDT)

Podkayne of Mars

I noticed you'd jumped in on behalf of Bluesman regarding a question and hoped you'd help me out. He had verified this pub and I have a similar copy to hand, the only difference being mine has the SBN (not ISBN) on the spine and copyright page. This is similar to what I'd pointed out here to Kpulliam regarding the seventh printing. My question - do I add the SBN to the Bluesman notes, or change it to the ISBN and note the catalog and upgrading of SBN to ISBN, or create an entirely new pub? Of course I'd let Bluesman know, but without expecting an answer which state is the best to leave it in? Thanks in advance. ../Doug H 23:22, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

The other question was easy to answer - it was a Canadian vs US copy basically. :) Although it is calculatable, the book number identifies these books well enough so I would not add the ISBN as such (Although I do not work much on this specific era...). Compare to this for example -- see how it notes both the SBN number and the S number. If you are sure you have the same printing, I would say to add the SBN number in the notes and make sure to add an explanation on what exactly was changed in the moderator notes when you add it. Or if you want, post over in Community and see what the rest of the editors think? Annie 23:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
NGDGU (No Good Deed Goes Unpunished). I'll pass on the moderator forum - it will likely turn into a debate on the general principle of SBN vs. ISBN (10 vs. 13) and catalogue numbers. While that might be a good thing in general, it won't help me get this off my desk. I'll update notes and post on Bluesman's talk page. Thanks for the feedback ../Doug H 08:10, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Sometimes discussions do end up with a solution... but I know what you mean. These books are generally easy enough because their book code and SBN derive from each other and you can make an ISBN from it. What we record or do not is really just policy... :) Annie 13:00, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Jules Verne translation tables

Would you please review my Verne Translation wiki page? The content is still in a spreadsheet with the wiki text being generated, so format revisions are still quite do-able. However once I reference it from the titles and editors make changes that won't be possible any more. There is still a lot of clean-up to do on individual titles (e.g. some title notes do explain which translation they are, but were not merged with the existing one) so I'm more interested in layout and meta-content than particular entries. My intention is to edit each translated title and ensure the same translator / text is provided and edit the base French title to add a link to the appropriate section on this page. Then I can tackle the publications. ../Doug H 10:29, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

It looks great. One proposal - make the languages inside of each title section headers as well. This way you can see what languages are there at a glance in the contents table. Annie 13:59, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I tried that initially and it made the TOC so long as to be almost useless. Take a look now and see if it's what you expected? ../Doug H 14:11, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, you are probably right... too many headers. So let's scrap that for now :) I did take a look - I really like it :) Great job! (and a lot of it) :) Annie 14:27, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
So scrap the languages as headers or you really like it? ../Doug H 15:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I like it as it is - it was more of an idle though - I can see how the thing will get crowded if we add it once you mentioned it and I thought about it again. Annie 15:07, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I've made the change, so you can see it in all its header glory. Just cleaning up from a painting job, so I'll change it back if I don't hear. ../Doug H 15:32, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
The data person in me says "yey, I love it". The "usability and usage" part of me says: "shut up and go back to how it was" :) Change it back (for now) I would say. I may have an idea of how to solve both problems - but need to think a bit more (and it will be outside of your stuff - more an index at the bottom than anything else. Let me think on it some more. And thanks for entertaining my not-so-usable ideas :) Annie 15:36, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Baklänges genom tiden

Dear Annie, I hope this comes to your attention -- I still haven't understood the system of communication. Nor, alas, of submissions. I made a second attempt with Baklänges genom tiden, submitted it unwillingly (by pressing CR while still in a data field) and trashed it, because I dind_t find a way to continue editing. Typical beginner's mistakes, I hope. Anyway I don't understand yet how this NEW PUBLICATION (in Swedish) will be linked to the original work (in German, which is already in the ISFDB) -- I don't see where the original title should go. I fear there will be more questions forthcoming, but these will be enough to start with. Hopefully, до виждане. Simsel 19:48, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

You do not connect them when you add the book (that is why we do not ask for the original title) - you first add the book, then when approved, you connect them as a second step. Translations are one of the more complicated sides of the DB but we non-English native editors learn that part quickly :) I posted a longer message on your page and I am here to work with you on that. :) welcome again! Annie 19:56, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
2nd attempt failed, too. After filling most of the fields, I clicked the ? to find out about "length", then returned to the previous page and found all the contents in the form cleared. Somehow the ISFDB server doesn't work well with my browser's configuration. Can you find the lost form (with all 18 texts) and make it available again? -- As for "length": Preface, postface and some of the appendices are not exactly short _stories_ but "short prose", fictional texts without a plot of their own, related to the book as a whole or adding a detail / an aspect to one of the stories. The whole collection is mimicking a supplement to a scientific textbook. -- Hoping not to misuse your patience, Simsel 19:22, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Unless you pressed submit at the bottom of the form, it never made it to the server I am afraid so no way for me to see it - when you clicked on the question mark, it opened in the same browser window (I use control+click to make sure it goes in a tab) and never got submitted - and then the back button lost it (that depends on the browser - my chrome on my chromebook looses any details when I go back, my Firefox on win 10 keeps them after the latest update :(
Anything that is fictional and not a poem is a "short fiction" - regardless of plot. :)
Let me offer you something else for this one - just type/copy the details here and I will add the book for you?
Alternatively - try to add just the book with NO contents, then we will work on contents slowly (you can add later on so it does not need to be all or nothing). Annie 19:27, 8 October 2019 (EDT)


Thank you for your offer of help. No, changing the one existing entry for Appletons' Journal that's in 1878 is NOT what I want to do. I want to add another, one that will also show up in the grid, for April of 1881. That magazine issue will be much more complete since I can provide every story that comprised that issue, though only one of the stories as far as I know is in genre. After more than an hour of looking around, I could not find a template to bring up and fill that would simply add the one issue to the one already there. Thanks. DanQuigley 12:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

I monitor your page so you can either answer here or on my page.:) There are a few things here that I need to explain then:
  • You add new Magazines by following the "Add New Magazine" link from the left menu. It will open this page. You may want to click on the link at the top for some explanations on some of our policies per field or you can ask me or you can try and we can fix later :) What will tie them together is the Title Series - in this case "Appletons' Journal" which you can add when you are adding the issue or later after approval.
  • Even if you have the names and authors of every single story in every single issue, the DB is not built for them. The reason why this specific issue you found has only one story is very simple - when a magazine is a non-genre one, we include only the speculative stories (and eventually stories by authors we consider above treshold - think of Asimov for example). So if a genre magazine (say Analog), publishes a non-genre story, we add it and mark it non-genre but if Appletons's does, we just do not add them. We catalog speculative fiction - adding hundreds and thousands of non-genre stories so we can get one genre one does not make sense. This is also why we have the editors as "Editors of Appletons' Journal" instead of their real names - think of the magazine record as a vehicle to include the story and not as a listing for the magazine.
So let's try that. Try to add the magazine and in the contents section, add the story that is genre. Once you submit it, a moderator will look it over and approve (or reject) and work with you on the next steps. Let me know if you have any questions. Annie 18:30, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for all the detailed advice. I feel I understand it and have created that page in conformance with it to the best of my ability.DanQuigley 00:19, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Approved and left a note on your page with details. Annie 10:25, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. I understand and appreciate your changes. The only one I question is where you said you marked the story as non-genre. It's actually probably the earliest story that fits the Weird genre. There's an approved PhD thesis on that subject here: But even if it's not in the Weird genre, it's definitely a ghost story, which makes it horror or speculative fiction. In short, the story is in-genre. Otherwise I'd not have bothered to add it. Thanks again for all your help.DanQuigley 02:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

The magazine (the editor record as we save magazines internally). Not the story. :) the story is genre - which is why we catalog it even if it is in a non-genre magazine. :) Annie 02:30, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Conan the Wanderer

I added the Bulgarian version of Conan the Wanderer. Please check it out when you have time. Also added Чернят Колос. Bob 13:48, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Will look at them. Чернят Колос cannot be right - there is a missing letter. Thanks for letting me know. Annie 20:40, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
All fixed - the second one was a mess - there was also a missing story and none of the variants was to the correct English title (probably because the order got messed up because of the missing story), Howard was credited differently and a few English names were used instead of Bulgarian. All fixed now :) Annie 21:13, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
And added one more from the same publisher while I was at that. :) Annie 21:22, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Thanks, Annie. More to come! Bob 23:11, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Two More Bulgarian Pubs

Today I added two more pubs, "Мозъчна нощ" and "Черният меч", both anthologies. Bob 23:26, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

