User talk:Stoecker

From ISFDB

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Primary Verified Pubs: new section)
(Primary Verified Pubs)
Line 811: Line 811:
#by placing an equivalent explanation in the "Note to Moderator" field (which is displayed to users via the "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications")
#by placing an equivalent explanation in the "Note to Moderator" field (which is displayed to users via the "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications")
This is needed as the "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications" function only displays what field(s) changed and the current value(s). It does not show the prior value(s). I am holding a number of your edits that have active primary verifiers. You can either notify the verifiers via their talk pages or cancel and resubmit with an explanation in the note to moderator field. Thanks. -- [[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 09:40, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
This is needed as the "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications" function only displays what field(s) changed and the current value(s). It does not show the prior value(s). I am holding a number of your edits that have active primary verifiers. You can either notify the verifiers via their talk pages or cancel and resubmit with an explanation in the note to moderator field. Thanks. -- [[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 09:40, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
 +
 +
: All these changes are either typo fixes, fixing broken images or add missing covers for German books. All changes are obvious in the diff line. These changes do not differ from hundreds I did in the past weeks including primary verified ones. Why are these handled specially again? --[[User:Stoecker|Stoecker]] 11:44, 20 May 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 15:44, 20 May 2019

  • For older conversations, please see this page's /Archives

Contents

Note to others

I myself want a database of:

  • all stories made by a certain author,
  • the original story name for translated ones,
  • the translators when multiple translations exist,
  • the books/publications these can be found in,
  • a cover picture of these and
  • all the data necessary to find the correct book when buying one.

I.e. essentially all data to find a certain story.

I mostly finished Eric Frank Russell and as I'm unhappy with the way ISFDB works, I may be inactive for longer periods. You can reach me by mail if necessary.

Due to my troubles with ISFDB I did setup my own books database at https://books.stoecker.eu/ and stopped adding most information to ISFDB. If anyone is interested in German releases of Russell: https://books.stoecker.eu/lang/de/author/Russell,%20Eric%20Frank is much more complete now than ISFDB. This page was my initial goal for joining ISFDB, but never reached.

For some cover artists I scan for variants and try finding original arts for uncredited cover art. Very helpful for this is the image search of Yandex and Google. Sometimes searching with the full cover works, sometimes first the image needs to be extracted and the modified image is used for search. Google was very helpful in the past, currently Yandex has much better results. Bother services allow to search with an image URL or upload of an image.:

To compare the images I use the extension of my own database instance.

Own ISFDB instance

I operate my own ISFDB instance at http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/ - this instance contains the data from the weekly ISFDB snapshot and applies some patches which are helpful for me, but aren't applied by ISFDB maintainer:

Patches can be found here: http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/patches/ and are under same license as ISFDB.

You can login to this instance with your normal username and "test" as password.

Currently active patches.

2. Extension of the duplicate finder for authors page to compare covers

* http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/cgi-bin/edit/find_dups.cgi?26029+3 (needs login) - show all covers grouped together: good to find covers which should not be merged
* http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/cgi-bin/edit/find_dups.cgi?26029+4 (needs login) - show one cover for each record: good for finding something and also for finding nearby duplicates
* http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/cgi-bin/edit/find_dups.cgi?26029+5 (needs login) - show one cover for each record side-by-side: good for finding dups
* Clicks on covers lead you to main ISFDB instead of the copy, so it's easier to submit any findings.
* Also shows covers without a single image and covers which have same image but different titles.

3. Extension to show cover information in own list of primaries

* http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/cgi-bin/userver.cgi?cover=1 (needs login) - Show status - green: ISFDB, grey: Somewhere else
* http://isfdb.stoecker.eu/cgi-bin/userver.cgi?cover=full (needs login) - Show image
* The little star shows whether the cover is a variant of another cover or not.

4. UTF8-fixes - the database runs completely in UTF-8 and not in iso-8859-1 as main ISFDB

* additionally replace all iso-8859-1 in code by utf-8 or better with UNICODE variable

5. Extension to show stories and entries of own primary verifications in different color (green): Allows to verify completeness of own story collection

* Login and go to any author you have primary verified pubs
* In the current form the patch is much to slow due to many SQL calls. ea.cgi should be optimized to do a single or a few calls instead, but that would mean larger code reworks making the patch to easy to break with changing CVS.

Note: Remember that submissions in this instance are useless as they will be overwritten with next update!

Discussion

Cleanup. Old discussions before May 2015 --Stoecker 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Planet des Ungehorsams chapbook & novella

There are some questions associated with your submissions for these titles:

1) You added the note 'This is the same text as used in "Keine Macht der Erde"' for this title and gave the year 1982, whereas "Keine Macht der Erde" was published in 1970.

Yes. But as they are different publication forms. Current state is what was decided by ISFDB admins. --Stoecker 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the form of publication doesn't matter as the text and type of the title are identical. It is the shortfiction that matters in this case, which was one time published in an ANTHOLOGY and later as separate CHAPBOOKs. Now the help pages (see here, third bullet) state to use the first appearance of the text (this clearification likely was added during your period of absence). I'll change the year for this german translation of the novella to 1970. Thanks, Stonecreek 03:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

2) You also gave 1982 as year for the CHAPBOOK, whereas right now the earliest publication stems from 1984.

That's why I supplied "See other submissions or http://d-nb.info/830445331" as comment. There you can clearly see that first print of this type of CHAPTERBOOK credited to Russell was 1982. --Stoecker 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

3) There is another "Planet des Ungehorsams" CHAPBOOK from 1975 (see here). A note in one issue of the german magazine Science Fiction Times doesn't exactly state that this also uses the text from 1970, but that the text was 'stolen'. Could you take a look into this? Thanks, Stonecreek 03:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As this is "uncredited" it's also a different publication form. Also decided by ISFDB admins. For me it's all the same, as it is 1:1 the same text. I changed submitted to at least join the two final "Planet des Ungehorsams" chapterbooks credited to Russell, so that it's 1975 and not "only as uncredited", but "also as uncredited". --Stoecker 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving the Talk page

Unfortunately, our disk space is limited and we are forced to purge old revisions of Wiki pages on a semi-regular basis. For this reason we generally move old Talk discussion to "archive pages" before deleting them -- see the Archives link at the top of User talk:Kraang for an example. Ahasuerus 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Same question as last time - Why don't you simply switch to a better provider? I e.g. usually pay less than 20€ e.g. for https://www.hetzner.de/gb/hosting/produkte_vserver/vx18 which has 100GB hard disk and I doubt you exceed that with ISFDB yet. As far as I remember you pay twice as much for the current server. --Stoecker 11:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The question has been discussed, but, unfortunately, coordinating a move to a different provider would be complicated because there are different people involved. For now I would advise creating an Archive page similar to the one linked above. Ahasuerus 18:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd offer my help, but I assume that again I couldn't make it right. Thought in case you reconsider - I'm running many different Linux servers for years now (somewhat between 20 and 30 ATM) and I'm used to server moves. --Stoecker 17:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but the reasons behind our limitations are administrative rather than technical or financial in nature. Adding another person to the equation would only complicate things.
For now, please set up an Archive page for this Talk page so that we could keep track of various verification discussions. Ahasuerus 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The Archive page has been created. Ahasuerus 19:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Luigi Castiglione or Luigi Castiglioni

Can you confirm the cover art credit for this record? Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Backside flap of jacket says "Jacket painting by Luigi Castiglione". Thought I doubt that boxer really made the cover. A typo I assume. :-)

The Phisher

I've changed this record from CHAPBOOK to NONFICTION, and removed the ESSAY content record. The CHAPBOOK type should only be used for a standalone publication of a work of shortfiction or poem. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Eissegler

Re this book. Cover art is Patrick Woodroffe, a reuse of the cover art of this book Cover art credit from Mythopoeikon. Record amended accordingly. --Mavmaramis 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Alan Dean Foster's Lost and Found

Replaced the Amazon image of Alan Dean Foster's Lost and Found with one I scanned. Updated page count for unnumbered pages. You are listed as Primary3 reference. Doug 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent Bastei Lübbe verifications

Hello! When primary verifying publications it's better to delete the sources the information was entered initially from, such as 'Bibliographie deutschsprachiger SF-Stories und Bucher' or 'Deusche Nationalbibliothek'. After all, now you (or better your copy) have become the source for the information. And although it is possible to catalogue ones collection that way, this is not the purpose of primary verifying for the community: its meaning is that you have looked over and through the respective publication and thus verify the information. Also, it would be better to add some information, such as the source for the cover art credit or the month of publication (which is quite easy to add for Bastei Lübbe books: this publisher states the month in the copyright section, at least beginning in the second half of the 1980s). Stonecreek 20:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked into the submission queue, first! Forget my remarks. Stonecreek 20:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Zentauren-Fahrt

Hello, I've approved your cloning for this pub but changed the artist to Micheal Whelan (as per the other printing), "Agentur Thomas Schlück" likely being the name of the agency. Hauck 09:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nacht-Mähre

Hello, you proposed a date of 1901-10-00 for this pub, can you correct it? Hauck 10:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Language

Hello, I see that you're systematically updating the language for all the Piers Anthony titles. As there will probably be an automatic procedure for doing this in the foreseeable future, it's quite a waste of your (and moderator's) time. Such language update is the most efficient when coupled with another change. Thanks. Hauck 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That "automatic" task was already said to come sson when I started and has not come yet. Same for own translator fields and some other stuff. I'm not really convinced of the ISFDB software development way and its possible future, but this discussion was already done in the past. I do these updates always only for the authors I anyway work at. --Stoecker 11:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wachen! Wachen!

