User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2010Apr-Aug

Changes to verified pub F&SF 11/89

Added cartoons and Hit by Storm essay.--swfritter 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed to verified pub f&Sf March 1999

Added cartoons, coming attractions, and review entry for curiosities.--swfritter 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Much the same for March 2001.--swfritter 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub F&SF 10-11/2003

Price is $7.99, not $4.99. Review was of "The Zenith Apple"; changed to correct "The Zenith Angle". Added cartoons and Curiosities review.--swfritter 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Link is to the 2004 issue which I verified. Sorry, but my copy states "$4.99US $7.99CAN". Not sure why your copy would say something different. Mhhutchins 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind of depends upon where the subscription sticker is - the CAN is covered up on my copy and I did not scan the USA price. Changed back to $4.99.--swfritter 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Werewolf Principle

I added price, cover artist and a note to your verified pub from my copy. Thanks, --Willem H. 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good to see that someone has a copy with a jacket. Hope you get a chance to scan the jacket. Looking forward to seeing what it looks like. Mhhutchins 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not very exiting, but here it is. --Willem H. 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What Tune the Enchant[ment|ress] Plays

Would you look up something in Locus #570 (July 2008) for me? In A Book of Wizards, is it "What Tune the Enchantment Plays" (as in that entry) or might it be "What Tune the Enchantress Plays"? This submission wants to make a variant, but I'm wondering if the original entry citing Locus as the source might be a typo.... Thanks. --MartyD 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Locus entry doesn't give the titles of the individual stories, only the authors. But this OCLC entry gives the title as "What Tune the Enchantress Plays". Mhhutchins 19:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the record has already been corrected. Good. Mhhutchins 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

One innocent little hold triggered quite a little flurry of activity over on Willem H.'s page. Thanks for checking for me. --MartyD 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They Walked Like Men

Does the date in [this] record come from Tuck? OCLC/BLIC [minimal record] and all six copies for sale on AbeBooks [all from British sellers] have the year as 1963. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's from Tuck. He seems to have been over-ruled here. You can change it to the general consensus, but note that Tuck is an exception. Mhhutchins 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for checking. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Time & Again

Added an image to [this], notes give no source for the date... a Locus mag? ~Bill,

You're right. I forgot to note the source (which, as you guessed, was Locus). I just added it to the record. Thanks for catching it. Mhhutchins 19:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Braided story in a collection

Hi. See User_talk:Jonschaper#.22Asterites.22_series.3F. I thought you might have some words of wisdom having worked through this similar situation. Thanks. --MartyD 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Haunt of Horror June 1973

Hard as I tried I could not find artist credits for "Conjure Wife". Collaborative art? Or is it possible one artist did the first illo and another the others? Also, could not find artist credit for "Neon". Also added added a couple of minor essays and artwork.--swfritter 13:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the missing pieces. This was an early magazine entry, when all we were adding was fiction. When I get a chance I'll look for any hidden artist sigs or identifiers in the remaining uncredited pieces. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 16:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The art credits came possibly from a secondary source? Getting down to odds and ends now. Verified six issues of Ultimate pubs - it was easier to find the pubs by finding one of the stories from the issue first. They certainly created a bibliographer's nightmare. Also verified my two issues of Nebula.--swfritter 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean now about the art credits in HoH. There was a secondary source for the art credits. I forgot to note the source in the record, which I will do so now. Still haven't found the issue to recheck. Trouble with having only one issue of a mag is that it's hard to locate as they seem to find cozy spots among longer runs of other titles. I'll keep looking. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl Michael vs Karl-Michael Armer

Karl-Michael and Karl Michael are obviously the same person. As per both the German and Polish wikipedias, his name is unhyphenated so I assume that should be the parent in the case there is a legit variant although there are more hyphenated entries. His appearance in a Penguin collection currently is listed under both versions, and there's one verified publication for both versions. The unhyphenated is verified by sandmancpp who doesn't appear to have been active for a while so I thought I'd double-check your verificationhere before merging or creating variants. Jonschaper 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a pseudonym making the non-hyphenate as the parent, but merge the story in the Penguin anthology credited with the non-hyphenate name first. Then create a variant of Shoobeedoowah Across the Universe, which I can confirm has the hyphen. The other story On the Inside Track doesn't have a hyphen so it was incorrectly verified. I'll go ahead and make the changes since it's easier to do so as a moderator. Thanks for bringing the situation to my attention. Mhhutchins 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnold E. Abrahamson vs Abramson

Hi, This looks familiar so I'm not certain if I brought this up before, but I suspect Abrahamson is Galaxy publisher Abramson. Jonschaper 04:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you brought that to my attention before and it slipped my mind. So today I took the time to find that issue of Locus and saw that I created the record as Locus printed it. I make "Abrahamson" into a pseudonym of "Abramson" and created a variant of the Locus letter. Sorry about not checking on this before and forgetting about it. Mhhutchins 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Cheers Jonschaper 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(Perhaps dumb) Locus question

This submission would delete a pub whose information source is noted as "Locus #234 (June 1980)". The editor's comment is that the publication is a non-genre spy thriller, which as best I can tell is an accurate assessment. Neither author has much of a bibliography (Borchgrave has nothing; Moss only has what appears to be an accidental Prometheus nomination for another work). Does Locus list what we would consider non-genre works by obscure authors? If they don't, is there a way to tell why it's listed? Thanks. --MartyD 10:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Spike was indeed a globe-trotting spy thriller with almost no speculative content beyond what you would find in a James Bond or Tom Clancy novel, as I recall. De Borchgrave was a well known journalist and bestselling author at the time, which may help explain why Locus reviewed the book. Ahasuerus 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the book (but never read it), so I don't know why I didn't verify the record for it. From what I've gathered, it's a near-future political/espionage novel, which may be why Locus got a copy for their listings. (It wasn't reviewed there, but I recalled it being reviewed elsewhere as being speculative in nature. Otherwise I don't know why I would have picked it up from the remaindered table.) That would make it OUT as far as the ISFDB Rules of Acquisition go. Funny thing is, another political thriller by Robert Moss (the co-author) is in the db as a non-genre novel, even though it's a Prometheus Award nominee. Go figure. I have no objection to deleting the record for The Spike. Mhhutchins 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Arne Eastm[a|e]n?