I will get all of them tomorrow - work and travel is getting in my way today. Thanks for the notification :) Annie 02:37, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
One more Конан Варваринът. Bob 21:34, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
And the last three: Конан Варваринът: И се роди вещица, Конан Варваринът: Алената цитадела and Конан Варваринът (Ролис). That's the last Bulgarian pubs in HowardWorks. Bob 21:31, 24 October 2019 (EDT)


Hello Annie, what is the meaning of "apparent"?--Wolfram.winkler 01:06, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

In this context and usage: obvious, clearly visible, clearly understood. What “apparent first printing” means is that this is the record for the first printing based on everything we know. The same thing it means in the other 2900 or so publications it is used in. Annie 02:44, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
A quick clarification: bibliographers generally distinguish between what is "stated" and what is "apparent". For example, if the copyright page of a book says "First printing", then it's recorded as "stated first printing" in its bibliographic record. If "first printing" is not stated explicitly in the book, but there are reasons to believe that it is indeed the first printing, then it's recorded as "apparent first printing" in the bibliographic record. Ahasuerus 12:28, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
So it's just suppositions that have nothing to do in a database, in my opinion (Google translator).--Wolfram.winkler 13:21, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
It's common bibliographic practice to record data based on circumstantial evidence. The important part is to make sure that we make it clear what the source of our information is, i.e. whether it is "stated" in the publication itself or whether it is "assumed" based on outside sources or circumstantial evidence. Librarians usually use square brackets to indicate that a recorded value is assumed, e.g.:
  • Bodleian Libraries: "For elements which do not specify “any source” you should enclose in square brackets any information taken from outside the resource." [emphasis in the original]
  • Yale University Library: "Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the distribution date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date." [emphasis added]
The ISFDB doesn't use square brackets for assumed values, but we document them in the Notes field. Ahasuerus 14:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
What bothers me about this practice is the fact that anyone can write: apparent... without specifying sources (Google translator).--Wolfram.winkler 15:37, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
At some point, we have to trust that people are generally here to contribute without making stuff up. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:57, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
I would say that the desired level of specificity of the Notes language depends on the field. For example, if the publication date is not stated in the book, then we need to provide the exact source of our date information if the value is not 0000-00-00. On the other hand, if the pub doesn't include an edition number or a printing number, something like "Apparent first printing" in Notes is as specific as we can get in most cases.
It also depends on the country and on the time period. Back in the 1970s-1990s, most US-based paperback publishers printed the printing number on the copyright page of subsequent printings. In the 2010s things changed a great deal; smaller, non-traditional publishers may not be following the same conventions. And, of course, other countries may exhibit different patterns altogether. Ahasuerus 16:32, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
For me, data without sources is untrustworthy. A database does not rely on trust but on facts. What speaks against "apparent" data to explain more detail? (by Google).--Wolfram.winkler 05:27, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
It is a standard bibliographic notation - and we are a bibliography database. Annie 07:46, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

The Man Who Sang to Ghosts

My intent was to have the full title, ie including its subtitles, to be in line with the other pubs in the series. I'll resubmit. Thanks! MagicUnk 19:29, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Only if you change all the publications as well. If any of them lack the subtitle, then nope. Annie 19:32, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Did check, but can't see pages 3-4 of the paper LookInside. Can you see them? All editions should have the subtitle when comparing with the other pubs in the series, having the title pages at pp.3 and 4, and having been published at the same time. MagicUnk 19:39, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
I honestly would not add this as a subtitle on any of them (I will add it to the notes) - this is a subjective choice of the editor when a subtitle is a subtitle to be included and I tend to err on the side of removals for this kind of subtitles on modern books - I just do not think of them as a subtitle... And I would leave the title record without it when you cannot be sure and when the story can be printed without the subtitle. I am not going to change the books you are editing but without seeing the title pages, we go by other means (cover, OCLC and so on) and if we cannot confirm, we do not just add a subtitle so it matches the rest in the series or because we think we should. :) Annie 19:43, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, here it's different, I'd think. The ebook edition does have the full title displayed. The tp has been published the exact same date. So... MagicUnk 19:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Update the pubs, I will be happy to update or approve an update on the the title after that then. :) Annie 19:51, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
They should all be in the queue :) MagicUnk 19:56, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Write moderator notes in these cases - tell the approving moderator what your intents are - we cannot (always) read your mind :) Annie 19:58, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

The Eerie Book

Hi Annie (I suppose must be your name).

T1337014 1898 anthology The Eerie Book with Contents reported by Ashley/Contento (TSI, viewed piecemeal at Google Books) from purported facsimile 1981 Castle Books edition.
Entered here by Bluesman (from TSI, with brute clerical errors now corrected), as story titles and author names identically for 1898 and 1981.

After updates continuing 2019-11-07, no publication record displays the Contents reported by TSI, but the 1981 record retains all the page numbers from that report. --Pwendt|talk 19:48, 7 November 2019 (EST)

My principal source is the 1st ed. 1898 Contents list (viewed at HathiTrust) and I have viewed story headings (4 pages after every listed page number).

The 1981 Castle Books ed. is not a facsimile, as TSI Ashley/Contento state --not unless they make small even-number clerical errors in different directions on page numbers for most stories, and the last page. Yet I wonder whether any of the credits to authors are revised. Ashley/Contento may use their own canonical names for authors, rather than take anything literally from the book. (Do you know?)
Is it prudent to align all of the joint story title records to the 1st ed., with a single note of warning in the 1981 publication record? Or to unmerge some/all of the stories and correct only those published in 1898 --presumably on grounds that we don't say what's in the 1981 edition, we only say how Ashley/Contento report it.

No more updates for today, as I have delayed food and drink too long. Regarding author credit policy I have some questions you may be able to answer, inferences to confirm, and so on. Perhaps I will augment this list by phone (no tilde "~", and above my signature).

  • 1. From the very small number of "The ..." credits --only one by Motte Fouque as "The Baron ..." for instance T1579750-- I infer that we are permitted to interpret "by the Baron ..." and "by the Rev. ..." (in-line lowercase "by the") as credits under the names "Baron ..." and "Rev. ...".
  • 2. Concerning attributions in the possessive, no by-line, as "from Mrs. Shelley's novel" we are welcome to use the person's canonical name. Akin to collection titles "Andersen's Fairy Tales" and "Hans Andersen's Fairy Tales", which do not generate variant story titles as by Andersen and Hans Andersen.
  • 3. Yet "From the Danish of Hans Andersen." demands credit as Hans Andersen. It seems to me.

Do you know whether you will do a session tomorrow meaning 20-24 hours from now? --Pwendt|talk 22:33, 6 November 2019 (EST)

Yep on the name :) About that 1981 edition - let me see if I can get my library to find me a copy of it - their ILL department rarely disappoints me and I see quite a lot of copies in the system they usually draw from so... I may be able to get it so we can solve that mystery once and for all. If you want to align them, go ahead (and leave notes on A/C's version. If they differ when I get the book, I will re-update.
I should be around - unless I have something at work. If you want, check with me to see if I am around before you start a long string of updates. Annie 22:44, 6 November 2019 (EST)
ok to your ILL suggn
thanks --pwendt
I begin some work on The Eerie Book. Prompt approval is not crucial, as I am better nourished and organized to make progress regardless. For now I use this line in SHORTFICTION title records
  • The 1981 reprint is not a facsimile, so annotation may differ.
regardless whether it I suppose or guess that annotation differs, and regardless how Ashley/Contento lists the story. --Pwendt|talk 19:31, 7 November 2019 (EST)
I am around. May step out for 30 minutes or so but I am around. And the 1981 book is on an ILL request so let's see if and when I will get it. :) Annie 19:36, 7 November 2019 (EST)
Thanks for your part. Chris J approved the last four Eerie submissions. I am done today. At least two remain, the novellas(?) abridged/extracted from Mrs. Shelley's and De Quincey's works, a matter for some substantial research tomorrow. Then I may be entirely away this weekend. --Pwendt|talk 21:06, 7 November 2019 (EST)
Annie, I expect no more db submissions this weekend, whose length remains to be determined, as much as three full days? Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 21:38, 8 November 2019 (EST)
Have fun. :) Annie 21:41, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Google Books does not provide any view of The Eerie Book in its 1981 edition, as it does for The Dream Weavers (1980, User talk:Chris J#Dream Weavers; Locus #234 (June 1980)).
That's all for me here today. --Pwendt|talk 17:29, 12 November 2019 (EST)

It had been requested. It may come next week or never... will see. Annie 18:37, 12 November 2019 (EST)
After some time wallowing in the mire of 19c English-language Andersen fairy tales, I submitted one TitleUpdate for an Eerie Book short story--the Andersen. That will be all for today. Reminder: I retain early November title Notes about how each story is credited in the 1898 edition, which close with the line, "The 1981 reprint is not a facsimile, so annotation may differ." Presumably those will be rewritten or replaced after you get the 1981 Castle Books, or we decide to move on without getting it. --Pwendt|talk 22:32, 17 November 2019 (EST)

The Night[-]Side of Nature belongs under 1898 anthology The Eerie Book because Crowe's "The Blind Beggar of Odessa" was first published there. This university library closes in 20 minutes and I don't expect to back to historical newspapers for a fortnight. Not sure how much I'll do that relies on HathiTrust, either, as the wide-screen display university provides is vital at HDL (and convenient for all ISFDB contribution). Probably I won't contribute much for the remainder of this month.