If this title is a comic it doesn't belong here, see point 2. of the contents, I'm going to delete it. Hauck 14:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it's no my entry. I only wanted to fix it. Maybe I'll add one of the real books for it somewhen. As Pratchett fan I have each of them anyway :-) --Stoecker 14:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't hesitate to enter your books. Even if the process is not perfect and may appear lenghty, it goes in the (desirable IMHO) of making the ISFDB a true international SF database. Hauck 15:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a long long way to go until ISFDB could claim to be an international database! E.g. It's still impossible to link to an author's page and show non English entries (a small change I once provided a patch for). Only a registered user can see them usually. Also Cyrillic author names and translators aren't really supported. And the interface is English only. And so on and so on. I could have helped fix a lot of these issues but was rejected because I was too progressive. So I mainly stick to the English stuff with seldom German entries and long breaks when I'm too bugged. And I do any change in parallel in my own database to be sure. --Stoecker 15:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Unergründliche Science Fiction

Hello, I've changed the type of this translation to ESSAY as per original publication. Hauck 13:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm of the opinion that the original is wrong. This is criticism on American SF, but in the form of a story. When not knowing about the "Inside Science Fiction" section of F&SF, then there would be no doubt it is a story. --Stoecker 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It's clearly not presented as fiction in F&SF. Hauck 13:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's nevertheless a fictional story. That's why I have chosen the compromise to link a German story type entry to the English essay type and comment it in the title entry. --Stoecker 13:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sergei Lukyanenko

At this time we use Latin transliterations of non-Latin author names -- please see this discussion. Ahasuerus 02:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That discussion explains nothing. What are these limitations preventing proper names of authors? It makes no sense to enter the titles with Russian origin when I need to link them to an American form of his name. I though maybe there was a progress in last 1.5 years but it seems not. --Stoecker 10:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, just as in real life it is always a problem that if you're working at one side of the mountain you need to leave the other sides unattended (this is also the case on the bibliographical edge). There were many more pressing things to do. Stonecreek 11:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
That's the natural result of wanting to do everything yourself. --Stoecker 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Мальчик и тьма

A couple of questions about these submissions:

  1. What is the source of the data? Submissions not linked to primary verifications need to provide the source of information in the Note field.
  2. In this submission, the ISBN is 9785271393389, the publication year is 2007 and the binding is hardcover. According to Fantlab and Ozon.ru, this was a mass marker paperback edition published in December 2011, although it says "2012" inside the book. Do you have a source suggesting otherwise?

Ahasuerus 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fantlab and Ozon seem to mix both editions. See e.g. here: http://www.amazon.de/dp/5271147622 and http://www.amazon.de/dp/5271393380 - That both HC and PB come in the same year is illogical to me, so I trust Amazon more than the Russian source which I've seen also before submission. I now checked AST itself and it states 2006 and 352 pages for the hardcover: http://ast.ru/catalog/877575.php?sphrase_id=481197 so that should probably be corrected. Sadly the softcover is there, but no data behind the link.--Stoecker 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I have approved the paperback version and noted that the data comes from FantLab. As far as the hardcover edition goes, something appears to be off. The submission says that the ISBN is 9785271393389, but the linked Amazon.de ISBN is 5271147622/978-5271147623 while the linked AST ISBN is 5-17-037199-3. Could you clarify which ISBN we are talking about?
A few general observations:
  • When adding a publication to an existing title, it is better to use "Add Publication to This Title". That way we don't have to merge titles after the fact.
  • In certain cases simultaneous hc/tp publication is possible, so that's not a disqualifying factor in and of itself.
  • Amazon's data is not particularly reliable. Certain fields, e.g. the page count field, are completely unreliable and this goes double for foreign language books. I wouldn't recommend using their data over what's listed by serious bibliographic sites.
Ahasuerus 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Publications with 2 Covers vs. Single Cover with 2 Authors

When two cover artists are added via the publication edit form, the database will end up showing two separate cover records:

  • Cover: Tim Hildebrandt
  • Cover2: Greg Hildebrandt

This is intended to show separate art works like for a Ace double novel. To change this to a single record with two artists, you need to first remove one of the credits from the publication(s) and then edit the cover title record to add the removed artist. If you do it the other way around, you end up with three artists. Editing both cover records won't solve the problem. Hopefully that explanation is clear. If not, let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate ISBNs

Hello, both this pub and that one share the same (3-453-30783-6) ISBN, can you have a look? Thanks. Hauck 06:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Had the same error in my own database. Fixed. --Stoecker 08:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Hauck 08:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Unirdische Visionen

I fine-tuned the date for the mentioned anthology to 1970-01-02, relying on John Lochhas' work for the pub. series and new found sources. Stonecreek 07:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Assigning "language" to cover art

Since art doesn't have a "language", and the ISFDB records are for the art itself and not the publication, it's unnecessary to assign a language to a cover art record. There are plans to remove language from most art records. (Exceptions will be made for maps entered as INTERIORART.) Because the current software has a language field for every title, it may take some time to implement the change. In the meantime, assigning language is a wasted effort since eventually it will be removed. Mhhutchins 00:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. As different languages usually anyway have different titles there will be variants nevertheless. And to know that a French or Dutch translation uses same cover is a different information than that another book of same language uses the cover again. I did a lot cover cleanup for Kirby lately and while at the beginning I thought language for cover art is useless also, I changed my opinion. --Stoecker 10:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Variants are based on changes in title and/or author/artist credit. In your example, the translated titles for the use of the work in other languages would be retained in the database, but without a language assigned to them. The language of the publication which a work of art illustrates is irrelevant. A user can easily click on the link to the publication itself if they need to know the book's language. (I don't know why they would do so if their interest is in the work of art.) I can't see how assigning a language to a work of art has any value. Thus the plan to remove language from art records. Mhhutchins 17:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lord der Dunklen Welt cover credit

Hi. I see from your note you are frustrated. Sorry about that. Remember that everyone is trying to do what's right and the best that they can. Sometimes that is not so easy. --MartyD 12:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The structure of ISFDB does it make not so easy not to get frustrated. This was a reason why I was away 1 year and actually I'm near at doing that again. There are simply no common rules as each administrator does different, and some strange decisions are simply commented with "but rules forbid it". That's insane. And some high level requirements are simply not verified by the overall quality of the database: You can't expect new submissions to be 100% perfect if most of the stuff in the DB is only 30%. --Stoecker 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I do have your cover artist credit submission for Lord der Dunklen Welt on hold. I don't know what exchange you had with Hauck, so I apologize if this repeats something. When you are supplying information from a secondary source, you should adjust the notes to state where the information came from. Your submission adds the Whelan credit, but it does not say where the credit came from, so the result would show a Whelan credit and the statement "Cover not credited on the copyright page, no visible signature/initials on the cover". No one would be able to tell where the credit came from.

To address that aspect of your note: "Google comparison" is not a source. A source would be the site where the artwork is posted (or named) and is credited to Whelan. For that posting/credit be good enough for us to duplicate the credit, the site would have to be authoritative -- something like Whelan's website, the publisher's website, the author's website, an interview with the artist or author, one of the approved bibliographic sources used in verifications (Locus1, WorldCat, ...), etc. If the site is not authoritative -- "Joe-Bob's Fantasy Blog" or "My 2014 Summer Reading", for example -- you could add that information to the notes, but should NOT record the credit.

So, my question is, where did you find the credit? I looked at the gallery on Whelan's site and did not see it, and I had no luck with my own Google searching. Thanks. --MartyD 12:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Ok. So step by step:
* I submit a request to add Whelan as cover, as it is equal to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1542962 which I also said in the note to moderator and thus should be varianted
* Simply click on http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1542962
* Now click on the webpage link contained in this title ([[1]])
* Look at the picture
* Look at the pub ([[2]])
* Compare the two pictures
* see that they are the same
  • As already said, the ISFDB limitations don't allow me to submit the variant directly, so I add the link to the final target as comment. I don't see what is special about this one. Whenever necessary I supply required information, but here this isn't the case - it's simply the same as something else already contained in ISFDB.

