User talk:Dragoondelight/Archive03

Hello, Dragoondelight/Archive03, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Help pages
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• ISFDB FAQ
• Help:Screen:EditPub#General contents - Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents
• Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CoachPaul 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving your Talk Page

Have you ever considered archiving your talk page... It's quite long. It takes me several scrolls just to get to the bottom of the TOC. If you want help, instructions, or to have it done for you, please just ask. Thanks - Kevin 04:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have dithered with the idea. It does keep me humble. Maybe. Is there instructions? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can do it for you, or I can talk you through it. Your choice (This is a Full Service Establishment; Yes, even that. No, you won't enjoy the prices for 'that'.) Archiving is complimentary when you reach 200 TOC items, and at 300 you get a free entry into a drawing for a free toaster! Perhaps we should hold off for a day or two? Kevin 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Simplified Archiving Instructions.

• Open this link in a new tab or window (again your choice) User_talk:Dragoondelight/Archive01
• Come back to this tab/window and click edit near the top center of the screen in this window/tab.
• Select all the text you want to archive in this window... Usually everything that is 'closed' or in some cases everything. Cut that text from the edit window.
• Switch to the other tab/window and paste the text there. Click Save Page. We have now created your first archive page.
• Switch back to your normal talk page (still in edit mode on that page), and type "See [[User_talk:Dragoondelight/Archive01|Archive 1]] for older conversations." at the very tip top of your 'talk' page edit box and it will look like "See Archive 1 for older conversations."
• If you would like to force a TOC to appear even when there are only 1 or 2 topic on your talk page, you can also type "__TOC__" without the quotes immediately below that line.
• Now Save Page and you will see your fresh, and a-lot more empty talk page... ready to be filled again.

Let me know if you anythings confusing above or if you want the full service archiving. Cheers - Kevin 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is easy, Harry. I just did one for the months of March and April. It's amazing how fast a page gets filled and I just left a note below and the page took almost 30 seconds to 'save'. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that was nerve wracking. I had never cut, and the visual effect was disturbing, but once I saved, I normalized, if that can be said. Thank you Kevin. You too Bill "Blue". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Your page is again sleek and ready for filling. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

proposed interiorart change in The Sunken World

Hey Harry, would you explain what you're trying to do with the submission for The Sunken World that marks the existing The Sunken World [2] for deletion but then adds the same name back in? I put it on hold while I ask you about it, but this is really for my own edification -- I didn't want to just blindly approve something I didn't understand. Thanks. --MartyD 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! Oh! Here goes. I misspelled Charles E. McCurdy as Chales E. McCurdy. So I asked for a delete and then added it back with Charles instead of Chales, at least that was my intention. All errors on my part. So if I misspelled the add in then reject and I will start over again. LOL Who entered the new 2003 entry after reading my notes? That was smart. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. Must need new glasses. Thanks! Un-held and sent on its merry way. Couldn't you have just updated the author's name, though? --MartyD 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could have, but I try not to do it that way because it catches attention and worries some moderators. It is a primary mistake for new editors, and the older moderators frown on it. Besides it's good practice to do it that way. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Beachhead Planet

Scanned in an image and added notes to [this] and once again your page is sleek and trim!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden Blood

Added a cover image to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Humanoids

Scanned new image, expanded the notes slightly for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Seetee Shock

Scanned an image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 17:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

date of Author's Note in Vestiges of Time

Harry, I just approved a merge of Author's Note (Vestiges of Time), whose only appearances are in two pubs you verified, that took the 1979 date instead of the 1978 date. According to your beautifully detailed (of course) notes, the note is dated 1978 in the signature yet seems to be clearly written for the 1st Playboy Press edition, which was published in 1979. You may want to take a look and make sure you agree. Thanks. --MartyD 11:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the 1979 date for Playboy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon Disentimed

Added a Cover Scan to [[1]] -mjp MikeP 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Armed Memory

You don't suppose your newly-entered RMDMMRXGFW0000 duplicates/renders obsolete RMDMMRY1996? --MartyD 12:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I am second printing with no printing date. My notes do support the other's existence. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. What's the point of all of those notes if someone doesn't read them.... Well, while I'm looking at it, I'll add the month to that 1996 one based on your edition's statement. --MartyD 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fred Saberhagen's "Pressure"

You verified Dangerous Vegetables which contains a Fred Saberhagen short story titled Pressure. I believe this may be a duplicate entry of this Pressure. At least, I found an external source who believes it is. However, given the 1987 date listed for that version, I wanted to double check as the other one was used as early as 1975 (unless the 1987 was a typo for 1967). Is it possible for you to check whether the Dangerous Vegetable version is a Berserker story? Thanks. --JLaTondre 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Messy, Messy! That ver was an inheritance, I will go back and correct and recheck it. For instance, technically there is no editor. As for Pressure that 1987 entry must have been a typo, I just submitted the correction and will get it back to 1967. You were correct in all your assumptions, but I was new and the previous ver holder abandoned it, and I never got back to redo. Check back in a couple of days and you may have more corrections after I rehash it. LOL. Technically the anthology is a bastard mix because it took advantage of the death of Keith Laumer, who did not really participate in it. Bova did an intro and apparently it was actually compiled by Greenberg (with no credit) and Charles G. Waugh (copyright credit only). I think that my early questions caused the original editor to abandon it, so I took primary and DES was moderating my efforts, and I lapsed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles of Castle Brass

Hi Harry, you have verified at least (probably more) two Dell editions in Moorcock's Chronicles of Castle Brass, The Quest for Tanelorn and The Champion of Garathorm. The covers for all three novels in the series were done by someone who signed as R.L.C., but wasn't credited in the books. According to your notes on "The Quest for Tanelorn" R.L.C. stands for Robert Courtney, but the cover is credited to Richard Courtney. The cover for "The Champion of Garathorm" is credited to Richard Cohen. Moorcock's website has the covers by Richard Courtney (that makes two votes for him). Do you have any idea where Richard Cohen came from, or where you got Robert Courtney? And, should we credit them all to Richard Courtney or leave them blank with some notes? I can't find any other information, not online and not in Jane Frank's book. Any ideas? Thanks, Willem H. 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrected to Richard Courtney. I believe both times the artist was previously entered and I did searches for RLC's to no effect. The Robert Courtney was a typo by me when formatting. The bogle is finding data for Richard Courtney, as I believe I found 4 or more and Jane Frank does not list him. In any case Moorcock trumps, I am really happy with Richard Courtney as opposed to anything else. The real diamond for identification would be just one artist credit with the RLC or any other cross reference for some book connecting the initials. I am pretty sure Courtney was a 'in-house' artist and the trail leads to Dell, who unfortunately did not list artist credits. Jane Frank got most of her recent cover artist credits from places like us and Moorcock. As for the best thing, I have been going with previous entered data, especially if it has an initial match. I used to delete the artist reference, but that removes any possibility for someone to make a connection later, so complete notes on artist crediting is important. Who is a good source and who is not is a bit in the air, but I favor any site which shows hard work. Moorcock apparently was into the details of his books, so I go with him. I have my eye on this site [2]. These people have a number of people trying to acquire the art used in covers and Jane Frank associates with them. It might be worthwhile to delve in their records. If you dislike what I did with Richard Courtney, I will retract, rethink, etc. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I added the credit to Richard Courtney to my other pubs in the series and copied your note. Works for me this way, no need to rethink.

Nice site by the way. Could get some info on other artists there. I'm always looking out for sites like this. Recently found this one, lots of unknown artists there, often with links to their own sites. Thanks, Willem H. 07:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting site. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous Vegatables

I'm holding a submission which wants to remove this title and replace it with an identical title which is the same as this record. Perhaps the best approach here is to merge these two titles, retaining the 1967 date. This will avoid a second submission which will have to merge these two with your newly created title. MHHutchins 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reject my submission and merge then. I have to redo the anthology. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor of Dangerous Vegetables

You replaced Martin H. Greenberg and Charles G. Waugh as editor with Keith Laumer. Contento credits all three as editors. You could do the same and cite Contento as your source or at least mention in the notes that Greenberg and Waugh are credited as co-editors by Contento. Are Greenburg and Waugh mentioned anywhere in the book? It is hard to believe that Laumer, the quality of whose work after 1971 was severely compromised by a stroke, had anything more than a superficial role in the creation of this anthology.--swfritter 14:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wish I will so cite them, but no, Greenberg is not mentioned at all and Waugh only as a copyright credit. If you read the Publishers Note that I copied totally you get the feeling that they wanted Laumer to get the credit. I do have several books in the TSR publications which have no editor, or at random. I first was going to make it uncredited as the 'Created by Keith Laumer" is an after death crediting. As for superficial role, I can not tell, but Bova's introduction implies Laumer was someone who labored on. Personally, I think it was a commercial advantage taking and should only be credited to Laumer on that basis. The editors were paid and took advantage as phantom authors do. If you still feel Greenberg and Waugh should be credited say so again and I will do it. Sorry, I feel like this is a millstone no matter what I do. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crediting editors based upon secondary sources is perfectly legitimate as long as those sources are cited. "Created by" is a nebulous term and is not really the same as an editor credit. Greenberg and Waugh should at least be mentioned in the notes. I hope your millstones are partially made of H. G. Wells's anti-gravity cavorite, otherwise they can get very heavy.--swfritter 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Millstone transferred to you. LOL I do wish I could see Greenberg's lists of stories for prospective books by subject. It must be huge. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Millstone thrown into lake. Many fathoms deep. Will not attempt to retrieve. According to Contento the introduction also states that the book was Laumer's idea but that he died without doing it. I might also note that I had to update the title record for the anthology. Once an anthology has been created changes to the editor to not get reflected in the the title record. The same is true of magazine editor title data. Thanks.--swfritter 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bradbury's Classic Stories 2

Can you recheck the title of a story in your verified copy of this title? Most reprints of A Medicine for Melancholy (which is included in your semi-omnibus) give the title of "The Shoreline at Sunset" as "The Shore Line at Sunset". Thanks for checking. MHHutchins 06:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is "The Shore Line at Sunset", but it is "The Million-Year Picnic" not "October 2026-The Million-Year Picnic. I leave the corrections to you as so much of this reflects on other printings. I rechecked all titles and the rest are as stated. This was a very early ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenated words have the first letter after the hyphen capitalized

Quote from Help. Changed "Thirty-five Years Later" in this pub to "Thirty-Five Years Later".--swfritter 14:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, choked on seeing the printings never capatilized. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wind Between the Worlds in Early Del Rey

How is the story listed in the table of contents? According to Help it is valid to use the table of contents entry if that is the common title. From Help: "Short fiction, essays and poems. For short stories, essays and poems, take the title from the heading on the page where the work begins, rather than from the table of contents, if there is one. This distinction is not too important, and if you know that one form of the title is the usual one (e.g. the contents page has "Night Fall" but the story heading is "Nightfall") then use the one you know is standard. You can also choose to use the table of contents version where the story heading gives a non-standard presentation of the title form--e.g. if the table of contents says "Bell, Book and Candle" and the story header says "Bell, Book & Candle", you can use the former. If both the table of contents and the story title agree, though, the form given should be used, even if it is different from the standard."--swfritter 15:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No "The" used on story title page, ToC or copyright acknowledgments page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Removed first story from pub and did the variant title thing.--swfritter 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Total War

Can you re-check the ISBN for this pub? It's from a range assigned to a publisher other than Zebra. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed the difference, but ISBN is correct and the copyright page is the usual erasure of old printing with new printing and date on it. All Zebra/Kensington. Thanks, Harry.

Thanks for checking. Adding a note explaining the odd ISBN might save you some inquiries in the future. I'm sure some other editor will notice it. (Or someone as obsessive-compulsive as me!) Thanks again. MHHutchins 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a good catch on your part. My bet is that they had to go to an outside printer and that was the result. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Heir of Sea and Fire - map entered as shortfiction

This pub. I assumed you meant it to be interiorart - and so so it is.--swfritter 15:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, was/am tired. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov 's "Season's Greetings"

You verified More Tales of the Black Widowers which contains the story Season's Greetings. The other versions of the that publication (including another verified version) list it as Season's Greetings!. Before I created a variant record, I thought I'd double check that the "!" was truly missing from that pub. Would it be possible for you to look? Thanks. --JLaTondre 20:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the stack and into the frying pan. Here goes. Season's Greetings (no !) on story title page 117, but Season's Greetings! on ToC!. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll double check with BLongley (since he verified the other version) just to make sure. If he confirms that one had a "!" on the title page, I'll submit the variant. Thanks. --JLaTondre 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Same with mine - ToC has the exclamation mark, title-page and headers don't. I'll fix mine. BLongley 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like MartyD has a version to check too, or I'd have changed them all. BLongley 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pinged MartyD as well. Thanks. --JLaTondre 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're lucky - the A-Ch were already unpacked before I got ill, or you'd have had a much longer wait. BLongley 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping that it is a sign you are in better health. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I'm still in a lot of pain, but thanks for the good thoughts. BLongley 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you feel better, Bill. --MartyD 11:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A LOT better now, thanks. Still not up to unpacking boxes of books or sawing new book-shelves, but I'm down to about four pain-killers a day now rather than maximum dosages. I aten't dead yet! BLongley 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, folks, but MartyD's pub has the exclamation point, both in the TOC and on the title page. The headers are all More Tales of the Black Widowers, no individual titles. --MartyD 11:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The other thing I guess I should mention is that "Season's Greetings!" (along with "The Unabridged" and "The Ultimate Crime") is not listed in the acknowledgments section as a previously published story, so I believe this is probably the first publication of it.

Thanks. I submitted a change to make "Season's Greetings" a variant of "Season's Greetings!". --JLaTondre 13:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ilen, a Magian a pseudonym of Neil Gaiman?

Magian or Magician. How do we know Gaiman is the author? Is his name mentioned in the pub? In this pub Gaiman is listed as the author without using a pseudonym. I approved the Paarfi pseudonym attribution but kind of wondered if it was necessary.--swfritter 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In notes "Afterword copyright © 2003 by Neil Gaiman". Thus "Ilen, a Magian". It is becoming a cult thing among the staff, others with an in to write in the Brust universe as characters as does Brust. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Will approve. Thanks.--swfritter 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We Hold These Rights . . .

No need to change this in the pub and remove old title. This is something that can be changed at the title level of the story and there is really no need, in my mind, to even inform other verifiers about a trivial change like this unless you think another verifier might get upset. Removed old story from pub and merged both titles with correct ellipsis format.--swfritter 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A Voice for Princess

Hi Harry, I think I spotted another slip of the finger here. Cover art is credited to Dean Morressy, but according to your notes it should be Dean Morrissey (notice the "i" in stead of the "e" and the extra "e"). Thanks, Willem H. 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, I keep thinking what their personal relationship might be and then create a new person. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Perseus Breed changes

Hi Harry, I put on hold your changes for The Perseus Breed. The proposed price change to $3.50 has me wondering if there may be two different printings, as Locus has that $2.95 price. I'm going to poke around a little. --MartyD 12:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Enjoy yourself. Always go with it! LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I approved it and added a note about the Locus price discrepancy. I couldn't find any corroboration of existence of a $2.95 edition. --MartyD 11:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When you consider the number of books arriving and that probably one person doing it, then it is a wonder more mistakes were/are not made. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jirel of Joiry

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cover image looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Napolean Disentimed

I've accepted a submission which adds the cover image to your verified pub of this title. Please check to see if this matches your pub. Thanks.

Great job. Perfect match. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Del Rey

After this discussion, I removed the pen-name attributed title records from this verified pub, and replaced them with title records attributed to Lester del Rey. Thanks, Willem H. 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Took a bit for me figure out what it was you were doing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Motherlines / Walk to the End of the World

Hi Harry. Thanks for finding the artist of Motherlines. In my opinion that makes Doug Beekman also the artist for Walk to the End of the World, the covers form a matching set. Jane Frank doesn't credit Beekman, but I think Robert Weinberg does (he states the title as Walk to the Ends of the Earth, but there's nothing like that in the database). Can you agree? Thanks, Willem H. 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Title incorrect is not abnormal and the artist palette used is the same. We also have "Best Condition Books" stating it is Beekman also. I buy from them and they are pretty thorough. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I submitted the change and a note about Weinberg. One of these days I'll upload a new coverscan. Willem H. 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing titles within content section of a pub

If the system allows you to do so, please do hesitate to do so, as with this pub. The system no longer allows you to edit merged titles in the contents section. If the system allows you to edit such titles in the contents section that means the title has not been merged and it is OK to do so. Old habits are hard to break. Is the new title really spelled "Afterward"? --swfritter 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Afterward it is, checked again, LOL. I figure their is an oddity to the publication. Notice that Scott Latham who rarely put notes went zinging of on this one or the person who first entered it.

Somehow I am getting a 'mixed message, with the start of your comment, "plesed do hesitate to do so"? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Merriest Knight

This record came up on the latest inconsistencies list (shortfiction in a novel type). I'm assuming the NOVEL type was in error, so I've corrected it to COLLECTION. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a collection IMO. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you see one of the purposes of the list (see discussion below). It found this error and we were able to correct it. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Forewords in Kyle's Lensman series

Several of the forewords that are recorded as shortfiction in the pubs of David A. Kyle's Lensman series are on the data inconsistency list (Short Fiction / Novel Mismatches). You have verified several books in the series and I wondered if you could check to see if these are fictional forewords ("in-universe") or authorial forewords? Thanks in advance. MHHutchins 06:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the mismatch criteria. I had this conversation with Ahasuerus when we both agreed that they are fictional forwards (in lensman verse) as opposed to the mundane earthy verse which the introduction in The Dragon Lenamsn is. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I am suffering from dystopia overdosing and it does not help that this reality is also sliding into dystopia. If any reply is off base, feel free to beat me with a handy stick. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahasuerus wrote a script which finds shortfiction records that are contents of novel records. This is not to say they're wrong, only that they should be looked at to determine why. Normally a novel record shouldn't contain shortfiction records, but there are exceptions, such as the case of "fictional articles". I would argue that this is part of the novel and should not be recorded individually, but that's not here nor now. I've learned that to maintain my personal utopia I should choose my battles wisely. I'll record these forewords as "FA" on the list so that anyone else who chooses to work on it knows that these are not to be changed. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Web Between the Worlds

I've added a cover scan to this pub that you verified. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Very Good! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan "British Perry Rhodan" update

Harry I've put this on hold for a moderator that's more familiar with the Rhodan series.Kraang 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Anyone with a better (any) solution is welcome, not to mention (which I am) that the British run has a convuluted series of problems, not all the same, to unscramble them from the various ways they were handled. I am not sure I can do it, I definitely can not do it easily as it will mean unmerging. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Keeper

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

End as a Hero

New image and expanded notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Identity Seven

Scanned a new image, expanded the notes, added interior art to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks better than mine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein's Expanded Universe

Please see the last part of this discussion about the use of pseudonyms in the pub records of this collection. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically concerning your verified pub (among others). Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that pseudonym recognition in later works is being used, but RAH did not use them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Submitted two deletes for three printings that I have. How I missed these two I do not know. I am not sure I would have caught them when I did the double check. Special extra thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dickson's Neuromancer

According to Locus #224 (August 1979), this printing was published in July 1979. Mhhutchins 03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks for the FYI, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein's The Menace from Earth

According to Locus #224 (August 1979), this printing was published in July 1979. Mhhutchins 03:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks for the FYI, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

title date for The Peregrine

See this note. Affects your 3-verified The Peregrine. --MartyD 12:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Job. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Norton's Red Hart Magic

According to Locus #224 (August 1979) this printing was published in July 1979. (As you probably can tell by now, I've gone back to reconciling the Locus Books Received monthly listings with the database records. Rather tedious, so I only do it sporadically. Only 30 more years of issues to go!) Mhhutchins 20:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sturgeon's The Cosmic Rape

Another one published in July 1979, according to Locus #224 (August 1979). BTW, the cover image linked to that record shows the Canadian maple-leaf. You might want to note the difference to avoid future inquiries. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the pub date and changed the cover image. Frankly, I am not sure what the 'standard explanation' for the maple leaf is? Thanks, greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pocket was the only publisher (at least that I'm aware of) that placed the maple leaf on the cover to indicate a Canadian printing. The price was usually 25 or 50 cents higher for the same printing. "Printed in Canada" was also printed on the copyright page, but I'm not sure how the number line came into it. Most of the ones I'm familiar with were published in the 70s. If your copy doesn't have the maple leaf you can note that the image doesn't exactly match your copy. Mhhutchins 22:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you changed the image. Great. Mhhutchins 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the updating. I will pay more attention to leaves now. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Graham Diamond's The Thief of Kalimar

This edition was published in August 1979, according to Locus #225 (September 1979). Mhhutchins 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Doyle's Best Supernatural Tales

Can you re-check the price and printing info for this edition? Locus #225 (September 1979) gives the price as $4.00, and published in August. Otherwise their listing matches your record (publisher, ISBN, binding, etc.). I know Dover would reprint without changing the ISBN, but is there any indication in your copy that it may be a later printing? I see that Ace's trade paperback prices were between $4.95-6.95 in 1979, so Dover's price of $6.95 wasn't unusual for that time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Only indicator is price list on fep/bep. Here goes:

More Ghost Stories of an Antiquary, M. R. James (25700-2)$4.95.

Three Gothic Novels, E. F. Bleiler, (21232-7)$6.95.

The Haunted Hotel, Wilkie Collins, (24333-8)$3.50.

Tales of Terror and the Supernatural, Wilkie Collins, (20307-7)$6.50.

This title at $6.50.

The Golem, Gustav Meyrink, (25025-3)$5.95.

Flatland, Edwin A. Abbott, (20001-9)$2.25.

Ghost and Horror Stories of Ambrose Bierce, (20767-6)$3.95.

Best Ghost Stories of Algernon Blackwood, (22977-7)$6.95.

Five Victorian Ghost Novels, E. F. Bleiler, (22558-5)$6.50.

At the Earth's Core, Pellucidar, Tanar of Pellucidar, ERB, (21051-0)$5.95.

Three Martian Novels, ERB, (20039-6)$9.95.

Jurgen, James Branch Cabell, (23507-6)$5.95.

A Christmas Carol, The Original Manuscript, Dickens, (20980-6)$5.95.

Classic Ghost Stories, Dickens and others, (20735-8)$6.50.

Gods, Men and Ghosts, Lord Dunsany, (22808-8)$4.95.

The Lost Stradivarius, Faulkner, (24334-6)$3.00.

Three Adventure Novels, H. Rider Haggard, (20643-2)$7.95.

Kwaidan, Lafcadio Hearn, (21901-1)$3.95.

The Best Tales of Hoffman, E.T.A. Hoffman, (21793-0)$7.95.

Against the Grain (A. Rebours), J. K. Huysmans, (22190-3)$4.95.

La-Bas (Down There), J. K. Huysmans, (22837-1)$5.95.

Ghost Stories of an Antiquary, M. R. James, (22758-8)$6.95.

Best Ghost Stories, J. Sheridan LeFanu, (20415-4)$7.95.

Ghost Stories and Mysteries, J. Sheridan LeFanu, (20715-3)$6.95.

Supernatural Horror in Literature, H. P. Lovecraft, (20105-8)$3.50.

The Wood Beyond the World, William Morris, (22791-X)$5.95.

The First Book of Ghost Stories: Widdershins, Oliver Onions, (23608-0)$4.50.

Last and First Men and Star Maker, Olaf Stapledon, (21962-3)$6.95.

Odd John and Sirius, Olaf Stapledon, (21133-9)$4.95.

Best Science Fiction Stories, H.G.Wells, (21531-8)$4.95.

Seven Science Fiction Novels, H. G. Wells, (20264-X) Clothbound$15.00.

Three Prophetic Novels of H. G. Wells, (20605-x)$5.95.

Hope this helps. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It does help. Looking over the list I tried to find titles that had yet to be published by Dover in 1979. Both The Haunted Hotel and The Lost Stradivarius were first published by Dover in 1982, and More Ghosts of an Antiquary wasn't published until 1988. This last would indicate that your printing had to have been in 1988 or later. If you look over the listings for Jurgen you see there are three printings by Dover of the title, all using the same ISBN. I think they did the same for this Doyle title. Another thing: you mention that this title is on the price list at $6.50. This is an even better case that it was a reprint. They had yet to update the list to show the current price ($6.95) of the book in hand! I'll clone your pub with the 1979 date and a price at $4.00, giving Locus as the source. Thanks for helping solve the mystery. Mhhutchins 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That should leave people with room to add the tweeners. LOL. I did think it was possible, but that pricing list was a pain to read. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tactics of Mistake

I added the publication month (1972-06-00) to this verified pub. It is stated in my 3rd printing. Thanks, Willem H. 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Best of Jack Vance

This printing was published in August 1979, according to Locus #225 (September 1979). Mhhutchins 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Date changed. Notation added. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Orbitsville

yes, I did [this] ~bill, --Bluesman 04:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

van Vogt's Lost: Fifty Suns

According to Locus #226 (October 1979), this printing (the first with a new title) was published in September 1979. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was an early one. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein's Double Star

This printing was published in October 1979, according to Locus #227 (November 1979). (Kevin seems to have disappeared lately and you are another primary verifier of the pub. Thanks.) Mhhutchins 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the info, and as for Kevin I figured RL hit again. I spent some time recently on that book because the cover artist is not credited. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sargasso of Space

Hi Harry, you verified this pub. Cover art is by Ed Emshwiller, signature is the lower right, hidden as a sign below a row of buttons. Jane Frank only mentions the Gnome hardcover. I edited the Ace double edition that has the same illustration. Thanks, Willem H. 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent eye. Reformatted and added credit. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cherry Wilder's The Luck of Brin's Five

According to Locus #227 (November 1979), this first paperback printing is missing the last twelve pages of the hardcover edition. Does your copy look like it's missing pages? Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I say old man, how would one tip that hat? First the last page ends with at least space for eight lines. Which should mean the scene breaks as written. The scene is a general acclamation for the character, yet it is somewhat oddly stilted, but that could be writer more than anything else. How does one write an Alien recognition scene? It could have a further twelve pages, but they would have been some kind of continuance of life among the aliens versus this ending which has the deeds done and him getting a social recognition for his part. In any case, I found an Atheneum copy at a dealer who holds a few other 'trinkets' for my delight. I will purchase it and get back. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm laughing because I just now realize what a strange request it may have seemed. How can one tell if something is missing unless one knows what should have been there to begin with! I was hoping the last line ended in mid-sentence at the bottom of the page, but not here as it turns out. (If you've read Dhalgren you know an unfinished last sentence doesn't always mean something's missing.) Looking forward to your comparison of this with the text of the hardcover edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do hope I was not insulting or mean. I was trying to be funny about looking for something that was not readily obvious. Please continue to bring these matters to my attention. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. I took it as you intended. The nuances of humor can be very hard to convey in text form. Believe me, there are things I wish I could have taken back after posting and then re-reading them! Mhhutchins 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My second printing ends with the line A stiff breeze filled the green sail, and we sailed on so fast we seemed to draw the light of the great sun across the sea, turning it to gold. This ends chapter X. Does that help? Willem H. 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that helps. My copy is missing Chapter X. Now the problem is it deliberate or not. There is no statement of completeness or abridgment. I think it is a printer mistake. I will note it properly in the morning. Please feel no rancor, as I was looking for the obvious, but total loss of a chapter and it still looks like it ended. Oh Well! Thanks, for all the help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Willem and Mike for the insights. My copy has now had notation added to the effect that it is definitely light in content. Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wondered if it might be a waste to read all those Locus listings. This makes me think it's worth the effort. Thanks to all. Mhhutchins 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Malicious Intent excerpts

Hi Harry. By any chance, might the Malicious Intent excerpts in Star Lord and Lost Destiny be the same and merge-worthy? --MartyD 11:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd pickle this. "These excerpts are the first chapter of MI. The Star Lord MI excerpt is different in that one paragraph end sentence is moved to the beginning of the next paragraph in MI. SL ex & MI text have three paragraphs where the words are different, but the meaning is the same." I submitted the merge and will after acceptance, add the above " " to the notes without initials and complete the LD mismatches for ease of finding, (as if anyone in the hereafter will care?). LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More than three paragraphs, LOL ugh! Lost Destiny excerpt is before final edit. Actual content is the same, but elements are shifted and some differences in how it is said. It would take two hundred words to describe the minor text differences. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Parenteau's The Talking Coffins...

According to Locus #228 (December 1979), this pub appeared in November 1979. I wonder if perhaps the 1980 date was part of the record when you verified it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed dates if I could not find something jarringly wrong with them. Printing date unknown, printing date source unknown, etch means I could not connect the dots. Still they might provide some clue. I entered the data, hopefully right. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Niven's Playgrounds of the Mind

I've placed your submission on hold for further discussion and continued the conversation that began on Bluesman's talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

cover for The Final Encyclopedia

I added this image to your verified The Final Encyclopedia. --MartyD 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Very Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lovers: 2075

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous Fantastic Classics #2

Can you re-check the author's credit for "The Stagnant Death" in this pub? Your notes give the copyright to "H. Bedford-Jones", which is the common spelling of the author's name (with a hyphen). The story record is missing the hyphen. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it! I submitted a change adding the - and then I looked at his entry and found it was a "Trumpets From Oblivion" story and added that series to title entry. I hope this works. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Double-Take - merge instead of variant

Shouldn't this and this be merged instead of using the variant processing? According to Help "Hyphenated words have the first letter after the hyphen capitalized." It would seem that they should be merged with "Double-Take" as the selected title.--swfritter 15:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Using initials as credited and creating pseudonyms and variants

I see you added the introduction to Asimov's & Silverberg's Nightfall, crediting it to the authors' initials. (I'm holding the submissions making the initials into pseudonyms.) A similar situation arose awhile back, and it was determined that if an editor or author's initials are used at the end of a piece, it can be safely assumed to be that of the author(s) as credited on the title page (or masthead, if a magazine), and credited as the full name in the record. I'm not sure if it was codified in the help pages (I'll have to look it up and you know how hard it can be to search for something in the wiki), but it appears to me that crediting the piece to the initials, creating pseudonyms and then variants is one step beyond (or three steps beyond) what's necessary in creating a record for the piece. In similar cases, I will record in the note field that initials were used. I'll go looking for the previous discussions to see what was the resolution. Mhhutchins 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion took place last year, but I believe there had been another discussion involving a larger group. Still searching... Mhhutchins 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tunnel in the Sky - "opb"?

I probably missed discussion somewhere? Is "opb" now an approved binding?--swfritter 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have sworn I read that "o" before pb, tp, and hc was accepted, but I looked it up and I have erred as there are only three. Digest is not there either, anymore. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I accepted the submission and changed to pb. I know there were discussions about "opb" or something similar. I think Digest is still there. You may want to put the actual size of the pub in the notes. Thanks.--swfritter 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hokay, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed Hammered third printing date change

Hi Harry, I put your proposed date-blanking on hold to give the verifier a chance to voice an opinion. --MartyD 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but I think you will have quite a wait. But if you wish you could check the second printing and you will find that one is blanked also. Enjoy! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt your change is appropriate; I just figured I'd follow protocol. The verifier was active yesterday, so perhaps we'll get a response. I won't let it linger for too long. --MartyD 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is all my fault, I am a little stressed as I am balancing an oversize book (art type, coffee table) and am just realizing that it is a lot of exercise and strain. I would have done a note to him, but I got 'snickety' as he does not seem to reply. Still, I should remember my manners, as you pointed out. LOL Still, I am going to have to break the art book into more stages to avoid more stress. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deep breaths. This is supposed to be enjoyable. That's why I do most things in the morning, before I'm awake enough to muster a significant level of snicketiness! :-) --MartyD 03:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I let this change through. --MartyD 11:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Avengers of Carrig

Artist credit for [Avengers of Carrig] hiding in plain sight on the back cover. Tight to the spine. Can't believe four of us missed this...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Much Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stepfather Bank

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 11:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fantastic, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed synopsis for The Infinity Grid

Hey Harry, I'm wondering if your proposed synopsis for The Infinity Grid is a bit of a spoiler. I'm not particularly sensitive to spoiler-ness of write-ups myself, but I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of people who are. Here's the text, with the part I'm worried about highlighted:

Consider a universe in which a grid of electromagnetic conduits and barriers connects everything. On a microcosmic level, the gridcode permeates all dimensions of creation to the core of all living things. What if this gridcode was completely manifested in your genes, and you had the ability to will yourself from one dimension to another, reaching any point of the universe that you could envision? (from the Xlibris site 7 February 2010). Young, naive Kieriell is gifted with such a power. Consuming and frightening, it represents evolution for his race. The Lords of Nex have had access to other worlds via Nexian "Rift-Tech," but Kieriell, the Emperor´s grandson, needs no technology. For millennia, the Nexians have guarded against their corrupt neighbors, the Shiv, who seek a new world to conquer. While internal conflict occupies the royal family, Kieriell is betrayed. Drugged and abducted, he is taken to what remains of their world to undergo genetic testing. Their vicious leader, the Shiv kai, plans to replicate the gridcode to advance his race and create a new empire. Subject to Nexian codes of strength versus will power, Kieriell must find his own way out. However, a fascination for the kai´s frail daughter shows him that the Shiv people are far different from their leader. To escape, he must tempt death and be reborn. But his greatest trial will be facing the Kai to stop a war with the Nexian Empire, and in that Kieriell will discover the awesome power that The Grid truly holds.

