Talk:David A. Randall

Infobox needed

Author? Professor? Not sure which. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is an infobox compulsory? There won't be much in it and it will push the photo down the page. It's a really great photo. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not compulsory. I'm displaying my OCD. We also have nothing little about his family, roots, etc. in this article, which is an omission from the norm. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have his Dukedom book but had only read parts because it is extremely dense with detail. I will see if there is anything (tomorrow). I suspect he didn't talk much about that. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you bowdlerize the Dukedom reference and get rid of the ISBN, etc.? That seems like an odd deletion to me? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The full details are still there but the original is a 1969 book without an ISBN so the ISBN must relate to a later edition. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps they allocate ISBNs retrospectively in the U.S.? Certainly there is no ISBN printed in the book. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. Not sure I agree with the deletion, but I understand your rationale. You could click on the ISBN in the earlier iterations and follow the links. I don't know the ISBN practice. I do know that ISBNs vary by edition, so that there may be a discontinuity there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It works at Abe but not WorldCat. I do know that some countries were late to adopt ISBNs (invented late 60s), Italy for instance, because they don't like anything they didn't invent. The book has a Library of Congress number as usual for the U.S. and those numbers were probably a barrier to quick adoption of the ISBN system? I can put it back if you like. I would think it was added later by Random House. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Added an additional reference Randall, David A. (1992) [1969]. Dukedom Large Enough. New York: Random House. ISBN 1399891510. ISBN 781399891516. Pretty neat, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying there was a 1982 edition? There's no need for two refs, it would be better to put the ISBN in the original. I don't object to that, I just don't normally where the book I have in my hand doesn't have it but it's not a big deal. Where are you getting the number and the date from? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that those numbers don't work now, as they were before. They worked before, but now I get "no record". Here is a reprint of the first edition at Amazon.com ISBN-10 1111660662 ISBN-13 978-1111660666 I put those in, but when you click on them there are "No results" in autobib.7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My copy no longer has the dust jacket but I don't think it was the same as in the picture. Since we are paying attention to detail, I think ref 2 should simply be deleted. There are no grounds for including ref two as you have not actually used that edition to add anything to the article! We are not even really sure there is a second edition or that those numbers are correct. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazon says different, but you are the doctor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's probably a dealer created listing though isn't it? You can tell by the way it has an ASIN B0006D5JAW and is described at the top as "Reprint of the first edition. A great bookselling read. Jacket is price clipped." Amazon's own listing don't have that sort of wording. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)