User talk:BanjoKev

Welcome!

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

• Help pages
• Field-by-field guide to entering new publications into the database
• Help:Getting Started
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• FAQ
• Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
• Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
• Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

Uploading covers

Please do not upload the covers before the publication addition is approved. Once it is approved, you will get a very nice "Upload cover scan" which will then put the file in the correct place for covers AND will tag it properly thus ensuring that it is clear which book exactly that cover belongs to. You can always edit the wiki page after that but doing it this way will ensure consistency of the links and file names on the server. And do not forget to edit the newly created publication to add the cover there as well. Annie 20:19, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Also: We credit only artists for covers -- the designers are never credited; nor are film companies for "movies" covers. So in the case of this book, we would not credit "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and headdesign" and create a COVERART entry with their name; you can mention them in the notes. I pulled the record out. Annie 20:22, 8 November 2019 (EST)

PS: And yes, I know "headdesign" is credited elsewhere. Unless the book says that they did the artwork and not just the design, it should not be. If that is the case, I can add them back as the artists of the cover. Let me know :) Annie 20:23, 8 November 2019 (EST)

I pre-uploaded three cover scans for pending submissions:

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:THMRTN2014_28.jpg

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:THMRTN2015_4_11.jpg (a semi-gloss cover)

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:THMRTN2015_10.jpg (a gloss cover)

Should I now delete them from the wiki to get a 'clean' upload run at the "Upload cover scan"?

Your PS goes to the heart of it. I just couldn't work out who had done what. All I have are the listings as per my pub.record notes under 'Back cover'. I noted that it didn't state 'Cover design: www.headdesign.co.uk' although it's fairly obvious they just set the wording over the 20thC film outtake. I'd be quite happy to leave the 'Cover:' field empty and let the notes speak but someone's bound to come along later saying 'Hey, you left the artist out!' - Oh yes, and who would that be, pray tell me!

So, my current thinking is that 20thC did the artwork and headdesign just incorporated that into their cover design. What do you think? And if you conclude what I think you will, how about changing the other records that you alluded to?

To further complicate matters, I will be submitting the 28th edition (the first image, above). It's clear that Eric White added quite a bit to a stock NASA astronaut picture. The back cover credit says "Cover design: Eric White" and "Cover photograph: NASA (astronaut)". Thanks Annie. Kev BanjoKev 21:15, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Well, if you do not mind to reuplod them, I can delete these 3 as soon as we are done with the 3 books and they have their proper covers :)

For the credits: welcome to the nightmare world of 21st century publishing. Trying to decipher credits on covers and who is an artist and who is a designer is a... nightmare. I tend to just NOT add a cover artist if there is no clear illustrator - the point of adding it is so that we can build a bibliography of the illustrators. If you want to add headdesign, I will approve it (some of the other copies of the book have that). And if someone complains, they can discuss with you later and we can readjust. If I see this kind of credits, I leave the field empty usually on the books I add/verify. Editor's choice and all that.

That 28th edition? None of those is recorded as cover artist. So no complication at all - you add them in the notes, you leave the cover artist field empty. The covers and the COVERART (which is what you are creating when you add the artist) are two different things - you can have only one of them or both or none for some books. Hope that this makes some sense :) Annie 21:24, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Yes, please could you delete the 3 images now, I can't get the 'Editing Category:Deletion candidates' process to work for me to put them before a Moderator. And sorry, I meant to clarify as the 28th printing of the 2014 Broadway/Crown edition. Eric White is credited as cover artist on every one of those.

With the submission you've pulled, I'll choose headdesign (2015) as the cover artist. Also, I had a nightmare trying to get the date to come up in that field, in spite of everything I read in the Help. Kev. BanjoKev 22:10, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Deleted :) The Deletion candidates is for web pages mainly (we have a cleanup process going on); images are done a bit different. Finding a friendly moderator and pointing them in their direction is the easiest way :)

Ah, ok for Eric White. What do you mean about the date? If it is greyed out, it means that it is used in more than one publication - so you need to edit the title record to change it. If you meant something else, can you clarify? Also - if you leave a date field empty, it will be populated with the publication date. Annie 22:19, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the deletes :) Having trouble getting the date into the field. Refering to here - http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub#Cover_Art - As this is a clone, I can't enter the date. As this publication is 'date unknown', the date won't be entered by default. No previous editor has credited headdesign with this 2015 edition cover (although the 2014 edition is), so I've got nothing to work with. What am I missing? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 22:46, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Same principle. When you are cloning, you will have two copies for the title (the original and the new one you are making) so the system does not allow you to change the date -- you need to do it from the title so you can see listed under it all pubs that will be influenced. Click on the name of the cover (the link with the name) in the pub you are cloning from. It will open the COVERART record. Edit that, change the date :) Keep in mind that we use 0000-00-00 (aka unknown) when the pub is a later printing which does not have its own date. If the work you cloned from did not have a cover and you are adding it, the date will come from your publication's date. The date shows up for the cover only when you edit existing publications (as the COVERART is already there). In all other actions it defaults to the pub one (for AddPub/NewPub/ClonePub for new cover) and to the one that is already there on ClonePub (if you are getting the cover from there). Same for the cover name btw - you probably noticed you cannot edit that either (unless you are working on an existing pub) :)

And do not worry - once created, you can always go and change the date later :) And we never have dateless records - if nothing else applies, we use the pub date from the pub that created the title. Let me know if it still does not make sense. Annie 23:01, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Wow! I'll have to study on that. Thanks very much for your patience Annie. Kev. BanjoKev 23:10, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Two basic rules: If the cover name or date is not there at all but there is a place to add an artist, they will match whatever your publication date is; if the date is greyed out, it is in more than one publication so you can change it only via EditTitle. The greyed out rule applies for dates, titles, types (NOVEL, SHORTFICTION and so on), lengths (novella, short story and so on) and author names in the contents section as well. :) Annie 23:21, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Well, that was a blast! Perfectly formed! Thanks Annie :) Kev. BanjoKev 23:46, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Artemis - latest submission

In this one.

• The page number should be [10]+305 and not [10]305. I fixed that.
• The note says pb, the format tp. How big is the book - and which one is correct?

