User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2009Jan-Apr

Destinies

Just picked up the first four issues/pbs of the Baen Destinies series. When I went to the first one I found no artwork in the contents, as well as the second and third volumes. In the fourth the artwork is listed. Since you verified the second and third, do you mind if I enter the artwork on those? The practice will serve me in good stead once I get to the magazines I have (Galaxy, etc.). I will follow the format you set out on the fourth volume. With that in mind, even though all the artists are credited on the copyright pages, not all of the interior pieces are signed, and I am not familiar enough with the styles to just arbitrarily assign one. How should these be entered? Crediting the artists in the notes is easy, but for the pub contents? Thanks & Happy New Year! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and enter the artwork. Back when these were verified we didn't pay as much attention to artwork as we do now. Thanks. Credit artwork based on either signature or explicit credit (even if it's only in the copyrights), but don't credit based on style (use "uncredited"). You can make a note in the work's title record of your estimation of who the artist might be. MHHutchins 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since these will no doubt be held for you to check you can give me a grade!! One more thing, if two or three pieces are within the pages of one story, do they all get the story title? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's only one artpiece for the story it gets the name of the story, as the INTERIORART type. When there's more than one add an appendix to the title, i.e. [2] for the second piece, [3] for the third piece, etc. Check out this magazine that I entered recently. MHHutchins 22:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Super! Will attempt this tomorrow with a fresh brain. Thanks! ~Bill. --Bluesman 03:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are done, though after an hour just to write them all down and another to enter.... whew! I did something for the Vol. 2 entries that might be wrong. For two of the illustrations, they were continuous on two adjacent pages, so I listed them with the same []'d number, but with the separate pages. Have also discovered that some of the illustrations have definitely been trimmed to fit, so the signature may have been on the trimmed part. Let me know how they look. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize how many pieces of art were included in these pubs! I made a few changes. When an artist's signature is visible on one of the pieces I credit all of the pieces for that story to the same person even if the signature isn't visible on all of them. Also I changed the "(uncredited)" to "uncredited" (removed the parentheses). And about the single piece that covered two pages, I dropped the second one and kept one with the pagination of the first page on which it appeared. It's quite common for artwork to spread over two pages in magazines (Destinies was a pseudo-magazine/bookazine, despite the ISFDB's designation of it as an anthology.) Thanks for the tremendous effort. I know how tedious entering multiple contents can be. Check out this fanzine I entered the other day. MHHutchins 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the changes were yours, much thanks for adding some of the artists' names, as I just don't recognize a lot of the styles. Got a go-ahead from Bill Longley to do the same with the premier issue and will follow your lead on the changes you note. A little tedious, but at least there was only one longish story title! Being basically a two-fingered typist, the shorter the titles, the better, especially with 17 pieces for one story! Kind of glad I only bought the four! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's when copy and paste is heaven sent. Now that you've added the art for the first four, I guess that means I have to find the time to do the others. Thanks a lot! MHHutchins 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste?? And I still have to do the first and fourth, as there are way more pieces than the contents in the pub record show, figured two was enough for one day, especially if there needed to be any major changes as to how I had entered them. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When you have several entries with the same title (as with interiorart) just copy the first title (Ctrl + C), paste it (Ctrl + V) into the blank title fields, then go back and add [2], [3], etc. MHHutchins 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This just became a prominent post-it on my computer. I am assuming it will work the same with a MAC as a PC? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Sorry. Never even touched a MAC in my entire life, so I'm not sure what their "copy and paste" keys are, but they have to have one. Can anyone familiar with MAC perhaps be able to answer? MHHutchins 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Shield of Time

Bluesman has updated the story type for Amazement of the World from shortfiction/novella to NOVEL. Presumably as it's 136 pages. This affects your verified The Shield of Time. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against making the story a novel regardless of the number of pages. The main reason is that it will be listed on Anderson's summary page under "Novels" and this is it's first (and only) publication. It was original to this collection, which itself is billed as a "novel" in a cover blurb. And it has not been published as a stand-alone publication since. I also yield to Locus1's designation of it as a novella. If we were to change anything, it would make more sense to remove the contents entirely, and designate the whole work as a novel. None of the pieces were previously published and only three of them are of any great length, the other three being linking material. And since I verified the publication, one of those pieces ("Riddle Me This", 5 1/2 pages long) has mysteriously grown into a novella, according to the record as it currently stands. MHHutchins 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

DES and I had a long discussion about this with his argument being that anything over 40,000 words was a "novel" and my argument was the same as what you just used. :-) I've changed Amazement of the World back to a novella and added a note.

I see that Beringia just scrapes into novel length at 100 pages and so added the same note to that.

I was about to fix Riddle Me This but see there's something screwy going on. These are the page lengths you guys verified.

Mhhutchins TOR hc			Bluesman TOR pb
Page	#	Storylen	Page	#	Storylen	Title
1	8	shortstory	1	6	shortstory	The Stranger That is Within Thy Gates
9	94	novella	7	118	novel	Women and Horses and Power and War
103	12	shortstory	125	12	shortstory	Before the Gods That Made the Gods
115	100	novel	137	78	novella	Beringia
215	8	shortstory	215	52	novella	Riddle Me This
223	136	novel	267	169	novel	Amazement of the World
359			436			Last page

I'll ask Bluesman to hop over here and to re-check the starting page numbers. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The page #'s I submitted are not correct. I imported the content from the hard cover and then used the page numbers from the Table of Contents in the PB, which do not match the page numbers in the book. They should read: 1,9,125,137,257,267. This would bring the designations back into line with those in the HC. Still learning the 'repercussions' of entries. I am definitely going to leave the marginal ones alone from now on, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus and different sources don't always agree, either. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a publication note explaining the TOC discrepancies. Bill, don't worry too much about lack of consensus and conflicting sources. We document/interpret as best as we can. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tau Zero

Bluesman is in the process of fleshing out a publication which was originally based on Locus data. He wants to change the Note to read, in part, "Artist uncredited; no visible signature; style is Powers'". Could you please check whether Locus 194 explicitly credits Powers? I've put it on hold for now. Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The cover artist is not credited in the Locus listing (they didn't credit artists as thoroughly as they do now), so that must have been a part of the record when I updated it using the Locus info. In that case, perhaps we should remove the Powers credit and leave Bluesman's notes as stated? MHHutchins 23:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, thanks! Ahasuerus 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Soviet Science Fiction

Could you please check whether it's "Vladen" or "Vladlen" Bakhnov in your verified New Soviet Science Fiction? Contento uses "Vladen", but IMDB uses "Vladlen", which is apparently correct. The name stands for "Vladimir Lenin" -- Bakhnov was born 6 months after Lenin's death, at the peak of the first Lenin cult in the USSR. Thanks! Ahasuerus 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's "Vladen" on the title pages of each story and in the TOC. I suppose by the time he became a published writer the cult had wained (or at least when this anthology was published.) :) MHHutchins 08:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like all of his Russian language works appeared as by "Vladlen", but (most? all?) English translations used the "Vladen" byline. Perhaps we'll find some exceptions as we verify the affected 1960s/1980s anthologies, but for now I have set up a bunch of vts. And the Lenin cult was very much back in vogue in the 1960s when Bakhnov became a published writer -- see Nina Tumarkin's Lenin Lives! for all the gory details :) Ahasuerus 03:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of verifying Russian Science Fiction 1969, an otherwise seriously messed up book, and the two Bakhnov stories both credit "Vladlen", so apparently it just depends on how clueful the editor is/was. Magidoff had his quirks, but he knew Russian well after spending many years in Moscow as an NBC correspondent and later their bureau chief (and barely making it out alive -- see his memoirs). Ahasuerus 05:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you've finally found an editor that used the right name. Could it have simply been a case of someone with no political agenda thinking that Vladen may be easier for the English speaker than Vladlen? God knows it wouldn't be the first time publishers have changed an author's name! MHHutchins

Oh, I don't think that the editors who misspelled Bakhnov's first name had a political agenda. Most of the time it's just a question of how sloppy your assistants and printers are, e.g. here is what I wrote in Russian Science Fiction 1969 just a few minutes ago: "Vladmir Dmitrevsky's last name is misspelled "Dmitrvsky" in the table of contents. Evgeni Brandis' first name is spelled "Yevgeny" in the table of contents. Isai Lukodianov's last name is spelled "Lukodianov" in the table of contents, but "Lukodyanov" on the title page. Shefner's "A Modest Genius: A Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups" is listed as "A Modest Genius: A Fairy Tail for Grown-Ups" in the table of contents." With assistants like these, who needs a political agenda?! :) Ahasuerus 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tail??? That's so bad that it's funny. Where's a proofreader when you need one? MHHutchins 06:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose some shaggy dogs have fairy tails :) Ahasuerus 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I was verifying Russian Science Fiction 1968, which also had more than its fair share of errors, when I ran into the following amazing story -- "Edinstvennyj v Svoyom Rode". Check out the Note :-) Ahasuerus 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the mistake. How could anyone expect an editor to actually read a story? Isn't that a reader's job? MHHutchins 05:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Destinies, Jan/Feb 1979 and Apr/Jun 1979

I've left two submissions on hold for you to review/approve. Both are additions of INTERIORART to verified publications.

• Destinies, Jan/Feb 1979 on hold at [1].
• Destinies, Apr/Jun 1979 on hold at [2]. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for placing them on hold. He'd let me know that he was going to add the interiorart. I'll check them out before approving them. MHHutchins 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Human Hotline

I had to approve that last item you submitted just to see what an empty queue looks like. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shucks, take a few hours off for real life and miss my chance to see an empty queue! Hope it won't be another year before it's empty again. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Year's Best SF 13

re: Year's Best SF 13 - I was just rechecking the verification of my pb copy, tweaked a copy of story lengths, and then realized you had just verified the hc. The following were changed from ss to nt based on the page count. (I don't bother with counting/estimating words)

• Plotters and Shooters
• An Evening's Honest Peril
• The Lustration
• How Music Begins

I guess you agreed with my classification of Pirates of the Somali Coast as nongenre. I have no idea why it's in a science-fiction anthology unless it's surrealism. I had also tagged An Evening's Honest Peril as fantasy. A little annoying that a "Year's Best SF" would include two non-SF stories. I guess they are trying to broaden our minds.

What I'll be doing on the second pass is to go through the author blurbs to capture any interesting data. Newer anthologies are listing author web sites and such. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I downloaded the PDF version and Microsoft Word gives How Music Begins a word count of 6,991 - pretty much borderline. I'm not sure of all the vagaries of Word word counts but that should give a baseline of sorts. It is actually categorized as a short story in the magazine and I suspect that they may follow the Nebula/Hugo (same as isfdb) standards so it gets nominated in the right awards category. I guess those stories are slipstream a most annoying category.--swfritter 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you both realise that categorising SHORTFICTION contents as NONGENRE leads to an entry in the Author Summary page making it look like a separately published Book? e.g. Terry Bisson now has a NONGENRE section that was never intended by Al, as far as I can tell. I see there's been some work on categorising non-genre SHORTFICTION with suffixes for instance, but if you want to keep Non-Genre short works and full Publications separate then NONGENRE shouldn't be used for contents. Feel free to start a Rules and Standards discussion and a Feature Request if you want to continue this way. But I for one I do not like the look of the results. BLongley 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] Marc, I imported your contents, without changing any type or length designations (I'm not a stickler when it comes to word counts, and page count wouldn't help here because these appear to be in relatively large print when compared to the Dozois anthologies.) Though I did notice the NONGENRE type given to the Bisson story. One of my concerns is the way the story is displayed in both the pub record and on the author's summary page. There's no way of knowing if it's a novel or a shortfiction, and we both know the ISFDB's shortcomings concerning the handling of NONGENRE shortfiction. I'm also of the Damon Knight school of thought that SF is "what I point to" when I'm trying to define SF. I figure David Hartwell's one of the best editors in the field, and if he includes a piece in his "Year's Best SF" anthology, he's come to the conclusion that it's "SF". We can agree that his anthologies define the genre much more narrower than Damon Knight, or even Gardner Dozois. And it was originally published in Subterranean, a genre magazine (not the New Yorker or Harper's). I look at the story as a commentary on how a child who's become so immune to violence through the constant media barrage, that he can't distinguish the fantasy from the reality. Personally, I feel it's a horror story (as horrific as any tale of vampires, etc.), and it was prophetic as well. This was written more than a year before news of real Somali pirates. If your argument is that the horror depicted was real, we'd need to move hundreds of horror/thriller records to NONGENRE (i.e. Robert Bloch's Psycho, Stephen King's Misery, Dean Koontz's Dark Rivers of the Heart, Thomas Harris' The Silence of the Lambs, and Dan Simmons' Song of Kali, one of the most horrific novels I've ever read, which, by the way, won the World Fantasy Award.) MHHutchins 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill makes the same point as I make above. Perhaps this should be moved to Rules and Standards page? MHHutchins 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The way the software works at the moment, I don't think NONGENRE is viable for Shortfiction. The ultimate solution would be to create a separate field for "non-genre" Titles or some variation on the theme, but for now perhaps we could use some kind of "non-genre" tag with the understanding that it will be eventually mass-converted? Ahasuerus 04:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be the solution for some other problems, too. The question still remains for Rules & Standards whether we should take it upon ourselves to categorize such items as NONGENRE if they are marketed as fantastic fiction. I don't necessarily agree, but Slipstream seems to be recognized by many as a legitimate part of the canon.--swfritter 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the late jump back to this page. Yes, I was aware that the NONGENRE puts the story so that it looks like a book. That's why I had the title note explaining it's a shortfiction but agree there should be a better way. One thought is to file it as shortfiction but to tag it as nongenre as Ahasuerus noted above. It's not something I have strong views about and suspect the tagging version leads to less astonishment.

I'm currently reading Fellowship Fantastic and am running into the same problem. It's supposed to be a fantasy anthology but the first story is non-speculative fiction and the with the second I could only believe it's science fiction if I smoked certain leaves. While it's fiction, though based almost 100% on a real life event that occurred here last winter, it's not what most people think of as "fantasy" literature. The third story is fantasy and, and a nice one too, meaning the anthology has *some* redeeming qualities.

I agree with Swfritter in that what I did is subjective. Obviously the anthology editors included these stories in a science fiction and fantasy anthology respectively implying that's what their genre is. Maybe I should just make-do with a note saying *I* don't believe a story is SF/Fantasy. Al von Ruff seems to be encouraging subjectivism with the addition of voting and tags but I'd have no real problem or maybe doing a story synopsis and someone reading may notice I did not mention any SF/fantasy elements. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated Pirates of the Somali Coast to change it from NONGENRE to SHORTFICTION, updated the story synopsis & notes, and tagged it. It's not completely clear from the story intro but this may be patterned after the Harlan Ellison wrote similar satires of the 1960s which is why it appeared in an SF anthology. Initially I was going to not tag it but I read the editor's intro and while they don't call it "non-genre" it seems clear enough that they are not expecting the reader to assume it's science fiction.

re: "If your argument is that the horror depicted was real..." My evaluation was based on ISFDB:Policy#Definitions and "Speculative fiction is defined to exclude: Techno-thriller, political thriller and satire works set in a future indistinguishable from the present(?)". I saw the work as both indistinguishable from the present and the time the story was written. The Somali pirates have been active and attacking cruise ships for years. While not by Somalis, there have been pirate attacks similar to the one described in this story. At the time the story was written a number of the on-board passenger e-mail systems work exactly as depicted in the story. (I used to work on cruise ships on the e-mail and related systems and so have some background and motivation to keep up on news related to that industry.) The only thing I can't personally confirm as "indistinguishable from the present" is if a child could be as immune or clueless to violence as depicted in the story. In this case I got "saved" from personally needing to designate it as "non-genre" in that the editor's into calls it a satire.

