ISFDB:Help desk/archives/archive 11

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page for the Help Desk. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from November - December 2009.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Help desk.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35

Expanded archive listing

Existing author name used as pseudonym

The story Reflected Light in the Steampunk Anthology is actually by Rachel E. Pollock, not 'Rachel E. Pollack' as given. However, the author name was apparently (see [1]) misprinted as 'Rachel Pollack' in the publication, who is actually a different author [2]. How is such a case handled? Using the existing author as pseudonym for 'Rachel E. Pollock' doesn't seem to be right, so I guess something like 'Rachel Pollock (Pseudonym)' would have to be created in order to distinguish between the two? Thanks -Fsfo 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the listing in this anthology to match the OCLC record, which gives the credit to "Rachel E. Pollock". If someone should come along with a printing that credits "Rachel Pollack", we can create a variant of the title, without creating a pseudonym. Until then, let sleeping dogs lie. :) MHHutchins 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Kosterman vs Klosterman

Does anyone know if Kosterman here is a variant or typo of Kosterman ? Jonschaper 01:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Locus Index for 2002 (here), it should be "Klosterman". I've corrected the entry. Thanks for finding the error. MHHutchins 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

William Beckford's Vathek

I am currently working on this pub, which is under a different title than appears on its title page. I already submitted an edit from its parent title, but I believe I made a mistake. I unmerged it from its ultimate canonical title rather than from the variant title where it occurred. Now I find that the publication has what I think are two title records. A newly created one, as a result of the unmerge from the canonical, and another referring to the variant title from which it has not yet been unmerged. I'm hoping that I haven't made too large a mess here and want to ask how I should proceed to fix this. I expect that I should "Remove Titles From This Pub" to delete one of the title records, presumably the variant title. I don't think re-merging with the canonical title would produce the results we want. I'm asking to ensure that I don't make things worse in attempting to fix my error. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe unmerging a pub will add an additional title record. It should merely create a new title record matching the title of the pub. Go ahead and do the "Remove Title" function, and we'll proceed from there. MHHutchins 07:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't remove the current container record. We can always edit that if it differs from the title on the book's title page. Then we'll make the variant (or merge if one already exists). MHHutchins 07:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Though it's difficult to tell which record I removed. I removed the regular title rather than the container. I should be able to figure out the remaining edits to be done. I just wanted to make sure I didn't create any hard to find orphan records. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of Compact Space

Some of C. J. Cherryh's Chanur novels contain a piece of interior art which is titled "Map of Compact Space". In the past, I have edited this pub that includes the artwork under the title Chanur's Venture (map). Yesterday I added a new pub, accidentally adding the map under the wrong title ("Chanur's Venture (map)"). Today, when I went about correcting the error and had a look at the artist David A. Cherry, I noticed that the same piece of interior art now exists as four distinct title records:

  1. Chanur's Venture (map)
  2. Chanur's Venture (map) (my erroneous title)
  3. Chanur's Homecoming (Map of Compact Space)
  4. Map of Compact Space.

Adhering to the obvious pattern, I would have to fix my error by renaming the wrong title to "The Chanur Saga (map)", because the interior art appears in an omnibus publication of that title. This strikes me as inelegant, especially seeing that I have another omnibus to enter, "Chanur's Endgame", which also contains the artwork, so I would have to create another title "Chanur's Endgame (map)".

To make a long story short :-) here are my questions:

  • Wouldn't it be better to merge all those titles that refer to the same piece of interior art into one, preferrably the "Map of Compact Space" title (#4 above)?
  • Would I have to make sure, somehow, that there are no differences between the different publications of the interior art? Suggestions how I could go about this? (I see no differences when comparing those pubs that I own, the oldest being from 1989, the newest from 2007)
  • About half a dozen primary verifiers are involved, is it enough to notify them on their talk page, or should I wait for their individual consent before proceeding with the actual editing?
  • Last but not least: The existing title records appear under three different years: 1985, 1986 and 1987. Which year would be the correct one for the merged title record?