And regarding the admin work. That's a decision of ISFDB admins. YOU all want it that way. If you don't trust submissions of contributors, then don't complain that you have lots of work, as this works is direct result of the missing trust. My tries to help have been rejected, so I simply don't accept the "that's a lot of work for us as an excuse"! --Stoecker 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize. I did not undertstand that part of your note. I accepted the submission and added a note that the artist's website is the source of the credit. I included the link you gave above, which is perfect! I also made the variant to save you a submission: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1879345. Thanks. --MartyD 11:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I also accepted the Agenten der Venus submission, added a note that it's not credited in the pub, and made the variant: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1159570. That it matches artwork used elsewhere, where it is credited, is also a good secondary source. Thanks. --MartyD 11:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Moderators do apply a common rule in this case: "If a credit is not from the publication, the credit source must be stated in the publication notes." It is great you are finding these credits and that is appreciated. What is being asked is that you add a publication note stating the source (not a moderator note - those are transitory and go away as soon as the submission is approved). You can see the notes MartyD added for examples. Let us know if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should covers be handled different than all the other types. I don't add the information where I got the knowledge what's the original story anywhere, but simply variant to the original. Sometimes this comes from the book, but for many older books it needs some investigations. Why should there be a different approach for covers? I agree in cases, where non-obvious information is added, but that's not true for variants. They are OBVIOUS and verified with a single click. --Stoecker 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just it, cover credits are NOT handled different than other publication information. Information on a publication record is assumed to be from the publication itself. If it's not, then the source needs to be stated in the publication notes. This goes for all information (price, date, publisher) that might not actually be on the physical copy but can be found via other sources. The publication record is supposed to be a complete record for that publication. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You ignored the question! I do not state where I get the information about variants for all other title types, why should I for covers? --Stoecker 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You do not have to source variants. You have to source credits. If you add a cover artist credit to a publication based on the same artwork being used elsewhere, you need to state that in the publication. Whether a variant exists or not is immaterial to that. We are not asking you to source the variant. We are asking you to source the credit in the publication. The ISFDB standards are based on community consensus. The community consensus is that the publication record should identify all secondary sourcing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
But the secondary source is the variant! So what sense is in adding "this cover is equal to xxx" when a click on "cover" tells you the same. --Stoecker 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Apples to oranges. You're confusing title records with publication records. Title records don't have to be sourced because they're contained in publication records which do have to be sourced, either from the publication itself or a secondary source which have to be noted. Mhhutchins 22:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's because I'm a programmer, but the cover art is the same as any other title in the database and thus also for me. It's only displayed in a different line in the publication display page. And nothing I heard till now convinced me that keeping the SAME information twice is a good idea. Duplicate information is always drifting away when modified and leaves confusing results. --Stoecker 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to suggest a change to the ISFDB policies and/or procedures, please post your proposal on the Rules and standards discussions page. Ahasuerus 20:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) One other thing: The difference between a contained title and cover art is that we do not treat them the same. If a work appeared with no author credit in the publication, we would record that with an author of "uncredited". We would then make a variant to another title that had the author credit. In the publication record, you would see both credits: the canonical credit from the parent title and the actual credit for this publication's variant title. But cover art is not presented that way. The only artist credit shown is that on the coverart title used for the publication. Whether that is the reason, I do not know, but policy for cover art is to credit the artist if a determination of the artist's identity can be made. In that way, it is no different than the publication date. You cannot tell by looking at the publication whether that credit comes from the publication itself or elsewhere, unless that information is included in the publication's notes. I hope that helps a little. --MartyD 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Again - That artists line does not show variants is only a display issue. In the DB a cover and a title is the same and it would take me less than 5 minutes to change the publication display to work like the other titles. For me always the database is important and not the display of it, because the display is changing all the time, but the database is what the work goes into. And your last sentence is exactly what is untrue. When the pub states "artist not credited" and you click on the cover link and see that it variants to something else, then it is obvious where that info comes from. I even made me a display in my own IFSDB-instance which clearly shows whether the art is varianted or not. So there is no reason that state that information again in the note. --Stoecker 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And BTW I already had trouble with Hauck, because the "Don't use uncredited for artists" is enforced even in cases where I would need to make variants to originals. So currently because of policy it is impossible to variant art where the original artist is unknown even if the database would permit that without problems. This is unsatisfactory as well. Seems most of the stuff at ISFDB is more a dogma than a policy: It's followed without any good reason. --Stoecker 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep talking about the COVERART title records, and we're talking about noting the source in a publication record when the publication itself doesn't give the credit. You can variant COVERART title records all day long without question and without noting the source when the art of one record matches the art of another. But do not add cover artist credit to a publication record without noting the source in the publication's Note field. That's all we're asking. If the source is a reliable website or another publication, whether it's in the database or not, just add a note. It's quite simple, and a standard that all of us have been following for many years. I'm not sure exactly why you feel this isn't necessary, and nothing you're saying supports your disagreement with the standard itself, but only the effort it takes to comply. Mhhutchins 17:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cover: Il vagabondo dello spazio

I accepted your edits to the two "Cover: Il vagabondo dello spazio" title records (1557231, 1497979). However, I changed the note text from "Modified version of Cover: Il vagabondo dello spazio" to "Modified version of Cover: Urania #435". Since the target record is "Cover: Urania #435", this seems like it would create less confusion in the long run. Let me know if you disagree. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. I thought about it as well, both is right, when you look at the cover picture :-) --Stoecker 15:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Drachenwelten

According to some sources, this publication credits Martin H. Greenberg as the co-editor. Can you confirm that Martin Harry Greenberg is credited on the book's title page? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

On the cover it's H., but inside it's Harry. --Stoecker 20:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate title

There are 2 titles the same: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?424603 and http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?427670. Don't know how to merge it. --Zapp 22:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And there are some more seen on this list: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pubseries.cgi?1618+2 --Zapp 22:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's normal. ISFDB list all different prints of a book, so many books will appear multiple times with different dates and prices and ... --Stoecker 22:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dolphins of Pern

Thanks for the new scanned image of the cover of The Dolphins of Pern. Your cover is identical to the 13th printing, so I linked to yours instead of the previous one. Chavey 03:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Medizinische Anmerkungen

I approved your German variant 'Medizinische Anmerkungen' but I was a little too fast... can you check if it really is an ESSAY, as the title type for 'Medical Notes' is currently SHORTFICTION. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Same for 'Die Hymne von Ankh-Morpork'... The Ankh-Morpork National Anthem is currently a POEM. PeteYoung 17:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I assumed that will conflict after it was submitted and I've seen the warning. :-) In my eyes both are ESSAY and the English original is wrong. The first is a fictional description of diseases of discworld. It's not really a story, more a fictional essay. The poem is a poem, but embedded in a essay describing the fictional origin of the hymn. And third one is the review, which is a description how that book affected Terry after reading it (I catched that before submission, so there is a note to moderator :-). So all of these three aren't so clearly defined, but altogether I'd rather assign them ESSAY state than what they currently have. --Stoecker 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll ask Rtrace to join this discussion, as he has verified pubs that contain the English titles and he may have read them (I haven't, so this is probably better discussed with someone who has access to the work). But to accept the edits would probably mean they'd end up on the 'Variant Title Type Mismatches' cleanup report. One other query: is Hodgson really spelt "Hedgson"?
Idea is not to leave them mismatching, but fix the English one or adapt German one if decision is against this - as said these aren't easy ones :-) -- Hedgson: No. Submitted fix. --Stoecker 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that SHORTFICTION is the best type for these. Our definition (in this help section) for that type states that it should be used for "Any form of fiction other than a novel". It doesn't require that the title be a story. There is also notes under both SHORTFICTION and ESSAY that state that we don't have a proper type for "fictional essay" and that we can choose whichever seems more appropriate. In my opinion both these pieces are clearly fictional. A Blink of the Screen is even subtitled "Collected Shorter Fiction". I'd prefer that we keep these as SHORTFICTION. I will change the one piece from a poem to short fiction, because of the introductory prose. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
What about the Review? As said in my eyes it's not really a book review, but a "how the book influenced me" style of essay :-) --Stoecker 16:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
While not a review in the usual sense, I think the title type is still appropriate. You'll note that all of the essays in this title are typed as REVIEWS (with one exception where the subject is outside the scope of ISFDB). One disadvantage to converting it to an ESSAY is that the linkage to the Hodgson novel would be lost. However, if you feel strongly, you can invite the other verifiers of the Jones and Newman book to join this discussion. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll release these edits from Hold as I'll be travelling over the next couple of days, and they may need to be approved quicker than I can get back to them. Thanks. PeteYoung 21:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Split books