Thanks! Annie 22:45, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the '+' catch. The 'pb' was my oversight, fixed now. Thanks Annie, Kev.BanjoKev 23:01, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Anytime. I also fixed the + thing in your other submission :) As it was 2 in a row, I decided to come let you know you are missing it :) Annie 23:08, 10 November 2019 (EST)

I appreciate it! Kev. BanjoKev 23:27, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Martian Time-Slip

About this one. You are dropping three pieces of information:

• "No number line" (should stay together with the "Apparent first printing" line so it is clear WHY it is apparent. It may be apparent because the number line contains "1" and the editor just likes the word apparent :)
• "No additional prices" (which is important because this is the only way a lot of UK editions differ from each other)
• "Gloss cover" (because it may also indicate a separate/new binding if it is not - matted and glossed covers may differentiate a first from second printing or printing batch.

Is that an oversight or did you mean to drop these? Annie 19:04, 12 November 2019 (EST)

I've been trying to decide about "No number line" as part of my submission 'template'. I mean apparent because there's no number line. But that's implicit. I'll state it from now on.

The same with gloss/semi-gloss. I've only done that so far where I know there're different finishes - especially with the Masterworks I & II. So, you've set me well on those two points. For me there are three finishes: Matte, Semi-gloss and Gloss. PKD's Ubik here has a matte finish that's almost hairy (extreme case) so I couldn't describe the smooth 'non-gloss' Masterworks (for example) as 'matte'. There's another term I considered - 'eggshell' to describe smooth non-gloss but rejected that as not making it internationally.

"No additional prices" - again, it's implicit because I've recorded the only price actually on the cover. Reviewing that, it's fair to say that another editor could ask "What's he left out?". So point well taken Annie.

If it's acceptable, could you approve this submission and I will rectify the three points straight away. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:30, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Done. In my experience, the more you spell out the better. Especially on points we know may indicate a different edition/printing/binding - cover finish, sewn or glued for publishers that do both, prices being printed or not and so on. Just because we do not know that there is a matte finish somewhere does not mean that there isn't one or that POD variants of the same title won't have it in the future (and these tend to repeat the copyright page of the first editions making them harder to spot if you do not look at the back). If you don't want to add it, that's fine. But do not remove it if it is there just because it does not fit your pattern :) It is team work after all. Hope this makes sense. :) Annie 19:35, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Good advice Annie, many thanks for your time. I'll also go back through my previous PVs and clarify them as well. Kev. BanjoKev 19:39, 12 November 2019 (EST)

The Martian : Andy Weir

BanjoKev, I added a reply at User talk:Marc Kupper#The Martian : Andy Weir. --Marc Kupper 16:14, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The essays

Responded on my page - one more step is needed to finish the work on these. Annie 17:23, 15 November 2019 (EST)

Getty Images and similar

We usually do not credit the big stock images supplier for the covers. I know we have a few over there and I am not sure if we ever put a note somewhere in the rules (will check this weekend) but the idea is to build the portfolios of our artists, not of the studios that have copyrights and stock images :) So it is ok (and good) to add in the notes but I would not create a coverart for it if I am adding a book. Annie 23:32, 16 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks Annie, I thought this might raise a Moderator eyebrow, and I was undecided about it until I saw this http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?63691. :) Kev. BanjoKev 23:38, 16 November 2019 (EST)

We do have some cleanup to do.:) Welcome to ISFDB. Things are sometimes a bit... unorganized. We are trying though. :) Considering how prevalent Getty are, if we were recording them, they will have a LOT more on that page. Do you want me to teach you how to remove a coverart record from a book or do you know how? Or do you want it to stay? Annie 23:41, 16 November 2019 (EST)

Yes, all trying - trying to get it right going forward whilst reaching back and trying to fix earlier stuff when perhaps exactness wasn't an issue. I'm trying to get stuff right and sometimes I'm amazed at the thought that's gone into presentation and all the hidden link-up stuff that makes it look so easy. It sure is a piece of work.

I'd like to take you up at a later stage on how to do coverart removal if that's ok. You've been a great help so far!

Now, the Getty thing... In this particular instance, I entered Getty for the coverart (after I saw their page) because theirs is the only credit. If the credit(s) had been "Billy Bob/Getty Images" I would have only credited Billy Bob, if that makes sense. Without going back to Getty's page right now, I did see Getty Images credt that read "with". That feels to me as though the art credits were on the pubs as the Billy Bob example. Others I see are, for example, "Joe Blow/Photonica" - here I'd just enter Joe Blow. But, if the only credit was "Photonica" I think I would credit that. Does my reasoning stand up to scrutiny? If so, I'd like to leave the coverart as it is. It's clear from the pub.notes that this is the only credit (for such time as consensus develops for policy change and implementation. :)) Kev. BanjoKev 00:04, 17 November 2019 (EST)

The DB can be challenging and it has a lot of hidden and semi-hidden small things (and I think they have babies when we do not pay attention...) :) You are doing fine - really :) And if it gets to a point where you need to do something and do not know how - come ask me or ask on the Help desk. Someone will assist.

No worries. Just don't be surprised if we do mount that cleanup operation (especially if we tighten up the language in the Help) and you get a note that we are removing it (one day). I would not add a coverart at all if there is no real artist to assign it to. :) Annie 00:10, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Solved :) Kev. BanjoKev 00:22, 17 November 2019 (EST)

And I deleted the ejected record after I approved it (or it will show up on the report in an hour) :) All clean and tidy now. Annie 00:26, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Older books and ISBNs

If the book is from 2006 or earlier, it cannot have ISBN13. If it is printed there, it is not from pre-2007 :) Swapped it here. Relevant help page: here. :) Annie 23:39, 16 November 2019 (EST)

I really do not like the expression "Apparent first printing" followed by an explanation of why it is not first printing. Very confusing :) Annie 00:42, 17 November 2019 (EST)

I agree :) I'll resubmit. Kev. BanjoKev 00:48, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Apparent is fine - it was the rest of it that did not fit. If there are no reasons to believe it is not the first and noone claims the first and there is no number line, I would use apparent. And edition will need to be a first printing if there are to be others. But if you would rather not have it, I will approve. :) Annie 01:05, 17 November 2019 (EST)

And if you leave the date as "2011-03-24" here, it is first printing :) Annie 01:06, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks for your patience Annie :) Kev. BanjoKev 03:06, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Legal Name