Thanks for guidance. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're all exactly the same (and yes, you should be relatively certain that they are), there would be no problem merging all records to title #4, dated with the first year of publication. Because you're changing verified records, you should notify the verifiers. Just provide them with a link to this posting and ask that they give their input. It's unnecessary to repeat the detailed explanation that you give above. MHHutchins 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Done! After getting confirmation of the individual verifiers (here, here, here, here, here and here) that the illustration is indeed the same in all publications, the title records have been merged until only this one remains. For future comparison, an image of the illustration has been uploaded and is now available here. As none of the existing license templates was suitable for interior art images, a new license template had to be created. This was done by Marc Kupper, who despite his limited time has kindly helped me in this matter. Thanks a lot to Marc and all the people who have contributed to resolve this issue. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 10:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chanur's Homecoming (Excerpt)

This title is an excerpt of the novel "Chanur's Homecoming", and currently it appears in only one pub. The title record has a note saying it "originally appeared as chapter 12 of the novel of the same name." I have another pub that also contains an excerpt of "Chanur's Homecoming", but this time the excerpt has nothing to do with the novel's chapter 12. How should I go about recording this? I can't just add the title to my pub, the information thus recorded would not be true...

Since I don't like excerpts (they are nasty ads that disfigure my beautiful books) my personal preference would be to simply ignore it, but I strongly suspect that you won't let me get away with this :-) The other solution that I see is to move the "chapter 12" note from the title record to the pub record. The note then no longer applies to all publications of the title, so that I am now free to add the title to my own pub. What do you think of this? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the same feelings about these "excerpts" (read "promotional material") as you. I don't list them when entering books, and no one's commented about my failure to do so. (Maybe they don't know and I've now revealed more than I should!) The best solution you bring up is to retitle the one that is clearly designated as a complete chapter to "Chanur's Homecoming (Chapter 12)". When I've come across more than one excerpt from the same novel, I merge them if they're the same or, if different, I add a note to each title record that they are different excerpts with the warning: DO NOT MERGE. Thanks.
(Here's an example of what I've done when I am unable to compare the texts and am unsure if the the excerpts are the same: Dune (Excerpt) and Dune (Excerpt). This will prevent other editors from accidentally merging the two records.) MHHutchins 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing this to myself only because I try to follow the rules, and there is a note about excerpts on the EditPub help page. Personally, I don't see the wisdom of recording information about promotional material in a bibliographic project such as ISFDB, but I guess it depends on how strict one's point of view is. Anyway, since I brought this one up, I will follow it through to the end, but in the future I may silently ignore excerpts (or merely mention them in the notes) if this practice is not frowned upon (too much) by other editors. I will follow your advice to resolve the current issue: 1) Ask verifier if it's ok to retitle. 2) Retitle. 3) Add my own title record. Thanks very much for your help, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, excerpts aren't always promotional, they might be bonus material, e.g. Star Fleet Year One was only available that way for a while. And when it's an excerpt from a Collection, it could be considered a bonus short story, e.g. The Mayor of Mare Tranq. Often I'm only adding excerpts to explain a page-count. I do find excerpts counted as short stories in anthologies annoying though. BLongley 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding an issue number to the title

I will get entries for Tales of the Unanticipated up to date. TotU started its life as a magazine, published every 9 to 12 months. It is now a trade paperback anthology.

The titles have been entered as Tales of the Unanticipated, followed by the season(s) and year, such as "Tales of the Unanticipated, Winter/Spring/Summer 1995". It would help disambiguate them if each title contained an issue number, maybe such as "Tales of the Unanticipated #14, Winter/Spring/Summer 1995" (which was published December 1994).

