User talk:Dragoondelight/Archive01

Jack of Eagles by James Blish

Your submission to change the publication date of this pub has been placed on hold until further research can establish the correct date. Tuck's Encyclopedia dates the Galaxy publication as 1954. Worldcat dates it 1953. J. Grant Thiessen's article in The Science Fiction Collector 3 (1977) shows that it was the last in this series published in 1953, and that the next in the series (Murray Leinster's The Black Galaxy) was the first published in 1954. I believe this last source would push me towards changing the date to 1953. Maybe Tuck's info led him to believe it may have been printed late in 1953 and not available until after the beginning of the year. Do you have any source that states that this softcover edition was published in 1952, the same year as the Greenberg hardcover edition? I'll hold your submission until I hear back from you, or if any other editors of the database can help solve the mystery. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of Galaxy novels on Wikipedia[1] and a little bit of history. It would appear the date is 1953. We also seem to be missing the first seven novels unless there under a different publishers name.Kraang 00:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Found the missing novels, there under "World Editions, Inc."Kraang 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no sign that it was published in 1952. I found one other showing 1953, that I have now lost but discarded it because it was a simple list that stated it, but showed no support. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll reject the submission and change the date to 1953, which seems to be the date of the majority of sources. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Devouring Fire

I have placed your edit on hold. There are a couple of issues I want to make sure I understand.

• You changed the binding from "pb" to "digest". The ISFDB generally uses "digest" only for magazines. Standard mass-market paperbacks are listed as "pb", larger sized "trade" paperbacks as "tp", and hard-covered or "cloth-bound" books as "hc". (see Help:Screen:EditPub, the section on "Pub Format" for more details). Was this publication a book, or a magazine?
• You listed the cover artist as "R.T.". I assume that is how the artist was credited. Is there a credit to the artist's full name (or pen name) as well? Is there a clue to the artist's actual name? If so, you might want to list it in the notes section.
• Your notes include "Art work is very exceptional". It is probably better not to include this kind of statement of opinion, as the ISFDB is generally confined to listing factual data.

It looks to me as if this is the same book described in OCLC record 55536835, does that look correct to you?

Please respond here to these issues, when you have a chance. -DES ^Talk 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my reply is in the next. --Dragoondelight 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

responses moved from next section for clarity -DES ^Talk 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am defining digest as a Reader's Digest size, not book sized nor trade paperback. It contains two staples with the cover page glued to the pack. The binding is not similar to paperback. I say digest to keep people alert to what they would see. It is a definition that pertains mostly to the binding. Though the binding seem the staples make it look just like a slightly smaller Reader's digest. You can change it and it will make the buyer of one surprised to find the anomaly. I am trying to be correct it what I see. Digest is used because it fits. Is it a book or a magazine. It is a magazine more than a book in it's appearance. R.T. is located above the By===Vargo Statten line on the cover. There is no crediting or I would have so stated. I have seen a lot of art and would never drop a message line to anyone about it's quality. This work, which may not be exceptional for the series, is exceptional for it's powerful appeal. I was hesitant to say anything, I have seen almost anything. This is exceptional it gave me more than a pause to look at. This artist should be famous or he died very early. I doubt I will ever comment again on a book's artwork, but I do not feel that a picture can convey it's aura. I am not noted for buying art, I own none, but I would buy this in a larger size. Sorry to offend. OCLC record 55536835 appears to be the same. If you mean is that my copy, it is not. I got mine through ABE weeks ago. I overpaid, I thought, so that I might have at least one Vargo Staten to read. I still have not read it. I still am enjoying looking at it. It may be a poor read, but it's cover will always make up for it. Apologies on this message system use. I have never seen it's like before. I will now hit the tildes and then enter. Hopefully, this will exist for your perusal. --Dragoondelight 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see this was for the Devouring Fire. The comment on digest still applies. --Dragoondelight 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah I now see what you had in mind, and i quite agree that the user needs to be somehow told that these are not standard paperbacks. The problem is that the term "digest" won't do that, because we have ben using that term for standard magazines printed in a size of about 7 in x 4.5 in to 8.25 in x 5.125 in. These are usually perfect-bound, not stapled. A user who expects this format is going to be at elast as suprised as one who expects a standard mass-market pb. I will raise the question on our Rules and standards discussions page.

For your information OCLC is an online library collections catalog, showing listings for many of the works held by each of its many libraries. it is used for doing inter-library loans, for example. We have a page about how to access it, and its virtues and flaws for our purposes at Help:Using Worldcat data ("Worldcat" is the database, within the OCLC system, that holds information about most ordinary books, including pretty much all fictional works.) -DES ^Talk 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you show that they are operating under a paradigm that is incorrect it will help. The first example would be the standard magazine printed in digest format with multiple stories. The next step was the use of full length novel with some old material, such as editorials, reviews and letters to the editor. This becomes less as more space is needed by larger novels. You then evolve to Galaxy Science Fiction Novel model which no longer pretends at other elements of a magazine, but retains the digest size and softcover, not heavy paper front page usually with the staple crimped front to back as opposed to the more usual Magazine center fold staple style. The paperback was current I believe before WWII and was liked by those who could tuck into a small space and not destroy it. It was used by many American troops, and maybe not at all by the British. There are even examples of stories even reduced further than we see today. The digest style was used more in Britain, Europe and American cities where the newstands could readily display them. The size has a certain advantage in that it was harder to steal and hide. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that we will adopt the term "digest" for this kind of thing, however historically accurate. For the matter of that, the original meaning of both "Mass-market" and "Trade" paperbacks no longer matches current realities and usage. But we do need a term to distinguish the different formats.

Oh, a minor point. it is usual to indent each level of response in a wiki-thread by adding an extra colon at the start of each paragraph. See Help:Editing for more detail. -DES ^Talk 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have approved your edits, after discussion with others on the use of "digest" in this case. I then made some further changes to the pub to calrify the meaning of "digest" for any user. The result is here. Please check that i haven't distorted or misundersttof your commetns on digest bindings when you have a chance. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You did a real good job on straightening my mess. I verified it. I noticed that the OCLU link seemed to have been updated. Am I correct that I can use digest for this type of particular stories? Will you continue as my editor in chief? I botched 'World in a Test Tube' so badly that I never even received my just reprimand. I know it was seen because the Science Fiction Fortnightly #8 was changed from author to editor. Problem is that it was not the only problem. The story was complete and not a serial. Oh well, I apologize for the trouble but trust we can take comfort that a significant element of the publishing history is acknowledged. I especially notice the picture of the cover. I still see it's magic and the picture almost has enough depth and size. It is much like a Picasso with a great deal of inner depth. I digress again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to have been of assistance, The various moderators (who are also volunteers, and most of whom started as editors just like yourself -- I did not long ago) when working on the system, look through the list of submitted but unapproved edits, and tend to start with the oldest, and deal with as many as they choose, leaving the rest (if any) for the next mod to come along. I see that another mod has commented on World in a Test Tube in the section on Science Fiction Fortnightly, lower on the page. As you will see in Rules and standards discussions#"Digest" sized books the current feeling seems to be to allow "digest" as the binding type for this sort of work, so go ahead. We may, or may not, chose an abbreviation later; we probably will update the help, clarifying just what we mean by "Digest". Please feel free to join this discussion and give us the benefit of your views and experience.

I added the OCLC (not OCLU) link -- the practice there is being discussed, and may change.

For good but somewhat complex reasons, the ISFDB uses the "Serial" type for all novels published in a magazine, even when they are published complete in a single issue, although in that case we normally add "(Complete Novel)" to the title. The customs, conventions, and quirks of the ISFDB are a bit complicated, but I learned them all in a few months, most of them in a few weeks, and i am sure you will do so also. Most of them have reasons behind them, but many are also subject to change when there is consensus on a better way, such as with the "digest" binding. Thanks for your contributions and do please keep on. -DES ^Talk 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Encounter in Space

Again, please do not use "digest" unless this is a magazine. Is it?

Otherwise this looks fine to me. -DES ^Talk 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have approved your edits, after discussion with others on the use of "digest" in this case. I then made some further changes to the pub to calrify the meaning of "digest" for any user. The result is here. Please check that i haven't distorted or misundersttof your commetns on digest bindings when you have a chance. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, your notes and the iamge show that the author's name on the cover was "H.K. Bulmer". WQas the author listed on the title page as "Kenneth Bulmer", or did you simply know that to be the corect name from another source? -DES ^Talk 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I belong to a Yahoo group which was in contact with Ken until his death and has limited contact with the surviving family. As I understand it his birth name was Henry Kenneth Bulmer. He used H.K. Bulmer when he started writing at sixteen with his lifelong friend A.V. Clarke (also deceased). This was an early one, and hence the H.K. Bulmer. He hid his persona behind many names, some of his work is not properly known. His Alan Burt Akers was a secret of Donald Wolheim for quite a period, only whispered in tight circles that Ken Bulmer was the author. The Alan Burt Akers as author faded into the main character Dray Prescot as author. It is only with the Omnibus printings that he has become credited in print for the Dray Prescot or Kregen series. I did not find out the truth until the late 1990's. I found out that he was a favorite as Kenneth Bulmer and the previous. When I heard that his estate is somewhat imperiled I started trying to find his older work through ABE and Fantastic Fiction. He may have not have had the monumental work, but he had quite a career in science fiction circles. I verified your edit. A very good job. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If, as I understand you to state, "H.K. Bulmer" was the author's name listed in the actual publication, and "Kenneth Bulmer" nowhere appeared in that publication, then we would want the pub record to show "H.K. Bulmer", so as to record the actual state of the pub. We would also want to record the fact that these two names (and various others) represent a single person, and what the source(s) for this information is/are. This might best be done on the author's wiki-page Author:H.K. Bulmer or Author:Kenneth Bulmer or both. Then we would want to decide which of the various names this author used the ISFDB is going to regard as "canonical". That is generally the name by which the author is best known, and need not be the author's legal name: For example, we use Hal Clement, not "Harry C. Stubbs"; we use Murray Leinster, not Will F. Jenkins or Will Jenkins; we use Mark Twain, not "Samuel Langhorne Clemens".

Once a canonical name is settled (and this must be done carefully, as the software does not currently allow changing this once it is set) we mare the other names as pseudonyms of that name, and we record "variant titles" of works published under pseudonyms so that they show up on the biblio page of the canonical name. Look at Henry Kuttner to see the result for an author who wrote much of his work under a wide variety of other names.

So that we can start this process for Mr Bulmer, please do clarify whether the pub of Encounter in Space showed "H. K." or "Kenneth" on the title page, and if it showed any other forms elsewhere. Thank you again. -DES ^Talk 15:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth is not written at all on the book 'Encounter in Space". It is only H.K. Bulmer. People knew him as Ken on a personal basis. The reprint editions of the Dray Prescot series, which are approved by the family, state Kenneth Bulmer. In the specific it states Kenneth Bulmer writing as Alan Burt Akers (this is not Encounter in Space). I think most people knew him best as Kenneth Bulmer, as a true name, from his numerous Ace editions under that name. Fantastic Fiction has a list that is somewhat different from ISFDB. I noticed the same on John Russell Fearn. Much of Kenneth Bulmer's work has not been reprinted. Currently only the Dray Prescott series is being reprinted. How did I get deep black printing on this message? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that information is very helpful. You got the deep black (which i have corrected, since you did not intend it) by starting the paragraph with four semi-colons (;) rather than four colons (:), see Help:List (the part on "Definition lists") to see how this was designed to be used. -DES ^Talk 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stars are Ours

You say in your notes "Australian reprint of the Panther edition", but you have edited by changing the existing record, which would wipe out the limited info we have on the London panther edition. In such cases you will want to use the "clone this publication" tool or the "add a publication to this title" tool. Each of these creates an additional publication record under the existing title record, so they are best used when you are entering information about a copy/edition/publication that is different from the one we have on record, as opposed to merely adding or correcting data about the exact same publication we already have on file.

Note that OCLC lists a 1953 panther edition and a possibly 1960 Atlas Publications (Melbourne) edition, does either look like your copy?

I am going to reject this one, but use the information in it to add a new publication. Here is the result, please check if I have gotten the information correct. -DES ^Talk 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will remember the cloning and agree. Your new entry fits mine and the Australian 1960. I am unfamiliar with OCLU, but the 1953 panther page statistics should be an exact match for the Australian. I think they are in error. I know this irritates, but my copy is a perfect example of a digest not a paperpack. The staples are actually alternately protruding in the upper top side and indented in the lower one. I know it is hard to change an idea, but this looks more magazine than paperback and if you had wanted a paperback or tradeback you would be disappointed. I have only few left that I would so describe, but if it pleases I will make it a note instead. The Australian cover is not as well done.

Sorry for the bother, it is my second day, and the best way to do things appears to take me awhile. I used to input maintenance records and learned to try to get every erg I could out of what is there. I really try to find anything useful at all. Thanks, --Dragoondelight 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bother, new contributors are very welcome, and this is a rather complex system that takes time to learn. Take a look at User talk:DESiegel60 if you want to see some of the problems I had in learning how to enter things here. On Digests see my comments above. Ditto on OCLC. It is certainly possible that the records we have for the 1953 panther are in error, since we don't have a primary verification (someone who had an actual copy and checked against that). On the other hand, it is amazing how publishers make trivial changes seemingly for no good reason when doing a reprint. -DES ^Talk 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sojarr of Titan

I have approved this, but made some further changes. The result is here. It looks to me as if OCLC record 2232065 is for the first printing of this edition, while OCLC record 220438715 just might be for a later edition. I am not sure enough to create the later edition, however. Please make sure that I have not messed up any of your content. -DES ^Talk 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the OCLU entry, if they are saying crestwood publications copyright it in 1941, then I must wonder if they trsnsposed the Better Publicatins copyright 1941 on my copy with the previous page bottom block entry of Crestwood Publications, Inc. Better Pulications produced the Startling Stories 1941 for $0.15 in 1941. A Crestwood edition of 1941 should be the same cost. It also has 10 less pages.

Though this one is of digest size, I can not detect any stapling. The binding looks to be a high pressure crimp that extended one quarter inch onto the front cover. It made the spine angular. It is interesting that the page edges are blue in all exposed directions. I will concede that except for the digest sizing, it can more easily fit paperback or more aptly tradepaperback. I will verify it. Thanks and sorry for the problems.--Dragoondelight 01:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we all want to get the facts correct. It may be that Crestwood and Better had some sort of arrangement, so that a 1941 edition carried the Crestwood name. It may be that Ctestwood owned Better -- OCLC all too often notes the parent company, if listed in the book, rather than the imprint. It is often hard to be sure about such things until an actual copy is in hand. -DES ^Talk 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ABE & other

Here is an ABE bookseller example, others are available under Vargo Statten http://tinyurl.com/66kvaj R.T. is Ron Turner, noted British cover artist. Taken from ABE sellers. The cover paper was more like an artist specialty paper than any I have run across. It must have cost a lot more to use. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Digest size

I have asked for other opnions in the thread Rules and standards discussions#"Digest" sized books. Please feel free to give your views there. I have quoted some of your comments above, but if there is more to say, please share your knowledge with us. -DES ^Talk 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon URLs

When you see an amazon URL like this one: "http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SpfZgt-DL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg" You will usually find that a truncated version such as "http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SpfZgt-DL.jpg" will produce the same cover art without the "search inside" logo, and without the size restrictions forced by the longer URL. the trick is to find a string like "._SL500_" and remove everything between the period and the "jpg" The part between the underscores codes for rendering size, and some of the later parts code for the "search inside" logo. This truncation almost always works, but one must check the resulting URL in a browser, because sometimes it doesn't. I hope this is helpful. -DES ^Talk 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged and will give it a try. Thanks,Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the "_AA240_" and "_SL500_" strings for images tend to be from the default displayed image and the "_SS500_" comes from the "See Larger Image" version, but after trimming they tend to come out the same. I find it easier to work from the larger image usually though. One useful trick if there's a long "Search inside" string is to see if it has a NON-Search inside version on one of the other English-language Amazon sites - e.g. a book on the Amazon.com site with it may not yet have such on the Amazon.co.uk site. BLongley 23:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found that I can almost always truncate the long "Search inside" URL to get a useful image without the "Search inside" logo, as above. But a check of the other amazon sites can sometimes produce a better image, and is good when truncation does not seem to work, IMO. -DES ^Talk 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Science Fiction Fortnightly, #8 (April 15) 1951

There's more than a few missteps in your submission to edit this pub. Being a new editor, you can't be blamed for not knowing some of the more arcane rules and standards that we use here at the ISFDB. So what follows is a closer look at each of the changes that you wanted to be made in the record:

1. You want to add the title "editor" after the author's name. In the case of anthologies and periodicals, the editor is considered the "author" of the work (book or magazine), and each of the contents have their individual authors. The field for names can not contain a title or role (unless that happens to be the author's canonical name (e.g. "Lord Dunsany")
2. You state in the notes that the author of the novel "The World in a Test Tube" is credited as "H. J. Campbell" throughout the publication. Good. That's a great catch, because our record shows "Herbert J. Campbell" as the author, and we'll have to change that.
3. You want to change the author of "Star-Gazing" from "Anonymous" to "L. G. Holmes as writer of the editorial". Again, we have to have what is exactly printed in the publication. Is the piece credited on the first page or at the end of the piece? If not, is it credited in the TOC? If the answer is no, then we should change the author of this piece to "uncredited". If it's credited to "L. G. Holmes" we'll change it to that. But your edit would have created a record for an entirely new author named "L. G. Holmes as writer of the editorial". The database records exactly what we place into the field.
4. You want to change "The World in a Test Tube" from a SERIAL to a NOVEL. It may sound counter-intuitive, but when a complete novel is printed in one issue of a magazine, we type it as a serial with the subtitle (Complete Novel). Check out Herbert Campbell's summary page to see why this strange standard makes sense.
5. Page numbers should be the page on which the piece begins. Don't include the last page. It would be impossible to record all the pages of particular piece in some magazine publications when the story is broken up over several pages.
6. You added four new content entries
   1. "Projectiles-letters to the editor" Is this exactly how the column is titled in the magazine? Under the author of this piece you give "4 various reply L. G. Holmes editor". Again, this would create a strange author name! Perhaps the best solution here is simple "Various". You give the TYPE of this piece as EDITOR. It should be ESSAY. EDITOR is an unusual type that requires special handling when used in magazines. It's only in the pull-down menu so that we can create an EDITOR when the publication was created without one being created. (Something we haven't had to do since the system was changed to do it automatically.)
   2. Entry for "Quiz" looks good except for the page range. Only provide the first page on which the piece appears.
   3. "Speaking of Atoms-no. 3 in a series on Atomic Theory" Is this the exact title for the piece? Author "not credited possibly in previous digest" should just simply be "uncredited".
   4. "Science News" The author "uncredited science blurbs (total of 5) 1951-00-00" should be "uncredited" You can place any further information in the note field of the publication or in the title record of the individual piece. You give the type as NONFICTION. This should not be used as the TYPE for any short work within a larger publication. The reason it's in the pull-down menu as a choice is when you're editing an omnibus which contains a previously published complete work of nonfiction along with several other works. For example see this omnibus by Asimov and note that it contains an introduction (ESSAY) and three works that had previously been published (two NOVELs and a COLLECTION). The system could have easily handled a NONFICTION work if perhaps one of his science books had also been included in the omnibus. In this case "Science News" should be typed as ESSAY.
7. Your last entry was under "Book Reviews". This should only be used to record individual titles that are being reviewed. Title of work, author of work and author of review must be recorded in each entry. If you choose not to record each of the titles under review, you can create an ESSAY (under the contents entry fields) with the title "Book Reviews", author as "Various" (unless only one person wrote the reviews, in which case you'd enter his/her name.) Don't use the book review entry fields unless you plan on entering each title.

After all that I hope I haven't scared you away! If you'd like to resubmit your updates to the pub, please do so. Or if you'd like me to do it based on the info that you've give in the original submission, I'll gladly do it for you.

Please be assured that nobody comes to this site knowing more than a small portion of what they'll learn within the first month of editing. You can only learn by submitting. When you get a chance read the help pages (stop before your eyes fall out, cause there's a lot there!) Please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything here that I've been unclear about. Thanks for contributing. MHHutchins 03:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I crossed your wires and resubmitted the data before I saw this. I tried to correct some of the errors that had been pointed out in other cases. I changed it to novel, but I understand the complete story methodology from the above commentary. I actually appreciate people checking this because I prefer it be as accurate as possible. Please, check it again and get me straight. Is digest now acceptable? I have been informed to check with verifiers, but I was stumped as what to do to fix this one. I assumed it got lost. The author thing threw me till I saw it showed editor on the previous page. I wondered at included technical editor H.J. Campbell but put it in the notes. I also included the alpha bet soup that was shown after the technical editor and name. Hopefully, I will get in sync soon. I also could not find any indication of the author's initials or name and noted it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the Moons of Mars by Moskowitz General Plan

Under the Moons of Mars Problems. Two discriptions in ISFDB to merge or not to merge Under the Moons of Mars go to same page. That page is incorrect. Should have shown as a serial under ALL-Story Magazine. First problem is that the Barsoom series and no.1 indicator should lead to the All-Story Magazine serial. Second problem is the introduction commentary (not the preface) to the story 'Under the Moons of Mars' says that the prologue to the story from All-Story is omitted as is the first two chapters telling of John Carter's return from the civil war. This makes it not the same as the All-Story version. Moskowitz then finishes with the entirety can be found under the title of 'A Princess of Mars'. There is no entry for All-Story Magazine or All-Story Weekly Adding zest LuLu has this for Under the Mons of Mars, by ERB, paperback & hardcover. http://www.lulu.com/content/187863 http://www.lulu.com/content/187865

Darkness and Dawn from Moskowitz, One copy goes to the Afterglow (complete novel) and the other goes to Darkness and Dawn (complete novel). It should go to the The Cavalier and The Scrap Book, January (undated)-January 20, 1912 as the material came directly from there and not from later editions. Moskowitz says in is introductory statement pg54, 'Darkness and Dawn, and a unit of that novel, virtually complete in itself, follows.' 'This segment starts' and continues description. End line is 'The full story is a classic, three novels in length, creating a memorable trilogy.' I take this as a cut version of the original story and should not lead directly to the others. Both versions go to a Darkness and Dawn Omnibus of 672 pages. That omnibus may have gotten it's content from almost any source, but probably from the Cavalry and Scrap book or author directly. The trilogy omnibus is available at Lulu, golden age pulps is nonspecific, http://www.lulu.com/content/101404 I question if the 1914 omnibus by Small Maynard is the first source for the reprint. The Cavalier and The Scrapbook Book has no entry. I am guessing it was a magazine. Moskowitz says all material came from the orginal source.

When we record that an anthology contains a work (either a novel or a work of short fiction) the link is to the title record for that work, which shows all publications that we have under that title record. If there is a serial by the same title, that will show also. There is a known bug with serial linking when the serial has a different title, it is high on the developer's priority list, I understand. If it is known that a work has been significantly revised, it is possible to create a second title record with a tile like "Sample Story (revised 1987)" or "Example Novel (Expanded 2001)", and then use tha tin the anthology if proper.

Note that we generally do not create magazine records for geenral fiction magazines just to record the inital printing of a single work, insted we list this in the notes of the title record, or of an early publication record 9the first, if possible) -DES ^Talk 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Polaris of the Snows came from All-Story Weekly, December 18, 1915-January 1, 1916 according to Moskowitz and is from this original material. There is no special editing mentioned, but he says 'episodes presented'. I have the Lulu reprint trilogy version(Polaris of the Snows). http://www.lulu.com/content/2237091 That states for Polaris - of the Snows (the story not trilogy) it came from All-Story Weekly (December 18 & 25, 1915 and Jan 1, 1916). I checked the first chapter and fifth chapters. It starts and ends the same. Therefore the Moskowitz version is Polaris of the Snows, chapter 1 through five only. I was going to enter this (the reprint trilogy) before Moskowitz but I did not because of the All-Story Weekly is not entered. Both Moskowitz entries went to Polaris - of the Snows, series Polaris Janes dated 1915. classed as shortfiction. I saw no clear connection. It is possible that it ia taken from the Famous Fantastic Mysteries, July 1947 entry. I can find no Polaris Janes reference in either book I have. That does not mean it was not written that way in All-Star Weekly. In any case both connection are invalid.

As I mentioned above, we would not be likely to create an entry for an issue of All-Story Weekly, insted this inital publ;ication would best be listed in the notes field for the title record of Polaris of the Snows. A second title of "Polaris of the Snows (excerpt)" should probably be created for the verasion that has only chapters 1-5. -DES ^Talk 15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Palos of the Dog Star Pack by J.U. Giesy came from All All-Story Weekly, July 13-August 10, 1918) using original material according to Moskowitz. Both lead backs go to the same spot where there is an entry for the All-Story as a note. This lead is not good for Moskowitz. From this statement I assume this a parttial copy of the original. Last sentence of introductory statement. 'The early chapters of Plaos of the Dog Star Pack presented here,' and talks about the writers writing. Needs All-Story Weekly entry. Connections need to be broken and realigned.

This is exactly the way i would expect such a publication to be handled. if it appears that Under the Moons of Mars did not include the entire work (as the 1965 avalon edition did),than an alternate title record "Palos of the Dog Star Pack (excerpt)" should be created, but the current entry for Palos of the Dog Star Pack looks fine unless we know of such an abridgement or excerpting. -DES ^Talk 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Friend Island by Francis Stevens (All-Story Weekly, Septemeber 7, 1918). Need to enter an All-Story Weekly tab. I can find no lead. There is luck here. Swfritter verified Fantastic Novels Magazine, Septemeber 1950. Glancing says that it is approximately 8 pages. The copy in Moskowitz starts 'It was upon' and goes 11 pages (really 10) and ends with 'I found it easy to believe her story'. The story is so short and Moskowitz gave no clue to editing that I am inclined to think it is complete from All-Story Weekly. The story has a poetic, haunt to it that makes me doubt an edit.

The Moon Pool by A. Merritt (All-Story Weekly, June 22, 1918). obviously again This statement from Moskowitz. 'The long novelette The Moon Pool is reprinted in full here,' Direct connection and it's entirety from All-Story. Both links at Moskowitz lead to the same point with a 1918 novel description. The Walter Godwin series. Stands to reason that this link needs rework to All-Story.

There should probably be a note in our record of The Moon Pool about the 1918 publication, but i doubt if a publication record for the All-Story appearence sould be created. But even if it were, it would be simply one more publication (albiet the first) and the links should still lead to the title record. However, the title date should be changed to 1918. -DES ^Talk 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Girl in the Golden Atom by Ray Cummings, All-Story Weekly, March 15, 1919. No statement by Moskowitz of cutting, editing or similar. I think it is complete also. Both links go back to the same point. It does not go to All-Story.

Same situation as above. To enter a record for the All-Story publication, at the very least you wopuld need to determine the issue date and who the editor was. It would also leave an incompelte magazine record. It could be done, but usually isn't. -DES ^Talk 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mad Planet by Murray Leinster, The Argosy June 12, 1920. Both links go to the same item with a note that the story published on June 10, 1920. What is the relationship to Forgotten Planet. My copy of Forgotten Planet wuuld appear to be an expansion or fix-up. It is definitely not a chapter by chapter connection. Need an Argosy link.

The Blind Spot by Austin Hall and Homer Eon Flint, Argosy All-Story Weekly May 14-June 18, 1921. Note Moskowitz says birth name is Flindt. Moskowitz says this is the first 10,000 words. It was written by Hall, but Flint supposedly supplied medical and philosophical aspects. Both links go to the same item. That item needs the Argosy All-Story Weekly connection.

I'm not sure what you mean by "both links", but the title record is the proper destination for the link in the anthology record. Additional publications can always be added. According to Damon Knight's review in In Search of Wonder Flint wrote several chapters of this work (of which Knight was not very fond). Moskowitz has been know to be highly inaccurate on factual details, adn i would not change an author's name based on his comments without another source. His brief wikipedia article does not mention any change of name, but Author:Homer Eon Flint does, quoting a more relaible source. -DES ^Talk 15:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A History of "The Scientific Romance" in the Munsey Magazines, 1912-1920. It is unique to the book. It is 142 pages split into 19 segments. Each segment gives a good account of the publishing and everything else of that time period. It is in depth and interesting. My personal inclination is to list each of the 19 separate titles to allow people to discover what has been written by Moskowitz on each subdivision. I think it should be treated as 19 topics which could be read to suit the reader's taste. I do not know if this allowed, but it opens it up to more interest than the general title.

It would be possible to record this as 19 essays. Does each have a title, printed in the book? In any case, would this help the user or simply overwhelm the rest of the anthology? But thast is a judgement call, there is no rule on the matter. -DES ^Talk 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The preface is a broad outline of what Moskowitz intended.

Overall needs. Merge the two Under the Moons of Mars entries. The only one not completely the same is Darkness and Dawn which had one go to AFterglow and the other to Dark is the Dawn. Of course delete would work just as well as most( I think all) need to be redone.

Two choices after that. 1) enter the data of the book. or 2) create All-Story Magazine, The Cavalier and The Scrap Book, All-Story Weekly, The Argosy and Argosy All-Story weekly.

as sugggested above, i would tend to take choice 1, entering further source data in notes as needed. -DES ^Talk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What is a designer on credit sheet? Is that the same as artist?

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A "designer" might be a cover designer (creates layout, and may originate art concept), or a book designer (handles typface selection and various other details of the appearence of the book as a whole). Neither is a cover artist. I would just quote the credit line, whatever it says, in the notes. -DES ^Talk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I answer your merge question correctly in the following post, or did I miss your intent?CoachPaul 14:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do as suggested below, then enter correct data in the remaining as suggested by DES. The same with the designer as a note. I'll do so a little later. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To Merge or Not to Merge

In the case of Under the Moons of Mars, they appear to point to the same record, but in truth they point to two different records. The uppermost link points to Publication:NDRMNMARS1970, while the lower link points to Publication:NDRTFMRSD51970. You can easily see this, once you know where to look, in either the Bibliographic Comments above the Contents section, or in the URL if your browser is currently set up to show it. In this case, if the two records are otherwise identical, I would just delete the second record (NDRTFMRSD51970) and not worry about a merge. When you use the Delete This Pub link under Editing Tools, just make sure that you put down in the reason for deletion that it is an exact duplicate of another record and therefore not needed.CoachPaul 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that one of these records can safely be deleted, provided we can determine whether the story included was "The Afterglow" or "Darkness and Dawn" (which we have listed as different works in the same series). Unless there actually were two different edition one with one of thes, and one with the other, whcih seems unlikely. -DES ^Talk 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you working from the physical book, here? -DES ^Talk 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a physical book, I have even checked the intro to each story to verify what Moskowitz did or did not due to the story. Neither 'Afterglow' or 'Darness and Dawn' are correct. Afterglow is worse as it was a change of content and title. The copyrights in every one of the novel entries predate the computer links to dates and sources as it is displayed now. When I add the proper data, from the copy I have, then I believe the computer will create the proper connection. Either the computer will correct the previous mistakes or not. I wrote it out so that I could check and try to get it to show properly. I think the wording 'Exact Duplicate' is my problem. The NOR versions are the same except for 'Afterglow' or 'Darkness at Dawn' links. When I put the correct data in, to verify an actual copy, then all the links should change to the NEW original. If the DB does that, then I only have to check that they are then correct. NDRMNMARS1970, which shows 'Afterglow' which is never noted in Moskowitz. I will delete the other and update the above with the verified data. Then we will see. I will do it tonight and check reactions tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it that the physical book infront of you has a section/story with the title "Afterglow" that is an excerpt from the full novel of that name? Is there any significant chance that there was another holt edition with "Darkness and Dawn" instead? If not the near-duplicte record can be deleted, if there is a reasonable chance than it should be retained. In any case, you should make sure that the pub record for the book you have shows the actual titles in the physical books, then we can worry about varients and linkages. Any title in your book which is known to be only a part of a longer work by the same titel (say the fist few chapters) should get a title of "Fake Story (excerpt)" or "Fake Story (Chapters III - XV)" or something of the sort.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the computer "automatically fixing the links". If you add another pub to a title used in this anthology, that pub will show up on that work's title record, whcih is what anthology content entries link to. If you change the contents record, the link wiull be to whatever title you have speciried. If a new pub is created with the same title as an existing pub, unless the clone or "add a pub" tool is used, the titles must be mereged manually, this happens a lot with short fiction, and a fair amout with novels.

When the first publication of a work that is entered is in fact a reprint, often a later editor must edit the title record and correct the date to the first publication date. Once that is done the correct date will show up in every collection/anthology/omnibus publication that links to the title, but simply adding an earlier pub record will not make this change automatifcally.

I hope all this is helpful to you. -DES ^Talk 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Warlord of Antares

I approved your edit, but merged it with our other title record for Warlord of Antares. Note that your pub record shows ISBN: 9-88677-269-9 which is not a valid ISBN. The other pub record shows 9-88677-269-9, which is valid. was the invalid iSBN on the publication, or was it an entry error? Also it is helpful to check if we already have a record for a title, in which case you can use "clone" or "add a new publication", whcih avoids the neeed to merge. -DES ^Talk 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First I was copying and should have taken the ISBN 0-88677-269-9 from the backpage of the novel. Actually the ISBN beginning with nine is impossible unless this was somehow applied to the ISBN O I just used. There should not be two separate ISBNs because there was only one book ever printed. Merging was a question, but the reason they had two entries for the identical title is their alteration of Alan Burk Akers and Dray Prescot and then DP ABA. They were trying to make a tie between the pseudonym used in the first novels of the series and the later one. I thought that was done better when checking the series connection. You see in this novel specifically there is no crediting of Alan Burt Akers. By doing it the way they did, they are suggesting that there is an alternate version. This was DAW LAST and ONLY printing, with nothing that I have not noted. I know that sounds awfully sure, but I checked with others. This issue was very hard to find and it's very limited printing makes it get more expensive each year. The reason I did not use clone, I looked, was that the Alan Burt Akers name was never used in the only printing of this book. There are no other versions, than the one I started fresh and therefore there can be no connection, due to it's absence, with the ABA DP entry. It never existed and can never be verified. Sorry, I just am trying to say it to make sure I am understood. The problem is data error versus verification. So the link back to ABA DP can not rationally exist. I know it was put there, probably by a DP series fan, to ensure that people understood the connection. They did not realize that the created a document which will always be unverifiable. The reason I am being so sticky is as I work back to the first in the series this mistake repeats. The DB has been bloated with a spurious, though understandable, double entry scheme. New thought, Is there anyway to properly credit the glossary. The glossary was added in the early issues every so many issues and gave new names, places, etc for the fans. In this issue it was done by a living person other than Kenneth Bulmer. I talked to him and others confirmed his identity this afternoon. The glossary is a huge fan favorite and those issues with them are highly treasured by fans and they look for it's appearance. Awaiting your reply, before changing it again. Thanks, Harry--Dragoondelight 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This kind of thing can be handled with variant titles, or in some cases by simply deleting the incorrect entry. We would want a variant in any case to link to the canonical name (Kenneth Bulmer), but maybe not to the Dray Prescott name if it never appeared with that name on the title page (as some in the series did). we already have the series listing to link it that way.

The glossary can be entered as an essay in any pub where it appeared. (I have done this with some of the 'Wheel of Time" books, for example) If identical versions of the glossary appeared in multiple pubs, they should ideally be merged after entry. if different versions appeared, there should be some parenthetical expression to distinguish them, perhaps the title of the volume in which a given version first appeared. If the author of the glossary is known, but is not credited in the book, the author should be listed, with a note indicating that there is no credit in the volume, and how the name is known.

To enter an essay in a novel pub (which also includes things like intros and afterwords) you need to wait until the in ital pub has been approved, then edit the pub record and click "add title" in the content section. Then it acts much like a collection or anthology. -DES ^Talk 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the ISBN with the number used on the book bp. I put a page number on the story and added the glossary as an essay with page number. I deleted my note entries as they are now redundant. Added glossary note on location of other series glossaries. Here is the one that might give you pause. I deleted the Alan Burt Akers entry as author as that pseudonym was not credited or mentioned on the data pages. Again DAW printed no version, but this one. This means the Publications entry with Alan Burt Akers and Dray Prescott is spurious. That publications does not exist anywhere. I have no way to prove that, but I cross my heart on it. There is only one DAW publication edition. The one we are working on. The new DAW management dumped the series and only printed this one edition due to fan pressure. No publications in the series till just recently Mushroom Books printed 4 omnibuses of the first 14 volumes. So far they have not printed others, though they have ebook published series numbers 38 through 43. The omnibuses can be found at Amazon, including one hc for the first 5. I have found no mention elsewhere except at Mushroom Books. Those specifically credit Kenneth Bulmer writing as Alan Burt Akers for those volumes. This was approved by the Bulmer estate vice Pamela Buckmeister(may be mispelled). Bulmer's divorced wife who manages it for her and the family. Ken died in 2005. The series fans, I am one, are a rabid group who pushed to get Mushroom to go this far. I misspoke slightly, one other publisher tried before Mushroom in the nineties to publish volumes after 37 in ebook. Savanti Press did not was not very successful. I know the owner/editor printed 3 demonstration copies of one of the texts after 37 on one of the very early print on demand machines. They were not sold, but he still has his prized one. That is a collector's item. Would it or should it be entered in the database? Sorry, too much information for other than a fan. I gave it because it has bearing on the need to clean up the ISFDB entries of the series publications. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are secondary source that list all the DAW puiblications, which is a pretty good check when it seems that a pub never existed. Also, a search of OCLC and other online library catalogs if it doesn';t turn up the book in question, can be good evidence that a pub is spurious. So there are ways to "prove" such negatives. -DES ^Talk 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the title record now. It displays 'Authors: and Dray Prescot' - the empty author1 seems to be causing this. BLongley 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for calling that to my attention. I have fixed it. You are correct as to the cause, when you blanked author1 the software, seeing a non-empty author2, tried to display a work with two authors. In future if you remove an author from the list of authors of a work, move an author up so that there is no gap in the list of authors. Note that the order in which the authors are listed does not matter, the display may reorder them no matter which one is lated first at entry time. Currently the ISFDB does not preserve the order in a list of authors. -DES ^Talk 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try a couple more and hopefully do better. If I understand you correctly the ABA/DP and DP/ABA entries would always indicate one duplicate record. Move author up. Hopefully I will not mess up the ISBN. I liked the way The Confederation Handbook worked, but do not understand how you got the two numbers in without conflict. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By "the two numbers" you mean the ISBN-10 and the ISBN-13, am I correct? Whichever one you enter (provided the entry is valid), the software automatically uses to compute the other (a quite simple task, even with paper and pencil) and then both are automatically dispalayed. -DES ^Talk 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Under the Moons of Mars

I have placed this edit on hold. The problem is that you changed the types of a number of the content records: Novel-> Serial (5 times) and shortfiction -> serial (3 times). What this would do, if allowed to proceed, would be to change every publication where each such title record appears in the same way. This is almost surely incorrect. What it would not do is replace an existing content record with a different existing record of the same title but a different type. I will have to either let this go forward but then undo the type changes right away, or else reject it but copy the notes and page numbers and apply them separately. I'm going to wait until I have a little time to look at this to see which method, or what alternate method, will be best.

Let me explain a bit more about how the isfdb works internally. We have three main types of records, and a number of other minor ones. The major records are Title records, Author records, and publication records.

An author record includes info about an author, artist, editor or other person, and any other record that has a field for a person points to one or more author records.

A title record is supposed to include information about a specific work, normally a specific text. All publications of that text should be associated with that title record. A title has a title field, an author field (that can handle multiple authors, a type field (Novel, shortfiction, essay, collection, anthology, or the like), title level notes, and some other fields including date of first publication.

A publication record contains information about a specific physical pub. It includes such fields as the date of that specific pub, page count, price, binding, and author(s). It also includes a pointer to the title record of the main work involved, and if other works are contained in the pub (as always in an anthology or collection, and often in a novel that includes essays) pointers to their title records too.

When a pub record is edited, the title records of the titles it points to are also open for limited editing. Their types can be changed, as can their names. New title records can be created. This is powerful and useful, but can be risky.

If an anthology's pub record contains an item "Sample Work" with type novel, but it ought to contain the related "sample work" that is of type shortfiction, then the first record must be removed from the pub record, and the 2md inserted. Trying to change in place will leave the db with two shortfiction records and no novel, which is unlikely to be correct.

Only when all occurrences of a content record are wrong (for example a secondary source included a misspelling, or an exact word count has refined an earlier guess about length, or the 1st pub date of the work is better known) should changes be made in the individual content records though the pub record (except for changing page numbers, those are pub-specific).

I hope all this helps make things a bit clearer. -DES ^Talk 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I caused you to wonder what I am doing. I have over three thousand titles in my possesion of fiction. So I am trying to help with those items and updated a personal database so I do not repeat the effort. So it will almost invariably be with book in hand. To me it is like stamp collecting. Try to get everything correct that you can find.

On Under the Moons of Mars, I foresaw difficulties and paradoxes in putting the material for this book in. That was why I drew up a plan and asked for help. Thank God, you are on your toes. I followed every link of the two almost identical entries for the book.

The problem is that Moskowitz used the oldest known first original source to get his material. In my mind, it must have material differences from the better known references that others linked to. The sources are first print in magazines. Many of the items were printed on a series of dates and hence are examples of a serial. Even those with only one date, should be termed serial. I did not change a couple because Moskowitz did not even hint at an edit. This would make them first source and hopefully complete. Short fiction might therefore fit instead of serial. I thought these the easiest to find a happy medium of compromise, though the use of a date which is a decade or more after the time the source was used is questionable. Though that might have to be the work around.

As an example of worst case scenario. Under the Moons of Mars by ERB is taken from the first printing of the story. It has two different edits that make it incompatible with The Princess of Mars which Moskowitz states is the complete story. The first edit was performed by the magazine when it was serially printed. Moskowitz states the editor of that day took 1,000 words from the start, rewrote the civil war section and made various edits to other chapters to make it fit the magazine space. This is reasonable for the method of publication, but it is fundamentally different from the original manuscript. Second Moskowitz deleted the preface and first two chapters entirely. He gave a brief personal version of the deleted contents and then started the story. This makes the Moskowitz version not the same as the Magazine version and that version does not match the same name ERB copyrighted version of Under the Moons of Mars or the Princess of Mars.

I tried to make the notes explain the sourcing. Perhaps I was not specific enough. In Polaris of the Snows the magazine serial version should read Polaris - of the Snows (the proper magazine title is taken from the reprint of the magazine serial) and Moskowitz only used the first five chapters in their entirety. I checked against my reprint version. It is exactly the same with the new reprint. The link leads to Polaris Janess and that is not in the reprint or Moskowitz.

I tried to convey how messed up the situation is when the original source has been missed. My only workaround was the note sections. I can see changing the serial descriptions back to the originals. The actuality though is that those links point to the wrong data. They are not the original source that Moskowitz used. Some of them bare little resemblance other than title to what he did. While the problem may be worked around for Moskowitz. With the new generation of reprints coming out from the original magazine source. the more corrupt the data links will become.

I tried to generate the 'Editors' interest because of the far reaching problems Moskowitz generated, but also the possibility of an 'Avalanche' effect of original reprints in the future. Maybe there are only a few potential reprint problems, but I can not evaluate that. Since I think you now can visualize the effects, then I recommend that the responsibility be spread to the Moderators as a group. I tried to get their attention, though I inadequately expressed the problem. I can even understand them tabling the matter until they can find either the best workaround for Moskowitz and the reprints. If my 'submission' is frozen to keep it for study then the group can take months or more. With the notes intact, and some addition to explain why a workaround was used. I can then verify the content and future users can have a reasonable heads up. I have to go, but will check later today. If it helps, this caused me to have quite a restless time trying to figure the best way. I thought it best to make the submission as it highlighted the greatest potential hazards. I knew it would not go through, because you guys are thoughtful. P.S. I have two more books covering the before and after period that also may have the same potentials. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand, in general, what you are trying to do, even if I don't have all the specifics. You have, in hand, an anthology that contains reprints of a number of fairly old and significant works of SF. This anthology has fairly detailed source notes on exactly which versions the editor (Moskowitz) used in creating this anthology, which is more than many reprint anthologies do. It also contains some useful essays on the stories and their place in SF history. You want to create an ISFDB record that reflects all this as accurately as possible, and pave the way for doing more such records in the future. Have I understood your basic intention correctly? Your idea of "as accurately as possible" would be that if the source used by the editor of the anthology was a magazine serial, then the ISFDB record for the anthology should link to a record for that serial. Unfortunately, due to the way the ISFDB is organized, that is not going to happen.

The ISFDB distinguishes between serials and other publications for several reasons. One is that collectors generally do not count a serial as a "first edition" reserving that term for the first publication in book form. Another is that it is probably more common for a work to be revised between serial and book publication than between different book publications (although that is far from uncommon either -- we have over 120 records with either "revised" or "expanded" in the title, and we probably should have a good many more). The serial record type also has special logic to handle the same title appearing in multiple parts. Because of this, you are never going to see a title of type SERIAL in any ISFDB pub record other than one of type MAGAZINE. When the same work, whether revised or not, is reprinted in book form, it will usually have type NOVEL, in some cases SHORTFICTION (shortfiction is usually listed as such in its magazine printings, since it is not normally broken up into multiple parts). Note that when a novel is printed in a magazine, even if the entire novel is included in a single issue, we assign the title record type SERIAL, but normally add "(Complete Novel)" to the title to indicate this. Then if the novel is reprinted in book form, a different title record with type NOVEL will e created, whether the text has changed or not. Notes may be used to indicate known changes.

Therefore, an anthology's contents section should point to records of type SHORTFICTION, or of type NOVEL, but not to records of type SERIAL. If the anthology uses only part of a previously published work, a new title record with an indication of this such as "(excerpt)" should be created for the partial work. If the version used in an anthology is known to be different from other reprint versions (for example because it is identical to the original magazine versions, when other reprints are not) a new title record should also be created, with an indicator such as "(revised)", or "(original version)", or "(magazine version)", or "(1956 revision)", or whatever fits the case following the title, to distinguish the different versions in title searches. If a different title is used, or a different author's name is used (say "R. A. Heinlein" instead of "Robert A. Heinlein") but the text is not significantly different, a so-called "variant title record" will be created to record this fact.

Please note that what Moskowitz has done here is far from unique, and we have dealt with similar things before. A number of anthologies do record their source versions (although many more do not) and do contain reprint versions different from other printings. For an extreme case, look up the "Vance Integral Edition" which has very detailed source notes indeed, and in some cases created the "preferred" version by combining several different versions of a work, some of them unpublished.

I am very very glad to hear that you have over three thousand titles and plan to enter data directly from them, book in hand. I am slowly working my way through my own collection, which is of similar size. It looks as if you may have titles which other contributers do not, and are willing to be careful in entering all the detail. All that is very good, and we are grateful. But you will need to learn the ISFDB's conventions for dealing with recording works. Some of these seem odd or ill-advised at first, but most have reasons behind them. Few are engraved in stone, and you can always suggest changes. Changes in our standards and methods do get made with some frequency, and anyone will be listened to in suggesting them. Changes that would require a redesign of the software are slower to happen, because programmer time is is short supply. But they do happen too. Have a look at ISFDB Feature List for currently pending requested feature changes.

I hope these comments help you understand what is going on with the ISFDB and your submission. -DES ^Talk 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh some terms: we call anyone who submits proposed changes to ISFDB records an "editor". All editors are basically equal, but some are more experienced than others. Some editors are "moderators". That means they know the system well enough to approve their own and other editors' proposed changes. No change goes into the db until it is approved by a moderator. Most (but not all) editors who stay with the project and make significant contributions eventually learn the system well enough to become moderators, if they so choose. I am one of the newer moderators, i only became an editor in January of this year, and a moderator on 12 May 2008. -DES ^Talk 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great summary explanation by DES. During the learning phase it might be a good idea to update such publications incrementally, adding only a couple of stories at a time until you get some feedback. I know it's frustrating to wait for approvals but in the long run it may be more productive and less frustrating.--swfritter 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand no serial due to conventions. No problem. Short fiction or novel is okay. No problem there. For clarification. Are you saying the title should read 'Under the Moons of Mars' (excerpt). If I can do that there is no problem. Those fixes are understandable. I am not really proposing changes in your system as such. I do not have that much knowledge of it nor of the capacity of the system itself. My primary concern is to verify it as complete as to what is said about the book. My next concern is that the entry does not misrepresent itself. The note section should explain that. My secondary concern is that the links point to a wrong source for the data. I can live with it doing so, if that is the position of ISFDB. In fact, it lets me off the hook for the links going to the right thing. To me this was important, but if that is not so then I will bear that in mind. I tend to be an intolerable purist in such matters. No links would satisfy me personally because they would imply no verification of the linked data. I guess that's the rub. I want everything to be correct with my name on it and I assumed the responsibility was for a valid link to other things. In short, I will assume the verification responsibility for the actual content of the entry, but not for the links. Is that reasonable? That actually would be a relief to me. I will admit that when using the DB and following such links I will feel that the results are to be questioned. That is no problem as that is how I conduct most searches online or in printed matter. Could that be confirmed I will be more than satisfied. Apologies, I am not casting aspersions, I just need to understand the limits of the verification process. I am sorry again. I never thought to check for notes. Moskowitz created the problem by citing each title on the contents page in this sample manner. UNDER THE MOONS OF MARS by Edgar Rice Burroughs (The All-Story Magazine, February-July 1912). That is exactly as it appears. He did it intentionally and I felt it should be stated as such. Frankly, I would most probably would never check for notes like this. BTW, I can find no notes, etc. I am trying to absorb the correct methodology, but I may have short circuited again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have approved your edit, and then made further edits to bring things into conformity with ISFDB conventions. The result is here. There is an open discussion about some aspects of how to handle the excerpts here. The "notes" section of a publication record comes near the end of the metadata section, and before the content entries. You entered notes as part of your edit, so I am not sure what notes you are unable to find. Not every publication has notes, and the field is not displayed if it is empty. There can also be notes on a title record, but these are rarer.

We really need a better way than notes to link titles that are related but not identical (the components of fixups are a major example). See Feature:90155 Add an optional "nature of the relationship" field to the Make Variant screen for some discussion of this.

Verification in my view means that:

1. All the publication metadata is correct, and as complete as possible for the pub involved. The title and author are correct, the ISBN or catalog number is correct if present, the page count is correct (and note that if some pages have roman numbers this should be shown, as "xix + 212" where there are 19 pages with roman numbers), cover artist is correct if known.
2. All fiction content has been entered, with page numbers. The entries point to the most accurate title records possible, within the ISFDB conventions
3. All major essays have been entered with page numbers. Whether short story intros or "about the author" pages should be entered is a judgement call. Magazine blurbs are typically not entered, significant multi-page critical intros usually are.
4. If any of the metadata is derived from sources other than the book itself, this is explained in the notes.
5. If any of the significant details given in the book itself cannot be entered directly, they are explained or at least mentioned in the notes.
6. Cover art need not be shown, but if a cover art URL is used, it points to the correct cover.

If all of that is true, the book may be marked as verified. Note that not everyone is as strict as the above, and that earlier in the history of the ISFDB primary verification sometimes meant only "Yes, this book actually exists, I've held a copy."