I'm reading an anthology now that's more complicated. It has the "DAW Fantasy" banner, is titled "Fellowship Fantastic" but has a byline of "13 brand-new stories about testing the bonds of comradeship, fulfilling quests, and taking up challenges." The editor's intro starts out "I started to put together this anthology because I live to read about the dynamics between friends in action-packed or challenging relationships." Thus the signals are mixed in that based on the publisher, logo, and title that it's a fantasy anthology but the editors never once use the words "fantasy" or "fantastic" in their introduction/outline of what the anthology contains. DAW chose to buy and publish the work though which gives it a "fantasy" stamp. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] I'm afraid all of our definitions of "fantasy", "science fiction", "speculative fiction", etc., are subjective, even under the rules and guidelines of the ISFDB (there are many works of the exclusioned sorts that you mention which are already in the database.) In the DAW anthology you cite, it becomes even more blurry - when the marketing department dictates the definition and not the content of the fiction itself. Any way, I'm satisfied with the resolution of this case. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any database with hundreds of thousands of records is likely to encounter borderline cases, doubly so when dealing with the world of fiction where genres form a continuum rather than isolated sets (e.g. fantasy -> supernatural horror -> mundane horror). There is a good reason to label non-genre title as such, namely to make sure that our users are not misled/disappointed when they select books/stories based on our data, but I think that we are better off concentrating on major non-genre/non-fiction offenders like our bad 2004 imports or all those Nancy Drew/Scooby-Doo clones first. Not mention RPGs, comics, games, etc. Ahasuerus 00:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One could even make an argument that alternate history novels are not s-f. I keep having this weird dream that I think might make an interesting novel - America gets involved militarily in the Middle East for decades, gas drops to less than $2.00/gallon, the stock market shrinks by more than half. I know it must be a dream because part of the scenario includes an African-American becoming President of the USA.--swfritter 01:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dream on. :-) I've got a guy telling me his story about pigs that eat men is speculative fiction because the message he's trying to convey is that pigs have higher ethics than men as they don't kill nor eat each other while men do. BTW, that 2004 import cleanup project is deleting far fewer titles than I had planned. Part of it is that as I look at the stories I can see reasons for why it's specfict and so I keep it. Initially I thought we could delete about 1/2 of the records in that list but so far it's been around 10% with most of the deletions being manga/graphic/comic style books. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Analog: The Best of Science Fiction

The names you asked about are, on the contents page, "Alan Lang" (no middle name) and "Jonathan Blake MacKenzie" (no H in first syllable, camelcaps in last name) Chenrich 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ISFDB policy to use the title and author as shown on the first page of a story in collections and anthologies. This is because they may conflict with the table of contents, and in having to choose one over the other, we've decided to use what's stated on the title page, not the contents page. Can you check to see what author is credited on the title page of those two stories? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to you verified publications

FYI: I added covers to Asimov's SF magazine Jan, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Aug 1980. I believe there were all verified by you. Tpi 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great. I'd have done it myself, but my copies all have address labels on them. Wouldn't want any stalkers tracking me down. (Even though with the internet it's a lot easier than you'd think.) Thanks! MHHutchins 22:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Masterworks

I see you have a long-term project "Create a listing with links to the SF Masterworks series published by Gollancz / Orion". Are you aware there's one already on Roglo's page? I did the Fantasy Masterworks too (on the Millennium publisher page). Maybe you can think of a better place for such? BLongley 13:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It was your list of the Fantasy Masterworks that sparked my interest in creating one for the SF Masterworks series. I stumbled upon your list quite accidentally, and was thinking there must be a better way to highlight these lists that we've pretty much cobbled together on our own. When DES returns (soon hopefully) I want to ask him to create a Wiki category for Publisher Series, so that we can link these lists from one page. I've created this page for the SFBC 50th Anniversary Collection, and this list of Easton Press's Masterpieces of SF. There's also the Avon SF Rediscovery series from the 70s that I've entered but haven't created a master list yet. Others that I've worked on are the Gregg Press Science Fiction series, the Collier Nucleus SF Classics, and the Crown SF Classics, I know you've also started a list for the Corgi SF Library. Can you think of any other major publisher series? It seems to me that the Wiki can handle this better than the database as it currently stands. (But please let's not get into the Ace Doubles/Tor Doubles/Binary Stars debate!) BTW, you're aware that only the first year or so of the Fantasy Masterworks series were published under the Millennium imprint. Most of them had the Gollancz imprint. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ballantine Adult Fantasy" is currently organised by giving it its own publisher, so is a bit vulnerable. I think "Publication Series" might be a better name than "Publisher Series", as the change of imprint could misdirect people mid-series. But we do need something that covers specific publications rather than titles. BLongley 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just discovered another series, one of which you have several verified titles: the Master SF series published by NEL in the mid-70s. And your mention of the Ballantine series reminds me of the Ace Specials which are now in the same precarious position, having them identified as such in the publisher field. MHHutchins 07:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten I'd done the NELs. OK, that makes at least a dozen Publication Series somebody's interested in, that we have either already created but scattered about, or are aware of at least. (There's a Sphere Science Fiction Classic series I've seen a few of too, e.g. here and here) . Maybe we should ask Marc if he can start us off in DES's absence? BLongley 16:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a stab at Sphere Science Fiction Classics but they seem particularly unhelpful in referring to other titles in the series. There's a few other verifiers I can ask (although not many active ones) but I'm running out of ideas unless we post a general verification request for all Sphere books 1969(?) - 1974(?). Do you own any? BLongley 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, I'd have to look through my paperbacks again (a daunting task), but I don't recall any carrying that logo (only "Sphere Science Fiction"). I did a search through OCLC and Abebooks.com, but didn't come up with any titles other than those you've already listed. Sorry. MHHutchins 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, we have most. Just stumbled across another series: Venture SF. As that carried across Arrow, Hamlyn and maybe Legend imprints it's another one that needs a stable home. BLongley 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good find. This series makes it even more clear why you recommend we call these "publication series". I guess we could start creating separate pages for these, then bring them into their own Wiki category. MHHutchins 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So long as we can remember where we put them! ;-) I'd totally forgotten I'd done that one, it was only while I was sorting out the "Backcollar" (sic) series that I found the cover for number 19 (against a US edition!) and remembered. I wonder how many more I've done and forgotten? BLongley 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] I know exactly what you mean! When I created the SFBC 50th Anniversary Collection list, I had to do a Wiki search to find it a few days later. And if you've ever used that search you know how much fun that was. After that I linked it to my user page so I wouldn't lose it again. MHHutchins 23:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered "Lancer Science Fiction Library". I think you have a reference that might help with that one? (Or two, as the publication I updated mentioned a second series.) BLongley 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The two series have the same name. The first was from 1962 to 1965, and the second series was from 1972 to 1973. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm sure there must be dozens more that we know of, but until we work on one of the pubs, they just stay in the dark recesses of our brains. I was checking on a Frank Herbert pub that someone was entering today, and pulled out my copy of Eye. It's part of the "Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy" published by Berkley and Byron Preiss Visual in trade paperbacks in the mid 80s. I've got at least five, so I'll add it to the list and eventually get around to populating a listing. BTW, have you taken a look at the page for the Avon SF Rediscovery series?

Yes, looks good. Can't help with the missing covers I'm afraid, I don't think I own any of the series. BLongley 12:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Permutation City

Your verified BKTG02578 has the cover as by William O'Connor. The PB edition PECT1995 also lists him as the artist. My copy of this has two photographs together and neither is credited to O'Connor. The image for the PB is correct. Don't want to change the record just yet. Thought I would check with you first to see if the cover of the SFBC is different. The artist may just have been transferred over?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just pulled out my copy, saw that O'Connor is the credited artist (and the initials "Woc '95" on the artwork itself), and it is not the same cover of the paperback. Go ahead and remove O'Connor's credit from the page if it's not credited in the book. As you suspect, someone may have cloned my copy and forgot to remove the cover art credit. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks! Obviously you don't have to partake in the mad obstacle course as Mr. Longley does! Want to see this flying cat of his....! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have difficulty retrieving hardcovers (they're all on shelves in the same room as the computer), though I sometimes have to dig behind shelves, which are two books deep (I place the more obscure books in the back.) Now paperbacks and magazines are another matter. They're all in about fifty 15-gallon plastic storage bins in the garage, stacked four bins high, and as the garage is unheated, and it's in the teens today, it would take some effort to get to the ones at the bottom. I've never been able to devise a system where the bins with items that might be questioned could be on top. As soon as I rearrange them I get a question about a book which is invariably in the bottom bin! (Makes you think twice about checking the "Primary Verified" box.) MHHutchins 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then being a carpenter has its advantages. I just build what I need when the overflow gets bothersome. Thought the last extension to the library would hold for awhile... no such luck! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it's Mr. Kupper who specializes in mad obstacle courses while Mr. Longley's forte is figuring out where his cleaner may have put his books. Ahasuerus 16:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. Although at the moment I've gone one better and mislaid my cleaner. BLongley 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried that once and she got so made she divorced me..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mantis

Added the Canadian ISBN from the cover/spine/copyright page of MANTIS1987 and the usual $C price. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe's "Parkroads: A Review"

It would appear that Gene Wolfe's "Parkroads: A Review" in your verified Storeys from the Old Hotel may be a story and not a review. (Mischievously playful? Wolfe!? What's the world coming to!??) My copy is a bit out of the way, so I was wondering if you could double check yours when you get a chance? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a short story at the time I verified the pub. In the meantime, someone changed the title record in three of its four publications. Funny thing is, it's not even a review of a book. It's a facetious, whimsical review of a film titled Parkroads. The person who changed it didn't even bother to consider that if it were a book review that it's missing the author of the book! I'll change it back to shortfiction and merge it with the one correct record. Thanks for discovering it. Extraordinarily coincidental is that last week I verified this issue of IASFM which contains a facetious book review column. Ever who entered it before made "More on Books" by Henry Clark into an essay, and created records for the four or five books mentioned in the "column" which in turn created author records! Sometimes I think we're in danger of becoming data entry clerks instead of readers! It took me the whole of 15 seconds to realize this was not a real book review column. And I can bet my life savings that the person who changed "Parkroads: A Review" has never been near a copy of the story. Rant over. Relax. Take a deep breath. Smile. MHHutchins 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this particular misadventure started when someone changed the Title record from short fiction to review. Then, yesterday, User:MA Lloyd created a submission to update the Tor edition with "Continuing Westward" and "Parkroads -- A Review". I checked the Locus Index -- which lists Parkroads as a ss -- approved the submission and removed the review Title. I then checked whether the review Title existed in other pubs and saw that one of them was verified by you. The rest is history :)

The morale of the story (or is it storey?) is that we really really need to do something about the ability to change Title records across pubs willy nilly, but we already knew that... Ahasuerus 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"C[G]old Mountain"

Could you please double check whether it's "Cold Mountain" or "Gold Mountain" in your verified The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-Third Annual Collection? TIA! Ahasuerus 15:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Noticed this as I was leaving a note. Definitely Gold, copyright acknowledgements, contents and story title page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny it was "Cold Mountain" in three other pubs, so either I cloned one of them or they cloned from me. I've changed it. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Down the Bright Way

Added some notes to DWNBRTWY1991 re: edition/ printing/ artist credit. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Eshu & the Anthropic Principle "

As far as I can tell, User:Billy P is trying to add contents to existing anthologies, in this case to Triangulation: End of Time, which has the same ISBN as Eshu & the Anthropic Principle once you account for the ISBN10/13 differences. Ahasuerus 02:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that occurred to me when I went to Amazon to check on the ISBN. See the note I placed on his talk page. Let's hope he's the rare case and can find his talk page before Spring. I've deleted the pub and title record that he submitted. MHHutchins 02:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the submission you placed on hold is another story by the same author: Geoffrey Thorne (of course, you wouldn't know that looking at the submission.) Maybe he's the author, trying to add his stories to the database from various publications and not getting the hang of it yet. :( MHHutchins 02:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to catch the submission before Bad Things happened :) Please feel free to process it (or any other submissions that I have on hold for that matter) as you see fit. There is nothing particularly unusual about my holds, it's just that I have spent the whole weekend wrapping up Russian vts (finally done!) and updating Fixer, so I don't have the energy to do more than crash and burn... Ahasuerus 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse Five

Added a cover image to SLGHTRHSFV1971. I do not have this printing. Can you check that it is correct? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwinia

Added the cover image to DARWINIA1998 ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's the wrong cover. Close, but no cigar. Actually this is the right one. I'll change it. 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

unpaginated Rejection of an ebook

I noticed that you bounced my submission for Stark's War with Don’t use "unpaginated" for e-books. "0" works fine. There was some discussion Publisher_talk:Project_Gutenberg#Pages_fields last fall on this issue, and the not quite finalized, but apparent consensus at the time was that 'unpaginated' was both clear (unlikely to be confused with an editing mistake), and 'batchable' if another solution presented itself in the future. (While blank, and zero are both ambiguous in some form, and a valid argument can be made against global replacements of blanks and '0' in the database at some future date). While that discussion was for Gutenberg works.. most of the policies for Gutenberg apply fairly well to other ebook publishers. I have been using unpaginated since then and considered it a test in progress of the best way to document the page count of ebooks I've been listing. Did you have a particular objection or a problem that is being caused by 'unpaginated' works that another solution might avoid? If so, I think we should open up a topic on Rules n Standards to try and generate a final (at least for now) consensus. Thanks - Kevin 04:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My main objection is the way it's displayed on a title page. If you use "0" then it reads "0pp" which is rather unambiguous. Using "unpaginated" brings about the awkward "unpaginatedpp" which would not make much sense to many database users. I have recorded several unpaginated books (real ones that are not numbered) and use brackets for the page count (just as it's used in WorldCat and most library catalogs around the world.) "Unpaginated" does not mean "no pages", it means the pages are not numbered. (Go here for a librarian's definition of the term.) I've never read an e-book in my life, so I know zilch about them. Are they one continuous file, or do they have actual individual pages which have no numbers, or do they have no pages whatsoever (as perhaps I'm incorrectly assuming)? Perhaps a programming change for the display of e-books would drop the "pp" altogether. Please feel free to start a discussion on the rules and standards page. And to be clear, the submission I rejected was an update to a pub record which already had "0" in the page field. MHHutchins 05:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my mistake in data entry I was correcting. I was submitting and verifying a whole batch of John G. Hemrys books and I was just finishing up my edits to make all the Hemry ebooks from Baen_2009 uniform prior to verification.

As to 'what are ebooks', I recommend you go try a few out (Baen has a number of free ones), both for the experience (you might like it) and for the Experience (If you are making judgments about what is correct in a submission, you should have some experience with the published format. Ebooks usually don't have pages defined. Unlike a printed book with defined pages and no numbers (in your example), they are truly fluid in many formats (ePub, Mobi, Lit, Lrf, Prc, Pdb, and Txt), sometimes/partially fluid in some formats (RTF, Html, and PDF), and usually not fluid in most PDF's, and a few other weird formats. Because there is no defined 'unit' of a page, we cannot even count up the psuedo pages and put it in brackets. (The same file read on my old PDA might require 1200 'pages' on my cellphone 1000 pages, on my small laptop 500 pages, and on my large laptop 300 pages - And that is before I even get into resizing the font because my eyes are tired, etc.). The only accurate assessment of length on fluid formats would be a character or possibly a word count which is not a readily available. Kevin 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Eye in the Sky

Added a cover image to EYESKY19XX. Just below the artwork, left side (2" up, 1" in) there is a red circle with what looks like "JB" inside it. This one is new to me, any ideas? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, The Ace Image Library credits "Harry Bennett". BLongley 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Worlds of Frank Herbert

Added a cover mage to THWRLDSFFR1977 and a couple of notes about edition/printing and artist non-credit. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Same art but mine has the Berkley Medallion logo instead of the "B" with a ring around it. Also mine doesn't promote have a blurb touting a book four years in the future. (No surprise since we are dealing with sci-fi here"). I'm going to remove it and place it on the 1983 printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice the logo difference, good catch! My copy is the '77 as well. Eyes wide shut! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Brain Rose

Added a cover image to BKTG08509 ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the right cover, but somehow the publishing info was changed as well. I wouldn't have verified a pub with BOMC as the publisher, unless they were. William Morrow published this, BOMC printed it, so I thought it was "William Morrow / BOMC". Also there are no pub notes, (which I don't always leave them), but in this case, I usually indicate the BOMC markings so that it's clear which book club printed it. Strange. MHHutchins 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The BOMC was there when I added the cover. I have that edition as well and the only indication of BOMC is on the copyright page in very tiny letters at the bottom (and no price...). ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody else must have changed it since I verified it. I'm going to re-edit it, and then you can take another look in order to do a transient verification. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Sky River

Added a cover image to BKTG19581 and the usual $C, plus a couple of notes. At the beginning of the book there is a prologue, on Roman numerated pages v-x, then the novel starts on page 1. Added the pages to the page count, but does the Prologue get added to the contents, and if so, as what? It's not really a stand-alone story, but nothing else fits, especially now that one can't enter "shortfiction" twice. Maybe leave the second field blank? ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a normal case. Usually roman numerals indicate matter which is not part of the novel proper. In this instance the prologue is definitely part of the novel, so it should not have a separate content entry. Just mention in the note field that the prologue is paginated with roman numerals. Thanks for pointing this out. When I verified this pub I didn't bother to look for roman numerals in a book without an introduction or other prefatory material. MHHutchins 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbeheaded King

Added a cover image and notes to THNBHDDKNG1983. My copy has the correct ISBN on the copyright page. Is yours a later printing? Or a different edition? Mine is a US one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, mine is the first edition and it has the same ISBN on the copyright page as the record shows (and it's on the back of the dustjacket too.) Another case of someone changing a pub after it's verified. I'll remove that note. Maybe the person who placed it there will come back to it so we can ask him what printing he has. And thanks for doing these second verifications of the records I've verified. When I first began verifying here I hardly ever placed any notes regarding the edition or printing (unless it was a later one). I just assumed that anyone looking at these records would know they were first editions. I was wrong. MHHutchins 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, yet they get 'altered' anyway. Guess it would be impossible, or impractical, to keep all the changes made to a pub? I've kind of taken the road that the more specific the notes, the less likelihood of duplication/change (without going to Harry's extreme; ;-) ). Also why I like to "quote" instead of the dreaded "stated". No equivocation, then. I also am very partial to hardcover 1sts and spend a lot more time on them. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do keep all submissions on file going back to 2006-05-01, but we don't make them publicly available. Unfortunately, the way they are formatted, even if you have access to them, you can't always tell who did what. Al was going to improve the data capture process so that we could see how each publication changed over time, but then he went on hiatus... Ahasuerus 03:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Distant Stars

Added a cover image and publication/printing notes to DSTNTSTRS371981. If all/some of the illustrators are pseudos, the job was very thorough as each one gets a bio on the contributors' page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who placed that note in the pub! Just because several of the artists are named John doesn't automatically mean they're pseudonyms. In fact I added credits for each individual story, so why would anyone place a list in the notes field? Just goes to show no one owns a record, verified or not. I'm going to remove that note entirely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. MHHutchins 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It didn't seem like a note you would leave. Partly why I brought it up. Then, we all get into a state of whimsy once in a while! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it Kill You to Smile

Added a cover image to WLDTKLLTSM1998 ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to MSKRTCRGDM2000 ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You have both of the Philip Lawson novels! So are you fan of Bishop or Di Filippo? Seeing by all the Di Filippo titles you've just entered I guess the latter. I just uploaded a better cover for A Year in the Linear City. The one you chose was smaller than a postage stamp! Thanks. MHHutchins 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I just put in the cover images. I don't have either book, indeed wasn't even aware of them. I really like Di Filippo, though can't read a lot of his stuff in a row. Pounds the brain at times. Wasn't sure how the Linear City cover would look, but it was the only one I could find. Have to learn how to use the scanner mode in my printer. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering if you intended to add the contents of Plumage from Pegasus. Most of the pieces appeared in F&SF and it'd be interesting to see which ones. MHHutchins

