User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2011May-Aug

Other Strays

Well, they're slow to run, but manageable. See ISFDB:Stray Coverart, ISFDB:Stray Interiorart, ISFDB:Stray Shortfiction and ISFDB:Stray Essays. The first two aren't a lot slower than the Interviews and Reviews, but at three minutes plus for the others I think those will have to stay as an offline project. Although when the numbers are reduced, I'll try again and see if the performance improves - I don't know how much of the slowness is down to the number of strays and how much is down to the total number of that type. BLongley 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll just have to remove most of the ones now before adding the script to the moderator's clean-up link page. Hopefully the slowness is not based on the number of each type, but the number of records. When you get a chance read the comments I made on the ISFDB Talk: Stray Essays page. Mhhutchins 21:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Have done. I suspect we might end up with an FR like "When removing titles from a publication, If, and only If, that title no longer appears in any other publication, nor does any variant of the title, then automatically delete it". But the way COVERART works fairly seamlessly behind the scenes is a bit different, so there'll probably be a different FR for that. Still, this should lead to some interesting revelations and discussions. BLongley 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Stray Shortfiction" seems to throw up many of the Award Titles already covered in the other script, so be particularly careful about anyone attempting to delete those. I'm not sure we can encourage other people to moderate the fixes though - if I had a wife, I'd hate to have to explain that I was only Googling "Fuck Demon" or "Hustler Fantasies" for ISFDB purposes. :-( BLongley 00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stray Authors 4

I created ISFDB:Stray Authors4 in celebration of Ahasuerus putting the latest FR live, but of course it's 4 days out of date already. I'm also concerned that the previous fix hasn't "taken" - although unmerged titles now keep the publication authors, I think that the unmerge screen still allows you to unmerge variants from a title they're not actually under. When you get a chance, can you review the changes and see if you concur? BLongley 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm dead chuffed with the second change, it's making things a lot easier for me, at least. BLongley 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I worked on L-N the last few days, so I can see why they're still there. I'll do a quick check to see if anything was missed or popped up in the meantime, and also let you know about the "unmerge" change. It should make things a whole lot easier. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what time/date the next back-up will be from, but I'm pretty sure it won't include anything I do right now. Feel free to carry on on the things I left as too much work for now, I'll do a (hopefully short!) Stray Authors 5 tomorrow. BLongley 20:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost done! ISFDB:Stray Authors5. BLongley 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd better find the Pratchett/Artist collaborations and finish this myself. Thanks for all your work. BLongley 22:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I left those Pratchetts because I think you and the other verifiers need to come to a consensus about how they're handled. (I think some have all the illustrations and some have less, so maybe variant title records should be involved here.) Mhhutchins 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there's also ISFDB:Extra Authors - Titles with mismatched or more authors than the Pub. BLongley 14:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you've found that too, have fun! I'm running out of ideas for projects now, so feel free to suggest more. Or it'll be a boring one like fixing DES's non-standard audio "binding"s. I've got to keep you busy while I'm working on Feature Requests and Bugs - but feel free to suggest more of those too. BLongley 23:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, do you think the Stray Authors script would be a good candidate for the online moderator clean-ups now that it's down to a manageable number, or would it slow down the system when searching for the mismatches? Mhhutchins 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It times at two minutes and fifty-eight seconds locally, so I don't think it's a candidate yet, unless we break it down into smaller chunks somehow. And I suspect prevention is better than cure in this case - I haven't quite figured out how the "Warnings" work on things like "New Publisher" and "New Author" yet though. Strangely, the reverse query (title-authors not on pubs) is only 23 seconds so that may be manageable. I'm not sure where the cut-off point is for performance - I'm working on a very old PC, Ahasuerus tests on something else, and our server is yet another unknown quantity, but seems to be faster than my PC. BLongley 00:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If, Nov-Dec 1970

Shouldn't this story here be titled _Nick O' Time_, with space ? Hauck 18:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. I've fixed it along with the art record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Page-count

Silly question: [this] pub has Roman Numerated pages and Arabic, but the count is continuous. Isn't having viii+288 in the field incorrect/mis-leading? [even with the note] Added a couple of notes about the art. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think I was trying to eat my cake and have it too. And this was more than three years ago when I was feeling my way around. If we use the field strictly to indicate page count (as we should) the roman numerals would be dropped entirely with the note explaining the pagination. What do you think? Mhhutchins 18:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The field really doesn't give a way to show this properly [or I can't think of one]. The note should be sufficient. I have several editions that have done this and that's all I do. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The mixed numbering is per the rules of acquisition, re: http://208.100.59.10/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub, http://208.100.59.10/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewNovel, http://208.100.59.10/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:EditPub.--Rkihara 16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those rules apply to the situation that Bill presents here. I believe we add the roman numerals only if they appear before page 1 of the book. In this case, there were 8 roman-numbered pages followed by page 9. If we enter it as viii+288, wouldn't that imply there are 296 pages? Mhhutchins 17:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A misunderstanding on my part.--Rkihara 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Default Templates for new Wiki-Pages

I think I figured out enough about new Wiki-Pages to create FR 3300107 "Templates for wiki pages created from database pages" based on your comments, and add the code for defaulting such. Are there any other pages that you think could benefit from such defaulting? BLongley 21:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me think awhile about it. There must be some others, but none come straight to mind. Mhhutchins 21:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just discovered DES got there first with FR 2805093, which also mentions Publishers and Series, so I've done those too. BLongley 21:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The first part is now live. Let me know if there are any problems. BLongley 12:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No hurry - we've currently got over a month's worth of development changes for Ahasuerus to plow through. And MartyD's chipping in with some improvements too, so I don't think these are going to be implemented very soon. BLongley 21:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Advanced Search" changes have freed up a lot of modules for further work, so I have a couple of other mini-projects underway (well, "mini" in that they're small benefits, but affect a lot of modules), but if there's anything you have in mind please let me know. Sometimes it's nice to just have a quick win rather than go back to "well, if I put this new field on the edit screen, and deal with it on the submission screen, then show it on the Moderator screen, and actually perform the update on the Post-Mod Screen, then the database has the data which then needs showing on the X, Y and Z screens..." which is how current changes are looking. BLongley 00:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few things that I've noted over the past few weeks:

• Can the system check for book titles first when it tries to match reviews to title records? (We talked about this but I don't know if there's been any progress on it.) Mhhutchins 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the queue as FR 3290541 "Improve Auto-Linking of Reviews. Never link to POEM or ESSAY, prioritise Books over Shortfiction". There's one dependent change above it though, FR 3042002 "Support for multiple web links at title level", so I don't know when Ahasuerus will get to it. BLongley 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• There’s a bug that places “None” in the storylen field of omnibus title records. I can't say exactly when it happens, but it's there.
• When a title record’s type is changed from shortfiction to essay, the length field remains intact. Even if you're changing it from a pub record and removing the length, it stays there. Mhhutchins 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can reproduce these. BLongley 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The "None" bug has been around for a while, but I was never able to recreate it consistently even though I have a general idea of how it happens (Python uses the word "None" internally.) Last week, however, I noticed that "None" popped up after I merged a couple of Title, so I suspect that the flaw is in the merge logic. Ahasuerus 19:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's in more than the merging, I think type-changes are part of it. I've posted a new mini-project ISFDB:Length None - if people that work on that can suggest how it might have happened, we may squash yet another bug. BLongley 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Di Fate & "Arslan"

When you verified Arslan, you added the note "Cover art not credited, no visible signature, but looks very much the work of Vincent Di Fate." I think there is a signature on the cover. There is a block "D" on the lower left (below the antelope) and a block "V" on the lower right (below the woman). While this isn't usually his signature, there are several examples where he draws his name using that font, e.g. the covers to Star Well, The Outcasts of Heaven's Belt, and Captain Empirical. In at least one case, The New Atlantis, he uses only his initials in that font. IMO, that's enough evidence to list him as the cover artist. What do you think? Chavey 04:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for me. If you'll update the pub, I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 04:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Chavey 07:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Accepted the submission based on the above promise to accept it. --MartyD 11:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Going Deep by James Patrick Kelly

This title was a Nebula Award nominee as a short-story, but your verification has it as a novelette. Would you care to check the length? BLongley 18:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The magazine (Asimov's) typed it as a novelette. I did a rough word count (average number of words per line x lines per page x number of pages) and came up with 7644 words. Those Nebula committees can manipulate categories as well as they manipulate eligibility years. Mhhutchins 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

James Tiptree Award Anthology 2

I suspect you cleaned up the Title record for The James Tiptree Award Anthology 2 based on my pub note; I wandered off to grab a cup of coffee and you beat to to the punch. Thanks, Albinoflea 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did it. Many times I've found that editors concentrate on the pub, which is as it should be, and forget how it effects the title record. So I usually followup if there's not an immediate submission to do a fix. But don't let my fastidiousness make you complacent. :) Even I sometimes forget to fix title records. We've had a project over the past month to clean up title records and it's a chore, believe me. And these were only to match pub authors against title authors. I can only imagine how many pub records' titles mismatch their title record's titles! (Anyone coming to this wiki for the first time couldn't make heads nor tails of that last sentence.) Mhhutchins 23:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to know, I could find out... I suspect the number would be daunting. :-/ However, once Language Support improves (it's only 8th on the list of outstanding changes) then we might get our polyglots working on assigning languages to titles and moving them to variant titles rather than leaving them under the English title. That shouldn't take them more than a few months. ;-) Then I can post a project to clean-up pub titles that don't match title titles, which should keep the rest of us busy for a while. BLongley 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering how we're allowed to record ANYTHING in the pub's title record, that list would be thousands of records long. But...can you program it to find titles that don't match whatsoever, sort of the opposite of Duplicate Finder's Similar Match? (How does that last work anyway? I've seen titles matched that only have a couple of words in common, sometimes only having the same number of words.) Mhhutchins 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right - 7,129 records as of last backup, where the title title isn't at least part of the publication title. But I don't think it's worth tackling, for example, "El Exorcista" and "L'Exorciste" for "The Exorcist" just yet. BLongley 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As to "Duplicate Finder's Similar Match" - I must admit I've never looked into that, but there's probably an improvement or two that could be made. BLongley 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks regardless, at least now I've figured out a bit how things are structured so I know what things are likely to need following up. And I can't always count on having you approving my submissions... ;)

It occurs to me from a User Experience stance that the page that is displayed after a submission is made, (which now just typically shows a chunk of XML), could be employed to prompt for some of these types of follow up tasks. Albinoflea 21:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There are so many variables I can't see a programmer knowing what exactly is needed to be done with each submission. As a non-programmer, I have no idea what that jibberish is that follows each submission, so I totally ignore it anyway! Mhhutchins 21:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm running out of ways to make the moderator's life easier with guesses about what pages they might want to check when reviewing submissions, and what they might want to do afterward, so I'm happy to take suggestions. (I've also taken this to Albinoflea's page as he is as-yet uncontaminated with years of moderating and should have fresh views.) Keep mentoring him and don't mention the misery of "X, the Y Fairy" submissions and we'll have him moderating soon! BLongley 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If he helped me finish the 80+ remaining issues (out of 600) of my Locus project, I promise he'll never have to moderator any fairy book submissions. Mhhutchins 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That may be a rash promise - have you noticed that Fixer has found this series? :-( BLongley 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If I had any more copies of Locus on-hand, I'd gladly enter them, fairies or no fairies...Albinoflea 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing to enter them, I'm happy to send you loads of stuff. How proficient are you in Polish, for instance? I'm stuck with one magazine that says on the cover "Nancy Kress - Kwiaty wi" because the next character is an "e" with a funny accent under it, and I can barely cope with accents above letters. BLongley 00:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like so: Kwiaty wię. According to wikipedia it's called an ogonek.

Yep, that's the one: "Nancy Kress - Kwiaty więzienia Aulit". No idea what it means. I think I can figure out it's a 1997 publication, but the price seems to be "CENA 4 ZL 30 GR". (I seem to recall Poland has the zloty and groszy, which is why I guess it's a price). But if it takes that much effort to decipher the top two inches of the front cover, I'm not going to spend my time deciphering the full 82 pages! BLongley 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

With Polish nowadays I usually rely on Google Translate to make sense of it, but I can do data entry OK, although to be fair Mhhutchins propositioned me first. (With a no Fairy book clause to boot!) Albinoflea 01:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation moved to BLongley's page. Albinoflea 05:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Age of Wonders

Added scan and notes to your verified here and modified page count (from 320 to 319) & pub month (from 00 to 11). Hauck 12:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Some Will Not Die

Hopefully this one isn't too buried! Scanned in a new image, added notes to [this]. My copy's cover crops a signature on the bottom left, leaves just enough to know it is a sig and that's it. Any better luck with your copy? Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No more than with yours. Sorry. Mhhutchins 16:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Starship & Haiku

Added a new image to [this] and found a signature on the cover, Daly but no idea of the first name. Added notes as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's Gerry Daly. Look at the signature on this cover. He did about a dozen covers for Pocket and Timescape in the early 80s. I'll update the record. Mhhutchins 03:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Juliet E. McKenna

Just a note that I have VT'd "Juliet McKenna"'s reviews of Mike Resnick's books in Interzone, #218 October 2008 to Juliet E. McKenna. Ahasuerus 06:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Award Editing

Don't tell Al, but I've been playing about with this today. And there are a LOT of issues with it still (see my thoughts on Ahasuerus' talk page if you want all the sordid details.) However, it's not that difficult to reenable Award Editing for selected individuals, and I don't think we're going to advance much without more eyes looking at the problems. Would you, for instance, care to try dealing with the 2010 Locus Poll Awards? We have 2009. BLongley 20:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, just tell me how to get started. Mhhutchins 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's see whether Ahasuerus will enable you or whether I have to tell you how I get around it. ;-) We do need to look at Awards as we're rather out-of-date in many areas. :-( BLongley 21:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If things progress far enough, the Motherboard (a.k.a. Board of Directors) of the James Tiptree Award has asked me if I could update/correct the awards we have posted for them. Chavey 00:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Eek! If they're asking us to correct things, I imagine we're actually getting them wrong, rather than just being out of date? If so, let me know about our worst offences and I'll start on those right away. BLongley 03:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The main issue is the names given to two of the awards. What ISFDB calls the "James Tiptree, Jr. Award, Retroactive" should be the "James Tiptree, Jr. Retrospective Award". And what we list as the "James Tiptree, Jr. Award, Classics (Win)" constitute the short list for the Retrospective Award. In our terminology, that would be "James Tiptree, Jr. Retrospective Award (Nomination)". The current naming is particularly jarring because when you go to the 1995 Tiptree Award page, the "Classics" are listed before the "Retrospective", i.e. the nominations are listed before the winners. Their personal preference would be to use the term "Honors" instead of "Nomination", for both this award and the regular "James Tiptree, Jr. Award", but that's less crucial. They would also prefer to separate the "Retrospective" award from the regular award. Having all of the early great books in this category appear together with the 1995 winners seems inappropriate. For example, we have separate award categories for the Hugo's and for the Retro Hugo's, and that would be appropriate for the Retrospective Tiptree's.