I hope that you are feeling welcomed, and that my comments seem helpful, not off-putting. The ISFDB is rather complex, and I only wish to help you learn how and why we do things, at least enough for you to be able to enter items from your collection. -DES ^Talk 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "Are you saying the title should read 'Under the Moons of Mars' (excerpt)". Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The main reason is that otherwise, if someone goes to the title record for the novel Under the Moons of Mars, that person would see the anthology Under the Moons of Mars listed as one of the publications of the novel, and might incorrectly think that the entire novel could be found in the anthology. Or someone looking at the anthology record might incorrectly think it contained the entire novel, when it does not. Note that I have created the required except titles for this anthology. -DES ^Talk 19:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I made two errors in the data I gave you it is xiii + 433 pages and I should have started the essay 'A History of ' at the cover page of 289. I was checking actual start pages of material and skipped it initially. I will correct my two errors. Then await the approval and then verify. This will finish this. You have now made it an informative entry which no longer goes to spurious places. I do not understand how you accomplished the link back to the anthology, but that is a very elegant solution which tells everyone that some of the content is unique to the book. On Notes, I was saying I had not looked for notes as such. When the note topic came up I started looking for notes in the book. I would not know how to handle such, but would consider them part of the content. Moskowitz putting his source to be read directly after his titles threw me for a loop. He was demanding the readers attention. It was a cute ploy on his part. As for the book, I believe the anthology section was a way for him to push his perceptions as expressed in the title. By mixing the content he was seeking a marketable audience.

I was exasperated by the idea that original links would make people think they would get the full product of several stories in one book. Your solution solved that. The entry for this book now has quality. That was why I joined. The complete novel for magazine entry was shown to me in one correction and serial was discussed. I used it to see how it worked. I would have had to make the mistake to visualize it. The fine line definition of shortfiction and novella has always bothered me. I am saying I have no great grasp of when shortfiction becomes a novella. I learn by frustration and mistakes. I also can read something and not properly visualize it till I physically do it. At this stage, I had to look at the fixed product and then go to the edit page and check it to the format page. When I did my initial comparison of the dual entries of the anthology, I had to open two screens and compare content that way. I never mean to disparage the moderator(s). I just have to make mistakes, learn and try to communicate by using a message system that I also never had seen. So I am learning on many levels and that is always a growing process. I am more afraid that I will exasperate you and others. I try to never be hurtful in communications, but the medium of transmission can seem to make it hurtful. All real angst is personally directed at myself. Every time I think the situation has become impossible, you have been able to redeem it. You guys have extraordinary talent and composure. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have approved your corrective edit. All of us make many corrective edits, sometimes of much more major items. I am glad that you like the current state of the record, I was afraid that you would not. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "link back to the anthology". You might mean the link from the title record of one of the works included to the publication record of the anthology, or the link from the pub record back to the anthology's own title record, or the link from the wiki page to the database record. The links from title pages to the publications in which those titles appear, and the links for pub records to their own title records are automatic, that is how the ISFDB displays those associations. (I suspect you mean the link from the "excerpt" entries to the anthology. Thant merely shows that the excerpts were published there, and so far, nowhere else. If we record additional printings or editions of the anthology, or if the same excerpts should happen to be printed elsewhere (possible but unlikely) there would be multiple links from each excerpt's title record.) The links I have inserted I did using Linking templates, particularly Template:P for pub records and Template:T for title records (the instructions for using each may be found on its discussion (talk) page). I find these handy and use them a good deal, and they have certain advantages IMO, but their main purposes could be served as well by inserting the URL of a db display page.

I did not at any time feel attacked or disparaged, I was merely trying to make sure that you understood what we do and how we do it at the ISFDB, and not to seem to be attacking you for not knowing this by divine inspiration. When I said "I don't know what you mean by..." I meant this literally, I did not fully understand what you were referring to, and I was inviting you to clarify your comment if it seemed important. Technical vocabulary can be helpful in making sure that two people are talking about the same exact thing, and know it, and you didn't yet have the detailed technical vocabulary we have developed for referring to the various displays and internal constructs of the ISFDB. If you stay around, you will pick this up, willy-nilly.

Again than you for your contribution, and I look foreward to many more. -DES ^Talk 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Encounter in Space again

I notice you've verified this edition with a note that says "Cover shows: H.K. Bulmer" - what form of the Author's name is given on the title page? Does it really say "Kenneth" there? BLongley 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the earlier section with the same title, where User:Dragoondelight says:

"Kenneth is not written at all on the book 'Encounter in Space". It is only H.K. Bulmer. People knew him as Ken on a personal basis. The reprint editions of the Dray Prescot series, which are approved by the family, state Kenneth Bulmer. In the specific it states Kenneth Bulmer writing as Alan Burt Akers (this is not Encounter in Space). I think most people knew him best as Kenneth Bulmer, as a true name, from his numerous Ace editions under that name."

I was planing to correct the pub based on the above, but hadn't gotten to it yet.. i did not realize that he had verified it. -DES ^Talk 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have hanged the section title, so summary links work correctly. -DES ^Talk 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I confused everyone. Kenneth is not written anywhere on the book. I thought it had been released. Is this about showing H.K. Bulmer instead of Kenneth Bulmer as the author? I thought that was covered under the pseudonyms entries under his name. I obviously missed something. Right now how the connection between most often, canon name, and others is hazy to me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We go with exactly what's on the book (what's on the title page trumps cover or spine name), then sort out all the connections between pseudonyms by creating variant titles. (And variant author names if they don't already exist.) So in this case I'll change it back to "H. K. Bulmer", so the publication has the right name on: then make that a variant of "Encounter in Space by Kenneth Bulmer". That way the book will show up under titles for "H. K. Bulmer" exactly, but also on Kenneth Bulmer's summary page which consolidates everything he's written under any pseudonym. I'm afraid the pseudonyms don't always sort themselves out automatically, it needs a bit of initial work. BLongley 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unsnarling that. I find the linking and crosslinking for Kenneth Bulmer's books most confusing. I am a great fan of his even today, but his greatest mistake was his obsession with aliases. In the end it probably hurt his reputation. In the Dray Prescott series the linking with Alan Burk Akers then Dray Prescott on the same line and then reversing it has me biting my tail. I understand that fans want to make sure that people can cross reference data, but it looks like they are saying books with those combinations exist. Bulmer always copyrighted to one name only. At least, I have not seen one with dual acknowledgement. He did make story text reference to both aliases, but that was part of his story scheme. I thought the series listing scheme was a more accurate means than double listing and reversing name. I am most muddled by the entries and people must think there were more varied printings than there were. I am not even thinking of the British and especially German printings. Let me get this straight. Variant titles are used to link between pseudonym and preferred author names. They are not actual printing editions. ONLY publications references are real printed editions. Therefore, cross references are not used there, unless that title has a specific printed edition under those names. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple. Variant titles are used in the ISFDB for several purposes:

1. When the same text is actually published under two different titles, one of these is marked as a variant title. For example The Rediscovery of Man was a reprint of the collection The Best of Cordwainer Smith, so it is listed as a variant title.
2. When a title is actually published with different author names in different editions, one is marked as a variant title, For example Fury was originally published as by "Lawrence O'Donnell", while later editions were generally credited to "Henry Kuttner" (although there is evidence that like most of Kuttner's work from this period, it was actually co-authored with C. L. Moore). This example is further complicated by the editions entitled Destination: Infinity. All of these are actual publications of the same text.
3. When a work is released only under an author's name different from the canonical name for that author in the ISFDB, it is listed as a variant of an "edition" under the canonical name, to force all listings onto the page for the canonical name. In this case, the "parent" record is purely conventional, and does not represent an actual publication -- but sometimes later reprints are done under the canonical name.
4. Currently under discussion is using a variant title to indicate when a book is split into halves or sections for republication. It is not yet agreed whether this is a good use of the variant title mechanism. In all of the first three cases, a variant title represents the (more or less) identical text, barring minor changes that might be lumped under copy-editing.

In any case, a variant title does not create a publication record. In the first two cases it links two actual publication records that have different authors and/or titles, but the same text. In the third case, it relates a publication record to a title record that has no direct (non-variant) publications of its own. In any case, publications that are marked as variant titles are considered to be publications of the "parent" title, and are shown in the list of pubs for the parent title record.

I hope this explanation of a somewhat confusing situation is helpful to you. -DES ^Talk 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that in any case, a publication record should show in the author field only the name(s) that actually appear on the title page (or first page of a work of short fiction or of an essay). Any other author names listed on the cover, spine, ToC, or elsewhere in the actual pub, or any other names known to have been used by the author, should be listed in the pub notes if they are listed at all. Generally names not listed in the pub in any way are not included in the notes unless there is a complex situation to be explained (as with Police Your Planet) but are indicated by Pseudonym relations and/or the creation of variant title relationships. -DES ^Talk 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Swordsmen in the Sky

Harry I fixed the image link[2], the one you submitted was for the page it was on. The way to get the proper image is to right click the image itself and under "Properties" you will find the correct URL. If you see this "._S500_."(this causes a white border) as part of the URL or something like it at the end it can be deleted (except for one of the periods). I also fixed the typo in Jack Gaughan's name and added him to the contents as interior art.Kraang 02:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the fixes. I will verify now. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see how you did the interiorart. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to The Confederation Handbook

I was reviewing youir proposed edit to The Confederation Handbook. I have several questions:

• You want to change the type from NONFICTION to NOVEL. Is this actually a work of fiction? The blurbs and online merchant's descriptiosn make it sound like a work that describes a work of fiction, like the Narnia Companion or the Atlas of Middle Earth. If that is so, i would leve this as non-fiction.
• You are chngign a 10-digit ISBN to the 13-digit version. Thsi is harmless, but also pointless. For the time being, all 13-digit ISBNs can be computed from the 10-digit ones, and vice-versa. if either is entered, the ISFDB will display both, so this is a change that will make no significant difference.
• In the notes you mention tha tthe iSBN id from the bc (which i assume means the back cover) and the credits page (does this mean the copyright page?). These, plus the spine, are the normal places to find an ISBN, and need not be mentioned, although there is no harm in doing so.
• If I understand you correctly, the sub-title "A vital guide to the 'Night's Dawn Trilogy'" is used on the front cover but not on the title page. In this case you are correct to remove the subtitle from the title field, an mention it only in the notes.

I am holding this pending resolution of the NOVEL vs NONFICTON issue, all the rest could go through with no problem. -DES ^Talk 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1)I knew that I needed to remove everything other than the title that I got from the title page. As I understood it, from the instructions, I had to submit it and then edit the title to its true form. That Vital guide bit, was not even after the title on the cover page. Note my copy has nothing about essential guide either. I could not figure a way for someone who checked my edit, to tell them I had to correct it again. 2) The difference between fiction and non-Fiction. Normally the whole book should have been an attached glossary to give the reader a heads up. It's content is like a guide book to Dungeons and Dragons. A layout of the fictional tale with no commentary separating it to the nonfiction realm. It is the technical details of the storyline, Think of a tour guide book to Paris and this is would be the same thing, with no real world references. It is the basic outline of the fictional world. It does describe the fictional world as one to a child in school. I know this a fine line. I have the Star Trek Encyclopedia and it has a our world to that world comparison that nonfiction covers. It is an outline that the reader walks through. It is not a true novel, but is total fiction. I had to change it to be sure of the compromise ISFDB has reached to handle it. 3) The ISBN said the checksum was bad and I tried changing it to 13 number for that reason. I now the example ending with a 5 is a description of the book, but without the descriptive phrase. What bothered me was my number matched the original book. This bothers me, I also wonder if the descriptive phrases are a real part of those books title on the title page. Amazon usually includes them for the sales effect. How do you fix the bad checksum. I mentioned both places to assure the reviewer that it was the same. Are the differing ISBNs real or not? I also had a bad checksum ISBN on Warlord of Antares. I must need to do something to straighten the problem out. Credits page meant copyright page. Sorry for the bounce around on these. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have approved your edit, then re-edited to return this to type NONFICTION -- from your description that is the best fit. This is in a somewhat grey area, but your note makes the situation of this book pretty clear. The result is here, please check it.

About the ISBNs. As you may know, the last digit of an ISBN is a "checksum" -- it is derived from the previous digits by a computational formula. When the stated digit does not match the computed digit, the ISBN is said to be invalid. An invalid ISBN can be a simple entry error, a typo by the person entering the data into the ISFDB. In that case, it should simply be corrected. Or it may be an error by the publisher or printer, that is an invalid number may actually appear on the book. In that case, we want to record both the number that actually appeared on the book, and the correct "valid" ISBN -- when and only when we can accurately determine what the correct ISBN is. The error is not always in the last digit.

In this case ISBNDB.COM shows the ISBN for this book as "0330396145" (see this page). Amazon.com shows the same ISBN (and its 13-digit equivalent: 978-0330396141). So we may take that to be the "valid" ISBN, and one of these numbers (it doesn't matter which) should be in the ISBN field of the record. (Note that dashes in the ISBN are optional, and some sites omit them.) If there is, anywhere on the physical book, and ISBN number that is different from the above numbers, it should be mentioned in the notes field with an explanation of where it appeared. If the ISBN on the copyright page matches one of these two numbers, so special note is needed.

I hope this is helpful. -DES ^Talk 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dray Prescot and Alan Burt Akers

I see you said "The reason I am being so sticky is as I work back to the first in the series this mistake repeats. The DB has been bloated with a spurious, though understandable, double entry scheme". There may be a reason for some of these entries: I only have one example here but the title page says "By Dray Prescot as told to Alan Burt Akers". As title page is where we get our author names from, this may be why we list both: e.g. we probably would also list both if it said "by Dray Prescot as told to Kenneth Bulmer". It's a borderline case though, if it said "Kenneth Bulmer writing as Dray Prescot" then we have guidelines on "writing as" which say we can just list the main canonical name as author, although the pseudonym being written under would be worth a note at least. If it said "Ken Bulmer writing as Dray Prescot" then we might just list "Ken Bulmer" as author and note the rest - but "Ken Bulmer" is a pseudonym of the full "Kenneth Bulmer", so we'd STILL be listing a pseudonym! So listing both pseudonyms, especially as the canonical name does not appear in any form, is not that unreasonable. BLongley 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

However, it sounds as if you're going to attempt the entire series eventually, so if you want to change co-authors to notes that's probably OK with me, but you might encounter another verifier with a stronger opinion. I hope this is useful information on the possible background reasoning though. BLongley 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if that someone else has collected the series here, or since this last was not verified someone from my Yahoo group 'Kregen' put the books in the db. The problem is that Warlord of Antares that I corrected only had the one printing. By putting the Alan Burt Akers Dray Prescot one in the impression is that it exists. I went over that book like a demon trying to justify it. ABA was not mentioned, in others he will be. I do not remember an overlap, but it is possible if you use the early intro text of the story, but I thought that was not accepted. As in many things in life, my surety becomes less so the closer I get to the start of the series. There were some printings other than DAW. I assume we are restricted to English versions and German and French ones are not in the db. My intent is to not confuse people as to what was printed, not to win an argument. I made the comment to you because we both have copies of Behold the Stars from the same source. Our copies are so odd ball, much like Colonists of Space that I thought you might be a Bulmer fan. Sorry about the early etiquette mistake about Colonists of Space. I still have not mastered the message system, nor the finer details of verification. I will never understand Bulmers joy in pseudonyms. I use to imagine he was a contract writer who was sneaking out other work in defiance of contracts. Most people who knew say he loved the intrique of it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with edits of things you alone here own, you're the expert on those! There is no specific "another verifier" I'm warning you against either - but if you're as painstaking as you've shown yourself to be so far, there may be one by the time you get to earlier books. By the time you get down to "Manhounds of Antares" you might be nagging me to add the interiorart entries so clearly stated there that I've never felt like entering before: and actually still don't, but I cannot object to a genuine improvement of any entry here. Adding information is good. Deleting data - well, I like some justification for that. Accuracy is important so pub-level data is precious, we can work up from that. BLongley 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We're NOT restricted to English by the way, German and French editions and others are acceptable, but under the English parent title(s) or there'd be too many variant titles. Do you own any of these? BLongley 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm filling in a lot of the early "H. K. Bulmer" works that we only have the title for so far, from publisher or artist sources - so hopefully adding useful data - but a physical copy trumps all the stub entries I make even if they're giving a good cover-scan - the title-page trumps anything I can see on a cover. BLongley 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually one thru 14 in the series are likely to have variants, I will be very leery there. My argument was the loading of ABA and DP and then reversing it made it look like two books with reversed credits for the pseudonym authors. By scheme, I meant plan not nefarious intent. I currently own none of the non-English variants but opportunities do change. May I suggest this site

http://www.drpetrov.com/prescot/hkbulmer/ken1.htm I am pretty sure this is member of the Kregen Yahoo group and the thumbnails are different than Fantastic Fiction. I do not believe 'The World Aflame' 1954 cover is elsewhere. I wonder about the lack of product for 1955 and 1956. I had one hint that Empire of Chaos also had a hardcover issue. As for interiorart, that is usually oddball for me. I mentioned one because it had a Frazetta cover and interiorart. It would be unfair to the Frazetta collector to not differentiate. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Annihilation!

I've held your edit only for the date change, the rest looks fine. Just because a publication doesn't show a date doesn't mean we should change its entry to "0000-00-00" - the date might be justified from some other source. Which might not always be credited, as if we had to justify every edit to every field the notes would overflow. You mention Fantastic Fiction says it's 1950: this image has comments that say it's 1950: Amazon UK gives 1950 and 1952 entries: OK, there may be an overlap with multiple websites relying on each other, but changing a specific but possibly inaccurate date by a couple of years to a total "unknown" date just feels wrong to me. It's definitely 1950s-ish isn't it? Scion weren't around after that... BLongley 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very positive it was 1950. It's page numbering is different and compared to the ones which are later it is almost juvenile. I needed the input that I did not need to change it. I needed to be sure and I appreciate the definition for me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, approved and date changed back to 1950. BLongley 17:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Erroring submissions

I'm not sure what you're currently submitting, but your first two submissions are giving errors that mean we can neither approve or reject them:

1003113 	N 	PubUpdate 	2008-07-04 14:34:25 	Dragoondelight 	Rebel of Antares
1003143 	N 	PubUpdate 	2008-07-04 14:45:37 	Dragoondelight 	Beasts of Antares

This one looks OK though:

1003149 	N 	PubUpdate 	2008-07-04 14:56:46 	Dragoondelight 	A Victory for Kregen

Do you know what the difference is? BLongley 20:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed an author Alan Burt Akers from the top and from the content entry as he was not mentioned. I made sure that Dray Prescot was in the top position, but apparently blanking the author entry in the second position did not fix it. In Victory for Kregen DAW reverted back to the dual claim of authorship and I left it as it was. Des fixed Warlord of Antares with the same problem and there must be a trick needed to remove the blank space. Sorry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no problem approving the earlier edit for Warlord of Antares, but it did leave the pub co-authored by [Blank] and Dray Prescot. I fixed this by moving "Dray Prescot" to author1 in another pub-edit, and making sure that author2 was compeltely deleted. Could this be another case of the "single-space problem" that i had some moths ago? When i cleared a field be replacing it with a single space, rather than deleting all the contents, a problem occured. -DES ^Talk 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I highlighted the author and backspaced. That should have removed the content, but it did not make the second author tab go away. If I understand you the preferred method is open a new entry and fill it in? Sorry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What you did ought to work just fine. I don't know what the problem is here. -DES ^Talk 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very sure I could reconstruct the content as I have the books. The only thing I do not know is the Publication identifier string. I spent two days once looking for why I could not delete a work order from a computer. It was two years old and no one could get it out. It turned out that the work identifier had a digit zero instead of an alphabetic O. All in all it bothers me to break the system. Whatever it is I hope I can understand it. I thought I hit backspace, but I could have hit spacebar. That would have left a space. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 02:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made the same edits myself successfully, see Beasts of Antares and Rebel of Antares, please check. It's possible the submission checks for non-zero-length author before it strips leading and trailing spaces for you, leaving a null string to work with. BLongley 10:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check for space holding bits by highlighting and then backspacing. I may, have used spacebar since it will leave a space. Both looked good and I will try to do the interiorart like your example. Thanks, Harry.--Dragoondelight 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Suns of Scorpio

Just a minor niggle before I let your edit through - "£0.40" is correct: "40p" may be what it says on the pub, but we regularize prices a bit. Fortunately few editors here understand UK pre-decimal prices fully, so we get away with a bit more leeway with those, although that may change. But post-decimal publications get regularized prices. BLongley 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem I still though do not understand when the decimal date is for British currency. I changed it for that reason only. I did read that one, but after seeing a lot of inconsistencies with publishers I just went with the book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, an amount such as 40p has to be post-decimal, pre-decimal any amount over 11 pence would be one or more shillings, so 40p would become "3/6" (i.e. three shillings and sixpence). Similarly, an old US book might give a price of 40¢, but we would show this as $0.40 -DES ^Talk 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

40p is actually 8/- (eight shillings), but we never convert pre-to-post-decimal or vice versa. If it gives a "p" at the end, it's a post-decimal "pence" sign and can be expressed as a decimal proportion of a pound, i.e. 50p is £0.50. If it gives a "d" at the end, that's in pre-decimal pennies and at 240 to the pound or 12 to the shilling it's NOT easily expressed as a decimal. There's a few "9d" books in the database but not many and I'll convert those at some point. Most pre-decimal books were over a shilling though: e.g. 2/6 (two shillings and six old pence) and we express the shillings and pence with a slash between, with a "-" instead of a zero, so one shilling is actually "1/-" (one shilling and no pence). Again, these might be expressed differently on the book and an "s" at the end may be used for whole shillings - "5s" would mean five whole shillings, but we'd want to express that as "5/-". Once you get to twenty shillings you've got a pre-decimal pound, which is exactly equivalent to a post-decimal pound, and you might have to express that with two slashes for pounds, shillings and pence, e.g. twenty-two-shillings and sixpence is actually one pound, two shillings and sixpence so "1/2/6". However, I've not seen a book that expensive yet so that format is unproven. The main oddity is "the guinea", a coin worth 21 shillings, i.e. slightly more than a pound, and used for expressing luxury prices: we do have a few examples of those and that's probably the only time that "21/-" would be used. I'll stop now before I start explaining bob, tanner, crown, etc... but feel free to ask if you encounter those phrases. BLongley 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have to read up more on it's history. It is fascinating and confusing. I think I had one book printed in Australia with 2/6 or 2/- in the 1950's. I remember wondering because I thought Australia was always decimal. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand decimalised earlier than the UK, in the 1960s I think. They did it rather differently though and One old Pound became Two new Dollars. It kept the penny closer to its old value, whereas the UK had to introduce a new halfpenny coin. BLongley 17:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Transit to Scorpio (and others) - Tim or Tom?

This is mostly good too - but if "Tim Kirk" did the cover, is it really "Tom Kirk" that did the interiorart? I'm suspicious about this and this and this now...BLongley

The only mention I can find of an SF artist named "Tom Kirk" via a google search is this site. -DES ^Talk 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in error it is always Tim Kirk. If I read a name wrong like that, I will make the same error till corrected. I will change them to Tim. Thanks for the catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, fixed. BLongley 06:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

S.T.A.R. Flight

Harry the ISBN has a bad checksum[3]. Change you check and see if the number is "0-416-75461-7"? A quick look on Abe Books comes back with "0-446-75461-7". Also, is the publisher Paperback Library or Warner Paperback Library? Warner Paperback Library is on the cover, what's on the the title page? Thanks!Kraang 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I had to use high power to see it but it is actually 0-446-75461-7. It is on the spine only. It is a Warner Paperback Library Edition. I cloned the other so I stayed with it. Live and Learn. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Veruchia

I'm going to allow this through but will then have to change the date of the contents again. Remember that changing the contents (apart from the page number) applies to EVERY publication it's in - so you'd make it a November 1982 Novel in the 1973 edition and the 1977 edition as well. We want to keep it as the first book publication date. Note that in this case it DOES make sense to change the date - but from 1973-00-00 to 1973-06-00 instead: the existing date wasn't as specific as it could have been. BLongley 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the second one needs a date that reflects the original (root) publication. Because I had the first publication specific to the month then you change the original. This was not automatic, but had to be done at the original. I admit that it is confusing to look at first printing and second printings years apart. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Other Internal Content edits

While I'm on the subject, you may have noticed some of your Antares edits were slow to be approved. This is because they caused us some pain to complete. When you changed the Kenneth Bulmer titles to Alan Burt Akers ones you changed the canonical title as well - so the title disappeared from the series display on the author page, and changed from Kenneth Bulmer to Alan Burt Akers on the standalone series display, and the Alan Burt Akers title became a variant of Alan Burt Akers. I had to unmerge the publication, change the original title's author back to Kenneth Bulmer, then merge the publication with the Alan Burt Akers variant title. The unmerging causes page number losses so I then had to reedit the pub to put them back in. I did two, then found someone had approved another without completing the rest of the fix - were there only three where you made this change or might there be others like it to fix? BLongley 17:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ir's easier to unmerge the publication you want to change, then make all the edits to it, then merge with the variant title (if it exists) or make it a variant of the original title if the variant doesn't already exist. A bit of a pain when you have to wait for approvals after each step I know - an alternative might to be to add the correct pub and delete the original one, wait for those two approvals, then do the make variant. BLongley 17:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly Beasts of Antares and Rebels of Antares are the two in which I removed the Alan Burt Akers entry because he was not used. I did the same with the first one I did, Warlord of Antares. Those three reflect Dray Prescot alone. I am sorry but this merge and unmerge confounds me. This I know, the second book entry under Warlord of Antares does not exist. The Second entries in Storm over Vallia, Werewolves of Kregen, Seg the Bowman, Masks of Scorpio, Renegade of Kregen 1985 unverified version, and Fliers of Antares (Kenneth Bulmer $2.25 version undated) are duplicates of the verified entries. I did not delete because each one requires a moderator to know and did not want to repeat it that many times. These are the spurious entries. The Fliers of Antares Bulmer edition does not exist because none of the series were printed by DAW under the Bulmer name. May I delete? Once these are gone the series looks as clean as I can determine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing an extra pseudonym co-author entry doesn't cause many problems (except when it's replaced by a space, it seems). Changing a publication and all its contents, if that's the only version of a title, and the only real publication, works well too. It's when we have variant titles and authors that we get these sort of additional problems, and when titles are placed in a series as well there's additional issues, and when we have additional spurious variant titles to deal with it gets really complex. (I'd actually like to use examples like these as a test for Moderator Qualification, but half of us current Mods would fail and we have no demotion policy, and no "Trainee Moderator" restrictions. And the remainder wouldn't like the amount of extra work approving the simpler edits anyway - but I digress.) The titles I had trouble with were "Fliers of Antares", "Avenger of Antares" and "Bladesman of Antares", so please check those carefully as I can't be sure I didn't lose some of your edits. BLongley 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As to deletion - anyone can submit a deletion, but is does need a reason, and hopefully Mods are far more careful in checking those. It does help if you explain with Pub references - e.g. "This pub 12345 does not exist, I've added pub 987654 which has the correct details under the right pseudonym" but the more notes you leave the better. Note that even when you get an erroneous pub deleted, the erroneous TITLE may need to go to, but that'll take a separate edit. Still, thanks for trying to keep up with us! BLongley 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They were good, only the start page for a novel was missing and that is self evident to the reader. I had already verified them. I do wonder that these three were not republished. I shall make a stab for deleting them after I think some more on it. Thanks for all the help. To me as a fan it looks a lot better. I must admit, that I spend more time trying to check the data in other places, than on the book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Iduna's Universe

Note that we've got three entries for this now, one looking fairly complete but with an = sign in the ISBN, one looking slightly less complete, and a 30 page tp that looks very suspicious. Can you double-check your one(s), fix the one to keep and delete the dup please? BLongley 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I corrected my mistake and thanks. The second entry at #1.95 is the Daw Canada edition. The only difference between it and mine is no cover artist. It is the same picture, but his copy may have dropped the cover artist entry. Frankly, I have deferred further etiquette querries as this communications system is still strange to me. Plus I have a battleship approach to such as you know. Third Entry. I have limited skills at tracking down this kind of variant. The ISBN is valid though the Amazon US vendors are using it improperly I think. I went to Amazon UK. They list it as Legend. I then checked ABE. Only one was offered as Legend and at least five(5) listed it as an Arrow product. I changed it to the Amazon UK data, but put it under Arrow. I submitted that as a place holder entry till someone has a copy or does it better. I could find no cover. To Recap I did not delete, but changed the one to fit the data I located to the most reasonable I could. If this was improper, then I will need instruction. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm holding the last edit. Kraang is adjusting his pub as well - so referring to publications by "second entry" or "third entry" doesn't work well if someone changes/adds/deletes stuff, and sometimes editors see others working in the same area and rush to correct/improve their past entries. (A good thing, in my opinion, but a bit confusing to people correcting things that discover that they are correcting an already corrected record by the time the submission gets looked at!) My first thought is that I'd keep the "Legend" imprint (Legend is/was an imprint of Arrow, who are now owned by someone else, etc) but I think I'd like to look at that a bit more. Please bear with me - there's no compulsion to deal with books you don't own, but if you CAN deal with such it helps us. And you're inquisitive enough that I'm happy to add my guidance, for what it's worth. You're looking like a very promising, conscientious editor.BLongley 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep rubbing the bottle and the genies pop out, but I am learning and not nearly as frustrated as when I started. I have no aspirations for a higher level job, but I do like to understand the processes. If I can help I will. I will continue and hopefully make enough headway to recover some floor space. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Delian Cycle

I approved your edit of The Delian Cycle. I then changed the author from "Kenneth Bulmer (as by Alan Burt Akers)" to simply "Alan Burt Akers", and then created a variant title record showing this as a variant of The Delian Cycle by Kenneth Bulmer, which will put the listing on the Kenneth Bulmer page, as is proper. There is some dispute on how to handle books which list "X writing as Y" on the title page. Some simply credit them directly to X (the "real" author", particularly when X is well known and Y is not (e.g "Issac Asimov writing as Paul French"), possibly creating a variant for Y. Other credit the actual pub to Y, but then use a vt to show that the real author is X,m as I did here. For most purposes, the result is much the same. Entering "X as by Y" directly in the author field creates a new and separate author record for "X as by Y" which is usually not a good idea.

I also added the series name to the title record, so the omnibus lists as part of the series already.

I presume you will be entering the contents of the omnibus with page numbers when you have a chance. -DES ^Talk 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did much the same for The Havilfar Cycle I -DES ^Talk 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I screwed up royally. I inputed those two an movels. I then figured out that I should have entered them as New Omnibus. I know no way to get at data after sending, So I went back and did it in the omnibus format. I am sorry for the mess. I hoped it would be caught and deleted or rejected. I hate to pile rejects up and I hate to cause the moderators the work. My next thought after 'The Delian Cycle' was complete was to clone it and change the information to fit the hardcover in Amazon. I do not possess the book, because they quit publishing in hardcover. They also are stalled at what I have. I will be beating on the editors door as soon as this is done to see if they will make a breakthrough in the present impasse. I could not find a way to add series to the menus. I assumed it was a moderator level function. I went the way I did because, the title page reads Kenneth Bulmer writing as Alan Burt Akers. If I understand you correctly, then I can know understand the variant title entries reasoning that I was pretty sure did not exist. Kenneth Bulmer used the pseudonyms as a joke. He was a family friend with E.C. Tubb. He would get a great kick out of the trouble it has caused. I think it was an insider's (science fiction writers) joke. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No big problem. In future, if you screw up an entry, you can either wait for it to be approved (or questioned, or rejected) and then fix it, or you can put a note on the Moderator noticeboard explaining what happened, and asking for assitance in dealing with the pending submisisons. It is easy enough to convert a novel entry to an omnibus (or a collection, for that matter) once it is approved. I will approve your later entries, and merge them.

You add series info by editing the title level record. That is, you display the title detail (which says "Bibliography: <Title>" at the top). You get there either by clicking on a title from the author page, or by clicking on "Title reference" from the publication page, or by doing a title search. Once you have the title record displayed, click on "Edit Title Data" under editing tools, Here you will get to a screen that allows you to enter a series name and number (order within the series) as well as a link to a Wikipedia article about the title, if there is one. It also allows you to change the year/date for the title (which should normally be the earliest publication, and is one way to handle titles published in magazines that the ISFDB does not index -- for novels it should be the earliest BOOK publication) an optional synopsis, and title level notes that apply to every publication of the title.

A number of pesuds get used as a joke, but if they were actually used, we treat them all the same, even Ellison's "Cordwainer Bird" (created as an insult) and "B. Arrowsmith Hynde" (created as a joke on Fletcher Pratt).

In short, when a book is published under a pesud, we create a publication record for it as it was published, then create a vt relationship between that and a "record" of a title (which may have no pubs, and may never have "really" existed) with the book attributed to the canonical author. This is done from the title screen with the "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" tool. We never put "Joe writing as Jim" into the title field of a publication, although we do sometimes list a book as co-authored by a writer and his pesud. I hope that makes things clearer. -DES ^Talk 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Delian fixup. I will reread this several times and look more closely into it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Flame Key

A series should probably be set up here, but I don't know if the title should be "Keys to Paradise" or "Keys of Paradise", or if just possibly thsoe are two different (but related?) series by the same author. See Daniel Moran for the current state of things. -DES ^Talk 17:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Moran is a pseudonym of Robert E. Vardeman. Found that at Fantastic Fiction. He may have quit using it. It is 'Keys to Paradise' a trilogy plus an omnibus. I can not find enough about the omnibus at Amazon to put the title in. I only have the Flame Key. The title with Keys of Paradise, Book III, that part is not part of the title. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon is notorious for sticking a series indicator into the title as they show it. But that suggests that someone at amazon thought that the series was called "Keys of Paradise", who knows on what basis. Well, we can wait to create a sereis until we have more solid knowledge, i suppose. -DES ^Talk 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon seemed to have cleaned up and it's "Keys TO Paradise" pretty consistently now. I think the Daniel Moran entries in the series can go though, they add nothing to Daniel Moran's page or Robert E. Vardeman's and just double up in the series display.

Side-thought - if "Daniel Moran" wrote a "Keys" series, how long before people conclude that "Daniel Keys Moran" is the same person? Is it worth a warning somewhere that they're NOT? BLongley 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Vardeman's Wikipedia article, he stopped using the name of "Daniel Moran" for exactly that reason. But since the db doesn't support author notes, the only place to put this would be in the wiki page, i should think, and anyone who would follow a link to the wiki page would probably follow the already existing link to the Wikipedia article. -DES ^Talk 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And DKM's Biblio page says he started getting Daniel Keyes' fan mail, so it seems there's enough confusion that we ought to add warnings wherever possible. BLongley 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Burt Akers

Please take a look at the Alan Burt Akers page when you get a chance. There are a number of multiple entries that ought to either be merged, or else have their titles qualified to indicate the differences (if they are in fact different). For example, ther are no less than 7 listings for "A Note on Dray Prescot", can you tell which of these represent the same text, and which if any represent different texts? "A Note on the Tapes From Africa" is listed as both an essay and as shortfiction, and there is also "A Brief Note on the Tapes From Africa", is this the same text?

I am asking you because you seem to know this series fairly well, but of course if you don't know, you don't know. Thanks in advance. -DES ^Talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The note system is distinctive to each volume in the series. Some start the same even, but they are designed to catch the reader up with the previous volume, before you start reading the story. It written as a terse action packed description of the main character. Even though titles are the same they are different and the year similarity is caused by his producing up to three novels in the series in a year. The shortfiction one I should have called an essay. The later ones did not use the 'Note' or another catch up essays unless I noted it. A couple of Notes were not put in by others and at least two appendixes of names, places, creatures were missed by them. Each is individual to each story. All these are repeated in the omnibuses. I thought it might be too much to add. The endnotes in the omnibuses are particular to them. Each early volume had a few notes and the omnibuses accumulated them in the endnotes. I will find the shortfiction and change it to essay. I keep this series fairly accessible and it is no bother. Thanks for the help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspected that something of the sort might be the case, which is why i didn't merge all the "notes". Can we add parenthetical qualifiers to distinguish among the various versions of the "note" perhaps the name of the volume in which each note appears (or first appears) There is no harm in adding such notes to the various anthologies if they appear there, but neither is it essential. I will convert the "shortfiction" notes to essays. -DES ^Talk 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The glossries use a notation system TT=Transit to Scorpio, SU=Suns of Scorpio, MHA=Manhounds of Antares, BMA=Bladesman of Antares, LFK=A Life for Kregen. This stopped at the glossary in Warlords of Antares, Dray Prescot 37. The notation then became 23=Beasts of Antares, etc. My suggestion would be Transit to Scorpio=DP01, Legions of Antares=DP25. I remember as a fan that the initial system takes some thought. Two essay entries from A Prince of Scorpio, Dray Prescot 5, appear on the Kenneth Bulmer page and would be identical to the ones that Don Erickson verified, but did not list. The content is identical between the two versions and is in the omnibus. I did not list it for the omnibuses, because the notes lost their function when each story is there. We could delete them all, or we might say that a future researcher writing a review could use the information. I know I started the mess and and as a fan, I have read the notes many times. I just checked the ebooks that are in english after DP37 and they are used at least in some to catch the reader up with events. I await your decision. I would change the notes name to show (DP01) and the same with glossaries. I will do it if you wish. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

These should be edited to have some sort of parenthetical distinction. The precise form matters less, but it should be as consistent as possible, and should be as clear as possible to people not as familiar to the series as you are. Our most often used method is to use the title of the book an essay appears in, thus: "A Note on Dray Prescot (Transit to Scorpio)", "A Note on Dray Prescot (Suns of Scorpio)", etc. But "A Note on Dray Prescot (DP01)" would also do the trick, and it is shorter. Please do edit the title records appropriately. Whether to include the "notes" in the omnibus pubs is a judgment call -- if they appear in the Omnibus' ToC I would be inclined to included them, but that is not required. -DES ^Talk 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just requested deletions on the duplicate entries. I checked each book and the omnibus editions showed as they should. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See below for the one deletion that might have a problem. The others are approved. -DES ^Talk 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blade Series

Started Blade Series. Here is list from wikipedia.

1. The Bronze Axe (1969) (Manning Lee Stokes) 2. The Jade Warrior (1969) (Manning Lee Stokes) 3. Jewel of Tharn (1969) (Manning Lee Stokes) 4. Slave of Sarma (1970) (Manning Lee Stokes) 5. Liberator of Jedd (1971) Manning Lee Stokes) 6. Monster of the Maze (1973) (Manning Lee Stokes) 7. Pearl of Patmos (1973) (Manning Lee Stokes) 8. Undying World (1973) (Manning Lee Stokes) 9. Kingdom of Royth (1974) (Roland Green) 10. Ice Dragon (1974) (Roland Green) 11. Dimension of Dreams (1974) (Roland Green) 12. King of Zunga (1975) (Roland Green) 13. The Golden Steed (1975) (Roland Green) 14. The Temples of Ayocan (1975) (Roland Green) 15. The Towers of Melnon (1975) (Roland Green) 16. The Crystal Seas (1975) (Roland Green) 17. The Mountains of Brega (1976) (Roland Green) 18. Warlords Of Gaikon (1976) (Roland Green) 19. Looters of Tharn (1976) (Roland Green) 20. Guardians Of The Coral Throne (1976) (Roland Green) 21. Champion of the Gods (1976) (Roland Green) 22. The Forests of Gleor (1976) (Roland Green) 23. Empire of Blood (1977) (Roland Green) 24. The Dragons of Englor (1977) (Roland Green) 25. The Torian Pearls (1977) (Roland Green) 26. City of the Living Dead (1978) (Roland Green) 27. Master of the Hashomi (1978) (Roland Green) 28. Wizard of Rentoro (1978) (Roland Green) 29. Treasure of the Stars (1978) (Roland Green) 30. Dimension of Horror (1979) (Ray Faraday Nelson) 31. Gladiators of Hapanu (1979) (Roland Green) 32. Pirates Of Gohar (1979) (Roland Green) 33. Killer Plants Of Binnark (1980) (Roland Green) 34. The Ruins of Kaldac (1981) (Roland Green) 35. The Lords of the Crimson River (1981) (Roland Green) 36. Return to Kaldak (1983) (Roland Green) 37. Warriors of Latan (1984) (Roland Green)

If you know this series, can you also look at the various "Richard Blade Collectors Services" items which are either duplicate titles that should be merged, or different works with very similar titles that should be edited to distinguish them. It is also possible that these belong in the "Blade" series, I can't be sure without more info. -DES ^Talk 16:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All my copies are the Pinacle versions. The contents are exactly the same. The only difference on the cover is the color of the series number in the center top cover and the number series in the right top corner. That ends with the price code of $0.95,1.25,1.50 and 1.75. All use a title with no blade references. The early ones ($0.95) do not have a printed ISBN, but the later ones do have one and have each printing date. I have already noticed that printing date is not matching the current profiles. The Question is does the ISFDB want a different entry for the color of a number, lack of ISBN printed on book and price change. My thought was to finish what I have, less than twenty books, and continue to note the printing dates in the notes. Then go back and clone it for each printing date. I would best guess the price. With my notes, others with older dates need only update it for what they see. Later dates could clone and add the new date. That might work best for the little change Pinnacle series. I have no idea for the MB versions of the facts other than the one I submitted based on that cover and observations of vendors at ABE. I have been making cover notes because several photos have failed from Amazon. Sooner or later that resource changes. Awaiting enlightenment and guidance. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Warlord of Antares

You propose to delete this pub, which is the only one listed as being authored by "Alan Burt Akers" and "Dray Prescot". Are you reasonably sure that there was not a DAW edition that was listed as authored by both names (perhaps in an "as told to" format)? -DES ^Talk 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DAW was forced to print the one only version I verified by it's customers. They did not print it in any other form. They actually dropped Alan Burt Akers on DP 23 and DP 24. I am very, completely sure that DAW made no second printing of this book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, approved. -DES ^Talk 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Monster of the Maze

Your edit would have changed an edition dated 1978-06-01 into one dated 1979-01-00. However, ISBNDB.COM records an edition with the 1978-06 date. Your edit also noted printing dates for several other publications. I have used this data, and the clone tool, to create a record for each of the printing dates mentioned, without over-writing the 1978-06 pub. Please look at the result, and make what further corrections or additions are needed. Thanks for your contributions. -DES ^Talk 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked every date to price that I have in the series. 1973(2),May 1974(3) are #0.95, Jan 1975(3),1976(3) are $1.25, Mar-Oct 1977(2)are #1.25, Nov 1977(1), 1978(7), Jan-July 1979(5) is $1.50, Nov 1979(1), Oct 1980(1) is $1.75 and Nov 1981(1) is #1.95. That would make the 73, 74 ones #0.95 and the 1978 one #1.50. Of course it is a guess, but I think it is a fairly good one. Just did Pearl of Patmos, by cloning. The earliest has wrong price probably. I appreciate the help a great deal. The series starts varying by book 18, but seems consistent to the new look for that copy. I will do as in Pearl of Patmos and after the editing clone to fill the blanks. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Royth

Just to let you know that I have approved the addition of the second printing of Kingdom of Royth, but then changed the Notes field from "2nd printing december 1978" to "2nd printing December 1975" as per your comments in the submission that followed. Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Squire, His Knight, and His Lady

You give the title of this, in your recent edit, as The Squire, His Knight, and His Lady (The Squire’s Tales). Does "(The Squire’s Tales)" actually seem to be part of the title? Or is it merely the name of the series of which this is a part? If the latter, it should not be shown as part of the title in the ISFDB. I have this submission on hold pending a response. -DES ^Talk 23:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh in a couple of your recent submissions I see the term "the publications page" used. if this is the page on which the formal copyright notice, and the name and address of the publisher appear, often along with a printing numberline and sometimes a printing history, the standard name for this is "the copyright page". That term will be more easily and more widely understood, and so IMO is better in db notes entries. -DES ^Talk 23:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing the Blade series recently and I can not find a reference to the 'The Squire, His Knight, and His Lady'. Either this is a mistake or I need more of a reference. I have no reference to a title like this in my personal book db. It would have had to have been part of a collection. Still it rings no familiar bell. I will try to remember copyright page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On looking further, it looks as if the mistake was mine. i had approved a bunch of edits by you, this was next in the sequence, and my eyes glitched. Apparently it was actually by User:Dissembler, the authomated script that grabs stuff from amazon and elsewhere. Sorry. -DES ^Talk 00:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhodan

Look for a reply on my page. Thx, rbh (Bob) 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Blade

I have approved and massaged The Temples of Ayocan, which looks fine now, but could you please check the Notes field for the first printing to make sure that I didn't misunderstand your comments? Also, I have approved the changes to Empire of Blood, but I am not sure where the new ISBN (0-523-41723-3) comes from. Is it stated on the copyright page or some place else? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Temples of Ayocan first printing had something wrong with the price or page number. I fixed it up to match my copies data, but left the #Pxxx because I have no idea where that number came from. None of the books that I have used anything like it, but it is possible the person used a catalog reference number. The first printing statement was original also, I did not change that by noting it as I usually do. --Dragoondelight 12:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have added a note about "#P623" to the Notes field to indicate that it's not in the verification copy and its source is unknown. As far as the "First printing" statement goes, does it say anything about the printing number in your copy? Is there a number line, month of publication or anything like that? Like you indicated below, we try to document the sources of our information in Notes if the data is not explicitly stated in the publication. That way, when the next verifier comes along, he won't be wondering where it had come from the way we are currently wondering over "#P632" ;-) Ahasuerus 19:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Blood is the only botched ISBN number for the series. All the ISBNs for the series have been exactly the same, but this one was different than the $2.25 example. I could not make it work and unlike every other example it was not printed correctly. I then checked Amazon, ABe and others. The $2.25 ISBN was noted for my printing, but the bad one was not used. I then made sure that anyone with a copy in the future would know that the printed ISBN in my copy was wrong. I had one similar problem with Tran Mawicke as an artist, but one copy had Tran Mawecke so I noted the spelling differences. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the situation correctly, the ISBN as stated in the first (1977-03-00) printing is "0-523-40-018-1". Since this is not a valid ISBN, you replaced it with the ISBN from the 1981 printing, which is not found in the 1977 printing. If this is the case, then I think we want to enter the invalid ISBN in the ISBN field and document the situation in the Notes field. Deriving an ISBN from an earlier SBN (as we have occasionally done in the past) is one thing, but cross-entering ISBNs would be something else entirely. Ahasuerus 19:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that in every case where I have two printings of a title in the Pinnacle series the ISBNs are identical. In my first edition of Empire of Blood there is the bad ISBN, not seen in any other edition in the series that I have. Plus a notation on the copyright page of the title incorrectly, as Blade #23: Empire of Blood. Also a change to the top right corner cover page 40-018 with no extra -no., * connected to price of $1.25. Also on the Lower spine number is 523-40018-1. The spine number should have been the basis of the ISBN, but it does not work. This makes four very anomalous errors in a series in which my copies have not reflected anything like it. My thinking was that the db user was best served by a correct ISBN taken from a later printing than a bad ISBN which can not help them. I did note that the ISBN in the book as giving a bad checksum. I have no problem, if it is your decision to change it to an invalid ISBN if that is the way it should be. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a thorny issue indeed! However, keep in mind that we allow ISBN searches and Google/Yahoo/MSN also index our ISBN fields. Therefore, if J. Ransom User were to buy the first printing at a used bookstore and enter its stated ISBN either in our ISBN search box or in the Google/etc search box, he should be able to find the first printing. If we were to enter the 2nd printing's ISBN in the first printing's ISBN field, we would lose this capability. Does this make sense? Ahasuerus 02:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case a useful, and likely correct ISBN can be derived (see reasoning below). I agree that the second edition's ISBN should not be used (although that is what Amazon have done) but I would be tempted to put the invalid one in notes in non-hyphenated format for Google to pick up on. BLongley 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Temples of Ayocan, first printing May, 1975; Second printing July 1975; Third printing April 1976; Fourth printing, November 1979. I did not put May, 1975 after first printing because of the Pnumber entry. I will make some kind of separator hereafter if there is data I do not understand or can not prove to be wrong. Sorry for the causing the wonderment, but I appreciate the corrections. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am writing this to clarify my mind on the issue, not as an arguement, so bear with me. The physical verification is superior to all other sources. Therefore the entry is an 'as is'. If the ISBN is wrong, even if the correct ISBN is found, then we must maintain it wrong. We use the note field to highlight the why and what. If we find the correct ISBN, then that would be noted in the notes field not the ISBN one. Here is another scenario that I questioned and was told that the general concesus was different than mine. Downtiming the Nightside by Jack Chalker. My copy has it block printed in the above fashion. The db shows it like this 'Downtiming the Night Side'. This may be how the cover shows it. It is how the spine shows it. The copyright page shows it as separate words. ABE and Amazon use both. What is correct? Worse yet, Counting the Cost a Hammers Slammers book does it different again. The cover page and title page have it stylized this way. Hammers---Counting the Cost---Slammers. I noted it in the notes. The problem is that the newer books seem to be doing this more often. They are putting stylized titles with the author name on the title page. They often then have a separate page, after the copyright page, with the story title without the series mentioned but with no author on that page. In the Jefferson's War series the Galactic Silver Star leads to a title of that name and that leads to an actual title entry of Jefferson's War:The Galactic Silver Star. The problem is that a stylized entry is made in three places in the book with the whole title as above. Even so, I still feel that the title is 'The Galactic Silver Star'. The copyright page uses 'The Galactic Silver Star'. I read the instructions, still I believe that a great deal of variance is being created by the series publishers. Sorry, but my mind stores things that disturb me and they pop out this way. I appreciate the help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't actually have agreement on when to leave a bad ISBN in the Catalog ID or in notes, as we discovered during our ISBN cleanup project. The only thing we seem to mostly agree on is that we should leave lots of notes explaining that it is as printed, and we should probably put a '#' in front of it to avoid triggering the red warning. When we DO have a clue as to the proper ISBN I'm in favour of using that in the Catalog ID field so the links to Abebooks, Alibris, Amazon, etc work, and the bad ISBN is left in notes. In this case, when you compare the bad ISBN with other Pinnacle Books that year you can see it's about the right range, and you can also see that Pinnacle struggled for a bit as they moved from 05230 prefix to 05234. If you use Marc Kupper's ISBN linker to find the correct check-digit it suggests 0523400187: which seems useless as a Google or Amazon search doesn't find anything. But if you format it correctly, Google does find "0-523-40018-7" and in both cases it leads to the right edition of the book. For this reason, I personally would put the 0-523-40018-7 version in the Catalog ID and explain that the 0-523-40018-1 version is the actual one printed into the notes. Nobody actually supported leaving the bad ISBN in the Catalog ID field, but nobody suggested an "Other" option clearly enough to get consensus. BLongley 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As to series names being included in titles, we usually remove those if we're going to put them in the ISFDB series of the same name. The PUBLICATION can retain the extra words if the editor desires, it doesn't really matter there. So Star Trek, the Next Generation: Power Hungry is a publication under Power Hungry and I suppose we'd let someone add "Star Trek: Power Hungry: the Next Generation" as "exactly as recorded" but frankly that would be a sign to me that someone isn't exercising common sense. BLongley 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit the more I hear the more fascinating it is. Special Thanks to Marc for his tool. I already hit gold with it. Thanks to everyone for the pointers, the more the better. Though, I still will make mistakes till the old synapses connect action to function. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as multiple titles and multiple forms of the author's name go, keep in mind that we generally go with what's on the title page as opposed to the copyright page, the cover, the table of contents or the spine. In retrospect, perhaps we should have done what most libraries do, i.e. record all of them in a special repeating "Alternative Title" field, but it's probably too late to change our database design now. Sometimes the differences can be significant and pervasive, e.g. take a look at the Notes field in this magazine issue... Ahasuerus 14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordeal in Otherwhere

Just to let you know that I have changed the Catalog ID of this printing of Andre Norton's Ordeal in Otherwhere from "0-441-63824-4" to "441-63822" based on your Notes. Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I took that ISBN from Amazon, the same place as the picture. I have no problem, what ever works best. As an observations the Ace and Amazon numbering is chaotic. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon uses a combination of poorly paid data entry clerks and user-submitted material, so the quality of their data varies tremendously, from excellent to egregious. The most common problem with their data has to do with the fact that they enter the page count based on the publisher's original announcement, which is made before the final proofs are completed and is almost invariably incorrect. Also, they often enter the name of the distribution company as the name of the publisher, which is why many Baen and Tor books are entered as by their respective distribution company. Another common issue is confusing different editions and printings, which results in mis-assigned ISBNs. On the plus side, they are pretty good at recording the date when (recent) books first became available. After all, it's an important part of their business, so they are rarely off by more than a week or two. Unfortunately, they are not very good at deleting "announced but never published" books, so we have to be careful with that. It's always something! :) Ahasuerus 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I need the enlightenment and the laughter. As long as Amazon is not abusing me personally it's more bearable. I am a long time customer, but they never tell me about the books I must have. Since I purchased others from them, you would think their db would. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon always have recommendations for me, but they're rarely any use - they can't tell different editions apart, and even when I uploaded my entire ISBN-ed items to them they still offer me different versions of what I've already GOT. I occasionally offer feedback when they're severely wrong - Enid Blyton never wrote "Starship Troopers" for instance, and HarperCollins weren't publishing SF in the 1960s - but occasionally I get told they won't accept an update as they couldn't confirm it from some other source. I'm always reluctant to quote ISFDB as a source when we're using their images... BLongley 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also approved your changes to the 1982 printing of the Ace edition, but I was a little surprised when I saw "First printing as per the number line" since we have a number of earlier Ace printings of this book on file. Could you please post the exact number line here? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This Ace printing July 1982 with Published simultaneously in Canada underneath. Almost half inch clear space then. 2 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3 1 with a manufactured in the United States of America underneath. I knew there were other editions. I can find no reasoning for the above, such as large print, etc. The top left front cover has ACE SF 63825-2 $2.25. Diagonal line between SF and 6 and 2 and $. The other edition has 63822 on left front cover. I presume, probably to my regret, that the numbering change caused the change in editions. Hopefully this brings enlightenment even if I am wrong. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating! I knew that Ace ignored their previous "letter" editions in the late 1960s when they began using numeric catalog IDs, but I didn't realize that they did the same thing again in the early 1980s. You can always trust Ace to throw a curveball at you when you think you have them figured out :) Ahasuerus 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan

While I am approving your current submissions, you need to replace the series number with either the ISBN or another publisher identifing number. Thx, rbh (Bob) 21:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish such existed, just as I wish there was an editor mentioned. The only number is from the cover. Here is a representative cover to visualize. Perry Rhodanj, then underneath Peril Unlimited, underneath that by Kurt Brand and under that 130. Small Perry Rhodan picture in space helmet in center of front cover. Price is listed on right lower front cover large print. Back cover is front cover of picture with NO print. Title page Perry Rhodan with 130 in small print underneath with Story title with author below that. All copyright material is on the next to last page as a blurb at bottom. It reads Credits: story title. Original as per my notes. Escept I moved the First Master publication printing line from the bottom to above the Master Publications edition to try to get the reader to note a separation between the German credits and the American ones. If you wish I could drop the number? I hope you can see that these publications have minimalist data and were printed to placate the pre-paid subscribers and get some money back from the German material they paid for. The stories are happily quite good for what they are. Sorry for increasing your work load. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Time and Again

I have approved the addition of the Ace edition of Time and Again, but upon reflection it looks an awful lot like our pre-existing June 1975 Ace printing. Unfortunately, the person who entered the latter record didn't state where the data came from (internal Ace records? the date when he purchased the book?), so it's hard to be sure... Ahasuerus 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried finding more information and I can find no way to hook this series of printings together. I played with ISBN checker and it got me a hit on Amazon. I will add it for the picture and note the commentary, but it still lacks a suitable source. My brother suggested a physical old time ISBN catalogue for when it was printed. Imagine I have two identical copies of this book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan

You are deleting the series information on several Perry Rhodan novels. What is your intent here? I normally convert these to Magazines and fix the titles. Please advise.