Hi, I copied this from our wiki to help you enter legal names in the correct way "Legal Name - This field should contain the most recent legal name for the author. For example, James Tiptree, Jr. was a pseudonym of Alice Sheldon, who was born Alice Bradley. Alice Sheldon is the most recent legal name for this author. Use the format Lastname, Firstname Middlenames, with all names being given in full. The reason for this format are names like "Patrick Nielsen Hayden" where you can't readily tell whether the last name is "Hayden" or "Nielsen Hayden." No prefixes should be used: "Capt.", "Mrs.", "Sir", and so on, are not recorded in this field. Suffixes that are not part of the legal name -- for example, "Sr.", educational and professional designations such as "Ph.D." or "M.D.", ranks and orders such as "Col.", "K.G." -- also should not be recorded. Certain suffixes such as "Jr.", "II", "III", etc., may or may not be part of the legal name. We assume they are not, unless we have reliable evidence to the contrary. If a suffix is part of the legal name, use the format Lastname, Firstname Middlenames, Suffix.".--Dirk P Broer 05:03, 21 November 2019 (EST)

Argh! and I had read that! Thanks for pulling me up on it. Kev. BanjoKev 09:11, 21 November 2019 (EST)

No need to change the date before a merge

If one of the two titles has the correct date, you can merge them and select the correct date during the merge. :) Annie 18:06, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Thanks Annie, didn't realise that :) Kev. BanjoKev 18:07, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Same with series and names and authors and so on - as long as you can initiate the merge (advanced search with OR as the operator can get any two titles on a screen where you can start a merge), you can select which value to remain after the merge. You may need to write a mode note IF it is not obvious why you want to merge but other from that... :) Annie 18:24, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Special characters in publisher names

I just cleaned "i" tags from the publisher name here. If they are always styled that way, we should be adding a note to the publisher record; the name itself is saved unadorned :) Annie 17:45, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Coverart and import

I approved this and then merged the covers. Just heads up that if the cover is exactly the same record (title, artist, image (as per our definition of the same), language), you can simply import instead of adding and then needing a merge. Let me know if you need assistance with the process. Annie 17:58, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Collins / HarperCollinsPublishers

Looking at the new name you have here. Isn't this the same publisher as Collins / HarperCollins (UK)? We normalize publishers a bit so... any reason to have two separate versions of the same? Or are they different?Annie 21:41, 28 November 2019 (EST)

My guess is that Collins / HarperCollins (UK) has been entered as shorthand :)

I would advocate to normalise to the correct version, not to perpetuate a name which maybe vague and will need sorting out later. If I were to add the address to a new 'Collins / HarperCollinsPublishers' Publisher Record (no italics, but the italicised form given in the notes) that would differentiate this from any USA variations that might exist.

All 7 of the existing 'Collins / HarperCollins (UK)' entries were created by one person (Clarkmci, last active 2019-02-28) and I suggest that that person just shortened the address from what I suspect was 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB as given on the copyright page. I've yet to see the suffix (UK) anywhere in my collection.

Additionally, I would proffer the following info:

My collection data set is 1,067 books at present.

Listed, I have: 237 publishers or variations on publishers' details, as stated on the copyright pages.

Of these I have 13 variations on the HarperCollins theme, comprising 69 books, exactly as stated on the copyright pages:

1 Collins / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

5 Grafton / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

1 Harper / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

5 HarperCollins / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

2 HarperCollins Science Fiction & Fantasy / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

1 HarperOne / HarperCollinsPublishers [10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022]

9 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF]

3 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

3 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

7 HarperVoyager / HarperCollinsPublishers Ltd [1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF]

1 Thorsons / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

30 Voyager / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

1 Voyager Classics / HarperCollinsPublishers [77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB]

What do you think? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev

When the only PV is not available, it needs to be brought to the community :) So please post to the Moderator Board, explaining what you want to rename to what and why and if noone disagrees, we can just rename the existing record. In the meantime, let's keep to it (so all books stay together and we do not complicate the split even more).

The suffix UK/USA is common when we have the same publisher on both sides of the pond - in cases when it is not possible to separate them in a better way, we would use it to differentiate. Publisher is one of the somewhat normalized fields - we try to stay as close to the books as possible but we will add additional identifiers if needed. If the names are exactly the same (think Orbit), we DO need to separate the books so the lists per publisher have some meaning. Annie 00:26, 29 November 2019 (EST)

Anytime

I even read all the moderator notes. :) Annie 02:30, 1 December 2019 (EST)

You've got me laughing now :) Kev. BanjoKev 02:33, 1 December 2019 (EST)

And I will be here all week... :) It's a team effort -- some of the things in the DB are annoying and can make one want to scream and more often than not, we all talk to each other only when there are issues and/or when a record needs discussion but it is the small things that make one's day usually so I tend to acknowledge it when an editor writes something in the notes that make me smile. Annie 02:46, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Locus

So I stop spamming Chris. :)

They used to add a lot more on the site than they do now -- especially books lists - these archive pages show this information and it can be useful when researching weird things from those years. But the magazines always had more information (and the received & forthcoming lists are only in the magazines unlike the Recommended one in the February edition for example). Annie 00:30, 3 December 2019 (EST)

smile I read this piece, it's pretty good. Kev. BanjoKev 03:43, 3 December 2019 (EST)

Import vs Edit

When adding a cover we already have, instead of doing an edit (which then requites a merge), import the cover :) Annie 15:04, 4 December 2019 (EST)

I understand. Thanks for pointing that out, importing is in the next chapter.....

While you're here, could you please delete the older image that I've just replaced. I realised I had first uploaded, on 11th November, the wrong iteration of the image file :)

here - http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:MRTNTMSLPP0000.jpg Many thanks. Kev. BanjoKev 15:40, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Well, I believe in getting people into the Advanced topics early :) Let me know if you need assistance and/or help :)

Done for the image. :) Annie 16:20, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Page numbers for ordering purposes

Regarding this one. The number after the pipe is the order in the overall book, not on the page. So 72|1 should be 72|72.1 or 72.01 if you expect more than 9 on the page. Otherwise it will sort it as page 1 - and in this update you have 9 "|1" ones - which will sort at the top of the list. Do you want to try again?

Think of it as "display value|sorting value" where just "display value" is treated as "display value|display value".:) Annie 18:12, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Got it :) I've been lucky using the pipe that way so far because it was only used to sort a couple of titles. Can you reject that one then please. I've cancelled another which was to follow. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:19, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Probably. Or someone was not paying attention when approving (it may happen) :) Already rejected - see the top line: " Cancellation/Rejection Reason: Nope. Will explain in a note why - the format is a bit wrong." :) Annie 18:23, 4 December 2019 (EST)

I've resubmitted. If someone clones from this pub later, does the pipe instruction carry through as well? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:39, 4 December 2019 (EST)

If the page numbers are carried over (you have a checkbox for that on the Clone screen), the whole thing comes with it :) The page number in this case is "75|75.1" for example, not just 75 :) Annie 18:52, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Panther Granada

Do you plan to change all "Panther Granada"? Because if so, we have a better way.

