User talk:OoLingoO

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

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

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pub dates

I have two submissions on hold that want to change the dates. What is your source? I checked multiple sources for the Chan Australian pb and even the publisher has it coming out in the last week of July, not January. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not always obvious how to respond to a posting. To the right is an active link "edit". CLicking on this opens a page where you can type in a response. Use an extra colon for each response in a thread, this indents, producing a ladder effect, easier to follow the thread. Above the window is a series of tabs. The second last one [looks like a squiggle] is a signature tab which will sign your user name and date the response. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bill! Thank you for the previous post topic 'Welcome' and the post above this one - they were genuine, warm, highly informative and very helpful. As you can probably tell by the long delay before receiving a response from me and the lull between submissions, I am completely new to ISFDB and the ISFDB wiki. I have also not yet figured out the verify publication menu but that's next on the list. ^_^ --Ling 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I have never previously contributed nor participated in a shared bibliographical database. I do have a very teeny, tiny personal one for my books but it holds only very basic information which I'm trying to expand upon, hence my sudden interest in ISFDB and my bewilderment as to how, what and where everything goes. I joined and decided to participate because the information already in ISFDB is everything I am looking for (plus a lot more that I know absolutely nothing about yet, one thing at a time...) and I would like to give back (if I can help) to the community that has created this. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that I am well and truly out of my depth here. I will still do what I can if I'm able to, so, I hope that you and the rest of the community will bear with me, assist me (as much as possible please!) and tell me bluntly to stop if I'm hindering or inconveniencing anyone. --Ling 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In reply to the top post of this topic: http://www.kyliechan.com/books.cfm?region=1&series=all is where I got the dates from. I apologise if I submitted information incorrectly. --Ling 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit of a learning curve; please don't be discouraged!
I also wondered the same about the dates on your other Kylie Chan submissions. (I'm Australian & have a large collection of Australian publications from this publisher so know the books usually only state the year, though my Kylie Chan's aren't to hand to check.) It's a good idea to put the source of any information that isn't printed in or on the book in the "Notes" box. If 2 sources contradict, you can extend the note. I've put 3 of the 4 on hold, for now. I accidentally approved the other - [Blue Dragon], then (before I checked this Talk page), went to the publisher's website (HarperCollins Aust - Voyager is an imprint) & put the month back. See here - I've put the publisher's website as my source.
Also, a lot of Australian publications don't have a price printed on them. Ask here re approaches if you are going to put in more Australian publications. --clarkmci / j_clark 08:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou for your help! ^_^ Do you want me to resubmit the edits adding the source to the notes? --Ling 04:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ling, Re your latest round of submissions ... Some points:

1. We need to be careful about copyright for images we use or link to. Refer to our help re image use here. Australian publications are not often found on Amazon or Fantastic fiction (but always look first). If not, you can put in a small scanned image - refer to the link above. (Nevertheless, the images on Amazon UK look like I remember my copies' covers look like. I don't have them handy to check. Only link if they are identical. See the Help (don't use images.amazon.com/images/P/0123456789.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg, but follow the bit about removing the "._SS500_" or "._AA240_". I use Firefox & right click the image on Amazon, then select Copy Image Location, then tidy as per the Help.)

2. The html for a link to a publisher's page or similar - in the Notes box - needs care. The start is <a href (i.e. a space after the "a"). There has to an ending after the word you want to appear as the link, namely </a>.

3. Because publisher's pages (and similar) can change, my personal preference is to include the month and year I looked at the page after the link.

4. To distinguish Australian dollars from US, we put an A in front of the $ sign. This is in the Help. There's a link to the Help on the Edit page, for example.

I've applied these points to Heaven to Hell. (You'll need to go into Edit to see the html, then go Back.)

