ISFDB:Help desk

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This page is for questions about how to do something, either in the ISFDB or the ISFDB Wiki. This includes both questions about how to do a specific task, and also more general questions about what should be done about particular situations where the information is clearly wrong and the solution is not obvious. For other specific requests, see appropriate places listed at ISFDB:Community Portal.

For older, answered queries, see this page's archives.

Use this link to add a new section at the bottom without having to edit the whole page; don't forget to fill in "Heading/section"

Old, but never answered queries
(None currently)

A restarting Publication Series
This series was 'restarted' twice during its life, with the same name and numeration beginning from 1 (they are not reprints of the first series): for a publication history, see Wikipedia (in Italian). Has something like this happened before in ISFDB? Since the publications are 9 in the second one and 2 in the third and final one, I do not think they deserve a Pub Series by themselves ("Fantasy Urania second series"). One solution could be to keep the series name as the original one but adding to the series number the information, like "1 (second series)" and explaining the printing history in the notes of the pub series record: in the series grid it would appear ok (especially when sorted by date ...). I'll wait for an opinion before starting to add publications. Thanks --Pips55 21:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you disambiguate the name (as in "Fantasy Urania second series", etc.), there will be three different series with no way to connect the three. They could not be displayed together. Unless you can think of a strong reason that they should all be displayed on one publication series page, I'd suggest doing a disambiguation. Otherwise you'd have to come up with some numbering system that would separate the three parts of the series. Adding series name to the number might be overkill, but give it a try for a few records and see how they display on the pub series list. Mhhutchins 23:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding a discussion item to the Rules and Standards Discussion Page
I would like to initiate discussion on a new topic ("ISFDB policy on the date of novels initially printed in magazines and later in book format")in the Rules and Standards Discussion Page, but get an error message ("You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason: You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace") when I click on the link "to add a new section, click here" on the R&S Discussion Page. Could you kindly advise on what I am doing wrong or on what I need to do to obtain the permission to start the discussion topic?


 * That's strange. I'm not sure how you could edit this wiki page and not the Rules & Standards page. Are you certain that was the page you tried to edit? (And not the Policy page or any other restricted page?) Also, are you certain that you were logged in at the time you made the first attempt? Mhhutchins 18:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Users with a low edit count are limited to editing a restricted subset of Wiki pages to thwart spambots. Once RMS has made a few more edits, s/he will be able to edit any Wiki page. Ahasuerus 20:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that feature. What is the magic number? This editor made more than 20 submissions the other day. Mhhutchins 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a built-in feature of the Wiki software, so it only counts Wiki edits. RMS has made 3 Wiki edits so far, so s/he is still under the threshold, but will exceed it soon. I am not sure it would be wise to post the exact number publicly in case some spambot operator is reading this... Ahasuerus 22:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Automated submissions
I would like to give it a try to automated submission; to avoid adding mis-interpretations to my difficulties of sending XML with Visual Basic, I have a couple of questions concerning the data format for new pubs. First, what should I do with the Tag optional tag? --Pips55 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Publication tags are deprecated and should not be submitted. I have corrected the Help page -- thanks for catching it. Ahasuerus 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Second, if I have no additional contents to add (e.g. a Novel), should an empty Content section be present? --Pips55 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, that was another misleading statement which has been removed. Ahasuerus 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The help page cites titles undergoing change, which obviously are not present in a new pub (maybe a leftover from a copy/paste of the XML pub update page ?). --Pips55 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a copy/paste artifact. Gone now. Ahasuerus 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a few omissions in the documentation: in the Web API page, in the submission example, the IsfdbSubmission (and Content) tags are missing, while the LicenseKey is not present in the Data Submission Formats. If appropriate, I will gladly carry on the necessary additions. Thanks. --Pips55 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to clean up the rest of the Help page, but the best way to learn how to build a NewPub submission is probably by dumping the contents of an existing one using the dumpxml.cgi script, e.g. this submission. Ahasuerus 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and now (sound of knuckles crackling) to coding ... --Pips55 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

By the Blood of Heroes
I have this book, and they keep changing the numberlines on me and I'm a touch confused. The numberline goes as such 12 13 14 15 16 OV/RRD  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. As this book is copyrighted in 2012 I'm going to assume that it was printed in that year. I know I bought mine at Christmas time of that year. Hard to believe that this was such a hot seller that it went through twelve printing in one year. So does the 12 through 16 mean that this is the year printed? And is the 10 through 1 the printing history? And what does the OV/RRD mean? MLB 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This should have been posted on the Help Desk page (this is the Help Desk talk page, for discussions about the Help Desk). I'll respond to your question and after I'm sure you've read it, I'll move it to the correct page for archiving.


 * Now to your question: Never use the copyright date as the date of publication (I'm sure we've gone over this before). Never assume a publication date based on the year of copyright. It should be used only when all sources have been exhausted.


 * In this case the number line gives you both the year of publication and the printing number. (There is no industry standard about number lines. Each publisher has their own way of doing it, and can change it before you turn around.) Your copy is the first printing of 2012. If they did the second printing today the number line would be changed to 13 14 15 16 OV/RRD  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2. If they did the third printing next week, it would be 13 14 15 16  OV/RRD  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3.  If they did the fourth printing next year it would be 14 15 16  OV/RRD  10 9 8 7 6 5 4. As for the middle letters, I suspect it's the publisher's code for which press it was printed on. But I couldn't swear to that and anyway, it's not that important. Just record the line as given. Mhhutchins 23:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. MLB 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved to the proper page. Mhhutchins 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pandora's Daughter
I have Pandora's Daughter, and it brings up a question. This is a book club edition. but what club? Johansen is a popular author and her works have seen multiple book club editions I'm sure. So, how does somebody know which book club has printed a book? MLB 21:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence that your copy is a book club edition? Is the price lacking from the dustjacket and is there a seven digit number printed on the back of the dustjacket? If so, it was published by Bookspan for any number of its book club divisions. I don't believe it was ever a selection of the SFBC. If you've determined it definitely is a book club edition, you should clone the current record for the trade edition, change the publisher to "St. Martin's Press / BCE", leaving the date and price fields blank. Mhhutchins 22:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. In answer to your questions.  Is the price lacking?  Yes.  Is there a seven digit number printed on the book's back dust jacket? Yes.  Printing date? No, just a copyright date. MLB 09:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New Yorker blog
The New Yorker has published a story by Roger Ebert on their blog but not, as far as I can tell, in their magazine. Any suggestion on how to add this? Gamaliel 03:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * With few exceptions, web-only publications are not eligible for the database. Downloadable files and ezines (in PDF, EPUB, MOBI, etc formats), and a few webzines are eligible. If we allowed web-only (HTML) publications, we would be overwhelmed by the onslaught of submissions. Mhhutchins 04:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Review format?
I've been adding new novels for a couple weeks now, and I'm starting to get the hang of it. I want to start adding reviews for the novels I add, but I don't quite understand what is supposed to be filled in for those fields, and I haven't found any help in the help documents here. Will someone please give me some guidance? Remontant 15:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the exact help text is to be found here, for example. Note that at its beginning this text refers to review columns. If you only have one review to add, just add it in the publication's section reserved for reviews (there are sections for general contents such as stories and essays and for interviews also in every edit screen for a publication). You'll have to enter the exact title and author of the reviewed work: provided the work is already in the ISFDB, the software will automatically link the review to the reviewed work. If you had for example a typo, it'll still be possible to link the review later. It should work quite flawless for reviews of books and shortfictions. Please ask again, if you stumble over any problems. Stonecreek 16:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm misunderstanding, I assume you want to add your own personal review of the works. If this is the case, it can only be added to the database if it has been published in an eligible publication, i.e. a speculative fiction (or related) periodical or book. It would be added as a content record in the review section of the publication record. The help page to do that is the one which Stonecreek has linked to above. Otherwise, unpublished reviews by ISFDB editors are not eligible for the database. Mhhutchins 13:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, GoodReads.com, Amazon.com, and some similar sites are good places to add our personal reviews of books we've read. Different web sites have different missions. Chavey 14:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Man from Mars
I am linking The Man from Mars with the original "The Man from Mars", however, does anybody have a copy of the original unverified pulp Wonder Stories Quarterly, Summer 1931 to see if it was originally printed with quotation marks? MLB 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure if any of the current editors had a copy they would have already verified the record. Looking at secondary sources: Miller/Contento gives the quotation marks for both the Wonder Stories Quarterly appearance and the Startling Stories reprint. Day gives it on neither. So for the time being, until a primary verifier comes along, we'll have to accept that one is a variant of the other. (BTW, this type of inquiry would better have been posted on the Verification Requests page.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a verification requests page?!? I didn't know that.  So much more to learn, I don't think I'll ever know it all. MLB 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ISBN problem
I have the 1st Baen printing of Dickson's & Harrison'd THE LIFESHIP. I problem is the current entry has the ISBN from the cover, spine & bar code, while the copyright page has a different ISBN. WorldCat has the book listed under both ISBNs. So which has priority, cover or copyright page?Don Erikson 20:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's written in stone, but I would go for the copyright page being the primary number. You can record any other number in the note field. Either way, it's not a big deal, as long as you record the different locations of the various numbers. Mhhutchins 21:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You could also look up both ISBN's in Amazon, or Look Up By ISBN and see if one of the numbers goes to Lifeship and the other to a different book. Then you would know for sure that one of them was a mistake. Chavey 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Obituaries
Hello. Is there a way to link an obituary to an author, like REVIEW to a title, or INTERVIEW to an author? Cheers, ForJohnScalzi 01:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC).


 * What I usually do is to put a link to the obituary in the Author Biography page. In a few cases, the obituary has so much information about the author that I've put that link as one of the "webpage" entries for that author. But there isn't any "special" link such as we have for reviews and interviews. (Although you could always make a Feature Request for one.) Chavey 01:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Translated Author's name
In this pub, I have two authors that are presented with their translated names (Luciano di Samosata for Lucian of Samosata and Giovanni Keplero for Johannes Kepler): I am in doubt if create synonyms or use directly the names are already present in ISFDB. I'd go for the synonyms, but I am not sure a synonym can be considered an alternate name. Advice ? Thanks --Pips55 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Following current ISFDB standards, you're pretty much obliged to record the credit exactly as given, create a pseudonym and make a variant title record. One day we might have a different author relationship other than pseudonym. There was talk of creating a "nickname" relationship (which would work better in this case), but that may be way on down the road. Mhhutchins 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Upload cover images
I'm still new here and every time I think I'm clicking the right link it turns out to be the wrong procedure. I want to upload 'my' own cover image to a listing that doesn't have one. I went to the help file and it states.. click the link labeled "Upload cover image". I see on the listing page "Upload cover scan"... Is this the same? Can this be changed to match? SpanishMill 14:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the same thing. And I fixed the help to match.  Thanks for catching the mismatch, and sorry about the confusion.  --MartyD 16:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghost writers
I'm sure I know the answer, but the brain cell responsible is refusing to divulge the information. How do we record a work credited to Author A but known via secondary sources to have been ghost-written by Author B (and never having been published under any byline other than Author A)? --MartyD 12:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming, in this case, that both authors are real persons. If there is reliable secondary evidence that Author B wrote the work, then the title record of the work is varianted to one that credits Author B. Do not make Author B into a pseudonym of Author A (the credited author) unless Author A is a housename. The varianting alone will move the title record from A's summary page to B's summary page. The drawback is that the title will not appear at all on A's summary page, so anyone looking in the database on the published author's summary page won't find the ISFDB record. They would have to do a search for the title. Here are various scenarios and how each have been handled in the db:
 * Example 1, an author writes a book solo which is credited to an entirely different author: has written 90% of the books published as by . Those titles credited to Andrews which are 100% known to have been written by Niederman are varianted to a record crediting him. Niederman has not been made into a pseudonym of Andrews. None of the titles written solely by Niederman appears on Andrews' summary page. Darrah Chavey came up with a clever way of directing users to Niederman's page.
 * Example 2, two authors co-write a work which is credited solely to only one of them: co-wrote The Forest House with, but it was credited solely to Bradley. MZB herself made it clear that it was co-written by Paxson. So we varianted the title record crediting MZB to one which credits both.
 * Example 3, an author writes a book which is credited to her and another author who had no involvement in the actual writing of the work. Paxson wrote the last three novels of Bradley's Avalon series. The fifth one, Ancestors of Avalon, was credited to both authors (for marketing purposes, I'm sure) even though it is widely accepted as a solo effort by Paxson. So we entered the pubs as credited, but varianted the title record which credit both to one which credits Paxson alone. Mhhutchins 15:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I do like that clever approach. I think I may just have to copy it....  --MartyD 01:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Colored dye used on tops of books
Just need some information regarding the dye used on both pb and hc books, some of which I have in my own collection. I am aware of remainder marking and the speckling done with dyes. I've read that the full dye (solid color) on the tops is some kind of dust protection and/or that it may be a remainder marking. Any thoughts? Is this something that needs to be added to the notes section of a publication?