Where my Eerie Book shortfiction title notes are incomplete --chiefly, reported extract not verified-- that isn't relevant, I think, to your making use of the 1981 edition if it arrives. There may be no issues other than its credits and other annotations, and page numbers. --Pwendt|talk 18:55, 22 November 2019 (EST)


Hi again, why there (on is no history of the edited pages? Like here on wiki. Or it is only available for administrators?--Terraflorin 01:12, 7 November 2019 (EST)

Because the main site is not a wiki-based system - it is a DB system. Only the talk pages are wiki-based; the main site is not. Admins don't have the data either - for some things, we can find all relevant entries (not trivial but doable) but sometimes it is convoluted to follow it all. That is why we have the "notify the verifier" rule and we check multiple times before changing data. And we had been discussing adding the ability to save previous states and thus creating history but I won't hold my breath. What are you looking for? Annie 01:16, 7 November 2019 (EST)
Among other things, I was curious to find out who contributed to adding the books in collection Fantastic Club from Editura Albatros. And, in general, I find it easier to edit a book if I have a history of editing --Terraflorin 01:29, 7 November 2019 (EST)
Look at the secondary verifications in such cases - both N/As and actual verifications - the Romanian books are mostly added either from OCLC or from Moshul SF (or both). This specific pattern of notes with Moshul and OCLC as a source and followed by the translation and price notes and so on (as in here) is from Linguist.
So ask - most of the long-time editors have distinctive styles and it is easy to find who originated something - especially outside of the few big languages. Other from that - we have what we have. :)Annie 01:34, 7 November 2019 (EST)
Another question, when I edit a new collection or anthology how to add translator in notes for each story? --Terraflorin 01:47, 7 November 2019 (EST)
Only after it is initially approved I am afraid... Containers have their title node on Add, contents does not. You know how you need to variant each story to its original? You have to also edit the title and add the translator and the transliteration (if needed). They can be submitted in parallel so no need to wait for the variant to be approved. Yes, we all wish there was an easier way :) Annie 02:15, 7 November 2019 (EST)

La Machine fantôme

Hi, I made a mistake, Mașina fantomă isn't a novel, is a collection of short stories, see La Machine fantôme or here: La Machine fantôme (recueil de nouvelles...). --Terraflorin 00:51, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Go here. Press Edit in the right corner and change the type to collection in the both places it says novel now. Let me know if you prefer me to do it :) Annie 00:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I must add the title of stories, (find them first.) --Terraflorin 01:02, 11 November 2019 (EST)
That's ok. We can fix the format and then add the stories later. Do you want to try to change the type? Annie 01:06, 11 November 2019 (EST)
And approved. In case the title level is greyed out (which happens if we have two editions - hc and tp for example), you need to edit the title first and after it is approved, you can edit the two or more publications :) Annie 01:14, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Another question, if I uploaded a new version of a file, I must change something in Publication Record? to add new link or is the some link with the image and the new image apear automatically. e.g. here and here.--Terraflorin 01:12, 11 November 2019 (EST)
That depends. If you uploaded via the "upload cover" link both times, you do not need to change anything in the publication (as the address is the same). If you uploaded in different places (which you should not :) ) - then you need to tell the pub where its picture is. Annie 01:14, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Ok, thanks for info, the new cover look nice, now i add the stories and the preface by Gérard Klein--Terraflorin 01:18, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Publication translators

I'd been watching Terraflorin's talk page as he'd provided Romanian text for some Verne translations (here) and saw you saying that translators "can be skipped" on publications. With a lot of Jules Verne publications ahead of me, my plan is to document translators/translations in publications in one of three ways - {{Tr|xxx}} when the translator name is provided (using xxx as stated in the pub); {{Tr|xxx}} based on translation text when the translator is not identified but I can determine which translator it is; and {{Tr|an unknown hand}} first published by yyy based on translation text when I can establish a translation but not a translator (yyy being the publisher/year). When I have no text, I will either say so or say nothing. Is this consistent with you interpretation of "can be skipped"? ../Doug H 10:47, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Yes. It is up to the editor and when there is no difference between the credits on both levels, the pub one is not mandatory. I like to have them in both places but if it is just one, it is the titles. Which is what I am still trying to teach our new editor. :) Annie 10:58, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I like to see it on the pub when it the data is available from the pub. I'm not looking forward to cleaning up all the Verne pubs where some people were careful and others weren't, so now I have to check them all carefully. Kind of like putting contaminants in the recycling bins. ../Doug H 11:15, 11 November 2019 (EST)
No argument on that but with smaller languages, as long as we are careful and make sure all is checked and added where it belongs while adding them, they should not make messes. Too much any way. We did not even start recording them completely until a few years ago - most of the messes are pre-existing. It is a balancing act sometimes... Annie 11:40, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Cover upload deletion

Hi Annie, please could you delete this early try-out of mine, it's not linked to anything. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 14:40, 11 November 2019 (EST)

What upload? :) AKA - deleted :) Annie 14:41, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Ha ha... Kev. BanjoKev 14:50, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Author's Foreword

Hi Annie, could you please spare some time to have a look at the title record here. Of two recent edits I've done on this title, this publication appears there, but this publication doesn't - it appears on a separate page here. I can't figure out why, is it something to do with my submissions for the latter pub? Thanks :) Kev. BanjoKev 17:14, 15 November 2019 (EST)

Welcome to the fascinating world of merges :) Every time when you type a title as opposed to clone or import, it creates a new title. Once approved, it needs to be merged.
There are three ways to see the merge links:
  • "Check for Duplicate Titles" - the link is on every author, publication and title page, on the left menu. When you press it will show you potential candidates and a merge button. Useful for anthologies for example - will show you all the duplicates. This one also have some fuzzy searches available inside of it to help with typos and things that look similar to be able to be duplicates.
  • Show all titles - on author pages. Works awesome for authors with small amount of titles. Same idea.
  • Advanced Search for titles - construct a search that finds both titles and you will be able to merge them. :)
Do you want to try to get these to merge? Hint - scenario 1 will work here - locate the link on one of the two essays and see if you can see what follows? Annie 17:21, 15 November 2019 (EST)
Thanks! I suspected 'merge' but couldn't find(missed) anything in the help pages. I'll get on it now :) Kev. BanjoKev 17:34, 15 November 2019 (EST)
Approved. It's kinda hiding - isn't it? :) Moderators have a special "check for duplicate" button post approval and most of us will click on it - and merge everything obvious. So you may have not needed to do it before -- someone here did not use the button or was not sure it is the same text - so they remained unmerged.  :) Annie 17:56, 15 November 2019 (EST)
Seamless. Great help. So, that's what the 'manual merge'(?) flag indicates on an edit submission? If I think a merge might be needed, now I can indicate to Moderator that I'd like to try to do it myself post-approval. Save Moderator the decision/time as I will probably be up to speed with the info needed. Many thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:09, 15 November 2019 (EST)
You mean the text that shows up after you press submit? Yep - it means "if this title is already in the DB, you will need to do a manual merge after it is approved". As opposed to "Auto-merged" which tells you that this is using an existing title (because you are cloning or importing) so no merge will be needed.
Just use the moderator note and say something like: "please do not merge, I will follow up shortly". Some may still merge. Some will miss the message. Sometimes someone will find the story before you get back to it and merge. Or if you know that it is the same, you can say "please merge". 50/50 chance of the moderator merging :) If you get me, I tend to assist as much as I can and do all the needed steps post-approval - and go talk to the editor if they could have used import or clone instead. :) Annie 18:17, 15 November 2019 (EST)


[Offline until there's an actual point to be made rather than confusion to spawn].