On a second note, please go to the Magazine Project Page and make an entry for yourself. We can then use the discussion page to capture information we want to exchange with each other. Thx, rbh (Bob) 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One Jump Ahead

I don't understand your submission for One Jump Ahead You list "One Jump Ahead (Chapters 1 & 2 + start pages)" as a separate work of short fiction. Why are the first two chapters of this novel considered a separate work. You note " Roman numeral I used to designate first page of complete story. (includes all begining pages of novel, 8 pages total-unnumbered). First Chapter 1 & 2 ends on page 24, but incluedes all begining pages of novel ( 8 pages unnumbered)." does not make this clear to me. -DES ^Talk 15:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the submisison on hold for the moment. -DES ^Talk 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Second try, edit conflict aced me. The book starts normally and goes to page 24 the end of chaper 2. Then it begins again from the start till the novel is complete and the excerpt. This 32 pages repeated and looks like an excerpt. This is a misprint error that may be in others of this printing. The binding is only slightly fatter. In any case it is different and noteable. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a misprint rather than an intentional inclusion of a separate work. I think it should be mentioned in the notes, but the duplicated pages should not be indexed as if they were a separate work intentionally included. I'll approve this and edit it, then ask you to confirm. -DES ^Talk 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you don't need to lose wortk when an edit conflict happens, see Help:Edit conflict for more on this. -DES ^Talk 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Check this pub and change it if I have not gotten things right, please. -DES ^Talk 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Deed of Paksenarrion

I approved your submission for this pub, but I corrected some typos and the date. You had given the date of first publication in the year field, but your notes showed that this was a pub record for a 7th printing, and gave the date for that printing, so I changed to that date for proper display. -DES ^Talk 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was in too much of a rush (nature). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User Page

Harry, it would be nice if you put some information on your "user page". Look at a few of the other editors user pages to get some ideas of what you should include. Thx, rbh (Bob) 12:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Series

Harry, you add the series info the same way you do to the magazine as a whole. Click on the title of the article or story, click on "Edit Title", and then add the series name. Make sure you use the same series name as already exists. Also when you add the (PRxx) after the name of an essay, ensure you put the # sign in (PR#xx). Thx, rbh (Bob) 02:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then they need to be added after the initial input. # gotcha. Will continue data fill ins. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A Whiff of Madness

User:Bluesman is questioning whether the ISBN is present on this verified pub. He says that he can not find an ISBN on his copy. Online sources list an ISBN. Can you check? -DES ^Talk 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NO ISBN on book. 451-UY1250-125 on spine. Mine is a first printing by line number. August 1976. Josh Kirby. I checked Amazon for ISBN. Amazon still posts that number, but as you know their ISBNs can be creative. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Neither OCLC nor Template:Melvyl list an ISBN for this, although both Amazon and ISBNdb.com do. I will raise it on the portal. -DES ^Talk 20:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Childhood's End

I just approved this pub of Childhood's End and you can make further edits on it. One question: by "Cover art by Stanislaw Fernandes as printed on copyright page incorrect." do you mean that there is an art credit to "Stanislaw Fernandes" on the copyright page, but that this credit is incorrect? If so, what is the source for the correct artist? Or do you mean that the listing, because it is cloned, has an incorrect credit that fails to match the copyright page? Please clarify. -DES ^Talk 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any clue to the date of this pub? ads for oater books, perhaps? -DES ^Talk 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The back cover is in my notes as credited cover photos by Uniphoto and Phil Heffernan. Under that is printed Collage by David Stevenson. I took collage as meaning the final product, of course part might be original art as background by Stanislaw Fernandes, but the final 'art' product would still be the collage. Or am I wrong? The Fernandes entry is on copyright page and the other is on the back cover. I have found three different covers credited to Fernandes over a number of years and suspect he is credited by book dealers due to his name being printed in the book. I went with my backcover because it looks like a collage. One of the others supposedly would be before mine and the other would be after and both are artistically very different. I wished to remove the cloned 'foreward' by Clarke which is not in the seventh edition.

You can remove content by going to the pub record, anc lciking "remove titles" under editing tools. -DES ^Talk 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea exactly what the publishers meant by "collage" it may be that a cover art credit on the copyright page which was correct in a different priting was retained in error when the cover was changed. If that is what you think the note should be clearer, something like "The copyright page credits Stanislaw Fernandes with the cover art, but this is contradicted by the credits on the back cover to Uniphoto and Phil Heffernan for cover photos and to David Stevenson for Collage" Then you have stated the evidence and anyone who cares can decide or investigate. -DES ^Talk 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very troubled by the possibilities of dating this edition. The big problem is that the 10th edition notes the 1990 change of the first chapter and has a 27 July 1989 date for Arthur C. Clarke's note. The Copyright page for that one says copyright 1953, 1990 by Arthur C. Clarke. That would hint that the new version is copyrighted 1990. The Seventh printing does not have the extra copyright notation.

New copyright dates can be for utterly trivial changes. We don't normally bother noting them unless a comparison has shown what the actual changes are. But it does pretty well prove that the pub is no earlier than 1990.

The Seventh printing has one dated add in back for Shannara ms-dos cd-rom game accompanied by The Sword of Shannara novel. Novel packed with game in stores fall '95. A good guess would be they would not pay for an advertisement earlier than six months from that date. Early 95, very late 1994 maybe or even mid to late 1995.

Yes that is a reasonable guess, and for that reason, the ad could be mentioned in the notes.

The Tenth printing has an add for 3001: The Final Odyssey with published by Del Rey Books, Available in hardcover in bookstores everywhere. That says Mar 1997 or shortly after. This means that the new beginning for the novel and author's explanation at the start were not added for four years or more. I find it extremely confusing. Personal opinion is that Clarke's change was a lackluster fix-up of (IMO) poor novel. Any clarity would be appreciated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again the ad could be mentioned in the notes. While it is possible that Clarke also thought this a poor novel, needing a fixup, it seems unlikely. Certianly many reviewers and critics, and many readers thought and said it was one of his best novels ever, indeed one of the best in SF. It has been in print pretty much all the time since 1953, and was one of the works that got Clarke his reputation. (I might add that while i think it has some flaws, i thought it was a very good novel when I read it in the 1970s and still think so.) It is possible that Clarke thought some improvements were a good idea. i haven't read the preface nor the 1990 revision.) But his motive is more or less irrelevant, the question is what he wrote and what was published and when, not why, as far as the iSFDB is concerned. -DES ^Talk 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The popularity of CE is a bit more problematical than normal popularity. It actually is one of the "Literature SF reads" of highschools and colleges. Comparable novels are Brave New World, 1984, Lord of the Flies and Out of the Silent Planet. All are often reprinted, but are not as often on bookstore shelves. This can easily lead to a false sense of their real importance to the average reader. The fix-up Clarke did on CE was primarily caused by the huge pupil feedback when reading it and their immediate harping on the lack of realism in the first chapter. Thousands of same same reviews have an impact, but I do not think it makes the book more important. Of course it comes down to individual taste. The most interesting thing about the variants editions is that the publisher must have had quite a hard time getting the permissions to print the fix-up. OT I lost a hard drive and will pretty quiet until my system is up and going again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

removing contents from pubs

To remove a content item (such as a foreword, or other essay) from a publication record does not require a moderator, but it does require a separate edit from the normal eediting proceess. From the regular publication display clcik "Remove titles from this pub" in the editing tools section of the sidebar. You will get a list of titles in the pub other than the "main" title. Check the boxes for thsoe titles you wish to remove, and click submit data. This edit must be approved by a mod just as with any other edit. See also Help:How to remove content from a publication. -DES ^Talk 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawkmoon

I Just approved your edit to Hawkmoon. Is this a varient title of The History of the Runestaff? It looks as if it is. It also looks to me as if several of the series for Moorcock should be combined into super-series, but i don't know his work well enough to do this correctly. -DES ^Talk 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

An overall Moorcock super-series structure is pretty much impossible for us, with some titles being in multiple series. In this case, "Hawkmoon" and "The History of the Runestaff" are functionally variants, but if we make them such then each variant is in a different series. And you may notice that there's ANOTHER "Hawkwoon" Omnibus here. I think it was Unapersson that set those Publisher Series up so that you could easily find the Complete Eternal Champion series in one country or another. BLongley 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Yes, Moorcock is one author who apparently wanted all his different works to interlock, one way or another, and left things very confused. If making these true varients would be a bad idea because of series interactions (its already odd that the omnibus is in one series, and all of its contents are in a different series), would a title-level or pub-level note be a good idea? -DES ^Talk 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Following this but unable to cognate a solution or comment, other than, what a mess. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the only solution is notes all round, until/unless we have software support for this kind of can of worms. -DES ^Talk 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My solutions so far have been 1) Leave it to Unapersson and 2) if anyone asks awkward questions, point them at http://www.multiverse.org/ instead. BLongley 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interlocking universes is just one problem with Moorcock's bibliography. Another problem is that he tends to revise his novels whenever they get reprinted, sometimes substantially, which makes them even harder to organize properly :( Ahasuerus 13:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's Of Other Worlds

There is some variation in how collections (even story collections) with editors should be entered. I would favor making Hooper a co-author of the collection, but it would be OK not to include his name at all except as the author of the preface. I think it would be a mistake not to include CSL's name as author of the collection, this would remove it from his summary page, which is not helpful.

You are doing the entry, so you can make the judgment call. -DES ^Talk 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it under C.S. Lewis since it is primarily his. I am more bemused by it being nonfiction, though it does have both. As long as Hooper is in the notes, then future readers should be aware. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing the contents of publications

It's safe to edit the "meta data" that's in the upper part of a publication listing but care needs to be taken when editing the Contents section. ISFDB title records are shared among all publications that use those titles meaning an edit from within one publication affects all of the publications that reference that title. Please see Help:Screen:EditPub#General_contents.

I have your publication update for Of Other Worlds on hold as you want to change the title of Introduction (Of Other Worlds) into Preface (Of Other Worlds). The Introduction is referenced by three publication. Is your intent to change this title or does the book have both an introduction and a preface on page v?

You are also changing the date for this title from 1966-00-00 to 1965-10-00. What is the source for this? The reason I ask is that the date would be the first publication date and it looks like that would be 1966 for the Geoffrey Bles edition. Sometimes the author of an essay dates it. When that happens I add a note explaining this date is stated but I would still use the print publication date for the ISFDB title record.

In the publication update for Two Hundred Million A. D. you are changing the title of the publication to 200 Million A. D., the page count from 159 to 204, and adding notes. The changes to the meta data are fine and I like your notes. However, in the Contents section you also wanted to change the title Two Hundred Million A. D. to 200 Million A. D. and four publications reference that title record. As your intent here was clear I went ahead with approving the update but then fixing things up so that we have a new title, 200 Million A. D., that's also a variant title of The Book of Ptath. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My notes are detailed to the effect that the title is Preface, both in the book and as noted on the front cover. The Preface is dated explicitly at it's end as Windham College, Oxford (space) Walter Hooper (over) October, 1965. The creation date of the document used as a Preface is therefore clearly indicated. Often such documents, which read like reviews, are published in such a way. Examples would be college documents. In some cases, I have seen them copyrighted also, so I went with the printed date the publisher of the document used. Since William Hooper is the actual editor of the book, I then attribute his dating of his Preface as the Original Source. This document does not date the Book, but of itself is a dated object important enough to include that dating by the editor. College papers, such as treatis and such are usually copyrighted and noted in this manner.

200 Million A.D. it is. On title page, front cover and before the beginning of the story again. In research the Zebra publication, I found, by it's dating that it was not following the Ace Line of publication. It went to the original first publication of the "Book of Ptath" by Fantasy Press 1947. I went to ABE and searched for "Book of Ptath" and changed it to highest price. Hopefully here is the result.

http://tinyurl.com/56ku98

I did not change the data in the contents blocks lightly. I admit to some confusion. On 'Of Other Worlds' you use the book publication date, even if it is dated otherwise. The Preface or other dated material would therefore be made to look dependent upon the publication, but that is not necessarily so. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We normnally date a work, whether an essay, a story, or a novel, from its publication date, as is I think the standard bibliographic custom. In some cses it is known that a work was written years before it was published, we none the less normally date it from its publication, not its writing. Note that the copyright date is not uncommonly in the year prior to publication: in such cases we use the publication date, when this is known with some assurance. -DES ^Talk 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I get it. The point then is to make sure it is notes then. By dating it to the publication of the book you are trying to decrease the possibility of conflict. Still, I am flummoxed by my book saying specifically Preface and others do not. I know I am not in error and I have no concrete way to make sure they are correct. I can easily imagine transcription error or people renaming the preface. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is partly to decrease the chance of conflict, but mustly because from a bibliographic point of view unpublished eorks basically don't exist -- it is the date of publication/printing that counts. That is why "First edition", not "First Written" is what counts with collectors. That is why For Us, the Living carries a title date of 2004, although it is known that it was writen in the 1930s and never revised (although there is a note explaining when it was written).

As to why you see "Preface" and other records use the term "Introduction", it is possible that there are other editions that use the other term. In that case we have a varient title. It is also quite possible that other editors looking at the same edition you have, entered it using the word "Introduction" rather than "Preface", perhaps thinking that the two terms were synonmys and the difference didn't matter. Or if data was taken from a secondary source, the error, if any, might be in that source. None of the publications involved is verified, so there is no specific editor to ask. (Indeed neither of the others gives page numbers, which may mean that they were entered from secondary sources.) Whether to approve your edit is a judgement call -- I will leave it between you and Marc. I think i have a copy of this book -- if I can find it, i will report on what it says. -DES ^Talk 23:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the smartest things a supervisor (moderator) can do is to make sure not to step on another's toes. Unfortunately, I need to get on with it. The first responsibility of communicating is to listen. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have a copy of Of Other Worlds in front of me. In it, the essay by Hooper is entitled simply "Preface". It begins with "'You can't get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me', said C. S. Lewis" it runs from page v to page x, and is dated October 1965. My copy hasa the publication line "JLNOMK", says "First Harvest edition 1975" (It is publisahed by "Harvest" which is an imprint of Harcourt Brace & Co.) The copyright notice mentions a renewal in 1994, so this printing is presumably later than 1994. I state this for what it is worth. -DES ^Talk 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I approved Dragoondelight's submission, changed the title back to Introduction, and then did the add-title/remove title rigmarole so that his publication has Preface and the others have Introduction. It sounds like Dragoondelight has a fourth printing (DEFGHIJ) and DES has a 10th printing (JLNOMK) meaning DES can clone FTHRWRLDSQ0000 and edit it to say JLNOMK plus to add the note about 1994. It's a little surprising the price is still $2.95.

I see that Amazon for that ISBN has a Look Inside. The copyright page for that one says "K M O Q S T R P N L" (11th printing). It also has the back cover (upside down!) and we can see it's $11.00.

Dragoondelight, please keep up with the feedback as that'll help expose areas both with in the moderators and the ISFDB help/software that need improvement. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DES - I added FTHRWRLDSL0000 based on the Amazon Look Inside's "K M O Q S T R P N L" printing. I changed the publisher from "Harvest/HBJ Book" to "Harvest" as I did not see anything on the copyright page about Harcourt Brace & Co, added the cover artist credit (it's on the back cover), and an image. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The image on FTHRWRLDSL0000 is the same as on my 10th printing. I'll probalbyu enter and verify that this evening. I'm not at all sure that the price was still $2.95, I was mostly checking on other aspects, to confirm or disconfimr the 'preface" issue. it does seem odd that what is presumably the same text is, according to our records, listed as 'Introduction" in the earlier printings, and as "Preface" in the later ones. I hope one of the early ones will be primary verified at some point. Do you have any idea what the letters beyond the first mean, and why they are not in alphabetical order? -DES ^Talk

The letters aren't in alphabetical order as alternating them from left to right to left means that as you remove them one by one the overall line stays mostly centered: same as with number-lines like "1 3 5 7 9 0 8 6 4 2". A moot point now that they're not physically removing letters from a true printing plate, and are in fact adding letters at the end of the sequence (but in the middle of the line) too! But traditions die hard I guess. The meaning is like the usual number line - take the lowest still present, and A=1, B=2, C=3 etc. It seems to give scope for more printings but as you can see they don't normally start with all 26 letters: and I've seen some books published so many times that they're into "LL NN PP RR QQ OO MM" already, with no indication if they went between 'Z' and 'AA' directly or via some other convention. BLongley 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks. I thought there might be some more complex and arcane code involved. -DES ^Talk 20:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There no doubt WILL be more complex and arcane codes. Some of the less complex should be in our FAQ (which we don't have yet) and others can go on the publisher pages when we've established only one publisher has gone for such oddities - when we have defined the publisher... another thing still months or years off... :-( BLongley 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the work. Also for the information above. I had considered the hold process as being for the problems I created directly in the submission, not the numerous others that occur between a submission and the other publications. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pursuit Through Time by Burke

Thanks for the submission for this pub, along with the abundance of notes. I changed the date of publication to 1962, as verified by Tuck. Also when entering pre-decimal British prices (roughly before 1970), please use the form "N/N", or "N/-" (as specified in this Help Page under Price). Again thanks. MHHutchins 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the one with the big help. I spent 2 hours tracking a Digit book list in the book by title and then there R numbers and found it was either late 1961 or early 1962. I could not understand why it was a title record until Marc's comment on title edits suddenly clued me in. I made myself a hard copy to look at for the currency. I can never find it when I want it, but I will now. I knew the notes were long, but I felt the cover needed something. Will you now verify it by Tucks or does it need more? Special Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good date research there - even Burke himself seems to not be sure, judging by this thread. Still, he's alive, if not well, hopefully we'll get some more data out of him eventually. (I was always a bit suspicious about the pseudonyms we had set up.) BLongley 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This brings up the question, To what extent can internet sources be used to input data. I understand Amazon and new stuff, but the old stuff. I found quite a lot of data for instance on The Book of Ptath. A special edition, a 500 and a 3000 limited edited, the general release and then a paperback library edition. I worked from highest price down. Is it allowed to use ABE sourcing to show the sequence the vendors show. Does it meet this db standards. I really like seeing the first published history myself. Understand I am not a special fan of van Vogt. Yet I like seeing the printing time line as complete as possible. Burke too needs work. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO whether a source is internet or not is irrelevant, the question is relaibility. I have used Amazin and ISBNdb.com a good deal, other online vendor sites a bit. i have used OCLC a lot, the LOC and other online library catalogs not as much. But IMO it is not at all safe to assume that the list of versions shown by ABE is compalte, and I am not quite sure what you mean by "use[ing] ABE sourcing to show the sequence the vendors show". If you mean including all editions and printings for which they provide data, why not, if the data seems reliable. (Most vendors, IME don't say anyhting much about printing unless the book is a First Edition). Amaxon can't always be relied on for the publisher of an old edition -- they tend to show the current publsiher who owns the iSBN range involved, which may be quie different (Thus they show almost all TSR books as by WotC, and almost all Harper & Row as by HarperCollins.) I don't know if ABE does this. When gettign data from a vendor site, it is often a good idea to confirm with a library catalog site, if possible. -DES ^Talk 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found the following secondary sources to be the most reliable (in order of preference):

1. Tuck (for pre-1969 spec-fic pubs) If you can afford to buy only one sf reference book, this is the one (IMHO). Too bad it's never been updated.
2. Locus, both the print version and Contento's database (which we call Locus1). The internet version only begins in 1984. That's why I spend so much time adding info from the print version because it's practically the only reliable source for book listings between 1968 (Tuck) and 1984 (Contento). Happily that's the period I started reading SF, and am very familiar with most of what was published then. That's when someone could actually keep track of EVERYTHING in the SF field.
3. Worldcat (which uses the OCLC database) entered by librarians who everyone can agree are sticklers for accuracy (although I find a few slip-ups every so often).
4. abebooks.com (but not for printing and edition information, which is only as reliable as the dealers who enter the data) CAVEAT: Never rely on one dealer's data, but see if it agrees with at least three other entries.

Don't forget the fan-generated internet-based single-author bibliographies, the best being Michael Bishop (by yours truly), Tanith Lee, Philip Jose Farmer, and Robert E. Howard.

I only use Amazon for images. Period. Their page counts are notoriously wrong, and publisher id is abominable (ditto David's comments). I use their dates of publications only as a last resort. The most important thing to remember is to record your secondary source in the pub notes. I've doing better at this than when I first began submitting (my first few months I only entered data from pubs in my library). For other secondary sources go to the ISFDB list. MHHutchins 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I ordered a copy of Tucks, except for the third volume. Your using it for Pursuit through Time showed it's value. I'll have to work at the sites and others. I agree very much with your analysis of Amazon and for most of ABE. I will make some data entry for 'The Book of Ptath' and commentary and correction will be appreciated. The only reason I am detouring from my own collection is I would hate the ABE items to sell before they pass a little information to a more stable place. This is on the principle that some opportunities disappear forever if you do not take advantage. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust no-one. Check everything. Save all data. Tuck is good, but incomplete. Locus is good for later works. OCLC is a good starting point. Abe and most other bookseller sites leech data from Amazon and are therefore 90% WRONG. Fan sites are often BETTER Icshi for instance. "The most important thing to remember is to record your secondary source in the pub notes" is something I disagree with - yes, some people SHOULD do that, but it seems to make people stop checking. So I will be one that DOESN'T, unless I really think people needn't check. I'm more likely to add a comment about why something is WRONG rather than add sources to say it's RIGHT - let a primary verifier end that argument. But if you've found sources leading either way, record them somewhere here - publisher, author, editor, whatever. ALL secondary sources are questionable. Primary sources aren't 100% either. BLongley 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am home at last. For years I have preached to people that history is an interpretation of facts. It is never just facts. Always read other sources. Challenge the concepts that you are given. I will try to be very cautious. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Ptath (limited printing of 3,000)

I approved the addition of 270496 but then edited it to

• Edited "This information from book vendors." to add "and thus may not be an accurate description of this publication."
• Removed the following lines. While it's good advice it's not part of the description of the publication.
  • "Warning autographed material can be forged. Use caution and expert help when assesing an offering."
  • Removed "This entry can not be used to validate any offering."
• Another reason for removing the above is that Abebooks and other seller sites contain copyright material. While a pure factual description of a book is not subject to copyright other material is and thus should not be used on ISFDB.
• I changed the formatting from <br> to "<ul> <li> ... </ul>" as I think it makes the list easier to read.
• One area that's uncertain is the role of A. J. Donnell. Unfortunately sellers are not consistent with the use of "illustrated" and if it's for cover art or interior art. It did seem safe from the notes to credit A. J. Donnell as the cover artist and so I credited him in the Artist field. It's not clear if the publication is illustrated. If it is we can add also an INTERIORART title record to credit A. J. Donnell. Marc Kupper (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply to the next entry probably covers most of my comments. I think of the 'editing' submission and Moderator correction as two parts designed to get the best product. I too wonder at the A. J. Donnell role and as I said below sent for a copy with a dust jacket. I am hoping to 'mine' it for a better picture of what occurred in this printing. I checked approximately 60 offerings and a few did credit Donnell with the cover. Some with illustrations and at least four offered a 'Dust Wrapper' for extortionate pricing that they represented as either a promotional item or advertisement. I also got the impression that van Vogt went on a signing tour and wonder if there was a second edition or if the first 3,000 was added to. Hopefully, I will have something for db in a week or so. I also found a Paperback Library edition mentioned with a 1947 date, but am very leery of it. It is priced quite high, but I suspect the edition lacked it's true printing date. The db says Paperback Library is dated to 1962 forward, and in 1964 they printed a copy of 'Two Hundred Million' A.D. LOL That means they are attempting to 'fox' collectors, but it does make it possible for the Zebra editions to have a connection at this point. Sorry, much too long, just warning you that I shall continue till I am stalled out. I entered this and the other in order to take advantage of the vendor data. I would have waited but things get sold and the information gets lost. I found one image of the book without the dust jacket. A picture of a red book is no help. Making a presentation change like notation does not bother me at all. I have problems with the little used keys and so am using them to get some coordination. The notation sequence you used is a little too much for me to finger through at this time. I can see it's appeal, but am worried that I will 'blow' it. I am still weak on the other and hit the question mark. I hope this whole affair has not side tracked your efforts too much. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "I think of the 'editing' submission and Moderator correction as two parts designed to get the best product." That's exactly it - also, as ISFDB's user interface is not user friendly and that we have our own peculiar set of secret handshakes and codes to enter in various fields the moderators look over things to see that the data seems to be ok. For most submissions I just glance over the record and if the tees seem dotted, and eye's crossed, then I approve it. ;-). Marc Kupper (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Ptath (limited printing of two)

I approved the addition of 270497 but then edited it to

• Edited "This information from book vendors." to add "and thus may not be an accurate description of this publication."
• Removed the following lines. While it's good advice it's not part of the description of the publication.
  • "rarest state."
  • "This copy given to the author from the publisher."
  • "As stated this a rarity and any such offering should be examined carefully."
• I changed the formatting from <br> to "<ul> <li> ... </ul>" as I think it makes the list easier to read.
• I changed the price from $0.01 to "None" as that seems a more accurate description of what's stated in the publication. We don't have an ISFDB standard for this though probably should add something like "None" or "(none)" to the help. I've been using "None" for a while plus I add a note like the one you have so that it's clear to others that the book does not have a price rather than that I don't know if it has a price or not.
• Edited the note about the hand written inscription so that this ISFDB record can be used as the record for both physical publications and that one of them has the hand written note to the author. The thinking is we'd have one ISFDB record per distinguishable publication as it came off the press. The ISFDB rules are silent on this as someone could argue that the hand written note is part of the publisher's work and thus the two physical books are different. I'm thinking the note was added after the book was printed and is not part of the "publication" of this book.
• I'm uncertain on if the "in Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's hand" comment should remain. While it may be a factual description the source of who determined this is "Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's hand" is unknown.
• I'm confused by the 1947-00-00 publication date while the title record is dated 1946-00-00. I suspect the publication only has a copyright date and does not state a printing date. At minimum, the two dates should match if this is the first edition. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have probably too strongly emphasized my checking the moderator edit. Most things I have no problem with and I hate for me too cause you to waste your time. I do appreciate the feedback, as I no longer have that living document I created to refer to. Almost always, I check to make sure that something I strongly felt needed mentioning was not lost or why. I over 'emphasized' this offering, because I did not want to misrepresent the entry. I like the 'may not be accurate' statement. Rarest did not make me happy as it is sales terminology, as was rarity. Copy given removal is better covered by your statement the company was known to do this. Which was something I guessed, but was reluctant to say. The use of NONE is fantastic and very correct. I felt something was needed to confront the fact that it was not priced. I was trying to avoid the statement that it needed a price, when it could not have one. I copied most of the vendor statement so that the moderator had the fullest information and getting rid of much (or all) of it is preferred. I have never done it before and probably will not again. The copied message was too much a vendor's pitch rather than anything else. So removal of the note is more than good as it informs someone what I saw and allows them to evaluate it. I almost deleted the 'in hand' remark as it could never be verified and has no value, other than to a possible owner/buyer. I need the moderator to curb my descriptions. I am putting some of it in to give them the best picture I can. I try to present the best 'whole cloth' data to the moderator. I am more compulsive about the dates of copyrights or the implied date of something that maybe copyrighted. I grit my teeth when I think that better documentation should have been provided by the publisher, but you work with what you have.

Van Vogt's work is often riddled with questions. The Zebra editions leading back to the original publication and presumably not having anything to do with the Ace copies is guesswork. Publishers do not always credit correctly. It bothered me that there was no original publication listed and the notation in the ISFDB title note bothered me also. I wish to compare the Zebra, Ace and Fantasy editions. I ordered a 'supposed 1947' copy to do so. I thought I had an Ace but my old database has the title the same as the Zebra, but I will be on the lookout for comparison sake. I will continue this chase, which started with a $0.39 thrift store copy. Hopefully we will discover if this is or is not a usual Van Vogt fixup or not. I truly appreciate your concern to get this right.

I just looked at it again, and after our discussion think the whole entry with the author and such is too case specific and deleting it, but leaving your change at 'Fantasy Press'. Then delete the publisher's name and leave it at this. {Fantasy Press did two 'presentation copies' bound in leather. One for the author and one for the publisher.} The (always) scares me as I suspect it, but am inclined to think that at some point they discontinued the process with no notice. The statement thus becomes generic and as I think you said meets the ISFDB needs more fully. It also provides a 'blueprint' for other editors/moderators for other publications in the series. I leave it to you.

I am sorry about this taking so much of your time, but I get driven till I think it is the best I can do. Even then I will re-check it at some later point, to insure it does do what is intended. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Generally the thinking behind ISFDB publication records is that entering and verification of them should be a "mindless" task. We enter/verify what's stated in the publication. If we add data from a secondary source we note the source. Obviously it's not quite mindless as we need to pay attention to detail and to know the rules of how to format things in the various database fields. I've also developed the habit of noting things like "Assumed first printing that states 'xyzzy'" and making it clear that a publication does not have a number line. The reason for this is too often I've seen "First Edition" or "First Printing" on a seller listing and am not sure if that's what's stated or is based on the seller's expertise, ignorance, or worse. Thus when I'm entering notes I try to make it clear what it's "me" writing vs. what stated in a publication.

I don't have a problem with adding publication records based on seller descriptions. Obviously there's the challenge of figuring out from the listings what's stated in the publications vs. other sources and that it's rare for sellers to note things like the original price. When I add or update a record based on seller listings, whether it be Amazon or an AbeBooks's dealer that seems to know their material, I always add a note making it clear that the ISFDB record may not be accurate and I site the source (Amazon, AbeBooks, etc.) I usually date the note too, particularly if the data is from Amazon so that if someone later checks up they will know how old the data is and can add notes if things such as the price or date have changed.

As for 270497 - the current contents look fine and I believe anyone looking at the record would understand that some of the information is subjective. There is some hard to verify information such as whose handwriting and the two internal copies stuff that's interesting to know and I've copied it to Publisher:Fantasy Press#Special Author and Publisher editions. Please don't worry about if you are wasting my time - I find the feedback and other tasks to be educational. It's always fascinated me that two people can look at the same elephant and come away with completely different descriptions. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I try to check each book out as if it was a puzzle. I treat the ISFDB entry for the title the same way. In the Lewis and the 200 million A.D. both had me changing too much to think they should go through smoothly. The moderator's have to question the intent of the submitter/submission as much as anything else. I give full credit to a lot of people for getting something into the db. Using Amazon as a source is daunting. I am in contact with a publisher who uses it to sell some publications, but he does not take advantage of it to enter that extra data that might sway the audience. He asked for reviews, but did not do his job. Also Amazon sellers jump on the bandwagon and modify seemingly at will. When I started here I tried to find kernels of useful data and found it was often surrounded by so much bad data that it had to be doubted also. I do have a hope that I can 'mine' enough data from sources to fill in some of the older gaps. I have seen to many people who think 'science fiction' was the creation gem of Hugo Gernsbeck. He shaped it, as did Campbell and Asimov, but there was more out there than what is generally known. Anne McCaffrey inspired me with her blase attitude about describing how some unidentified book inspired her 'brain ship' series. That she could not or would not source it was a stain on her craft.

As for 'The Book of Ptath', that was important because once it was sold it would be gone. The record hopefully gives a possible outline to the marketing and publishing practices then. My preference in sellers is ABE, but mostly to compare one thing against another. If you can find several mentions of page numbers or book id numbers then you have something to consider. One source is notable only as a place holder till you can dredge better data, if you can. BTW I physically compared two printing of the Paperback library to the Zebra edition. The only difference that I can detect is the type set. Zebra is a type of easy read.

Being a contrarian, I must question both sides of issues. I know this is a strain on others, but hope the end justifies the means. I worry that I will burn someone out by pushing the envelope as it were. Looking at many entries in the database, I have the feeling that many people have 'burned' out. I verify more to show that someone has it than otherwise. I get no 'coup' feeling from it. There are just too many holes to fill. Once I mentioned how to talk to people. I was talking form experience with others. I found giving them credit and praise did wonders. To me that is something of what the verification process is. I wish I could hand on the verification to any person who checks one of mine. Thus they could count the 'coup' and be encouraged. Of course, anyone here for too short a period is likely to find it more a duty than not. I get a thrill that it is the most correct I can do at the time. I get thrilled when looking for something and the google gives ISFDB as a source on it. You guys are attempting to turn the tide of forgetfulness that is the morass we are in. Any time I screw up, jump dead on me, only be prepared to explain it. I may take a short time to integrate, but usually I can make an accommodation to the working of things. Sorry much too long winded. Thanks again, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice speech. I'm not sure if I'm a "contrarian" too but I know I bug Mods (who are mostly very active editors too) as much as editors. The advantage of bugging a Mod is that they really have no excuse to not reply - communication is one of the qualities they need to demonstrate. Although it does seem we have burnt some out already. Bugging a new editor that hasn't found his talk page yet is far more frustrating. :-/ And I for one don't mind being bugged (mostly - ask for details of anything non-SF in my pubs and I might say something rude though), hopefully it improves my actions overall - one danger of being made Mod is that all the mistakes you make go unchecked if you self-approve too fast. Although when I do leave my own submissions for checking it seems people trust me too much to work on them... maybe I should submit those under another ID. Anyway, keep challenging - the worst that can happen is you push a Mod over the edge, the best is that data-capture improves. I bought a copy of 'The Book of Ptath' this weekend just because it was looking controversial - it has NO bearing on this discussion of the special editions, but it encouraged another bit of data. I like puzzles too, and the fact I can lose entire evenings of data-entry to investigating such isn't too much of a problem for me - I need to reduce my book-buying anyway. BLongley 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OPM line number

I approved Deception Well but am curious about the note "First printing by OPM line number." What's an OPM line number? Marc Kupper (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bantam uses three alphabetic letters before their number line on occasion. I am curious about their intent. OPM is the most common, but two others came up recently. It was just noted in case someone finds the meaning the publisher has for it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that - I'm pretty sure it's a code for the printing plant. I once found book distributor's web site where they had a decoder ring for those codes as apparently the distributor was allowed to order cases of mixed titles as long as they were from the same plant. Thus they had a list of the codes and the street address of the plants. Normally a case of books would all be one title and this was a way to mix in a few books that you knew you'd not sell many of. As the "OPM line number" description was confusing I edited your publication description a little. My normal practice when entering books is to have something like

• Undated 17th printing that states "January 1980 / 20 19 17 / WFH". It's assumed that "January 1980" is the first printing date though this is not stated. The meaning of the "WFH" code is unknown but is assumed to be a code for the printing plant.

My goal is to make it clear which parts of the notes are my commentary/description and which parts are stated and in this case I noted that I don't know what WFH means so that if someone else comes along that does then they can update the note and, ideally, cite a source for the decoder ring. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually put the number line down with OPM at the start, but I hit a couple more and you saw the one I really lapsed on. Your surmise on partial loads of books may be dead on. The copies I found that on were all first printing by line number and were hard to find as used books. I have run into bookstores not being able to get books in the early and mid 1990's because the jobbers made the decision on what to stock them with. I liked your fix. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Holds - price changes

I have your updates to Archangel Blues and The Battle at the Moons of Hell on hold but am in the middle of addressing another editor's items. It'll be a while before I can get to these. The main issue is you are changing the price rather than cloning the record. Since 1980 it's been very common for publishers to keep the same ISBN when then reprint at a higher price meaning we deal with this by cloning the the existing record for the old price and filling in the reprint's details. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Archangel Blues

This one turned out to be messy. Could you please check your publication to see if it's printed in Canada? Apparently the $3.99 price is from Locus and they are usually accurate. I'm wondering if you have a Canadian printing priced at $4.50. If you have a first USA printing at $4.50 then we should add a note that Locus reported the publication as $3.99 which seems to be in error.

For now I've left BKTG21007 in its original state at $3.99 and instead cloned your changes to RCHNGLBLSX1993.

The second mess concerns the cover artist. Your update will change the artist from Nicholas Jainschigg to Nick Jainschigg but your note "Cover artist as Nick Jainschigg, but referenced as Nicholas elsewhere" confused me. By "as" do you mean "credited as?" Where is "elsewhere?" If he is credited under multiple names and perhaps if the signature is visible then I'd document all of this in the notes. The goal here is to help people looking at the record down the road to understand why some sites/references may list this as Nick and others as Nicholas. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied to this but it is missing now. First the Canadian Price is C$5.99 and the American $4.50. No indication of a Canadian source. I changed the price because the number line matched First printing date.

The Nick problem. The elsewhere line was caused by the initial entry as Nicholas and I had recently seen the name as Nicholas. Here is the timeline for the Hellflower series. Hellflower #1 June 1991 as Nicholas Jainschigg. Hellflower #2 March 1992 as Nick Jainschigg. This Hellflower #3 February 1993 as Nick Jainschigg. I am holding my Hellflower #2 input in case this affects it. I wish I had some real data, but the crediting of the 'extras' is helterskelter. I am crediting in the notes all the named people that I find even if I can not really figure out why they get credit at all. Possibly that could help someone show development from one thing to another. With artists I am askant as to whether they are developing name recognition and so change it or is it all the fault of the publishers. Sorry, the initial reply got lost. Know that I understand the hold is for the moderator to work on it, I just mark it in work and come back later. I am sorry for this not being timely and I fully expect that the moderators need time for 'real world' as well. Thanks Harry, --Dragoondelight 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Battle at the Moons of Hell

I went ahead and approved HLFRTSWRBK2007 - sorry about the delay. It looks like this publication was announced at $6.99 but then released at $7.99. It's odd that it does not have a printing date. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, better to check than not. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the one where I deleted the Helfort's War: Book I on the title. Plus the book had that strange excerpt to Helfort's War book II. I cringed when I submitted it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally would have made publication title The Battle at the Moons of Hell: Helfort's War: Book 1 as that's what seems to be stated. I'm ambiguous on the title record. Help:Screen:EditTitle says "The title should appear exactly as published, even though this may be different from the canonical title" and "Subtitles. If the title has a subtitle, enter it, with a colon and a space used to separate the title from the subtitle. For example, the 1986 edition of George MacDonald's "Lilith" has "Lilith" on the title page, and below that, in a smaller font, "A Romance". This should be entered as "Lilith: A Romance"." The implication here is that we should create variant titles for every publication that uses a different sub-title.

While the rules say to always use the full title/subtitle and that the title record should match that in full I sometimes don't bother with propagating sub-titles up to the title record. For example, people know the book as The Battle at the Moons of Hell and : Helfort's War: Book 1 suffix can interpreted as a series indicator rather than a formal sub-title. While not as common in specfict many books have the sub-title "A Novel" and I don't always propagate those up to the title record either though will document it in the publication title. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the help differs from current practices. For example, the help mentions Lilith but only one publication actually follows the help. I believe current practice is usually to remove all series, volume and subtitle extras from TITLE titles to get a canonical title, the PUBLICATION title can retain all of those if desired. And I see nobody has entered a full title of "The Poison Belt, Being an Account of Another Adventure of Prof. George E. Challanger, Lord John Roxton, Prof. Summerlee, and Mr. E. D. Malone, the Discoverers of The Lost World." for this. And I'm sure there's a Philip K. Dick book I entered with an even longer subtitle - in NOTES, as it would have been ludicrous even at publication level rather than title. I just can't remember which one.BLongley 21:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Found it! According to current help this should be called "The Zap Gun: Being That Most Excellent Account of Travails and Contayning Many Pretie Hystories By Him Set Foorth in Comely Colours and Most Delightfully Discoursed Upon as Beautified and Well Furnished Divers Good and Commendable in the Gesiht of Men of That Most Lamentable Wepens Fasoun Designer Lars Powderdry and What Became of Him Due to Certain Most Dreadful Forces". BLongley 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that, it still looks a bit short in the ultimate "ludicrous subtitle" stakes. We also have "Mention my name in Atlantis: being, at last, the true account of the calamitous destruction of the great island kingdom together with a narrative of its wondrous intercourses with a superior race of other-worldlings, as transcribed from the manuscript of a survivor, Hoptor the Vintner, for the enlightenment of a dubious posterity" but I'd disqualify that for improper regularization. Does anyone have a better/longer example? :-) BLongley 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it would be even better with an encompassing "A 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' novel" prefix and "Based on 'Star Trek' by Gene Roddenberry" suffix, with lots of "TM"s and references to Paramount in it too. You can easily fit 300 words on a title page if you really try, someone MUST have tried it already? Or am I just being silly? BLongley 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adventures in Unhistory: Conjectures on the Factual Foundations of Several Ancient Legands The full title page says (with / for section break):

Adventures in Unhistory / Conjectures on the Factual Foundations of Several Ancient Legands / by Avram Davidson / Once Visiting lecturer to the University of California at Irvine / Wilhom Writer in Residence to the College of William and Mary in Virginia / Sometime Visiting Distingished Writer in the University of Texas at El Paso / Briefly Occasional Writer at the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, &c., &c, // Winner of / The Queen's Award, the Hugo Award, the Edgar Award, the Howard Award, and / The World Fantasy Award for Lifetime Achievement // Author of / The Phoenix and the Mirror, Vergin in Averno, Peregrine:Primus, Peregrine:Secundus, The Adventures of Doctor Esterhazy, Joyleg (with Ward Moore), Marco Polo and the Sleeping Beauty (with Grania Davis), The Collected Fancies, &c., &c. // Late Editor of / The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction // Former US Navy Hospital Corpsman with the Fifth Marines in Okinawa and North China // Best Man at the Wedding of Kate Wilhelm and Damon Knight /// Illustrated by George Barr / With an Introduction by Peter S. Beagle

I think that is soemthing of a record in modern publishing, at least. -DES ^Talk 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By pointing to the extreme I think you have helped to focus. What is most clear for a user, what is most likely what the author intended and what is confusing to the user. Titles need to retain their punch, but the notes must reflect the variance. Series designations added to titles do not really add to the understanding of the title. They help to link it to others, but when added to the title obscure the real punch that author is trying to achieve in his title presentation. Thanks, Harry.

The Guardians

In you submission on The Guardians, you added a good deal of useful information, but you removed from the notes the phrase "1st printing". Do you have reason to think this was in fact not the first printing? it is the first edition of which we have a record. I have the submission on hold, pending your response. -DES ^Talk 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When I put Jove Edition February 1985 as the date I was stating it was the first printing. I thought '1st printing' would be confusing as I generally use that in connection with a number line, or direct statement such as 'First printing February 1985.' In a sense Jove edition is the Jove equivalent. I have no objection. I only changed it to get the data derived from the fourth edition that affect this first edition and the image. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved, with "1st printing" note restored. IMO "Jove edition" is not quite equivalent, as there might be earlier printings of the Jove edition -- indeed it is possible, but rare, to have two printings in the same month. But even when such a statement is logically equivalent, an explicit "1st printing" will be clearer to many users, IMO. -DES ^Talk 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem and I will bear the clarity issue in mind as xxxEdition does happen. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I deal with this is to use the phrase "Assumed first printing." See Four from Planet 5 for an example of a publication that says "First Printing" but no number line and The Palace of Eternity where the printing was not mentioned at all but there's still evidence this was the first. Marc Kupper (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Andre Norton's "Forerunner Foray" (Ace 1st pb edition)

FYI: According to Locus #175 (June 24, 1975), this edition was published in February 1975. MHHutchins 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I updated the submission with a note explaining it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

David Robbins

I just approved a slew of pub-updates where you changed the other from David Robbins to David Robbins. What were you trying to do? Marc Kupper (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As a heads up - the last update was for Souls to Keep where you changed David Robbins to David L. Robbins. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) I just approved an author update from "David L. Robbins" to "David Robbins". Perhaps you didn't realize that this would, when approved, change the author in all the titles and publications where that author record was linked, thus making individual title or pub updates to the same effect pointless.

Marc, see ISFDB:Community Portal#David L. Robbins (twins) for background on this situation. -DES ^Talk 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that it would do that, though I hoped it would. The Souls to Keep is the novel of David L Robbins who uses the L. I added it to hopefully separate it. I will enter the basic data for the novel tomorrow under David L. Robbins and hopefully create that author file which I will fill in with some data. Sorry for the extra work. By the way neither Robbins is a favorite. I needed to do it to see what happened. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes i see by looking at his web site that unlike most (all?) of his other novels, this is SF, basically a ghost story. -DES ^Talk 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree letting editors submitting them if they feel that is the way to go seems the most reasonable. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal name

A minor heads up about your author update for Peter Dagmar. The legal name is formatted as "Lastname, Firstname Middlenames" rather than the "Firstname Middlenames Lastname" format we use throughout the rest of ISFDB. See Help:Screen:AuthorData for an explanation on why this is the case. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, It was so skimpy, as is everything I tried, that I did it wrong. Will read help next time. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First Strike/Outlands Strike by Robbins

I approved this, but since its contants are two separately published novels, I converted it to an Omnibus, and made the author "David Robbins", as he is the author of both novels. A minor point: when an omnibus title is constructed in the form X/Y (where X & Y are the two titles included) use "X/Y" or possibly "X / Y", not "X/ Y". -DES ^Talk 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make it an omnibus, but the editor label threw me. This book type is a mess. If I understand the X/Y example you want no spaces between the slash. Can do that. By the way the title was title/ (over)title, so I went with sample they gave. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "editor" is unfortunate there. I think the omnibus type is implemented based on the code for the Anthology type, hence the "editor" label, but I'm not sure. As for spaces, use either "X/Y" (no spaces) or "X / Y" (space on each side of the slash) but please not "X/ Y" (space after the slash but not before). If the omnibus has a separate title of it's own, that will normally be used instead of a slash-formed title, like Lord Darcy. I agree that the implementation of the omnibus type should be improved. -DES ^Talk 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, most often, an omnibus will be in the same series as the component works, if they are all in the same series. But in this case if there was a separate series of "Blade Doubles" that's fine. Do you think that should be a sub-series of "Blade"? -DES ^Talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem with X/Y, except my visualization glitches till I re-orient to the db need. I have a similar problem with exclamation points in titles. I was blind to them till just recently. It is amazing how often I (and others) re-interpret (or miss) symbols.

