User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2016Jan-Apr

The Familar, Volume 2: Into the Forest

Would you mind double checking the spelling of "Familar" in the title of The Familar, Volume 2: Into the Forest? I notice the cover art spells it correctly (though being an Amazon image it's possible it is no longer for that version). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Scandanavia" in SF in Scandanavia (Locus #438) from Locus, #438 July 1997. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just some stupid typos on my part. Thanks for finding them. Mhhutchins|talk 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are too quick

Before you reconstruct please see my subsequent re-submission. In the first submission that you considered, rejected, I used [] rather than <a href= for link to the user talk discussion.

There is no preview feature as far as I know, so you (and perhaps other moderators) are sometimes too quick. Perhaps there should be a short lag (longer than any current lag) in the report of new submissions. --Pwendt|talk 18:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You're the first person to ever ask moderators to allow the submissions to sit in the queue. They usually complain about the wait! Sorry, I'll allow some "simmer" time in the future. BTW, this should have been posted as a response to my post on your talk page. This "ping-pong" discussion can be confusing otherwise. Mhhutchins|talk 18:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I supposed that you would receive prompt notice of my notice here, no notice of my reply on my own user talk page. --Pwendt|talk 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I always place a watch on talk pages to which I've posted a message. Editors also have that option. Mhhutchins|talk 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Really I suggest a lag only because ISFDB software provides no preview as Wiki software does.

* The protocols ensure that many contributors will work with at least two open windows, one for the db and one for the wiki, and will frequently contribute to the wiki during contribution to the db. At least I must do so, and I will not routinely before first submission enter links with the site specific encoding, either [] and [[]] or <a href=" and so on.

* The Notes composition windows are very small. Working frequently by copy-and-paste with modification, another thing I will not routinely do before first submission is delete all stray code above the top or below the bottom of the composition windows.

I submitted four changes to the Dragonfire publication and cancelled two "quickly enough" but one "too slowly". --Pwendt|talk 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a feature request to add a preview for editors. I have no idea how it stacks up in priority with other requests. We only have one person who writes the software so it may be some time before that feature is implemented.

If anything could be carried away from this discussion it's that one should do a quick look over the submission before clicking on the submit button; essentially, doing a personal preview of the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Add publication of novel under variant title

I have in hand (and own) a copy of Peter Graves (Dell Yearling, 1972) by WPduBois, evidently a publication of Peter Graves: An Extraordinary Adventure (1950) Title 877732.

Help:Screen:AddVariant essentially says don't Add Variant Title; add the publication instead. Add Publication evidently assigns the publication title, not only the canonical title, and prompts me to add "Additional Regular Titles", not to be confused with the novel itself under a variant title. Right? (As for Clone Publ.) And the alternative is to add a new novel, make it a variant afterward. Right? --Pwendt|talk 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

When you use the functions under the "Add New Data" menu, a new title is created, not necessarily the canonical title. If you determine that the current canonical title is incorrect, you can merge the two titles to create a single title which have publication records with slightly different titles. If you determine that one of the titles is a viable alternate title, use the "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" function for the title you wish to make into a variant of the one you've determined should be the canonical title. In obscure cases like this, it may be a subjective determination. I would suggest that the non-subtitled title be chosen as the canonical one. Mhhutchins|talk 19:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

LC Catalog lists for Pene du Bois 1950 and 1969 eds. of title Peter Graves, US and Australia --with no related titles as for Dragonfire [1]. And the WorldCat record we cite gives no subtitle [2]. Since not verified I think the subtitle simply be deleted from both Title name and Publication name, iiuc. --Pwendt|talk 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Please proceed. Mhhutchins|talk 22:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

TitleUpdate submitted, maybe the wrong place to begin. Now interrupted --save LCCN links [3], [4] for myself/sorry --Pwendt 20:21; two AddPub also submitted, initial stage done --Pwendt|talk 23:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheshire is (F.()W.()) Chesire (Publishing (Pty Ltd))

By mistake I posted this to Rtrace who has approved other Pène du Bois and Peter Graves submissions. There I explained the mistake and welcomed a reply anyway. This is a verbatim copy as I depart. -Pwendt

Hi, You approved my submission of new publication Peter Graves (Cheshire, 1969) Publ 554602 citing LCCN 69-15498. Poking around for more info about various publications of this novel I have learned that "Cheshire" is a catalog error for "Chesire". Here is a sample of the names of this publisher online as hit by various relevant searches. Chesire.com and Chesire.co.au not found, maybe out of business.

at facebook, "Chesire Publishing" [5] (i don't know what that target represents)

at ResearchGate.net, "F. W. Chesire" (in context "Melbourne: F. W. Chesire for The Australian National University")

at OpenLibrary.org, "F.W. Chesire Publisher"

at Biblio.comABEbooks, "F.W. Chesire Publishing Pty Ltd" Peter Graves, 1969, AUD $64.00

I understand that Melbourne and perhaps other locations belong only in the Note field of the database Publisher record or in wiki Publisher space (such as Publisher:Jonathan Cape). Right?

Probably "Cheshire" belongs in the Note field as a word of warning. (--not pseudonym because only a mistake by LC catalog department, perhaps one-time data entry error. I don't know how to check whether "Cheshire" recurs in the LC catalog, however.)

What about the name of the publisher? I find no version in the Publisher Directory under "f." or "ch".

I think a space should be used if FW is used with dots -- "F. W. "

--Pwendt|talk 23:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since your only source is a secondary source, and the OCLC record also gives it as "Cheshire", I suggest leaving it as is, until you find a more reliable secondary source. Right now you don't have enough evidence to change a secondary-sourced publication without having anything to back up your supposition. You can note the possible LCCN error in the record. Mhhutchins|talk 00:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, "Cheshire" has to be in the Publisher Directory, since that listing is built from publication records in the database. It wouldn't be under "F" until a publication record has been created (or updated) for that publisher. I just checked under "CH" and it's there. Mhhutchins|talk 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I just found this copy on Abebooks.com. Perhaps an email to the bookdealer can settle the matter of the publisher credit? Mhhutchins|talk 00:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Initially above, I labeled one bookseller "ABEbooks" instead of "Biblio.com", now corrected in boldstrikeface. There are other such bookseller pages, too, and I was working hastily with several windows or tabs, not checking all links.

FWIW, days ago I submitted an error report to LC Catalog, where I did find three attributions of 1960s books to publisher "F.W. Chesire" in Australia. I will return to "Cheshire" at ISFDB if there is some reply. --Pwendt|talk 22:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cover images from Amazon

For the Dell Yearling (imprint) edition of Peter Graves, 2nd printing 554604, i recently linked a cover image on the secure server (URL begins 'https') at Amazon, namely URL

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51OFHnt89sL.jpg

ISFDB and my browser correctly processes that URL value in order to display the thumbnail cover image correctly for me. But that is not true of the footnote which reads "Cover art supplied by images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com" and incorporates a dead link. I guess this may even violate ISFDB agreement with Amazon.

Perhaps the database interface works entirely for the insecure server ('http') ecx.images-amazon.com alone. (I see that component of URL on your user page, where it may be interpreted as an example rather than a requirement. That is why I ask you in this instance.) --Pwendt|talk 22:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea how the image credit is generated. Please post this on the ISFDB:Community Portal so that the person who writes our software can respond. Mhhutchins|talk 22:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary Poppins in Cherry Tree Lane

I submitted a complex update to P89071. Note to Moderator begins "to be continued". Perhaps you can see it regardless which moderator approves, rejects or holds it? Some but not all issues raised pertain to matters you and I have discussed previously and I shall return to some of those whether or not you do. No time now. --Pwendt|talk 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest updating this record to be the trade edition and then clone it to create a library edition. Because you're not certain if your copy is one or the other, you can choose not to PV either one of them, but give your copy as the source. I will accept the submission and you can take the next set of updates. Mhhutchins|talk 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from all the submitted Notes: I submitted shortfiction length 'nt' novelette for the content "Mary Poppins in Cherry Tree Lane" based on word-count 15000 estimated from hand count of one full page. Instruction somewhere suggests that title length 'jvn' juvenile should be submitted for the chapbook "Mary Poppins in Cherry Tree Lane". In the past I have never done either and from both as database user >5 years and editor >5 weeks I think I know that both these uses of length field(s) are uncommon. Comment solicited. --Pwendt|talk 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't add the "jvn" tag basically because it's too subjective and too nebulously defined.

Here's a word counter that will help you better determine the length designation. (You may need a Google account to access it.) Mhhutchins|talk 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess this is the place to do it, but I'm sorry to take so long to get back to you, but thanks for the condolences on my "My Messages" page. She taught me to read using fantasy and science fiction materials. I guess I haven't drifted too far from that for reading for fun all of my life. MLB 10:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading is one of the greatest gifts a parent can give a child. You should be proud of such a loving mother and her living legacy (as I'm sure your are.) Mhhutchins|talk 18:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Locus 45

Hi. You have two identical INTERIORART titles by Jim McLeod in Locus #45. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins|talk 03:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Also the Rotsler cartoon on p.95 of Vertex, April 1974 has the same title as the one on p.33 of Vertex, June 1974. Could they be the same? Doug / Vornoff 03:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I can only plead ignorance. In March 2007 I'd only been working on the ISFDB for a couple of months. Thanks for letting me know. Mhhutchins|talk 04:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mike Glyer's MAGICON: THE 50TH WORLDCON

I have a duplicate Mike Glyer title - MagiCon: The 50th Worldcon - appearing in your pv'd Locus 382 and Albinoflea's Hugo and Nebula Anthology 1993. I'll alert Albinoflea about this message. Is this a big enough deal to bother both of you with, or should I let these slide when I find them? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If they are duplicate titles, they have to be reconciled, one way or the other. So please continue to bring them to my attention when you find them. These records are very likely the same piece, but I'll have to ask Albinoflea to describe the version in his publication to see if they should be merged. In the meantime, I'll try and dig out that copy of Locus. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 05:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The version in the ClariNet Anthology is about 8500 words and begins:

"Once the airport monorail ride delivered passengers to the baggage claim and they boarded a shuttle bus, they went all the way to International Drive without seeing anything developers hadn't tamed to resemble a well-manicured golf course."

and ends:

"...And by sending "thank-you" notes to the workers, department heads left them actually willing to think about doing it again!"

Let me know if you need more to make a positive match. Albinoflea 02:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do once I dig out my copy. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 02:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It was easier to find than I thought. The Locus piece is about 7 columns long and doesn't include any of the text you've quoted here. It's divided into sections labeled REGISTRATION, FACILITIES, OPENING CEREMONIES, MAGICON CONCOURSE, THE GENERALISSOMO OF BOLIVIA EFFECT, RECURRING NIGHTMARE: MEET THE VIPS, etc. If that doesn't describe yours then they are two different pieces, and we need to add a note to keep them from being accidentally merged. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 02:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My version begins with those sections, but in a different order (FACILITIES before REGISTRATION, CARPE DIEM before RECURRING NIGHTMARE: MEET THE VIP'S, then ends with sections THE GRIPE SESSION -- NOT!, AFTER THE CLOSING CEREMONIES, SUMMARY.