Relevant help page section concerning split books. Mhhutchins 17:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That text is completely unclear. The English split book is separated without any varianting and reference - creating a second series. It's nearly impossible to understand this which is clearly shown by the fact that for some languages the split books are varianted (Dutch, French), but e.g. Portuguese and German variant part 1 and 2 to the unsplit book. Even the example in the docs is already a mess - it seems this procedure and the examples should be reconsidered! -Stoecker 17:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning behind keeping the NOVEL, but what's missing is a variant from the split parts to the main part. Actually these variants are what I see allover the database for translated split variants, which variant both the the single original. So it seems the English entries and the documentation needs to be updated to follow the rules already established by translations. --Stoecker 18:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Juxtaposition

Please check the binding and cover art credit of this publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Fairy With a Gun

I'm holding the submission to add a second publication for this title, based solely on a different Amazon cover image. Everything is identical except for the cover. If you can independently confirm that the same edition was published simultaneously with two different covers, I'll accept the submission. It's possible that the Amazon listing links to an image that was not used in the final publication. It happens. Mhhutchins 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not simultaneous. The other one is print on demand of 2015. But if I submit too many changes at once the changes get mixed and results are wrong. So I need to summit them one by one until it is right. Padwolf web page also states new cover for all books. The book content is always the old one, only the covers change, so when inside and outside (new covers have an artist note on back cover) differ I know the old image really existed. I wont submit the books where I'm not sure (e.g. Empty Graves, which also has an old cover, but I'm not sure if that ever was used for print). --Stoecker 18:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You'll need to correct the publication dates of that record and this one. BTW, you have the ability to remove/correct data that doesn't apply to a publication when you clone it for a new record, so there's no need to make a second submission to clean up the record. Mhhutchins 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Other way round. The cloned one is the old one and I need to fix the other one. As the existing is a mix between old and new it depends a bit if the clone is the new one or the the old one. It's partial submission in any case, as I need to edit both. --Stoecker 19:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
A message about what you are doing in the "Note to Moderator" field would have sufficed. Mhhutchins 19:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Utopia Science Fiction Magazin 9

Hello, shouldn't this issue be dated to the year 1957? The available reference works say so and also my copy says that it's published every three months, so with the already entered preceding issues from 1956 this should likely be a publication of the following year.

Probably. Seems chpr.at is wrong here. Like all this books the advertising or some other source like chpr.at is the only place to find a date. If you have more reliable source, please fix it. --Stoecker 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

One odd thing: why appear Bruck's pieces of interior art as translations with English original titles? Stonecreek 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Because someone renamed the "Johnny Bruck" titles to English. Don't know what's the reason of this, as there are no English originals. I submitted a fix of these titles. --Stoecker
Thanks! I'll update the year. Stonecreek 04:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
One note though: It's published each month, not every three. I looked at issue 11 which I had available yesterday and the monthly pub is stated. --Stoecker 07:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In #9 it's really 'erscheint alle 3 Monate' (published every third month)! There also seems to be no actual credit for Ernsting as editor, so it'd be better to change the EDITOR field accordingly (and then variant to Ernsting). The two may be connected: Lexikon der Science Fiction-Literatur says that the editorial job was handed over to Walter Spiegl somewhere around #11, so for #9 Ernsting may have been unable to mantain a monthly schedule. Stonecreek 13:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
As there are ads (one for Utopia Grossband 63 among them), it seems likely that the magazine was published in December 1957. Would it be okay to change it? Stonecreek 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
As said - if you have more reliable data change it. 11, 14 and 18 stating monthly, so maybe they increased the release frequency for later issues. I'll check the others when I can. --Stoecker 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Following is stated for release dates in the issues I have:

  • 3,4: every 2 month
  • 9: every 3 month
  • 11,13,14,18,19,20: monthly

--Stoecker 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding covers to Primary Verified Publications without courtesy notification

I let the first one I came to slide, because the primary verifier had been inactive for years, however the next 15 records where you submitted cover images for records with primary verifiers have been placed on hold. Please follow accepted procedure and notify all users who have a Primary Verification for any publication that you wish to change data, even if that change is not removing any old data, only adding new. You are welcome to group these together, I noticed that Rudam had quite a few. A single post to his talk page with links to each publication and a statement that you are adding cover artwork scans would be sufficient. Once these notifications have been made, These record updates appear OK and may be accepted at that time. Thanks Kevin 02:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I did so for the probably active author. No sense in asking someone how is not active for more than a year. --Stoecker 07:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Rudolf (Rudam) we had the adding of cover images on a mutual basis without respective information, so I really think it's okay to approve of those submissions. Stonecreek 13:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And in the case of Paul-Heinz Linckens was there also an agreement to allow updating of covers without notification? Thanks Kevin 13:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, but I just informed him, though it seems unlikely that he'll answer after such a long time of absence. Stonecreek 13:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I've wandered to and from various internet projects over the years. Sometimes with years long absences. Thanks though. Kevin 13:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Instead of this wiki informing procedure which wastes a LOT of time a simple "Submissions which modify your primary lately" list would be much more helpful. Should be easy to do this with a database query. I'd implement it, but the database exports have no submissions included, so I simply have no data. --Stoecker 18:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ISBN check

Please confirm that there is an ISBN-13 present in this publication. If it isn't explicitly stated as "ISBN-13", it may be the EAN which up until 2007 was the 13-digit number appearing above a product's barcode. Some publishers started using the ISBN-13 before the official starting date of January 2007, so Piper may have been one of them. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's ISBN13. As said in the pub they state both (and the EAN). --Stoecker 07:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So, the phrase "ISBN-13" is used to indicate the number?
Also, please check with this publication which has the same ISBN. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This was wrong - also the DNB link was missing. That's the problem with working with many pubs in parallel because you need to wait so long for moderator - then you overlook or mix something. --Stoecker 10:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tor zu den Sternen

Your Clone Pub Submission for Tor zu den Sternen is broken. The title reference no longer exists (likely merged with a newer version, submitted or accepted out of order). You can recreate this entry by looking at your pending edits and then closing the current publication in the database similarly. Then we can remove the broken submission. Thanks Kevin 13:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably someone approved the "Last Answer" merge before the clone. I explicitely did it afterwards to prevent the failure. --Stoecker 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I used the 'Hard Reject' option after the error message 'This submission is no longer valid. Title 1898674 is no longer in the database' and before reading Kevin's message. But as I own this anthology perhaps it's better to wait a while for an update of more items? But this'll have to wait until next week. Stonecreek 13:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you have the Goldmann book and feel like adding the art, then this would be fine. I'll delay the clone until then. I don't plan to add approx 100 art entries, but I'm sure, that the contents of my copy is equal to the Goldmann except for the cover. --Stoecker 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
There are 205 pages of black & white (stories with illustrations) and 24 additional (unnumbered) pages of colour art in the Goldmann book. Stonecreek 19:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds equal ;-) --Stoecker 19:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually there were [48] pages (on 24 sheets of paper), but anyway, I think the task is done. Stonecreek 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it correct that your copy thus does not have the 4 pictures on unlabeled pages 203-207 after the author and artists credits? P.S. Don't you have a better undistorted cover? --Stoecker 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I was just to lazy to scan & upload it (but I'll do so). There are no pictures in the appendix, instead there's a listing of available titles in the series 'Goldmann Science Fiction / Fantasy'. Stonecreek 05:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] Regardless of the order in which a submission is moderated, if you merge a title which is a content of a publication which you later want to edit or clone, you have to wait before making the second submission. The second submission copies the data of the current publication and makes it part of the submission. If there's anything different between the submitted data and the database's then current version of that record, a python error occurs which prevents the submission from being accepted or rejected. (That's why the hard reject option was created.) So again, it's not the order in which a submission is moderated, but the state of the record at the time a submission is submitted. Wait for the first submission to be moderated before making the second submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be better to add the note 'Book club edition' or something similar to your verified publication? This way the absence of an ISBN and a price would be explainable. Stonecreek 03:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates of content records

If you know the date of this work's first edition, please change the dates of the content records. Otherwise, the system automatically defaults the dates of the contents to the date of the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Very likely also 1983 as the License number ends in 83. No explicit statement there. --Stoecker 10:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Workaround for multiple cover art records by the same artist