As I said earlier, it's a learning curve & please don't be discouraged. --clarkmci / j_clark 10:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Later. Also, do a story series with Edit Title Data. It has it's own Help. (When I started, how to do a story series took me ages to figure out!) --clarkmci / j_clark 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I submitted some edits to fix as per above. I hope you can see the mod notes & I hope I'm improving, please let me know. P.S. Thanks for explaining the series addition, I tried a few different things and then took a stab in the dark in that one, sorry for the inconvenience. --Ling 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

HarperVoyager / HarperCollins Australia

I'm holding a submission that wants to change the publisher of this record from "HarperVoyager / HarperCollins Australia" to "HarperVoyager / HarperCollins (Australia)". There are more than 20 primary verified books that use the first format. Are the parentheses actually stated in the publication or are you adding them to the publisher name in order to disambiguate it from the US or UK publisher? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The book states:
HarperVoyager
An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers
First published in Australia in 2011
by HarperCollinsPublishers Australia Pty Limited
I didn't know which format to use as the first series is in the same format in the books but in the already submitted title pages in ISFDB they are Voyager / HarperCollins (Australia). So I'm a little confused on that one, which is why I added that mod note. --Ling 15:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Publisher credit can be a headache. For the most part we try to stick with what the majority of records state, but that can be tricky when it comes to disambiguating publishers based on the country. I don't see a reason to make the second series conform to the first series, if the first was published by "Voyager" and the second by "HarperVoyager" which look like distinctively different imprints. (It seems that they changed to "HarperVoyager" in 2008. Imprints from HarperCollins are a headache to themselves.) I think we should leave the publisher as is, without the parentheses for now. You can get with the other verifier (Clarkmci) to see whether the publisher's name should be changed. Mhhutchins 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Leaving it the way it is, is fine with me. One of the other notes I added was in regards to the images, are you able to help me with that? --Ling 16:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You should request help at the help desk. Asking it in the Note to the Moderator field is not a good idea. Only one person sees that: the moderator who handles the submission, and he can't respond to questions asked on the database, only in the wiki section (these pages). Asking at the Help Desk you will get a faster response because most of the time it's being monitored by several editors.
Now to your question, because Fantastic Fiction is one of the approved websites, all you have to do is right click on the image, copy the URL and then paste it into the Image URL field of the pub record (by updating it). But that website should be your last resort. For the most part its images aren't very good and sometimes slow to load. If you're unable to scan an image and upload it to the ISFDB server, first check to see if Amazon has it. Mhhutchins 16:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the assistance and the link to the help desk. That will be of great use to me. ^_^ I had the same problem with both of those solutions, I was using an iPad and/or iPhone to access everything. I'm now on my Mac, so will be uploading those images now. I think this will be the easiest way for me and of less inconvenience to you guys until I get used to everything here. Thanks again! --Ling 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Australia or (Australia): We (I) haven't been very consistent across imprints eg Voyager / HarperCollins (Australia) vs the later imprint which ISFDB has as HarperVoyager / HarperCollins Australia, but try to be consistent within the same imprint. (Sometimes the publishers aren't consistent either.) The use of Australia or (Australia) is usually to distinguish from its UK or US parent/associate. Sometimes brackets or no brackets is what the first editor to enter that imprint / publisher put. Do a search on publisher and pick the version already used, where possible. --clarkmci / j_clark 23:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Pawn of Prophecy