This submission would make Arne Eastmen from your verified Science Fiction Review, May 1978 (a letter: 841211) a variant of Arne C. Eastman from your verified Science Fiction Review, July 1978 (another letter: 842756). Any chance "Eastmen" is a typo? If not, can you tell if they are the same person? Thanks. --MartyD 11:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They're correct as entered, and the letters appear to be from the same person (at that time Geis wasn't putting addresses on his letters so I can't be positive.) Unfortunately, I couldn't say which one is the wrong name. If pushed I'd go along with the same as the submission for the pseudonym creation. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I should have checked for verifiers first. I've got to get back into good habits after being too busy to do much for several weeks. Jonschaper 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Instrumentality of Mankind

Hi Michael, two questions about this pub. First, "The Colonel Came Back from Nothing-at-All" is thus on the contents page, but as "The Colonel Came Back from the Nothing-at-All" on the story's title page. I suspect all publications were under the title with the "the". Unfortunately only one other pub was verified by a responding editor, if Kraang's edition is the same, I would like to change the title record. Second, there are two versions of "War No. 81-Q", the original version is a short (4 pages) story, the rewritten version is about 10 pages, and first published in The Rediscovery of Man. The Instrumentality of Mankind has the original version, but lists the rewritten version. Can I change this? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "The Colonel..": This error was perpetuated by the mis-titling on the contents page. I didn't catch it, and until you found it, no one else caught it either. Please feel free to make the changes for my pub and any reprints by the same publisher and Gollancz (which offset the Del Rey edition). I can't speak for any of the other printings (by Baen and NESFA).

Re "War No. 81-Q": This was entered correctly, but a subsequent publication of a rewritten version created the error. The original should have retained the title IMO, and the rewritten version should have been given the appendage. Looking at my verified record for The Instrumentality of Mankind the title of the story doesn't mention anything about original or revised, simply the name as given on the title page, as we both agree it should. And this being the first appearance of the story after fifty years would argue that it keep that title as its canonical name. But that's my opinion. If you're certain which publications are which version, please proceed to make the corrections. Thanks for catching the errors. Mhhutchins 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll wait for Kraang's response before editing "The Colonel..". I think the error was also fed by the Locus1 entry (wrong title for all publications).

I made the corrections for "War No. 81-Q", The original now has the original title (here), the rewritten version is here. I also added some notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 10:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes on "War..." look good. Awaiting work on "The Colonel...". I believe Contento/Locus relies more on the contents page title as opposed to the ISFDB policy of using the title page title if there is a discrepancy. The contents page of The Instrumentality of Mankind drops "the" in the title. Because the 1979 printing is the first appearance of this story we didn't have a previous printing to fall back on. Even J. J. Pierce's timeline drops "the" in the title. So the question arises: could the title page title be wrong? If so, then a variant would have to be created. I went back and read the story. In it Smith refers twice to "...the Nothing-at-All" so I think we got the canonical title correct. Mhhutchins 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Void Captain's Tale

Could you double-check the page count for [this] Think it should be 213. The notes have the gutter code on page 212 which would be very odd if the page count was 250 as stated in the field. Holdover from a clone of the trade edition? The only confirming source was OCLC as none of the 9 for sale on AbeBooks listed a page count. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It must have been cloned from the trade hardcover, as you guessed. I've changed it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Fear

Think the actual artist credit for [this] should go to Kersti O'Leary. She's credited with the hardcover which has the same artwork. And by more than Locus, too [sometimes their artist credits are really wacky]. Three sellers on AbeBooks note O'Leary as the artist. Her credit would probably have been on the inside rear flap, which the QPBC doesn't re-create. Tried Google but it just loops back to Locus. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll change the credit to O'Leary, giving the hardcover as the source. You're right, the artist credit may have been on the flap of the hc, but this trade pb edition doesn't provide the credit (or the flaps). Mhhutchins 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonder why Locus1 gives the credit for this book club reprint to "Donald David"? Mhhutchins 00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rookie editor?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Review, October 1984

When you have a minute, could you please check whether the author of this review is credited as "Sheldon Jaffrey" or as Sheldon Jaffery in your verified Fantasy Review, October 1984? TIA! Ahasuerus 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The record was correctly entered as credited in the pub. I've made "Jaffrey" into a pseudonym of Jaffery and created a variant of the review. Thanks for catching the difference. Mhhutchins 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wild Cards Down and Dirty

Ref: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?WLDCRDS51988 Correcting date. Date in my copy has December 1988 and is a 1st edition. --Astromath 05:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Submission accepted. My copy is also dated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lunar Justice

I changed the artist for this pub from Glenn Orbik to Glen Orbik (he's on the copyright page with one n). Also added notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 09:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for the correction. Mhhutchins 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

John Bernard Daley is a pseudonym

Hi, Just picked up a copy of Merril's paperback SF: The Year's Greatest Science-Fiction and Fantasy Second Annual Volume (1957). [[1]]. The first story, "The Man Who Liked Lions" by John Bernard Daley [[2]]is prefaced by Merril with just 4 paragraphs. The last is the relevant one: "I was suspicious when I finished Lions, though. Too smooth for a beginner, I thought, and--last time this happened, it turned out to be a pen-name for Algis Brdrys. So I wrote cautiously inquiring to the editor of Infinity, who answered, 'John Bernard Daley is not John Bernard Daley at all, he is Bernard John Daley, and this is not his first story; it is his second...'" This is this author's second story too. Is that enough documentation to change the name entry?