One error in the award listings is that in the 1996 list, there is a "Special Award" listed to Angela Carter. We do sometimes give special awards, but none was given to Angela that year. What happened was that we established a "Fairy Godmother" award, which is used to give financial aid to a "Tiptree-esque" writer who has some special financial need (e.g. when Laurie Marks fell off her balcony, breaking several bones, and had no health insurance). That award was established in honor of Angela Carter, but is not an award to Angela Carter, hence shouldn't be included. (And those Fairy Godmother awards aren't appropriate to include in the ISFDB lists, because they are not given specifically for literary merit.)

Another error in the list is that Pinkland is listed as on the 1998 Honor List (Nominations), but was actually on the 1999 list (Nominations).

A minor "error" is that on the 1994 Tiptree list, Geoff Ryman's Unconquered Countries is listed, but without a link to the actual book.

One point I might add is that we only give the award for works that appear in English, so we always list the English title, i.e. the English work is the one that receives the award. Thus with the 1992 Awards, the "Honor list" includes (on our list) In the Mothers' Land, while on your list it appears as Chroniques du Pays des Mères, but that may just be a necessity of the way our code is listed. This may be more of an issue when we get to the 2004 winner, which we list as "Troll: A Love Story", but the ISFDB may list as "Ennen päivänlaskua ei voi".

Of course the ISFDB doesn't have any of the awards listed from 2003 on. But less obvious is that they don't include the 2002 list of "Nominations below the cutoff". When you're ready to add more stuff, please let me know, since I can easily provide you with the lists or, if appropriate, enter the awards myself.

And I think that's about it. Chavey 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly enough to give me a bit of work! I'll respond in more detail on your page rather than take up any more space here. BLongley 13:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

((Unindent) How are you finding it so far? It seems most people haven't noticed, or don't care. :-/ Me, I just feel overworked again. BLongley 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I started on the 2010 Locus Awards and only completed the SF Novels. There's about ten more categories to go, with as many as 20 titles in each category. When I get back to finishing those for 2010, I think I'll go back to hiding my head under a rock when it comes to awards. Mhhutchins 23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable - we're so far behind on Awards you wouldn't believe ISFDB started out as an Awards site. :-/ Still, if you can provide feedback on the processes and all the pain involved, we might make it a little easier, and hopefully can whack it into good-enough shape that we can open it up to every editor. At present I'm looking into making the moderating easier, but there's plenty of editing fixes needed too. Still, Darrah Chavey seems to like it. Of course, he hasn't spent two days on the Bram Stoker Awards like I have... BLongley 23:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Eternal Champion

Hi, there! Just to let you know, I have submitted additions of pub series "The Tale of the Eternal Champion (Millennium)" to 1992-3 hc and tp from Millennium. I'll try next to identify and add the set of 1996-7 pb reprints (might be recorded under Millennium, Orion / Millennium or Orion). These, judging by several that I have, dont explicitly state series number but have a numbered list inside which is exactly the same. Then it will be for reprints under Gollancz imprint, done around 2001, I believe. Note that I have added publisher to the name of pub series after our previous discussion as White Wolf sequence and content are different. I can do White Wolf series later, but only using Locus1 data as I dont have any of them. Thanks!!! P-Brane 03:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

I would suggest that you not update any records for publications for which you are not sure if they indicate either the series name or number. The first hc printings and their immediate tp reprints might be more obviously numbered, but unless you're holding the later reprints in your hand, I suggest letting them be, at least for now. Or you can ask anyone who has done primary verifications on them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, 1996-7 pb reprints have pub series title on the cover (here is one, for example), no numers on the cover or inside, but have a numbered list of series inside (I'm too lazy to scan:), you can check amazon look inside for this one) and refers to itself as Nth omnibus volume on back cover (you can also see this in amazon look inside). Question is, do we add series numbers to these pubs or only pub series? Btw, the "look-inside" one is even later reprint (Gollancz) but except for that is identical to Millennium one I have. Thanks! P-Brane 03:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Strange Bedfellows

I'd like to change the credit for two stories in this verified pub. Dinner at Helen's is in my copy as by William Carlson, and I'm with You in Rockland is as by Jack M. Dann. Is it ok to change the hardcover too? I could ask Scott Latham, but there will probably never be an answer. Contento agrees with the credits for the hardcover as they are in the paperback. Hope you can agree. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Please adjust both the hardcover and paperback records. Good catch. Mhhutchins 15:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Willem H. 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

La Grande Bretèche

Oops! You've confused me with the title of your comment! The diacritic in that was correct, but the diacritic in the current title is not! Original French title is "La Grande Bretèche". Whether any of English pubs have circumflex instead of grave accent is a different question and needs to be checked. Could you please change it? Thanks! P-Brane 04:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

There's only one publication that contains the "circumflex" (?) and it's verified. Let me ask him how it appears in the book itself. We may have to create a variant for it also. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a record for the original French title (with the grave accent). I'm awaiting a response from the verifier of the version with the circumflex. Mhhutchins 04:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Circumflex is also spotted in here. I guess it looks more French and more "Grande" :) Thanks. P-Brane 04:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

Ashley/Contento may be the source of the original spelling. The verifier will be able to tell us how it really appears. Mhhutchins 04:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anybody want to sell me a copy of Ashley/Contento, I'd be willing to take it off their hands. I can't find a copy for less than $150, a little high for my budget. Mhhutchins 04:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been on the lookout for it as well and it's typically in that range. If and when I get to spend more time on data entry, I'll buy it, but at the moment I am swamped with other things. Ahasuerus 04:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Balzac is finished, except for this thing. It's an excerpt, but from what? I am really curious about it, but no library in AU has the book and I have already used my international interlibrary loans for the next 157 years or so. P-Brane 04:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

For what it's worth, it's only 6 pages long. Ahasuerus 04:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Googling brought up a quote from Balzac which has been used as an epigraph several times: "There is nothing more terrible than the revolt of a sheep." The line itself is from his story "Another Study of Woman", which may be the source of the excerpt. Mhhutchins

Thanks for the lead! P-Brane 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Read the (part of) story - seems quite likely it's indeed the one form anthology. Cheers! P-Brane 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

The International Science Fiction Yearbook

From this british version here, it is possible that the cover of your verified here is by the same artist. Hauck 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same cover. Where is the artist credited in your copy? Mhhutchins 19:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On copyright page. Hauck 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Days of Magic, Nights of War

Hi, to brighten up things I uploaded a scan of the back cover I can give a scan for the inside as well, but I might damage the book in the process.--Dirk P Broer 23:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Life intervened between the time I placed the submission on hold until now. Cotler is an imprint of HarperCollins and I'm pretty sure it should be entered "Joanna Cotler Books / HarperCollins". Here's the publisher's website. I'll accept the pub and then see about adjusting the publisher's name(s) to bring them all together. This may involve notifying some primary verifiers. Thanks for your patience. Mhhutchins 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Study War No More

I found Michael Whelan's signature (circled, stylised "M") on the lower right leg of the wooden soldier on this verified pub. Other "proof" is here. Easy to find once you know who the artist is. Shall I change the pub record? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. Go ahead and update the record. My copy of the book is somewhere boxed and your evidence is sufficient enough for me to avoid having to dig it out. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, --Willem H. 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Easton Press Green Mars

Would you support crediting the coverart for the Easton Press Green Mars to Walotsky, who did the artwork for the frontispiece? Now that I have a copy in-hand, I'd say one clearly seems to be derived from the other. Albinoflea 07:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that Walotsky should be credited as the cover artist. The same thing happens with a few other Easton Press books where the book's designer takes elements from the frontispiece art. I don't imagine that the frontispiece artist had much to do with the final results other than as inspiration. It would be worthy to note in the record the connection between the cover design and the frontispiece. I would accept your submission adding the info. Mhhutchins 13:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've submitted a note to this effect, and also included a few other items in the notes as well. Albinoflea 01:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Eye #2

Hello, Michael. Your changes to my sub are OK for me. I'd like to add some more interior art to this issue, but I think I have to ask you some questions:

1) I suspect that this cartoon is the same as the one in SF Eye #2. Could you please check this? (And if so, what do you think of denoting them with the same name, for example 'Lucius Shepard' as in the Con program book?) Stonecreek 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

They're identical and I agree they should be merged with one title. Done. Mhhutchins 14:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

2)For the interior art by J. K. Potter illustrating the Shepard interview: it is stated that they are taken from this collection. I would like to add them, but there seem to be missing two items: In SF Eye #2 there are two illustrations for 'Mengele' and only one in the collection. The illustration for 'Salvador' seems not to be in 'Jaguar Hunter' at all. Could you please take a look or two for this missing pieces? Stonecreek 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A record of this pub record's changes would be a master class in the evolution of ISFDB standards in interior art entry. When it was first created, there was a single record for Potter's interior art. Then we decided each story should have one record for its own artwork. Then someone thought each piece of art should have its own record. All three of these methods are valid, and you'll find them all used in hundreds if not thousands of records in the db. I've updated the pub to Method 3 (each illustration has its own record, including that funky half page illustration that served as a title piece that I'd not included before) and merged them with the corresponding pieces in Science Fiction Eye #2. (This took almost two hours because several pieces were also used to illustrate the stories' original magazine appearances. Not to mention the fact that all of the pieces in the Arkham House collection were credited to "Jeffrey K. Potter", so I had to create variants. Sheesh!) You'll find that the numbering of the pieces may be somewhat out of order, but I had to merge them with the exact piece as it was presented in both the Arkham House collection and in various issues of Asimov's. I also took the opportunity to update the notes for the collection. Let me now what you think of the changes in Science Fiction Eye #2. Mhhutchins 14:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts! You're right, it looks a little bit out of order, but I think it was the right thing to do, since Potter's illustrations were originally for the book, not for SF Eye. I can imagine that it was a load of work. Now I have only one addition (a cartoon by Steve Stiles) to submit, and I think this issue should be complete (until the next guy find something, of course). Stonecreek 15:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury's N

You verified this pub which contains N and this pub which contains "N". Are these two poems variants of each other (same poem, presence/absence of quotes correct)? Thanks. --JLaTondre 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to pull out the magazine, which may take a little time. I'll get back with you. Mhhutchins 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They're the same poem, just a variation in title. I've made the variant. Thanks for catching this. (It's so much easier when one verifier has both pubs to check!) Mhhutchins 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

People and Places (Riddle of Stars)

In this pub that you have verified the title People and Places (Riddle of Stars) appears as by Patricia A. McKillip, using the date 1979-00-00. Do you have any indication in your book about authorship and/or the date of first publication of the title? I am asking because I have a variant title publication that contains presumably the same essay, but I was hesitant to attribute the essay to McKillip without at least a hint about the authorship. Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 22:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The piece isn't credited, so I'm not sure how McKillip's name got on there...maybe one of the later verifiers? I'm pretty sure it should be dated the same as this pub, which was the first omnibus edition of the three novels. I'll merge the two (not variant), giving the author as uncredited, and date it as 1979-10-00. Thanks for letting me know about the discrepancy. Mhhutchins 22:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I will have to variant them, because the title appendage. Mhhutchins 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Chesterton on Dickens

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks. --MartyD 10:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Karen Anderson's Robert A. Heinlein

You verified this pub which contains Robert A. Heinlein (1982) and this pub which contains Robert A. Heinlein (1976). Are these the same poem? Thanks. --JLaTondre 17:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're the same. I've merged them into one record. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 17:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Hi! I knew that Chesterton will bring interesting questions:)! You have verified this pub against Tuck. But it seems that the original has somewhat different ToC (I also looking at the physical copy from library). The problem is that US first edition joins the last four stories together as "The Trees of Pride" and gives separate title to the first one ("The Tale of the Peacock Trees") while [UK first edition http://ia600306.us.archive.org//load_djvu_applet.php?file=12/items/knewtomuch00chesuoft/knewtomuch00chesuoft.djvu] doesnt have this umbrella title but instead titles first story "The Trees of Pride". There are some recent reprints of the last 4 stories from US edition as separate collection "The Trees of Pride" as well. Whta's the best way, in your opinion,of dealing with this? Thanks! P-Brane 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

The ISFDB can't handle group titles except as a series, so I propose that for the Harper edition the content record "The Trees of Pride" be removed from the pub record, and that the four stories be placed into that title series. For the British edition, even though the four stories aren't in the ToC, they're titled as such within the book itself. It's getting late so I won't do it tonight, but I'll work on them tomorrow and get back with you afterward. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I had an edit conflict while I was responding to your question. Someone had edited my page at the time, so I had to go back and reconstruct my answer. I think it was because you didn't use the Post a Comment (or +) method, but chose to edit the entire talk page. Please consider using the first method when posting on the Wiki, which prevents such edit conflicts from happening. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an unlikely source of edit conflict - as you can see in history my edit was 20 mins before yours.