Your submission to update this record will have to be rejected. I believe, because of a mistake in the HTML code, a moderator could not accept it, even if he wanted to. Please try again, but make sure the HTML is properly configured. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I accidentally try to add a moderator? Or did I get the coding wrong? I'm a bit confused, sorry. --Ling 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I think what Mhhutchins means is that the error in the html was such that the page display was so messed up that it was not possible for the moderator to do an Accept. Need to make sure there is a correct end tag, such as </a> or </UL>., as appropriate. --clarkmci / j_clark 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what happened. Mhhutchins 02:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've got your re-submission on hold, 'cos I think we now have got to the topic of multiple printings of an edition. If your copy isn't the 25th printing, then you need to do Add Publication not Edit Publication. Also, publisher's websites usually show the date of the first printing of an edition, though not always. ("Edition" - loosely - same ISBN). Do Add Publication for a different publisher or different ISBN or different printing, when the title is already in ISFDB.
How do you figure out which printing? Well, it varies by publisher. Many use a number line eg 5 4 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 8 7 5 3 1 or 29 28 27 26 25 24 when there's been lots of reprints. Occasionally there's just a single stray number on the copyright page.
For a number line, the lowest number is the printing number.
If the first printing of the edition was in 2002, say (stated elsewhere on the copyright page), then when was the 24th printing? Often, the answer is "We don't know". If so, we just have to put 0000-00-00 as the date of the printing, because the physical copy doesn't give us any other information & publishers' websites don't say. Sometimes there is also a year line. These are a bit harder to read at times. Here's an example: First published 2002. Year line 5 6 7/0. This means the printing is 2005-00-00 (month and day unknown). Year line 0 1 2 3/1 would be 2010, probably.
Other publishers don't put number lines but put something like First printed 2000 Reprinted 2001 (twice), 2003. This would be the 4th printing & printed in 2003. (2003-00-00) Some publishers put the month on the copyright page, but not many. What is on the physical copy trumps other sources unless you have confident knowledge otherwise (see the Help pages) - if what you put in a box is different from what's on the physical item, explain in the Notes.
Hope this helps & let me know re which printing for your copy of Pawn of Prophecy & also of Queen of Sorcery so I know how to handle the submission. If your Pawn of Prophecy is the 25th printing, you should say so/leave what the previous editor put in.
BTW: For prices - when there is no printed price - publisher's websites are a bit unreliable because you can't tell if it's the original price, the price for the latest printing, or somewhere in between. Publisher's website for Pawn of Prophecy has higher than you've put, for example. Personally, if it's newly published, I use the publisher's price, otherwise not. (And also put the month & year I looked at the site.) --clarkmci / j_clark 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Later: Also check the Help re numbers of pages - last bullet point. --clarkmci / j_clark 23:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hiya again! ^_^ Sorry for the stuff up, because it hadn't been verified yet I thought it would be alright to overwrite those details. I created new pubs and cancelled the previous submissions, so hopefully they're alright this time. Since the confusion with the price on the Oz books, I've only been adding prices that's only on the books and adding the publisher website notes for the pub date. Page numbers - I've only submitted the last printed page number instead of counting the unnumbered pages. Hope that clarifies, please let me know if any of that is incorrect, and thank you! ^_^ --Ling 10:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Queen of Sorcery