Rob --Rob 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's sufficient evidence to update the legal name field in the author's data, but the ISFDB record for the story would remain credited to the author as stated on the story's title page. It appears that he wrote no stories using his legal name, so the canonical name "John Bernard Daley" would remain as is. Mhhutchins 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I submitted it. Rob --Rob 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Short Story "Homeland" is an alternate title

In Stories for Tomorrow (1954) [[3]] the acknowledgments page reads in part: "To the Ackerman Science Fiction Agency for 'Homeland,' by Mari Wolf, copyright 1953 by Quinn Publishing Company, Inc., first published as 'The Statue' in IF Magazine, January 1953." I can see why this story would be named "The Statue" but since that title gives away a surprise in the plot, I can also see why the editor of this book would change the title to "Homeland." As of now the two stories are listed as separate entries (according to the above quote the 2 entries should be merged). The story begins: "'Lewis,' Martha said, "I want to go home." She didn't look at me. I followed her gaze to Earth, rising in the east." Does anyone have the recent reprint of the story "The Statue" done in 2003 [[4]]? It would be nice to double check. Even if no one reading this does have "The Statue," I'm assuming that this is sufficient evidence to make a change. Thanks. Rob --Rob 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't merge. Make Homeland a variant of The Statue. The 2003 anthology hasn't been physically verified but I wouldn't doubt it reprints the story in the 1953 magazine. (You could ask on the Verification Requests page to see if anyone has a copy of the 2003 publication.) Mhhutchins 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Contento Index also acknowledges that "Homeland" is a reprint of "The Statue". Thanks for catching the connection. Mhhutchins 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, now that you mention it, it's obvious I should make "Homeland" a variant. I'm glad I asked. I've submitted the data (the Contento Index was good enough verification for me). And, as always, I'm very grateful for your assistance! Rob --Rob 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I accepted the submission making "Homeland" a variant of "The Statue", but I'm not sure what you're proposing with the submission wishing to create a new variant for "The Statue" with the same title. The system automatically places all the publications onto the parent title's title page (as you see here). Mhhutchins 03:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, no, I don't want to do that. I thought I'd seen pages where not all publications went onto the parent page. I must have instead seen pages where the parent's publications didn't go onto the variant's page (which makes sense and is the case with "Homeland"). Thanks so much for catching that! I'm still learning here. Rob --Rob 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On variant title pages only the publications for that variant are listed. On parent title pages, all publications are listed. This can be confusing as there's no way to know which of the publications listed were published under the variant title. Perhaps I should suggest a feature that would make the display of variants clearer on parent title records. I've rejected the second submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be great if if variants could be differentiated when viewing parent title records. And, thanks for rejecting the second submission--it was an error. Rob --Rob 02:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Adds with Tuck verifications

Afternoon! It suddenly dawned on me that people are nervous when I add to a Tuck verification. My dim witted thought process, is/was that additions of month (Tuck does not have), artist (also) and notation should not cause problems, nor need notification. In any case, I apologize if it rankles. Barring all that, I suddenly think I have discovered a paradigm we all have about British publications of that date. I am starting to think that Panther is properly like Del Rey / Ballantine. That the hc editions are also Panther and the numbering is the same, thus Panther / Hamilton & Co. The basic difference is the price (lower is always the digest/pb) and the hardback usually has a P inside a lozenge area. Apologies for any inconveniences for my dull witted approach to updating. Hopefully, you are recovering. Unfortunately, I will probably be back and forth on Tuck vers, if you wish a modification of my practice please say so. By the time I do six searches including the source book I am fairly moronic. LOL. It is fun though! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem arises because someone not familiar with Tuck would not have a complete understanding of what a "Tuck verification" really is. To remedy this I created this chart that shows graphically just what a verification from each of our sources means. Anyone who looks at this would realize that Tuck rarely gives cover art credit, so they can be safe to assume that that field isn't necessarily "Tuck-verified". He also only gives the year, so adding the month to a Tuck-verified pub should be no problem. It should be unnecessary to even note in the note field that the month isn't Tuck-verified. I will note if other sources (both primary and secondary) conflict with Tuck, but otherwise I don't even give Tuck as the source, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that a user would understand that the fields agree with Tuck. Was it a moderator who questioned your adding to a Tuck-verified pub? If so give him a link to the chart. I would not question any submission in which you're adding a month to a Tuck verified record, as you're noting an additional secondary source (Harbottle/Holland). Don't stop adding info to Tuck-verified records. Just let the moderator know that despite his monumental achievement, Tuck was a human, thus fallible (and Tasmanian).

My alarm bells was that you ended up doing the vers. I assumed the 'why'. What I am doing now is easy to relocate (since it centers on H&H). I would rather they sit for a month than to obligate you to check them (get well first). Courtesy should not cause other problems. My stuff on British SF 49-56 can wait or others can ask questions. I have all three Tucks and should use them, but when they are verred it seems unnecessary. I enjoy Tuck, but he loved to hide the bunny.