Using 20,000 Leagues as an example - we've documented the first two publications as novels that include Part 1 and Part 2 in the title (in French). Then we document them published together as the full novel. Now we're proposing to make the first two publications CHAPBOOKs and the contained titles SERIALs. How is this different than other two+ part novels? A contentious but well-known example would be Lord of the Rings - IF it has been published as Lord of the Rings (Part 1): The Fellowship of the Ring would it have been done as CHAPBOOK / SERIAL? I suspect not, but that means we need to draw a line - what is the serialization of a novel? To Hetzel, each part was a book, and the combined were truly OMNIBUSes (double or triple books), and so really does follow the Lord of the Rings approach. Except we have the French book as a single title and the English as a Series. And the presence/absence of a subtitle exists for Jules Verne - he's got 'books' done both ways.

[The problem with moving forward is that it's like real moving - it's not just where you're going, it's all that stuff you have buried in the basement that suddenly needs to be dealt with. Sometimes, it's never been unpacked and you can just move without opening them and sometimes you can't.] ../Doug H 15:19, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Ignore the chapbook part on its own - it is a distraction because of how we save data. It is a SERIAL vs Novel discussion really. If the two parts are novels in their own right and stand alone, then when you publish them together, they become an omnibus, right? That's how The Lord of the Rings is handled. This won't change. So the Lord of the Rings will remain as 3 novels. Single novels split for publication will be the one that get converted. How we handle The Reality Dysfunction. See how many non-English titles are there? They look as if they are complete translations. They are not, none of them is but because the Italian ones are in a magazine and the others are not, they are recorded differently - so the change will send them under "serialized" and not under "variants" and someone opening them won't think they are complete novels. Or look at Dune - the Japanese split into 4 which now appear as full variants to the main one.
Now, if we say that "20,000 Leagues" is actually 2 novels that always get published together, then that changes things. Then it will follow the Lord of the Rings example, make those novels, make the complete thing an omnibus and work based on that. It is the good old "is publishing in volumes serialization and if not, where do we draw the difference" conversation.
And yes, I did not propose that lightly. :) Annie 15:32, 17 November 2019 (EST)
And SERIAL containing what should be a novel based on length is not uncommon - that is our (Complete Novel) rule for magazines (we have 2,261 as of this moment) Annie 15:35, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Now, if we want "originally serialized in books" to remain separate, where do we draw the lines between serial and novel? At 40K words. Who is going to count? And what if 2 installments are 45K words and 1 is 35K? If all installments are 10K words, they are obvious SERIALS. What about 6 installments of 20K words and one of 45K words as a finale? We CAN add a date clause maybe - so if a book initial serialization is in book format pre-1950 for example, then do something else but then it is back to the "we show a partial novel as a variant of a complete novel" and will make even harder to explain. Annie 15:38, 17 November 2019 (EST)

(points kept together, hopefully context is obvious or unnecessary). ../Doug H 16:42, 17 November 2019 (EST)

  • CHAPBOOKs was for completeness. Consider it dropped as long as the documentation/definition allow for novel-length contents.
  • Not sure what you mean by "stand-alone". None of the three parts to Lord of the Rings stand alone from a plot perspective. Same with the Verne stories. Mysterious Island is probably a better example from Verne - trilogy with separate titles (Dropped from the Clouds, Abandoned, Secret of the Island) for each book. The English translations followed to keep pace and combined once they'd butchered the translations and cut the content.
Our types are weird. Had you thought about Foundation as a collection before you came here? It had never crossed my mind. So we just make a decision based on... consensus and intents I guess. Annie 16:50, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Always thought of it as a collection of short stories published earlier. Checking the entry I see I was wrong. I also see the synopsis calls it a Novel. So for Verne I can do as I please? ../Doug H 17:06, 17 November 2019 (EST)
It won awards for a novel. It is presented as a novel in most countries... I did not realize it is just a collection of distinct stories until much much later. :) Sure, as long as you realize that if we change the rules, it will need to be cleaned up. The rules had not changed yet so at this time, as long as you comply with them, it works. Annie 17:10, 17 November 2019 (EST)
  • Your Reality Dysfunction example does not include the edition that I entered back in 2014. Not knowing about the combined British versions, documenting it as a stand-alone novel made sense. [Although who created the series it's under is unknown. Calling it paperback when there are trade and e-books in it, and there being paperbacks and trades in the main series is just confusing. And hopefully irrelevant.]
Yeah, I did post about that a few minutes ago. That one is a mess despite being the poster child for a split novel. Annie 16:50, 17 November 2019 (EST)
  • Where is the good old "is publishing in volumes serialization and if not, where do we draw the difference" conversation? Do we dig this out of the basement and unpack it? It seems to be relevant to my concerns. And a good source of many more questions.
Will dig through archives later today
  • The "originally serialized in books" remaining separate is a later problem as far as I'm concerned. Once I know how to document the books and see where they show up, deciding if that is correct/appropriate/acceptable becomes the next question. Though I'm willing to go there if it has an impact on the decision of how to document them.
  • Harking back to an earlier point, translations of a part of a book under a 'Part x' title would be a separate SERIAL varianted to the full original language title, even though it is a complete translation of another SERIAL. Can't variant to both, so we would still need to do that in the notes. This may impact the translations as variants vs. their own thing discussion, but this discussion could (and probably should) be resolved before going there. No reason to drag that topic into this one.
Variants of variants. We need them both for this AND for same translations under new names... Making these novels or serials does not change that though - they still need to go under one parent Annie 16:50, 17 November 2019 (EST)
  • I like your arguments about size of instalments although I'm not sure what the point was beyond to stay away from keeping "originally serialized in books" separate. My problem sometimes is type - NOVEL describes text, SERIAL describes intention and mixing them gives me trouble. Maybe SERIALizing and TRANSLATing are related. And tangentially a pet peeve - is there a way to treat SERIALIZATION as a collective for the title summary page?
I was thinking aloud and pointing out that if we look at the size, a split novel will end up a mess of a Serial+novel or novel+novel or serial+serial combinations. Call a part of something serial and be done with it. They are different but.. they are not.:) We have two types to play with NOVEL and SERIAL. :) Annie
  • Has anyone every published a story in serial form (magazine) as one series then published it as two novels? [No real point to this question other than looking for outliers][I've obviously been working on this too long and should stop]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Holmesd (talkcontribs) .
The novel in one magazine issue and then in 2 books? Hm, need to check but doubt it. It would have been a very big magazine Annie 16:50, 17 November 2019 (EST)
No, serialized as one story (multiple issues), but when it came to the book it was too long so they made it two 'books'. Would the books be separate novels (as published) or a 2-part Serial (given it was considered one in the magazine). And if separate novels, you'd have to break up the magazine serialization into two parts. As I said not point beyond 'yet another example' to consider. ../Doug H 17:06, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Ah, I see. No idea. Will do some digging. That's why we discuss - multiple viewpoints and all that. :) Annie 17:10, 17 November 2019 (EST)


Hi, Annie! On this publication page Сергей Лукьяненко "КайноZой" you wrote: "FantLab credits Е. Ферез as the cover artist but the book credits him only with the design of the cover". However, Е. Ферез is woman - Ekaterina Ferez (E. Ferez's FantLab page with photo). So, correct is "her" instead "him"? --Zlogorek 04:45, 18 November 2019 (EST)

I thought I did. Oops. Sorry and thanks for catching that. Annie 18:59, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Collection vs Omnibus

linkWhen the "collection" contains two novels, we call that omnibus. I fixed this one :) Annie 12:25, 11 November 2019 (EST)]

But here? (Publication: The Brains of Earth / The Many Worlds of Magnus Ridolph, Type: OMNIBUS) I can't see two novels here. Only a mention about the "novel" The Brains of Earth, who appear bellow as novella.

And here (Omnibus edition at is another definition: An omnibus edition or omnibus is a work containing one or more works by the same or, more rarely, different authors. Commonly two or more components have been previously published as books but a collection of shorter works, or shorter works collected with one previous book, may be an omnibus. --Terraflorin 06:26, 18 November 2019 (EST)

The first example is one of those weird things where an old novel is now considered a novella.
I did not give you a "what is a an omnibus" description, I came to tell you that in the case where you have 2 novels, it is an omnibus. There are other cases that make a book an omnibus as well.
2 novels fits into the description above (Commonly two or more components have been previously published as books - the two novels). Annie 12:44, 18 November 2019 (EST)

От дълбините на времето

Hello Annie !

When you have a chance, you may want to check the record of this Bulgarian pub I just put in (in case I forgot or messed something up). TIA, Linguist 06:46, 18 November 2019 (EST).