Rats! I was hoping that one would just kind of slide by... 30+ entries and some titles a block long with different scripts... There, rant done and yes I will enter them. :-) The things I do for you! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: is "We're All in This Alone" credited to "Philip Lawson" on the story's title page in this collection? MHHutchins 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Lawson, not in the prefatory comments or on the copyright page. Has [Cowritten with Michael Bishop] directly under the title in very small print. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you're going to be busy with Pegasus, I'll go ahead and change the credits for "We're All in This Alone". BTW, in talking with Mike Bishop, I asked how was the work split between he and Di Filippo in the writing of the Philip Lawson novels. He developed the characters while Di Filippo created the plot of the mysteries. Then it went back and forth with each working over what the other had written until I suppose it got to the point where neither could point to any section and say "I wrote that." You'll find the Lawson novels nowhere near as mind-twisting as Di Filippo's short stories, but I can't say anything about his novels because I've never read one. The "Will Keats" mysteries are very character driven (as is most of Bishop's work). MHHutchins 01:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

navbar links for Asimov's

I am generating some for Rkihara who is doing the 90's - If you want some for the ones you are doing I can place them in a convenient place for copy and paste.--swfritter 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm only up to 1984, but you can place a link to them at the bottom of the Asimov's page. No rush really, as this would probably be the last thing I would do. Anyone else can feel free to add them at their convenience to any issue that I may have verified. MHHutchins 03:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Arkham Sampler, Summer 1949

Thanks for merging the submission. I'm not sure what happened. I did only submit the form once. I did notice that a record for my submission appeared and only had part of the contents that I had submitted. Further, my submission still showed in my pending edits and not in my recent edits (it now shows as a rejected edit) i.e. I only have record of one submission in my lists. In prior edits, I have accidentally submitted a form by erroneously hitting the Enter key, and I now put an authorless story in the contents until I am finished with the edit, so at least any unintended submits reject. I do realize that I shouldn't try to re-submit an edit (I did make that mistake once with Lovecraft's Marginalia), however, I don't know how the first submit happened this time.--Rtrace 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's happened to me as well. You may have accidentally hit the enter button. Then used the browser's back page function to get back to the page you were editing. Do you use Firefox? If so, everything that you were working on will remain in the fields. Some browsers lose any info if you go back or forward. In any case, it was resolved. BTW, thanks for entering these issues of The Arkham Sampler. Are you still working on the Autumn 1949 (last) issue? MHHutchins 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do use Firefox. And I'm happy to enter the Samplers. Alas, I only had secondary sources for Autumn, 1948. However, entering these prompted me to search for a copy. I'll update that issue when it arrives.--Rtrace 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't five minutes after I asked if you had the Autumn 1949 issue, and voila, there was the submission! Pretty fast work there. I have one question about two pieces by Malcolm Ferguson. "A Little Anthology" in the Winter 1948 issue is fiction, while "A Little Anthology" in the Autumn 1949 issue is an essay. Was this a column (thus having the same name)? MHHutchins 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In both instances, it's a collection of short excerpts and quotes (each a paragraph or two), edited by Ferguson. It is described as "Being a collection of random notes in the domain of the strange and outlandish, the fantastic and the supernatural, out of little-known crannies in books and other places". I didn't detail them as they're not all credited fully.--Rtrace 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'll call them essays and distinguish the two titles by adding the issue date to it. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rainbows End

Oops, accidentally approved Bluesman's change to your verified first edition of Rainbows End :(

The URL was changed to point to Fantastic Fiction and the Note field was modified from "Stated first edition; full number line. C$34.95 in Canada." to "• "First edition: May 2006". First printing, full number line 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. • Jacket art by Stephan Martiniere. Jacket design by Howard Grossman/12E Design. • $34.95 in Canada." Ahasuerus 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. 99% of Bluesman's changes are for books-in-hand. So I trust his edits to verified pubs. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Venus of Dreams-cover image

This. [3]. I submitted the cover match to my copy. Could not bear thought that others did not get a 'gawk'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's it. I wonder how many copies had to be kept away from mothers and wives who just wouldn't understand that it's only sci-fi. :) Thanks. MHHutchins 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Shuttered Room & Pleasant Dreams

You are correct about T. G. L. Cockcroft, and I have submitted a correction.

Sorry to cause a problem with the Bloch collection. I've taken note of the help page you mentioned and use that method the next time I see a difference in title.--Rtrace 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a big problem. Just something that editors who are new to the database would not be aware of. BTW, it's best to respond to comments on the page on which it began. This will prevent ping-ponging between talk pages. Any time I place a comment on a talk page I automatically place a watch on that page. So when I check my watched pages I will know that you've responded to my comment. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Year's Best Sf 2nd

Added a cover image to TYBSF21985 and some notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The same with TYBSF3A --Bluesman 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The same with TYBSF4 --Bluesman 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The same with TYBSF51988 --Bluesman 04:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The same with THRSBSTSCN1989 --Bluesman 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The same with TYBSF7B --Bluesman 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image only to TYBSF8B I have the HC. --Bluesman 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover image and notes to THRSBSTSCB1992 The ISBN mentioned in the previous notes has an invalid checksum. The HC edition's ISBN ends with 7, not 0. I will be adding the artwork as it has a title (forgot it). ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover image and notes to THRSBSTSCB1993 Remembered the artwork this time. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover image and notes to THRSBSTSCD1994. The LCCN is the same one as from at least two previous editions. Could every year be done under one number? ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, series are given the same LCCN so that libraries know that there may be several volumes in their collection. Same thing with magazines and journals. At least this was once true when I used to haunt the stacks of libraries. MHHutchins 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Shan't leave any more notes on that, then.~Bill, --Bluesman 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image only to THRSBSTSCN1995 --Bluesman 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover image and notes to THRSBSTSCB1996 --Bluesman 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Year's Best Sf 18th

The verified record has the month as August, but LOCUS has the trade and SFBC editions as July. My TP of YRBESTSF2001B is a second printing with no publication data. Does yours specify the month? ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem late in the year, but it does actually state "First Printing: August 2001". Locus usually states a second date if they receive a book before the publication date (the date in parentheses is the date received). In this case they only give one date: July 2001. Alas, even Contento is human... MHHutchins 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And speaking to that human side, when errors are found in LOCUS how do they get reported? I'm finding a fair number of little things, though some pubs are missing entirely. The home page has an e-mail address, that all it takes? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never emailed him, but I assume that if you find an error or omission that Contento would appreciate your letting him know. MHHutchins 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's all it takes. Bill usually answers his e-mail in batches, so don't be surprised if it takes him a week to get back to you. It then takes another week+ for his database changes to propagate to the Web page version of his indexes.

And by the way, it's these minor changes to Bill's underlying database that eventually accumulate over time and result in changes to Locus pagination, which is why direct links to Locus Index pages tend to decay over time. Ahasuerus 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, about how the links might not always be the same. I have noticed that there's been a few times when I've googled something that the links can be a page off. Now I know why. MHHutchins 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Contento, like all us other Bills ;-) , is a receptive, appreciative bibliomaniac. Don't be afraid to contact him with small updates. BLongley 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spooky approvals.....

Faster than a speeding bullet!!!! You're approving faster than I can submit!!! Can't wait until you approve before I do an edit...... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that would be spooky! Either I'm pretty slow on my own submissions or you are, but every time I go to approve my own, I do a couple of whatever's in the queue. Since it's only you and me at the moment, approvals tend to go pretty fast. MHHutchins 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of your edits are pretty easy to moderate - e.g. just changing a price "L" prefix to "£". (Thanks for that, few others seem to bother with such.) It's only when I have to think or research your edit, or if you're adjusting some active editor's pubs and I'd want to see if you left the courtesy message, or an active moderator's pubs (in which case I leave it to that mod), that I leave it when I'm on a mini-project of my own. If I have no mini-project then I look at what people are doing and see if I can join in. You do leave some small nightmares at times - e.g. that Vonnegut (No Jr) publication where you changed ALL the content author details. But mostly you're doing faultless submissions, and thanks for that. BLongley 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If I knew what to do with the Vonneguts my headaches would go away, though they don't give me nightmares..... yet! And even if there aren't big bucks for the MODS I still seem to remember something about 'groupies' and ...gasp! oh, yes!! ... magic decoder rings!!! Keeps me going and hoping. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shssssh Bill. We want the editors to think we labor over each and every edit submitted. Otherwise they may not think we're worth the big bucks. (Ha! Ha! Ha!) MHHutchins 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Al is on hiatus because I put in a claim for two year's back pay and expenses then? :-/ I have to settle for kudos and general appreciation of my psychic abilities in the meantime, and those don't feed the kids (so it's fortunate I don't have any.) By the way Bluesman, I'm pre-approving the "make variants" for "Wailing Shall Be in All Streets", "Great Day", "Guns Before Butter" and "Happy Birthday, 1951" et cetera. I sense those submissions coming shortly, although Mike might still beat me to approving them. ;-) BLongley 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Treasury of Great Sci-fi

Added a cover image to TRSRFGRTSC1960 Mine is a '64 printing, gcF41, and has no SFBC # on the jacket. Weren't the numbers introduced later? Late 60s? I have a '70 printing of Vol 2 , gcL49, with the #1890 and kind of doubt both books would have the same # in any case. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually they would. Because they were only sold as a set, the SFBC catalog number would be the same. I'm not sure exactly when they started putting the numbers on the jacket, but until the eighties, most of the time they were on the back inside flap. Strangely, in this case, the numbers are on the back. Both of mine were obtained at the same time. The number on both of my volumes is "1890" and the gutter code (which would change based on the printing) is "Q32", which indicates a printing in August of 1974 or 1975 (yes, "Q" was used both years.) In Volume 2 the gutter code is so low that only the top half is showing. I can only assume it's the same as was in Volume 1, but the top half would indicate it's the same. Also keep in mind that "F41" could be either 1964 or 1975, and "L49" could be either 1970 or 1981. Leave to someone to come up with a pretty neat printing date indicator and then someone else coming along to screw it up royally by starting over...almost. MHHutchins 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Found a note later about them being printed as a set. The book #s started going on the back cover as early as '70 on the reprints but remained on the inside until the mid-70s for the first printings. I am certain my two editions are for the years I stated as a '75 for volume One would have a number somewhere and the volume Two is just too old to be an '81. Appreciate the feedback! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Day the Sun Stood Still

Added a cover image to THDTHSNSTD1972. The page for Anderson's novella seems... off. The title page for the story, which contains a short bio, is unnumbered. The story text starts on page 1. Preceding the title page are Roman numerated pages, including the introduction. The last such page precedes the novella's title page but the Roman #s have been continued in the contents page so that the novella is shown as starting on page xi. This just doesn't seem right...? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's strange. But look again. Anderson's story starts on page 1, but the its unpaginated title page is two pages before. Just as Silverberg's story starts on page 63, but the title page is on the unpaginated 61. Even the content page states that Anderson's story starts on page xi, one page following the last roman-numeraled page. I suppose we could change the beginning page for Anderson to 1, but then we'd have to change the others as well: Silverberg would be 63 and Dickson would be 127. Only then none of these pages have the title of the story on them. I'm not sure how the ISFDB standards are concerning paging stories in collections and anthologies, where the title page is not the same page that the story begins. I'll have to check into it. MHHutchins 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it a while before leaving the note. Just never seen this before. Whenever I enter a start page, it's the page the text starts on, otherwise every pub entered would have Roman numbers because the Title page precedes. The few exceptions are DAW and early ACE who started the first page , blank or not, as page 1. Don't think it's that important (don't tell Harry, though!) in the grand scheme as you can't search by page numbers. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't enter the page number on which a novel begins unless there's prefatory material that I'm entering as well. Story contents is another matter. In anthologies, magazines, and collection, I enter the page number on which the title appears. When you start entering magazines you'll see how often the artwork and title appear on pages before the text of the story. So I think the same should apply to other pubs. MHHutchins 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New image, just for you!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Green Shadow, White Whale

Added notes to GRNSHDSWW1992A ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd already placed a similar note with further details in the title record, but I guess it doesn't hurt to have them in the pub record as well. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I responded to this before the submission was accepted. Thanks for the additional notes. MHHutchins 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

...and I accidentally accepted Bluesman's addition of a cover image to this pub before noticing that it was verified by you. Clearly, either I need a bigger monitor or better glasses so that I could use a higher resolution... Ahasuerus 18:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, that's the right cover. MHHutchins 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated man

Added a cover image to TILLMAN1969. My copy is a much later printing (1985) so if the cover is different than yours, I'll delete it. In these cases is it better to just put the URL in this note before adding the image? The SFBC were REALLY lazy when it came to images and rarely put new ones on unless the edition copyright was changed/renewed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My copy (from the mid-70s) has the same cover. Either method is OK. I find it easier if you just go ahead and edit the pub record. Once it's accepted, and if I find it doesn't match, I can always remove the URL. MHHutchins 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, fewer steps is always a good thing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Long after midnight

Added a cover image to LNGFTRMDNG1976 ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. You're getting the hang of this image uploading pretty fast! MHHutchins 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I are not 'tupid, jest inexperiunced.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Eight Tales of Terror

Hi. A question about my recent addition of GHTTLSFTRR1961 you just reviewed. In the content of my book, the introductory text by John P. Roberts is entitled "Introduction", not "A Word to the Reader". What should I do about this? At first I thought I'd make a variant title, but since this edition predates the others, it seems more correct to have "Introduction" be the main title and "A Word to the Reader" be the variant. I'm way out of my depth.... Help? Thanks! MartyD 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Yours would be the parent title while the others would be the variant. Read this help page which will show you how to change a content entry of a collection or anthology. You will be working from this pub record (the one you just submitted and I approved.) Be sure to change the title to "Introduction (Eight Tales of Terror)" so that it is distinct from other generic titles. Once you've added the new title and dropped the old one (and the submissions have been accepted), you're ready to create a variant:

1. Go to your pub's record page.
2. Click on the title you just created ("Introduction (Eight Tales of Terror)"). Once that title record page comes up make a note of the number after .../cgi-bin/title.cgi?------ in that page's URL in your browser's address window. Write it down or copy it (CTRL+C) into your memory.
3. Go to the old title record and you'll see under the editing tools menu: "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" which you'll click on.
4. In this first field labeled Parent# you'll enter the record number of the title record that you noted in step 2.
5. Click on "Link to Existing Parent".

And that should do it. Let me know if you need any further assistance. MHHutchins 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm giving it a try. MartyD 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Change which affects one of your verifiied pubs

Namely, Ysolde by Nathalie-Charles Henneberg which is actually a collaborative pseudonym. See the discussion on my page.--swfritter 02:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Very interesting story about the joint pseudonym. MHHutchins 02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Port Eternity

Added a cover image to PRTTRNTWMX1982 And for what it's worth, my copy also has no gutter code. The ISFDB SFBC page for this year states "No Code" as well. My copy is definitely pre '88 when the gutter codes disappeared as they also started cutting the page edges a lot cleaner at that time as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I created those SFBC pages here on the wiki, and you and I are the only ones who update them. BTW, I just created blank pages for the 1990s, just in case you want to add some titles. By that time I'd dropped out of the club, so I don't have the club announcements like I had between 1974 - 1984. Everything after that I've been using Locus (both the online database and the print magazine). I eventually get around to filling in the titles. It was so much easier doing the first 30 years because there was only 2-4 new titles per month (only 1 for the first 15 years!). But I just rejoined, and my god, there's more than 10 alternate selections each month! Some of them non-genre, but I can see how the club has changed. A lot of horror, especially vampires and "paranormal romance" novels, along with plenty of fantasy. I'd say there's only about 25% science fiction! One of the reasons for rejoining was just to be able to fill in the wiki tables, since Locus online only goes up through 2006. Contento should be adding 2007 soon (he usually waits a couple of years, I suppose to keep up sales of the updated CD-ROMs.) MHHutchins 05:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Capella / John Rackham cross-reference

Hi. While verifying BYCPLSWSW1971 I first tried to find it by looking at the titles for John Rackham, as this is the author's name on the cover. No such title is listed. But the Beyond Capella title has the same author reference. Is something not hooked up right, or is it just tough luck due to the double-whammy of pseudonym and variant title? Seemed outside the scope of the verification, but figured I'd look into it while noticing.... Thanks. MartyD 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Both the Omnibus and Novel are listed under John Rackham, but if you want to find them on his author page you have to select "Titles" in the "Editing Tools" section. Or you can follow the advice to go find it on John T. Phillfent's page, where they are listed with an " [as by John Rackham ]". BLongley 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[After editing conflict] You're correct, MartyD. You wouldn't find that title on the Rackham page because a variant had already been created. It appears on Phillifent's page. Whenever an author has been set up as a pseudonym of another author, a variant must be created for each work published under the pseudonym. There were several publications that were still listed on the Rackham page because variants had not been made. The moment they are, they immediately move to the canonical author's page. I've gone ahead and made variants for the remaining pubs that were still listed under Rackham. You can see now that his page is empty, with a link directing you to the canonical author's page (Phillifent). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We even have a project to find all non-pseudonymous Titles by Authors who are marked as pseudonyms, although it hasn't been updated since August. I think I'll take a break from my work on Amazon UK, re-run the script against the latest backup and post the results later tonight... Ahasuerus 22:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ahasuerus 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Only Apparently Real

Added a cover image and notes to NLPPRNTLRL1986. Can you imagine PKD and Hunter S. Thompson in the same room??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So that's who's crawling through the window! I always wondered who that was. :) MHHutchins 19:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, March 2009

Did "Doomsday" really appear as by "Robret Silverberg" in this verified publication or is it a typo? Ahasuerus 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it should have been "Robert". I've changed it. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Heart of Red Iron

Added a cover image and notes to BKTG04583. Also added the month, from LOCUS and corrected the artist's name spelling. The jacket misspelled it "Sienkewicz" instead of the proper "Sienkiewicz". He's done lots of Marvel Comics. The cover signature plainly shows the second "i" as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow River