Do you have any standard for issue numbers in titles? WXRock 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue numbers are only used in the title if the periodical is not dated. Months and seasons plus years are considered dates. The standard on the help page states:
The date part of a magazine title should be given after the title, following a comma and a space. The month should be given in full and then the year in full. If the issue is a quarterly, or a bimonthly, give the date in the form given on the magazine -- for example, "Fantastic Universe, June-July 1953" or "Interzone, Fall 1979". A hyphen should be used between two months used for a bimonthly issue. If the magazine has an overprinted date, then use the later date; this happened, for example, with some issues of the pulps, which were delayed in release and were overprinted with a later date to keep them on the newsstand for longer. If there is no apparent date, or the date is incomplete, a volume/issue number may be substituted. The date is always preferable, even if the magazine typically gives the issue number -- Interzone, for example, frequently quoted the issue number on the cover, only showing the date on the contents page.
Having the dates in the title sufficiently disambiguates each issue. Are there any particular issues that have duplicate titles? MHHutchins 06:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding or removing editors

Looking at Tales of the Unanticipated publications that have been entered, all of them list the editor-in-chief, but only one lists the poetry editor. I think they should be consistent. Should I remove Laurel Winter as editor on that one aberrant issue? Should I add the poetry editors on all the other issues? I know this isn't a policy question, but do you have an opinion on what's best? WXRock 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If Laurel Winter was not a co-editor with Heideman, then her credits should be removed from the editor record. If she were the poetry editor, she can be credited in the pub's note fields, but not in the editor fields. MHHutchins 06:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the co-editor, if you're referring to Tales of the Unanticipated, Fall/Winter/Spring 1997/1998. Notes still to be added, I presume? BLongley 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Notes or Where do I Put This?

I'm working on Tales of the Unanticipated. I have a web-accessible index. Would it be appropriate to include the URL in the notes? Like

I can also include a link in case someone wants to purchase a copy. Like The original publisher doesn't have them.

Or would there be a place to add the web site of the current publisher?

Also, I have scans of all the issue covers online. Should I refer to those URLS rather than upload the images? WXRock 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes, you can include the URL in the note field, even link it if you make sure it's proper HTML (otherwise the pub record may load incorrectly or not at all.
  2. Linking for commercial purposes is not a good idea.
  3. I see you've already discovered how to create a wiki page for the publisher, and placed a link to their website.
  4. Are the image files on your server, and are you authorized to give us explicit permission to deep-link to those files? (We will be pulling bandwidth from your server. Make sure you have that capability before linking even if you give us permission to do so.) Otherwise, just upload the images to our server. MHHutchins 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Now if only MnSTF would link to our site, people could FIND the back issues!
Our server is on DSL, so I guess I'd better upload the images. Thanks! WXRock 02:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Variant title / Pseudonym problem (The Congruent People, A. J. Budrys)

I am officially confused. The story The Congruent People, written by Algis Budrys, appears only in publications where it is listed under the pseudonym A. J. Budrys. I have edited ISFDB into a state which I believe properly reflects these facts. However:

  1. The title now no longer appears on the Algis Budrys bibliography page. This is certainly not what I had intended. The right thing would be for the story to appear in the same way as, for instance, the story "Firegod": It should be listed with the remark "[only as by A. J. Budrys ]".
  2. Publications that contain the story (e.g. this one) are listing it as by the pseudonym, while the canonical author name is nowhere mentioned. Again, this is not what I wanted to achieve. I would like the story to be listed with the remark "by Algis Budrys [as by A. J. Budrys ]"
  3. Another strange thing: On the Algis Budrys) bibliography page, I see many titles that are listed with the remark "[also as by A. J. Budrys ]", or "[only as by A. J. Budrys ]". However, the pseudonym bibliography page (A. J. Budrys) does not list those titles, it only lists "The Congruent People". Huh?

All this has got something to do with the way how variant titles and pseudonyms work, and which I don't seem to fully understand. A few enlightening words would be very appreciated by this bewildered soul. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 03:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That means that this title needs a (parent) variant, with "Algis Budrys" as the author. Titles that show up on the pseudonym's page do not have a parent under the canonical author. If there were already a "Congruent People" with Algis Budrys as the author, you'd make your title a variant of that. Since there is not, in the Make Variant page (go to your title and pick "Make this Title a Variant Work") use the section at the bottom to make a new parent. All you need to do there is change the "A. J." to "Algis", and you'll be all set. Once that is approved, the behavior will be as you expect. --MartyD 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Big question, easy solution. The joke is on me because the title that you mention was a variant and I edited away the variant's parent. I had assumed that it would not be necessary to keep the parent since the story had never been published under the author's canonical name. I now realize that this was a mistake - in my head I have started to use the expression "glue record", instead of parent title, because the parent title "glues" the variant title to the canonical author name. Thanks for the clue :-) Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Submission approved and every thing is now correct. Here's something to know, if you click onto a variant name and click "show all titles" in the tool bar it will display all the titles with that variant name only. This is quicker than scrolling down the main page of an author.Kraang 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, finally resolved, thanks. Also thanks for that pointer to the "show all titles" function, I hadn't known that yet. Is there a reason why all titles are not shown by default? Expensive database operation? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding author bios