I have in my collection a 1966 printing of the BCE Foundation trilogy Trilogy_Bookwith a full red/orange dye across the top of the text block. Also, have Clarke's BCE City and Stars City_Stars_Bookwith full blue dye on the top of the text block. Including a couple of 1st/1st paperbacks with red/orange dye on the whole text block (top,bottom,side). SpanishMill 18:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've always thought it was nothing more than for aesthetic reasons. I could be wrong. (The remainder speckling/spraying has a more obvious reason than the solidly dyed ones.) Feel free to record it in the Note field of those records you have primary verified, but if there are any other PVs, discuss it with them. Their copies may have a different dye-job. Mhhutchins 18:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And if that primary is no longer around such as Dragoondelight Can I then become the primary on this one? 12th planet pb SpanishMill 20:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are four other Primary verification slots. Use the first available one (which I see you already have). There is no priority in the Primary verifiers' positions. It's not a ranking, just a way of saying "I have a copy, and can verify the data given in this record is correct. If you have any questions, contact me." Of course, the active editor will always be the one picked on. :) Mhhutchins 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bottle Imp #8
I'm considering indexing one issue of the Scottish arts magazine, The Bottle Imp #8. It has the ISSN 1574-1544. My hesitation comes from the fact that it's a borderline candidate in a couple of ways: 1) it's mostly a non-genre e-zine, however this issue from 2010 focussed entirely on Scottish science fiction; 2) while the magazine is not downloadable as a PDF publication in its entirety, individual articles are, e.g. see the top right corner of the articles here and here. The last bullet point of Rule of Acquisition #1 is not explicit in this case. Is there a precedent in the database for this borderline type of publication, or do other moderators consider it Out? PeteYoung 10:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Exceptions have been made for web-only publications, but mostly for fiction published on websites which are recognized by the SFWA as a professional market (e.g. Tor.com, Strange Horizons). If you take on the responsibility as "curator" of this publication, you should make a screenshot of its content page and upload the image file to the record's Bibliographic Comments page, using the Table of Contents license tag. (You never know when websites are going to disappear, so that's the purpose of doing a screenshot to record its contents in case the website shuts down.) Let me know if you need assistance on how to do this. For an example, go to the last issue of Rudy Rucker's webzine Flurb. Mhhutchins 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it rather odd that the authors of the pieces aren't credited on the contents page nor are they credited on the pages of the individual pieces. The only way to know who wrote them is to download the pdfs. You'll have to do that, save them all to your computer as a back-up reference, and do a primary verification of the ISFDB record so that you'll be able to answer questions for future users of the db. Mhhutchins 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just discovered they're credited only at the bottom of the last page in the web versions. I would still recommend that you save the pdfs if you're going to do a primary verification of the record. Mhhutchins 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Worldcat verification
I usually use Worldcat to check data from other sources as ISBN, pub year, series or number and (loosely) translator and contents, citing OCLC number in notes. Do these operations qualify for a verification ? I am aware of Worldcat inaccuracies and ambiguities, but I am in doubt especially about the page numbers, which not always match those of my sources (Fantascienza.com, at the moment, which have a marked preference for even page numbers ...): should I state the difference and verify anyway ? Thanks --Pips55 22:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you use a specific OCLC record as the source for your data, it's good to give that number in the Note field (linking is optional) and checking the OCLC/Worldcat box in a verification of the record. If any of the ISFDB record's data fields do not match the linked OCLC record, the discrepancy should be noted, and the source for the data should be given. If this is the case, I personally wouldn't do an OCLC/Worldcat verification, but there's nothing in the standards that I'm aware of that prohibits this. Just let the user know that there are discrepancies between the two records. Mhhutchins 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you have just about everything there, although there are a few other things you can check on: (1) The size of the book will tell you if it's pb vs. tp, although not hard vs soft cover, in case you don't already know that (Amazon sometimes tells us hard vs. soft, but not pb vs. tp); (2) Is there a summary description of the book? Only a modest fraction of records have these, but they can be useful to put into the Title Record "Synopsis" when they do; (3) On occasion, the record will list additional people under "Responsibility", e.g. an illustrator for the book, or the author of a preface/intro. If other names are listed there, they usually deserve to make it into the Pub record. If you've done the things from your list, and see if any of these 3 extras apply, then you've done a full WorldCat verification.
 * The one other thing that I will do, but which I suspect most verifiers do not do, is to click on the "View all editions and formats" link on line three of the main record. Some of the links in that list will not be the edition that you are verifying, but it's not uncommon to have multiple OCLC records for the same edition of a book. In those cases, I open up all of the links for the edition of the book that I'm verifying. I often find that some will have different information than others, and I can get more information than if I just take the link(s) WorldCat gives me when I search for the book. This sometimes means that you have several OCLC links that you can add to the notes. If there are more than two such links, I will select those with the most information. If there are still too many links (which happens to me more often than I would expect), on the remaining candidates I click the "Show libraries holding just this edition" link, and select those OCLC records that are held by the most libraries -- both because they're more likely to be accurate, and because I could imagine database users using that link to find a nearby library that has a copy of the book. Again, this last part is probably overkill, but you can add this step if you want to be thorough. On the issue of accuracy, for example, several times I have found one OCLC record that says the book is 260 pages while another says it's 257 pages. That usually means the longer count included extra blank pages, and the shorter count is probably the one we use. Chavey 03:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also keep in mind that the underlying library records used to construct OCLC records are often more complete. It can be a hassle to follow various links (make sure to limit the list to the right edition first!), but the results can be rewarding. Ahasuerus 03:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the clear suggestions. I have already met (and somewhat managed) the situation with multiple OCLC links, but I think that the advice to favor the OCLC held by the most libraries is a very considerate one. --Pips55 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Revisions and new stories
How significant does a revision have to be to be listed as a separate story? The two cases I have in mind are these:


 * Marsheila Rockwell "Auf Widershins" (1993) was, according to her webpage, "later revised and published as" "Auf Widdershins" (2006). Not familiar with the stories so I can't speak to the differences.
 * Ruben Dario "Veronica" (1896) was retitled "The Strange Death of Fray Gomez" (1913), but the textual changes otherwise amount to a few words here and there ("Kodak" for "photograph", etc.).

Thoughs? Gamaliel 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if we don't know about the amount of changes, it seems difficult to impossible to judge. So, I'd think it'd be best to leave it as is.
 * In the second case a note added to the title would be sufficient (just as you formulated it). These changes really don't amount to a separate story in my opinion. Stonecreek 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Variants are based solely on a change in either the title or author credit. So you can use that function in both cases you cite (the spelling of the titles changed). If the titles and author credits are identical, changes in text can not be used to create a variant title record. As Christian said above, a revision in text can only be noted in the title record, even though I've seen attempts by other editors to create a disambiguated title record. For example: here and here. This last approach is discouraged, because there's no way to know the extent of the revision, and it creates two separate records that has no connection to each other. The user of the database has no way of knowing there are two different records for essentially the same story. There was talk of creating a new function which connects titles based on textual relationships, but there doesn't seem to be any movement in that direction. This is probably due to the small number of software writers and prioritization of necessary, required, and/or previously requested software updates.
 * BTW, expansion of a short story into a novel length work which keeps the same title (e.g. here and here) is a different matter. Because these are typed differently, there's no need to disambiguate (even though I've seen attempts in the db to do this.) But it would be nice to have the proposed relationship function in cases like this as well. It could also be used for fix-up novels, adaptations (by other hands), abridgments, and excerpts. Maybe one day... Mhhutchins 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearing XML Parse Error from Submission Queue
I've generated three entries showing an "XML Parse Error" in the submission queue. Would appreciate help in clearing these.--Rkihara 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As per the "Rejecting Bad Submissions" section of the Help:Screen:Moderator page:


 * If a submission is so badly malformed that it doesn't display correctly and can't be rejected using the regular Approve/Hold/Reject options, it can be rejected using an undocumented script. The script, "hardreject.cgi", is not available in the navbar, but if you give it a submission number, e.g. http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/hardreject.cgi?123456, it will force submission number 123456 into the rejected state.


 * What's interesting in this case is that the submissions are properly formed (I just checked using a third party validator), so it looks like something is wrong with the "New Submissions" page. Alternative, they may include invisible characters that are messing things up, but that seems unlikely since they are supposed to be stripped at submission time. Anyway, I will reject these submissions and do more analysis on the development server later. Ahasuerus 18:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--Rkihara 01:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cartoon book help
I have book of SF cartoons, U. F. O. HO-HO by Joseph Farris, who has many cartoons entered here under Interior Art. Is this a candidate for inclusion? And if so under which category?Don Erikson 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say it belongs most certainly, same as - for example - this one, and it would be also entered as NONFICTION. Stonecreek 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bloch book conundrum
I have a copy of Bloch's collection FEAR TODAY- GONE TOMORROW published by Award Books. The problem is this; it is the 1971 1st printing with a large sticker across the top of the cover with catalog number and price of the second printing  and saying "From the best-selling author of "Psycho". So the question is; does this deserve a separate entry or is it just variation that should be noted in one of the 2 entries? And if so which one? Also, if it matters, I bought this from a dealer in Australia. Could it be an Australian variant?Don Erikson 22:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably not. It was probably found hidden in the corner of their warehouse after the second printing, and was stickered to give the current price and catalog number. I would suggest making a note in the record for the first printing that stickered copies exist. (Without the sticker it would just be another copy of the first printing.) Since this is definitely not the second printing, there's no need to note it in the second printing. Mhhutchins 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding translation
Even after reading Help desk's archives and this, I am still confused about this subject. So not to overburden mods with fixing my potential mess, I would like to some explanation (step-by-step guide would be more than welcome) as to how adding foreign language translations works. Ilneval 19:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several ways and the specific steps can vary depending on the publication type. Assuming that you are talking about a novel, I recommend:
 * On the applicable title record (example A Dream of Flying), click "Add a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work to This Title" on the left hand menu. Enter the foreign language title information. Add a note to the moderator that you will add a publication record once the variant is accepted.
 * Once a moderator accepts the variant, go to the new title record and click "Add Publication to This Title" on the left hand menu. Enter the publication information including the source of your information.
 * If the author's name is different in the foreign language version than the canonical listing, you may have to create a pseudonym if one doesn't already exist.
 * Hope this helps. Please ask additional questions if not clear. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As an alternate method, and I think one that most moderators would prefer because it leads to less potential problems, I suggest this one:


 * First do a search for the title to see if it's already in the database. The title, author, and language fields must match exactly before you use the "Add Publication to This Title" function.
 * If the title doesn't exist in the database use the proper function under the "Add New Data" menu which appears on the main page of the database. Make sure that you set the correct language when creating the publication record.
 * After the submission is accepted, go to the work's parent title record, copy its record number (it's in the upper right hand corner of the title record display page). Then go to the new publication record, click on the Title Reference link (this leads to the new title record), click on the link "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work". On the next page, enter the number of the parent title record (the one you copied) into the Parent # field, and click the box "Link to Existing Parent".


 * This method avoids the creation of orphan title records and the need to merge duplicate title records. I've known users to go through an author's bibliography, making variant title records for various translations, then forgetting about them, which creates orphan records (titles without pubs). And then later entering publication records using the "Add" function, which creates duplicate titles. Also, some users have set their preferences to hide certain languages, and then create new title records that already exist. You also avoid the problem of adding variant titles to a series, which happens more often when a user is adding variant titles. Varianting a translated title to an existing title automatically transfers series data to the translated title. Yet another reason to create the pubs before the title records is that the system creates a title record that matches exactly the title, author and language fields of the created pub. You increase the chances of mismatching those fields when a title is added first, because a user may "correct" the fields during the publication entry process. I'm sure there are other reasons why creating the pub record first is the better method, especially for new editors. As the editor becomes more proficient, they learn how to avoid the problems that could occur when a variant title record is created without a publication. Mhhutchins 23:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The help is greatly appreciated. I have another question that is somewhat connected to all this. I have a few translation that do not have originals in the database. In one case, author himself is not in the db yet. What to do in this situation? Ilneval 08:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the first step would be to enter the publication, the system generates automatically the title and the author (and his or her summary page). But before you do this, please be sure that the works are eligible for ISFDB: the works should be speculative fiction or nonfiction related to the field. When in doubt, please ask.
 * The second step is to variant the titles to their originals, which also is done via the link "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work". Just scroll down and you reach the second half where you can generate parent titles that aren't in the database. The data is preset to the title you'd like to variant. Most likely you only have to change to the original title, the year or date of original publication (if known) and the original language. Hope this is of some help. Stonecreek 09:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Will Solvit novels
We have 12 Will Solvit novels by "Zed Storm" on file. According to Eleanor Hawken's Web site, a few years ago she "came up with the idea for a book about a ten-year-old boy who time travelled and solved mysteries, his name was Will Solvit. I wrote seven books in the Will Solvit series, and devised the storylines and worked as a series consultant on the other five." Worldcat helped identify the authors of the first 4 books, but books 5 through 12 remain a mystery. Would anyone happen to have any ideas as to who wrote what in this series? Ahasuerus 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Price decimal separator character
Did we ever standardize on using period as the decimal separator in prices, even if comma is used for that purpose in the native price's representation? I could swear there was a discussion, but I can't find it, and I certainly don't remember its conclusion. Thanks. --MartyD 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I also was unable to find an official policy on this. The recent discussion you might be thinking of was in the last "unindent" in this discussion of Italian prices. But here the question was whether "one thousand" should consistently be entered as "1,000", as opposed to the European "1.000". (The conclusion was yes.) Since the use of comma/period as a thousands separator really has to complement a use of period/comma as a decimal separator, I would assume we have an implicit policy of using the period as a decimal separator, but I don't think it's been formalized. It should be. Chavey 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that a period should be used as a decimal separator, so that it won't be misunderstood as a thousands separator. Mhhutchins 14:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree. You may refer to this earlier discussion. Stonecreek 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How embarassing. Seeing as consensus here and now is the same as concensus there and then, I will go update the help.  Thanks.  --MartyD 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's happened so often, I've stopped keeping count. There's a long drawn-out discussion where a) no definite conclusion is made and the help documentation remains unchanged, or b) there is a consensus and the help documentation remains unchanged! Months or years later the issue arises again, I give the results of the last discussion, and am met with resistance because the help documentation contradicts the previous consensus. You just can't win. The problem is no one wants to unilaterally change the help documentation, when there were only three or four editors involved in the discussion. That's why I'm afraid to change the current documentation even when it contradicts the de facto standards. Mhhutchins 17:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Uploading author images
I uploaded an author image for Michelle Murrain, following the directions (as best as I could) from the Help on Uploading Images'. Step #10 says:

10. If you are using one of the license tags that specifies an artist, and you specified an artist name, scroll down to the bottom of the wiki page. Look for the line that starts "Categories", and in it, the link that is labeled "Artist:" followed by the artist name specifed.

I am using one of those license tags. I did specify an artist name. The line for "Categories" does not include a link labeled "Artist". Are those instructions incorrect, or am I unable to follow the stated instructions? Chavey 21:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Those instructions only apply to cover art. Author photographs should be uploaded using the "Upload file" link on the wiki pages, and adding the Author Image Data license. Copy and paste this template into the summary box


 * Replace the bracketed parameters with the applicable data, and remove the parenthetical description for each one. An example using the Michelle Murrain photograph:


 * Of course, you may know more about this photo than I know, so you'd be able to fill in more of the data. Mhhutchins 22:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, the current license that's attached to the photo applies only if the work has been copyrighted (usually by the photographer) and we've received permission from the copyright holder to host the file on our server. Mhhutchins 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The section of "Uploading Images" I was linking to begins by saying "Only use this method if you're uploading an image file other than that of a publication cover", so I was trying to use the appropriate instructions. I see that looking later in this help section is a sub-section on "Licensing: Author Photos", which gives the template that you list. However, there is no forward reference to that section in the instructions I linked to above. The instructions do keep referring to "License Tags", but that appears to be referring to the link Category:Image License Tags, from which I could detect that I should be using the Template: By Permission. But it seems that there are two different "tags" required here, and using only one of them did not successfully allow the "Categories" to be updated. I still can't figure out how I was supposed to have figured that out from the "Direct Upload" instructions. Or even if I've filled in the tags for Michelle's picture correctly. Chavey 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As with most documentation, this may have presumed a greater knowledge of certain terms and processes than the newcomer should be expected to know. I agree that there should be a link to the individual license tags in the body of the step-by-step instructions. But if you re-read section 10 (the one you quote above), it states "If you are using one of the license tags that specifies an artist...". So you should have skipped this step as neither of the tags you use have an artist parameter ("author" in these tags does not mean "artist" as we conflate the terms in the database.) This step is to place the image (cover art) into a wiki category created for the artist's work. Mhhutchins 18:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Michelle claims to hold the copyright (presumably as a "work for hire"), and she released it to us for these purposes. So I believe that's the correct license to use. I will ask her for the name of the photographer, though. Chavey 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Still, I don't believe both tags are necessary in this case. But if the photograph is really copyrighted, it doesn't hurt to have both attached to the image file. Mhhutchins 18:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated the help to add a link from the instructions to the list of various licenses that appear at the bottom of the page. Mhhutchins 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I edit my existing database entry
Hi, I just discovered the isfdb and found that I have an entry! Which is great except that some of the details are inaccurate. How do I go about fixing my entry's data so that the right titles are listed and the titles I'm not associated with aren't listed?


 * Hello! It's great that you found us! I would like to offer you a choice: if you like to stay it would be best to try a change by editing the data. Start with the first and we could go through the needed changes one by one. The other possibilty would be that you state your problems and we'll try to do our best to implement the changes for you. In every case, please take a look at your talk page: maybe the introductory text with its mentioning of help pages can give some leads. Stonecreek 19:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jim, If we have entries that don't belong to you, then that probably means that there are two different authors with the same name. In this case, we need to "disambiguate" the two names (a process I'm sure you've seen on Wikipedia a few times). That's a slightly challenging task, and is probably best to do with the help of an experienced editor here, e.g. by giving us the list of titles that seem to belong to a "different" Jim Johnson. If we are missing some of your existing publications, then the solution is to add the publication -- i.e. it's not by a direct editing of your author's page. Stonecreek suggests how you can begin the process on your own, although you could also ask for help on that part. (Aside: A common issue is that we do not index web publications. Items listed here must exist either in printed form or else as ebooks.) Chavey 14:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! It does look like there needs to be some disabiguation. The Port Nowhere anthology and the following five stories are all a different Jim Johnson:

--Simikus Giff (2004) --Endurance (2004) --Catch of the Day (2004) --Manifest Destiny (2004) --Waking Up with Sha'zreen (2004)

I'll add my other titles per the regular rules.