I changed the publisher - see the note on the publisher page. I had been going through the two names and still cannot decide which one to use - so for now just getting them all together. The title pages are all over the place...
Added SFBG ID, artist (from SFBG - if we find the cover under another artist, then we will reassign and redelegate this one - Bulgarian credits are... notoriously crazy and designers are often called художник (artist)), price (from the publisher - looking to find a back cover scan to confirm it is there but with Collibri, it usually is so I am looking to see if there is also an EUR price), format note(I add that to BG and Russian books so we have them) and put the complete name of the traslator - FantLab tend to go for the Initial Last Name in their listing as a policy (as most of the older Russian books would do the same). Annie 11:57, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Thanks a lot for all your work ! Linguist 12:36, 18 November 2019 (EST).
If you have an opinion on Colibri, please share it :) The thing is giving me a headache. See About us and how the name is Колибри through the text? Between that and the norms, I kinda lean towards the Cyrillic name. But I am open to a second set of eyes. :) Annie 13:10, 18 November 2019 (EST)
I think the note you put on the publisher's page is explicit enough to refrain one from being too finicky. And one good thing about Колибри is that it doesn't get inflected (in Russian, anyway) :o). Linguist 05:01, 19 November 2019 (EST).
True. Although Bulgarian is one of the two Slavic languages that lost their cases so we don’t change our nouns too much anyway. Verbs on the other hand. :) Annie 09:03, 19 November 2019 (EST)

Marvel-ous work

Here's the snippet I was working one when your change overrode mine:

I'm not much of a Marvel fan, so have been following this thread without understanding a lot of the details. I tried to figure out what was going on by looking for Marvel's take on how to organize the material, thinking that should for the basis for our series. Seems that even they don't have one way to deal with it. The medium (film, comic, TV, etc) seems to loom large as there are differences for the same character between them. Their fandom seems to recognize various universes (e.g. 616), but even these cross-over. Much as I personally dislike tags, I think the Marvel (Meta)(Multi)Universe(s) is too big to be considered a hierarchy of 'series' and should be abandoned and that sets of tags - like universe, character, medium be established and used to link stories together. Maybe series could be used to link small things with clear connections (like movie novelizations).

As if you didn't have enough on the go. I have enough trouble reading this stuff and getting the laundry done. :) ../Doug H 11:48, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Oh, post it anyway... :) Edit conflicts do happen when enough people care - just copy it, step back, press edit again and post. My point is that the per-character lists are... weird. I would rather find a solution than stick to my preconceptions. Annie 11:51, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Are you familiar with the Farmer's Wold Newton Universe? There might be some lessons in what not to do there. ../Doug H 12:03, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Ah, that. Somewhat - I am not sure I ever read a book of this series though... :) That's why I am posting threads and seeking opinions. I do not know everything and I am occasionally wrong. When that happens, I am happy to change my mistaken ideas :) Annie 12:17, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Farmer tied together Tarzan, Doc Savage, Sherlock Holmes and other into a shared 'universe' as addendums in two of this books treating Tarzan and Savage as real people rather than characters. First- and second- generation fans have expanded this to a universe involving any character sharing a story with one of these, including their own pastiches. They also seem to be having trouble drawing the line at including the Marvel Universe characters. My point with this is that writing to a 'universe' - be it connected stories like Asimov's Foundation or common background like Niven's Known Worlds or even Howard'd Conan can be documented in a series. Stretching to fit free-ranging multiple authors views is chaos. It's why tags work (and I don't like them) ../Doug H 12:32, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Oh dear. :)
As long as we have a plan and stick to it, it works for me. But "I will just delete everything that I do not like or understand" is not a plan. :) I am more of a DC girl but I had been working through Marvel lately as well and character-based lists are just weird for either universe -- not when the splits into universes are not accounted for. They were ok when this series were setup (maybe) but things had evolved. It's the nature of the beast. I'd rather spend the time and find a way that makes sense than make something that noone can use for any purposes besides blind "or, Spider Man novels" check (and with crossovers, even this list won't be complete). The good news on MCU is that just like Star Trek or Stargate, there is an approval process so people cannot just go off on a tangent. But there is more than one universe. :) Annie 12:39, 18 November 2019 (EST)
I've been sticking to the arguments about the results and ignoring the process by which this came about. Definitely and issue, but a separate one. ../Doug H 12:44, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Yeah, I know. I am just trying to make sure we do not make an even bigger mess. :) Annie 12:59, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Excerpt year

Annie, Is it recommended to use the year of the excerpted work rather than the year of the excerpt, as in User:Rtrace work on Oz excerpts:

  • Booktionary (excerpt from The Scarecrow of Oz); Date=1915

rather than this, in effect:

  • Booktionary (excerpt from The Scarecrow of Oz, 1915); Date=2003

It seems to me that our general principles support the latter. --Pwendt|talk 18:54, 18 November 2019 (EST)

It is the latter - we had a conversation somewhere in the last year or so. The dating rules are the same for everything (except the exception for serialization in magazines and the flow up of a variant date in cases when the variant is later but we connect the other way around) - The date comes from the first appearance under that title, that author, that language, that translator (if relevant) and in the case of parts of works - that specific part. But that rule had changed a few times so some older works are not compliant. Ping Rtrace on that - he is around usually and discuss with him :) Annie 18:58, 18 November 2019 (EST)
He is one of my frequent correspondents; that's for later.
By Advanced Search, I find we have no titles with the year of the excerpted work YEW at the end of the parenthetical disambiguation "(excerpt from ... YEW)", as I suggested above, nor such as "(excerpt from 1915, The Scarecrow of Oz)". There may be none with YEW explicit. It appears that the structure of the database makes the relation clear (some of our views show the relation) only in exceptional cases where a fiction Series is introduced, as for Frankenstein, Gulliver, and 20,000 Leagues --whose "(abridged versions and excerpts)" series is provides our only titles "(excerpt from 2". --Pwendt|talk 22:46, 18 November 2019 (EST)
That is correct. We do not variant excerpts anywhere. The "big works that always get excerpted" get series so you connect this way but for the garden variety excerpts, we don't connect them at all (and one can only find them by going to the author page). Annie 22:48, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Pub with Missing Series Name and Number

I just received a chapbook in the mail that is part of a series. The chapbook was already entered in the data base, but without a series name (not surprising, since it was based on Amazon data). I can't figure out how to add the series name and number; the software doesn't seem to allow it. How can I add the series name? Bob 19:19, 19 November 2019 (EST)

You add it to the story inside, not to the chapbook. Think of the chapbook as this artificial container which that publisher used to contain the story. The same story coming out in a collection will still belong to the same series - so we do not allow chapbooks to be added series, instead we add the stories. Novels are different because the container and the story are one and the same record. Annie 19:33, 19 November 2019 (EST)
Duh! Sorry to be so dumb. Thanks! Bob 20:00, 19 November 2019 (EST)
No worries at all. If you do not do that all the time, it is one of the quirks you can forget about :) Annie 20:05, 19 November 2019 (EST)


Hello Annie, can you please give me a brief summary of what should happen to the serialization (old / new). I will add a new novel which is split in three parts. Thanks Henna 15:26, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Split into separate books? Under the current rules: Each part is recorded as a novel, with its separate name and then all 3 are varianted into the complete novel (as opposed to merged into it) (see the Japanese, the French or the Serbian variants in Dune. If the three parts have their own unique names, we record that. If not, (part 1 of X) or "1" is needed to determine which part is what (see the French splits in Dune). If the same novel is split the same way inside of a magazine, it is recorded as SERIALs. We are discussing at the moment changing the "record as novel" part but at this moment, this is the rule.
So submit them as 3 separate novels (as you had been doing so far) and when they are approved, variant all 3 titles to the complete novel record (as opposed to merging them into 1 record and then varianting to the original). Let me know if that makes sense. Annie 15:40, 21 November 2019 (EST)
Hello Annie, what should I do with the old staff Atomvulkan Golkonda??? Henna 16:08, 21 November 2019 (EST)
Just leave them for now - when we decide if we will keep these as novels or change to SERIALs, we will clean them up in one step (as opposed to splitting them now and then changing to serials later if we decide to do that or to whatever we decide to do. Annie 16:22, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Introduction (The Night Side of Nature)

Annie, I know that it's common to use such as Preface (__), Introduction (__), and Conclusion (__) with parenthetical annotations that omit subtitles. What do you think of using only two sets, thus

  • Preface (The Night Side of Nature)
  • Introduction (The Night Side of Nature)
  • Conclusion (The Night Side of Nature)

and same with the hyphenated foretitle only, but no more? --no subtitles (which are different or absent in some eds not in the database) and no "Vol 1 of 2", "Vol of 2".

