Talk:The Road to Samarcand

Where did the previous discussion go?

The blazingly fast edit of the new infobox in the article was accomplished with the disappearance of the discussion which used to be on this page. Wha???Hammerdrill (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

1st ed. cover

I would like a little more information about the request in the banner for a 1st ed. cover, because I have a concern about page numbers. If I can find the 1954 cover and replace the image I used, will it imply I cited that book in the footnotes? The footnotes specify the edition I read (easily available), so I'm not concerned there will be confusion if a reader pursues any of the citations. Unless the printing plates for the two editions match, though, those page numbers in the footnotes will not correspond to the numbers from the first edition, when pictured in the infobox. Is this a problem? By the way, my efforts to find a first edition have been fruitless so far. Can anyone help? I'm under the impression it is out of print, but I believe it was published by Rupert Davis-Hart.Hammerdrill (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. While it's good to have a first edition cover, it is entirely separate in my mind from the references section. You're showing what you used to write from, and if it is a later edition, there is no problem with that. The issue is whether what you cite as referencing a particular piece of information, actually serves to verify that material. The edition has little to do with this and, as for allowing others to verify themselves, they are more likely to be able to obtain a later version than the original so it's fine. As for finding a cover, do you know what was the illustration on the first edition? Is it a different image from any other version? Do you know that none of these is a first edition cover? Of course, if you really want to get crazy, you can pony up the not inconsiderable money order a first edition (for example from here, here and here, scan the cover yourself, and upload.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ISBN number?

I entered the ISBN number in the infobox, but it has been edited out and replaced with a link, NA. When I click this link, it takes me to page which asks for the ISBN number! This puzzles me. Can someone please explain? The ISBN number exists as a link in the footnotes, so it IS on the page. But it is already in the form of a link. Somebody could click it there instead of going to the trouble to click NA and fill it in. Help... Hammerdrill (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On consideration, I am wondering if NA was intended to convey "Not Applicable" and should have been noted as N/A? I am wondering, because the edit states there were no ISBN numbers in 1954.Hammerdrill (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! "Not Applicable" as ISBNs were not introduced until at least 1966. Someone recently has changed the infobox to take input here as the ISBN number regardless of whether it is or not the traditional way of coding this field was "ISBN 999999999" or "NA". Is the formal abbreviation for this N/A as I have seen it in many publications etc as "NA". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I am going to be bold and take off the brackets which make NA an internal link. (That will bypass any question of correctness between NA and N/A, since they both mean the same thing.) This will avoid any interested party experiencing the same thing I did in the first paragraph.Hammerdrill (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So much for that idea. There aren't any brackets. This goes beyond my knowlege, so I'm leaving it alone. I did replace the Publisher with the correct information, as I long as I was there in edit mode.Hammerdrill (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The ISBN for the Norton edition is in the infobox now, with and isbn_note to explain it. I am assuming it is the Norton edition used for page references in the article, and modified the citation in the text to include Norton. There is confusion on the initial publication year; another Wikipedia article says 1955 (linked at the publisher in infobox) and first edition offerings say 1955. I have not seen the page from one of those first editions to know. Now the date matches the other Wiki article, Publications by Rupert Hart-Davis, Ltd. This same approach is in the article for The Golden Ocean. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My review

Article looks pretty good I have rationalised the referencing somewhat and would question the Susan whatsit sources as they appear to be entries in a blog or usenet type conversation, these are not encouraged as sources here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the questioned sources, which meant deleting only one sentence from the "Sources" section. In using those citations I was hoping to support the creation of the ship and certain characters, but the article seems to reads well without that information.Hammerdrill (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To Readers in England: Help with first edition cover?

The cover shown in the article is from the 2007 edition published for America by W.W. Norton, 53 years after the novel was first published. As an early book by a little-known writer, The Road to Samarcand was probably given a limited printing in 1954 and not distributed outside of England. At any rate, copies of the first edition are proving very difficult for me to find in the USA, where I live. (See note from antiqbook seller, calling the first edition "scarce": http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/thorn/12540.shtml) If any wikipedians living in England can replace the image in the infobox with the image of the jacket front from the first edition (Hart-Davis, 1954), that would be great! Or, I would be glad to take care of it if someone can scan the jacket cover and send me the image. Maybe leave me a note on my talk page? Thank you.Hammerdrill (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done GrahamHardy (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs External Links

I can imagine fascinating External Links if anyone can suggest germane material not covered in the internal links. Maybe other readers can think of sites with great photographs about so many subjects covered in this novel, such as the arming of China during the 30s; or the historial lifestyle of Mongol natives; or different forms/practices of Tibetan Buddhist monks; or sailing ships: steam replaces wind; or Yeti, Sasquatch, Bigfoot and the Abomidable Snowman. This novel just seems to burst with ideas for External Links, and I hope it sparks an idea with someone.Hammerdrill (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary needs help

I removed much of the opinion in the Plot summary. Some was moved to a new section on Allusions, others just dropped as unsourced private opinions. More of the plot events can be found in the section on why this book foreshadows the Aubrey-Maturin series, than is in the Plot summary. As I have not read this book, I do not know the sequence of events. Is there someone who has read it, who can improve the Plot summary to show the plot events in sequence, without mentioning anachronisms or making sarcastic remarks on the credibility of the plot? If properly sourced, those remarks can find a home in some other part of the article. The lead is broken into two paragraphs, one for the book, and one for commentary on the book, based on the article as it stands. One reference was deleted, as that New York Times article did not say anything about this book in specific. If I ever find the book, I will probably read it, but I have not yet. I did read The Golden Ocean, which has a plot full of events, and is set in the years 1740 to 1745. Asking for help here. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A list of characters might be useful in the article, too. Each name, followed by a brief description of age, occupation, skills, character, whichever traits are relevant to distinguish the characters within this novel -- not the place to talk about characters in the Aubrey-Maturin series. There is already a section for that. I am not sure there is enough in the Plot summary for me to write on based on it. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)