Also, how do I update my user information to reflect birthday, etc.? Thanks so much!

JimJohnson 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have edited the title and publication of the anthology crediting an unknown 'Jim Johnson (II)'. It was a simple thing to do, since the stories were only published in the anthology and could be edited in one go together with this publication (note that the contents of one given publication are the titles).
 * You may edit your personal data by using the 'Edit Author Data' button on the left tool bar of your summary page. Stonecreek 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How to add a joined digest?
I have a digest book, which consists of a single title page and then added these 3:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Including their covers, advertising, all ...

How do I enter this? I entered the three individual parts, but have no idea how to add the joined work. Can I make a "publication omnibus"?


 * Posted by Stoecker.--Rkihara 22:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Libraries often send out magazines to have them bound up between hard covers. This sounds like what you have. In that case it is not a publication and entering the three digests within is as far as you should go. Please sign your notes by typing four tildes at the end which will attach the date and your name to the end of your post.--Rkihara 22:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No it is an own publication. A "Sammelband", number 6 of a series. But unlike others the contents consists of 3 unmodified magazines. Only front, back are added and a new price. If have another omnibus in book form, where the contents page numbers restart for each novel, but this one here is much more obscure... --Stoecker 11:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is any precedent for this. Amazing Stories similarly bound up unsold issues in the 1940's and 1950's and sold them as "quarterlies." The earlier Amazing Stories quarterlies I believe used mostly original material. Significantly we show no listings for the quarterlies beyond 1934 when the earlier series ended. If you do enter the pub, it should be entered as an "anthology," since an "omnibus" is a collection of novels--Rkihara 16:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking a magazine serial to the novel record
Not a clue how to accomplish this. Entered the five magazines [all non-genre] with the five part serial for The Nine Unknown by [Talbot Mundy]. I won't even begin to describe what [for me] an arduous task that was [our HELP totally sucks when it comes to magazines - excessive verbiage with no diagrams = glazed eyes]. However, now that the series is there, how does one get it to display with the [Novel] record? And if anyone just points to a HELP section I'll track 'em down and strangle 'em!!! [gently, of course .............. nah, probably with a vengeance ;-))]. FWIW I don't know why anyone would ever enter a magazine, the effort just isn't worth it. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The individual parts should have been typed as SERIAL instead of SHORTFICTION. Either way, the next step is to variant them to the NOVEL record. If one didn't exist, you could create one by changing the type at the bottom section of the "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" form. Because a NOVEL record exists, use the top section of the form, putting "21221" in the Parent # field. You'd repeat this until all of the parts have been varianted to the NOVEL record. Mhhutchins 03:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. Cheers!  --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Help documentation is here. This page is linked on the How to... page as "How to connect serials to titles". Please don't strangle me. I linked this just in case a new editor is reading this post. Mhhutchins 03:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, my arms don't reach to Georgia!! Though I'm sure that when giving my "purpose of travel" at any airport as "gunning for a magazine serialist", they'd understand fully!!!! ;-))) --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think entering a magazine with one content record is hard, you should never get near an average magazine which has more than a dozen content records, or in the case of Locus, 4 or 5 dozen records each month, many of which will have to be entered into column series, or are reviews which have to be linked to the pub records. Mhhutchins 03:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * But you are used to it. And if you had to start from scratch using only our HELP [that's the hard part], even a fine Southern gentleman such as yourself would be heard cursing even North of the Mason-Dixon ... and I'd bet on that!! :-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reason I'm used to it is because I started early by acquainting myself with the entry of all types of publications, learning by trial and error, and with the assistance of the moderators who tolerated my fumbling approach toward understanding. In fact, I don't ever recall actually reading any of the help documentation when it came to magazine entry. (If I did, the six intervening years have wiped the trauma from my memory.) One of these days I might have the time to go through the documentation to see if I can make it more understandable. Mhhutchins 03:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

John Shamus O'Donnel / Flann O'Brien
I have just added a biblio comment page for author John Shamus O'Donnell, who has one short fiction entry 'Naval Control' and, it is now believed, was yet another pseudonym for Brian O'Nolan, aka, Flann O'Brien. The assertion is made in the appendix to a recent Flann O'Brien collection – see the above comment for details and a link to an article that reveals this assertion. Is this sufficient evidence to go ahead and make O'Donnel a pseudonym? At the moment, I suspect otherwise. Mods? PeteYoung 16:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think the linked article supplies sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Now if the story had been reprinted in the new collection, that would be different. The reviewer never actually states the position of the collection's editors or why and how the Amazing story is listed in the book's appendix. The statement "O’Nolan later used the names Jams O’Donnell and John James Doe elsewhere, so this new pseudonym fits the pattern exactly." Huh? How does this pseudonym "fit the pattern exactly"? I see no pattern at all. Perhaps he's seeing things I'm not seeing or taking a leap of faith. For the time being, the link should be enough. But that's me. Others may disagree. Mhhutchins 17:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely inclined to leave it as is for now, and I'm interested enough in O'Brien to get hold of the book as well, not just to check on the appendix. but I'd also like to know how the editors of the book came by this knowledge. I think the pattern he's referring to is simply the similarity of names based around "Jams O'Donnell" (a character in The Poor Mouth) and doesn't really warrant the word "exactly". Nothing is simple in the world of O’Nolan bibliography. PeteYoung 02:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I now have a copy of The Short Fiction of Flann O'Brien, and yes, the whole story 'Naval Control' is reprinted in an Appendix to the collection, with a long introduction examining why there's a compelling case to believe it's by O'Brien, while also stating "To date, no archival material has been found to verify the story's provenance." But as the story now appears in an O'Brien collection I do think it's now right to make O'Donnell a pseudonym, given that this belief is the basis for its inclusion in the collection. I'll also adjust the bibliographic note covering these details. PeteYoung 17:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I must continue to disagree for the same reason I gave above, and nothing in the new data makes a difference. In fact, it makes my stand even more compelling. If the editors of that collection can't "verify the story's provenance", it's not up to the ISFDB to do so either. Once something's on the Internet, there's no way to remove it completely. Why should we create a pseudonym based on information from someone who can't confirm their own data? Create a content record for the story and merge it with the one already in the db, add a note to the title record about the possible author's identity, but I still think creating a pseudonym is not the way to go. Mhhutchins 17:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice requested on how to update ISFDB from copy in hand
I have a copy of Dark Futures: Tales of Dystopian SF except the title on the title page is simply "Dark Futures" with no subtitle. The editor, publisher, isbn, price, and binding match.

The page numbers and date are different. My page numbers entry would be [8]+268. At the bottom of the last page is CPSIA data which includes this code: LVOW081436181212. According to this page that code means my copy was printed in Lavergne, TN on December 18, 2012.

What transactions should I use to enter data from my copy? Should I add my title as a variant of the existing title? Should I edit the existing title to remove the subtitle, then edit the pub using my date, page numbers, and content entries? Should I add a new anthology?

Please advise on the transaction screens I should fill out in order. Thanks.

Jmaloney 19:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I found the book's page on the publisher's web site Dark Quest. The image of the book's cover on that page does not bear the quotation from Jeff Carlson that's at the bottom of the cover on my copy.

Jmaloney 23:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On the publication record page, there is a link "Clone This Pub" under the Editing Tools menu. Click on that and on the next page make all changes based on your copy. Use both internal evidence and secondary sources to build the data. Be sure to note the secondary sources in the submission's "Note" field. If you are able, scan the front cover of your copy and upload the image to the IFSDB server using the "Upload cover scan" link of the newly created pub record. (This is a second submission and must wait until the first has been moderated and the record has been created.) If you have any further questions, ask them here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated the record with further data from OCLC, and linked the image connected to the Amazon listing. If the image matches yours, keep Amazon's URL in the cloned record. The only difference now appears to be that your copy is a later printing, based on the printing code. That should be given as the source for the new date in the cloned record. Mhhutchins 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have submitted a cloned publication containing my updates. Jmaloney 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Martian Chronicles
I've been searching around for info about the Bantam paperbacks and their cover art. Once of the things that prompted me to do so is that I bought a book from Amazon, expecting a 1984 printing with Michael Whelan art and the words "Grand Master Edition" on the cover. Instead I got a Perma-Bound copy with the art-deco Bradbury logo and an unknown artist. (I don't like Perma-Bound, it gives you not the better qualities of hardcover and paperback but the worse.) The copyright page says "71 printings through May 1990" and credits Ian Miller with the cover. It's not a bad cover, whoever that artist is, but I prefer the Whelan over it. I learned that any copy with Whelan has to date from 1990 on to be accurate. Some Amazon listings have the wrong date or the wrong artist. I am curious. That mystery artist who's not quite but almost as good as Whelan, who is it? How long did Whelan stay on the cover, 1990 until 2000, or 2010, or when Bantam Spectra had its last printing? And if I want to get other Ray Bradbury books in the Spectra "Grand Master Edition", how do I make sure of it? RR 19:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Last question first: Only buy books from dealers who can answer direct queries. If a book dealer can't answer your questions about the book they're selling, you should keep looking.


 * About the cover artist of the book you got: never trust the interior art credit for a "Perma-Bound" book. The company strips the original covers (along with its art, of course) and rebinds the interior sheets between stiff boards. The covers may match the interior credit, but more than likely not. Look through the ISFDB records for earlier editions and see if any matches your copy. If the record has been Primary Verified, you've got a good chance of knowing who is credited as the artist. Or it may be that Perma-Bound commissioned new art. Is there any cover art credit on the back board? Mhhutchins 19:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No art credit on the back, but it does have a blurb and a small picture of Bradbury, both may have been on the back of the art-deco paperback cover. I'm sure the artwork was not commissioned for Perma-Bound, it's present on mid-to-late 1980s covers. RR 00:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bantam printing for June 1975, Record # 219601, has this note: "37th printing. The color part of the cover art uncredited but is in my (DWE) opinion by Dean Ellis. The Bradbury portrait is uncredited." If it's one of the series with matching logo and Bradbury ink-line portrait, then it has artwork from the 1969 edition, and I also think it's Dean Ellis. RR 00:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I now have proof it's Dean Ellis:

"http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/06/picturing-ray-bradbury"

Okay? RR 00:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a several Martian Chronicles covers there. Do you mean this one? I'm not really sure if a posting on a website (regardless of its credentials) should be used as a source for the credit, unless it's the artist's website. You can always note your suspicions in the record's Note field. If you look at the users' comments near the bottom of page, you'll find a posting by me which questions their crediting Dean Ellis with the art for The Illustrated Man. Another user responds, but it's still not definitive proof, or good enough for ISFDB credit. Mhhutchins 02:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Spectrum website, of Cathy and Arnie Fenner, states that this illustration is Ellis. They've got to be right. "http://www.spectrumfantasticart.com/full_content.php?article_id=1065&full=yes&pbr=1" A Google picture search also turned up several matches to book covers. RR 03:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would believe the Fenners more than a website which gives no verifiable evidence. You can update the records, crediting Ellis, and give them as the source for your data. If any of the pub records have been Primary Verified, please leave a note on the editors' talk pages. Mhhutchins 04:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Publications without ISBN's.
I have a case where a Subterranean Press chapterbook has been printed in 2 editions. A limited edition with wraps that has an ISBN and a signed and lettered 26 copy hc that was issued without an ISBN (I have confirmed this fact by contacting Sub Press directly). I know entering a record without an ISBN is not desirable but the hc is still a separate edition and I feel it should have an entry (explaining the lack of ISBN) rather than just a note in the limited edition mentioning it. Could somebody please confirm that this would be acceptable? Thanks Andrewk 01:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's OK to make a submission for a separate publication, even if that publication was only available with the purchase of another publication. Leave the price and ISBN fields blank if they are not stated in the publication. You can add a note about its availability. Mhhutchins 01:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, the reason why we mention another state of an edition in the Note field of one state is because we've been unable to determine if the publication actually exists. This happens often with such limited editions. If you have confirmed with the publisher that the work was published, it's OK to create a new record. If not, it's best just to note that the second state "was announced", which implies that no copy has been seen. Mhhutchins 01:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ebook publications: multiple records for multiple sources
If an ebook is available for purchase via Amazon/Kindle with an ISBN, but also as free downloads from the publishers in multiple formats (under Creative Commons), should this be entered as one publication for the ISBN version noting the free downloads, or should a separate pub record be created for the free downloads? Thanks Andrewk 10:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It would depend on several factors, but the situation has never been discussed thoroughly as far as I know. You'd have to distinguish the fact that each of the files are not identical, and that each one was actually "published". ISBN is not a factor at all, since most ebooks don't have a stated or even an embedded ISBN. I know this doesn't do much to answer your question, but unless you can provide more details on a specific situation, it may come down to a case-by-case determination. For example, if the publisher sells the Kindle format ebook, but gives away the PDF, then I'd think two records would be OK. But if both are Kindle format, then only one is required, even if it could be obtained at no cost from someone other than Amazon. This could be noted in the Note field. Mhhutchins 16:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case in concerns the ebook of Kelly Links 'Stranger Things Happen'. It has a ISBN for a Kindle edition for sale on Amazon, but on the publishers website they have called for the general public to provide any conversions they have done for inclusion on their download page. This includes anything from a kindle (non Amazon) conversion Ereader, ISilo, Palm OS, Plucker Mobipocket, pdf, html, plain text etc. So we are not talking about 'official' publisher editions in this case. Thanks Andrewk 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New Not-Yet-Published Novel
Just found out on IMDb that a major movie studio plans to make a movie from a new SF novel: "http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/sony-wins-bidding-war-sci-fi-book-tomorrow-and-tomorrow-exclusive-107091" The title is Tomorrow and Tomorrow, by Thomas Sweterlitsch. Who is this author? Google turned up only this: "http://www.rtbookreviews.com/rt-daily-blog/forewords-books-buzz-104"

RT Book Reviews

EXCITING DEBUT AUTHOR

Science Fiction - Tom Sweterlitsch's first novel, Tomorrow and Tomorrow, is set ten years after the destruction of Pittsburgh and follows one survivor who’s involved in creating a digital reproduction of the area, and in doing so discovers a scandalous cover-up that explains the city’s demise. Release date TBA.