It wasn't while you were editing. It was while I was responding to your edit. Your original message was an edit to the entire page, so when I responded to it I was editing the page as well, not just the message. Someone left a message at the same time I was responding to yours, so when I finished my response the message couldn't be saved because the page had already been changed in the meantime by another editor. If you'd used the + or "Post a Message" method of adding a message, the conflict would not have occurred. Look at this page's history to get a better idea of what happened. Mhhutchins 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(For the record, I suspect I was causing the edit conflict.) Albinoflea 18:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your edit was part of the conflict, but if I'd been able to edit only the section containing the message and not the entire page there would have been no conflict. The way Wiki's are set up, you can edit sections and not conflict with other editors. Conflicts occur when two or more people are editing the same section or the entire page at the same time. If two people are editing two different sections at the same time there will be no conflict. I could be mistaken, but this has been my experience in my four+ years working on the ISFDB and its wiki. Mhhutchins 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I must confess to not knowing about the function of the little + tab, so I was indeed editing the whole page in order to add a new section... At least I know better now. Albinoflea

So it was you after all! Mea culpa, P-Brane. (But everyone should still use either the + sign or the "Post a Comment" link on the Wiki talk pages.) Mhhutchins 22:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Trees-wise: I was thinking that title series might be too generous for the occasion. Wouldn't it be enough to just correct ToCs for both pubs and add some notes, and create chapterbook/collection title for separate printings of "The Trees of Pride"? Thanks! P-Brane 11:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean by ToCs. If you mean the db record's contents, yes, go ahead and correct them, based on the contents of the scanned books, but NOT based on the ToCs of the pubs. (We don't use a book's contents page to enter the book's contents into the ISFDB record.) All four stories that are grouped as "The Trees of Pride" are included in both books, so there should be identical merged records for each of the four stories in both ISFDB records for the books. There should NOT be a record for "The Trees of Pride" as content in any of the books. I'll leave any edits up to you. Mhhutchins 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Vultures

Just to let you know I just submitted a title merge on Michael Bishop's Vultures; I submitted the The Anthology of Speculative Poetry #4 yesterday and am in the process of cleaning up.

I kept your note, but in error had pushed the date back to 1979 when I entered the issue; even though the issue is copyrighted 1980, it displays a very prominent 1979 under the title... I noticed too late that this date designates the year Bishop received a Rhysling award. I'm assuming/hoping the merge will correct this, since I kept the 1980 date from your title. Albinoflea 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accept the submission, so I'm not sure exactly what the record looked like before the merge, which doesn't help me understand precisely what you mean. I don't have a copy of TASP #4, but I believe it was published in 1980, and since that was the first publication of "Vultures", I assume it should also be dated 1980. Is "1979" under the title of the magazine, or the title of the poem? Again, I'm a bit befuddled. What does the date of the Rhysling have to do with the date of this poem? (Bishop won the award for another poem.) And since you've got a copy of #4, we can remove the part of the note that says "Confirmed by the editor/publisher, Bob Frazier". Sorry, if I'm being dense, as it's late and past my bedtime. Maybe tomorrow I'll be clearer-headed. Mhhutchins 06:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The section that Vultures appears in is titled Rhysling Winners -- New Work.

When I read it and was entering things I thought it said Rhysling Winners -- New York (Perhaps it was past my bedtime...)

The year in each case (which is typographically set larger than the title of the poems themselves) designates the year that the author received the Rhysling, but not for the poems being published in TASP #4, since these are "new works". (And since the Rhyslings are given for poems published in the previous year, even if Vultures had won the 1979 award the year would still be wrong...)

Will edit the title note, unless I find out you've already beat me to it. :)

Hope that all makes sense. Can provide a scan if you like. Albinoflea 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the light of day, it all makes sense. Thanks. A scan of Bishop's poem would be nice. Even though it's been reprinted a couple of times, and I have a copy of it, it would be nice to have definite proof of its first publication. Mhhutchins 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll send you a copy after I've fired up the scanner. Would you like a JPG or a PDF? And can I just send it to the email on the Michael Bishop site? Albinoflea 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PDF, please. And to the MB website address would be fine. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PDF has been sent. Don't know if you do scans, but you have TASP #3 handy at some point I'd love to see KSR's poem #4. Albinoflea 04:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll scan it and send it to the return address of the message you sent me. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that... I had always thought #4 was a strange title for a poem, but it makes perfect sense now. Albinoflea 06:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Future Corruption

Scanned in an image, slightly expanded the notes for [this] I was going to change your note about the ISBN but I have a Canadian printing, which has the ISBN on the spine. For now I just added that fact to the notes, but wonder if the ISBN is missing from your [presumed US] copy then maybe I should create a new record? Hopefully it's not at the bottom of a box....! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed it. The ISBN is clearly printed on the spine of the book. Also, my copy is printed in the USA. It appears that the books are identical other than the country of printing stated on the copyright page. So I slightly reworded the notes in the record. I'll leave it up to you whether to create another record for the Canadian printing. (My book was at the bottom of a box which was underneath two other boxes...alas, I'm rarely so lucky that a book is readily available.) Mhhutchins 04:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to create new records when the only difference is the "Printed in ..." statement, though there are quite a few existing with that sole difference. If I don't build some new shelves soon most of my pbs will be in boxes [about half are now]. And with so many new ones lately, the last 4-5 boxes are not in any order. :-\ --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Drink Bird Head

Hi, in this verified pub could you please check the name of author on page 56. Is it Jon Courtney Grimwood or Jon CourtENAy Grimwood? Thanks! P-Brane 07:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

It's "Courtenay" and I've corrected it. Thanks for catching the mistake. Mhhutchins 13:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Literary Sightseer

Added a parenthetical issue qualifier for Literary Sightseer from TASP #3, as it also appears in TASP #4 and may have been a recurring feature/column. Albinoflea 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That will work. Not having more of a magazine's run, it's hard to know which pieces are one-short and which are columns. Mhhutchins 21:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Book Club Edition"

In trying to date a recent find, I think the date given on the SFBC wiki page for the disappearance of the above 'slug-line' is inaccurate. Currently, the date stated is "sometime in the spring of 1988". I went checking the editions I have. The September 1989 edition of Jeter's Farewell Horizontal still has the line, but the October edition of Bear's Tangents does not. Didn't change the page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a random check of about 20 pubs and came up with that date, There were several pubs published in the summer of 1988 that did not have the BCE note, as I recall. It's possible that at least one of the original Garden City presses continued to print BCEs after the other presses were bought by Bertelsmann (e.g. Berryville Graphics in Virginia). It's obvious I'll need to amend the statement, something like "beginning in the spring of 1988, editions began to appear that did not print 'Book Club Edition' on the front flap..." We probably should start noting this in as many records possible in the editions published in 1988-1989. I had already left the club at that time and have very few pubs to check, but I'll leave messages for any primary verifiers of any pubs of that period. Thanks for finding the discrepancy. BTW, does the BCE of Tangents have any statement about where it was printed? Mhhutchins 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No statement where it was printed; in fact of all the ones listed below the only one that does stae a printer is Xenogenesis [R.R. Donnelly & Sons] but then it's a GuildAmerica publication. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found three 1988 editions in my collection that were printed after Spring which have the statement and four that haven't. And they appear to be interspersed. Here are some editions that you've verified. When you get a chance, can you record in the notes of each record whether the statement is present? Thanks.

1. The Final Frontier
2. The Coelura
3. Prelude to Foundation
4. At Winter's End
5. Narabedla Ltd
6. Cyteen
7. Eternity
8. Azazel
9. The Chantry Guild
10. Dragonsdawn
11. Alternities
12. Rimrunners
13. Xenogenesis

I guess at this point we should try to find the last SFBC publication that contained the statement. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the above have the slug-line except Xenogenesis. Unfortunately '89+ is where I also was done with the club. I only have three pubs from Bear's Tangents up to July of '90 to check, and at present Jeter's is the last one I know had the line. Harry was pretty consistent noting if the statement was there, but only if he was Primary1, not often if he was Primary2/etc. Marty seems to have quite a few, Willem as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Eye, November 1991

Likely typo in the title of the Philip Jones essay on p. 74: Something Wonderful Has Happened, Your Culture is Alive: An Industrail Model for Art in the Twenty First Century. Albinoflea 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. It's been corrected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

== Webzines ==

I noticed that you performed a Transient Primary verification on the Fall 2010 Subterranean Press. This makes total sense to me; has there been any talk about better handling of web stuff like this, or are you pioneering new ground? Albinoflea 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion about allowing in certain webzines, despite the current policy (see #15 of the Rules of Acquisition) It had to be a paying market (recognition by SFWA helps) and its contents had to be presented as individual issues. Because of their possible instability, we believed doing a screen shot for the contents would help as well. (It's included in the Bibliographic Comments of each record.) It was also decided that each webzine would have a "guardian" who would be responsible for its entry. (Your note reminds me that I need to enter the latest issue of Subterranean Online. Because it continually adds content to each issue until complete, I have to wait until the next issue is started before creating a record for the previous one.)

At the moment I know of the following web-only magazines being indexed here: Helix (now defunct), Clarkesworld, Strange Horizons, Subterranean Online, and Flurb. I work on the later two and Swfritter does the first three. Mhhutchins 16:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on 200K

I was checking to see if someone was a moderator and saw Mhhutchins 200514

Amazing - a fifth of a million moderator actions! --Marc Kupper|talk 05:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And almost 150000 edits too. Wow! --Willem H. 08:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many notes you've had to leave on people's talk pages.... :-) Pretty amazing! --MartyD 10:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I wasn't aware that I'd reached that milestone. To answer Marty's query: I believe it was around my 2500th submission that several editors asked/persuaded/cajoled me into being a moderator (guess I was keeping them busy!) So if we round things off, that means I've moderated 145K of my own submissions, which leave 55K moderating other editors' submissions. If I had to leave a message on only 5% of those submissions (a fair assumption) that would mean about 2500 notes left on editor's talk pages. It's been a little more than 4 years that I became a moderator. So 625 notes per year averages about 2 notes per day. Seems about right. Mhhutchins 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Jacks / Jeff Jacks

Hi, when in doubt about this edit, try a search in Google on ["Jeff Jacks" Mayflower Cover] and see -almost- all our "Jacks" covers appear on AbeBooks pages.--Dirk P Broer 19:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no doubt that his name is Jeff Jacks. My concern is that the cover credits for the four books will be changed if I accept the submission. Three of the four have been verified by Bill Longley. If he doesn't mind the change in credits I'll accept the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The cover credits are all from a signature of just "Jacks". I'm happy if the Legal Name includes "Jeff" but the publications don't actually reflect that. BLongley 13:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If we determine that the artist who signs his work as "Jacks" is the same artist formally known as "Jeff Jacks", it is ISFDB policy (de facto or stated, I don't know) to give the full name in the publication record. Thousands of ISFDB records reflect this policy: when cover art is not credited in the book, the record can give credit based on a visible signature. Of course, the source of the credit should be noted in the record's note field. Now if the artist uses "Jacks" as a pseudonym, and prefers that to his full name, the record should remain credited to "Jacks". As the verifier of the pubs in question, you can determine which way to go. Mhhutchins 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's policy - are all 1200 Emsh titles from written credits rather than signature? I'm afraid I have no more knowledge of Jacks or his real name (which is quite likely to be longer than "Jeff" anyway - possibly a "Jeffrey") so I'd be inclined to leave it as "Jacks" and let people add their evidence to his wiki page. BLongley 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It may not be a stated policy, but it's a working policy. About "Emsh", you might ask the magazine verifiers, but in most cases that I've primary verified the work is credited as by "Emsh" in printed form, not by signature. So that may not be the best example to support the case for using a signature as a credit. I'm going to reject the submission (as it was my first wont to do) and let you and Dirk decide how to best handle it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the Magazine experts are probably the best to ask - but I can't be bothered to start a new Rules and Standards talk for just 4 titles. I do try to avoid creating new artists - especially if the "artist" is actually a design company - but my enthusiasm for standardising them is pretty low. I really would like to separate Artists and Editors out of the "Author" searches, but there is a very large backlog on software/design improvements at the moment and I'm loath to work on anything that may need changing for higher priorities like improved Language support and better Award editing. BLongley 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally support your decision here, especially regarding starting a discussion on the Rules & Standards page (we both know how fruitless such efforts have been in the past.) You seem to be the only person doing any software improvements so any priority you've assigned can't be disputed. Mhhutchins 17:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, mixing "Rules & Standards" and "Development" did lead to Chapterbook support, and I'm a little disappointed that that didn't lead to a Nobel Peace prize. ;-) Improved Language support will no doubt cause a massive amount of discussion and rework which us Mods will have to learn to deal with. (And contrary to what you see on the Outstanding Development pages, Ahasuerus is doing most of the work. I seem to be being left with the credit and/or blame for that.) BLongley 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Improved Award editing will no doubt mean even MORE work for us - but Darrah Chavey seems to be volunteering not only his own time but some more editors. BLongley 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you DO see any small changes that are desirable, let me know - the big changes will always take weeks to check and implement, but sometimes we can put them aside for a "low-hanging fruit" change. BLongley 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a new request, this time just changing the legal name.--Dirk P Broer 09:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me - I'm not that protective over these titles - but I would like to see some supporting evidence recorded on the Biography Bio:Jacks or Bibliographic Comments Author:Jacks pages. BLongley 23:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Miyuki Miyabe