When a publication has two covers by the same artist, an editor isn't able to create those two cover art records by updating the publication record with a second (or more) credits by the same artist. The software doesn't allow it. Here's how to get around it. Go to the publication record, and choose "Edit this pub". When the edit page opens, click the "Add Artist" button under the "Artist1" (or last one entered.) In the field that opens enter the artist but add a disambiguating character so that it is close but not identical to the artist name. For example, if "Vincent Di Fate" is in the first field, make the new artist "Vincent Di Fate x". Then submit. (You may want to add a Note to Moderator since many of them won't have any idea what you're trying to do.) Once the submission has been moderated, go to the cover art record that has been disambiguated and correct the artist field by removing the disambiguating character. This way there will will two cover art records assigned to the same publication with the same artist credit. I have discovered no other way to get around this software limitation. Mhhutchins

You can see that I've added two extra cover art records to this record with the same artist. Now you can variant individually each of these cover art records to the original cover art records. Mhhutchins 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Titles in Constellation Prize

Hi. I accepted your submission of Constellation Prize. I fixed up the capitalization of the content titles to conform to ISFDB standards. But I have a question: Is the "Whome" in this correct, or should it be "Whom"? Thanks. --MartyD 13:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No it is Whom. Actually I triple checked this title, because I could not believe it is really "Tolls" instead of "Trolls". The "Whome" I overlooked. --Stoecker 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"Toll" is an older word meaning "ring" (as in a bell). It carries the sense of slow, steady beats. Church bells toll. Fire alarms, sleigh bells and dinner bells ring. There is a famous novel by Ernest Hemmingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls. This title is likely a take-off on that. --MartyD 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Thomas (I)

Re the update to this author: Legal name field should be entered in the format LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME. Also, birth place field must have the country, i.e. "California, USA". Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Same situation with this author. Mhhutchins 17:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Die Tür in den Sommer

What is contained on the +1 page in this publication? If it's the last page of text of the novel, then the page count should be 249. I know that some German publishers don't number the last page and this situation has been discussed here in the past. (Based on the rule that if content appears on an unnumbered page which falls in the range of numbered pages, then it is considered a numbered page.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating interior art records

Re this publication: The first interior art record shouldn't be disamgibuated. (Don't ask why. I can't explain it. I wasn't part of the decision to do this and the entire group was never part of the discussion. I personally think it's rather stupid.) Mhhutchins 00:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Cover art & artist for 1967 Die Ausgestoßenen der Erde

Hello, I still do think that this can't be the cover for the 1967 edition. We have a publication with a Volkmer cover for 1963, of which I don't know how it slipped in. In any case it is totally out of the timeline, because Goldmanns Weltraum Taschenbücher was in the '020' range in 1963. The cover for this should be added to the 1967 edition.

The other sites likely are in error with the attribution of this cover to 1967, also according to this book that reproduces the same cover art we already have. The difficulty with Goldmann publications of that time is that they generously omitted all informations on the date of printing in the copyright sections. Note that there's also 'Goldmann Science Fiction' printed on the proposed cover, a pub. series that didn't exist in 1967. So, it seems that the other sites didn't take a close look into the matter. Stonecreek 10:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case this should be the 1974 release: https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=Die+Ausgesto%C3%9Fenen+der+Erde So change the 1963 to 1974 and switch the covers. That would match the DNB, but is contrary to the other sources. DNB is not very accurate for this whole book, as the 1980 data is stated 3rd printing, which can't be (see my related pub). But probably you're right and that's more likely than the current state. I also wondered about the third 1963 book with different cover which is untypical. --Stoecker 11:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You already created a new 1974, so I submitted the cover change and delete of 1963 book now. --Stoecker 11:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that DNB only reported what Goldmann stated. Goldmann did so in other cases, see this example, they weren't always exact about the difference between printing and edition. All looks much better now, thanks. Stonecreek 11:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bastei Lübbe Taschenbuch

Hi, I just saw that the bulk of publications in this series likely should be part of Bastei Lübbe Science Fiction, at least the ones in the 23XXX and 24XXX range: they all should bear 'Science Fiction' on their back (and possibly also on their respective copyright pages. Stonecreek 12:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is only "Bastei Lübbe Taschenbuch" on the copyright page. I don't understand where the other publisher type comes from. Please describe that in the publisher series and I will change the books accordingly if they match that description. --Stoecker 12:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not the publisher, only the publication series: 'Science Fiction' should be stated on the back of the books: also the numbers in the range of 23XXX and 24XXX are continued from the earlier pub. series, for example Bastei Lübbe Science Fiction Special, though the difference of 'Special', 'Abenteuer' etc. seems to have become obsolete for Bastei Lübbe, but it still is the Science Fiction series, isn't it? Stonecreek 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for submitting the changes! It just seems that Starship Troopers would be part of Bastei Lübbe's Allgemeine Reihe. Stonecreek 03:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Right. Overlooked it. I was sure all the Heinlein's had Science Fiction there :-) --Stoecker 14:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple submissions for Begegnung im Licht

As long as such a title isn't represented with more than one printing it is possible to edit most of the titles within the publication. Only when a title is multiplied within ISFDB (as should be most of Erik Simon's in this case) it is necessary to handle them one by one. They are okay as submitted and will be approved, but this is a thing that can make life easier. Thanks for correcting, though. Stonecreek 12:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Notifying editors of changes to primary verified records

Please notify the verifier of this record that you changed it. In the future, this should be done before making a submission so that the verifier can confirm or reject the change. Mhhutchins|talk 17:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Variants based on capitalization

I accepted the submission that created this into a parent of a variant title, before realizing that the only difference was capitalization. Based on ISFDB standards, we don't create variants based on case. So please determine which title is the standard German capitalization and unvariant the titles so that they can be merged. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Omnibus titles

Hi. When an omnibus title consists of the titles of the contained works, we use a slash -- "/" -- to separate the titles, as you did, but without spaces. So, "ABC/XYZ" instead of "ABC / XYZ". This is the opposite of the practice for using a slash between the imprint and the publisher, where we put a space on both sides of the slash. I do not know why we do them two different ways. I fixed up the ones you submitted; I only wanted you to be aware of it for future submissions. Thanks. --MartyD 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that. Even seen many dozens of the form with spaces, but never before one without. I did a short search and the majority used the spaces. Look e.g. at Heinlein. If this rules exists, then apparently nearly nobody knows about it. --Stoecker 18:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Michael thinks I am mistaken. I will restore the spaces. --MartyD 01:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe I have fixed all of them. I apologize for the incorrect information. If you notice any I missed, let me know, and I will fix them. --MartyD 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Großen vs. Grossen

Hi. I have two of your proposed changes involving "Grossen" and "Großen" on hold. As far as I know, we consider "ss" and "ß" to be two different spellings (especially since "ss" is not always "ß"). So if "ss" is used in some cases and "ß" in others, we would keep both and make variants, as appropriate. One of the changes directly affects a verified publication. You should discuss that change with the primary verifier. Also, the cover image for that publication uses "ss", not "ß" -- I do not know what the title page uses -- which makes me question whether changing it to "ß" is correct. In the other case, your merge would change the spelling used for that title in several verified publications. Again, you should discuss that change with the verifiers. Thanks. --MartyD 16:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a common error on part of some of the editors here in ISFDB not to take care of the fact that there until a few years ago no uppercase "ß" existed in German. Thus when titles are written uppercase "SS" can mean "ß" or "ss". More likely it is always "ß" in these cases where that's the correct spelling (e.g. for groß, Straße, ...). Other publications or contents pages and the like using lower-case usually verify that ß was correct - there may be exceptions (e.g. when issued in Austria, which sometimes differ in spelling), but until now I didn't find one. This is such a case again, where titles have been uppercase and ISFDB editors didn't think about that special case (or don't even know about it). See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F#Gro.C3.9Fschreibweise_mit_Ersetzung_von_.C3.9F_durch_SS (Sadly the English translation leaves out the "ß->SS part) --Stoecker 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the best answer is going to be on this topic. But I did find this English explanation in a subsection of the English Wikipedia article on ß Upper Case. Kevin 03:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As said. The English translation/page misses the fact. I'll translate the German text: -- Todays spelling rules dictate to replace "ß" by "SS" in majuscule print. ("Weiß" gets "WEISS"). Originally Duden dictated to use "SZ" instead. Later that style was replaced by "SS" except for a few cases, where confusion may be possible (e.g. "Maße" --> "MASZE", "Masse" -> "MASSE") Since 1996 "SZ" was totally replaced. In April 2008 introduction of upper case "ß" was started. -- A Note to this: While we now have an uppercase ß, it's not really used. As far as I know I have seen it once and it looked very ugly. So the rule that "SS" usually means "ß" and not "ss" will remain. A look into Duden will help to find the correct spelling usually. Another note: As writing of some words also changed over time, e.g. "muß" is now "muss", you also need to take the time of printing into account :-) Sometimes finer details of a language can be strange... --Stoecker 18:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have learned something! :-) But if a German publication uses "ss" and another uses "ß", I believe we still consider these to be alternate spellings: Each should be recorded as it appears in the publication, and one should be made a variant of the other (or both a variant of something else). And if you want to change the spelling of a title that appears in verified publications, you must ask the verifiers before doing so. I will point the other moderators here in case I am mistaken. --MartyD 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
But it's not a variant - it's simply wrong. The title was not printed as "So frustrieren wir Karl den Grossen", but as "SO FRUSTRIEREN WIR KARL DEN GROSSEN". The lowercase for this is "So frustrieren wir Karl den Großen" and NOT "So frustrieren wir Karl den Grossen". If you want a variant, then you need to enter the uppercase-title, which is not done in ISFDB. And even in uppercase you can argue that's it aren't two letters S, but the ligature SS, which may look identical, but is different. The other publication uses ß, as it does not print the title in uppercase. --Stoecker 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a variant spelling, just a variant case. And the ISFDB doesn't recognize case as a basis for variants. As I said in a post on the Moderator noticeboard, if a work published in English is rendered in all caps as TIME IN A BOTTLE on its title page, we'd still enter it as Time in a Bottle and merge it with another existing record of that title (if it's the same work, of course.) This is about as close an analogy as I can make, considering the letter doesn't exist in English. Mhhutchins|talk 04:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, so I interpret all of this to say that a title presented in all-caps, which was forced to use "SS", has been incorrectly converted to mixed-case by changing "SS" to "ss" instead of to "ß". I understand that now (finally). Verifiers should still be notified of the correction; I'd prefer to have at least one of them agree this is the case, too. Thanks. --MartyD 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's okay for me. In the publication verified by me it's in fact 'Großen'. The publication was added by Bill Longley and I think he even added the contents (that would explain the use of double 's'). Thanks Stonecreek 11:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I accepted them. --MartyD 00:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Codgerspace pub notes