However... as all of those books are verified, PLEASE talk to the active PVs first - we cannot just change their publisher on them without consultation - there may be a valid reason for it. Or post in Community support and call the PVs there. Annie 19:21, 4 December 2019 (EST)

PS: See this for an example of exactly what you want to do here but in the correct order - first verify with the community, then change. I understand that it does look as a mistake but... better check before changing than trying to recover later :) Annie 19:32, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Your PS is a godsend Annie, I'll gather my thoughts and post there :))

Can you hold my current subs? If that's too much just reject them - no problems. Kev. BanjoKev 19:51, 4 December 2019 (EST)

They are on hold. :) I will keep them there until we decide what to do -- but as I said, if we are changing it in all pubs, we can just merge :) Annie 19:57, 4 December 2019 (EST)

And when you post, post a new thread instead of posting on the Ballantine one (in case you were thinking of doing that) - people are more likely to see it at the bottom of the page than as an update of an old question :) Annie 20:01, 4 December 2019 (EST)

But of course :) Kev. BanjoKev 20:02, 4 December 2019 (EST)

So what do you have against someone being PV2 (or higher) and why does their opinion matter less than that of a PV1? :) Annie 21:25, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Sorry but I don't understand how you've inferred that I have anything against anyone or that anyone's opinion matters less than others :( I was just laying it out as best I could to give an idea of how the records were first started. I did ask what do [you] think in the post and here we are. I've no problem with PVs. The inactive PVs can be dealt with by consensus and I was expecting back a suggestion along the lines of... posting to the active PV1s of the 5 pubs first and then go through the rest of the pubs to see which other active PVs (of any level) need contacting. I'll go through it all now anyway to make a list of all the active PVs involved. :) Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 21:58, 4 December 2019 (EST)

The point I was trying to make (with a joke that probably did not work as well as I hoped) is that we do not treat PV1 differently from PV5 or PV20 - if they are active, they are PVs(the inactive ones are also PVs but they usually won't help with the decision). The whole PV1 and so on comes from the old days when we did not have unlimited number of PVs - thus the numbering. These days we use them as shortcuts to specify which editor added something - but besides that, the numbers are irrelevant.

So if you are going to post to editor's pages, it should be all active ones, not just the ones that happen to be PV1. If anything, you actually want the ones that verified last, not first - because they are more likely to remember why they left it like that :) Annie 22:07, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Phew! I thought I'd stepped in something I didn't see :) Just to reassure you, when I see a list of PVs, I see them all as 'level', 'equal', and as you say I only use the numbering for direction not for 'rank'.

I'm going to have a problem with some of the editors whose home discussion page doesn't display the yellow 'won't respond' flag. For instance, Prof_beard is not listed as inactive but hasn't posted since December 2017. I guess the post to their talkpages will have to be different from that posted to editors who definitely are currently active. (thinks.... I must try harder with jokes...) Thanks Annie, Kev. BanjoKev 22:28, 4 December 2019 (EST)

Don't rely on the yellow banner - we put these manually when we find the inactive editors :) Look at the table of PVs - the last activity date is there. Not that these PVs cannot be around and just not editing but that is a good enough indication. Don't overthink it. Just point them to the discussion in the CS -- and that's it - and I would not bother with anyone that had not edited in 2019. We do not hold the decision until everyone agrees - it really is about giving the active ones a chance to explain their thinking and providing the paper trail for everyone. Annie 22:34, 4 December 2019 (EST)

(unindent) A small tip: Once you know who the editors are, you can use Advanced Search to find their titles with that publisher and provide them a link to it. For example Linguist. The condition is at the top of the page. Even if it is too late for it now, keep that in mind for the future - you can add PV name to any condition on the Pub search :) Annie 00:27, 5 December 2019 (EST)

Yep, that picked up exactly the 4 I found. I've already posted 7 PVs asking for feedback on this, but your tip's a good one, thanks :) Kev. BanjoKev 00:35, 5 December 2019 (EST)

The Story Behind the Foundation

OK,

This one is now split back to where it was, with yours added to the 1986 split (and a note added to explain why we have two of these essays).

• 1982 bunch
• 1986 bunch

The 1982 bunch most likely contains at least a few essays that are actually the latter one (maybe even some of the translations and most likely all those Foundation and Earth ones which made me believe it is the same essay in the first place)) so if you want to chase that thread with the verifiers of the later editions, go ahead. The best approach may be to find someone that had verified books with both essays and ask for a comparison before we go down that rabbit hole.:) Annie 12:21, 9 December 2019 (EST)

I've seen the reinstated 5 (now 6) bunch and now dated 1986-10-03. The note "This essay...." is misleading :) in that I know that Del Rey used the 1982-12-00 through 1986. There are other things to look at as well. I suggest deleting the note for now or finding a form of words to clarify what's going on.

The note on the 1982 bunch I suggest as "This is the original 1982 essay. It should not be merged with the 1986 one which can be found throughout the Foundation series which had the same name but is specifically dated 1986."

I'm deep into research on the essay title/dating for the whole Foundation Series here. I started this last night. Please let me finish the research before changing anything else. I've completed 4 novel titles in the series so far and already have a good list of editors to contact which will sort out which dates belong to the 1982 bunch or the 1986 bunch.

When that's all done and dusted I agree that it would be good to find an active PV with 1982 and 1986 essays to see if they are the same. I suspect they are but it needs to be positively identified. If it should prove the same, I think I understand that the 1986 can't be 'called' as dated 1982 but, because it is specifically dated as 'New York, 1986', it would have to be a variant. Have I got that right?

I'd also be grateful if you could have a look at this discussion [1] as it has an impact in generating the 1986-10-03 date for the essay. :) Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 13:02, 9 December 2019 (EST)

If I delete it, it will get merged again so it stays. If the note is deleted, they WILL get merged again. Once we figure out the two essays, we will rewrite the notes but for now, as placeholders, they are good enough. Better than what we had anyway.