Oh, you fixed it just before I was going to do it! Cheers, P-Brane 04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

The Sirian Experiments, by Doris Lessing

In my copy of your verified publication, the title page seems to claim that the publication title is The Sirian Experiments - The Report by Ambien II, of the Five. Could you check your copy to see if you agree with me? Chavey 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mine's the same, as stated in the note field. I've changed the pub's title to add the subtitle. This record was among the earliest ones that I verified, and I was more keen on getting the pub record title to match the title record title than I was to recording the actual stated title. Thanks for pointing this out. Mhhutchins 02:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, does your copy have a printed price? If so, I'm going to create a new record for my unpriced copy. Mhhutchins 02:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, my copy has no printed price. I've been somewhat spotty about noting that when it happens. There are a lot of unverified records that have a price, either from Amazon or Locus (I assume), and when I add a verification I sometimes note that there's no price on the book, and I have no idea where the price came from, but I haven't been very consistent about doing that. Chavey 04:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Most book club editions won't have a price, so ordinarily you have to find a secondary source. I note that source when possible, although I wouldn't doubt that a few get through. I've a sneaking suspicion that our copies of this title were published by the Quality Paperback Book Club, but can't find any corroborating evidence. Mhhutchins 04:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement of Book Club Edition

I've just added a verification of A Saga of the Reindeer People, with a May 1989 BCE which does include the "Book Club Edition" statement on the jacket flap. Since you're that aspect of BCE's from 1988-89, I wanted to mention it. Chavey 01:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And I added a verification of The Harrowing of Gwynedd with an August 1989 BCE which does include the "Book Club Edition" statement on the jacket flap. Chavey 04:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, February 1980

I updated the record for Science Fiction Review, February 1980. It had an ESSAY titled Review of The Lost Ones (audio recording based on The Renegades of Time by Raymond F. Jones) by Richard E. Geis on page 33. I updated your verified publication record to instead have a REVIEW titled "The Lost Ones (abridged)" so that it would link up with the existing ISFDB title record.

It's not clear why this one review was entered as an essay. I made the assumption that the stated review title is "Review of The Lost Ones (audio recording based on The Renegades of Time by Raymond F. Jones)" and added a note to the publication record to that affect per Template:TitleFields:ReviewTitle.

I did not delete the old ESSAY title record yet. If you are fine with converting the ESSAY into a REVIEW then we can either delete this title record or can merge it into the new REVIEW record to deal with the extremely remote chance that someone on the Internet has linked to that title URL. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I chose to go the ESSAY route because there was no record for the recording in the database. In fact, I'm not even sure if recordings were actually allowed in the db in 2007. I'll need to check to see whether the review mentions if this is a "reading" of Jones' work, or a "performance" of it. If the latter, I think we should go back to essay and remove the recording's db record (per ISFDB standards). Until then, everything can stand as it. Mhhutchins 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

After I posted the above note I worked on Publisher:Bonneville Productions for a bit. It turns out they only did specfict and so that part was useful. At the end of the day I too was wondering if these were "performances" and thus something we would not index in ISFDB. I decided to leave them in ISFDB as they were recorded performances (meaning we can verify them) and that the story was told verbally meaning it's much like an audiobook. I got the impression they are a combination of a narrated story intermixed with a performance of the story by multiple voice actors plus original music. The package included a single 30 minute audio cassette tape (15 minutes per side) plus a 36-page illustration booklet. The tapes had beeps to let the listener know when to change to the next page. That must have been state-of-the-art "multimedia" in 1978. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've still not got around to pulling out the issue to see what details about the recording are mentioned in the review. It's buried about three or four boxes deep. I should have some time tomorrow to look for it. Mhhutchins 03:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoted directly from the review: "This package is a 30-minute audio cassette plus a booklet illustrating the spoken/acted drama (with music)." Now I know why I made it into an essay instead of a book review. ISFDB standards don't allow such a recording into the db, but I'll let you make the decision about deleting all of the Bonneville Productions records. I'll go back and revert my verified record to its original state. (I really wished you'd asked first. This rubs against all ISFDB standards of etiquette concerning verified pub records.) Mhhutchins 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When I first changed the essay into a review the target publication was a novel with no binding. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You should have asked the verifier before doing that. It would have saved you and me both much wasted time. Mhhutchins 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The only clues were "(abridged)" in the publication title and "audio recording" in your essay title. I assumed it was an audio-book edition where the story had been abridged. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The other clue you missed was the fact that I've been working on the db long enough to know when to make a review into an essay. Mhhutchins 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The record for the publication already existed and your review already existed. I linked the two and notified you of the change on the assumption you'd be fine with it. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't link my record. You had to remove it, created a new review record and then link your record. To correct what you did, I had to 1) add a new essay record, 2) drop your review record, 3) delete your review record, and 4) delete the stray record that resulted from your dropping it from the original pub record. Mhhutchins 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'd left the essay record in place. The revert could have been done in one step which was to just merge your record with the review. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 03:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I then started working on Bonneville Productions and I realized these probably should be classified as "derivative works" assuming the scale is abridged -> adapted -> derived. There are no ISFDB standards for or against dramatizations. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Whether it's a stated policy or not, there is a de facto one. Audio dramatizations lead to video dramatizations, and before long this becomes the IM&TSFDB (the Internet Movie & Television Speculative Fiction Database). This has been discussed many times on the Rules & Standards page. Regardless of whether dramatizations are IN or OUT, your approach to changing a verified pub was wrong. Mhhutchins 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that changing a Verified pub by an active Moderator and then leaving a message is the wrong way round. I routinely leave moderating such edits to the Moderator(s) involved. BLongley 00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I also (mostly) agree with Mike that we have too many "Audio dramatizations" - e.g. "Big Finish Productions" have a lot of such that never appeared in print, they were made for Radio or for audio sales only. It's not a complete No-No - when I have got a print book of a "Radio Play" then I think we should record the details of original transmission, original CD/cassette availability. But that's probably a Rules and Standards discussion that can wait a bit longer. BLongley 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Swanwick's "In the Tradition . . ."

I was wondering if this novelette appearing in your verified The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror: Eighth Annual Collection , is perhaps the same as this essay. My copy in The Postmodern Archipelago begins with a subtitle(?) "A Cruise Through the Hard Fantasy Archipelago in Search of the Lonely and the Rum, Fairies in the Garden, the Semiotics of Alchemy, Spawn of Industrial Womb, a John Deere Tractor, Dueling Witches, Broken Trilogies, Creatures from Jungian Depths, Elegant Sex, Big Shoes and Bigger Bridges, a Stylish Death, the Reinvention of Language, and the Mad Apotheosis of Rhetoric". However, that could be missing from your copy. The first paragraphs begin: "And so we set sail. The green hills and haunted mountains of Middle Earth sink into the sea behind us." Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no protracted subtitle, but otherwise it appears to be the same. I'm not sure why it's indicated as novelette unless I updated the record from previously entered data and failed to catch the fact that the piece is actually credited as "(essay)" in the table of contents. I'll merge the applicable records. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A Pictorial History of Science Fiction

Hi! There are currently two records this and this verified for the same publication. This is a UK-published book which was also distributed in US. What's the best way to fix it? Maybe change the price to £3.99, moving US price to notes, in your verified pub and then delete the other one? Cheers, P-Brane 01:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

I made the UK/US published books into one record. In the process of researching this book, I noticed that my copy of the book is a dated second impression. So I made my record into one for the second printing and gave both UK and US distributed prices in both records. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 02:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I also noticed that BLIC gives different UK price (£3.95). Do you think this is worth putting into notes? I have transient copy of apparent 1st printing but it has no dj, so I cannot check the price. Cheers, P-Brane 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

That small difference really doesn't matter very much. The problem exists because there is no printed price anywhere in the book. I think the Vector source may have come from Bill Longley who entered more than a few issues of Vector a couple of years ago. We might want to ask him to check again to verify their listing, which in itself could be wrong. This is going to happen when a publisher doesn't print a price directly in the book. Mhhutchins 02:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I double-checked Vector 78 and it says £3.95. Did I put £3.99 as a Vector Source? I do make kibblesworth (see below) mistakes more often than I should admit. :-/ But please point them out if I make them. BLongley 00:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

KIBBLESWORTH (n.) "The footling amount of money by which the price of a given article in a shop is less than a sensible number, in a vain hope that at least one idiot will think it cheap. For instance, the kibblesworth on a pair of shoes priced at £19.99 is 1p."

Looking at other publications from Hamlyn around that time period, I see the UK prices all end in 95. I'm going to correct both records and give BLIC as the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolf's Complete Book of Terror

Hi, again! Could you please check the title of Huysmans' excerpt in this verified pub. Is it indeed "The Black Mask" and not "The Black Mass"? Cheers, P-Brane 05:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

It is indeed "The Black Mass". I corrected the title and made it a variant of the earlier published excerpt. Thanks for finding this and bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! as it was it sounded more like this author title. :)

Talking with the Dead

Hello, Michael. I'd like to change one title in your verified pub. I own a copy of this book of interviews as translation into German (yet to enter) and have an upcoming alternative title in Foundation #17 of the interview titled 'C. M. Kornbluth'. I had it not in my mind, but F#17 stated and I checked it in Platt's non-fiction that the interview is not actually with Kornbluth but with his wife. So she should be credited as interviewee, shouldn't she? Stonecreek 14:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree that the subject of the interview is C. M. Kornbluth, regardless of who is actually being interviewed? A problem with many Charles Platt interviews is that they are actually profiles. This particular "interview" is six pages long (in my edition) and only slightly over two of them are the actual interview with Mrs. Kornbluth. I would rather change this piece from INTERVIEW to ESSAY type than to change the interviewee field to Mary Kornbluth. What do you think of that compromise? BTW, I recall entering an "interview" with another dead person awhile ago, not sure exactly who was the subject. It was a cleverly constructed profile done in an interview format. If I recall correctly, I entered it as an ESSAY rather than an INTERVIEW. Mhhutchins 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Platt's interviews are written from his point of view and can be regarded as essays. But - in my opinion - this should have as follow-up that ALL 'interviews' by Platt are regarded as essays. Are we willing to change them? (and would other editors be involved?). It's still not easy to decide. Stonecreek 16:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem in making this an exception by converting it to an essay, and leaving the others as interviews. The least number of editors involved in a decision usually makes for a more satisfying result. Mhhutchins 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the major reasons why others would object to making Platt's profiles into essays is that they would no longer be linked to the subject's summary pages. I would hope eventually that we could establish a "subject" field for all essay title records, but don't see that happening soon. Mhhutchins 17:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an expansion on FR 2800725 "Link from non-fiction works to subject covered". Quite desirable, it seems, but until people pipe up a bit louder on which features they want most or which bugs are most annoying, we developers will tend to stick with what WE want fixing most. Most of the Sourceforge entries are "Priority 5", the default, which doesn't really tell us much. BLongley 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I pipe louder ? I was thinking along these lines, at first for books only and restricted to the ones with a clear and unique subject, be they bibliographies (GCP, Borgo, NESFA), studies (e. g. Reid on clarke), biographies (e.g. Philips on Tiptree) or long interviews (e.g. RAH by Schulman). It'll may prove very useful for researchers to have a quick list of such books when consulting one author. It's a standard feature on most of the print bibliographies. Hauck 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not totally convinced that it'd be right to make an exception in one case and not transfer it on the other cases as well. I'll take a night of sleep thinking about it, but would you think also about another possibility? The link with the C. M. Kornbluth page would be lost in either variant. So, why not let it stay as an interview with the title 'C. M. Kornbluth' and give Mary Kornbluth as interviewee? It would be possible to find the interview when looking for 'All Titles'. (Or what's with splitting up the text in two parts: 1. essay by Platt 2. interview Platt/Mary Kornbluth). There's also the possibility to mention the interview/essay on the author's bibliographic comments page. But if you still prefer the essay variant, I could live with that one also. Stonecreek 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I stress again - this piece is not an interview with Mary Kornbluth. It would be wrong to change the record to show that she is the subject of the interview; she's only a quoted source. All of the other profiles in this book include interviews with the authors given in the title. This is already an exception as far as the other profiles are concerned, so we wouldn't be stretching to make it into an essay. Splitting a single essay into two parts? That is against ISFDB standards. If you reread what I said above about the objections to change, it was concerning any move to change ALL of the Platt profiles into essays. I have enough evidence to convince any other editor about any possible change of the Kornbluth profile into an essay. That evidence would not be so strong when it came to changing all of the other profiles. And I do not prefer the essay variant. Either it remains as is, or is converted into an essay. You have the option to make the Foundation #17 record into the type that you believe to be the best. Once that's done, we can bring up a discussion to iron out any discrepancies on the rules and standards page. And after you've gone through that process, you'll understand what I meant about involving as few editors as possible in discussions. Mhhutchins 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a time to explain something. At first reading of this piece (nearly 30 years ago) I subsumed it as interview with C. M. Kornbluth, only later learning that this couldn't be true because he died in the 50s. I assumed that this piece was a kind of essay, labeled as interview. Now Foundation #17 triggered something with its alternative title C. M. Kornbluth: A Study of His work and Interview with his widow of the piece. Read this excerpt: CP: What would you say his politics were? MK: The thing he discussed most often was Jeffersonian democracy. CP: In today's terms could you (...)? MK: Cyril was not a liberal (...) CP: ... MK: ... What comes to light is an interview with an introduction: the aforementioned study of Kornbluth's work (and this structure is also given in Platt's 'Dream Makers': the second half is this interview without the mentioning of interviewee or interviewer as abbrevations). I assume that you had a similar essay in mind as me, but in fact this is one of the most interview-like pieces in 'Dream Maker'. Normally Platt begins the 'interviews' with a description or a view on the work of the respective author and then goes on to give pieces of his conversations interspersed with his thoughts or observations. Read the Asimov, Bester or Dick interviews: they are all more essays than interviews.