This author's debut novel appears to be still waiting for a publisher, but it was picked up by Sony Pictures without much delay. RR 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in this story for the ISFDB to be concerned about. Once the actual book has been published (or a publisher announcement for the date of publication), only then can a record be created. Mhhutchins 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncorrected Book Proofs and Advanced Reader copies
Are these of interest for entry into the ISFDB? Thanks Andrewk 01:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Only published books are eligible for the database. Exceptions have been made for famous (or infamous) unpublished books. You may find proofs and ARCs in the db, but as a rule, they shouldn't be. Mhhutchins 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Different stories with the same name by the same Author
What is the correct procedure if in a collection of short stories the author has decided to call two or more different stories with exactly the same title? There is no additional information I can find to differentiate them (such copyright date etc.). I have temporarily subtitled them with the first few words of the story. Thanks Andrewk 08:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no official standard for this case, but we have precedents for using parenthetical information to disambiguate among other types of titles and for using the first line or first few words plus an elipsis, parenthetically, to disambiguate among identically titled poems and letters. We're not consistent about whether the excerpted words should be enclosed in double quotes, but quoting seems best to me.  --MartyD 16:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cover artist v cover designer.
If the cover of a book has a cover designer rather than artist, so for example it is composed of a famous painting surrounded by other design features such as text, colour blocks etc. Is the designer treated the same as a cover artist and entered into the "Artist1" field? Thanks Andrewk 13:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In your example, the artist of the famous painting would be credited in the "Artist1" field, and the cover designer can be credited in the "Note" field. If the cover has no representational artwork, and is totally designed, i.e. photo collages or text/design, then the cover designer would be credited in the "Artist1" field. Sometimes it comes down to making a judgement about who contributed most to the cover. In that case, make sure the contributions are clearly noted in the "Note" field. Mhhutchins 16:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Bibliographic Comments" area - when to use
Under what circumstances, if any, would I use the "Bibliographic Comments" area for a publication, rather than the "Notes" area? Couldn't find anything in help files, though perhaps I didn't look hard enough. Thanks. BungalowBarbara 22:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the information you want to add is specific to one edition then it should be added to that record's Note field. I admit to only using the Bibliographics Comments page to add screen shots of webzines' TOC pages in order to preserve the contents in case the website disappears. I've seen it used so rarely that its original purpose has become arcane knowledge! (At least to me.) A while back some editors were using it to record separate printings for certain titles (e.g. Bantam printings of Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles) and to add notes about differences in printings. Other than that, I don't know how other editors use the function. Can anyone else suggest why the Bibliographic Comments should be used instead of the Note field? Mhhutchins 02:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I often use the Bibliographic Notes, and have used them for the following purposes:

To list titles by the author that should NOT be included, i.e. non-genre works for authors under the threshold (e.g. Beatrix Potter or Fiona Richmond, the later being documentation on a disagreement between us and SFE); To list some works by an author that might be genre, but for which we do not know enough about the contents (e.g. Dorothy Daniels and Daniel Cohen); For a listing of a graphic novel set in the same universe as a title series of the author, but which should not be listed in our bibliography (i.e. Jim Butcher); To discuss whether certain works by an author should be listed as fiction or non-fiction (e.g. Cicely Mary Barker); To list reference works or links that are pertinent to the bibliography of the author (e.g. Edgar Allan Poe); For discussion and reasons behind the choice of the canonical name for the author (e.g. Stephanie Shaver); To discuss the details of the ghost-written books under an author's name after they died (i.e. V. C. Andrews); To discuss issues of identification of an author among various people of that name, (e.g. Tremlett Carter, Martin Waddell or Slater La Master). 
 * The final category could possibly go in the "Biographical Notes", but there seems value in maintaining information about why we think this "John Doe" author is actually this "John Doe" person, and that's not quite the same as "Biographical" information. Except for this final category, these uses are essentially all information about the "full bibliography" of the author, including books that shouldn't get their own title listings, and rarely information about specific titles, which belong in either Title Notes or Publication Notes. Chavey 13:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The poster was inquiring about the Bibliographic Comments link on publication records, not the one on author pages which lead to wiki pages for comments about the author. That's an entirely different function. (Author category as opposed to Publication category in the wiki pages.) Mhhutchins 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I did find a good example of someone using a publication bibliographic comments page: here. He created a list of direct links from the contents of the book to the actual publication in which the artwork was used as a cover. Although, it would have also been good to list the title record contents in the publication record as well. Mhhutchins 14:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And here is a good example of how not to use the function. It was used to add a concern about the record which should have been posted on a community page. Mhhutchins 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is one which I consider overkill, but it's a another usage for the function. Mhhutchins 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is another improper usage. The data should have been entered in the title record, because it is not publication specific. Mhhutchins 14:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This helps. The specific case I had in mind is that I have two different printings of . They don't have a number line on the copyright page -- the information that makes me think they are different printings are the bar codes & prices on back cover and the ads in the back. My thought was to clone the publication as usual for a later printing, then put "believed later printing per prices, code on back and ads in back -- see Bibliographic notes" and then use the Bibiliographic notes to give more information, including a link to a picture or scan of the codes on the back cover. (It may be a not-very-good picture, my options are the camera in my laptop, the camera in my cell phone, and my digital camera which is great but doesn't do closeups all that well.) Does that sound reasonable? BungalowBarbara 22:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Mhhutchins 22:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems uploading cover images
I am a newbie who thought that because I had many of a certain group of magazines I could contribute the cover scans to the website. Also I am an old person and none of this is intuitive for me. I am trying to upload scans but keep getting this message:  Error creating thumbnail: /var/www/html/wiki//bin/ulimit4.sh: line 4: /usr/local/bin/convert: No such file or directory

Do not know what to do. Just forget it? Carolyn


 * First, welcome to the ISFDB. Now, a couple of questions:
 * Are you uploading the images using the "Upload cover scan" link on the publication record?
 * Are the image files within the required ISFDB standards: the file is no larger than 150kb, and the height of the image is no more than 600 pixels?


 * If you've answered yes to both of these questions, go to your preferences link ("My Preference") and click on the "Files" tab. Reset each of the selections to the highest numbers ("10000x10000px" and "300px"). The system should now display any image file which you upload (but please don't upload any larger than the above limits.) Now, go to the publication for which you wish to upload the cover scan. Click on the "Upload cover scan" link and follow the directions. Once your image is on the ISFDB server, click on it and copy the file's URL (in your browser's address window). Then go back to the publication record and click on "Edit This Pub" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next page, paste the URL you just copied of the file into the "Image URL" field. Then click "Submit" and a moderator will look at the submission to determine if it's OK, and either accept it or reject it. (Or place the submission on hold if they have any questions for you, which will be posted on your user page.) BTW, you should end each of your posts on the wiki with four tildes (~) which automatically signs and dates your message. If you are having more problems uploading image files,  please respond again to this posting. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see what the problem is, and it's what I suspected. Your image file is on the server, but is too large (605 × 818 pixels) which was why the system was unable to create a thumbnail to display it. If you'll change the preferences as explained above, you will be able to see it. Now all you have to do is link it to the publication record as explained above. I'll resize it to ISFDB standards, but keep those standards in mind when uploading future files. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of the images you uploaded were not only too large, but were uploaded directly to the server without going through the database publication record. This is a common error for new editors so it's understandable when it happens. Not using the link from the publication record prevents the system from doing several "behind the scenes" functions. Direct uploads of cover images using the wiki upload link require an editor to make several "fixes" before they can be linked to the publication record. I will copy those files, re-size them, and then re-upload them to the server using the correct upload method. If you like I could link them to the records, or you can take a hand at it yourself to get the practice. Your choice. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you corrected the problems with one of the uploads by using the link from the pub record (the September 1964 issue). Its URL will have to be added to the pub record. Here is the link to the one for the November 1963 issue. You'll have to click on the image to get its URL. And then add that URL to the proper field when updating the pub record. Let me know if you need some help to do that. Mhhutchins 01:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed a title from a publication.
I submitted to remove a title from a publication only because it was greyed out and the name of the author is shown differently in the actual magazine. I just didn't know where to show an explanation why so I'm using the help desk. http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?59474 Magazine of Horror, March 1969 Seniorlady 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Submission accepted. Software people, it would be nice to have a "Note to Moderator" field in the submission for this function, so that the editor can explain why they're removing a content. Mhhutchins 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Serling book lost in a twilight zone
The title to the anthology ROD SERLING'S DEVILS AND DEMONS, edited by Serling, does not appear on the author's page. Only the introduction listed under Essays is listed. And it links to here which shows three printings. Even though the author's name links back to his page the title isn't there. I've noticed the same happens with Alfred Hitchcock, I have a stack of books that I've putting off because they can only be found by searching for the title and don't appear on the author's page. So the question is "am I missing something?". (wouldn't be the first time).Don Erikson 22:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That anthology was ghost-edited by Gordon R. Dickson, so it appears on his summary page, not Serling's. Do an advance search by title and editor and you'll find the correct title records. Make sure to add pubs under the title record that has the editor credit that matches the actual book. So if you're entering a book titled Rod Serling's Devils and Demons, edited by Rod Serling, use this title record. Mhhutchins 01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Should I Enter Media Reviews, or Just Fiction/Nonfiction?
I am helping to get all issues of SFRA Review caught up on ISFDB. In addition to reviews of fiction and nonfiction, this publication includes media reviews. Should I make entries for these media reviews? I see that past contributors have not, and movie reviews (and the like) do not seem appropriate for this database.


 * Yes, media reviews should be entered into the record, but do not use the REVIEW section of the entry form to create the content record. Enter them under the CONTENT section, using the ESSAY type. If the review isn't titled (only gives the name of the work), the title should be entered as "Review of <"Title of Work">". So the review of the movie in issue 304 is titled "Review of the film "Skyfall"". The review of the album in issue 301 should be titled "Review of music album "The Industrialist" by Fear Factory". You can add more information as necessary in the title, but use roughly the same format. I've already created a record for these essays. BTW, do not forget to end postings on the wiki by adding four tildes (~) . This will sign and date the message. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And you should also enter essays other than reviews in the CONTENT section of the entry form. Look at this record and see how I updated it from your original entry which only included reviews. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I missed the tilde thing--obviously, I have not done this before. N00b! Arch 20:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

US edition of UK magazine
I have an US edition of the UK magazine SCIENCE FICTION ADVENTURES Sept./Oct. 1960 $0.40, Number 16, Volume 3. It is the same as the UK version except for the 2 month date and the price. Also it's printed in the UK. The question is where does it go? Into the SFA UK grid or does it get it's own grid?Don Erikson 19:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Create a new record using the "ADD NEW MAGAZINE" function, completing ONLY the metadata section, leaving the Content section blank. Once this is accepted, go to the equivalent UK edition's publication record, and write down (or CTRL+C) the publication record number in the upper right of the record. Go back to the record for the US edition (the record you just created) and click on "Import Content" link. On the next page paste the record number of the UK edition, leaving the box checked if the contents appear on the same page. All of the contents of the UK edition will appear on the next page. You can add contents but you can't take anything away at this time. After that submission is accepted, go back and reconcile any differences by using either/both the "Remove Titles" function and the "Edit This Pub" function. The placement of an issue on a magazine grid is controlled solely by the EDITOR record. It should be placed into the proper magazine series, by either updating the record to enter it into the proper series, or by merging it with an existing EDITOR record which is for the same annual period and is already in the magazine series. If you need further assistance, just ask. Mhhutchins 23:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just checked and saw that there is no series yet for the US reprint of this title, so a new one will have to be created. So as I explained above, once the submission for the US edition is accepted into the database, go to its EDITOR record (the link on the pub record is labeled "Title Reference"). Click on the "Edit Title Data" link, and enter "Science Fiction Adventures (US)" into the series field. Mhhutchins 23:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange. I could find no mention in either Tymn/Ashley or Miller/Contento of a US reprint of this British magazine (which, ironically, started as a reprint of a US magazine.) Both are usually pretty good about recording derivative publications. Galactic Central says that there was a Canadian reprint of the British issues starting with number 15, so I'm putting money that is what you have. It makes more sense that the British publisher would print and then import copies to a fellow Commonwealth nation than to the US where the parent magazine had already failed. Mhhutchins 23:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your probably right that this is Canadian. At first I thought it might be Australian but they didn't go decimal until 1964. According to the contents page their agents for North America is a Canadian company. They also offer a North American subscription for 6 issues at $2.50 and was printed in the UK. Maybe this was a subscription only line.Don Erikson 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Family Tradition
I have put the following question under a new heading; it was added to the previous item by user Dev, first (better to use the '+' in the heading to add a new question):


 * How do I change incorrect categorization of titles? Family Tradition by Dev Jarrett is listed as a "Novel" but it's only 21,000 words.  Novella would be more accurate.

I changed the publication to CHAPTERBOOK, which is our standard for publications containing one SHORTFICTION and added the novella. Are you able to add some more information to the book, such as page count, ISBN and price? Stonecreek 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't edit my own User Page
Sorry if I'm being dim, but when I try to edit my (currently blank) User Page I get a message saying I don't have permission to edit pages in the User namespace?


 * Is this page the one you'd like to edit? This may be the result of some changes to the wiki to prevent spam attacks. You may have to do a few database edits before you can edit the user page. Did you register with an email address, and respond to the email to validate your account?


 * I've left a message on your user talk page concerning your recent file uploads. See if you're able to edit that page by responding to the message. Mhhutchins 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like your idea about having to have done some edits was right. I can edit both pages now.  Thanks


 * Good. (Don't forget to end your wiki postings with four tildes.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

ImageMagick missing on server?
When I follow this link to the wiki page of an ISFDB cover scan, I don't see an image but a dark gray box that contains this error message: "Error creating thumbnail: /var/www/html/wiki//bin/ulimit4.sh: line 4: /usr/local/bin/convert: No such file or directory". The  command line utility is part of the ImageMagick tool suite, so I guess a server admin should see to it that the package is re-installed. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not the problem. The image is too large for your preference settings. If you reset your file preference to the max you'll see any size image. But are you aware that there is an ISFDB standard that asks that you not upload images which are more than 600 pixels to a side? I'll resize your image, and reload it. Even if you don't reset your file preference, you should be able to see it. Keep the standard in mind for future cover image uploads. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see now that you weren't the editor who uploaded the image. I've resized it to the standard and you should be able to see it. If not, go to the "My Preferences" link on any wiki page ("Preferences" on some skins), and click the "Files" tab, change both settings to their highest number, and then save it. Let me know if that doesn't work. Mhhutchins 19:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the resize, I now see the image all right. Also thanks for the hint about my preferences, I didn't know about that setting. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding interior illustrations that were once covers.
I am listing some interior artwork from a heavily illustrated reference book that were once book covers. I initially listed the these as "Book Title" and left it at that, however I have seen some people list such things as "Book Title (cover)", or, "(cover) Book Title". Before I continue with this entry, could I be informed as to the proper way to list these? MLB 09:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked a similar question a few years ago and based on that response and the example publication record, I have since used the form "Book Title (cover)", though I don't think we have a formal policy. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As much as I've been able to determine, most editors don't use the parenthetical disambiguation. We give the title of the interiorart piece as it is credited in the artbook. In most cases, that title is the title of the book which used the art as the cover. I personally feel it's unnecessary and somewhat ambiguous to add "(cover)" to the title of an INTERIORART record. Regardless, Ron is correct in that there is no documented standard as far as I know. I would suggest that you look at a number of art collections to see how it's done. This one for example which gives the titles of the art as given in the book. Some were reprints of covers, some of which retained the same title as the book, and some which didn't. Mhhutchins 02:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Michael has it right with his example. I'd hate to lose an official title just because the book it illustrates got its name changed. Good covers get reused an awful lot in different languages - sometimes legally! BLongley 11:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I had been adding "(cover)" to the INTERIORART records mostly because that is how the example I was given was. I'm happy to change if folks feel we should.  However, the one thing that may be useful in disambiguating reprints of cover artwork in this manner is that is will make it clear when one INTERIORART record is for the cover reprint and another is for interior illustrations that which are done by the same artist.  If we name them both with the title of the work, I worry that someone will try to merge the records. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's always been a problem and probably always will be. That's why moderators should be diligent when it comes to merging. I doubt any moderator would allow "Cover: Ringworld" (a COVERART typed record) to be merged with either "Ringworld" or "Ringworld (cover)" (an INTERIORART typed record). But that same moderator would allow two pieces by the same artist titled "Cover: Ringworld" to be merged, even if they're not the same art. I see that happen quite frequently, and have to unmerge them and write warning notes to prevent it from happening again. If a moderator mistakenly accepts a merger of two INTERIORART records that are identical in title and artist, but are not the same piece of art, another editor, usually a primary verifier, will come along and clear it up.  I see no problem with you continuing to use your method. There is a strong rationale behind it. Mhhutchins 20:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WELL!!! That cleared that up!!!  MLB 08:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Wonderful World of the ISFDB! When standards aren't documented or are ambiguous, there's going to be disagreement about how it should be done. That's why I left it up to you to decide without DEMANDING THAT YOU DO IT MY WAY! :) Mhhutchins 20:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And I never demand that you do it MY WAY either. :-) Michael's way is usually fine by me. When it isn't, we start a Rules and Standards discussion which usually results in a 'Who Cares?' settlement. :-/ BLongley 12:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

British Editions of Magazines
How do I add (or do I add) British Editions of magazines, and particularly where content varies from the US (eg) version? As an example I have a Thrilling Wonder Stories No 104 which has the same cover as: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?61762 (the US Spring 1954 issue), however it has only 66 pages (plus covers) and the content is a subset of the US version, plus a UlK originated non-fiction article. It is not dated. Do I enter this as a new magazine? If not how?