Added a publication to this title, a second printing of your verified tp edition SLWRVR1996 and the covers are slightly different. Where yours has Nebula Award Winner, mine has Lambda Literary Award Winner. The rest of the cover is the same. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I pulled that off the shelf a month or so ago and read it (yeah, occasionally I actually read the books). I don't know where it is now (I'll find it eventually), but I do recall there being something about a Lambda award on the cover. MHHutchins 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Horror in the Museum and Other Revisions

I'm going to ask this time before I attempt to enter this book. The book is a collection of stories that were all either collaborations with Lovecraft of to some degree ghost written by him. This title exists and is listed as an ANTHOLOGY with Lovecraft listed as editor. This doesn't seem appropriate. The book is almost certainly edited by Derleth, though he isn't credited aside from the introduction. Also, this help page, would lead me to believe that it should be a collection, since all of the stories were at least partially written by Lovecraft. To complicate matters further, the stories are presented as by whoever they were ghost-written for. Another complication is that the none of the contents lists of the existing publications under this title match that of the book I'm trying the enter (Arkham House, 1970). They all appear to be partial reprints of the original book. My guess is that I should add the book as a brand new collection and then proceed to merge the stories. Though, I'm not sure who should be considered the canonical author in these instances. I'm afraid I have no idea how to deal with the existing title and the partial reprints. I'd appreciate any advice you could give.--Rtrace 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's good that there's no current record for the book. It gives us a blank slate. I agree with you that it should be entered as a collection. When entering the contents, record the authorship exactly as shown on the title page of each story. Lovecraft's summary page is in such a mess currently that I don't think we should worry about creating variants or merging any stories right now. But somewhere down the road, it's got to be straightened out. This business of ghost-writing and collaborations (credited and non-credited) are going to give some poor soul an awful headache. Now if we had a Lovecraft scholar as an editor.... Anybody know how to get in touch with S. T. Joshi? :-) MHHutchins 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Galaxy February 1975

I won't go into the gory details since you verified this pub nearly two years ago. Note that the circulation statement for Worlds of If is in this issue. I have been putting the Galaxy statements into a series. Other changes were made to make the data consistent. The cover was credited to Pini and Pini so entering data as credited did not make sense in this case. These are also the issues that have dual US/UK publishing statements. Still not as much fun as Locus.--swfritter 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. But one question: how could If and Galaxy have exactly the same circulation? MHHutchins 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad somebody was awake. Copy and paste issue on my part. If actually had a higher circulation.--swfritter 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mote in God's Eye

Added a cover image and notes to THMTNGDSKJ1975. The image is from an '84 printing (and it has the elusive "Z" code, "Z48") so it might not match, which would also negate the artist. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My copy doesn't have a dustjacket, but I'm pretty sure that's the first edition cover, so it should be the first book club edition as well. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gateway

Added a cover image to GTWBQBZBMV1977 and in checking the SFBC pages noticed no original gutter code (would be H??). Mine's a later printing. Does yours have an original code? I've been adding 1990+ editions and putting the trade ISBNs in that field. Was this what you intended or just for the editions exclusive to the SFBC? With no gutter codes past '87, would the SFBC# go somewhere, as now that serves to demark each printing as the external number (seems) to change with each new printing?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mine was a later printing as well, so I just placed a note about the gutter code of the verified copy.

About the ISBN column in the SFBC listings, I intended to include the ISBN only for exclusive SFBC publications. But nothing's written in stone. If you have a good argument for including them I'm open to suggestions. As for SFBC exclusives, the first ISBNs were numbered 1-56865-xxx-x, starting in 1989 and going into 1999. That's when they started using 0-7394-xxxx-x which was used at least into 2008, but that range appears to have ran out of numbers. They've used 1-58288-xxx-x sparingly since 2003, but that ISBN has space for only 1000 books. And they share ISBN ranges with all of the other book clubs ran by Bookspan. I've not included a column in the tables for the SFBC catalog number, but if you're in the mood for a project after you've verified all the pubs in your library, I think you'd be the guy to do it. Everything after 1987 changed so drastically that I've been slow to do the research necessary to keep up. When I started here at the ISFDB (only two years ago) the idea of ISBNs in book club editions never occurred to me. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I discovered they've been using them since 1989. And reprinting the trade ISBN in the BCE has only been going on for the past decade! Back in 2007 nothing had been established about how to handle these red-headed step-children of the publishing world. They were handled willy-nilly in the database, and one of the purposes of the wiki listings was to start identifying them and establishing an entry standard. And with your help especially, everything seems to be coming together quite nicely.

BTW, what years were you a member of the club, or did you get your copies second-hand? MHHutchins 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Last question first: I'm reasonably sure I was a member of the Club starting in late '85 and for varying periods up until 2001. I used to join, then quit, then join to take advantage of the 4, 5, 6 for $1 sign-up promotions. Back then once you bought the required # of titles, there was no 'waiting period' like there is now, so you could quit one month and rejoin the next. Any copies pre-1980 I've bought used, and will still buy the odd one, especially the omnibus editions. I'm up for nailing down as much as possible on the SFBC. With the demise of the gutter code the only way left to keep track of printings seems to be the book#, though I think there was a period in the early 90s where it didn't change with each printing run like it does now, but don't really know how to verify that. As for the ISBN field, I just wanted clarification as if they are mentioned in the pub record notes then there's no need for them to be repeated. Except for the exclusive editions, they don't add anything. Maybe that field should be an 'either' or 'both' as even their exclusive editions still get a book#. I think we both want to reveal some sense/logic to their "system" but not sure that is even possible to more than 75-80%. Something to think about, though. See how it shapes up in the near future. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Outnumbering the Dead

Added a cover image, notes and the interior art to BKTG13631. I also changed the designation from Novel to Chapterbook/Novella as it barely tops 100 pages without the art pieces. Locus1 also designates it as a novella. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Back when we were entering these titles nothing definitely had been settled about how novella-length books should be entered into the database. The display of chapterbooks is still not perfect. But until that gets resolved chapterbooks will have to go under shortfiction. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

SF of the 40s

Added a cover image, notes and changed one title (adding "...") to SCNCFTHS1C1978 ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for catching the gaffes about the book title and the quotes in the van Vogt story. MHHutchins 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar Hunter

Added a cover image to TJGRHN1987. I do not have this edition, mine's the '89 TP. Please check it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the cover for the 2003 Four Wall Eight Windows edition. I'll upload the Arkham House cover sometime today. MHHutchins 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Arkham Collector

I just entered the final issue this magazine and I'm about to take a stab at creating the wiki pages. However, I have a question. Arkham House bound all 10 issues and sold them as "The Arkham Collector, Vol. 1". I would lean towards entering it as an OMNIBUS, except that this help page indicates that an Omnibus must contain a novel. I've looked to see if any other magazines have bound volumes, but have been unable to find any to see how this may have been handled before. To be honest, I'm not even sure if bound volumes of magazines should be entered. If they should, I'd appreciate any advice you could give on what type to use. Also, how it should be noted on the wiki page. Thanks.--Rtrace 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a new situation that should be brought up to the whole group for discussion on the rules and standards page. I would personally lean towards not including bound issues of magazines. But the wiki page would be a great place to make a note of them. Just a line or two explaining the date and price of the bound edition. If you have an questions about creating the wiki page don't hesitate. Here's the template for creating magazine pages on the wiki, just in case you've not found it yet. Just keep in mind that the template is just an aid. Feel free to include anything else that you feel is important (such as the bound volume.) And good luck! MHHutchins 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Courage of Falcons

A procedural question for you. I was trying to verify Courage of Falcons by Holly Lisle, and I find both CRGFFLCNST2001 and CRGFFLCNSH2001. They have the same ISBN and price. One has a little more specific data than the other. I think these are actually the same book. My copy matches the cover image for CRGFFLCNST2001 but the additional details for CRGFFLCNSH2001. I believe the page number discrepancy is that the main text ends on p. 433, but there is an About the Author on (unnumbered) p. 435. What should I do in a situation like this? Thanks. --MartyD 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they're duplicate entries for the same pub. In that case, choose the one that you feel is more complete and that you're able to fill in any additional info. Then when it's accepted, and you verify it, make a submission to delete the other one. Good catch. (There must be hundreds like that in the db, so go fishing!) MHHutchins 03:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Brightness Falls From the Air

Added a cover image, notes and interior 'art' to BKTG18436 Happen to know who the initials JWP stand for? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a clue. Sorry. MHHutchins 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Race Against Time

Hi, another question. Actually, two. In looking at my copy of Race Against Time, I came across this entry: RCGNSTTMGR1985. It's for the 3rd printing, while my copy is for the 6th. My copy, however, dates the 2nd printing as October 1985. So not only is the dating sort of strange for the existing entry, it's also clearly wrong. Should I fix that entry to have an unknown date and strike the date-related note, based on what I see in my copy? If the answer is yes, is it appropriate to verify that modified entry from my 6th printing (adding a note to that effect, of course), given that all of the other information is identical? Thanks. --MartyD 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add your pub as is. But don't change the previously entered pub, because it's been verified. You should contact the verifier (Marc Kupper) of that third printing and inform him of the situation. Marc came up with a system a couple of years ago that dated undated printings by giving them the date of the first (known) printing and then putting the printing number in the day place. In this case, he dated his third printing, 1985-09-03. Clearly when you add your printing dated October 1985, it throws his printing out-of-place, and that was the main reason why he came up with his system in the first place. That method clearly doesn't work, and I don't know anyone else who uses it. I don't even know if Marc is still using it. MHHutchins 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped the system though am moving closer to having a working development server. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

H. P. Lovecraft Selected Letters

Thanks for approving my changes to this pub and this other one. I had worried that I may have submitted a mistake insofar as I didn't change the title of the NONFICTION record in the contents. My question is whether or not I should have changed it, or if that would have caused a problem with how ISFDB handles nonfiction. I do need to go back and fix a spacing problem with the title of one of the pubs, and also fix the title records. However, I thought I'd wait to see if I need to fix the contents as well. Thanks.--Rtrace 04:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The NONFICTION type applies only to book-length works such as these (or a single essay published in chapbook form). Nonfiction contents whether it be in fiction types (NOVEL, COLLECTION, ANTHOLOGY) or in NONFICTION type (like these pubs) will always be ESSAYs. Put simply, the title record of a book of essays would be NONFICTION, while all of the content records would be ESSAYs. The only content you added to each of these pubs were the introductions, and they were entered correctly as an ESSAY type. Everything else looks fine as well. MHHutchins 04:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the content entry that gets created when the book is of type NONFICTION. You can't see it unless, you open up the edit screen. In these cases, I changed the title of the publication (to match the title page, the numbered title only being listed on the half-title page). However, the single NONFICTION record still has the former title, i.e. the pub title was changed to "Selected Letters, 1932-1934" whereas there is a content record of type NONFICTION that still has a title of "Selected Letters IV: 1932-1934". This content record is only visible when editing. I hesitate to edit the content record, because of the problems that I caused when I overwrote a similar content record that referred to the title of the publication.--Rtrace 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're correct to be careful about changing content records. And here's the weird part. The record labeled NONFICTION listed among the content records isn't actually a content record. It's the TITLE record which only appears among the contents when you edit a NONFICTION pub. It's not displayed in the PUBLICATION record. As in our past discussions never try to edit the TITLE record while doing a PUBLICATION edit (there are a few exceptions that you'll learn as you become more familiar with the schema of the database.) I wish the software were changed so that this record would not be displayed with the contents. There should be a separate section that prominently displays the TITLE record, which would then be followed by content records. I know it's whacky but bear with it and eventually you'll get use to the peculiarities of the software. As for changing the TITLE record you can go here for the 1932-1934 volume and here for the 1934-1937 volume. Choose "Edit Title Data" in the editing tools menu, and then you change them to whatever the correct title should be. I'm assuming the roman-numerals should be removed because you removed them from the pub's title. Remember you can change the "title" of a PUBLICATION record but it doesn't change the pub's TITLE record. You can change a pub's TITLE record without changing the "title" of the PUBLICATION record. Screwy sounding, yes, but title records and publication records are two kettles of fish. MHHutchins 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rtrace, I don't know if you're familiar with relational databases and SQL, but if you are it might help to look at my article about how publication titles and title titles are linked. It touches on the "Special" types that will get hidden away at times. BLongley 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with RDBs and SQL, don't worry, you don't need to be. I'll get around to drawing some simplified diagrams at some point. BLongley 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BLongley, I'll take a look at it. I'm a java programmer, and I'm not unfamiliar with SQL and RDBMS (though I'm much more comfortable with application code).--Rtrace 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to clarify, criticise, or ask further questions (although it might be better to contact me directly rather than overuse Mike's talk page further). I'm no Java expert (nor Python, which seems to be the application language of choice here at the moment) but could probably pick it up if needed. (The last 20+ languages haven't been too difficult.) Varieties of SQL seem to be lower, so I've tried to concentrate on the database rather than the application languages. And MySQL doesn't seem much harder than Oracle, SQLServer, Sybase, DB2, etc. ISFDB is a pleasantly interesting oddity at times though. BLongley 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysterium

Added a cover image and notes to BKTG20239. Also corrected the artist from "Rob" to "Ron". The record must have been created from Locus as they have it wrong, too. A new twist: on the copyright page there is the trade ISBN followed by the trade price! Never seen that before. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pandora

Added a cover image to PBHH1990. Unfortunately, my copy is an ex-lib that has a bar-code sticker that can't be removed. Never understood why they had to glue the protective plastic covers on.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd bet that at least half of the covers would disappear within the first 6 months if they weren't glued down. MHHutchins 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand/agree with gluing them to the boards but why to the protective plastic? I hate stickers of any kind but can't remove any when they are 'sandwiched' and glued. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The films are likely because the covers last must longer that way. I'm not sure what you mean by "gluing" as my local library system uses a clear plastic film that's taped on meaning to get rid of the film you cut four tapes and then only need to deal with small sections of tape residue on the top and bottom edges. I usually leave the films on as they do an excellent job of protecting the cover and the only hassle is the stickers tend to be over useful things like the barcode/ISBN and with DAW books over the spine logo. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps gluing is the wrong term, but some, not all are as if laminated. The clear plastic cannot be removed from the jacket and the stickers were placed before whatever the process is that permanently causes the clear plastic to adhere. Most ex-libs are as you described but these few...grrr! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

World's Best '84

Added a cover image and notes to THNNLWRLDS1984 Is yours a first? Gutter code would have O?? The ISFDB SFBC data on this one is blank. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I entered the gutter code from my copy (O30) to the pub record and to the SFBC wiki listings, and while I was there I filled in as many 1984 gutter codes as I can find. That leaves 1985 and 1986. I'd already did as much as I can for 1987, the last year of gutter codes, alas. I'd stopped my search for other gutter codes through abebooks.com dealers when a couple of them became perturbed at me for asking such trival questions and not buying any books from them. I need to start keeping a record of which dealers I contact! Thanks. MHHutchins 06:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SFBC pages

Ran into a small problem when I entered a pub in the 1999 year section. A Dune book, two authors. The data is in the edit page but when saved the cell did not expand, so only the second author shows. I can't see anything different in the parameters at the top of the edit page and don't know anything about setting/re-setting them. Can you take a look? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You'd left off one of the brackets that closes the template. The table will automatically expand the cell to fit any entered text. MHHutchins 06:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooops... the print seems to shrink the later I do this in the day... Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Green Meadow

If I catch you in time, please reject my variant edit to this title. I had the wrong title up in my second window.--Rtrace 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mhhutchins has it on hold and I assume he'll reject it. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was rejected. See the note I left on your talk page. MHHutchins 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Galaxy, February 1978

My copy of this pub has the month on the front. Apparently yours corresponds to the image the pub is linked to. Also, this and a previous and some 'A Step Further Out' columns were credited to Jerry Pournelle - the only credit is in the TOC for J. E. Pournelle. Also took 'A Step Further Out' out of the title since it is in series by that title - although unfortunately it doesn't show up in the pub. Also added multiple artwork. Directions was listed as being on page 156 rather than 154.--swfritter 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Galaxy, March 1978

Mostly as above. Changed "Killing Vector" to short story from novelette. It got my attention because there are only 13 pages of text - it is about 6500 words. Other pubs were affected for those who are interested. The variant title in the list was already classified as a short story.--swfritter 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Galaxy, April 1978

Same old, same old except for the story length of The Purblind People which is listed in the TOC as a novella. At less than 30 pages I did not even bother to do any kind of word count on it before changing it to novelette length. Another issue where some copies had month and others had the Vol & Iss #. This time the image linked to the pub has the month.--swfritter 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Galaxy, May 1978

Cover art in this pub is actually credited to Steve Fabian rather than Stephen. Jerry Pournelle is actually credited as PH.D. as he was with most of his columns. I think I know why some of the mags have slightly different covers. I re-read the Galaxy entries in Ashley's "Gateways to Forever". They were so strapped for cash that they first printed a newsstand run. As soon as they got some money from that they used it to print the subscription copies. I suppose it's entirely possible that there could be some interior differences. Two editions per month!!! I don't want to go there.--swfritter 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lens of the World / existing entry editing policy question

I noticed that in the course of approving my addition of LNSFTHWRLB1991 you also changed the date on the existing "2nd printing" entry from the first-printing date seen in my copy to unknown. I had found that entry and figured the date was likely to be wrong, given my copy's dating. Without access to that 2nd printing, would it still have been appropriate for me to make that same change you ended up making? I could have done it while looking right at it but didn't know if that was ok without access to that copy. I realize it's different if I have an edition that lists a date FOR the existing entry.... --MartyD 20:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that your first printing would not have the same date as the second. Because the second wasn't verified (and I couldn't ask a verifier to re-check the date), I went ahead and changed the date to unknown. You probably made the same logical leap, and if you had submitted an edit removing the date, I would have approved it. Of course, we both could be wrong and it's possible that two printings may have been released within the same month (but not likely considering the age of title.) If it had been a new book from a bestselling writer, I would have thought twice. Sometimes, you just have to use your intuition (along with forty years of reading sf!) Thanks. MHHutchins 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Galaxy, March-April 1979