I've added pub notes to your PV1'd Codgerspace. Astrodan 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Paperback Fanatic #15

I think I understand why you've tried to add a second artist credit to Chris Achilleos, but creating a NEW artist [Chris Achilleos_WORKAROUND_] isn't going to help much. I think you should just give the third credit directly to Achilleos, which would then result in there being two records with the same title on his page [The Paperback Fanatic #15]. Now you can differentiate between the two by making one "The Paperback Fanatic #15 (Nightwinds)" and the other "The Paperback Fanatic #15 (Darkness Weaves)". This makes varianting them to the originals easy. The same could be done with the Edwards cover. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#Alerting_all_editors:__single_cover_art_with_multiple_credits description my Mhhutchins at the end of the discussion. It's impossible to create a second cover with same artist. Only when that's created I can rename it back again. The workaround is necessary to get a new cover entry at all. Also I have not been allowed to change the titles, but should keep them identical to the pub in the past. Could you admins at least all follow the same guidelines. It's disturbing to each and everytime have a different reaction. I did this dozens of times already and now am blocked again. --Stoecker 10:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Been away awhile and missed that discussion. I'll unhold the submission. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversing a canon/pseudonym relationship

Before doing this, it's best to discuss it on one of the community pages. In the case of Elizabeth Vaughan, the current relationship appears to be the correct one. Only the short fiction is published as "Elizabeth A. Vaughan", while none of the novels have been published in that name. Mhhutchins|talk 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no sense in talking about anything in ISFDB. The result is always the same: discussion fades out into nothing. --Stoecker 19:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
So tell me here: why should we reverse this relationship? I've been known to have an open mind and one that can be persuaded by strong cases. There are 23 titles: 8 novels, 7 of which have been published as "Elizabeth Vaughan" (3 of those reprinted as by "Beth Vaughan"), and 14 short fictions, 13 of those as by "Elizabeth A. Vaughan", 12 of which appeared from the same publisher (DAW). Her latest piece of short fiction is credited to "Elizabeth Vaughan". I couldn't find a website, but her Facebook page and her Goodreads page is credited as "Elizabeth Vaughan". It seems to me that she uses the middle initial almost exclusively for stories published by DAW Books. Now, present your case. Mhhutchins|talk 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing what I say will change your opinion, so there is no sense in discussing. Especially with you who actively was against any proposal I made this year. --Stoecker 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Merril's Beyond Human Ken

I expanded the notes to Judith Merril's Beyond Human Ken adding several catalog numbers. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Horror Band II

Hi, I changed the publisher to just 'Krüger' to unify the two different publishing houses we had in the database. Stonecreek 18:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I added the Canadian price to your verified

I added the Canadian price to your verified [3].Don Erikson 21:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

c't magazine

If you are still around, I wonder if you might have any issues of the magazine in question lying around. I would like to see them here, but do own only a few issues and in any case try to figure out the exact dates of publication: sometime earlier there seems to have been another two-weekly weekday than the now common Saturday. Christian Stonecreek 11:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I get the magazine on Friday each second week since they switched to bi-weekly (except for seldom exceptions). In the beginning delivery took a bit longer and I got it on Saturday. That probably depends on delivery schedules and not on the release. Don't remember when I got it for the monthly release. I still have last years magazines and online access to the rest. Contact me by mail if you want to know something, as I'm currently not very active here - see last sentence of first section in this page why. --Stoecker 19:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer; Jens (Hitspacebar) guesses that Monday was the official weekday of publication, when it was delivered Saturdays for subscribers. If you'd like to enter the stories in your issues, you are welcome. In the other case, I try to enter them in small bunches when I've got the time, though I wouldn't try to capture beginning pages or the page count of the magazines. Stonecreek 15:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Ask again in about a year - maybe I have enough enthusiasm back then to continue contributing here. Also then I probably have about 1000 normal books not added here yet. Beginning pages, page count and other data of c't can be found here: http://www.heise.de/ct/entdecken/?typ=Heft I also would access this, as I usually throw away the paper after a completed year. --Stoecker 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

East german editions

Hi, could you please change the currency symbol for Planet des Ungehorsams from DM to M? Neues Leben is an East German publisher and we denominate the currency valid there with the latter symbol. It seems also have been commonly used on other publications of that country. Stonecreek 15:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read the comment on the publisher page. --Stoecker 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I had read this, but it nevertheless seems to be an East German publication that just wasn't officially published because of the ungovernmental attitude. So, the price as I understand would still have to been paid in East German Marks (as here). Stonecreek 05:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There did not exist anarchistic groups publishing Russell in the GDR and when, then they wouldn't have had a second chance and you wouldn't get copies of the prints nowadays. And as you can clearly see it's DM on the cover. As the note says, this has nothing to to with the publisher "Neues Leben". This publications is from some Western Berlin anarchistic group of the 70ies. --Stoecker 21:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! I really thought that there had to be some connection to the East German Publisher of the same name. Stonecreek 05:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pub. series for Die Marionettenspieler

Hi, I added some notes and changed the publication series to 'Jubiläums-Edition' for this, as there are several other publications published parallel to this one, which already had the other series. They are also identifiale as a separate series from the listing on p. 2 and the ad in the back of the book (from which the title for the series was chosen). I did this as I had all publications in ISFSB at hand (and two more for addition in the pipeline). Thanks, Stonecreek 09:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-drawings

When an uncredited work of art is based on another artist's work, but is clearly a re-drawing (as in the case of many foreign reprints of US magazines), it should not be credited to the original artist. A note in the Note field is sufficient. If you disagree with this standard, please start a discussion on one of the community pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where that "uncredited based on" text comes from but it is wrong. The cover art is credited for all the UK issues I changed. Also I don't understand what you talk about - it's not BASED, but it is the same artwork, like probably all the other UK issues. That's also the reason why I supplied the link to the original in the submission. So neither did you check it nor did you ask beforehand nor did you compare it to the other issues. That was the fastest discouragement I had with ISFDB at all. The first edit after a long time and I already don't want to continue anymore. I actually wanted to fill these 4 UK issues with content as they contain Russell stories but now I will leave them empty. --Stoecker 11:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I can only go by the note that was stated in the publication. When the note states "Uncredited cover based on one by H. R. van Dongen." I can only assume that it's an uncredited cover based on one by H. R. van Dongen. How can I do otherwise? You should have removed the note in the same submission that added the cover credit. A link to the original cover art tells me nothing if it disputes the data already present in the publication record. I handled the submission in the manner that I saw best. I'm sorry that you believe I should have done otherwise. Mhhutchins|talk 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
According to Visco:
Closer examination of the front cover shows fine differences in detail, suggesting that it was repainted for the UK edition. In fact, it seems likely that all of the British covers were redone by Atlas house artists. No-one has succeeded in identifying them.... Dave Wood is attempting to catalogue all of the US covers alongside the British reprints so that you can see the differences. You can see his web site, still under construction, here. While in other reprint editions the copies are often rather crude, many of these covers are of quite good quality and hard to distinguish from the original.
Here is a link to Dave Wood's website. He states:
Despite this, the artwork was always credited to the artist of the original US edition.
All of this would imply that the original data was correct and that the updates you made should be reverted. Per ISFDB standards, when a cover art credit is incorrect, we note the error, but do not provide the incorrect credit in the record's COVER ART field. Mhhutchins|talk 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Die Irrfahrten des Mr. Green