We have bios for (almost) all the contributors to Tales of the Unanticipated. I was thinking of adding them where you have nothing. I add the bio, followed with the year the info was current, as in and . These came from the most recent issue containing a work by the author. I have already edited them to make them less specific to the issue, some but do still have TOTU-specific text. Like in . Would that be OK? WXRock 19:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

From our Policy Page: "When possible, the ISFDB will use biographies posted on Wikipedia. The ISFDB has a facility for adding a link to the Wikipedia article for each author from the author's database page. When such a biography is not available, a short, neutral, factual article, professional in tone, may be posted to a "Bio:" page. See Help:Contents/Purpose#Biographies for more on what is and is not appropriate in such articles." See also Help:Contents/Purpose#Biographies.--swfritter 21:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I might also note that it is possible to link to author websites from the author's Summary Bibliography page. See two such links on Stephen Baxter's page. Only colors cues are used to indicate whether we have an ISFDB Biography entry. Note on Baxter's page that the color is red which indicates that there is no biography page. Casual users will likely not recognize the meaning of the color coding.--swfritter 21:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, our bios don't come up to the standard. Too cutesy and content-poor. I edited the few I entered and ended up with things like ... she "lives in the Twin Cities." WXRock 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for touching bases here before entering more. Entering the data for the magazines will be of great value.--swfritter 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Links between Titles and Pubs

How are Pub linked to Titles? I'll be adding 12 more titles (1998-2009) for Tales of the Unanticipated. I see how to enter Titles and how to enter Pubs, but not how to link the two.

Issue #15 seems to have become unlinked from its Title. It must have been linked or I wouldn't have found it. Was it something I did? It's title.cgi?1006412 which should have pl.cgi?TALESUNAN151995 attached. It has pl.cgi?TALESUNAN141995. WXRock 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Magazine records do not have title records. Books (pubs other than magazines, like novels, collections, anthologies, etc.) are given title records based upon title (of course) and author (editor in the case of anthologies) and are created at the same time as the pub. Pubs can also be entered under a title record. Magazines are given editor records, which can be merged based on date (normally one year's periodicals). When you say you'll be "adding 12 more titles" you're actually adding pubs. The system will automatically create an editor record for each pub. 1006412 is the editor record for issues published in 1995. Currently there's only one issue under that editor record: TALESUNAN141995 which is the Winter/Spring/Summer 1995 issue. If you want to have TALESUNAN15995, the Fall/Winter 1995 issue, under the same year of pubs, the editor record for that pub must be merged with 1006412. Unfortunately, that issue doesn't have an editor record associated with it. When the database was first created there was no such record created when a magazine's pub record was created. A few years back this was remedied by the automatic creation of an editor record for all new magazines records entered. There are several submissions necessary to remedy this situation, so I'll do it and let you see the results. As you become more familiar with the database's structure you'll find this not to be as complicated as it may sound. Let me know afterward if the results are satisfactory. MHHutchins 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I kind of think that TALESUNAN151995 maybe HAD an editor record, because I'm not sure how I would have found it otherwise. At least until I searched for a story in it.
Actually, the database looks pretty straight forward. Not too different from mine. I'd thought about asking if I could do some kind of direct transfer before I realized that you already have 18 issues. I have only 11 left ('cause #15 is there) and it's a pretty simple cut-and-paste from one web page to another. Easier than building the pipeline.
Thanks! WXRock 04:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You probably found it through a search of a content record. There was a project awhile back to clean up pubs that are missing editor records, and that particular issue of TotU was on the list (I marked it "Done" after fixing it tonight.) Thanks. MHHutchins 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a way to mass-submit, or "direct transfer", see here. I've tried it, and agree it's not worth looking into unless you have a lot of data to add. And as each submission is still lovingly attended to by hand, it's not necessarily much faster - our "Bots" Dissembler, Fixer, and Data Thief are all told to keep their activity down to avoid unnecessary stress on the moderators. BLongley 19:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Variations on Alan Gutierrez