Yes it is a sub-series to make it easier on whoever it's fans are. These doubles were supermarket knockdowns that I did not read. I in-puted them because they may have worth to others some day. I wanted to create a series to group the publications of these doubles. Endworld was also done as a doubles series. There content is exactly the same, except I hope they gave better publication data, but a series seems to group them together instead of stringing them through out the initial series. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently Blade_Double is, in ISFDB terms, a separate series. It could be made a sub-series of Blade by entering "Blade" as the "parent series" when editing the series data for Blade Double. Then this series would be listed indented, under the "Blade" series, on the David Robbins page. For a multi-level example, see Foundation_Universe. -DES ^Talk 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did it and that will be better. The Foundation example is a little overwhelming and I hope I never face that. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Back at the Front

I approved this, but changed the type type to NONGENRE based on your description. Any novel that is not SF but is entered (normaly because the author is an SF author) should have a title type of NONGENRE, and a publication type of NOVEL. (A simialr rule would apply to non-genre collections and anthologies, all get title type NONGENRE). This requires a two-step process, as there is no way to set the title type to NONGENRE when doing the inital submission for a new publication. it must be changed with "edit title data" after the pub has been approved. -DES ^Talk 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. The book just popped up, because it is a favorite and the author did some science fiction I decided to add it to show inventive he was. Submit then after acceptance change to nongenre as a title edit. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And I agree that it ougt to be included. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardfought / Cascade Point

Your recent edit to this omnibus adds an image, which is good, and several notes, which seem fine. But it also changes the cover artist from "Tony Roberts+Tim White" to "Tony Roberts+Tim White+Tony Roberts". Why is Tony Roberts listed twice? I have the edit on hold. -DES ^Talk 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he was trying to flip the artists around. I approved the results and only see two artists. I have a copy of the publication and the publication record matches what I have. Marc Kupper (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. The "third" artist seems to have vanished. But Harry, you should know that the order of co-authors, or co-artists, is not guaranteed to be maintained by the ISFDB, no matter how they are entered. -DES ^Talk 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You know I fess up to being wrong, but I think there may have been something wrong that I did not do. Tim White was the only cover artist listed when I started. I only added Tony Roberts by add artist. I then made specific notes as to who did what in notes. I remember seeing a 'header' somewhere that there were ways to properly cite multiple cover artists, but I got lost and never actually made any effort other than to add and note. I made absolutely NO attempt to alter the sequence of the names. I did wonder, why the record had missed one of them. I know wonder if there was possibly a 'ghost data bite' that you saw. I lost a message I wrote in reply to Marc several days ago, but I saw it posted. It was gone the next day. The ODD thing I noticed was when I hit 'save' on that message, that for a many seconds I got a 'feedback' image that showed elements of the 'Devouring Fire' message on my list. It lasted long enough to make me wonder what was going on. You were very clear about 'appearance sequencing'. So this was a surprising message. Still loosing other messages also. I made one to ask if someone could check the Ernetoveg Tuck verification on Farewell, Earth's Bliss. It disappeared but definitely posted at the time. I finally left a note, but changed the data as I am wondering if he is still editing. My A-L Tucks did not list the Ace edition of 1971 and I wondered if he was at the right book entry as the Hodder was entered in Tucks. Please continue to note my errors as 99% of the time I will be guilty, but hopefully will learn. I wonder if I have a personal Grimlin. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what ErnestoVeg was thinking when he Tuck-verified that pub, because Tuck only goes up through 1968. I'll see if I can remove it, and check on the 1966 Hodder edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was able to remove the Tuck verification and then verified the Hodder edition. MHHutchins 00:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Darned if I know what happened than. When i saw the submitted edit, it said the change was from "Tony Roberts+Tim White" to "Tony Roberts+Tim White+Tony Roberts". If you didn't enter such a change, that must be some sort of glitch in the software. But unless we can repeat it, Al probably can't fix it. Didn't mean to sound accusatory. I first thought you could change the order of co-authors, and tried to, when I was new here. Figured no one had happened to mention that to you yet. Anyway, I think the record is now correct. Thanks again for all your submissions and work. Oh I have found that doing a preview first sometimes seems to make save more reliable. Also if I do a preview and mistakenly click a link, when I click back I haven't lost work before the preview. Don't know if that is true on all browsers or setups, but it seems to be on mine. -DES ^Talk 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed, I am thankful you guys are looking out for me. Accusatory does not bother me. I took it as a reminder not to lapse. I thought of trying to mess with the artists, but gave it up because I thought it would not work. Still, the initial input that someone did was of such quality that I do not think they missed the two cover artists thing. I do use the preview pane as I often type and leave portions out. Preview is a lifesaver. I actually think the basic program is highly stable and expect some data loss/corruption. It seems odd, but I can hang at this level of events. I lost mine after the previewing, but it could be because sometimes I recheck more than once. Other things are not that easy to explain. Instance, I log end for messages, for the work screen and started an edit. I needed to cross check and opened two more work screens and surprise of surprised, both showed me logged IN upon opening. I closed those screens and an hour later needed to check again on another screen and that one wanted a log in. I much prefer to actually have to log in as afterward I feel the connection is most secure. Please do not hesitate to correct, as assumptions can lead to greater errors on my part. It is tough to do overviews, but they are needful and you and everyone else deserve a reward.

I do need instruction on using Tuck's for notation. Also something on what data from Worldcat is useful. Especially the OCLU (misspelled probably) number. Is that a useful data bit. Also why when on an edit screen does hitting enter sometimes submit, yet when in the notes field it does not. I feel that the submit button should be the only way to submit when on that screen. I have awful habits acquired so long ago that they occasionally pop out. Hopefully, I am over my 'bad' spell as I am personally playing with ideas other than basic book submissions and verifications. Very happy and expect you to keep me 'reigned' (reined) in. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, when you login, a cookie is set on your machine. If another ISFDB page is opened, the cookie is checked for. If it is still present and not expired, you are treated as already logged in. If, however, a page is opened in a variant domain (isfdb.org instead of www.isfdb.org) you are not treated as already logged in on that page. Depending on your browser settings login cookies may be erased when you close the browser, or when you close all isfdb pages. The cookies will also expire after a period of inactivity.

The OCLC (Worldcat) number is, i think, useful -- it allows quickly going to the exact worldcat record previously used to create or verify the entry. It is not uncommon for there to be more than one worldcat entry for a title, sometimes more than one for the same edition of a work. In some cases I have noted the numbers of multiple OCLC records in a single publication. -DES ^Talk 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the difference in the behavior of the Enter key between the Notes field(s) and all the other fields goes, this is the default behavior of most browsers when processing "forms". I remember it being a problem for me as well when Web browsers first appeared some 15 years ago and I had to reprogram my tentacles to use "forms" correctly. A number of editors have complained about this behavior over the last 2 years, but I don't think we have a way to control it on our side, although there may be browser add-ons which may change the way it works on your computer. Ahasuerus 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no real general standard for what the "Enter" key really should do on the web - nor for "Back" activity. I (often reluctantly) have to support a web-based system in my "pays-the-bills" job and wish I had far more control over what such things do. I do actually get SOME control - I can ban "back" activities for some pages in a default IE6 installation for instance, and we're officially allowed to ignore anything that isn't Internet Exploder or Firefox. Unfortunately I can't TEST anything under IE7 or 8, Firefox 3, or explain why Opera or Safari or Mozilla or Lynx aren't supported as I can't even install those at work. (And if I could test with them from HOME I'd be sacked for making such a sensitive system open to abuse from outsiders, even though that's the firewall team's responsibility really...) BLongley 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Web-based programming is a nightmare, full WWW-based programming is even worse (I expect) as you can never know what the browser will actually be able to do (or even know if it's a browser really). Even with a user-base consisting entirely of security-cleared Law-Enforcement professionals on a bounded extranet, I can never be sure they won't be able to do something they shouldn't. And the ISFDB is actually EXTREMELY vulnerable to all sorts of abuse, with the ability to add HTML links in notes etc. I haven't seen it really abused yet (although the Wiki has been before, horribly) and the approval stage for ISFDB edits rather than Wiki ones has probably helped, but one infected or rogue Mod could lose that control. Ah well - enough nightmares for tonight, I'll leave you all with the internet worries and go back to my extranet ones tomorrow, after a good night's sleep. Well, fairly good. BLongley 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Everyone, I appreciate the feedback. You make me feel lucky to be here at this time, instead of the near future when it will definitely be 'sticky'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Behold the Man

Can you check this pub[4] and let me know what the spine, back cover, title page and copyright page say about the imprint & publisher. Thanks!

Unknown sir, I delight in providing that information because it is much more gratifying than what I received from reading the book. First the db entry shows the publisher as 'Overlook TP' that is a moderator change that I do not fathom.

Spine has a faint 'Big eared elephant' logo (over) Overlook (printed vertically) at bottom of spine.

Back Cover 'Overlook (spacing) S (space) F (space) G (space) F (spacing) Classics'. The overlook and classics in red printing and the S F G F in white print. The 'G' is assumed as it is a different font (also oversized compared to the others) and possibly is a stylized 6. This is at the very top of the back cover. Back cover, bottom, left side. logo (over) The Overlook Press (over) Woodstock & New York. The ISBN block in small size on right side back cover with this underneath 'Science Fiction #13.95/CAN $17.50'.

Front cover, though unasked, has a 'elephant logo' at lower right bottom, this is exactly the size of a dime and is the clearest printing of the logo.

Title page has 'logo' (centered over) The Overlook Press (over) Woodstock & New York.

Copyright Page. 'This edition first published in paperback in the United States in 2007 by the Overlook Press, Peter Mayer Publishers, Inc. Woodstock & New York. This is followed by the address with WWW.Overlookpress.com on the last line. This is the totality of the publisher information. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it would be "The Overlook Press". Any idea what "SF(G or 6)F" stands for?Kraang 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just guesses, but I sent an email to them about it. Thanks, Harry.

Anarchistic Collosus Introduction doubled

The Introduction has doubled itself. [5] . This looks worse than the artists doubling and I bet no one but I shall see it. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 10:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I recall approving at least to edits to thst title by you, but I don't recall the details of what they changed. If the intro was added in both edits, it is posisble that the result was to add it twice. -DES ^Talk 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it on wednesday and it never appeared as approved or it did not change. I resubmitted on thursday. This morning I checked the approved edits and it was there twice, only one other between them. Thus it has come to pass, sayeth the. Thanks, for the fix. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. FYI, all I did was go to the publication screen and click "Remove Titles from this Pub" and select one of the copies of the intro on the remove titles screen, then click submit as usual. You could do this if the situation were to somehow occur again on a different book. This is also the cure for content entered by mistake. it is also how to deal with cloning a collection or anthology when the new version doesn't include all the contents of the version being cloned. I hope this helps. -DES ^Talk 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I left it in case I did something that I should not. I will try to fix from now on. I had not done a remove titles yet. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Radio Series by Ralph Milne Farley

The Radio series of stories is incomplete. Create the Radio series with four sub-series. I propose to rename the Radio Man series to the Radio Interplanetary I series. Radio was the pre-eminent title word used. Tow exceptions to that. Listing the 'Radio' stories by relationship groups. Radio Interplanetary I, Radio Inner World I, Radio Interplanetary II, and Radio Inner World II which reflects the gross timeline of the overall story line. The sub-series reflect the greatest connection between those elements. This order was established by consulting 'Radio' fans as some of the material is unavailable or just going into reprint after 50 or more years. Some material may have older dates, not known to these fans. Here is the suggested ordering: Radio Series Radio (Interplanetary I) 1-Radio Man, 2-Radio Beasts 3-Radio Planet Radio (inner Worlds I) 1-Radio Flyers, 2-Radio Gun Runners, 3-Caves of Ocean, 4-The Golden City. Radio (Interplanetary II) 1-Radio Menace, 2-Radio Man Returns, 3-Radio Minds of Mars Radio (Inner Worlds II) 1-Radio Pirates, 2-Radio War. This should give interested readers a guide that they can refine. This has taken some time and a lot of personal irritation at the lack of any 'hard' data on the net. Farley 'Radio' fans knew a lot, but only one fan knew it all. When pressed he gave this listing and it had more data than the others were aware off. He also gave me the printing dates and individual reviews that he had collected. No. 3 on the Inner Worlds I list is solidly connected, but No. 4 is in the same setting with other characters. The cycling between outer and inner space apparently was Farley's desire to emulate Burroughs. The third and fourth reflect reader interest for more stories. Questions/comments welcome. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Planetary Agent X / Behold the Stars

I've put this on hold and will approve when I have a chance to link the magazine titles to the fix-up title. The other thing I have to add is the Omnibus title. Your change was about 90% right. The other change that was necessary was the inclusion of the main title "Planetary Agent X / Behold the Stars", the author's and the "Omnibus" classification. Changes like this are a bit tricky and can be done in several steps or all at once. The all at once is faster only if it's done right. I've had a lot of practice doing it wrong and having to do twice as may edits to get it fixed. Nice try though! :-)Kraang 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure I would have to come back on this one. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've approved the submission and have found some interesting things about this fix-up. Have a look at the "Planetary Agent X" novel link[6]. If I'm lucky I'll be able to match it to the variant 1966 title, if not than it will remain a mystery for awhile longer.Kraang 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked it and am delighted at the outcome. The 'Pistolero' especially was a mess, but looks much better now. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Farmer's The Black Tower

Your submission updating this edition adds new content: Phillip José Farmer's The Dungeon, Vol. I: The Black Tower (Foreward). Generically title pieces should be in the form: Foreword (Title of Pub). Also is it spelled "Foreward"? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went with this [7] in the formatting of the entry. That used 'The Black Tower (Foreward). The problem is that it is less a foreward to the novel than it is to the premise for the series. The commentary on The Black Tower starts at the bottom of page xi and ends on xii and is not terribly useful to the reader for the novel. So I mimiced the Series wording to give the reader an idea of the basis of the 'Foreward', correct in spelling, but a bad title for introducing a series. All in all, I have one later printing of this volume, and one each of vol ii and iii. My basic stance was 'Foreward' as a title is misleading and I went with the example to show that. This has been a forum topic, novel, not the Foreward, but I can not locate it. The topic was about the sketches. I did this to present my 'eye view' of what I saw. I am open to any resolution of the best manner to verify this novel and series.

Creatively my description of the sketches by what looks like a title page works for this volume, but vii & viii are not so specific. Here is a verified v.4. [8] Note the use of foreward. Here is v5. [9]. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the piece is more fiction than essay, we can change that after I approve the submission. I just wanted to make sure that the word "Foreward" (note spelling) is the actual title printed on the piece's first page. I'll also change the other edition to match yours. MHHutchins 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I lost my thoughts in an editor conflict. The spelling is 'Foreward'. What I was trying to say is that the 'Foreward'(s) have more to do with the concept of the series, with a slight 'dash' for the story. As such, I think they should be 'grouped' so that people can easily find them to 'pursue' the whole of Farmer's essay. It is not fiction, but the essay is 'serial'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When an edit conflict occurs, youcan save your work. See Help:Edit conflict. While you can create an essay series, i'm not sure that would actually help most users that much. Above you seem to suggest that a Foreward is for soem particular kind of thing, and that the content here is not a "real" foreward (or Foreword). If it is called a foreward in the book, htan IMO it is a foreward. A note to describe the content of the foreward might be appropriate, but I think we should stick to our standard ways of titling such essays "Foreward (Title)". -DES ^Talk 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Back in July another editor wanted to enter all 15 sketches as separate INTERIORART Titles. We discussed whether it was worth doing, but the discussion results were inconclusive. Now that you have created a verified record for the 1988-08-00 printing, I have added that information to Notes. You may want to take a look at the results when you get a chance to make sure that everything still looks OK. Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Beholder's Eye

I slightly tweeked your submission of this edition, adding the price and date based on the Locus listing and giving a link to the reference. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I must admit to being irked by my hc edition. I bought it from Amazon itself and so it should not have been the SFBC version, though that was my assumption. I saw an entry with SFBC as the publisher and have figured out that they have the printer print them for them, but I thought those were gotten only through the club. What cues the book to being SFBC? My problem is that I think DAW did not exercise due diligence in it's printing of the edition. Still having made this statement, I am satisfied enough to verify it. I cloned of the SFBC entry. Is this an example of a merge? Could Locus have missed the DAW release through Amazon or was this an 'overage' or 'surplus' release? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An SFBC release pretty much always includes the words "Book Club edition" on the jacket flap. Until around 2000 ISBNs did not appear on SFBC editions. SFBC editions never carry printed cover prices. Amazon usually does not (IME) sell SFBC editions as "new" but often carries them as "used". SFBC books generally carry an SFBC catalog number (5 digits, usually) on the back jacket, usually on the lower right IME. In some recent cases there is pretty much no difference between the SFBC and non-SFBC HC editions except for the words "Book Club Edition" and the SFBC catalog number. -DES ^Talk 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd lay money that what you purchased was from an "Amazon Associate", not Amazon itself. I wouldn't feel too bad if I were you, since this is the first hardcover edition, regardless of whether it's published by the SFBC or DAW. I deleted the record for the previous SFBC edition when I approved your submission of this one. MHHutchins 23:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was seeing SFBC markers, but did not want to make an unwarranted leap. The purchase was direct from Amazon and was the only copy they offered of the story at the time. I dislike mismatching hc to pb in a series and I remember how it 'bugged' me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fire Time by Anderson

Your notes to your new submission for this title include:

• First Baen printing August 1984.
• Second printing December 1985.
• Cover image is of 2nd Baen printing of this edition and is different in the arrangement of the title, author's name and blurbs.

Is the record for the first or second printing? The cover image is different from what other cover? The cover for the first printing? It is normally assumed that the cover image is for the edition and printing being recorded (or one with an identical cover), unless a note explicitly says otherwise.

I think I know what you intend here, but these notes are not fully clear to me, and could be quite unclear to a future user. (I do wish we had a printing number field).

I have placed this on hold pending yuour response. -DES ^Talk 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the second printing of December 1985. Should have been third '3rd' printing of the edition for the cover. The cover changes are small and the image is the same. With the change to 3rd Baen printing, make it clear enough?

What was attempted to convey in the notes was the connection of the first edition & date to the second printing. Then the 3rd edition cover art to the 2nd edition cover art. I did not add the date, June 1988, of the third edition.

The description 'title, author, and blurbs' to be specific were this. Poul Anderson is printed straight across the cover, mine has it curved from F in Fire to e in Time. F (Fire) and T (Time) in the 3rd printing has extended bottom halves and mine are shorter. The blurb is 'Once in Every Thousand Years Comes' in a straight line in the 3rd, and mine has it as Once (over) Every Thousand (over) Years Comes all cupped by the 'Poul Anderson' semi-arc and the 'Fire Time' title. My purpose is to state the art of the image is the same, but the design of the above was subtly different.

IMO the art is the most significant visual cue for the user to difference the editions. I felt it is most important for them to know the art was the same. I hope this makes it understandable. My premise is you see images first and then words. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I am more confused than before. I gaiter that there was a Baen printing in August 1984. There was another in December 1985. Do you mean that there were two different printings in December 1985, and this is the 2nd of those? If so, this would be a 3rd printing, but I find two printings of a far from new work in the same month unlikely, although possible. You say again that the art was "the same" but do not say the same as what. if you mean that the art used in December 1985 was the same art as that used in Aug 1984, but with a different cover design, placement of title text, etc, then i would suggest something like the following as publication notes:

"Cover painting is the same as was used on the XXX printing, but the arrangement of the title, author's name and blurbs is different here". Or if you are actually using an image from a different printing/edition, something like "Cover image is from the XXX printing. This printing uses the same art, but has a different arrangement of the title, author's name and blurbs".

By the way, there is really no need IMO to include in the notes the date of the printing that the record is for, as this date should be in the "Year" field already. But there is no great harm in putting it there. If you are quoting directly to show exactly what is stated, that may be worth while. -DES ^Talk 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By explaining, I seem to be tieing the knots tighter. Just reject it and I will resubmit and get it on an even keel. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am really not trying to be a pain. Will do, and I'll probably leave it to another mod. -DES ^Talk 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault at all. I made a mistake, compounded it and when I explained I did not get my point over. I asked for a restart because in personal experience it can get frustrating worse. I will redo it and you are most welcome to check it. Still may have flaws, but a fresh start can help. I felt a restart avoids making the problem worse. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resubmitted and rechecked my data. Is the note clear to which addition this is? I could put 'this printing' behind the note date.Is the cover description clear? Is the Fire Time (maps) correct, as the Ballantine has the same artist, but as Maps (Fire Time)? Please check as bad habits are hard to change the longer I go with them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've approved. Not how I would have worded it, but I think it is clear enough, and celarer than many notes we have on file. -DES ^Talk 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Starlight: The Great Short Fiction of Alfred Bester

Since it's a second printing of the July 1977[10] edition I changed the date to unknown.Kraang 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. No good excuse for the gaff, but I appreciate the catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On Stories by Lewis

Your recent edit proposes to change this record from a 1982 publication date priced at $4.95 to a $13.00 work of unknown date. Do you ahve reason to think that the $4.95 18=982 version did not exist? Why not use "Add a publication" or the clone tool instead of changing an existing pub? I am sure you have a reason, but it isn't clear to me. Edit is on hold pending your response. -DES ^Talk 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It would not have been my intention to have change an '82 pub with something much later. What happened is I hit edit, instead of clone, was interrupted, and then did a long manual check to make sure the pages were correct. Since my thought was to clone, I went ahead and changed the '82 data. As dumb as this is, I just checked again and saw that once I configured the screen the 'clone' was gone and after checking the pages below I never came near the 'clone' again. I wanted clone because the format was the same. Explanation done as poor as it is.

Please reject it and I will re-submit. I was also wondering about how it could only be the third printing and if I was misdirecting by adding (cloning) this record. I would be establishing the 1982-?-2008(as 3rd printing?). I purchased this three months ago new for extra insight on reading 'Out of the Silent Planet' for a reading group. That added a lot of indecision that distracted my thought processes (if I have them).

This message did not appear till this morning as it was not there when I answered 'Heir to the Dragon'. Your link did not work for me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected, link above fixed, not that it really matters now. An easy mistake to make. Some books do stay in a single printing for a long time, if they sell stedialy but in small quantities. This seems likely to me to be that sort of book. -DES ^Talk 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This 3rd edition of 2002 release per Amazon. It is traceable to the 1982 edition per Library of Congress data (on copyright page), but is actually a new release of that material under a different publishing sub-division. No HBJ on this edition. Used Harvest Books/Harcourt. The Harcourt to show there was no other division inbetween according to the data given. Title page goes A Harvest Book (dot) Harcourt, Inc. The internal contents are the same as the 1982. Left the 1982 title in the contents area. I can NOT remember that being done with anything else, but it shows the (LCC) parent connection and should be right. Of course, I would have to re-edit to get rid of it. (This was one of the 'confusers' of the original submission.) Sorry for this mess, but would not be surprised if there were more subdivision re-issues of this material.

One more 'confuser' issue. The ISBN on copyright page appear thus. ISBN 978-0-15-169964-3 (spacing) AACR2 (over) ISBN 978-0-15-602768-7(Harvest: pbk.). At Amazon the first ISBN leads to a 1982 hardcover edition. I did not even 'note' the first ISBN because of the confusion I have had already. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense. thanks for checking into this. Looks ok to me at this point -DES ^Talk 21:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Heir to the Dragon

I am about to approve this, but as "Robert N. Charrette" is clearly the cannonical author, i will be creating a varient title record for this. Please confirm that this book was published as by "Robert Charrette" (no "N.") and either create a pesud relationship, or confirm that I can safelyu do so. (I don't rush on that one because it can't easily be undone). -DES ^Talk 22:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is Robert Charrette with no N. I have seven books with the N and two without N. Wolves on the Border preceded 'Heir to the Dragon. The reprint editions both have N. Wikipedia goes straight to Robert N and lists both books without mention of how his name was spelled. Only his first two books used it and then went to the N. later. Apparently the N became dominant when he started working for Roc and thereafter, at least by looking at the covers. How about notes on those two instead of pseudonym? Though I doubt there will be real confusion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pesudonym relationship set up. This is the best way to handle such a case, but with varient titles to indicate how each particualr book was actually published. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See Robert N. Charrette for the results. -DES ^Talk 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The War of the Lance

Your proposed update to The War of the Lance looks good except for one thing which is you are changing the price from $6.99 to $4.95. Since 1980 it's been common for publishers to keep the same ISBN as they reprint at a higher price. In this case Amazon.com 1560764317 has a Search Inside which looks like an 8th printing at $6.99 meaning THWRFTHLNC1992 is a valid publication record. Thus the better course for situations like this is to clone a record to create a new one that matches your price rather overwriting an existing record.

In this case what I decided to do was to

• Approve your submission. This hijacked THWRFTHLNC1992 to be the first printing.
• Cloned THWRFTHLNC1992 to create THWRFTHLNB1992.
• Edited the two records to flip the publication keys making THWRFTHLNC1992 the 8th printing at $6.99 but also adding to it your contents listing, etc. and THWRFTHLNB1992 is the the record for the 1st printing. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The key in the future with matching ISBN but price diff to clone to forward date. I have cloned forward/backward between printings, but had not thought to do that with matching ISBN. Will do from now on. Appreciate the corrections. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "keeping the same (I)SBN" has been a common practice in the UK since we invented it - so adjust Marc's warning back to the mid-1960s. I personally NEVER adjust a pub record with a different price to my copy, and really think nobody should be able to - but that's a programming change which won't happen soon. ISBNs are very useful, but they don't actually define a specific author name, price, publisher, coverart, cover artist, or anything we really try to be specific about at ISFDB. Cloning an existing pub to give you a head-start on entering your own publication is a good short-cut: but you do have to be careful about how an Author or Artist is credited in YOUR own pub. This is why I don't clone backwards too often even when there's a clear publication history: by the time you've removed everything you DON'T know there's not much left! From examples today alone, I've avoided creating a "Brian Aldiss" pub that might be "Brian W. Aldiss": a "Gollancz" publication that might be "VGSF", and might be "tp" rather than "pb" too: avoided using coverart on Amazon that shows a big yellow hardback but with the wrong STYLE of big yellow hardback artwork for 1976... I do leave a LOT of notes about prior publications in some books I enter, but rarely create a missing publication record for anything but the first (and even then, only if the title and author are pretty sure to be the same). Cloning to something you physically OWN is pretty good though. BLongley 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, I have encountered an unverifed record with the same ISBN, same format, same or very similar date (same year at least) as my pub but a different price. In such cases I generally do an OCLC and/or LOC search, and if those show no evidence of multiple editons that would fit, I have assumed that the existing record was amazon data and was simply wrong. Amazon pre-release or amazon records for old books have been known to have incorrect prices listed. If such a record were verifed (which has not happened yet) I would of course query the verifier. But that is a case when i think adjusting a record with a different price is warrented. -DES ^Talk 14:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt OCLC would ever distinguish same-ISBN editions the same year. If a record was stated Amazon pre-release data and I had the first printing, I guess I would correct it. But if it's possibly human-entered, I'd leave it - it's far more common to have a record here that doesn't state it's a different printing but actually is: adding notes about printing numbers is comparatively new. I've already encountered one pub today were mine was the same year and same ISBN and same page-count and same cover-artist and different price from another Verifier's: I don't think the other Verifier is wrong, I just think he didn't state the printing. BLongley 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

True. I should add that I have mostly corrected when the recorded price is highly unlikely for the format and date. -DES ^Talk 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cloned backwards at times and usually only leave the publisher and date in plus add a note giving the source. It happens when I have a reprint that credits the original publisher. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A note is something even I add, due to problem publications like this. A very clear statement at first sight until you see this other edition. I suspect the latter is more accurate about the true first British hardback and paperback printings, but copyright pages are notoriously revisionist now and publishers will claim a prior printing by themselves long before they even existed. See my comments about Grafton. OK, now I've established doubt in date and publisher too (after doubting title and author already, so it might seem there's not much left), but I hope it won't stop people giving us publication stubs to hunt down, there's often some or much truth in the matter. It might not be a first edition, the publisher might have gone under a different name, the true author might be a little skewed, or the title might actually have been under another variant name: but so long as you don't make it look truly primary VERIFIED in any way we're big enough to deal with it - I hope. BLongley 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Day the Oceans Overflowed

Your note on this states:

• Data from OCLC records 15143750 (which states the copyright date only) and 16567442 (which states this edition's publication date, 1966).
• No pricing, publication dates, or copyright dates in/on book.

However, you added a price of $1.00. What is the source of the price info? it isn't in either of the OCLC records you cite (OCLC rarely lists prices). You say it isn't on the pub itself. Where did it come from? Submission on hold pending your response. -DES ^Talk 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a price list on the back of the book. Uk 30p, USA $1.00, Australia $1.00, New Zealand $1.00, South Africa 85 cents and Canada $1.25. I chose US. Sorry it did have pricing, but it threw me in the sense I had to choose one. Somehow, my mind boggled at the price list. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved and edited. The results are here. UK price chosen because it was the first on the list, and because Priory is a London-based publisher. -DES ^Talk 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world - I have lots of books like that. The worst also have prices for Trinidad, Malta, Gibraltar, Spain, East Africa, Republic of Ireland, India... :-/ BLongley 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. The logic of it is what I wanted, but I remembered the US first thing and then forgot the notation. I do think it works better with the UK price. This cover was bad, but most of the time Bill you get some great covers. I would often choose the Britits title because of the cover. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I do try and get the exact cover for my own publications, and for a lot of British books the cover is identical over many printings. Feel free to use them if they're the same, or even if they're slightly different (but note the differences if you do - I find it's often only some cover blurb text that changes, not the art). BLongley 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Listeners

I have approved the edits, but I wonder if "The Computer -- 2118 " may be a short story rather than a novelette. Contento lists it as a novelette, but if you could estimate a rough word count, that would be great. Thanks! . Ahasuerus 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have said that to, as it is only 19 pages, but looking at the whole collection as it is assembled troubles me. This is the Amazon latest release. [11] . In reading the commentary, it does not seem a collection, but an non-standard novel. Though each novelette is separated, they are actually subdivided on the contents page. There is a human named portion and then a computer run portion. I just got the book. I will send a note to Mhhutchins and ask him to clarify how he sees it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that much of our original Collection data came from Contento's pre-1984 compilation. Contento usually listed "fix-up" novels as collections even when individual stories were later rewritten and re-juggled to create the final product. In cases like that it helps to compare the original magazine texts with the end result. I will pull out the affected issues tonight and see if the texts are any different vis a vis the collection text. Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have spot-checked a few stories against my SFBC edition of the novel. As far as I can tell, the texts of the original stories were mostly preserved, although some magazine conventions like italicizations were altered by Scribner's. There were two major changes, though. First, as you note, a bunch of "Computer Run" sections, mostly consisting of quotes from other sources, were added after each chapter. Second, a number of foreign language quotes were removed from the first story; the rest had their associated translations moved to the back of the book. Overall, the changes were not as extensive as in some other "fix-ups" from that period, but still, one could argue that the end result is a novel and not a collection. Let me post a note on the Community Portal and see what other editors think. Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this is more of a collection of previously published stories than a novel, but could fall into that nebulous region of fixups. The only new parts were the "computer runs" between each story, most about five pages long. The reason the last story was typed as a novelette is because that was its designation when it was first published in Galaxy as "The Reply". It runs twenty pages in the hardcover edition, but two of the pages are almost entirely graphics. But since Gunn (who is notorious for collecting his stories as "novels") calls it a novel, I suppose we should too. MHHutchins 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that input. An author's definition is probably the best rule of thumb, though I see no reason to not leave it 'parsed' out so later users can see the elements and judge it for themselves. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of the Silent Planet

The back cover has[12] "Scribner Paperback Fiction" Published by Simon & Shuster New York, what does the copyright and title page say about the imprint name? Thanks!Kraang 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Page. Aladin logo above Scribner Paperback Fiction (address below that). After fiction statement and rights came First Scribner Paperback Fiction Edition 1996. Below that. Scribner Paperback Fiction and design are trademarks of Simon & Schuster, Inc. That was it.

Title page. Scribner Paperback Fiction (over) Published by Simon & Schuster. That's it. There are no other mentions except the back cover which is exactly like the above. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Far Country

The method you used, of back-dating the pub to force the title record back also, with a moderator note about your planned re-edit, works. In fact I jsut did the re-edit, since there is a facility to edit the pub record just submited when approving it. You could also plan to edit the title record as soon as approval creates it, and change the date there. The resluts of my edit are here, and the title record is here. -DES ^Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you caught it, but figure if someone did not it would work for the best. Thanks for the clean up. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Foundation

Your addition of Foundation has been approved and you can do the remaining edits as mentioned in the publication notes. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tor Doubles

I've restarted the "How to enter Doubles" discussion here. Apologies for the inconsistent help so far, we ARE working to improve it. Feel free to join in the discussions, it's not a "Mods-only" discussion. The reason I point it out directly is because you've verified this and under current proposals that may need to become an OMNIBUS. BLongley 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #104: The Man With Two Faces

Just to let you know that I have verified my copy of Perry Rhodan #104: The Man with Two Faces, which you did a transient verification on back in July, and made a few changes. Estelle Frye's last name was changed from "Fry" to "Frye" and the story ("The Face in the Mask") was merged with the 1961-06-10 version. The story also starts on page 131 and not on page 132, as the table of contents states, so I have changed the page number and added a Note. I also merged Oscar J. Friend's story with its original 1940-08-00 appearance in Thrilling Wonder Stories and changed the date of Frank R. Paul's interior art from 1970-00-00 to 1940-08-00 to match the story. Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your checking, I went with transients on many of them for the simple reason 1) I am too new not to miss important points and 2) to encourage people to check their copies against them. I wish I had not made mistakes, but things with so much to look at just have to be gone over again till it all comes out. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Magazines usually require cross-verification because, as you pointed out, there is a fair amount of information to enter and massage. One thing to keep in mind is that once all stories have been entered, it's important to find out whether we already have them on file in other publications, usually collections or anthologies. This is easy to do if the title is the same, but can be trickier if it was changed some time between publications. Once this information has been gathered, it's reasonably easy to merge the stories if their titles are identical or set up variant titles if the title was changed. Ahasuerus 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on matching short story titles, but I have to admit that I get doubts about some. I actually have pulled back from 'Perry Rhodan' over the issue of what is a novel. I am irked that it has changed as time goes by and 'page counting' trumps backwards. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, finding variant titles can be a pain! Sometimes the copyright page makes the relationship clear, but other times it just raises more questions. SF/F encyclopedias and other secondary sources help, but they are not perfect either. There are good online sources that can be consulted, but sometimes they can have incorrect information too, e.g. I found a number of incorrect pseudonym attributions on Don D'ammassa's Web page when I was working on "Victor La Salle". And so it goes... :) Ahasuerus 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Split Infinity

Just to let you know that I have approved the addition of the fifth printing of Anthony's Split Infinity, but then removed the following line from the Note field: "The first book in the 'Blue Adept' series spin off of the Xanth series" since comments specific to the novel/story (as opposed to a particular edition) are generally added at the Title level as opposed to at the Publication publication. Also, I don't recall any references to Xanth in Split Inifinty, but it's been a long time since I read it, so perhaps my memory is faulty? Ahasuerus 15:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I am a Xanth and Anthony dropout and cross connected this work from listening to other's commentary and a large blurb about 'Award winning author of the Magic of Xanth Trilogy'. It was placed between the author and title. so, Great catch. Somehow I nab his work, but can never get into it anymore. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see! By the way, you have added "xxxxxPrevious Abovexxxxx" to the Notes field of the ninth printing of Hubbard's Battlefield Earth, among other things. I am not quite sure what it is in reference to; could you please clarify? Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Previous Above" is to avoid being tabbed for deleting possible information that moderator's think may be important. I got the point, but needed to create a separator between the previous explanation/interpretation and mine. In most cases I try to note the printings and dates that are on the copyright page. I did not match the previous note entry totally. The movie tie-in line was somewhat argumentative to me. The book cover was changed and reprinted to get sales concurrent with the movie, but the way it was stated it could be inferred that the text might have also changed. The previous above divorced me from that. Hopefully, this makes more sense than 'Split Infinity' as the more I think about it, the more I was taking a walk in the park. Keep reigning me in as my 'creative' impulses often make sense only to me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the "Previous Above" on several submissions from you, and I have been tempted to comment, but have not to date. I'm not sure that it will be at all clear or helpful to a db user who is not a mod or a regular wiki editor and so has seen this explanation or knows the submission process. I understand that you want to a) not remove possibly important data, and b) distinguish between notes you added and notes that do not seem to you to agree with what you see. I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is. It may be that the best way is to 1) sign your notes, and 2) include a note mentioning the differences, such as "My printing did not say 'Blah Blah' -Dragoondelight"

On "movie tie-in" editions, my experience is that they almost always have new cover-art (often a still or a movie poster adaptation), generally have some sort of blurb referencing the movie, and sometimes are re-titled (Six Days of the Condor became Three Days of the Condor, for example, and i think King's Different Seasons was re-issued as Apt Pupil). But the text is usually unchanged -- in fact I' can't recall an instance where it was changed. So I would take a note about "movie tie-in" to refer to cover & blurb, and nothing more unless there was a further explicit statement of change in title or text. -DES ^Talk 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A movie tie-in edition can change contents if not text, I think: e.g. there's a Minority Report movie collection and a Minority Report Collected Stories collection. And a movie tie-in may have a very convoluted relationship with the original story: e.g. Total Recall doesn't really connect to We Can Remember It for You Wholesale. And there's also the times when there's TWO film tie-ins: Capricorn One and Capricorn One are different stories by different authors based on the same film. BLongley 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, there is never any telling. But then new publications that are not tie-ins can also have similar convolutions, what with fixups, expansions, revisions, collections that add or remove some stories or essays, etc. I guess i should have said that I don't automatically assume such changes just because the cover says "source of the upcoming movie!" or something similar. Harry seemed to be saying that the old notes said "movie tie-in", but because his copy didn't seem to have changed the contents, only the cover, he wasn't willing to endorse that note. While "movie tie-in" may not always mean only a change of cover, often enough it means no more.-DES ^Talk 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, don't automatically assume such changes. But there MAY be some so we can't assume the opposite either. I'm trying to think of examples of NOVELS that do get reissued in revised form when the movie comes out, but to be honest I'm not sure I own any of such - I know "2001 - A Space Odyssey" changed NOTES over time as Kubrick and Clarke couldn't even agree on the PLANET involved, but Clarke often revised his notes due to any improvement in scientific knowledge anyway. There's some other oddities like "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" - there's a load of kid's books produced because of the film that are SUBSETS of the original novel, I think. Lucy's Adventure, Peter's Destiny, Edmund’s Struggle, Susan's Journey for instance. They need a good sorting out: "Film Tie-ins" might be a useful project at some point. BLongley 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindented)Previous Above is a separator only. Reality says I was not the first, therefore I should not be the last. As for signing it, that is both useful and not useful. If you care to activate my tildes to do that I will everytime. Otherwise I must do my real name, my first name Harry, Dragoondelight or some variation. As a verifier, I am signing it. That is also a use of the transient verification. As for confusing the user, guess what that is inherent in anything you do. The most reliable method is leave the data, unless you can prove it wrong. Separators in actuality give the user the idea that they still have to retain the responsibility to parse the data to their satisfaction. Quirks and non-comformist things being the subject. THIS is being used by me to point out the specific printing/edition. I do it to try to minimize the confusion of adding other printings to the data and those 'previous above' comments. Even doing that, I can not declare that confusion will end. What I am doing presently. FYI all. My present action plan is that I am at 900 in my new db of titles to check, etc. I am shooting for 2,000. This hopefully will create enough reality checks and commentary to facilitate the correction of past data. In specific, go back and recheck the Perry Rhodan and re-unite the stories. With all the written instruction and such, I have found that many pre-conceptions and conceptions of what the publishers were doing is wrong/mixed/correct/diffident/difficult/decadent at varying periods. My big self awareness event for the week. Cover credits are frequently lost from the hardcover edition to the softcover due to their placement on the hc dustjacket. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Memoirs of Alcheringia

It looks as if we are close to standardizing on the form 'Imprint / Publisher" for the publisher field, see ISFDB:Community Portal#Imprint / Publisher vs. Publisher / Imprint. Therefore please do not change existing records that are in this form to "Publisher Imprint", as you did here in changing "Del Rey / Ballantine" to "Ballantine Del Rey" In any case, where the question is one of form/format rather than one of incorrect content, publisher changes are best done in bulk via the "Edit publisher" feature (available only to mods, i think). This reduces fragmentation, rather than increasing it.

I am going to approve this for the other changes, but edit the publisher back to what it was. -DES ^Talk 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you guys are doing, but do not understand putting a division/root company. Is it to be Spectra/Bantam, etc. It seems like putting the tail end before the horse's head. Nonetheless, I will no longer touch them. How about fantasy/del rey/ ballantine? Sorry, my personal nomenclature usuage was established years ago and I do not see what it achieves. I did read it, but still?????? Worse yet I see the fallacy already. Ballantine was Ballantine before del rey existed, therefore heading del rey gives it some indication of historical precedence. Will it be Pinnacle/McFaddenBartell/McFadden? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are NOT close to agreement on "Imprint / Publisher". I'm vehemently AGAINST adding an unnecessary publisher suffix, and I now notice that almost all my verified "Del Rey" books (which I agree are probably an imprint, although we haven't defined imprint yet) have been "adjusted" by someone, and I'm fuming. BLongley 22:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that some standardization should occur. At the same time I feel the publishers do a good job of confusing things. I see the way the book usually has a Del Rey then a separate Ballantine. Put simply, I am irritated by the 'unknown' publisher antics. Is there importance in Signet versus Signet Classic. Is Signet keeping them straight? The common sense portion of myself says do the least and try to group that way. Will we parse Tor Science Fiction versus Tor Fantasy. I 'hate' being wrong, but I know that TSR was eaten by Wizards of the Coast and they can mess my mind up with what they are doing. Historically there are merger, counter-merger and other things being done. With the publishers free to make changes it is a hassle. I believe I have done a Bantam book that was science fiction in first printing and my third printing it had a Romance label on spine with a new cover. I have no idea if the publisher kept track, (probably not). Is not much of the 'imprint' transitional to after ISBN. Is it possible to use that portion of the ISBN to keep it clear from that date. What is it that the db 'user' gets from publisher/imprint? In confusions, and hence my sincere apologies, it is irritating to see no clear vision of what to do about this matter. By the way, I have not 'adjusted' publisher in masse, nor on an individual basis for a verifified version. I prefer to check for some difference, and then leave it to the previous verifier and transient that in case a second check was necessary. I will add a price or correct spelling, but have left notes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It appeara we are not quite as close to consensus as I thought. The logic on using "Imprint / Publisher" (as opposed to "Publisher / Imprint") is that in many cases the imprint is the more significant and well known name, and should therfore come first. As for ISBNs, some publishers assign ISBN ranges to particular imprints, others do not. It is possible for a publisher to reprint a book under the same ISBN but a different imprint, and i am pretty sure we have such cases on record. Using either "Publisher / Imprint" or "Imprint / Publisher" would be a convention, as most publishers do not sue a slash, but ahving a consistant convention one way or another will help avoid the curent situation where publicatiosn by what is in reality a single publisher or imprint my be spread across three, five, ten or more different publisher names and records. This reeduces, IMO, the value of publisher searchs. Please do join the Community Portal discussion and give your views, which are as valuable as anyone else's here. -DES ^Talk 05:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the need to standardize, but I find the amount variation disturbing. In my noviatate status, I am still assessing the details of this and various other parts of this project. I will make a proposal, but am unsure as to it's value at present. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm over Warlock

The notes you added to Storm over Warlock look good. I did find a 78743 at http://www.biblio.com/books/59508541.html that also claims a Kirby artwork. One book from one dealer. It's not quite worth $5+s&h to see if Ace got their printing # wrong though I guess we could e-mail the dealer to confirm 78743 or 0-441-78743-6. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"I'm backtracking, closing out windows on the computer, and now see the screen that caused me to take notice of this edit. You changed the date from 1984-08-00 to 1981-08-00. Generally I don't like deleting information from ISFDB but in looking at http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2511 it seems either 1984-08-00 was wrong in the first place or the other publications are dated wrong.

I decided to deal with this by adding a note to the publication

• Note that prior to verification this ISFDB record dated the publication as 1984-08-00. The source of this date is unknown and must have been incorrect as the publication states August 1981 plus there are other Ace printings between 1981 and 1984. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really have trouble figuring out how I end somewhere or why, but I think I was comparing numbers and dates. I know Ace can/does whatever it wants, even so you have to hope there is some logic to their doings. haha. Crazy as it is, I am not sure I paid attention to the printings behind it. I sincerely believe that many mysteries that publishers have created are only solvable with time travel and executions.

I would have been tempted to get the book if it was ABE, but his discreption of the book left me cold. It was a dollar book at best. The last time I bought an inaccurately described book ( the author was wrong), I got the right title and the author I thought it should be and the seller never blinked. Thanks for the fix, but I am worrying of the 'retention and noting of data' you guys are working the db into. By listing/noting such errors the db may become it's own worst argument for veracity. I have lifetime scars from admitting mistakes, as detractors will always use them to show they are right and belittle. At this point, I am reluctant to delete what have to be duplicate entries with notes that say the same thing. It baffles me to enter the twelfth printing of something and find seven other entries missing and dupes of the first entry and others with dates that make no sequential since. Sorry for that. I will continue to enter until some magic solution to it all appears. I will then snatch it up and run off with the only copy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Doom of Three Planets

I approved the update to Doom of Three Planets and saw your note about the ISBN. Does the front cover state 15337? I can't quite read the catalog number in the image. If that's the case then we know Manor's prefix is 0-532 and if the catalog # is 15337 we have 0-532-15337 leaving just the checksum which should be 5. There are several Manor publications where the checksum does not match. Normally we would not know if digits were transposed or if there's a wrong digit in there. If the cover has 15337 and the publication uses 0-532-15337-7 in two other places then the odds are the only thing wrong is the checksum. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

At the top right front cover is the Manor Logo (over) Manor (over) Books (over) 15337 (over) $1.50. Though that is the only stand alone use of the presumed publisher book number. I agree with your logic, but have detected two 'different' solutions used in ISFDB. One says leave bad ISBN's so people find them with an ISBN search and you use the second one. I can detect no concensus on the issue, though both have their points. I am happy with your solution and appreciate it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's at least two different solutions to bad ISBNs. I'd normally use #0-532-15337-7 but seemed to have a good case for that "0-532" was correct, "15337" was correct, and thus the remaining "7" was in error. I thought about this again and changed the record to use #0-532-15337-7 as there is no page at Amazon.com 0532153375 plus added links to publication record on where you can find the book on Amazon. I usually only link to Amazon listings that have cover images in the belief that Amazon is more likely to retain the record after the book is sold and if there are multiple listings will use the cheapest one as I don't want to link to dealer listings where it's obvious they are trying to gouge people. In this case I linked to the image you found plus Jim Gardner's image as he has an excellent track record for images and book identification. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Time Future

Have added $C price to TMFUTURE2001 --Bluesman 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you considered doing a transient(primary) verification since you checked the data? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that necessary once there's a Primary Verification? Thought that was for a book no longer or temporarily in hand? --Bluesman 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not required, but it can be a good idea. There is a feature request for support for verification by multiple editors. Pending the implementation of that, several editors are using the Primary (Transient) line as a 'me too' verification. This can be handy when the primary verifier is not online, or cannot answer a question. -DES ^Talk 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Damia's Children

Added $C price to BKTG10625 which you JUST verified... light-speed or what!!--Bluesman 20:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you transient (primary) verify the other contents? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayenne & Jondelle

I have approved the changes to Mayenne & Jondelle, but does the title page use the word "and" or the ampersand? Assuming it's "and", we may want to make a note of the fact that the cover uses the ampersand. Also, when you wrote "stylistic signature may be Kelly Freas", did you mean "stylized", perchance? Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is 'and' on the title page. Uses ampersand on front cover and spine. Weirdly does my mind work, but stylistic seems right when you can not definitely state what or who it is. Stylized works for me when the artist has a normative type to compare against and uses it. I checked Freas sites and could not see a good sample for comparison. Stylistic for possible copycating and stylized for a repetitive pattern, but I am not boxed in so 'as you wish'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing contents: "Hell-Bound Train"

Your edit to The Hugo Winners, Volume 1 made a change to a contetn item, specifically, you changed "That Hell-Bound Train" to "The Hell-Bound Train". You included a note clearly indicating why such a change would be proper for this publication. But please note that "That Hell-Bound Train" is included in some 30 publications, of which 8 have been verified. The edit you submitted would change all of those other publications as well as the one you edited.

Unless yopu ahve good reason to think that all of thsoe pubs are mis-enterd and should be corected, the proper proceedure is to:

1. Edit the pub in question
2. add a second copy of the story, with the correct spelling of the tile.
3. submit and wait for approval. (adding a temporary note about what you are doing is not a bad idea)
4. go back to the publication screen, and choose "Remove Title From This Pub" in the sidebar menu
5. You'll see a list of all of the pub's contents. Check the box of each piece of incorrectly credited or titled content and "Submit Data" (delete any temp notes added above.)
6. After approval of your 2nd edit, edit the title record of each of your newly created works. #Chose "Make this work a variant title or Pseudonymous work" and fill in the record number of the previously existing title record for the same work as the "parent" title. Click Submit data. This must be done for each work involved, to record the link between the two names for the same work.

Since this multi-step process is rather tedious when you can't approve your own edits, feel free to ask a moderator for assitance if you wish. Or do it yourself to get the feel.

See Help:How to change a story in a collection for more details.

I have the submission on hold pending your resposne. -DES ^Talk 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The question being what I want. Change the 'The' back to 'That' as I am totally unconvinced as to the variant title method being used in this case. Release the 'hold'. I will then re-edit it for 'clarity' in the 'That/The' case. To Whit. "Due to the obvious difference and completeness of the use of 'The' in my copy, I question the reasonableness of making a title variant. 1) I can not track at this time to who initiated the change. Nor the extent of that change to other publications. 2) I have some doubt whether Asimov was making a point in it's use or not. 3) The 'variant title' creation scheme is flawed in that it still reflects the accepted first title use and date. I can not be certain of this. The date being the core problem. I am of the view that title change would create a new product and date. Thus the method of cross-connection is questionable in my opinion. 4) I can not be certain that there has been NO text changes other than the title. 5) I do not have the ability to pursue this to any degree of certainty." I will then verify the data and thus be on call for need in this matter.

With the above in mind, I KNEW that moderator attention would be drawn, I wished to gauge the proposed fix and determine if it satisfied my personal standards. That response, though informative, does not meet the needs of this verification. I understood that the 'the' change would not be allowed. Thanks for the step by step, but I am not assured that it meets my needs in this case, and other cases that I know off.

If you do not feel it reasonable to disallow the title change and release the hold. Then I think the whole verification edit should be 'permanently' on hold till someone has a better solution.

Added aside. I did track what the change would have affected, but could not see a clear way to parse those which would have been infected by the 'That/The' issue. I even considered that if Asimov had 'editorially' initiated the change then the removal/insertion title scheme had some plausibility except the date should reflect the date of change. I have been amused by the idea that the initial "That" to "THEnewdate" to "Thatnewdate' of editiors changing it back to the presumed original. I am sure both Asimov and Bloch would be amused by this discussion. NOTE again, I knew the proposed change would not be allowed if those at the next step in the process were awake. At the same time it could/would of have been rolled back I have no doubt. Thus I do not believe the 'system' was in true peril. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your response confuses me a little. Perhaps i am missing some history or context. You seem to be saying that the title was "The Hell-bound Train" and was (recently?) changed to "That". Have i understood you correctly? You write of "...who initiated the change". What change? From "the" to "that", or what? You say "I am of the view that title change would create a new product and date." If by this you mean that when a work is published under a different title, it should be treated as a new and separate work, with a new date, I strongly disagree, nor is that standard bibliographic practice, as I understand things. But perhaps I misunderstand you. You say "I can not be certain that there has been NO text changes other than the title.. It is always hard to be sure of text changes unless both versions are available, and even then, particualrly on a long work, differences can slip by. Generally we do not consider minor revisons to create a new work, such revisions, if known, may be recorded in publication or title notes. Major revisions, such as the expanded version of Stranger in a Strange Land, may create a new work, or may not -- that is presently a judgement call. (Ideally we would record the revised version but link it to the original so that the realtion and difference were clear, but we don't yet have good software support for that, nor for handlign 'fixups' -- stories combined into a novel. Support has been requested.) You say "I knew the proposed change would not be allowed if those at the next step in the process were awake." Then why submit it? If you want to make a change that you think will not be allowed, or if you are not sure how to handle an unusual situation, or if you want policy or practice changed here, post on the Community Portal, or the Help desk, or the Rules and standards discussions page, or even the Moderator noticeboard and start a discussion on the matter. -DES ^Talk 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to post a verification request, asking people to check what titles this story was published under in its various versions. And I am going to ask other moderators to look at this situation, and advise. You seem unhappy about this matter. I simply noted that an edit would have possibly unintended effects, and routinely queried it along with a fairly standard explanation. If in fact there is good reason to change all the publications to "The", or to create a new story listing that is not a variant, or handle this in some other way, so be it. I try not to be overly rigid, and I think everyone here is willing to listen to an editor's reasons for an edit. What can we do to make things happier for you on this matter? -DES ^Talk 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This probably just makes it worse, but I have a copy of The Hugo Winners, Volumes One and Two that Marc Kupper Verified back in March of 07 and it is "The" not "That" in my copy, which either makes it different then Marc's version, or the verified edition is incorrect. I unfortunatly have no other copies of books that I can check. We should ask Marc to check his copy. CoachPaul 18:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him, and all other recorded verifiers. -DES ^Talk 18:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also a hc copy of that Vol1&Vol2 "omnibus" - and the story is spelled with "the " in that one also. Tpi 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The original publication in F&SF is for "That Hell-Bound Train" on the title page of the story although the title is listed as "That Hellbound Train" in the TOC. It should not be assumed that a variant title also supposes variant text - and that supposition should not be made without textual comparison. All variant titles should have the date of original publication.--swfritter 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the information available so far, my inclination is to:

1. Reject the edit, while saving the changed info
2. Re-do the edit, except for the part where the title of the content record is changed.
3. do the add-title/remove title routine, so that the version in this publication is correctly marked as "The" and not "That" (I have a copy of the SFBC ed Hugo Winners Vols 1&2 somewhere, and IIRC the title was "The" in that book)
4. Make the newly created title a varient of the existing ("That") title.