Story length for 25 page "Parasite" changed from novella to novelette. "Duet" changed from novelette to short story - only 6500 words.--swfritter 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing those. I think late in Galaxy's life the editor was making outrageous claims about "complete novel" and "short novel" when some of the stories were closer to novelettes. MHHutchins 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Galaxy, September-October 1979

How the might are fallen. Added "Science Fiction Hotline"; put the editorial in Editor's Page series - not a precise fit but Stine only did two editorials. Added ISSN number.--swfritter 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Galaxy Magazine, July 1980

Changed title to Galaxy Magazine as the small print states. Added editorial, Famous Events, You'll Never Find It in Galaxy. Added Pages from the Sketchbook of Michael Kaluta artwork. Although Vincent McCaffrey is listed as the publisher I think Galaxy Magazines, Inc., listed at bottom of the small print, is probably more correct. I think for our purposes the company that publishes rather than the person who is responsible for the publishing tasks is more appropriate. There are numerous examples in other magazines where an individual is credited as the publisher put the company is credited. Really strange that they did not provide a synopsis for "Jem" despite the long hiatus. Of course, by this time the novel had already been published in an SFBC edition so anybody who really wanted to read it had probably already done so.--swfritter 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. I wouldn't have made the individual the publisher these days (would have looked harder to find that small print). The whole situation with Galaxy / Galileo / Science Fiction Times still burns me when I think of the money I had paid in subscriptions that was never returned, getting issues months after they were on the newsstand, and sometimes never at all. I bought this last issue of Galaxy at a convention, and was shocked to see it had even been published. Ah well, that's all water under the bridge. MHHutchins 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My last subscription issue was March-April 1979 when my subscription expired. I didn't buy any s-f magazine for fifteen years after that.--swfritter 19:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stars in My Pocket [2]

Added a cover image to [[4]] Did he ever write/publish part two? Looked through Locus but couldn't find any reference work. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"A Better Way"

You recently replied to my comment on another users page. I felt it inappropriate to continue the conversation there as it doesn't involve them at all. I jumped in, in that situation because you gave instruction to a new editor that "a better approach" to entering first appearances in non-genre magazines was to add a note to the Title. I felt you were wrong and biased in the advice you gave. I merely wanted to briefly (with a link) provide some more info to make it clear that the ISFSB welcomes entries as magazines. When I first joined, I took any Mod's suggestions for 'a better approach' as gospel and didn't understand that there are multiple solutions and believed all 'better solutions' to be canon solutions. The help page I linked to, in-fact explicitly states "It is particularly desirable when the non-genre magazine is the first or only publication of the work." which directly contradicts your statement of 'a better approach'. Feel free to email me (email is on my page) if you would like to continue this discussion in private, and you are also welcome to delete this comment from your talk page as well. I honestly looked around to see if I could find your email to suggest an amendment to your comment before I posted on the new users page, as I felt your statements were not intentionally misleading, and a correction by you would be much more PC to the newuser, but I could find no private way to communicate with you. Thanks Kevin 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The words "better approach" explicitly means there are other approaches. It doesn't imply that it's the only approach or even the canonical one. I stand by the statement. Considering the shape of the original submission (which you admittedly were unable to see) the method I gave him was the better way for a newcomer to add information for one story published in a non-genre magazine. And I did explain the other approach. Very few people are familiar with how to enter magazines (there are only about a half-dozen of us who do it on a regular basis). I'm not about to overwhelm a new editor with an overload of information. You cite the help page's approach as "particularly desirable" which means that it is not demanded. Yes, you had every right to direct the new editor to the help page, and I agree, my bias was showing in the "better approach" that I showed him. But please read my complete comment again. I did give him an alternative method. If you felt I was wrong, and didn't want to involve the other editor, you could have posted a comment on my talk page. And, honestly, I find it insulting that you felt you should give me the opportunity to make a correction to my statement. Would you have gone so far as to dictate what correction I should make? I'd really like to know what it might have been. When you've become a moderator and have dealt with as many new editors as I have then come back and tell me I was wrong. Since you've chosen to make this a public debate, I'll allow it to remain public. BTW, there's a link on this page for sending private e-mails. Click on "E-mail this user" in the left menu. MHHutchins 06:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I didn't mean to insult. I also didn't want to make any public statement to you as if I had 'called you out' either. When I could not find a private way of contacting you I attempted to resolve what I felt was an incorrect instruction of how things should be done to a new editor, with the shortest, simplest, least confrontational statement possible. When you decided that my follow-up required more conversation, I immediately moved the conversation to your talk page. AS for the email link.... I obviously did not find it though I went looking from the top to the bottom of your user page. I apologize for not finding it and using it. Thanks Kevin 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The internet is a wonderful tool, but, unfortunately, it doesn't do a very good job of transmitting the body language, which causes all kinds of misunderstandings :( Ahasuerus 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Presidents

I updated the titles of two short works in your verified pub LTRNTPRSDN1992 based on the current standards of trailing "..." being entered as " . . ." (space dot space dot space dot). Thanks Kevin 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Always Coming Home

Deleted the duplicate entry for [this] and moved the image over. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The 31st of February

I just added a completely new record to replace this pub that you had verified with Tuck. There were two problems with Tuck, the title page has "Thirty-first" instead of "31st" and the author is listed as Nelson Bond instead of Nelson S. Bond. I wanted to get your buy in before requesting a delete of the above linked pub. I also noticed the armed forces paperback edition also verified from Tuck. Currey gives the date of the paperback as "circa 1952" and mentions that the copyright page retained the first edition statement. Additionally, Chalker and Owings', "The Science-Fantasy Publishers: A Bibliographic History 1923-1998" mentions that the armed forces edition was a binding of half of the first printing. I'm thinking that it makes sense to replace the armed forces pub with a clone of the one that I entered, after the contents have been made into variants of their canonical titles. Again, I'm asking since you had verified the pub with Tuck.

This also begs a question that I've been meaning to ask: Should I leave a note whenever I edit a pub that has been verified? I haven't been able to find a policy or help page regarding this, but I've seen plenty of notes from other editors on talk pages that make it seem like this is the convention. I have left notes when I'm doing anything that seems major, but have not if I'm adding page numbers or a cover where I have the book myself. I'm just not sure if I should be leaving notes in these instances.

Thanks --Rtrace 00:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First question. Yes, go ahead and delete the two Tuck-verified pubs, make variants of the "Nelson Bond" titles, then clone that one to re-create the armed forces edition. Once you've done that I'll go back and Tuck-verify the Gnome and armed forces editions, noting the differences between the primary-verification and Tuck. (It's a good idea to do this for any book where the verification sources differ from the primary one.)

Second question. If you wish to edit a primary-verified pub, it is considered good etiquette to notify that verifier before you make any major changes. If it's a minor change you can make a submission and notify the verifier. Moderators get a warning notice that the submission is for a primary-verified pub. If it's a major change, I will check to make sure that the verifier has been notified by the submitter. If they haven't, I'll let the verifier know a submission to edit their pub has been made. If the verifier hasn't been around for awhile (check the "User Contributions" link on his talk page) go ahead and make the submission and leave it to the moderator to make the decision about whether to accept it. If you have the pub in hand, don't hesitate to make a submission to change a verified pub, but use the above protocol.

I don't think any of this is set in stone or even spelled out in the help pages. This is just my preference and I believe most editors follow similar guidelines. In the end, it's up to the moderator to protect the integrity of verified pubs, but it's nice to have the editor notify the verifier, which takes a small burden task away from the moderator. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Publication Series

I don't know if you've noticed last night's edits from me, but I was quite excited about the "Gryphon Science Fiction Rediscovery Series" (no static page available it seems, but go to this page and select that option in the search). I'd add it to the project page but I'm not sure we'll ever get the order right, they're not very good at explaining things. Or even spelling. ("GryphonSF Rediscovey")? Or series orders. I can't check how many we have (and they seem unsure too as the search only has 49 results but includes number 50) until I get a fresh database backup, but it does seem to be a notable series even if we get into Gryphon series numbers versus real publication order for "Golden Amazon" at least. Worth recording or should I just leave it as a personal project? BLongley 21:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you've listed it on the Publications Series page so we don't forget about it, you can keep it as a personal project. Then link it to the series page when you've done. I've come across several more in the past few weeks, but because I didn't stop and make a note of them, they're already out of my head. Memory just ain't what it used to be (I think.) MHHutchins 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems I added it already - I'd forgotten that. :-/ And I can never remember where the page is anyway, I keep having to go back to your page to find it. Perhaps it should be added to Bibliographic Projects in Progress? It's a darned sight more "in progress" than some of the other projects there! BLongley 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll put a link there, and check out what's progress in the projects since I started here two years ago. :) MHHutchins 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Icehenge

I updated your verified pub BKTG14704 with cover art and minor pub notes that match my copy in hand. - Thanks - Kevin 13:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction of the 30s.

Added a cover image to [[5]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the 30 got mixed up, and we wound up with DAW's 30th Anniversary anthology. :) (On both the trade and the book club editions.) MHHutchins 19:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed! At least when I mess up, I'm thorough! :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hothouse

Added a cover image to [[6]] and a note (Locus1 has the publication date as March '88, did not change the field). Did Easton put publication data? I don't own one so did not want to change anything as Locus can be wrong, too. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Easton doesn't date anything, usually just a copyright date for the new material. This was by subscription only, and I can't say what month I received it. (Never thought it would make much difference back then.) Who can say even that all subscribers received their copies at the same time? Subscribers were given lists and were able to opt out on certain titles. When I joined, the series had already began and I was catching up on some titles, and opted out on others. Sorry. MHHutchins 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seasons in Flight

Replaced a broken link for [[7]]. The image may be a little small?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's small, but it will work until I get around to scanning covers for those that aren't already up and replacing some with better scans. So much work and so little time! MHHutchins 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is My Funniest 2

I've held this as it's your verified pub - just a few extra notes and an alternative cover image. Feel free to accept or reject any part. BLongley 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That'll work. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New issues of Asimov's

It looks like you are making sure the new issues are getting entered. I am going to do the same for F&SF since I get the physical issue. Hopefully we will find a volunteer for Analog; I get only the ezine.--swfritter 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a volunteer to enter new Analogs? I thought Tpi was doing those, but if not, I have a subscription and I'm happy to take on that responsibility. Kevin 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(After editing conflict with Kevin) Asimov's is the only fiction mag that I still subscribe to, so it's pretty easy to enter new issues as they arrive. Surely User Tpi must be an Analog subscriber, considering all the work that he's put into cleaning up past issues. It seems to be caught up, but no one's claimed "responsibility" by verifying them. MHHutchins 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, perhaps you should touch bases with Tpi. The last Analog entered was the Jan-Feb issue. It might be a good idea for people taking responsibility for specific magazines to make an entry on the magazine project page.--swfritter 19:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can take the responsibility of the new issues of Analog. It just sometimes takes time to get the issues to Finland. I am still waiting for March issue, even though April came a few weeks ago, and May a few days ago. I have complained, and they will send a replacement. Tpi 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Orbital Decay

I updated your verified pub BKTG17354 with a date from the locus index, and a description of the coverart from my SFBC edition in hand. Thanks Kevin 03:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Illustrated Roger Zelazny

You rejected my effort to make "Zelazny Speaks (A Zelazny Tapestry)" a variant title of "Introduction (A Zelazny Tapestry)", and merged the two instead. I did have a reason for it though. In the first edition of The Illustrated Roger Zelazny there is an essay called "Zelazny Speaks", and another essay that is an introduction to "A Zelazny Tapestry". In the Ace reprint the text of the introduction is published under the title "Zelazny Speaks", so I named it "Zelazny Speaks (A Zelazny Tapestry)" and made it a variant of the original "Introduction (A Zelazny Tapestry)". I made an entry about this in the notes of the Ace edition. I have tried it again. Please don't merge them again. Thanks Willem H. 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Martians (Redux)

I discovered a 'New' short story in the paperback edition THMRTNSGXT2000 of a pub you have the Hardcover verification on THMRTNSLFX1999. I have copies of both editions in hand and have confirmed this information directly comparing the two books. Since this is the most significant change I've made to a verified pub, I wanted to make you aware. I documented the situation in the notes of both editions, and the title notes. Cheers - Kevin 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like your opinion on converting the title "Some Worknotes.... by Charlotte Dorsa Brevia" to a piece of fiction with 'by Charlotts Dorsa Brevia' as part of the title, and then attributing the work to Kim Stanley Robinson instead of the (to me) fictional 'Charlotte Dorsa Brevia'. - Thoughts? Kevin 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The "story" is written by Kim Stanley Robinson and should be so attributed. I'll go ahead and change it so that it appears that way in both editions. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. And thanks for the notes in the hardcover edition about the extra story. MHHutchins 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Looks good. I also put a note on Kraangs page letting them know what's up. - Cheers Kevin 01:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Grand Adventure

A signature [[8]] has me thinking I might have a separate pub of [this] as Kaluta is not credited with the cover or several interior illustrations other than in the last story. Have scanned in the cover as the old link was broken. The submission will probably be held for you, so I'm going to enter all the other artwork and we can take it from there. This means changing the cover designation as well and moving the design credit to the notes. Just a heads up .... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we have the same pub. I just never noticed that signature. (Never really looked for it, actually.) The credit on the copyright page is for "cover design", so that's what threw me off. Perhaps we should note that credit as well. Now to the important parts of the changes. I see that you changed the pages for each story to the page on which the story starts, whereas my given pages were for the title pages. If there's a standard about how to determine this when there are introductions, I've not been able to find it in the help pages. I usually give the page numbers on which the actual title appears. The story's titles are not on any of the pages you've given. Because you've added the introductions I can see how it would look awkward to have the story's title page be considered the first page of the story when the introduction would be on a subsequent page. So I can live with that. The naming of the introductions appears to be peculiar, and doesn't follow any standard of which I'm aware. Records should be titled exactly as they appear in print (or as close as possible). That's why we use a parenthetical appendix to indicate something that is not actually in the title, e.g. "Introduction (The Best Science Fiction Ever)" or "Editorial (Asimov's, January 2009)". Since none of these story introductions are titled shouldn't everything then be placed in parentheses? So the introduction to "The Shadow in Space" would be "(Introduction to The Shadow in Space)". This may have to be brought up on the rules and standards page for further discussion. Up until now, any untitled individual story introductions by either author or editor are usually just recorded in the notes pubs (and I don't even do that most of the time.) I'll let the pub be as it is until something more concrete is established. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally add those intros as they are, most of the time, quite short. Each of these runs 3-5 pages, so seemed worth noting. Which meant titling them in some way. Wasn't really thrilled with what I came up with, but if there can be a consensus I'll be happy to follow it. --Bluesman 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention. Where did those dates for the interior art come from? This is the first edition so they should all be dated 1984-11-00. And so should each of the introductions. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Each of the Kaluta pieces has a ©1983 with his signature. --Bluesman 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Works should be dated by first date of publication. All of these pieces appear to have been first published in this book. We don't use the copyright date for various reasons. Books published at the beginning of a year is often copyrighted for the previous year. Works of art may have been commissioned months or years before, the artist copyrights the work, then they're published months or even years later. Stories are written, copyrighted, and paid for...but not published until the following year (or the next...) Thanks. MHHutchins 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the two pieces of artwork for "The Shadow of Space" (pages 35 and 39): the first should have no appendix and the second should have [2]. And the second and third piece for "The Adventure of the Three Madmen" should also have appendices. MHHutchins 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been awhile since doing the Destinies stuff and couldn't remember if the [1] was done or not. I just missed on the other ones. Will add that. --Bluesman 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Heart of the Comet

Added a cover image to [[9]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've created a page solely for notification of updates to my verified pubs. (Just trying to be more organized!) The link is at the top of the page. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Playboy Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy

Could you check this verified pub again? It has the J.G.Ballard story "The Drowned Giant". My copy of the book has Souvenir instead. Thanks Willem H. 12:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. I verified that from an existing record, and didn't see that they had recorded that story under its more common name, and not how the publication states it. I'll make the correction. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 15:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seedling Stars

[This] has a Tuck verification from you, yet the Primary verification is for a '57 edition. Currey lists four bindings, all '57. Contento1 has '56. My first PB edition has ©'57. Could Tuck & Contento be wrong or is there a '56 publication? The last story date is '55 so it doesn't come from there. Even the LCCCN is a '57. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a rare instance of Tuck being wrong, and he was probably Contento's source. All other evidence points toward 1957. I'm going to delete the 1956 edition and then make a note of the error in the 1957 verified record. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I added to the note that it may have been available at the end of 1956, but officially published in early 1957. And I noticed that one of the stories was originally published in F&SF, February 1956 which may account for the dating as well (if there were an individual copyright date for that story). MHHutchins 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dandelion Wine