So, that's why I think this 'C. M. Kornbluth' piece has the right to be regarded as interview with Mary Kornbluth. Please, look at it one more time. Stonecreek 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Foundation piece could be a considered an interview with Mary Kornbluth. That's up to you to decide as you'll be the one entering it into the db. The excerpt you quote does not appear in Dream Makers in that format. Again, I reiterate: Mary Kornbluth is not the subject of this profile and is simply a quoted source. I don't believe she should be made the interviewee of this record and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure she isn't. The difference between this and the other interviews in Dream Makers is that the "interviewee" is not the subject of the profile. The Asimov, Bester and Dick interviews are much more interviews than the one with Mary Kornbluth in the C. M. Kornbluth profile. In the 13 pages of the Dick profile, at least 9 of them are direct quotes from Dick himself. How can anyone say that this piece is closer to an essay than an interview?

It appears we're at loggerheads here. I can see no point in further discussion on this page. If you're as passionate as you appear in making Mary Kornbluth the interviewee of this record, please present your case before the group on the rules and standards page. Mhhutchins 22:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's end this at this point. At least you are right that the beginning and the main portion of the text ARE an essay, so I will submit a change into that title type and make the essay part of the Foundation piece into an alternative title.

I just read the note a little bit down from here and wish to express my concern for your well-being. Maybe I had not thought enough about possible over-working on your part. Good wishes to you! Stonecreek 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, March 16, 1981

In addition to uploading an image to your verified here, I corected the number of pages from 280 to 180. Hauck 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the page count, but the original image on Galactic Central was so much better. The point in replacing images is not to simply have one on this server. It's to replace it with a better image. The one you replaced it with isn't. What's the point? Mhhutchins 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the point was indeed the first one (in order to avoid red crosses in case of failure, or so I supposed). Hauck 12:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's always wise to replace Amazon images, as they're not guaranteed to be stable. But Galactic Central ones are, so it's fine to leave those as is. BLongley 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Burn-Out

Sorry to hear it - but I know how ISFDB gets on top of you at times when there's various heated discussions going on, or a new feature is implemented that means massive RE-work. Have a nice break and come back refreshed - I seriously think we can't moderate all the submissions without someone as active as you. (I was going to ask you for advice, but I'll have a stab at the latest Locus Awards on my own and you can tell me where I went wrong later.) BLongley 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

After processing 203,000+ submissions, I suppose a few days of rest won't hurt : -) By the time you come back, Bibliovore may have something more interesting in the queue than the junk that Fixer has been finding lately. I finished parsing the Open Library database earlier this week -- it's 24 million records and about 50,000+ of them look promising. I just need more time to put the new data structures to support multiple data sources (as opposed to just Amazon.com and Amazon UK) together... Ahasuerus 02:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! Can I go through my own burn-out now? (Ahasuerus doesn't get one, unless he gets Al back working. ;-) ) BLongley 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest. I can't say you'll come back to an empty queue though! Mhhutchins 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If on a winter's night a traveler

Hi, could you please check the likely typo in de Chirico's first name in this verified pub. Should be GioRgio, of course. Cheers, P-Brane 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

The book is packed away, but I've gone ahead and made the change. I'll make a note to check it when I get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now & Then Number 2

You're right, the "nonfiction" items are really essays and it should be "Pamela Bulmer" - that was a copy & paste which was truncated. And "Eric S. Needham" is the "full" form of "Eric Needham". Farrago 12:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The 9th Annual of the Year's Best SF, by Judith Merril

The SFBC edition of this book contains the cartoons "Tree Trunk" (p. 58), "Dog Eat Dog" (p. 165), and "IBM" (p. 294) which are not included in the contents of either the SFBC edition (which I am verifying, and will correct), nor in the first edition, which you verified. Could you check to verify that those cartoons exist in your edition and, assuming they do, add them to the contents? (Or import from the SFBC content.) Also, if I understand the "Accented characters" rule correctly, the fact that The Earth Dwellers (p. 229) is listed in my edition (and presumably yours) as "by Andre Maurois" and not "by André Maurois", means that we need to create a VT for that story and use it instead. Is this right? Chavey 03:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I mistakenly verified the trade edition, instead of the SFBC edition. The verification has been moved. Please proceed to update the record for the trade edition to add the cartoons (four years ago cartoons were not added to pub records.) BTW, "Tree Trunk" should be "Tree Trunks". About the credit for the piece by Andre Maurois, I don't understand the "Accented characters rule" myself. I personally feel these cases do not warrant the creation of a variant record. It's not a misspelling, variant spelling or a pseudonym. It's simply the American printer's inability to recognize that there is a difference between an "e" and an "é". A search for "Andre Maurois" pulls up the records for "André Maurois". So there's no reason to change the record. You might note the lack of an accent in the pub's note field. If you disagree with me, start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. This and this should be argument enough not to create variants. Otherwise every other title by Philip José Farmer would have a variant by Philip Jose Farmer. Mhhutchins 22:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Tree Trunk[s] error. And I agree with you completely about the "Andre/André" issue. I would rather not create a VT for such a situation, but my reading of that rule seemed to imply that I was supposed to. I may go ahead and start that "Rules and Standards" discussion so we can change the wording of that rule (apparently, to agree with actual practice). Chavey 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to support a "no variant to be based on accented characters alone" proposition. The software won't actually allow many of them anyway - various characters are considered equal in most searches. And I for one have no intention of helping distinguish them with software changes - it would be like cutting my own throat. In the long, long, term I suspect Ahasuerus will want to allow for different alphabets - our Russian titles do crop up unexpectedly in many searches, and I've noticed titles that really should be entered in Urdu or Klingon or worse. :-( BLongley 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, I appreciate all the work our non-native-English-speaking editors are doing and will continue to help us become a bit more than the "English-Language Speculative Fiction Database" that we really started from. But I'm already foreseeing the time when the English work can be covered without me. I just hope to be remembered for the work I did getting us there. Al is retired from ISFDB with Honours - I hope to do the same myself. BLongley 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hidden Side of the Moon

Hi, at present the OCLC records that is connected to your verified copy of The Hidden Side of the Moon is http://www.worldcat.org/title/hidden-side-of-the-moon-stories/oclc/16078672 16078672] which also gives 1987 as publication year.--Dirk P Broer 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Look again. That record gives the copyright year, NOT the publication year. I've said this more than a dozen times to many new editors over the years, but this may be the first time you've read it: the year of copyright is not the year of publication, and should not be used to determine a publication's date of publication unless all other secondary sources have been exhausted, and this should be noted in the pub record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nightflying With George R. R Martin

In this title record, the interview title has no period after the second "R", but there are two spaces between the "R" and the "Martin". Is the missing period correct or is the extra space supposed to be a period? Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

IMNSHO: whatever the publication says, we should regularise major names to our standards. We have tens of thousands of "Authors" and we can't afford to let every little typo generate another one. We may need to rework a lot of titles for such future features as "Works ABOUT this author" and we cannot safely do mass updates if we have to look for non-standard names. BLongley 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This was probably a bad example to start a rant over - but do a search for ALL titles (i.e. including NONFICTION) with "J. R. R." or "J.R.R." and you'll see why I think we should do this. If people care about Nonfiction, and I see several editors are. BLongley 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll correct the title record to the author's standard name, even without looking at the pub record to determine if the error is theirs (not likely though). I agree with Bill and believe, for search purposes, that the name in the title should be normalized regardless of how it may appear in the publication. (Now if it was titled "Nightflying with George Martin" I would have argued differently. This being an interview, it would have been linked to the canonical name, again, regardless of how the piece is credited.) Mhhutchins 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting standardising the punctuation and suffixes - "George Martin" would be fine by me. Dissembler and Fixer have annoyed me with "R.R." (no space) so often that I wish I could submit fixes to their code rather than just to the main ISFDB code. :-( Maybe I just need a break too - I'm feeling a little unappreciated for all my recent coding efforts, we are still short on Award Editors and I don't see much use of the Language Support improvements either. BLongley 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For the "J.R.R." case, I would have assumed that (recording it as "J. R. R.") is already the standard. I don't see any difference between the title case and the author case and we already do it for the author. In general, I agree with both of you, but when the title is part of a verified publication (like in this case), I'll definitely leave it to the discretion of the verifier. --JLaTondre 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

100 Stories for Queensland Modifications

Hi, you may remember some weeks ago you said you would help me modify the 100 Stories for Queensland listing, once I knew which stories are NOT speculative fiction. I'm about half way through the book and thought it might be easier to modify the listing now and again when I reach the end. I have about 25 stories to remove. You also said something regarding "a note about the incompleteness of the record's contents" which I will also need help with. Here is the publication record for your convenience. Thank you for your help. Isis 00:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Mhhutchins 02:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a response to the most recent comment that you left on my page. I worked out how to remove the titles from the record, but I don't know how to remove them from the database. Here is one of the entries that needs to be removed. If you can tell me what to do with this one, I'm happy to do the same for the rest. Thank you in advance for your help. Isis 01:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Michael's away, so I thought I'd answer you: You need to delete the title. To do that, you go to the title page (if you follow the link you provided above and click on the title, you'll end up here). Then in the Editing Tools at the left, you will see Delete This Title. Click on that. Deletions are moderated, so someone will look it over before any permanent change takes place. As an aside, once the last title for an author is deleted, the author record will be deleted, too -- you don't need to do a separate deletion for that. --MartyD 10:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Marty. I've completed the task (and know not to make the same mistake again!) Now all I have to do to complete the entry is to add a note that the listing is not the complete contents of the book (as the stories I've removed were not spec fiction). Can someone please instruct me how to do this please? --Isis 01:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Go to the publication record. Click on the link "Edit This Pub" under the Editing Tools menu. There's a blank field for notes. Just add the information you'd like to add to the record, then go to the bottom of the page and click on "Submit Data". You'd use the same method to update any pub record in the db. Mhhutchins 03:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, April-May 2010

Can you double-check "Adrift" by "Eugene Fisher" - I suspect there may be a 'c' missing from his last name. BLongley 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I've fixed the error. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarke's "A Russian Odyssey" in Locus 260/261

While doing some merging from a Clarke collection submission, I noticed "A Russian Odyssey" in two successive Locus editions (#260 and #261). This in 260 and this in 261. I'm wondering if maybe they should be treated as a serial? --MartyD 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The first piece is an actual essay, while the following month is a selection of captioned photos. I'm going to disambiguate the two by title. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 02:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hannes Bok Poem

I hope you are having an enjoyable and restful vacation. I've just added contents to this collection of Hannes Bok poetry which contains a poem titled "For Emil". I noticed that you have a verified magazine that has a Bok poem titled "To Emil". I was curious if we've got a variation on titles, or two different poems. Mine has only two stanzas and begins "O lark who once through Kalmokainen flew". After you return, let me know if it sounds like they're the same and I'll happily set up the variant. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the same poem, so a variant is called for. There's a note at the end that states ("To Emil" appears in Bok's poetry book - "for Emil"). Mine is dated 0000-00-00, because I didn't know the exact year it first appeared. Please set up the variants and correct the date if possible. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm taking the statement in your magazine to mean that the poem appears in my book under a variant title, rather than reading it as it appears in book titled "For Emil". I looked in Google Books, Worldcat and ABE for such a book and found none. Therefor, I updated the date. Thanks for looking. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 11:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Weird Day of Mazal Dey

Could you double check the title of "The Weird Day of Mazal Dey" in Fantasy Book, September 1985. The copyright page of this collection, which has it under a variant title, states that the original title was simply "The Weird of Mazal Dey", which is also how Miller/Contento has it. I also added a link to the cover while I was looking this up. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 14:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be simply "The Weird of Mazal Dey". I've made the correction. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wondermakers

In this verified pub I changed the credit for "The Disintegration Machine" from Arthur Conan Doyle to A. Conan Doyle, as stated on the titlepage (and contents page). Also added notes. --Willem H. 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Now & Then No. 6

There is a typo in the record for the September 1955 issue - this one is No. 5 and the November 1955 issue is No. 6. As for the "Natterings" letters pages, there are no individual letters. Extracts from letters are incorporated into a continuous narrative, with the result that several parts of a given letter can appear in the "essay". Which left me wondering if you'd want a record of who contributed material to the piece, or you'd be satisfied with "various" as "author". Some guidance would be appreciated. If you want to see what the Natterings look like in the original magazines, they are available on-line from this page: http://www.htspweb.co.uk/fandf/romart/het/fanzine.htm Regards, Farrago 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll make the corrections to change the September issue to No. 5. As for "Natterings", if the editor isn't credited for assembling the letters into one essay we should change to credit to "various". It's then also optional to record the names of the various letter writers in the record's note field. BTW, it's better to continue discussions on the same talk page on which they began. That method avoids the "ping-pong" effect of having to go back and forth between the two talk pages. Don't worry that a correspondent won't see your response. Most of us place automatic watches on pages on which we leave messages and can look at our watchlist or the recent changes page to know when the other person responds. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to look at the actual fanzine (thanks for the link) I think you should create individual records for each letter. They may have been edited for publication, but then most editors have that option when publishing a letter. You can leave the current "Natterings" as a record for the column but change the author to "various". Then add new records for each letter crediting the individual author. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith Merril's SF 12