I have a fair number of old magazines and would like to record/verify them... Prof beard 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the advice I gave recently to someone who was doing the opposite (creating a US edition of a UK magazine). But before you make any submission to create a new publication record for a magazine issue be sure to thoroughly search the database to determine if a record is necessary. (I see from this grid that two issues are in the database.)


 * Create a new record using the "ADD NEW MAGAZINE" function, completing ONLY the metadata section, leaving the Content section blank. Once this is accepted, go to the equivalent US edition's publication record, and write down (or CTRL+C) the publication record number in the upper right of the record. Go back to the record for the UK edition (the record you just created) and click on "Import Content" link. On the next page paste the record number of the US edition, leaving the box checked if the contents appear on the same page. All of the contents of the UK edition will appear on the next page. You can add contents but you can't take anything away at this time. After that submission is accepted, go back and reconcile any differences by using either/both the "Remove Titles" function and the "Edit This Pub" function. If you need further assistance, just ask. Mhhutchins 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that all makes sense and sounds perfectly do-able Prof beard 18:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * one question- Some UK magazines don't appear to have dates, just numbers - eg the TWS UK edition I referred to above just says No 104. How do I handle such issues? Prof beard 19:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Leave it blank if there is no date whatsoever. If there is a copyright year you can use that, but note that. Or if you have access to a reliable secondary source you can use their dates, but credit them as the source in the Note field. TWS UK #104 was published in July 1954, according to both Visco and Galactic Central. You can use that date (in the date field, not the title field), but don't forget to credit the source. Mhhutchins 20:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I knew about GC but had forgotten I did, Visco is new to me - I'll learn! Prof beard 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Visco has been a wonderful resource but hasn't been updated for some time. I hope the site owner is just busy rather than too unwell to maintain it. I asked him some questions about cover art attributions - appparently a lot of mags had their covers REDONE by other unnamed artists. Never got a reply. :-/ BLongley 12:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Steampunk: An Illustrated History of Fantastical Fiction, Fanciful Film and Other Victorian Visions
I am entering the magazine and book covers that are reprinted in this publication to this site, and while doing so, I have found that on the aknowledgements page Brian J. Robb has declared that two of the chapters in this book, there are nine of them, have been written by two other authors. Should I then consider this book an anthology?, or just add these two authors to the author field. If this is an anthology, then shouldn't Robb be considered an editor, and should this book go from non-fiction to anthology? MLB 12:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The ANTHOLOGY type is for a publication which brings together fiction by more than one author. The NONFICTION type is for a publication which is either one nonfiction work by one author, or multiple nonfiction works by several different authors. Mhhutchins 13:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlisted (in ISFDB) book by unlisted (in ISFDB) pseudonym of listed author?
I have just received (as part of my John Brunner collecting) a book he wrote (non-genre erotica) under the name Ellis Quick. (this is generally noted in sources and mentioned on p84 of Jad Smith's recent book on Brunner). My question is - what's the correct process and order of process to record this? Prof beard 14:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Create a publication record for it, recording all data as it appears exactly in the publication. Change the type from NOVEL to NONGENRE in the drop-down menu under Pub Type. 2) Once that is accepted, you can create a variant of the title record. 3) Next, make the author into a pseudonym for Brunner. This the order you should take. Mhhutchins 21:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Easton titles
Is there an easier way to variant the title records of to  without doing each one individually? Mhhutchins 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at this time, I am afraid. We have a feature request to "Enable mass variant title creation for Authors", but no work has been done yet. We'll need to figure out how to handle titles that are already set up as VTs, multi-author situations and so on. Ahasuerus 00:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I recall something about a script that could create variant records (maybe Bill Longley wrote it?) Of course, moderating the submissions would have to be handled manually, (that's the easy part), but creating the variant record submissions is the hard part. In the case of Easton, there are several hundred, perhaps even more than a thousand records, including reviews, that have to be varianted to the canonical author's name. Mhhutchins 18:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 3,159 records to be varianted. I have some scripts to semi-automate such things, but this would still be a full day's work even for me. Chavey 22:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, let's think about it. What would be the desired behavior of a "Mass Variant" option? The currently existing "Make Variant Title" option lets you choose the following fields for the new parent title:


 * Title
 * Author1 (and Author2, Author3, etc if desired)
 * Year
 * Title Type
 * Language


 * Now, if we are going to create a new "mass variant" option, it will by definition affect multiple titles, so the "Title" field of each new record will have to be the same as the title of the original record. Ditto the Year, Title Type and Language fields. Which leaves us with just one field which we will be able to change manually, Author. It will be a (potentially) multiply occurring field: suppose you want to turn all of titles into / titles.


 * So far so good. The next issue is which titles the newly minted option will turn into variants. I don't think we want it to affect any title records that are already set up as VTs because it could break any number of things. However, we also need to decide what to do about records that have multiple authors associated with them. Suppose you discover that A is a collective pseudonym used by X and Y. Among A's titles there is one currently attributed to A, B and C. The "mass variant" option will presumably need to create a title record for X, Y, B and C.


 * Other than that it doesn't seem too bad. Any other things that we need to consider? Ahasuerus 02:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That appears to cover most of the circumstances. Its use should be restricted to the records of single authors for which the pseudonym is indisputed, and to block the creation of variants for records that have already been varianted. I can't think of any other factor. Mhhutchins 03:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Those awkward authors who collaborate with their pseudonyms
I have a vague memory of seeing some discussion on this subject before and have searched the Help archives to no avail. At the moment we have the author B. F. Ruby who, according to the Wikipedia page for Fletcher Pratt's Invaders from Rigel, is considered by Everett F. Bleiler in Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years to be a pseudonym of Pratt – Benjamin Franklin Ruby is a character in that novel, and Pratt later used "B. F. Ruby" as a pseudonym. However, there is also a collaboration between the two: The Thing in the Woods. So: a) can anyone point to where such a discussion may have been held before, and b) does making such a pseudonymous relationship create 'circular' software problems, or am I misremembering here? Just playing safe, y'understand. PeteYoung 08:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't be any problem at all to make into a pseudonym of Pratt, and then varianting the two records giving only Pratt as the canonical author of each. Mhhutchins 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing my username
Hello. I signed up recently and foolishly used an old nickname as my username. I've since decided that it would be much friendlier and appropriate if I used my real first name instead. Is it possible to change my username now? I don't seem to be able to do this myself.

No worries if it's a bother, I'll stick with Hegg. Just thought I'd ask.

Thanks for your time. Hegg 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's possible to change user names in later versions of the Wiki software, but I don't think our version supports this capability. The easiest way to handle this issue would be to create a new user account using your real name. We could then copy the contents of your current Talk page to your new Talk page. Ahasuerus 21:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Swapping the canonical names.
Hi, all! Currently some obscure long-dead teutonic aria-writer proudly uses disambiguated name of "Richard Wagner" while prolific and very much alive genre artist is reduced to "Richard Wagner (artist)". I am so tired of adding (artist) to his name for many "Interzone" contributions:) Is there a way to swap the canonical names and have Richard Wagner the artist as "Richard Wagner" and Richard Wagner the composer as Richard Wagner (something). Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 00:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Yes, first edit the author data of "Richard Wagner", changing the "Canonical Author" field to "Richard Wagner (composer)". Then do the same for "Richard Wagner (artist)", changing it to "Richard Wagner". Make sure to do it in that order, waiting for the first submission to be accepted, before making the second one. Then you need to check the summary page for the artist every so often to insure that Herr Wagner's works are not being added to the artist's page (which I assure you will happen, because everyone will enter the records as published, as they should, and not based on current ISFDB practice.) Mhhutchins 01:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will work on it. ForJohnScalzi 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC).


 * I failed to notice this. You'll have to redirect the wiki Author page for the composer to the correct link. (I have no idea how to do that.) Or you can copy it, delete it, and re-create it on a new page linked to his author summary page. Mhhutchins 03:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Amazing Stories British Reprint Editions
I have a couple of 1953/54 British Reprint editions of Amazing Stories (v1#1 and v1#5). I've checked these on Visco and Galactic Central. I can find no Amazing Stories (UK) entry on ISFDB - can I check I've not missed it? Assuming I'm right I think I can go ahead and enter them based on the two other discussions (one with Don E and one with me) earlier on this help page? Prof beard 12:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Pan series
Am I correct in thinking that the Peter Pan short fiction titles currently listed separately in J. M. Barrie's Bibliography should be listed as belonging to the "Peter Pan" series, but that chapter books by the same name should not be? Chavey 03:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right, Chapterbooks generally do not belong in series. There is a moderator-only cleanup script which facilitates finding and terminating the offenders. Ahasuerus 04:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I moved the 8 short stories and excerpts into the title series (leaving the chapterbooks behind). Chavey 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Entering Unofficial Publication Dates
Is there a procedure to cover the situation where a book has an official publication date as per the publisher or Amazon etc., but you know it was published at an earlier date (the previous month for example) by the simple fact that you purchased it and had it in your possession, but you cannot locate any other verifiable source to confirm this? Thanks Andrewk 15:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a common phenomena to have a book available for sale before its official publication date -- either the Amazon date or the stated date on the copyright page. However, those official publication dates are what we want in the regular fields. The "available at bookstores" date can, however, be added to the Notes for the publication. Chavey 04:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Californian "Crossroads" (?) - what to do?
I dont really know what this is - it is Vol 1 No 12 July 1970 of a publication called Crossroads published by Al Snider and the Brown University SF Union. The contents are non-fiction and mostly articles/opinion pieces about the SF convention and writing world plus some reviews. The contributors include Greg Benford and David Gerrold and letters from such as John Brunner. Do I just enter it as a magazine with non-fiction content? Prof beard 12:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Crossroads" was a fanzine published out of Brown Univ., and should be entered as a fanzine, containing essay entries. We did not have this fanzine in our Fanzine listing, because we initially only entered those fanzines that had won awards. I have now added a basic template of information about that fanzine, which you can find through that fanzine page, or directly here. If you enter this as a fanzine, I invite you to either link to it from this fanzine page, or follow the directions at this help page for setting up the title for this fanzine, the same as you would for a standard magazine. If you let me know (on my discussion page) when you have done this, I can add in records (with blank contents) for the other issues. (Or, if you wish, you can enter those yourself.) Chavey 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll do what I can myself and contact you as necessaryProf beard 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ad Astra
Having searched, I can find no records for this magazine and the entry in the Wiki http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Series:Ad_Astra shows no series page on the database. I have three Ad Astra issues and will enter them as new record unless someone tells me I've missed something? Help? Prof beard 12:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ad Astra was also a fanzine, which ran from 1939 to 1940. If that is consistent with the dates you have, this would be a very welcome addition to our database, since these early fanzines are something we would like to have better indexed than we do. I will try to add a template for this fanzine, as I did with Crossroads, in the next day or so. As with Crossroads, these should be entered as "Fanzines", but otherwise treated much like magazines. Chavey 20:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Checking a little further, I see that there were two other fanzines by the same name published in the 1960's, and it's more likely you have those. One published by Ed Bryant, around 1962, and the other published by Paul Crawford, 1965-67. Can you tell me which of these three fanzines you have? Chavey 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the Prof is referring to the UK magazine edited by James Manning, it's at SFE here and Galactic Central here. I used to have a complete run of this magazine, now long lost. I can't find any records for it either, so I'd say go right ahead and add them! PeteYoung 08:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * yes it's the James Manning ones I'm referring to - glad there really aren't here - I find finding some stuff quite tricky!  I'll enter them thenProf beard 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt Titles
The collections Opus 100 and Opus 200 by Isaac Asimov contain many excerpts. They have titles like from ‘The Callistan Menace’ (1940) I wonder how such a title should be entered: The help says "The title should appear exactly as published ... If the excerpt has a title that makes it clear that it is only an excerpt, use that title. Otherwise, use the title given, but add " (excerpt)" to the end". Strictly speaking, this would mean to include both "from" and the year in the title, because that's what's printed in the book. For Opus 100, option 5 was used, which does not conform with the help at all. Darkday 21:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) from 'The Callistan Menace' (1940)
 * 2) from 'The Callistan Menace' (1940) (excerpt)
 * 3) from 'The Callistan Menace' (excerpt)
 * 4) The Callistan Menace (excerpt)
 * 5) Excerpt from "The Callistan Menace"


 * I've seen it done in all of the ways you show here and even more. It's best to follow the help page and enter the title that appears on the title page, and only disambiguate it with "(excerpt)" if the title of the excerpt is the same as the title of the work from which it is excerpted. When the piece is titled "from..." then it's obviously an excerpt which makes the disambiguation unnecessary. Use quotation marks if they're given on the title page. As for including the date, if all of the stories (or essays) in a collection gives the original publication date on the title page, then it would be unnecessary to include them in the title field when entering because this is not really a part of the title. There is nothing in the standards that I'm aware of concerning adding the publication date to the title field if given that way in the publication, but it's only logical that the date is not part of the title. (While occasionally such dates are part of the title and not the publication date, such as some printings of The Martian Chronicles.) Do not use HTML in the title field to italicize or bold certain words even if they're presented that way in the publication. Standards request that HTML not be used in title fields at all. As for how the contents in Opus 100 were entered, that's up to you and the primary verifiers to discuss. Mhhutchins 03:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Extensions to a Title
I would like to enter a record for an audiobook version of Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris" 1176. The audiobook is formally titled "Solaris: The Definitive Edition". Using the example of Neil Gaiman's "America Gods: Tenth Anniversary Edition" 20971, do I "Add Publication" as "Solaris" and then go back and add the extension or use the "Add a Variant Title" option (though it is recommended to avoid this option)? Thanks Andrewk 09:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That would not be considered a variant title (just as the Gaiman book is not). You'll have to use the "Add Publication to This Title" function, wait for the submission to be accepted, then go back and update the title field. (Because you can't change the title field when using the "Add Publication..." function.) Mhhutchins 06:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman's 'The Ocean at the End of the Lane" - Different publication?
The publisher Subterranean Press have released a special edition of the William Morrow edition  of this book ( http://subterraneanpress.com/store/product_detail/the_ocean_at_the_end_of_the_lane ). The book is identical as per the statement "This edition matches the Morrow Limited exactly, with the exception that the signature page mentions it was done specifically for SubPress". Should this be treated as a new publication or is it more appropriate to simply add a note to the existing publication? Thanks Andrewk 10:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the signature page is bound into the book, and not just laid in, it's considered a variant of the Morrow edition, and a separate pub record is called for. Do not give Subterranean as the publisher unless it is so credited on the book's title page. Be sure to include the data provided on the signature page in the record's Note field, but record all of the other fields as they appear in the book: publisher, ISBN, printed price (if any), etc. If you don't have a copy of the book, just add a note to the record of the Morrow limited edition, stating that the variant exists. Mhhutchins 06:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Suitability of entry of 'S' by Doug Dorst and J.J Abrams
This is a publication consisting basically of a 'fake' old library book filled with handwritten notes in the margins by the two protagonists. Could somebody please advise if it is suitable for entry into the database? A link to Amazon is here: http://www.amazon.com/S-J-Abrams/dp/0316201642. Doug Dorst has a novel in the database but this is an odd one. Thanks Andrewk 07:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The description of the plot, as given on Amazon, certainly does not make it sound like it's speculative fiction. Would appear to be a mystery / adventure book, hence not eligible. Chavey 05:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange. I read the same description on Amazon, and came away with the exact opposite opinion. A "chronicle of two readers finding each other in the margins of a book and enmeshing themselves in a deadly struggle between forces they don’t understand" sounds like an eligible work to me. Oh well, where's Damon Knight when you need a clear definition of sf? Mhhutchins 06:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what the "forces they don't understand" are. I read through all 27 reviews, and some other online discussion of the book, but the plot structure is still a little confusing to me. There are three interlaced stories: (1) The Straka novel itself, "Ship of Theseus", is about "an amnesiac wanderer" who is "shanghaied onto a strange ship with a monstrous crew and launched onto a disorienting and perilous journey." (2) The notes back and forth between Jennifer and Eric. (3) Apparently a mystery about some bad guys who are trying to catch Jennifer and Eric, possibly because they're getting too close to figuring out the mystery of who Straka really is. (A book about tracking down a pseudonym! Love it.) The main Straka novel itself isn't genre. So far as I can tell, there isn't anything "magical" about the appearance of the notes. Jennifer "picks up a book left behind by a stranger. Inside it are his margin notes, which reveal a reader entranced by the story and by its mysterious author. She responds with notes of her own, leaving the book for the stranger." I can't tell if the book is being left behind at a bookstore, library, or whatever, but it certainly doesn't sound like any kind of "magical communication". Now the guys chasing Jennifer and Eric, a plot line very lightly mentioned in the reviews, seem to be associated with some cultish group of followers of Straka, or some sort of "Da Vinci Code" conspiracy group. That part might be genre, but I can't tell much about what their role is, and whether there really is anything "speculative" about them. It seems unlikely to have the same sort of "alternate history" that gets "The Da Vinci Code" into the database. Many of the reviewers said the book was "an adventure" or "a mystery". One of the reviewers said the book would be of interest to an "admirer of the arcane", but that strikes me as insufficient to justify its inclusion. Chavey 16:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I might be cutting my own throat here as it would be a complicated entry, but as one of the authors, Doug Dorst, already has an entry in the database, would it not at least go into the nongenre section?