Does anyone object if I change the spelling of the names of cover artists Allan Gutierrez, Allan Guitierrez and Allan Guiterrez to match cover artist Alan Gutierrez (which is definitely a correct spelling)? Besides the fact that none of the variants have been verified, I note the first two variants are both credited with covers for "House of the Wolf" by M.K. Wren, and the third with another book from the same series, so I should think it's safe to assume it's the same person. Jonschaper 02:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No assumption necessary. They're definitely the same artist, but I would object to a merge, solely based on ISFDB principles. One of our goals is to record credits exactly as they're stated on the publication. It's possible in all of these cases that the record reflects how the work is credited. I see that only one of the pubs has been verified. Contact the verifier and ask for him to re-check his copy. From there we will either merge or make a variant of the that record. In the meantime, all of the others should be made into variants. MHHutchins 05:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I missed noting that the one was verified and will follow up. Jonschaper 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "House of the Wolf" is aLLan. Another copyright editor mistake. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are there differences in how multiple artists are shown?

I have seen that often when two artists are listed sometimes both are on the box and sometimes only one (the artist being referenced). [3] both artist shown in search for dupes. In searching for diffs this showed only one artist, though it has two on the book reference, [4]. What is up? From this dup search [5]. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends how the artists have been entered. If you enter a new pub with Jim Warren and Bob Larkin as Artist 1 and Artist 2, you get a Coverart record for each and the title shows as "Jim Warren , Bob Larkin". If you enter one Artist then edit the Coverart record to add the second artist, you keep with one Coverart record and it shows as "Jim Warren and Bob Larkin". BLongley 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the difference could be useful for Ace doubles and such-like where there are two artists for two covers as opposed to two artists working on one cover, but it obviously hasn't been deliberately used like that here. BLongley 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Got it! But it is leaving a lot of chancy merge options for the artists. Seems we need people to add something in the info block if they add an artist at the Coverart level. Notes! Notes! Notes! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploading Image query

This is day one using this database and i have already hit a stumbling block. i clicked on 'upload the image' and all was well, right up to the point of the compacted image being shown and then it came up with an error (no such file). if i click on 'full resolution', the image is great? - help would be appreciated. nw9sj

Welcome to the wonderful and wacky world of ISFDB! :) The problem that you ran into has to do with a display limitation of the Wiki-based image upload module that we are using. If one of the dimensions of an uploaded image is over 600 pixels, the software can't generate a thumbnail view of the image, but the actual image is still uploaded, stored and displayed properly. It's irritating, but, unfortunately, our only Wiki-savvy developer is current unavailable, so we are stuck with this bug for now. We do have developers who can (and do) address issues with the core ISFDB application, which doesn't use Wiki software. Again, welcome! Ahasuerus 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Travis Tea" pseudonyms

Hi, I've just finished making Travis Tea the pseudonym of a plethora of authors (see this for the amusing story behind this shared name), but there are several other contributors (besides the Bonsai Story Generator) to Travis Tea's magnum opus who don't appear to have ISFDB entries yet so I have been unable to add them. I'll eventually create the parent title listing all the authors (yes, I just realised that is the way to go), but since they aren't actually credited in the book itself I'm wary of creating variants that don't exist, for example does anyone know if Danica West (credited in the Wiki article) is AKA D. West already entered here? The following are the names I need to check on:

Ted Kuzminski; Danica West (perhaps AKA D. West?); Rowan West; Deanna Hoak; and Judy B. Castro

