Talk:Edison's Conquest of Mars

Bogus publication date

The infobox now has a publication date of 1947, but that's a reprint edition of the original serial from 1898. Unfortunately, it's cataloged as "1st Ed". I've filled out a Library of Congress catalog error form to get this corrected. This matters, because it's out of copyright, and it's bad for Wikipedia to create the illusion that it's still copyrighted. --John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a tricky one as it isn't technically bogus but it might highlight the limitations of the infobox. It seems that the information is right: published in serial form in 1898 but first published as a book in 1947 (so technically it is a first edition).

Have a look what they do for The Hound of the Baskervilles which was published as a serial in Strand Magazine - the best parallel with this.

That is just a stopgap solution and I think it might be wise to add in extra fields to book to cope with this kind of fiction - {{Graphicnovelbox}} allows for both graphic novels and trade paperbacks which are the comics equivalent to books and serials (respectively). Note it includes the original date for the series and a date and ISBN for the first collection. (Emperor (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

There was recently a discussion in WP:WikiProject Novels, regarding year categories for serialized novels which may some bearing on this discussion. It is a book infobox some of the fields (e.g. ISBN, OCLC, pages) don't make sense in a serialization context. I'm also not sure that copyright should be inferred from the date in the infobox. I think it's meant to be a publication date (of the book) and nothing more. The lead paragraph does mention the date of the serial publication, and there is a publication section which also mentions the earlier date. I'm going to go ahead and expand the publication section to bring it inline with the novels template.--Rtrace (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement by Edison

I got the impression, while researching The War of the Worlds that Edison did not endorse the story. And actually complained about the story giving the impression that he had. Mesmacat (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fighters from Mars/Edison's Conquest of Mars

The Fighters from Mars article states 'The sequel Edison's Conquest of Mars is better known', but the Edison's Conquest of Mars article states 'Edison's Conquest of Mars" was published in 1898 intended to be a sequel to "Fighters from Mars", ... ... but did not achieve the fame of its predecessor', presumeably the predecessor was "Fighters from Mars", and so there seems to be some conflict bewtween which was the better known, or achieved greater fame. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Publication Date Inconsistencies

Some of the publication dates seem inconsistent. The info box listed 1897 as the first publication, but other sources show 1898, which is also what is given in the lede and the publication history sections of the article; I revised the info box to 1898 for consistency. Also, the Apogee Books edition is listed as 2006 in the Publication history section, but 2005 in the Notes section. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edison's Conquest of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130505152103/http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/edisons_conquest_of_mars.htm to http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/edisons_conquest_of_mars.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)