 * Also, the 'fake' novel is full of loose inserts such as postcards, newspaper clippings, letters, photographs etc. I would assume these would be classified as 'interior art' but would you itemise them individually (credits for who created individual items is very spotty)? Thanks Andrewk 14:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Dorst would be considered above the threshold in order to include his non-genre novels...if this turns out to be non-genre. Also, if either of those cases turn out to be reason to include it in the database, and if you considered all of those as interior art, then you'd only need to create a content record for each individual artist, not for each piece. Unless you turn out to be a masochist, and want to create separate records for each piece. :) Mhhutchins 17:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd "boxed" publication.
Can someone tell me how to go about recording this?

I have a Black Library limited edition publication consisting of a slip case containing a hardcover novella (would be a chapterbook) and another short stapled chapterbook contain a single short story by the same author. The novella is a first publication and has an ISBN etc, but the smaller work has no ISBN and states it was originally an e-story and that this is the first physical publication. Do I record these separately? They formed a single physical publication, so I'm unsure? Thanks, prof Prof beard 15:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Record them as two different publications in two distinct records. (Who knows that copies will remain paired in the future? One may wind up in a used bookstore or internet dealer listing without the other.) Just be sure to note that they were originally available as a pair. Mhhutchins 16:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks !Prof beard 17:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Lehr experts wanted
I have the suspicion that this cover art is by Paul Lehr, but can't find the original.

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/7/70/Signature.jpg

This signature could be deciphered as 'Lehr' but it deviates from other known signatures. Has anybody seen this variant signature or does know the original art? Stonecreek 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe this Is Lehr. It looks like his earlier works when he was working with Stanley Meltzoff. The cover originally appeared on Robert Conquest's A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE Ballantine U2213 June 1964.
 * Here's a hint about how I found this out. If you open Google Image page in a different tab or window, you drag the image into where you would type and Google will search for all copies on the net. It even will find an image with different type or cropped differently. One of my favorite tools ever.Don Erikson 22:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Thank you very much, Don! I didn't know about the possibility to use Google Image in that way. I'd say it is pretty safe to assume that this cover art for A World of Difference is by Lehr, wouldn't you agree? Would it be okay for you that I add the artist to your verified pub. ? I'd also add notes and inform the other verifiers (that is one, the first verifier isn't active anymore. Thanks again for your effort! Christian, Stonecreek 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and add the artist. Stonecreek 16:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover upload problem
Sometimes when I attempt to replace an incorrect or low quality cover image, it isn't accepted but the original bad image takes the place of my upload. This only happens when it is an ISFDB hosted image (but not always). Is there a way around this problem?Don Erikson 22:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had this problem in the past and I found 9 times out of 10 it's usually a cache issue with the computer. Because the new file is given the same name as the old file, your computer is simply displaying the image with that file name that it already has stored in its cache. I found emptying the cache usually works and allows it to be updated with the new file. PeteYoung 00:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't have to empty your cache. Just refresh the page in your browser. (Effectively the same thing.) Press "F5" in most browsers. Mhhutchins 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The exact behavior depends on the browser that you use, but generally "Ctrl-F5" does a "cleaner" reload than "F5". It tells the browser to ignore everything that's in its cache and send a request to the server for the latest version of the text, images and so on. Except in some version of Opera where F5 does the same thing. Ahasuerus 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It worked. I use Firefox and I can control how much cache to clear. Thanx all.Don Erikson 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra artist listing on "Hild"
I somehow have ended up with an extra cover artist listing on - right now it shows "Anna Balbusso and Elena Balbusso, Elena Balbusso". I need to get rid of that second "Elena Balbusso." Should I edit the publication? Do I remove Artist2 or Artist3? Thanks for any help you can give. BungalowBarbara 01:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. There are some inconsistencies in the way the software behaves when dealing with multi-artist cover art records, so here is what I did:


 * edited the pub and removed both occurrences of "Elena Balbusso" from it
 * edited the COVERART record to make Elena Balbusso a co-author


 * Ahasuerus 03:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! BungalowBarbara 03:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Help - SeriesHeader template generating non-working link
I have been working on the Series:Rachel_Morgan_/_The_Hollows page and have noticed a problem. The SeriesHeader template that is automatically put at the beginning is generating a non-working link back to the series page on ISFDB. The link that is generated is http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?Rachel_Morgan_.2F_The_Hollows which does not work. A working link would be http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?Rachel_Morgan_%2F_The_Hollows. Can this be fixed? Thanks. BungalowBarbara 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixing these kinds of bugs often take quite a while, because the scripts to generate these links have to be re-tested with quite a variety of other bug fixes of this type that have been added over the years. You can submit a Feature Request to repair this. Until then, though, you pretty much have three alternatives:

Wait until the Request is processed, expecting this to be a while; Change the title of the series to use a less error-prone character, e.g. "Rachel Morgan: The Hollows" (which follows our "line break" protocol, and generated a correctly formed link back). If you have logged in before filing the Feature Request, then you will be informed by email when the Request is completed, and could come back and change the series title then if you wished. Add as the first line of the Series comment the sentence: "The link above does not, unfortunately, take you back to the series. Click HERE to return.", and add a link to the word "HERE". I've done this for similar cases myself. 
 * Chavey 13:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a few issues here:


 * This is indeed a known bug -- see Bug 232. Let me see if I can fix it by passing the series number along with the series name to the Wiki side. As our Template Help says, "As series names can change it is strongly recommended that you always link to an ISFDB series record by its record ID number." (I don't know much about the Wiki side, so I am not sure how successful I will be.) BTW, we also have an FR for adding support for fractional series numbers like "4.5", which, once implemented, will alleviate the need for Wiki-based lists.
 * For now, you can use Template:Series, which takes the series ID as well as the series name, e.g.:
 * The use of Wiki templates is a temporary workaround. They are unstable because they can be easily unlinked from their associated ISFDB records when the latter are reorganized. The plan is to move all template-based data to the database, hopefully in early-mid 2014. Ahasuerus 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I remember it now -- there is no way to pass parameters like series IDs to a Wiki template. However, it may be possible to modify the template itself so warn the editor that s/he needs to add the ID manually. I will have to play with it and see what I can do. It's not a high priority, though, and I am currently swamped processing almost a thousand ISBNs that are to be unleashed on us. Ahasuerus 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your time! I will go with Chavey's suggestion #3 and use the series number. BungalowBarbara 20:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

New Terry Pratchett Publication Series
Gollancz have started a new hardcover release of a number the disc world novels called the 'The Discworld Collector’s Library'. Within this collection they have grouped the various books into 'sub' collections. For example the first four books (Reaper Man, Mort, Hogfather and Soul Music) are in 'The Death Collection', with 'The Cultures of Discworld Collection', 'The Unseen University Collection' and so on being published in the future. On the books themselves, for example, the term 'Discworld: The Death Collection' appears on the spine and back cover only (not within the book, definitely not on the copyright page or title page).

While the books live in the 'Discwold' title series and 'The Discworld Collector’s Library' publication series, I am not sure what to do with the sub collections like 'Discworld: The Death Collection'? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks Andrewk 06:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A publication can only be entered into one publication series, and as far as I know, the software isn't design to nest publication series like title series. In this case, I would suggest using "The Discworld Collector's Library" as the publication series. Those subseries can be noted in the pub record's Note field. But, if there is a textual reason (not a publishing reason) why those subseries were created, i.e. the first four books actually do form a subseries of Discworld (the title series), then you should create a subseries in the title series and place those four titles into it. Mhhutchins 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a Feature Request to "Allow nested publication series", but it's not a high priority. For now, I would go with Michael's suggestion. Ahasuerus 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If your familiar with the discworld series you understand why Gollancz grouped the books as they did, but in my mind Pratchett doesn't really write discworld books as subseries, just books with the same same characters. So as this grouping is really done by Gollancz, I'll go with the pub notes option. Thanks for the advice! Andrewk 09:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Publication series omnibus
I added an 1878-84 chapterbook publication series, called Aunt Kate's Series. It has what I suspect is an uncommon omnibus: The first 4 books in the series were combined into one publication, even though this isn't a title series. (Also odd is that the omnibus collection came out first, and was then split into 4 chapterbooks the next year). We have methods for title series to say "this book contains books 1-4", but I don't think we have any way to do that with publication series (at least I couldn't find one). My solution (see link above) was just to list the number for the omnibus as "1,2,3&4". Did I miss a better solution? Chavey 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the "Publication Series Number" field was originally meant to record the publisher's designation, so the software allows non-numeric values like "D-13" for the first Ace Double.


 * I can't think of a better way to record this information about "Aunt Kate's Series", but do we know if the books were numbered by the publisher? Or are the numbers based on publication order? If the latter is the case, you may want to state it in the Notes field. Ahasuerus 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The series numbers were not recorded on the books per se, but are based here on the catalog number. I find it useful to include them so that it can easily be seen how the "omnibus" collection collects some, but not all, of the series titles. I'll add a note to that effect in the pub records. Chavey 19:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Stray pub problem
I have a Stray Publication problem I don't understand. I have a title rec for Metamorphoses that I listed as co-authored by Apuleius and "Coluccio Salutati" (the notes explain the contributions by Salutati). The title rec and the publication rec both list each of the authors, and both list it as a "Novel". And yet if I go to Salutati's Author Rec, the book appears as a Stray Publication. What did I do wrong? Chavey 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case has only one title associated with him and that title is a VT. The Summary page logic hides all VTs, so there is nothing to display. However, it then finds a publication for Salutati and -- presto! -- a "stray pub" is born.


 * This is also the reason why the software doesn't display "adapted" titles on their adapters' Summary pages, a known issue. For example, you won't find the four stories included in Shakespeare's Stories for Young Readers (adapted by ) on Nesbit's summary page because they are currently set up as VTs.


 * For this reason I generally recommend either:


 * creating a separate canonical record for "adapted" titles if the adapter made significant changes to the text, or
 * simply making a note in the main canonical title about the changes if they were minor


 * Ahasuerus 23:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate issues in Destinies
This two entries are about the same issue: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?278324 http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?278287

is it intentionaly?

also on the grid page it looks strange: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/seriesgrid.cgi?9127

Qshadow 12:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first title is a reprint of the second. It's the problem with such publications whose status (magazine or anthology) is sometimes dubious. IMHO the existence of a reprint, pushes the publication in the "anthology" category. Hauck 13:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is an anthology series (every record is typed as ANTHOLOGY). I could find nothing that would create a "magazine" grid for this series. Mhhutchins 16:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, at least it definitely should not be on the grid twice. Qshadow 13:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't even be a magazine grid for this anthology series. There must be some underlying cause for it to be created and displayed like a magazine. Every publication record is entered as ANTHOLOGY, so there is no reason why a magazine grid was generated. Mhhutchins 15:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did you find a link to display this "magazine" grid? I was able to force the creation of a grid for another anthology series, but only by entering its series number into the URL: "http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/seriesgrid.cgi?" . Otherwise there's no link from the database itself. You can see from the grid I forced the creation of that all editions are listed, not just the first. Mhhutchins 15:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Magazines missing from the Magazines page
I have found several magazines that are missing from the wiki list of all Magazines, for example Far Point. there is also Science Fiction Monthly Is it just lost, or there is some reason for this?

Qshadow 13:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this remark have already been made. In the case of SFM (where I'm probably the main culprit), I didn't take the time to enter the magazine in the wiki side (I'm not really convinced of its interest and durability compared to the database proper). Hauck 14:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I gave up on the wiki once the magazine grid was integrated into the database itself. Some editors have continued to maintain the wiki magazine list, but there is nothing that requires that. I believe the plan was to eventually migrate all of the data to the actual database and leave the wiki just for the help pages and for editor communication. Of course, that doesn't mean an editor can't continue to use the wiki for other purposes. Mhhutchins 15:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right, the plan is to move all of our bibliographic data to the database as we improve the ISFDB software. The only reason we originally entered some of it in the Wiki was because the database couldn't support certain features (like publication series) while the Wiki software is very flexible. Of course, once you have your data split between two different applications, keeping everything in sync becomes a big headache. Ahasuerus 15:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I continue to use the Fanzine wikis (much like the Magazine wikis) because it's easy to incorporate certain additional descriptive data. See Degler! as an example of the template I've been using, with data fields for known issues & years of publication (even when the issues are missing from the database), description of the purpose/genre of the journal, awards won, and external links. Eventually we should be able to incorporate this information into the database itself, but not yet. So for now it's useful to store this information somewhere. Eventually, though, I expect these fields will be incorporated into a Magazine description, all of this data from the wiki will be absorbed, and the wiki pages will mostly go away. Some partial progress has been made in this direction. For example, several fanzines (and probably some magazines) maintain issues lists as done with The Acolyte. This list contains more issue date than its issue grid, because we have not made stubs for the "missing issues". As we make progress on incorporating issues, or at least stubs of issues, these wiki lists of issues should be being replaced with links to series grids (as done with Degler! above). Chavey 16:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard template for magazine names in the grid?
I am now going over many magazines checking here and there, and I found that we do not have clear definition how the grid should look like. A good example is Aurealis,
 * some entries are in the form of issue number, eg: #1
 * some include the magazine name and year, eg: Aurealis #32, 2004
 * some include the month, eg: #44, September
 * and in other magazines grids there are no numbers, instead there is only month names: Sep, Nov, etc..