I leave it to your re-considered judgment. If you think it's ok, I will let it through as-is. Thanks. --MartyD 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Marty. I did not write it, I copied it from the Xlibris site. The only reason I considered it at all is a) the book is already dated and b) the book is only on the fringe margin of survivability due to P.O.D. and c) the portion shown at Amazon.com (which I did not use), was totally inane. I am not any judge of 'spoilers' at all. The book has nothing on/in it that I think promotes it. Understand, it would take a lively two hour discussion to 'spoil' a very small short story for me, if it did. I just do not relate or 'integrate' the elements to judge. Therefore, I think you should trim it as I am out of my depth. To me as I only have had a small chance to get into the book, the descriptions of it's 'verse' is very complicated and the 'blurb' they used did not affect my initial perceptions. Fortunately, you guys have the batons and I rely on others' better senses. No bad feelings if you chuck the whole thing and I would have attributed it if they had. Possibly, it is the authoress's own words? (The book is on my most soonest TBR, which is already crowded) LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if it's out there already, there's probably no point in trimming our copy. I will let it through. If someone complains, it's easy enough to trim later. --MartyD 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Devil's Spoon entered as shortfiction

this pub. Changed to interiorart. Almost perfect.--swfritter 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I might have missed one of those, but could not find it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden Trillium

I added the interior art (map) and notes to this verified pub, to match my copy. Thanks, Willem H. 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that certainly was a very early effort. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ebook price?

This pub. Notes state "Price from Xlibris.com. $24.99 at Amazon.com" but price data is not entered.--swfritter 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed that line. Good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Puppet Masters

Replaced the cover for Puppet Masters. This one has Now a Major Motion Picture blurb Dana Carson 05:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Delightful! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Night of the Dragonstar

Correct cover? If so, where do you see the signature (if that's your note)? BLongley 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I double checked, saw nothing, and do not think note on artist mine. If it was I wished I would have given directions. Cover does match. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed Darwin's Radio change

Hi Harry. Sorry to be dense (no coffee yet), but your proposed changes to Darwin's Radio seem to be usurping a perfectly good 2000-07-00 edition for your undated 4th printing. Locus seems to agree with what little the existing entry has (perhaps it was even the source). Your new notes also mention the July 2000 first mass-market edition that the existing entry seems to be. Did you perhaps mean to clone and end up doing an edit instead? If so, I can copy the notes here so you won't have to reconstruct them. If I'm missing something, though, it wouldn't be the first time.... --MartyD 13:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just canceled it. I meant to clone, not edit. I just finished reading note. Can not drink coffee/caffeine. Obviously, needed your wake up message. I will redo later. Appreciate the catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

excerpt: "Lost Colony" -> "Last Colony" in The Ghost Brigades

Hi Harry. It looks to me like The Lost Colony (excerpt) in your (our) verified The Ghost Brigades should be "The Last Colony (excerpt)" instead and merged with 913314 (I have both printings, and the excerpt is indeed the same). What do you say? BTW, the excerpt is explicitly copyright 2007 at the bottom of the first page.... --MartyD 13:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good catch. First changes submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I merged them. --MartyD 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

At the Seventh Level

Added month of publication to [this] from Jaffery's Retrospective Bibliography of DAW Books, with note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Most correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

10,000!!!

And you said you were running out of material at 5,000!!¿¿!! And only 90,000+ to catch Mr. H. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Some type of statistical error on my part. Chip chip chip! No contest intended, I have not the staying power. I have started reading and re-reading again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Slacker! ;-) --MartyD 12:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading. (nudge nudge wink wink) What's it like??? Mhhutchins 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FFM, December 1951

I'm holding your submission to add an issue of Famous Fantastic Mysteries for December 1951. There's already a record for that issue in the database. Could the Saunders artwork you're entering be for another issue? Or does the record for that month miscredit the cover art? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence is specifically credited on the TOC for the December, 1951 issue. The submission in question has a title "Famous Fantastic Mysteries, December 1950" which contradicts the numerical date. There was no December 1950 issue.--swfritter 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the mismatch of the date and the title. Harry, can you recheck the art and see if it matches any other issue of FFM? Thanks. --Mhhutchins 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous Fantastic Mysteries, December 1950 with Dec left top 25¢ right top and "Complete in this issue "Sax Rohmer's deathless fantasy classic Brood of the Witch-Queen". You got to love it! If there was no issue and the story posted January 1951 then Saunders heir-publisher did not realize it. Nor did I, of course. What next? Put notes in both to say so? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a mock-up for the issue, but date was changed when the publication adjusted release schedule (they went from even-numbered months to odd-numbered months, skipping December). Is this the same cover as in the Saunders collection? If so just record the differences in the notes. I'll reject the submission. Mhhutchins 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is the issue which had the same first story. Will make notation in "Norman Saunders". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondary problem, some of the variants are doubling references. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any doubling other than the typical variant display. Please point out the page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My error, I forgot I had a cover and an original cover art and made them variants of the same cover. MY BAG. It is the third cover art credit with two different variants on the Norman Saunders page [3]. I checked through the back door and that made them look like duplications. Sorry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is that the cover is from the Canadian edition. Tuck doesn't list specific issues; only a 1948 thru 1952 date range. The Canadian pulp editions were usually very close to being identical to the American editions although sometimes with a slightly different size and different advertising. They also had a 25 cent price. Tuck states that the January 1951 thru July 1951 issues were smaller than usual and contained no advertisement. Perhaps that December 1950 date was accidentally used on the January 1951 issue?--swfritter 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the book about it specifically. It does say he did 866 pulp covers lifetime and it lists at least 50 for 1950 in the back of the book with dates, including this one. It stated he got $150.00 a cover and increased his output to compensate. The book is great for it's art, but lacking in data as it was compiled after death. I checked some covers and it most resembled in layout the June 1950 cover, only the art and the in-story blurb being laid out differently. It definitely looks production level. The production style is totally different in 1951 series. Unfortunately the only way to know would be to have one in hand. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the faux-paux, but the good result is it is in notation and open to further exploration. Thanks, Greatly for your attentiveness, especially when I errored the dating. Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Different art by the same artist for the same title

Good job finding that there are two different covers for The Talismans of Shannara by Keith Parkinson, and thanks for separating them. I've learned that when I've come across the situation (it's rare but it does happen), I will place a note in each title explaining the difference and ask that the records not be merged. This will prevent someone from carelessly merging them because they assume same artist + same title = same work of art. (I'll admit to falling into that false syllogism.) I placed notes on both records here and here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw one today that had four separate pieces of art. One artist seems to have contracted to redo the art for the titles and his new art is simplistic compared to the pictoral approach of some years before. So the only way I see to make sense is to break them as you say, I will try to make notation hereafter. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate artist credit for cover art

I see you tried to remove to duplicate cover credit for this record. Unfortunately, the only way to correct this bug is to first remove all credit, then make another submission adding the single credit back. Don't know what caused it, don't know how else to correct it, just know that's the one sure way I've learned in fixing it. :( Mhhutchins 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Initiated the removal of one dupe, but thought there were two. I could not merge, which caused me to find the artist doubled. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A Circus of Hells

Paperback Parlour says your A Circus of Hells has a cover by Chris Achilleos. Not conclusive, but looking at a cover on Amazon uploaded by Bill Welch, I think I see a possible A in a circle at the bottom left. Maybe like this. Can you check please? (It may be trimmed off on your copy of course.) BLongley 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It must be the A of Achilleos though it is cutoff on the bottom. I will so credit it and symbol. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rival Rigelians and Planetary Agent X

I added the cover artist (E.L. Kuam)and a note to this verified pub. Signature is clearly visible in the lower left. Thanks, Willem H. 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Defiance

Identified the cover artist (Robert A. Osborne) for this verified pub, from the faint signature in the lower left corner. Thanks, Willem H. 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Splendid! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Forge in the Forest

I added the publication month (from Locus #412) and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Out on Blue Six

Changed the artist's name from William Cormier to Will Cormier and added notes to this pub after consulting Michael Hutchins. Thanks, Willem H. 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Avon Fantasy Reader #9 cover art

I'm holding a submission that wants to make this title record a variant of this editor record. I don't think we should variant a title record for an unknown artist with an editor record attributed to Donald Wollheim. Because there is no credit for the artist that created the cover for AFR #9, there is no cover art record attached to that publication. I can't think of a way to make your record a variant without updating the record for that issue of AFR to show "uncredited" as the artist. That runs up against our standard of leaving that field blank if the artist is not credited. Any idea how we can go about connecting the work of art in your book with the magazine issue in which it first appeared? I'm stumped. Mhhutchins 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First, this is what happened. I got lost in the 'Unknowns' and after twisting everything and some outside interruptions, I made the submission. At No. AFR #10, I knew that something was wrong, but had lost my thought train as to what exactly I had done wrong. I expected, that I would have to go back and break some connection, but luckily you caught the error. My trip through la-la land is the only reason a connection was attempted. So sorry for the 'goose chasing'. Second thoughts. After this run around it is obvious that leaving it blank accomplishes nothing much. My inclination that not creating an 'art record' is a mistake, emphasized by this incident, since with the variant connection you have something to work at. It brings the issue that maybe we need to creatively create entries to make sure we do create an 'art record' but also to group like 'unknown' and 'unsigned' together. For instance Avon is notorious for not crediting artists. If we created "Avon Artist" "Signet Artist" "Xlibris Artist" then we have a tag to group them into and then the possibility exists for someone to work at them. Not doing this leaves a hole in the system. Third, smaller problem, is that books without dj's need to be shown as not having them. Without DJ. The problem, I noticed is that many books are available without dj, but do have art embedded in cover. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Connecting things without artist has no solution as we both have discovered. Also, it is fairly impossible to create 'non-English' editions without members fluent in those languages. Ernesto is a great loss. We have I believe two members at least who might help with Dutch and German and possibly others, if they have copies. Japanese, is totally impossible, to connect into the system by me personally, too many assumptions/guesses to make a valid entry. I have seen that someone added the Polish(?) versions of Stanislaw Lem's works. It is proper, but Polish/English makes it hard to check and the editions of German, French, Norwegian, Italian, etc is going to wreak real havoc. At some point, there is a need for a language filter for the users. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hit the cancel submission button, as we have agreement, I hope that does not offend, but I have thought that it looks easier if the editor cancels items and removes the onus of being a "whatever" from the moderator. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The War Against the Rull (Panther, 1970)

I've accepted a submission adding a cover image from a new editor for your verified pub. Can you check to see if it matches your copy? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Most correct and Great Thanks to All, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Practice Effect price

Hi Harry. If "the price probably changed" in this printing -- which to me is another way of saying we don't know the price -- shouldn't you blank the price out instead of leaving it $2.75? --MartyD 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I put that line to assure someone that the price might be $3.00/3.25/ or $3.50. But there is no reason not to blank price out. Unfortunately Locus does not list 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th printings. So if you are holding it, please blank price. Sorry, Locus irritates me (as does all are sourcing)(Just as irritating is the 6th has Burns art but the 1984 art credit, What does the 5th have? Could Locus be wrong again?) irk irk irk. All smiles again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have it. It was just a thought in passing while reviewing your additions. I think if the price is there and wrong, there's a greater chance someone with the pub will add a duplicate without looking at the details. --MartyD 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Air Wonder Stories December 1929

The link you submitted for the cover image of this issue was for the wiki page, not the image itself. Mhhutchins 22:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Same thing for the November issue. Mhhutchins 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Strikes eight and nine for such an easy thing to do. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do you make them display? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

After you've uploaded an image, you will be sent directly to the wiki page. If you click on the image you get a direct view of the image (nothing else should be on the screen). The URL will appear in your browser's address bar. Copy and paste this URL in the pub record. OR... right click on the image on the wiki page. From the menu that pops up choose "Copy Image Location". (This is how Firefox does it. The message may be slightly different depending upon what internet browser you use.) Then paste the URL into the pub record. Mhhutchins 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The procedure is explained in Step 6 on the help page. Mhhutchins 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbary

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a hunch you were going to do that, so I did not flip one in. Clairvoyance? LOL Thanks, Greatly, --Dragoondelight 14:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Desolation Road

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks Fantastic! Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Triple detente

Changed to ISFDB-hosted scan and put Maitz as artist on here Hauck 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Most Glorious! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Books available

"Would you exchange for cactus plants or tumbleweeds, those I have in excess?" - Well, the answer to that is "No". But I do have about three cases of books set aside for swaps, which could also be used for rewards for extraordinary editing or such, so if there's something I have that you're especially after (particularly if I've verified multiple copies, or have verified a copy as "transient") let me know. No promises, but I'm not totally impoverished and do want to clear out some stuff. BLongley 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want you to know that you often have books that truly have first class art, not to mention they are first class stories and I can not be the only user which envies your being able to get them easily. Doing the "Broecker" it has become obvious that Great Britain has published many editions now lost or hidden. I wonder if it is the curse of "Mu", "Lost Horizons" or the machinations of Fu Man Chu? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Death's Master cover date

Hi Harry. Yeoman's work on all those cover art variants. A question about the Whelan Death's Master cover: interiorart is dated 1984, but coverart is dated 1985-02. We don't seem to have any publication of that title in 1984, and I didn't find anything in Locus other than the 1985 edition. Is 1984 right, and if so, do you know anything about the edition it appeared on? Thanks. --MartyD 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dating problems. The problem could be h/c signed, subscription, limited first edition, first printing, slipcase?, club, tp, large tp. I have changed Broecker's date to match or found references and added them elsewhere, but this one left me with the feeling there is a missing book. There is this statement also "The deluxe limited signed edition of one of the books in Lee's "Flat Earth' series, published by Highland Press." I also have trouble with a 500 limited printing being the only one (ABE explained it). I had a similar problem in a must have book from Amazon, mine was first edition, but did not get the extras listed there. I decided to connect on the assumption that if we turned an earlier edition it was 'hinted' at. This book is illustrated by Randy Broecker according to ABE. I ordered a copy, but all the sellers list it as 1984. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks. I let it go through as you had it. --MartyD 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the difference arose because the artwork in the Highland Press edition was copyrighted in 1984. The listing in the Tanith Lee bibliography states the book as published in 1984. According to Locus it was seen in January 1985, but published in February. I believe the Locus dating is wrong. I've personally corresponded with the compilers of the Tanith Lee bibliography and am aware of how they date books. If the actual date is not stated in the book, they will give it in brackets (check out a few of the listings on their site.) These things happen when books are published near the end of the year. Another thorn in the side for bibliographers. Mhhutchins 15:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just received and submitted my copy for the record. #465. Dated 1984 on bottom title page. Any questions? Additionally the interior art work is not bad enough to comment on (unfair to comment on that way). It is graphic, contains nudity and I think phallic imagery, but what the heh? Additionally the art compels thought as to what/how the artist was inspired the way he did it. I would class the book as a superior crafted product. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Unicorn cover date

Opposite question about Zug's Red Unicorn cover. Interiorart dated 1998-11, Coverart dated 1997. Looks like 1997-07-00 is the date for the first hardcover publication, while 1998-11-00 is the date for the subsequent paperback. What say you? --MartyD 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Easier answer. He states 98, but the h/c would be our preferred, so it is an art/artist match not date matching in this case. I preferred the 97 because his example has no pb markings. The only 98 difference is blurb is under author name on his edition, but above in 97 example. Still no foul as art is same. I may be wrong in this, but it seems right to me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I approved the variant and changed its date to 1997-07-00. Thanks. --MartyD 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

qualification of The Knight of the Demon Queen interiorart

Sorry, it's 20 questions for me tonight... Is there a reason why this one uses "(orignal cover art)" instead of just "(cover)" as seems to be your usual practice? The corresponding coverart record isn't qualified as "(original)", so we have the identical-titles-by-different-artists problem anyway. Just asking -- however you want it to be is ok with me. BTW, "orignal" is missing an "i", which I'll fix if you want it kept. --MartyD 04:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First asking questions or checking causes no problems with me. If we are both on the same page, then possibly we will have workable 'standards'. I also can be/am frequently wrong, though I have spent some thought on this linking. (original cover art) is a term I adopted to say the art is without publication extras. No printing, titling, or other changes I can find. Now occasionally this can be a small portion of the art, not the whole, but I do not always know this and rely on artist or editor for clues. In this case, Broecker said nothing but the picture is 'naked' of extras, so I stated it as "original". Kiddography is full of 'original cover art' and it is great fun to compare. I think I have three types of descriptors for links that I have used. Title (cover)(cover being the indicator that the cover matches a publication(not necessarily all with same art, but at least one)), title (original cover art) which hopefully is the full cover art, and title(partial, reduction, etc of cover art or cover). The last is the rarest. Interior art examples are usually simply (reprint) or (title page/frontispiece). Please put the 'i' in. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. P.S. I'm doing this just to prove I actually look at and think about the proposed changes.... ;-) --MartyD 13:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Soul Music coverart title

Looks to me like we should probably unmerge these. ??. I assume this matches the 1999 one's cover? --MartyD 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I will admit to looking over a dozen times, but my conclusion was that the "Motorcycle" was the central object and was common to each. It seems to be the same, but if you can detect a difference then it would be different. I busted one connection over a Raven, the determination was that though surrounding art was same/similar the Raven had two different poses. The problem with cover art is not usually the art of the artist, but that of the cover designer who can fool with it to the point where it can become insignificant or different. Color is most common, but shrinking is almost damning. I would love to hear the rationale from both sides. If you feel sure, break it up, mine was the third on list, but it would be no trouble to redo. I finally figured out that it is totally pointless to point art at unknowns or unsigned as the link will be broken when it is discovered. I also now understand why I was doing art matches, not artist title matches. Since I started links, I have found a dozen or so similar but different art matches. I wonder if anyone other than myself has searched out books after seeing some of the art? I also have seen that we have some publication gaps, especially in British produced books. Many h/c's have little to no documentation, unless you have a copy and many copies may be expensive. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I buy that. So then should the date on 1092115 be 1994 instead of 1999? --MartyD 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't believe it, no editor conflict. No the date should be the cover he sited, if he is right, too often the date will be the incept or commision completion date that artist knows or uses on cover art. Thus a year early is not unusual. If I can determine that it is an early date, I change it otherwise I leave it and occasionally there will be a fill in with a printing or other publisher printing correcting it, but the essential artist to art match is the key to the linking. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. Thanks for the explanation (and all the other ones, too). --MartyD 13:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One of my favourite books, and favourite images too - although it was actually Paul Kidby's "Death on a Motorbike" that led to the artist contacting me rather than vice versa. Josh Kirby's version is more Meat Loaf's "Bat Out of Hell" and Paul's is more "Easy Rider". Both great images, that I'd love to have on T-Shirts, if I wore such any more. BLongley 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Space Willies / Six Worlds Yonder

I added the publication month (from the Ace Image Library) and the cover artist (Kelly Freas signed both covers) to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 19:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One of my favorites. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission to Moulokin

Hi Harry, please see User_talk:MartyD#Mission_to_Moulokin and weigh in on page count. While reviewing that, I discovered the LCCN listed in my copy is incorrect for that title, and I adjusted the notes accordingly. You might double-check against your copy if you dig it up. Thanks. --MartyD 13:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Skull-Face

The image link for this pub wasn't complete. Mhhutchins 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Super novice mistake. I put the title in, not the url address image. Resubmitted with address. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Napoleons of Eridanus

I uploaded the right cover for the first printing here. Hauck 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interplanetary hunter

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here, even if my copy is holed (remaindered ?). Note that it doesn't have the ad for the cigarettes (and no trace of it being renmoved). Hauck 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Cigarette adds were most often removed, though sometimes with damage. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Candle

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here. Hauck 17:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Job. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaleidoscope century

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here. Hauck 17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here. Hauck 10:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

date of cover art for Quest for the Future

Hi Harry. Your Quest for the Future cover as interior art is dated 1972-10-00, but the parent cover is dated 1972-11-00, matching the pub's date. --MartyD 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. Much Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Star fall

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here. Hervé Hauck 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most Delightful! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

date for cover of Space, Time, and Nathaniel

Hi again. FWIW, your Space, Time, and Nathaniel cover as interior art has no month (1971-00-00), but the parent cover has May (1971-05-00) for the first edition, the month apparently cited in a later printing. --MartyD 12:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction submitted. Apologies, may be more as BP only gave approximate dates and most of my personal research to make sure did not cite months so I apparently missed the months. Still could not/ will not match many as many did not meet 'surety' checks. Humbly sorry, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing to be sorry about. I don't mind at all. I'd be "nice" and just change them, but I realize that the dates will not necessarily match. So I'm left with telling you about them and letting you decide if action is needed. --MartyD 12:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of my problem is that many British publishers do not use months, so months are added from other sources, my 'head' knows this and I flinch from putting months in. I have found a work around and will open the edit button on the "ultraterrarium title entry" to check month, do a change if necessary, and then make the link. Obviously I am wondering if just showing year in art records was/is wise. Still, I hope to cut down on 'errors'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

mis-link "A Princess of Mars" vs. "New Worlds 6"

Hi Harry. Should A Princess of Mars cover as interior art really be a variant of New Worlds 6's cover as your submission proposes? I put it on hold. Thanks. --MartyD 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Big mistake. I must of missed my copy click and the old one stayed loaded. Will cancel submission and resubmit, hopefully correctly. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another one: Alien Way (to the same New Worlds 6 cover). --MartyD 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lost Worlds: Volume 2 to Earthworks also looks like a paste-o from the immediately prior submission of Earthworks to Earthworks.... (?). --MartyD 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stopping submissions till I see all the damage. Wondering if the copy function is clearing (possible mouse problem?). I am wondering "what the hey" since I actually am checking the book and visually the art and then coming back to copy number. Thanks for catches. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Hutchins approved the rest of them, so nothing else from me. --MartyD 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I read this after seeing there were two submissions on hold. All the ones I approved that followed those holds were good matches. Mhhutchins 03:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you would catch problems if there were there! :-) Harry, I have left those others on hold as placeholders for you. --MartyD 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I canceled the two holds after linking them correctly. Appreciate all the work involved in checking, thanks to everyone. Re-Checked Bruce Pennington links and found everything correct. TG. So that is good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Open question. How do you connect or should you connect same art with different titles. In this case "Earthworks" original use and "Ultraterranium" the art book. My inclination is not to link as it may lead to mis-identification of what the material contains. (even though it would be under cover art, I can see confusion arising). Therefore do I make a note in Earthworks to the effect that the art is reused elsewhere? Not under the novel title or it's notation, but under the cover art title field? Bruce Pennington site shows the problem and his solution, [4]. Go down to where four covers are grouped (Black Gate; Adventures in Fantasy Literature no 12, Flashing Swords! 2 and then two titles in German, one Fritz Leiber and the other Glen Cook). I know everyone, especially Bill Longley, knows the word for it, (does not stick in my head), but I am wondering if we need a policy statement to curb or allow linking between this type of art? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One man's opinion: It doesn't seem to me any different than the case of different titles on the same written work. I'd link them as variants and add a note in the variant title record about the original usage. Even though the note is somewhat redundant, it'll help eliminate confusion both now and in the future. --MartyD 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I will bend a minute and do so at some point when I have them in my fumble-fingered grasp. I really appreciate your response as you are the art link Doyen! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I call the hunting for cover matches "cover Pelmanism" after the card game - called "Pairs" or "Concentration" elsewhere. I must admit I hadn't really considered how to record such here - variants are of course a possibility, but determining a canonical title would probably be an even worse problem than normal. Worth an experiment though. BLongley 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Counter-Measures or Countermeasures

Can you recheck the title of this pub? Every source I've checked gives the title as Countermeasures. Perhaps the dash on the front cover is there to hyphenate a long word. Is it titled differently on the title page? What is the copyright title, or perhaps the running header? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Into the bubbling pot of pitch we go! The Title page has the title in 5/8 inch font Counter- (over) Measures. Front cover has 3/4 inch font with Counter- (over) Measures. Spine (almost 1 1/2 in. across) has horizontal title in 1/4 inch font with Counter- (over) Measures. Countermeasures on add page opposite title page, "Acknowledgments" uses 'Countermeasures' in first word of paragraph, the running header starts on page 15 and ending on page 715 and uses 'Countermeasures'. So, yes the title was probably hyphenated for the use of font, but I went with the rule of 'as is' on title page. Note that the M in Measures was capitalized in the hyphenated format. So the pretty pickle says the author wrote a novel titled "Countermeasures", but the publisher, editor, or copywriter corrected that on the title page, front cover and spine. Or possibly the cover design specialist started it all while expressing the dynamics of that field of endeavour, as the title page is often a partial or full reprint of the front cover. I have no dimes in the betting circle, so any 'correction' is all right with me, (as long as you do it). I have too many dither wobbles when trying to rationalize my own exceptions to rules for the correction or interpretation of such. All smiles. You know I love this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And you know how much I hate publishers who have no concern whatsoever about us bibliographers! :) Since we've set the standard to be what's printed on the title page regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary, (and the capital "M" seems to make it clear that the cover designer had no idea, or didn't care, what the title of the novel was), we'll stick to its present form. I still believe we should change the title record to what we both agree would be the author's intended title (Countermeasures), and leave the publication record as Counter-Measures without creating a variant record. How does that sound to you? Mhhutchins 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Submitted. Notice you changed the other DAW. Smart move. Frankly, it makes better sense. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I figured yours would be identical to the first printing, and thought the records should match. Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Magician:Master

Changed Out Story so far to Our Story so far in Magician:Master based on my later printing. If they actually changed it between printings feel free to yell at me. Also My sixth printing has 0-553-25646-7 on the copyright page but 0-553-26761-2 on the back cover bar code. Does your copy have the same number both places? Dana Carson 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are most correct in changing it to "Our Story So Far . . .". Thanks, greatly. ISBN 0-553-25646-7 on copyright page, back cover, inside front cover, and bottom spine. 25646-7 on pricing line at top left front cover going up. So yours is the changed ISBN, but since both are on yours it may have continued after and of course the 5th may also have dual ISBN's. Very good Catch. Thanks again for correction and note, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Slitherers with Leeches from Space

Hi Harry. I accepted your The Slitherers with Leeches from Space submission, but I think there's a mistake in the content additions. I'm pretty sure from your notes that Leeches from Space (reprint) should be INTERIORART, not SHORTFICTION? --MartyD 12:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent catch. I got lost trying to find out more, still flumoxed at what the 'introduction' says. Got lost in Great Britain, so there you go. Submitted change. Thanks, Greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Playgrounds of the Mind (date)

Locus lists the date for the second printing of [this] Playgrounds of the Mind (Tor 0-812-51695-8, Apr ’96 [Mar ’96], $5.99, 696pp, pb, cover by David Archer) Reissue (Tor 1991) collection of fiction and non-fiction. Second printing. Changed the date and added a brief note. Also deleted the OCLC reference as they don't list a second printing, just a first. Probably part of a cloning? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All good, but you do have me wondering. I thought OCLC references were to the title and therefore any subsequent printing would still be usable? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Usable OCLC records are quite specific to years and often have the printing statement which includes the month and even a number line [rare] so no they don't have generic title records other than the odd 'stub' left over from pre-release data (much like our records generated from Amazon). Occasionally I'll leave a record number in if it provides an artist from an earlier printing, but that's rare as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

McCaffrey's Restoree

Concerning the submissions adding Corgi editions to this title: I'm assuming these are based solely on the printing history stated in a later edition. How certain are you that each of them has the same ISBN? Also, would the note that the cover artist isn't credited be applicable for all of these printings? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I went all over checking? LOL I checked on the ISBN, the break seems to be at the 1976 printing as the next is reprinted 1977. There is some overlapping, but the ISBN held firm after 1980. Since the 94 ISBN was even used on a few 70's and 76, I found the pattern pretty clear. As for the cover artist not credited, I did not think much about it, but my logic center says if they do not credit all the way to 94, which drives me crazy for trying to find the artist, then why would they intermittently? ( I scanned ABE intensely for an artist). In neither case am I vested in those items. My real interest is to get the printing schedule in the record. Feel free to remove data that seems extraneous. I would love it though if an offended owner/user picked up the cues and told me the artist was credited in another version. LOL. I also left some of the pics in because they were overwhelming those years, but started deleting when I felt the likelihood less. As most always I bow to the saner view, as mine is fogging with the back and forth required (Pixilation Syndrome). LOL. Sorry, if it irritates. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Submissions approved. Thanks for explaining the thoroughness of your research, and for understanding the reason for my questions. Mhhutchins 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The warrior's apprentice

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here and add mention of the excerpt, even if it's only one page long (I hope it's the correct usage). Hervé Hauck 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! As for excerpts, it looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Call from a distant shore

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here, same for Flesh and Silver. Hauck 14:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Both work well! Thanks, for the improvement! Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Busby's All These Earths

Hauck has added a cover image and did a second verification for this pub. Mhhutchins 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Return to Mars

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here. Hauck 17:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, but I would have gone with a different artist/art. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Key out of Time ktb

New image for [this] and cover artist from [here] with note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good find. Jane Frank agrees 1964 Valigurski. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetopia

Replaced the amazon cover on your verified here. Hauck 14:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better than my original. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fall of the Families

Added "The Ballad of John Death Elliott" to The Fall of the Families as that's a significant difference between the Grafton and VGSF editions. BLongley 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I bow to your wisdom, as truthfully the book is set up somewhat askew to my perceptions. You have the other editions so you would know. Poetry adds in front or behind leave me askant. Thanks for your clarification of viewpoint. Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the huge page-numbering difference seems to be down to typeface. The VGSF editions seem to be better organised: e.g. the covers match up. But they drop the Ballad. BLongley 21:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering WHY I have two editions of "The Fall of the Families" now, and think I must have been given a bonus book by Brian Ameringen, as both came out of that last massive shopping trip box. BLongley 21:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Time Search

Added an image to [this] and don't see this as Gaughan's work. Think Ace just too cheap to re-set the artist typeset. Can't see a signature... ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. And I questioned this here, [5]. After doing it though, I know question whether if it was an experiment in the 'scope' of the artist? Jg was so prolific that there may be many surprises to come, but the running man scene is different. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordeal in Otherwhere

New image (broken link) for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Most gracious. You have provided a review of what I thought of the artist and this effort is probably worthy of greater study. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ralestone Luck

[This] now has the correct image. The cover is signed "Victoria" bottom left corner. Did a minor tweak on the notes for that. The Norton site has very good images (mostly). ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Emshwiller Infinity X 2

About the foreword and introduction in this pub: ordinarily the title of the book is only added to a generic title for disambiguation. Because each of these pieces are individually titled, the appendage is not necessary. One more thing, if you're able to change a content title from a pub record, you can avoid several submissions: adding the new title, removing the old title, deleting the orphan title record, etc. The add/remove method is only required if there is another pub that contains the title record as a content. These can't be edited in a pub edit (they're greyed out.) If content records are not greyed out, they can be edited at the pub level. This will save you time and submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Also duly noted. LOL. I went too long because I was irritated, especially after I realized that "Endnotes" were notes, as are quite common in books. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wheel of Stars

Think the artist's name in [this] record is a mutilation of Victoria Poyser?? I don't have the pub to check. I can see the stylish "Victoria" on the image, which is consistent with Ms Poyser. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jane Frank's "Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary" lists under Victoria Poyser, under books illustrated "Wheel of Stars (Tor,1984)". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Record updated. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Witch World

Almost had a date for [this] from OCLC but Locus mag. confirms the previous printing as a '74. The artist credit as "JB" is missing the little bar that joins the J-B. There is actually three initials so JHB. This same signature was later expanded so that the 'H' was separate [wish I could point to one but after 20 minutes of searching through many shelves I can't find the one cover I know is like this]. As yet I haven't found ANY site/reference as to who the artist is. I thought I had had a discussion with Willem about this but can't find it on any of his pages, even the archived ones. Can you tell this artist bugs me??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully, the art reminds me of Davis Meltzer. Perchance this is the one you are thinking of [6]. or Warlock of the Witch world [7]. Sorry no help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Star Road

Can you double check the gutter code on The Star Road. In my copy it looks like "D 22". They might have had a new print run a week later if it sold a lot better than they expected I guess. Dana Carson 09:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to D 22. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The dragon never sleeps

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hervé Hauck 13:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Most Grateful. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Star rigger's Way

Added a cover scan for your verified Star Rigger's way. Hervé Hauck 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sky Ripper

New cover scan for Sky Ripper. Dana Carson 08:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Far Traveler

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 12:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Aw definition"?