I added some information about this book [[4]] in the notes section. About the third printing and the names of the translators of the three novels.
Also changed the publication date of the omnibus to 1991 (first printing in that year!). Zlan52 13:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Chroniken der Zukunft / Welten der Zukunft

Could you please add your opinion to this discussion on my talk page? It's about this pub that you verified. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing verified publications

Hi. You should notify primary verifiers of changes to their publications (unless they have requested otherwise), even if those changes are minor. I know it takes time and seems silly for something like replacing an Amazon image with a nearly identical scan, but the practice helps moderators avoid having to judge whether a change is "big" enough to require a notification. Thanks. --MartyD 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I proposed to develop an automatic notification for this. As always this has been rejected. I value my time too high to do such a stupid tasks manually. --Stoecker 18:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not have any control over the site's features or policies. Perhaps you can find some sympathy for the moderators and the time they have to spend when people feel they do not need to conform to the community's agreed-upon policies and etiquette. If you do not want to notify the primary verifier, then you can always just not edit the record. --MartyD 02:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly you reject a change in the that case, where the PV is notified! And I have no sympathy with the moderators who instead of supporting automatic procedures want to do everything by hand. That's a personal decision, but afterwards giving that as reasons for others to waste time is nonsense behaviour. And yes - the result is that I simply don't do changes, like always. --Stoecker 12:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the 'automatic notification' would have to 'know' if the PV is active, or is likely to become active again, and, depending on that, who is to be notified instead: that'd be a task most difficult to install. In the case of Black*Out, I apologize for the rejection. Sorry for that. Stonecreek 12:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's much easier to handle that in software than whatever wiki and hidden knowledge based process is currently used. Anyway I gave up to try fixing ISFDB. The result will always be the same - total frustration on my side. --Stoecker 14:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions and good luck! Ahasuerus 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Software changes are a whole different story. The immediate question is, as Marty said, conforming to the community's agreed-upon policies and etiquette. Ahasuerus 13:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My own experience tells me, that the "community policies" aren't really community based and that again does not give me a bad feeling when I ignore them like also the admins do. Who follows which rules or what admin accepts which changes is more or less personal opinion. So when I find an error I'll submit a fix and when the fix is ignored the error will stay in ISFDB. When a database values ownership over correctness than that's a free decision. It would be so easy to use the same approach like any bug tracker and ticket system uses to discuss controversial changes. You don't want to do so. --Stoecker 14:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Your attitude is unacceptable for me. So, if you don't want to inform me, don't make any changes to my verifications. And other moderators, please reject any of those submissions. --Willem 14:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
And exactly your attitude is my problem. Instead of thinking and discussing a proper way of collaboration you continue to verify the system of begging to be allowed to fix an error. You did add multiple thousands of verifications and because it's YOUR data you'r sure, that fixing it is unnecessary, because you make no errors. Waiting weeks for a reaction to a request to fix typos or better ISFDB hosted scans of identical images is simply wasted time. There are better ways established in many places outside ISFDB which simply could be copied allowing automatic inclusion of interested parties and discussion in much better form. But no - you fight for YOUR data. Not even once in all these fruitless discussions I heard requests how better ways could look like or how a timetable and plans for implementation could be made or who could do it. The core ISFDB members simply don't want to improve the situation. You continue to use methods which are outdated since the nineties and think that's fine for you. You should be happy that ISFDB is no large attack target and I'm not frustrated enough to attack ISFDB, because I know many security holes and that should frighten each operator. --Stoecker 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that if you become sufficiently frustrated with the ISFDB policies, you will try to hack the ISFDB server? Ahasuerus 20:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No. I don't do such things. But I easily could and that it's frightening. --Stoecker 18:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it shouldn't be a problem any more since Dirk has decided to stop editing the ISFDB (see his comment above.) He is welcome to re-join the project any time as long as he agrees to follow our policies and procedures. Ahasuerus 16:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My comment above is about changing the ISFDB software as you should well be aware of, because trying to work together with you is the main reason of that frustration. Anyway also for database entries I restricted me already to fixing major issues in already entered German books I own myself and it seems still that's too much. --Stoecker 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
All editors are welcome to submit edits as long as they follow our policies and procedures for data entry and editor notification. If you would like to suggest changes to the ISFDB data entry standards and notification procedures, please do so on the Rules and standards discussions page. Until the rules have been changed, they need to be enforced by moderators. Ahasuerus 19:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Die Magie der Scheibenwelt: Change of pub series

Hi, I have added the volumes of the pub series Meisterwerke der Fantasy (corresponding to Meisterwerke der Science Fiction). The series includes the pub Die Magie der Scheibenwelt verified by you. At the moment the ISFDB is not able to handle subseries of a pub series. If its acceptable for you please change the pub series from "Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy" to its sub series "Meisterwerke der Fantasy" to have a consistent situation. Thank you! Boskar 10:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I see inbetween that has been fixed already. --Stoecker 18:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Catacombs: A Tale of the Barque Cats

Hi. You verified the 1st ed. of this novel, evidently in trade hc format P332484. I have a library copy of the 1st printing per numberline, which you don't say. I would like to expand the notes greatly.

First I wonder whether you have a different dustjacket. You say "No price specified" but give price $26.00 that is not from OCLC. The dustjacket of my copy includes:

front inside flap, prices $26.00 $C30.00
back inside flap, design credit that you state, (c) 2011 Random House
back cover bar code ends 52600, which i understand to mean $26.00

Do you have a different dustjacket? --Pwendt|talk 00:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That text is not from me, I only did not change it. My own list also states $26.00, so I found that information on the book. Please fix the entry with more details. --Stoecker 18:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I checked the book again and the text is correct. There is neither a price stated on the dustjacket, nor a numberline for the printing. Backside cover barcode has no 52600. I'll upload a cover scan including backcover to my own pages tomorrow. You'll find them here: https://books.stoecker.eu/series/Barque%20Cats My book is printed in the USA. Maybe you have a canadian print? The price comes from the fact that I bought that book 2010 and thus know the release price :-) --Stoecker 20:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Limit

Found the stock photos of the cover of this pub. --Zapp 19:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Cover artist found

for this pub and changed. --Zapp 10:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mir gehört die Welt

Hi, Mir gehört die Welt is indeed a shortened version. According to Bibliographie deutschsprachiger SF-Stories und Bücher translated by Klaus Fecher and only having three stories: translations of The World is Mine (1943), Ex Machina (1948) and Time Locker (1943), stories that all appeared in the collection Robots have no tails II (1952).--Dirk P Broer 12:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Dirk, I've changed the notes accordingly. Stonecreek 16:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Diogenes Sonderba(e)nd(e)

Hi, you and Stonecreek each entered a Diogenes book 1 2, one with the publication series Diogenes Sonderband and the other the pub series Diogenes Sonderbände. Which series would the two of you like to use? --Vasha 19:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

With no answer I changed the series title to the first version. I also changed the year of publication to 1979 as the second part of the code seems to denominate that one. Stonecreek 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Alan Dean Foster poem in Andromeda

You had verified this pub of Andromeda 6. It lists a poem by Alan Dean Foster called "Where Do You Get Those Ideas?". A couple of other sources suggest the title of the poem was "A Beach 10,000 Miles Long.". Can you please check your copy to verify the title of the poem? Thanks. Doug H 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See the comment in the title itself. --Stoecker 20:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I was just one click away from saving myself from appearing (being?) stupid. Thanks for checking and your kind reply. Doug H 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Alan Dean Foster - Sir Charles Barkley and the Referee Murders

Alan Dean Foster's web site lists this title as short fiction. The publication is typed as non-fiction. I don't have a copy to check - can you refer to your copy to clarify? Thanks. Doug H 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars

Hello Stoecker, this publication has no pub series, but only a pub series number. My suggestion is "Star Wars" as pub series. And the title should be "Ein Sturm zieht auf". What do you mean?--Wolfram.winkler 07:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes to John G. Hemry/Jack Campbell pubs

I am changing John G. Hemry's canonical name to Jack Campbell; this is affecting your verified publication Turn the Other Chick. --Vasha 18:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Mir gehört die Welt

Hi, I expanded the notes for Mir gehört die Welt (it keeps creeping up in the report 'Primary-Verified Anthologies and Collections without Contents Titles').--Dirk P Broer 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Fellowship Fantastic

Added the LCCN to your verification of Fellowship Fantastic. MLB 06:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fate Fantastic

Added the LCCN to your verification of Fate Fantastic. MLB 07:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A batch of nongenre stories - if you disagree please comment

Currently there are numerous non-genre horror stories that are in the database because it's natural to just enter a book of horror or "tales of terror" without figuring out which stories are supernatural. I don't intend to systematically hunt for them, but when I spot one, I like to mark it nongenre. (In the case of classic stories, marking is better than removing it from the database because it'll just get re-added with some new anthology.) At the moment, I've spotted the following stories that I think need such a change, and I'm consulting people who have them in their verified pubs.