In this verified pub I changed the credit for "They Do Not Always Remember" from William S. Burroughs to William Burroughs, as stated on title page and contents page. Also added a note about the spelling of Thomas Disch. --Willem H. 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ps, any idea where the cover credit came from? Jane Frank agrees about Paul Lehr, but I can't find anything in or on the pub. --Willem H. 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This was an early verification and I wasn't so quick (or so knowledgeable) to change any already entered data. I'm not sure how or who credited the cover artist, but we should add Jane Frank as a secondary source. Thanks for making the other corrections. Mhhutchins 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the date of your verification. Added a note about Jane Frank. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

I read some recent posts and did the "Darrell Osborne/Darrell Osborn" merge before I realised that there was a verified pub involved. :-( I don't think automatic notification of Verifiers is within my capabilities (I don't have a working local Wiki implementation to test with, for instance), but "warning to moderator" might be improved for more than mere Publication edits. Although we might want to lessen the warning level for really old verifications like you and I have... ;-) BLongley 00:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment, and I'll do the Feature Requesting and maybe some development for you. Although Ahasuerus has got a lot on his plate at the moment - and MY "outstanding changes" list is actually longer than the public one. But I find coding more therapeutic than editing at present. BLongley 00:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that the records had been merged, so there's no reason to apologize. I'm not sure how it would work or even if it's feasible to create a warning for moderators for every submission that might affect a verified pub. That would include submissions that change any content title record, editor record, or author credit (other than an edit of the pub record itself). I don't even know if I'd want to deal with notifying verifiers if such a moderator warning was even possible. I'm pretty satisfied with the warning system as it now stands, i.e. only when a verified pub record is updated. Also, most moderators should already be wary of any submission that changes the author credit or title field of a title record. The merge screen for moderators is also pretty good about letting us see how the merge affects the merged records. Right now, I'm pretty happy with what we've got. But if you think it can be improved without putting an extra burden on the moderators, I'm not going to argue against it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost quit ISFDB after DES did a Publisher change that affected many of my books, and didn't match my preference. :-/ I appreciate that the more warnings a Moderator gets about a submission, the less likely they are to deal with it - but that may be the price we need to pay to improve. Looking at recent changes, we are going to need more moderators with more language skills than I have - I may be helping people make me obsolete. My Ego will still want a credit for doing some useful things here, but I don't really know what it would be for. I'd like to give up on moderating Fixer submissions, and when we've trained up the Foreign-Language experts and got the supporting code in place I'd like to avoid moderating French, German and Dutch titles, for instance. I don't want to hold such back though, so I'm happy to remain "Cut-Me-Own-Throat Coder". BLongley 01:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd hate to see you give up on moderating, but since you're the only active coder (other than Ahasuerus), and if that keeps you around, I'd be willing to sacrifice your moderating, even if it means dealing with Fixer submissions (arrgh!) Once the db can completely handle foreign language pubs (thanks for the work you've done on that) some of those editors can be bumped to moderator at least to handle their own submissions. It would be nice if a few of the writers who drop in occasionally to enter their own books would stick around, but I guess they're too busy actually writing. (Which reminds me, I need to start reading again!) There's a few new editors that I'm hoping will get the ISFDB bug. There's projects of my own that have been languishing for the past few months that I'd like to get back to. That's when I'm really happy: working on my own projects and not dealing with submissions from new editors to whom I have to point out the same errors over and over and over... Mhhutchins 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the repetition gets a bit much after a while. That's why I keep switching tasks - sometimes a bit of moderating, sometimes a bit of coding, sometimes a bit of data analysis - very little new data entry now as I'm not buying even a tenth of the number of books I used to. Although the LiveJournal account I set up is providing some advance information at times - but with 847 authors on the friends list it can take a bit of sifting to find the bibliographical data! It could be worse - but I've resisted Facebook and MySpace and Twitter, I don't know if anyone else is daft enough to take those on. BLongley 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, would you care to share the names of the "few new editors" worth mentoring? (Take it to email if you're a bit unsure about discussing such in public.) I know we haven't blackjacked a new moderator in ages - possibly because the best new ones are experts in languages I don't read. :-/ (I think I've encouraged a few Authors to fix their own stuff with the LJ activity, but sometimes it just seems that they demand more work from us instead!) But you and I seem to be covering a ridiculously high proportion of Moderating activity, and that can't continue forever. BLongley 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Caught out

I think you've spotted "our" (I choosing to share it with Ahasuerus) latest cockup. :-( ISFDB:Community_Portal#Strange_results_of_a_cover_art_unmerge should explain what's still safe and what isn't, but only Ahasuerus can say when other title types will be fixed. Sorry for the inconvenience. BLongley 23:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging reviews

Good spot on the dangerous merges. It's not always wrong (Collections of Reviews for instance) and Reviews in later editions of the same magazine/fanzine are likely to be reprints or expansions or excerpts. If you can explain in English what YOUR warning signals are, I might be able to flag it up to other moderators. (I suspect I'm volunteering for coding rather than discussion, I seem to have lost diplomacy skills recently.) BLongley 01:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The first clue was that they were in two different fanzines, both within a year or so of each other. But the only way to really know if they were different is to compare them. Fortunately, I had both. But, let's say I had only one or even none of them, I would not have accepted the merge anyway. As you say, unless one of them is published in a collection of reviews, it's not likely they're the same. They could be similar, though. It's not likely that a writer would stray far from his original thoughts that it would be entirely different.

I recall from looking at the records of 1950s-1960s issues of Astounding/Analog that P. Schuyler Miller would occasionally have wrap-ups, maybe annual "best-of-the-year" columns, and so he would have duplicate titles under his summary page. Hopefully, no editor takes it upon himself to merge those records, when an unsuspecting moderator is onboard. Look at his duplicate title page and you'll see hundreds of titles that he reviewed twice, thrice, or more times.

The only way I can see to keep moderators from accepting such submissions is to ask that they insist on primary verification first. Even collections of reviews may contain reviews that are expanded or abridged sufficiently enough that they should be kept as separate records. It all comes down to moderator diligence and heaven knows we have enough on our plates as is. Mhhutchins 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should take it a step further back and exclude REVIEWs from "Check for Duplicate Titles"? I've been meaning to look at that for some time anyway as we seem to have problems with Variants being missed. BLongley 06:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes! That would solve the problem entirely. An editor would have to know that two reviews are the same before attempting to merge them. I live that. Mhhutchins 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, change submitted for consideration. BLongley 17:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten this conversation. Ahasuerus seem to have agreed with us and put it live. And of course, someone came along and made it less desirable - Peter Klancic will need a bit more guidance on "Imports", I think. But he's doing good work on spotting the differences in US/UK magazines - I have very few, bur understand that sometimes a content title was removed or replaced for copyright reasons, and covers were repainted, etc. I haven't dared merge INTERIORART stuff, but REVIEWS may be safer. BLongley 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wilbert Wadleigh

Did you mean to let Dirk change the canonical name to just "Wilbert"? It looks a bit odd to me, but maybe you've discussed it with him? BLongley 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My screw-up. I thought he only added a legalname, and didn't see he'd changed the canonical name as well. I'll let him know what he did and apologize for accepting the bad submission. Thanks for catching this. Mhhutchins 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

From Babel's Fall'n Glory We Fled

I don't know the exact english usage, but shouldn't Swanwick's story in this pub, have "..." (or ". . .") at the end of its title (as per title page and TOC) ? And shouldn't it become the canonocal title? Hauck 17:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should have an ellipsis. I've corrected the listing and made it into the canonical title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, February 2008

Added Utley's cartoon on page 85 (as interior art) as it seems to be separate from Kessel's story (it's not present in Foundation #100). Hauck 17:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I never saw that, and would have overlooked it ten more times. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast - New Preface

Could you please check your copy of Screwtape to see if the new preface in your edition is explicitly dated as '1962'. I imagine it would have appeared in the original 1961 edition. I also have a 'new' undated preface in a different edition but my overall publication is copyright 1961. I would like to change the title and date of Author's Preface, 1962 (The Screwtape Letters & Screwtape Proposes a Toast) to call out 1961. - Thanks Kevin 17:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be the same preface as yours, but it's exactly titled "Author's Preface, 1962" in the publication. Please don't change either the date or the title. I found this 1962 American edition that is copyrighted 1961. Perhaps this is why Time dated it 1962. The preface starts "It was during the second German War..." and ends 8+ pages later with "...and that pressed the trigger." If that matches yours, make mine a variant of your parent title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It matches. Thanks for checking! Kevin 23:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, March 2008

Added cartoon on page 113 for your verified pub, don't know if the title (I've put the entire caption) suits you. Hauck 17:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Usual format is Cartoon: "[caption]". I don't know if it's stated policy, but with 2049 search matches it's the defacto standard. Mhhutchins 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hauck 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Twisted Legends

Good spot on seeing what was wrong. I find Pill Hill Press one of the most annoying publishers out there. :-/ BLongley 02:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my usual practice to be extremely meticulous in moderating a first-time submission. In this case, just checking the ISBN on Amazon told me everything I need to know, and from there OCLC did the rest. I've not had any experience with Pill Hill. What is your issue(s) with their publications? Mhhutchins 02:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly that they don't publish lists of Contents - and they do a LOT of Anthologies. BLongley 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, April-May 2008

Added cartoon on page 11 of your verified here. Hauck 14:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, August 2008

Changed the title of Landis' poem from _Landscape_ to _Landscapes_ as per title page and TOC for your verified here.Hauck 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, July 2009

Added poem on page 71 to your verified here. Hauck 15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tilde key broken?

You've welcomed User talk:Cinemabon, User talk:M I GOFF and User talk:Wyldkatt but haven't left a signature. BLongley 22:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I could have done that once, much less three times! Maybe it's a good thing that I don't identify myself to new editors considering the outcome of this exchange. I'm strongly considering dropping moderation of any submission not my own. Maybe I'm lacking in "people skills" (as a director of human resources might call it.) I'm still baffled by the strong reaction to my message. Perhaps I'm missing comprehension skills as well. What's even stranger is that I've moderated more than 50,000 submissions by other editors, and have suddenly turned "rude". Mhhutchins 02:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if you've been doing it for some time: see also User talk:Kilshaw, User talk:AndrewsTR, User talk:Merlene, User talk:Waldstein, User talk:Reanimus, User talk:Steph-osborn, User talk:Brickmarlin, User talk:Enslavedtobooks, User talk:Wayneborean, User talk:Ivorwriter, User talk:Gw3 and User talk:Nick45wood. You've usually followed-up with a signed message though. BLongley 18:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Emil, I can't understand his reaction. Your "tone" with him doesn't seem any different to most of your other first comments to people - I guess he's just over-sensitive. BLongley 18:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy UK Advice -

I've got 16 Galaxy UK to Add. From the look of it the only differences are the cover showing s/d and publisher. Some might be out by a month on the US date. I can't duplicate the magazine - what is the best way to progress? PeterKlancic 10:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proceed to enter the header information (all but the contents), and then later I can show you how to import the contents from the US editions. There appears to be two UK issues already in the db: January 1953 and May 1958. Mhhutchins 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, February 1978

It turns out that Nate Bucklin in your verified Science Fiction Review, February 1978 is better known as Nathan A. Bucklin, so I have set up a VT. Ahasuerus 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Locus, #559 August 2007

When you get a chance, could you please check whether L. E. Modesitt, Jr. is credited as L. E. Modesitt in your verified Locus, #559 August 2007? TIA! Ahasuerus 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. I create a pseudonym and variant record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Error? correcton or Note?

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?58767

In the above - I have just entered the UK version.

Contents page match with US version, "Dark, Dark, the Dead Star" but actually starts on p135. I assume this is true for the US issue, but have not modified it.

(I've put in the moderator note - but left it at that.) PeterKlancic 16:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error. The story starts on page 135. I'll correct the error. Mhhutchins 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me...