However, it seems from your msg above that you object to anything along those lines. Is that correct? In any case, i'll wait a bit for more data to come in. -DES ^Talk 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now rejected the edit, after separately applying the submitted changes to the notes field, and adding a content item for "The Hell-Bound Train". I then merged that new story record item with the variant title record created by another editor since this matter came up. The results are here. Because at least 4 pubs have been re-verified as using "That", while at least three people have verified that The Hugo Winners used "The", this is a clear case of a variant title. For such a well-known, often reprinted, award-winning story, I am surprised this wasn't properly cleared up long since, and we will still need to verify other pubs containing this story, and change any that use "the" in the title to show the proper record. -DES ^Talk 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry, if you think the result does not meet the case properly, or you think that further action ought to be taken, please indicate what course you think we should follow, and the matter can be discussed. -DES ^Talk 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised that "The" was missed by so many people. When verifying I look at both the TOC, title page of each story, and the page headers for each story meaning I saw "That" and missed "The" a half dozen times. Good eye Harry! Harry, when you get a chance can you also mark The Hugo Winners, Volume 1 as verified? Thank you. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented)Apologies, I had to disappear for family problems. Since angst was being created for me by that situation, I dropped everything to deal with other needs. I know that my methods, bother everyone, but I firmly believe the envelopes should be stressed and tested. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem - we all have families, jobs, etc. and tend to disappear at times. I'm going to add sub-sections to your notes below so that we get edit links. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dating of Variant Titles

In specific, the variant title needs the 1958 date changed to the 1962 date of the initial 'Asimov' version release. I believe that the proper dating of VT's is needed to their first known appearance and not the stories first known appearance. My sense the dating system needs to express the change gives the 'projected' user more 'quick' information than is presently happening. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you but don’t have time at the moment to stare at all the help pages to see what they say about this though see that Help:Screen:Title seems to say that VT’s get dated with the first published use of that VT. I believe there are either other help pages, or perhaps individuals, that date VTs to match the parent date. If we find that the help encourages or specifies that VTs get dated the same as the parent then we can take this up on Rules and standards discussions and hopefully it'll be a to-the-point discussion. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all the help pages currently say that VTs should have the same date as the original publication. I am sure this is not what is always done. I don't have strong feelings on the matter, and would be happy to discuss it over on Rules and standards discussions. -DES ^Talk 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The main reason behind this Help guideline was that variant titles do not show the date of the original title when displayed in collections/anthologies. We thought that it would be misleading to show a (potentially) much later date when the original publication date is not readily available. If and when we change the display code to show both dates whenever a variant title is displayed, I will be the first in line to propose the standards change, but until then I am hesitant to go that route. This is less of a problem when dealing with novels, though. Ahasuerus 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly the objection is that collections/anthologies do not NECESSARILY show the original date of publication. If the C/As do not provide the dates, then you have to guess, with the original date being the default. That's fine, but you then leave a false trail to the when of the VT change. Specifically, Asimov used 'The' not 'That' you can track to the originally publication date of 1962. By using the 1962 at the VT title you have shown where the 'limb sprouted from the tree'. In cases where there is no indications I agree assumption should not be made, though a note might be used. For instance, This 'whatever reprint' uses the same VT change as the 1962 Asmiov change and 'MAY' be derived from that edition. --Dragoondelight 21:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No the problem is that the variant records do not (currently) show the date of the paretn record, even when both are known with assurance. For example, If someone looks at one of the Hugo Winners anthologies, say THHGNDTW9E1972, they will see "The Hell-Bound Train" and (if the varient is dated to its first appearence "(1962)". Ther will be no indication that the story, as opposed to the title, dates from 1958. If this user clicks the link, s/he will go to 924907, and again there will be no indication of the date of the original story. Only if the user cliks a third time, andf gets to 65044 will the original date of the story be displayed. The ideal fix here is to change the software to display both dates, at least in the second, adn maybe in the first case, but I have no clue when or if that will hsppen.

I think the ISFDB point is to know what the original publication date was versus knowing when the variant change occurred. I know everyone else sees the 'little change' as an almost same thing, but I will always differ from this approach. This is the road to the 'death of a thousand cuts'. I was 'forced' to play that game for years and 'know' the result is the same as the 'Reganesque' reporting format that has killed 'real base data' for the last thirty years. What is really being done by not changing the date is it is being used as a pointer to the original story. I can not add one apple plus one apple and get two apples(same condition). I see one apple(1958) and a similar apple(1962) and if I put it in my basket I have apple(1958)and apple(1962) not two apples(1958). Once you 'define' something and then establish a difference as existing, you can not 'reasonably' over the long term keep saying the differenced item is the same as the first defined one. I realize that you wish to point to the commonality of the story, but in not stating the correct date you create the 'worm' of doubt as to your veracity. We will never agree on my points, because the difference is one of what makes a thing unique. Trying to repoint this. If a printing can have different dates of occurrence, How can you decide to give it the same date to reflect the initial printing? If you can not do this for a subsequent printing, How can you do it for a variant title? I fear we will have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, ideally, we ought to record both the date of initial publication, and the date when a variant (different title, different author credit, or both) occurred. The main problem is that, in the current state of the software, this can lead to a seriously incorrect date for the story being displayed on various screens. I do think that a mere change in the title or author credit makes a work in any meaningful sense a different work. There is also the problem of variants created to link to the canonical author name. For example, suppose that "J. Random Author" normally uses that name, and we have assigned it as the canonical name. However an early story "Great Story" was published as by "John R. Author", and has never been reprinted credited to "J. Random Author". In such a case we create a variant title record anyway, so that "Great Story" will show up on the "J. Random Author" page. Such a variant will obviously carry the date of original publication. But it is possible that after we create the record, a new "Best of J. Random Author" will reprint the story under the canonical name. Arrgh!. Anyway, for the moment, we need to decide between giving (apparently) incorrect information to users by misstating the date of a work's original publication, or failing to show the date of publication under the variant title or author. My thought is that, pending a software fix, providing the actual variant date in the notes to the variant record might be the best compromise, but any choice will be a compromise. -DES ^Talk 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Where I think I disagree with you is over the need for a story to be 100% word-for-word identical to be the "same" story, or the need to document minor textual changes. Firstly, I don't think it is feasible to document such changes in any useful way here. Secondly, i don't think things like grammatical corrections, adjustment of punctuation, copy-editing, and even minor rewriting are of interest to most of our users. Major changes are another matter, and where to draw the line between "minor" and major can be debated. But I don't think that the known existence, much less the possibility, of truly minor changes needs to be recorded at all. -DES ^Talk 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I find the suggestion that failing to record such changes is "Reganesque" insulting. That (at least to me) implies an intentional deception for the advantage of the person or group doing it. An attempt top draw the line on what the level of resolution of our data is, does not constitute such intentional deception. -DES ^Talk 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To add zest to these speculations, I from the 'get go' imagined that good publishers should have noticed the Asimov VT change and changed it back to the original title. In that chase the VT would be a VT(reversion) and the book needs to be closely checked that it was consistent/thorough. --Dragoondelight 21:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That is, I suspect, an unjustified assumption about how reprint publishing works. i have seen many cases in which it is obvious that a reprint publisher simply took whatever version was at hand, and followed it blindly, carefully copying typos in the suthor's name, for example, and introducign typos elsewhere. Look at the publication history of "Remember the Alamo!". Giving the author's name as "R. R. Fehrenbach was apparently a typo in the original magazine publication, but it was followed by at least 5 anthologies (one edited by Asimov), although ciorrected in several others. Some of the ones that copy the error are later than ones that correct it. -DES ^Talk 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I have even seen where they leave out a lot of the information the 'first print' source used. I was speculating on the possibility of a 'bright' editor type. Not what I have usually seen. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All of this is the simplest of VT change and it's implication. The real nasty is always going to be the who/why change in a VT. I am fine with an author approved/originated change, but am concerned that ever should know the 'material' may have been changed. If the 'story material' changed it is a 'new' object, which needs a 'Derived' connection shown. What that should be I have yet to discover. I am much more leery of the author unnotified/unapproved/disapproved change which can go as far as this scenario. Author dead/same title/editor or other/ rewrite material, sometimes even using added material pointing to other original material which was written after the original novel unrevised material. This is the classic 'Planet of Peril' reworking done by Robert A. W. Lowndes for the Avalon edition and then used by Ace. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, our buisness is to note what is published, and leave who changed it, much less why, to others. Take a look at the Vance Integral edition site. This project went to great lengths to detemine what the "original" or "author's preferred" version (often not the same) of each of Vance's works. They consulted extensively with the author and his wife, who was also his buisness manager for much of his career. They had access to his files, including letters to and from agents and publsihers, and to his drafts. They checked and compared every published version, word-by-word and comma-by-comma. Even so, they could not always determine where in the editorial process changes had occured, or whether Vance had accepted, approved, tolerated, or never been consulted about various editorial changes, or even what exactly had been the "original" text. Given our more limited resources, and far wider scope, there is no prayer of our determining exactly when minor textual changes have occured, much less who made them. Minor textual changes are common when fiction is reprinted, and pretty much everyone still regards it as "the same story". Standard bibliographic practice does not note such changes, nor do we. -DES ^Talk 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello 'Standard Bibliographic practice' is used by those who wish to show their information 'Their' way. If you please, would you show me who does anything like the ISFDB? Frankly, SBP, is a canard, (not meant to be personally disparaging). I well remember how to properly note, etc college papers and I also remember, even back then, there were numerous ways to do it. In fact, I well remember that one did ones paper and then got someone else to 'translate' it into the SBP form that was desired by the affected(defective) committee to use. The problem is that in doing so the 'material' points often became subsumed by SBP. Correct me if I am wrong is not the ISFDB using the 'commmon user' approach. The greatest problem with 'SBP approaches' is there is variance in it also. It is best to establish rules and procedures that reflect the needs, mostly user, of this project, rather than try to emulate other standards. You can spend a lifetime correcting, but sensibility says that 'KISS' works best. It also is very surprising that the SBP proponent can understand things at that level. So try for an elite or try for the common factor, and what will have the greatest impact in time. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the situation Ahasuerus refers to only happens when you are looking at the VT's title record where it does not show the date of the parent. If you are looking at an Author bibliography, a parent title record, a publication that includes a VT or parent in its contents, series, etc. they all show the date. It's only missing from the title display when looking at the child or VT title. Anyway - something else for the fix-it-queue... Marc Kupper (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When a collection/anthology publication includes a story published under a variant title, it uses the date of the variant title and doesn't display the date of the parent title. For example, consider the case of van Vogt's "Humans, Go Home", a VT for "Humans, Go Home!". I have temporarily changed its date from 1969-09-00, the date of the original publication, to 1980-00-00, the date when this VT appeared. If you pull up the NEL edition of The Gryb, it will appear as a 1980 story -- the date is not shown since it's the same as the date of this Publication -- and there is no indication that the parent Title was first published in 1969 even though the parent title is displayed. And that can be potentially quite misleading. Ahasuerus 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am doing a restart of my thoughts as I am in confusion. At this. [13] . I was saying the 'The' VT should be 1962. Why am I wrong at that given my comments above? I am referring to the Asterisk remark that Fawcett put in to state that everything was as Asimov had it published in 1962. I know I quoted it below. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Variant Titles - dealing with assumptions

The second problem with the VT usage is that the lowest common denominator user is the person that must be addressed when designing the database. I am a being who makes 'ASSUMPTIONS' and this is a fundamental flaw of human perception. VT on first look give the 'user' the idea that the VT content is the same as the original, except for the change. There is a great need to make the 'projected user' aware that he can not make such assumptions until the data is compared.

My 'bandaid' fix is that a symbol be added to the variant title portion. Such as, Variant Title(*). It would be best if that was a hot link to a warning that variant titles (or this one) have not been checked for other change factors such as omission, editing, re-editing, restructuring, author rewrites, and editorial rewrites. Plus 'Please Check the variant title page for known or possible factors that have been discovered or might be inferred.' --Dragoondelight 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry, could you please cite an example from an author's bibliography or other place? I'm not sure if you are thinking about the same thing I've thought about a bunch or if you have a new angle. BTW, your feedback is greatly appreciated. It's nealy always constructive to hear what someone else' view of a particular elephant is and to see how their construction/perception of a reality is different than mine. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every story that is reprinted, whether it be under a different title or not, will have some textual difference. It might only be punctuation, or corrections of errors, new typographical errors, or any number of other things. Some English professors base their entire careers on analyzing textual differences - sometimes documenting where commas are placed. In order for a story to be considered a different story there must be significant differences which change the meaning of the story. The problem is how to deal with a significantly different story. The actual designation of such should probably be "variant text". Currently we don't have a satisfactory way of dealing with this issue. See the stories "Diplomatic Coop (1959)" and "Diplomatic Coop (alternate ending) (1970)" on Daniel F. Galouye's bibliographic page. The second should probably be linked to the first except we would have to break the restriction that variant titles be given the same date as the master title. If we could agree on some kind of notation we might be able to accomplish that. For instance the second version of "Diplomatic Coop" could be listed as "Diplomatic Coop (variant text)" and be linked (technically inaccurately) as a variant title with the date unchanged. The textual differences that make the story a "variant text" story could be documented in the notes. The term "variant title" only presumes a different title for a story - "variant text" presumes significant content changes. --swfritter 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Variant Text is a good name though also confusingly similar to Variant Title. We have already been using a notation of sorts for variant texts by appending things like (revised), (expanded), (abridged), etc. to the title, sometimes with the date as needed. We could use the existing VT mechanism to link variant text titles but a huge downside in my mind is that when you are looking at the parent title record it shows all of the child-title publications without indicating which are the "variant text" versions. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I too believe that the way Publications are displayed under their parent title is not as informative as it could be. I asked Al to add this information about two years ago, but I don't think he thought it was a major issue. As far as "variant texts" go, there is an open request for Feature:90155 Add an optional "nature of the relationship" field to the Make Variant screen and Al has indicated interest in working on it, but I suspect that it may not be easy to implement due to various permutations. Ahasuerus 01:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Revising publications?

Another example of how the issue has become 'muddled' is the revision of books. SAME Title but Variant title in some cases say Title (Rev1969). At a minimum that info should be just after the VT, even if a decision to repeat it after the title. The common user has to be confused by both usages, but hopefully enough that they are cautious in their selection of what to use/read.

VT/Revision, etc. The problem is that VT/Rev, etc need to 'always' reflect on the main title page. Somehow the DB needs to allow their entry (add new publication, printing, etc) to 'always' show on the main title page also. I am suspicious that such is not happening at the present. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again I'm not sure what this one is about. If a story is "revised" then it should not be a "variant title" though unfortunately we don't have a similar mechanism to link a revised story to it's parent meaning that VTs sometimes have been abused for this. VTs are supposed to be used to show that either the story title and/or author name is different than the canonical version. The implication is that the content (the story itself) is the same. I suspect from what you wrote that you are proposing something like VT but instead would be used to link revised stories with their parents? Marc Kupper (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this comment. See mine above which says pretty much the same thing although I suggest a potential compromised kludge solution.--swfritter 17:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Destination Void would probably be the example here.

Do I Wake or Dream? [14] .

Destination Void [15] .

Destination Void (rev 1978) [16] .

Mine DV (rev1978) [17] .

This is an example of the novelization of a short story (hopefully). It is an example chosen because it works with 'what you have data' and begs for future help on it's elements. It is also a prime example that 'robot editing' will not always work.

The short story is NOT the one cited in the (rev) examples. Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

True: I have an original Destination: Void and a Destination: Void (Revised Edition) and they both reference a Galaxy 1965 story "Do I Sleep or Wake". What makes you say our Do I Wake or Dream? is not the same though? I don't think we've had any "Robot Editing" here, just careful notes. You can add more if you like, I see you have the Epilogue that explains the full difference between "Destination: Void" and Destination: Void (Revised Edition) (which is actually from the title page rather than something we've added), but until somebody compares Do I Wake or Dream? with the full novel, or finds a "Do I Sleep or Wake", what more can we do? BLongley 23:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not make notations, other than on my verification. Someone else made the Short Story notation. I believe they (probably You) were trying to make an association to be checked. In a sense what they did is left the clues for someone to hopefully parse the full story of the short story connection to the novel. I used Destination Void as a good example of notes and connections. I think it is a good example of how robot editing is a bad attitude to take and use. My only question was I thought, and others say otherwise, that the Destination Void (Revision) is a form of a variant title. My use was also to point out the 'evolution' of a story into a novel and then further and was asking for an easily understood method to show this. Your work on this was exceptional as I quickly understood what happened when I saw your verifications. I also wonder, if the publications should reflect onto the original title with no revision. My thought being that it makes for a quick comparison of what the person has or is looking for. Again I was not in any sense 'shorting' your work, in fact I cribbed from it for what to look for in my verification, but I only mentioned mine because I did not want to draw comparisons that were more 'robotic'.

What I would like to see is more verifications that leave the 'questions' to be answered when they are not at hand. I am suggesting that 'open questions' should be left for others to note and if possible work on. The robotic verification method is the least rewarding, while the tidbit data noting will be of more value, possibly even in ways not yet conceived. The notation of Canadian pricing could lead to data which makes economic comparisons and it's effects on publications. My point is I believe the same as yours, that notes and notes are key to the DB future success.

When verifying a book, I frequently check the other verified printings for possible ideas and notations and variations of the publications. You and others give good notes and those form the basis of comparison that I utilize. So thanks to all those who 'umbly toil at this site. Without that work, I would question this DB efforts future success. Forgive me for confusing this issue and I hope this straightens it out. Also, I did not make the short story connection work for me, as I too do not have the original to compare, though your effort clearly mirrored what I saw. If I fumbled about my comparisons please forgive me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A note was added and in this case is probably as far as you can go. Though the DB might be served by adding something after the title to 'push' users to check the note fields for this title. I readily admit I do not check it enough for useful information. The problem being in most cases there is nothing, and thus when there is something the 'user' tends to miss it. (assumption not for everyone).

In most cases the short story, had it been the same as cited, begins the wonderful story of how a short story blooms into a novel. Again it needs something to 'push' the user to start making the connection. This would be the 'DERIVATION' marker. Above is the easy example of such.

I like the way the title pages were noted, but I think that the (rev) publications should be integrated with the original version publications. That is the only way I see the common db user will be most assured to know what is going on. In some cases, they are and other cases they are not and in some cases they are mixed (other like samples).

Now at the Herbert page. [18] . My visual problem is that personally I think the use of a VT for the (rev) works better as it forces the users attention. I hate to admit it but when presented with similair or close things I often hit the wrong one.

The hard example is this.

my Foundation entry. [19] .

The basic problem is Foundation in this case is novelization of a series of stories. All but one of those stories is cross referenced to 'Foundation (original Stories)' series. [20] . That goes to this [21] . Both of these series are not 'PUBLISHED' series, as far as I can determine, NOR are the reflected on Asimov's page. I must have missed something/everything. I had not parsed this comparison till just now. I still think that somehow it needs to be 'visible', especially since the db user may not be aware of these non-published series. I digress.

I do not understand why 'the Psychohistorians' does not point to 'Foundation( original Stories)'. I am also confused with the novel being a collection. This I believe is a case of parsing too closely. To retain a 'collection' status, it MUST be shown as such. Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to disagree - it does NOT always have to be declared as a Collection to be one. When the divisions are lost, typically for a "fix-up novel", then we sadly move the references to the component stories to notes and abandon the "Collection" idea. When we can keep links, then we do as it makes the software do the links for us. Foundation seems to be one of those books that after decades of reprintings, we still can do. The reason 'The Psychohistorians' doesn't point to "Foundation (Original Stories)" is that it was the one new piece introduced to the book. As it was nicely separated though, it didn't make "Foundation" a fix-up novel, same as replacing one short story in a collection (or even two, as I've seen today) doesn't necessarily make it a different collection. But this is a contentious area, and the number of times I've seen disagreements over Collection/Omnibus/Novel status is growing. There is no one answer, but we have to work together for now with what we have. BLongley 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The individual chapters have to be shown as having been renamed as 'individual short stories' and the content has to be 100% the same. Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We're never going to get 100% until they've all been digitised and we can let a computer do it. For now, "no significant difference" will have to do. BLongley 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A second publication source using those titles which is definitely not connected MUST be found and cited.

For Foundation this. [22] . The verified copy says abridged, but this . [23] . Does NOT note that, and I argue that abr or such should be indicated on the Asimov page. [24]. Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want "The Thousand Year Plan" to become "The Thousand Year Plan (Abridged)" or "The Thousand Year Plan (Foundation, Abridged)"? Note that we can't say whether the other two editions ARE abridged. As I say, this is all we have to work with for now. BLongley 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I get your point and yes it needs (ABR date) appended or if the publisher has the grace to say Abridged from Foundation then (Foundation ABR date). The problem is murky, but the best use, till someone parse it to the definitive level (never), is to make sure the user knows that this terminology was used. I even think it is possible that a rewrite by author/editor occurred and it is possible that it is abridged from that material. In fact, I think for older material, it is possible that there are often more than two base line variants with the same title and no disconnect provided to the reader to find the difference. Often older work was serialized in magazine. So first, true type is the submission or author rewrite for submission. The second is the published serialezed version. Which if it is not editorial 'enhanced' or abridged by the editor still might be type ONE, but is definitely Type Two if it is not changed by the author. If the author later has that material and submits it as the first original that would be type One again. Likewise if he submits the material as changed for serialization it would be type one(approved) or type two(not approved, but used for whatever reason). Type two is most likely as that is reflected by the magazine copyright notice that usually is seen. Now if the author takes any form and enhances or rewries it, it becomes type Three and if the editor takes whatever type is submitted and changes it we have type Four. More simply and understandably. Planet of Peril (McClurg 1929) type one. Planet of Peril (1961 Avalon, 1963 ACE, 2007 Wildside (Wildside says copyright 1961, 1930 by Frank A. Munsey co. as does Ace)) this would be type Two. McClurg type One is 358 pages, Ace type two is 160, Wildside is stated to be 132 pages. Type two has notes added to See two other Avalon editions of two other OAK books published originally in 1933. My actual personal reading of the two shows that Avalon rewrote so much of the material that is beyond 'textual' change unless you remember when President Ford married Queen Elizabeth to become Emperor of Mars. This is extremely ugly, as the changes definitely occured after OAK's death and are never attributed to the three publisher of the type two material. OAK died 1946. Pulpville also has it in print with this added. 'The text is the original magazine version from ARGOSY ALL-STORY MAGAZINE. Fully illustrated with the original artwork which accompanied the story in the magazine.' This means it was a Pulp first?, McClurg, Avalon-Ace-Wildside reedited. As I have been told then typeSerial is first, typeOne is the large enhanced by author McClurg, and typeTwo is the AvalonACEWildside 'reduction'. With all this overbearing mishmass thown out can you see why I am concerned over dates/condition/abridgements/editorial scripting etc. Since the SBP people miss all this I hereby declare their methodology irrelevant. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this deflection, but it shows the 'stew' my brain goes through when choosing the proper course. All this builds to an argument that the submitter should have a button to 'Hold for review' a submission, that he can use to correlate between himself and a moderator/others. The submitter needs to SEE his submission to compare/correct. Rather than lose/delete something that gets me personally 'bound' up, I will commit an operational easy 'come hither and kill this offender' error. Notes are good, but sometimes the moderators have 'leaps of faith' and fix the note and everything else. Sometimes they miss my point, though most generally they attain the 'DB' norm.

End. Is Foundation a collection because it has a starting chapter and then assembles the chapters/stories afterward or is it a novel? Is it proper to 'parse' a novel into it's components as I did or should it have been just noted? Should I leave hot-link notes for the user? Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Foundation is a collection because we take it on faith, and best guess, and rough page-counts, that the contents are close enough to the originals not to make them different enough to be worth noting. Few of us have multiple versions to compare, but the more examples we have verified the easier it is to check with somebody else whether there IS a significant difference. And that's probably easier to do when we do have some vague link established that makes people ask. BLongley 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I am suggesting is that the actual intent of the DB is to show connections of the story content. That variant title does some of this, title(Rev) does some, but that the BASE desire to make such connections is too limited. How do we make the Destination: Void sequence most apparent. Short story(1), Story 1,2, Revision 1,2a, etc. I am partial to systems that allow me to go forward and backward to find what I want. The 'Foundation' collection/novel is even worse, especially due to the series(unpublished as such) not being on the Asimov page. I am aware that the creations of other authors are gathered in those series, but I question the utility of 'creating series' in which the DB has created a name for. All one author is no problem. The multi-author and even one author, but part of another series has problems. How do you find series or know to look for series that have no publication basis. Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We just use the "series" search. Yes, they're often a mess if you look for "Star Trek" or "Star Wars", but it's the only way we've found to get the "Killer B"'s Foundation Series linked to the Asimov ones for instance. They break: I can't put "The Dorsai Trilogy" into "The Dorsai Cycle" under "The Childe Cycle" in any way that will satisfy everyone, for instance. BLongley 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I project my confusions too much into what a 'user' would/does face. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully my responses are useful, but it would have helped if you could split your concerns up a bit more. This is hard work! BLongley 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am not an expert in written or computer written presentation and I suffer the damning affliction to think circuitiously. I see the connections, cross connections and even unfortunately jump over additional detail thinking I wrote it. I also have great difficulties with the 'house use' of this correspondence. I did not invent the cross back over/under. I also note if we follow all my digression/connections to their untimely/timely end that nothing will ever get done. I am the person you never ask to pursue something to the end. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry Projects!

Here is my projection of what occurred in the 'That' to 'The' title change. This probably can never be proved, but would fit the facts/statements best.

Asimov handed Bloch his Hugo at the ceremony. That story precedes the 'The' story presentation in the book. The 'Postscript' gives a quick survey of how and from whom Asimov obtained the book material. This story was obtained from 'Anthony Boucher'. My guess is 'Boucher' was at 'Mercury Press, Inc.' and represented them in the matter. At that time, material would have been physically transferred. 'Boucher' gave Asimov either the original submission story or a direct copy. This copy 'most probably' had 'The' in the title. In printing the story, most likely, 'That' was used to gain the impact of the usages of 'That' in the body of the story. In reading the story the first 'That' is in reference to a song, but knowing this if you read further the second and third usages lapse into a 'That' title that is almost like the repeat line in a song. That 'That' was the magazine publisher's tie-in and emphasis in the story. The story in fact ends with 'That Hell-Bound Train'. Asimov then used the original 'The' and made sure his usage of the title in the story reflected that. It may have been an insider joke between him and Bloch. It may have been a play of the 'editorial' changing of titles from the 'author' submissions. A sore point with many authors. It may also have been a low key attempt to tell the reader that it had occurred. We are unlikely to ever know, unless some note exists, but it took Asimov some effort to do it. I feel he was being very 'strict' in going to the original title and could back it up upon challenge. Note the magazine title change is almost a routine and that the 'Hugo Awards Committee' would have read the magazine title version. It must have been a great temptation to put the cheese (THE) back into the Hugo mousetrap for the reader to find. Remember that most authors copyright their material by mailing themselves a registered copy. This is the original copyright of the material and hence the actual 'first' titling. So if my 'very wild' surmise is correct then the VT is 'That' and the real joke is even now rebounding at the ISFDB. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ISFDB is presumably safe from Asimov's trap as we try to document what's stated in publications. It's a presumably robotic task that will hopefully also end up explaining the source of confusion about certain matters such as why a story has two titles depending on who you ask. You are right in that there is nearly always a deeper, and usually far more interesting, story behind some of these changes. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I suspect the complex and intentional picture you paint is inaccurate, and that a simple error in transmission was more likely. Although I have no way to be sure. But to us it really doesn't matter whether this was a careful change on Asimov's part for any of several reasons, a mistake by someone at Doubleday, or even a request by Bloch. The fact is that the same story was printed under two different (albeit similar) titles, which is what the ISFDB ought to record. If the reason is documented we could and perhaps should record that in the notes field, or on a wiki page. But the main thing is to capture the facts, and let other speculate on the reasons (or ourselves in other places). Beyonds that, i agree with Marc above. -DES ^Talk 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above and will only add that the "most authors copyright their material by mailing themselves a registered copy" meme is an urban legend. As a SFWA FAQ explains:

• Myth #6: "Poor man's copyright" is an acceptable alternative to U.S. copyright registration. Writers are often told that sealing a copy of their work in an envelope, mailing it to themselves, and retaining the envelope unopened (a.k.a. poor man's copyright) is a reasonable alternative to official copyright registration, since it proves both ownership and the date of creation.

• However, while this might possibly be useful in a court case (though more likely not, since poor man's copyright is so easy to fake: you could have mailed the envelope empty, and filled and sealed it later), it does not provide legal protection in countries where official registration is a prerequisite for filing an infringement suit. Where registration is an option, there is no substitute. Don't waste your time with poor man's copyright.

Not that it has anything to do with bibliographies, but it may save you a little bit of money if you ever decide to write for publication :) Ahasuerus 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I thought people became millionaires by mailing themselves a check for $1 million? :-) Marc Kupper (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not present that as any type of surety, but as a possibility. I like your rebuttal, but think your parsing is fifty years futuristically dated. You can not readily compare the 'what we know would/could happen today' to our thoughts on the subject. I remember vividly, that it was classroom discussion on how to do a 'poor man's copyright' in school in the 1960's . An age where we were less litigious and many of the fraud schemes your analysis are based were not possible for the common man. I remind you that salaries were low and scripts/manuscripts et all, were widely disseminated by authors to get published/produced. I do not think a 'lawyer' safety net was generally available expense wise. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright registration has never been particualrly expensive. In the 1960s the fee was, if i have donme my research correftly, $20. Not trivial, but not large even by the standards of the day. No lawyer is or was required, beyonsd the fee there is a fairly simple form to fill out, available by mail (now online) from the copyright office. it is true that many authors did not routinely register their copyrights, leaving this to the publishers. -DES ^Talk 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I grant that your outline of events is possible, I still think it less likely than simple error by soemone involved, with that error then replicated forward and never double checked. "Never attribute to malice or conspiricy what can be explaiend by incompetance and miscommunication." -DES ^Talk 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I will pointedly spread Asimov's Aces and Eights on the table.

The two card deal of the usual elements of collections.

'The Hell-Bound Train' on Contents page. Pg 232. First Ace.

'The Hell-Bound Train' on page 232 as title before story. Second Ace.

'The Hell-Bound Train' on copyright page. Each story received copyright acknowledgment. First Draw. Third Ace. Note this page is not always done by editors, but may have been checked to make sure it reflected the story by various people before publishing.

And it may not have, there is no way to know. -DES ^Talk 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

'The Hell-Bound Train' in the section on Robert Bloch which precedes the story. This is a personal story of Asimov and Bloch and directly cites the Hugo Awards ceremony in which Bloch recieved the Hugo. In fact, Asimov and Bloch shared the position of toastmaster at this event. Apparently Bloch during his turn, opened the Award citation for the story and went speechless. Asimov 'I looked over his shoulder and the card he held announced his own story, "The Hell-Bound Train" to be the winner. Asimov then took over that presentation. This little person-to-person story is not of great literary interest, but puts Asimov in 'Knowing' role. Second Draw. Fourth Ace.

'The Hell-Bound Train' in the Appendix: The Hugo Winners starting on page 317. A quick story of the award followed by a convention listing of the winners with asterisks marking those in the book. Thus 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th*, 18th and 19th conventions. The 17th goes *Short Story----"The Hell-Bound Train" by Robert Bloch. Third Draw. Fifth Ace. Furthemore before the Convention Lists is this. "This list has been made available to me by Earl Kemp, chairman of the committee that is organizing the 20th Convention, which will be held in the monith in which this book is Pusblished*". bottom page "*The reference is to this book's original, hardcover edition, which was published in 1962."

'The Hell-Bound Train' in the 'Postscript' by Isaac Asimov not dated. page 314. The postscript is an essay list acknowledgment of where he recieved his copy of the story.

'For "The Hell-Bound Train" we have Anthony Boucher'. Fourth draw. Sixth Ace.

This sets the responsibility that he had and the magazine editors had. I believe it takes all responsibility and puts it upon them. Hence the Fifth Draw. The Seventh Ace, a kind of joker.

This is from page 313 and is the first five paragraphs of the Postscript.

• 'I Can't resist having the final word....'
• 'Every good story reflects credit upon its author and all the authors I know, without exception, cheerfully accept such credit, and do not willingly allow any of it to escape.'
• 'In particular, any suggestion that the editor of a magazine deserves any specific credit for the good writing of the stories appearing in it, is met with unfavorable reactions ranging from gently derisive to violently negative.'
• 'However, I will let you into a professional secret if you will promise not to reveal the source of your information. An editor, whether he wants to or not, places his mark upon the magazine and every story in it. He selects the stories that are to appear and thus sets the tone for the magazine. He talks endlessly to authors who come to visit him and writes letters to those who do not. He encourages, inspires, offers suggestions, donates ideas. He asks for revision and points out room for improvement even at the cost of securing for himself a vaster and more articulate unpopularity than human flesh and blood ought to be required to endure.'
• 'Let me list, the, the editors responsible for seeing the Hugo winners in print, before they became Hugo winners.'

Take your pick my fantasy, Asimov or Boucher. Beyond doubt the sequence of sixth attributions of the spelling of a title is phenomenal and shows consistency. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need a lesson in getting a wrap on quotations. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's true that there is a variety of reasons why editors change titles or the author/pseudonym attribution. Most of the time, it has to do with mundane things like "I need a catchy title to help sell the book!". Other times it can be due to forgetfulness or confusion, e.g. as the Note in "The Girl Who Wasn't There" explains, "According to Ackerman's introduction in Science Fiction Worlds of Forrest J Ackerman & Friends, the bulk of the original story was written by Tigrina while Ackerman wrote the ending. When the story appeared in the Inside fanzine, it was erroneously credited to Ackerman alone. The story was then rewritten by Charles E. Fritch and William F. Nolan and published in Gamma, but still credited to Ackerman alone. All 4 contributors were credited when it was reprinted in Science Fiction Worlds of Forrest J Ackerman & Friends."

We certainly can/should add notes when the cause of the title change is known and verifiable, but I don't think we should be doing it based on speculation alone. Ahasuerus 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry Summarizes

My apologies for wasting your time, but this is all submitted to show the the 'Submission Process' is not the sterile one that many make of it. When the ISFDB fails to re-assess it's methods and their results then it will be on the downslope of meaningful existence. Make no mistake I do not think I am right, I just believe that all conceptualizations need airing. Being right will never be the spur to what I do, but parading the alternates and making sure that other options/opinions are considered does make the sun shine for me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again - thank you for the feedback. A goal for publication entry and verification is that we are trying to make it as sterile and unambiguous as possible and that the creative work gets done when working with ISFDB title records. In other words, publication records should document/reflect exactly what's stated and the title records are set up to construct (hopefully) informational author and artist bibliographies using the publication as a source reference and (hopefully) serve as the factual foundation for the title records. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Marc has several times stated that there should be as little thinking as possible required when entering basic ISFDB data. I disagree. There are many judgment calls, not just at the title level, but at the publication level, and IMO there should be. "Is this an essay to be captured, or just an acknowledgments page to be ignored?" "Is this an in-universe essay, or a work of short fiction?" "Do I capture multiple works of interior art separately, or just make a single entry for the entire work?" "Does this signature really mean this artist?" "How do I enter the publisher when line, imprint, publisher, and two levels of corporate parent are all printed in the book?" "Do I enter the SFBC catalog #, or the ISBN?" "Do I capture the name of a translator, an editor (for a novel), or a text or book designer?" "Is 'Printed in the USA' worth recording?" "Is the copyright date worth recording?" "Should an excerpt from a forthcoming book be indexed?" "Is this even a work of speculative fiction?" These and many similar questions require judgment at entry time. Some of them we may settle once and for all for the ISFDB as a whole. Others will, i suspect, always require judgment on the part of the person doing the actual pub-level data entry. -DES ^Talk 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there are decisions to be made when recording Publication level information, but I think what Marc was driving at is that we strive to record "objective", i.e. physically verifiable, data when cataloging publication. For example, Publication records show the name of the author as it appears in the book and will remain that way even if we discover that the book was published pseudonymously: any subsequent "variant title" massaging will be done at the Title level. Or at least that was one of the original goals behind the Publication/Title separation -- as DES pointed out, it's not always so simple, e.g. when adding data from secondary sources like the Locus Index or the publisher's Web site. Still, there is usually more leeway when working with Titles, e.g. a title that would be recorded as "Star Wars: The Return of Bob" at the Publication level would likely become "The Return of Bob" at the Title level with "Star Wars [sub-series]" getting relocated to the Series field. Ahasuerus 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Deception Well

Added $C price to DCPTNWLL1997 .--Bluesman 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also to VAST1998. Put the question of doing the Transient Verification to Dana Carson. Seems like a good idea. --Bluesman 17:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Novik's "From the Sketchbook of Sir Edward Howe"

I have approved the 12th printing of His Majesty's Dragon, but I wonder whether "From the Sketchbook of Sir Edward Howe" is a regular essay or an in-universe fictional essay? Ahasuerus 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a clone of this. [25] . I see this somewhat differently. My perception is that "From the Sketchbook of Sir Edward Howe" (page 343)is the title page for the following two pages of illustrations (pages 344 & 345). Page 346 is blank. Page 347 starts a fictional 'Selected extracts from Observations on the Order of Draconia in Europe'. As the only illustrations I believe the illustration credit should be merged with the 'Sketchbook' title. That title then changed to interiorart and Gayle Marquez. Therefore the verifier that cloned from needs to be consulted. Note sent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Temeraire Books 1-3

I approved your submission, then edited it to use nested lists for the data about the individual books. The result is here. what do you think? -DES ^Talk 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Much better than I could do. I was personally rushed at the end. Now Bill has his Box Set sample for comparison and you guys can fully evaluate it. Initially my concern was that it might have printings that were 'unique' to the set and since that is not true I feel relieved. Personally, and I think you would agree, it is a 'pain' to do. Thanks for the great finish. Have a good discussion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot more data than I think is needed, but too much is better than too little! I agree that in most cases the contents of the box will vary in printing numbers and cover-prices etc, it's just a container to be filled with certain specific titles. I don't think we want "multiple printings of the box" unless the price or ISBN changes. 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, multiple printings of a boxed set should not normally be needed, it doesn't carry printing numbers anyway, i gather. -DES ^Talk 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Old British prices

I have approved the Penguin Books edition of The Circus of Dr. Lao, but please note that, as per Help:Screen:NewNovel:

For older British books, 3/6 is used to mean three shillings and sixpence; a price of three shillings exactly would be 3/-.

At least our currency headaches are limited to 5-6 currencies. Well, most of the time :) Ahasuerus 02:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

True - but I've discovered mid-1970s NEL to be a particular pain. For example, there's ten different prices on The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag. And although I understand all those, I've not yet figured out prices for "East Africa". BLongley 12:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know why I do it wrong, but is the / a universal convention. I will do the db way, but it is an odd symbol. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly common if not universal - I've seen an apostrophe instead of a slash, and "/0" for "/-", and if there's nothing after the slash then you can assume it's zero pence, and 21/- or 21s is a special price meaning one guinea, which might be standardized here to £1/1/- if we ever had a book that expensive. Any oddities, feel free to ask me: I knew pre-decimalisation British currency first-hand. (Just not as far back as farthings and groats.) BLongley 12:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asking in case I ran across the large 'apostrophe' elsewhere. Usually I have no problem as they are decimal or put in by others. Finaly got the alt 0163 down for know. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Camelot 30K

On checking 6771, I discovered the one I'd verified was actually a second mmpb printing. So if yours is a true first, please feel free to take it over. BLongley 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the heads up was not my purpose in v(t), but the db and user will prosper with two copies identified. BTW I hate numberline 2 books, as I usually think and act as if they are the first edition. It must be the human thing to fill in the one. LOL A funny thing though is that I get a little thrill at higher number line printings. Feels like you are nailing down the event line somewhat. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some of my earliest verifications were just checking against what we had - and we didn't record printing numbers much then. I dislike having to send them off to the wilds of 0000-00-00 when they're so similar that they're probably not more than a year apart though. BLongley 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree heartily. It is most odd to know something is after a date like 1996, but the 0000 thing puts it anywhere after a date like 1952. I would like to see ca1996 for calculated after. I do not know if that ca is commonly accepted as such. I think it has been mentioned for a fix, but I do realize the excessive 'suggestion' load we all create. Still I do marvel that the DB can/does provide much more than elsewhere. I wonder sometimes if the creator of the ISFDB feels like Prometheus, Zeus or Pandora. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Timediver's Dawn

FYI, I have added "Price in Canada C$4.99" to your verified 51634. Ahasuerus 03:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And C$5.50 to 48669. Ahasuerus 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed a lot of the alternate pricing. No need to tell me about them and I appreciate their addition. Eventually, after the next great world flood maybe, I will find time to swing back and get these lapses. LOL. Please check my user page as I added a note to it. Please tell me if it is inadequate or distasteful to the present DB needs. Again sincere thanks in correcting the problems I generate. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do :) Ahasuerus 15:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Verified pub Another Part of the Galaxy

Your verified pub. Is the story "Big Sword" credited to Pauline Ashwell or Paul Ash. In the original publication in Analog and the Berkely edition it is credited to Paul Ash.--swfritter 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't check unless it's handy. I am almost certain your entry is correct.--swfritter 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was sitting in the 'Set Aside' pile for reading. I did not make the Pauline Ash notation. It says on copyright page Paul Ash for the story, Paul Ash on contents page and Paul Ash on page 53. Reason I did not question is this ending paragragh on page 53. "By the way, the pseudonymous British author, Paul Ash, has also published two science fiction stories in Analog under the name of 'Pauline Ash'-which is also a pseudonym! How is that for a "Double Cover"." I therefore left it alone with the certain knowledge someone else had the Pauline Ash attribution. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just wanted to make sure she hadn't been credited with her real name.--swfritter 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Added cover credit

I added cover artist credit for your verified Berkley edition of Richard Matheson's The Shrinking Man. The signature is that of Murray Tinkelman.Don Erikson 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it greatly. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Screwtape Letters

I have approved the Spire edition of The Screwtape Letters, but there is a discrepancy between the Notes field, which mentions "Foreward" and the Contents section, which lists "Foreword". Could you please clarify which one it is? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The contents is now corrected to "Foreword". Added a cover price note also. Good catch. Thanks, Harry.

Blind Justice

I have approved the changes to Blind Justice, but I am not sure what "Cover art by Royo only" refers to. Does it mean that the name of the artist as it appeared on the copyright page is "Royo" as opposed to "Luis Royo"? Ahasuerus 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, It is only Royo in the book and I did not want to change it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I have changed it to "Royo" and set up a variant title for "Luis Royo". Artists can get messy since they frequently use just the last name, so at some point we will need to set up a lot of variant titles for their artwork... Ahasuerus 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the catch and your fix. The artist variations have vexed me some. Royo is one of the worst. I know sometimes the single name is a ploy to get greater interest in their work, but for the DB it does not work well IMO. A signature seems logical, such as Rowenna to credit Rowenna Morrill, but last name on book, other than as a signature, is misleading. There is also the extension connections which are occurring more often. blank Russo studios, etc. Fine if it is the artist, but I wonder if someone is getting missed who did the work. I am also irked by small art, page doodles, etc getting credit. Mostly I note them, but do not give them greater credit. Also, a very recent book gave me two to four 'recognized artists' credits for long past work that was effectively 'collaged' into a front cover art. There was no credit, that I could isolate, for the new art of the front cover. I think front cover art is interesting, but wonder if the lack of cooperation of the publishers if it will ever be complete. Sorry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Help desk threads

Please start help desk threads on the Help desk itself, not the corresponding talk page. I have moved several threads from the talk page to the main help desk page, in the process of archiving the help desk. -DES ^Talk 17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not say so before now? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I just noticed, when i was doing the archiving. Jumping from the recent changes to a thread, it is all too easy not to notice exactly what page it is on. Anyway this is just a convention, but IMO it is a helpful one. In general the talk page of page X if for discussing what should go on page X, how it should be organized, etc. User talk pages are an exception. I have placed a note about this at the top of ISFDB talk:Help desk to remind all of us. Thanks, David. -DES ^Talk 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Denner's Wreck by Watt-Evans

About your veried pub of Denner's Wreck, the author's web site says that the SFBC edition was in June of 1998. Would you object if I added this date and a note on the source to this record? This source also confirms that this editions was and SFBC ed. -DES ^Talk 19:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NO problem, especially with additions to data. I'll straighten the note field and then you go ahead with your note. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited the other data and awaiting your additions. Thanks for the additions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -DES ^Talk 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good and thank you. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mindplayers

Mindplayers has been approved and the note adjusted to reflect the fact that the publication date was taken from the Locus Index. Ahasuerus 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for still being clueless. I was little miffed by having to credit the Author's Afterword due to the promotion notice on the back cover. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem -- that record didn't identify its source of date information, so I had to hunt it down. Ahasuerus 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Genesis Quest

I see that you have entered an October 1986 printing of The Genesis Quest, but the Notes field says "First edition November 1986. This." Is this, perchance, the same printing as the November 1986 printing, which we already have on file? Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I goofed. I suspect the October is nonexistant. Would you perchance allow me to delete my goof and then do the other under the brightness of another day. Good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Darkest Day

I have approved The Darkest Day, but could you please double check whether the book was published in 1985-10-00, as the Year field currently states, or in 1984-10-00, as the Notes field says? Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the good catch. I corrected the note. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Ahasuerus 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Soldier

Your edit to this added a number of notes, including "First MM Publishing edition February 2005. This." However, the existing pub record is listed with bindinbg "hc". Was there a hardcover version of this? if so you should clone. If not, the previous record was in error and should be corrected on this point. (BTW I think i have the Merlin TP also, but I haven't checked it against this record).

This is on hold pending your response one way or the other. -DES ^Talk 01:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It came out in both forms at the same time. Dana Carson 01:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing. Since, I can not look at the hold. I have to rely on your interpretation of what you see. You are waltzing around a question, instead of being specific. Are you saying I changed it from hc to tp or something else? It is hc, any change would have been a mistake. Big problem though, is I can not remember changing it from hc. Memory lapse possibly, but I have no memory of doing that. It is strange, since I remember and just double checked that the ISBN was listed as this, ISBN(colon) Hard Cover 1-59222-083-5 . Does any of this address some question that you have. What does adding notes have to do with the question? What does "First MM Publishing edition February 2005" (that is as printed except for a comma after edition) have to do with the bean pile?

In the future could you simply what your reason for hold is, please? A simple it is on hold for hc change to xxx. I make mistakes, dumb ones, but what does it help to throw speculative fixes and such, before you establish what the key error is? I have aged ten years and as we have done before do not want confusion to escalate. Simplify. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't change it from hc to anything else, but your note, which i quoted, implied, or seemed to imply, that the book was a paperback. It was the apparent contradiction between these two statements, in the edited record, that caused me to put this on hold.

Oh-ho, the light dawns. I am very used to "MM" being an abbreviation for "Mass market", (as in "Mass-market paperback") but in this case it was for "Meisha Merlin". My apologies, I will approve this promptly.

Two other issues with this edit, although neither is a reason to hold it, i think.

1) Your note says "Cover art credited to Danato Giancola. This is incorrectly spelled and credit is given here to Donato Giancola as in the preliminary sketch." I would probably have given a credit to "Danato " and created a variant, as that is what appeared on the publication.

2) Your note says "First MM Publishing edition February 2005. This." I have noticed that you use a similar form in many notes when giving a publication history. You tag the line that applies to the publication at had (as opposed to any other publications of the same title) with the simple word "This". Now that I understand your convention, I have no problem reading your notes that use it, but as far as I know it is an original convention of yours, and I am concerned that users, particularly non-moderator uses who have never seen what you add with an edit, will be confused by this form of note. I think that one of our mods was confuse when he first encountered it. Please consider whether a wordier version of this format might be clearer to users who come on a particular record, rather than seeing a pattern.

I am sorry that my original hold msg was not clearer, and that I made an error in understanding your note. I am about to approve the edit. -DES ^Talk 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the extra thoughts the notation for Meisha Merlin is creating, but I put it like that because of their differences. I admit, I was thrown somewhat by the MM and if you look at submissions today you will see that I put Hard cover and Soft cover ISBNs in some because the book has them printed that way. My thought being that it is better to forewarn a user than not.

Danato versus Donato. I thought of creating a variant, but with the correct spelling on cover and the 'about artist' I felt it was not warranted. I did make a Schoen or something like it when it should have been Schoenherr and still feel anguish over it. Creating a variant, that you have a pretty good sense is not actually used, seems to be being 'correct' in a detrimental manner. I recently received a group message from the Publisher of Paizo (hope spelled correctly) which mentioned that 'typos' have to be lived with and to not let them dominate your efforts.

I note the printing/publication data as given, unless it is absolutely too long too much information. The problem is I do not know they are totally correct nor is it totally clear always what edition printing they are noting. This can lead to several lines of data, which I wish not to have confused with the actual (This). 'This', has become the compromise to point out the actual edition and as it is readily apparent in my discourse, the more words I use the more 'confusing' I become. If you, have a concise statement, feel free to suggest it's use. I may not at first, or use it off and on, but generally if it works I will adopt as I have the 'notation' keys.

I make mistakes and some I will lay off on memory/attention lapses. At one point, I could not tolerate reading 'legalize' script and even now long instructions cause headaches. Worse my personal 'memory' storage is non-linear. Personal names are hardly ever something I can rely on. So I will make stupid, dumb mistakes and have come to the rationale that it is the price I pay. I therefore check, but still miss important items. So please continue to closely monitor and bear with it as a price that most be paid. If it is not worth it, say so. If I can leave with looking like an occasional dunce, so be it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show that Wiki based collaboration can be hard since we all have our own unique communication styles. Whew, now I am tired and need to go and get some rest... Ahasuerus 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Best of Fritz Leiber

I was going to add this cover to your Verified Pub but I notice you have listed Australian and NZ prices of $1.00 rather than the $1.90 on mine. Is this an error on your part or do I actually have a slightly different edition? BLongley 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the cover, but I have not found it yet, Expect the house gremlins, but should find it by tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wolf Spider was reading it. I corrected the pricing and submitted. See extra data and it caught me again. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to keep the novel, would you like to primary verify it? I only did so, because no one was there, and I am Not a Leiber fan, hence my difficulty finding it. The cover is wonderful and I think you should take credit. Removing verification pending your response. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks for checking. BLongley 14:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I, Robot

I have approved the addition of the 1984-07-00 printing of I, Robot, but I wonder if you may have planned to remove the line which reads "Date and cover artist information on this book from The Whole Science Fiction Data Base No.1." from the Notes field? Ahasuerus 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I put in a line just below which reads 'The primary check confirms above and continues below.' That way users know two sources of the information. In fact, it would not bother me if other people added comments from any source to agree or 'disagree' with any primary verification. I believe publishers have 'forked-tongues'. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If a publication record has been verified against a primary source, then the default assumption is that all data (price, cover artiste, etc) is stated in the book itself. If there are any "gotchas" or ambiguities, e.g. if the cover art is credited on the back cover in fine print or not credited at all, but signed on the cover, then we want to clarify that in Notes.