Firstly, there's Great Tales of Terror and the Supernatural (verified copies: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)), which contains "A Terribly Strange Bed," "The Three Strangers," "The Most Dangerous Game," "Leiningen Versus the Ants," "A Rose for Emily," "Taboo," and undoubtedly other non-supernatural ones that I'm not noticing at the moment. Here are verified publications for those and some other stories:

Are there any of those stories you think ARE genre? Vasha 15:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Discussion moved to the Community Portal. --Vasha 01:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars: Skywalkers Rückkehr

An editor has submitted a change to your transient-verified Star Wars: Skywalkers Rückkehr to remove the "Star Wars" from the title, since the title is in the Star Wars series. I investigated, and all of the other book we have recorded do not include "Star Wars", so I have let this change through to make it consistent with the others. If you see this and disagree, let me know and we can restore it. Thanks. --MartyD 06:21, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Voyage of the Basset

I added a content item for the interior art in your verified Voyage of the Basset. I also noted that Locus1 indicates that the text is entirely by St. James and Foster, with Christiansen doing the artwork. I'll leave it up to you if you want to adjust the authors of the novel. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:46, 19 July 2017 (EDT)

The Candle of Distant Earth

Added cover scan, some notes and external references to your verified The Candle of Distant Earth.SFJuggler 13:32, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Thalia — Gefangene des Olymp

I've added an essay from Heinlein to your verified Thalia — Gefangene des Olymp. Rudam 12:47, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

Star Trek: Into Darkness

For this pub I have updated the image to a scan, changed note to confirm info from Amazon/Locus, added lines about novelization and cover being from film. Doug H 09:49, 2 October 2017 (EDT)

I added the Canadian price to your verified

I added the Canadian price to your verified [5].Don Erikson 17:27, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Roald Dahl's non-genre stories

I have been looking into Roald Dahl's stories and am about to mark some of them non-genre. The ones that occur in publications you verified are "Mein Herzblatt," "Einsatz," "Hoddy," "Das Hunderennen," "Nunc Dimittis," and "Geschmack" in Lammkeule und andere Geschichten. Please let me know if you disagree. --Vasha 15:55, 5 November 2017 (EST)

KJ Kabza

Since you verified the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction for March-April 2012, November-December 2012, and November/December 2014, could you please confirm that KJ Kabza's name is in fact printed without periods between the intials there? --Vasha 17:09, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Your cover art variants

Thanks for your submissions; I rejected some of them, though, as the years of publication seemed to hint into a vice versa varianting (there was no note to the moderator). Stonecreek 13:01, 3 March 2018 (EST)

Actually that's the reason why I don't contribute to ISFDB much. As soon as I do something even if it is as simple as linking images always very soon there is a reject and I have to do much work to verify what I do. It is uncommon that Urania links to a German base, but it may be the case. Feel free to link it yourself in which order you want or not to do so and loose the connection. I gave example the images for verify and worse quality is also at Amazon. I'm gone for some more months again. Ciao. --Stoecker 13:10, 3 March 2018 (EST)

I've also rejected some as they were "blind" variants. Please upload the missing cover before submiting the variant. Thanks. Hauck 13:04, 3 March 2018 (EST)
For the blind variants I especially gave links to the images, so you can verify it. But as it seems nobody reads the additional info, why bother to give it? --Stoecker 13:10, 3 March 2018 (EST)
I've read your note to moderator, this would have been much simpler if you just uploaded the scan. And yes, I will reject such blind merges without remorse as, for any other user than the moderator that have seen your submission and its soon-to-disappear "note to moderator", the result is are just this: a "blind" variant without any justification.Hauck 13:18, 3 March 2018 (EST)
It seems still to be the case that you don't understand some basics of our database: if Urania publishes 1987 a piece of art that first was published in 1982 (as far as we know), they re-use that piece and this is the reason for varianting vice versa. Stonecreek 13:35, 3 March 2018 (EST)

Chicks Ahoy

You verified this copy of an omnibus containing the title Did You Say Chicks? I have left notes regarding the stand-alone anthology with the verifiers regarding a trailing exclamation point in "Did You Say Chicks?!" and a difference in the title of "Yes!. We Did Say Chicks!" between the table of contents and the actual content that may affect the contents of your publication. You can follow here and here. ../Doug H 16:18, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Transit zu den Sternen

FYI, the Notes field in your verified Transit zu den Sternen has been greatly expanded. Ahasuerus 17:33, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Acorna's Search

I'm replacing the Amazon cover and cleaning up notes on our verified pub [6]. Thanks, Sjmathis 09:48, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

Mir gehört die Welt

Hi, I've entered the content of Mir gehört die Welt in a more convenient way, instead of mentioning it twice in the notes.--Dirk P Broer 06:28, 4 December 2018 (EST)

Lammkeule und andere Geschichten

I found Your PV publication verified as pb. But DNB and OCLC enlist 21cm, so it could ba a tp. --Zapp 04:19, 5 December 2018 (EST)

Variants of uncredited cover art

Unfortunately, there is no good way right now to handle the uncredited cover artwork + variants combination. The current structure's design focus is on capturing the cover artist credit, not on capturing/documenting the artwork itself. So a note, such as you provided, is the way to go. You could bring this specific situation up on Rules and standards discussions and suggest we allow/use "uncredited" (or some other equivalent) to try to capture the variant relationship in a more structured way, and see what people think. --MartyD 10:10, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Robot Uprisings

I have your clone of Robot Uprisings on hold. Your new entry matches (minus size) an existing entry. It looks like you should be using that entry instead? -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Cropped Amazon images

Welcome back! Thanks for identifying a way to crop Amazon images -- I have started a discussion on the Community Portal. Ahasuerus 19:29, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Wrong cover artist

Hello! Thanks for identifying the proper cover artist of this book Abenteuer Weltraum 2! We have noticed several times in the past that the publisher Bastei Lübbe is sloppy with the artist's name. I will fix it. Thanks again. Rudolf Rudam 00:36, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

Because it simply doesn't look like a Maitz I searched, found and entered the original cover to ISFDB. Based on a scan available in the net it very likely is uncredited. I didn't remove Maitz myself for "Abenteuer Weltraum 2", because it still could be a Maitz even if VERY unlikely. Some of his other works also don't look much like him, but for my feeling this one was too far away...

P.S. Thanks for correcting Eiszeit 4000. The Volkmer picture also matches the Rogner style a bit so this one slipped me through, sometimes even using multiple source it's hard to find the correct image (especially when the image is identical and only small details differ like e.g. the logo). Thought the correct one matches his style better ;-) --Stoecker 07:18, 27 April 2019 (EDT)

I, Robot - Asimov

Hi, you are PV here. Chris Moore has confirmed to me it's his work, so I'm crediting him for the cover art. I've already credited the one other publication record under this title with the same art. Thanks. BanjoKev 18:44, 30 April 2019 (EDT)

How did you do this? Did you think "Well this looks like Chris Moore" and then asked him or was this a side effect of something else? I did a lot varianting of reused covers to the original art but never yet found a copyright by asking an artist. :-) --Stoecker 08:19, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
I was cataloguing some of my earlier I, Robot books and came across your note "Cover likely by Chris Moore". So, to clear things up, I sent him an email explaining I wanted to verify this, with a link to your record and he replied in the affirmative ;) BanjoKev 18:57, 6 May 2019 (EDT)

Primary Verified Pubs

When modifying primary verified pubs with an active verifier, you need to notify the verifier(s) of the changes. This can be done either by:

  1. posting at the verifier's talk page; or
  2. by placing an equivalent explanation in the "Note to Moderator" field (which is displayed to users via the "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications")

This is needed as the "My Recently Changed Primary Verifications" function only displays what field(s) changed and the current value(s). It does not show the prior value(s). I am holding a number of your edits that have active primary verifiers. You can either notify the verifiers via their talk pages or cancel and resubmit with an explanation in the note to moderator field. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

All these changes are either typo fixes, fixing broken images or add missing covers for German books. All changes are obvious in the diff line. These changes do not differ from hundreds I did in the past weeks including primary verified ones. Why are these handled specially again? --Stoecker 11:44, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
Personal tools