I suspect your version may be an edited down version of what's on the disc. Albinoflea 03:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Must be, since as I said, none of the text you gave as an extract appears in the Locus version. I'll merge them and add a note. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins|talk 04:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishers, imprints, etc

I submitted publisher update re Concerning Leypoldt & Holt.

1. Is there any policy regarding alignment of the ISFDB entity with the main subject of webpages linked in the "Webpages" field? Here I have linked Henry Holt and Company at Wikipedia and wonder whether that page should be linked only from Henry Holt and Company (publishing entity somenow styled) at ISFDB.
2. Zillions of publisher, imprint, etc, pages at English Wikipedia are redirects. There is no such page for Leypoldt & Holt but see Holt, Rinehart & Winston. What about provision of Wikipedia redirect pages --under the actual name if possible-- in the "Webpages" field.
3. The crucial information about Leypoldt & Holt in this instance is in the Wikipedia biography Henry Holt rather than in the company article; thus "--Wikipedia: Henry Holt" in the Note I submitted. Perhaps it would be better to link both pages in the Note field, none in the Webpages field. Or to link neither and Note the information per "Wikipedia" (unlinked).

Maybe all for today. --Pwendt|talk 18:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no stated policy about links used in the Webpage field except that it must be "about" the publisher/author/series/etc. That's a wide range of possibilities. I would hope that it be "significantly about" the subject but that's a judgement call each editor has to make. Whether these links are direct or redirected is irrelevant, as long as the final destination provides what you believe is important information. A moderator should check out the links before accepting a submission that adds them. (I do, but I'm not sure if other moderators do.)

In this specific case, the Wikipedia mentions the publisher, and gives some basic data, but that same data could have just been placed in the Note field of the ISFDB publisher page, and would have save a potential user the effort (minimal, I grant) of going to another page in their browser. I see the same information is already here on the ISFDB. Maybe you added it. If so, that's fine, but it makes linking to the Wikipedia page unnecessary. Just my 2 cents.

To your last question, I would suggest not linking in the Note field to an external website. If it's important enough and "significant" then it should be linked in the Webpage field. One last thing: If you're linking to another ISFDB page, then it should be entered into the Note field (using HTML, of course), and not the Webpage field. Clicking on a link in the Webpage field opens a new tab. Clicking on a link in the Note field directs you to that page within the same tab. That's an important distinction in many cases. Mhhutchins|talk 19:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Vacation

I was just updating my own moderator availability and noticed that you're still showing as away from October. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 14:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops! That was one helluva long vacation. I'll fix it. Thanks for the heads up. Mhhutchins|talk 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate titles (or not…)

Hello Michael. Thanks for dealing with the titles of this pub. I suppose that the search for Yefremov's duplicate titles must have only given one single result (this one), but in fact, all the titles contained in the new Yefremov collection were already in the db. Most of them appear with their Latin transcription between brackets (like Озеро Горных Духов (Ozero Gornykh Dukhov)), but some (such as Олгой-Хорхой) don't. The case had occurred before, and when the author's name was the same, I had merged the Cyrillic titles with the ones that showed a transcription as well. I thought you might be interested to know about the problems created by this this ambiguous situation, and which led you to ignore already existent titles. In the present case, I have varianted the remaining titles to their canonical forms, and will suppress the combination "Cyrillic title" + "Ivan Yefremof", which would otherwise be left without a content. Linguist 10:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC).

Those Latin transcriptions shouldn't have been part of the title. That rubs against the ISFDB standard of recording credits as published. And as you explain, this caused the titles to be duplicated. Since I'm not familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet I'll leave it to others to figure out how to clean up these titled (and others that may be in the database.) Regardless of the alphabet, there can only be one canonical title. Mhhutchins|talk 17:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. My own policy is not to use these transcription in the canonical title (I usually give the transcription in the notes), but finding a majority of them in Yefremov's bibliography, I considered this was an accepted practice. I'll try and normalize what I can. Thanks. Linguist 10:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Done for Yefremov (hope I didn't forget any). Linguist 11:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Gary Cohn

Michael, is there any note on this author in Orbit 18? There are three Gary Cohns listed at wikipedia, of whom the comic author (born 1952) seems to be the most likely candidate. Christian Stonecreek 18:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the book gives even the slightest hint about him, no biographical hint at all. Even the short piece about him in "Arcs and Secants" bio section only gives his interests (nothing about comics though.) The name is too common to confirm which of wikipedia articles may be about him. I doubt any of them are. I also doubt the other story is by the same "Gary Cohn". Sorry not to have been more help. Mhhutchins|talk 18:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just checked the second story "Deadly Prey" and it could be the comic book writer. Although he wrote for DC, there's nothing about him writing for any of the Batman or Catwoman books. We may need to disambiguate the "Deadly Prey" author from the "Orbit" author if we determine that he wrote the Batman story. Mhhutchins|talk 18:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Typos

Here are some possible typos:

• TheReview - TheReview of "Empire Shotz Back: Six Plays" produced by Amios in The New York Review of Science Fiction, May 2013
• bestselllers - Locus Bestselllers (Locus #643) in Locus, #643 August 2014
• documentay - Lafferty Deserves a Documentay: A Call to Action in Feast of Laughter, Issue 1
• ficiton - He Hears ... (Science Ficiton Review #27) in Science Fiction Review, September-October 1978
• forclosure - Science Fiction and Fantasy Latest Casualties of Forclosure Crisis in More Plumage from Pegasus
• otherwisse - Books, e- and otherwisse in The New York Review of Science Fiction, March 2010

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding them. All corrected now. Mhhutchins|talk 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary Poppins Opens the Door

2015-12-10 you approved my entry of the Mary Poppins 80th Anniversary omnibus P551288 with amendment of the date for ESSAY Author's Note (Mary Poppins the Door) T1942007 from 1943, as signed by P.L. Travers, to 1944 --as you explained User:Pwendt#"Author's Note (Mary Poppins Opens the Door)". Commonly London: Peter Davies, 1944, is considered the first edition of the novel.

One online bookseller description[6] confirms that the Note does appear in the first U.S. edition. That bookseller gives 1943 date for the book, as does LCCN 43-17570 (down at the moment but I confirmed by LC Online Catalog search), and Kirkus reviewed the book in its 1943-12-01 issue.

I leave this having submitted a new publication for the first U.S. edition, with date 1943-00-00 and Warning "Pub date earlier than title date", and Note that indicates issues Submission 2931593. Closing words: "perhaps printed and released earlier in US during WWII paper shortage?"

For the Author's Note T1942007 I submitted a Note of description, no change of date from 1944 to 1943. --Pwendt|talk 17:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Once the submission is accepted, the records for the introduction can be merged, using the earliest date. But I would still question whether the title was first published in the US. That seems highly unlikely (I'm not sure if the paper shortage was worse in the UK.) According to the LCCN, the year is bracketed, which means it's not stated in the book itself. A librarian surmised it was published in 1943, possibly due to a copyright notice. Mhhutchins|talk 20:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I recall reading perhaps in Leonard S. Marcus that US children's book publishers long published most books in annual or semiannual batches, one being for the Christmas season. (In the UK several Narnia novels were published in successive years for the Christmas season.) So I removed to an academic library where I have access to newspapers for contemporary reviews, hoping to AddPub first US eds. of all four MP novels. ...(hours pass) ...

For this book 3, I found seven notices and reviews in US newspapers dated 1943-11-29 to -12-19; also NYT 1943-09-01 notice "[MP] will be on the scene again this autumn in [MPOD]". This may not be conclusive as [a] some 1944 pub may be delivered for review in time for the 1943 Xmas season (altho most of that season's reviews must cover books available for sale, I am sure) and [b] books announced to be "out this autumn" may not appear this autumn. Also [c] I find all 8 Mary Poppins books reviewed in US newspapers during Oct-Dec, most often Nov, but mid-November is or was Children's Book Week and publishers may show up with not-quite-published books to promote.

Same search for this book 3 --library ProQuest subscription whose scope is not so many UK as US newspapers-- I found notices/reviews in The Irish Times Dublin Ireland April 1944-04-29 "Books in Brief" and in The Observer UK August 1944-08-27 "Holiday Shelf". That suggests publication Ireland next spring and Britain next fall.

Bottom line. Toward a more general solution for me, I wonder whether you are familiar with years as reported by Clute & Grant Encyclopedia of Fantasy (not SFE) and Watson & Willison The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature? And is there any tradition of resort to one or both for confirmation of some publication data? I found both these via Google search for the 1937 MP omnibus this hour, after searching the newspapers for reviews of 9 Mary Poppins titles previous hours. Both apparently agree/confirm the suggestion of notices/reviews in US newspapers that the 1937 omnibus, 1943 book 3, and 1962 "A to Z" were all published during an earlier calendar year in the US. Clute & Grant "Travers" (eg book 3, "1943 US"); Watson & Willison "Travers" (eg book 3, "New York 1943, London 1944"). If you don't know can you tell me where to look or ask whether these sources are considered reliable for publication years and whether anyone here has a convenient way to cite such sources quickly? --Pwendt|talk 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your thorough research confirms the 1943 publication. Add your sources for the publication year in the Note field of the publication record. The answer to your question regarding Clute & Grant's reference as a reliable source is yes. I've not heard of Watson & Willison, but it appears to be a good source as well. Don't hesitate to use either of them as secondary sources. Just be sure to give them as the source in the Note field. Thanks for all your effort regarding this matter. Mhhutchins|talk 02:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This also confirms a 1943 publication: Travers, P L Encyclopedia of Fantasy. I thought you might like to know its contents are online as well (albeit not as well publicized as SFE). Uzume 05:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Uzume. Now I know the online EF and I have linked it from a few places in user space here and at Wikipedia. Maybe I will remember to consult it.

Thanks, Mhhutchins and note that moments ago I continued #Solario the Tailor (above or below) from one week ago. Good night. --Pwendt|talk 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dean Ellis

was the artist of this pub. See here. --Zapp 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The link doesn't work, either here or in the updated pub record. Please correct it. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a forum. I imagine the link works when logged in (I did not feel compelled to register). Uzume 03:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that. If You open the "wrong link" and go to Suche/Search then put in "Dean Ellis" You will get 13 artworks of him. The 10th one is the cover art. When I tried the given link it worked. --Zapp 18:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will correct the record with a more stable link. Mhhutchins|talk 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Change of author or variant?

In this title 'Rick Wilber' is only stated in the table of contents, the story heading says 'Richard Wilber' as I realized later. Should I change the author or how can I fix it? I think it is a variant like this title Thanks --Peregrin 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just read the reason why my submission was rejected. --Peregrin 22:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't create a variant. Just correct the author field of the title record. Mhhutchins|talk 23:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Author field is corrected. --Peregrin 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Odyssey / Harcourt Young Classic

I tried to indicate this a fortnight ago. Now plainly and briefly, I hope.