Harry, what is "Aw definition.", in the new notes for The Best of Sci-Fi—Two? No coffee yet, so apologies if the answer should be obvious. --MartyD 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Memory access signal denied. Sorry, LOL, was that a notation under "Quake, Quake, Quake"? In any case, I believe my remark to mean that research is required to 'define' the actual content. It usually means, I am putting out feelers to get more data, but I believe my message to Swifritter today explains part of it. I (unfortunately) have started dropping clues that further research is needed on some items. Bad habit, but if I forget to follow up, what do you do? Please no apologies for asking questions or for rebukes. I am too often wild and need to be checked (and appreciate your efforts). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

note typo in Hunting Party?

Should "1975" in Hunting Party's notes should be "1995"? --MartyD 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1995 is correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --MartyD 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Most thankful, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Bulmer cover art

While browsing through the Kennerh Bulmer section, I noticed some cover art credited to two similar names. In the Hook section, #3 Star City by Pinnacle, lists the cover art by Dick Coufield. #4, Virility Gene by Pinnacle, lists the cover art by Dick Kohlfield. Although #1 and #2 are similar, neither is credited with any artist. Can you advise. Thanks. Sfbooks52 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not much help, I listed the names as used in each printing. It is undoubtedly the same person, but real proof is lacking. Worse yet, Pinnacle used house artists (assumed) and finding who did anything is a real bear, unless you find a site. I am a rabid Bulmer fan and member of the Yahoo Group "Kregen" . Someone there may have better information. Ken Bulmer, was much more prolific than has generally been known. I believe that series went 7 more in German. The "Kregen" group has people who intimately knew the author and may have information. Yes #1 & #2 probably are by "Kohfield", but I have no solid sourcing. Glad you are in group. I will talk you to death, so I will cut short in order for you to ask more? If you darest! Hopefully this may have helped. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Vision of Tomorrow #4

You'll have to remove the record for the Gillings piece ("Science Fiction Weakly") from the pub record. Then you'll have to delete the orphaned title record. You could have saved these submissions by simply changing the title of the content record during the publication update. Remember, if the content record is editable within a publication edit (not greyed out), it's best to do it then to avoid future submissions. If there was no piece by Gillings titled "Science Fiction Weakly" in the publication, but there was one titled "The Impatient Dreamers: The Story of British Science Fiction" there's on problem with editing the title during the publication edit. More than likely, "Science Fiction Weakly" was part of the original pub record by mistake or was the name of a column or series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I really was not sure it was, until I searched the magazine. I do it page by page and by the end it was obvious. But still really "Weakly", I had to look again. An oddity of the article is the ToC listed a (4), which is still makes no sense. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just took a look at Miller and Contento's magazine index. They give Gillings column (of which this is the fourth) an overarching title of "The Impatient Dreamers". They also give the names of each issue's individually-titled essay, the one in this issue being "Science Fiction Weakly". Does your copy of the issue not give a title to the essay other than the column title? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, oddly. 4: Science Fiction Weakly, which looks just like the section of an article, but not like a title. Three from last line. "To me it seemed more of a case of Science Fiction Weakly: a project ill-conceived and embarked upon without any real appreciation of the factors involved." How fitting. Will reformat. Now I know why I hate newspapers again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I think it is a feature section, since #8 is done by John Carnell with one separate title article and another by William F. Temple with his own article title. Sorry only four issues of the run to check, but that is how it looks now. Giddings may have wrote all the rest or NOT. In any case after two cancels, I think I may have formatted it more usefully or not? Give it a thought please, and will go any way that you think makes most sense. As for "4: Science Fiction Weekly" being a title instead of an article header, it sure beats the bj out of me. Thanks most ruefully, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily, columns are placed into a series with the name of the column. Each essay in the column is then given its individual title. See how it's handled in Vision of Tomorrow #1. Another thing, I'm looking at Miller/Contento's magazine index and it appears that all of the issues are dated by month on the front cover. How are they dated inside on the masthead? We usually give volume and number in the title when an issue is not internally dated. For example, it would be Vision of Tomorrow, April 1970 instead of Vision of Tomorrow, Vol. 1, No. 7". Mhhutchins 02:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, timeliness varies with internet problems. Apologies, but I have seen so many variants, even daily, on how magazines were/are done that my mind is boggled on the issue. 1) In my book ToC it is listed as "Special Colour Feature". Now I checked and the features are anonymous and therefore non-standard (Surprise! LOL). This one is the only authored feature, which I think of as an article. The others, are questionable, as one is a voting form for "the Merit Award", another is the fantasy review, which breaks into book reviews, with my suspicion that they may not be original, but I have no proof. Meet the authors, are bios, without crediting and hence I thought of some interest. "Coming Next Issue" which is also a listed feature, is a bare bone advertisement for next issue. Thus pardon me, but Harbottle is much like Ackerman and did as he wished and fire the bridges thereafter. I have forgotten how you connect things into the bracketed [The Impatient Dreamers], note the "; The Story of British Science Fiction" disappeared by April printing. 2). Masthead, what an interesting term, try cellarblock? Here goes as it is. Vision of Tomorrow, Vol. 1 No. 4, January , 1970. Published monthly by Ronald E. Graham (Publishers) ((addresses, cost, ©, )). Below that is an "Editorial Address". So I included vol 1 no 4 and not m/y. I have no problem with including it, but my example was just #4, which does not serve well (IMO). April, June, August follow the above formats, and so should we change to "Vision of Tomorrow, Vol 1 No 4, January, 1970" or "Vision of Tomorrow, Januray 1970"? In any case Amazon is all over the place, most ABE searches produce one or nulls, but search "Ronald E. Graham" and you get some. So, our standard whatever it is will be just as bad as all the others. Masthead, maybe I miss something if we are talking top of page. January is Vol 1 (far left side, top page) (spacing) Number 1 (far right side, top page). Below that is a stylized VISION with OF Tomorrow spaced exactly below it. Below that are two columns ToC and editorial, below Contents (separation line) Editor (over) Publisher (separation line) what I called a 'cellarblock' (over) Editorial Address. As for appearance, April, June, August go with "large black block with Vision (spaced over) Of Tomorrow (spacing to right top) Volume 1, No. 7 (over)(wide spacing down) Editor: (over) PH (over) Publisher: (over) REG (over) Art Consultant: (over) EJ (over) Cover painting by: etc Things TO Come below Title Block, (black bar Line) (over) Contents listings then (black bar line) cellarblock as in January. Round UP) Yes month on cover followed like this April 5/-. Summary) As you know I am as "A" as they come for what I see, but I try to normalize things, so if number is in title then volume had to be and if we want the date it is as above, unless we 'standardize' to a norm, other than visual. I wish this was simple, but like Perry Rhodan, I think not. LOL. I am open to any suggestion, as regularization does make it easier. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter Gillings, may be as important as Harbottle and Ackerman. I read the article (#4) and he has a lot of British SF history involvement. I bought these four at a 'fire sale' price, because I had run into a Harbottle reference and thought 'what the heh?'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The bracketed designation is based on the title record being placed into a series. Edit the title record of the content (not the pub record), and there's a field for Series. Place "The Impatient Dreamers" (without the quotes) into that field. If the columns are numbered you can put that number in the next field. What I refer to as the masthead is any statement of the publisher, date, volume number, addresses, etc. It's usually on the contents page, but I've seen it on the last page before the back cover in some cases.

The title field of magazines can be tricky, but the common standard follows this priority: 1). If the issue is dated (as month or season) anywhere in the issue itself, enter the title as "TITLE, MONTH YEAR" see or "TITLE, SEASON YEAR" see. Volume numbering is placed into the notes field. 2). If the issue contains no date (disregarding any copyright year), but numbered (either as an issue number or volume number), enter the title as "TITLE, #1" see. 3.) There are rare cases where a magazine is so identified by its issue number that both are given in the title, so they're entered as "TITLE #1, YEAR". see. Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 21:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein's Time Enough...

According to Locus #234 (June 1980), this printing was published in May 1980. Mhhutchins 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird Tales, November 1948

Good Morning - I've made a few small changes to your verified pub:

• I increased the page count from 98 to 100. This help page indicates that we should include both covers in the page count for magazines.
• I added the Hannes Bok illustrations for the masthead on the contents page and the "Weird Tales Club". Both these illustrations are signed "Bok".
• I also added the "Weird Tales Club" column. This one is a little iffy, but I've added it to other issues.
• I added Fred Humiston's first name to the illustration for "Ghostlings".

There is also one change that I'd like to suggest, but I wanted to get your opinion first. I've entered several of Coye's Weirdisms pictorial features. In most cases, as in the one for this issue, there is a word or phrase in the first sentence of the essay that is in all caps. I've taken that emphasis to indicate a subtitle. If I was entering this issue from scratch, I would have titled these "Weirdisms: Witch or Wizard". If you agree, I'd like to go ahead and change the title. If not, I think we should at least change it to "Weirdisms (Weird Tales, November 1948)" to prevent somebody from trying to merge it with one of Coye's other "Weirdisms" titles. Let me know if you agree.

I'll also mention that I think the illustration on page 51 is likely the work of L. Robert Tschirky. However, my reason for that assertion is that he is the illustrator of Without Sorcery and it looks to me, by the placement of the horizontal lines, as if that illustration is part of the ad for that book rather than illustrating the preceding story. As an advertisement, I'm not sure I would have included it, but I've no strong objections to its remaining.

Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 12:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Morning Ron! Magazines are always a learning experience for me. Forgot special page rule. Good catch. Great catch on Bok, sometimes I see them and sometimes not, but they are worth adding. Adding club columns or award columns is great as long as they catch your an editor's eye. So, no problem, the same with book cover ads, if the editor thinks they make you think about them. I am suspicious that some may be the only image available. Adding artist first name does not bother me, but having seen other things it must to others, but good enough for me. Names are important and full names tell a lot more. BAM, By All Means, do the Coye as I did not have enough data to work it out better. Please add a note on L. Robert Tschirky, as that is relevant IMO. This is a 'catch the eye' type of thing, but such often leads to me purchasing something, so I assume it affects others also. TG you checked my entry, I only bought a copy to check out what they were like, and then had to enter it. It is an orphan at my place. So, feel free to take over the primary or modify it as you wish for clarity. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. I've only added a note about Tschirky. I've checked books that have his covers or illustrations and in all cases he signs his full last name. If we had something more definitive, I'd change the credit as well. I've also made the changes for the Coye items as discussed. I'll only take the first primary if you really want me to. I don't mind being the second primary. I only started collecting Weird Tales in the last year or so and I'm having great fun looking for issues and entering them here. Thanks again for your response (and for your usual detailed notes). --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 04:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The wind from the sun

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The expediter

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Diadem from the stars

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here, the previous scan was probably for a later printing. Hauck 16:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Test

Seeing if my fix worked. Mhhutchins 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK now. Mhhutchins 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stainless Steel Rats

Far too nuanced for me first thing in the morning, I just want you to know.... I hope I correctly understand what you're doing!

I changed the date on 313536 from 1986 to 1982 to match the notes. --MartyD 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the date on 313537 from 1986 to 1981 to match the notes. --MartyD 11:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the date on 313538 from 1986 to 1980 to match the notes. --MartyD 11:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is £1.95 correct for 1982 and 1984, or a paste-o carryover from 1986? --MartyD 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No the price is probably incorrect. No way to check pricing. The Pics, ISBN, cover artist are good, but price should blank. Of course, the year should change. Good catches. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the prices. Thanks. --MartyD 10:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Now the missing printings between Bill's and mine with the same ISBN and pics are good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Starbridge series

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and here and here. Hauck 09:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

All Good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

date details

Did you mean the publication date on this to be 1996 instead of 1997? --MartyD 11:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Correction submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Science Fiction Terror Tales, second printing

Based on your submission, that's one seriously messed up printing! I guess the next question is whether your copy is a one-off or whether the whole run was similarly mutilated. I don't have this book in my collection, but we could ask on the Verifications page and see if anyone else has a copy lying around. Ahasuerus 05:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Submitted, but am wondering if we get no confirmation or opposite, which leaves the question open, is there a Black List for problem vers?. I actually would not think it much of a problem if the stories had been complete. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reurrection

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The City Who Fought x 2

Do you suppose Bluesman's Locus- and OCLC-verified TCTWFT1995 and your primary-verified THCTWHFGHB1995 entries for The City Who Fought are the same edition? --MartyD 13:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about it and now again, but it should not be. Mine is a reprint in same year 1995. Reprinted 1995. His should be the "First published in Great Britain by Orbit in 1995" coupled with "This edition published by Orbit in 1995". Both quotes my book for the same first printing or first quote for the expensive edition and the second for the pb first printing. I personally loathe WorldCat, but I get these numbers Orbit 1995 60107705 for 1857232607 and (separate entry) 32130173 for 1857232607. Both records have no other differences. Then Orbit 1993 224255289 for 1857232607. Guessing, which is why I hate WC the 93 should be the expensive international copy, but that does not match the copyright page statement. The other two, may be the first printing and the second printing, but they did not difference them. Bluesman told me that the records are supposed to be specific to the printing, but I can not find this so in this (these) cases. So when I 'cloned' I removed OCLC, as per Bluesman comments recently in talk page. Since I am a second printing reprint, I can not use any of the above records due to no totally matching data. If this confusing, say so and what, and I will try to parse it finer. Note British books usually do reprints not 2nd,etc and thus WorldCat needs to note that fact for records. If we are still confused, maybe we should bring the topic to a help page and ring in Bill Longley and Bluesman. One of my irks, is that WC can/does change the data, opening this type of question up. Do NOT let me confuse you, as we have 'avatars' who understand WC much better than I. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Locus is more problamatic, if they state first printing then the record should be for the one I cloned from, but if they stated second printing then it is mine. If they did not notice or parse, then my date could be March, but more likely later that year. Again, Locus says what it says and misses what it does miss or to be more precise note in their listing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Figured I should ask while noticing it. --MartyD 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Always ask or HOLD. I just happen to have some reasoning on this, but still I thing WC needs to fix it's end. My curiosity was aroused also before you asked, I found the WC notation confusing and the dates for a high cost and paperback cost book on same year/time confusing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Queen of Zamba

Replaced the FF scan on your verified here and added excerpt at the end. Hervé Hauck 21:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tower of Zanid

Uploaded scan of your verified here and addes notes. Hauck 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Merges of "A Map of the World of Conan in the Hyborian Age"

Harry, I put two of your merges of instances of "A Map of the World of Conan in the Hyborian Age" on hold. In each pair, one of the titles no longer exists. I don't know if this is because the first merge did something to those automatically or if something else is going on. I'm going to have to reject them, but I wanted to leave them in place for you in case there's something that needs to be redone or done differently. Let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I will cancell. The problem is that map is reproduced much more often than we show and the credits are varied, and I do not have for instance, the PHD, reference (I think it is repeated in the 1-10+ series, but I do not have them all)(Also, reprint quality varies tremendously, probably leading most to shun it). So someone will have to work to make it make join smoothly. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Perry Rhodan #!: Enterprise Stardust

While approving the cover image addition to Perry Rhodan #!: Enterprise Stardust, I noticed "#!" instead of "#1" in the pub title. I see the cover image uses "1". Shift-o? --MartyD 12:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you're way ahead of me. --MartyD 12:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

date for PR #14

Your proposed merge of 898386 and 1103917 wants to drop the 1972 in favor of 1976. This looks wrong to me. What do you think? --MartyD 12:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the date should be 1972. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Eggheads

Replaced the FF scan on your verified here and added excerpt at the end. Shouldn't the title be written _EggHeads_ (with capital in the middle) by analogy with _GodHeads_ ? Hervé Hauck 21:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you gave me thought. The header agreed, not a good one, but the series is "Heads" and GodHeads is done that way, so I believe you are right. I submitted a title record change and a title change to "EggHeads". Very good catch. You will probably find more goofs that I have done on this, as I paid little attention to such, until lately. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am supposed to say that 'we' go by the title on title page and not by comparisons, but it helps to have other comparisons. Thanks, again, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I did verify the title page before asking you ;-). Hervé Hauck 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interior art variant titles

This is almost the same as doing a merge. Do you have actual visual proof that these illustrations are the same?--swfritter 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an interior art attributed by title, year, author. If you verified parts [1],[2],[3], etc I can not match to that exactitude, but I believe it matches as close as anything else, i.e. story title to story title, by author is less of a match, IMO. Do you wish to have interior art entered as scans for the greatest exactitude? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the match is story author, year, title, and artist. A four factor match. Those where this site does not show the artist are not being matched. One though, I believe was title, artist, but that worked out to only one possibility match. Note also without a verifier adding all the art images matches to be exact is impossible, but I did use the first reference, first sequence in serial items to narrow it to the story/artist header. All this may seem complicated, but the idea is to get 'little gray cells' churning in the users to get the material, even if they have to make demands that reprint, etc. become available. Though this may seem a low probability, I personally have been intrigued enough to locate and buy some (several ouches), though magazine issues are generally prohibitively priced and frankly condition is an issue along with viable storage limitations. Another dynamic of correlation is the images used in the source are usually, almost always, far superior. Also, note that some of the art is being recanned with other titles and colorized. Another intriguing variation of cause/effect/availability. Another intriguing sidebar is that 'Emshwiller' stated that often the art was purchased without subject and the writers were asked to hack out possible stories. As time goes on more evidence and connection will ensue. Woe for the lack of time to read all that is written and to the almost certainty that much is beyond reasonable reach, but these time capsules art images are more readily available and reach into the miasma of lost stories. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with merges/variant title manipulation of interior art data is that there are two valid methodologies of entering interior art data. The editor is allowed to make only one entry even if there are multiple pieces of art or they may enter each individual piece of art. If the first method were the only method used then merges or variant title relationships would be valid. But what do you do if one editor has used the first method and another editor has used the second? Also, some editors may find one piece of art so insignificant or repetitive that they don't enter it. Or not all of the art from the original story may not be reprinted. We are talking an awful lot of work and I quite simply don't have time to honor verification requests or scan the art, a process which also wears out the magazines. I prefer using that time to try to "read all that is written" or as much as possible. In any case, before we start merging or creating variant titles of reprinted interior art we need to agree on a methodology. It might have saved a little effort if you had brought the subject up before entering the data. Thanks.--swfritter 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but though I am dense, I think your objections miss the point of getting the art established as being both in the original (whatever the parsing allowed) and reprinted, thus connecting not only the art, but the reading material, as was always intended with the 'use' of art. In all cases that I have used I have verified the connection existed before submission. I spent the time, if you do not have the time so be it. As for the other problems, those are endemic to the set-up and either should have been or could have been addressed long before this. My efforts should not be faulted or dismissed on this basis, since valid connections can be made. Your objections really boils down into this is a 'future' problem to be resolved whenever. My problem is that the material exists, the connection is stated and it can be shown, thus hopefully resurrecting the material as opposed to archiving it totally. The more that is shown and developed the greater the resources become. As for doing something without commenting, I have, the transition from cover art and smaller bits of interior art was put forward months ago

I have looked for this discussion but can't seem to find it. Where? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There were two instances in Broecker. I requested review, but to me, this was the same issue. [8]. The instances are pages 101 & 102. To see effect you must go to Virgil Finlay or Lawrence page and view the interior art section. I did not hide this, but I can see that it has to be looked for closely to realize I did it. Still it shows I was doing nothing new in my mind. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

and no one objected then, so I find myself amiss to your objection, other than you have no time for it. Methodology was requested, so I created it and I asked for comments, which were minimal. No objections leads to this. In summary, the 'genie' was out of the bottle previously and I do not wish the work dismissed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Harry. I am not going to back off on this one. There is no established standard in Help for handling such cases. In fact, this is essentially a merge and merges of interior art are specifically restricted for the reasons stated above. Any methodology would, to my mind, require a visual verification of artwork. I am sorry if I did not notice any previous discussions of this matter.--swfritter 14:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you are going to need to bring it up on the big screen. I also know of no "specifically restricted" ruling. So please reference, as my head is mush for finding anything through the wiki/instruction system. This is regrettable as I brought this out for art merges and this 'late' ruling is most daunting. Still, I believe your position requires you establish the rules and precedents as you have sited their failings. I find that requiring a visual verification of artwork a higher criteria than is met for books. A visual requirement would require a total word by word consensus and the tools are not there for books, not to mention art. By not allowing merging to or connecting to links you are supporting a bloat of information of the artists' work. Thus artist look much more productive. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In Pub Help. Under Entry Type - INTERIORART: --- "The multiple pieces of artwork should not be merged". This is different from story text where minor and even somewhat major differences should not stop a merge. Without careful analysis totally different pieces of artwork could end up being merged or made variants. A book only has one cover so merges of coverart are not as thorny. A story can have many pieces of art. This is a particularly vexing subject for me because I would like also to be able to merge interior art. I can't think of a sensible method that would not require a massive re-working of the data. I would like to have one entry for the art in a story with a method of indicating how many total pieces of artwork there are for the story. Frustration Level: 9 1/2.--swfritter 15:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can work together on creating a standard, perhaps a very rigid one, for doing merges/variant titles for interiorart. I own a lot of the mags in question and if you are willing to go to your usual efforts perhaps we can find a method to gradually work through the matching pieces.--swfritter 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Overall Process; Current usage for all entries. Voluntary addition of material seen to be relevant for the user/viewer information. All work submitted is 'suggested' not required. Summary; just verification of I have this is difficult. Entry of main fields is good, but it is not unusual for editor to miss items. In particular, the cover artwork, but including pricing (possible removal for sale). Artist entry is undoubtedly the greatest open item, problem is identification or mis-identification. Validation is often non-standard, including signature recognition, but also artist symbols/sigils. Process for artist needs addition of "Signature library" hot links to "key" it's availability and usage. Cover image addition/upload. Process needs reinforcement, but the difficulty of obtaining it and the editor's time expenditure is daunting. The upload link is dynamite, but the capture sequence (especially the artist name element) is disturbingly alarming. The why it must be on a personal computer and then transferred is unclear, but once you know to do that it is not bad. Thus the difficulty of uploading cover images is a precursor to doing any such for interior art. Thus #1 problem is getting a stable cover image, #2 the limited utility of doing so for interior art. Note; interior art is generally poor to terrible due to paper and reproduction factors (especially scanning interior art located in folds/creases etc). Thus, getting editors to bother with cover images is poor to moderate, doing more is almost out of the question.

Interior art documentation importance; It is not necessarily clear to modern readers/users but the interior art often 'drove' the interest of it's audience during publication. Thus, the images stirred the audience to read material, some of which is poorly written. This leads to the why of connecting/inter-connecting the art/interior art images. It is almost impossible to translate the importance of the art without visually seeing it and it is almost impossible to obtain a decent image to evaluate. Thus art book/magazine reprints give us that 'bridge' to work with. Understand that art itself for viewing is very important to the human animal as we are visual, before cerebral. Thus action/terror impact most strongly and first. My stance is that reproduced art is generally of much better caliber and reflects the artist/writer viewpoints at the inception/creation of both media (writing/art). Users need to realize that this element (art) frequently 'drove' the writing element. Thus reproduction of interior art, mostly line drawings, needs to be connected, when possible to the 'root material'. My personal basic hope is that once connected the user will leap to the necessity of reading the written portion of publications.

Linking to establish connection: Linking establishes a type of historical connection. For books it's greatest weakness is it is based on the novel/book publication (ISFDB). We most often lose the short fiction connection, even a totally different story with same title/author is needed to show the development of written material. For this DB, art is a secondary driver, usually simplistically recognized by the user/reader. (Big Note). Art to get sales is a greater driver of public reader interest than any other factor. Good writing can overcome this handicap, but great art will ensure success more than anything. Of course, bad art needs recognition, most importantly for the connection the publisher and hopefully artist had with the material.

Link connection; The most important is dating by year/month. Day needs to be eliminated as it is so sparse that it is useless. For books it is an inception availability date. For art it is primarily the publication date of that art. Cover images are the easiest to utilize, and recognition of some artist using dating can make book placement by year/month more likely. In tracking the art, we actually are tracking the publication sales effort. Great art drives great sales, but does not necessarily make the artist's work more important. Art does provide a visual handle to see the publication process. Interior art has a different emphasis on the book. It drives actual reading and reader anticipation. The graphic novel/comic has huge numbers in comparison, but also greater production costs. In the true visual reader age (approx. 1880-1970's), interior art sustained the writer. In art reprints the original year/month needs to be shown to cut confusion. Variant linking does this.

Greatest connection possible for impact; Reprint interior art is generally of much greater quality than publication interior art. The only reason that is so is the art has to 'stand alone' for evaluation in books printing it. The reasoning behind properly connecting that art to it's original art is to explain the creation process, which most often is the written material. Thus a variant link hopefully stimulates the original written material.

Establishing a process for variant link connection in art; For cover art this is easiest as the visual handle is hopefully present, though it is dependent on verifier and editor's establishing the visual element and more occasionally establishing the artist name link. Sometimes tough, sometimes easy but real work in time used. (Sidebar; Need to add for editors the use of "Images" on the search bar as a source to find cover art)(Another; Cover art is easy to establish the need for this DB usage, Interior art is itself more akin to image art theft, therefore it's posting is not recommended).

Interior art; Checking to establish it's history. The process I created to ensure validity is lengthy, and therefore if used most time consuming, which results in it's limited utility to the interest of most contributors to do. I need documentation as to what it is. Moon maid though very graphic or Alien battle are not good enough. I need a publication connection or I skip (do not enter) into contents. The ISFDB purpose to document art is in it's connection to written material, not to that art is there. With interior art visual 'Star Trek' or 'Star Wars' imagery is eye catching, but the book has to parse it to some level. (Note; I do not usually read the text material, but use captioning or Index or Art illustration text)(Essay text can easily be side-tracked, while generally if the creator bother to capture or create separate pages, it is specific to some written material). If material is titled, but that title is subjective to that book only, then it is basically valueless for documenting in contents. After publication, I need either that to be a 'unique' one use title, or a title with dating, or a title with author and dating. Thus a verification interior art subject needs to be specific to artist, title, year with author being important. Some slight variation in that artist create no new material specifically for publication after death. Some material is a legacy, but the use of death date for material rules out the creation of new material. Note, reprint material often reprints art, but that is very marginal unless at three points of connection are made, original year, artist, title/author. Visual cover art can be connected, but interior art needs to have it's history established. The weakest linking I have made is unique title of interior art to unique title written material. Note a 2000 date reuse of titling is easy to eliminate on an artist who died twenty years earlier.

What happens when the editor has artist, dating, title/author. You have to find the written material available in the data base. Thus love story titles, etc. are eliminated. If the material has been missed then it can be entered as a publication, but there must always be a publication which is valid to this DB. Marginal items like definite weird alien/horror or spaceships or atomic mushroom clouds, imply connection to this db, but not necessarily so. So I may list such in contents, but usually not (this elements quite a few gaming books). Thus I get a reference that a sample interior art is dated or titled uniquely and we have an entry, usually to a periodical, but occasionally to a book publication. Then find out if it is verified and did that include interior art. If the db shows interior art for that story, but not for artist then it is eligible for content entry for the art book, but not for the 'subject publication'. Even a general artist(s) did work in a publication, does not make for a good Variant linking candidate. Notation in the subject material is possible if it is not verified or a query is possible to a verifier, but the researching editor is asking a lot of work of a verifier who may not be amiable to the extra work involved. Notation in the origin publication source though is fairly good, as it establishes a possible linkage of material. Note; this also bothers many editors as you use up there site with many small messages to keep them inform. Hopefully, I do not wear them out. If I can find material to establish the entry of a publication, I do so, but I need lot's of data to 'originate' that need, thus many pre 1930's publications are not entered in the db. Obviously if the source publication gives inaccurate data it is hard to match for linking. Often, especially in cover art material, the date is actually the commission date of the art work and precedes the publication date by a year, once known that you can work with it, but sometimes a book publication is delayed for two years and relationship assurity is harder to come by. Thus the db, amazon.com, and ABE missing having a relevant year leads to no connection. Sorry, process is long, and often not fruitful, but when you connect artist to publication to author and year and find it in the DB, then the editor has a eureka moment. This is a candidate for linking.

Greatest problem; You have made the connection that the source art should be in a publication, but that publication shows several pieces of art 'entitled' to the title/author source you have looked for. Do you have #1, #2 or etc. The Big Rethink: then ensues. While the ultimate eureka moment would allow you to see the interior art for a visual confirmation, but many factors cause that to be practically impossible. The art could be copyright covered, making it impossible to make images of, a great deal of effort by the owners to make those images even then, not very likely. You have to realize that often the interior art is almost always going to be a very limited likelihood of being available, but the art is available in a more recent printing. What do you make a variant link to; It reduces you to the same level as Bleiler reached in serial printing of stories, you record the first page, and not the rest of the start pages in later serial publications. What is important to the DB user. Is it more important to be exact, when it is almost totally impossible or do you link to the first image as the 'dominant' reference point. With all these factors it is unreasonable to make 1 for 1 connections, but the drawing of attention that a reprint source reflects on the original interior art establishes a bond on common interest. Hopefully it sparks some interest in reading the written component of most interior art. Often the reprint source interior art is spectacular in comparison and can be much more complete. At some point you have to decide is it more important to make a link or forget it. What does it do for the DB. The greatest factor is it makes it easy to establish a reprint source connection to an original source. To me it is like looking at a road sign. Interior art is here and here, but the written material for that art is definitely at this point. Then it begs the question of do I read or not that material.

My process; So I check the reprint source book, check the title/author and establish it is relevant to the DB and documented in DB. At that point, I deviate for ease of referencing it. I enter the title as used in the DB of that art. Example from "Virgil Finlay's Far Beyond" page 39. Book states; Arc of Fire, John Hawkins, 1943 on that page. I change that to read in contents "Ark of Fire (Complete Novel)(reprint)". The editor misspelled title, but I am not creating a pseudonym for that and I am adding how it is documented in the DB. I have thus found it by year, author, title. I committed the sins of change, because there is no real use to recording variations created at unknown points, but there is value in knowing what it supposed to be as recorded in the DB. So now I am here [9]. I find that "Ark of Fire" has several pieces of art displayed, but none have images, nor specifics in notation to select from. What is important? Can not store the image I am looking at and can not expect any one to do so for the original. I have entered in the source book contents, and thus it shows under the artist, as one of many referring to that original art work title. What is the primary purpose of the 'variant linking' to show a relationship, not necessarily a 100% one, as we know editors often changed written material and so it is with visual, as well established with cover art. If I connect to the first art am I saying it is identical or am I saying it is a part of this series of art work? I would like to be identical, that is impossible, but by making a connection I am drawing the user to the primary object which is both the writing and the art (basically inseparable in magazine sources). If I went the opposite way, I would be doing the art old to the art new, not good for DB whose purpose is to support the reader, but retain what the art contributes. I then ask for a variant link between and establish the date at the original art and the story of that year printing. What does this do on the artist page? It moves a reprint source, titled and dated, from a separate column to a variant of the original primary art. I thus am emphasizing that connection, etc. Should I link? I think so, but then I have traveled many twists and turns to 'see' the relationship, not the art.

Art not done (example), page 38. "Too Late!, Hugo Gernsback, 1961" and I got nowhere and did not enter it in contents. Problems I have some art, but is it described to a degree to lead anyone anywhere? No.

Value/impact; Like most things you either get art or not. If you are a reader, hopefully, it is slightly satisfying and hopefully makes them read the material (central purpose of art used by publishers). Is it worthwhile to do? Damn tiring, at the least. I do not envision many editors or moderators going to these lengths to make links. As an object of research, though, I envision that it starts the ball rolling for someone with greater assets to complete. Till someone puts all those old magazines onto the net, what do you do? You start it and you try to make it clear what you did, and then you put your trust that someone gets it all correct. So any data is good data, as long as it does not confuse or destroy the object of the db.

As a process, what more could I do? I can not say, but you never know when I will have an epiphany and try some new angle. Needs refinement, most definitely, but are the tools there?