Having said that, cross-checking against secondary bibliographic sources is always a good idea. If you find an error in another online bibliography, you can send an e-mail to that site's maintainer and have him fix it so that we don't have bad data polluting the Web. If you find an error in a print bibliography, we can at least make a note of it in the Notes section so that our users would be aware of the problem with other bibliographies. If a secondary bibliography matches what is stated in your copy, then there is no harm in noting that the data has been cross-checked against that source, although at some point we'll want to decide whether we want the Notes field to contain a list of 30 bibliographies that all agree with what the publication states :)

I have rearranged your comments in the Notes field for this record -- take a look when you get a chance to make sure that everything still looks OK. Ahasuerus 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the reformulation, but I can not do that for myself as I do not wish 'data' loss warnings to deluge me. I make all my entries as presentations/submissions of what I see and mostly do not mind a re-working for others to better understand them. It being a fact that I am 'excessive' is a genetic fault. My parents wrote letters on lined paper upside down and rightside up to be economical so I have some claim to a genetic fallibility in written discourse. LOL. I verified it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, anybody working on bibliographies as a hobby is likely to be obsessive compulsive at least to some extent! :) Ahasuerus 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Worlds of the Wall

I have also approved the changes to Worlds of the Wall, but did you mean the sentence "This Avon edition is the first publication of Worlds of the Wall in volume form" to read "This Avon edition is the first publication of Worlds of the Wall in book form", perchance? Ahasuerus 01:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The volume sentence is a direct quote from the copyright page and not mine at all. In fact, it is the first thing on that page. I put it in as it seemed to be stating that the 'whole thing' was possibly printed somewhere like a magazine. The sentence also might be in reference to the later quote of 'the novel appeared in a different form', so both leave questions for someone to parse someday. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see - thanks! Ahasuerus 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm Bringer

I approved Storm Bringer and then deleted the line which read "Assumed 1st printing" since you also stated "Second printing July 1984. This." I then Unmerged Storm Bringer from Stormbringer as per your Notes and set it up as a variant Title of the former. Ahasuerus 01:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I rarely mess with previous notes as I have been warned not to. Special thanks for the variant title and the unmerge. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

True, handling pre-existing ISDFB data when it differs from the data in your publication can be tricky. All ISFDB data came from some source at some point in the past, but even though the origins of the information are not always properly explained in Notes, it may be valuable information that we don't want to delete. For example, SFBC books typically don't have printed prices, so if you encounter a publication record which says "$5.95", it's likely that the price data came from some other source. If that source is not stated in Notes, then it's anybody's guess whether it may have been the Locus magazine or the Locus Index or some promotional flier printed by the club itself. The same thing may happen with uncredited cover art, date of publication, etc. That's why we recommend adding a Note along the lines of "Price (cover artist, etc) not stated and the source of the current ISFDB data ($5.95) is unknown" when an unverified ISFDB record has more information than what your publication states. Of course, if the publication has been verified, the right thing to do is to ask the verifier about any discrepancies first.

The other twist here is that you may have a slightly different publication than the one already on file. In some cases the differences between similar publications can be very minor, e.g. subsequent printings of early 1980s Ace omnibuses merely removed the printing date from the copyright page, but added indication that the book was a second/third/etc printing.

The next twist is that some ISFDB records were originally programmatically imported from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, library catalogs and other sources. They are often incomplete and the data is often incorrect, e.g. many old Amazon imports say "tp" even when the book was actually a "pb", which you can usually tell because the price will be too low for a tp. Similarly, Amazon.com is notorious for using page counts supplied by the publisher many months ahead of publication, so they are almost invariably wrong.

In the end we have 3 likely scenarios:

• There is more data in the existing publication record than what your copy states and that extra data likely comes from some secondary source. The right thing to do is to add a Note explaining what currently existing information is not stated in the publication and what its source is (if known).
• The data in the existing publication record is different from what your publication says, but seems to be correct, so it's likely a different edition or a different printing of the book. The right thing to do is to clone the existing publication and enter your data in the newly created one.
• The data in the existing publication is clearly wrong, e.g. the price of a 1980s trade paperback is given as $2.50. The right thing to do is to correct the data based on what you have in your hands.

The real issue here is learning to distinguish between different scenarios and navigating the shoals that are often hidden only inches below the waterline :)

Having said all that, we do not want to leave records with contradictory information in our wake. If a record says both "assumed first printing" and "stated second printing", then there is something wrong with this picture. We will either want to create a separate publication record for the assumed first printing and a separate one for the stated second printing or confirm that these records already exist, which is, luckily, the case with the Berkley edition of Storm Bringer.

Anyway, hope this makes sense! :) Ahasuerus 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oath of Fealty

Approved the fourth Pocket Books printing of Oath of Fealty and added that the publication date (1986-06-00) was taken from the Locus Index. Ahasuerus 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Omnibus of Time

I have approved the addition of page numbers to The Omnibus of Time, but I wonder why you didn't add them for "The Hidden Universe (Excerpt)", "The Golden City (Excerpt)" and "The Radio War (First Chapter)". Were they perhaps printed on unnumbered pages? Also, is "The Invisible Bomber" really attributed to "Lt. John Pease" in the collection? Typically, pseudonyms are not reproduced when stories are reprinted in single author collections, but you never know. Ahasuerus 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not add page numbers because I think they should read thus. The Hidden Universe (extracts). On story page it reads thus. The Hidden Universe (over) Extracts from a novel-length story (over) of a weird universe in solid space. Page 215.

My preference. The Golden City (extracts). Reads thus. The Golden City (over) Extracts from a novel-length story (over) based on an actual Pacific Ocean Mirage. Page 203.

Full title as on page. The Missing Chapter of the Radio War. My preference. Radio War (Missing Chapter). Page 199. This story is only 2 pages long.

The toc reads thusly. The Missing First Chapter of "The Radio War" page 199. Extract from "The Golden City" page 203. Extract from "The Hidden Universe" page 215.

Individual story copyright statements on copyright page. The Missing First Chapter of "The Radio War", Fantasy Magazine 1934.

Extracts, "The Golden City", copyright 1939, by Ziff-Davis Publishing Company.

Extracts, "The Hidden Universe", copyright 1939 by Ziff-Davis Publishing Company.

The Last five stories and the end essay have no individual copyrights and I think should be assumed to be 'original' to this publication. The Man Who Lived Backwards shows a 1950 publication date. It is a question which reached publication first.

Another oddity, I did not notice till today, is this. Title page on bottom reads thus. Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc. (over) Los Angeles (spacing) 1950. I am wondering if that should/could be taken as a statement of when it was published?

Should I note this, extracted from Introduction. "In several of my stories, in their original form, there were many mathematico-physical footnotes. These have all now been excised, and then gathered together in a final post-mortem at the end of this book where I discuss the various scientific theories of time, and compare all my own various inconsistent theories and techniques." Should this be in the Note field to indicate that some stories are revised?

Happily, I must rely on further direction in which way to go with the above. My personal evaluation is that the book is one heck of a literary effort. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed one. The Invisible Bomber . No notations as by Ralph Milne Farley or anyone on any story in ToC. Only stories with Ralph Milne Farley are Introduction, The Revenge of the Great White Lodge, and After Math. All after the end. NO stories attributed to any other entity at all, even in Acknowledgments. No mention of Lt. John Pease anywhere in the story either.

I Killed Hitler (over) (written and published just before Pearl Harbor) as it appears at start of story. (over) being my only addition.

I also missed noting that The Hidden Universe(extracts) ends with (The Complete text of this novel-length story is shortly to appear in book form). As does The Golden City. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, that's a lot of observations and questions! :) I have pulled out my copy and will check tomorrow. Ahasuerus 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have compared my copy with Day's Index (who messed up The Golden City) and Contento's Index. Here is what I ended up doing:

• Cross-checked the contents against my copy of Fantasy Book, where "The Man Who Lived Backwards" first appeared; changed its title to "The Man Who Lived Backward" based on the spelling on the title page and made a note of it.
• Changed "The Time-Traveler", which is how it apparently appeared in Weird Talkes to "The Time Traveler". Contento had it listed as "The Time Traveller".
• Changed the "John Pease" attribution, which is how the story appeared in Amazing in 1938, to "Ralph Milne Farley".
• Added "Introduction" on page 9.
• Added page numbers to the excerpts and changed their titles to what it says on each title page. (Subtitles added to Notes.)
• Added a bunch of notes incorporating your comments and what I have found in the book.
• Sent Bill Contento 4 e-mails with corrections.

Now I need a vacation :) Ahasuerus 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If the end result looks OK, please feel free to verify it - my copy doesn't have a dust jacket, so I can't verify the price. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fantastic. What a cracker-jack. Thanks, for all the hard work and enjoy. Verified. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Giant Anthology of Science Fiction

Similarly, is "By His Bootstraps" attributed to "Robert A. Heinlein" or to "Anson MacDonald" in The Giant Anthology of Science Fiction? Ahasuerus 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On the ToC and page 225 it is Robert A. Heinlein. On the Acknowledgments page it is Robert A. Heinlein, but the story is listed as By His Own Bootstraps. That title change bothers me, but as the other is correct for what the DB has I do not know if there is a solution. Forgotten World by Edmond Hamilton is also listed as 1945 for copyright date for Standard Magazines, Inc. for Thrilling Wonder Stories. As Bill said dates always bug me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now fixed the publication by using the "Add-Remove-Merge" method explained in Help:How to change a story in a collection. You have already noted the fact that the title was given incorrectly on the copyright page, so I think we are all set. Copyright page writers can be very sloppy, so we simply note their mistakes in the Notes field, but don't do anything special about it.

As far as the copyright date of "Forgotten World" goes, the first appearance of the story was in Thrilling Wonder Stories, Winter 1946, which was published in February 1946 according to Mike Ashley's "The Time Machines". Thus the likely explanation is that the copyright was secured in late 1945. This is a very common occurrence, which is why we try not to rely on copyright dates when determining the book/story's publication date unless we have no other choice. Ahasuerus 04:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the fixes. I verified and hope someone with the d/j fills in any blanks. Still it is too good a book to ignore for that lack. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vortex Blasters and Other Stories

I've approved the update to The Vortex Blasters and Other Stories but am bothered by the change of the date from 1965-00-00 to 1968-00-00. The original source for the 1965 date seems to be Bill Contento and so I've asked him to re-check his publication. I checked AbeBooks and nearly all of the 22 publications available report 1968 with one reporting 1965. It's bugging me as the copyright is 1965 and the LC # is 65-18008.

A catalog # of 60-325 and 60 cent price seem to fit the 1968 time frame. In 1965 they were selling at 50 cents with the first 60 cents books in 1967. -Marc Kupper|talk 05:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I got a reply from Bill Contento.

• Modern Masterpieces of Science Fiction was published in 1965. This was reprinted in abridged form by Macfadden-Bartell as:
  • Doorway Into Time (1966)
  • The Vortex Blasters (1968)
  • Microcosmic God (1968)

The copyright statements for all three reprints are 1965. Bill will correct his db. He also looked at the other Moskowitz books he had handy and found that After All These Years (I need to add this to ISFDB) has a bibliography that confirms these dates. -Marc Kupper|talk 06:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank YOU, It looks very nice. I was bothered by the date and went to Tuck. Now users can refine their choices a bit more. To think it is all for a story that most rate very low, which Moskowitz or someone chose for a title that would sell. LOL. Sorry for the bother though. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I Dare

First of all, I apologize for the long delay in letting you know what was up with this. I spotted a possible problem on Wendsday, and put it on hold until I should have time to investigate. Then things got very busy for me Thurs am, plus a bad cold hit me, so that while I have done ISFDB work since, only fairly mindless stuff. Again, I'm sorry for the delay with no word.

It appears as if you want to change the title of the introduction by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. from "Introduction (I Dare)" (a default title that might be sued if there were no title at all to the intro) to "An Introduction to I Dare". I assume this is the actual title in the book, and I have no problem with it. However the existing essay (this record) is used in both the TP and the HC editions of the Meisha Merlin I Dare. You made the change, apparently, by blanking the existing content record, and adding a new content record. Close, but not quite. This would have the effect of leaving the existing content record in place, but with a blank title, in both the TP and HC, and adding a new record to the TP only. Not what we want.

If, as I suspect, the actual title of the introductory essay was the same in both TP and HC, then the thing to do is to change the title of the existing essay, which will automatically affect both the TP and the HC.

If, however, they are not the same, or if you cannot verify the situation for the HC well enough to be willing to change the title in the HC, then the thing to do is to add the new title as a separate record to the TP, and remove the old one. This will require two separate edits, and will leave one essay in the HC (with the present title) and a different essay record in the TP (with the new title), although both essays will have the same author. It will also credit Modesitt with two different essays, if anyone cares.

What I am going to do is make a new submission to add the notes and page cont changes you made in the same edit with the intro change, because I have access to their text and at the moment you don't (at least not via the ISFDB). I will then reject your original change, and leave it to you to follow one of the procedures above, based on the facts as you determine them to be.

If you have any questions about any of the above, please do ask them. Thanks as always for your contributions, and again my apologies for the delay. -DES ^Talk 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow that is a bollixed up interpretation of what I did. I added a new title record with the correct title and page number. I ONLY removed the page number from the original bad Introduction title. Please do a Roll Back and you will see this was the only blanking out effort. Tried that before and I do not anymore touch titles and dates in contents....Period.

My intent in removing the page number was to indicate it was not present. If this tripped a booby trap I am sorry, but the TITLE was not touched. I was not concerned with the hc as I can not verify it. I was only concerned to create the proper title for review and then afterwords to remove the bad title for this verification.

If all the title content removal happened then it was NOT me. I have removed page numbers before and added the proposed new title with correct title and then worked it from there. I am disturbed that you think I removed a content title, even fixing one will not work usually. I seem to remember removing map as a title in another instance and putting it in brackets after the title. Should not have done that, but I do not think it raised much of a question because it was somewhat unique to that book.

Since, I am NOT in agreement with what you believe happened I can NOT follow the indicated course simply because I did NO title change blank out. I find myself defensive in that I must trust your vision of an action that I am positive did not occur by my actions. ROLL BACK to my submission and check. If the title was blanked out it was not I. Again, the page number removal and the addition of the correct title with page number as new item is all I did. Your solution is predicated on more than what I know that I did and anything other than what I did I feel no responsibility to assume the onus of other presumed actions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, there is no direct roll back feature available, so i can't do that as you request. I did check and recheck the submission screen, which shows a table of original fields in the first column, and altered fields in the second. It also shows the user name of the submitting editor. Unless I saw it incorrectly on multiple occasions (which is always possible), both the page number and the title field were blanked out. (I had the submission screen at hand when I wrote my comments above. Still I was careful to use words like "appears" and "apparently" to indicate that I was only describing what I saw, and can't be sure what you did.) Perhaps there was some browser or software glitch that caused this. I take as correct your statement that you did not intend to make any change in the title of any contents item, and that you don't believe that you did so. Indeed, let us assume that you acted as you state above, removing the page number only. This would still leave the incorrect title in the pub, so a separate removal edit would still have been required. There is no need to be defensive, i hope, as I have no intention of attacking you. I have reported what I saw to the best of my memory, and you have reported what you did, to the best of your memory. they don't agree. Perhaps one of us is mistaken, perhaps there was some odd software glitch involved. I don't know. The question is how to proceed from here. Whether I was correct or incorrect in my actions, we still want to get the record into an accurate state. That means that the correct intro needs to be added to the TP record, and the incorrect one removed, I would think. I find it hard to believe that the intro in the HC version actually had a different title, but neither of us is in a position to verify the contents of the HC, so i guess we don't have enough evidence to change it. Therefore the thing to do, I would think, is to remove the old intro from the TP and insert the new one. If you feel that asking you to do this, after my note above is somehow asking you to "assume an onus" or imposing on you a responsibility to cleanup after me or someone else, I will be glad to make the change, based on the data above. Really i had no intent to accuse you of anything or place any "onus" upon you, merely to describe the edit as it appeared to me on the submission screen, and outline how it might be dealt with. Perhaps I saw wrongly. I am sorry to have disturbed you by my msg above, please be assured it was not written in any hostile or accusing spirit. At most I assumed you made an error in dealing with our less than optimal software. (For one thing, I very much wish we had a confirmation screen for the submitting editor similar to the approval screen for the moderator. A roll back or history feature would also be very nice. Both have been requested.) I have made a good many errors of a more serious kind, look at my own talk page, both the early sections and the latest one. I am sorry to have caused you any stress or distress. Please try to assume in future that I have no intent to attack or accuse -- really I don't. -DES ^Talk 02:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Meisha Merlin trades and hardcovers are the same. The first printing at least. They did a limited number of hardcovers based on preorders and the rest of the run was trade. Reprints of the trade might have been changed if they found a revision that needed to be done I guess. I'll check my hardcover copy however, big Miller and Lee fan here. Dana Carson 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be helpful. -DES ^Talk 02:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have added the 2003 Ace edition. If I am interpreting what Amazon.com's "Look Inside" shows correctly, the Modesitt introduction was not reprinted by Ace.

And, of course, there is no reason to doubt anyone's good faith here. We are trying to build a fairly sophisticated database with limited tools using inherently imperfect means of communications, so misunderstandings are liable to happen. Ahasuerus 03:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

His Majesty's Dragon

I placed your submission on hold, because for some unknown reason, it doesn't allow me to look at the pub you wish to drop contents from. (There are several pubs with this title.) Can you please provide me with a link to the pub you're wanting to edit? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This. [26] . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Submission approved. You can continue making the planned changes to the pub's contents. Also notify the verifiers of the other pub records of this title about synching the contents. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I will add commentary to the one active verifier's note (sent much earlier) on this and post a note asking the non-responsive other verifier to check it at his convenience in some future date. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Earth Factor X

Added interior art for the piece before the title page in RTHFCTRXSX0000 by Gaughan. Cheers!--Bluesman 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I have great problems making out artist crediting and appreciate it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that artists creditres with interior art are not listed in the "artist" field, that is for cover artists only. -DES ^Talk 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, now that the change has been approved and I can see it. I therefore do not understand the warning note. Thans, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That is because I removed Jack Gaugahn from the Artist field at about the same time as i sent the note. I should have been clearer, sorry. -DES ^Talk 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New printing of Farmer's To Your Scattered Bodies Go -Personal Hold

I'm holding your submission for a new printing of this title. I believe this may have been brought up before, but there's an ambiguity about the way you enter info in the notes field that may confuse a new visitor to the ISFDB. When you state "Berkley Medallion Edition September 1971." followed by "Seventh printing. This." I understand what you're saying, but it may not be so clear to someone not familiar with how publishers sometimes state printing info. Other editors have used a format similar to the following when the book states the first printing's date followed by the number of the current printing: "Seventh printing of the September 1971 Berkley Medallion edition." Or maybe even expanding your "This" to "This is the stated Seventh Printing". Just my opinion, but I'm open to hearing any argument favoring your entry format. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I enter this in a 'formula manner' and only allow myself the 'This' in addition to what is specifically stated. I have found this the most clear approach. Without looking, because I can not. It reads so.

Berkley Medallion Edition September 1971.

Seventh printing. This.

No printing line number or printing date in/on book.

I may vary the third line somewhat. But I see no greater clarity coming from the questionable assumption of it being the x of that Berkley printing. Reason being occasionally there are publishers. Dell and Signet. especially which skip around and through that kind of conventional statement.

This does only one thing, it makes the reader stop and think. It is obtrusive in that is NOT structurally part of a sentence. Thus it jarred you and that was/is it's primary purpose.

This becomes most needful when the publisher gives a longer history that skips around a bit. Example--- Dutton first printing hardcover, Bantam edition first mass market, Bantam Rose first tp, Bantam Piccadilly printing (no first), then jumping to numbers with or without dates. Simple reason for putting too much data occasionally the db does not have one or more of the editions and this serves to note that. Also it is almost impossible to be sure that the stated numbering printing number system includes or excludes things.

The finality of This is simply it makes no pretense of surety, beyond that statement of itself(thisself). In all cases where people use stated, of the x edition, of the year edition they are giving a surety that it is the same as. This does not broaden that perception. If the fourth edition added the qtip introduction and deleted the zygote afterword, I will not have added to any misconceptions. Summary statements of what a book definitely is can lead to false assumptions.

The Stated case. Stated first printing has often been used, but often the actual line reads something like This. First Helipad X-Ray edition February 1918. What does stated add if you use Stated First Helipad X-Ray edition February 1981. It makes it seem that stated was added to the description, while a simple This (not part of the sentence) effectively is too ridiculous to consider part of the actual statement by the publisher. (I hope. )

I hope I achieved clarity and explained why I feel that This commits my verification to no more and no less than the explicit statement on the copyright page. I also hope this shows why stated has greater baggage and combinations that put previous or following statement segments into the note field which have their own baggage. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) is that there is a lack of clarity with your one word sentence. If it makes a seasoned moderator stop and think, how can we know what is the perception of someone new to site? They might not even read further after the statement "Berkley Medallion Edition September 1971." Your thesis that "This." makes no pretense of surety is no more or less valid than "Stated". It simply states what is declared in the book. "Stated Seventh printing of the September 1971 edition" also doesn't imply that the editions are exactly the same, simply that that is "stated" in the book itself. Your belief that anyone would assume that the word "stated" is part of the statement is laughable. If we take your formula to heart that we should only enter into notes what is actually printed in the book, then why make statements about what is not in the book? Could you please expound on what "baggage" the word "stated" carries? I'm still not clear about the implications of the word.

Perhaps a compromise would be to place everything stated into quotes, and on the same line of your notes preceded by title verso statement (or something similar.) That would make it clear that you're only recording what is explicitly stated in the book itself. (Oops, there's that pesky word again!) Thanks. MHHutchins 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Mike I'm afraid. "This." in the middle of a long section of "exactly recorded" notes is easy to miss, and I'd prefer an upfront statement of which publication this is (even if it's an unknown, undated printing) and all the rest of the evidence can follow to help us make sense of it. Starting notes with details of a different edition is risky: as Mike says people might stop there. Please don't stop entering the extra info, but make it clear what the book is first, then add all the other information about the other editions, if there's not enough information to create such anyway. BLongley 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for this commentary, but it is over four hundred items late, not your fault, but still in that time I have not seen ONE statement that did it better and several that did it worse. Not to argue. Come up with a direct, always to be used identifier, that is not hinged to something I can not be absolutely certain of and I will do that instead. Of course, I wonder at what if anything will suffice, but it is your ballpark. Not trying to be difficult, but I obviously have not succeeded in my approach. English is not a simply understood languarge in any event. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly expand "This" to "(This publication)" or "(this record)" or "(publication described in this record)" or some similar phrase that doesn't make the reader say "This what?!" (which is, I think, the common reaction to just "This.") Not asking you to go back and change your entered pubs, but to please revise going forward. -DES ^Talk 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

{This Publication Record }. Bracketing to show difference from simple repetition of page statement. This would work for me, It would read like this. Second printing {This Publication Record} or First printing January 2188 (This Publication Record) or Third printing by number line {This Publication Record). Truthfully, I am comfortable with it if everyone else is satisfied. Does this give you a place to start parsing the printing record in these examples. The point being that to transcribe the publishing history, if it is short enough, so that someone with interest can follow what was given by the publisher . (Note I am not implying that the publisher is correct, just that the statement of what is there is true and correct.) I will start on using this format immediately, but if it leads to false assumptions or anyone is uncomfortable with say so the sooner the better. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the edit on hold: I see you've mastered enough HTML to bullet-point the notes. If you do that for the exact publication notes, but precede them with "This appears to be the seventh printing of the Berkley Medallion Edition of September 1971, but I have no proof that the September 1971 edition even existed, or that it was in fact a Medallion edition rather than just plain "Berkley" (or whatever notes you personally want to add), I think that would be less confusing that inserting "This." into the "exactly as stated" notes. Separation of facts and opinion is good by me. BLongley 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One other note of yours that confuses me: "This book has no ISBN on front cover." But there is an ISBN stated. Do you mean that it is elsewhere on the publication, or that it's not there at all? I know there's a lot of existing entries with more data than the publication itself gives, and sources for over-rides should be noted, but this seems sort-of in-between. BLongley 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry first paragraph loses me. Remember you can see my submission and I can not. The point of contention for this is simply to not interject my assumed or assumption or stated to make a connection. It is a record of what is there, but usually nothing of what it could have been. Repeat usually. I think my reply to DES answered this, but you said get back to.

Can you look at the cover image submitted. The reference is to the cover image which has an ISBN printed on it. In fact, I can not say if that ISBN was printed on that cover or if it was a sticker, but my copy simply has no ISBN on front cover. A further reason to state that cover image difference, is that this copy has an SBN 425-02809-7 on copyright page and it seemed strange that a complete ISBN would appear on a 95 cent cover, but the $1.25 copy has an SBN. All commentary after the 'there at all' is making no sense on my end.

I have no idea what comprises HTML, if what you are seeing means something to you then you are saying a monkey can do that, because that is all I have done. Monkeying notation is NOT knowing or adequately using it. Bullet Point means something entirely different to me. I am now exhausted in that I am being tag teamed and if you think about it I must defend my actions without 'visually' re-orienting. Tag team against a blind man, and the commentary is not just on what is being seen, but is on suppositions of what you think I meant to say. This not meant as an insult, but it is very difficult to maintain what is going on from my end. How do I parse what and when and where to do the right thing. By the way the thesis crack was also unwarranted. If you take a look at the commentaries on this page you should appreciate that a spirited total defense has become a survival trait. If everyone agrees about everything, where are you really? I would appreciate it if the Chaotic Anarchistic methodology would be reduced to one question, one answer and an end before the group rambles of to the ends of the world. Perhaps, you do not need my input, but then I do NOT do it for anyone here, but for someone without the information I have. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

HTML, in this context, refers to such markup tags as "br" for a line break, or "ul" and "li" for a bulleted (unnumbered) list, or "a" for an active link, or "i" for italics (all enclosed in <> pairs, of course). Bullet points are the dots generated by the ul/li tags, or alternatively the individual pieces of text set off by those tags. (That is, if notes go "<ul> <li> Copyright 1983 <li> First Megabooks edition 1984 <li> First mass-market paperback printing 1986 (This record) <li> Printed in the USA </ul>" then there are 4 bullet points in the notes, and one of them is "Printed in the USA")

There is no need to defend your actions, no one is attacking or accusing you of anything, merely trying to get information and possibly convey some.

As for me, your suggestion of replacing "this" with "{This Publication Record}" would satisfy me. Bill's suggestion of inserting something like "This appears to be the seventh printing of the Berkley Medallion Edition of September 1971, but I have no proof that the September 1971 edition even existed, or that it was in fact a Medallion edition rather than just plain "Berkley" before the detailed notes could also work.

I think Bill wanted to know if your note "This book has no ISBN on front cover" also meant "No ISBN is printed anywhere in this book. I take it from your comments above that it does not, it simply means that the ISBN is not printed on the cover itself, which seemed to you odd (given the history of this title) and therefore worth noting. I agree. -DES ^Talk 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your submission included a cover art link to a different edition which does have the ISBN. I've approved the submission so you can now make any changes regarding the cover link or edition statements. I believe that Bill's statement "I know there's a lot of existing entries with more data than the publication itself gives...." was referring to other records, not your submissions.
I'm not sure how my calling your opinion a "thesis" could be misconstrued as an unwarranted crack, but I apologize regardless. Sometime it can be difficult to determine what connotations any particular word choice may carry. I also apologize if you feel we were ganging up on you, but sometimes corroboration among moderators can re-enforce an opinion that may at first appear to be merely subjective. Please continue to contribute those detailed notes, something that I let slide when I began verifying my library against the ISFDB records. And don't feel pressed to change any of the 1200 verifications that you've already made. MHHutchins 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked it, rechecked three times more and I am still totally at a loss for the why of the hold. It says exactly what I crafted it to say. I have reviewed this critically in my mind, in my understand of usage and in the intent which I used it for. I find no fault with it's construction and usage. It still remains a 'navel segment of a semantic construct designed to hold the reader's attention'. I have also have so analyzed and compared the statement 'This product record' and other comparitive sentence constructs and find they do not do the same or ar creative layering without real benefit. I am reverting back to this in submissions as it reflects 'my' best attempt to convey what I see and changing it to a form I am uncomfortable with is not conducive to the submission visualization I attempted. As for the cover image statement, I think it said what I wished it to say without making an assumption or giving a false impression. I can not do better. Since, I find the submission not lacking in my opinion and others do, I hereby turn it over to them totally. I can only verify what I am comfortable with. After careful consideration, I am now instituting new policies as outlined below.

I unfortunately have not the ability or oxygen left to blogercise in this manner. Therefore I am limiting myself to a Q & A format. Please when putting my submissions on hold, state what your concerns are and refrain from solutions until I reply. If anyone solves it and I do not agree, then it is their submission at that point. I expect that person to apply their byline to it.

I will hereafter put a statement of Personal Hold on the topic line as notification that I will not participate any further on a topic, till I have accomplished my goal imperative of submitting the material I have.

Apologies to all, but real world reality is that I no longer can maintain personal oxygenation levels above 82. That is my best, and frankly means my personally lucidity is impaired. Apparently, and proven, my personal condition is not treatable as it deals with 'absorption' and increasing oxygen availability does not mandate that oxygen absorption will increase at all. So I must limit myself to those goals 'most immediate' to what I can achieve. I wish to submit what material I have and if it all goes on hold, that is a secondary factor from now on. This is for informational purposes only, no condolences or expressions accepted. This subject line is now on personal hold. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Meeting at Kangsham"

I was massaging Major Ingredients: The Selected Short Stories of Eric Frank Russell, setting up a variant title for "And Then There Were None", etc when I noticed the following line in Notes: "Meeting at Kangshan has typo on page 330 (story title page) and reads "Meeting at Kangsham"." However, the canonical title of this story is "Meeting on Kangshan", so it looks like there was a typo in Notes. Could you please clarify? (BTW, we do capture mistyped titles as variant title so that our users could search for the misspelled version.)

Also, one of the Notes lines reads "Acknowledgments on page following last numbered page ends with Rick Katz (over) July, 2000. Not in contents but a nice touch." I must be missing the context (not surprising since I don't have the book!), but what does "a nice touch touch" refer to? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Meeting On Kangshan. I notice that sometimes the little two letter errors escape me and I am most pleased that I wrote a note, that gets others to catch my errors. I missed the second bomb in this little story.

Explanation of how to slip up. The collection individual story Acknowledgments page and the ToC are facing pages. When I noticed the M in Kangsham I went and rechecked several times on those two pages. Those pages are both in error. There placement re-enforces this error. They both say Meeting at Kangshan, the at being their combined/re-enforced error. Page 330 though reads thus Meeting on Kangsham. Which means the on was correct despite the ack/ToC errors and the M is the error on the story title page.

I recently had a short talk with an editor on the subject of typos, and felt story for the reality that typo errors will get the best of editors, no matter who, and here it has hit NESFA. I now must take a time out and make a second closer comparison between the three title use areas. ( First must clear up the pendings.) Thanks for checking so closely.

Acknowledgments note of not paginated following page. That is a true recognition page naming those who worked on the collection project. Mostly it is names, and as I understand it, would not appear in contents. Though simply written, it is an example of how to recognize the troops and their efforts and thus is a a nice touch. The nice touch was used to get people with the book to take a look at it. Perhaps it is overmuch, but it has something.

I will get back, after re-checking. Thanks, greatly for questioning what I note. Oops! I can find no reference to a 1998 edition. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Must redos. Change Hobbyist to page 182, missed my first mark first time. Change Meeting at Kangsham to Meeting On Kangshan. After follow up check/change variant title as needed.

Add notes. Homo Saps listed as Homo Sap in ToC. Meeting at Kangshan should read Meeting On Kangshan on Acknowledgments page and ToC. Meeting On Kangsham used as variant title due to spelling change on story title page.

Read reviews. Found these.

Incidentally, NESFA Press is to be commended for including sources for the stories — but don't take it for gospel if you're writing a thesis on Russell. For instance, the acknowledgment for "The Army Comes to Venus" notes its American publication in Fantastic Universe, May 1959; but that story's first appearance, titled "Sustained Pressure", is in the British Nebula Science Fiction, December 1953.

One might also note that Major Ingredients falls slightly short of the absolutely perfect production one is tempted to expect of a NESFA book. "Homo Saps" appears in the table of contents as "Homo Sap." Chalker's reference to "Metamorphosite" comes out as "Metamorphosis." And there is the puzzling moment when an Earthman meeting a Gand woman in "And Then There Were None" is described as "eating her": Neither the sexual nor the cannibalistic meaning makes sense in context. My old Pyramid paperback of The Great Explosion renders the phrase as "guzzling her with his eyes."

Unsure if we note in text spelling errors (verified personally) and revisions (not personally verifiable [the guzzling/eating]). Wonder if Sustained Pressure should be added as note? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications! I have deleted the 1998 publication, which was contents-less and apparently entered in error, perhaps from an early and over-optimistic NESFA catalog. I have also corrected the page number of "Hobbyist", added a note about "Homo Saps" being listed as "Homo Sap" on the acknowledgments page and corrected the variant title/note for "Meeting on Kangshan". I hope this covers it, but please double-check when you get a chance, especially the "Meeting on Kangshan" situation.

As far as noting minor textual changes goes, many magazines and publishers impose their own "house style", so that, e.g., "20,000 ft" may become "twenty thousand feet" or even "seven thousand meters" when the text appears in another publication. We generally do not record these differences since there are so many of them and they tend to be very minor, but we try to record more serious changes at least in Title-specific notes. Sometimes it can take a lot of digging to determine the nature of the changes: was the text revised by the author? was it posthumously restored from the original manuscript? was it abridged by the editor without first securing the author's permission? was it rewritten to add more sex and violence (like many Beacon Books reprints were)? The list of possible permutations is virtually endless... Ahasuerus 22:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed Note to Meeting on Kangsham, lower portion and submitted. All else good. Then submitted Title edit and chnnged date to 2000 for the collection.All looks very good and thank you for the great help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am bothered that there is a fairly recent smaller collection of Eric Frank Russell stories out there supposedly with an Alan Dean Foster byline. Estimated date was 1991. I fear this, which only one reviewer mentions slightly. is going to be a lost publication. I will try to get more data, but it looks bleak. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is Design for Great-Day, a 1995 Foster novel based on a 1953 Russell novella, but I don't see anything else that might fit the bill, at least not in OCLC.

By the way, is the short story "Sly Mongoose" in the 2008-06-03 paperback edition of Tobias S. Buckell's Ragamuffin an excerpt from the eponymous novel? Ahasuerus 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Very Good Catch. I knew I blew it ten seconds after submission, but made a note in personal log to correct it. I was afraid an explanation would cause confusion, so I waited for the second chance. I made a note to the effect that it is an excerpt and put (excerpt) behind title in a new submission. Did this create further problems? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Circus World

I approved the Circus World submission, but then I left Kraang a message over on User Talk:Kraang#Circus World since he had verified a suspiciously similar publication -- take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the similarity, but since I had two listings of the ISBN I used, plus the two I cited on cover and spine, I figured several possibilities. One being they changed the ISBN, not price, and did not bother with the printing information. It could be a Canadian printing, possibly without even saying so. I also wondering if mine was a pre-run version. I often wonder what publisher's records look like. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

House of Reeds

I have approved the paperback edition of Harlan's House of Reeds. No major changes except a spelling correction in Notes, but I was wondering about "Land of the Dead (preview)". Is "(preview)" how this story is billed in the book? We typically use the term "(excerpt)", but if that's what it is called in the book, then it's fine. Also, I have changed the words "as of the time of this verification" to "as of 2008-11-28" since verification dates have been known to change on rare occasions, e.g. if an editor falls inactive and somebody else takes over primary verification after 6-12 months.

Another thing to consider is that even though in many cases the original ISFDB record was created by Dissembler based on Amazon.com's pre-release data, it's important to remove the reference to pre-release information from Notes when doing primary verification. As we all know only too well, pre-release data is often incomplete and inaccurate, e.g. the page count is almost invariably off, and we use the actual publication to overwrite what was listed in the original "stub" record. If we were to leave the reference to pre-release information in Notes after verification, especially as its first line, our users may think that our data for this record is still unreliable and that would be misleading. Ahasuerus 18:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reads "A preview of (very small type)(over) Land of the Dead (large type)(over) by Thomas Harlan. I wanted to say excerpt, but the book is not published. Something is available online, but I can not say that will be a final or even close facsimile of the novel of that name. The novel is due out in 2009, but I am not betting on it at this time since he has lapsed three years. My thought was a preview as stated seemed more like a short story than a component of the novel. Of course, he might not rewrite this section at all. Also I would normally not comparison check it anyway. As for dating it, this morning was a little rough and I could not think of doing that. Will try to remember to date.

Has a decision been reached as to lapsed primary verifications? I hate to take over anything, do not need them, but have transient v'd when possible. I am still in favor of a long rotating list of primary verifications, but if we all get what we want the coding would take over peoples lives. LOL.

You caught my The Battle of the Hammer Worlds where Del Rey just listed the year with no month, which I hope does not become policy. You changed it to Amazon.com for date and I will comply and also will remove computer generated credits. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Price of Peace

FYI, I approved your changes to The Price of Peace, which made the original publication record an undated second printing, but then I cloned it to create a record for the first printing based on the Locus Index for 2000. In cases when you have a later printing of a particular book, it's generally safer to clone the existing record even if it's not verified. After all, it's a pretty good bet that if you have a second printing in your collection, then a first printing exists somewhere :-) Ahasuerus 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I cloned the second printing. Okay I see that I hit edit instead of clone. You should of rejected it. Sorry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, everything is fine now :) Ahasuerus 22:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but the truth is I have to do more double checking of certain things. I am peeved at myself and I seem to have a bounce on certain mouse functions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we all make mistakes! That's why our magazine project usually has at least two editors cross-verify each magazine issue independently -- and they almost invariably find problems... Ahasuerus 00:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicles of the Round Table

I approved the edit earlier tonight and posted on the Rules and standards discussions board before I had a chance to read your note on the Moderator noticeboard. It's an interesting question and seems to merit further discussion... Ahasuerus 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for these pains, but I only enter them because the DB has them or a form of these "Arthurian" works. I think of them as research material, rather than direct to the db purposes. Though I would argue that some are getting into the speculative arena.

I entered it so there would be no mistake of what I saw, and I think it is overmuch myself and do not care if they are deleted and imported. In fact, I would understand deleting all Arthurian works, though some are favorites. Will await results. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Arthurian Companion

I have approved The Arthurian Companion and then changed the line that read "Number line reads thus. First Edition 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2." to "First printing of the fist edition as per the number line: "1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2". Some publishers use this uncommon number line format and the key digit is the lowest one. In this case it's "1", so this is the first printing. Weird, isn't it?

Also, when you wrote "Appendices start on page 495 it is broken up into titled sections and finishes the book", did you mean to "Appendix starts"? Finally, I wonder if there may be a typo in the following comment: "The Arthurian Companion is copyright 1979, 1983 and 1979 by Phyllis Ann Karr." Is 1979 really mentioned twice? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer is 1997 for second one. I said Appendices as the book changes form from an alphabetical listing to Appendices which is a ToC listing of 20 essays on differing aspects of Arthurian literature. None are separately signed. It is like an additional information pamphlet.

On the first question. I put "First Edition 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2" because that is exactly as it reads. It is definitely different, so that is why I put it that way. Your change reflects your view, but not what is printed on the page in that manner. I have seen that type of number line before, but I have never seen it as part of a First Edition.

The First Edition number line skew is the just above the "Chaosium Publication 6200. Published in April 1997." , which is also exactly as stated on page. Maybe this formatting is not unique, but is different for me. Neither were changed by me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the 1997. Added '20 titled essays' on the Appendices line. I added First Edition to the number line quote to show it as printed. Put a page number to the N-F title content entry to show where the whole smear starts. I hope this works for you. Sorry for the complications. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Harry, awfully busy tonight, will get back to you as soon as I can! Ahasuerus 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No hurry, my real life is hot till Saturday or after. Appreciate the effort. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have reviewed the Notes section again and adjusted a couple of things. The edition/printing line now reads "First printing of the fist edition as per the number line: "First Edition 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2".", which I think matches your intent. The Appendices sentence has been changed to read "The "Appendices" section starts on page 495. It is broken up into 20 titled essays and finishes the book." so that all tenses match. Does it look better? Ahasuerus 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks, good . Verified and Thsnks, Thanks, Harry.--Dragoondelight 12:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Radio Planet by Ralph Milne Farley

According to Locus #191 (July 31, 1976), your verified edition of this title was published in July 1976. This confirms your assumption of a 1976 publication. MHHutchins 18:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks greatly, I submitted a note so stating and changed it to 1976. Thanks for the solid footing you just gave the submission. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Diana Gabaldon's Voyager

I have put your proposed changes to the 1994 Delacorte edition of Diana Gabaldon's Voyager on hold. You wanted to change the record from "Delacorte" to "Delacorte / Book Club" and adjust the date, page count and price fields, but according to the Locus Index, a January 1994 Delacorte edition does exist, so I suspect that your copy is a book club reprint of the original Delacorte edition. I cloned the Delacorte publication and used your submission to create a new publication. Could you please check the result to make sure that it looks OK? I am particularly interested in the spelling of the artist's first name since you entered "Kanuko" while the Locus Index lists "Kinuko". Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very good catch. I was disturbed by the low number for the book club and forgot to clone. Note I assumed it was a book club, but the book does not say anything at all. Clone looks good. Unfortunately, I spelled it correctly, but I think they made a typo. I suggest I add a note that it was spelled incorrectly on the jacket flap and Locus has it correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I verified and submitted note. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Guard

Just a heads up, Don added the cover artist for this pub[27] :-)Kraang 02:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and thanks to Don for chasing that artist down. I appreciate the effort. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Storm over Warlock (reprised)

Don Erikson has updated your verified Storm over Warlock to add

• Changed date from 0000-00-00 to 1969-08-00.
• Added to the notes "Date from the Ace #78742 printing (which says is the 2nd printing but is at least the 4th) that this is the 1st printing, but is at least the 3rd." --Marc Kupper|talk 01:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I went and added an additional note before the explanation to totally re-explain it all. I hope it does not re-confuse the confusing Ace publication data. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nomad of Time

I have approved the changes to The Nomad of Time and made some minor adjustments, but could you please check the spelling of the last word in Notes? It seems peculiar and I suspect a typo. Thanks! 03:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I caught it before verifing and submitted a change. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 21:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Golden Age Science Fiction

I approved the addition of the 2007 Carroll & Graf edition of The Mammoth Book of Golden Age Science Fiction earlier today and then imported its contents from the 2007 Robinson edition. When you get a chance, could you please check whether the contents are complete and then add the page numbers? Thanks! Ahasuerus 21:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, I was going to import them. Appreciate it. Will do soon. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I put the numbers in and respelled design. The book gives cover artwork credit to Corbis, but I think Corbis is an image warehouse and I have seen that cover before. The cover image is the same as Roglo used, with the same differences in titles. This bothers me, so I did not use that image. I also have tried to only give credit to actual artists. Happiness to all! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Great Book of Amber: The Complete Amber Chronicles, 1-10

Checking a recently added later printing of this book, I see the following two lines, which seem to be mutually exclusive:

• Ninth printing by number line [This Publication Record].
• No printing number line in book.

Did you mean to remove one of them before creating the submission? Also, I wonder if we really want to create variant titles for all ten Books of Amber? After all, many omnibus reprints use "Book One", "Book Two" and similar ways of framing individual novels/stories and we generally do not record this information except in notes. Ahasuerus 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First answer. Changed it to read No Printing date in book. I am sure it was created because I was and still am wondering where DES gafiated to. Hope it is not troubles.

Why create variant title. Firstly if an extra mark creates a variant title, how could this not?

Secondly the book is presented as a single volume not an omnibus at all. Therefore to parse the novel titles and pages, I had to thumb through using the headers. My thinking is if I have to show the separate novels, then I must use the story title page as presented, not as I would wish it to be. In essence to present the book as a novel, not an omnibus, they changed the title with the addition of Book number (small print) and then title(large print).

Third point. The book added numbers before each title to show definitively the relationships within the series. This is demonstrated by the title. Some small argument could be made that the change is at least defacto approved by the author. This goes to the intent of the publication.

If you do not wish it so, I will change it, but the question becomes when, if ever, do you make such variations apparent to the db users. At least in this case there seems to be clear intent to create a sequential reference. Awaiting your decision on this matter.

What ever this decision, I believe the title entry should be changed to this title as well as the initial story title, unless someone finds it otherwise.

As ever quarrellous, thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that the addition of "Part 1", "Episode 1", "Book 1", etc to omnibus reprints of previously published novels doesn't create new variant titles, but it's an interesting question and I have posted it on the Community Portal. Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pagination

I notice you're adding notes to books such as "Novel ends on page 460." In these cases, just adjust the page count for the book, we're not interested in how many blank pages come after the novel ends. Help says use last numbered page, unless the last page of text is unnumbered in which case count forward from the last numbered page (which is usually just one page before anyway). BLongley 20:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have usually been noting the end of the novel, because I have run across things litke 'The Literary Guide to reading Donna Mills' or glossaries of scientific names and references. Will try to cut it out. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan: Enterprise Stardust

Please double-check your submission updating this pub. One of the stories appears twice with different spellings and different authors. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was working of an old input, and they did not put the right author. So I added the right story and just deleted the wrong author story. I guess I must delete the title edit one also. If I have a blank, no page number, then usually it is a candidate for deletion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So the correct spelling of the Ernsting novella should be "The Thrid Power"? MHHutchins 22:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I need to ask about "The Thrid Power" too as I was about to do a data cleanup and then remembered this thread.

• Perry Rhodan #1: Enterprise Stardust verified by Hall3730 with The Third Power on page 99.
• Perry Rhodan #1: Enterprise Stardust updated by Dragoondelight with The Thrid Power on page 99. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good catch. I submitted change at title level to make it 'The Third Power'. Thanks, Harry.

Approved and merged. BLongley 14:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan

I started Series talk:Perry Rhodan#Organizing Perry_Rhodan by publication vs. chapter - feel free to dive in. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Canadian price

I added the Canadian price to your verified edition of O'Riordan's CADRE ONE.Don Erikson 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother of Storms

Greetings, Harry! Added the $C price to MTST1995. Not sure if I've asked you before if you even want to be notified of this type of change. Anything else would automatically generate a note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Same addition to THSKYSBGND2003 ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the adds as I believe all the entries need refinement. I missed Canadian pricing and other pricing frequently, until you brought it to everyone's attention. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardfought/Cascade Point

Added a note to the pub TORDOB02 that the US edition also has a Canadian ISBN on & in it. So far I've only seen this on Tor editions. Wonder why theirs would have two when other publishers don't? Cheers! Oh, and added C$ price as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Across the Sea of Suns

The Timescape edition of BKTG19566 is the Simon & Schuster edition, Timescape being an imprint of theirs. Found 36 copies for sale on ABEBOOKS! Not bad for a book that doesn't exist! Oddly, AMAZON, under the ISBN search (0-671-44668-1), lists the publisher as Ultramarine Publishing Company...?? Thought you might adjust your notes. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)--Bluesman 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a note about the Timescape/S&S edition. That note was a previous portion of someone else's note and the moderator checked in Locus. I have not found the time to learn Locus yet. In a sense though, Bantam bought the right to produce paperbacks and the data they recieved from S&S was as in book. Thus that date is good for them. Possibly S&S had some problems with production and/or decided to make a cheaper Timescape printing. In any case the rights were date to their record, even if they failed to perform. LOL. I changed note and formatting and hope it works for you. If not, say so, and I will try again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PR title record changes

I'm confused on a number of submissions

• With Perry Rhodan #25: Ice World in Flames you want to change the title to Perry Rhodan #25: Snowman in Flames plus change the date from 1973-00-00 to 1973-06-00.

This title is totally wrong. Possibly it is an alternate German translation. This [28]. Now my title change is used everywhere, though there is no true story title page. My change does match front cover, spine, back cover, headers, book title page and copyright page. The date change is to reflect the actual printing date. First Ace printing June 1973.

• With Ice World in Flames (Complete Novel) you want to change the title to Snowman in Flames (Complete Novel) and also to change the date from 1973-00-00 to 1973-06-00.

Explained above.

• With Planet of the Gods (Complete Novel) you want to change the title to The Land of the Gods (Complete Novel). This title is used in one publication that's also verified.

The PR title is Planet of the Gods, but the novel is not. I am pretty sure my notes explained. The copyright is "Land of the Gods". The ToC is PLanet of the Gods. The story title page reads thus "The Land of the Gods" (over) by (over) "Kurt Mahr" (over) 1/ Confusion to the Enemy (chapter title) Thora's Eyes Flashed followed by novel text.

• With The Thrall of Hypno you want to change the title to Untitled Pucky (PR#20). This title is used by a pair of publications, one of which is verified. The publication name is The Thrall of Hypno and so the implication here is that the illustration is titled but you say it's untitled.
• With The Plague of Oblivion you want to change the title to Unititled Pucky (PR#28) (sic). This is used in one verified publication, Perry Rhodan #28: The Plague of Oblivion .
• With Attack from the Unseen [4] you want to change the title to Untitled Pucky (PR#50) and add the note "smaller copy in PR#68." This is used in one verified publication, Perry Rhodan #50: Attack from the Unseen.

Here is the problem. The "Juanillo" drawings are of a character "Pucky" in various poses. They are located anywhere in any story and were used by ACE (Ackerman) to show this humanoid. They do not reflect specifically on story lines. They also in two cases have been repeated once three times and another image twice, with a change in size the second time. There may be more to be added.

Having divorced them from the story titles, they are apparently a "cult" item of PR to some. Someone using the db would think by how they were entered that they were different. Since some are not, they should be grouped and using "Untitled Pucky" means something to PR readers and I would hope using the PR## would allow the same image, though in different issues to be grouped. Why Bother? I would not have, but the db entries are more misleading than what I am attempting. Yes, you have to have several or all (as I have) of the PR's to compare.

Here is the only bio I have seen on "Juanillo" which fits. This is a capture from commentary on the death of Walter Ernsting (Clark Darlton) co-creator of the German PR series. It is actually a secndary commentary afterwards.

Cap'n Bob Napier said...

   I never read a Rhodan but one of them had an interior illustration

by Bob Juanillo, so they've always had a soft spot in my heart. 

Bob was my partner in my first fanzine. He was a very talented artist (talented person, period) and a couple of years after our zine he made friends with Forry Ackerman, who saw to it that the illo was published. The illo itself showed a mouse in space with a fishbowl helmet, and looked like one of the mice from some gag strips we did for the zine.

   Sadly, Bob died young and his vast talents were never
exposed to the world
as they should have been.

BTW all the "Juanillo"'s so far fit this description. To me it is cute, but a simplistic drawing/doodle. Kid friendly.

A couple of comments.

1. When you change the title record for a publication it's not changing the underlying publication(s).

Obviously if I am going to buck Bob Hall's initial presentation, I feel I am on strong grounds to do so. In the end, I can only try my best and I will continue unless stopped. Hopefully, in the end it will all be the same.