Publisher = imprint Odyssey / Harcourt Young Classic / Harcourt [a] mistakenly uses two spaced slashes where the first should be unspaced; [b] designates jointly the tp Odyssey Classics and hc Harcourt Young Classics publication series.

Evidently both publication series names (or all three including "Harcourt Brace Young Classics") should use the plural "Classics".

AddPub Mary Poppins Comes Back is one instance of HYC (and HBYC in at least one earlier printing evidently). --Pwendt|talk 01:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing imprint with publication series, which is a common mistake. If that's how the publisher field is given, then that's the publisher, not the publication series (which should go in a separate field.) In this case, the record indicates that "Odyssey" is an imprint of "Harcourt Young Classic" which is an imprint of Harcourt, based on how the slashes and spaces are entered. It's possible that the imprint is "Odyssey/Harcourt Young Classic" so that there shouldn't be spaces around the slash. I don't have any books with that imprint, so I can be 100% certain. If you believe that Odyssey is a publication series, then it should be removed from the publisher field and place in the correct. Again, be wary of secondary sources. BTW, this configuration of publisher has records back to 2000, so it appeared after "Brace" was removed from the publisher name. So it can't be part of the one that includes it. Mhhutchins|talk 01:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There's only a half dozen or so books under this publisher name, and only one of which is primary verified. You might want to question that editor to confirm how the imprint/publisher is stated in the publication. Mhhutchins|talk 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Publication series

second of two

What is the best way to see what publication series names are in the database? Such as Odyssey Classic(s), Harcourt (Brace) Young Classic(s). --Pwendt|talk 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no one single place where all of them are listed. You can search for them using the standard search box. I would suggest that you just enter the books as they are published, regardless of whether there's a series by that name in the database. Unlike title series, the books must have an actual stated publication series. If you're working from a secondary source, be wary. In fact, I suggest just noting it if you're not certain how (or if) the publication series is stated. Mhhutchins|talk 01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lin Carter obituary

The obituary by Will Murray in your verified Locus 327 is a shorter version of the one in my verified SFC 104 and show up as duplicates. The longer one has about half of the shorter one's text exactly.  They're published a month apart but we don't really know which was original or revised. In that case would it be proper to retitle the later published one "Lin Carter (revised)" and then varianting that one to the other? If they were totally different I would just put a note saying so, but they're not. Or would you have a different fix for this? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 04:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If the texts were totally different, you'd have to disambiguate them. Remember: disambiguation is done when the title and author credit are identical, but the text is entirely different. You would not variant them in any case. Remember: variants only indicate a change in title or author credit, not a change in text. Since they are both from the same source, I suggest merging them, and then adding a note that the SFC version has been expanded from the Locus version. Mhhutchins|talk 06:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've submitted a merge and will add a note upon acceptance. On a similar situation for "Walter M. Baumhofer" where the two were identically titled but totally different texts (almost) I submitted a note on each saying the other was different. The two will still appear on a duplicate list with a note. Should I have disambiguated the titles by changing them so that they won't appear on a duplicate list? Something like "Walter Baumhofer (Locus)" or somesuch? (They both have series attached). Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally believe a note is sufficient to avoid the accidental merging, and that's the whole purpose of disambiguation to start with, not just to create a new title. Otherwise we'd have a whole slew of disambiguation for cover art titles when the same artist does a different cover for a different printing of the same work. That happens a lot more frequently than you'd imagine. In those cases, I add a note asking editors to "DO NOT MERGE", and that has worked fine for many years. Disambiguation of generic titles is a whole different kettle of fish. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. I'll leave my disambiguation notes as submitted and approved. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cyberiad

Hi. I've asked a question which involves several verified pubs of the above. Could you provide input in this discussion? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Front Page McGuffin and The Greatest Story Never Told

Would you mind double checking Front Page McGuffin and The Greatest Story Never Told in your verified The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror: Volume Twenty and variant or merge with Front-Page McGuffin and the Greatest Story Never Told (based on presence/absence of hyphen between "Front Page")? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a hyphen in the title. I've merged the title records. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins|talk 00:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tags code and nowiki

In order to quote HTML tags effectively (here in the Wiki, probably not in a database submissions such as Note to Moderator) you "need" to use < nowiki > and < code > tags (without space inside). For example (but without spaces inside the 4th of 5 tags):

<code><nowiki><ul>< /nowiki ></code>

(without space inside) displays as

<ul>

For lack of those tags your exchange at User talk:JudgeDeadd#Ebook editions is a mess and my subsequent section is indented. Simply "< ul> (without space inside)" may be adequate sometimes, as probably in my lead sentence above.

This "need" is per my experience at Wikipedia. There may be a shortcut there, or here, that I don't know. --Pwendt|talk 01:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll correct the post. I normally preview wiki messages before posting them, but I must have been distracted at the time, handling the thousands of submissions in the queue, and dealing with all the questions here on the wiki. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins|talk 04:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Barcelona Círculo de Lectores

At P1649712 i provided Publisher-field entry "Barcelona Círculo de Lectores" from the linked WorldCat record[7] with this Note to Moderator in part:

"Barcelona Círculo de Lectores" fits the linked record and our treatment of two other "Barcelona publisher-field entries; we also have both "Circulo de Lectores" and "Círculo de Leitores" (both different from the last three words as given here).

Another WorldCat record for the same publication[8] gives "[Barcelona] : Círculo de Lectores" (and 21cm, not 22cm). There is no other WorldCat record for this ed. among the 15 or so records for The Magic Finger that do carry date 1995.

Plausibly "Círculo de Lectores" should replace all three of the Publisher-field entries quoted in my Note to Moderator, with a Note in the Publisher directory that identifies Barcelona. From previous exchanges I guess that you have a tool to ascertain whether or not any of those three Publisher-field entries appears in a primary verified Publication record. (I don't have that, nor any that counts the numbers of appearances, as far as I know.) --Pwendt|talk 02:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The publication to which you link doesn't exist, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. And Notes to Moderators disappear once the submission is accepted, so I can recall to what submission you're referring. I can go back to a list of accepted submissions if you can give me a link to the publication record.

I remember an earlier submission today in which the publisher was given as "Barcelona Círculo de Lectores", and which I corrected. It was based on an OCLC record which didn't separate the place of publication from the publisher.

As for "a tool to ascertain whether or not any of those three Publisher-field entries appears in a primary verified Publication record", the only tool I have is the ISFDB search engine. Search for the publisher and see whether there are any primary verified records listed for them. You'll have to click on each year, and PV records are clearly marked. This tool is readily available to everyone. Mhhutchins|talk 04:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You linked the title record above instead of the publication record. Are you referring to this publication? As for the publisher name, I made a notes earlier today in the publisher records of the Barcelona publisher Círculo de Lectores and the Portuguese publisher Círculo de Leitores that they should not be confused. Mhhutchins|talk 04:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that one. I was actually looking at the record for my Approved ClonePub Submission #2947779 and grabbed the wrong wikilink target from the bluelink at top. (The "Approved ClonePub" display, and its cousins, may be improved by adding a link to the newly created page.)

I submitted Publisher=Barcelona Círculo de Lectores which you (or another moderator) has revised to Circulo de Lectores. So far so good, and so it is now exclusively spelled in the database (the Publisher directory reveals), but I did mean to include the diacritically marked "i" in the name, which you added manually to the linkname just above your signature. I did suppose that "Leitores" is a typo for "Lectores" but you caught the fact of that matter, I see.

Only one other record reports Publisher=Circulo de Lectores (no diacritics), not even OCLC verified P373020, and its linked OCLC plainly reports the publisher as we should wish, with spaced colon and diacritic: "Barcelona : Círculo de Lectores". --Pwendt|talk 22:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We ordinarily don't enter place of publication in the publisher field. (You may find older records in the database where that is done) An exception: if there are two exactly named but different publishers we add a parenthetical disambiguation, usually the country. Whether it has a diacritic or not, I really don't care, as long as it's searchable by the average database user. I've added it to the Spanish publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 23:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Price £ or $

What say ye re the use of symbols without numerals as at T13704 --succinctly to identify UK and US editions, i presume. --Pwendt|talk 03:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with this practice, even though I don't think it has been documented as a standard procedure. It's shorthand to let users know the country of origin. If you believe the practice should be documented or that it should not be allowed, start a discussion on the Rules and Standards community page. Mhhutchins|talk 03:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

1966 ISBN

one of multiple new sections posted by one editor in one session

What say ye re report of early ISBN in a Note as at P359600 (relying on Publisher and ISBN fields of one WorldCat record)? --Pwendt|talk 03:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I say the editor of that record saw that the secondary source was wrong and questioned it. In fact, I believe the record should not have been created based on that OCLC record, since it is obviously for a later printing, and the OCLC record gave the copyright date as the publication date. There is another OCLC record which is more accurate. Guess we'll have to blame it on a most likely dead librarian since the OCLC record was created almost 50 years ago. I will correct the problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. (Even if only to point out a relatively minor error based on a relatively tiny percent of errors made by the not-so-infallible humans who work on WorldCat.) Mhhutchins|talk 03:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Catalogue search results

I submitted update to Series: Mr. Browser (which name includes the dot by transnational convention I suppose) with this Note to Moderator, for reference in case that isn't you:

I doubt the targets are appropriate "Web Pages" entries; have no interest in the series but this may help someone else add US titles at least

Comments solicited. Must run as I am overdue. --Pwendt|talk 23:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a separate wiki bibliographic comments page is better than using the webpage field. That field should be used to link websites containing more substantial data. Mhhutchins|talk 00:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hayakawa Books

I have made a submission that affects some of your primary verifications. For discussion see: ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard#Hayakawa Books. Uzume 16:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Classics of Modern Science Fiction

When you get a chance, could you please review this discussion, which affects your verified pubs? TIA! Ahasuerus 18:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Giuseppe / Guiseppe Arcimboldo

I've been tidying up the various mispellings and variants for Giuseppe Arcimboldo and discovered one more possible variant: could you check if your cover art record for Rhys Hughes's Mister Gum is really spelled "Guiseppe" or if it's your mispelling – it's a common spelling mistake with this name! If the record is correct, it will need to be varianted. Thanks for checking. PeteYoung 19:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be varianted, as there are no rules that state that a misspelled art credit should be made into a pseudonym and the record varianted. So I corrected the cover art record, and noted the misspelling in the publication record's note field. Mhhutchins|talk 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hadon of Ancient Opar

User Dcarson verified the 8th printing of Hadon of Ancient Opar by Farmer. See [[9]]. I do own a copy of the 8th printing, and it states 'Printed in Canada' on the copyright page. As far as I know this is the only 8th printing, there is no US 8th printing. DAW consequently numbered the 6th, 7th and 8th printing, whether published in the US or Canada. Can I change the information? I cannot ask user Dcarson. Zlan52 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please update the record to indicate that it's printed in Canada. The PJF bibliography confirms that the 8th printing was a Canadian one. Be sure to do another primary verification of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wilson Cartoon in F&SF

I'd like to change the title of the Gahan Wilson cartoon on page 93 of the April 1971 issue of F&SF by replacing the disambiguation with the caption as per our standards. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't add records for cartoons, and didn't for this publication either. I consider such attention to detail to be a waste of my time and effort. Mhhutchins|talk 18:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Solario the Tailor

P.S. I transcribed the first level Contents of this 1922 COLLECTION(?) P547175

"Contents" p[v]-vii --transcribed here without detail entries; with page numbers at left; with colon as break in two-line chapter/tale headings--

1 The First Night: Story of the Old Man in the Spangled Coat

31 The Second Night: Alb the Unicorn

73 The Third Night: The Son of the Tailor of Oogh

126 The Fourth Night: The Ragpicker and the Princess

169 The Fifth Night: The City of Dead Leaves

206 The Sixth Night: The Enchanted Highwayman

currently lost investigating this and other books by Bowen in contemporary newspapers (I have automated search via university library at some times of the week, closing in 10 minutes) --Pwendt|talk 23:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In the database one week later, this remains a COLLECTION without any collected contents. Wondering whether it should be considered a NOVEL here, I searched title records for for 'Arabian Nights' in the title field and found that the database contains many 'Arabian Nights' NOVELs including several early versions of The Arabian Nights Entertainment. My scan isn't enough to conclude the matter, however, and I don't have time now to open all of 'Arabian Nights' COLLECTION and others.