Cheers Jonschaper 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would make the variant title, crediting all of the authors. That will add an entry in each author's bibliography, and it will also create entries for the authors we don't have in the database yet. There don't need to be any publications using the canonical title + list of canonical authors; the various displays will show it as "only as by Travis Tea" because there are no publications of the parent title. --MartyD 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Which prompts me to start entering this monster.--swfritter 16:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to this experience, I know it's possible to enter as many authors as appropriate.... --MartyD 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad I didn't try this one earlier. I think I have 18 authors. Glad we have a fix.--swfritter 01:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ellis Parker Butler's "An Experiment in Gyro-Hats"

I've come across conflicting data for this. According to the existing ISFDB notes for this entry, it was first published in New Broadway Magazine in June 1920. However according to a Sam Moskowitz article in the January 1966 issue of Worlds of Tomorrow, it was first published in Hampton's Magazine in June 1910. Does anyone know the source of the information in the note already entered? Jonschaper 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Web site dedicated to Ellis Parker Butler's work, it first appeared on pp. 799-808 of Hampton's Magazine, June 1910. The man was quite popular and prolific (1,687 items in 253 periodicals!), so I wouldn't be surprised if the story was later reprinted in New Broadway Magazine. Ahasuerus 02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll assume there will be no objections and edit accordingly Jonschaper 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Approved, but please be careful with HTML in Notes. I was able to correct this submission, but certain broken tags can make submissions unapprovable and then they have to be "hard rejected". It doesn't corrupt the database, but it would be a shame to have to redo a submission with 30 stories because of a missing character in the Notes field. Ahasuerus 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Bleiler lists the New Broadway Magazine appearance as for the June 1910 issue of that magazine and also the appearance of the story in a 1912 collection. Hampton's and New Broadway are the same magazine. This from Fictionmags: "Hampton’s Magazine Hampton’s Magazine — USA; Apr. 1898-May 1912; began as The Broadway Magazine (to Nov. 1907), then The New Broadway Magazine (to Sep. 1908), then Hampton’s Broadway Magazine (to Jan. 1909)"--swfritter 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Two title records, [here] and [here]. The second title is incorrect and I want to delete it, but I can't seem to find a way to transfer the "award" part over to the correct title. There seems to be no tab or section available in a normal edit to do this. Back door somewhere?? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have a way to add/edit award data at the moment (the software is there but needs to be debugged before it can be made publicly available.) The easiest way to handle this issue is to merge the two Title records via the Show All Titles option on Boyd's Author page. Ahasuerus 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Done! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonym/Omnibus brain teaser

This house name "Alex Archer"[6] has up to five and counting names. The omnibus "Renaissance"[7] of the first three stories is written by two different authors. Here's the question. What should the variant authors name be on the omnibus title? Thanks!Kraang 02:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would attribute the canonical title to the real authors, Mel Odom and Victor Milán. Ahasuerus 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That was my original intent, but I didn't think it would display correctly. Now that I see it on their respective pages it appears fine. It was the mixed nature of the omnibus that put me off. I would expect more of these in the future. I have one novel left that is a mystery, so its off to the book store to find a copy and see what the copyright page has to say(their supposedly created there). Thanks!Kraang 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-Genre entries