If the essay is different, it is a separate essay, not a variant. The variant is for "same text, new name". "Same name, new text" means new title. So either we have only 1 essay and all these get merged or we have 2 separate independent essays with notes which stay unconnected. How it is specifically dated is irrelevant for the variants - if it is the same text, it gets merged regardless of copyright dates and what's not - date is NOT one of the reasons to create a variant (author, title, language are the three reasons to have a variant). :) Annie 13:37, 9 December 2019 (EST)

All understood. How about if I scan and upload an image of the 1986 essay and then point an active PV to it who has the 1982 version to compare. We can delete the upload once identification has been done. Would that work? I suspect that's going to be easier than finding someone with both. And thanks for your patience :) Kev. BanjoKev 14:06, 9 December 2019 (EST)

That would work - as long as it is just a page or so. I'd say to see if the original magazine PVs can pull the magazine -- I should probably check if I have that one and where it is hiding as well. Sometimes things like that unearth problems we were not looking for - see this case where we had the essays somewhat split but it looks like they are not clearly split. :) Annie 14:16, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Or the PV here - he is usually around :) Annie 15:24, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Now we have the 1986 essay for text comparison - [2]. Mhhutchins is the likeliest PV on the 1982 magazine, but contact would need an email - which I'm not set up for. I'll carry on the research and post findings :) Kev. BanjoKev 19:09, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Thus me pointing you to the editor who is actually easily reachable :) Annie 19:17, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Doh! :) Kev. BanjoKev 19:51, 9 December 2019 (EST)

(unindent)So... We know there are two essays. I am pretty sure that all the "Foundation and Earth" books will have the newer ones (we are sure for the Doubleday ones as the non-checked are reprints). Let me check with the PV for the Bantam one and the Del Ray one and then we will tackle the rest of the mix. this confirms that the Foundation and Empire reprints did not change to the new one. Isn't it lucky that I merged these by mistake - now we can sort all of them out. :) Annie 11:43, 10 December 2019 (EST)

OK, I pulled the one that was verified to be in the wrong place and left notes on the pages of 3 PVs for the other 3 possible ones for "Foundation and Earth" just to be complete. I think some of the translations should also come with us but looking into it. Annie 11:50, 10 December 2019 (EST)

And I think we sorted them all out. I am only waiting on an official confirmation for the Serbian one (just in case) although I moved it because it makes more sense. Thanks for helping untangle this one. :) Annie 14:28, 10 December 2019 (EST)

Author Images

When uploading an author image (or any image not done through the "Upload new cover scan" link via a publication page), you need to manually apply a license tag to the image. For Image:Heidi North.jpg, I have added the basic license, but it would be good if you could fill in the remaining parameters. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2019 (EST)

Thanks for reminding me. Kev. BanjoKev 19:41, 29 December 2019 (EST)

I have one other license issue here [3] and it ties in with the conversation here [4].

Note the explanatory "This image is to enable distinction between the texts of the 1982 and the 1986 essays of the same title.".

Could you tell me which of the license templates I can apply here please? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:54, 29 December 2019 (EST)

Template:Miscellaneous Publication Content. You can find all the license templates at Category:Image License Tags. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2019 (EST)

Ah, that's exactly what I was looking for! Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 08:03, 30 December 2019 (EST)

The Martian

This submission had both 17th printing of the 2014 edition, by number line and Number line "19". As you already have a verified 17th printing, I'm assuming the 19th was the correct one and have updated the publication after approving it. If in fact this was a duplicate 17th printing, then it should be deleted.

Also, I see in the pub notes that it says Contains an uncredited map of parts of Mars on unnumbered pages [8] and [9]. The Fred Haynes credit comes from the Broadway Books editions which have the same map. However, the map is entered as credited to Fred Haynes. As it's not credited within the publication, it should be entered as uncredited and varianted to Fred Haynes (cover art is the only case where we don't do this, all other content should use uncredited if not specified in the pub itself). I will update all the printings with this statement. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2019 (EST)

Thanks for correcting properly to the 19th. Your advice on varianting uncredited is very timely as I am trying to sort out some uncredited maps in other pubs :) Kev. BanjoKev 11:40, 30 December 2019 (EST)

Hi Kev. Out of curiosity, do you own all these printings that you've primary-verified? MagicUnk 17:04, 30 December 2019 (EST)

Haha, I wasn't expecting that... and yes, I'm looking at 11 printings of this title on the shelf :) Long live curiosity :) Kev. BanjoKev 18:06, 30 December 2019 (EST)

Wow! Talking about dedication... Impressive :) MagicUnk 02:26, 31 December 2019 (EST)

Thanks very much for your appreciation :) Kev. BanjoKev 11:08, 31 December 2019 (EST)

To update publisher of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Hi Kev, I believe you have to update the publisher for your PV'd 6th printing of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? from Millennium / Orion to Gollancz / Orion per the copyright page (see your notes in the pub record). Thanks! MagicUnk 05:48, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Now, that's a good one! Having a trawl through the SF and Fantasy Masterworks' Publisher fields is 'educational', at the least :). I've submitted a couple of printings' changes, including one that we both PV'd that you've probably seen already in your PV changes notification.

I overlooked the publisher here when I cloned this one from the 2nd printing. It seems that perhaps I'm not alone in doing that... more research needed. Two steps forward, one back. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:45, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Time Out of Joint - PKD

Since it's been awhile since you asked this question, just wanted to let you know I provided an answer. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2020 (EST)

Thanks very much for picking that up. Nice resolution :) Kev. BanjoKev 20:50, 19 January 2020 (EST)

2 x Sidewise in Time and variants

Hi. I accepted your new Sidewise in Time collection. I merged the contents, but left this alone per your note to the moderator. (The other one is this.) Since they do not have the same contents, you should NOT make one of these a variant of the other. Rather, you should put a DO NOT MERGE warning in the notes for each, with a cross-reference to the other, and stating that they collect different works. We only use variants when the title wording or author credit differs, but the work is otherwise the same. For anthologies, collections, and omnibuses, the "work" is the set of works collected. I hope that makes sense. Let me know if it doesn't. Thanks. --MartyD 07:30, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up on that Marty - I went word-blind reading the Help, and still didn't get it. But I do now. As you suggest, I'll do the cross-referencing. Kev.BanjoKev 07:35, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Transient Verification

Hi Kev, I have two submissions temporarily on hold that you've transiently primary verified, but for which you reference external data sources in the notes. It is customary, however, to only primary verify if you have the actual publication in hand - transiently if only temporarily in hand (say if you borrowed it from your local library). If you don't have the actual copy, it should not be primary verified. If you agree, I'll approve once you confirm here to remove the PV afterwards. Thanks! MagicUnk 12:35, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Done, removed both transient PVs. Often I see information that I'd like to query in skeleton records like this but have no clue as to who submitted it. That's the only reason for doing it here, to give some future enquirer a target :) Hope you're enjoying your new role :) Many thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 15:33, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Yeah, we'd really benefit from an edit history... While the gesure's appreciated, using a feature for what it's not intended might not be the best way :) Thanks for all the good work you're doing! Most appreciated. MagicUnk 15:59, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Your're very welcome! Kev. BanjoKev 16:01, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Second-stage lensman / men?