I think that at least within the same magazine we should have only one way of representation (and preferably without duplications like including the magazine name and year).

If I am right, how can I edit the grid? I found no option for this only "Edit Series"

Regards, Qshadow 13:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understood clearly, what's displayed in the grid is the text following the comma if what's before it is strictly the same as the series title, if not, the whole lot is displayed. For the standard, there were some discussions due to cultural differences (e.g. in France, magazines are usually very visibly numbered in sequence and the publication date is accessory). Hauck 14:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree about the cultural differences. And I understand that the entry is taken automatically from the series title. But it just looks bad, giving a feeling of disorder or work in progress. While in fact the table is perfectly finished. Qshadow 14:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The title which is displayed in the database magazine grid matches exactly the data which follows the first comma in the title field of the issue's publication record. Some magazines occasionally, by error or intentionally, change the way their magazine is dated and/or numbered. There is no reason that all title fields for any given magazine should have the identical format. In the title you're referring to it's possible that different editors may have different interpretations of the dating/numbering of the individual records they verified. If that's the case, they should discuss a standard format. This occurred when different people were entering issues of Interzone. Changes like this should be done by the verifying editor because you'd be changing the actual publication record (its title field) to get to the way it is displayed on the grid. Mhhutchins 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking again at the grid for Aurealis, I see that the few issues which have been verified were entered with the comma after the issue number. That is why the number and year are displayed. It appears the records aren't primary verified (the data came from Locus1), so feel free to update those records to move the comma before the issue number in the records' title fields. That way the grid should show all issues with the same format. Mhhutchins 15:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing to consider is that we have full control over the grid display logic. If we can think of another, more sophisticated, algorithm for extracting months and/or issue numbers from the title field, we can easily augment or replace the current comma-based logic. Ahasuerus 15:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing the display logic would be the best solution, this way we won't be dependant on the mood of the editors and their comma preferences. We can use the clean design of Astounding/Amazing for all magazines that fit to this pattern (already have month names in most of the issues), and we can use only numbers for magazines like Aurealis. For all the Quarterly issues just write one of (Summer,Winter,Fall,Spring) in the cell of the month of the release. This will not change the "cultural" preferences it will just make it more uniform across the table for each magazine. Qshadow 22:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the help pages for magazine titles are quite specific on the format: "Magazine Title, Date, such as Asimov's Science Fiction, June 2004". Further: "If there is no apparent date, or the date is incomplete, a volume/issue number may be substituted. The date is always preferable, even if the magazine typically gives the issue number".  If we are allowing magazine titles with different formats, we should document when the format should should differ.  As I read the help pages, the issue number should only occur in place of the date (i.e. after a comma and a space) and only if we cannot determine a date from primary or secondary sources. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Exceptions are made for magazines which prominently display the issue number on their front cover, sometimes even in preference over a month date. That was the conclusion arrived at by the several editors who were working on Interzone. I see no problem with providing both in cases like this where the issue number is as prominent as the title.
 * Qshadow, if you want to make the issues of Aurealis to be consistently displayed on the magazine grid, please make submissions to do so. I'll moderate them and accept the changes. That seems to have been your original concern. Mhhutchins 05:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We Are About To Use Your Data
Firstly I am sorry if I am posting in the wrong section .. but I ended up getting a bit confused about where was best!

I just wanted to let you know, mainly out of courtesy, that Comic Book Plus is going to start using your data matched against our old pulps. I will obviously give credit and a link to the original page on your site. I have the SQL working at my end so should just be a be a week or two :)

Best regards and thanks for such an amazing resource!

Mark


 * Great to hear that you find the data useful and good luck with the project! Let us know if you find anything that we could improve on our end :) Ahasuerus 16:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate Illustrations
The Spectrum pubs have several duplicates of illustrations in each volumes. The front and back covers (for the two most recent hardcover volumes, the dust jackets and pictorial boards have different illustrations) and the endpapers are copies of illustrations elsewhere in the books. I tried merging the identical illustrations, but this eliminates one of the illustrations and assigns one of the page numbers to both copies. If you export the content, the illustration appears twice, but both have the same page number. Is there some way to indicate that an illustration appears twice in one pub? Bob 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If an identical work of art appears more than once as INTERIORART in a single publication, the system will display the publication twice under that work's title record. If you've assigned separate page numbers to each, there should be no problem in display. I'm not sure why the same page number was assigned, when you imported the content to a new record, but it sounds like a software glitch, ie. the software can't handle the importing of the same record twice into the new publication record. Can you provide a link to the publication record so that I can see exactly what happened? Mhhutchins 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Michael, see comments to the message you left me on my discussion page. Bob 14:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the guy who wrote a plot summary a "co-author"?
In L.W. Currey's current catalog, he identifies the true author of six of the twelve books we credit to the house pseudonym "Roy Rockwood". Specifically, he lists
 * "The fourth of the nine volumes in "The Great Marvel Series." The first six books in the series were written by Howard R. Garis from plots provided by Edward Stratemeyer."

I created pseudonyms for those six books crediting Howard R. Garis as the author. Should Edward Stratemeyer be credited as a co-author? Chavey 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say no. This seems to be a similar case to the Perry Rhodan series, where a raw outline of the plot is sent to the respective authors, but we credit only the authors actually mentioned, usually one; we credit the plot providers as editors, though, because of the character of an ongoing series published as magazine. I'd say Edward Stratemeyer should be should be mentioned in the notes or as editor of the magazine "The Great Marvel Series", which would need a transformation from title series to magazine. Stonecreek 12:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It really isn't a magazine, but I could still see using the Notes to list Stratemeyer as an editor. What I don't know is whether this qualifies as a title series or a publication series. The titles themselves don' imply continuing characters, but there might be some. That may require more research. Chavey 17:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Christian that only the "written by" author be credited in the author field, but that the "story by" author be credited in the Note field. Just as we do with novelizations of films where the screenwriter is acknowledged only in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

New foreword by the author
Hi, I am trying to work out how to add a new edition of (an undated 3rd printing of an 1997 edition). The original has an afterword which is replaced in the edition I have with a different foreword. I can clone, but I can't change the contents. --AliHarlow 23:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Once you've created a publication (regardless of the method used to create it) you can use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function to remove any relative contents. Mhhutchins 23:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes I can see how that would work. As it happens, I've somewhat belatedly noticed that has a foreword with the right copyright date, so I'll clone that pub and work from there. The foreword is titled "After the Gap: Reflections on Storytelling" in my edition while it looks like the title in that publication is just generic so I'll edit the title afterwards. --AliHarlow 00:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Verification question
I have a copy of this pub and was going to verify it, but can't verify the credited cover artist. What's the correct approach? Should I add a note to the effect that the cover artist listed does not appear to be credited, and then verify it? Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's the same cover as the one used by the hc and pb editions, which have been verified by two editors. In addition, checking Amazon's Look Inside, I see that the pb edition says "Cover art by John Harris", which can be used as the source of attribution. Ahasuerus 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I verified it but didn't add a note about the source of the attribution because for some reason I don't see that in Look Inside. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you tried searching on "John Harris" within Look Inside? Look Inside only shows a subset of pages, but it lets you search everything, which can be very useful in certain cases :) Ahasuerus 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I searched on "Harris". I've seen situations before in which different people get different results from Look Inside -- not sure why.  Perhaps I was looking at a different edition? Mike Christie (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell. The Amazon folks have been making their software much more convoluted lately and I no longer have a good feel for what and when they do. Ahasuerus 03:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fictional essays
This title is listed as an ESSAY; it's actually written as if by a fictional character in the following stories, and is signed by Lyndon Parker, the fictional character. The title record credits it to Derleth, but shouldn't it be SHORTFICTION? The relevant help section doesn't give a similar example. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We all seem to agree that "Fictional Essay" would be a desirable title type, but it's currently not supported by the software, so each editor gets to decide whether a particular specimen is closer to an ESSAY or to SHORTFICTION. Ahasuerus 03:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll update the help text to say that; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I made couple of edits here and here to clarify this; please let me know if I overstated it -- I didn't ask about the author attribution but wrote down the convention I saw being followed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Artist field when no art on the cover
If the cover of a publication has no art on it, do we note this (e.g. by "N/A" in the Artist field, or via a note)? Mike Christie (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As per Help, "Enter the artist for the cover art if known. If not known, leave blank." As far the Note field goes, I usually enter something like "no cover artist credited". Ahasuerus 03:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is, though, a real difference between a book with cover art, but whose artist is unknown; and a book with essentially just a title printed on it in some font, hence a book where there really is no cover artist. Unfortunately, we don't have a protocol to distinguish these two very different cases. Chavey 03:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what I was getting at. I'll add something to the help text to suggest entering "No cover art" in the notes if that's the case. Mike Christie (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Page numbering question
I just updated this pub with page numbers, and noticed that the result is that the contents display out of order; "[7]" sorts after "1", for example. The first 14 pages are unnumbered, and I used [1] to [14] to number them; is there a way to avoid the sequence issue? E.g. if I were to change "[7]" to "[vii]" would that fix it, and is that the right approach? Mike Christie (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, using Roman numerals would address the issue. Sorry, I should have caught it at approval time, but I am not feeling well tonight and all other NorAm moderators are presumably watching Superbowl :) Ahasuerus 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, I've always thought that roman numbers should only be used when they are actually present in the publication. It never would have occurred to me to use them to record the numbering of a content that appears before the first numbered page of a publication. Isn't that why we use bracketed Arabic numbers, to indicate the appearance of a work within a range of pages that are unnumbered? Looking at the standards, the page count field gives different directions than those for the content page numbering field. One of these days someone has to go over these standards to make them consistent. If we use "[5]+300" in the page count field, shouldn't any content appearing on those first five pages also use bracketed Arabic numbers in the content page number field? If not, I've been doing it wrong for the past seven years. Mhhutchins 04:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a technical component and a "rules" component to this question (and also a little bit of history since the way the software handles page numbers changed about a year ago), but I am afraid I can't do it justice tonight. Hopefully I'll be feeling better tomorrow morning and describe what I remember about the history of this question. Ahasuerus 05:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were to make the Roman numerals the solution to this, then we could change the help text to support that -- e.g. "[v]+300+[5]" would be the standard for a book with five unnumbered pages before and after the numbered pages. The brackets make it clear the numerals are not given in the text, but it doesn't indicate that there are no numerals at all at the front.  Perhaps leaving it as "[5]+300+[5]" but still using "[iii]" to indicate the page of a content element is the best of both worlds -- the page is given and the reader knows none of the pages prior to the text are numbered. Mike Christie (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, let's start with the technical aspect of this question. The underlying problem is that page numbers do not necessarily reflect the order in which Contents titles appear in a publication. For example, an omnibus may contain three novels, each one with a different numbering scheme, perhaps using a mix of Roman and Arabic numerals. There is no way for the software to tell in which order they need to be displayed based on the page numbers alone. Ideally, we would have two separate fields for each Content title:


 * An integer number showing the relative position of the title within the book
 * Actual page number as it appears in the pub, including A-1, B-vii and other outliers. It could also be a decimal number to support ordering of multiple titles per page (e.g. two poems appearing on the same page)

The titles within a hypothetical omnibus with three novels, three introductions and two illustrations between the novels would then be entered as follows:


 * 1 i Introduction A
 * 2 1 Novel A
 * 3  Illustration X
 * 4 i Introduction B
 * 5 1 Novel B
 * 6  Illustration Y
 * 7 i Introduction C
 * 8 1 Novel C

And here is how they would appear on the Publication Listing page:


 * i Introduction A
 * 1 Novel A
 * Illustration X
 * i Introduction B
 * 1 Novel B
 * Illustration Y
 * i Introduction C
 * 1 Novel C

That would solve the ordering problem once and for all. Unfortunately, adding a new field to the Content section of all data entry forms, although possible, would be a time-consuming project and may also confuse new editors at data entry time (unless we were to do something clever with the way it is displayed.) Hence the following compromise approach implemented over a year ago:


 * Ignore square brackets for ordering purposes (this was FR 210)
 * Display all titles without page numbers first
 * Display 'fc' (=front cover) next
 * Display 'fep' (=front end paper) next
 * Display Roman numerals next
 * Display Arabic numerals next
 * Display 'bep' (=back end paper) next
 * Display 'bc' (=back cover) last

As you can see, it was an attempt to accommodate as many use cases as possible without addressing the underlying issue. Basically, it's a band-aid with inherent limitations. We can try to handle the latter via policy, but it's still a band-aid. (BTW, the page number field is currently limited to 8 characters, another limitation.)

So, based on the discussion above, how do we handle a pub like Regarding Sherlock Holmes: The Adventures of Solar Pons or, worse, The Metal Man and Others? The latter uses Roman and Arabic numerals in addition to a bunch of unnumbered pages, so you can't use bracketed numbers for the unnumbered pages without messing up the display order of the numbered pages. The editor who entered this pub used a mix of "plate N" for certain illustrations and "fep" for certain other pages, but they don't appear in the right order because the software doesn't know how to handle "plate N". Not that using "fep" would make any difference because the software doesn't know how to order "fep"'d titles.

My thinking is that we have two way of handling pubs like Regarding Sherlock Holmes: The Adventures of Solar Pons: either use "fep" for all unnumbered pages before the numbered pages start (and lose their internal ordering) or use bracketed Roman numerals. When dealing with pubs like The Metal Man and Others, there is little we can do aside from using "fep".

P.S. If there is enough interest in addressing the underlying issue, we can bump up the priority on FR 54, which is basically a request to implement proper display sort order.


 * I have no idea how the problem with displaying contents could be resolved considering the myriads of permutations that publications use when giving the page numbers for their contents. But I do believe that the problem of displaying the contents should not be a factor when recording the page count field, or the page number on which a content begins. It's actually two different issues, and the conflation of the issues only adds to the problems.


 * If significant content begins on an unnumbered page within an unnumbered section of pages before the first numbered page of a book, then all of the pages before that page should be added to page count field in bracketed Arabic numbers, and the starting page number of that content should be determined by counting from the first unnumbered page (not counting endpages) and entered into the content's page field as a bracketed Arabic number.


 * If there is no significant content in the unnumbered section of pages that appear before the first numbered page, then it is not necessary to include those pages in the page count.


 * If there is a section of Roman numbered pages before the first Arabic numbered pages, then the highest Roman numbered page should be given in the page count field, regardless of whether there is significant content on those pages.


 * If there is significant content which would require the creation of a content record within the section of Roman numbered pages, the starting page of that content should be based on its place within the Roman numbered section, giving the page number in unbracketed Roman numbers, regardless of whether that page is Roman numbered.


 * How the contents are displayed in the publication record is a software problem that can only be solved by adding a field (hidden on display) in which the editor enters the order of the contents. Yes, this would be burdensome and I personally would hate to have this become a feature of publication entry. But without this, we have to settle for software which would display the contents based on the how the overwhelming majority of publications are paginated. I believe the current software does a fine job with displaying contents and that we shouldn't meddle with it in order to display the relatively few publications which have unusual pagination. Mhhutchins 00:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, you know, it occurs to me that we don't necessarily need to add another field to the data entry forms. What we could do instead is allow (optionally) appending "sorting" page numbers to the currently defined "displayed" page numbers. To use Regarding Sherlock Holmes: The Adventures of Solar Pons as an example, the two essays which appear prior to page "1" and which are currently labeled "[7]" and "[11]" would be entered as "[7]|0.1" and "[11]|0.2". They would then appear before "The Adventure of the Frightened Baronet" on page "1" and their displayed page numbers would still be "[7]" and "[11]". In the case of The Metal Man and Others, the illustrations would be numbered something like "plate 1|0.01" through "plate 19|0.1" while the titles currently entered as "iv" and "xv" would be changed to "iv|0.51" and "xv|0.52". And in cases where there are multiple titles per page, they could be entered as "50|50.1", "50|50.2", etc. Of course, if there is no "vertical bar" (or "pipe") character present, then everything will be handled the way it currently is.