Just added a cover image to [this] and it raises a question I've thought of before: this 25th printing has the printing dates for every PB up to the 21st (for some reason the 22nd to 25th didn't rate a line). This is good information, but it seems that 'burying' it in the notes for this pub isn't a good place. Would the title notes be better? That way everybody who had an undated pub might find the date? Like you, I dislike the 0000 designation. Just a thought... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bantam is one of the few paperback publishers that give such a complete printing history. Ironically, just not for the issue in hand. I really can't think of a better place to record the info than in the pub notes of the pub record itself. It would be too burdensome to record it at the title level, especially with a title that has as many editions and printings as this one. Each pub has a link to a Bibliographic Comments page on the Wiki (though few actually take advantage of this feature. And that buries it even deeper than the pub notes. You may consider creating a Wiki page similar to the one created for The Martian Chronicles and then create a link to it from the title record. MHHutchins 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to "create a Wiki page". Seems the right way to go. Already thought of a link in the title notes, but to the pub with the dates in the notes. Like the Wiki page better. Brings this up: how to create the same "banner" as you did for the changes to verified pubs, as now I'm starting to get quite a few and it would be nice to put them all in one place. Please do not do this for me. I learn nothing that way. I would like to put this 'banner' on both the User and Talk pages as, if most editors do this as I do, when I need to leave a note for someone I just click on their name (usually in the verification field) which does not take me to their Talk page but to their User page. I have to remember that each time I leave a note for you. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found deeply detailed histories of printings in many pubs, and usually left them there. We just don't display massive numbers of printings well yet, and so I'm loath to create stubs for them all, but usually create the first for an imprint if we don't have it already. But usually the price is unknown, and the publisher may not be the same (a few Publishers do explain their former imprints well, but many don't) and ISBN/Catalog numbers vary, and cover artists can't be assumed, and page-counts can vary if the pub-format changes... basically I don't create anything from a publication history unless I really know the publisher practices well or have supporting evidence. But I do record them in the publication I DO have, for later use. BLongley 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If we ever establish "edition" level entries then I could do something there - e.g. a Penguin book might mention the Peacock or Puffin first printings. But I think it's probably an "experts-only" area if we're going to get valuable entries out of it. I know my limits on Panther/Grafton/Granada/Triad etc, and could add printing details to prior existing publications: but couldn't generate more than a date for most others. I don't like assumptions about intermediate printings. BLongley 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Definitely do not want to create a million stubs........ just clutter. There are probably only a (relatively) few authors for whom this is an issue. Ergo not that many pages to create. And the page would not necessarily have to be exclusive to a single title but could be for the author in general? A thought. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Martian Chronicles #F2438

Hi. I have a copy of The Martian Chronicles #F2438 ($0.50). I found THMRTNCHRB1962 which you verified from Tuck, and the notes describe it as the 3rd "New Edition" printing, 5th overall. My copy lists the 3rd "New Edition" printing as September 1962, rather than the November 1962 used in the pub record. Do you have Tuck to check? And while I'm bothering you... My book also has lines for 4th - 7th printing, giving no dates for those (last date is for the 3rd). Does that make my copy an undated 7th printing, or is it the 3rd printing with four anticipatory printing slots a la the printings in a number line? Thanks. --MartyD 01:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

When a pub has been "Tuck verified", it means the following fields conform to Tuck's listing (with exceptions stated in the note field): Title, Author, Publisher, Catalog Number, Year of Publication, Page Count, and Price (Binding is assumed to be hardcover if not stated as "pa"). Tuck doesn't give month of publication, printing/edition statements or cover artist (well, rarely). Someone has added the month of November to the record. Probably the persons who were working on this listing. In this case, the Tuck listing states: Bradbury, Ray...Martian Chronicles, The...Bantam: F2438, 1962, 181pp, pa 50¢ (the page count comes from the previous printing which remains the same until a new page count is stated). Bantam strangely gives printing dates for earlier printings, but not for the pub in hand, and in your case the previous three as well. So your pub would be an undated 7th printing of the new edition, and only someone with a later printing could tell you the date of your printing. According to Tuck, the catalog number remained the same up to the 1967 printing (#H3243) when the price changed to 60¢. Hope this helps. MHHutchins 04:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll change the date on the existing one with a note for the source and then add another for mine. --MartyD 10:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

SFBC Identification Question

I noticed that you wrote most of the SFBC article and since you tend to be the one approving my submissions anyway... I have what I believe is a SFBC edition of Gilden-Fire. My sources say the trade and limited editions are cloth bound, mine is bound in blue boards, has no ISBN, nor price, nor headbands. There also isn't a limitation page, although not all of my UM's have one. This unverified SFBC publication exists, and it has a catalog number of #9876. However, my copy has a number in the lower right hand corner of the back of the dust-jacket of "02044". There is no gutter code that I can find. My question is: Do you think I have a variant, or that the code is incorrect in the existing pub? An alternate possibility is that I'm misunderstanding what or where one finds the catalog number. Thanks for any advice you can give. --Rtrace 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yours is most definitely a book club edition, but not the first printing (which was in 1982 with that catalog number). At one point the catalog numbers were consecutive (but concurrent with other titles from non-SFBC clubs ran by Doubleday). Some time in the late 70s and early 80s they seemed to be randomly assigned until the mid-80s when they went to five-digit numbers. In some cases when they reprinted earlier titles they simply added a "0" before the original 4-digit catalog number. Sometimes they didn't (as in your case.) I would estimate its dating after mid-1988, because of its lack of gutter code, and having a five-digit catalog number, which is the number on the back of the dustjacket. I would suggest creating a new record, because of the new catalog number, otherwise I wouldn't have advised it. The publication date would have to be 0000-00-00, of course. Hope this helps. MHHutchins 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. Further research (Locus, December 1982) reveals that the catalog number in our record was incorrect. It should be #2044, which now explains the extra "0" in your copy. I've corrected our record, but you can still create a new record for your printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that the number had changed when I went to clone the pub and was perplexed that I had gotten it that wrong when I originally posted. I've put in the edit as you suggested.--Rtrace 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a little note to the pub to give a little explanation so no one would attempt to delete it as a duplicate record. MHHutchins 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

URL/editing window

Can't seem to figure out how to have this new "Images/Changes?" etc. to verified pubs open in an active editing window like yours (and now Kraang... see what you started??? lol). Have looked at the text of your link in edit mode, but when I 'adjust' mine I don't get the desired effect. Could you please take a look? Go ahead and change it, too and then I can see what the difference is. I put the same one on both my user and talk pages, so if you do one, I can do the other to match. Or is this something that has to be done on the target page? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! ~ Bill, --Bluesman 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the link from your talk page to http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluesman/Verifications&action=edit&section=1. Looking at each section of the link: up through ".php" is the URL for the main page of the website's wiki pages. The "?" starts the search mode and it is followed by the parameters of the search: 1. the title of the page = "User_talk:Bluesman/Verifications" (you don't have to repeat the "http" part of the URL because it's understood that the search is on this website). 2. the "&" adds to the search by asking for an action, in this case to edit. 3. Another "&" tells which part of the page for which the action ("edit") is required, in this case the first section ("section=1"). The only drawback to this link is that you must always make sure that you keep the changes section as the first one on the page. If you add a section before it, then it automatically becomes the section edited, so you would have to change to link to edit "section=2". Now you can copy the link to you user page and it should open an edit window as well. MHHutchins 05:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

-

Thanks! I used exactly that, not knowing what each part meant, but because that same string on your 'banner' had it split over two lines, I had a space between the "?" and "title" and it didn't work. I hadn't seen a URL split over two lines before and just assumed there was a space. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Classic Philip José Farmer, King of the Beasts

I changed (added the new title, dropped the old one) The King of the Beasts in this verified pub to The King of Beasts (without the the), to match my copy of the book. I also changed it in the other editions. I notified Animebill, who verified the book club edition. Willem H. 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Enchanted Village by Van Vogt - and others

You're right, there's definitely something wrong there. I think the "The" version has been corrupted. But generally I'm getting worried about the number of "variants of themselves" being discovered - I think most Mods are aware of the dangers of modifying a title in contents, so maybe someone is editing titles directly and that's slipping by? I'd post a lot more feature requests to help moderators actually moderate more cluefully if I thought Al had time, but in the meantime all I think I can do is go find where we have this problem. I can't go find who's doing it. (And as we communicate so publicly I don't want to get into a name/blame/shame/flame situation anyway - for all I know, it's me doing lazy approvals when the queue gets too long.) Any ideas on how to prevent this occurring? Or are all the occurrences you've seen actually from a while back, and the ongoing problem is sorted already? BLongley 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A few Fritz Leiber Questions

This help page indicates "if you are entering an omnibus... ...you should create an anthology or collection entry as well as entries for the constituent stories". I wanted to go ahead and add the constituent stories to this pub that you have verified. I would also add the roman numbered pages, and the interior art entry. Provided that you are OK with the edit of your pub, I also wanted to make similar changes to this pub which was verified by Scott Latham. I would make the edits there and leave a note on his talk page.

I've got another note on his talk page that I left a few days ago. I realize I've only waited a few days, however that user hasn't contributed to the wiki since June 2007 and I suspect he is inactive. Since the edit I want to do involves changing the Pub Type, I would create a new pub and delete the old verified one which is why I asked him first. How long do you think I should wait before proceeding? Of course, you may disagree that I should do the edit at all. The book Rime Isle contains a note on the copyright page that it is the "first separate edition of the novel" and presents "The Frost Monstreme" as Part I and "Rime Isle" as Part II. The story titles are maintained, and the chapter numbering restarts with "Rime Isle". I'm not aware of any other collection that tries to present these two stories as a single novel. As always, thanks for all your help--Rtrace 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The first question: yes, go ahead and make the changes, adding the stories that constitute the collection, since that is the current standard. When I first starting entering pubs here, it was with the hope that a future software change would allow only the entry of the book titles that make of the individual parts of the omnibus, and that the stories which are part of those books would then be displayed at the will of the user. Well, that doesn't look like it's going to happen soon. I personally feel that by adding these stories to an omnibus you're effectively making them collections and disregarding the fact that they're reprinting collections in toto. Which is OK, except that we're then suppose to add the title of the collections as well, making for an awkward content display that some newcomers would not be able to decipher. For instance, when you've finished adding the stories to the omnibus Lean Times in Lankhmar its contents as displayed will include twelve items: 10 stories and 2 collections. How would that look to anyone new to the site with no intention of becoming an editor who is using the site as a research tool and hasn't taken the time to find that one line in one of the many help pages that explains what's being displayed? On this point, I happen to be in the minority.

Your second question: sounds reasonable, but not as easy as it first appears. It would take several steps to get into shape. If you change the title record Rime Isle into a collection, every edition of Swords and Ice Magic would be affected. My suggestion would be to first unmerge the two Whispers Press publications from that title record, merge them into one new title record, change that title record into a collection (and place it into the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser series), then change both of the pub records into collections, adding the contents ("Rime Isle" and "The Frost Monstreme") to each, then merging these two title records with those already in the database (making sure not to merge the novella "Rime Isle" with the collection Rime Isle). Piece of cake. MHHutchins 04:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for content clean-up

I just went back to deal with the content clean-up in my approved changes for The Unknown Five and Monsters, only to find you had done all of the work for me. Thanks! --MartyD 10:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MagicQuest

I've started the MagicQuest publication series, which I think you must be vaguely aware of as you've verified a couple. I got stuck at 17 of at least 19 titles, and can't find numbers for another four. Is there any background in the ones you own? (here and |here.) BLongley 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

East of Midnight was #15 and had a list of the first 13 volumes in the back, so I was able to place a few that you'd already found but not ordered. Strangely, it lists itself as #13 (in the ads), so I hope the list is reliable! MHHutchins 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been unable to find an image of The Devil in the Road to determine if it had the Magicquest logo. No abebooks.com dealer mentions either Tempo or Magicquest, so it's possible to that the two you mention above may not have been marketed as Magicquest too. MHHutchins 23:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It might just be 16/17 then, and 19 is an Amazon error. Not a big problem - I only stumbled across the series by accident and have no particular interest, just thought I could do something useful based on Worldcat and suchlike. (The more Publication Series we find the more it becomes clear we need some ISFDB support for such - if people are interested in them. And I am interested in some.) Thanks for your help! BLongley 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Apples of the Sun

I'm intending to change the title of several publications that you had verified through secondary sources for this title. This, this and this publication (and the title record) all list the title at "The Golden Apples of the Sun and Other Stories". However, the secondary sources sited list it as merely "The Golden Apples of the Sun". There is an additional pub with the longer name that is of type Omnibus (and which I have at hand) which I believe is the only one that should have the longer name.

My understanding is that Bantam released this title in 1990 as "Classic Stories 1" as a semi-omnibus of The Golden Apples of the Sun and R is for Rocket and a handful of stories from the two earlier collections were omitted. In 1995, with the 3rd printing, Bantam added the story "The Golden Apples of the Sun" which had been omitted. In 1997, Avon released The Golden Apples of the Sun and Other Stories with the same contents as the 1995 Bantam edition. Lastly, Harper released the same collection again in 2005 under the title A Sound of Thunder and Other Stories.

I think we should have two ISFDB titles here, one for the original 1953 collection (as The Golden Apples of the Sun) and one for the larger collection using one of the titles and the others as variants. I think it should be a collection rather than an omnibus, as it doesn't completely contain the full contents of its constituent parts. I'm not sure which should be the parent title and which the variants. Both The Golden Apples of the Sun and Other Stories and A Sound of Thunder and Other Stories are available new from Amazon (if that can serve for being in print). I've generally been using what is available now as the parent. My reasoning is that current titles are what people are likely to be looking for. However, an argument could be made that the original title Classic Stories 1: From The Golden Apples of the Sun and R is for Rocket should be used as it came first. Thoughts?

I think I've got a good handle on how fix the records. I should also note that there is a similar issue with A Medicine for Melancholy, which I'll try to fix as well.--Rtrace 02:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good, solid plan, and I agree with the changes you propose. Though I would suggest that you use the first appearance as the parent instead of the in-print publication, with subsequent editions being variants. This is basic procedure unless the later title has become the de facto canonical name (rare, but it happens.) That would make "Classic Stories 1" the parent title (if I get the chronology right). Drop the "...and Other Stories" from those early collections. I missed those totally when I Tuck-verified them. Great catch. MHHutchins 03:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Same for the Currey and Contento listings, neither of which has "...and Other Stories". I too missed the parent title difference. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I messed that one up. I submitted a remove titles from the omnibus intending to remove the 1953 collection, and I think I wacked the title record instead. There's now this title without any pubs. However, I noticed there is a title on the summary page under omnibus. I don't know if it was there before, or if my bad delete moved it there. If it's the same title, I would guess that merging it with the variant title would be the next step. However, I think I'll wait until I hear your response. I'm making enough mistakes, that I should probably hang it up for the night and go to bed.--Rtrace 05:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that bad. All I had to do was change the omnibus title to a collection then merge it with the one you'd created (the empty one). But I know what you mean. Sometimes I get a little thick in the head at 2am, and am forced to realize it's time to give it up for the day. MHHutchins 06:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick (M.) McGrath

There's a stray author Patrick M. McGrath that I hope you can fix a bit based on you having verified BKTG11121 and BKTG11118. I might have confused Dragoondelight over a similar problem with "Nigel D. Findley" versus "Nigel Findley" as well - he's moving in the right direction, but probably needs a bit more guidance I really shouldn't stay up for. BLongley 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. I think this was caused by Locus1 using the middle initial, although no publication actually uses it. Thanks for finding it. MHHutchins 23:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Two Hundred Million A.D. vs. A. D.

While looking up Two Hundred Million A. D. I noticed the review uses no space between "A." and "D.", apparently from the content in your verified 12/64 Analog, while the novel includes a space. I have a copy of the 7/64 #52-304 Paperback Library 1st printing, and it definitely has a pronounced space in its version of the title. I figured I'd ask you about the review title while noticing it. --MartyD 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews can be linked manually, so they don't necessarily have to match exactly to the title record of the pub to be linked. Since reviews can (and do) mistakenly title a pub we don't create variants based on how the review spells the title or the author. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A Nomad of the Time Streams

I've got a couple of questions about this pub that you verified.

1. You have the date listed as 9/95 which matches the Locus record. My copy of the book states "First hardcover edition June 1995". I think we probably both have the same book, so my question is who would take precedence in this instance i.e. Locus vs date on copyright page. I know that these White Wolf editions have several small editing errors (or large if you include the missing chapters in this!), so I could certainly believe that the Locus date is more accurate. Of course, we could have different printings, in which case my question is moot.
2. My other question involves subtitles. I have noticed that some title include publications that have a different title which is not a variant (in fact I probably inadvertently created some of these myself). In this case, the book has "A Scientific Romance" as a subtitle on the title page. The question is whether a difference of title vs. title plus subtitle is enough to warrant a variant title. Alternatively, is a varying title within a single title record OK? I believe this can easily be created by cloning a pub and then editing the title field.