Library now closes in 1 minutes. --Pwendt|talk 19:00, 22 November 2019 (EST)

Are they the same text exactly? If they are different in each volume, we should be separating them from each other. Annie 19:04, 22 November 2019 (EST)
Suppose they are the same text. Introduction and Conclusion are simply ch 1 and ch 18 of the book. I can check later for some such as Gutenberg vs 1st ed. 1848. --Pwendt|talk 19:55, 22 November 2019 (EST)

Apocalipsul / and Библиотека "Фантастика"

Hi, Annie, I hope u are fine. How about Apocalipsul (Flagelul)? I just started Publication Series: Библиотека "Фантастика", please add more books published by Народна младеж. Thanks, --Terraflorin 01:24, 23 November 2019 (EST)

There is a question about this one on your page. You may want to slow down and read your Talk page and answer the questions there - at the moment you keep adding more and more records and a lot of them need fixing. :) As for the Bulgarian books - I have only two hands. I will add them when I can. I will fix the one you added. FantLab’s data for Bulgarian books is very often at best incomplete and often wrong :) Annie 01:46, 23 November 2019 (EST)
BTW: if you are going to use FantLab, please find the Nominative forms of the author names. The artists and translators names are usually inflected - as I said I will fix this one but keep this in mind. Annie 01:51, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Ok - that one is fixed. Fixed the format (145x200 is tp), the artist (plus interior art - Fantlab mentioned that one as well), the pub series, the number of pages (from a different source) and added notes and the price. And added the translator to the title page where it belongs (as we had discussed before). Thanks for adding it. :) Annie 03:04, 23 November 2019 (EST)

SERIALS and novels

My recent request makes me wonder how we'd deal with this when we start SERIALizing part novels. It was done as two books (each a single serial as part of Hector Servadac), then as a full novel, then each serial individually translated, and also translated as a single novel. And this entry, which is treated as a novel, but with text presented as an omnibus of two novels, so would really be a novel with two serials? And what do translated titles variant to - the full novel or the serials?

I've stayed out of the discussion because it's confusing enough without people mis-reading my questions or going off on (important but non-relevant) tangents. I'm waiting for the dust to settle and then ask these questions if the description isn't clear enough.

EOG (End-Of-Gripe) ../Doug H 23:39, 26 November 2019 (EST)

Under the current rules or under the changes rules if we decide to use serials for partial novels? Annie 23:47, 26 November 2019 (EST)
The proposed/impending rules. This might make a good test case for illustrating how to apply the new rules. I thought about it last night and we couldn't variant a translated SERIAL to the original (hence matching title translations) because the original SERIAL would be varianted to the full title. So, while it answers that question it underlines the awkwardness of using variants for translations. ../Doug H 08:12, 27 November 2019 (EST)

ClonePub Cthulhu

Hi, please make some changes here (Chemarea lui Cthulhu, 2016), I discovered this book after my submission with Chemarea lui Cthulhu (2019). Please move ISBN 978‑973‑102‑347‑2 Bad checksum to Catalog ID. And the real name for 2016 book is Chemarea lui Cthulhu și alte povestiri stranii . Thanks- --Florin 04:12, 1 December 2019 (EST)

There is one more change to be done before this clone is approved. If I approve it now, we will need to edit every single story one by one to set the date to the one from this earlier book. However, if you submit a Pub edit on this one and change all the dates of the stories and the collection itself to the older date, it can be done with one edit (as the stories are only in one pub now). Would you like to submit that and then I will approve the other one and do the needed changes? When you find an older book and need to clone in time and there is only one newer book, this edit is kinda important. If we already had 2 books, we cannot do a single edit (unless you do remove and then reimport from all the books but one) but when it is only one, it is kinda easier this way. :) Annie 04:40, 1 December 2019 (EST)
I hope this is good.--Florin 04:51, 1 December 2019 (EST)
I don't change the numbers of pages (from 2019 book) --Florin 04:54, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Well, that is one way but then we need to cancel the clone and start over. The easier way would have been to just change the dates -- thus leaving the other edition as the 2019 one and the new pending one as the 2016 one. Let me cancel this one and do what I asked and show you here. Give me a second. Annie 04:55, 1 December 2019 (EST)
So: here is the redate submission I just did - so when we clone or import from it, the dates are where they are supposed to be. Now back to the clone. If it has a different name from the other book, we will need to split it anyway. So we have two options:
  • I can approve the clone and then split and variant
  • We can reject it and then you can add the collection with no contents and then import from the other one.
I will approve the clone, unmerge, change the title and variant this time but keep the second option in mind for next time -- it is less prone to mistakes. Annie 05:01, 1 December 2019 (EST)
OK... So the ISBN is actually good - the problem was that the "-" (hyphen) in it were not the proper Latin one character but character 8209 (Non-Breaking Hyphen) - used often to ensure that the line stays together. Once I cleaned it up, it worked as a charm. All done now - plus the unmerge, name change and the variant and the transliterations and so on that needed adjusting. You may want to check some of the others that were incorrect in case there are more like that. Look them over to see if both books look ok. Annie 05:11, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Look great!! Thanks for your help! I discovered new information: In Chemarea lui Cthulhu și alte povestiri stranii (2016) it is printed: H.P Lovecraft . The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories , Copyright © 1963, 64 August Derleth and Donald Wandrei. So this books it is not trans. of The Call of Cthulhu and Other Dark Tales 2009. Idon't find this book (The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories (1963)) here. --Florin 05:18, 1 December 2019 (EST)
If the list of stories are the same, they get varianted even of they are not credited as translations. I was planning to take a second look in the morning at the list of stories to see of these two are where they are supposed to be. If no English collection matches, you leave it unvarianted. Annie 05:28, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Comments about PVs in notes

I chanced upon this and I just thought I'd add a sidebar to the second paragraph of your 15:32 post "(so it is clear what comes from where...." here

In the Help, and the only one I can find just now, here, Editors are supposed to leave a note on PV talk pages. I do that, even when the PV appears to be no longer active. This means that anyone who wants to dig and find out who did what can see the history.

IMHO I think the Help should be more specific in explaining this secondary issue. What do you think? Kev. BanjoKev 05:26, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Baby steps on this. :) We did not use to have the "Changed Primary Verifications" until a few years ago. The only way for someone to know someone even touched their PV'd record was for someone to leave them a note on their page. Thus the language. Then we added the list - so at least you can see the list of EditPubs (but only editPubs - for any other changes, you still need to go old style) and you can go ask what happened if you want to - or read the note if someone bothered to write it. So we had been slowly moving towards "minor trivial changes are notified via the moderator note, anything bigger is still a note on their page'. We tried to define "trivial" (change in a title is only trivial if it is bringing the title to policy for example; transliteration is a trivial change and so on) once but we never finished it. We need to rewrite the whole section on notifications at some point but at the moment there are a few other changes on the board so I am keeping that in reserve for a bit.
Of course you can always go through Recent Edits and find the records but... you are bound to miss some and it is... annoying :)
As for inactive PVs... it depends on the PV. There are some that appear inactive but show up once in a blue moon. And there are some we know are not coming back either because they are not with us anymore or because they decided to leave the project for one reason or another. And some had not been seen for a decade. Keep in mind also that the wiki pages are backed up differently than the main DB (that's why we had been moving all contents that is not images to the main DB -- we used to use a lot of wiki pages before).
Plus... some days I do 200-300 edits per day on my house-keeping tasks (moving ID to proper fields during the big migration project, capitalization issues, transliterations and so on). Sending notifications for those will end up with thousands of entries per editor page per month - so people will start ignoring them and they will drown the ones that actually do matter. :) So... depends on what it is all about. For big things - yes, the wiki notifications are important. For small stuff... well... :)
Ok, I am rambling a bit :) But hope this makes sense. And yes - we need to get the help updated at some point. Annie 05:41, 1 December 2019 (EST)
I knew there might be a whole 'War and Peace' length background going on so thanks for taking the trouble to outline the direction of travel, it's all a plus for my education :) Kev. BanjoKev 06:02, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Things move slowly but they do move (and when the do not, we kick them again) :) We had been trying to keep the Help page updated but... between policies and all the rest, things don't always make it to the Help page. And some things just need time to develop - the "editors can see the moderator notes" was a side effect of another change that turned out to be very useful and someone (Ahem...) started using it extensively during cleanup tasks so it kinda became a "it's a feature, not a bug". Combined with the "Changed PVs", now we had a viable alternative for small changes. If you are bored some day, read through some of the threads in the archived pages in Community Support and the like (from the last few years anyway although I found them all fascinating) - there are a lot of interesting nuggets and explanations there that make some of our more arcane practices look almost normal :) Annie 06:32, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Human Is? - PKD

