Talk:The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Official title

What is the official title of this pack? Is it (1) The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer, (2) The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer, (3) The Statue of the Sorcerer and The Vanishing Conjurer or (4) The Statue of the Sorcerer and The Vanishing Conjurer? If the official title doesn't include an ampersand as part of its official name (i.e. (1) above), then the Wikipedia article title should also not include an ampersand per MOS:AMP. Similarly, if the official title doesn't include the word "and", then it shouldn't be italicized in the the title of this article. I tried Googling the current title and some websites does use the ampersand, but others use the word "and" or a slash instead. If this was released as a two-book set, then I think the title of that set is what should be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the cover art, the title does indeed read The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer (and, on the backside, The Vanishing Conjurer & The Statue of the Sorcerer).--Alexandra^IDV 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this Alexandra. Is there a way to determine whether the order of the title’s wording is correct? Is it possible that it could the other way around with “The Vanishing Conjurer” coming first depending which cover art you look at first? If the primary cover is the “front side” of the book and this is essentially one book divided into two parts, then there would seem to be no need for two non-free covers (i.e. the front and back covers) to be used. If on the other, these are two books which are part of a set, then using both files might be justifiable but perhaps the article’s title should reflect such a thing by using a non-italicized “and” instead of an ampersand. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two are presented back to back and upside down to each other, so you flip the book over and rotate it 180 degrees to read the second book. (Meaning there is no back cover -- both covers equally are the front cover of each separate adventure.) Guinness323 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, my copy is 35-ish years old and fairly fragile, so I did not want to try to scan both covers at once. You could achieve the same effect by turning one of the covers in the image upside down. Guinness323 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a tête-bêche format. Although there is techically no back cover, The correct name order is The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer, as the The Vanishing Conjurer has the "back blurb" usually found on the back of normal books. If anyone has a solution to place two images side by side in an infobox, that would solve the two images combined into one issue. I checked the Ace Doubles which was the inspiration for this, but no images. Sciencefish (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point that the Vanishing Conjurer has back cover blurbage -- I guess they had to put it somewhere. My only suggestion about the image would be to turn one half upside down to simulate the tête-bêche' format. But I'm okay with it as it is. Guinness323 (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guinness323 and Sciencefish for clarifying things a bit. It seems that these are actually two separate books that were just sort of packaged together as one. I don't think it's necessary to flip one of the images upside down, but the individual files of each cover that were originally uploaded are going to eventually end up deleted per WP:F5 fairly soon since they're no longer being used (which means the links will go WP:RED); so, the more information that can be added to the combo-image about the two covers the better, at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An ISBN search seems to consistently come back with "The Vanishing Conjurer and The Statue of the Sorceror", for what its worth. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, White Dwarf magazines from the time list it as Statue of the Sorcerer/Vanishing Conjurer (#83 November 1986), whereas issue #81 lists it simple as two complete adventures "The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer" but using the individual logos connected with the &. So it does seem that GW themselves put Statue of the Sorceror first. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more interesting point. On the inside blurb and credits for the book (for both of the adventures) it says "Any questions or comments on this product should be directed to: Statue of the Sorceror Questions, Games Workshop Design Studio, ....." Both of them say that, it isn't one saying Vanishing Conjurer and the other Statue of the Sorcerer. However it could also be a short form. I'd say the current naming is sufficient, and we can explain in the text what it is. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Sciencefish what is the product listed as in the Chaosium archives? You would likely have a licensee record of it would you not? Seems that would be official, but hard to use as a reference. Canterbury Tail talk 23:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's CHA2318 The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer. Sciencefish (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]