I've got a cover image and interior art credits to add for this one, unless we do indeed have different printings, in which case I'll clone. Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1. We have the same book. I verified the existing pub and overlooked the difference in the date. We should use the date published in the book itself, even if we know the book wasn't actually published until September. If we have indisputable proof that it was published in September, it would still have to go into the notes so that no one would try to enter a new record based solely on the publication's internal data. So please go ahead and update that record.
2. Subtitles can be used in the title field of the publication record, but should not be used in the title field of the title record. They should be used as the basis for the creation of a variant. One publisher may use the subtitle "A Novel of the Mulitiverse" or "An Adventure of the Timestream", or "A Captain Oswald Bastable Scientific Romance". I've seen variants created on this basis, but try to discourage it as much as possible. It's better to see them all listed on one page, each with their own quirky subtitles. I don't even know if this is spelled out in the help pages, and if it were I wouldn't know how to find it. This may be a subject for discussion on the Rules and Standards page, but don't expect a clear-cut response. MHHutchins 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Help for entering new publications says "The title should appear exactly as published, even though this may be different from the canonical title" - I've always taken that to mean that we can remove series prefixes or suffixes (so long as we put them in the right series) and sub-titles when trying to determine canonical title. But Mike's right, help isn't clear, or even easily found. BLongley 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you there, Bill. I prefer subtitles (especially those involving series) appear only on the publication record's title and not the title record's title, if they have to be used at all. How many variants would we have if every other novel is subtitled "A Fantasy" or "A Science Fiction Novel"? It would get to the point where the database becomes a hodgepodge of records with tenuous connections that have to rebound every time another publication is published. MHHutchins 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point in favour of allowing publication titles to differ from canonical titles is that we put all Non-English (for whatever variety of English you prefer) translations under the canonical title, unless it was first published in a Non-English language. So while (for instance) "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" gets a variant for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", it doesn't get variants for "Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal" or "Haris Poteris ir Isminties Akmuo" or "Harri Potter a Maen yr Athronydd". We are definitely English-centric here, by policy, and only different Englishes count. There's no Mod that could cope with all the variations possible, and although a few might be able to put some translations under the right "Philosopher" or "Sorcerer" variant title, we try and keep it simple. I've found that Dissembler submissions are improving my Spanish a bit though. :-/ BLongley 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Osiris on Crutches

Another variant of itself you might be able to shed some light on. In New Dimensions 6 "Osiris on Crutches" by Philip José Farmer and "Leo Queequeg Tincrowdor" is a variant of itself, and Willem H. wants to make this title a variant. I suspect we already had the variant but someone's messed it up? BLongley 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes a variant did exist, but not like the way it is now. The story was completely written by Farmer, but all publications I know of credit both Farmer and the fictional "Tincrowdor" as co-authors. Let me clean up the one variant in my verified pub and see it it will straighten out the others before we approve another variant. Thanks for the heads up. MHHutchins 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just discovered that there were several publications where Farmer alone is credited. That's what may have caused the problem in the first place. It appears to be OK now. MHHutchins 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a growing problem. I dragged out an old script for "variants of themselves" I wrote last August and ran it against the last backup I have: 33 problem titles found. :-/ OK, we've found and fixed "The Enchanted Village" but there's things like The Deep Fix where presumably all contents should be credited to "James Colvin". I think someone is making "obvious" corrective edits to titles that only appear in one publication without considering whether the variant title already exists. "Jizzle" here is another confusion. "Dying in Bangkok" in your verified "Lovedeath" pub is another. I don't know who or what is causing it, but I'd like to find out the cause rather than just keep fixing them. BLongley 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Dying in Bangkok seems to be supposed to be "Death in Bangkok" in some publications. We've lost a variant there. The "%%" stuff in the notes suggest this is at least partly down to the ISFDB-1 to ISFDB-2 conversion. BLongley 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was "Death in Bangkok" in Playboy, but all reprints were as "Dying...". Someone "fixed" the name in one of the pubs so it became a variant of itself. Krang's verified pub and mine are the only ones showing the variant. Let's hope no one tries to "fix" it again after it's been repaired. Did you post the list of variants of variants anywhere here on the wiki? MHHutchins 02:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now, at Project:Repair_Variants_of_themselves. I was going to do a fresh one but the daily backups seem unavailable at the moment. BLongley 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More complicated than it first appeared. When Datlow and Windling reprinted the story in their annual, they chose to reprint the version which appeared in Playboy, but changed the name to the same as the expanded version which first appeared in Lovedeath. So there's where the problem first arose. I made notes in each of the three title records so no one would try and merge them or create another set of variants. Now all we need is for someone to reprint it as by "Daniel Simmons"! MHHutchins 03:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick and Richard Powers title variants

I submitted new titles using Richard Powers as the author for all of the Dick Powers covers. I checked each one, and I found it mildly interesting that not one title in that list had a corresponding instance credited to Richard Powers. I made the new variants be the parent, since Richard is the canonical author name. If you think the relationship should be the other way, it's probably simplest if you reject the edits wholesale, and I'll go reenter them with the Dick Powers entries as the parent; or you can accept the new titles and I'll fix the relationships -- whatever's least work for you. Thanks. --MartyD 10:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Once "Dick Powers" has been made a pseudonym of Richard Powers, all variants will automatically make the Richard Powers record the parent. What I find even more interesting is that, with one exception, all "Dick Powers" credits were of the Ballantine Tarzan reprints from 1963-1964. Maybe he wanted to establish a different identity for these non-sf titles? Thanks for your work on these titles. MHHutchins 18:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, too. I wish I had a copy of Deathstar Voyage to see the credit.... I notice there are a couple of unverified Tarzan editions with "Richard Powers" and two verified printings of Tarzan and the Madman -- I'm going to ask the verifiers about those for the heck of it. Thanks for the prep work and the help and the approvals. --MartyD 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DAW notes

Just left a note on Marc's page re [this] pub that maybe you can chime in on. You see enough here to help/(hinder?...LOL!)/ how this odd situation might be handled. Same 'title' on Marc's page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only see this as being handled on a case-by-case basis. A generic warning for later printings (especially DAW's) just won't work. Hopefully those people who are entering these with pub in hand will look at the artwork as well as the credits. (And to be honest, I don't.) Whether they match or not, the editor can't be faulted for entering what is stated in the pub. We can only hope that the second or third verifier catches any miscredits. BTW, that's Larry Kresek's signature. MHHutchins 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kind of what I figured. Just hadn't left a note re: this 'discrepancy' before and it's always nice to be consistent about a known recurring oddity. Thanks for the 'Kresek' info. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Man in the High Castle

[This] PKD title has an interesting note from Currey. He has the Putnam edition with a gutter code of "D36" on page 239. Putnam used gutter codes??? I think he is referring to the SFBC edition, but it has a code of "D45" according to ISFDB(Tuck). Any knowledge here?? Thanks, ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I read somewhere that Putnam would occasionally use Doubleday's presses to print its trade editions, (I thought it was in Tuck), but I can't say positively who the source is. If it makes you feel better Daniel Levack makes the exact same observation about the gutter codes in his Dick bibliography (trade=D36, bce=D45), and several abebooks.com dealers make the same statement. I think the Currey and Levack sources should be good enough to remove the speculation about the book club edition from the notes, and let the statement stand for itself. Or we could go in together and get a bank loan to buy a copy. :-) MHHutchins 04:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Final Performance" in Blood Runs Cold

You might not be able to tell, but your Tuck verification of Blood Runs Cold is the only credited source of information.... I was adding a new anthology that contains "The Final Performance" by Robert Bloch. The copyright credits and TOC list it as such, but the title on the story's first page is just "Final Performance". I poked around and found several pubs using The Final Performance, so I made my anthology's title be that way and made a note about the discrepancy with the inner page. But I also see a lone pub using Final Performance, and that is the one Blood Runs Cold, and it's unverified except for your Tuck verification from a year ago. Can you tell if it is cited as "Final Performance"? I'm thinking about whether to make it a variant or merge it. If you can't tell how it's cited, perhaps you wouldn't mind suggesting the more appropriate course of action? Thanks. --MartyD 11:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tuck gives the story as "Final Performance" in this title. He doesn't specify whether the story was titled differently in any of the three publications of this title. And after becoming familiar with his bibliographic approach, I don't think he would have noted a missing leading article in a story's title. It just wasn't that important in the grand scheme of his project. (Personally, I think we expend too much time and effort here on the ISFDB on such matters, but that's another matter.) If a story had been completely retitled, yes, he'll note that. The most important thing to remember is that you are entering from a publication in hand. You have the final say in how it is recorded in the database. I may not have mentioned this before, but a story's title as recorded in the database is that title which is printed on the first page of the story (whether in a collection, anthology, or magazine.) Table of contents? Forget about it. Copyright or acknowledgements page? Don't even waste time looking at it to determine the title that you're going to record for this story's appearance in this publication. Everything you need is on that first page. If you're updating an existing pub, and are absolutely certain that it's the record for the pub you have in hand, then make the changes. If it's been verified, notify the verifier of any discrepancies. Maybe it's two different pubs. That's where communication comes in. Tuck could be wrong, I could be wrong, but if you say the story in your pub is titled "Final Performance" on the first page of the story, that is how it should be recorded in the database. Which of the three pubs of this title are you updating? MHHutchins 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just approved this pub with your note about the Bloch story. You should change this title record to "Final Performance" and then merge it with the existing title record. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it, and will do. Thanks. --MartyD 00:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Something M.Y.T.H. Inc

Regarding your rejection of my un-merge: It certainly all seems fine now. However, I'm about to attempt something similar with another Asprin title, so I'll explain what I did, and maybe we can figure out how I should have approached it. After I had submitted one unrelated edit of the publication, I noticed that the name on the title page was "Robert Lynn Asprin" despite what was on the cover. The pub at that time had the shorter name "Robert Asprin". I submitted two edits together. One to change the name on the publication record and another to unmerge the pub from this (RA) title. My intent was to re-merge with this (RLA) title once the unmerge had been approved. I suppose that it is possible that it was already under the correct (RLA) title (there is an Ace pub with the shorter name on the pub under the RLA title). I wouldn't expect that my change of the name on the pub record would cause the pub to jump to a new title. Of course, when one is looking at the parent title, it's hard to tell which pubs are with the parent and which are with its children. I'm going to assume that the pub was already under the RLA title which is why my unmerge from the RA title appeared to do nothing. I just checked and the child pubs are available for unmerge from the parent title. Incidentally, I expect that this pub should be under the RA title rather than the RLA. I'm not even certain that this one exists (Locus lists a $16 tp, but Chalker and Owings Supplement 11 lists only a $25 hb and a $14 tp. I've found no references to a $16 hb, however mine has a laid in signed bookplate, so there could have been a third state), however, it it does it is also likely under the wrong title. Not having a primary source for either of these, I wasn't going to attempt to move them.

In any case, I have nearly the same situation with this pub, except that the variant title record doesn't already exist. My thoughts are that I should unmerge first. When that's approved edit the new pub and title records with the corrected name. When that's approved make it a variant of the old title (or the other way around since the RLA title was published first). It's arguable that it should stay a separate title as the Meisha Merlin collection contains about half of the stories included in the Ace edition. Does that sound like I've got the steps right? Thanks. --Rtrace 00:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First issue: you've already determined the reason for the rejection. The best way to discover what title record is associated with a pub is to go to that pub's publication page and click on the title reference link, which will lead you back to the pub's title record. In this case. this pub (as by "Lynn") is already under the correct title record (as by "Lynn"), which is a variant title. You tried to unmerge it from the variant's parent title record.

Next issue: Because this record has the same ISBN as another record, which you've determined from secondary source is correctly priced at $25.00. I would not object (and will approve) a submission to delete it (the first one, that is.)

Last issue: I would first ask the verifier (Dcarson) of this pub if his has "Lynn" on the title page. If not, then you've correctly stated every step needed to get this pub into shape. The unmerging and correction of the pub's fields don't necessarily have to be done in that order, either step first would not make a difference. If Dcarson's pub is identical to yours, then you wouldn't need to unmerge. Just change the title record to "Lynn" and create a parent variant title record as by non-"Lynn". (Dcarson would also have to change the author of his pub record.) MHHutchins 02:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Currey MIA

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle at one end and R.L Fanthorpe an some other end (special case for quantity only, of course!). Hey, if EC Tubb gets seven(!!!!) pages of 'stuff' the good pastor should get some, too!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

M.A. Foster belongs! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But he didn't published his first book until 1981. MHHutchins 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just checked again (after your submission of The Day of the Klesh) and saw I was wrong. Even so, he'd only published two books at the time of Currey's publication. MHHutchins 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeker

There is a notes comment on your verified pub Seeker about the paper being cheap / paperback quality. I was wondering if that was yours and if you felt we truly needed it in the record. (The paper seems just normal to slightly above average to me). Thanks Kevin 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We must have copies from different presses, or during a different time of the press run. My copy was signed by Jack and dated 10/8/05 (November 2005 was the official publication date). There's no indication that it's an advance copy. The glossy cover is very good quality with raised lettering for the author's name and title. I seriously doubt it's acid-free paper and will be yellowing within a few years. My Ace hardcover of Tim Powers' On Stranger Tides dated November 1987 is more yellow than hardcovers from the 1960s. I'll adjust the notes to indicate this may not be the case for all copies. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Crawford and Lovecraft

I've got two unrelated questions:

1. You approved this pub that I had entered with a type of CHAPTERBOOK. I noticed that you subsequently made two edits, a title merge and a title update. Now, I can see the pub when looking at the list for the title of the story contained in the chapbook, but it does not show in Crawford's summary page elsewhere. This all seems fine, though different than the way other publications seem to work. I guess I'm curious as to what additional edits were required. I'm also asking as I had recently entered this pub as a CHAPTERBOOK, though with a different title than the contained story (which I added as contents in this case). When I went back to add the cover art, the approving moderator (Kraang) stated that we had to change it to a collection to make it work right. My understanding now seems to be that CHAPTERBOOK is appropriate only when the title of the chapbook matches the title of the contained story exactly. I'm unsure, however, whether additional contents will mess things up. I've got a few more Necronomicon Press chapbooks that contain 1 story each, but they also have introducitons. Should I enter these as COLLECTIONS?
2. I think you had previously mentioned that you had done some work on cleaning up Lovecraft's summary page. One of the Necronomicon Press chapbooks I am getting ready to enter is a copy of Fungi from Yuggoth which are a collection of 36 poems that are usually presented with the poems numbered with roman numerals. I've previously entered the poems with the numbering as part of the title. Many (if not all) of the poems have been published seperately. The have also been entered with "Fungi from Yuggoth" as part of the title of the poem as with this pub. I'm thinking that it probably makes sense to merge the poems under their names without numbers and without the grouping title ("Fungi from Yuggoth"). Additionally, I think "Fungi from Yuggoth" and the numbering should be entered using the series fields on the title. Does this sound reasonable? Should I take this to a wider forum?

Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The software is slightly schizo when it comes to the CHAPTERBOOK designation. It describes a binding and not a category like novel, collection, short fiction, essay, poem, etc., but the software wants it both ways and doesn't do either very well. Because the chapbook (I hate the term "chapterbook" which is what my nephews called books when they advanced to those without pictures) contained a previously published piece of short fiction, I merged its title record with the shortfiction title record, resolving the conflict by choosing SHORTFICTION over CHAPTERBOOK. After the merge it's listed under all other publications of that story, and not separately listed in the CHAPTERBOOK category on the author's summary page. Because you created a content record containing the shortfiction as well, I had to drop that from the publication. I updated the newly merged title record, giving it the date of its first publication (1907) because the record was dated 1999 (from a reprint collection). I also added in the notes the source of the original publication (Cosmopolitan). There was a choice to make in how to handle the chapbook: 1) leave it as a separate publication and have it listed under the CHAPTERBOOK category or 2) merge it with the current record of the same work. I chose the latter. I don't understand why Kraang thought you couldn't add cover art to a CHAPTERBOOK publication. It's done the same as you would any other pub record. I think the difference arose because the title of the publication (Confounding Stories) isn't the same as the title of the story it contains (as it would be in 99.99% of all single-story chapbooks.) Maybe that's why it had to be changed to a collection. If they're works with a single story that's the same as the title of the book enter the other Necronomicon pubs as CHAPTERBOOKS just like you did "The King's Messenger".
2. I wouldn't enter the roman-numerals as part of the title of the poems, but if "Fungi from Yuggoth" isn't included in the title of the poem on its individual page, it should only be merged with records that don't include the prefix. Variants should be created if there are records that do contain the prefix. There seems to be 15 records in the series now with five not being numbered. If this 36-poem collection is considered the definitive collection, I don't see any trouble with numbering them the same in the series as they are in this collection. Do the first ten match those that are already numbered in the series? For instance, is "The Courtyard" the first poem in your book? MHHutchins 03:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add, the reason not to merge without the "Fungi from Yuggoth" prefix is that you'd be changing the way they were published in Weird Tales. (And I'm only taking the validity of those titles based on the current records. I don't have the issues of Weird Tales and they aren't verified so we could ask someone.) MHHutchins

1. All my remaining chapbooks have introductions or afterwords, so I'm thinking that COLLECTION is more appropriate. The problem with the Pohl was the differing title. It's just that it arose when I added the cover art (which I did post edit, since I needed a pub number to upload the scan under)
2. I'm pretty sure the 36 poem configuration is definitive, aside from the chapbook to be entered. The same configuration appears in three other publications that I'm aware of. The ordering is entirely different than the series. (e.g. Numbers 1-3 currently are "The Courtyard" as IX, "Star-Winds" as XIV and "Hesperia" as XIII) I have this secondary reference for Weird Tales. It appears that the 15 poems currently listed were published in two chunks. The first was serialized beginning with the September 1930 issue. Jaffery lists the contents as:

Fungi From Yuggoth -(verse)

1. The Courtyard
2. Star-Winds

The next several issues contain 1 or 2 poems listed similarly in Jaffery. The second group (the 5 poems without numbers in the current series), were all published in the May, 1944 issue and Jaffery lists them as before and restarts the numbering, thus "Evening Star" also appears to have been published as "Fungi From Yuggoth 1".

Jaffery seems to suggest that "Fungi from Yuggoth" was not part of the title of each poem, but rather a title for the grouping. I'd lean towards dropping The extended title, but I don't know what source the original editor was working from.

I was going to suggest 3 series for the different configurations, but as far as I've been able to tell, titles can only belong to one series.--Rtrace 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CHAPTERBOOKS are able to handle introductions and cover art. All of PS Publishing's novella-length books have been entered as CHAPTERBOOKS with introductions, shortfiction, afterwords, cover art, etc. For examples see The Crystal Cosmos and In Springdale Town. The last is a good example of how making the title records SHORTFICTION rather than CHAPTERBOOK makes more sense. You can see that it's been reprinted several times in anthologies. If we kept the title record as CHAPTERBOOK the database would contain two title records for the same work. And remember the title record can be changed to SHORTFICTION while the pub record can remain CHAPTERBOOK.