1. Overall, the changes you submitted are "safe" in that they will be affecting very few publications but I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Usually with illustrations they are titled in ISFDB using the name of the publication or story they are illustrating. In rare cases, an illustration is captioned with it's own title and we use that. If there's a series of common illustrations, Pucky in this case, it would make more sense to put those title records into a series named Pucky and to change the title to match their parent publication or story. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In truth, I prefer general title credit for illustrations, but I think you see that I probably have a greater viewpoint than the individual verifier. Obviously you can not have the same drawing as being storyline8 and storyline43. Once entered, it no longer can be ignored, and though I know it is meaningful to others I would ignore it unless it is cataloged. All this is someone else's moment in history and needs either be ignored or clarified as far as possible. I guess a better definition of the "Juanillo" Pucky drawings is that they are series oriented, not storyline. P.S. I fear there is a set of repeatative "Thora" images also. Hope this all makes some sense. Personally, I think notes would have been better than contents. Thanks, most confusedly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you confused me enough as I approved all of the updates. :-) The only thing I'm looking for is accidental rewrites of a verified publication. You might need to do a wiki section on the Juanillo Pucky drawings somewhere on Series:Perry Rhodan page. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Forrey Rhodan" vs. "Forry Rhodan"

I had to reject your proposed change from "Forrey Rhodan" to "Forry Rhodan". If the change had gone through, we would have ended up with two Author records for "Forry Rhodan", which would have made one of them inaccessible and generally messed things up. This is a known deficiency with Author editing tools -- they let you change the name to something that already exists and then one of the records becomes inaccessible. I think there is a bug fix request to change this behavior somewhere too.

Also, just to make sure that I understand the intent, you wanted to change the two currently existing "Forrey Rhodan" titles to "Forry Rhodan", right? If so, you can simply correct the spelling of the Author field in these two Title records and the misspelled version will disappear automatically. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, the object is to not let a mispelling of a pseudonym create an author. Actually, a typo. I am loathe to change the contents title author name. (Scared really). I just submitted the title again, correctly spelled the author. I am afraid that also will create a muddle. I will then delete old title/author entry and then request deletes on the rest. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic Abomination/The Martian Missile.

Happy New Year Harry! Found that sneaky EMSH's signature on the cover (bottom right, almost off the cover) of the Brunner 1/2 of TLNTCMRTM1960 and added a note to that effect plus noted that the Grinnell 1/2 was uncredited but no signature. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll have to get another cover image though. Pesky things disappear. It is nice though to see a book have four confirmations. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Castaways' World/The Rites of Ohe

That rascal EMSH again! About one inch to the right of the male character's left boot on the Castaways' World cover of CSTWYRTS1963. I also found that the spine says "Castaways' Worlds". Guess ACE really couldn't make their minds up on this one! Covered all the permutations¿ Left notes. I'm trying to follow the same format as you in these notes, but until I see the finished product, I'm not that sure I got it right. If I didn't, please drop me a note as to how you do it? Consistency in a pub record is much preferable! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Another winner. BTW Marc Kupper told me it looked less messy and he was right it definitely adds to the notes impact. Thanks, all, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meeting at Infinity/Beyond the Silver Sky

This must have been one of your earliest verifications Harry. BSSKMTNF1961 lacked your newer 'completeness' in the notes, so I massaged them a little, mostly to split out EMSH as doing only the one cover and adding the ACE cover designations: first book/complete novel. Cheers! ~Bill,

Looks real good. Added Tuck note & ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Slavers of Space/Dr. Futurity

Found EMSH on the Slavers cover of DRFUTSLS1960 on the shackle around the blue wrist. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Demons' World/I Want the Stars

Added an artist for one cover of our verified pub DMNSWRLD1964. Found a partial of EMSH about 1/2" up the right side from the bottom. My copy shows the EM and maybe 1/4 of the S. Perhaps yours is cut differently and might show more? I also added the two small interior art pieces from each, one by Gaughan (JG) but couldn't see a signature on the other. A question: see that you have Tuck and have been verifying from that, but isn't putting the Tuck info in the notes as well just duplication? I try to keep my typing to a minimum, being a two-fingered hunter and pecker, but that's just me. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I overdue notes, but I used to daily have to quote chapter and verse from technical orders on my paperwork to underline that I used it. Unfortuantely such can be habit forming. Checking a box and saying that Tuck has it is great, but unless one is a superman at it like Mike Hutchins they could be wrong. Old time practice for me means if I see the page number and the specific agreements/disagreements then I am evaluating more than it's there. It also means I am learning to check that data in greater detail. I know it is old fashioned, but occasionally I think that someone will actually take time to make sure that Tuck , pg 116 right upper column has that data. The idea I received training under was if you start checking then you keep checking. The opposite problem is it most people pay no attention to anything you add, and therefore it is all 'white noise'. Probably the best guide for what to note is 'whatever' caught your interest. As for typing skills, I over type and actually miss portions of what I was thinking of entering.

On the topic of transient verifications, I put my name there to give people a second chance if there are questions. I usually do not add notes, unless they effect the publication, but if I had one note, I will usually add them all. If they ever shoot me, I would rather be guilty of stealing the whole dog. I am an advocate of adding notes, and if you had notes to something I am transient on, I generally do not need notice, though I do enjoy reading them. I am not personally affronted by most possible notes. When I am the only verifier, I most appreciate the notice, as it tells me what I missed or it requires some explanation or thought. I also noticed you noted that I changed as I have gone along, this I believe happens to most. BTW great job, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #43: Life Hunt

Your update to Perry Rhodan #43: Life Hunt blew up with a Python error. It's nothing that was your fault. I'm going to add the components you added, one by one, to see which caused the explosion and then will likely reject your original submission once I've written up the bug report. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the publication is updated to what you entered. I'm still working on what caused the error though suspect it was something with how the notes were formatted. I'm done with editing the publication record and so it's now available for you to take a look to make sure it matches the bookazine itself.

Something I thought of while dealing with this is that you are using titles such as The Perryscope (PR#43). Are the Rhodanary and Perryscope essays only in the Ace publications or are they translations of German essays? I'm thinking if they are translations then "(PR#43)" would only be accurate for the Ace numbering but not the original German numbering. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also found the cause of the error. If someone puts a space in the cover artist field during a publication update then the generated XML has an Artists section that includes an empty Artist. The parser for the Artist field explodes when it's empty. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Look's great to me. PR Question answer. Somehow Ackerman tapped into a hotbed of fans who wished to communicate about the PR series, both German and other translated versions. I have never seen the German versions using anything but the novel, which fits the original view of a quick toss 'mag rag'. The "Rhodanary" is/was the beginnings of a PR glossary of terms. The PR "The Perryscope" is letter fragments with commentary, very loosely done. Better letters have appeared as parts of the beginning editorial and I have some problem with how it gets listed. To me a letter fragment is not an editorial unless it stands alone, if the editor wraps and buffers it then IMO it is becomes an editorial essay. I have made notes to Bob Hall on this, but frankly I understand the daunting nature of trying to unfold Ackerman's methodology and will not push it further.

If the error occurred with 'Gray Morrow' then I will clear the buffer. I suddenly noticed I had two apparently exact duplicate 'Gray Morrow's popping up and I believe I used one. Usually I have it typed in as fast as I would notice the prompt. But I did stop to ponder and use it, because I could not see the difference. Makes sense because some letters space differently and so it did not appear to be using spaceGray Morrow. So somehow the computer remembered an error prone one. Sorry for that. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ace Double Additions

Harry, I forgot about you! Left two notes on Dana Carson's page about PRJJVHJND1971 & KYTVNMRC1968 about interior artwork additions and on the second one I 'finished' the notes in the vein we've been doing them with the separations between halves. Didn't notice until the second one the Transients. At least both were yours so one note covers the two. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Same for CRDLWZSN1969 except this time I remembered you! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #45: Unknown Sector: Milky Way

I saw your note in Perry Rhodan #45: Unknown Sector: Milky Way. Will you be doing the remove-titles too? --Marc Kupper|talk 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, but apparently I do not know the 'magic word' to break the bad title from the parent title. If I could I most certainly would toss the titles. The Editorial was wrong, the 'Thora' is not in the book, it is in next one. humble Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From the publication view (click on the green link above) click on "Remove Titles From This Pub" on the left. What's next should be obvious. As a FYI - it's common for editors to put del, rem, rm, or something similar in the page # field for those titles they intend to delete. It makes it a little easier to spot the titles when using remove-titles. At some point we'll update the publication editor to allow people to delete titles without the extra step. Note that you don't need to wait for the pub-edit approval before doing the remove-titles.

This is also how you should change a contents section where the title is used in other publications. For example, let's say you have Story by Author in the contents. You see that it should be Story by Writer (a pseudonym) and that Story by Author is used by other publications. In that case you would add-title (in the publication editor) Story by Writer and remove-title the Story by Author version from the publication. Again, some day the publication editor will allow for this in one step.

For more about this please see Help:Screen:EditPub#General contents and Help:How to change a story in a collection. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do/did know how to remove titles that way. What I boggled at was that I do not know if the process leaves 'tag ends' to be deleted afterwards. I was wondering if that was what you were getting at. Thanks for the thinking process reboot. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the Stars

Found GAUGHAN on the cover of BYNDTSTRS1963 and added him to the field with a note )just to the right of the 'control mechanism'). ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Siege Perilous

Added a note to SGPERL1966 as Currey states that this was actually written by Paul W. Fairman!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Timemaster

Added a couple of notes to TIMWMSTR1992B the usual $C price and some artist info. Also broke your notes into separate lines as that seemed what you had intended. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Launchpad-Orlando and Interviewing Perry Rhodan

What are you trying to do with these titles? They're strays, not used anywhere... surely they should be deleted or merged with titles that are used? BLongley 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Bob Hall was grouping them, and I wondered if it was possible to change the text, and merge the titles with the corrected title. I was wondering if that would preserve his work. I believe, the alternate would be to delete. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can merge without them being exactly the same, just keep the correct version. But of course, it can be easier to make the titles to be merged appear together if they're more similar. I'll let the changes through and you can try the merges to keep the Series info. BLongley 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merges submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Merges approved. Looks OK to me, does it to you? BLongley 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks Great, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional question, if you have time or notice. In an essay if the title is the same and the content is 100% the same, but, the order of the actual contents is switched, is it permissible to "merge" them? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, but it would be worth a note in the merged title. Some people try and match contents by comparing first and last lines alone, and if they get different results they won't merge. So some clue that the words are all there, but not necessarily in the same order, would be good. BLongley 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, will comply. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rebel of Rhada

Added Gaughan's frontispiece to the contents of THRBLFRHDQ1968 with a matching note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Marc does a good product. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First Through Time

Added the uncredited title page artwork to the contents of FRSTTTM1962 and a matching note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Utopia Minus X

Added Gaughan's interior art to the contents of TPMNSX1966 with matching notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling Dr. Patchwork

Added the interior artwork, also by Kirby, to the contents of CLLNGDRPTC1980 with matching note. I also deleted what I think was a pre-existing note about where the artist credit came from (Garden of Earthly Delights) as it seemed superfluous after verification. You don't usually duplicate sources that way. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Flux

Added Gaughan's interior art to the contents of FLXLBPMDRR1974 with matching note and one re: full number line. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A Whiff of Madness [2]

Added the interior art (also by Kirby) to the contents of WHFFFMDNSS361976 and a note. --Bluesman 19:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wicked Cyborg

Added th interior art (also by Kirby) to the contents of THWCYBRG8F1978. --Bluesman 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Destination: Saturn/Invader on My Back

Added the two interior art pieces (both by Gaughan) to the contents of DSTNTST1968 with a note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rhocon 1: Special Announcement

I approved the update to Rhocon 1: Special Announcement but the note you added confused me.

• "This essay is exactly the same ..." Exactly the same as what?
• "The author signature block is shifted into the essay body of one, while it remains at the bottom in the other." One and the other?
• "(Dragoondelight 20 Jan 2009)" Usually the notes are not signed unless it's something where one of us is writing a note such as "In my personal opinion this..." It'll come up when we need to guess or estimate something. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Harry means "the same in both PR #84 and #85". I suggested that if he merged the two versions (which have all the same words, but not in the same order) he should leave a note explaining the differences. BLongley 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill has it right. They took the first essay and changed (scrambled) it's looks, but not it's contents. If you wish me to redo, I'll do so tomorrow. Note, you have to have both copies to note this, plus the others to see the inherent strangeness of the Ackerman magazine philosophy. LOL I will soon go back to the work sheet to set it up for Bob Hall to think on, after I redo the rest to what I know he wanted. Sorry, all for today. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the lateness of my resubmission, but there it is. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Planet of Exile/ Mankind....

Added the two interior artworks (both by Gaughan) to the contents of PLNTXLE1966 with a note and finished up the pub notes in the usual way. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks real good and I congratulate you on getting those illustrators/artist their proper credit. Mostly their signatures are little too much for me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Space Captain/Mad Metropolis

Added the two interior art pieces (one by Gaughan) to MDMTRPSPC1966 and a note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Added Tuck ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Variant of "Inflexure" by Gold/Campbell

I saw what you were attempting with your submissions to make variants of the two-part serialization of the Gold/Campbell one-piece shortfiction, but I don't think it would have worked out as far as how it would be displayed on Gold's summary page. (Something to do with how the system lexically links serial titles.) Your submission would have created two pieces, each as a variant of the one shortfiction piece. Instead, I made a variant of the Campbell serial as a Gold serial, which now displays under the shortfiction title as a serial on Gold's author summary. It also removes it from Campbell's author summary page. And the display in the individual Perry Rhodans look OK to me. Check to see if this was your intention. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I just wanted it to show as an available option for users. I am not 'at ease' with pseudonyms, especially when Ackerman played with them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Book club edition of Heinlein's Friday

Can you check your copy of this pub and see if you can find a gutter code on or near the last page of text? My copy has no code, and an Abebooks dealer says his has "M36" which would indicate a printing in September 1982. Locus has the Holt trade edition published in April 1982, so it's surprising that it took a full year for it to become a SFBC selection (May 1983, again according to Locus). Maybe Holt held up licensing a BCE because Heinlein had reached the mainstream bestseller lists at this point, and didn't want to jeopardize any sells. Or is it possible that Doubleday released it to its "literary" club (The Literary Guild) in September, six months before offering it to the SFBC members? That doesn't make much sense, but I'm grabbing at straws now! Thanks. MHHutchins 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this won't help. My book's gutter code is N19 on page 343 at bottom seam. That I believe makes mine a reprint SFBC. LOL Just speculating, but H was very popular and I would expect there to have been many reprints in those days. Your's with no code is probably the first with others following. Is your copy bound in red at spine for 1 inch on both covers with Robert A. (over) Heinlein and then Friday with Holt (over) Rinehart (over) Winston on bottom. All running diagonally down the spine. Obviously this does not match the paper dust jacket. A scenario where the book is sequestered at a source to promote book club membership makes lots of sense. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that helps quite a lot. "N19" was the same gutter code used in the other SFBC Spring 1983 selection (Modessit's The Fires of Paratime). I found another Abebooks dealer with an even earlier gutter code ("M23"), so I'll email each of them to confirm the number. Your description of the spine doesn't match mine exactly. It's dark red fake cloth (textured paper) extending about an inch onto both boards which are dark grey. The text on the spine is yellow in the same configuration as you describe, but it's vertical, not diagonal. There's also diagonal yellow stripes at the top and between the author/title and the publisher's name. I was in both Doubleday clubs (SFBC and the LG) off and on during this period (you know the deal, get the membership deal, buy the minimum number of books, quit, then re-join!) so I don't remember from which club I got this or when. I'm also missing the SFBC announcement flyers for the first half of 1983, so that may have been when I'd dropped out and re-joined later in the year. I'll let you know what kind of response I get from the Abebooks dealers. Some are more cooperative than others. I had one who told me bluntly to either buy a book from him or stop taking up his time by answering these trivial (to him) questions. I now try to remember who've I asked before so I don't bug them with such "trivial" matters. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Both dealers confirm the stated gutter codes, which has me back to square one. It appears that Doubleday did print their book club editions as early as June 1982, but it was not available to SFBC members, who on the average paid less for their copies than almost all other Doubleday book clubs (the Mystery Guild being the only comparable one.) MHHutchins 05:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Marrow

Morning, Harry! Ran across this pub [29] while doing checks on the PB. This is an SFBC edition. They stopped putting the tell-tale "Book Club Edition" on the jacket when GuildAmerica bought it out in the early 90s. Used LOCUS [30] for the rest of the information (year/month and price). Invaluable site for 1984 -2006. And they have separate indexes for magazines and collections. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover image for Brunner's The Shockwave Rider

Can you double-check the image (or artist credit) that was submitted for this pub record? It looks nothing like Tinkelman's work from the 70s Ballantine editions of Brunner's works. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Crediting is "Cover Art by Murray Tinkelman" on bottom of copyright page. Would not be the first time that the copyright page was not cleaned up though. Is this better [31] . Found under ISBN search at Amazon with my cover. I searched for signature and on 'Look Inside' with no luck. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more like it, but it's the original cover from the seventies. Tinkelman has a very distinctive style, and I can't imagine it changing that much in 20 years. I think you're right that they forgot to change the copyright page (I thought DAW Books was the only one who did that!) If that's what's in the book, we'll have to let it go for now. Is there a visible signature on the artwork? MHHutchins 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No signature and I had another person double check. The picture though looks like a blow up with the toes right on the bottom cover edge. Since the copyright page format is to change/remove the lowest printing date line, then it would be easy to leave everything else as is. I could not find a vendor that even suggested Tinkelman did it with this cover and that is suspicious. Sorry, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Submitted note on this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell Smith's Snowfall

Your update to this pub changed the publisher to "Forge Book / Tor". In the past, I recall that both Tor and Forge are imprints of Tom Doherty Associates. Are both imprints shown as publisher in this book? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to read Forge Book / Tom Doherty Associates Book as per copyright page/ title page. You are Tor was not mentioned. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Carter's By the Light of the Green Star

Perhaps you meant to remove the original notes (starting with "This ISFDB record was cloned...") for this pub? MHHutchins 20:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I left the notes, as I thought Marc Kupper might have done the clone, and I left a message with him to look at it. The plan is to delete those notes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted notes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Unending Night

Added a cover image to THNNDNGNGH1964. This page is getting a mile long, Harry!! Time to archive some, methinks...! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It would humble me too much to start over again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, it takes no time to fill another page! I found/find it takes longer to 'save' the page the more that's on it. Archive enough pages an you'll have a book!! I already have a working title for mine: "Why Did I Even Start This??" a serial editor's shocking road....... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not even a moderator yet, and are planning your autobiography based on ISFDB? Maybe we should get in first. "Ahasuerus: The ModFather": "Scott Latham: The Invisible Mod": "Bill Longley: Man in Black, Mod in Red": "Mike Hutchins: Who Moved My Verified Cheese?": "Marc Kupper: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Editors": "Dragoondelight: I Did It My Way (Until they Told Me to Stop)"... we will need a whole new classification for entering such here! Or would if we had time to write autobiographies... I still think we should just keep on Editing until we can publish "Where Tuck Went Wrong" and "The Books Contento Missed" and "Locus Bloopers" and other such instant best-sellers for bibliophiles. BLongley 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You, Lord Longley, are one twisted dude!!! I like that! I'll be laughing at these for weeks, and wondering what 'series' they should all go under?!?!?! LOLOLOL ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Away and Beyond

Going through some Van Vogt and came across this [32] but the image is different from the one attached to the pub record for WNDBNDXTJH1973. Since you did the transient more recently, thought maybe you would have better access to your copy. I don't have this edition. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I still match Bill Longley 100 percent. Have you done many Panther editions? They are slightly tricky sometimes. On the copyright page you will find this. Granada Publishing Limited. Published in 1963 by Panther Books, Ltd. Frogmore, St. Albans, Herts AL2 2NF. Reprinted 1968.1970,1973 (twice). This is how this copy reads. Translation for us colonials is printed editions in 1963, 1968, 1970, 1973, 1973. Means this copy should be the second printing in 1973. Total guessing, but your copy is either 1973, no twice, hence the first copy in 1973 or a copy after that. Now pricing is on the back cover bottom left and the copy we verified has a SBN on bottom right back cover, bottom left front cover along spine and bottom spine. On my copy, they have a neat little 2 all alone under the SBN. I read that as second edition, but could be wrong, but it fits. [Additional note, some British editions sneak data on first page after front cover, not mine though].

How does your copy read? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bluesman, I'm not sure what you expected here? That same ISBN would have same cover and same publisher? If so, you're going to be majorly confused by British practices. :-/ BLongley 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, guys!! I just came across the image and it didn't match the pub record that you guys verified, so just tossed it your way. I don't expect anything, was just passing this along. I don't have a Panther of this book or any English editions of it. Just an FYI. Good discussion, though! :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I was just wondering what the confusion was. The 1968 edition does have a different cover from the 1973, and that seems perfectly normal to me. But Amazon only uses one image per ISBN (unless customers add others) and you can never be sure which they'll choose, unless they're selling the latest. BLongley 19:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the text is the same, it's quite likely to carry on under the same ISBN. (I think publishers pay for ISBNs, so keeping the same one saves money - although a new ISBN might make people think it's different so some will change it anyway to make people buy another copy.) And publication histories will be confused so you can't extrapolate the past imprint(s) from a printing history. Granada often claimed "First published by Granada in 196x" when the actual book will have been published under the "Panther" name while they were still independent (until about 1968 I think, when Granada really bought them) and then had "Panther" on every external view (Front cover, spine, back cover) for years still: until they started leaving "Panther Science Fiction" on covers but putting "Grafton" or "Granada" on the spines, and then got into the "Triad" joint venture that meant the spine might say "Triad Granada" or "Triad Panther" or "Triad Grafton"... confused yet? ;-) BLongley 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally use "spine imprint" for all my publications now, as it keeps it clear to me roughly what era we're talking about, but as there's been no solid rules on how to enter publishers people will still keep changing them to a perceived ideal - for example, I think I've let Harry change a "Forge / Tor" title to "Forge / Tom Doherty Associates" today rather than reject it. I didn't APPROVE it - the more variations of a publisher name we have, the more difficult it is to maintain publisher Wiki pages for instance. One short name like Publisher:Panther or Publisher:Sphere works for me, and if we have Publisher:Tor and Publisher:Forge I could work with that too. But the more variations we have, the more redirects we have to create to keep the Wiki side maintainable. I've created a lot of Wiki pages for British Publishers, and other people keep creating new variations of publisher names that mean they'll never find my recorded wisdom. :-( Al gave us some great tools for Publisher notes, Webpages, Wikipedia entries etc, and the Mods got tools to regularise and merge such, and never gave guidelines on what he intended. So we've all gone off in different directions and Publisher regularisation looks dead to me, there's more opinions on what to do than there are actual people doing the edits. :-( BLongley 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bill Longley, but Bluesman has not made his problem more specific, and you and I are just guessing at this point. It is even possible that his version is a unique type.

True, I'm just guessing at the perceived problem. And I freely admit I tagged on my own rant just in case it matches. There's nothing in help to explain past discussions on what we should do about "publisher" as it's been totally inconclusive. I guess I'm hoping that anyone that argued for "exactly as stated" on some page or another will have given up by now and there might be some better consensus. (Wild optimism - I must be drunk!). BLongley 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Forge / Tor issue that was my 'bag' pointed out by Mike Hutchins. I have to rein in my assumptions and I thought of Tor and Tom Doherty Associates as the same. I thought though my input still showed part of my problem. It is a Forge Book / Tom Doherty Associates Book. That is what really confused me. If we play the imprint game, then you would think it would no longer have a duality issue in house.

As for the regularize vs diversify, I propose that the issue will resolve itself at later dates when greater information is available. At this time, more data may have more value. Standardizing solutions may obscure the dynamics of publishing by hiding the inevitable hubris created by such things as the Fawcett and Crest data. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We thought we'd got to that stage of having lots of information (ISFDB is pretty big now), and could do something at last. I think all we actually agreed on is that if you want to add some more information to a publisher name you should put spaces around the "/". I would personally prefer we had simpler publisher names, so we can link to a Wiki page that adds the rest of the information about ownership of the imprint or such. Or that we can add a lot more information about the publisher on every database entry for the publisher. We're falling between two stools here - if someone really wants to add "Gollancz, an imprint of Orion" then they should be able to record exactly which ISBN prefixes apply, what period it was used for, etc. Or we go the other way and record "Gollancz" as publisher and the Wiki-page can record ownership by year, what names might have been used, etc. "Publisher" is a depressing issue, "Imprint" had more hope. I'm going to go to bed in despair and disillusionment and other dis/des words. (OK, it's now wild pessimism - but I'm less sure it's wild.) BLongley 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wizard of Linn

Added a cover image and notes to WZRDFL1962 ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cover image difference"

Sorry Harry, but some of your latest edits aren't very clear to me. I've got used to "[This Publication Record]", but when you say "Cover image difference" you're not making it clear whether it's the cover image that is right and the pub is wrong, or vice versa. I suspect you're saying that the cover-art image you're supplying is the same as on the publication you have, but the text details are actually a bit different? BLongley 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting the edits, and I suspect someone else will approve them in the meantime as they think they know what you mean, but it threw me for a bit and I'd prefer a bit more clarity about where you're using a nearly-right cover (which is fine I think, if we're really only talking about the art, we just need notes on the difference) and when it's exactly right. (For people that will zoom in and check prices and Catalog number etc - not so much of a problem on British books I think, they're usually on the back cover here.) BLongley 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the overprint information on the art. The art being the same and the new 'bits' generally would only be noted by obsessive me. I thought I stated what exactly was different, but would you prefer something like "This Cover Image differences are:". I may have couple more dithering through, but will try the above. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alien Embassy

Added a cover image to LNMBSSSJLV1978 ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Long Result

Added a cover image to LNGRSLT1966 ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Added notation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lackey & Guon's Wing Commander

You want to update the page count of this pub to "275(1)39-58". Is this a typo or a new way to record pagination? If the excerpt is paged 39-58 (20 pages of text) perhaps a simpler way to indicate this would be "275+[20]". This field is for recording the number of pages, not the page numbers. Let the notes field contain info about the strange numbering of the extraneous material. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought we were recording the numbering as used by the publications, thus I did what I did. I actually thought that what I did showed the problem at the lowest level. I will change it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what "275(1)39-58" has to do with the numbering of the book, and a casual visitor to the page would probably have even less of an understanding. Please explain what it means. I'm not asking you to change it, just explain it. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The pagination ends on 275, also end of novel, next page is not numbered, following pages are numbered 39 through 58 (apparently a direct copy from the novel printing sequence with numbering). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to ISFDB standards this field is used only for the number of pages. So "275+[20]" in the page count field along with your notes are enough to explain this unusual pagination. MHHutchins 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent]I absolutely love science fiction. I also have served under many supervisors and I know their problems also. The best bequest I can give a supervisor is restrain your natural inclinations to find fault. The best method is to reverse your approach. Find every good thing that was done, applaud it mentally, or write it down as a plus. Always have a good attitude, a bad attitude start multiplies the problems. Then take small mistakes, i.e. spelling, and drop them out of the equation, unless they get no better. When reading a report, try to hear it from the reporting side, not the receiving side. Most often a mistake is visible because it was something that bothered the reporter. "I knew it was wrong here and my other mistakes compounded the problem, because my attention was divided because I could not resolve the first or base problem". Moral if your going to make a supervisor level mistake make it immediately, do not let it fester. Biggest problem with a supervisor mistake is how to admit your wrong. Best solution, involve the other, but if the other wants to walk away from it. DO THAT. If you continue, you may find yourself making rules and citing criteria that are either questionable or open to debate. You do not really want to debate anyone where you have positioned the other person into being the dummy. Never gather others into the discussion where they feel compelled to back your decision. Once or twice of that kind of mauling and the 'supervised' will never trust you or them. A supervisor who does not build trust in the supervised, always finds himself playing down to the supervised and eventually he will start on other supervisors. Big moral, get the supervised to find the mistake and correct it. Most corrections that can be done need to be done on the lowest level.

Supervisors? We don't need no steenky supervisors! :) We have a motley crew of editors and moderators who all contribute equally when developing the standards. It's just that moderators get the unenviable job of enforcing these standards during the submission approval process. Ahasuerus 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages - The page count of the publication. For books, the general convention is to use the last printed page number. For magazines, the convention is to use the actual page count - including the cover. For example, early issues of Fantastic Universe had the pages numbered from 1 to 192, not counting the front or back covers. This would be entered as 196 pages. If a publication is not paginated, leave the field blank and put "Not paginated" in the note field.

You were absolutely right that I did not cite the last page number correctly. It should have been 58. Instead, I tried to find a way that caught the attention of the user. If I had used the notation sequence used by book dealers I would have used [4][1]2-275[1]39-58[4]. This notation tells you everything. Unfortunately the value field will not always allow this page notation system as it only allows a limited number of values in it for pages. I believe my choice of 275[1]39-58 was the simplest way to show an inconsistent numbering of pages by the publisher. It makes the user aware that something odd has happened.

It's an interesting alternative way of recording this type of information and, as you point out, it would be similar to what some book dealers and librarians do, but it's not what the ISFDB currently uses or what is documented in Help. If you think that the standard should be changed -- or if your interpretation of the standard is different -- we can discuss the issue on the Rules and Standards page, but keep in mind that the ISFDB software is currently coded to recognize certain patterns in the page field, so changing the standard may require changing the software, which doesn't happen very often. However, as long as the standard remains the same and is uniformly understood, we all have to comply with it (modulo known gray areas), otherwise the database would quickly become a mishmash of personal conventions and therefore incomprehensible to casual users. Ahasuerus 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since my hand was 'forced' I have now replied with the sure knowledge that rancor will ensue, even though I tried to mollify it initially. I know have discussed this point to my detriment and unfortunately I will not verify this book now. We will always have angst when it is mentioned, and you will every time you see or hear of me. When the lash bits the flesh, it affects everyone. That is unfortunate, as my goal is actually to try to be 'invisible' as my purpose is to do for the users of the db, not myself nor supervisors. I am heartily trying to not roil the waters, as no one but a fellow contrarian can know. Do not think it all your responsibility, another has added to my personal angst with a great many loose assaults. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here will deny that you are trying to be helpful, Harry. It's just that we all have our preferences, idiosyncrasies and communication quirks, which can make communications difficult and cause exasperation. We all try to find common ground -- with varying degrees of success -- but one thing that we need to be firm about is the need for standards. If we ignore the standards, then we won't have a database in any but the loosest sense of the word. Ahasuerus 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Harry, please don't take this ISFDB stuff too seriously. On the pages field I've thought about suggesting that the definition be modified to support the form you used. In the long run I decided it was not going to add that much value to the database and would tend to confuse people that are not familiar with the notation system. You certainly confused Mr. Hutchins and am sorry you did not enter it as [4][1]2-275[1]39-58[4] as I'm sure the reaction would have been more interesting than just puzzlement or confusion. :-) It's one of those back burner projects but I have been meaning to propose some additions and cleanups to the pages field - mainly to allow for documenting unnumbered pages before page one. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Mark, I come from a 'never forget, forgive elephant memory' line of deviants who lived for the verbal/oratory battle. I realize I confused Mike, but I tried very hard not to. I told him I would delete the entry and revert to not giving the prospective user a warning that pagination was flawed on the entry field. I had already found that full page notation was not supported on the visual display page. I only did what I did to show that attention need be paid by the user. I wished to 'recant' & 'delete' because I did not envision a workaround that would satisfy everyone, since Mike objected. I confuse him, but at the same time it is useless to 'explain' to someone whose replies consist of comments on 'treatis'. In any argument, I will always confuse everyone, I see the world totally different, I actually measure the impact of mine and their wording. This is a 'Cassandra' type of blessing/curse. My irritation is not as much getting dinged as the idea that I received a 'fiat' type decision that I could not match to what I was seeing in the 'How To'. My solution would have been to add a short note that pagination irregularities should always be in Notes. Simpler guidance, that is easier than anything else. Learning total pagination notation or even understanding it is unreasonable for most. I just wanted a quick 'jarring' effect on the user, that would cause the notes to be read. I knew you were interested in pagination, but I had previously submitted a long notation sequence on a problem entry, with no one commented, but the display limited it and I have since desisted as there are many things more needful for changes. In the previous case, I had to re-edit to make it readable.

Aside. I know my 'over' notation is irksome, but when I compare to the dearth of transmitted knowledge in Tuck and Blieler Gernsback I know doing it is justifiable. Tuck was determedly thorough to meet his standards and I think did a good job. Bleiler in both his Author and Gernsback was more subjective than objective. Better than nothing, it points to how much data gets lost.

Aside, Bill. I apologize for the publisher annoyance that I have created for you by not standardizing. Here is my defense. In the Bazil Broketail series [33]. You can see the publisher changes in a flash sequence of time. All my changes reflect the copyright page entry and start with something like 'Roc, an imprint of' and I followed that format rigorously. Apparently in that sequence, the line of control of the publishing process was changed and then changed again. While not standard it does reflect that homogeneous in publishing houses may not be hard and fast. Is it important, probably not, but by using it as is, not as desired to be, the acutal content is preserved. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside everything that has been said above, I ask anyone to look at the following two pub records and imagine it from the viewpoint of the average ISFDB user:

First things first, On your initial objection, I told you I would delete it. I could see you had an objection to it being displayed in that manner. I also had thought of EVERY other way to do it, and realized that either the 'visual form' would not support it or it created a new rule for dealing with 'all' not just 'this error type' of pagination. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

   * Wing Commander: Freedom Flight, (Dec 1992, Mercedes Lackey, Ellen Guon, Baen, 0-671-72145-3,
 $4.99, 275+[20]pp, pb) Cover: Paul Alexander 

Here simply is the big problem with the above formatting for someone like me. First, If you think about it, for the compulsive like myself, I would there after enter a pagination showing 'all' extra material. Might as well change the standard to doing an actual count. All this is too much work for 'most' people and as in the case above imparts 'NO' quick reference to the 'user' that something is amiss. Since, I do not see that anyone wants to do actual count or a form of partial count, this is what upset my apple cart. You were trying to be nice and salvage something of my effort. I was trying to say that if my method of display was 'too radical' then it was best to revert to nothing but the notes to show this type of problem. So, to recap, the compromise above actually 'damages' the system and rule interpretation more than the omission of data. In this case, a compromise opened the Pandora box of confusion. So, I would not verify the above, but wished to revert to the most functional and less open to interpretation standard format. So, my proposal is to avoid changing how the pagination is recorded to avoid my and other creative efforts to dispaly those pesky extra content pages. You were very right to object, but you were wrong to try a compromise fix. Sometimes it is best to revert to the basic. I know this is very confusing to others, and thus almost impossible to explaing. You were and are right to object for the reason that it bothered you more than it could prove worthwhile. You were wrong to attempt compromise, because that as you show hurts the DB collection proscess. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

   * Wing Commander: Freedom Flight, (Dec 1992, Mercedes Lackey, Ellen Guon, Baen, 0-671-72145-3,
 $4.99, 275(1)39-58pp, pb) Cover: Paul Alexander

Fist I did it slightly wrong. It should have read 275[1]39-58. Small difference, but most proper notation. I came to this sequence to show only the smallest relevant section and catch the user's attention. Basically, I was saying proper numeration to 275. A not numbered intervening page. A new numeration beginning at page 39 going to 58. I was trying to limit it to the noting of the actual pages with numbering' and trying not to create a licence to start showing not numbered extras or going full bore into actual count. Creatively, it was the least and most information packed, that I could manage and being so oddly specific that it created no re-interpretation of rules, or so I hoped. I knew immediately what the problem was when you started thinking about it. I figured when you started asking about it, that it had all ready created more problems than it was worth and that I could only confuse issues more by my long winded, didactic explanations. I had a solution, when I said I would delete it. I respect that a veteran DB user was choking on it's ramifications, thus it was not worth doing in the above manner. You are absolutely right that the angst was too much for the everyday user. My problem was the comprosmise fix. It hinted at opening more doors of variation. So, the creation of a fix, becomes like giving a present the receiver does not want, 'no way to say simply no thanks'. My apologies. Thanks, Harry.--Dragoondelight 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The only "confusion" I have is why anyone would choose to have the second record as part of the database. No, I take that back. I'm also confused about what I said or did that would have upset someone as much as it did Harry. We have to keep in mind that this is a database, not a printed reference work like Tuck or Bleiler, who both made subjective choices about what they would include and how to present it. A database is a different animal. Each entry field has only one purpose, and is designed to function with other fields to complete the "big picture". If we don't like this method, then there's always the Wiki - just create a separate page for each publication. That way you can put anything you want on it. You can add ten layers of publisher hierarchy. You can describe the fonts, the binding, the copyrights, and yes, the pagination. But that would not be a database. When a field designed for the page count (or any field for that matter) is filled with information for which it was not designed it becomes useless. Someone (Al von Ruff, I suppose), in his wisdom, decided to add a Notes field, knowing that people as passionate about books as Harry can have the freedom to do just about anything they damn well please. I love your notes, Harry. I know from the moment I reach a page that this is a Dragoondelight book.

I know I am obsessive, (A word), but I think of what I like to know when I am trying to get a book. For me it is always the more the better. In effect it is raw actual, and take what you want. I unfortunately, like a few others, hate the stated. I understand it, but some things have been so 'industry' compromised that the word 'stated' gives false impressions to me. To me books are 'lovely little beggar children' that I have chased for years and not corralled often because of the lack of information. So, yes I agree notes was the place for the 'indifferent' pagination. You were right in your objection. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to respond to Harry, because I could see he was upset, and thought nothing I might say would make a difference. It would give us both time to step back and look at the "big picture". Perhaps to reconsider just what we are doing here, why both of us care so much about the work we're doing here, and just how little reward there really is other than the personal satisfaction that comes from doing a job well. That's what binds Harry and me, along with a half-dozen or so people here on the ISFDB. Looking back over the issue that began this, I'm still puzzled that it got to this point. When I have to pussyfoot around, desperately trying not to hurt someone's feelings, or the moment this becomes a chore instead of a joy, that's the moment I can walk away. It will be just as easy as the day I signed up. MHHutchins 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is hard, because we went on a tangent. It was not correcting me, it was, and became for me the spectre of changing the rules. Often, I see my mistake and recant easily, but the more thought given to pointing out the problem, the more complicated it can become. My basic problem is that someone not 'bandaid' fix it for me. Better to take my lumps, and note them. DES, bless him, fixed them for me, but I learn little from the 'fix' as opposed to fixing it so that it becomes usable to others. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond The Stars

Added a cover image to BYNDTSTRS1963 ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reality Dysfunction 2

Added a cover image to replace the broken one. THRLTDSFNB0000 ~bill, --Bluesman 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotta wonder how that will turn out. I just submitted a redo of the notations and took the bad image out. I could not find one that was not total drek. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Greks

Added a cover image to THGRKSBRNG1968 ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Invaders of Space

Added a cover image to NVDRSFSPCH1964 ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my personal notes to show that it had an image. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Worlds Apart

Added a cover image to WRLDSPRTBJ1954 ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Universe Maker

Added the frontispiece by Gaughan to NVRSMKR1967 ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have trouble with being 'sure' of Gaughan and you undoubtedly will find many more of his that I miss. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Videssos / Videssis

I approved your change to The Legion of Videssos but I'm guessing the "Videssis" in the notes section is a typo? --WimLewis 06:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is! Unfortunately, somehow I twist it continually. I do not understand it, but my mind and fingering just will not accept Turtledove's spelling. I submitted a correction. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aliens™

Harry, I noticed the Aliens™ submissions in the queue. I doubt you broke any of the rules doing that but including the ™ marks introduced a spike of astonishment in my life. I approved the submissions them but suspect we should remove the ™ symbols as the odds are really low that someone knows how to enter that directly on a keyboard or would do so when searching for a publication.

Sorry, I just changed most of them from (example) AliensTM: Earth Hive to Aliens™: Earth Hive as per the listing as Aliens series. I did not enter the individual novels for search, but tried for the series. I wanted to delete the TM's, as they are absolutely ugly, but I saw the point the original compiler made. They are there on the title page, though I tried to make the point that they were not on the copyright page. I must admit that lately it is 'damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't' for things I do.

A general rule of thumb I use for publication titles is I try to make all of the publications under a title record consistent. I consider the series indication to not be part of the "title" meaning then even though it may appear on a title page that I don't always enter it and may even enter it in a different format than used in the publication; for example Genocide (Aliens). I try to enter the title exactly as stated, including the series, but if it's going to create a messy display then I rework the series part.

As stated above, I worked it to change to ™. I also try to make the series match. Remember though the stories are searchable as the contents used the novel title. As For searching for the series, Aliens, works. There is no Aliens™ series. Searching Aliens™ as a novel gets the cover art, which leads, to the books. I am so 'used' to secondary methods to find thins, including ISBN, because of glitches, that it never seemed a problem in this case. NOTE, I am not defending the ™ use in titles, but hated TM as they were originally entered. AliensTM looked terrible. I could not care a shuck if someone decides to change it, but if I have to be blamed for my participation, then let it only be for changed to ™ and trying to be consistent with that.

FWIW, I entered the Aliens books in my personal DB using the titles, Aliens: Earth Hive, Aliens: Nightmare Asylum, etc. I almost never include the series names in my database' title field (there's a separate field the series) but made an exception in this case the titles seemed naked without the prefix. I see with the Predator series that all of the titles are prefixed but that's not the case for Aliens. Again it's more of an FYI as I'm not planning on doing any cleanup in this area.

I did not enter the titles with ™ or TM either, but when confronted I must admit the symbol is present and in the defence of whomever did do it, the TM was wrong, but the ™ meets the same criteria as ! IMHO. NOTE; I also awaiting approval of the first three in case ™ caused formatting problems or someone wished to jump in a hand me another cross to bear up the hill.

Here are the titles containing the publications you added. Genocide, Alien Harvest, Rogue, Labyrinth, Music of the Spears, and Predator: Cold War. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am rather dense, why are you sending me the title references? Are you suggesting I change it? If so, you must say something like "Due to the Standards" this does not work, change it. I am still chafing under Mark Hutchins interpretation of the standards in doing pagination, which does not read the same as he claimed, as far as I can see, and would result in every excerpt from now on having to have an additional (pg count) added to make his 'declared' standard work, with Ahaseureus adding his blessing to the stone tablets. Ignore this, as I am sure you do not want to get into it, but when they read all this, they will know I still am not satisfied, until they get the 'how to' entered to show the 'stone tablet pronouncement' I was cited. Apologies, Ugly humor, but I am still 'stinging'.

Recap: I think the council of elders need to pontificate on the matter, but I will take no responsibility other than to attempt to standardize it into the reduced symbol status, which is more readable. All power to the 'Tech Elderhood" . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just to give them a little ammunition. I notice that the 0153 TM ™ has a slight negative usage effect with the Firefox browser. For some reason 'backspace' does not work after immediately using it and the browser basically stalls out with the combination. If you write another word, it has no effect, but the transition from ™ to backspace is glitched. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Engine City

Added the artist, Stephan Martiniere, to ENGINECTY2003, he is credited on the inside back flap. Also a note about edition and that LOCUS has a different publication date. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate that as I missed it, as I did not leave myself a note. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rogue's Hour and publishers

Just a note that your change from "CDs Books" to "CDS Books" didn't take hold since the software automatically changes publisher capitalization to match what's already on file and we already have over a dozen books under "CDs Books". The only way to change the capitalization is to change the underlying Publisher record to "CDS Books", but that would change the capitalization of all books associated with this publisher. According to the Locus Index and OCLC, "CDS" is the correct capitalization, but let me post on the Verification page first... Ahasuerus 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the 'title' dominance, but it would not surprise me that it was 'CDs' originally, after all the company is a Sony branch to get some publishing dollars out of it's games branches. I was more at a loss about the Elsevier/Nelson Books combo of "The Talking Coffins of Cryo-City" since it means they are formatting in the same way as the DB uses. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the Veil of Stars

Added the month of publication, from LOCUS, and note to BYNDVSTRS1994B ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gate to Women's Country

Everything looks fine with your proposed update to The Gate to Women's Country except I think you hit "edit" instead of "clone" as this update will, among many other things, change:

• Change the date from 1989-08-00 to 0000-00-00.
• Change the price from $4.50 to $6.50.

In looking over the parent title it's almost certain this update will wipe out the publication record for the first Bantam U.S. printing. As you have many useful additions I don't want to lose by rejecting the submission I handled this by:

1. Open the publication up in edit mode
2. Approve your update.
3. Clone the publication and approve it. That created this which is the new record.
4. Hit [Submit] for the publication edit opened in step 1 and approve it. This punches the old information back into the record.
5. Remove the Gibbon's Decline and Fall (excerpt) title you had added from the old record. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Marc. When I Zero dates, I meant to (99%) clone and a reject would make sense and make me try to notice that I 'popped' the wrong screen. It is interesting to see the process though, but I 'hate' that you spent your time at it. As soon as I looked at the copyright page, I knew 'everything'. Please reject next time, with a quick should clone? comment and then I can reassemble and correct it easily enough and go over my mistake. This kind of reject would bother me only to make me check my work better. It is the more technical or rule oriented that cause me problems. Frankly, some of the inter-relationships between records are still not clear. I am in absolute fear of 'pseudonym relationships'. Thanks for the fix, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonyms are indeed one of the scarier things here, particularly as it's possible to create situations that can't be undone at present. I seem to recall you ran into the Alan Burt Akers / Drew Prescott / Kenneth Bulmer situation early on in your editing, which would put off most people. I'm pretty sure many mods still avoid such issues once it gets beyond one writer behind one pseudonym: e.g. there's not many of us that are willing to handle Mark Smith and Julia Smith jointly writing as Jonathan Wylie for a while then as Julia Gray. Or the four people behind Erin Hunter. It's easier to start with someone like "Iain Banks" and "Iain M. Banks" where you know a book is going to have one name or the other, never a mixture. And we should do diagrams to go with the help, that seems to get some editors over the first hurdle. BLongley 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fire Time

Corrected the gutter code from b46 to E46 for FRTMDVGVWN1974. Sometimes the code doesn't print completely, is blurry, gets submerged in the glue... seen them all. This one is nice and sharp in my copy and that is the code listed in the ISFDB SFBC indexes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've placed this submission on hold until Harry gets a chance to look at his copy. As the saying goes...you never know until you look. MHHutchins 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is E46. I had a second person check and after they said E46, I had them check the 'E' used just above on that page and the 'B' in Between on the bottom of the opposite page. They stayed with E46, noting the bottom line of E was elongated as per the other and it had the upward tooth projection. The whole page is crisp, but the E46 is slightly darker in color/lack of color. Black not being a color. LOL. Real good catch. Not the printing blurry, just my eyesight. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification. The submission to edit was accepted. MHHutchins 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sword and the Sorcerer

I have a submission on hold for a change to this title record. In the submission queue you're listed as the submitter, but, and this is quite strange, when opened the submission itself is attributed to "unknown". It wants to remove all authors for the title record, and I recall a question you asked a few days ago about the author credit for this novelization of a film script. First, was this your submission, and did you intend to remove all authors? I think some strange transmission problem occurred somewhere between you and the database, and that you intended to remove the script writers' credit and leave the novelization credit to Norman Winski. Am I right? MHHutchins 05:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to delete the movie script writers. The real problem is I have lost/forgotten something. As I see it, you can NOT delete the original novel title in the contents sections. I therefore tried to delete the writers. I am 'afraid' to delete/change contents, but that seems to be only way, because the old title will not appear in delete contents. So, Please, give me a refresher on how to delete erroneous 'contents' which do NOT appear when you use the delete titles function. Humbly, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Contents will only appear in the pub record, so you don't have to worry about affecting them on the title level. If, as in this case, you need to change the authors in the title record, it's just a matter of overwriting the current fields. (You know already not to overwrite contents in a pub record, but if you see the need to do so, go to this page for help.) Your submission correctly removed the three scriptwriters and left the novelizer. (I see the pub record has already been changed.) Ahasuerus pointed out that the error was only in the display of the submission, not the submission itself, but I don't want to take a chance in accepting it in its current condition. I have no idea how it would affect the record. I'll go ahead and make the changes that you intended in the title record. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for the fix. When in doubt, please reject it, I have great fears of creating the 'Immortal Mistake' that lives on. I dealt with a few of those in computer data entry years ago. I also saw some of the 'Immortal Entry Returns' again, again, and again. The second oddity is that "A novel" on the title record. For the life of me IT is screaming that there is something out there with that addition. Mine does not have it, nor novel anywhere on the pages we use. I am also bothered by the "Now a major motion picture" this shouts that there is a previous edition that the public was familar with. Pinnacle's assertion of originality does not reassure enough. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to removal that (superfluous) subtitle. Even if it were printed in 50 point type on the cover and the title page, we wouldn't include it as part of the title record. Somewhere along the way, the publisher wanted it clear that this is not the movie, but a novel, as if anyone could confuse reading printed pages with viewing a projected image at 24 frames per second! MHHutchins 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, WE wouldn't. There's still a couple of hundred ": A Novel" suffixes on Title titles that need a look. I can live with them on Publication titles, although would still prefer those to go to notes. But our "exactly as stated" rules do seem to be overriding "common sense" at times and people are entering everything on the title page that might be included. And we've still got a lot of mass imports where Amazon put series prefix on the pub title and then suffixed it with the Series in brackets as well. I don't think we've got "STAR TREK: Star Trek the Motion Picture (Star Trek)" anymore, but that's how bad it was getting. But I see we have "Star Trek - The Motion Picture: A Novel" still. We've got Series mostly working, I see no need to duplicate that, and sub-titles can go to publication level, or better still notes in publications. And "A Novel" is blindingly obvious if we already classify the book as a NOVEL. It's a bit disheartening when you go on a clean up-run and see how much crap we have to deal with. But overall, we're getting most major titles right. It's just that I like the minor titles I haven't read yet: I love it when I find a new, good author, but also when I find a new story by a favourite author. Although sometimes I can't afford to buy a missing short story... :-/ (Sorry, waffling again.) BLongley 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was remarking that the "A Novel" was not a subtitle or referenced. I would not mind that short add to the end of a novel as the search probably would show it with just the first part of the title. I do not like the idea, it was input at the active level of this db, though I can understand it being transcribed from Amazon, as it is a trailing subtitle. The one's that grit my teeth are the prefix sub-groupings. Additions from Amazon can be corrected if it is a single printing, but when it has several publishers then, Who can tell?, until you get a sample. Of course, who can be sure that an Amazon entry is real for older material, when they let the customer (least problem) and the vendors (major problem) change things. I do think this DB is becoming a major sourcing for the correct data. Hopefully people will start questioning the vendors to make them get it right before purchasing. Double Waffle-LOL. Sorry, as I am going through "Battletch Series" entries the range of confusion is 'not at all' to 'How can you tell there is a title buried in that'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimax Man

Added a cover image and notes to THLTMXMNMT1979 ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to torment. My 'gutter code' is 'J 06'. Ding Dong Dang. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Starchild Trilogy

This should maybe get it's own entry/pub record because of the 'new' catalogue number, at least I've been adding them and had a brief discussion with Mike about them. We both agreed that any printings under a single catalogue # stay as one pub. Your option. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a little dense today. If an SFBC gets a new book club number, then I would think it would have it's own record. I would also think if it's pagination, cover or in this case, change in order of the novels presented would call for a new record.

Now, if I get you, the addition of a zero to the reprint makes it a new pub in your opinion. I have used number sequences before where over time they needed more places for more products, my impression is/was that the addition of a ZERO to the beginning of a number sequence, the null integer, is NOT a change in the product identification. The Zero then is added to meet a number field requirement due to their exceeding the 9,999 product list. The inference is that no number product relationship is dropped from their listings, even if it is not currently in print.

Now can you establish the printing dates for reprints? If we can not use the 'Gutter Code' to establish a new printing, the what totally reliable source do we use for SFBC reprints. I can not establish the date of the reprint by the addition of Zero, by adding it as a record we therefore establish a new numbering sequence for SFBC because of a clerical need to allocate longer numbers to products or meet an SFBC computer format. Can you establish when SFBC went to five number cataloguing? Is a zero integer preceding cataloge number indexing a new printing or does the effect change in status of that book product?

Simply all the reprints should be represented or they should be noted. I am wishy washy about recording this as a new number. Especially, as the primary verifier is unavailable to check whether the Zero was in his copy or not.