... or is there really a more positive feel about here recently? Astral, Qshadow and Grymsayre seem to actually appreciate us! :-) BLongley 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We do appreciate you and your help / feedback guys! At least I feel that despite my occasional mistakes, the guidance and attitude are very positive :) Qshadow 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes it gets a bit stressful moderating a new editor's submissions, so it's good when they can talk about stuff. And often a new editor shows us where we're going wrong with Help Pages and such. Please carry on editing! BLongley 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I feel it as well. I've been trying to be more positive after the reaction I got a few weeks ago from a new editor. It's still rather challenging to work with them, but it helps a lot if they're open to suggestions, which these editors have been. Mhhutchins 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a two way street. New/enthusiastic contributors recharge our batteries :) Ahasuerus 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Plato edit

I think I know the reason you are holding my Plato edit, you do not know what to do with his birth day, being 424BC and thus negative value :) There is not even one author in our db which is that old :))) Well, if it makes a lot of trouble I can cancel the submission. Qshadow 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all a bit wary about such dates. MySQL is one of the few DB systems that can cope with unknown Months and Days, but negative Years might be a problem. I'm not sure it's worth our developer's time to fix that just yet, so using the Biography Wiki page might be a better bet in the short term. BLongley 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I was holding it because I'm not sure how the system would handle it. I'll approve it and see how it's displayed. Mhhutchins 01:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you can see here: Plato, it didn't work. The other three submissions being held, Pat Frank, Ed Earl Repp, and Oscar J. Friend change the birthdates (by exactly one year) that are recorded in R. Reginald's definitive volume Contemporary Science Fiction Authors II. I see that the dates you're giving conform with Wikipedia, but Reginald's sources, for the most part, are questionnaires that the authors themselves completed (only Frank had died when the book was compiled.) I'm going to create or record on each author's Bio page the discrepancies, but keep the Reginald dates until they're proven wrong. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bio pages for the three authors were created, noting the discrepancies between Wikipedia and Reginald. The submissions were rejected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, actually I would not have done the edits if I had known that the dates have real source and not just mistakes. It would be great if we could provide source link for all the data. For example sometimes I change the date and take it from some source that I am not sure you will be able to find to double check my submission. I understand of course that such change is too difficult for the current implementation. Qshadow 08:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no way of knowing for sure which source (Reginald or Wikipedia) is correct. They're both simply sources and I noted that. There is a way to record a source or even link to it: on the author's Bio page (and if it doesn't exist, create one, like I did in the case of the three authors I noted above.) 08:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I will use the bio for all source references. Qshadow 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Mod

I've added one more type at Qshadow's request - it doesn't seem to clash with the other outstanding changes. Please do point out where any more Mod Notes will be of use and I'll look into it, but I'm reluctant to add clashing changes until we catch up a bit. Also, where something really needs notes or web-pages but we don't have that ability at that level yet. I think I can still cope with remembering what changes I've made but not submitted yet, but it does rather depend on whether Ahasuerus needs to improve/fix something I've submitted. BLongley 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, did you notice that he passed the removal of Reviews from "Check for Duplicate Titles" results? I don't know if the reduction in attempts to merge such is down to the code change or your advice to the editors doing it. BLongley 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was prompted by a couple of rejected submissions and messages I'd left to the editor(s). Mhhutchins 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a bit of each then. Peter Klancic's new UK editions of magazines made me wonder whether the change was wise - there will be merges needed there. Or maybe we should allow cloning of Magazines. BLongley 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice my subsequent response to Qshadow and other messages left on some new editors' talk pages about the use of the "Note to the Moderator" field. It seems to me that most new editors truly misunderstand the purpose of the field and want to use it to add notes about the publication, instead of notes about the submission. Other than notifying each of them about the purpose of the field, can you think of some better way of doing it? Mhhutchins 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think some of my original example screens had "Note to Moderator: (WILL NOT BE SAVED!)" as the field label, which might reduce the problem? BLongley 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The other recent change that seems commonly misunderstood is "Pub. Series" and "Pub. Series #" - I think it's a bug that you can enter one without the other, but people do keep using it for Title Series. On totally New Publications, Ahasuerus has recently added the ability to record Title-level things like "Synopsis" and "Wikipedia Link" so we could try and offer both options in that case, which might make people stop and think "What's the difference?" and make them read the help. Although having said that, I'm not sure our help pages are keeping up with the software changes - we either update the help before the software changes, or try to remember to update the help as soon as the software goes live. BLongley 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure many of the changes and additional features of the last year or so are not fully documented in the Help pages. It's got to the point now that I'm having to go one by one over EVERY field for new editors. Almost every one of them make submissions before reading the help documents. We can't make them, and it seems like once they've learned how to submit, through trial and error, they're not going to go back to the help. It seems like the help is there so that we (the mods) can justify the changes we're making, and teaching new editors the rules as they go along. And to be honest, that's how I learned myself. I tried updating the documentation several years back but hit a brick wall when it came to discussions on the Rules & Standards page that it left a bad feeling about the whole situation. Most of those editors are gone now, but I still don't have enough ambition to start again, even with the non-controversial areas or just explaining the new features and how they work. Heaven help us when it comes to explaining the procedure for entering foreign language pubs when that feature becomes fully implemented. Mhhutchins 01:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's going to be an awkward one. Well, actually not the worst - foreign language shortfiction variants, and translator support is going to be even harder to explain. :-/ I'm trying to resist making any more big changes until Ahasuerus catches up a bit, but I have plans for "Unmerge Foreign Titles" and "adding translator" that I can already consider the future help pages for. We probably ought to spend the time waiting for Ahasuerus to catch up on code changes to fix some help pages - but when we do, it's not going to get pushed out to existing editors that have already read their Welcome message. There's some opportunities for mass update scripts still as well - have you noticed that Title Merges now either get everything BUT title language defaulted right, or get all but that wrong? I'm tempted to ask for all un-languaged titles to get defaulted to English for now. BLongley 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also come to the conclusion that the DO NOT DELETE note about the BioHeader and AuthorHeader template just isn't working. Other than a few of the regular editors, NOT ONE new editor has left it intact. I try to fix them when I can, but have come to the conclusion that there must be a better way of stopping them. How about {{BioHeader}} <!-- DO NOT DELETE THIS HEADER. ADD TEXT BELOW. --> Mhhutchins 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the things you can try out without a coder. You can change the text on Template:BioHeader/preload or Template:AuthorHeader/preload yourself. (They look a bit unnatural, but if you edit either of those pages you'll see the raw wiki-code inserted into the default pages.) I can't test those offline for you so be careful - keep them protected to Mod-Only if you want to try improved text. BLongley 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the text for both preloads. We'll just have to wait to see if it works. If not, I'll try to tweak it, maybe even ask those who delete it what would have stopped them from doing it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I created a few more, but they're so long ago I can't recall which, and I'm lousy at Wiki searches for such. I think Series and Publisher headers were a couple more that you might find need fixing. Let me know how the Speaking-to-Editors improvements work out. BLongley 01:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I found out you can inadvertently delete the header if you're are not signed in to edit the Bio page. Once you sign in, the header disappears and you're presented with a blank page. Now when I make entries, I sign in then page back and relink to edit the Bio.--Rkihara 03:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hesse / Die Morgenlandfahrt

Hi, just giving you some background on the above submission, which I see you have on hold at the moment. It's the original German publication of the title 'Journey to the East', one of Hesse's spec-fic titles. I realise I'm perhaps getting a little ahead of myself by creating a record for the German first edition from incomplete info available from Wikipedia while not really knowing if this is the correct thing to do and with the intention of adding an English language edition/variant title later. Or is that not quite how things are done? I don't mind making mistakes if I learn from them, but I hope I don't also cause headaches for the mods. Thanks. PeteYoung 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I was holding the submission was to determine whether it should be entered as a CHAPTERBOOK type instead of a NOVEL. According to the Wikipedia article it's a "short novel". According to the OCLC record, it was only 112 pages. If we determine that the content story is a novella (a SHORTFICTION type), the container record would be CHAPTERBOOK type. The latest publication of A Journey to the East is only 93 pages. I think I'll just let it stand as a NOVEL and accept the submission. Please keep in mind, that when you're not working from a copy of the book itself, you must record the source of your data in the record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SFBC note

Just found an SFBC edition of [this] and taped to the FEP was the original Things To Come flyer, helpful for the price but it contradicted the month in the record. For later years when there were multiple selections for any given month this wouldn't have given me pause, but in '54 there was only one selection per month and the flyer [for both Aug/Sept selections] would leave a hole for July [the current month listed for the Pangborn edition in the SFBC pages]. Suggestions? Secondary note: the store I bought the book at has another edition which also has the original flyer taped inside [also from the early 50s], which I will likely go back and buy this weekend. I have no interest in the flyers other than the data given. Do you want them? --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The bigger question is how could Tuck be so wrong? His list of SFBC selections (my source for those years) clearly gives this title as July. Even my source for some of the later years (the lists that SFBC editor Andrew Wheeler provided to the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup) gives the same month. What title does the flyer state is the September selection? Perhaps the dating of the announcement and date of delivery differ. Maybe the announcement August selection arrived in July? I'm clutching at straws here. (Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass on the flyers.) Mhhutchins 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The flyer has "Your August Selection" for the Pangborn on the first and second page, gives both publisher and SFBC prices. Then pages 3/4 has "Your September Selection" which was The Best from Fantasy and Science Fiction: Third Series with description/contents and prices. That's the totality of the flyer. I should mention [now that I've actually looked at all the pages, that this particular flyer is for the SFBC of Canada. Perhaps the whole process was delayed a month here at that time? Only way to know would be to see a flyer from the US. Prices given reflect the US publisher price [Tuck notes the Canadian edition was $3.25]. The record had $1.15 but the price for SFBC editions was definitely $1.10 in '54. Perhaps the record should be reverted to July with a note that it may have been offered in Canada a month later? That would bring the current oddities together until better data is obtained? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the fact that it's the Canada flyer is the reason for the month's discrepancy. And the $3.25 that Tuck gives is for the trade edition, not the SFBC of Canada price. This is the first I've ever heard of that club. He doesn't give any price for the SFBC edition, in the author's listing itself. The $1.15 price comes from page 911 when he states "...then $1.15 in 1954..." in the Science Fiction Book Club article. I think the date for the record should be reverted to the original one. Mhhutchins 04:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. The Canadian 'arm' of the SFBC just recently went defunct, mostly due to extremely excessive shipping charges by the Canadian Post Office [we don't have Media Mail; costs less to get a book from the UK than from across the street!!]. And yes, I knew the price was for the trade edition. The $1.15 could be from late '54? --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I sounding snarky tonight?

If so, please let me know. I don't want to bring us all down, I like it when we're all getting on. BLongley 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a hint of it here and there, but I find I'm guilty of that myself. We're only human and sometimes the snarky slips out without us knowing. My trouble is that I'm very direct and that has a tendency to come off as being critical. My one defense is that I never do it intentionally, but sometimes that's not so soothing to an editor that feels he's being attacked. I try to include something positive when I approach others, but sometimes even that doesn't help. In cases where there's no clear line about what's right and what's wrong I have the most trouble, but when I'm sure of what I'm saying, I can be downright insufferable. Just stepping away for a few days helps me a lot. Harmony and peace is fine for the most part, but have you ever seen The Third Man? Mhhutchins 01:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You've just reminded me that I need to sort out an audio cable from my PC to the new(ish) monitor - I'm sure my neighbours appreciate the quieter nights, but sometimes I feel I'm missing out. For now, just assume I haven't seen "The Third Man". BLongley 01:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Still, you and I have managed to get on for well over four years now, so we must have some diplomacy skills, even if we've scared off people like DES and Harry in the meantime. And Ahasuerus still puts up with us too! :-) BLongley 01:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment.

Here's the quote from The Third Man (spoken by Harry Lime who it turns out is a black marketeer, and may have been responsible for the deaths of innocent people from tainted penicillin.) "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Mhhutchins 01:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did love my cuckoo clock when I was about seven years old... and I still don't really appreciate Michelangelo. (Too religious for me, I suspect.) And the only Leonardo da Vinci I really like is a parody where someone took his Mirror-Writing and sketches of helicopters and created a picture of NCC-1701 with added notes. :-) BLongley 03:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, please keep checking on me - when I'm lost for an interesting project I check on what other people are doing. Hopefully I'm encouraging rather than denigrating, but without someone else actively checking I sometimes don't know how it's coming across. BLongley 03:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Prosser vs Prossner

Could you check spelling of the name of the reviewed author of Masques in your verified pub. I believe it should be Prosser not Prossner. Thanks.--Rkihara 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It should be Prossner. It's been corrected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Novels and Collections

I saw your note on Nimravus' talk page, and I have a question for you that I didn't want to bring up and detract from your point. In the past, I have read the OMNIBUS section of Help:Screen:EditPub#PubType as indicating Collection could still be used, even if one of the entries is a Novel -- as long as that novel hasn't been published standalone. Is that not the case? (Now I'm wondering if I went and did that somewhere...). --MartyD 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular part of the help has so many loopholes that it's fairly useless, IMHO. With all the hemming and hawing it looks like the writer was trying to satisfy both sides of the argument, and effectively nullifed any clear stance on the issue. Looking at the book that brought up the issue, I would be hard pressed to call "The Mouser Goes Below" a novel, regardless of the publisher's blurb. You may not have been around when there was heavy discussion about this issue, but I can tell you, it wasn't pretty. Until we start doing word counts, which I can't see anyone wanting to do, we have to rely on the presentation of the story. In my mind, again just my opinion, a novel is not defined by its length. There are records in the database that I believe are mistyped, but I'm not going to make wholesale changes based on that opinion. Having said that, I have made some changes. For example: Gene Wolfe's The Fifth Head of Cerberus was originally typed as a collection, and I fought to have it changed to a novel. I would argue the same case that Stephen King's Hearts in Atlantis is also a novel, but its many award nominations as a collection provide a strong defense against my argument. I'd even go so far to say that Asimov's Foundation is a fix-up novel and not a collection, and it was a novel when I verified my copy. But some editor went through and changed them all to collections, even adding contents. And incorrectly at that: I just checked out the first edition and see it has the four original stories with the original titles and without the first of the five parts. (This is how it should be, if you wanted to make it into a collection.)

Sorry, I think I've gone off on a tangent. My point is, until we start counting words, we have to use our judgement to determine how a work should be typed. Back to your original question (finally, sorry): I can see there may be instances where a novel might be included in an anthology, without typing it as an omnibus. I've even done it myself (for example, a reprint anthology: here and an original anthology: here). But in single author collections where the story appears for the first time, I would not want to type the story as a novel or the book as an omnibus. Take the example I gave to the submitter: I don't think anyone, even bibliographers, would consider Stephen King's "The Langoliers" or "The Library Policemen" as novels, but both are longer than Carrie. It's all about perspective, and how each work is approached. Mhhutchins 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One more declaration to make: My name is Michael, and I am a bookist. Mhhutchins 04:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Michael, and welcome. Happy to have provided the opportunity for theraphy. ;-) I'm afraid I missed out on what I'm sure was an enlightening and highly fruitful discussion (drat!), but I guess I'd be firmly in the bookist camp.... Thanks for the explanation. --MartyD 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a survivor of the Bookist/Lengthist wars (I might even have invented those names). The sordid history is still there in the Archives somewhere, but I don't want to revive it. Re-enabling Chap(ter)books at the end of 2009 has stopped most of the arguments (although not the one about whether it's CHAPBOOK or CHAPTERBOOK). I think the Lengthists are on the losing side - we're letting them count 40k and above as Novels, whereas you have to do 50K for NaNoWrimo nowadays. But so long as we don't kill each other or quit in disgust, we'll get by. I dislike what we've done with "The Trouble with Tycho" and "Times Without Number" but apparently my time at the Klingon Diplomatic Corps didn't take, and we muddle by. BLongley 02:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Bill. It was you who gave a name to each camp, even while we were choosing sides. And you're right about how the software change that created CHAPTERBOOKs pretty much settled the issue. I'd never heard of NaNoWrimo, so I had to google it. Mhhutchins 02:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarion II

I added the artist (Gene Szafran) and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Bishop's "Cutouts"

You (presumably) have a Michael Bishop story "Cutouts" listed as appearing in the ReaderCon 5 Program Book. However, it is not listed as such in the book. Instead, it is titled "Her Smoke Rose Up Forever", and in the notes preceding the story he writes:

Let me quickly add that despite its new title, "Her Smoke Rose Up Forever" (aka "Cutouts") isn't much like any James Tiptree, Jr., story ever published ...