In a sense each book demands we do as much 'justice' to it as we can, for others to work on. I have several that are just too loose to get anywhere. This started as just cataloging for the DB purposes and lead to real connections to limited availability material. I have "The Drawings of J. Allen St. John", which definitely is worth looking at and describing, but the basic links for most of the material are not in the DB yet. This book has enough drawings to make an ERB fan drool foolishly. Does anyone pay attention to contents? notation? or linkages? I do, so I guess I expect it in others.

Awaiting? LOL. I think my process is rigid, but then my view point is limited. Getting input on things not of concern to others is always a problem. I know you wish a 1 for 1 relationship, but how? Is it reasonable to 'strain' editors and moderators for what is of limited value to them? While we are at it, Is it possible that we establish visual similarity as the basic objective of art merges? Over. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Air Wonder Stories are great

You beat me to the punch on the Bleiler book. If you want a really major project you might want to do as I have done for The Early Years and enter the entries for the stories as book reviews. These are not "books", of course, but reviews of short stories are valid. We have a broad umbrella for many terms. Misspelled author names, for instance, are treated as pseudonyms. Also, if you find the price of the mags in the notes in the magazines you can remove them. That is a carryover from the days when there was no specific place to put the price.--swfritter 15:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the Bleiler, but for the best effect, I have ordered Miller/Contento, and will await it's arrival to do more cross matching for effect on magazines. I had not seen that relationship, but it would be charming and easier to do than some others. To the point, though, What is the exact reasoning for B (G) on the checklist? Of course, making synopsis into reviews is the major use that I see now. So I will start it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When you come across serials that have not been printed as books you may have to do some extra processing to produce a master title via variant title processing. Let me know if that happens and I will tell you how I resolved the problem.--swfritter 16:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wanderer's Return - interior art

I started looking at some of your actual entries. The very first one I looked at was "The Wanderer's Return". In Thrilling Stories there are three illustrations for the story. But in Far Beyond only two of the illustrations are reproduced. How can you know which of the two illustrations in Far Beyond match up to the illustrations in the magazine without visual comparison?--swfritter 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are addressing this after I started the above. To simplify, without having both, no one can match them as you desire. But is that the primary purpose? I went to some length above. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We are stuck with the initial standards for entering interior art work and those standards make the whole process of merging or making variant titles of interior art work far too difficult to contemplate. The length of your commentary above indicates just how difficult.--swfritter 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but a NO type ruling, works to the disadvantage of any process. I agree it is both time consuming and dis-heartening to bring up, but at the same time, simplistic compliance with a rule set accomplishes little. Since, you are set on defending and promoting this function. I suggest you take it upon yourself to dis-honor each linkage in this manner. Open each one look at the projecting connect to site and just say this to yourself "It is of NO value to come here and see this publication" then destroy the linkage. In this manner possibly you can see the value I have found in setting up the linkage. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Dickson's Ancient, My Enemy

According to Locus #236 (August 1980), this printing was published in July 1980. Mhhutchins 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Submitted and thanks, but you really should rest your hand, arm, musculature as continued use will both continue to aggravate the problems, and I found it will transfer strain to other areas, most often the back, neck, and torso, but even to the legs. I am a wreck and know this well. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

None but Man

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #30: To Arkon!

Just wondering if this Perry Rhodan incarnation is a standalone novel or a magazine? I thought Orbit reprinted only the core novels and dropped all articles, stories, departments, etc? Ahasuerus 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am missing something, I think. Memory loss. As far as I can tell Orbit reprinted 39 translated by Ackerman published by Ace Perry Rhodan novels. Somehow, memory says that a couple had a little bit of extraneous matter, but in essence they only printed the translation. The one I worked on has nothing extra, but I am foggy on if there was something I should have deleted. As always the PR printings are conceptual nightmare. Technically the German PR was not a magazine, it was a weekly published story line sold in a quick read format. A true soft cover. The ACE PR became what some think of as a magazine, but actually could be termed an omnibus. The extra material, which was obtained cheaply, was filler after the first five numbers went from 2 novellas to one. The letters section and many of the articles were promotional shams of Ackerman to spike the sales and show greater interest, i.e. many names were associates and some (many) are suspect. Still nothing says you cannot add letters to pb formats. Orbit PR was a reprint of the Ace translations and mostly returned to novella format. Mind being foggy did I clone? or did I add to a previous non-verified entry? I thought, I went to the "To Arkon!" [10], entry and corrected the title and added notation, but since it has been milling around I have no idea what the moderator board problem might be. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that particular volume, but I'm sure it's a Book rather than a Magazine, like the other Orbit PR titles. BLongley 12:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The submission was an edit of the current Publication record rather than a clone. The two changes that I am concerned about are the Publication type change from "NOVEL" to "MAGAZINE" and the Author change from "Kurt Mahr" to "uncredited". (The expansion of the Notes section looks fine.) Since the book is a novel rather than a magazine, I don't think we want to change the author and the pub type.

In addition, you would like to change the title from To Arkon! to Perry Rhodan #30: To Arkon!. The trend has been to avoid using series information in Publication titles, but it's not a huge deal. Ahasuerus 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have approved the submission and changed the pub back to a novel by Kurt Mahr and removed the reference to the missing editor from Notes -- hopefully the result looks reasonable. Ahasuerus 04:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but you are addressing the British PR versus American PR situation. I can find them, but until they are separated like you wish and recombined into somekind of series. We will have these issues. Not vested in that I will verify the book, but am just wondering when they (British editions) will be fully entered as each has been entered differently. Check [11]. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, British PRs are a separate can of worms. The first five volumes published by Futura/Orbit were omnibuses, two novels per volume. Starting with number 6, they switched to one novel per book. We are yet to sort them out. Ahasuerus 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorting out the British Perry Rhodans wouldn't be too difficult if people 1) stopped trying to make them Magazines and 2) didn't interfere with length issues. They really mustn't be Magazines or we can't clone for reprints (if there were any). BLongley 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there were some reprints, e.g. see PR #17, and yes, the fact that they are entered as magazines makes it harder to get from Pub records to their parent Title records. It's no longer quite as hard as it used to be since you can now jump from pubs straight to the issue list, but it is probably harder and more confusing than it would be if we used Anthologies instead. Ahasuerus 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the British editions were reprinted - e.g. this is the equivalent #17. And probably could stand alone as a NOVEL with Magazine editions of that story being entered as "(Complete Novel)" SERIAL variants for instance. BLongley 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it time to move this discussion to the community portal? As far as I know, virtually all Perry Rhodans were about the same length, and should qualify as novella's. Would that make things easier? --Willem 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to widen the discussion. I'm afraid that making them Novellas might annoy me if that meant that the British Novels had to become Chapterbooks. I'm not a fan of Length over-riding publisher's intent - IMNSHO, a short Novel is still a short Novel even if that means it doesn't qualify for a Hugo or Nebula or other award that have length rules. (And some awards allow Novellas to win Novel Awards anyway.) And we note some Children's book awards too - still, I'm not aware of PR winning Children's book awards either, although they're often considered juvenile here. I'll let my comments stand - the Orbit editions are definitely Books. I'll let others consider what type of Book they are. BLongley 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the few originals I got a look at were 'novella' length, but exceeded the parameters of chapterbook. A few real chapterbooks through the Lee/Miller team are defintely a different and IMO inferior product. So let's move and ask input to establish 'working rules' which really failed on the American PR and damaged the British PR run. A little dense, I believe the RW short novel was established before the conventions to reign it into award criteria. Must move this to see if we gain conscensus and standards. I did not realize others rankle at chapterbook and obviously I do at 'novella' versus short novel standards. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But the lengthists might object to Omnibus - Collection or Anthology might be more appropriate. BLongley 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to change them, then anthologies are the most likely choice. A typical Ace issue contained one short PR novel, a few departments, a couple of stories and a serialized reprint of some 1930s story. Ahasuerus 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One review I've seen recently suggests that one Orbit PR title actually has a couple of essays and a short-story that aren't PR at all - I don't have that book and so can't compare, but it seems some Orbit PRs are a little more complex than "just did the fiction". If somebody wants to separate the British books from the American Magazines I'll look at those. BLongley 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually found a site with all 39 covers, but nobody wanted to make a separate sub-group of 'British Perry Rhodan', which then could be novel,etc. I got 'advised on length' and it definitely confounds me. When they were done they would have been termed short novels and Ace printed a horde of them as did everyone else. I also ran into an Orbit with a few extras, but think they should be put into contents and not affect the overall treatment of the Orbit PR run. It is obvious, Orbit did not want to be a clone publication, but did want to give Rhofans a British option. Much better artwork too. I currently have 6 PR orbits. I am verifing them but they are both in and out of American PR run. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found all the British PRs here, creating a few myself. See [12]. They seem to be a close match to the Ace titles. So long as those become books (of Collection, Anthology, Omnibus type, I don't care - I might object if they're made Chapterbooks) we can work it out. BLongley 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We really need to enter the original German titles and create variant title relationships for English translations before we try organizing them any further. The Ackermans cherry picked which novels they wanted to translate, so their publication order doesn't match the original order. I don't think we can untangle this mess until we have the original German titles entered and put in a series. Ahasuerus 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That just adds an extra level of confusion for me. Sort out which Novels/Novellas are in which publication first, before adding foreign language problems. I can help with the small number of British pubs, but finding those when they're a few dozen among thousands of others would not appeal. BLongley 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

After thinking some more about it, it looks like there are three separate "organizational issues" here. First, there is the order of the core PR titles, which is clearly the order in which the original German novels appeared. Second, there is the way we [should] organize the Ace magazines-aka-anthologies, which include PR novels, but are not limited to them. Finally, the UK series can be usefully thought of as a "publication series" of omnibuses and then novels with an occasional "bonus story" thrown in.

Assuming that this breakdown is reasonable, entering the original German titles shouldn't affect the way we organize the 100+ Ace magazines/anthologies or the 39+ Orbit/Future novels. I hope :-) Ahasuerus 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's no problem with entering the original German titles. I can do that (it's just copy/paste from my titlelist). I think the series should be something like the Star Trek Universe (Perry Rhodan Universe with sub-series). Connecting the translated items to the originals is no problem either, there's a nice wiki called Perrypedia where the American and British translations are linked to the original numbers. I think I can do the first 150 (hardly anything above those numbers is translated in English) in a few days if there's no objection. --Willem 09:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if no one does it before, I can do it after finishing B (G). Entry that is, connecting is a hash of back and forth as you pointed out. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you only want the translated titles, that would be an option. If you want the whole series in the database (2500+ titles), I keep a titlelist in excel, including publication dates and cover artists. --Willem 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not absolutely sure, but I believe we have to enter it with German titles in the original cyles, English translation title would be a note item. Will definitely contact you when I start, unless someone wishes to go to it. LOL I would have to check around for what I actually have. A long project it would seem. Most interested in the cover artists, especially as some like 'Bruck' cross connect. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Bruck should cross connect, he did the first 1799 cover illustrations. Perhaps we should contact Ahasuerus too before starting anything. He has been busy with Foreign Language Support, and I have been waiting (no hurry) for that to be implemented before beginning with Dutch translations or things like that. I have some (about 100) original German Perry Rhodans, and the first 1000 Dutch translations. --Willem 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A true Rhofan! Obviously, we must wait on that, but it is very good to have you here as it is hard to explain the enthusiasm of the series. Still, though what would you enter it under? Wry grim all around. BTW I read the synopsis on most and still get them regularly, but somehow I am missing something these days. For Americans Wendayne Ackerman was a great loss and from what I hear Forry also, as he changed certain things. Gucky is not the same as Pucky. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Expanding our foreign language support is currently on hold. In part it's due to my limited ISFDB time at the moment and what little time I do have is spent on keeping up with new books: I process over a thousand candidate titles every month and submit the ones that make the cut via Fixer, our robot. In addition, there are some design issue that came up when I was working on foreign languages which are yet to be resolved. Hopefully, things will improve in the next couple of months and I will have more time to work on it.

Having said that, the whole "foreign language" issue doesn't affect original titles, which are already supported in all languages, so entering the original PR titles shouldn't be a problem. Translations *into* English are also OK. It's only when we start dealing with non-English translations. e.g. Willem's Dutch translations of English or German titles, that we start running into problems and have to resort to rather ugly workarounds. Ahasuerus 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Topic created at Standards and Rules. Suggest solving the British PR subset and clarifying how to do it there. Obviously, Bill and I wish to get the British into order and Willem has material needed to get PR established in the original German, which will lead to several variants as others become involved. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Bleiler

You might want to enter the notes like this. BLongley 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

this Available on page 2, <a href="http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?GRSBCKYR1999">Blieler (Gernsback)</a>

Being an utter simpleton with coding. I am not sure what exactly to do to create this. Will the above work? Question being as it did not translate to this page for testing like it appeared. No problem though with making it easier for user, though, as long as I can store and copy to and fro. Project suggested by Swifritter, but there will be problems for awhile. Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like that, but it's "Bleiler" not "Blieler". BLongley 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested, adding Book Reviews of the story to Bleiler will accomplish the linking.--swfritter 13:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, dense this morning. I am missing something/everything. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they're exactly the same author and title they will link - see Bleiler (Gernsback) now. It's always wise to check what has linked and what hasn't - and even if they did link, did they link to the right thing? Often I've seen a review of a collection link to a short story of the same name, for instance. Thanks for attempting this anyway! BLongley 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I messed up, but the link seems to go the right place for me. I did random checks up to page 6 and they all work. Possibly I messed one up later? I will recheck tomorrow morning. Any error is mine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I approved one update adding an anchor-style ("<a href='...'></a>") link in the notes. But seeing this I'm now unclear as to whether those are still desired or if the idea is to accomplish the same linking via only the reviews mechanism. --MartyD 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I used the complex linking in some notes also, as some discrepancies between sources and it seems to me that it still has to be noted, otherwise someone sometime will do it again and refind the problems. Even if not fixed immediately, (for one I am awaiting the Miller/Contento cd), their noting gives users a handle. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviews mechanism alone seems to be enough, if we complete the links. At present I see three broken links: "The Gland Men of the Island" by "Malcolm R. Afford" is here as by "Malcolm Afford", "The Terror from the Sea" by "Robert Arthur, Jr." is here as by "Robert Arthur". "Air Road 14 by Anonymous" seems to be missing as we don't have "Scoops" v1 #4, March 3, 1934. A completely missing magazine it seems (bar one INTERIORART). BLongley 11:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And with the latest additions: "The Gravity King" by "Clelland J. Ball" we have as by "Celland J. Ball". "Bandits of the Stratosphere" appears to be another "Scoops" story. Guess I should add those. BLongley 11:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there is nothing new about it, Bleiler methodology is going to be quirky back and forth, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but that is essentially why it needs doing. The 'Malcolm Afford' author record notes the R. in real name. Second problem is that "The Gland Men of the Island" is the same story as the only other story in print by this author. Notes under 'Gland Men'. I thing making R. a pseudonym would link, but what "Day" also says Malcolm R. Afford. That Ho-Ming story is by Malcolm NOR Afford in "Day". Robert Arthur, Jr. is apparently right (D&B) and Day makes all author entries without the Jr., but the 33 story is a JR. (both). All subsequent Arthur's without Jr. Since we have no "Scoops" , I will enter the Bleiler magazine records as new magazines and hopefully someone can corral them. That should cut down some. NOTE. I already have found one story not listed in B mag section, that was listed in author sec. I just did an add. After entering scoops if there are any artist credits they will get caught up as I go through the author sec. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)New Day, new problems, etc. So. Learning. The homeless reviews show in 'italics'. Thus they are obvious and can wait, unless that gets someone. Of course, each has there own problem. I will enter "Scoops" magazine as new magazine and hopefully someone can create that 'unique' magazine formatting. Thinking what would work best is for the creation of magazine headers without data, I fill it in as it comes up and then recheck B, mag listing, but that's just me. I rather hope there are no more missing magazines. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Scoops should probably be a non-genre magazine; you can save some time by entering the magazine data first. Other reviews can be linked manually. Please note, you will come across problems after you get a lot of reviews. I think mostly because of memory/swap file issues. For the other Bleiler I started a second dummy pub. Since there are about 1800 reviews that will mean a couple of extra dummy pubs.--swfritter 13:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have Scoops expertise.--swfritter 13:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As for n-g, Vision magazine (Walter Gillings) disagreed as it sited it as the first British Sci-Fi attempt magazine. "Vultures of the Void" says 'blatantly juvenile' with titles using SF terms "Skull-Men of Planet Zlinn", "Metal Men of Zorg", "Human King Kong" and "Devilman of the Deep". First issue have titles "Master of the Moon", "The Striding Terror", "The Rebel Robots", "Rocket of Doom", etc. Does seem comic like, but I think it is not NG. Am entering first issue and you can take look. Have to work at it, check notes please for errors. Entered. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely all SF based on Contento and others.--swfritter 14:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're overlapping - I've held yours and added the INTERIORART and Notes to the one I entered from Galactic Central. If that looks OK, just add the extra details to the issues I've entered. BLongley 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill. I did not want to overly bother you, but TG you have better data. Entry from Bleiler (G) for that was difficult because he did author when it was anonymous but you knew all that. Super TG. Thus my notes gives the Bleiler vision. I cancelled mine. Hopefully, I can restart the alphabet ladder this afternoon. Your entry looks fantastic. Greatest thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like you can find a few more pseudonyms and artists than Galactic Central has. The only discrepancies between what you entered and what I did were price (it was 2 pence not 2 shillings), pagination (32 rather than 28) and Editor (I don't mind if Dimmock is Editor or Co-Editor, or even if Buley is replaced). BLongley 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bleiler changes 4/3

Did the manual links for a couple of stories including #27 which had authors first name misspelled as Celland in the DB.--swfritter 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Clelland J. Ball aka B(G), but we had it as Celland, the story is "The Gravity King". I see the first name is now corrected to as B used it. By couple stories you mean I hope two separate printings of the same story. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears so. However, Max Afford is another reason to not do all the pseudonyms just yet. BLongley 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not catch that, but I believe many authors are pseudonyms or did more work that we do not store. The terrible thing is there is so little bio material, or 'cringe' B says wrote numerous stories for X and Xaa on this kind of topic. When I see dispersals under numerous names, I really wonder. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no hurry - get the data in and we'll figure it out somehow, eventually. Or we'll die trying, but leave some good pointers. BLongley 20:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to all! LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I might also note that it is OK to enter the canonical titles and authors rather than entering the data as it is entered in the Bleiler book. It is, in fact, especially desirable for authors who otherwise end up as orphans; this is one of the exceptions to the "enter what you see" rule. The reviewed author name in the review title data should not have any pseudonym processing. I usually check first to see if the story exists and then do a copy and paste.--swfritter 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Bleiler can be eccentric. Will add notes to effect. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I deliberately worked on creating the "Reviewed Author" option for Advanced Title searches for just this "Orphan" problem. I hate those. It's a bit unclear about how people do, or should, use the results though. One for the "Exactly as Recorded" versus "Use the Practical Name" discussions - which are almost as controversial as the Lengthists versus Bookists discussions. Or canonical ISBN versus what's printed as an ISBN, or SBN, or Catalog number. Just record everything odd and we'll figure it out later. If you want to change what Bleiler apparently said to make things match, just say what he did record as well. I've seen people change reviews to match "proper" author and note it, or record "as stated" and make pseudonyms - there's a happy medium in there somewhere I think. For me, obvious typos should be corrected and noted, other rational variants should be made pseudonyms, and "Anon" is a major headache. When working at at least one remove, I'll bow to the practices of those with primary sources, or notable secondary sources. I need to find an excuse to escape here someday. BLongley 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad there is something to try to get it right. I have just started a Rethink on Bleiler, basically it is that the work is completed in 1998 but he did not necessarily follow the original material as is, but more often as it is currently used. So Swifritter is correct in the cautioning. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to put the notes as to what is actually entered as the author name into the title notes for the review rather than the pub notes for the Bleiler book; otherwise the Bleiler notes are going to get really huge. I didn't realize there was a controversy about crediting reviewed authors. I usually mention when titles and authors are credited differently from the actual published work.--swfritter 12:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, please check Bleiler notes after morning submission, I think I am general enough there. Will try to note it at title notes. My references are meant that in doing work on "Gernsback" the assumption would be that Bleiler would use references as used in that publication, but instead he seems to revert to the common time of the B publication. This is miss-leading. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the data you are dealing with comes from various secondary sources most of which are not as particular as we are about entering data as credited so there will be a certain amount of unavoidable imprecision.--swfritter 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Granted. Well, in for morning. Probably no time for afternoon entries. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bleiler - the Eando Binder Stories

You will want enter the canonical authors - both brothers in some cases or Otto only in more.--swfritter 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted and Timely. Right nightmare tangle that I still am unsure of. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bleier 4/4/10

• A Subterranean Adventure misspelled as A Subterannean Adventure.
• The Notorious "C39" misspelled as The Notorious "C-39"
• The Murders on the Moon Ship in the db as The Murders on the Moon-Ship
• The Heat Ray misspelled as The Heart Ray

I will leave to you to fix so there are no editing conflicts. You do know how to manually link reviews? At least your typing mistakes aren't as bad as mine sometimes are.--swfritter 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Day says Moon (space) Ship, so corrected the two title records. Corrected the three others and will re-address situation after morning additions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, but make it a variant? Did the first? Aw if wrong or whatever? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The first thing you want to do is bring up the title record of the work being reviewed. In the web address you will see the number of the title record; in this case 1106188. The next thing you want to do is bring up the title record of the review. Notice under Editing Tools the option Link Review to Title. Click on that and you will get this screen. Enter 1106188 as the Parent# and the review will be linked.--swfritter 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it (3). I just realized I get blinded to small changes in sidebars. Will get rest tomorrow after this run gets through. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled variant. Stopping as next is Breuer, Miles and after the Binder stories, I know it will be best to do it as a group, as I could not get through it today. Will start there tomorrow. Will catch up on 'other stuff'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeds of Destiny

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Very Good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue Face

Morning, Harry. Could you have a quick look at [this] discussion. The dated record needs a minor tweak. The price should have a "C$0.95" to differentiate it from the US record, which I'll create in a minute or two. The statement about the US DAW printings can be altered to reflect that the US editions didn't use the printing statement but the Canadian ones did, more accurate. I'll drop a note on Willem and Ron's pages. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, unless other? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gates of Creation

Added a scan to your verified here, even if my copy seems to me a bit pale, proably due to the sun. Hauck 13:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most surealistic that, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Masque world

Changed amazon scan to your verified here, even if there's ramindering saw mark (the book is really entirely cut for 1 cm!) on top left. Hauck 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Stories Quarterly, Winter 1930

According to Contento this pub contains "White Lily" starting on page 4 but "The Birth of a New Republic" is actually in this pub beginning on 4 - he classifies it as novel length which would mean we should have it as a Complete Novel Serial.--swfritter 23:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Submitted corrections on Winter 31 issue. Submitted deletions on Winter 30 issue. AW acceptance and then will recheck Winter 30 for correctness, all. Bleiler noted the mistake, so I am amiss as to why whoever entered the B data missed this. Aw well, entropy or other. So this is IW. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Submitted correction of Winter 30 data. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Firestar

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here, same for Rogue star and The Wreck of the River of Stars. Hauck 16:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

All Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes for "The Mind Master"

Harry, the new note in your submission for The Mind Master says Astounding Stories, January/February 1931,..., but we have it as appearing in the January and February 1932 issues. Is 1931 a typo, or do you have any way to know if 1932 is a reprint? Thanks. --MartyD 10:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a Bleiler reference typo, TG for once. Very good catch. The magazine section entry has it correctly as 1932. It needs a note to the effect that B states it wrongly in the author/story ref section. I doubt I would have caught it, but then B sometimes slaps you with this kind of thing. BTW that cover is possibly the inspiration of "King Kong" movie. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I approved the submission. I will leave the note adjustment to you. --MartyD 11:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected and noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Art credit for Islands of space.

Should the art for this title be here instead? Great work.--swfritter 14:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but actually I include the art statement as part of the data of the review. My intent is to state the art/artist existed and is sourced. Maybe I am missing something? Muddy thinking, Campbelling out. Breaking for morning, but if you have more to say, I will do a rethink in afternoon or tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You do specify Amazing Stories Quarterly, Spring 1931 before the art statement so that should indicate which pub has the Wesso art. It just seems to be more explicit to place the credit with the title record that specifically refers to the mag appearance. No biggie. Leaving it the way it is is OK.--swfritter 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Greenthieves

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Very, very, good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Midworld

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here which was probably the first printing anyway ($1.50). Hauck 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Palos of the Dog Star Pack: The Complete Trilogy - source

Does it say in this pub whether the sources of stories are from book or serial. The version in this pub, based on the serial, is 65k-70k words long. The manybooks ebook version is probably based upon this pub and is about 45k words. If there is a prologue in the edition you own it is probably not based upon the serial version; I will make the appropriate notation in the title record once I hear from you. Thanks.--swfritter 22:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not, but it has the three first covers for the stories on the back cover. The statements are quotes, and the implication is they are from the serial. No prologue, etc. The same is true of "Polaris of the Snows: The Complete Trilogy", same printer. Sorry, did I miss something? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The serial and book versions of The Mouthpiece of Zitu are radically different. I should have been more specific about which story in the book I was referring to. If the The Mouthpiece of Zitu has a prologue then it is probably based upon the book version. Are the covers on the back from the book or magazine versions? Comparing your copy with the manybooks version should make it immediately apparent whether or not they are from the same source.--swfritter 23:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazon look-inside gave me the answer for the back cover.--swfritter 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Further comparison of the first story using look inside indicates that both the FFM version and the version you have are from the serial and the manybooks version from the book. I think that answers the question. Thanks. Now I have to decide which version I am going to read. Reading the ebook would save reading time and wear and tear on a 60 year old magazine but it might be nicer to reader the longer version which does not seem to have been abridged in the FFM version.--swfritter 23:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were asking if they were specific. I know that it is a serial reprint, but you will never get them to state such. The editor is prickly about it because frankly he has been reproofed for not checking on possible copyrights. (conversations in a Yahoo group between editors of Altus, Wildside, and Haffner). I bought the collection so I would have a reading copy, but it rests in the most immediate, impossibly soonest TBR pile. Sorry, I am a well known hater of abridgment printings aka "Outlaw of Mars" by Avalon. Anything around the 60's is highly suspect by myself. Reading in the original must be delightful, but at the same time terrifying as fragility has set into older material. Still, you have the art. I have a couple of bagged Scion paperbacks that I read, best to be read by me for my delight than to die the death of never read again. I am astounded at how good Bryan Berry really was. To me older material is a delight as I see a lot of extraneous material and think about it, so most everything is unique. Have a good read. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Luckily FFM was so popular that it is not hard to track down copies at decent prices. Their serial reprints, at least through 1943, seem to be pretty much unabridged. I think the policy changed when Munsey's sold the magazine. The Elixir of Hate, for instance, was published in FFM and later in it's sister magazine A. Merritt's Fantasy Magazine; the second reprinting is about 10% shorter than the first. I have a hard time believing the story has never been published anywhere else. Bleiler considers it to be England's best work and it still holds up today. I was pleased to find that all of S. Fowler Wright is legally available as webpages.--swfritter 13:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you also suffering from "what have I missed"? I have argued, to little effect, that many older stories are in themselves great, but it seems many modern readers want drawn out, over developed story lines. My attitude 'make it enjoyable and provoke my thoughts'. Enjoy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrimony

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and changed page count to 266 to match my copy, what about yours ?. Hervé Hauck 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Re-aligned notation. Great cover. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shadow of the Ship

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 09:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Expendable

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 11:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder and Magic

Replaced the FF scan on your verified here. Hauck 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Artifact

Added scan on your verified here. Hauck 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pirates of Rosinante

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 15:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein's Assignment in Eternity

This printing was published in August, 1980 according to Locus #237 (September 1980). Mhhutchins 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted, Thank you, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Springer's The Silver Sun

Added a note to your verified copy of this title about the two covers. Mhhutchins 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Month for The Duplicate

March-April in notes rather than just April?--swfritter 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As stated. Submitted notation correcting B. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Death of Iron interior art

Should the artwork for the story be entered as The Death of Iron (Part 1 of 4)?--swfritter 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Same issue with [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?62265 The Perfect World.--swfritter 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And Terror Out of Space.--swfritter 20:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

eeekeeekerge! A problem that is, I can see your point, yet could argue it. Problem is B is not terribly precise. For instance, I drop uncredited, unsigned and strange (COS?). Not having examples to see, I have wondered if the artist reprinted art in serials, changed it some or did new. In a sense if I say part 1, I am leaving doubt, if I cut the 'part out' then I open it to examination. I admit I am stymied and playing ring around the rosie. What works or does NOT? I wonder how serials were approached, wish we could get the data. Did they do the whole story, then cut and punch or something else. What a mystery? Still, I have deleted it occasionally and not before, if you wish I will discontinue, but I think I have another qued up. Up to you! I will admit though that the (Part 1 of ?) seems wrong for titling interior art. If a dozen artists in separate publications did each a separate piece then by our rules each would get full credit, yet the (Part) says the work was split. eeekeeek. Time to stop. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My brain bucket is still bouncing at (part etc) included in the art title. Since the entry is keyed to the magazine issue, it seems extraneous. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for making the interior art titles the same as the story being illustrated. One of the major ones is to create a unique title. Another reason is that it more clearly documents which part of the serial is being illustrated. I think it has been a standard since day one. Help states that "Interior art should have the same title as the fiction or essay it is associated with" and as far as I can remember nobody has ever questioned the manner in which serial artwork is credited with the part of the serial being included as part of the title of the artwork. This is a matter not only of a written standard but also of a commonly implemented standard practice that, as far as I know, all other editors have adhered to. Any changes to the standard should be proposed in Rules & Standards.--swfritter 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, same title it is. Reference is only to the total title. Not going to argue, will instead comply even though it is superfullous and may lead to erroneous conclusions. I did this several times before, so you again caught me off guard. We also obviously do not read the same meanings in the very same words, so it is easier to comply rather than have fruitless discussions which most will not even understand or participate. I will continue the input as basic facts entered to give users data is preferrable to nothing or bad or missing. In any case, my home port jumped to 90 degrees and down to forty, thus my body is in severe flux. Will be erratic till I complete several appointments till Sunday. Trying to be sick, down, freezing and probably will get hit with heat wave just to through another curve. This is usual weather for two months ago, but it is just like winter restarted here. Still, someday when/if we ever have time, we definitely have differences in what the meaning of a title is versus a title with additional data created and what a book reference implies to myself versus apparently to everyone else. Thus I will always feel uneasy in adding data not covered in the reference. Still we/you/they have proved that discussions on wiki can not really substitute for real one-on-one or group-on-one conferencing. Physical material would/does impact reality and the lack leads to variant discussion, where people do not understand the issues, thus the apparent democracy of discussion does not take place. Still, better to have the data for later users and they will change everything to their taste(s) some day. So, the reality is that no one is ever really totally right/wrong. Still, shivers, I must lay off and bundle up for the weather/wind. BTW Everyone, everyone have a merry christmas early as Santa's sleigh just passed overhead, along with several UFO's. Off before my provider goes down again. Apologies if anything offends, as it is not meant to, still do not read too much into my commentary. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wearing shorts just a couple of days ago and now I have my down vest on again. When there seem to be ambiguities in the data then we need to also look at the way the data has been entered. In some cases there is a fine line but in this case the artwork for serials has been entered consistent with the method I suggested. Sometimes it is good to take a little break from a big project and perhaps even to slow down a little bit. Hope the weather evens out.--swfritter 14:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Will restart approximately Monday, by then I should be able to rid my self of attitude of whys and bys when I have only one reference to art, but a completist would wish more. The crux is the reference is more important for availability than my personal twist of interpretation. Still, I would druther not drag anyone into my ups/downs on the subject. It is my hope that at least a minimalist contributor will feel inspired to flesh out the art entries and your method makes that easier for them. To the day when someone gets it all completed. So I will reset. Hopefully, very soon we will at least have the basic data and the where to find for users. Hopefully, the next stage of users will get the material out to more people so that they can appreciate it. So far in reading the reviews I have read every B script and Trek episode done. I am amazed and yet I wonder if this the 1970's on generation is as nearly inventive. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Demon in the Mirror

According to Locus #239 (November 1980), this printing was published in October 1980. Mhhutchins 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Anderson's The Avatar

According to Locus #239 (November 1980), this third printing was published in October 1980. Mhhutchins 17:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd John and or & Sirius

Hi Harry, you verified the 2nd printing? of "Odd John and Sirius". On the title page of my 1st printing the title is spelled as "Odd John & Sirius". If yours is the same, I think the title should be changed also. Thanks, --Willem H. 08:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct &. Submitted title edit change since you and I have the copies. Thanks, greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fugitive in Transit

I did a minor correction to Fugitive in Transit in that I changed the note "Cover artist not credited in book. Signature not found." to "Cover artist credit stated on the copyright page. Signature not found." --Marc Kupper|talk 07:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry changes did not occur. No problem with them though. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Assignment in Eternity

Added a cover scan and modified note for your verified Assignment in Eternity. Hauck 13:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but the nude still is not outstanding. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond This Horizon

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and also here. Hauck 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Both good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Farnham's freehold

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Still can not figure out the why of using that type art. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Glory Road

Added a cover for your verified here. Hauck 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job. That cover was used in a major British campaign to sell the book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherryh's Faded Sun: Kesrith

According to Locus #239 (November 1980), the third printing of this title was published in October 1980. Mhhutchins 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mastodonia

Hi Harry, I added the cover artist (H.R. van Dongen) and a note to this verified pub. Jane Frank agrees on van Dongen. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Second publication record for Bleiler

I think you will have to as I did for the the other Bleiler book and put have the reviews in another pub. Otherwise you will eventually find that it will take a long time to load the pub data and an even longer time for the submission to go through. And eventually you will start getting error messages from the system. You have reached about the midway point so this might be a good time to create the second pub.--swfritter 14:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you having problems? My check is about page 260 for half way and 266 would end A-L, thus giving M-Z for the next. Still, Do we have anyone on a 'more limited' connection to give us an appraisal? 5 seconds for Bleiler to come up. 2 seconds for Bleiler (G). Approximately 15 seconds to get B (G) into edit status. A-K ends on 242. Feel like a blind man describing the elephant. Can we wait till 266? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The real problems are probably going to start kicking in when you get to about 1400 entries which should be about page 400. Since you are very likely to run into such problems it makes sense to be pro-active as early as possible. The problems do not seem to be on the client end (your computer) but on the server end and I don't think they are related to connection speed. I recently replaced my ancient XP and the problem persists.--swfritter 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I will set it up for after page 266 then. No problem with doing it, was wondering if others had problems using it. I was more afraid of having to dice it more than once. Will make new division entry this afternoon or tomorrow for use after 266. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Entry made, but should have said page 266. Please check/advise/correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We are the only brave souls who have been ambitious/foolish enough to enter that much data in a pub.--swfritter 14:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I discussed this issue with Al a while back and, as far as we could tell, there was nothing preventing the system from handling 1,000 or even 10,000 titles in a single pub, at least in theory. However, as they say, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice... there is :) Ahasuerus 11:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I salute you both for taking on such daunting tasks. Mhhutchins 05:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most impressive and commendable! Ahasuerus 11:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This annual reviews about 600 titles, and I hope to eventually get around to adding them (I also have the 1989 annual to enter.) I've started physical therapy for my shoulder and improvement in range-of-motion is slow but steady. Only time will tell. BTW, how many total entries do these Bleiler volumes contain? Mhhutchins 05:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the shoulder! Just remember that slow and steady wins the race :-) Ahasuerus 11:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. It does have the reward that I am reading the reviews, something that is hard to find a good reason to do otherwise. The real work is the approval phase. The story count is 1835. Do not re-strain yourself, therapy is quite taxing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

One left to enter in first section, the letter with story. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Added a cover for your verified here. Hauck 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated, but the art is definitely amateur. Thanks, Harry.