Please continue without hesitation. Don't let my (or any editor's) Tuck verifications stop your progress through H/H. As long as we're both aware of Tuck's limitations there should be no problem. Hopefully others will learn as well. Mhhutchins 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

About the Panther / Hamilton connection, I think the relationship would be more akin to Pocket and Simon & Schuster. Pocket (=Panther) was the paperback imprint, Simon & Schuster (=Hamilton & Co.) being the hardcover publisher, both distributed by the parent company. It was through Tuck that I learned that there were many titles by Hamilton released simultaneously (or nearly simultaneous) in pb and hc. In almost all instances Tuck gives Panther as the pb publisher and Hamilton as the hc. It would be reasonable to give the publisher of the pb as Panther / Hamilton & Co., but, IMHO, the hardcovers should simply be Hamilton & Co or simply Hamilton. Looking through the db I see there is only one hardcover under the Panther imprint (The Metal Eater). I'll have to ask Bluesman to check if Currey gives the publisher of the hardcover as Panther instead of Hamilton. How does Harbottle/Holland list it?

Currey gives the publisher as London: Panther Books, no mention of Hamilton at all. And that the hardcover and paperbacks were simultaneous. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My perceptions on Panther is based on the cover and then the realization that Panther was the softcover/digest imprint at least for the early 50's. It actually delighted me to see this. As for H&H, the listing reads like this "Hamilton & Co." (Panther #ABC), date, page count, softcover price only. Rarely they show a cross connection sequel/series with numbering. So you read between the lines HC is Hamilton & Co. (covers show lozenged P in later editions, but no pricing), (Panther) is the softcover, the Panther price is so far always on cover. I can not see the Panther number, but H&H is implying they are the same for both. The Panther emblem, usually at top is almost always present on both hc and sc. Some of the pics I added actually show more of the book and the look. When I first got a few they were sc, but a couple are hc and it delights me that the quantity available is almost doubled thereby. Of course, great sadness, most sc are very, very fragile. My copy, The Indestructible, is a baggie copy because I had to read it. Covers fall into fragments.

All my experiences with the pubs are through Tuck, so I have to allow that you having copies of several titles from the publisher trumps my opinion of how they should be entered. Please continue to amend any records based on the primary and secondary (H/H) sources. BTW, the title of The Indestructible turned out to be quite ironic. Mhhutchins 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am recovering through physical therapy (keeping those scalpels away). My range of motion is slowing working it's way up to 180 degrees, with most measurements being between 150-160. Reaching behind is still rather difficult (and if you don't think that's important, imagine washing your back or pulling a shirt over your head without complete ROM). Although it's improving I'm sure my insistence on working on (=addiction to) the ISFDB may be slowing the progress. I try to keep away or at least cut back, but always wind up working longer than I should. Strangely, typing isn't the problem. It's the clicking of the mouse that causes the most irritation because the small repetitive motion concentrates all its force into the tendons of the shoulder.

I damaged both wrists playing games in the late 70's, to the point I had golf ball size cysts and it hurt continually. I allowed the surgeon to schedule, the cysts went down (first time in a year) and he did not go for it. His talk about his skills dimmed my interest in allowing any knife wielding again. When they came back, I smashed them, very painful, and not advised but better for myself than being crippled. Things have greatly improved in the medical side since, but I still tell all doctors they are no better than witch doctors. All said to show that I really fell your pain, even these days I can not do certain motions for more than 5 or so minutes or my hands will cramp and then go useless. Fortunately little problem with computer, except with mouse. I figured the mouse problem to be that you are holding you arm and the weight can not be set down. Kind of like climbing with your fingertips taking the weight. If you can rig it, this might help. Try to get your arm weight to rest on your elbows and then use the mouse. If you use a mouse with extension, as I do, you can feel the weight trying to go to your palms, thus the strain is elongated through out your limb. Of course, how we setup the mouse and keyboard has a lot to do with the strain. Still, it is better to rest with a strong physical rehab workout when needed.

I've tried the resting of the elbow on the arm chair method, but it winds up being a rather awkward position. Perhaps I need to also adjust either the height of the chair or the level of the keyboard. Thanks for the suggestion. Mhhutchins 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

About the results of your searching through the different sources (making you, as you describe, "moronic"): I have an even greater problem. As I'm searching I find other information that leads me in another direction, so that by the end, I've gone off in so many tangents that I have to find the path back to what I'd originally been working on. Thank goodness for the metaphoric breadcrumbs to get me back on task. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe we both have bad cases of 'wonderment'. As long as we find delight, then it is a good thing to do, when it 'wears' too much, then it is time to rest, recoup, and play cards. LOL Thanks greatly for taking the time, but DO NOT OVERDUE, if my stuff hangs for weeks, I will not be concerned. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't explain to family and friends how much enjoyment I get working on the database. After the blank stares I tend to change the subject... Mhhutchins 15:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't explain it to my family and friends either (even though my dad was a professional librarian and my mum is still an avid fantasy reader), but my therapist offers sympathy that I don't get paid for this! Fortunately, my own recent injuries haven't stopped me editing - just travelling. So I'm stuck with Fixer submissions and publications I can lift with my left hand - so I'm finally working through the Stableford collection. Hardbacks are still right out though. (Not that I own many, so no real loss there). BLongley 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I also get the same responses so I don't even mention it any more. I just say I spend my time "playing around with my computer". Go Figure. Some of those dismissive friends waste massive amounts of time playing Farmville on Facebook. Of course, the question they should ask is "Are you a masochist?"--swfritter 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To Tuck ver or Not