Hi, Kev, the cover says 'man', the pub record has 'men'. Could you have a second look at the title page of your recently verified copy? Thanks!

Is that Ron? My cover differs from the amazon one on two counts:

"E.E. 'Doc' Smith" (and it's centred, having no apostrophe s)

"LENSMEN", not "LENSMAN"

My title page has: "Second-Stage / Lensmen".

Of course, Kim Kinnison was the First Lensman, then all his buddies became Lensmen.

Interestingly, sfgateway.com shows the same cover as amazon, so I wonder if that was the pre-launch preparation version. I've seen the same effect with PKD's Martian Time-Slip (where the sub-text is positioned differently in relation to the title).

If you are Ron, (but I think you're MagicUnk) I was going to ask you to check your cover, but you beat me to it :) I've got a good (correct) scan to upload for this pub. Thanks, Kev BanjoKev 18:25, 9 February 2020 (EST)

Ah, it's a cover thingy then :) And yes, I forgot to sign my previous post ... MagicUnk 15:41, 10 February 2020 (EST)

All done now, thanks for finishing it off :) Kev. BanjoKev 21:35, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Much better now! :) That's why I never use Amazon links on my PV'd pubs, but always upload actual cover scans... MagicUnk 13:48, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Varianting

Hi, ~warning: you variant the wrong way around! Example, with dangerous visions John Sladek was used, while it is actually John T. Sladek. You should have changed the name to John T. Sladek, and then variant that title to John Sladek, not varianting the John Sladek title to a John T. Sladek title.--Dirk P Broer 21:59, 13 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks Dirk, I'm starting again with that (back to the cloned submission). Kev. BanjoKev 22:10, 13 February 2020 (EST)

Netherland

Realized it is not the same author? :) I was just about to ask you about a clarification on the connection :) Annie 19:27, 19 February 2020 (EST)

My bad Annie! I just did realise, and deleted my question, ha ha. Nice to hear from you :) Kev. BanjoKev 19:29, 19 February 2020 (EST)

No worries - we all had been there. If it was the other one, he would have been above threshold IMO making that eligible if one wants to add it as non-genre. Which is what you were thinking about I suspect. :) Annie

You're channeling my thoughts perfectly :) Kev. BanjoKev 19:38, 19 February 2020 (EST)

Capitalization

I made one more capitalization tweak to Afterword (The Prowler in the City at the Edge of the World) after accepting your submission. "At" -> "at". It's hard to keep straight, but usually prepositions shorter than five letters are not capitalized (but I always have to go look at the official list -- the "Case" bullet in Help:Screen:EditTitle#Title). --MartyD 12:30, 23 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks for spotting that Marty. Kev. BanjoKev 12:31, 23 February 2020 (EST)

The Rest of the Robots

Hello,

The change here may appear self-explanatory when you can see it this way but not when the "old value" is lost when this is approved. The point of asking editors to write notes in these cases is to be able to reconstruct what happened after it was approved - both from the PVs (notifying them is fine but what if the inactive one comes back?) and from anyone else finding the edit later. Copying your second paragraph in the moderator note would have achieved that.

Additionally, the first bullet point in its changed version still does not contain a 1970 printing so if someone counts, it does not make sense. Or is that supposed to be exact copy from the book, the note should mention so. If so, the note should be more clear about that and the mistake in it. :) Annie 23:18, 25 February 2020 (EST)

Well held Annie :) I cancelled and resubmitted here. It was a poor edit; disappointing because I'm already aware of the problems (not to put too fine a point on it) elsewhere this sort of editing can cause. Thanks again, Kev. BanjoKev 06:19, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Clarke County, Space

Ping! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:03, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Using amazon data

Hi! Please don't use the Amazon day dates for publications older than about ten years: they are more likely erroneous than they are likely correct, especially when they are of the form XXXX-XX-01. Their system seems to default (or demands to be set) to the first of a month when only a year-month or a year is entered. I had to reject one submission and revert the date for another one. In general, Amazon is not a bibliographical site, it's a vendor's one. Their purpose is not to supply dependable bibliographical data (though this may happen along the way). Thanks, Stonecreek 02:32, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for that Christian, point taken and I've resubmitted the reject. As Amazon is omnipresent on ISFDB, is there any codified guidance anywhere onsite regarding Amazon dates? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 23:06, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Sadly not. The problem is that we don't know the exact politics or algorithms behind that. For today's publications they seem to be relying on information supplied by the respective publisher (though there still were some cases where those dates differed - maybe it's more a case when the publications are in stock with Amazon). For older publications they seem to have to rely on the input of others - possibly their own staff or other vendors via Amazon's market place. Since they don't source their data, in principle all data may be cautionary viewed as corrupted. For older publications, I personally do use the month of publication, provided the date at least has the assumed correct year (here is a publication for which the only known printing was in 1984, not in 1987) and is not XXXX-01-01 (one date that is most unlikely for printed publications), and no other, more reliable source is available. If there already is a month within our database, and Amazon's would differ (& both are unsourced), please let the existing one stay: it is possible that Amazon is right, but it is also possible that our entry was based on a more reliable source. Christian Stonecreek 01:16, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

New scans

Hi, I have put your 'other' scan for PKD's "Now Wait for Last Year" on hold: I can't see any difference? Stonecreek 13:12, 1 April 2020 (EDT)

It's full size and clearer. here and here Kev. BanjoKev 17:15, 1 April 2020 (EDT)

Oh, right. I'll approve of your submission. Christian Stonecreek 00:30, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Zones of Thought cover credit

Is the cover for this pub credited in the pub? The reason I ask is the cover title had been "Closed System" (I corrected it to match publication) which lead me to this record. But when I look at that pub, it states "The artists are not credited ... The background is the same John Harris cover art as the previous printings". However, the previous printings are all uncredited. I wanted to make sure something hadn't been imported into you pub by mistake and try to resolve the disparity on the Closed System credits. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (EDT)

I've just submitted item - 4613947 - in which I've stated the cover art credit - so all others can now point to this one for art credit. Zones of Thought is indeed a variant of Closed System 1986-03-00 (and so is Barry Kirwan's 'Eden's Revenge' [5]). Will you do all the tidying up? Many thanks, Kev BanjoKev 17:54, 4 April 2020 (EDT)

Yup. Thanks! -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (EDT)

Nice work - I've also attributed art credit to the three extant images on the db. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:44, 4 April 2020 (EDT)