Standing Wave

I modified the page count (386 vs. 384) for your verified here including the epilogue (but not the "About the author" part), can you confirm this on your copy? Hauck 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Most correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Death From The Seas

Since you went and added the interiorart and drew my keen eye for detail to it.... I'm thinking "From The" should be "from the" in both that and the accompanying story titles. Just to be conformist. --MartyD 12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent catch. Correction submitted. Keen eye will win in the end! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Doc Lowndes letter

Fiction in the form of a letter? Pseudonymous Author likely to actually be Robert A. W. Lowndes? who also had entries as Doc Lowndes?--swfritter 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You got it, but I think I goofed the input. Still it is hard to figure from secondary source. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Engineers

Added an image to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also to [Destiny Doll], placeholder at best. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also to [They Walked Like Men], placeholder ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Physically checked this morning. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Menace from Mercury

Mr. Keen-Eye-For-Details downcased the "from" in "The Menace from Mecury" and its new interiorart accompaniment in Wonder Stories Quarterly, Summer 1932. It makes me feel useful in a highly trivial way.... --MartyD 12:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks greatly. The entries are supposed to be inspirational! LOL. Often I do not notice the capitalization when pasting. As you notice it is fairly dry, but getting the extras has some value until the DB is fortunate enough to have someone get a copy. The Overview is much appreciated, though unfortunately dry and time consuming. Thanks greatly to everyone for their efforts, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting Perry Rhodan

Hi Harry, I'm starting the original Perry Rhodan entries. I reworked the first 4 titles Ahasuerus entered, as I think they should be (1, 2, 3 and 4. Any comment is welcome.

I have one question (for now). You verified The Radiant Dome. The second title (Twilight of the Gods) is now in the database as by Walter Ernsting, but I'm reasonably sure it is published as by Clark Darlton. Could you check this? (the name probably comes from this edition, which could be the only Perry Rhodan title published under Walter Ernsting) Thanks, --Willem H. 16:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The same for "The Third Power" in Perry Rhodan #1: Enterprise Stardust. --Willem H. 16:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad news I guess. The only author name given, not specific to which story, is Walter Ensting. Radiant Dome note states it correctly, Enterprise Stardust is the same "K.H.Scheer and Walter Ensting" above title on title page. No author on actual story start pages. Ace "Enterprise Stardust" is the same with Ernsting, 1st, 2nd, 3rd printings, Radiant Dome does NOT use Clark Darlton. It is K. H. Scheer and Walter Ernsting as in the orbit/futura. Ace #4, Invasion from space is Walter Ernsting & Kurt Mahr on title page and front cover. NO Clark Darlton. #6, "The Secret of the Time Vault" is the first use of Clark Darlton, not Walter Ernsting, by Ace. All previous Darlton are mistakes due to initial input, way before me or Hall, and continued due to the lack of pointed evidence. So recap, Ernsting only on 1, 2, 4 and Clark Darlton on 6 following. Got a headache just looking at this. All checked with books in hand. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good news. Your German PR's look great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the Darlton problem is because Ackerman and wife knew Ernsting personally. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW my ACE, Radiant Dome, 020-65971-060 though undated would be before Hall's 441, as the printer number was changed from 020 to 441 during this period. His could be a later part of the run though. I have found no changes in Ace later printings in actual content. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Submitted author change of Invasion of Space, Ace, to Walter Ernsting. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Approved your changes (feels great to do this). I will do the variants myself. This is probably why Ernsting was the canonical. I reversed Ernsting/Darlton as canonical/pseudonym, makes more sense I think. We will have hundreds of Darlton entries, and only a few as Ernsting.

I'll do some research on Radiant Dome, should be easy to find in Locus, I'll inform you af my progress with the series. Thanks, --Willem H. 13:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you are enjoying. Sorry about the Ernsting problem, but it happens after Ackerman muddles it and the original inputs were by others working with too little data. Agree Darlton should be canon. I may be wrong, but I think Wendayne Ackerman was involved in all the Ernsting printings in English. As for Radiant Dome edited by Hall, I was hoping you might get Bob Hall's attention as I usually confound/confuse him (and everyone else). I would try to help, but am bogged down till B (G) is done. Still, remember to enjoy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The good news is, that Locus #27 (May 5, 1969) mentions "The Radiant Dome" as a June, 1969 Ace release (indeed, as by Ernsting and Scheer). The bad news is, no booknumber is mentioned, we'll have to assume it was 65971 (makes sense, since #1 was 65970 and #3 was 65972). In that case, Bob Hall probably has the same edition you have, but I don't know where the 441- prefix comes from (and Bob seems to be unavailable for questioning, so it's probably best to leave that one as it is until he returns). I think it's safe to date your edition in 1969 (no proof that it was actually published in june). Thanks, --Willem H. 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Picked up 35 German PR's and except for the covers, they are not very exciting. Three had spaceship interiors. Got 2 #1000. Bob was/is a stickler for using the publisher prefix and so I have assumed his had 441, but that would not stop the publisher from changing the number midstream. Small cover changes were an Ace forte. Have you established a series yet? Are you going to subdivide into the sub-series? I do think the effect would look better and be easier to use. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This morning I started work on the series. Entered the first year (1961) of the magazine (see here). Connecting the US-editions to the main series (here) takes some editing. I'll probably ask some opinions on how to proceed the rules&standards page (is this ok, how to set up the magazines wiki page etc). Yes, I plan to divide the title series in sub-series (I prefer the cycles for this), but for now I left the series name for what it is. I can always change it. Eventually there will be a main series (Perry Rhodan Universe) with sub-series like Perry Rhodan (and sub-sub series for the cycles of course), Atlan, Perry Rhodan Novels and probably more. It will come while I'm working on it. Thanks, --Willem H. 12:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks FANTASTIC! Sorry the Ace proving a problem, but it is understandable. I really, really like how it comes out on author pages. Swifritter is the best mag man. I can barely understand some of it. Wondering if you have to do an editor series also, I think he developed some methodology for that and of course paging between magazine issues also. Fortunately, when you get past #150 you will not have it as bad, except for the oddball things like the ""Lemuria"" novel maybe. Excellent work! Remember I have all the Ace and Master, (that I know of), and if you find problems it is available. Bob Hall, when he started filling in the Ace had a lot more chaos to check, especially with Ackerman throwing in old stories, etc. I sincerely appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor series is visible on the author page of K. H. Scheer. He did the first 500 issues, so for the time being that will be the only editor record. I just discovered the method for paging between magazine issues. I think I can add that too, but it will take some thinking to avoid the manual entering (I do a lot of those things in Excel, so I see no large problems). The Perrypedia is a great source of information, but if I need to have something checked, you're the first person I think of. Thanks for the support so far. --Willem H. 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Time & Again

Added an image to [this], then saw [this]. Date seems about right for the price, but no source. Still, two records for the same pub. Maybe you can stitch the two? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Locus #185 (Feb.29, 1976) has this printing as published in June 1975. --Willem H. 19:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have created the dated record. Occasionally I admit that while creating records from the Locus listings I may forget to note the source. Considering the effort involved, I readily forgive myself the faux pas. (Bill caught another one earlier today.) It appears that Harry probably created a new record for the same printing because the date isn't printed in the book itself. I suggest we delete the dated record and give Harry the source of the date so that he can update his record. (He's always been open to me informing him of dates using Locus as the source.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First thing, mine was a re-edit of a none verified or possibly dropped ver. That is why there are XXXX lines in it. Secondly we are in the most confused of the Ace era pre-ISBN after 1970. The Locus date above would not match [13] the locus dating of this one. If you check the numbering my example has a higher Ace no, therefore mine should precede it. Problem is that Ace really muddled these. I made my original re-edit because the ISBN was NOT there. I thought then, and now, that it is highly likely that Ace did not document several printings for this one, and other titles also, in this time period. I just ran the two book lists in the back. The first list, 13 titles, various authors, gives NO listing here with three exceptions, all based on price not number, of July 74, June 73, Nov 74. The second list all Mack Reynolds, 7 titles, Sep 75 Locus, copyright 75, July-Sep 74 locus, Mar 73 stated, Jun 74 Locus, Mar 75 locus, Mar 75 locus. Problem is IMO, that Locus is the source. Since it should be after the last printing date June 75 would be early also. What was the Locus reliability at that period of time? I do get a definite feeling the date should be June to Aug of 74 or 75, but I am just guessing. As for Mike creating a bad record, I would/still would have gone for the non ISBN record to re-edit over an ISBN record. Suffice I have two copies, identical. I hopefully will SHOP later today or this weekend and will give a shot at finding the books on the sales lists. Still feel like we are trying to get that perfect pickle out of a 50 gallon pickle barrel, blindfolded for choice after looking. It's slippery! LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ace's catalog numbers at that time were based on an alphabetical system, not chronological. So they can't be used for dating. 80699 This Side of Infinity was published in 1972, 81125 Time for the Stars was published in 1970, 81270 Times Without Number was published in 1969. (I'll never forgive the idiot that came up with that extraordinarily stupid system.)

I think Locus was somewhat reliable, give or take one month. They had become the "newspaper of the science fiction field" and were receiving copies of all books from the major publishers on a regular basis. (The only time I don't use the Locus listing's month received is when the book is from a minor publisher as there may be more than a month between publication and Locus receiving a copy.) The only thing that's out-of-sync with the Locus date of June 1975 is the advertised Mack Reynolds September 1975 title. Perhaps that record is wrongly dated, if the sole source was Locus. Which one is it? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So much for promises, I was offered my choice of 350 paperbacks before pricing at $1.25 apiece and took 239. Broke the bank, broke my word and tired myself out. Found 61 more in the back shed, but could not think good enough to find Simak for comparisons. An hour later I remembered that Simak was in a specific sub-area. Ability Quotient [14]. Actually I do not have anything against Locus normally, but I have noticed that 74 and 75 seemed to be late updates, and I wonder how they came up with back dates when the books are not the sourcing. Like I said Ace was difficult during this period, apparently 73 had some published dates and then this dark nebula around 74/75. Leave it to anyone with greater surety, just like I do with creating ISBN's not used on books. I understand it, but always expect it to be wrong someday. LOL Sorry, here is the 35I book list with Mack Reynolds as author. Ability Quotient $1.25, Amazon Planet $1.25, Depression or Bust/Dawnman Planet 95c, Looking Backward from the Year 2000 95c, Planetary Agent X and The Rival Rigelians 95c, Satellite City $1.25 and Tomorrow Might be Different $1.25. The 7F book list had data in the DB for Babel 17 $1.25, Einstein Intersection 95c, and Left Hand of Darkness $1.50. No listing for Big Time $1.25, City $1.25, Dragon Masters $1.25, Dream Master $1.25, Dune $1.95, Four for Tomorrow $1.25, The Last Castle 95c, Rite of Passage $1.25 and This Immortal $1.25. Thanks for all the work, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Amazons of Somelon

I added a note to your verified record of this title that it appeared in late 1980, according to Locus. Didn't change the date as given based on the copyright date. Likely this is a case of a book showing up before publication date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This book had a previous editing to mine, but the only hard date is the copyright date of 1981, thus the Locus date should work. ??? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl Hansen's War Games

Does this book give the publisher as Playboy Press, or its imprint "Playboy Paperbacks"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Same request for Lorrah's Savage Empire, and Zimmer's The Lost Prince. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All are Playboy Paperbacks with PEI, Inc on art. Thanks Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe at the time these were printed Playboy had become solely a paperback publisher, starting mid-1980, using the Playboy Paperbacks imprint. The Playboy Press imprint was used when it was publishing both hardcover and paperback books. There are still several records for pbs published after 1980 that give Playboy Press as the publisher. I'm asking the verifiers to re-check how the publisher credit is stated in the books. If you don't mind, I'll correct the publisher on those three records to save you the effort. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 14:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and change publisher. I am sorry, but I usually do not change the extra tag on publisher lines, figuring someone understood it better than I. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cathouse

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Marked Man

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

All the Traps of Earth

I added a cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks Great, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

letters to the editor

this issue. Even when listing the title of a letter, the issue should also be entered. See example cited in Help. In this case I note that the letter is classified as a short story? which may negate the standards if it is true. Also, if only listing the magazine issue there should be no colon. See example cited in Help.--swfritter 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, B gives me intense headaches with his letter story headers. Hopefully, I corrected the other. Having to enter the questionable story letter, I checked for others to make it more complete. IMO he should not have done letter stories and he confuses and that brings on the headaches. Shades of PR and Ackerman letter by-plays. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My oops!

I accidentally unverified the Primary (yours) for [this] record.... thought I had hit the N/A for Clute/Nichols. Unfortunately it's not one of those little editing mistakes that can be quickly undone. Apologies! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No prob! Re ver. Had it happen on Tuck and those near it myself. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #26: Cosmic Traitor

Hi Harry, can you check this pub for me? The Perry Rhodan story is attributed to Clark Darlton in the database, but the original was written by Kurt Brand. Does the pub really say Darlton? Thanks, --Willem H. 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The cover sais Brand. How's the interior? --Willem H. 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The title page says Perry Rhodan (over) Cosmic Traitor (over) by Clark Darlton. So the title page is wrong, no surprise as that one looked bad previously. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Change to Kurt Brand submitted and note on incorrect author added. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Sloppy publishing it is. I'll add it as variant to the German title. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, how do you like the series setup so far? --Willem H. 19:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely love it! I can now see the original printing structure and make comparisons of titles. Your work is adding the dimensional depth that Ace did not. What I like is it is still usable to the English speaker. I really appreciate the work. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Stories, October 1935

I think we should change the name of the story you added to this issue to simply "The Slithering Horror" and record in the note field that it appears in the letter column. The extension would lead another person (me?) to think that it's the name of the letter column and that it's incorrectly entered as shortfiction when it looks like it should be essay. What do you think? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will Co. B (G) and his letter stories have me flabbergasted. When he sounds iffy, I get whacky. So will change. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rise of Endymion

Added a price, with note, from Locus1 to [this] ~Bill,--Bluesman 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenopath

New cover image and slightly expanded notes for [Xenopath] ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for [Cosmopath] ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Both look good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stevan vs Stephan Arnold

Hi Since Stevan Arnold and Stephan Arnold both appear to have only done artwork for Vertex, both appear in this issue, and that one issue represents the whole of "Stephan's" output, I'm wondering if this is the same person and if "Stephan" is a typo or variant. Thanks Jonschaper 05:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad news/Worse news! The artist attribution on first art, story title art, is Stevan Arnold and Stephan Arnold. All four pics assigned to Stevan have signature "Arnold". Both pics assigned Stephan are without "Arnold" or other signature. Typo, but which,? Can not get lead online. Either could be correct or wrong, or all others could be wrong, if no one cared to check at Vertex. Still, I made no assumptions because of the lack of signature oddity, while the others are distinctly signed. No help, sorry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If one's a typo I think it'd be "Stephan" since "Stevan" has credits in other issues of Vertex. You never know if there's two of them though -- George Foreman's sons are all "George Foreman" strangely enough. Jonschaper 05:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the lack of signature "Arnold", it may be that the "Stephan" actually is someone eles's work. Still I would not buy either art, not the style I would care for. Of course, it could be a son or grandson. See why I have trouble making decisions? LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Finders Keepers

Was [this] the cover you're looking for? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is correct and I added it and changed the notation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Second Deluge

I changed one of the dates in your new note on The Second Deluge from 1936 to 1926 (it had said "...November 1936-February 1927...") based on what I see in the bibliography. I will submit meekly to any chastising you choose to deliver if that presumptive act was in error. --MartyD 11:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks for catching a 'fingering' error'. Though time travel is pretty heavy in the error, time publishing is NOT. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Morey shortfiction

Changed this from shortfiction to to the more likely interiorart.--swfritter 14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Francine Mezo's (The) Fall of Worlds

According to most sources the title of this book is The Fall of Worlds. That matches the cover art, but is the title page different? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"The" is most correct. Submitted changes after checking both copies I have. Changed format slightly also. Thanks for the good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dykstra's war

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 17:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good! thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan question

Hi Harry, I just entered Perry Rhodan #150, so most of the English translations are now covered. There is one question, about #95. "The Plasma Monster" is in the database as by Kurt Brand, but it should be by Kurt Mahr. The cover illustration sais Mahr, but does the rest of the pub say Brand or Mahr? I'll start on the British editions next, and after that only the (few) Atlan stories and the two translated novels (Star Ark and In the Center of the Galaxy) should be left. If you find anything wrong, drop me a note. I think I'll slow down a bit now. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is Kurt Mahr on cover and title page. Though I must have made a mistake with it, there are some changes that I did not do. LOL Would you correct as I do not want to mess up your German link. Listen take a brake, walk away and only come back to this when in a very good mood. You have done a hero's work on sorting through the English printings. Do not tire yourself out. Take your time and keep it fun, if you can. It does look one whale of a lot better though. Almost like a child finally finding their parents. Will give it a look through in a while. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Change is mad. Thanks for checking. It's 10 in the evening here, so I think I'll just quit for today. Tomorrow it's the paying job again, this one is more fun. Goodnight, --Willem H. 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Did a look through and your work looks great to me. You have made the American PR stories captive and they look great attached to their mother publication. Can find no errors, but makes me want to read them again! Goodnight, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Human Termites

Hi Harry. I changed the pub format from "pamphlet" to "ph" in The Human Termites, as per Help:Screen:EditPub#PubFormat. But I had another question. The new entry for p. 78, The Human Termites (reprint)[7] was set up as shortfiction. The notes and other new entries lead me to suspect it should be interiorart? --MartyD 10:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My super goof. It is interiorart. After entering it, I went back and rechecked and redid several dates. No excuse for idiocy. Very good catch. Sorry, for pamphlet, but it is staple magazine style, but looks visually tp. I think I can remember ph now. Correction submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Voice from the Void - grouping serials

If I a get your intentions correctly, you are trying to group the parts of the serial under a master title. If that is the case you should use the variant title method rather than series. Except for Scoops, I made sure this was all done for you with the other serials in Bleiler. I think Bill did the same thing with the Scoops serials but he may have missed this one. I have started the process with the the last part. I left the title type as SERIAL rather than NOVEL or SHORTFICTION because Bleiler waffles about the length of the story stating that it could be either novel or novella length. If this meets your needs let me know and I will do the others.--swfritter 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what a wanted, them grouped together under one title. Please continue and cancel my attempts. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All done!--swfritter 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Much Thanks! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I left the "Anonymous" serials in case someone could find the true author before we created the variants: could save a little rework later. BLongley 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

80 years and nobody has confessed. Thanks and thanks again for doing the Scoops. Contento puts the story at novella length so I will change it to that.--swfritter 16:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Down the home stretch

Good job on the Bleiler book! Getting the artwork data and page numbers is particularly valuable. Hopefully the review will underscore the value of this book and Bleiler's Early Years while they can still be purchased at fairly reasonable prices. The companion book is going for $500 dollars at Abebooks. The great thing about The Gernsback Years is that is summarizes some of the worst s-f ever published. You can read about the fiction without having to actually to pay the bucks to read the unreadable.--swfritter 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, much thanks to all for checking my inputs, especially yourself. Agreed. I put the page number and source as a teaser to users, likewise the source, hopefully the users will find ways to get the materials available to a wider audience. I will admit you have to know something of the bad to appreciate what is better. Filling gaps is the intent, unfortunately I still see myself reviewing for completeness and then tackling the magazine section to compare B (G) to Miller/Contento. Of course, those that are verified do not need that, as I see no need to note things are wrong with either as compared with a real world evaluation. I think everyone will feel relief after it is done. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The House in November

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 14:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Elaine's Tomb

Hi Harry. Your new note in Elaine's Tomb says "Amazing Stories Quarterly, Winter 1930", yet you put it into Amazing Stories Quarterly, Winter 1931, and the title is dated 1931. There's a perhaps relevant note in the pub: "Incorrectly dated Winter 1930 on the contents page". B(G), page 564. This error is reflected in that Day shows it in the wrong issue/year. Miller/Contento has it correct.. I'm not 100% sure what's up, so I did not change anything. --MartyD 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good catch. I think you caught me on this one before. B (G) had it right in magazine section, but apparently used the magazine itself for stating which issue for the stories and so fouled it up. Submitted correction and am know going to check the rest. Of course, the error is possibly due to his death before completion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sojourn by Salvatore

I found a scan without the yellow stripe. However, the image has the bookseller's watermark on the lower right corner. Shall I upload it? --Astromath 14:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is a good image, why not? As for bookseller's adding their own markings, somehow they are forgetting that it is a copyright infringement of the publisher and if it changes the art in any way it is an artist copyright infringement. Generally, I steer clear. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking Stones

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and added note. Hauck 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Counting Heads

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Added cover credit

I added cover credit for verified [15] from signature on cover barely readable do to close cropping.Don Erikson 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Variant of of Beyond the Vanishing Point

The appearance in the Ace Double is only 95 pages so is also not a novella? In which case a merge might be more in order. Some editors have a problem with designating titles in Ace Doubles as any thing other than novel even if they are obviously less than 40k words. You are the primary verifier so it would seem you have that option although you may want to check with the other verifiers.--swfritter 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am one of those with 'big' problems with novella, a french term, for the short novel. Sorry, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, you may want to do the page numbers in our conventional way with one of the entries having Roman numerals.--swfritter 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but the substitution of Roman numerals for numbers makes no sense to me, and though I tried to follow that 'conventional' course. I found that I was misstating the numbering, so I quit doing it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When the Moon Ran Wild

The story is in our database as a novella. Bleiler lists it as a short novel and Contento as a novel so it should probably be a (Complete Novel) Serial in which case the variant processing would make sense.--swfritter 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Same problem for me. Will cancel submissions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Time Gate by John Jakes

The LCCN is correct. Check here: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SAB1=72175546&BOOL1=all+of+these&FLD1=LCCN-ISBN-ISSN+%28KNUM%29+%28KNUM%29&GRP1=AND+with+next+set&SAB2=&BOOL2=all+of+these&FLD2=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&GRP2=AND+with+next+set&SAB3=&BOOL3=all+of+these&FLD3=Keyword+Anywhere+%28GKEY%29+%28GKEY%29&PID=CnBPnT3R6_LZCnzQqTEMQqlpUGle8&SEQ=20100525105542&CNT=100&HIST=1 --Astromath 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notation removed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To Hold Infinity

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Spin State

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Gas - Weed or Gas-Weed

Is there a reason for putting spaces before and after the hyphen for the entries in this pub?--swfritter 13:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NO. Got stuck in the back and forth of previous "dash" instructions and blanked out. Symbols are driving the cents out. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

McSweeney's Enchanted Chamber of Astonishing Stories

Could you please check if Michael Chabon's "Introduction" in McSweeney's Enchanted Chamber of Astonishing Stories is an Essay or a short story? TIA! Ahasuerus 21:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is essay. Correction submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreta: Dragonlady of Pern Oct 1984

The cover shown is incorrect. The correct cover can be found here: http://www.librarything.com/work/32630/covers It is the 2nd cover from the left, top row. I still haven't figured out how to upload images yet correctly. --Astromath 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Submitted new one. A little funky at top left, looks like scanner had to remove a tag and it affected the image. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Aggressor Six

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and inserted the second "G" in title, idem for Bloom. Hauck 17:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Both look great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified The Fall of Sirius, also for Lost in transmission and To Crush the Moon and The Wellstone. Hauck 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Between Planets by Robert A. Heinlein Feb 1978

Added cover image. --Astromath 15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Granted yours is a quarter inch more image on the right side and down another quarter inch, it looks good. Except for the added symbol at bottom right. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A Greater Infinity

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Star Scroll by Melanie Rawn

Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?BKTG14107 If you look closely at the cover image, it has a book price of $5.99. This means that this is not the cover for the edition cited. This is the book cover for my 7th printing edition (which I will be cloning mementarily). --Astromath 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Galen Beknighted by Michael Williams Dec 1990

The cover image is not the correct one. The correct 1st edition image does not have the words "The New York Times Best Selling Series" at the top and has a very slightly different color for the border scheme as well as the ISBN & price along the left edge of the book towards the top of the "photo". --Astromath 23:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Try this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dome World

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 14:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc Smith scans

I added a cover scan to Subspace Explorers, Second Stage Lensmen and Getaway World. Thanks, --Willem H. 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

All look great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

date for letter

Hey Harry, don't you think the date on this letter should be the same as the magazine's date instead of 0000-00-00? --MartyD 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good catch. I must have skipped it and it defaulted. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Galactic Medal of Honor by Mack Reynolds

Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?GLCTCMDLFH1976 The derived ISBN (0-441-27240-1) from the number on the spine can be searched for on the net. I did not edit this book since you're the one who verified it. --Astromath 11:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Scan Wonder Stories, October 1930

I don't see it!--swfritter 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You got ME! Hit the picture and you see it, but it should display??? Got no idea why not? Especially irksome as that was hard to find. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the new gotcha's. You linked to the image's wiki page instead of the image. --Willem H. 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Retried! LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Much better now. --Willem H. 13:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TG. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Damia's Childred by Anne McCaffrey

Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?BKTG10625 Image link broken. --Astromath 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully works! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenge the Hellmaker by Walt & Leigh Richmond

Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?CHHLMKR1976 The derived ISBN (0-441-10150-X) from the spine can be searched for on the net. Let you edit if you think the need. --Astromath 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Psychopath Plague cover artist

Hi Harry, I think the artist for this pub is James Fox. Signature on the cover is only Fox, but it looks a lot like the sig on Hegira. Definitely another artist than the rest of the "Fox" covers. Can you agree? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say it is the same person. Unfortunately it means he was a 'house' artist, and Dell does poorly in identifying them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the name, adapted the notes and uploaded the signature to the Artist Signature Images. Feel free to expand the notes further, I tend to be very short sometimes. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret of the Sixth Magic 7th edition

Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?BKTG05511 That is not the correct cover image for this printing. The correct cover has green lettering for the title. The only place I can find the correct cover is LibraryThing, but the scan is of too poor quality to use. I'll let you decide to either delete the cover or add a note indicating that the cover used is not correct. --Astromath 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, green blue is the best the scanners did. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Venus Trilogy > Resurgent Dust

I've placed the submission to rename the series on hold. I believe I created the current name of the series based on Tuck's entry. Is there something in the pubs that would indicate the proposed name? Naming a series after the first book in a trilogy can be confusing, but it's not uncommon. I particularly don't like Tuck's name either, but the stature of his work does tend to tip the choice in his favor. What do you think? Mhhutchins 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I thought I did it. LOL. Though I have heard of it called Bryan Berry's Venus trilogy, it is rare. I do not like it for the obviousness that many books use Venus and it is not distinctive. However, Harbottle and Holland actually use 'Resurgent Dust' trilogy in their book and after considering how often it has showed up in checks at ABE and even at Amazon (in the used books description in the price box), I think they establish a in-use name for the series. Also when I first saw the three books combined and referred to as the 'Venus Trilogy' there seemed to be a close relationship with the three books. At that time, I thought the central characters of book three (have) and two were central to One. Unfortunately after reviewing the synopsis that H&H supplied, Resurgent Dust supplies the central theme of establishing the human Venus colony and their relationship with Earth and the other human Venusians (non-Earth stock, but human). So the title shows the establishment of the colony, an Earth-Venus apocalypse, then two the immortal duo reconstructing Venus and three the return to Earth and breaking the fascist revival there. With all that, the first title Resurgent Dust seems to reflect on the final product (arising from the dust of holocaust). Definitely not a classic, but at the same time not something really reflect the 'Venus' themes we all reflect on. I doubted at first that the series was written as with a series theme, but I think the first title reflected the end accomplishment. After realizing this and reading the three synopsis I concluded that Venus did not reflect the series theme as much as Resurgent did, though equating Dust to humanity may be a stretch, after reading three, it all seemed to fit. Not vested in my viewpoint though. So do as you will. The series may never be republished, has flaws, some severe, but disturbingly showed so much talent that the loss of Bryan Berry by suicide is saddening both personally and for science fiction. Just my thoughts. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a rational argument to change the series' name. I'll accept the submission and note that Tuck gives it a different name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Doom of the Darksword by Weis & Hickman

Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?THDRKSWRDB1988 The cover image link is broken. Also, I cannot find the correct cover image on the net. All I can find are the stock photos. The correct cover has this along the left edge: 21764-4 * IN U.S. $3.95 (IN CANADA $4.95) * A BANTAM SPECTRA BOOK followed by the Bantam logo followed by the Spectra logo. --Astromath 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Last and First Men and Last Men in London

I added the author's prefaces and the other prices to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Job! One of my early efforts. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Gateway

I approved your edit to this pub. One question though, in the notes you state that you added the publication month, but it wasn't in the edit. Probably January, like the hardcover, but can you look again? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, (Most Sheepishly), it is January 1954, a simultaneous release. I also believe the #94 is on both editions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, proves I'm right to look at edits before hitting the approval button. I added the month. Thanks, --Willem H. 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but my error rate skyrockets when Others of the Household are behind me. I very much appreciate a second look. In the ADDS listings I am doing, I only put things available that are not present in that current record. Thus most are a confirmation also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maeve

I uploaded and replaced the cover image for Maeve plus removed the note "Cover is the same except for the contents of the DAW block in right top front cover" as this was the old cover. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Face

Replaced cover image for The Face. The old image was for another edition. Added note "Artist's "GD" initials are visible in the lower left corner of the cover artwork." --Marc Kupper|talk 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a section to document the Statements of bibliographic interest from the copyright page. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Supermind

I uploaded a new image to replace the one from Amazon for Supermind. It's the same cover though the one I uploaded is 600px which is more readable other than the price on my copy is ink-blotted. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rogue Ship

I replaced the Amazon cover for Rogue Ship as it was for the wrong edition. I have a rather dog-eared copy and so feel free to replace the image I uploaded should you find a cleaner copy. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pendulum

I uploaded a new image to replace the one from Amazon for Pendulum. It's the same cover though the one I uploaded is 600px which is more readable other than the price on my copy is ink-blotted. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. But it made me think of muscle men mags. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see someone solved the ████-blot on another cover here though I can't say that should be an ISFDB standard. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 06:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not I, nor would I have done it. I do admit to hating it when I get books with that junk. Of course, top hate these days is Library Labels, they just do not give a heck and they are unremovable. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

House of Entropy by Campbell/Sheldon

Can you double check the listings for this title. You just added a new pub, but other than the publisher, it's identical to a previously created pub. Should one be hardcover, or did the publisher use two different imprints for paperback editions? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the h/c, otherwise the books are almost identical. I added the cover for the hc to the record also. Not great looking, but comparable. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Worse coming the Magdah series dating etc. H --Dragoondelight 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really looking forward to that (how do you note a sarcastic tone in text?) Mhhutchins 22:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, tired out. Did not mean to be sarcastic. --Dragoondelight 22:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean you were being sarcastic. It was only me trying to be sarcastic with my response. (Just goes to show how hard it is to put the subtleties of spoken language into the written word...) Based on our earlier conversation, I had taken a look at some of the early Panther editions and saw that there were several sources that conflicted about the dates of "Roy Sheldon"'s Magdah series. I was hoping that H&H would settle that once and for all, but your note that there was "worse coming" led me to believe it was not going to be easily settled. Mhhutchins 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just got bogged into what looks like a triple series with too little data. Still "Moment out of Time" contains my thought process. Never got to Magdah #2 for input. I have personal conclusions as to the order of printing and dating, but have no idea on who wrote any. Hope it is not boring or too pushy. Apologies for any misconceptions, other than I do not believe the OCLC is a valid dating source for this period of time. I do note that H&H was effectively printed by Reginald and that corrections were made in the second edition, mine is first and possibly all answers are there. Only one available and I refuse to spend $80.00 plus on it. Of course, maybe not. Again apologies for argumentiveness. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize as I didn't take anything you said to be argumentative. I also have doubts about OCLC's dating of undated publications, as I probably should be for any secondary source. Yes, that does appear to be rather steep for the second edition of H&H, but sometimes the value you get out of it is more than what you paid. You never know. I've been looking for years for a copy (any copy, whether old, battered, beaten and torn up, even) of Ashley & Contento's Supernatural Index, but can't seem to find a listing for less than $150. Still looking though. :) This reminds me that I haven't looked in the past month or so. Time to try my luck again! Mhhutchins 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you must have noticed I decided to place notation, so hopefully someone can get a handle on all the handles. The BP-300 gave me the information that H&H had a revised edition $89.04 right now, and maybe I will break down and go for it. The BP listing says there were 32 pages of corrections, but how he figured that is beyond me. The format stayed the same, (same page count/content listing), so it has to be corrected directly. Still it should solve Reginald vs H&H. Problem is that any H&H is a bookseller resource and they hoard it for the references. I have found approximately 5 wrong artists and a couple of other errors, all fairly evident. Not about to state that this author or that wrote anything in contradiction to anyone's guess. Just plan to note it for others. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Checked out the Ashley/Contento and all I can think is the Ashley name pumps up the price on things and keeps it there. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic Science Thriller novels.