Morning! Sorry to bother. I have some books that do NOT appear in Tuck I and II, but do in the most general description in Tuck III. I think it would confuse to Ver as Tuck as most people do not have the III. Can not figure why he did not list these books in I. Any guidance? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, H. J. Campbell and of course, Solar Gravita for Berl Cameron (unknown author). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I discovered the same thing shortly after starting to verify ISFDB records. (Although I'm currently only in the "C"s there are still hundreds that I've verified on a individual basis throughout the remaining volumes.) I also questioned why Tuck would choose not to include certain pubs in the author listings of his encyclopedia. (Alas, I do understand why he skips titles already listed in Bleiler, although I wish he hadn't.) The majority of his omissions are of paperback titles, especially the series publishers (usually 1950s British) like Panther and Badger with pseudonymously published titles. The comprehensive listing in Volume 3 does serve a purpose, but why not fold them into the author listings as well. After all, the last volume appeared several years after the author listings in Volumes 1 and 2. He must have planned all along not to include those paperback editions in the author section, and saved them for the final volume. Perhaps his comprehensiveness in those first volumes was limited by the publisher?? Or the fact that it wasn't clear who exactly was the author of many of those paperbacks? We both know Tuck resisted entries for pennames, whether they be a personal one or a house-name. (One of my personal peeves with Tuck is having to go to Volume 2 (M-Z) for "John Christopher" and "Hal Clement" and Volume 1 (A-L) for "William Tenn" and "John Wyndham", and other authors more known by their penname than their birthname.) He must have had a reason for handling certain pubs this way, and somewhere out there, in a fanzine at least, he may have voiced his reason. I just haven't come across it yet.

Oh, well...back to your question, what do I do? I don't Tuck verify the ISFDB record unless it's listed in the author section (Volumes 1 & 2), but have noted that it is listed in the paperback section of Volume 3. In fact I do a negative Tuck-verification, especially after I started to verify from Reginald. By doing a "N/A" verification for those pubs, you're at least letting the ISFDB user know it's not listed in Tuck's author section. Mhhutchins 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Especially the first paragraph, that was a 100 percenter of how irksome I found Tuck I and II, though the information is great when you pull it out. LOL. I will add Tuck III to notes and carry on. Bleiler G had similar quirks, his author section was his own naming system and in the magazine section it was whatever he felt like for author's names. Hopefully, as long as it is noted the users will dig in the resources and hopefully revitalize the older works. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We could of course add Tuck Volume III as a separate verification source. I won't push for such as I don't own a copy, and am leaning toward a generic "Reviewed somewhere" source next so that we can indicate pubs that got reviewed somewhere at least, as a minimal proof of existence. And I've already invented Primary (Transient) and helped add the extra Primary Verifications now available (and I've STILL sometimes not managed to get my own copy verified before all five slots fill up!) so it's probably someone else's turn to push for a new source. BLongley 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I fear there'd be so much confusion that adding a separate verification for Tuck III wouldn't be worth the trouble. There's a lot of info in his paperback listings in Vol. 3, sorted by publisher and date, and giving author, title and catalog number. But he doesn't give page count or price. There is an index by title, but not by author. I assume he thought the author listings in the first two volumes would be sufficient. But, unfortunately, as Harry and I have discovered, there are many paperback authors who don't have a listing in those first two volumes. So if you want to find every novel by John Russell Fearn (who only has four {!} novels listed in the author section), you'd have to first know either the title or the publisher to find it in the paperback listing, and you'd also have to cross-check for his pseudonyms. Perhaps Tuck was making a statement, even subconsciously, about his thoughts on the quality of Fearn's work.

Hold the press. I just stopped to look at Tuck's introduction in volume 1 where he makes it clear that the paperback listings in Volume 3 "...will include many titles not considered to be of sufficient merit [emphasis mine] to be covered in the WHO'S WHO section" (i.e. Vols. 1 & 2). Guess the choice of what would merit inclusion was very conscious. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Country of (the) Last Things

Hi, I believe this should just be "In the Country of Last Things". Cheers Jonschaper 01:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's been corrected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Peace

I added pub series data to you verified pub. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 03:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Subterranean - maybe out of business

The web links lead to a for sale sign. I noticed that you did Transient Verifications of recent web issues. Thankfully we seem to have ToC images of all the issues.--swfritter 14:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the site is partially back up again. Perhaps the check to the website provider was in the mail.--swfritter 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good thing I did those screen shots of the content pages. But it looks like it's back up and running. I brought Subterranean Online up-to-date from the few issues that Kevin had entered before he disappeared, using the same format he had started. It took some effort to save those screen shots of each issue's contents page, but it was worth it. (The pages were too large for my monitor so I had to copy the top and bottom, then join the images.)