You wanted to update this record, changing the date from 2001-00-00 to 2000-08-03, the publisher from Corgi to Corgi Books / Transworld Publishers (UK), the page count from 447 to 446, and to remove the printing number from the note field. You add a link to an OCLC record which gives the publisher as Corgi, and you give a link to a publisher's website, which gives the page count as 448 pages and a price of £7.99 (instead of the current £6.99). If your linked source doesn't support the changes, then you shouldn't use it as the source, nor link it to the record. And removing the printing number from the note field could mean that the record could be a different printing that the one you want to update it to. You may need to create a new record for your printing. I'm assuming you're not working from a book in hand, otherwise you would not have added links to secondary sources. It's probably best to only update records for books in your own collection while you're still in the learning stage. Using secondary sources can be extremely tricky, and learning which ones are more reliable comes with experience. Mhhutchins 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The same situation applies to the submission to update this record. Changing the date from 2000 to 2008 and removing the printing number is also highly suspicious. And the price on the publisher's page doesn't match the current record. Mhhutchins 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am working from books in my collection which I have on hand:
• The links in the notes section I'm adding because the book only gives the year, not the day and month.
• The publisher is Corgi Books (an imprint of Transworld Publishers) in the book.
• The last printed page number is 446 and there is one other page which is unnumbered.
• The price I'm trying to edit it to is on the back cover of the book.
Should I create a new record? Sorry you have to deal with such a newbie... >.< --Ling 18:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
We fully understand that it is going to take some time to get used to how things are done here, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from the fresh ideas that newcomers bring to the table. When you're adding books from your collection to the database, here are the steps to determine whether you should create a new record or update one already here.
  1. Click on the Advanced Search link on the main page, and in the first section ("ISFDB Title Search Form"), search for both title (Term 1) and author (Term 2). Enter them exactly as they are stated on the book's title page, not its cover.
  2. If the search results in no matching title record, go back to the main page, and click on "Add New Novel" (or "...Collection", or whatever type of book you're entering), and create a new pub record along with a new title record.
  3. If the search returns a matching title record, go there and look down the list of pubs associated with that title. Check to see if there is one that matches the publisher, ISBN, and price of your copy. (Publishers' name can vary, from pub to pub and even within the same pub, so don't let a variation in the publisher name be the determining factor here.)
  4. If you find that none of the pub records match your copy in these three criteria, click on "Add Publication to This Title" and create a new pub record.
  5. If you find a record that matches those three criteria, it's a good chance this is your book...but not always. Click on the pub record and see if the date field and any printing/edition data in the note field matches your copy.
  6. If the publication date and printing data matches your copy, look over every field of the record and see if there are any discrepancies between your copy and the record.
  7. If there are differences and the record has not been verified, click on "Edit This Pub" and make the necessary changes.
  8. If there are differences and the record has been primary verified, click on the verifier's name, which takes you to their user page. Click on the tab "Discussion" to go to their talk page and then leave a message explaining the differences and ask them to recheck their copy. If they're active, they should respond within a couple of days. If they're not active, leave a message on the Moderator's Noticeboard.
  9. If there are no differences, click on "Verify This Pub" and on the next screen click on the middle bullet of the first open Primary slot.
  10. Going back to Step 5, if the publication date and printing data do not match your copy, click on "Clone This Pub" and on the next page make all the necessary changes to make the record match your copy.
I hope this helps. If you need further assistance about whether to edit an existing record or to add a new record, leave a message at the Help Desk.

Corgi

There are hundreds of records, probably more than a thousand, that have been entered giving "Corgi" as the publisher (see here). There are only four records as Corgi Books. And there are only five records as Corgi Books / Transworld Publishers (UK). I would not hesitate for a minute to change them to "Corgi", but those nine records have been primary verified. Even if the books give the full name as "Corgi Books" or if Corgi is an imprint of Transworld, it doesn't add value to the individual record nor the publisher listings of publications to add that to the publisher field. Mhhutchins 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about the publisher, I haven't quite worked out which name I should or should not be using yet. The copyright page in the book states "Corgi Books are published by Transworld Publishers". I did a search on publishers and 'Corgi Books / Transworld Publishers (UK)' came up which was the closest to what was in the book, which is why I used that. The primary verifier of the five records under that name are probably me, do you want me to submit an edit of publisher name to "Corgi" on those that I have primary verified? Also, how do I see how many records are held under publisher names, if I can do this, I should be able to choose the correct one and cause less trouble. Sorry, again. >.< --Ling 18:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It's going to take time to figure out how publishers are entered into the database. I readily admit, it's a crazy mish-mosh, with any one contradicting how any other one is entered. The best I can tell you is to enter the name as given on the title page, not the cover, spine, dustjacket or copyright page. After that you can always make a change based on what is the more common form of the name. If you added any Corgi books with the complete name, it's not too much trouble to change them to the simpler form. But again, that's not always the case, as you've learned with "HarperVoyager / HarperCollins Australia"! And there's no need to apologize. We were all new here once. And we've all made our fair share of mistakes, and that includes me. Mhhutchins 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
There's no easy way to see how many publications are under each variation of a publisher name, unless you can do off-line SQL queries. (Although I have ideas on how to improve that.) You can do advanced publication searches by publisher and count the results, but those actually use a "contains the string XXX" type query so "Corgi" matches "Corgi", "Corgi Books", "Corgi Books / Transworld" etc. BLongley 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Note that (for British-originating pubs at least) I've always chosen to use the spine or cover imprint, as it's not guaranteed to be reflected on title page. If I hadn't, then many "Corgi" books would be almost identical to the "Bantam" US editions as both were (are?) part of Transworld. We're rather woolly on how to proceed, although Darrah Chavey has started yet another regularisation project. BLongley 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feist's Magician