Hi Annie, I think I understand why the cover art credit appears on the ebook as it does - but... On my not-yet-submitted 2nd printing title page it's just "Human Is?", with no subtitle as appears on the cover. I know nothing about ebooks so I was expecting it to come up on Michniewicz's author page with the earlier 2007-03-00 "Human Is?" pub. 63521. What am I missing here? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 16:29, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Because unless they are merged or varianted, separately added titles show up on their own and differently named titles don't show up on Pub duplicate check and whoever approved the adding of the second cover did not look deeper. We have a lot of these all over the place... If the subtitled one was a legitimate one, we would have had two choices:
  • Variant the subtitled one to the clear one
  • Merge them, leaving the non-subtitled title as the canonical title.
Both will be in policy (or practice...). However, looking at the title page of the ebook (Look Inside on the Amazon UK side), the ebook does not have the subtitle so I cleaned it up and merged cleanly. Annie 16:39, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Great! I should have thought to look inside :) Kev. BanjoKev 16:47, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Don't worry, you will develop the usual love/hate relationship with Look Inside before long :) Just make sure that whatever it shows is the edition you think it is and don't forget that if does not have it, UK or CA or AU (or maybe even a non-English one) may have it so... go hunting if some books do not have it. :) Annie 16:52, 1 December 2019 (EST)

The Story Behind the Foundation - Asimov

Hi Annie, re your change here, why 1982-12-00 and not 1986-10-00? :) Kev. BanjoKev 22:13, 8 December 2019 (EST)

The change was a merge - see here where and when the original is. Annie 22:16, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Yes I had seen the data for the 1982-12-00 pubs, but this essay is specifically dated by the author as 1986 which is why I submitted as 1986-10-00. I see 5 other pubs 1986 or later listed separately here and the essays there are all dated 1982 - so perhaps I see the reason for the merge. What I don't get is why these 5 have a separate listing (but excluding my 1986-10-09 submission) as well as showing (correctly?) in the 1982. Kev. BanjoKev 22:38, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Ah, did I merge wrongly? I will pull them out and fix it - good catch. As for why it was separate - because it got added instead of imported - so someone had to merge it where it belongs (and add notes on that so they all do not get merged together). When you simply type a title, it gets its own record. Annie 22:41, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Houston, we have a problem... I see you've extricated the 5 mentioned above (that link's gone) but that seems ok. With the specific author-dating for 'mine' at 1986 it seemed to me to warrant a new title (and whether it should be a variant of the 1982 remains moot until contact is made with some PVs with 1986 or later). Btw, I added rather than import to reflect the author's actual dating. I can go through the rest of 1986+ and locate active PVs to ask what their dating is (some, Del Rey for instance, carried the 1982 'version' through 1986). Does that make any sense? :) Kev. BanjoKev 23:04, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Kev, as I said - I will pull the pre-merged ones out again - it just cannot happen immediately as I need to pull them from archive. Once we get to where we were, we can see what actually needs merging and what does not. So leave it like that for a couple of days until I get it back to where it was. Annie 23:06, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Sorry Annie, wasn't nagging - just didn't know the process :) Thanks, Kev BanjoKev 23:10, 8 December 2019 (EST)
No magical "revert" button - and with merges it can get hairy. When I looked they were so mixed up that it did not look like two separate essays. Once we pull them, we will see what else needs pulling. And add notes :) Annie 23:11, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Great. I'm initiating contact with the other active 1986+ PVs for clarification on their dates. Kev. BanjoKev 23:27, 8 December 2019 (EST)
No. Please wait until we have them separated again. Sending messages now will confuse everyone even more. Annie 23:29, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Ok :) Kev. BanjoKev 23:39, 8 December 2019 (EST)
If other essays start getting pulled out and merged elsewhere, it will be very hard to get back to where we were -- trying to track a title through a merge without an archive is impossible and my only choice will be to undo all the work since the last archive. So step 1: get where we were. Step 2 - sort out of that state needs fixing. :) Sometimes patience pays off. Annie 23:42, 8 December 2019 (EST)
Just so you know, I posted to just one PV before your 23:29 came in. Hopefully there'll be no fallout :) See here [1] for the 'stay'. :) Kev. BanjoKev 00:50, 9 December 2019 (EST)
Thanks Annie for all the heavy lifting you've done with this essay :) I'll carry on pecking away at any scraps that are left. And thanks for the mention in dispatches giving credit :) Kev. BanjoKev 13:30, 12 December 2019 (EST)
Credit, blame... who is counting :) I think I got all the ones that needed to be out out but there may be anomalies so have fun chasing those - most of the remaining post 1986 pubs are reprints of earlier ones or visible online so they should be in the clear but if you find more mixed in, we can pull them out. It's a team effort - I happened to be around when the confirmations were rolling and just left a few messages for the ones we did not know about. I like stories that end well when they start as a "oops, what did I just do" ones. :) Annie 19:20, 12 December 2019 (EST)

(unindent) With regard to the image I uploaded here [2] for the purposes of distinguishing between the 1982 and 1986 versions of the essay, I think it's ok to leave it up but do you think it goes a little beyond 'fair use' (in that it's reproduced in full). I can edit the image and replace it with the same but only showing 2-3 paragraphs if you think that would be more appropriate. Also, if it remains (in whatever form) I'll add a link to it to the title page. Thamks. Kev. BanjoKev 22:06, 15 December 2019 (EST)

I think we can delete it - it served its purpose. Let me know if you want me to delete it. Annie 22:08, 15 December 2019 (EST)
I was thinking more of leaving a shortened version so things will be clear for future editors :) Kev. BanjoKev 22:18, 15 December 2019 (EST)
Hi again Annie. Could you please delete the old image here [3]. I've also added a note to the title page, with a link, here. I notice that, on the image page, the 'Links' registers "There are no pages that link to this file.". Is this correct and if not, how do I change it to show that there is a link to this file? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 08:41, 19 December 2019 (EST)
Deleted. As for the links - we only have the ones that are built automatically (via the covers field for example). The only way to make sure the link is there is to edit the image wiki page and add manually a note and a link back. Annie 09:58, 19 December 2019 (EST)
Thanks, done :) Kev. BanjoKev 13:37, 19 December 2019 (EST)

Deep Signal The Illustrated Anthology (Digital Edition)

So, kickstarter just sent us the digital edition and I can't read it... the illustrations and color-format are what I cannot read on the computer screen. Do you want me to 1) try & add the contents, 2) wait for the physical copy or 3) share it with you and maybe you can add it? Susan O'Fearna 12:55, 10 December 2019 (EST)

What format is it in? I may not be able to open it either :( If I can, I will be more than happy to enter it this weekend. Up to you. Annie 13:05, 10 December 2019 (EST)
I have PDF but I have converter if you want it in another format (color background with color text - I can't read it, blind person!) Susan O'Fearna 15:47, 16 December 2019 (EST)
Ah, did not realize that. I can read it if you send it over. Annie 16:00, 16 December 2019 (EST)

email confirmation

Hi Annie, I'm trying to register my email address in my Preferences. I'm shown a message "Confirmation email has been sent" but I'm not receiving the confirmation-link email. Any ideas? :) Kev. BanjoKev 10:00, 11 December 2019 (EST)

We do not send one - technical issue. :) Try to send me a mail through the system - that will confirm if your address works. Keep in mind that some email servers do not like us. Annie 10:08, 11 December 2019 (EST)
OK. I need coffee. If you are still not seeing it, try another mail address? Annie 10:15, 11 December 2019 (EST)
I've sent you an email not using the internal system, i.e. directly by guessing the address. Hope that works :/ Kev. BanjoKev 10:40, 11 December 2019 (EST)
My mail is a bit weird -- use my username and add "ee" at the end -- either gmail or yahoo will work. :)
Where is your mail in? Yahoo and Gmail work (according to the last set of tests we ran a year ago) Annie 10:55, 11 December 2019 (EST)
Ok I'll try again. Mine is with '' - I don't use yahoo or gmail :) Kev. BanjoKev 11:32, 11 December 2019 (EST)
and you can delete your "My mail is..." line. Kev. BanjoKev 11:34, 11 December 2019 (EST)
Well, it will be in the history anyway and my mail is not a secret - if for 15 years someone had not figured it out, this won't do it - I am pretty sure it is on plain text in enough places as it is. :) Not sure if works with our server quite honestly - we have issues with for example... Annie 11:39, 11 December 2019 (EST)
This is so frustrating - I'm not getting anywhere :( and bt are just about the biggest provider here in GB. Kev. BanjoKev 12:36, 11 December 2019 (EST)
Ahasuerus had been trying to work on that for awhile. Can you send me a mail through the system here? Or directly? I do not seen anything in either of my mailboxes (anniemodee) at either of the two big ones. Annie 12:54, 11 December 2019 (EST)
Not possible through the system here. I've sent directly to "" and to "emailuser/" but something must be wrong there? :) Kev. BanjoKev 13:12, 11 December 2019 (EST)
I do not have an isfdb mail - noone does and the relay does not create or forward addresses. If you want to send me directly, send it to my yahoo/gmail address directly. Annie 13:30, 11 December 2019 (EST)

(unindent) I have been monitoring the email queue on the ISFDB server for the last 30 minutes. I see some messages going through and being delivered. Other messages, including the 2 test messages that I tried sending, get stuck in the "deferred" state. Some deferrals due to "Too many concurrent SMTP connections" or "Connection timed out" errors appear to be legitimate. Others -- like "[IP address] is not yet authorized to deliver mail" -- suggest configuration issues. The receiving email server may have a special filter, which only accepts email from "recognized legitimate servers", installed.