Also, I'm thinking the online issues should be separated from the print edition as the overlap in the issue grid might be confusing. What do you think? Mhhutchins 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. It was discouraging when Subterranean Online data input was abandoned just at the time we had developed the screen shot methodology. It certainly took the wind out of my sails. My monitor is large enough that I can get a full screen shot at one time so I can do at least the screen shots in the future. I agree, the online and print magazines should be considered separate magazines and placed in separate series.--swfritter 21:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll create a record for the one missing issue (Spring 2010), and let you do the screen shot. One problem I noticed several months ago when I had finished updating through the Winter 2010 issue: issues are built up over several weeks, maybe months. When I checked this Spring 2010 issue back in May it only had a couple of pieces. That's why I didn't month date any of the previous issues that I entered. Can you think of any solution to this problem? Mhhutchins 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. I'll split the records into two different magazines. Mhhutchins 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the complaint about the cumulative issue content elsewhere; perhaps this discouraged Kevin. I would like to hope that the issues are complete by the time the next one starts coming out and don't change afterward. I think this is also an issue for the Hugo and Nebula nominating committees; they would also like to see coherent and static issues. I suppose the site could be monitored although the RSS feed seems to focus mostly on books. Perhaps it would be simpler to use the date when the issue is finalized which might be considered as the date when the next issue starts coming out. Given the fuzzy dates for magazine dating that might be the best we can do. Subterranean was an unfortunate test case. Clarkesworld web content has remained totally static, including mistakes, for all of its 45 issues.--swfritter 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also believe that once a new issue begins that the previous one is complete and won't be changed. I'll keep an eye on the Spring 2010 Subterranean, and make any changes if necessary. Going forward, I'll wait until the next issue is announced before creating a record for the present one. Funny, it's July and the Summer issue hasn't even begun. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Image for Spring, 2010 uploaded and linked to pub talk page. I find my own method a little bit easier. I also like to include the image name rather than the tag id in the name of the file. It makes it easier to do a search on the raw file name and is somewhat more self-documenting.--swfritter 12:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Forest of Forever

I added a note about George Barr's illustrations and the author's note to your verified The Forest of Forever. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, October-November 1996

Would it be safe to assume that the last character in Cartoon: "Will we thrive in the new information economy>" is a question mark? Ahasuerus 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've corrected it. (I don't enter cartoons, so it must have been a later editor's update of the record.) Thanks for catching the rtoi ("typo" one key to the left). Mhhutchins 01:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Titus Groan

I added Titus Groan to the Ballantine Adult Fantasy pub series. I also added a cover scan. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Titus Alone

I added Titus Alone to the Ballantine Adult Fantasy pub series. I also added a cover scan. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Call Them Back From Heaven?

I added Why Call Them Back From Heaven? to the Ace SF Special 1 pub series. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 01:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in placing my verified pubs into publication series, but I trust that you're knowledgeable enough that notification isn't necessary. Keep up the good work. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's my least favorite part of the editing process anyway. I'll add you to the list of those not wanting notifications. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like the cover art is currently attributed to Leo Dillon & Diane Dillon (one long name) rather than to Leo Dillon and Diane Dillon. Ahasuerus 02:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good eye. I'll fix it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Whispers

Afternoon! This. [5]. I added three notes, one on an 'afterword', one on the art and OCLC record. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jupiter

I've entered several issues of Jupiter magazine, but only the first is shown as an issue of Jupiter magazine. Clearly I'm doing something wrong, but I'm not sure what. Is it perhaps related to the fact that each issue has its own title? Help, please.Iansales 10:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The system doesn't automatically place a newly created issue into a magazine series. It must be done manually by consolidating editor records (usually one record per year) and then placing that editor record into the series created for that magazine. In this case, I entered the first one into a series named "Jupiter (magazine)" because Jupiter had already been used as a series name. Here's instructions to place the other issues into the series (this will take several submissions):

Go to the editor's summary page here: Ian Redman.
Click on "Show All Titles"
Merge the 2010 editor records keeping the one that's already been changed to "Jupiter - 2010". This will place all both 2010 issues into one editor record. (If any more issues are published this year you can always go back and merge it with this single editor record.)
Submit this merge.
Go back to the all titles page and merge the two records for 2009. (It doesn't matter which title you retain, because this will be changed once the merge has been accepted.)
Submit this merge.
When this submission has been accepted, go back to the Redman's summary page and click on the single 2009 record.
Choose "Edit Title Data" and change the title to "Jupiter - 2009" and place into the series field "Jupiter (magazine)".
Submit this merge.

If you're going to add another issue for 2008 wait until that's submitted before changing the current title record for the July 2008 issue, because it will have to be merged with any other 2008 issue. This may seem to be rather complicated for a new editor, but it will soon become second nature if you continue to edit the database. If you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait until I've entered all the issues I have on hand before I do that.Iansales 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on 150K!

One hundred and fifty thousand moderations (plus another couple of thousand I didn't notice while I was chasing one hundred thousand). Can we get a certificate or something now? BLongley 23:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, we could create custom t-shirts with "ISFDB" in big letters and a ... um, pithy saying? Submission/moderation count? Ahasuerus 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a strait-jacket be more appropriate? Mhhutchins 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but then we'd never get to 200,000... BLongley 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about the banner

It's not clear from your banner if you want to be notified if someone makes changes per the first bullet and also primary-verifies the publication. It sounds like notification is not needed? --Marc Kupper|talk 01:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Each bullet provides for an individual and separate situation. As the first bullet states, if you're only adding a cover image or notes to a record I've verified, AND you intend to do another primary verification you don't have to notify me. If you're making any other changes in a record that I've verified, please notify me (on this page) regardless of whether or not you intend to do a second primary verification (bullet three). Mhhutchins 03:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that's clearer. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Eggleton credit for essay in Locus, June 2010

For Locus, June 2010 you have 70 • Frazetta • essay by Bob Eggleon This artist name is normally spelled as Bob Eggleton and so you may want to re-check the publication and add a note if they are using "Bob Eggleon." --Marc Kupper|talk 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a typo on my part. Thanks for catching it. I'll make the correction. Mhhutchins 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Year's Best Science Fiction: Sixteenth Annual Collection