Your verified record for a 1997 printing of this title gives a ISBN-13. Are you certain of the date? ISBN-13s were not used until 2005, and only became the standard in 2007. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The book states on the copyright page that it is the 28th printing (no print date), "This paperback edition 1997" and both ISBN's. On the back cover the book only has the ISBN-13, which is why I used that one. Should I submit an edit to change it to the ISBN-10? And you're very welcome! ^_^ --Ling 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No, don't change the stated ISBN. You should always record exactly what's stated on your copy. If it doesn't match the record, then you should create a new record (look at the checklist I gave you above). If your book has an ISBN-13, then it could not have been printed in 1997. More likely, it's the undated 28th printing of the 1997 edition. In this case, zero out the date field to 0000-00-00, which indicates that the book doesn't give a printing date. In the note field record exactly how the printing data is given on the copyright page. For example: "This paperback edition 1997" and "28th printing", or "This paperback edition 1997" and "25 26 27 28" (if there's a number line). I use quotation marks in notes to indicate exactly what is stated in the pub itself. See this recent verification for an example. You don't have to go to the extent I do with notations (I'm a bit anal when it comes to detail, as you may have already learned.) But the better notes, the better understanding of how this record differs from the other records of the same title. Mhhutchins 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to send you a message and haven't quite worked out how to do anything on others' talk pages, so hopefully you get this message. I'm going to stop adding & editing, I've been going through my collection book-by-book, and I'm re-editing the first book in my collection, White Tiger, with all of the information you've supplied in mind. I'll leave a note in the mod notes field for yourself only to accept/reject the edit. Could you please take a look and see if I've missed anything? I want to get just one right and then use the same/similar format for all the others, which is more logical than what I've been doing now I think. Too many re-edits, more work for you guys, more marks on my books from handling... =( So if you could please get back to me after having a look at the edit, that would be awesome. I will await your reply. Thank you!!! ^_^ --Ling 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I responded to this on my talk page. Mhhutchins 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Feist's A Darkness at Sethanon

The submission adding this record was accepted into the database. Examination of this record will show that the two are almost identical. Same year of publication, same publisher (not exact, but close), same ISBN, same price, same cover artist. The only visible difference is the linked cover images and because it's not been primary verified a link to Amazon images is always suspect. Following the guidelines I gave above, you would simply have needed to update the record that was already in the database. Also, the OCLC record you linked to the record gives the publisher as Voyager. If the OCLC record doesn't match the record that you're creating you should not link it without explaining why. Does your copy give any printing data (date or printing number) on the copyright page? Mhhutchins 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feist's Prince of the Blood

I'm holding a submission to add a publication record to this title. It's looks almost identical to this record. Please use the steps I've outlined above to determine whether you should add a new record or update a current one. And remember, images linked to Amazon should not be a factor in determining whether the record matches your book. Neither should a variation in the publisher's name as given. Mhhutchins 21:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't assume it was the same edition because of the page count and then additionally the image. If the page count was the same I would have just added an additional image but couldn't be sure, so added a new publication to be on the safe side. What should I do? --Ling 21:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If you re-read my guidelines above, you'll see no mention of page count, which is not a factor at all when a record is based on Amazon data. Amazon's page counts are wrong 95% of the time. You can cancel the submission by going to "My Pending Edits" and check the box for Prince of the Blood, and then update the current record. But...if your book has an ISBN-13 it's not the same record and is very likely a later printing. If this is true, I'll accept the current submission, but ask that you zero out the date and add the printing data to the note field. Let me know what choice you're making. BTW, it could be the same edition, but a different printing, in which case we'd create a new record. You have to remember that "edition" and "printing" are not synonymous terms. Mhhutchins 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feist's The King's Buccaneer

I've accepted the submission adding this record to the database. Except for an additional £2.00, it is identical to this record, which is verified as a first printing. It's not likely that a book is reprinted with this great increase in the price within the same year. I suspect yours is a later printing. Please record the printing data as stated on the copyright page in the record's note field, and zero out the date if it indicates a later printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feist's Faerie Tale