The main headings of the six chapters of Solario the Tailor are transcribed above. "To Be Read First" pp x-xiii concludes, "the assemblage composed itself to hear the story of the Old Man in the Spangled Coat --the latter being the subtitle of the following chapter one, which is aptly named. Chapter two begins "Solario the Tailor was sitting at the open window of his room", when two members of the First Night's audience knock on his door and ask for another story. Thus there is a bit of frame story. Not simply a collection.

In the Harvard College Library (per the Hathitrust.org copy online [10]) it is one of "Short Story Collection: Winward Prescott" per the bookplate. Offhand I guess that means one Winward Prescott considered it a short story collection, and so donated it.

I am out of time.

P.S. We catalogue Mary Poppins in the Park [book 4] as a novel, albeit perhaps because it is so widely considered a novel that it would be confusing to make it anything else. Yet I'm sure that Arabian Nights is widely considered a collection. --Pwendt|talk 23:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Classifying a publication as NOVEL or COLLECTION can be tricky in border-line cases like this. We usually follow the general consensus (like the Mary Poppins novel), but obscure works like Solario must be handled on a case-by-case basis. Questions to be asked: Was any of the "chapters" ever published before or after the book publication? If so, it would lean toward COLLECTION. If not, and all of the contents are original to this publication, it could be considered a NOVEL. Are there separate copyright notices for each "chapter"? Can a "chapter" be read as a complete work, making the reading of the others as unnecessary? Someone who has the book and who can answer these questions will be in the best position to determine how to type the book. Since it's currently classified as a COLLECTION, I see no problem with creating content records for each of the "chapters". (I'd leave off the prefacing title of each.) Mhhutchins|talk 20:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Doubleday

1. Visiting wiki Publisher:Doubleday & Company [corresponds to Publisher:Doubleday in the database -Pwendt], i infer that page move [wiki redirect from Doubleday to Doubleday and Company] breaks the header link to database. Perhaps a warning to page-movers can be crafted. A brute fix would be ... i suppose, to edit Publisher ... sorry, no, I don't know what the header template needs.

I fixed the header link to database Publisher:Doubleday, there at wiki Publisher:Doubleday & Company. -Pwendt

2. Now in the database visiting Doubleday [11] ; Doubleday, Page [12]. Hours ago I viewed the former and misunderstood the Note, i infer from viewing the latter now. Probably the Notes mean, for instance, "enter 'Doubleday, Page & Company' rather than 'Doubleday' for 1900-1927 working from secondary sources". I interpreted it the other way as "entry 'Doubleday' stands for 'Doubleday, Page & Company' during 1900-1927" re Tales from the Silver Lands T1843946, first edition (in the queue as I depart).

--Pwendt|talk 04:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the publisher pages should state such things as, for instance, that 'Doubleday' alone should not appear before 1946.

I looked up all four earlier Doubleday books and elsewhere ascertained their publication by Doubleday Page or Doubleday Doran ... 'Doubleday' no longer appears as publisher before 1946. --Pwendt|talk 04:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the note for Doubleday sufficiently explains the name changes and the years that each were in use, but perhaps a clarification is necessary. Of course, there's no way a person entering publication records knows this information unless they first check this publisher page. Is that going to happen? Occasionally, but not enough that someone has to come along and clean it up. And thankfully, you found the four or five records which were in error and corrected them. Thanks for doing that. You still have the option of adding more notes to each of the incarnations of the publisher for further explication. (Sorry, I didn't see this message when it was originally posted. I missed it because there were three or four posts since the last I'd checked my talk page. That happens when you decide to take a day off!) Mhhutchins|talk 05:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The database pages for four Doubleday publishers are much improved today with one line of explicit instruction and cross-references. Is that your work?

For what it's worth, I did something similar yesterday at the wiki page Publisher:Rinehart, expanding some names and adding double links to the database and wiki for Holt, Winston, and HRW. (But I see that previous editors and I all overlooked a link back to the database for Rinehart itself!) The object might better be achieved by a template or a See also section that links to related publishers here and in the database, rather than by making the prose so busy as I have done.

2. Doubleday, Doran introduced dollar novels June 1930, concerning which I have an extremely messy set of notes at Publisher:Doubleday#Dollar Fiction (Doubleday Doran), which probably should be in my user space. Today I did add or augment in the database those four 1930 novels --among the 57 dollar novels in all genres, June to September-- represented by green links within those messy notes. --Pwendt|talk 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's some good research, but you may not be aware that the ISFDB is moving away from using the wiki for data. At one point, there was no other way to enter notes about publishers, series, publication series, etc. so we started creating wiki pages which were linked to the database. Once the software was changed to allow the writing of extensive notes in the database proper, we started moving the more important data to the database. The goal is to eventually delete all wiki pages which are not for help documentation and communication between editors. It would be easy to add the data you've written here to the publisher's database page. Just be sure that it's not data for your own personal use and something that adds value to the database. If "Dollar Fiction" is an actual publication series, and not just a price point, you could create a publication series for it and add your notes to it. The only problem with that is the Doubleday Crime Club is now a publication series, and a publication record can't be in two different publication series. Thanks. (BTW, I did the cross-referencing links between the various publisher names for Doubleday.) Mhhutchins|talk 21:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing title field of title record

Friday i edited Solario the Tailor, 1922 first edition P547175, with a Note to Moderator that closes, "NOTE TO SELF: later refashion title with colon and re-date". The fix has been done (perhaps you did it yourself). The technical question is whether a single fix at the title field of the title record also fixes the COLLECTION publication and INTERIORART title. --Pwendt|talk 04:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I made the change based on your note to the moderator. And no, a submission editing the title field of a publication record, only does that and nothing else. I'll repeat what I said on Ahasuerus's page: "Editing the title field of a publication record doesn't generate any automated changes. It doesn't correct the title field of the title reference record, and it doesn't affect the title of the COVERART record either. These changes must be done manually." Mhhutchins|talk 06:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the manual Help:Screen:EditPub#Title, bullet point Case, Tales From Silver Lands T1843946 (where i have some work in the queue; see just above) should be Tales from Silver Lands "unless there is some specific evidence that the author intended" capital From. Briefly and among other things, I noted this for the primary verifier of the latterday publication User talk:Don Erikson#Tales from Silver Lands. --Pwendt|talk 04:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to the capitalization of "From", it is one of the fourteen words that when appearing within the body of a title should not be capitalized, regardless of how it appears in the publication. The exception you cite is not about these fourteen words. It's about the full capitalization of a word (usually a proper noun), not just the first letter of a word. I wish I could give you an example right now, but none comes to mind. Mhhutchins|talk 06:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here we go. I found one here, where the author intended that the word "BEM" be fully capitalized. Mhhutchins|talk 06:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Pwendt

P.S. At User talk:Ahasuerus#Galactic Diplomat you interjected re "Editing the title field of a publication record" --strictly correct, but only by mistake. I hadn't noticed that the typo needing correction appeared only within a variant in one publication P14964, not in the title record for the work. The question I meant to ask is the one covered here re both Solario and Silver Lands. --Pwendt|talk 04:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. My response on Ahasuerus was to your statement that "the subtitle typo will be corrected automatically". To which I said no, nothing is automatic. It must be done manually. Again, edits to the title fields of publication records have no effect whatsoever to a title record or a coverart record unless you're able to also edit the title reference record or the coverart record within a publication edit, and that's only allowed under certain circumstances, i.e. it's not greyed out, allowing an edit of the field. Mhhutchins|talk 06:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As the section heading says, I ask about editing the title field of a Title record; does that cover the "titles" (first lines in pages as rendered) of publications or covers or interiors that match the title of the work. Thus for instance the first field in the page T1971214 Solario or T1843946 Silver Lands. This is what I meant to ask also concerning Galactic Diplomat where I hadn't noticed that the publication "title" was a variant appearing only there.

Based on your top interjection, I infer From=>from requires no more than a courtesy notice to the primary verifier (done yesterday), so I will now submit that change alone at T1843946 (done). Thanks. --Pwendt|talk 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Correcting the case of a title based on ISFDB standards doesn't require that you notify primary verifying editors. But if it's for capitalizing all the letters of a word (as in the example above), or to make a change in case that is not covered by the ISFDB standard, you should first discuss it with the PV editors before making the submission. Mhhutchins|talk 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've accepted the submission correcting the title field of this title record. But as you can see, it did not change the title field of the publication records. That's the point I've been trying to make clear all along. Mhhutchins|talk 19:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sterling's Involution Ocean

I've added an INTERIORART record for the map that appears in my UK edition of Bruce Sterling's Involution Ocean. You're PV2 for the first edition (which I also have) and it's on page 22 if you want to import it. Cheers. PeteYoung 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Flynn's The Washer at the Ford

Michael, before entering the corresponding item to this anthology it seems to be clarified if this isn't a NOVEL in the original English. In the german translation it slots somewhere above 43,000 words. Would you be able and willing to estimate its original word amount? Christian Stonecreek 18:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It took awhile to pull this book out of storage. I did a rough estimate of the story's reprint in the collection, and it came to 45K, so technically it's a NOVEL. I'll update the title and then you can do the varianting to it. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem for the wait. There's always something else to do. Thanks for the research! Christian Stonecreek 04:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging titles