I read the policies about the inclusion of non-genre titles (the threshold, etc.) and wonder how it should be applied to cases like Nora Roberts'. Although she has a fair number of SF entries, they appear to be FAR outweighed by her non-SF entries, particularly her romance titles (and they don't appear to be of the vampire/werewolf/time-travel etc type either). In contrast, even Charles Dickens has only a few of his non-SF works entered. In determining the threshold, should the ratio of SF to non-SF titles be taken into account (or, alternatively, the perception of the type of writer a particular person is considered to be)? While Asimov did write a large number of mysteries, non-fiction, humour, etc, he is still primarily considered an SF writer and so they're arguably worth including, while in contrast I would believe most would identify Nora Roberts as a romance writer. I'd hate to think that if there were enough Nora Robertses around, someone randomly exploring the ISFDB would keep coming across bodice rippers and horse operas. Jonschaper 03:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like 10% genre and 90% non-genre based on the titles and a quick sampling of the books. I have no problem with deleting all the non-genre. What do others think?Kraang 03:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion digressed into the realm of Nora Roberts and J. D. Robb, with a couple of opinions expressed. My inclination is to err generally on the side of inclusion, but where the author uses a particular name/persona for what we consider SF and other names/personae for other genres, why not avoid the non-SF? Perhaps we should think of J. D. Robb and Nora Roberts as two different people, with J. D. Robb being over the threshold and Nora Roberts being under. Include everything by Roberts as Robb and include anything by Roberts as herself only if SF. --MartyD 11:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that the In Death series appears in the UK as by Nora Roberts writing as J. D. Robb so genre titles do exist under the Roberts name. Someone might like to reconcile the (French) Eve Dallas titles too. BLongley 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This sticks out as unwanted too. BLongley 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I recall cleaning up L. A. Banks's bibliography and keeping Scarface: The Beginning since it was a single non-genre title by someone who looked like a primarily genre writer. However, now that I have read her Wikipedia article, it's clear that she has a whole lot of non-genre titles out in the wild and that we should either include all of them (probably not a good idea) or get rid of Scarface: The Beginning. Ahasuerus 21:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I vote for zapping it. The L. A. Banks pseudonym is used for "Paranormal" and "Scarface" but the Scarface is obviously non-genre, as are most of the other pseudonym's works. "Vampire Huntress" and "Crimson Moon" seem to be all we need here. BLongley 22:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears like there's no strong support for keeping her non-genre titles here and some for getting rid of it. Cleaning up her page is extremely low on my list of things I want to do so I'll at least leave it for now, which will give anyone with objections a chance to speak up (it looks like a lot of work has been done to enter her info after all). More of my thoughts on Roberts vs Asimov is that besides the fact that much of Asimov's nongenre stuff appears in genre publications, the science articles are at least thematically related to hard SF. Yes, SF also deals with human relationships, but I think the general public would think it logical to look up Asimov on science fiction pages, and would probably turn to romance websites for info on Roberts (I have no idea if there are romance book databases, but she'd certainly fit in there). Jonschaper 05:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sea-Kings of Mars" by Leigh Brackett

I'm holding a submission which wants to change Sea-Kings of Mars from a novella to a novel. It currently appears in two verified pubs: Thrilling Wonder Stories, June 1949 and Sea-Kings of Mars and Otherworldly Stories (which is currently mistitled "Otherwordly"). Editor Bluetyson has solid evidence that the story is 45,000 words. If the two verifiers can agree with the word count, the magazine appearance should be changed to a serial as (Complete Novel), and the anthology appearance would be a novel. Each would then be a variant of The Sword of Rhiannon (assuming we determine this to be the canonical title.) I'll depart now and leave the two verifiers and Bluetyson continue the discussion. MHHutchins 04:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as canonical titles go, Sea-Kings of Mars is cooler. :) How do you normally work that out if there is some of one and some of the other? Bluetyson 04:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Normally it's the first publication, but in this case, the novel is better known as The Sword of Rhiannon because that was the title used for all of the book publications. MHHutchins 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I did a rough word count of my copy, 61.5 pages (excluding ads and illustrations), 714 words per page, total 43,911, so it is a novel.--Rkihara 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My copy is the Gollancz/Orion and Bluetyson's solid evidence refers to that edition. While my sample page count came out to 340 per page, that still gets us over the 40,000 word novel threshold. Further, Locus identifies it as a novel. However, Locus also sates that SKofM was "Expanded / revised as The Sword of Rhiannon." but also states "Collection of 12 stories, including the title story in its expanded novel version (Ace 1953 as The Sword of Rhiannon)..." Tuck makes no distinction between the magazine appearance and the retitled novel.
I absolutely agree that SKofM is a novel. I agree with some hesitation that it should be a variant of Sword of Rhiannon. However, if we do make it a variant, I think SofR should be the canonical title, which is how Tuck lists it.
I'll also fix the title of the Gollancz collection which is actually quite wrong. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Getting really picky with that one, Sea-Kings is hyphenated, at least on my copy,