The Forever War

I accepted your clone of The Forever War, but changed the page number for the author's note from [9-10] to [9]. We only list the starting page of content, not the range. If you would like to see ranges supported, it would be best to start a discussion at Rules and standards discussions and see how the community feels. I also added a sort order to it as based on the publication page count, it seemed like it would have been the unnumbered pages at the front, but the software will auto sort 9 after 1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks very much for sorting that out. I take your point about ranges completely. I'd forgotten that Roman numerals are sorted properly but Arabic need the pipe. Kev. BanjoKev 09:07, 15 April 2020 (EDT)

Also found about 15 other culprits, and sorted. Kev. BanjoKev 14:45, 15 April 2020 (EDT)

Jules Verne translations

You had posted a question to me on Willem H.'s talk page, so I thought I'd bring the conversation over to you. You'd said:

Hi Doug, I don't know if this would be helpful but I have an (unsubmitted) 2011 apparent 1st printing of the Wordsworth Classics title From the Earth to the Moon / Around the Moon. The only existing is here. Let me know if it's relevant and exactly what info you'd like me to look for. Kev. BanjoKev 16:28, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Pardon me if I start too basic, sometimes the information is known and clear, but the perspective is not. Jules Verne wrote in French and most of his books were translated into English as well as many other languages. There was stiff competition to get his works out to the public, so there were sometimes two or three different translations. The was also a fair bit of butchery involved to the content. Because of the simplifications, he became known as a children's author, which meant that when later translations were done, much of the sophisticated and technical material was dropped for the target market. It's only in the last 20 years that new translations have been made to correct the errors of the past. What this means is that for any given title (of which there are over 50) there may be multiple translations and for each translation, multiple titles. Trying to keep it straight is not easy. Translators are not generally identified, even if they are known, so the only way to truly differentiate the contents is by providing some text.

I've been through the TITLE entries trying to ensure that each one has a bit of the relevant text to help identify which translation it is - always the beginning of the first chapter, but not always the full paragraph or only a single paragraph. But searching all the relevant TITLEs to find the correct translation, only to have to search through all the other TITLEs to find a text match if you're book's title doesn't match an existing title/translation combination can be tedious. So I created a wiki page call [Jules Verne Translations to summarize the information. The layout is focused on helping someone with a book in hand to determine which TITLE to use as a base to create a new publication. Basically, find the French title, match the translation and then use the matching title.

There are TITLEs which have no translation, because the publications were created without specifying enough information to match to a translation. As I identify the translation, I have to unmerge the publication from the title and then re-merge it to the correct title. Once you identify the translation for the two titles in the omnibus, this can be done with the publication you referenced. My plea to Willem (and several others) was to identify the text so that publications can be differentiated correctly.

To specifics (finally). Omnibuses are a pain, as you can't add a publication to the correct title. You have several choices, but twoe relevant to me. You can enter the omnibus with two titles, but they may be assigned to either new titles or some arbitrary matching TITLE, I don't know how that works. If you determine ahead of time which title it should be matched to, you could put it in the moderator note and hope for the best. If it doesn't match, you can try the unmerge-merge process to get each title under the correct TITLE. Or you can simple tell me and let me do it. The other option is to fix up the existing entry (unmerge-merge) and then clone the first edition from it.

Hope this helps. ../Doug H 17:22, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for this very helpful post! I have 20 unsubmitted printings of about 9 titles spanning 1954 to 2014. Of these, 18 will need new pub entries and the other two exist but are not verified. I've looked at your wiki page and, using (A) Journey to the Centre of the Earth as a trial, note that I have a slightly different start to a Malleson translation (e.g. "On 24 May 1863, my uncle, Professor Lidenbrock, rushed" etc) in the Roads 1st printing.

It'll take me a while, but when I submit I'll do them all in one go and give you a heads-up so you can see if I've got it right in the ones I'm able to complete and I'll hand over to you on the ones I can't. Would that be good for you? Kev. BanjoKev 14:04, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Time isn't an issue - I've been at this for years now, as one thing leads to another. It started when I decided to verify all the copies I could find in my local libraries. I've got lists of lists now and schedules to check on things months from now when people stranded by the epidemic can return to their libraries. Feel free to start a section on my talk page and put in updates as you go if the all-at-once approach gets unwieldy. I'm currently working through the updates people have been putting on the wiki page and making sure the information is consistent with the notes and entries in the database. One of several issues I haven't resolved is how much difference in text warrants a new 'translation'. Your different start needs documenting, but I don't know if it's a new translation or not. I'm actually contemplating getting a good book scanner so I can compare complete texts. And that's why this is a Sisyphean task. ../Doug H 09:09, 28 April 2020 (EDT)

"You can enter the omnibus with two titles, but they may be assigned to either new titles or some arbitrary matching TITLE, I don't know how that works." - always "new" :) We never arbitrarily merge things.

One thing - please do NOT use unmerge in an omnibus - it creates a mess with the titles - it basically will create the newly "split" titles with the name of the omnibus - and while I trust you all to come back and fix them, things get dropped now and again - and if the name of that specific novel in this omnibus is a bit weird, you just lost the title. While fixable, it is a lot easier and cleaner to use Remove Titles from the Publication and then either edit to add or import (both can be submitted in parallel). For any other publication type, unmerge is the way to go. Annie 14:34, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Interesting! Thanks Annie, for showing us the Path of True Light! :) Kev. BanjoKev 16:54, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

My thanks as well, although my analogy would have been a pearl of wisdom. If I ever finish with the Verne, I'd like to collect the one's that you and others have strewn and string them together into some coherent documentation. ../Doug H 09:09, 28 April 2020 (EDT)

The 5th Wave

Hi Kev, I was reading through the notes of your clone submission here. It reads, in part, A one-page prologue to the novel titled "Intrusion: 1995", written by Yancey, appears on the only Roman-numeraled page; xiii. Novel starts on numbered page 1. And then in the contents section at the bottom there's xiii The 5th Wave Rick Yancey 2013-05-07 NOVEL. A prologue on page xiii, and the novel that starts on the same page as well in the contents section, which is in contradiction with the notes saying the novel starts on p.1? Could you have a look and let me know if contents page numbers need to be adjusted? Or perhaps further clarified in the notes? Thanks! MagicUnk 16:13, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

Hi MagicUnk, I've cancelled it (no probs) to give me space to think. The trouble started because it is a prologue, but with a title. I'm not aware that we list prologues separately (you can see where this is going...) but treat them as the start of the novel (?!). On the other hand I thought of "the novel continues on numbered page 1". Whichever way I think about it, it won't give up! Do you have a copy of this title at all? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 17:04, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