Hello, I am a little unhappy with the merging of "Der Kuß des schwarzen Gottes" and Der Kuss des Schwarzen Gottes. Even there's no difference in pronouncing the vocable "Kuss" has to be written as "Kuß" necessarily until 1996. Also "schwarzen" should be used for the 1976 pub title instead of "Schwarzen". How can I get two different pub titles for one title reference as you did for Mr Norrell referenced to Mr. Norrell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boskar (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure what you intended when you made the submission. If you had made a note to the moderator, I didn't see it (because I didn't moderate it the submission.) As for answering your question, it can only be done by varianting one title record to another. The problem is the ISFDB doesn't allow variants based solely on capitalization. And as far as I understand the situation, it's a matter of German capitalization. (I could be wrong, since I don't speak German.) I suggest that you post a question on the Help Desk about how to handle this. A situation similar to this arose in the past, and the outcome was quite inconclusive, especially for a native English speaker like me. We don't have a comparative issue in English, so I don't fully understand how to handle it. At this point I can undo the merge, if you wish. But before varianting, it would be best to ask at the Help Desk. We have several editors who know the German language. Mhhutchins|talk 07:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, please remember to sign any posts you make on the wiki. It really helps to know who has posted the message, and also seeing the date and time it was posted. Just get into the habit of ending all messages with four tildes. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 07:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess my question was a little unclear. Yesterday you removed the English variant title "Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell" (without period) by merging it with the original English title "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" (with period). Nevertheless this pub (without period) has this title reference (with period), i.e. the pub title is different to the title reference. This option would solve my problem. Boskar 18:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You're comparing the title field of a publication record with the title field of a title record, which is sort of like apples to oranges. You can't have one title record with two title fields. So if you want one title for this work, then the title will appear in both publication records as the same title. If you want each publication record to contain a title record which reflects the title exactly as it appears in the publication, you can't have a single title. One title would have to be considered the canonical title, and the other would have to be varianted to it. And as I said above, capitalization can not be used as the basis for varianting one title to the other. So as I suggested, start a discussion on one of the community pages so that this problem that is unique to the German language can be resolved. I resolve to stay out of it. :) Mhhutchins|talk 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. Guess I got it at last. I will unmerge the 2 titles. Boskar 00:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's better to use the "Remove" function and add a new title, than to "unmerge" a title from a publication. (The "unmerge" function should be used to unmerge a publication from a title record.) I've done that for you. I've asked one of our German editor's to see if he knows better how to handle this dilemma. Mhhutchins|talk 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the original English title with the two German titles varianted to it. It's my understanding that these are identical translations. Someone (who and when I don't know) added a note about the other title and linked it. Mhhutchins|talk 00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

焔の眼

Hi, Michael. I'd like to make a number of changes to this publication record for which you have a primary verification for. First, I'd like to update the note with the following changes: fix the typo "stated n the copyright page", update the translator note to include the native script name to "冬川亘 (Wataru Fuyukawa)", add identifiers and links to NDL and Worldcat as "JPNO: 82050717" and "OCLC: 673776146". Next, I'd like to remove the space in the price field to adhered to PublicationFields:Price. Finally, I'd like to put add this as entry "044" of pub series "海外SFノヴェルズ" (which seems to be printed on the cover image as well as being confirmed by the NDL record). Uzume 13:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I have online notes that state that the cover artist is 岩崎政志 (Masashi Iwasaki) and that there is a commentary/foreword section by 安田均 (Hitoshi Yasuda). Perhaps you can confirm such? I also doubt whether "0397-880440-6942" is a catalog number (more likely the printer's phone number but I shan't argue that point if you really think it belongs). I notice the NDL and Worldcat records state there are 279 pages vs. your claim of 274 (unlikely to make much difference but something to check on). Thank you. Uzume 13:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"0397-880440-6942" can't be a phone number in Japan as there is no "0397" area code in Japan (as far as I can tell). Also, the number is too long after the area code. The longest it could be is eight digits, and that's only in places like Tokyo (where they have a four-digit prefix on all phone numbers). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a leading 0 is used in Japan to indicate long distance much like a leading 1 is in the United States and the area code 3 is used for special wards of Tokyo and Komae. See Telephone numbers in Japan. It is not unusual for phone numbers to have dashes in different places like that one. Anyway, you might be right about it not being a phone number but whatever it is, I am guessing it looks and is positioned something along the lines of THSCRTHSTR1978-copyright-page.jpg (although that is a bit older). I am pretty sure that too is not a catalog number (also notice that copyright page is from a different publisher). I have not seen any publishers (and certainly not Hayakawa) quoting any catalog numbers with such a format. Uzume 19:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of how phone numbers look in Japan as I lived there for three years. That is 100% not a phone number, for several different reasons. The number in the example you gave is a similar format, but I would have to see the copyright page for this book in order to compare them and see what the number is. It's possibly a number used by the actual printer. Maybe Michael can scan that and upload it so we can compare them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Japanese just above the number in the example you gave, it states 三協美術印刷　宮田製本. 三協美術印刷株式会社 (Sankyo Bijutsu Insatsu KK) is a printing company in Japan. 株式会社宮田製本所 (KK Miyata Seihonsho, "sho" meaning "location") is a bindery. Both are owned by Kodansha, so that number is likely a print run indicator, or something similar. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I too read that and knew they were names of a printing and a binding company (I did not know they belonged to Kodansha but that is not surprising). If it is a print run indicator, it is more like a number line or print statement than a catalog number. Thanks for your input Nihonjoe, it is much appreciated. Uzume 01:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And speaking of catalog/ISBN numbers, does your publication not mention an ISBN? Amazon mentions and based on my calculations, the ISBN 4-15-202044-X seems the appropriate candidate for that publication. Of course it is possible though that might be the right ISBN the publisher did not actually mark the book such until a later printing (which is not unusual of course). Thank you. Uzume 15:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That number is nowhere on the book itself. Mhhutchins|talk 21:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That isn't surprising since Japan didn't always include ISBNs until 2-3 years after that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Uzume, please make all of the changes that you suggest. There is an introduction on pages 11-17 and what appears to be an afterword on pages 275-279. Can I scan the first and last several pages for you? I will zip them and upload them to my Dropbox for you to examine. (Don't want to burden the ISFDB server with such matter.) Then I'll use the ISFDB email system to send you the link to the files. It may a day or so before I get a chance to scan it. Mhhutchins|talk 23:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is no hurry (I do not check that email often anyway but I shall know when to look for that). Uzume 01:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Doubleday Science Fiction

I see that it's no longer a publication series in the database, and I suppose it is now imprint only. I put that 1963 book in Doubleday Science Fiction because the linked Worldcat record does so [13]. But I am out of time. --Pwendt|talk 21:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's neither an imprint nor a publication series. It was a marketing label, originally intended for the libraries, which was Doubleday's biggest buyer. I have removed the publication series from the 4 or 5 records which gave it. And since none of the records were primary verified, it was unnecessary to inform any editor. Mhhutchins|talk 22:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

O'Brien Press; The O'Brien Press Ltd

I question the wisdom of "The O'Brien Press Ltd" as canonical name and wonder whether, if there is adequate reason for such, the Publisher Directory can be augmented to include redirects --as in this case from O'Brien Press under O'. Both Amazon [14] and LC drop the leading article, eg as publisher of the following book:

Anyway, early today I added an edition of The Last of the Fianna as O'Brien Press, 1992 P560822 citing both LCCN.loc.gov and the same record at WorldCat. "New Publisher" warning but I didn't check the directory under T, "The", nor did the approving moderator. ... [15] so this is now part of the record at T15066 with a Title Note that incorporates "Dublin: O'Brien Press".

By the way, The Last of the Fianna is only 20 pages longer than The Children of Lir. I'll check whether my library has a copy of some edition. --Pwendt|talk 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in the past, the publisher directory is automatically generated by data provided in the publication fields of publication records. So there's no way that you can redirect from one publisher to another listed in that directory. (The database structure differs greatly from the wiki structure, which can benefit from a "redirect".) If I entered records for "Doubleday", "Doubleday & Co.", "Doubleday and Company", or "Doubleday & Company", there would be four different publishers in the publisher directory. It's up to us editors to reconcile the differences, to determine whether the entries are valid and should remain separate, or if they should be merged into a single publisher. I will merge the two O'Brien Press entries if I can determine if they are the same publisher. If you see similar situations in the future, please bring it to the attention of moderators on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard, since only moderators have the ability to merge publishers. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

May I add a note to this - being Irish based - The earlier 1970'S books published by O'Brien always had the full 'The O'Brien Press' ( in a similar manner to say 'The Bodley Head' . Later and more recent paperbacks tend to have no pattern - O'Brien by itself being most common, but often also stating The O'Brien Press, AND on some non fiction titles, adding 'Limited' for good measure. Thomas conneely 20:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The title pages of their most recent publications give it just as "The O'Brien Press". The "Ltd" is only given on the copyright pages. In cases where there are different designations we side with the one stated on the title page. Mhhutchins|talk 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

P383853

Hi, Michael. I'd like to change the following publication record for which you have a primary verification for:

• P383853 ISBN 4-15-010719-X

I'd like to add this as entry "719" of pub series ハヤカワ文庫・SF (Hayakawa Bunko SF). Both the NDL and Amazon records confirm this as being a part of that series. I also plan to update the associated title record to include the native script name of the translator "友枝康子 (Yasuko Tomoeda)" and the Latin transliteration "Sasayakana eichi". Thank you. Uzume 13:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please make the suggested changes. (I'm still going to get you a scan of the pages from the other Bishop Japanese novel, so please be patient. Working the elections lately have gotten me quite razzled. It should get back to normal soon. Thanks.) Mhhutchins|talk 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I submitted the changes (they might be approved by the time to you read this). I am quite patient. In fact, though it sounds like an interesting investigation, I am in no hurry with regard to that at all. Take your time. I know things creep up and take a toll on people—even good things.

For example, last weekend I volunteered to judge at a state championship robotics tournament (I have been judging at such tournaments for several years now). It is a league for middle school and high school age teams to compete in (I also dabble in a few other leagues above and below in ages but this is the one I like the most). Anyway as fun as it is to do such things, it is also very taxing and when Monday arrived I felt I would be useless for work and thus took the day off to recuperate. Uzume 06:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Life...sometimes it just gets in the way. Mhhutchins|talk 00:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Edge of Dark Water

Hi. I would like to add a cover artist (Les Edwards) to your verified. Also I think the date should be changed to 2012-08-00 as the copyright page states August 2012. Thanks. --Jorssi|talk 21:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed adding the cover art credit, and failed to update the publication date field which was first given in the Fixer submitted record. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've made the changes. Mhhutchins|talk 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Austin J. Small, Seamark

Austin J. Small A6692 "(1894-1929) UK adventure and thriller writer" used pseudonym Seamark in Britain only per SFE.

Re one novel: LC catalogue records (linked in our publication records) and newspaper items (not linked) show The Avenging Ray (1930) as by Seamark in its UK edition only --SFE confirmed. --So entered here, where Seamark is a pseudonym for canonical name Austin J. Small.

Re another novel: Historical newspapers evidently confirm that both Master Vorst (1926) and The Avenging Ray (1930) were published first in the UK, and the former alone published under a different title in the US, The Death Maker. --SFE confirmed in so much. I followed SFE also in entering the first edition Master Vorst as by Seamark P560871.

Just now I tried to make Master Vorst by Seamark parent of The Death Maker by Austin J. Small. That is rejected; if i understand correctly, because the relationship between author names forces "Master Vorst by Austin J. Small" T19765 parent of Master Vorst by Seamark.