Since these are magazines shouldn't the stories be entered as (Complete Novel) Serials? I know Contento lists them as novel length but they must be in really tiny print to fit them into a digest. Given the probable rarity of these titles we may never know.--swfritter 14:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

According to several sources, this was a publication series, not a magazine. Tymn/Ashley doesn't list it. Contento/Miller lists it, but qualifies it as a "booklet series". Without editor, features, monthly dating, I'd be hard pressed to classify it as a magazine. This cover of #4 appears to be more book than magazine. Just my 2 cents. Mhhutchins 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also supposed to be the absolute worst stories ever and H&H makes all five stories by Erroll Collins. So we are together that it is very similar to 'Tit-Bits' and it is a collector's delight and reader's terror. I have no problems with any other designation, especially since this is a case of documenting some terrible examples of publication. Point though for anyone of that era, the extras criteria were not established for the SF genre. I almost wonder if it would not be better to categorize them as magazine, obviously of a failed type. I do not think it was a publication series such as "Shiny Spear" in "Authentic 1-28". It is most difficult to back date an appraisal, especially of the worst of any type, but if entered as a magazine series it makes a better case for a failed attempt. I agree as for content, that is a major problem without any being out there. Still Miller/Contento could not handle it without a proviso and such is the domain of any type of publication failure. Since not one story has merit, it still needs to be 'grouped' for it's ignominy. Here is last line synopsis commentary. #1 "The plot deteriorates from this point, if one can believe it!". #2 "Unlike the better titles issued by Scion Ltd. and Hamilton & Co., the Baker titles were of such an inferior quality that nobody collected them. As a consequence, copies are almost impossible to find today . . . which is something of a blessing!". #3 "Juvenile crud that has justifiably passed into oblivion. Copies of this series are almost impossible to obtain, for the simple reason that nobody seems to have collected them!". #4 "The reader has been warned! The author's credit on the title page reads 'Marfay'". #5 "Mercifully, this title marked the end of this awful series which has gone to deserved oblivion.". The only thing I know to compare the series to is the trashiest manga, suitable for tossing into garment and reading like a newspaper. Simply a novel or novella without any redeeming qualities package for the quick purchase. The subway quick read of it's time, but I still am inclined to group as a magazine-like series as it may have the greater impact on the DB user. H&H makes Collins the only author, so it is a bad kind of parody of the 'Authentic' line. My interest is that it be 'documented' more for it's terribleness, than as a success. I just think the calumny of the writing needs the greatest highlighting we can obtain. Unfortunately, the choices either reflect on the 'author' or the 'publishing house'. Your choice, no problems for me, I leave it to you guys to figure the best way to highlight the worst type of failure. LOL, with relief. Believe me, if Miller/Contento had not entered it, I would not have chosen magazine. Perhaps, someone with a gift of email conversation could ask? Personally, my one 'tit-bits' is of the same low quality of material. Under free enterprise, every publication avenue is pursued, even that of very, very low quality and cost. I am surprised at their price myself. I wish I had red flags to enter the titles under, but alas! BTW, I have all five covers and my very fragile source stated this. "Stanley Baker - Fantastic Science Thriller (UK digest) – a series of complete garbage sf publications, collectors still beat the turf to find them." That is also the artist source, which has/is highly reliable. Delete them if you will, but they will still need adding so the information even, if not good, is there and the titles are fair to good and thus entice the unwary. This is probably Tuck's example of why NOT to give credit, but his viewpoint forgot that later readers might not have the resources to compare. I wish I had his high instincts to stand on. Thank, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Treated it as magazine as do others; wheel does not need to be reinvented. Otherwise it would be either a novel or one story anthology which wouldn't be a good fit either. Even found some cover art.--swfritter 16:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother, was not trying to invent the wheel, but I think it a good example of how the British did their portion of it. Am not adding covers, usually till after artist, is inputed. I had the artwork, all 5, but thanks for entering them. I am fascinated by the relationship of the short novel to publications and how the standard of the 1950's & 1960's changed into the standard novel and they thus became novellas. Notice the German PR's did not revert and it must have an economic base with a good distribution model to maintain itself. I wonder if the modern novel of 600 to 1,000+ and the higher prices is hurting the average young reader? Apologies, but if you went the other way I would have supported it. My commentary is aimed at making things apparent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional note, or emphasis, I am real leery of the 64 page publication, as the one 'tit-bits' I have, has 64 pages of 1/4 normal or less print in double column. Functionally, I can not read that small of print without a headache, but after checking mine I will not purchase anything in 64 page format in this era. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality of the fiction has nothing to do with my opinion regarding their classification (which hasn't changed). There's no doubt that the pubs should be in the database. Mhhutchins 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

They should certainly be in the database, no question about it, otherwise we would have to add "G" (for "good") to the ISFDB acronym :-)

As far as the classification issue goes, a number of UK/Oz "magazines" from the 1940s/1950s contain just one (short) novel per issue. If we had better support for Publication Series, we could enter them either way, but the way it is, magazines are a convenient way to keep track of them. Which reminds me that we need to finalize the specifications for Publication Series... Ahasuerus 23:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Golly WOW! What a mess. Okay, going to take a little time and thoroughly read "Vultures of the Void" which has some data that seeing my recent inputs gives perspective. Here are some factors that affect the issues. A) Editors were UNcommon to non-existent previously and when they did start using them, they were non-standard (our measurement) in approach. The editor was also not needed for many companies were started and operated by the owner/CEO. B) Britain ended "Paper Rationing" in mid-1953, effects most have taken months to increase supply. It probably affected whether they were books or magazine types at the time. C) Companies , publisher, printer, & distribution, came, went and conglomerated with abandon. They also bankrupted with frequency. D) Average pay was £35 (at best) for author and best pay for artist was £9 and eventually £15 at end. Publishers published without payment or notice. E) Worker strikes deeply affected the when-why's. F) 1/6 is the softcover (all digests in our parlance) price and that price print run was figured at 8,000 and netted the publisher (not printer) £600. This was the profit motive that caused so many titles but so little availability. At a guess figure the HC at 6/- and divide that by 1/6 and you will probably find that hc runs at 2,000 or so and the same profitability. Gruesome, but apparently for the time considered exquisite. H&H said value of the money as worth 10x today and I would add 2x times that for dollars. G) Also there was a heavy campaign going against "Sex" novels of the mystery and detective genres and that SF was an on/off hope for publications. Note) 6/- to 8/6 is hc, 1/6 pb/digest, and anything -/9 or lower is cheap digest/pamphlet. Almost every story is short novel, which for the purist is a novella. I am also nervously aware that anything from 109-120 may have other stories to fill them out. Not Stated, but Appearing So) The "Paper Rationing" must have had higher allowances for magazines as many early stories have either strange banners or headers, giving magazine appearance. Wonderment) This is the Gernsback era for Britain, as war and slower development than in free-wheeling America. Possibly this is also a transition period for the 'Boy's' novel to SF. Definitely it is a reactionary period for readers and publishers to the American gangster era. Remember I am NOT vested in any input other than to make sure the 'story titles' and extra information is there for users. I an NOT offended by deletions that end with an 'entry' result. I am not a strict constructionist, and barely understand the approach, I think of most things as 'exceptional' so can not see the forest for the D tree(s). LOL So, my responses are only observation points for consideration, any result that gets the basics in the db is fine with me, please do not create rules/exceptions for me! Thanks for all the help and thought, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Venus Plus X

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wolf Pack

Your verified pub seems to have a 5 page novel in it. Is the Shortfiction on page 12 really interior art? Also, isn't it a duplicate of this? BLongley 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrected interior art. Requested deletion of other. Frankly, I either cloned instead of updating or the entry did not appear when I was working on it. I remember at the time that Charette was causing some problems with correct spelling of his name for the standard. He actually started without initial and then later starting using it, as did other Roc authors. Also, I believe that Roc is not updating its publication date and frequently reuses it, at least in the 'Battle Tech' and 'ShadowRun' series. Thus some dates with FASA and ROC the same. So, if deletion is not acceptable, I will move it. Good catches all. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Birth of Fire

According to Locus #242 (March 1981), this printing was published in January 1981. Mhhutchins 23:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Submitted change yesterday! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

date of The Purple Wizard

Hi Harry. I think I approved your date change to The Purple Wizard too fast. I propagated the date to the title record, and I noticed in doing so that the old date had been 1953, not 1954. The note in the pub says Tuck says 1953; you left that, just mentioning adding the month from H/H. But then, again, it is January.... Which year say ye? --MartyD 12:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actual date is January 1954. Tuck (in Australia) often misses on early months of year, probably due to compensating for mailing? My second low bandwith source listed it as the earliest 1954 for Scion. Pronounced Skeeon in the publishing trade. None of the early British pulp pubs dated themselves, though occasionally they put in copyright dates (often not). Since H&H wrote the story of this era and compiled this separately I trend toward their dating. With artists, I trend with the second source, as I have at least 5 bad artist attributions from H&H. I leave the contradiction in the notes to show that it is there and you never know if someone gets some RW data to change, but Tuck did not care to give these pulp pubs the full treatment so I list what he gives and verify it as N/A. Tuck felt these did not meet his standards, and much too often he was right. Good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks muchly. --MartyD 14:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark Piper

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Getaway Special

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Liquid Death from 2009

For Liquid Death, see Amazon UK. Looks like an ISBN is available, if it's the same. --MartyD 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also this edition. --MartyD 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrected and added. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

pricing on La Flamme cosmique

Hi Harry. I'd like to change the price you added on La Flamme cosmique from "240fr" to "Fr 240". Help says to put the symbol first, and I not all that long ago did something similar to GaborLajos and pricing in forints, so to be fair and consistent, I should do it to you, oui? I did a query of a relatively recent back-up and found quite a few instances of "Fr xxx" and no instances of a trailing "fr". Any violent objections? --MartyD 01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I just went with the OCLC record. Always, bring issues out, as I have a disturbing tendency to do the opposites. My problem is that my mind does not think in symbols first for money or for that matter Fr. as a symbol. Sorry, I will try to correct, but I made the differentiation on symbols, but abbreviations apparently is a 'hanging chad' in my mind. LOL As for including it, I thought what the hay when your there check the other record out and try to glean it. No objections, especially violent. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So forints, are ft. or Ft. or HUF or Ft/HUF. My mind boggles! I never heard of them, and Liras are pain in my mind after twenty years. How does one know what the currency is? If the book does not use abbreviation or symbol, it could get more confusing. The only clear one is Panama, it is American dollars no matter what the country says. When last there, they did not even print/mint anything. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Born Leader

I've uploaded a scan of my copy, but I'm not sure if it's better or worse than the existing one. What do you think? BLongley 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The loss of the Corgi symbol is not important, though I still wonder who the artist was/is. The angle of the original makes it hard to see pricing. Change it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Worlds to Conquer - Contento says novella

In The Locus Index to Science Fiction / Index to Science Fiction Anthologies and Collections. I have the 1984 to 2003 edition which luckily lists the Harbottle anthology and the story is listed as a novella.--swfritter 14:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That it does. It was also published as a novel first. To make the additions I need to 'add publications' so therefore the request to change to get the first entries correct. Now the others may or may NOT be the exact same manuscript story as Harbottle had various editions. IMO, change it so I can properly add the pubs and then you can have a hayday and change almost every publication that Fearn did between 1949-1956 of less than 130 pages into a novella. In fact almost every publication of British SF with less than 130 pages meets the novella standard of the 70's etc. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we have another Lengthist argument coming on. Stick by your guns, Harry! Even the Nebula Awards allow a Novella to be a Novel. And why should the SFWA be arbiters on British publications? And as SFWA was only established in 1965, their relevance to categorisation of a 1952 title should be zero. BLongley 01:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Rules and Standards board. Great headache! LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Two Hundred Million A.D.

I replaced the Amazon image for Two Hundred Million A.D. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Accelerando

I expanded the notes (a little) for this pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 09:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Very Good! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates on Azan titles/pubs

I found this bibliography, which helps corroborate some of what you found in H&H for the other titles (if you search for "The Missing Safari, you'll see #1). Looks like "Jungle Fever" is actually 1950. Note that this Tuck actually has "nd" for the date, and this Reginald has "1950?". Google Books also has this info-free entry, but it is dated 1950. --MartyD 12:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, As I live and breathe, you are reading the entries! LOL As you know the books are never dated and only occasionally copyright dated during this time. The second problem with so much of what is there is the ERB lawsuits, both messed up the release and the printers/publishers/distributors sneaked them into circulation. The turn around is that some of the best data is now the upholders of the ERB tradition. LOL I have the covers and have delayed putting covers in till the artists are in the record so they connect. I will do some more checking and try to re-order them tomorrow. I am not a 'jungle' fan and did what I have as 'duty', but it has more interest now. The other Curtis Warren jungle books are probably off also. All are 52. Much appreciation, you have taught me about Google Books, I use the first two Web and Images, but missed Books and Shopping. Afraid my approach was a first run at AZAN and I will look again, though anyone really interested is welcome. LOL I am wondering though what the effect on availability of these will books will be soon. ISFDB entries are popping up in my searches and I get the feeling with the images and more data more interest will soon deplete the market. Still some of these books are interesting and some of the art, especially Ron Turner. Thanks for good work and oversight, my day is always a plus when I learn something new. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The best thing about Google Books is you can see what's actually in the books. That doesn't make the information correct, of course, but it at least eliminates one level of (mis)interpretation.... --MartyD 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gates of Heaven

Added a scan to your verified here. Hauck 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good image. I wish the art had not been obscured so badly by cover designer. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Systems

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Added OCLC. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chaos Fighters

Great new image and artist credit added to [this]. Check out the link in the notes! Awesome covers way back into the 20s. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mack Reynolds

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and here and here. Hauck 12:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good, Great, Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

C. J. Ryan

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and here and here and here. Hauck 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good, Great, Great, Great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Berserker Kill

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Octagon

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and here. Hauck 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Good, both. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chilson's The Star-Crowned Kings

According to Locus #243 (April 1981), this printing was published in March 1981. Mhhutchins 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Schmitz

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and here. Hauck 10:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

publisher on Behold the Stars

I know you're a contrarian and all, but what the heck.... I noticed your verified Behold the Stars is the only pub to use "Mayflower - Dell" [16] as its publisher, while many books use "Mayflower-Dell" [17] instead. What do you think? --MartyD 10:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Never hesitate! Contrarian means I am conflicted, thus if someone wants spaces between dashes they get them and if not NOT. Not sure though that I did that one, but 'dash' controversy leaves me confused. Spaces deleted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't keep punctuation and name ordering (or even name choice) straight, so I let precedent be my guide. But then, I'm no doubt a conformist. ;-) --MartyD 11:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Permanence

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 14:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks Great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Aliens : Rogue

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified [18]. Hoddy 15:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Cube

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Terror-Trap!

I have approved your changes to [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?266065 Terror-Trap! and expanded some comments to make them flow (hopefully) better, e.g. ISBNs were not used in the 1940s/1950s, so I changed "No ISBN or number given" to "No catalog ID given".

One sentence that I am not sure I understand is "Tuck lists "only" the aliases that Norman A. Lazenby used." Could you please clarify? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked I, II, III, and his only listing form Lazenby was in the listing using aliases by him. I found it strange, that he would list aliases, but had no other material in Tuck. Why list aliases if you do not credit him somewhere else? Hopefully, someone can find some meat on those Tuck bones. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Space Line" by King Lang

I have approved your changes to Space Line and reworded the comments. The only substantive change that I made was to point out that the pseudonym is disclosed in Reginald-1. Ahasuerus 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Corrections always welcome. The only point to making reference notations in this eras SF is that these sources are the only real material, since the books themselves are woefully bereft of data. Therefore other sourcing becomes necessary to shine the light on them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Mystery Planet" by Edgar Rees Kennedy

Ditto The Mystery Planet, except that in this case the pseudonym was disclosed in Reginald-3 rather than in Reginald-1. Ahasuerus 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Put that in the crunchy bowl. LOL So, Reginald used III to correct/enhance I. Droll. Therefore, he did not use III as stated. I have found a few nuggets in III, but for printings after I, this changes III's boundaries. I will recheck the primary authors for more data, but have to give the prof a failing mark for quality of work. My real problem with pseudonym attribution is I really see NO one showing the proof of there various puddings. LOL It is irksome! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, Reginald added a a ton of missed pre-1975 pubs and corrected/attributed many others in the 1975-1991 volume. I always check Reginald-3 when dealing with obscure and/or pseudonymous pre-1975 books since there is a very good chance that I will find something new. He also added authors' birth/death dates in many cases.

As far as pseudonyms go, that can be very tricky. Some researchers work with publishers' archives and look up who got paid for what book. It's not always 100% accurate since people can have joint accounts and what have you, but it's probably more reliable than authors' recollections, which can get hazy after a few decades.

Also, some authors are more hesitant to disclose their pseudonyms than others, e.g. the only place that attributes Hung in Space to George H. Scithers is Don D'ammassa's checklist. Apparently, Scithers (who died a few weeks ago) preferred to keep his SF career and his other publishing career separate and never confirmed the pseudonym. Ahasuerus 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Space-Time Task Force by Preston Yorke

Ditto Space-Time Task Force by Preston Yorke, which is also found in Reginald-3. Ahasuerus 02:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Will recheck these! Most interesting. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Picoverse

Quick question about the SFBC edition of Picoverse.

You would like to expand the Notes section and the first new bullet point in the expanded Notes reads "First edition: March 2002: [This Publication Record]. Date of publication and price from Locus1." However, the publication date of the SFBC edition is 2002-05-00 rather than 2002-03-00. I wonder if you meant to update the Ace edition record rather than the Ace/SFBC one? Ahasuerus 18:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but my intention was to leave the Locus SFBC date, but retain the note stating what the book states, which is the same as the first Ace edition. More simply, I thought that doing it the way I did shows that Ace considered the SFBC printing part of the same first printing, but that the Book club release date was being used to show when they, the book club, released their club printing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, one of those misleading SFBC reprints that sort of pretend to be first editions! I have approved the edit and adjusted the Note to expand on their perfidious plot -- hopefully it matches what is in the book and what you had in mind! Ahasuerus 04:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It works. Actually, I think Ace is just as culpable, as I suspect, part of their reason to retain their data is that any 'overage' is easier to market in the discount market. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Publisher on Titanicus

I noticed Titanicus is the only publication for that specific imprint/publisher combination, but we also have Black Library / BL Publishing (UK) and Black Library / BL Publishing (US), each with many publications. Think yours should be the latter? Also, is the "I" in "LIbrary" really capitalized? I actually investigated because I thought it was a typo, but I see the UK and US entries capitalize it the same way. --MartyD 10:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

First I is typo, but not mine. Second, gulp gosh, mine is "printed in the US", but here is my problem I can find no separation in the books for UK and US divisions. I think both are misidentified, that simply the publisher publishes in the US and UK and the only true divider is the currency type. Still, I do not think the 'plant' operations qualify as a separate entity. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking the LCCN

I've noticed that you've begun linking to the OCLC record. Did you also know that most LCCNs can also be linked to their records on the Library of Congress website? If you're interested, look here for instructions. I started doing this about a year ago, and find that linking becomes second nature. It's help to have a template, so this is what I use and just fill in the blanks: <a href="http://lccn.loc.gov/"></a>. So any pre-2001 LCCN number would go after .gov/ omitting any dashes and filling out the numbers after the two-digit year code to six digits. The LCCN as stated goes in the target name space between the carats "></. LCCNs starting in 2001 can be entered directly without changes in both places. Of course, it's always best to check the link to make sure the LoC has a record, but 95% of the time they do. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I set OCLC aside till I found it useful, and then I came upon some done by others and suddenly afterword my brain dumped that I could experiment and do it to help support individual book entries. It worked and I saw that "some" of the records have "some" use, but if someone did wish to use them, they will have to develop some introspection on those records' validity. Thus, newer books are only if there is an ISBN match, while with older book records, I sometimes add commentary to define them better. I will let your LCCN info 'stew' till my mind accepts a working model that I can use. LOL Until, my mind yells 'eureka' it will be intermittent. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness in this. I have made notes in my 'template' file for referencing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting 'lazy' and wonder if OCLC and LCCN hotlinks really require notification to other verifiers? Any comments appreciated by anyone. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most verifiers wouldn't care if you added links to the note field of their verified records. Well, I wouldn't. You don't need to inform me if you do so for any of mine. Mhhutchins 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to include me out as well :) Ahasuerus 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And me. --MartyD 09:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Get the links right and I don't need notification either. If you figure out good links to BLIC, let me know. BLongley 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You can count me out of the notifying as well. One thing though, I approved your edit of the 1998 printing of The Tomb, with an amazing four OCLC links, but I think the fourth (#244831110) is for the 2006 reprint, and shouldn't be in this pub's notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I included it for the ISBN. I did see the 2004 ©2006, which threw me, but decided to use it. If the book is pre-ISBN I use almost all indicators but with the ISBN I include them all, unless I can find a reasonable difference. That record may be for the 'rewrite', but I had expected a rewrite to have a new ISBN, (stupid of me, I know). The reasoning behind including them as ISBN though is to give this DB user the widest means to measure the varied entries. Often there are reviews, and this gives them easy access to more data. Unfortunately, the Amazon look inside is still the 98 version, but I am wary of that copyright date. Still, I will re-open and note it. Note apparently different teams are entering data at OCLC. For instance, the Stardocs usually have two one of which has NO ISBN, just a bare bones entry. I then only use the ISBN. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's mighty valid reasoning. I just thought you might have overlooked the dating. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Always question, I only think I am always right. I did a Locus Check on the 2006 edition, but that does have a different ISBN. Still, I hope the user has the tools to parse these things. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hartmann's Mars Underground

I accepted the submission adding a new line for the LCCN in the notes of this pub, but you didn't enter the number onto the line. Mhhutchins 13:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

F. Paul Wilson's Healer

I'm holding the submission that updates this omnibus, because you want to remove the title record for the novel Healer and make it into a series of short stories. I believe this was published as a novel and not a short story collection. None of the titles that you've entered have ever been published separately as a story. They appear to be chapter titles. I don't have the book nor any publications of the title, but I assume it's a novel based on most sources. Clute and Nicholls' encyclopedia states it was expanded from the 1972 Analog story "Pard", which may or may not conform to one of the chapters that you entered. I don't want to reject the submission outright, because you've added extensive notes. But if we decide Healer is a novel, we'd have to delete the new short story titles that accepting this update would create. Thanks. Mhhutchins

He tore the novel down into short stories, therefore they are now the new titled short stories. Just as several long novels have been torn down into shorter novels. My notes show the short stories that were upgraded into Healer, also the Locus entry. The problem is 'presentation' and the novel 'Healer' is not presented in the omnibus, only the segments as re-ordered for chronological presentation. I have no means to determine that he 'did' or 'did not' change the wording also, but it is very clear that he no longer represented the elements as the novel. I had great fun, yeck, figuring out the anomalies. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot. The order for the LaNague books is not that which is stated at ISFDB. The first parts of Healer have three novels preceding them. 1) An Enemy of the State, 2) Dydeetown World, and 3) The Terry. "Lipidleggin" precedes the novels. Healer I, II, III follow no. 3 and then "Wheels Within Wheels" followes Ratman, Healer IV and V. As shown in "The Complete LaNague Chronology". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see how you'd explained in the notes how the novel was broken up. I'm going to accept the submission, then we can figure out how the individual parts should be varianted with any existing ISFDB records. What a mess! Don't you love these authors who late in their career decide to release these "director's cuts" of their novels? In this case "cuts" is more than appropriate. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was/am not offended at all. If it was/is decided to keep them it would have been all right, as long as it is 'noted'. My brother suggested that we call the whole thing a novel, he's a Paul fan. LOL I wonder though if it is not 'vengeance' on editors who demand that author's products conform to their standards? What irks me, is he could have said if the cut-up sections, were substantively changed. His commentary on title page allows him to do anything/everything. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightkill

Cover for Nightkill shows Steve Lyon. Shouldn't it show Steven Spruill? BLongley 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WOW Doggies! That is a super catch! Amazon and a lot of vendors are touting it with Lyon on it? Replaced cover and made note. LOL, because I fell for it! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The earlier edition 0312859104 seems to have been reviewed with "Lyon" as co-author so maybe it did first appear under a pseudonym? Not that he admits to it on his website. BLongley 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is a 'dummy' cover made up for an interview or book show. I am really glad you caught it though. Some sites lists three authors as Amazon does. Kirkus reviews "Semimedical thriller by Wilson, a practicing physician (Deep as the Marrow, p. 95, etc.) and sometime horror novelist (The Select, 1994, etc.), who joins Lyon, also a novelist of medical thrillers, to produce a mob/medical story without a hint of the occult." I now must 'hide' my shame till afternoon. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-publication covers occasionally get the author's/authors' name wrong. Sometimes it's relatively minor, e.g. a missed middle initial or a misspelling, but other times they attribute the book to a completely different author (Robert Silverberg instead of Ben Bova in one recent case) or credit a co-author who doesn't appear on the final cover. Caveat bibliographer! Ahasuerus 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the reviews, I suspect my "first published under pseudonym" theory quite likely still. Call for a verification of the first edition maybe? In the meantime, I'm off down the pub to play pool and celebrate my 100,000th moderation. BLongley 18:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The High Crusade

I scanned/uploaded a cover image for The High Crusade plus added the following notes:

• The publisher is stated as "Berkley Books, New York" on the title page.
• There are six unnumbered pages before page 1.
• Priced "$2.50". There is no Canadian price.

Modified your note about the artist ID from signature to include a link to the signature.

I modified the note "Berkley Medallion edition March 1978." to instead be

• The copyright page states the printing history as:
  Previously published in hardcover by Doubleday & Co.
  Berkley Medallion edition / March 1978
  Berkley edition / October 1983. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Added OCLC and LCCN. Am doing these, when possible and often when I check data. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For the LCCN, are you only using the stated LCCN or do you look it up? What do you do if a book states an LCCN but it's not on lccn.loc.gov? --Marc Kupper|talk 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I revised the LCCN and OCLC links you added to have "(not stated in the publication)". I need to think about this one. A possibly unambiguous wording would be "ISBN 0-425-06277-5 found on LCCN web site at 60013499." --Marc Kupper|talk 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, people do not understand this part of the LCCN cataloguing: Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.). Simply the title/author LCCN is for the first (recieved) and all others, unless someone goofs and enters more. I am not sure, pretty sure they do not, even differeniate if the title gets a severe/total rewrite. Therefore the number is for title/author not ISBN, printing or other state. Also the OCLC is supposed to be for individual, especially ISBN, but frequently it is mixed, sometimes with impossible combinations. Most frequently OCLC mistates copyright and printing dates, but also can mix/match everything. Rarely do they separate hc versus other state in earlier entries. Then again, sometimes, they actually have a 'rare' condition no one else stores. Thus they (LCCN) have combined all reprints into one record, by simply cataloguing the first one they get. Thus author/title is the actual source relationship they are using, barring a few extraneous entries. I went to my 'Friends of the Library Meeting', last month. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that an ISFDB publication record should contain information about a specific publication. Ideally, the notes section of a publication record should be focused on things stated in the publication and/or secondary sources about that specific publication. In this case you edited the record for a Berkley assumed 1st printing paperback and added "LCCN: 60013499" to the notes. That LCCN record is for a Doubleday hardcover. I fail to see the connection.

Related to this is that some publications do state LCCNs meaning that "LCCN: 60013499" on a record could well lead to confusion as a person would assume that the LCCN is stated in the publication.

From what you wrote, the LCCN would be a title level field or at most only one publication for a given title within ISFDB should link to the LOC web site. I suspect a better place for the LCCNs would be in the title notes and to also indicate which edition (publication) it seems to be for. I used "seems" as LCCN records do not seem to be reliable.

Another reason for putting the LCCN and OCoLC/OCLC at the title level is we have one publication record per printing and those to databases do not always provide enough information to reliably map to a specific publication.

If a publication states an LCCN then sure - put that in the publication notes and if the number is valid on the LOC web site then we can make it a link. A Landscape of Darkness is an example of a stated LCCN that was not found. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this on a submission that recorded an LCCN on a pub that did not state one. At first I was going to object, but then, how is recording an unstated LCCN different from recording an unstated OCLC number? Just that an LCCN is sometimes stated, while an OCLC number never is? Then, of course, there was the case of two LCCNs for different publications of the same title (provided as notes on a third publication), although I couldn't tell from the notes if either or both was stated in that third publication as part of the prior publication info (which was also enumerated). --MartyD 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally a publication's metadata and notes are about specific details within a specific publication or sometimes that we looked for some detail within a publication, a number line for example, and it's not present. The LCCN/OCLC numbers are different in that we are saying "here's a link to a record in someone else's database that seems to match this publication. Thus they are not about the publication itself." Template:PublicationFields:PubNote mentions that the notes should be "specific to this particular publication."