I've resubmitted. I think the contents title is now correct. What do you think? A second pair of eyes on it has helped :) Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 17:29, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

Hi Kev. No, I don't have a copy, I'm afraid. But now it's clear what you intended to do. Personally, since the numbering of the prologue is in roman numerals, I myself would record this as a separate title too and have the novel proper start on p.1, as you've done. One small remark: you could remove the (prologue to The 5th Wave) from the title, as it does not need disambiguation since it has it's own title anyway, and you have added an explanatory note :). MagicUnk 09:28, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! This is like peeling onions, there's always another layer :) I've submitted removal of the title disambiguation as you suggest. Kev. BanjoKev 09:59, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

Peeling onions is the quickest way to learn :) The quality of your submissions is quite detailed! I like it that way, keep up the good work! MagicUnk 12:58, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

I'm holding edits that would change the numbered page count from 460 to 457 on two copies of The 5th Wave. The notes state that 459-460 are numbered. Is that correct? If so, the page count field should remain 460 as we use the last numbered page in the book regardless of where the novel ends (see Help:How to determine the value for the "Pages" field in a book#Counting additional content row 1). -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

@ JLaTondre. Thanks for pulling these up - I've cancelled and resubmitted those two and also corrected the 3rd printing so that they all record the correct page count. For some reason I missed the link at the bottom of the help page here, even though I have seen it before. Doh! To make it worse, mine is the first example in the link you kindly provided. Appreciated! Kev. BanjoKev 14:15, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

@MagicUnk. Sometimes I wonder if I'm putting up too much detail but keep doing it because I imagine that future editors will be getting fed up asking PVs of old entries "Can you confirm if ..." - just the situation I find myself in on many occasions. As I've said elsewhere, the examples of your notes structuring in the early days enable me to record a lot of data in a 'non-chaotic' way. All that said, I really appreciate your 'pat on the back' :)) Kev. BanjoKev 14:15, 30 April 2020 (EDT)

This unmerge

So... why are you unmerging both? If both need to become uncredited, simply change the author of the title to uncredited and then variant to the correct author. If only one needs to be, unmerge only that one. Am I missing something? And yeah - it is one of those days :) Annie 18:31, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

All better now I think? :) Annie 18:41, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

Thank you Doctor for putting me out of my misery :)) Kev. BanjoKev 18:45, 29 April 2020 (EDT)

Covers and uncredited

Hello again,

When we do not know the cover artist, we do not create a COVERART record - this is the only place where uncredited cannot be used. So in this case, you just add the note to the interior art record that this is the same image as on the cover (and I wpuld also add it on the publication notes) so IF one day we find out who that was or change the policy (to allow uncredited covers to be connected for example), we can create the cover and connect them. See here for some details (the "leave blank" part essentially will prevent a COVEART from being created)). Let me know if I can assist further :) Annie 13:33, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

1951 Gather Yourselves Together

Do you want to rewrite this note - maybe add some verbs and explanations? I cannot make any sense of it (even after grabbing more coffee)... Thanks! Annie 14:13, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Same for this one. Are those subtitles? Are those books discussed? Are those someone's favorite reads for the year? What is that essay about? Annie 14:14, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Busted! They were a bit tentative as I wasn't sure if that sort of thing was 'done' :) However, if you ok them now, I'll edit them properly afterwards so that it all makes sense (and ping you for an ok on the result?) - if you'd rather not do it that way, reject them both, no probs. I've got the same to do to all the other chapters in the book. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 15:09, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

That's why I wanted to stop at 2 and figure out what we are doing here. I can approve them and you can edit later then. And yes - if you had read the thing, you can either add a synopsis or if there are worthy notes (subheaders and what's not) they can be added even if you had not read it. The more we know, the better the bibliography is :) Annie 15:40, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

And that's why I stopped at 2, to get some feedback :) I'll do the same 2 again, but from a non-read-it perspective so that it is coherent even if viewed in isolation. That's what I was missing - perspective. Thanks Annie! Kev. BanjoKev 17:35, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm submitting a rewrite of 1951 - let me know what you think :) Could it be more? less? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:27, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

At least it is clear what these titles listed there were now. It can be shortened, it can be changed I guess but it is clear now so I am good with it. :) Annie 19:30, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

1952 - could you show me some code which would separate the stories into three columns? (variable with screen width?). Kev. BanjoKev 20:25, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

You can make a table (supported html in notes. See one in this note. If you want to keep it less fancy, all you need is a tr tag and then 3 td tags and the separate lists go in each td. Don't forget to close the tr. Also you can use {{BREAK}} to make the UI a bit better. Everything after it will be available after clicking on a link in the text but without making the page too long. See an example in the same place. Annie 20:34, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Brilliant - just what I needed - I'll get on it. Thanks again Annie. Kev. BanjoKev 20:47, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

A small trick: When you need an example, use notes search. Look for {{BREAK}} or <tr> or whatever you need and it will find examples for you from our DB - and if they are there, that almost always means they are allowed. PS: Even if I did not know you were British, now I would have known - only a Britisher will say "Brilliant" in this context :) Annie 21:14, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

(unindent)When making a change in a huge note, writing "spelling" is like writing ";" as a note - not very useful and telling nothing to the second set of eyes or someone finding it later. I tend to say "bad -> bed" if that is what I changed for example -- so someone knows what to look for :). Please always specify what you are changing exactly - that is why I just rejected the latest - I am not checking thousands of lines to see if you managed to delete a symbol somewhere by mistake as well - mistakes happen and the point of the submit/approve system is for two sets of eyes (or one set twice) to look at the thing). Sorry but... :) Annie 21:22, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Sorry my stupid basic... I'm trying to find the cause of the yellow flag 'Mismatched HTML tags'. I didn't touch the code AFAIK. Kev. BanjoKev 21:49, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Nah, with too complicated html code, the check fails (on purpose), then we manually check that it is good and then ignore it elsewhere. Try not to use complicated tables :)

However about that typo - what the sentence says is that 3 sides of the book are gilded (covered in gold leaf) - as is standard for Easton Press - all 3 sides that are not the spine basically. So gilded is correct. I cannot even think of what guilded will mean here? Am I missing something? Annie 21:53, 6 May 2020 (EDT)

Good, you rejected it. I wasn't familiar with gilded - it just looked wrong - well that's me 0 for 2 tonight (HTML in Note Fields & gilded) :) Kev. BanjoKev 22:06, 6 May 2020 (EDT)