So this should be treated as a variant title for "Cutouts", except that "Cutouts" per se was never published under that title in anything else included in the ISFDB. So I fear that when I submit the contents for the Readercon 5 Program Book, the information you have listed for "Cutouts" will disappear, and of course I won't be able to create a VT to it. I suspect you would like to intervene in that process, and I'm adding a note to my (soon-to-submit) Readercon 5 PubUpdate that you should be the moderator for that submission. Chavey 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Choose "Remove Titles from This Pub" while on this pub record. Click on "Cutouts". In a separate submission, add "Her Smoke Rose Up Forever" as a content record (which I'm assuming you're doing in a record update as I type). After the pub update, go the title record for "Her Smoke Rose Up Forever" and choose "Make This Title A Variant Title..." and place 1022540 in the Parent # field and then submit. That should clear up everything. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A side note: I hope you're able to upload a cover scan of this program. I've never seen a copy of it and would like to steal your scan for my MB bibliography. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I included the cover, but I have a higher resolution scan of the cover if you wish; I had to shrink it to accommodate ISFDB standards. Chavey 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see your submission. I wish you would have waited just a little bit longer for my instructions. You overwrote the record for "Cutouts" by changing it into an interiorart record of Powers. That's something you should never do (overwrite records). They should be removed from the record (as in the instructions I gave you above.) Because you added so much more new material I can't reject the submission, which would require you to enter them all again. I'll accept it and do the steps require to fix the situation with "Cutouts". Mhhutchins 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the record you overwrote to see what happens. Mhhutchins 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't seen it; I have fixed it. And I'll try to avoid that particular error in the future, now that I understand a bit more about how contents are processed. Chavey 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if our coding and practices don't match

We do get things like "Bibliographic Warnings: Missing ISBN/Catalog #" when ISSNs are missing. I'll look into that, but as you know, there's a bit of a backlog on new changes, and I don't think anyone has actually requested such a fix. In your "copious free time (TM)" can you have a look at why people still want such, and I'll use MY "copious free time (TM)" to see if I can fix it? We probably need a fundraiser to make sure Ahasuerus has "copious free time (TM)" too, but if people want to fund his retirement I could probably do with the same myself. :-/ BLongley 02:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the ISSNs, it was determined quite awhile back, maybe a couple of years ago, that they should not go in the ISBN/Catalog # field. Mhhutchins 02:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the discussions that made ISSNs in Publications less desirable. And I have no problem with that decision, I'm not a magazine expert (or even a Fanzine one, although the Stableford collection sometimes makes me work harder than I really want to.) BLongley 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find the Bibliographic Warnings only slightly disconcerting. Maybe I'm so used to them that I don't even notice them anymore. Perhaps new users see it and think of them as errors that should be "fixed". Mhhutchins 02:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's my worry. You and I are just too experienced. I try and step back and consider other people's points-of-view at times. I usually fail, particularly when the decision is that the user needs more education. (If it's our CODE that needs improving, I'm better at that.) BLongley 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about them, I don't even see much value in the Warnings at all. (Maybe that's why I pay them no attention?) I see that that particular warning no longer appears on records for publication pre-1951. I'd go so far as to change it so that the warning would not appear on any publication record before 1970, approximately the time when many publishers were switching over to ISBNs. I'm unsure what you mean by "can you have a look at why people still want such". Are you referring to the bibliographic warnings or the need to fill in the ISBN field? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're doing better at speaking-to-editors than I am. :-/ I know you don't feel techy enough to put all your suggestions forward on Sourceforge, and I'm happy to transfer bug reports and improvement requests over. If you can find out why people are doing undesirable things that may be traceable to bad or out-of-date help, which is fixable without me or Ahasuerus, that's good. Of course, there's no obligation on you or I or Ahasuerus to do such, and it might be interesting to see how ISFDB works without us for a while. We do have OTHER moderators available, don't we? BLongley 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting approach. It never occurred to me to ask new editors why they chose to do things contrary to ISFDB standards on their first submissions. For example, almost everyone uses the full "trade paperback" in the pub format field, or place title series into the pub series field. Almost all of them get the dating format right which is strange because the dating is not very intuitive. HOLD THE NOTE. I just did a test and realized that the system automatically corrected the date if only the year was entered. If it's entered 01-01-2000 then the system defaults to 0000-00-00. Is there some kind of way to have the system do more of these "corrections"? If someone enters "trade paperback" can the system change it to "tp" without any trouble? Even better, why can't that field just be a drop-down menu giving the only available choices? (I think this was dropped during discussions years ago because there were too many formats.) Mhhutchins 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's 222 different bindings currently, a bit much for a drop down. I know a lot are in error, e.g. "£7.99" is obviously a price in the wrong field, but we could indeed auto-correct a lot of the commonest mistakes. BLongley 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this idea: When a new editor makes their first submission of any of the 8 different "New" pubs, is it possible that there be a flashing message on the screen that asks if they'd read this help page? After the first, say, 25 submissions, the warning is removed. We can't depend on them reading their welcome message on their talk page (much less their talk page!) At least, this method gives them a link and says, "Hey...slow down. Check this out." Remember a few weeks back when Astral made dozens of submissions in a surprisingly short time, most of which had several issues that would not have happened if we'd been able to communicate with him before the onslaught. It took me a week a fix them all. (And he's since disappeared, alas. I hope not for good.) Mhhutchins 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We did add the "Your submission must be approved by a moderator before it enters the database" warning message with link to Talk-Page sometime ago, so we could add to or improve that message. BLongley 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about the message to new editors. How long does it last? And how prominently is it displayed? A link to the particular help page that I cited would really help as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's quite a big warning: see [1]. I believe Ahasuerus changed my code so that the warning disappears after 100 submissions - that may be a bit high, there's less than 100 of us that have lasted that long. BLongley 17:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty big. Maybe the second line could be a bit more prominent, and adding a line like this wouldn't hurt:

Before submitting, it is strongly advised that you read this help page for adding new publications: http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub.

Another thing: this should pop up when new editors click on "Add New...", not after they've made the submission. (Talk about closing the barn door.) At the bottom there can be a link to proceed on to the entry form. Mhhutchins 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a bit of advice on that page already: but it could be made bigger/clearer. There's still some language support improvements waiting to go in on that page though, so I'm reluctant to add more complexity till Ahasuerus begins to catch up a bit. BLongley 18:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Shapes of Things to Come

John F. Carr asked me why his short story Shapes of Things to Come in your verified The Endless Frontier, Vol. II is listed as an essay. He wrote me:

Yes, I saw it as an essay, which is weird since I never did any essays for the Pournelle collections -- that was Jerry's job. "Shapes of Things to Come" is a short story in the Crying Clown Cycle -- another of my series.

Can you change it to Short Fiction, or is there a reason it's listed as an Essay? Thanks :) AndonSage 01:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That was how the piece was originally entered. It appears to perpetuate an error from Locus1. When I verified the pub, I failed to catch the error. It's been corrected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Waiting to hear from you...

I responded to you on my talk page, just waiting to hear from you before I do anything else. AndonSage 03:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dan Girard vs. Dian Girard

A question has arisen regarding the correct attribution for the author of "No Home-Like Place" in your verified copy of Laughing Space, specifically whether the author is listed as "Dan Girard" or "Dian Girard". Could you check on this please? Thanks, Chavey 03:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My record is correctly credited to Dian Girard. I've just explained it on your talk page before seeing that you'd posted this. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was thinking that maybe I should let that post simmer for a bit before actually asking the verifiers for info, and I realize now that this was the correct instinct. Chavey 13:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Astron del Martia

Hi you marked Astron del Martia under strike, in our SFDB:Data_Consistency/Pseudonyms_With_Titles, is this because he is joint pseudonym? or is it an error? I still do not firmly understand when do we move titles from pseudonyms and when not, I thought that pseudonyms should always be without titles on their pages. for example Quinn Fawcett, is like this and I think it is a joint ps too. Regards, Qshadow 16:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It was struck without being fixed. Now it's fixed (title assigned to John Russell Fearn, based on Tuck). Your belief that "pseudonyms should always be without titles on their pages" is true up to the point that we don't know the name of the title's canonical author. The trouble with joint (house) pseudonyms is that quite often there will be titles that have not been assigned to any author. In other words, we don't know who actually wrote the story/novel. Some magazine editors dealt with this by making "unknown" one of the canonical authors of the pseudonym, and making variants of the records with "unknown" as the author of the parent title. I'm not aware whether this procedure is an ISFDB standard, but it's the only way to remove all titles from a pseudonymous author's page. Some editors have shown a dislike of this procedure as it hides a title on a very long page of titles. I tend to agree. Mhhutchins 17:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "unknown" either when it's only a matter of time before the true author will become clear - e.g. Erin Hunter will doubtless become clearer soon. (Though why someone has let a manga series in there I don't know.) The risk with this project is that people will try and clear a pseudonym's page without enough evidence for each title - the clean-up rate on some sections looks suspiciously high to me. :-/ BLongley 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Erin Hunter has become clearer. Whoever it is that maintains the Erin Hunter "Warriors" Wikipedia page is very good about getting the actual authors for all of the novels and upcoming novels; I've noticed this with that page before. I agree with you about the manga, and have submitted deletes for the two manga books that managed to sneak in. One problem with "Erin Hunter" is the horror short story by "Erin Hunter", which appears not to be connected at all to the Erin Hunter house pseudonym. It's got nothing to do with that universe; it's not the same genre of spec fic; it can't possibly be the same author. I'm going to write to the editor of the Erin Hunter "Warriors" series to verify that, but I'm sure enough of the difference that I've already separated that author out. If Victoria Holmes ever writes back to me (somewhat doubtful), I'll document her response in the appropriate "Biographical Notes". Chavey 03:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks for checking! It's painfully difficult to check sources here when we have so many titles and pubs: and it can only get harder. :-/ A good editor like you is a breath of fresh air. BLongley 03:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Space Viking Series

I'm wondering what is the ISFDB policy for numbering books in a series? John F. Carr is writing books that continue H. Beam Piper's Space Viking, the first of which, The Last Space Viking, is already out. This was John's reply when I asked him about The Last Space Viking being part of a "Space Vikings" series:

"Yes, the new Space Viking books are part of the "Space Viking" series, although I plan to write "Space Vikings' Revenge" (#2), "Return of Space Viking" (#3), "The Last Space Viking" (#4) and "Space Viking's Throne" (#5). I'm writing them out of order, but this is their real ranking."

Based on some other series I've seen here, I'm pretty sure it's ok to number books in a series based on chronological reading order, but I just wanted to make sure before I start making edits. Thanks :) AndonSage 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's OK to ask ALL moderators rather than picking on one, however helpful he's been. ;-) BLongley 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't really have a policy on series numbering, although it's good to know the reasons behind whatever we do go with. For instance, All those Narnia Books. Or The Man from UNCLE. We can't (yet - maybe) put one title into different series, and even enabling "publication series" seems to have caused almost as much hassle as it solved. :-( Still, we've now got Sub-Series Ordering enabled, so things may improve a bit. BLongley 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bill, I just got used to talking with Michael about all this John F. Carr stuff :) I'm glad we can number the books the way an author prefers. BTW, when you refer to Sub-Series Ordering, do you mean like we have with the "War World" and "War World Central" sub-series? AndonSage 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It may not look like it sometimes, but I occasionally have a life outside the ISFDB. So it might be best to ask such questions at the help desk, just in case it's a day I'm away from the computer (those days don't come very often, I'm afraid.) Still, I appreciate your confidence in my being able to help you.

About series numbering, to go along with what Bill said, there's nothing that prevents an editor from placing any number, or, for that fact, any series name to any title record in the database. When a series is published out of chronological sequence, it's a good idea to record that on the Series Bibliographic Comment page, so that later editors don't try to "fix" the order. We don't have a "Space Viking" series yet, but when you create it, you'll find a link labeled "Add new Series comment" after Bibliographic Comments. Just click on it and record the reasons why the book numbering isn't sequential.

Sub-Series Ordering refers to the numbering of series that all have the same parent series. Because "War World Central" is the only sub-series under "War World" you don't have to number it. If there is ever another series under "War World", you can then number the two sub-series to determine how they're displayed. It has nothing to do with the order of publication or chronology of the story. It's just a matter of how you want each to be displayed under the parent ("War World") series page. Mhhutchins 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added bibliographic comments for the Space Vikings series, if you want to check it out. AndonSage 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. Mhhutchins 23:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're definitely getting you there, you're doing well! (And I'm fine if you credit Michael for such rather than any of the other Moderators - we all have our own specialities and/or times-available.) BLongley 00:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)