Recording an unstated LCCN/OCLC value is fine with me as long as it's clear the values are not not from the publication. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First this is an argument on what 'is' is. Positions have been established, but attention is not being paid to what LCCN says the record is. Simply the record is for every publication/printing for that author/title. By their own rules it is first come first serve, with some rare exceptions caused by double filling. It is actually 'never' an individual record, except when something is only published once. A condition which becomes rarer and rarer, especially since even the 'least' author/title record has reasonable chance at sometime to be 'preserved' on electronic media. So the LCCN is 'relevant' to every author/title record, thus it could be an item on the main title editor entry to show that. [Level of Greatest Use/and immediate reference]. Functionally, a limitation to only those that show the LCCN would predominantly be only for the hardcover editions. Most paperback appearances on copyright pages is caused by 'duplication' of hardcover data. Therefore, though printed there they would have NO relevance, as they are not the original recorded source. Thus the 'IS' issue of where something appears is 'flawed'. The record does have value though, beyond the siting of the original LCCN source, [not necessarily the original printing/publication]. It establishes lead backs to other subsets. In this case "other by author" and "other by genre". A better record, and more modern is this. LCCN: <a href="http://lccn.loc.gov/2006041315">2006041315. In this record the criteria has been enhanced to another level. Thus the areas of reference are 'Author', 2 'subject' identifiers, 2 'genre' types, 1 'series', PLUS 3 off site links to material. The 'what IS is' proposition would deny this wealth of possibilities to only the 'mentioned' in book printings, mostly lapses of change in copyright pages. My position- the material is relevant and 'specific' to the content, no matter the mention of number. The addition of 'is not mentioned in' is unnecessary. My adding of LCCN, only enhances the user's knowledge base, and ignores the questionable idea that being printed in the book is the only true opening of that door to further knowledge on the book. ???? I think this addresses 'specificity to title/author 'no matter' the publication form. In no case is the addition of an LCCN an assurance of congruence, LCCN is not made to do that even with the first and usually only LCCN entry. Assuming that users think the number is to be found in the book is a 'guessing' position and we do way too much of that kind of rewrite already. The LCCN is an established source, which declares it is for all forms of the publication. One of it's faults is that is not built to/does not show differences in completeness or editing, but it does establish a number of other 'leads' for the user. True solution would be to add the LCCN as a field on the editor level record, thus eliminating redundancy and alleviating the 'ising of is'. Simplification instead of classification of what is? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary issue. What is the OCLC record and what is relevant? Does anyone really want me to say that "not stated in publication" is not useful and the multitude of ways that is not done for other things? Trying to not go down that road. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to both parts - It's my understanding that ISFDB publication records are supposed to describe a specific publication. We are capturing 1) information to help us distinguish it from other publications and 2) information stated in that publication that may be of use to future bibliographic projects. Links to OCLC/LCCN are neither of these but rather would be secondary sources that may be useful to someone in the future. I've been suggesting they be put in the title record and that would allow publication records to remain focused on the description of a specific publication. The only time we'd need to mention an OCLC/LCCN in a publication record are 1) it's stated in the publication or 2) we are using an OCLC/LCCN record as a secondary source for something included in a publication record and so would cite the OCLC/LCCN record as the source.

Before ISFDB came on line I spent many years trying to tease bibliographic information out of secondary sources such as book seller listings. Thus I am, perhaps overly, sensitive to the wording used in ISFDB publication records. When I add something to the database I also try to note the source. Was this something stated in the publication? If information is derived then what specific sources and methods were used? For anything else I'd cite the person, web site, or publication as the source.

Thus I'm looking for ways to add things like LCCN/OCLC to ISFDB with as little ambiguity as possible to people that are using ISFDB for research. Something I tried with a couple of recent verifications is:

• A record for this publication is on the Library of Congress web site at LCCN xxx.
• A record for this publication is on the Worldcat web site at OCLC xxx>.

I'm thinking of revising that to add "This LCCN/OCLC number is not stated in the publication" or maybe to be to document the process I used to locate that LCCN/OCLC number (particularly if I used the publication's ISBN). Another solution is to put those links in the title records and then there would be no confusion at all at the publication record level. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an asset unused for interpretation reasons is not accomplishing anything. Unfortunately, the amount of knowledge to be parsed from the supra-majority of publications is too small, to sustain a specificity argument. I did not invent linking in either case, but both can contain information to 'spur' the user interest. The use of 'not in this text' for either is just 'sprucing the goose' with something that is NOT useful in any measure. Anything that gets them to use the DB and hopefully contribute is good. As for where they should be, title record level is undoubted the most logical place. As for specificity, the reality is that it (specificity to a record) really can only be determined by the research user. Both record types are inherently very flawed, as is this database in many ways. Rarely is any one OCLC record for a popular type book specific to the printing. Only one shots are specific to the level you suggest, but the problem is that parsing to that length is detrimental to the extension of exploration into publications. The truth is that many a bad, imprecise record creates has more quest of the possibilities. Thus, and we have no choice, it has to be left to the user level to find them. The LCCN record is much worse, even when you derive a direct sourcing. In both cases though, they are encouragements to delve into the subject and thus have value. Provide the steps to enhance the individual interest and you build usage and hopefully debt to make it better. No thing, or little that is done now, will not be changed in the future. I did not invent the linking, but simple scanning of these data records tell one that they are only stepping stones to knowledge. They are kernels of Wonderment and Desire, two basic ingredients in data survival. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The "specificity" wording comes from the ISFDB help for publication records, Help:Screen:EditPub, and more specifically, Template:PublicationFields:PubNote, which states "A note specific to this particular publication. These notes should be permanent comments that reflect something indisputable about a Publication, e.g. a mis-spelled title on the contents page." OCLC and LCCN are "about" someone else's data record and not the publication. What I'm trying to do is to prevent any confusion among future researchers about the OCLC and LCCN numbers (and/or links). If we say "OCLC: 1234" someone may well wonder if that is stated in the publication. I'm trying to remove that ambiguity. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent/end) Cannot continue. This is a "what is IS" argument. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Eternity's End - SFBC edition

I have approved the changes to this record and reworded the notes somewhat to clarify that the LCCN and OCLC records are for the original "trade" Tor edition rather than this SFBC edition. Also, when we say that the price is "from Locus 2001", I assume we mean the on-line Locus index for 2001 rather than the printed version of Locus, right? Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. LCCN records are generally only for the first book received and rarely others, usually the result of competing entry sites, with no checking. Basically, the OCLC with ISBN is the same book, and I have "yet" to find a OCLC record for these later editions. The Locus 2001 statement was previous to the first time I worked on the record and was either incorporated or put in by a moderator. In any case, I saw it and checked to be sure and then verified it. I do not/ have not so noted Locus before, but I still hate to just remove such adds. In this case, it provided the date to check. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rashanyn Dark

Scanned/uploaded cover for Rashanyn Dark. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dickson's None But Man

According to Locus #245 (June 1981), this printing of Dickson's novel was published in May 1981. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

SF Adventures No. 23 duplicate issues

Both you and Chris J. have separate verified pubs of the same issue. Perhaps you can get together and do some consolidation. Thanks!--swfritter 13:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion.--swfritter 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New coverscans

I added coverscans to replace the Amazon links in Ackermanthology, Crygender, Six Moon Dance, Sideshow, A Plague of Angels and Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing them! Anything, to make the 'cover image' loss from outside sources drop. I did 20 books in March and on rechecking them had three covers lost. We can NOT count on outside sources. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ru Emerson POD books

I changed the type for these books to "tp" based on the dimensions given in the Amazon listings (roughly 8" by 5"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just ran into them. I am getting number looney. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

S.T.A.R. Flight

I added a cover scan to your verified S.T.A.R. Flight. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that looks better, but the artist really does not inspire me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Total War

Scanned/uploaded cover for Total War. One puzzle is that the original Amazon cover seems to have the upper and lower parts overlapping. If your copy is printed like what's on Amazon then I'll clone and explain the only different appears to be in how the cover was printed. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Have two copies, neither have printing/overprinting mistakes. One is suffering from coloring loss on spine title, otherwise both are perfect. Probably made slip-up on cover, due to the great enthusiasm that collections generate in me. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dickson & Harrison's The Lifeship

According to Locus #246 (July 1981), this printing appeared in June 1981. Mhhutchins 04:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Data entered and OCLC & LCCN records added. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Call of Madness

I approved the changes to Call of Madness and reworded the line about LCCN. Could you please check that it reflects what is in the book? Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What you did is delete that a LCCN search was made for the book using the author/title method. What did you accomplish? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The first thing that I did was to expand the line "The copyright page says that the LCCN is 89-91554, but this LCCN is not listed in the on-line catalog of the Library of Congress". The idea was to clarify that "89-91554" is stated in the book and I wanted to double check that my understanding of what you meant was correct.

The second thing that I did was to remove the line which seemed to state that there was no LCCN, which contradicted the LCCN information above. Now, however, I see that you meant to convey that there is no trace of this book in the online catalog of the Library of Congress, so I have further expanded the line to read "The copyright page says that the LCCN is 89-91554, but this LCCN is not listed in the on-line catalog of the Library of Congress; as of July 2010, the catalog doesn't list any editions of this book." which I hope accurately reflects the results of your search.

As a general observation, it's important to distinguish between the LCCN printed in the pub itself and the data in the on-line catalog of the Library of Congress. The former is objective immutable data -- either the pub has this information printed on the copyright page or it doesn't. Like other bits of information found on copyright pages, it can be helpful when trying to distinguish between different editions. The latter, however, can change over time, e.g. if and when the Library of Congress gets enough money to unpack those thousands of boxes stuffed with paperbacks (which they have been storing at an off-site location for decades) and catalog their data. (One can always hope! :-) The on-line catalog also lists occasional "vaporware" titles, which were announced, but never appeared.

In addition, LCCNs are somewhat tricky. They can apply to multiple versions of the same book, e.g. if a book comes out in hardcover, trade paperback, and library binding, all three versions will usually share the same LCCN. However, if a later edition is procured by the Library of Congress, then it generally gets it own LCCN, e.g. the first edition of Dune uses LCCN 65022547, but the 1984 edition of Dune uses LCCN 83016030. Basically, LCCNs do not neatly map onto our publication and titles records, so it's important to clarify what exactly is stated in the book and what is found in the on-line catalog as of 2010. Ahasuerus 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again PEOPLE. If you figured it out, then it is clear. Secondly deleted 'author/title record not found" indicates a separate search was made. Stating that "a LCCN number is not found" is pretty clear in my book. Combining statement that do NOT indicate that a search was made for errors and does NOT clarify that issue. I am well aware that Dune has 4 written and 1 aural LCCN records and that is fairly to super uncommon for any title. Making examples from it is a bit TOO much. Please restrain editing to asking me before hand, not after you have added your commentary which may not represent what I the "verifier" see. This sudden rash of 're-editing and editing without full accordance of the verifier' has got to stop. Woe to everyone, but none of us really are going to see things the same, nor state it so. Please everyone, restrain your plum fingers from plucking my plums from my pie. No restatement of yours is truly better than mine after you have 'refined' it. Unless it is a GROSS error please do NOT mess with it. Also, think before you ask, because this constant, meddlesome behavior is unfair and if I was new here I would quit. Wonder why people do not come back, some of it is 'over correction'. Unfair advantage is being taken of my non-moderator status and several of these later commentaries are proof positive that people need to restrain there conduct and 'self interpretation'. Show grace, for without grace, is graceless. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We all have our strengths and areas of expertise. Willem speaks (or at least understands) numerous languages; I can program robots that find information on the Web; Bill L. knows a lot about certain British publishers; you do a great deal of legwork unearthing and correlating detailed information that might never be found otherwise, etc.

Conversely, we all have our limitations and blind spots, e.g. I know little about SF art since I am colorblind. By pooling our resources and sharing information/expertise, we create much better bibliographies that we would be able to do in isolation. In your case, the limitations have to do with clarity of expression and communications. There is nothing personal about it, it's just a limitation like any other, although perhaps it's harder to recognize in one's own writing since, after all, our thought processes make perfect sense to us. Granted, it's a fairly significant limitation, but that's what moderators are for -- to ensure that all submissions meet minimal standards of clarity, among other things.

The bottom line is that the statement "No restatement of yours is truly better than mine after you have 'refined' it" is incorrect. As you said, everyone writes differently, but there are minimal standards of clarity. If a submission does not meet them, it needs to be clarified to ensure that ISFDB users understand what our records state.

Again, there is nothing personal in these attempts to clarify your submissions and there is no reason to get upset about them, it's just a part of our efforts to maintain the integrity and usefulness of ISFDB records. One of the main advantages of a cooperative effort like ISFDB is that we can help each other leverage our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses -- just look at the many questions posted and answered on the Help Desk and the Verification board! Ahasuerus 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tedford's Silent Galaxy

Can you re-check the author credit for this publication? I believe Tedford didn't use his middle initial until later in his career. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrections submitted and more. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Shops of Isher

New image, date and artist credit [from ISCHI, with link] added to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind change, but something tells me that ISCHI dating can not always be trusted. Just an old itch from a previous encounter there. They sometimes work on incomplete data also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rajan

Rajan Added cover scan, note about "unnumbered pages", added a "stated on copyright page" as I hunted for a while wondering where that comment came from, and added Bibliographic Comments. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a statement that there are "six unnumbered pages before page 1"? Please do not add (stated on copyright page) when things are printed on copyright page. Restrain your editing of my verificationss to new data, rearrangements of what you would say from what I have said, are examples of if you figured it out, it was obvious, and NOT needful to be redone. Please return to original as best as can be done. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. As you have a copy I have removed my verification. Any book that you find that you wish to take over the verification so you may clarify and expand notes. Please just inform me and I will remove verification and note it in my personal lists. No verification will ever be without change, but this method will ease tensions on myself. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem Harry - I redid the notes and switched to primary verification. As you have the publication you can do a secondary verification. If there's an error in the notes then please let me know. Thank you.

It was not my intent to increase tension much less to scare you off from verification of the record. I had added two comments plus the bibliographic comments and was careful to not change nor rearrange any of the existing comments. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is I forgot that all things must change and sometimes a small change to one person rankles and the easiest thing to do is simply vacate the verification and let them handle it. Nothing will last over time, there is always a better method and my concern is not the holding of verifications but to get more data in each for greater security here than elsewhere. Mostly, I believe the books need more individual attention and others who are active and 'see differently' should take them over. The offer to take over verifications that I hold has been effect for some time and people should take advantage. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrath of Ashar

I'm holding your new pub for "Wrath of Ashar" not because I think it's wrong, but because I think you're more right than you know. I don't think ANY edition of it is proven to have a "The" in front - OCLC doesn't show it that way, nor any cover I've found, nor any "Look-Inside". In the absence of any other verification, I'm tempted to make all editions "No-The" versions until proved otherwise. What do you think? BLongley 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the two reviews of the title I have primary verified have no "the" either. The third primary verified review is from an inactive editor, but almost all evidence is leaning the "No-The" way, I think. Only Locus gets it wrong. BLongley 19:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was tempted to change it, till I found Locus using "The". Somehow I feel "The" is wrong, yet the two other titles started with 'the'. Bantam is consistent in not using 'The'. It is one of those things that may buzz-saw back. OCLC have three Michael Joseph records and one sphere without 'the', but has a generic one without publisher, ISBN, and tagged donation which uses "The". That says OCLC really thinks it is without 'the'. Unfortunately LCCN does not like Angus Wells, they only attribute four novels and three editeds to him, nothing from whole series. I'd say it is probably without "The". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I changed them all and Primary Verifiers can change them back if needed. I agree Angus Wells is under-represented - hopefully when our software can cope with Editors of Single-Author Collections he'll become a bit more notable. (And apologies - I thought I'd left this note hours ago, but I must have only seen the preview and not saved it - retyping now for completeness.) BLongley 22:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Usurper

Changes to The Usurper have been approved and the LCCN comment has been expanded to read "There is no LCCN stated in the book. As of 2010-07-23, the on-line catalog of the Library of Congress has no information for this or any other editions of this book." as per my remarks about LCCNs above -- hopefully it reflects what's in the book and the results of your search (which I replicated.)

I am also thinking that we'll need to discuss when we want to record LCCNs in Notes, especially when LOC has no data, on the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus 21:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem with change. I have not formulated a complete pattern on what LCCN records state, but definitely feel that the records need some commentary when researched or hot links given, so a formula for such has no objection from me. As a subject, the citing of LCCN data by publishers and what commentary is most useful should also be included at this time. Obviously, I am not producing the assurance of what I state in your mind and it is needful to broach the subject in a wider venue. My only real stance is that I think they should be separated in Notes for clarity, unless as occasionally happens they agree fully and completely, i.e. they are identical publications. When that happens I site the number and description as given in book (it varies) and then state "Hot link below". It may be oxymoronic on my part, but I like links at the bottom. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you are holding submissions for discussion the last pending also might be of interest due to the fact there is no LCCN entry, all OCLC's are botched, and the title story has been published independently. As I have no hope of winning an argument, especially since I do NOT understand the argument, hope you get this through rather quickly as everything apparently offends and it is tiring. Remember this though, re-editing something that an only verifier does may NOT always reflect the true status and condition of things. It can create more errors than it solves. Thanks again, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I approved The Mind Cage and left the pointer to the 1957 LCCN in the record as an example for the purposes of the discussion that I have started on the Rules and Standards page. Ahasuerus 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Way Beneath

You would like to change the first Locus-verified printing of The Way Beneath to the fourth printing. Did you mean to clone the pub instead of editing it, perchance? Ahasuerus 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to clone. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled. Will re-submit. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Machiavelli Interface

The Machiavelli Interface - You verified this with a $3.99 price and "First printing by number line." Can you re-check the number line? I have what looks like the same publication but priced at $2.95 and with no number line. If yours is the first printing per # line then Ace screwed up. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LOCUS 1 agrees with you. Changed mine to Locus date. Verified your OCLC, Locus 1 & Reg 1. The last two agree, Locus being most specific. OCLC, 4 records, are generic to ISBN. After acceptance, you can check mine for completeness. Examination shows that first had long Ace price line, mine has shorter price line and some later editions no price line. Thanks for the heads-up!, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, I am late to this party -- the submission wasn't on hold, so I approved it and changed the wording before stopping by to leave a note. Good detective work all around! Ahasuerus 13:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Deeply disappointed that your edited version is not the way/manner that I used to describe this book I have in hand. --Dragoondelight 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Notes field was edited for clarity -- please see my comments re: clarity above.

Remember, as the Wiki warning says, "Please note that all contributions to ISFDB are considered to be released under the Attribution (see ISFDB:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Not that moderators want to spend their limited ISFDB time on this kind of activity, but it will be done when it is needed. Ahasuerus 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I only have one thing that is mine own that is my verification of what I see. If some wish to edit it past my comfort level for verification, then I will not keep my name on it. I have NO problem with them doing so. Obviously, your opinion of what/how overrides mine. Therefore, I withdraw my verification. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope you obtain an identical copy soon, so you can take of verification of your wording. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the third printing, which I will enter later today and update Notes accordingly. Ahasuerus 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The third printing has been added and the second printing has been updated. Ahasuerus 04:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahasuerus, regarding "Signature not found" on the third printing. Can you see it on Author:Richard Berry? It's on top of the guy's leg right at the point where it's cut off by the right edge of the cover. I'm not sure what colors you can and can't see. It's signed in purple ink.

Got it, thanks! Ahasuerus 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dragoondisapointed, I'm constantly refining how I word things in publication notes with the goals being clarity and ease of entry. If you have suggestions for improvements then fire away. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I too, have had occasion to change the way I do a verification, but I do have the copy, and yes occasionally I change how I see it. At the same time, when another person edits the data to their satisfaction and that edit does NOT meet the standards I am happy with, there is no reason to keep the verification. In this case, my wording is radically altered in such a way that it is NO longer mine. Therefore, I withdraw my verification and my participation in that item. Long ago in a different world, I learned to NOT verify the wording of others when it did not meet my standards and at that time the standards of my employer. It is very difficult to explain that which may misrepresent your viewpoint. In NO sense is this an 'ownership' question, it is a question of standing up for what is written by others. As said before, if my words are edited before my approval then it is NO longer my work to defend or even discuss. I learned that giving up the right to discuss it before it is done, later leads to things being altered again and again, to the point that I can not recognize it. It becomes a case of "You Never Objected Before" and "Why Now". I do NOT own data, but I do own my verification of it, and if it does not meet my standards, then I will NOT stand by it. People can easily 'clarify' a person's effort to the point that it has no relation to what was initially done and once the process starts then one finds oneself 'overwritten' to the point that one can NOT understand the material at all. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenever a publication record is modified in a non-trivial way (where "trivial" is defined as spelling errors, misplaced apostrophes, bad HTML formatting, etc), the verifier/submitter should certainly be notified. However, there is no guarantee that the verifier's "viewpoint", i.e. wording, formatting, etc, will be preserved if it is unclear. It's all part of the "editing for clarity" process that we discussed above. If you don't want to keep your verifications if your wording is changed, that is certainly up to you. Ahasuerus 03:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is that all of us are trying to improve the quality of the publication records. Harry, we are now in a position where you have abandoned primary verification of two records. If what someone is writing is difficult to understand then please make an effort to extract what they are trying to say and to come up with mutually agreeable wording.

The record for The Tomb fascinates me as it lists four OCLC numbers plus I see fifth, 473405510, on Worldcat. It means at least five librarians looked at exactly the same elephant and came up with five different descriptions of it (so far). We don't want to go down OCLC's path of dozens of publication records for the same book meaning we do need to negotiate with each other with how to best describe each elephant. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to OCLC, their robots and librarians have to reconcile publication records uploaded by thousands of libraries (some of them using different cataloging rules) and decide which ones can be merged. As we know from our experience with "Check for Duplicate Titles", that's not a trivial proposition :-) Ahasuerus 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Finding OCLC numbers

How did you find the four OCLC numbers you documented for The Tomb? You reported OCLC numbers 441426329, 39514012, 426456982, and 244831110.

• When I do a basic search using the ISBN the Worldcat web site drops me on record for OCLC 39514012.
• When I do an advanced search for the ISBN the Worldcat web site returns records for OCLC 473405510 and 39514012. Curiously, on the left margin of the advanced search results is "Refine Your Search" which has a line for 2006 that returns OCLC 244831110 which was not in the advanced results list. I'm not sure I agree that returning additional, and previously unknown, information is "refining..." Maybe refactor results?

Whatever method you are using found 441426329 and 426456982 which were not shown as part of the basic or advanced results but did not find 473405510 which was in the advanced search result. Thus I'm wondering what method you use to track down OCLC records. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, major headache from sun. Method used was Advanced Search title "The Tomb" author "F. Paul Wilson". results as you have. Open the one with no other leads, 473405510, ISBN match. Second which is 39514012. Second record has tab "view all editions and formats" hit that. You now have 17 records to check the loner should have been here also. Matches ISBNS, #9 = 441426329, #8 = 39514012, #7 = 426456982, #3 = 244831110 which had this ""A Tom Doherty Associates book." "Author's definitive ed."-- P.1 of cover "TOR fiction."" . The last note is there but is actually for record #1 = 70825626, which has this ISBN 0765355132, "2006, ©1984.", "Author's Definitive". Record #1 I believe, curse the headache, is the rewrite of the story to get it to line up with new author scheme. Record #3 is the one that Willem H. told me he felt uneasy about and I went and copied the notation into the reference I presented. I told him I thought the notation here (#3) was wrong and later found that the "author's definitive" is supposed to be a different ISBN, but information bleed in OCLC records is common. As I understand the OCLC system, the single record needs to be added to the 17 records. You can NOT rationally use the records with 'tabs to view all editions and formats' without checking for more records. In my citing of these OCLC records I used the ISBN as my marker for checking. Dating and tag lines, including copyrights can be wrong, but the ISBN served as my baseline for checking. In this case NO printing was named, occasionally some OCLC records do list 2nd, 3rd printing etc, is very rare. Often the year dating varies, but I found some OCLC records with wide year differences, and the only edition known was printed once. Copyright year to printing year occurs frequently and a very current record can be hidden in years like 1925. Publisher can be used to refine, but SFBC, Nelson Doubleday and notations that come from page saying it is by permission of a publication house can really bolix you up.

To answer why did I miss, record 473405510, I may not have double checked it after doing the others, most probably I felt that four records quite enough, as some moderators believe only one record for a printing and four was pushing it, but five? I probably drew a line in the sand and said enough for checking, anyone using all my leads really needs to do their own search. Figure in that every interruptions on a project 'in progress' reflect on my results. Home, email, etc and the more time spent, the harder it is to pick up the threads. This I learned from checking OCLC records, open the tabs, in one case I found four title records, and two had tabs. In one case, I found 147 records (memory) and did NOT check them all for more direct relevance. If I remember right you could find a Lost Tor, record mixed under a McClurg, Fantasy press, or another mass low price publisher simply because the copyright date was used to date the record. Any other questions, try to do tomorrow. Thanks all, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's messier than I had anticipated. I played around with Worldcat and discovered that they have what I'll call "edition groups." When you do a search for an author, title, and/or ISBN the search results will only show one OCLC record from each group even though multiple records in the group may match your query. There are at least three groups for "The Tomb."

• Edition Group 1 has 17 records: 70825626, 315529556, 244831110, 229293608, 470365292, 530819565, 426456982, 39514012, 441426329, 37895550, 59230337, 34498234, 19100190, 59230238, 11298630, 11445531, and 39175322.
• Edition Group 2 has one record: 473405510.
• Edition Group 3 has one record: 154118287.

Four of the records in Edition group 1 are for ISBN 0812580370 and it's those four that you documented. The record in Edition Group 2 is also for ISBN 0812580370 and that's the one you missed. The record in edition group 3 looks like junk but I was able to establish that it's based on a real publication though and seems to be a book-club-edition of OCLC 59230238.

Thus the key to a search by ISBN would be to first do an advanced search for the ISBN. It'll return a few hits, for example ISBN 0812580370 gets two. Look at the end of the "Edition/Format:" line for each record and if you see a link titled "View all editions and formats" then click that to view the entire edition group. You will then need to go through the group manually looking for the other records in the group that match your ISBN.

You have to start with an advanced search. If you do a basic search for 0812580370 it drops you straight into an OCLC record and you will not see records in the other edition groups regardless of how much you click in "refine results" or "other editions." I'm guessing Basic Search picks the edition held by the most libraries. For "The Tomb" the edition picked is held in 200 libraries though OCLC 11445531 is close as it's in 198 libraries.

I was unable to find a method to cause the search results to not do this edition grouping thing. Ideally, we'd be able to search for the ISBN and it would show the five matching records. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem remains that basically many records are duplicates of the ISBN or the copyright year or the publisher or variants of the publisher. Other than recording initial impression of what some 'one' individual thinks is important, the newer material is fairly barren, the most interesting feature being the 'reviews' section, which really a title thing. Older printings can be valuable, mostly because of the extreme lack of material, but knowing the problems of their system, you always will need a solid second source to do comparisons. So do 'hot links' or citing numbers really help. I think not. As for record grouping, I think all the same title/author are supposed to be grouped in one research file. I think it is an OCLC record keeping fault, not a deliberate sectional division. They appear to have lots of file input people, especially foreign but few file groupers and unfortunately no file 'strainers'. Their greatest lack of organization are easiest to find in very popular authors, check little known and not reprinted authors after say 1980 and you find much less scrabble playing. The integration of foreign records has some benefits and some flaws. The Germans have lots of records of English printings. Notice terms sider or s. after page count. They also categorize the books as 'something Roman'. Of course, if they fail to do that those tells will just add to the mish-mash. IMO, they are at a critical point of just becoming a data 'dump' or reaching a state of system dystrophy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to look up related ISBNs in OCLC, although you are limited to 1,000 ISBN queries every 24 hours. There are similar ways to get this data from the Google Book Search API and even from Amazon. Fixer already has this data on file and will start correlating/submitting it over the next few weeks. As of this morning, Fixer is aware of the following ISBNs associated with the ISBNs that we currently have on file:

• 49,003 English non-audio ISBNs
• 231555 foreign language ISBNs
• 39,494 audio ISBNs

Lots of stuff to work on... Ahasuerus 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tried one I knew they had and three that were reprints with new ISBN's where I could not find an OCLC record. Three more strides, three ISBN's not covered. Ah Well. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder is there is value to recording OCLC numbers at all just for the sake of recording them. If someone's doing a project where they inspect and use the Worldcat records for something they can query for data and use the results. If someone adds information to ISFDB based on a Worldcat record or records then that's the time you would cite the record(s) involved, the information you extracted, and perhaps a rational of why you believe that data is valid. Ideally, we would know the source of every bit of data in ISFDB so that we can say "July 28, 2010 - OCLC record 123456 reports the page count as 433 and Amazon record 987654321 reports 440." We'd have to leave it at that until someone can show that one both of of those records is for another publication, that a different counting method was used, or a mistake was made. The latter is the most difficult to prove when dealing with data sources like Worldcat or Amazon as there's no method in place to query the person who entered the data in the first place to re-check and perhaps explain. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Prince in Waiting

I approved the changes to the 1974 Collier edition of The Prince in Waiting and then used the reference to LCCN 70-119838 to create a publication record for the Macmillan hardcover edition.

Could you please clarify whether this LCCN is printed on the copyright page of the Collier edition? If it is, then we can add something along the following lines to the Collier pub:

• LCCN 70-119838 on the copyright page. According to the on-line catalog of the Library of Congress, this LCCN had been originally used for the 1970 Macmillan hardcover edition. It was retained on the copyright page of this edition, although as of 2010-07-00 the Collier edition is not listed in the LOC catalog.

Ahasuerus 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Tomb

Harry - I have removed one of the OCLC lines from your verified THTMBVPGDH1998. Please see Author:F. Paul Wilson#The Tomb for more details. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have removed them all. As previously stated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the OCLC remaining lines in that publication. I saw that you were leaving OCLCs in for the publications you are updating and so was not sure if you wanted to keep these:

• OCLC: 441426329.
• OCLC: 39514012.
• OCLC: 426456982. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Check LOCUS 2006 The Tomb, ISBN 0-765-35513-2, which states "The Tomb (Tor 0-765-35513-2, Aug 2006, $4.99, 425pp, pb) [Repairman Jack] Reissue (Whispers Press/Berkley 1984) horror novel, the first in the Repairman Jack series. This is the revised “Author’s Definitive Edition” (Borderlands Press 2004) with a special price and a mail-in rebate offer. " The note tacked onto the ISBN was casued by the record having this information put on the wrong ISBN. The reason I kept the correct ISBN with wrong notation as given by OCLC was for "awareness" that there were two Tor editions and that if you are not careful you get the old version. Something that happened to me several times while trying to get the unedited version of "Stranger in a Strange Land". I had already stated that I wished to remove all OCLC records and LCCN records due to the dissension already engendered. Leaving any is a mistake as far as I am concerned, though I left the records so that others can belabour these points. I hate to say this but bad data in a record is not reason to remove it, as that bad data is an example and warning of what can be gotten from OCLC. IMO. LOL Happily, I am out from under. Removing any/all LCCN's/OCCL's is not my concern anymore. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have copied part of your comment over to Author:F. Paul Wilson#The Tomb. Thank you for that info. I'd seen 0-765-35513-2 on Amazon and it *seems* to be the new edition. Unfortunately, my local library does not have a copy. I also checked Link+ which allows me to get stuff from many libraries in California and they don't have it either. Worldcat found two copies in California, both hundreds of miles from me. I believe the author made a huge mistake in keeping the title the same. Had it been The Tomb, Reprised then most libraries would have bought a copy. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a new note to your verified The Tomb. Please feel free to edit the note if it does not meet your clarity standards. I also went ahead with the new title records, etc. for the 1998 edition. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First thanks for removing the OCLCs as I wished. Too me they can create confusion. A little aside to everyone: I feel differently about OCLC's of the 1950's and before, and will cherry pick the 60's to 80's for information if I can find a second source to flesh them out. Check the Preston Yorke [19], check both titles, the first with two OCLC's led to the second when I got a copy. In this manner the OCLC backed up the other sources, but after checking a physical book provided that clue to a separate or second printing, which was not shown as we commonly see it done. Still, since you are checking the usage of OCLC's you may have something to add to my proposed usage in connection with other sourcing. BTW, almost all the books I did were also compared, though not stated, to the "Dark Fantasy" site, which is a great site, but which I 'borrowed' imagery and checked artists at. Unfortunately, I 'borrowed' because it has bandwith and availability problems and transferring a few images to this site, rather than a credit of some kind would probably ease that problem. H. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of the publication comments for Space-Time Task Force look good. One thing I see on OCLC 504137010 is "Description: 8°." An octavo publication (8° or 8vo) normally 9x6 inches implying that record is for the hardcover edition. OCLC 6969964 reports "19 cm" which is tall for a pb (normally 18cm) but not quite hc (20cm on up). I would assume that 6969964 is for the pb. It seems worthwhile in this case to measure your publication and to include the dimensions in the notes though apparently yours is a later printing that may not match the publications that either of those OCLC records were based on.