I don't know that Master Vorst was published as by Seamark; in that the publication record merely follows SFE. There is no LCCN. OCLC (linked) shows responsibility "by Austin J. Small ('Seamark')" --precisely as the publisher describes it in running prose (quoted).

Beside the main point, I doubt that SFE gives the correct date for US publication as The Death Maker, probably 1927 rather than 1926. --Pwendt|talk 19:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We must first determine which of the titles is canonical. Having done that, we create a parent record which gives the canonical title and credited to the canonical name...regardless of whether or not the work actually appeared under that exact combination of title and author credit. For example, a novel written by Author A was only published as by Author B. If Author A is considered the true name (the canonical one) of the author, then the parent record of the novel will be credited to Author A, even though there was never a publication of that title ever published and credited under that name. In this case, I'll use SFE's determination that Master Vorst is the canonical title, and make it the parent title with two variants, one credited to "Seamark" and titled Master Vorst and one credited to "Austin J. Small" and titled The Death Maker. You'll note that there is currently no publication record of the work titled Master Vorst credited to "Austin J. Small". But that doesn't mean that it will always be that way. Someone could publish it tomorrow with the canonical title by the canonical author, and it would go under that title record. Mhhutchins|talk 00:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, i understand what you did today. Thanks.

When I added Master Vorst by Seamark one day earlier AddPub approved by Hauck, do you know whether the Vorst/Small canonical/canonical Title record was created automatically because Seamark was in the database as a pseudonym for Small? or needing a similar intervention by Hauck? --Pwendt|talk 04:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Variants are never created automatically. They have to be created by humans. So is the decision about what is the parent title and what is the variant title. So is the decision about what is the canonical name and what is the pseudonym. Mhhutchins|talk 05:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

IIRC this titled appeared on a cleanup report meaning that the pseudonym/canonical relationship was already established. Hauck 06:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant to the point I was making, since the relationship was established by a human (regardless of when it was done) and not by the software. Mhhutchins|talk 07:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York Review Children's Collection

Publisher 37937 The New York Review Children's Collection (credited with about 10 publications 2011-2014) seems to be Publication Series 1040 New York Review Children's Collection of Publisher 4056 New York Review of Books --Pwendt|talk 23:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

oops

per O'Brien Press above I posted a copy to ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard#The New York Review Children's Collection --Pwendt|talk 00:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the two publishers and added the publication series to the appropriate publication records. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Nor Crystal Tears

Can you explain what you mean about "rebound copies of paperback books"? My copy is hardcover and does not appear to be rebound as I understand the term.--Auric 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a book which was originally printed as a paperback edition, and then the covers were removed and replaced by boards (usually for the library market), creating a fake "hardcover" edition. What is the ISBN and printing statement given on the book's copyright page? Is there an ISBN and price printed on the back of the book? Do you remember buying it in a retail store and/or recall how much you paid for it? Mhhutchins|talk 06:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Can be seen in my request. Inside and outside ISBNs match. The cover price is obscured by the Perma-Bound sticker, but the spine and barcode have the price as $2.75. This is an ex-library book, so what I paid for it is not relevant.--Auric 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

But it's relevant to the discussion of whether a separate record for your copy is eligible for the database. Your response makes it clear that you have a rebound-for-library printing of the Del Rey paperback. If you disagree with my assessment, please post a message on the ISFDB:Rules and standards discussions page in order to discuss whether we should create records for such copies as yours. Mhhutchins|talk 18:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

I own The Notebooks of Lazarus Long. Kpulliam states that his copy of the "sixth impression" is priced at $5.95 while my copy of the "sixth impression" is priced at $7.95

How should I proceed with this? Blargg 01:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Clone the record for Kpulliam's primary verified copy, and proceed to make the necessary changes to make the record match the copy you have in your hand. (This message would have better been posted on the talk page for Kevin Pulliam, so that you two could determine whether his record may be in error.) Mhhutchins|talk 03:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Didn't know. I'll know for next time. I'll do as you direct and contact them. Thanks! Blargg 08:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Magic Ballerina OMNIBUS and COLLECTION publications

In that Magic Ballerina series, we now have publications OMNIBUS #1 #7 P338877 and COLLECTION #2 #8 P340612. Perhaps this is transient, while conversion of the entire series from NOVEL to CHAPBOOK/SHORTFICTION is underway; at the moment #7 alone of these four remains a novel. --Pwendt|talk 22:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Once its constituent parts have been changed to SHORTFICTION, the publication type should be changed from OMNIBUS to COLLECTION (in both the publication record and its title reference record.) Mhhutchins|talk 22:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ordering contents

Hello, is there any way to put in the right order the contents of a book when the page number isn't indicated.Thanks. Wolland 01:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

First, keep in mind that if an unnumbered page falls within a range of numbered pages, you should go to the nearest numbered page (forward or backward) and derive the number of the unnumbered page.

If an unnumbered page falls within a range of unnumbered pages, then you can use the "pipe method" described in the Sorting subsection of this help page. You'll also find other circumstances where using the pipe method would be recommended.

BTW, that help page should be bookmarked since it contains at least 90% of everything you need to know about creating and updating publication records on the ISFDB. Mhhutchins|talk 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1988 Annual World's Best SF

I have left a question about The 1988 Annual World's Best SF at Publication:WBSF1988. If you have the publication handy and it's one with a table of contents could you please explain the pagination at Publication:WBSF1988? Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My copy doesn't have a table of contents either. Since it appears that all verified copies don't, I've amended the note to indicate that. Mhhutchins|talk 19:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ursula LeGuin's "Searoad: Chronicles of Klatsand"

Hi. I've came across this title record of Ursula K. Le Guin's collection Searoad: Chronicles of Klatsand which has a pub record primary verified by you and which has a note stating "Non SF". I just double-checked with the description of the book's German version at amazon.de and it also states that it's neither SF nor Fantasy. However, the collection record and the title records for the contained stories are not marked as "non-genre". Is this an old record from a time when "non-genre" didn't exist and should be changed now? Jens Hitspacebar 20:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Titles are not be primary verified, so notes and other edits can be made to them without the verifiers of publication records being notified. In this case, I pv'd the record of my copy more than 6 years ago, long before we were able to flag a work as nongenre. Feel free to make a submission to flag the title. Mhhutchins|talk 21:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the content titles should also be flagged. Mhhutchins|talk 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Be careful when updating titles which have not been assigned a language. Otherwise, it will be assigned the editor's (yours) preferred language. Look at this title's language. Mhhutchins|talk 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I actually watched the language field and changed it to English if necessary but must have moved one item up to Dutch accidentally. Will change it... Thanks. Jens Hitspacebar 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

LibriVox links

Do LibriVox links have some special dispensation and get to be linked from the title records for some reason? Can/Should I also place links for all the other online available copies of King Solomon's Mines I can find on the Internet (there are many at Gutenburg, Internet Archive, Google Books, and HathiTrust, etc. that could be here too if so) in the title record? To me it seems most appropriate to put links to specific pubs in the specific pub records. Why does it need to be in the title records? Thank you. Uzume 21:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The data added to a title should be title specific. How can it be more specific than to link the ISFDB title record to an online publication of the entire work? Such links are encouraged. So to answer your question about linking other online publications, yes. If you believe this is overkill, start a discussion on one of the community pages. (But first do a search for Project Gutenberg and LibriVox publications and look at their title records.) Mhhutchins|talk 21:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I will start such (after some research). I do not see how publication specific links constitute title specific data (if that were true we would just include all the pub data in large title records). Thank you. Uzume 21:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please proceed if you must, but don't expect an overwhelming agreement with your stance. Again, I ask, how more title-specific can it be to have a link to the actual work which is represented by the title? Do you believe that only webpages about the work should be linked to the webpage field of a title record? Your last statement belies your point and reveals a misunderstanding of the database structure. Mhhutchins|talk 22:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to enlighten me about our database structure. My understanding is that we capture data about pubs in pub records and data about works in title records. I do not understand how links to actual online publications is particularly title-specific. I could easily extend your question as: How more author-specific can it be to have links to the actual publications an author contributes to in the author records? But somehow methinks links to online publications by authors probably do not belong on author pages either (unless they are to online works about the author which are unlikely to be speculative fiction content). Uzume 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to your statement that providing a link to an online publication in the work's title record is the same as including all of the publication data in the title record. Perhaps you were being facetious, but if you really believed that then this will "enlighten" you. I'll hold off responding to your questions until you've presented your case to the community. Think on this: there are currently more than 1700 database titles linked to librivox.org.

One last thing, and after this I'm going to discontinue any further discussion on my talk page about the matter: I rejected your submission to remove data from a title. It is ISFDB policy to be particularly careful about removing data. Removing a link to an online publication of that work from the work's title page is indefensible when its value far exceeds any harm that an editor feels is caused by it being there. Mhhutchins|talk 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to end this part of the discussion too (leaving it to the community discussion). I believe you misunderstood me though. I did not mean that providing the link in the title record is the same thing so much as if one continues on that road, that is what it degenerates to (happily no one wants that). The link you provided is just to the database schema documentation which I am quite familiar with (since I have worked on our back-end code before). Those are somewhat outdated too, e.g. Schema:titles only specifies title_wikipedia URL field not any general URL links (which are are discussing). They provide some documentation on intended (original) semantics, but are more targeted at syntax than semantics (as a community we make decisions that go beyond such all the time). I do not think having the link in our records/database is harmful but I do think if we put data in random places, the database degenerates and loses usefulness in finding things. Links in the title records have a very small documentation (just saying which site it is from). I could easily add ten Internet Archive online publication links to a title record (which are all useful) and there is no way to know which is which short of opening and examining them. The point is they are more useful elsewhere (not that they are not useful at all). I am not questioning your rejection of the submission so much as the larger picture (we have had rejections that have generated discussion and ended in change). Thank you (for being so careful). Uzume 02:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Complex numberlines

Hi, Are you familiar with complex numberlines such as these from two copyright pages (the first transcribed now, the second from memory)?

2016-03-12 17:43, line 1 restored (having cut-and-paste it by mistake); the two publications are represented as records P562749 and P523482 --Pwendt

1. 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [flushleft] [and flushright] 4 5 6 7 8 9/0
2. [centered] 15 16 17 18 19 20 BVG 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Neither book evidently includes a dual-purpose interior such as those of the paperback Odyssey Classics and hardcover Harcourt Young Classics (Odyssey/Harcourt Young Classics).

The former is from Scholastic per back cover "only available for distribution to the school market".; by arrangement with the Disney imprint Hyperion Books for Children, evidently represented here by Miramax Books, P65892.

One bottom line: Should these simply be catalogued as first printings of their editions? --Pwendt|talk 22:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Both are first printings. And it would be nice if every primary verifying editor would record these complete complex number lines in the Note field. But there is no requirement that they do so. In the first case (Scholastic), this is the first printing, published in 2004. In the second case (Hyperion), this is the first printing, published in 2015. Every publisher has their own method of recording printings. Some don't even do it at all. If the number lines of enough publications are recorded, we can easily interpret them and then add a note to the publisher page to help others in determining the printing method used by that publisher. Here for example. Mhhutchins|talk 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The second is not Hyperion but Candlewick, now in the database verified P523482. ...