Summary, recording the Zero addition numbers really only records that the product has been reprinted after a change in a numbering process. What are you using for a new printing date? The real problem is that we are NOT recording the 'Gutter Code' indicator as a reprint sequence for SFBC books. The real issue is to change the old procedure to an easier sequence for users to see that there are differences. AT this point we are stating a 1960's SFBC the same as a 2000 number product. My suggestion would be to change it this way. 0001 / A18 and then 00001 / Q77 through any sequence. Since we do not use ISBN's for these products. Possible with a / OS for 'old sequence' (Thus, 1310 / a82 / OS. Unfortunately, that will NOT show definitively the order of printing. I also realize this rehashes the issue of dates for undated products since the next step would be to estimate dating for SFBC using 'Gutter Codes'.

If confused, join the club. I suggest you bring it up as a rules question. Thanks, Harry.

Mike does a non-standard special case for the SFBC publications where he wants one publication record. I'm not sure why though. My personal system is if you can tell two publications apart then each gets their own publication record. This also allows people to verify the publications individually.

You asked "are you using for a new printing date?" The main source is the SFBC catalogs. Mike has a bunch but also on one of the usenet groups someone's posted the details from a bunch of catalogs.

You wrote "The real problem is that we are NOT recording the 'Gutter Code' indicator as a reprint sequence for SFBC books." I don't see that as a problem. The publication records are supposed to describe what's stated, and sometimes what's not stated and ideally, we don't need to note anything more than what helps distinguish that publication from others. I will add notes if certain aspects of a publication could lead to confusion such as one with two different ISBNs. With that in mind, there's no need to figure out that it's a later SFBC publication. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I have offended. My driving concern about published material, based on a dear love of history, is the changing of things by people. As long as the SFBC are virtually carbon copies there is no problem, but it is both 'enlightening' and 'daunting' that so much gets changed as titles are reprinted. Are there no SFBC editions that are original material and later used the revision/unabridged material that later popped out? My contrarian nature is the belief that just a few words of difference can change the meaning of a story. Appreciate the heads up, but my 'collectors' sensibilities will always feel that each reprint is different in a 'real' sense. That is the problem with collectors! LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Harry - I think we are on the same page, figuratively speaking. I did understand your question but will answer "no" to it. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 08:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Forbidden Tower

I'm holding your submission updating this pub. You're changing the publication date from 1977-09-00 to 1977-12-00, but the note states "First Printing September 1977". Perhaps one or the other is a typo? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I erred. It is September and it makes me glad I over note. Thanks, for catching that one, as I had reset my mind that it was December. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I accepted the submission, but reverted the publication date. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Chapterhouse Dune

Small correction to CHPTRHSDNJ1985 as the title had Chapter and House separated instead of one word. I believe only the British pubs did that. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct one word "Chapterhouse:". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Road to Dune

Added notes and contents to THRDTDNDNS2005 ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Machine Crusade

Added a cover image and notes to THMCHNCRS2003 --Bluesman 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Htanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks in author's name

I can't explain why but there's a bug in the software that pops up whenever an author's name include a quotation mark. (Something about it being a special character.) It will accept it the first time, but any subsequent edits will cause any characters after the first quotation mark to be dropped when another edit is being attempted. I don't even know if this is pointed out in the help pages, but it's something I learned as a moderator. I changed your submissions for E. E. "Doc" Smith to E. E. 'Doc' Smith. There's already an author record under the latter name so all records will be merged under his titles. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was suspicious, but thought I had used them freely in titles so I wondered. So two for you, as you said nothing about the inability to capitalize MacD. LOL. Caught me before the deluge tap was full on.Thanks, Greatly. Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Key to Irunium

Added notes and interior artwork to [[34]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mercenary

Added a cover image to BKTG13706 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 01:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A Torrent of Faces

Evening Harry!. Does [[35]] have a gutter code? Should be on page 270. The Doubleday trade editions usually had them and it's neat to compare them to the SFBC editions. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gutter code I41. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ace Double: The Space Barbarian / The Eyes of Bolsk

I approved an edit to your verified pub in which the editor makes suppositions about the cover artists. Can you see if this info should remain in the notes? If you don't, please feel free to remove it. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for the heads up. I rechecked, confirmed, changed notation to reflect agreement, and added the artists for cover art. Plus, I confirmed the frontispiece as Jack Gaughan. 'Whoever' did a good job. I think this was a good way to handle it. Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the first submission of a new editor Nug Brenec. Unfortunately, he placed the info in the cover artist field, but it was no problem to move it to the note field. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Farmer obituary

Re: Bio:Philip José Farmer, I wonder if the text that you posted (which comes from PJStar.com) may be copyrighted? It may be safer to leave the basics facts (names, dates, etc), but remove the potentially-in-copyright text. Ahasuerus 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we ought to have an "about a person who has recently died" policy. This was the first I'd heard of Farmer's death. I normally read the monthly "Ansible" and deal with any sort of grief in one dose at a time of my own choosing. There are a lot more deaths than births or discoveries now - Spec-Fic authors I recognise are in definite decline. :-( BLongley 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to call attention to the article for future users and assumed the small section I submitted was 'fair use' in the sense it is only a small portion of the whole, and it gives credit. I actually am not tied to the top or the bottom. I would assume the rest was commonly found data, though it should be noted. I especially wanted the children listed, as I can envision a plethora of post-life authorship and it is nice to know who is who or what the connection is. I will 'trim' it of the top and bottom tomorrow. If there is more that should be removed or added then I am perfectly willing. I submitted it as data only, not as commentary on either the correctness or real usefulness of the article. Think of it as a data dump site.

As for policy making, my point would be we need to do something before much of the information becomes subsumed into the muck. I was thinking that base line data needs to dredged at the same time, I wondered if hot links should be used. The problem is though that many things just disappear.

I have yet to grieve for this one yet. There have been too many who have passed such as Richard C. Meridith and Stephen Ames Bury. The list is nearly endless and the present authors in the lists are morphing into Romantic Thriller Monster Science Fiction writers. The grief for an author that seemingly has endless numbers of stories, will come slowly, but at least he has current attention. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the start and think it will serve as basic quick information. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #19: Mutants vs. Mutants -- pub type?

Hi. While looking up my copy of PR#19, I found this verified 2nd printing PRRRHDNMTN1972 of type MAGAZINE and your subsequently transient verified 1st printing PRRRHDNMTB1972 of type ANTHOLOGY. I see there's not much consistency from one PR to the next, but what's the policy for same-style publications of a given title? It isn't clear to me from the help which of the two types is more appropriate, so I figured I'd ask the later verifier first.... --MartyD 14:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Marty! My goof and I will go back an submit the changes. The DB says it is a magazine, but you can not clone magazines as they are considered as 'one time' printings. I changed several PR titles trying to find a cloneable method, but nothing worked to make them cloneable. So thanks for the reminder and I will go and submit changes to all of them back to magazine. Bob Hall (Hall3730) [36] has been trying to get the PR series into a rational presentation. Unfortunately, he is a little quiet right now. I hope I did not put him off by trying to help. Please note, that many times I only did transient vers. My intent is that what I did needs 'checking' and so please check and redo it as you wish. Please do a primary ver when it meets your view. Off to change back the format type.

Here are some pages to check [37] and [38] . The mods have a pretty good idea of what has gone on in the series. Please do not be daunted. Any questions please ask. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My copy is actually the 2nd printing, and I did ask Bob a different question (looks like the date on the other entry should be 1974). I just figured I'd ask you about the inconsistency while noticing it. Thanks for the various pointers -- I had looked for a discussion of that title, but it didn't occur to me to look for a discussion of the series. Still learning my way around.... --MartyD 15:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Marty, Do not let this series get to you. It is quixotic. I read your note to Bob and his ver. I believe he entered the wrong date to make sure the editor record would reflect the correct date of first publication. He then probably forgot to change it back, probably because he was looking for more data on the first pub.

PR is not totally unique, Check this. [39]. I think this not in series, because no one has enough data, but I am not a magazine editor. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When the Devil Dances

I have submitted an edit to your verified pub WHNTHDVLDN2002. I added the Maps on the unnumbered pages at the back (The important thing I wanted listed) and I added the glossary, the SheVa specs, the music list, etc that was printed between the authors afterword and the maps (This way it doesn't look like John wrote a HUGE afterword). I also took one bibliographic liberty of crediting the maps to John (explained in the submitted notes), since they are essentially hand drawn markups on USGS Maps, just like he is credited with in Gust Front. I can't imagine John taking the time to explain what he wanted to someone else when he has shown the ability / inclination to markup USGS maps himself in the past. Please let me know if you don't agree on any of this. (Like I said above, My primary intent in updating was to document the maps, but the Specs and Music list are nice additions I think) - Thanks Kevin 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

After writing this I saw your note on your 'you' page about taking over verification for major edits, so I went ahead and changed the verification on this title to me - Thanks! Kevin 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. I am glad that someone with a personal tie to 'John' is concerned enough to keep track of his work. So no problem, I moved down to the Transient ver till someone wants that as I am not in disagreement with your additions. In fact, I welcome additions and am glad you have a personal interest in maintaining these.

'Personal' is in the eye of the beholder. I've met the man 3-4 times, shared my Bourbon at my regular Baen party at the local Convention, and I have some cryptic / not necessarily understandable inscriptions in a a few of my books. Beyond that... what I know about the man is what I've read, and the stories he's told while drinking my booze. Kevin 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning on maps was reached from a totally different angle than you have stated. The reason I use title first (map or whatever) is that it shows readily when you search the title. Thus the title connects the other elements, though if he had gone with 'the battle of drunkard's curve' I would use the title. When people use map they will never find it with all the other maps to be found. Just a thought. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But isn't "STORYTITLE (Maps)" just as searchable as "Maps (STORYTITLE)"? Kevin 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Much more than I have. I will redo ver on GF. My point was that when looking for the book the extra material appears (maps) at title level immediately, while searches looking for maps would be as you say. Most books do not have extras, but as an avid collector, the extras are cream filling. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gust Front (maps)

I would like to change the title of this item contained in your verified pub GSTFRNTMZC0000 from 'Gust Front (maps)' to 'Maps (Gust Front)' which will match it in style to the Author's Afterword. Also I added the Glossary to my verified copy to show that Johns Afterword wasn't HUGE. If you want to match up the contents, take a look at my edition GSTFRNTXRP2001 - What are your thoughts on standardizing the Maps title? Kevin 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed my primary ver to Transient. Again, glad to see someone has an interest in an author and his work and wishes to keep an eye on it. I have 'maps' above, but remember 'Do what you think is best to show what you think is in the user's best interests'.

P.S. I moved to transient in case someone needs to talk over something and the other person is not there. I like the idea that people can find others with that copy or similar copy to discuss it with. Have a good day, every day. Have no fears if I disagreed I would. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the first printing so I'm not in a position to be primary on your copy. Cheers! Kevin 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed back, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth Abides -- dating question

You may want to weigh in on the question I asked Marc Kupper about Earth Abides. You have a transient verification of it. --MartyD 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction of the 30s.

Added a cover image to [[40]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you got it!. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dune Messiah -- additional details

Hi. Some details I propose adding to your transient verified Dune Messiah, FYI. --MartyD 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Snow Crash - Paperback Edition Date

Your verified pub SNWCRSHXHV1993 has a note :"Bantam paperback edition May 1995." which I think should say '1993', per my copy of a second printing. It also looks like you may have copied that note to at least one other printing. Could you please check your copy? - Thanks Kevin 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, once the mistake was made I cloned it twice. I submitted corrections and moved the notation around some to make it clearer on first glance what printing they are. Gloinson verified a '19th' printing that I had already done, so I will delete mine after it gets accepted. I appreciate your catching my mistake. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've misinterpreted (it's late at night, here), but is the 10th printing of the Bantam Spectra ($6.50) really more expensive than the 19th ($5.99)? (Also, the Canadian prices in the Notes.) ...clarkmci/--j_clark 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When I cloned in succession my copies, I missed the price changes in #10 and #19 printings. Since, I did that Gloinson verified #19 separately. I am going to delete my #19 therefore. That was a good catch on your part. I figured out the #19 problem after I submitted corrections. So Double Apologies, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Avatar

Added a cover image to [[41]]. Not a book I have. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Morgan's Market Forces

I approved the submission for this new pub, so I believe I can shed some light on a few murky areas. The ISBN prefix 0-7394- belongs to Bookspan, the company that runs the SFBC (along with several other book clubs.) This ISBN series is used for a) exclusive book club editions (no other US trade edition published) or b) the first US hardcover edition (the book has been or will be published in paperback by a US company.) In this case, looking at the dates, this was the first US edition of a Gollancz (division of Orion Publishing) original publication. That would be the reason Gollancz comes into the equation. Maybe the SFBC deal was made through Gollancz. Additionally, there may have been a contract for Del Rey / Ballantine for US paperback rights, so that may be why there's the Ballantine notice in your book. Also, the SFBC logo is only used on exclusive editions. Is the logo also used at the bottom of the title page? In most cases like this, we indicate the publisher as "Science Fiction Book Club" in order to differentiate this publication from SFBC reprints (when we use "Original Publisher / SFBC".) There is also a listing on Locus1, indicating the publication date as March 2005 and the price as $12.99. This makes more sense, because the Del Rey trade paperback was published the same month. I'm always suspicious of Amazon's dating. Here I think it was being confused with the UK publication date, because they show Gollancz as the publisher of this ISBN. Hope all this helps. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the complete rundown. I had it figured for Ballantine, but I had never seen one where the credit on the spine was SFBC. When I entered it I was hoping it would spark some checking to round it out better. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance and information. I redid it and will await any further refinements you think it may need. I dropped the "Gollanz' and Amazon references as being more confusing than helpful. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I accepted your update, but there's something I don't think has been set in stone (is anything here?). When the SFBC edition has its own ISBN we use it in the designated field and place the catalog number in the notes (which is what you had done in the original submission.) If it shares an ISBN with another publisher's trade edition we use the SFBC catalog number in the ISBN/Catalog # field so that a search by ISBN won't pull up both editions. This reminds me that I need to update the help page about entering SFBC editions to accommodate my relatively recent discovery that the SFBC has their own ISBNs. It had been so long since I was in the club that so much has changed about their editions. Also, the publisher ("Science Fiction Book Club") is spelled out completely, so that these exclusive editions can be pulled up through a single search. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I appreciate the 'walk through' method of letting me do it, as I will be more likely to retain it. I redid it with SFBC ISBN, no problem there. I put 'Science Fiction Book Club', no problem, but note that the SFBC logo (over) Science (over) Fiction, on the both dj and hc spines are the 'only' SFBC indicators. It is not like some where the inner flap or elsewhere states it as such. That being, said, when did the seven place numbering begin? (i.e. 1172396) and is it true for reprints (for sure)? I had previously assumed this numbering sequence a derivative of the real publisher. It almost looks like it could be 117th day with 2396 for the book number. Now, remember that Ballantine Books was stated on the opposite facing page to the title page, not the usual underneath method, while 'A Ballantine Book' was used on copyright page. As in all things SFBC this fuzzes the issue it seems.

As for the SFBC instructions, is there a hard and fast rule on the four digit versus the prefix 0-five digit numbering? I can not remember if I have seen a true 12345 SFBC number scheme. I told Bluesman, I did not think adding a zero to the sequence created a new number as such. The big need though is a proper way to note the 'Gutter code' in notes. I apparently have different ones in a few instances and wonder if we should not add it to the primary's note field? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe they ran out of 4-digit catalog numbers sometime in the mid-80s, and had to go into 5 digits. Also at that time whenever they reprinted an older title they put a zero before it so that all of the catalog numbers would have five digits. Until someone starts listing all of these catalog numbers, there's no obvious pattern to the numbering system they were using. Six digit numbers began in the nineties (can't say exactly when, probably late in the decade) and as you see from this pub, they're now using 7 digit numbers. I think the creating of separate records for the 0-added printings has been evolving over the past few months, and will probably continue to change until we can wrestle this nebulous creature to the ground long enough to get a clear picture of how the SFBC numbers its editions (and printings). It's just a matter of bringing all of this data into one integrated work. Bluesman is one of the few other editors who has an extensive library of SFBC editions. His membership was later than my own, so now we're just trying to reconcile the "early SFBC" (mine, the early 70s-early 80s), the "middle-period SFBC" (Bluesman's, mid-80s into the 90s), and the "modern SFBC". As we've come to learn, they're different creatures with only a passing resemblance!

I'm glad you bring up the point about the words under the logo. From my limited research I've learned that in the early 2000s, the club came up with two imprints: "SFBC Science Fiction" and "SFBC Fantasy" (again, this only on their exclusive publications, not their reprints). It might be important to record this imprint in the notes if we ever start separating them (because publisher regularization has come to a stand-still). Right now, just using "Science Fiction Book Club" as the publisher will at least give a tool to start the search. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the info. I am not a great fan of the hc do to space limits, but nowdays many vendors do not specify. I will add the note on the spines. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the Spacemen Beware

Added cover artists for both sides of [[42]] and notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! DSorgen is back to work, but I have seen nothing about any additions yet. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Stars are Also Fire

Added a cover image and notes to [[43]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Starship [2]

Did a little re-work of the notes from our verified pub [[44]]. Moved the story copyright data to the Title notes and 'pointed' the pub data. Also scanned in my cover to replace the blurry one. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Again Looks good! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Angry Espers/Puzzle Planet

Added cover images to [[45]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely clever! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been able to figure out how to combine two images with the program I have and keep the content low enough to upload (the pic always ends up about 1MB). A lot of ACE doubles I have two of so can do a single picture. This was a good solution and allows me to keep the resolution up and have clear images. If you try it be VERY careful of the URL embedding. Done wrong, as I have been informed, can actually render a pub un-editable. <a [space] href=" then the URL" > [then you can put a word or title here] < a > I left the spaces at the end so this would show without becoming a link. Still not sure if the " are needed around the URL but the example I copied had them, so.....That first space after "<a" is essential. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed that some places put links at the bottom. This. [46] . It says cover art by Visco. Visco is a hot link, but what about the second link right there. Just noticed they did this a few days ago. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, Small Voice of Trumpets

Added a cover image to [[47]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Blades of Mars

Added a cover image and notes to [this]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. I added a Tuck ver also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steel Brother -- cover image

I added this image to your verified STLBRTHRMW1985 that matches my copy of the same 1st edition. --MartyD 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You got it right. I am going to redo the notes tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Stars Are Too High -- cover art

I added this image to your transient verified THSTRSRTHG1960 that matches my copy of the same 1st edition. --MartyD 15:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good job!, it matches mine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tongues of the Moon

I added some notes to your verified pub, to match it with my copy. Willem H. 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The submission also adds Carl Lundgren as the co-artist of the cover. Do you both agree? MHHutchins 17:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Both signature blocks. "CARl (over) Lund (over) gren (over) 1970" and "Eric Ladd" below that at bottom left front cover. Agreed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I added Carl Lundgren data, also. I have some trouble separating Carl Lundgren from Ray Lundgren. I have been suspicious that Ray Lundgren may be like "Carol Russo Design" and not a true cover artist. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW. We need an info block to stick signatures or links to artist signatures. It would make it easier to confirm. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Stars at War

I added some notes to your verified pub THSTRSTWRG2004 - Thanks Kevin 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Work, thanks. I added notes and very small changes, mostly html. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Utopia Minus X -- cover image

I added this image to your transient verified TPMNSX1966. --MartyD 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's The Survivors

Is the cover and note that another editor has added to your verified pub the right one? Thanks. MHHutchins 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, My cover is a lot more ragged. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brackett'sThe Starmen of Llyrdis

Your notes date this pub as "November 1980", but the date field was given as "1980-10-00". Thanks. MHHutchins 19:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Corrected. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Worlds for the Taking

Added a cover image to [[48]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

David Drake's Seas of Venus

I see that you've changed "The Real Jungle: Belize 2001" from ESSAY to NONFICTION in this publication. That type is reserved for larger works, i.e. if the whole book is nonfiction it's typed as NONFICTION. Any nonfiction content of a book, whether that book is mostly fiction or entirely nonfiction is typed as an ESSAY. This help page gives some guidance. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I must be reading it differently, but the 'essay' segment really seems to go around it and the 'nonfiction' basically is saying it might be used in an omnibus. The why of the 'nonfiction' restriction is not there. The 'essay' is obviously misused as a shotgun catagory. Basically 'essay' is the big surprise sock and 'nonfiction' is the when will it ever be used sock. Too bad writers and publishers do not have to use these rule sets. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Ace DBL

Busted link, Harry. Added cover image to [[49]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Findley

You've left some stray publications for Nigel Findley, i.e. the publication author and title author aren't matching. Can you fix those or do you need some help? BLongley 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also Nigel Findley - the one with two spaces between forename and surname. I'm sure you can fix that one. ;-) BLongley 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I submitted a pseudonym to parent for Nigel Findley to Nigel D. Findley. I deleted one space on the other. Is that the fix and problem? I think I found them originally with the ISBN and can not remember the stray publication tag under an author name before. How did the DB know they were stray? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the extra space is right. Second problem solved. And we do need the pseudonym, so I've approved that too. But BKTG03164 isn't quite right: it's still got a mismatch between Pub author and Title author, now a bit more concealed. Ideally, anything that was published by Nigel No D should appear under Nigel Findley's "Titles" even though there's a title under Nigel With D. Just keep the Title and Pub authors in step and we're fine. BLongley 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Long Day. Do you want me to submit a deletion and add the author without the D. OR? Do you wish me to just correct the author to have no D.? I am leery of novel line changes. If I remember correctly, you can not delete the novel title by removing titles. Please tell me the correct procedure and I will do it tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell you the correct procedure unless I know whether it should be a No D or With D in the publication. It's been a long day for me too, so just have your Findley's ready tomorrow and we'll go through it together, OK? (Unless another Mod wants to take you through it in the meantime.) You've fixed two parts already, thanks for that, and what's left is probably pretty unimportant to most users. It's just better to teach you on a small case like this than on a big one like Brian (M.) Stableford or Robert (A.) Heinlein. BLongley 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, had to move a lot of books. I pulled the Findleys. 2XS, Shadowplay and Into the Void are without D. Lone Wolf, House of the Sun, and The Broken Sphere are with D. I did find that Shadowplay has two title records, one with series and one without. They both apparently have the same two entries. The one without a series is keeping it from going into the Shadow run section of Nigel D. Findley. If I add the series will they merge? or will the list suddenly have two of the same number? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Postmarked the Stars

I converted the Pseudo SBN for your pub PSTMRKDST1969 to a usable ISBN, and updated the ISBN field and the notes. - Thanks Kevin 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Kevin. I usually leave what others put there, but frankly creating an ISBN I avoid. The era of late 60's and early 70's are a mess especially for Ace. So, feel free, as Amazon and Abe are corrupted and a catalog source is a definite gold mine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Please don't misunderstand me. I don't have a Catalog source. I just called the SBN Fragment from the cover a 'Catalog #' (But the ISBN is real enough that the Amazon / Abe books / Alibris links work now if someone wants to buy a copy or research more.) Kevin 14:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was cleaning up my work from yesterday and added an interior artwork to this book as well. Thanks Kevin 15:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thief of Llarn -- cover image

I added this image to your transient verfied THFLLR1966 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 10:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Marty. Perfect match. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aliens / Leinster -- cover image

I added this image to your transient verified THLNSVZQWX1965 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a winner!. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Siege Perilous [2]

Added a cover image and notes to [[50]]~Bill, --Bluesman 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulmer's Defiance

Can you check on the catalog number of this pub? Tuck gives it as "R666". Thanks. MHHutchins 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, ABE agrees with Tuck. My copy has one defect and the number must have been there. The bottom spine covering has disintegrated 1/2 inch and that is the only place the number could have been. My partial memory is it was fragmented when I did it. I'll change it to R666. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guide to Middle Earth

This pub came up with an invalid ISBN. Is this how it appears in the pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

King of the Fourth Planet / Cosmic Checkmate -- image

I replaced a broken link with this on your transient verified CSMKFPL1962, matching my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 21:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebels of the Red Planet / 200 Years to Christmas -- cover image

I replaced a broken link with this on your transient verified RTRPYTC1961, matching my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Caves of Mars / Space Mercenaries -- cover image

Replaced a broken link with this on your transient verified CVSMSPCMR1965, matching my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 23:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better than mine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Planetary Agent X / Behold the Stars -- cover image

I replaced a broken link with this on your transient verified PLNTRYGNTX6A1965, matching my copy of the same edition. (Last one for a while, I promise). --MartyD 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Great match. If only I could get the estate to get "Behold The Stars" reprinted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Farmer ACE Double

Added cover images and one artist credit to [[51]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stable" images from Amazon

Hi Harry, I haven't been following things much lately, so apologies if you are aware of the following. I've just approved a few of your submissions & noted that the images have the "ISBN pattern" version of the image from Amazon. Do you know how to determine the "stable" image URL? (e.g. for Fortress on the Sun: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0451456262.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg is the ISBN-pattern and "stable" version is http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51417PSREXL.jpg). The concern is that a different image (for a later printing) could turn up in the future if the ISBN-pattern version is used. ... clarkmci/--j_clark 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of how to get a 'stable' image. I understand I often get the ISBN version, often breaking it down from the "look inside" or the "larger" coding, but I am unsure as to how you derived a stable image. I understand the concern, just not the method. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are using Firefox, it's easy. Internet Explorer, I'm not sure (I've just had a quick investigation & can see one way that seems to work with a few extra steps, on a sample of one*; unless it's a "Look Inside").

With Firefox, get to the publication's page on Amazon, then right-click on the image. Select "Copy Image Location". Paste in the address area of a new tab. Get rid of the stuff between the first period and the "jpg". Press enter to test, then copy the string into the ISFDB screen. (Occasionally, if there is a .L. you need to leave it.) Example:

If "Copy Image Location", followed by "Paste" gives: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A23C6J3XL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

then the "stable" image URL is http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A23C6J3XL.jpg

With Firefox you can also do it from the "See larger image" screen. (though, if it's a "Look Inside", you have to do it from the image on the publication's page (i.e. don't Look Inside) & there is a lot of stuff to get rid of in the string.

* (Internet Explorer) e.g. ... by "Save Picture"; capture the file name; remove the extra bit; put into a string of the pattern above. With Internet Explorer & a "Look Inside", it might possibly work to "Look Inside", then "View --> Source" then look for the pattern "ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/"??. Maybe others have a better Internet Explorer method.

Hope this helps and we aren't talking at cross-purposes. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Later ... or in the case of Fortress on the Sun:

Using Firefox, right-clicking on , (when you are on the publication's page, not the list of search results) then selecting "Copy Image Location", gives:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51417PSREXL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Getting rid of the stuff that tell Amazon's web application to (I assume) size the image and put the "look inside" at the top, we get:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51417PSREXL.jpg

This is what I've referred to as the "stable" URL because it doesn't have the ISBN. This means (as I think you are aware) that the image pointed to by your publication data on ISFDB doesn't change if there is a new printing with a different cover & Amazon links the new image to the ISBN. Hope this helps. I assume you were trying to achieve this with your Fortress on the Sun edit, so I've put it on hold, for now. ... clarkmci/--j_clark 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Very Great apologies. I am a bit slow today. I got myself confused. I will explain. First, I use Firefox and I "usually" do the method you describe to 'liberate' the image from the 'BS'. I copy to an editor page under the titles I do. My first confusion was I had no record of doing that image. Possibly, I erred in my routine, but I keep them just in case I 'fudge' one. I recopy the URL after 'cleaning it up' to my end screen and then paste and view. I do this so I 'know' my copy/paste buffer has the needed image and I usually recheck before submission.

I became confused by your statement that it was a stable URL as I was under the impression that Amazon could/does still mess with them. Some I have seen have some kind of 'reduction' to small only sizing. I even have seen it done to vendor imaging on occasion.

My confusion was that the image seemed to have been 'cleaned' but had acquired the ZZZ stream before .jpg. I submitted a 'zzz cleaned' version to see if that would keep the 'z' phenomena at bay. After your next attempt, I figured out what 'look-inside' you had 'cleaned' and have attained that same result, which looked to be as I 'normally' do.

Since we are at the same point now, I am wondering what could have sparked your 'inquiry'. In some cases, when the image is already there, and it matches and is not terrible, I use what is there. I am wondering if what you 'saw' was such an image. In any case I will check previous images now, check that I did not 'slip' and not 'trim' the url, and make sure I double check that I did an image. I apologize for being 'difficult'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Fortress on the Sun change was to an image URL that is a version of the ISBN pattern I hadn't seen before with no ZZZ... but the rest the same (it seemed to work!). Seems like I took a slip to be a misunderstanding re how to create the non-ISBN URL. I've put the above image URL into the Fortress on the Sun publication record for you, to save time.

I've seen small-only images on Amazon occasionally & have assumed that the publisher supplied only a small one. clarkmci/--j_clark 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrections, 'have you tried this', and 'How Comes' are always welcome as I often 'stray widely' and need the curbs. I try to 'internalize' the information and it often takes time for me to straighten my perceptions. I appreciate your efforts and interest. As for Amazon, I saw a bit one time that leads me to suspicion that many of the 'look-insides' are created by an outside source and not through the publishers or Amazon. At the same time I have noticed some "L-I's" and non-credited Amazon images become 'downsized'. I suspect it is an internal space conservation move that some internal Amazon division does. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Night of Light

Added a cover image to [[52]]--Bluesman 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the Man! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaces around dashes in titles

I rejected the submission making "Gentlemen-The Queen!" a variant of "Gentlemen - The Queen!". A similar situation came up awhile back when there was a discussion about whether there should be spaces in ellipses. The general consensus was that the differences in how any particular printer will record a space would not be sufficient reason to create a variant, and that a standard was created so that all ellipses would be entered the same regardless of how they were printed. Because the spaces in this title appear to be more technical than editorial, and without getting into the differences in en-dashes and em-dashes, perhaps these title records should be merged. Please feel free to begin a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. It might turn into a lively debate. :-) Thanks. MHHutchins 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I already 'do not' understand your or Bluesman objection. To me it is a simple matter of what a space does when you 'say' or 'read' something. I also just became 'concussed' by the suggestion of merging the titles. I would be amenable if that did not cause one (mine) to become like the other, which is what I think happens. As for en-dashes and em-dashes, I have decided that I would rather listen to the Jovian Rap band playing ice flutes on Mercury than trying to rap my meager thought process around them again. LOL. In the case of the title. One (mine) is the vigorous salute to the queen and the other is the staid bureaucratic imagery. I admit that DES and I duked out something similar and I detest agreements to compromise. That is the contrarian in me. I would rather leave it as it is and let some fresh wags some time from now redigest the matter. In which case, my opinion will not matter as the DB will be under their 'guidance'and I will be unaware of their visualization. LOL. I changed it as I did because I felt that if two people could perceive no spaces then it was important to me to make it so. BTW I see you are doing the majority of my edits and I appreciate your work, please do not spring a leak. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The decision to stay with the original standard for ellipsis was not based on anybody's personal tastes or preferences. It was based on thorough research of various style sheets. The Wikipedia article even mentions that printers use thin-spaced dots to tighten up the ellipsis. A little wacky, I know but at least we are keeping the English teachers happy.--swfritter 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am getting foggy, but the ellipsis is or not three periods ...? I have had problem with that. My problem is with the dash used to connect two words. I have had a 'real' world experience with the 'visual' side of writing and have observed that the actual letters have to be 'sized' to achieve an optical sameness. In other words, five inch letters on a poster with all letters the same will not actually look uniform. I am aware that a 'no space' dash still may look like it has spaces between certain letters, but in the case above I actually made sure there was an empty space and compared it to the 'look' of the my printed title. I also have come to the conclusion that the publisher/editor/type designer the use of any mark probably has no 'reality' context. In any case, I understand what such means to me, but I am unsure that my 'interpretation' has any real value over anyone else. I expect a 'purity' of intention is all changes or spellings, but have come to the conclusion that this is a personal delusion. Aside from this "English" teachers in America were a personal bane and I found that 'Americanish" differs in many ways. My growth was stunted by English teachers so badly that it took thirty years for me to connect gern to the Gerns of Tom Godwin. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Triffids - do you have the longer UK reprint?

Your verified pub is probably a reprint of the longer original British edition - 10k words longer. If you have it handy, I am wondering if the introduction so states?--swfritter 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange that that title turned up today: I found this amusing. If you're going to read SF to a plant, I can't think of any better work. I don't think I'd want it reread again and again to me for a month though. BLongley 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Introduction" is more of an academic summary of the novel. It does not have the 'feel' of having been written for this edition, but is probably of the 'original' edition. I could find no connection at all, and 'suspect' it has a different origin. It is a British market edition with no mention of abridgment. If you wish to be specific in what to look for I will give it a try. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--swfritter 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to serious discussion - is there really a significant difference in some editions? (10k words does sound serious.) I know there are cover differences for various tie-in editions, and probably more to come (see here for the next remake) but although we have a variant title hinted at here, there seems to be little effort in distinguishing them. I've got three or more printings to check if you can clarify what you're looking for. BLongley 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's at least a 15% difference in length. My information came from the book review column of the September, 1953 issue of Astounding which does not list the differences. Strangely enough the Collier's serial was abridged from an initial rewrite for Doubleday which was rejected by Doubleday. Another rewrite was made with the 10k word cut. I strongly suspect that for territorial copyright reasons the British editions are longer. My American copy specifically credits Doubleday while the British editions don't - and yours appear all to be British. From some of the listings I saw it is actually illegal to sell new copies of the British editions in the U. S. and Canada. Guess I'm just going to have to track me down a British edition. As for variant title - that's an awful lot of editions to try to verify. For right now I think a notation in the title record is enough. Wonder if I can find those issues of Collier's.--swfritter 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Martian Rainbow

Added a cover image to [[53]]--Bluesman 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First to the Stars

Added a cover image to [[54]]--Bluesman 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my personal image every day. Those green aliens will get me yet! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the green ones are mostly harmless. It's the purple ones hiding behind them that you have to watch! --Bluesman 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildsmith

Added a cover image to [[55]]--Bluesman 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dune Messiah notation

What do the flyers say? So far, there has been NO source for when the SFBC actually offered this book! This is the earliest code yet, but probably not the first as Children of Dune was only offered in November '76. Unless there was a big OOPS - WE FORGOT THE SECOND ONE!!!! at the SFBC. Not all that unlikely! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that, but the book is not on them. They are the same, but they are Literary Guild Bonus Books listings. Code 540-1A at top right. They have no SF, but are the kind of thing you stick in a book to a customer to get them to make further purchases. As the book flap dj only says book club edition, I have always wondered which book club? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rats! Was hoping to nail this one down. Is is so strange that such a big book slipped through the cracks. Someday....! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Crashing Suns

Added a cover image and notes to [[56]]--Bluesman 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Doomstar

Added a cover image to [[57]]--Bluesman 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ACE Dbl M-111

Added cover artist credits for both covers to [[58]] from [this site]. A good source for covers and artists. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The End of the Dreams

A few questions about The End of the Dreams. From your notes, it looks like at least the essay should be credited to James Gunn rather than James E. Gunn. The cover suggests all should be the no-E version, but maybe the title page has the "E"? And your notes about "The Naked City" contradict the Naked Sky variant we already have. Can you have another look please? BLongley 12:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most good catch. I submitted the changes and put 'del' on the one's needing deletion. All are James no E Gunn. Will change Sky tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem - James (E.) Gunn seems to be a bit of a mess at the moment, thanks for helping with this pub. BLongley 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dune Messiah [SFBC printing]

Thanks for finding a copy of the first printing of this title by the SFBC. I'd been looking for one for such a long time, knowing there had to be one out there, but without any real evidence. Now I can finally date this edition. MHHutchins 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that was helpful. Bought the copy for $0.50 at a thrift store and it looks unread. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace Dbl D-118

Added a covers image and artist credits to [[59]]. Since you have the book, I didn't massage the notes up to our current style. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I re-did the notation. Hope you like it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Barberi

I see that you would like to correct the spelling of the Chris Barberi Author record to "Chris Barbieri". The problem here is that we already have an Author record for Chris Barbieri. If I were to approve the change, the software wouldn't merge the two records -- which is what we want to happen -- but rather we would end up with two identically spelled Author records. That would be a Very Bad Thing (tm) since all ISFDB links would then point to the first record and the data associated with the second record would become unavailable. This is a known deficiency in the software and the way around it is to change all affected Publication and Title records to use the correct spelling. When the last record is changed, the bad Author record will be automatically deleted and the good one will be the only one left. Thankfully, there was only one bad Interior Art title involved, so all I had to do was to change it and everything is back to normal now :-)

Also, I changed the Interior Art Title record from "Rosinante series" to "Long Shot for Rosinante" to reflect the title of the book. Does that work for you? Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I get the VBT. The Rosinante is not going to work. The artwork/illustration is in all three books so naming it the Rosinante series was deliberate so I could merge all three since they are identical, giving the separate names creates three differing identities for one set of repeated illustrations. Thsnks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Sorry, the change has been reversed, merge away! Ahasuerus 15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadow of the Well of Souls

Fifth printing of Shadow of the Well of Souls approved, but the Note field reads "Preface: Oh, No! Not Another Trilogy! is before pagination and not separately signed", so I went ahead and changed its attribution from "Jack Chalker" to "Jack L. Chalker". Ahasuerus 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good catch. Must be tired, though truthfully, I never think of him with the L. Thanks Greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Warren's Dominant Species

Please check the ISBN for this pub. It's showing up as invalid. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Glory Road

Added a cover image to [[60]]--Bluesman 17:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but my poor eyesight, even when the image is enlarged, does not really get anything from the image. Unfortunately, many super glossy covers do not or are not scanned good enough. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It sure looked a lot better before uploading!!!! LOL!! It will do as a placeholder until you get your scanner up and running...... right?!?!?! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My commentary is not dismissive of your efforts, something I will probably not try to emulate as my sight is not worth a D. It concerns the publishers using finishes and often almost totally black covers which do not scan well. I have used several such that only on the best enlargement show some detail. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ACE Dbl M-107

Added individual, clear image links to the notes of [[61]] and artist credits from the ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 01:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks real good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Widowers

[[62]] Definitely no number line in my copy. Can't recall any Fawcetts that do.....? Mine is a Canadian edition, but have yet to see one that differs from a uS copy. The © dates for the individual stories are on the copyright page, nothing for the pub itself. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, oops, problems. I will go back an create a clone. My copy is "printed in the United States of America" (over) full number line. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Omnibus of Time

Added a cover image to [[63]] Shouldn't the publisher be Fantasy Publishing Company Inc.? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a Tuck ver plus notation. Actually, I think FPCI came from the original record creation, but I also think it was kept because it was initialized versus other editions they did which state Fantasy Press. When I did it, Ahasureus had to help from his copy and knowledge of what was acceptable. There is a history in my section if you care to read how green I am/was. Thanks for the cover. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Notation"??? A novel in the making!!! LOL!! I really like the 16-315 page count. You should have put that in the field, just for a laugh! And you still didn't expand the publisher!!!.....sheesh....;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I will do some checking FPCI versus Fantasy Press, but as of know I am inclined to leave be. My page is full of page battles, essentially I had to give in due to the likelihood that users would not understand. The other problem being that the form will take any length of numbers/characters it will only display about ten. In the future, I think they will split it into two fields a quick reference field and a complete notation field. After 3,000 books I have reached the conclusion that publishers do not know how to number anything. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am retaining the FPCI as it is used in several other printings of other works. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Monte Cristo (and not the cigar!!)

Added a cover image to [[64]] I recognize the doll from somewhere.....??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday on Ajiat

Added a cover image, interior art (note for) to [[65]]--Bluesman 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cover looks less childish than it does on the book. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

People of the Talisman / The Secret of Sinharat (Ace Double M-101)

I replaced a broken image for your verified pub PPLTALSIN1964. Thanks. --Rtrace 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Silverberg's The Man in the Maze

Locus #215 (October 1978) has a listing for your verified pub giving July 1978 as the publication date. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed to that date and notation adjusted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Born / A Planet for Texans (Ace Double D-299)

I replaced a broken image for your verified pub SBPT1958. Thanks. --Rtrace 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sentinels of Space / The Ultimate Invader and Other Science-Fiction (Ace Double D-44)

I added a cover image for your verified pub TUISFS1954. Thanks. --Rtrace 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Norton's Star Guard

Locus #215 (October 1978) confirms the date you estimated for this verified pub. They say it was published in August 1978. MHHutchins 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Date changed and notation aligned. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Starmasters' Gambit

Harry, could you please check your copy of [[66]] and see where the apostrophe is in the title? I just verified the first printing and it's after the 's'. The cover for yours indicates the same. Just want to nip this before someone out there starts creating variants that don't exist. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I submitted corrections for the title and my interior art title. Very good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're All Alone

Added a cover image and short Currey note to[[67]]--Bluesman 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect match. Do you know who "JW" on cover is? I added notation and interior art credit to "Jg". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not, and the work rings no chimes either. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another tidbit storied in the puzzle palace for later cognition. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkpoint Lambda

Scanned in an image and did notes for [[68]]--Bluesman 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The War Hound and the World's Pain

Locus1 dates this pub as August 1985. MHHutchins 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Added publication date and notation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonym for Nourse

I'm holding your submission to make "A. E. N." a pseudonym for Alan E. Nourse pending the outcome of this discussion. I see the one use of this name is for the introduction in Nourse's Trouble on Titan. Is he actually credited as "A. E. N." on the title page of the introduction, or is that simply a "signature" at the end of the piece? If the latter I believe the piece should be credited the same as the book's author and no pseudonym should be created. If the initials are used to make it appear that someone other than Nourse wrote the introduction (and how silly if so!) then pseudonym creation is a possibility. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed in the pub's notes that the piece is signed at the end as "A. E. N." MHHutchins 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your intent has become clouded. Reject it if you prefer that I assume that the initials are not sufficiently a pseudonym. If you do so then, I will feel free to hook up all other author short names to their true names without a pseudonym relationship (personal preference anyway as I do not believe a pseudonym should be created except when the author definitely is in 'disguise' (from which the word and relationship comes)). In fact, I believe the tricky slope of what is or not a pseudonym is way out of alignment with artists. Most cheerfully, tossed back into your court. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

BTw, I am not sure that it was written as an introduction at all. It has more of the flavor or a 'clipped' piece from some other source. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that certain areas of variant creation in this db are too extreme and serves no purpose to the average ISFDB user (and may actually hinder their efforts.) From your comment, I think you agree with me to a certain extent. And you're entirely correct that authors and artists are treated differently, and so much so that there should be a discussion about the creation of variants for signatures which I am totally against.

Even so, there are gradations that must be considered when it comes to pseudonym creation, you have to admit. One extreme being the use of an entirely different name, while at the other end something as casual as using initials at the end of piece. I don't think our acceptance of one should be license to apply the same principles to the other. A slope must reach an angle of repose, a state that we must work together to achieve.

I'll hold the submission if you feel there should be broader discussion of the issue. MHHutchins 20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I am actually shooting for an accord. I really wish to delete the A.E.N. and due a "Thus Alan E. Nourse" in the notes. That cuts down the pseud creation. At the same time I am sure DES argued for the creation of such. I also am looking for a subrosa accord with "Dave Drake" to David Drake (as on title page). DES wished me to create pseudonyms for typos. I am also saving till I get all my books in starting a discussion to trim the artist pseuds using notes, as only few artists are using pseudonym relationships such as Boris and Romas. If we are in accord reject the pseudonym and I will due a 'flourish' on the introduction that does not state it is such. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Submission rejected. Please flourish away. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in and some of this will not matter since I typed it before the above entry; MHHutchins will probably be shocked and perhaps delighted to know that my opinion on artists is changing and we do need different, looser standards than we have for authors. As far as the initials, it is a common practice to substitute the author's name for initials if it is abundantly obvious who the author is. This is a situation that happens quite often with editorials. There have been a lot of discussions about this issue and we should have made an entry in Help.--swfritter 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with commentary. I actually am starting to break out of the 'shudders' of wiki use that I had early on. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nemesis from Terra

I added cover artist information to this verified pub, plus a note and a transient verification. Willem H. 20:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Armageddon 2419 A.D. approved

I had this on hold because the backcover artist was credited in the upper part of the screen. According to Help backcover art should go in the contents page and given a page number of bc. But oddly enough when you put two artists in the top portion the system does not treat them as collaborators but instead creates two coverart[69], [70] records credited singly to each artist. Works for me.--swfritter 21:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough documentation in the notes.--swfritter 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I probably read that about back cover artist, but I have done so many Ace doubles that the actuality of doing over rode any other thoughts. I do remember before submitting that it would probably irk someone, but my mind just said it 'fit' to do it that way. I actually can not remember personally seeing two different artists works on a book, what is really odd is that the back cover image is actually more in line with the story. Sorry for the trouble. As for notes I incorporated the previous notes and expanded portions for the clarity (or confusion) of two different ways of stating something. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No trouble. It actually works well in this case. Always a pleasure to moderate your submissions.--swfritter 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ACE Dbl M-135

Scanned in an image and added artist credits from ACE Image Library for [[71]] ~BIll, --Bluesman 03:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ruins of Isis

Willem H. is putting me to shame. This. He spotted a signature that I, you, and Don missed, if we all have the same copy? BLongley 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely delighted. I have the excuse that corrected my vision is only 20-40 and my magnifier made that signature worse. I had to slant it back and forth to get it to reflect. I also had another confirm. I think it ends ©78. Another sterling example of hard work, without the over touted verifier credit. Awesome. This made my day. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Survival World

Evening Harry! For [this] pub record, is there a source for the artist? The cover is the same as the Lancer, which has no credit or signature. I assume the "." after Ken is a typo?? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an early one and I was under 'instruction' not to remove data. I also had not devised a complete system for describing books. In this case, I left data. I will redo it and remove the (period). I will but a 'cover artist not credited in book'. This is a good example of why I started putting 'cover artist blah blah' in the notes. So, it was begun by someone else and I will re-define it. Good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

I approved your changes to the Airmont edition of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but could you please check whether Lucy Mary Fitzpatrick's "Introduction" is Short Fiction or Essay? Also, could you please check the spelling of her name in Notes? Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple senior moment. First correction invalid. Second corrects author's name and makes it an essay. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Earth Factor X by van Vogt

I suspect that your verified pub of this title is the same as this record. If you wish to move the date and source to your pub (which appears to be the only difference), we can delete the second record. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I re-did the notation with both sets of information. I also requested the deletion as suggested. How was it caught? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Armageddon 2419 A.D.

Just an FYI that I changed Robert A. W. Lowndes' "Foreword" from Shortfiction to Essay in Armageddon 2419 A.D.. Ahasuerus 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. I will try to not do that. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Piper's Federation

Is the introduction in this pub credited to "John Carr" or "John F. Carr"? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the essay title page "John Carr" and after the end of the essay "John Carr". ToC "Introduction, by John F. Carr". "Introductions copyright © February 1981 by John F. Carr". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL F-149

Added artist credits for [[72]] courtesy the ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

McCaffrey's Power Play

I'm holding your submission adding a new record for this title. I believe it is identical to this record and the only difference, as you note, is the cover image. It's possible, and this happens more often than one might think, Amazon will replace an image with a new cover even though the link address remains the same. You can contact the verifier of the current record Hall3730 and ask if he would check his book against the image now linked to his record. If it matches then we know there's a variant printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a message just after I made the submission. I do not really expect an answer as he has not answered, that I know of for some time. I was reluctant to 'strip' the cover image and put mine in. Of course someone else could have 'placed' the cover image, but I can not find that out. As always my intent is not to get a ver, but too make it the most accurate I can. There were 'three' problems matching copies. One, cover difference, two, his had no month date and mine is easily found and the third was more problematic, I could not see 'Rowena' on his ver. All this adds up to three possible differences, but that does not mean the publisher did not do a 'two cover image printing' or a second printing in which the data was not changed, either one. Still in all, I left a note and made a submission suggesting he could merge the data if mine was correct. The submission has enough data, that I wanted it 'on record' as opposed to waiting at my home forever. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach. I'll accept your submission and we'll wait to see what response Hall will give to your comment. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will also add a note on Hall's ver to check/delete/merge them as needed. Hopefully a second source may be emboldened and get it all correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Piers Anthony's Orn

Locus #217 (December 1978) gives the publication date of this pub as November 1978. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition submitted. Cover found and notation redone. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Stardreamer

I was cross-verifying my Cordwainer Smiths earlier today and noticed that my copy of Stardreamer mentions Beagle (and Boxer), but not Ballantine. I wonder if Ballantine is mentioned in your copy or, perhaps, if the two "B"s on the spine and on the cover just make it look like Ballantine? TIA! Ahasuerus 04:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal db list also did not have Ballantine. I believe it was a case of leaving "previous information". I have deleted and reformated the notation. Good Catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Beach

Just a note that User:Don Erikson has updated your verified Ballantine edition of On the Beach with a note about the artist. Ahasuerus 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of sleep

Added a cover image to [[73]] from my first printing scan. Sounds like they are identical. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The cover looks real good. I re-noted the ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Burroughs' The Eternal Savage

I'm having a little trouble determining if this title is a collection or a fix-up novel in any of its incarnations. Is your copy a novel in either appearance or execution? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To recap from ERB zine. "The Eternal Lover": All-Story Weekly: March 7, 1914

   Modest Stein front cover ~ Fred W. Small B/W headpiece

"Sweetheart Primeval": All-Story Weekly: January 23, 30 & February 6, 13, 1915

   P.J. Monahan cover art on first installment ~ no interiors

Idle Hour Magazine: November & December 1915 ~ first 6 chapters

   Art by unknown artist in November issue 

Put here to get me to focus. My copy has two Parts (one & two), subdivided into titled chapters, example "II (over) The Earthquake". The first chapter skipped the I before title, all others used it. Their are 13 (xiii) chapters and then Part Two (over) I (over) Again a World Upheaval. There are 15 (xv) all numbered. I think that each part is a serial. One is "The Eternal Lover" and Two is "Sweetheart Primeval". So, IMO, it is a collection of two serials Without the titles. Since Ace changed the title to "The Eternal Savage" you no longer have the novel title and story title in the same edition. At the same time there is NO mention of the second title, so it is not easy to parse. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We're going to rule out collection to begin with, for several reasons: 1.) There is no table of contents. 2.) The original titles are not used (not a deciding factor in most cases). 3.) Structured like a novel, i.e. Part One, etc. and chapter numbers. And it's marketed as a novel. The ERB-zine info is evidence that parts of it appeared in different magazines. Putting all the facts together I'd call it a fix-up novel. Would you object to my changing your verified pub and the others from "collection" to "novel"? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem as I could not figure out how to make it a collection. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lord's Dimension of Dreams

Can you tell me if there is any mention of "Kensington Publishing Corporation" in your copy of this title? Research has shown that Kensington bought Pinnacle in 1974, but I'm trying to determine when they started presenting themselves as the publisher. This book is late in the year and may give the best indication if they started in 1974. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Kensington. I went through Blade 1-37. No mention on ads, title pages, copyright pages, front or back cover. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for sending you on a wild goose chase. Further research prompted by your response led me to the fact that Pinnacle went bankrupt in the mid-80s, and was taken over by Zebra which is the company that Kensington formed in 1974. In 1988 Kensington revived Pinnacle as a separate imprint, which it has been now for more than 20 years. If you recall, it was Pinnacle who distributed Tor back in the early 80s. Strange when you think how Tor became one of the giants of the sf field. And now Kensington is, according to Wikipedia, the largest independent publisher in the US outside the Big 6 owned by the international media conglomerates. It claims to sell 7% of all mass-market paperbacks in the US. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry about 'wild goose' chases. Sometimes they pay off. The old adage if 'you do not try you do not gain' works well here. You have to wonder though if Kensington ran Pinacle into the ground. Sometimes that happens to companies for profitability reasons, much like Southern California Edison's assets were sent to the parent company, thus SCE was bankrupt and thus the state of California was blackmailed into giving SCE money and thus the parent company sucked that up. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)