I don't have a problem with someone using OCLC/LCCN or any source including plain fabrication as long as sources are cited. When practical, direct quotes from the sources are desirable rather than attempts to “restate” what the source says. I tend to date notes that cite web sources so that someone else looking at the publication record and then the source can update the note (with their own date) noting what the source now says.

I see publication records as a gathering place of information about publications. Title records would be gathering places of information about the story/title or for publication info that can't be reliably assigned to a specific publication and/or information about groups of publications. As title records do not have a wiki-text area we often use the author or publisher's wiki text area to maintain these notes.

As for borrowed imagery - Apparently scans of covers are known as “slavish copies” and thus do not qualify as “works of art” in themselves. Thus the scans are not covered by copyright and legally can be used by others assuming that use is proper per the original publisher and/or artist copyrights. I’m of the belief that a photograph of a book qualifies as a “work of art” as the book is shown with a certain presentation, lighting, setting, etc. Those would have a copyright held by the photographer, or if a for-hire work by whoever paid for the photograph. Thus we can’t use someone else's photograph of a book under fair-use unless we were writing commentary on the photograph and using that photo as an example. Even there, we could only use as much of the photograph, and at sufficiently reduced resolution that it can still support whatever statement we are trying to make about the work.

So, if you see a scan of a book on web site then legally, though nor ethically, you can take it for ISFDB. I’d just ask the Dark Fantasy people if you can use their scans. Sweeten the deal by offering to credit them. I did this yesterday with a bookseller who had a photo of a limited edition book. The seller responded immediately and also sent me a better photo than the one they were using on AbeBooks. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Tomb. Your note is excellent and your editor title note also. These type of statements never bother, if they really did bother me, I would not edit/delete, but simply state that as blank verifier I had questions. Has never happened here, though. H. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Tomb and F. Paul Wilson's work. First I am NOT a fan, my brother is and I keep them for his interest in that type of fiction. My entries, thus were to fill in a few gaps for users. Thus I do NOT have a reader's grasp of the bulk of his work. But, my attention was caught as I gathered my samplings of his work in the Repairman Jack and Adversary Cycle series. Feel free to examine the others that I verified there for flaws, I have not started my 'cleansing' of OCLC and LCCN links I put in until the subject is definitely dead. The OCLC's differencies and problems in OCLC records wearied me. By the time, I did "The Tomb" I noted in my mind the inconsistency in noting for the 2006 record, and left it as is, until Willem left a note saying he was uneasy about it. His catch and statement was excellent and greatly appreciated. I tried to note it as a warning, but other problems still bother/ed me about what the author was trying to do and I did NOT get it right. Also, it is IMO very hard to parse a true variant change and a minor change of content. I am at heart an adherent that each word change is variant, but I realize that is impractical here and in life, so I generally leave it to others. H. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with The Tomb and questions in my mind and possible cloudiness in descriptions by other online sources. I had NOT noticed the connection of TT to Rakoshi and it's transition to TT/ADE. I was bugged by available pricing. I had noticed that several sources touted that TH/ADE was now a part of the The RJ series, which is confusing and this author is full of this kind of thing. "All the Rage" apparently spawned "The Last Rakosh", which is cut down to short fiction, but separately listed by US here. #3 vs #9. [20]. Check the reviews. I also have a twitch that Rakoshi/Last Rakosh may have more than title similarities problems. Notice TT/ADE is NO longer available from Amazon directly, but they have the 98 TT. This author is at the top of his money making heap and is taking advantage of the reader and the opportunity to re-tune connections. My mind boggles. Wish you luck and if there is anything else I will try to answer it. Sorry, mind is overloaded by these things, and I will not be satisfied till I have an epiphany connection. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is turning into a bibliographic horror story in need of a direct hookup to your epiphany connection. I got a copy of The Tomb from the public library and it turns out to be the Tor August 2006 edition. Its copyright page states "Copyright © 1984, 2004 by F. Paul Wilson" and "This revised edition was previously published in 2004 by Borderlands Press". I stared at the author's FAQ and what Borderlands Press wrote and decided to separate out the publication you have into its own title, The Tomb (1998 edition). I'll see if I can track down a copy of the 1998 edition. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you separated the Tor 1998 edition to 'emphasize' the differences with the Rashoni edition and 'Author's Definitive Edition". I have NO problem with this, but am irked that the consumer gets 'short riff' elsewhere. The Publisher's can do better. I am on 'book buying hiatus on the net' for the month of August, but have looked into getting a 2004/6 edition of the ADE. Problem is that I have been 'burned' before by sellers who do NOT parse correctly. I will get one next month though, and parse it then. Thanks for the update, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought for a while there were three versions of the text and separated yours out as it seemed to be one of the three. The author's FAQ mentions three versions but seems to spell it out as two versions with the third being Rakoshi which per the author's FAQ is the 1998 text. Borderlands Press is ambiguous in that they say "Finally the text has been extensively edited and updated by the author to make this the definitive edition" but they skirt around if that editing/updating was in 1998 or 2004. The Tor edition I got has a 1984,2004 copyright which tilts things towards three versions.

I then realized that the Amazon Look Inside was for the Tor 1998 edition with the first six pages available and I have the 2004 edition meaning I could at least compare the first six pages. The type-setting was different which added some pain.

• He replaced references to VCR players and tapes with DVD players and discs.
• He replaced references to the "answerphone" with "answering machine".
• Besides technology updates he tweaked the wording here and there though not enough to change any of the plot.

I noticed that some AbeBooks sellers of 0-8125-8037-0, which is the August 1998 edition say "Repairman Jack is back in this special edition of Wilson's bestselling thriller, presenting the author's revised and preferred text for the first time in paperback. Revised reissue. 448 pages." It's not clear if that's something stated in the publication or they pulled it off some web site. One of these sellers says "107mm x 30mm x 177mm" which is a little taller than the 2004 edition I have (mine's 105mm x 30mm x 170mm).

Google books has the 3rd printing of the August 1998 edition. The copyright is 1984 and the text seems to be the same as the 1st printing.

A thought is to ask the book dealers if their publications state they are the revised edition or to start hunting around the used bookstores in hopes of seeing it. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

John E. Stith

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and added one for here. Hauck 17:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Excellent! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cover artist for The Windup Girl

Can you recheck the artist credit for this pub. The other records for this title give the artist as "Raphael Lacoste" (only one has been verified). Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Raphael on copyright page and Ralph on back cover. Changed notes to "Raphael", but Ralph will probably come back to haunt. Read back cover first and the name stuck. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Well of the Unicorn

I added a link to the cover scan for The Well of the Unicorn. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Haven of Darkness

Replaced the FF scan on your verified here and the amazon one for Stardeath. Hauck 12:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As ever, Excellent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guns of the South

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 09:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Turtledove

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and for here. Hauck 16:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cut By Emerald cover image

I replaced a broken amazon link on Cut By Emerald with a working one. However I have no way to be sure if the image is correct for the pub indexed, and I don't trust amazon. Please check when you have time. -DES ^Talk 21:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Image is fine. Unfortunately Amazon images are getting chopped at a great rate. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Submitted a new image to the db. Sorry for the shortness in earlier reply. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No problems. -DES ^Talk 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The golden globe

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 10:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Endurance

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 12:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Thunder

Added an image to your verified here and replaced for A Martian Odyssey. Hauck 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic Job! Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rashayn Dark

You recently submitted changes to Rashayn Dark which you have primary verified. These include a new cover scan, which shows the author as "William Tedford". Your (new) notes show this as the author's name on the copyright notice as well. Is the name nonetheless given as "William G. Tedford" on the title page? -DES ^Talk 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Shockingly, the title page uses "William G. Tedford". In fact only place where 'G' is used. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this. -DES ^Talk 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth a note. I dread to think how many questions I'm going to get in future about covers that just show "Aldiss" where spines have "Brian Aldiss" and title page has "Brian W. Aldiss" and essays in them are just by "BWA".... if I'd known originally that my verifications meant so many questions, I'd have done them very differently. BLongley 23:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was actually a pretty good catch and well worth asking the question. Mike caught me on "Silent Galaxy" just recently and I remembered to double check the name and where. I opened both records and added lines to explain the name. So both records opened and reviewed against each other. Explanation on verification of first title I was working on. My usual practice now is if the book printing is available and not a clone, to make my notations, etc and then to verify the book as I have just finished looking it up at OCLC, LOCUS, and REGIS 1 and sometimes (often) elsewhere. So I verify to try to get it complete before my memory lapses. Also, short replies that look 'snarky' are not meant to be, they indicate that I am in the middle of other things and trying not to 'lose' thought trains. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacements

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified The Killing of Worlds and The Escape Orbit and Federation World. Hauck 17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacements

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified A Dark Imbalance and Ambassador of Progress and Voice of the Whirlwind and Eridahn and Angelmass. Hauck 12:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara

In your recent new pub of The Sword of Shannara you included a content item: The Sword of Shannara / The Brothers Hildebrandt / 1977-00-00 / 35 / SHORTFICTION / shortfiction. Did you intend this to be an INTERIORART item, or is there some oddity I don't understand going on here? I have this on hold. -DES ^Talk 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC) --Dragoondelight 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I caught that also, but it is from the original and I did NOT catch it till I had submitted the clone. Therefore, I awaited the clone to get through and planned to change them then. It is interior art. So now, first cloned from SF is now submitted for change to IA. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Both subs approved. -DES ^Talk 13:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Changeling

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here and for The earth's last Fortress. Hauck 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Noah II cover

I found this stating the cover is by Ruben DeAnda (one "A"), signed by the illustrator. Can't tell if it's the same person, but I found this website. Looks like there's an email link if you feel like asking him.... --MartyD 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gave it a try. Probably will send a 'hit' squad after me. LOL I have been at that site before and do not know why. I remember the Tiger. Thanks for the help, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Last Castle

Hi Harry, I added the publication year (from the Ace Image Library), the cover artist (from the signature) and notes about this to your verified The Last Castle. Also changed the booknumber from #47072-6 (frontcover) to ISBN 0-441-47072-6 (spine). I hope you can agree with this. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed to all! No problems. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaissance

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cover credit for Wandor's Journey

According to this website, Enric is the cover artist for this pub. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it does look like his work. Mhhutchins 17:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Same situation with Wandor's Ride. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also according to the same website, this cover is also by Enric. I'm thinking the interior artist was credited incorrectly for this record as the cover artist. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the website correct. I think series follow-ups on cover crediting make a lot of sense. Often, apparently publishers do that. I agree with the Janissaries: Clan and Crown credits. It makes sense that Enric did the cover and the art on neither illustrator matches the cover art. Will change and note it tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I submitted artist additons/changes on all three and cited the source. Thanks for the insight, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Voyage of the Space Beagle cover credit

Hi Harry, user Hauck found the cover for this verified pub in 21st Century Foss (page 76), so we added the Chris Foss and a note. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Way to go! No problems, looks fantastic. Adds are fine, especially sourced. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Weapon Shops of Isher

Added artist for your verified here from icshi but coherent with other Isher NEL title. Hauck 07:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Very Good! Submitted confirmation line from Jane Frank also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hub: Dangerous Territory

You verified this pub. The only problem I have is, that it's presented as an omnibus. Ok, it contains a novel that has been previously published, but I think this is another example of what's meant in the helptext with A collection such as Robert Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" should be categorized as a collection, although one of the works is a novel. Do you have a problem with me turning it into a collection? Then I can fix the ebook edition too. That one is now presented as a collection containing an omnibus. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! I believe I just followed what the input was when I got there and did not parse it further. Your logic is sound. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits are done, both look good now. Thanks for the quick response! --Willem H. 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wizard at Large

Just to inform you, I approved your 10th priinting of Wizard at Large, but I think you forgot to change the publication date. The note sais September 1993, but the pub still has August 1989 (from the 1st printing). Thanks, --Willem H. 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good catch. Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And approved (of course). --Willem H. 12:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fallen Angel in Fantasy Annual 3

Hi Harry, could you check this pub for the E.C. Tubb story? The title is stated as Fallen Angel (Revised), makes sense since it's a revised version of Lucifer!. I can't see a reason however to add "revised" to the title, it's more something to be in the title's notes I think. Google books states the title as "Fallen Angel". The story is reprinted in this pub, and I would like to merge the two. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed (revised), I left it there from the original input, but never found to what as there are NO notes in anthology on stories, other than the copyright page story statements. All were supposed to be 'new' for the anthology first printing, so the (Revised) came from other source. I also reworked the notes, please check for 'lucidity' and further credited the art to the original publication. So ready for merge, I hope! LOL You might wish to add the connection to "Lucifer" as it is not in book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Kraang had already merged the titles. I added a note (linked to Lucifer!). Thanks, --Willem H. 06:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacements

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified The Resurrected Man and for Wizard's isle and Argonaut and Kane's Odyssey. Hauck 16:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Job! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Supplicant" or "Suppliant"?

Your posting on the Verifications page prompted me to look at other appearances of this story. You have a printing in this paperback that uses "Supplicant". Can you check to make sure it's the correct spelling? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just submitted the del and correction. I think there may be another that I missed also. This one, after noticing it, really nags me that it is a mistake I made before and recently. LOL My excuse is my eyesight is a 'wee' better now, after the lens replacement, and it caught up with me. LOL Weee weee weee. Sorry OCLC and Contento got it right though. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your eyesight was good enough to see the correct spelling when at least three other editors (Swfritter, Bluesman and I) missed it! Funny thing is, either form of the word is acceptable. Most of the earlier printings were "Suppliant", while the story was reprinted as "Supplicant" in all of Sheckley's collections. Mhhutchins 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to look up the definition, twice. I think though, that when Sheckley learned it, there was some degree to the adherence or acceptance. Suppliant I believe is a receiver, supplicant is someone who is more in question in what is received. 'I accept' versus 'I wish to accept (get)'. Sheckley was considered a wordsmith and word oddities were a loaded gun in his arsenal. Too bad we may be missing the dig. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonym for "Editors of Galaxy"

Do you have any secondary source that Jakobsson edited the first two "Bests" from Galaxy? I strongly suspect he was responsible, because he was Galaxy's editor at the time. Just wondered if perhaps there's some outside corroboration. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reginald 3 made me look it up by title and it's Reginald not I. I figured it was such a pain to look up that it needed to be attributed. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept the pseudonym creation and make variants of the titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mission to the Stars

According to my 7th printing, this pub was published in November 1962. Thanks, --Willem H. 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Change submitted. Thank You greatly!, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New Dimensions: Science Fiction Number 5

I'm looking at New Dimensions: Science Fiction Number 5 which both of us verified and wondering why I did not enter the catalog number as 0-06080354-1 which is also an ISBN. I believe this should be fixed, particularly as the notes seem clear enough as to the various numbers on this publication. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should be entered, but the reason you probably did not is the variance displayed in the book. You are an expert in ISBNs, so you know that it is NOT simply 10 numbers, but numbers that point to different components. Thus first 0 is the United States? next set is supposed to be the printer? next is the book serial/series number, filled with zeros or allotted null numbers and the last is the algorithm sum number. Thus Y-YYY-YYYYY-Y or Y-YYYY-YYYY-Y or Y-YYYYY-YYY-Y, but the two examples do NOT seem to conform to the ISBN or SBN standard as displayed. 06- is publisher or is it an early work around, 080354- also is either a combination or a work around, -1 is the sum number, but I believe the sum would be different with 9 numbers, thus it shows they omitted the 0 deliberately, thus confounding, or if they derived the sum number without it, then it is an anomaly which is correct with or without the prefix 0. Thus technically it can be an ISBN but one derived incorrectly or before standards were set. The stated 'standard book number' 0-06080354-1 on the copyright page is a correct ISBN, but still is incorrectly stated. Conclusion would have to be that this number is an early number processed before conventions were standardized for component segments. Since, I know you know the above, I assumed you did NOT want to state that it was, without proof, an anomalous fill in ISBN number used before standard conventions had been formalized in the U.S.? Did I get it right? LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not include in my New Dimensions why I picked catalog #P354 when an SBN and proto-ISBN were also available and the number is in use on Amazon. I updated the publication record to use the ISBN. I also did these changes to the notes:

• I added “quotes” around each of the titles in the first part. Before I only had the italics. It's still hard to read.
• I added a note about the cover artist credit with Xerography per what you e-mailed to me.
• I thought about removing the "OCLC 43844071" line but in the end left it in as 43844071 seems to be the only Worldcat record for this publication and it's unlikely more will get added. Worldcat has 2186268, 85758776, 8017171, 18388111, and 31253413 for other editions of New Dimensions 5.

On ISBNs, the placement (or existence) of hyphens has always been optional and left to end users. Both 06-080354-1 and 0-06080354-1 are valid SBNs and ISBNs though these days we would tend to format it as 0-06-080354-1. For some reason, the formatting of SBN/ISBNs was not widely distributed meaning individual book designers all needed to figure out where to put those hyphens or leading zeroes on their own.

The leading part of the ISBN is called the "Group Identifier" because it's used both as a language code and country code. Codes 0 and 1 are for English and applies to English language books published in Australia, Canada (English speaking), Gibraltar, Ireland, Namibia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Swaziland, UK, USA, and Zimbabwe. The second part, after the Group Identifier, is usually the publisher but here's the rub - each individual Group Identifier is managed by its own organization and is free to assign numbers within their group as they see fit. Thus the second part does not have a formal name though for most of the publications we see they map to publishers. The last part is the sum-digit which can be from 0 to 10 with 10 being shown as "X". --Marc Kupper|talk 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Survival Printout

Hi Harry, I approved your edit of this pub, and have one question. The essay "Printout" is now "by unknown [as by Total Effect]". As I see it, the essay "The Editors" (page 333) explains that "Total Effect" is an organization, consisting of Leonard Allison, Leonard Jenkin and Robert Perrault. The ISFDB entry already has the pseudonymous relation. Logically, I would have the Printout essay as by these three in stead of "unknown" [as by Total Effect]. Any problems with that? (saw your comment om Michael Hutchins' page, but approved anyway since I actually own a copy of the book) Thanks, --Willem H. 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, but I will confuse you. I was working with the original input which had 'unknown' and the relationship which as you say is wrong. If you would correct it is much appreciated. My comment to Michael was in regards to the 'Reginald 1' note, which basically raised the question. If you have any adds, since you have a copy, go ahead. My big concern was that Loren Eiseley was not properly inputed and wondering if it was only 'Contento' that got it wrong as Simon. If you think I am wrong on anything, change it, as this was a difficult one. Still needs a cover also, but ah well! I think they were trying to format a continuing dialogue of publications and did not get enough sales to warrant continuing. Told you I confuse. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No confusion here. The Loren Eiseley edit was a good catch. I will add the cover when I reach my anthologies (shouldn't take more than a year now), and will then see if anything else needs changing. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Change any I have if you have better, as I am only vested in trying to get an image for users. Thanks for the extra work on this one. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally added the coverscan! No other corrections. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Afterward" by Wharton

I accepted the submission merging the titles, but changed the merged record back to a novelette. Even though I've not done an actual word count, I have a copy of it taking up 21+ pages in a trade paperback with relatively small type. Comparing it to novelettes in other anthologies in which it appears, it seems to be as long as (or longer than) most of them (page-wise). Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Truthfully, size to determine classification is parsing to a degree I find mysterious, not to mention that I often wonder about 'abridgement' and 'editing' for inclusion, etc. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Stories of the Supernatural by Sayers

You entered this with a date of 1967, but your note said "No edition, printing, printing date or printing number line in book.". Another note said "Library of Congress Catalogue Number 31:28476" which suggests a date of 1931 or 1932 for some edition. Of course Sayers died in 1957. I am curious, what is the source of the 1967 date? it isn't clear to me from the pub record. -DES ^Talk 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Tuck, this is a selection of stories from Great Short Stories of Detection, Mystery and Horror (Gollancz, 1929; Harcourt 1929; Garden City Publishing, 1931) (the last may have been the date of the LCCN record). He has it being published in 1963 (Macfadden #50-170, $0.50, 144 pages) and reprinted in 1967 with the same price, but a new catalog number (#50-300). Perhaps this record conflates the info for these two printings. Macfadden was not very good about dating their reprints. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, i recall entering contents for a pub of the full collection. (Another subset-collection). I don't have a copy of Tuck. -DES ^Talk 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OCLC #3794604 says [1963?]. OCLX #270824040 says [1931?]. Both say "from The Omnibus of crime" -DES ^Talk 04:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and sorry, Tuck is the dating source. As for " from The Omnibus of Time" it is in small print on the left bottom, far from title, on front cover. It also appeared under the title on the title page in the smallest font I have ever seen used on that page. Actually though, this statement is more misleading than correct. Though the stories were originally in that omnibus, the stories presented in this anthology are attributed as they were originally in the omnibus. Thus each story is directly attributed to more original sources. The Trial for Murder is attributed as from 'Christmas number of "All Year Round", 1865' with additional notation as to why it is co-authored. The Open Window from Beasts and Super-Beasts, The Viking Press, Permission to reprint is granted by John Lane: The Bodley Head Limited and the Viking Press. No title story page credits "The Omnibus of Time". The LCCN is the only crediting, but that is somewhat aksant as it is 'some' stories not all. Thus, the reality is, the permissions to reprint were reused, but the proper sourcing is still directly credited for each story. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thus any editorial input by Sayers (which may have been no more than selection and securing permissions) dates to 1931, but someone else must have done the sub-selection. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I do think it is a pretty good small collection of classic horror. Small enough to read. LOL Most surprising is the art is simply extraordinary. Either Powers worked cheap or the publisher was really pushing the book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Date on Warbreakter

Hi Harry. I noticed you changed the month on Warbreaker from March to April, but you left the day (30) from the original Amazon entry. Did you mean to remove that? --MartyD 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting old again! Will remove the 30. Good Catch! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Authors' vs. Author's Choice 4

Hi Harry. I approved your change of Authors' Choice 4 to Author's Choice 4 and noticed the Introduction carried the previous incorrect apostrophe location. Perhaps the main title, too. I am fixing them up to match the singular. --MartyD 12:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Do! I had mixed reactions to changing it but after notation, decided to be correct, but forgot the Introduction. Just goes to show that the proofing continues right up to the cover. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell from the picture of the Putnam editions where the apostrophe is. Looks like it's plural on that cover, but very hard to tell (and, of course, who knows what the title page says). I notice there's little consistency. I found Author's Choice 3, but Authors' Choice 2 (again, only based on covers). Since you have an authoritative view, I say you win. :-) --MartyD 12:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here. Hauck 13:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Delighted! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Queen of the Legion

Found a somewhat cleaner image for [this], enough to see that there is a signature on the bottom left corner, but not clean enough to blow it up and be sure whose. Looks like Kevin Eugene Johns[t]on?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Kevin Eugene Johnston and Jane Frank lists it on page 288. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reign of Wizardry

Very good image added to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Feel free to change any that I use here for a better one. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

artwork in The Best of Destinies

I noticed your new notes in The Best of Destinies talk about six sets of interiorart, but you added only four. Figured I'd mention it in case something bad happened to the other two. --MartyD 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a message with Ahasuerus, those are attributed in the sources I gave, but I could not find signatures, so I left the pointer notation for someone with both books. The four I did have solid signatures. Somewhat torn in doing it but since some had already been done, felt I had to add. P.S forgot to change Pohl essay page number. Will do now. LOL Thanks Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to The Ages of Chaos

You edited this pub of The Ages of Chaos by MZB.

You changed the date from 2002-05-00 to 0000-00-00. I presume the date is for the first printing and there is no known date for the 2nd printing?

You removed the cover image URL, blanking the amazon LZZZZZZ URL now present. While these URLs are not ideal, they are better than nothing. Is the current cover incorrect, or do you plan to specify or upload a better cover? What is the reason for the blanking of the cover image URL, please?

I have this submission on hold pending your response. -DES ^Talk 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to curb your use of power! You have NO reason to hold for second printing for a blank date. You have NO reason to hold for blanking an image. You are using your power irrationally. Please release my submission and refrain from such demonstrations. I often blank amazon images and I almost always, barring interference, recheck all submissions and correct. I have NOT the time for this. Why cause a train wreck? NO real thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Harry, please don't be so upset about this. There's no such thing as power abuse in this case. You probably meant to clone the first printing, but hit the "edit" button instead. I think this submission should be rejected (you can do that yourself). I cloned the first printing for you, and copied the changes from your submission. The result is here, please check it. --Willem H. 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, I blew it. But I could NOT see that by the questioning. I understood the commentary to mean we were talking about the 2nd printing, NOT changing the first. Sorry for being a clutz again. I could NOT understand why he was holding the submission. I am blind after submission. I will reject. Thank you, for all that work Willem, but I could have done that. I apologize to all for the temper, but... If I had understood the problem I would have immediately canceled and re-submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No harm done I think, and it's not a lot of work, just a bit of the old copy-paste stuff. Thanks, --Willem H. 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if my note was not clear. I would not have held for the date change alone, but in general removing apparently valid information form an existing pub (such as a cover image URL) is something i would question. Blanking during a clone operation is another matter. I also failed to catch that you intended a clone, so i couldn't tell you that. I did specifically say that what you did was edit a specific pub, to which i gave you a link, so you could see for yourself. What additional info should I have provided that would have made the situation clearer to you? I do want to be helpful, not annoying. -DES ^Talk 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Hennessey-Barratt

Hi, can you check if Hennessey-Barratt here should be Hennessey-Barrett? Thanks Jonschaper 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Heretics

Scanned/uploaded image for Heretics. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I added more notes to this publication about the title, number line, publisher name, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Supremacy of Uruguay

Can you check the copyright data for this title here? The Jan 1951 issue of Worlds Beyond lists the copyright as 1939, but I notice it has been entered as 1933 so I wonder if that is from another of its publications. Jonschaper 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Army of Darkness

I added the frontispiece map to this verified pub, and a note about the artist/credit. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Timegod -- cover replacement

User:Dsorgen has uploaded a new cover image for your verified pub of The Timegod. I am about to approve the pub edit. -DES ^Talk 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

cover for Operation Isis

Dsorgen has added a cover to your verified Operation Isis. --MartyD 10:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

cover and verification type for Operation Misfit

Dsorgen has added a cover to your transient-verified Operation Misfit. I wouldn't normally notify you about a transient, but looking at the date of the verification made me think it came before Primary2, et al., so I figured I'd mention it in case you want to change the verification type. --MartyD 10:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Shadowmarch

You verified Shadowmarch as a tp binding. Amazon lists it as 6.6 inches high which would be pb. Is your copy tp size? --Marc Kupper|talk 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I got a copy of this and so updated the record to change the binding to pb. There is a tp edition that has another ISBN and is priced $15.95. I also added a cover image, more notes, plus added content records for the illustrations. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I verified a public library copy that has stickers on the spine. Could you please check for a couple of things? 1) At the top of the spine is there a "FANTASY / DAW" triangle logo? At the bottom of the spine does it have "$8.99 U.S." over "($12.99 CAN)" or is it "8.99 U.S." over "(12.99 CAN)"? DAW did the price box on the spine without the "$" signs for a while. Thanks! --Marc Kupper|talk 19:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Aliens Among Us - cover artist

I added Paul Lehr as artist for this pub. Confirmed by Jane Frank. Thanks, --Willem H. 07:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Spell of the Witch World

You verified Spell of the Witch World with the note "441-UY1179-125 running downwards at bottom spine." Can you recheck to see if perhaps it's "451-UY1179-125"? Thanks! --Marc Kupper|talk 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hen(d)rik Dahl Juve in The Gernsback Years

Can you see if the spelling of the first name is given as both "Hendrik" and "Henrik" on pages 201-203 of this publication? I found the obituary in Locus (July 1990), and it gives the name as "Henrik". Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Space-Fighters

Replaced the amazon scan on your verified here, BTW, I'm intrigued by here it seems that the vts points to the same book (or it's something that I don't understand). Hervé Hauck 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst

I added the artist (Michael Whelan) and notes to this verified pub after Bluesman showed me the signature here. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Future Is Now

Corrected the publication date for The Future Is Now from Locus #104 (January 14, 1972). --Willem H. 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wild Seed

I added more notes to Wild Seed. The old notes were "Stated first printing. Cover artist is uncredited. No visible signature." --Marc Kupper|talk 07:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Catastrophe Planet

I updated the notes for Catastrophe Planet

• I removed "No statement of printing" from the notes as "Berkley Medallion Edition, August 1966" is the statement of printing.
• Added "Printed in the United States of America"
• Added - The publisher is stated on the title page as "(Berkley Medallion logo)" over "A Berkley Medallion Book" over "published by" over "Berkley Publishing Corporation".
• Added - The copyright is "Copyright © 1966 by Keith Laumer".
• Added - The stated August 1966 printing date is confirmed by my copy which is date-stamped "Aug 2, 1966" by a previous owner. ~Marc Kupper

--Marc Kupper|talk 17:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A Trace of Memory

I updated A Trace of Memory to add notes on the country of printing, ISBN on spine, publisher name, copyright, first appearance statement, and linked the OCLC. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorchie Nic Leodhas

You verified the book THTHTRBKD11977, with a story by Sorchie Nic Leodhas, who has a single short story to her name. It would seem fairly certain that that name is a typo from Sorche Nic Leodhas, who has 24 items in her entry. Could you check whether this is a data entry error (in which case it should be fixed) or an error in the original book (in which case it should be a pseudonym)? Thanks, Chavey 12:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Canadian price on Four Ways to Forgiveness?

User:Chavey proposes changing the noted Canadian price on your 2-verified Four Ways to Forgiveness from C$5.99 to C$7.99. Does that look right to you? Both you and Kevin have verified it, so I'm wondering if Chavey's might be a different printing; on the other hand, higher Canadian prices should be normal.... I also pinged Kevin. Thanks. --MartyD 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've approved the change, since it seems reasonable. Please double-check when you get a chance. --MartyD 00:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

additional note in Mindplayers

User:Chavey added a further note about the afterword to your verified Mindplayers. Seems a bit redundant but does provide more detail, for which I know you have a warm spot in your heart, so I approved it. --MartyD 10:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Chocky

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cover image for the ebook of Scorpion Reborn

I've removed the link to the cover image for this pub, as it's on a server which hasn't given us permission to link. As it's not graphically interesting or distinctive, I've not chosen to upload a copy of it to our server, but feel free to do so if you disagree. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Secret People

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Vortex cover

I added a cover image and a note to your verified pub of Masters of the Vortex by Smith. -DES ^Talk 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Alpha 4

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alpha 5

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank Harris' "A Charlatan" & "The Charlatan"

You verified this pub which contains A Charlatan listed with a page number and The Charlatan without a page number. Did the same author have two stories with a slight variation in title in that publication or is the second one an error? --JLaTondre 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Murray Leinster's "The Grandfather's War"

As a primary verifier of a publication containing The Grandfather's War , you input on this discussion is requested. A question has been raised about the proper location of the apostrophe. Thanks. --JLaTondre 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Berserker

I added a cover scan to your verified Berserker. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar Patrol

I have uploaded a scanned image for the Interstellar Patrol paperback novel, to replace the Amazon image. AndonSage 18:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison's The Deadly Streets

In your verified The Deadly Streets, there are two titles with page numbers of "del". The titles are variations of other titles in the publication. I'm guessing the "del" is short for "delete" and these should be removed? Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Before the Golden Age, Book 3

I think this pub is the same as this one. Since you verified both, I think you're the best judge. I verified (2nd) the second pub, it seems to be the most complete entry. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Andre Norton's "Storm Over Warlock"

You're the primary verifier for this title. Following your suggestion on your user page, I'm going ahead and adding a content item for an "About the Author" page. Chavey 04:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fine work

You have made some significant contributions to the ISFDB.--swfritter 23:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry, say it isn't so!! I, for one, have been missing you. Anyway, I second the thanks; it has been a pleasure working with you. --MartyD 14:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All of your work has been very much appreciated. You're leaving the database in much better shape than when you found it. Your important lasting legacy will be the expanded notes, and whenever I'm adding my tenth bullet point to a pub record's note field, I'll think of you. If you reconsider your decision down the road, please feel free to return. We'll leave the lights on for you. Mhhutchins 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for all the work! Ahasuerus 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a sad day. I've always loved working with with you. :-( --Willem H. 18:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)