Thanks, and let me add that the former also shows the following on the next line:

[centered] Printed in the U. S. A. [and flushright] 40

(I am reading this one on the bus, to which I now depart; I'll enter and verify it later.) --Pwendt|talk 23:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to know the title to determine if that's the 40th printing. Perhaps that publisher (I assumed it was Scholastic) used a different method. Mhhutchins|talk 00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No it's the first printing, same book as top, Scholastic, thus two lines:

• 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [flushleft] [and flushright] 4 5 6 7 8 9/0
• [centered] Printed in the U. S. A. [and flushright] 40

perhaps the 40th week of the year? Anyway, I'll include both lines in the notes if/when I enter it. --Pwendt|talk 17:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's possible, but again, I'd have to know the title before making a more informed determination. Mhhutchins|talk 18:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My entry of that book ("former"; The Supernaturalist T155146 Scholastic 2004) is now in the queue with Note including these four lines:

First printing per numberline; copyright page shows three lines thus:

-- 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [flushleft ... flushright] 4 5 6 7 8 9/0

-- [centered] Printed in the U. S. A. [... flushright] 40

-- [centered] First Scholastic printing, October 2004

The 40th week of the year is the first week in October. --Pwendt|talk 18:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. I only have one Scholastic publication in my collection, published in 2007, and it doesn't have such a number. Mhhutchins|talk 19:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

the two publications are represented as records P562749 and P523482, verified

The second is from Candlewick, not Hyperion as you guess. Judging by the Philippa Fisher trilogy first U.S. editions at my local public library, Candlewick Press adopted such a complex numberline between MMYY 0909 and 1010. --Pwendt|talk 17:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

An Interview with Larry Niven

Michael, is it possible that this piece in Science Fiction Review, July 1978 is an abridged pre-publication? With apparent three pages it looks considerably shorter than the later versions here and here. Or is it a whole different interview? Is there any hint in the magazine or would it be better to become more detailed? Christian Stonecreek 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I only have the one in SF Review, so I have nothing to compare it with. If you like, I can give you a few questions form the interview to see if they're the same (or similar) to the other. Mhhutchins|talk 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The interview begins with some questions on teaching to write science fiction ("From your perspective, can good science fiction writing be taught?"), then concentrates on the characteristics of Niven's own brand of sf, touches upon his collaborations with Pournelle and ends with a question about 'those projects you currently have underway and what you envision for the future'.

I have counted overall 43 pairs of questions/answers. To cite a few more: Q11: 'As a master of "hard" science fiction, how deep a knowledge of science does one need in order to write science fiction?'; Q22: 'How do you know, in writing science fiction, when some concept or idea needs to be explained?' & Q35: 'What hopes do you have for your work in terms of impact?'. I hope that helps in a possible identification. Thanks so far, Michael! Christian Stonecreek 09:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, and it was conducted at Niven's home in Tarzana, California at an undisclosed time. Stonecreek 10:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The SFR interview was also conducted in Tarzana, and has only 31 pairs of Q&A. And none of the questions you've given here are asked. So it appears to be a different interview, even if it were conducted at the same time. Mhhutchins|talk 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm not certain that the SFR interview is the same as published here, although someone has varianted it. The length itself belies it being the same interview. Could the Algol interview be 11 book pages? Perhaps we should get Don Erikson into the discussion? Mhhutchins|talk 18:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the research! I have asked Don to take a look into the collection of interviews. Christian Stonecreek 08:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Before this gets forgotten, I have varianted the interview in the Elliot collection to the Starship interview. It really looks far more likely, also as the other pieces by this interviewer from Algol/Starship seem the ones enclosed in his collections. But please, Don, would you take a look into this matter upon your return? Christian Stonecreek 14:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To make things worse, it (the one in SF Voices) seems to be a third version. Same location, same first question, Q11 & Q35 are present (but are respectively Q8 and Q27) and Q22 is absent. Hauck 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hervé! So 'your' version is likely to be some combination of the previous two interviews. So, I'll unvariant this one and add & change some notes. Christian Stonecreek 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Complex corporate COVERART

One of my notes at P259409 Back inside flap credits jacket illustrations (c) 2008 "iStockphoto (flower background)" and "Simon Spoon/iStockphoto (fairy)" Do we have a generic way to create a COVERART record for such artwork? --Pwendt|talk 17:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's a single work, then credit "iStockphoto" and "Simon Spoon" by adding an artist, not by adding a cover. If it's two separate works, use the add cover function and crediting each "artist". Corporate credits are a wave of the future, and even though I dislike them, we have to go with the times. Mhhutchins|talk 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Autocracy of Mr. Parham

I have from a library the first edition U.S. Doubleday, Doran 1930 P560233, for which I submitted some more Notes this hour.

1. I do not think that dollar novels or dollar fiction should be considered a publication series but I reworded one note to say clearly "assigned numeral 1 in similar cumulative advertisements July to October" and I plan to write up the dollar fiction material. (Initially revise my research and data entry notes at Publisher:Doubleday#Dollar Fiction (Doubleday Doran). Take your suggestion and add something to the Publisher database page; of course, at least a link to the wiki section.)
2. I will read the opening and closing at least with attention to our label of this novel as "non-genre". From reviews I suspect that that is strictly correct because the romance of books 3-5 is portrayed as seance-induced rather than real experience of Mr. Parham. In front pages the publisher lists it among Mr. Wells' "following Fantastic Imaginative Romances" rather than among his "following Novels" (eg, William Clissold T1802946) or his "books on Social, Religious, and Political Questions" (eg, A Modern Utopia T172023, a genre novel in the database). The spec-fic aspect is focus of some newspaper coverage, eg Mr. Wells predicts a Second World War.
3. Illustrations in this book are not among the 328 numbered pages but inserted on glossy stock--at a glance I guess always two sheets with drawings on the two inside pages only, either two facing 1-page illus. or one 2-page illus. Suppose that there are 15 such inserts. Should we then record Pages=328+[60]?
4. I wonder whether I should primary verify (transient) from a copy of the book without dustjacket. At the moment I have two such older first editions checked out, this one and P250551.
5. FYI --info we don't record anywhere afaik-- the publisher name is fashioned and laid out precisely thus at the bottom of the page (complementing the full title and credits at the top, which are now quoted in the Notes):

DOUBLEDAY, DORAN AND COMPANY, INC. GARDEN CITY, N. Y. 1930

--Pwendt|talk 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Again, take into consideration that there is a concerted effort to remove all data from the wiki.

2. Some works are more borderline than others. If it's obviously not spec-fic, leave it as "non-genre". If there are some fantasy or sfnal elements, that can be noted and the non-genre flag should be removed.

3. Count the number of pages (both sides) that are not numbered but have substantial content and add it to the page count field as "XXX+[XX]". If only one side of the page is illustrated, that can be noted. You can optionally only give the number of illustrations in the page count field, as long as you note how the number was derived. I know of no established rule on how to handle the kind of pages you're describing. You'll be fine as long as you give an explanation in the note field.

4. Yes, you can do a transient primary verification. Just add a note: "Primary verified publication was without dust jacket."

5. Rather esoteric, in my opinion, and adds little value for the effort it takes to record such data. That's what the bibliographic comments pages did so well, but now that they're being removed, good luck trying to figure out how to add this to a record. You can always add it after a BREAK, so that it doesn't clutter up the note field. (Adding "{{BREAK}}" to a Note field hides everything below it and requires the user to click further for the remainder of the note to be displayed.) Mhhutchins|talk 22:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk page maintenance

You have contributed a lot to my user talk page. Thanks. I don't find any guideline about its maintenance; later I might search some Noticeboard archives. What do you suggest, or request for yourself or the community, regarding its maintenance by deletion of some items or by their relegation to "Archives" subpages. I will not do either without notice that material has been removed on such-and-such date. To the main point, I much prefer to retain on the main page material that is out of sequence rather than, say, everything with 2016 datestamp.

Thanks in advance. No urgency but I plan to undertake "it" this winter--which ends March 31 on my calendar. Good night. --Pwendt|talk 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't delete ANYTHING. You never know when you have to go back and find something. But I don't pull individual messages to archive. I think it's best to archive in 3-4 month periods, depending upon the volume of messages. Of course, nothing requires that you do anything, but you may find other users complaining about long talk pages. They can become quite cluttered. I try not to remove anything that's less than a month or two old. For example, at the end of January 2016 I archived the messages for September-December 2015. If you need help to set up an archive, just ask and I'll do it for you. Mhhutchins|talk 23:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Tundra Books

Today I submitted some data on books by Michael Bedard --cautiously because of issues pertaining to two publishers, so fashioned on copyright-page: "Published in Canada by Tundra Books"; in USA "by Tundra Books of Northern New York" (known to use same ISBN for some titles if not all) one submission

For now as I depart let me simply ask whether you are familiar with "Tundra Books (NY)" -- a name in the publisher directory Tuesday, if i recall correctly, but no longer. Maybe you purged it? --Pwendt|talk 00:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Because it's a single publisher, which usually prints one edition for both markets, there should be one record for it. There may be some editions which were restricted to the US market, and those will have to be updated to separate them from the current publisher listings. I'll leave that to primary verifiers and those with access to reliable secondary sources.

You'll note that I changed the Bedard anthology of Chinese tales to a collection crediting both authors. Also, I changed the ISBN-13 to and ISBN-10, because the ISBN-13 didn't exist in October 2003. Mhhutchins|talk 00:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I also have to ask you again not to pose questions in the Note to Moderator field. They can't be answered there. They should be asked on the wiki page for moderators before making the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

ISBN-10 and -13

What is the threshold date for ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 as preferred entries in the database? Is that the edition date, so that later printings preferably retain ISBN-10 values regardless whether ISBN-13 has been assigned. --Pwendt|talk 21:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "threshold date". The ISFDB standard is to enter the ISBN as it is actually stated in the publication. If both are stated, then you enter the ISBN-13 with the option to record the presence of both in the Note field. Our software is designed to display both ISBNs in the publication record, with the first one being the stated, and the second one being the derived. The publishing industry adopted the ISBN-13 standard circa 2005-2006, and it was supposed to be fully implemented by January 2007. Some major publishers, started using it earlier. Some smaller presses delayed it (inexcusably, whether ignorance or just plain incompetence.) If your source is Amazon, you have no other choice but to use January 2007 as the date to determine which ISBN to record. (Amazon records both without regard to the actual stated ISBN.) LoC usually records the stated ISBN(s) only. OCLC has the same policy as the ISFDB. It gives the stated ISBN first and then the derived ISBN second. Mhhutchins|talk 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would enter ISBN-10 because I hate to see the 10s and 13s mixed. Out title records are displayed --at least under default settings, which I use-- with a single ISBN column. Here a 10 and there a 13 undermines the easy recognition of duplicate publications/etc from the ISBN column in the title record display. --Pwendt|talk 21:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It may not look aesthetically pleasing, but it's the ISFDB software was designed to display the stated ISBN when it appears in the publication list under title records. Displaying one or the other without regard to the stated ISBN is clearly wrong. Mhhutchins|talk 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