For now, I would suggest following Annie's advice and sending e-mail messages from your personal e-mail program directly to her e-mail address. If that doesn't work, you can send an email message to my e-mail address (ahasuerus at and I will forward it to Annie. It may help us diagnose where the failure occurs. Unfortunately,'s mail server is rather restrictive, so it's not a great test, but it doesn't hurt to try. Ahasuerus 15:19, 11 December 2019 (EST)

For what it's worth, my test messages arrived after an hour+ delay. The receiving mail server complained about not recognizing the sending server, but eventually delivered them. Ahasuerus 16:52, 11 December 2019 (EST)
Thank you Ahasuerus, I have emailed you so you have the technical information which hopefully will help. Kev. BanjoKev 20:42, 11 December 2019 (EST)

Made-Up Novels

Annie, I trust your judgement. Would you take a look here and see what you think? Bob 16:06, 17 December 2019 (EST)

The German made-up novels? Such as this one? That is one of the things that gives me a headache. Another one of our German-only oddities :)
If noone is credited anywhere, we credit as uncredited and then we variant up to the actual writers if we know them. That part is the only one clear here. Now how do we credit into the parent is the big question. If all the editor did was to clean the mistakes and repetitions, they should not get a credit (your comparison to collections is what comes to mind immediately). If they wrote part of the story, they are now one of the writers (similarly to how we co-credit the real author for abridgements for example).
My big question about these had always been: are they real fixups (aka the original stories are really changed and rewritten) or are the stories actually in there and just linking material had been added. Because if the stories are there with minor changes, that should be an anthology in my book. That will also allow us to link them to their originals. But I had never seen one of those or compared texts so... I am just thinking aloud.
So to summarize - I am not sure what to do with these either. I think we need a bigger discussion but... just before the holidays people seem to be ignoring any discussions. Annie 16:30, 17 December 2019 (EST)
As Annie said, crediting the author(s) of the variant title is usually straightforward -- use what's on the title page or "uncredited" if not stated.
Parent title credits are a different and more complicated issue. We have quite a few titles which have been abridged, expanded, rewritten, etc by third parties. For example, consider William Shakespeare, many of whose plays were later adapted/abridged by Charles Lamb, Mary lamb, E. Nesbit and others. We have separate title records for the adaptations and we credit the adapters as "co-authors" because the changes were extensive.
On the other hand, consider the Baen reprints of Keith Laumer's and James H. Schmitz's books like this omnibus. The stories were "updated" by the editors, Eric Flint and Guy Gordon, who removed anachronisms, overlapping text, etc. Some changes were significant enough to cause a certain amount of controversy online, but we don't credit the editors as co-authors because -- in the grand scheme of things -- they were not that significant. Thus "the extent of the changes" is the line which separates "edited by" from "co-written with" titles. Finding out exactly how much each individual text was modified is a whole different challenge... Ahasuerus 22:02, 17 December 2019 (EST)
Well, I had read (and compared with the originals) some fix-ups of the parent series Perry Rhodan. The original novellas were written by several different authors, but were revised, reorganized and connected with additional text that binds the episodes to form a novel by another hand. The approach - according to Perrypedia and Norman - was the same for the publications in question. Christian Stonecreek 23:46, 17 December 2019 (EST)
So there are more differences in the original texts beyond what a good editor would do if they are trying to synchronize the text so the different stories work together better (just curious - the linking gives the editor a credit in the parent anyway)? Can we add notes in the relevant series so it is clear what we are recording and how (and why) and why we variant the way we do? :) Annie 00:15, 18 December 2019 (EST)
Sure! Will do. Christian Stonecreek 01:49, 18 December 2019 (EST)
Please see for quite more details. [4] --Norman 11:23, 18 December 2019 (EST)

Experience failed

Hi Annie. I hope you are fine. Any ideea about this Bulgarian story? Experiența nu a reușit by Dimitr Ianakiev. I dont't find nothing about Димитър Янакиев + изживяване се провали. No additional information about the author and story in the magazine. --Florin 06:47, 19 December 2019 (EST)

Let me do some digging :) Annie 12:06, 19 December 2019 (EST)

Moderator candidate(s)?

I've been following the progress of user MagicUnk a little closer the last few weeks, and i.m.o. he's ready to be nominated for moderator. Most of his submissions are boring (close your eyes and push 'accept'), he communicates very good and I think it would be nice to have a moderator from Belgium. Can you think of any reason we should wait any longer? Or are other editors more qualified (Zapp, Ofearna, MLB). If you agree I'll ask him if he thinks he's reasy. Thanks, --Willem 16:50, 27 December 2019 (EST)

The only thing that worries me about him is the number of areas on the site he had never touched -- he is very good at the things he is doing and he tends to be very detail-oriented but when you get out from the Dutch books (and a few non-Dutch here and there), I had never seen him touching other areas (Awards for example). On the other hand, he is usually up for a challenge (The Fixer public page for example) so may be a good thing to look at it as a challenge. Maybe with a proposal of self-moderation only (self-governed) as a start and slowly easing into full moderation? Same with Zapp and MLB quite honestly - I will be more than happy for them to be able to self-moderate; I would be a bit more cautious on handling non-standard submissions - but we will never know until we try. And yes - more international moderators is a good thing :) Annie 17:01, 27 December 2019 (EST)
Wise words. In my experience, learning the ins and outs of the database goes to a whole new level when you can approve your own submissions (you can review your stupid mistakes and correct them so no one will notice). I've been a moderator for nearly ten years now, and I haven't touched the Awards yet... but we do have awards in the Dutch speaking world. Someone will have to add them someday. So let's start with MagicUnk, I'll ask him what he thinks. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willem H. (talkcontribs) .
Annie's comments make perfect sense :) And yes, I 've been thinking of adding the King Kong / Harland awards, but haven't gotten around to it yet - and truth be told, I find the awards entry process a bit opaque... but one day I'll get to them for sure! :) MagicUnk 02:50, 28 December 2019 (EST)

Collection => Anthology in one submission

ISFDB:Community Portal#Anthology : Collection grey area? When I submitted a publication update, error message stated that the publication record must contain some Content of the matching, so I guessed that I must add ANTHOLOGY content and later delete the COLLECTION content, etc. Now I see that the yellow-background content listings can be revised during PubUpdate (both author and type fields here). Thanks.

Two submissions were needed here, with the Title record needing Series: Gothic Fantasy, but those two submissions might have been submitted together. Right?

(my deadline strikes) Happy New Year. --Pwendt|talk 16:50, 31 December 2019 (EST)

You need to change it in both places at the same time - the error was there because you changed it in only one of the places. :) As long as the pub/title relationship is 1/1, you can change it in one update :)
You would have needed an update for the Title to add the series - yes. But not for the type change - that way if only that one is approved, at least the mismatch does not stay in the DB by mistake.
Happy new year :) Annie 16:53, 31 December 2019 (EST)

help adding two "daily science fiction" titles

Aug 14, 2019 "Passed Down" by Nina Kiriki Hoffman and Dec 27, 2019 "Vacation Station" by Nina Kiriki Hoffman... THANKS Susan O'Fearna 22:08, 2 January 2020 (EST)

Here is August. I will add December in a bit. Annie 00:40, 4 January 2020 (EST)

Series name

Hi Annie, your diplomatic skills are needed here, I'm afraid.--Dirk P Broer 08:06, 5 January 2020 (EST)

See also this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:40, 5 January 2020 (EST)
Posted about the series names themselves - Ahasuerus got the book title covered and Talk language :) Annie 15:20, 5 January 2020 (EST)

Multilingual publications

Hi, I get stuck with this maintenance report. I am the culprit, but I just imported the titles from another edition (the same) for both the entries that now come up as being 'multilingual'. Can you give additional data?--Dirk P Broer 10:05, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Personal tools