Looking at our records for those issues of Weird Tales I believe they were batch-entered from another database. From your descriptions it seems dropping the "Fungi.." part seems appropriate. And yes, a title record can be entered into one series only. MHHutchins 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Kraang meant that you couldn't add anything to an existing CHAPTERBOOK title and keep it as a CHAPTERBOOK title showing in the "Chapterbooks" section of an author page. The reason is that on the Edit screen CHAPTERBOOK is not an allowable title type for contents, so the software changes it to the first allowable option, ANTHOLOGY. A lot of editors don't notice this so the result can be a bit of a mess. You can put the cover artist on the publication at initial creation time as CHAPTERBOOK is allowed on the New Publication screen - just choose an appropriate type to give you the right form to enter all the contents, then change the Pub Type just before submission. However, any edit to that pub will not allow that title to remain a CHAPTERBOOK even though the Publication can remain one, so I don't recommend attempting creating them. I do like the way they're displayed when properly entered but the instability means it's not worth the trouble, someone will break it eventually. All that's needed to fix the software though is to allow CHAPTERBOOK as a content type while editing, and hide the CHAPTERBOOK content entry for CHAPTERBOOK publications like we do for ANTHOLOGY and COLLECTION. (It's not a second record for the same work, it's a description of the overall publication - which is why you need a second record for the actual content: this does show better when the names are different.) BLongley 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, Ron, if you want to keep them looking like books (as I do), enter them as some other "Container" type like ANTHOLOGY, COLLECTION or OMNIBUS. I prefer the oddity of a single-content Publication to hiding Publications completely, and hopefully the coding fix will come some day soon. BLongley 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When Gravity Fails

You rejected my edit to this pub When Gravity Fails. This pub really is the 7th printing; I cloned it from the 4th printing's pub, and forgot to change the text in the note field. So my edit was just to fix an error that I had inserted, rather than to change an existing record.Jefe 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct - MINE is the only true 4th printing, this pretender should be corrected lest it cast doubt on my own verification. ;-) BLongley 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To Jefe, if this happens in the future, place a note on the moderator noticeboard to let us know what you're doing before making the submission. Otherwise there's no way that a moderator looking at the submission for the first time would be aware of your intention. Now that I know what you're doing I'll update the pub to make it the 7th printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle for the Stars

Read your comments in the notes of [[10]]. Currey states: "Note: Trade issue was published in November 1961 while the book club issue was a December 1961 selection. Both issues from same press run; both have printing code C42 on page 206." The second unsigned note from the pub record may have meant the SFBC edition was released/offered 3-4 weeks after the trade was released, or Currey was looking at a BCE in a trade jacket. Doubleday did do runs for other publishers on rare occasions. I've seen a couple of references to this on the site, though can't quite remember for what editions. I didn't change the existing note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Same situation with [this] pub and its' SFBC counterpart, also a Dodd/Mead/Torquil edition. Notes from Currey almost the same. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And a third!!! [[11]] Same scenario. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the necessary changes in the notes and credit Currey as the source. You can also remove the contradictory note and my parenthetical appendices. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

James (E.) Gunn

Some of our editors seem to be confusing the two, and I can't really blame them. I'm not sure we've even got the pseudonym the right way round. Can you have a look at The Joy Makers at least and separate your verified pubs from the variant author? I'm going to be ordering a few Gunn titles myself soon and can hopefully contribute a few more examples, but can't do much at present apart from point out inconsistencies. :-( BLongley 22:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, every pub we have of that title should have been under the variant "James Gunn". That title is straightened out, but I wouldn't say the same for most of the others. He used the middle initial on most of his very early magazine writings, but most of his books were not published with the initial. Like you suspect, I believe the pseudonym should be reversed. But, alas, this late in the game, how? MHHutchins 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just apply some appropriate SQL to the database. :-) Unfortunately, if we don't get that, it's a massive task. :-( I've fixed some bad pseudonyms in the past by unlinking all variants and changing every instance of an author name to "author name - temp" so that "author name" gets deleted automatically, then changed "author name - temp" back and created the variants the other way round. In this case though - I'm not volunteering. BLongley 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Lester del Rey

I'm working on the paperback edition for a title where you have verified the hardcover edition. I'm seeing two small differences:

1. The Pohl introduction in my copy is titled "The Magnificent". If your copy is the same, I can make the change rather than creating a new title to make a variant out of.
2. This story does not contain the quotation marks around the title in my copy. In this case, I was curious if your copy had the variation in title as well. There are several other pubs that include the title, so I don't think a variant can be avoided.

Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In both cases my copy matches yours. You can change the name of the introduction in your edit but don't change the name of the story. We'll have to use the add/drop method and create a variant for it. Go ahead and make the changes to your pub, and after accepting the submission, I'll change mine to match yours, and then create the variant for "The Years Draw Nigh", and merge the two records. After that I'll import the contents from our pubs to the reprints that don't have contents listed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this record of the introduction for a reprint of the collection which will have to be merged with ours. MHHutchins 03:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And we'll have to merge this record with ours before we create a variant. MHHutchins 03:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz

There is a note on your verified pub mentioning that the verified copy has no printed price. I was about this cover scan to the record. My copy (which matches the scan), lists "First Ballantine Books Edition: November 1979" and additionally has the $1.95 in the upper right hand corner just to the left of the Del Rey logo. Do you think I have a later printing, or some sort of variant? Thanks. --Rtrace 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing the same thing with Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. However, my copy of The Patchwork Girl of Oz does not have a price (as the notes indicate). I'm puzzled. There is note stating that the book is simultaneously published in Canada, but both my books with prices and without have a not that they were manufactured in the US. --Rtrace 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This was so odd that it never occurred to me that I had several that weren't priced until I started verifying the records here on the ISFDB. I have no explanation how some had prices printed on them and some didn't. I've never been in a paperback book club (well the QPBC a few times back in the 80s, but these are mm-size), so I have no reason to doubt that I purchased them from a book store. They were new at the time, so maybe the barcode brought up the price when I purchased them. I got the prices from Locus (the print magazine, not the online database.) All I can advise is that you record in the notes that some copies did have an actual price printed on them. It's late now, but sometime in the next day or so I'll pull out my copies again for further examination. Maybe something will pop out now that I know variant printings exist. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles of Amber / SFBC questions

I have copies of both volumes of The Chronicles of Amber. This image matches the cover of the first volume. I see your verified THCHRVLM471979 uses "Volume 1", with the numeral one, and I assume from the 1979 SFBC list yours has the I51 gutter code. Mine has the same catalog #2233, but it has "Volume I", with a capital I (very clearly), along with gutter code M20. I'm sure I got it after 1985. BTW, my Volume II has the same #2233 and M20. Does your copy really use the numeral? If so, does 1-vs.-I warrant another entry and a variant title? And, if so, do you want just a "known reprint codes" note on the I51 entry in the list with perhaps a further comment about 1-to-I, or do you want something else? If you dig up your copy, let me know if the cover image matches; the signature includes ©78, so I'm guessing it's the same on the first printing. Thanks. --MartyD 10:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! It should be the roman numeral "I". I'll change that and you can add the gutter code to the notes column on the SFBC listing. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I added the cover image to the entry. --MartyD 09:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lancer Conan of Cimmeria

I was wondering if you could look up Conan of Cimmeria in the Lancer checklist. I have a copy that matches this publication from 1970 except that mine has a printing code of 9-72 on page 189 (the last page of text). Just checking if I've got a later printing of this catalog number. Thanks. --Rtrace 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There were five Lancer printings of this title. Only the first, second, and fifth are currently in the database. The third and fourth (yours) are identical to the second (same catalog number, price and cover design) except for the printing codes and the edge color (the first two printings had purple edges, the last three were yellow.) The third had "4-72" on page 189, making yours the fourth printing. Once you've entered your fourth printing, I can go back and add the third. Hope this helps. MHHutchins 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a big help. I was unaware of the Lancer checklist until you brought it up, but I've ordered a copy and it is on the way.--Rtrace 04:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tales of the Flying Mountains

You can Zap this sort of submission, despite the big red error: construct a URL of the form "http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/hardreject.cgi?submission number" (the submission number is the same as the one at the end of the approval URL, in this case "http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/mod/pv_update.cgi?1145905"). It'll appear in Recent Rejects with approver "UNKNOWN" and reason "Forced". I'll leave this one for you to practice on. BLongley 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is documented on the Moderator help screen, but was added well after you became Mod and had presumably already learnt most of it by heart. For some reason, nobody tells us when to take a refresher course. :-/ BLongley 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I never knew we had such power! Stand back, world. Here I come! MHHutchins 19:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see it has gone now, I hope it was you that did it or I may have revealed some weakness in our security! It should probably record the Mod that did it rather than "UNKNOWN", but that would be another feature request we may have to wait ages for. :-/ Oh well, it's another small step towards us being able to clear the Approval queue. I know I've seen it empty before, it just seems to have been ages ago. Time for another kick on the "Century Rain" issue and "Theportablemr"'s submissions maybe. BLongley 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't call out the dogs yet. I did it. And about held submissions in the queue, most of them appear to be simple fixes, but I'll let etiquette (or entropy) take over from there. MHHutchins 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Triad / SFBC question

Hi. See TRDXDLWHPL1973. This is not listed in the SFBC listings. Is there a way for me to know if it is an SFBC vs. random BCE printing? I guess a corollary question is are the SFBC listings complete with regard to titles? Thanks. --MartyD 00:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They're complete up through 1984 (the last time I was in the club), but I've begun adding titles from secondary sources, now complete to 1988. I can't be sure that the title above was not offered to SFBC members, but positive it wasn't a main selection. Until we're sure, it should be listed as just a book club edition (BCE) if that's what is printed at the bottom of the front inside flap of the dustjacket. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And I would change the third point in your notes that the gutter code indicates a printing in August 1973. See this page to help determine printing date based on Doubleday gutter codes. MHHutchins 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Father Thing

You're right to reject, but I think you got some of the reasons wrong. "185798" prefixes are fine for Gollancz as a Publisher, but we'd normally record the "Millennium" imprint for those. ("Millennium / Orion" by some people, and we might see "Millennium / Gollancz / Orion" when Dragoondelight finds some.) I think what you saw there was a 10-copy multipack of this. BLongley 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, "Beyond Lies the Wub" was probably a multi-pack of this, which would indicate mine is later enough that they put another pound on the price so should probably go to "0000-00-00". :-/ BLongley 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the ISBN assignment. When I saw that it was later published under the Millennium imprint, it struck me that 189579 was their ISBN prefix. Have you seen a pub from Gollancz use that prefix? And I should have realized that the prices that high were multi-packs, which also explains why they're not in OCLC or on abebooks.com. (Thank god we don't record the ISBNs for bundles of books!) Thanks. !!!!

I'd have to go check a few more pubs to see if there's any "189579" that I'd call "Gollancz" rather than "Millennium" - I was just beginning to convince myself that spine imprint was likely to be the lowest common denominator from which we'd work up when I encountered the problem of Millennium and Gollancz using logos rather than text. (Identical "star" logos except that one has a "G" in the middle and one has an "M".) I still lean towards that but realise we'd have to explain the logos, and when people started adding suffixes I consider unnecessary and undesirable then all the Wiki pages I'd created lost their natural links. My notes on Publisher:Millennium and Publisher:Gollancz still stand but are obviously not findable from the newer "Put the Imprint in, then add all other sorts of waffle, properly separated by slashes and spaces of course, never mind that we used to have standard names and we'll have to redo everything Dissembler, Fixer, and dozens of humans have already done" standard. BLongley 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, bit of a rant there, but "losing" several weeks' work due to people regularising publishers without attention to the wiki pages (or the desired name on my verified pubs) still rankles. Any suggestions on where all this knowledge should be imparted? I'm perfectly happy to share what little wisdom I have left and it's not really practical to do it on an Editor by Editor basis - particularly as it might look like I'm picking on people for errors, which is not the intention at all. If people could at least link new Wiki pages for conjoined imprint / distributor / publisher / owner names back to the nice simple names then I might restart recording my thoughts there. BLongley 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

English County names

Sorry if it looks like I'm picking on you again - it's just that you're doing the only interesting submissions at the moment! A minor niggle with the J. D. Beresford author edits: you're right, "Northantshire" doesn't exist, but "Northhamptonshire" doesn't either - it's "Northamptonshire" (no double "h"). But we do abbreviate it as "Northants". I've lived in Northampton and I can confirm that example. I was also born in Southampton, which isn't in Southamptonshire, but is in Hampshire. Abbreviated "Hants". Confused yet? I am! BLongley 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've lost track of the point I was trying to make - I can't give you a 100% rule for "hants" expansion, nor for a spelling rule for "South" or "North" prefixes before an H-name (that may be 90% though). I guess the suggestion is more research before a change, or just send it my way. Have you encountered "Salop" yet? That expands to "Shropshire". Unless it's between 1972 and 1980... which reminds me of my point. Are you trying to record current county or the county it was in at the time of birth? As Cantor has moved from Northamptonshire to Cambridgeshire since. I know I've corrected "Hawaii, USA" to plain "Hawaii" for an author born there before it was part of the USA, but, like legal personal names, we don't really have a firm rule on what date we're taking the data from. I think you're right to record the County as it was at date of birth - we might want to state that in help. Or change guidance to say we should always record the current situation, but that might overwork Ahasuerus and all the formerly-Russian Authors he's been looking after. ;-) BLongley 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

After I made the original submission (the one that added "Northants") I saw there was a period after it and realized it was an abbreviation. When I learned what the abbreviation stood for I changed it, but as you saw, added the extra "h". I've corrected it now.

As for whether I'm recording the birthplaces at the time of birth, that's depending on the sources. The Beresford listing was checked against Mike Ashley's Who's Who in Horror and Fantasy Fiction (which I'm methodically going through now.) His listings are somewhat erratic in how precise a location is provided. For instance, for Guy Boothby, Ashley merely gives "Adelaide", as if every person outside the Empire should know that's in Australia. For A. M. Burrage, he shows "Hillingdon, Middx." which, give me kudos, I entered as Middlesex. For Americans, he only gives states for smaller or ambiguously-named cities. I'm only through the "B"s so as I get further into it I'll probably know more about English counties than the average Yank.

When the place of birth no longer exists I enter the current country in square brackets, e.g. Southern Rhodesia [Zimbabwe]. Another source for author data, Reginald's Contemporary Science Fiction Authors II (checked up through "R"s) was published in 1978 with some authors born in the late 1800s, so it will occasionally list countries that no longer exist. I agree that the rules should state that the place of birth should remain as it was, not what it has become. If you notice any further strange or incorrect British town/county entries, do hesitate to call me out. MHHutchins 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric Frank Russell was born in Sandhurst. Reginald says it's in Surrey, but Wikipedia says it's in Berkshire. Where was it in 1905? MHHutchins 04:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sandhurst" can mean the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (where Russell's father worked) in Surrey, nearer Camberley than the town of Sandhurst, which is in Berkshire. I don't think the town has moved, but there may be some confusion as to which meaning of Sandhurst is recorded for Russell. BLongley 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree that recording the current name of the country/place of birth wouldn't work too well since there is no guarantee that it won't change its name again. Central/Eastern European writers are a particular pain since the borders have been redrawn so many times in that part of the world. Take Stanislaw Lem's birthplace, Lwów. A hundred years ago, when it was a part of Austria-Hungary, it was known as Lemberg. After Austria-Hungary's disintegration in late 1918, local Ukrainians tried to establish a Ukrainian state and change the name of the city to Lviv, but they were defeated by Poles, who changed it to Lwów. When the Soviets captured the city in 1939, they changed its official name to Lviv, although they also used "Lvov", a russified version of the name. When the Nazis captured the city in 1941, they changed the name back to Lemberg and when the Soviets recaptured it in 1944, they changed it back to Lviv/Lvov. Finally, Lvov was dropped in favor of Lviv in 1991 after the Soviet collapse. And then there was that Communist habit of renaming cities after their leaders, which was an even bigger headache since so many of them were later disgraced and the name change reverted. Hence Elizavetgrad -> Zinovievsk -> Kirovo -> Kirovograd -> Kirovohrad or Rybinsk -> Scherbakov -> Rybinsk -> Andropov -> Rybinsk or Gatchino -> Trotsk -> Krasnogvardeysk -> Gatchina... Ahasuerus 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodness! And I thought English counties were going to be the trouble spot. MHHutchins 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Locus Jan. 1983 - Review of 'There is No Darkness'

I would like to amend your verified pub Locus January 1983 to credit 'Jack C. Haldeman, II' as a coauthor instead of 'Jack Haldeman, II'. There is No Darkness has never been published without the 'C' in Jacks name. (This might just be an entry typo, but if Locus omitted the C. we can put a note that the attribution has been 'editorially corrected in order to avoid creating a phantom author in the system' or something similar) - Thoughts? - Thanks Kevin 05:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the review record and added a note that the book was credited to "Jack Haldeman II". Thanks. MHHutchins 14:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review - May 1992 - The Liquid Retreats

In your verified pub The Liquid Retreats is listed as being authored by Jonathan Falk and Tod Mecklen. I found this Title with authors of Jonathan Fox and Todd Mecklem with Fox replacing Falk; Todd replacing Tod; and Mecklem replacing Mecklen. [Amazon] and [Worldcat] Agree. I went ahead and linked the review. Could you please check your copy and see if the error is in the database or in the pub. If in the pub, I would like to fix the pub record with a note about 'editorial correction' to remove two phantom authors. - Thanks Kevin 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The review miscredits Todd Mecklem as "Tod Mecklen" so I made a note to that affect and changed the review record. But Jonathan Falk appears to be correct based on the links that you provide. Can you please double check? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha - I was double turned around... the Title and the Other Review had Fox when it should have been Falk. - My mind wanted to lump all the mistakes together apparently. I will update the Title and other review. - Thanks! Kevin 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I entered the issue of SF Eye containing the other review as well, but forgot to verify it. It's late now, but tomorrow I look for it and make the necessary changes. I should go back over those periodicals and fanzines that I entered when I first began here. I'm more conscientious now about making sure that all reviews link to pubs, and create pub records for titles that aren't already in the database. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rejected image link

Hi. I wasn't sure if you watch the follow-ups. Please see my talk page and let me know what you think. Thanks. --MartyD 10:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have set my preferences to monitor the changes in any page that I edit. (Avoids "ping-ponging" comments across different pages.) MHHutchins 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)