I accepted the submission updating this record, but will revert the ISBN back to the original ISBN-10. There's no way that a book published in 2001 has an ISBN-13. If your copy has one, it's a post-2005 printing. Mhhutchins 22:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Rivan Codex

In this record you gave the URL of the image's wiki page. It should be the URL of the file. Also, please check the spelling of the afterword. Is it "Afterward"? One last thing: you say in the notes that is was illustrated by Geoff Taylor. Is that for just the cover art or did he do any interior illustrations? If the latter, you should create a content record (using INTERIORART type). Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is spelt "Afterward" in the book, yeah, I did a double-take when I was actually entering that in as well. In regards to the illustrations, I'm still working on that. I know that he did some of the interior art, I'm still working on whom did the various maps illustrated within the book as well, which is why I haven't entered anything for those yet either. I needed to restart my pc and didn't want to lose any of the edits I'd already done, so I submitted it as is. I'll fix up the wiki image at the same time. Thanks for the feedback. ^_^ --Ling 07:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have submitted the edit for this publication. It was a little complicated to me, so I've done the best I can with what I know. Any help with finding a source/resource to find the author/illustrator of the maps would be extremely helpful to me, I don't like all of the "uncredited" fields. =( --Ling 08:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if you have a secondary source for the credit, you have to record the information exactly as it appears in the publication. If the maps are not credited, you have no choice but to enter the record's author/artist as "uncredited". Afterward (the proper use of the word) you can make a variant record if you have a reliable secondary source. Also, if you see that a title, as published, is misspelled, please write a note in the Note field of the title record (not the pub record) that the title is correctly entered so that later users won't be bugging you to see if you misspelled it. Thanks. Mhhutchins
One other thing: you don't have to create a record for each map, especially if they're not credited. Just one record titled "The Rivan Codex (maps)" is sufficient. Why do some of the maps have bracketed page numbers? If the pages don't have printed numbers you can interpolate them by counting forward or backward from a page that is numbered. Mhhutchins 14:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The same situation with the pagination in this record and this one. Mhhutchins 14:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I also see you're adding uncredited "About the Author" pieces. Are these of exceptional quality or substantial length? Mhhutchins 14:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the note to the title for me. Much appreciated, wasn't sure if I should add that in the notes of the publication or not. I didn't know you could add notes to a specific title, I only know about the merge so far. In regards to the map page numbers "[##] Any page for which a number is derived by counting, possibly from a previously or subsequently numbered page, but the page carries no actual page number, should be listed in [brackets]." from here. Thanks for the guidance with the maps, I'll be sure to do that next time. ^_^ I've been adding the "About the Author" pieces (they're about half to a full page) as per the afore-mentioned help guide and then merging them. --Ling 14:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that help section to my attention. It doesn't make clear that this method should only be used for unnumbered pages that fall before the first numbered page or after the last numbered page. If a work is printed on an unnumbered page facing, for example, page 26, it should be entered as "27". That applies to any kind of work. Quite often book designers will omit page numbers for a titled page (with story title or chapter number/name) if they've chosen to number the pages at the top. (And if the page is an illustration, most of the time the page is not numbered.) Take a look at any book in your collection that prints the page at the top and you'll see this. Sometimes they'll move the number to the bottom, but often don't number the page at all. In these cases it wouldn't make sense to bracket the numbers. I'll bring this up on the Rules and Standards page and see about having the help page changed. Mhhutchins 15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Enchanters' End Game

Please check the record type for "The Isle of the Winds" (page 406) in this record. Also, why do the maps have different dates? Were some of them used in earlier books? This is one of the reasons why creating separate records for each map can be a headache, and why most editors choose to create one record for all of them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've submitted an edit for "The Isle of the Winds" that was just me, sorry. In regards to the maps - yeah, I was highly confused. I had to keep referring to this help item and even then I was and am still confused. The maps have different dates because I followed the dates that were a part of the illustrator's signature. --Ling 18:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:OoLingoO&oldid=272203"