The Year's Best Science Fiction: Sixteenth Annual Collection Added notes as there were none. You had The Days of Solomon Gursky on page 194. I changed this to page 191. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor update - I scanned and uploaded the cover for this publication. Initially I had a publication note about a possible signature on the left edge. I then saw that the cover image was for the hc edition and that it's shifted over from the tp edition we have so that more of the "signature" was exposed. I decided it's not a signature, started to edit the note to explain the shifted image and decided it was simpler to just scan the cover. It's possible the signature is visible in the hc edition as there's "something" in the middle of the lower edge. That area is not included on the tp cover. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Review, September 1985

Could you please check if L. E. Modesitt, Jr.'s name was really misspelled "L. E. Modesit, Jr." in Fantasy Review, September 1985? TIA! Ahasuerus 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually prints the name as "L. E. Modessit, Jr.". I've corrected the review giving credit to the actual author and noted the review's misspelling of his name. Mhhutchins 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Last Castle

Does the Locus issue, #239, make any mention of the lettered copies of [this]? Came across this on OCLC: "Limited to 1200 copies, of which 200 specially bound copies were signed and numbered by the author and illustrator and 20 specially bound copies were signed and lettered A-T by the author". Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the lettered edition, only the regular and numbered ones. I'd trust OCLC that the statement is included in the book. But that's not evidence that the lettered edition actually existed. Mhhutchins 04:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding records like THLSTCSTLS1980 - I'd like to see the source of information in the record cited. It has statements like "Signed limited edition of 200 copies. Signed by Vance and Austin" and "There are also 20 lettered copies A-T, unknown price". Someone seeing this record would have no idea if these are speculation on someone's part, statements from an authoritative person at some time/place, or direct quotes from the publication." For example:

July 2010 - The note field for OCLC record 7465703 states:

"Limited to 1200 copies, of which 200 specially bound copies were signed and numbered by the author and illustrator and 20 specially bound copies were signed and lettered A-T by the author"--Colophon.

It's still fairly anonymous as we don't know who entered the information into OCLC but at least someone would know how that statement ended up in ISFDB. Someone who primary verifies can then check for the existence of the statement. If it's accurate then we can change the source from OCLC to that it's stated in the publication. If not, then most likely I'd create a new publication record and add a note that the publication does not contain the statement noted on the publication THLSTCSTLS1980 record. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sources should be noted. As I did when I added the price from Locus. I can only assume the remaining info is from the one verified source (OCLC). Mhhutchins 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the record to give OCLC as source and linked the ISFDB record to the OCLC record. Mhhutchins 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Psion

There seems to be a quite legible signature on the bottom right corner of [this], unfortunately I can't blow the pic up enough to decipher it. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

[This] has the same artwork, though cropped just a tad, and Locus credits Gary Smith. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The signature is visible and is clearly Gary Smith. I'll correct the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

gutter code D8

FYI, Hauck just submitted A Tale of Two Clocks that seems to confirm the D8 reprint gutter code for which Currey is cited as the source. --MartyD 12:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of his creating a new record for a different gutter code. I've left him a note about the current standard of noting the gutter codes of reprints in the original record instead. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 18:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, right. Sorry, I'm pretty sure I had a brain cell that knew that once upon a time.... Thanks. --MartyD 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Best of Cemetery Dance, Volume One

Can you check The Best of Cemetery Dance, Volume One and see if Helceldama is really Halceldama as OCLC suggests? Or maybe even "Haceldama" as the Cemetery Dance website suggests for the original publication? BLongley 17:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be "Haceldama" as recorded on the story's title page. The contents page gives it as "Halcedama". I cloned the contents from the hardcover edition and didn't do a thorough job in checking the spelling. I'll make the correction, note the content page spelling, and merge if necessary. Thanks for catching the error. Mhhutchins 18:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's another suspicious title on Braunbeck's page - "Amymone's Footsteps". I suspected it should be "Anyone's Footsteps" as in your verified Night Cry, but Locus, OCLC and Braunbeck's own website seem to confirm the stranger name? BLongley 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

After I verified the Night Cry issues, I buried them deep. Give me a few days and I'll try to get to them. Sounds like my brain may have automatically corrected the strange spelling! Mhhutchins 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, the title was entered incorrectly. I've merged the two records as "Amymone's Footsteps". Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mine does that too, but I'm learning to assume less and research more: if any genre is particularly known for inventing new words, Speculative Fiction must be it. BLongley 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There's another couple of checks if you don't mind: Metastasis or Metastatis? And is it The Right Thing by Gary Raisor or Gary L. Raisor? I'm afraid I might have made the wrong Raisor canonical. :-/ BLongley 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be "Metastasis" (story title page) instead of "Metastatis" (contents page). Same as above, I cloned the contents from the hardcover edition without checking. The errors of the original seem to have stemmed from the first editor entering titles from the contents page. Also the Raisor story is correctly credited. Looks like he started as "G. L. Raisor", then became "Gary L. Raisor" and ended with "Gary Raisor". Perhaps the last should be the canonical name since it has slightly more titles than the earlier names? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New Dimensions VIII - changes

Morning! This. [6]. I added a cover image, changed the pagination to add blank end pages, changed the Bujold essay by one page number to actual title page not quick bio, changed artist to Dennis Beauvais from "Beauvas", and added publication month. Artist change was my reasoning to start and the others were/are very minor. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections and updates. Submission has been accepted. Mhhutchins 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Walls of the Universe