 * That wouldn't be too hard to implement and would hopefully make everybody happy -- or at least happier :-) Ahasuerus 02:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good way to display order.Mhhutchins 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I use the option to record significant content beginning on an unnumbered page within an unnumbered section of pages before the first numbered page of a book with Roman numbers and stating in the notes that these pages are actually unnumbered. I'd say that this also solves the problem of displaying this contents in the right order (although this admittedly wouldn't solve the problem for unnumbered pages in the middle of a publication like, for example, plates, so your proposal seems in fact to be better, Ahasuerus). Stonecreek 07:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Using Roman numbers for unnumbered pages isn't a documented option. If it was discussed and accepted as an optional choice, I don't remember it and it never made it into the help section. Mhhutchins 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Year on variant title
Sorry for all the questions; it's been a long time since I was an expert here. What's the year supposed to be on a variant title -- the year of the first publication with that variant title? I just created this pub as a variant, and have submitted a pub to go under that title; I suspect I should have just created the pub first and then made it a variant, and that would have created a title record with a date the same as the pub. As it is, I created it with the same date as the parent title, which I now think is probably wrong. Mike Christie (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For years, it was necessary to have both the parent and the title record have the same publication date. Once the software was changed to display both the dates (if different) in a publication record, you can now give each their own date. This way a user knows when the variant title was first used. This change was also required when translated works became variants and need to have their own publication date. All of this was a gradual change, so there may be thousands of variant titles in the database that retain the dates of the parent record. I change them when I encounter them in other title record updates, but I'm not looking for them. I suspect no one else is either. BTW, it is better to create a publication record before you create a variant title record. This will create a new title record which can then be varianted to the parent title. Doing it in reverse (creating the variant title and then adding a publication to that title) works as well, but increases the chances of publess titles when for various reasons the editor doesn't follow up with the creation of a pub record. Mhhutchins 20:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You will also note that the record you created is given as French when it actually appears to be English. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed; and the date too.  Thanks for the clarification, and the hint on creating a variant. Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Our help still states that variant titles are to have the same date as the parent. I started a Rules & Standards discussion about formally updating it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Author's note and appendix
I have a 4th printing of this and was going to clone it but ran into a couple of questions. The book has an Author's Note on p. 441; definitely an ESSAY, not in the fictional world at all. Then on page 442 there is "A Brief Description of the Weirdin", which is back in the fictional world again. If the Author's Note had been after this, I would have ignored the "Brief Description" as being part of the novel's fictional world, but because of the Author's Note I think it should be indexed separately. Any thoughts on that?

Secondly, there is a credit on the copyright page to an interior artist, Ellisa Mitchell. There's only one piece of artwork in the book -- an illustration in the "Brief Description" section. My reflex would be to assume that's hers, add a note to that effect, and title it the same as the Brief Description piece. If that's not correct, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Proceed to clone the record, changing any fields that apply, adding any missing contents, and noting any important information. The content record for Mitchell already exists in the record, so just explain in the Note field about the illustration. It's probably the same in both editions. You can also retitle the INTERIORART record if the work it illustrates is more specific than the title of the novel. (Sorry it took so long for you to get a response. I've been away from a computer for the past five days, but there seems to have been enough activity that several other editors and moderators could responded to a help request.) Mhhutchins 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maps in the Thieves' World books
This artist has three credits for maps in the Thieves' World books. One I just created (that's the 1979 one, "maps", not "map"); the other two were already there. The 1980 one has multiple verified versions; the 1979 singular one ("map" not "maps") is only from a 1983 reprint, verified by an inactive editor. I suspect that these are really all the same (two double page map spreads), but I don't see how to prove it. Should I just add a note to the one I created to that effect? Mike Christie (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've merged the three records, keeping the "maps" title, and dating it as October 1979. Here it is. Feel free to add any applicable notes to the title record. Mhhutchins 00:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Continent of Lies
Locus1 has:


 * _The Continent of Lies (Arrow 0-09-945460-2, Dec ’86, £2.50, 274pp, pb) Reprint (Holt, Rinehart 1984) sf novel.
 * _Continent of Lies (Legend 0-09-945460-2, Jul ’88, £2.99, 274pp, pb) Reissue (Holt, Rinehart 1984) sf novel.

The database has and  (neither with a primary verifier).

My copy has "The Continent of Lies" on title page and cover, Arrow Books on title page and Copyright page (Legend on spine), Arrow edition 1986 on copyright page (no number line), and a price of £2.99.

How should I handle this? --AliHarlow 14:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I decided to create a . Hope that's right. --AliHarlow 10:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd guess you did absolutely right. Maybe someday we'll get a primary verifier for the other Arrow printing. Stonecreek 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Finding uploads
How do I find the link to the cover that I uploaded yesterday?
 * Thanks, but I figured this out. You look at the upload log. Sjmathis 17:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Some serious problem editing authors and titles
This seems to be a personal problem of me: when trying to edit titles or authors (in fact, when clicking on them) an error report of the following kind appears:

 Python 2.5: /usr/bin/python Sat Mar 1 05:00:27 2014

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

/var/www/cgi-bin/title.cgi in 229  230         user = User 231        user.load 232  233         SQLupdateTitleViews(title_id) user = <login.User instance at 0x894590c>, user.load = <bound method User.load of <login.User instance at 0x894590c>>

/var/www/cgi-bin/login.py in load(self=<login.User instance at 0x894590c>) 144                if not self.id: 145                        return 146                (self.concise_display, self.default_language, self.display_all_languages, self.covers_display, self.suppress_translation_warnings, self.suppress_bibliographic_warnings, self.cover_links_display) = SQLLoadUserPreferences(self.id) 147                self.languages = SQLLoadUserLanguages(self.id) 148                self.preferences_id = SQLUserPreferencesId(int(self.id)) self = <login.User instance at 0x894590c>, self.concise_display = , self.default_language = 17, self.display_all_languages = , self.covers_display = , self.suppress_translation_warnings = , self.suppress_bibliographic_warnings = , self.cover_links_display = , global SQLLoadUserPreferences = <function SQLLoadUserPreferences at 0x889595c>, self.id = '15220'

<type 'exceptions.ValueError'>: need more than 6 values to unpack

''There's no problem of editing publications or publishers, though. Any help is welcome.'' Stonecreek 11:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like there was a bug in the last patch that I installed. Let me take a look... Ahasuerus 12:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I got it now. Could you please try again? Sorry about the aggravation! Ahasuerus 12:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Titles are accessible again for me! Stonecreek 12:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad it's working again! I guess the lesson is that I should take breaks more often :) Ahasuerus 12:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Stale "forthcoming" info
How does one correct "forthcoming" info when an item has already come forth? For instance, the Karl Schroeder page lists the fourth part of Lockstep as "forthcoming" when it's been out for a month or so. --J-Sun 05:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We date a magazine record according to the publication date which is stated on its contents page, masthead or cover. In this case, the last part of the serial is/was/will be "officially" published in the April 2014 issue of Analog. The system has no way of knowing that the issue has already appeared on newsstands and/or in your mailbox, thus displaying it as "forthcoming". This is a bibliographic standard, even though everyone accepts the fact that magazines can appear as early as 6 or more weeks before their stated issue date. (Retailers actually use that as the date to remove copies from sale!) On April 1, 2014, the system will automatically remove that notice. Mhhutchins 06:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay - I know of the magazine publishing standards but didn't realize the ISFDB standards took it literally and that it was handled automatically. I thought it was just something handled manually but was confused when it didn't appear anywhere editable. I should have realized then, but thought I was just missing something. Thanks. --J-Sun 09:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(And, actually, off-topic but related to possible wrongness on the Schroeder page, The Claus Effect is listed as both a novel and collection when I'm pretty sure it's a fixup and "The Toy Mill (1992) with David Nickle" is listed as part of the "Toy Mill" series while "Prologue (The Claus Effect) (1997) with David Nickle" is not. I may be wrong and they're unrelated but I think that's all connected somehow or other. And a Queen of Candesce excerpt should probably go under the Virga series. And I haven't read it (or any of this besides Lockstep, which is why I haven't tried to change it myself) but I think "The Hero" is also a Virga story.) --J-Sun 05:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to a primary verified record, there is a novel titled The Claus Effect, included in a collection of the same title which includes a Prologue and the novelette "The Toy Mill". If you believe this information is incorrect, post a message on the talk page of the verifying editor. As for the other stories and their series, when you have more concrete evidence, please feel free to update those titles with the correct series data. Thanks. 06:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not that I believe the Claus/Toy stuff to be incorrect but just that it looked wrong. That's why I didn't edit it but thought I'd mention it just in case. But I will follow up with the verifier. I do have "The Hero" to read and, when I do and if it is, I will edit that one. --J-Sun 09:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Time to wait for Talk Page replies?
How long should one wait for a talk page reply before making the edits one's self? I wouldn't expect people to reply immediately but every day that goes by leaves information that should be changed sitting in the ISFDB. The specific case is that it's only been 2-3 days for a couple of questions on User_talk:SFJuggler. --J-Sun 23:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually it looks like you only posted the message about 36 hours ago. That editor is pretty active and just may be taking a break from the database. (Sometimes, life gets in the way.) For most active users, wait about a week, and if you get no response, leave a message on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard. For inactive users, there should be an "Inactive User" notice at the top of most of their talk pages. In that case, post a message immediately on the Moderator noticeboard. You can always click on the link "User contributions" and you can see when the last time they posted on the wiki. That doesn't tell you everything though, because some users don't post on the wiki at all, just edit the database. Don't ask me what I call those editors. :) Mhhutchins 02:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A good way of knowing when and where you've posted messages on the wiki is to click on the "My contributions" link. If you were the last person to post on that page the word "Top" is shown after the subject. Mhhutchins 02:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There were two things I posted on that page and one's a day or so older than the other. Thanks for the info - I'll hold my horses for a few more days. ;) --J-Sun 04:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha, I see now. You posted it as a response to a message made back in 2012, which is very likely to get overlooked by the user. I suggest that you create a new message which is posted at the bottom. This is more likely get the editor's attention. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Names/only as by
Why do two items on Brad R. Torgersen's page say "only as by Brad R. Torgersen" when that's his name? (I looked and looked to make sure it didn't say "Torgerson" or something equally hard to spot, but they look identical to me.) The "only as by Brad Torgersen"/"Brad R. Torgerson" items make sense, but I don't get the others.
 * For the first it's because the given name of the author seems (as the record is not PVed) to be without the middle initial, it's so considered a pseudonym by ISFDB standards, for the second, it's a left-over from previous edits (IIRC the text was initially wrongly attributed to Torgerson).Hauck 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(Incidentally, why does that - e.g., the Brad Torgersen item - trigger a "variant title" item? That's also confusing. It's a "variant author attribution" but the title is not variant.) --J-Sun 04:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The varianting case occurs when 1) the titles are exactly the same and the authors are different, 2) the authors are exactly the same and the titles are different and 3) the first two possibilities at the same time (I add 4) when the laguage is different with all caracteritiscs being similar). So you can see that variating is not only title-related. Hauck 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Omnibus question
Voltaire's story "Candide" was listed by us as a novella. It is included in the 160 page Airmont Classic Candide and Zadig, which was listed as a collection. The original publication of Candide, however, was a 299 page novel. Even if it was compressed somewhat, and in the smaller font that Airmont Classics used, it still seems like it was a novel in that publication. So I changed it to a novel. In doing so, I reset the "storylength" from "nv" to blank, which the help pages says should be done. Of course then I had to change that "collection" to an "omnibus". But now on Voltaire's bibliography page, that book is listed as "Candide and Zadig (1966) [ONone]". The "ONone" is inappropriate. So did I do something wrong, or is this a bug in the software? Chavey 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a rare bug that we have been trying to reproduce for some time. It sounds like you have accidentally succeeded :) I will try the same sequence of events on the development server and see if I can reproduce it. Ahasuerus 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It turns out that the bug is in Edit Pub. When editing a publication without a "reference" title, i.e. a title whose title type matches the type of the publication, the page defaults the "Length" field to the value of "None".


 * BTW, it's possible for a book to have 299 pages yet contain fewer than 40,000 words. Many books published in the 18th and 19th centuries were very small by our standards and had very few words per page. I have quite a few of them in my library. Ahasuerus 21:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The bug has been exterminated. Thanks for finding and reporting it! Ahasuerus 22:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Voltaire's Candide is indeed a short novel, and at 36K words it qualifies as SHORTFICTION for ISFDB purpose. I have the complete novella, all 36K words and 30 chapters, posted on my website, A Guide to Leonard Bernstein's Candide. It's on only six pages on my website, which goes to show you can't use page count to determine word count. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, that's the word count in English and not the original French. :) Mhhutchins 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it's the best of all possible word counts. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I downloaded from Gutenberg both French & English editions of Candide, deleted their boilerplate, and had Microsoft count the words. 35,506 in English and 33,679 in French. Novella it is. And the omnibus goes back to a collection. And the "novels" become chapterbooks. (Have I mentioned lately that I hate chapterbooks?) Ah well, at least I helped find a bug :-) Chavey 01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Title sub-series not showing up
Cicely Mary Barker did a bunch of "Fairy" books (the original Daisy Meadows, only with better art). These books were placed in a Flower Fairies title series. She then selected poems from several of these books, got someone else to write music for those poems, and published 4 books of "Songs of the So-and-So Fairies". I put all of these into a sub-series of the "Flower Fairies" series. That sub-series shows up correctly if I click the link (above) to the "Flower Fairies" series. However, even though all of the chapterbooks in that sub-series are credited to Cicely Mary Barker, the sub-series does not show up as a sub-series of the "Flower Fairies" series in Cicely Mary Barker's summary Bibliography. Instead, it shows up as a separate "Short Fiction" series, instead of with its parent series. So, bug in the software, or did I do something wrong in entering these books? (I still don't trust myself with Chapterbooks, but I think I did all of these correctly.) Chavey 02:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a known issue with the Summary page logic:


 * If an author has contributed to a fiction series, an anthology series and a non-fiction series and if these three series are sub-series of the same super-series, then the Summary page will display these series in three separate sections -- see Gary Russell's Summary page for an example. Ideally, we would want all series that belong to the same super-series to appear together on the Summary page.


 * Ahasuerus 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Glad it wasn't just me. Chavey 03:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking a review
I'm trying to link a review to the book it's reviewing (which I just entered). I can't seem to figure out how to do it. My memory there was a navigation command to "Link Review", and the Statistics/Contributor chart shows a command by that name, but I can't find it. It's not present on the main home page, and it's not present on either of the pages I linked to above. There is no help page on linking reviews. So has that command disappeared, or is it just really good at hiding from me? Chavey 14:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had this problem also at one time: this happens because the item is still an essay, not a review. And the button on the left tool bar is only there when it is a review, in no other cases. Stonecreek 14:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! That explains what was going on. Chavey 19:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Argosy, March 10, 1934
I'm afraid I made a mistake, I accidently made this a variant of this when it can't be a variant of anything as this cover is uncredited as of now. How do I untangle this and correct the mistake. MLB 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Go to the variant record and click on "Make This Title a Variant Title...". On the next screen enter 0 (zero) in the parent number field. This breaks the variant relationship, resulting in two separate records. Mhhutchins 21:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)