For the first edition of The Painted Wall and Other Strange Tales P566153, LC catalog 2003-100904 gives only the ISBN-13 value, which I submitted by copy-paste. It notes "Invalid ISBN: 0887766528". Evidently that is the corresponding ISBN-10 (our publication record displays both and i suppose it uses a correct algorithm that makes no mistake). Have you any interpretation? --Pwendt|talk 21:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a case where the LoC record has been "fixed" after its creation. There is no way that a 2003 publication has an ISBN-13. I'm not sure why it claims that the stated ISBN-10 is invalid. You can go to any number of websites that accepts searches for ISBNs to determine their validity and it comes up as a valid number. So everybody but LoC is wrong? I don't think so. The ISFDB, along with everybody else (but the Loc, I suppose) is using the same algorithm to determine an ISBN's validity. Mhhutchins|talk 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Typos 10-Apr

Here are some possible typos:

• Eqyptian - Frank Frazetta: The Barbarian; The Huntress; Tree of Death; Eqyptian Queen in Pictures at an Exhibition
• Neaderthal - Still Living? Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neaderthal Enigma in Science Fiction Review, Spring 1985
• expectiations - Eve at the End of the World: Sexuality and the Reversal of Expectiations in Novels by Joanna Russ, Angela Carter, and Thomas Berger in Erotic Universe: Sexuality and Fantastic Literature
• fonrtispiece - Fonrtispiece (Ariel #4) in Ariel: The Book of Fantasy, Volume Four
• hitchikers - The Other Side: Vanishing Hitchikers and Dead Cats in Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone Magazine, October 1987
• intepretive - Cartoon: "From Long's Intepretive Guide to Common Workplace Doodles" in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, March 1999
• maerchant - Operation Green Maerchant Exposed! in Journal Wired, Spring 1990
• publishng - The Resnick/Malzberg Dialogues XXXII: e-Publishng Revisited in The SFWA Bulletin, Winter 2007
• rembrance - Rembrance of Things Past in Locus, #247 August 1981
• rembrance - Rembrance of Things Past (Locus #255) in Locus, #255 April 1982
• roungup - Audio Roungup 2014 in Locus, #649 February 2015

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most of them are typos on my part and not the publication. So I'll correct them without checking the original source (many of which have been packed away.) Thanks for finding them. Mhhutchins|talk 20:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Tomorrow and Beyond / The Blal

Page 21 of your verified art book is credited there, untitled, to Don Maitz, but the same art is also credited here to Doug Beekman, which must be correct since his signature is on the cover. Horzel 19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. The artwork is cropped in the collection so the signature is missing, and it is misattributed in the credits. I'm going to correct the credit and note the misattribution. And then variant it to the Beekman record. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins|talk 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullseye Books (A Bullseye Book)

I thought that I might easily eliminate "Bullseye Books" from the publisher directory in favor of "Bullseye Books / Alfred A. Knopf". For the former we have only My Brother, the Werewolf by Nancy Farmer (1995) P313360, which looks like a companion to our My Sister, the Vampire (Bullseye/Knopf, 1992) P23241.

From usual secondary sources I added or improved a few Bullseye publication records (some still in the queue) but I did not clinch the objective.

• The one LC record [16] and two WorldCat library records [17] [18] for the latter book all show publisher Bullseye Books.
• The deceased author's official website "Complete Book List" [19] does give "Knopf/Bullseye, 1995 (8-12)" for My Brother, which matches her listing for My Sister except year.
• Amazon.com [20] shows My Brother, the Werewolf "Publisher: Random House Books for Young Readers (August 15, 1995)" -- as it shows Random House Books for Young Readers (maybe a corporate division that now includes Knopf?) for two or three Bullseye/Knopf publications that I edited last hour.

May it be reasonable here to revise and give "Bullseye Books / Alfred A. Knopf" at edit P313360 citing bullet point two, with note that verifier should check.

There is no hit for "My Brother, the Werewolf" at Kirkus Reviews or in mainstream newspapers covered by the digital subscription where I sit. I retire in shock. --Pwendt|talk 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging the two publishers should be no problem. In this case, since there's only one record for one of them, it would be just as easy to update the record's publisher credit, which effectively creates a single publisher. I personally am not in favor of using the "Imprint / Publisher" designation unless both appear on the books' title pages, i.e. "Bullseye Books" (over) "Published by Alfred A. Knopf", (or something similar). But there is no consensus on this matter. So I'll retain the Knopf form of the publisher's name since it has the most records.

As I probably mentioned in the past, Amazon "retrofits" publisher credit in many cases when a publisher changes its name or an imprint moves in and out of divisions. It usually uses the most current form of the publisher name. For example, you'll find books on Amazon published by Harper & Row in the 1980s as HarperCollins, which didn't exist until the early 1990s. So they should never be the final arbiter for how the ISFDB should credit a book's publisher. OCLC is better since it uses only the title page credit (or is supposed to.) So the note in this record about the publisher credit can only be confusing to the average user. When a secondary source makes an error, there's no need to point that out, with this exception: if it's one of the verification sources listed on an non-primary verified ISFDB record and its data conflicts with another verification source. Mhhutchins|talk 21:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not change the publication date (1992-09-00) to match Amazon as of 2016-04-14 (1992-08-18) --because I suppose Locus1 the source for publication date and this book is below the respectability level for Kirkus Reviews and the book reviews in my online newspaper subscription, which might give a reliable publ date.

Should I replace the offending note with another, say, "Publ date presumably from Locus1 (Amazon.com gives 1992-08-18 as of 2016-04-14)"? --Pwendt|talk 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Locus1 is freely accessible, so there's no need to presume about anything that's on it. Mhhutchins|talk 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A few days ago I asked about secondary verification as implied source of data and, altho I didn't say so, I had in mind the recurring question for me whether and when to add notes such as the one suggested just above? I don't add them but feel uneasy about that. --Pwendt|talk 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refresh my memory. To which "notes such as the one suggested just above" are you referring? I thought I'd fully answered your inquiry about using the list of secondary verifications as a source. Mhhutchins|talk 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Above I underlined the note suggested above. Such a note would make more explicit that Locus1 and Amazon give different publ dates and that Locus1 takes precedence--has been given precedence by the editor who wrote the note. --Pwendt|talk 02:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Amazon isn't one of our Verification sources, I repeat, it's not necessary to add a note to an ISFDB record about Amazon's errors and discrepancies. We only note the errors in static sources (publications like Tuck and Reginald.) Amazon could change its listing at any time, so it's a waste of time and effort worrying about noting their errors in the ISFDB. And, I'll say it again, there's no need to presume anything about Locus1's data. It's either there or it isn't. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor Stainless, Complete Borrowers

Thursday I departed with several submissions in the queue including two NewPub in the Borrowers series by Mary Norton that you later approved, submissions [21] and [22].

For the omnibus, which shares a title with a later 5-volume omnibus, I think there was no alternative but to add New Omnibus; and that is to add the publication. There in the upper "Title" portion of the composition form, was it possible to specify the 4-volume coverage that shows up as "Storylen:/1-4" on the title record. Or must that be delayed until approval of the New Omnibus publication generates the title record? --Pwendt|talk 20:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was no option but to use the "Add New Omnibus" function if the title as is didn't exist, even though the title did exist but with different contents. Also, the Storylen field can only be created after a title is in the database. Mhhutchins|talk 21:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

My "Notes to Moderator" (linked above) shows that I expected later to add the Poor Stainless shortfiction to the CHAPBOOK publ and the four novels to OMNIBUS publ, among other things. I suppose you did both? --Pwendt|talk 20:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. When I'm aware of what the editor intends to do in a subsequent submission, it's better to proceed and make those changes without waiting for the original editor. It decreases the possibility of unfinished records in the database, because editors may forget between the time of submission and the time of acceptance. (That's my procedure. Other moderators may handle it differently.) BTW, you should have added a content record for the SHORTFICTION in the CHAPBOOK. It's better to have two titles in the database that are waiting to be merged, than to have a CHAPBOOK without content. Mhhutchins|talk 21:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the new CHAPBOOK i wrote (first link above) "one CHAPBOOK title should be made variant of the other". In effect that appears to have been done for the U.S. version P267472 simply by assignment of the other (which I added) as its Title Reference? Is this where we leave the matter? so long as the different chapbook titles have same contain the same story under the same title, simply "Poor Stainless" in this case? --Pwendt|talk 20:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I merged the CHAPBOOK records into one title, rather than variant one with a subtitle to one without. There is leeway when it comes to subtitles in title records. The title field of a title record doesn't have to exactly match the title field of the publication record. The title field of a publication record should exactly match the publication's title page. You can have a pub record with a title and subtitle, and another pub record without, yet each could share the same title record without varianting. You can also have a pub record's title field which doesn't exactly match the title of its content. Mhhutchins|talk 21:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Rat

The cover art of this is the same as the cover art of this edition, and is thus by Ken Laidlaw. (The original art is also shown and credited here). Horzel 12:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll update the record and provide the source. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins|talk 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The River at Green Knowe

For the first US edition P260815 multiple reviews and advertisements in US newspapers Nov 1959 give price $3.00.

You are secondary verifier of that record citing Tuck and there is no other source indicated. Perhaps $2.00 is your typo?

The larger question is whether such a record should be amended to Price: $3.00 with annotation that includes a parenthetical trail. For instance, "Price from ... ($2.00 per Tuck)" --in the instance where I ask you and learn that Tuck does give $2.00.

(as i depart) --Pwendt|talk 01:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's a typo, and I'm not saying it is, then it's Mr. Tuck's. When a record has been "Tuck-verified" it means that all of the applicable fields have been checked against Tuck's reference. Same thing goes for all of the verification sources. The chart on this page records which fields have been verified against the secondary source.

I would not suggest changing the price until the record has been checked against a copy of the book itself...in other words, primary verified. We have the option to add a note "All data from Tuck. Price may be incorrect. Multiple reviews and advertisements in US newspapers for November 1959 give the price as $3.00. Primary verifier, please confirm this and make any necessary changes to the record." I'll do that for you. Mhhutchins|talk 04:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Tony Davis in Science Fiction Review

There is a letter by a Tony Davis in the Spring 1981 issue of Science Fiction Review on page 44. I recently entered the fanzine Torus for October 1987 which also contains a letter by a Tony Davis. In Torus, a return address is given from Senderwood, South Africa. I was wondering if there is any information in the letter in your publication that would identify this as the same person. I didn't list the letter, but I will add it if we can link it up. We have two other authors with this name, but they seem less likely to be a match for a South African writing a Canadian fanzine in the late 80s. Thanks in advance for checking. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The address given is a newspaper office in Johannesburg, South Africa, so I'm 99% sure it's the same person. Mhhutchins|talk 03:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Joel-Brock the Brave and the Valorous Smallls

Regarding this pub, is it "Smallls" (three "l"s) as entered or "Smalls" as shown on cover? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

My god, you're right. Don't know how I f'ed that up. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 18:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)