Hervé Hauck has submitted an image change for [this]. The typography is quite different. Noticed the number in the link to LOC is typo'd [2006... instead of 2008...]. There also seems to be a duplicate record under this title. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Amazon image is wrong. Hauck's is the correct cover. Please accept his submission. I've corrected the LCCN typo (which was correctly linked to the LOC) and deleted the duplicate record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for checking. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Best From Galaxy vol III - add cover image/change page number

Morning! This. [7]. I added a cover image, but had to change the story start page on "The Gift of Garigolli". Mino typo. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the slip-up. Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrysalis 3 - added cover artist/notation

Afternoon! This. [8]. I matched my copy to your ver and found the Clyde Caldwell 'sigil' at bottom right front cover, so I added him to artist block and noted the sigil. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrysalis 6 - submitted change to author story content name Richard Wilber/notation

Afternoon! This. [9]. I submitted a Change to the Rick Wilber story to Richard Wilber as shown in my copy. Also changed page count and added note on Tom Barber art as it is such a good signature. Also, the "Locus 1" hotlink does not work. The Address seems to be Contento though and I used [10] to double check contents. They have Rick as you know. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I would have NOT commented had I seen it as "Rick" on the contents page. Oh Well, live/learn. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the correction was necessary, as the story is credited to "Richard Wilber" on the story's title page. Keep finding these discrepancies. In some of my earlier verifications of records that already had contents, I assumed they were correctly credited. As I'm finding out, most of those records used the contents page as the source instead of the title page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Vertex cover artist, Ed Acuna or Ed Acuña

You reported the cover artist for VRTXDEC74, VRTXFEB75, and VRTXFEB75 as Ed Acuna. Can you check to see if this is Ed Acuña? I just tried to enter a publication with an Ed Acuña cover and ISFDB changed it to Ed Acuna. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Credited in both issues as "Ed Acuna". The system automatically adjusts the use (or non-use) of diacritical marks to that of the canonical name. For example, I can enter "Philip Jose Farmer" and the system changes the "e" in "Jose" to the accented "e" because that's the canonical name. Pseudonyms are not created based on the usage of a diacritical mark. Mhhutchins 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know about the adjustment thing. FYI Help:Screen:MakeVariant transcludes Template:TitleFields:Author which says "The name should be entered exactly as it actually appeared in the publication" and further down in "Accented characters" there is "Two versions of an author's name that are printed with and without accents are treated as variants; you should not convert one form to another. However, if an accented form is given on a story title, but an unaccented form is given on the table of contents, use the accented form as the standard."

Despite the hint in the help that it can be done ISFDB prevents us from having both "Ed Acuna" and "Ed Acuña" without some fiddling. It seems though we should be using "Ed Acuña" and then would add notes to the records for Vertex that the artist credit is stated as "Ed Acuna." --Marc Kupper|talk 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there was an inconclusive (are you surprised?) thread about this at Rules and standards discussions#Variants based on diacriticals. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's going to create a pseudonym for "Philip Jose Farmer" and how many people are going to go back check each of their publications to see which form is used? Even if they entered it exactly as the rules state, the system corrected it to the canonical form. Record the correct spelling in the notes of each pub record? Really?

I still believe that pseudonyms should not be created based on diacritical marks. That section of the help that reads "Two versions of an author's name that are printed with and without accents are treated as variants; you should not convert one form to another" is absolutely wrong. Ever wonder why I never look at the "help" pages? Also, I don't think we should change the canonical name to "Ed Acuña." Look at the man's very own website. Mhhutchins 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm catching up on some old threads. I had looked at the artist's About Me page and saw that he uses both Acuna and Acuña. Regardless of the usage there - I try to capture, as accurately as practical, what's stated in the publications so that people can later make fact, rather than guesswork, based decisions when dealing with titles and author bibliographies. As Acuna seems canonical (two verified pubs vs. one for Acuña) I'm fine with leaving the name as Acuna though as an experiment I entered the artist name for the publication I verified as "Ed Acuña (accented)" to disambiguate it from Ed Acuna.

I'm not sure if I have ever seen "Philip Jose Farmer" stated in a publication and suspect it's noise from the Internet. A special project to search for and sort out "Philip Jose Farmer" from "Philip José Farmer" does not seem worthwhile though if I ever ran across a publication that uses "Jose" I'd make a note of it and likely create a variant so that others people can spot that this form of the name has been verified.

I'm fine with the current situation of the rules saying we need to create variants and the software effectively preventing it. If we add a name-selector-as-you-type thing like what you see these days with Google and Wikipedia then we could get rid of the name mashing logic and then it's up to how detail-obsessed the ISFDB editors are. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Survival Printout - Reginald 1 commentary

Morning! This. [11]. I just submitted an update of the book and since you made a comment from Reginald 1, I would appreciate a check for conflict, etc. Your comment engendered commentary on the subject. If there are clarity issues please edit (my stuff, not yours). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. It's obvious Reginald was wrong about not giving the editor credit to "Total Effect". It seems reasonable to me that we can make "Total Effect" into a pseudonym of the three men that Reginald credits, as it appears from the evidence you have given from the book itself, that they were responsible. What do you think? Mhhutchins 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked and saw that they're already set up as the pseudonyms and variants created for the title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have notified you of course. Late in the evening, tired and more lame excuses. I have a copy of the book, and took over the edit. Discussion with Harry is here. I'll have another look when I reach my anthologies. Thanks, --Willem H. 05:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)