'and otherworldly stories' being a subtitle on the line below. Bluetyson 05:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I will accept the submission making "Sea-Kings" into a novel, so Rkihara will have to make it a complete novel serial in the magazine publication. I will also accept the submission which will make it a variant of The Sword of Rhiannon. If either of the verifiers disagree with either of these moves, please feel free to revert the changes. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Rkihara 08:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. The other thing I have been wondering about as far as Brackett goes is the 'Mars' series - there are a few entries there - is that from a particular source? As there are many stories of hers that share the Martian setting (some obvious like Martian Quest, Sorcerer of Rhiannon, Beast-Jewel of Mars, etc.). Some on Venus, some on Mercury etc. - and a couple of others in 'The Big Jump' setting. Bluetyson 09:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The only series mentioned in Tuck is "N'Chaka" (three stories, 1949-1951), which was subsumed by the Eric John Stark series. I'm not familiar enough with her work to know about the connections between the two "Mars" series on her summary page. Clute & Nicholls calls it the Eric John Stark series as well, but does mention "other novels involving Mars". I'm not sure if the Martian setting justifies them being placed into a subseries along with the Stark stories. I would have suggested the Brackett(ology) website, until I saw that you're the maintainer of it! (Or someone with the same ID.) MHHutchins 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Shadow Over Mars and Sea-Kings of Mars aren't related except as being on the same planet - not like the Stark ones sharing a character. I plan to go through the stories I have more carefully eventually via said website to come up with more definite groupings. I do not have a copy of Last Call From Sector 9G, so do not know what that one is about - and have never seen the originals that go into Alpha Centauri or Die - the first part/Ark of Mars is on Mars at a later time.
And I see it's already Tuesday, the 15th on that site, so you must be in Australia or thereabouts. MHHutchins 19:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, must have remembered to change the time zone in the settings! ;)
I'd guessed such from his declared other areas of expertise. But now I look at the site, we only get 4.5 out of 5 for our Brackett bibliography - I hope that gets upgraded when we have the ebooks too! BLongley 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point - it is now pretty much as good as we can get it I think, series notwithstanding. 4.75 rounded up? :)Bluetyson 05:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The other one I don't know as never seen the original mag - is what is the difference between Dragon-Queen of Jupiter and Dragon-Queen Of Venus? Bluetyson 09:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Editor Dragoondelight is a great note-giver and his copy of this book notes that they're the same story. Maybe only the name of the planet was changed in the story? I'll make it a variant of the first publication. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That is what it looks like to me - I now have the original and the first page just has the one word different, I'll check the rest and write it up. (see below entry) Bluetyson 05:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Leigh Brackett's Dragon Queens

In the Planet Stories version (which is identical, except for Jupiter references it seems) we have the Planet Stories original part from 1941 listed first, and the later version second:-

"TEX stirred uneasily where he lay on the parapet, staring into the heavy, Jupiterian fog." and "Tex stirred uneasily where he lay on the parapet, staring into the heavy, Venusian fog."

"The Jupiterians were swarming up the incline on which the fort stood" and "The Venusians were swarming up the incline on which the fort stood"

"Jupiter is a virgin planet." and "Venus is a virgin planet."

"It's the rust that'll lose us Jupiter in the end." and "It's the rust that'll lose us Venus in the end."

"Hertford's Jungles of Jupiter" and "Hertford's Jungles of Venus"

"Then they can slaughter our boys when they come up, and have the whole of Jupiter clear." and "Then they can slaughter our boys when they come up, and have the whole of Venus clear."

"And some day the swamps would be drained, and men and women would find new wealth, new life, new horizons here on Jupiter." and "And some day the swamps would be drained, and men and women would find new wealth, new life, new horizons here on Venus."

However, the Planet Stories version seems to contradict itself joviographicaly:-

"There's your countryman, Breska. I'd say he isn't so sold on the idea of making Venus safe for colonists." and Tex grunted. "There's your countryman, Breska. I'd say he isn't so sold on the idea of making Venus safe for colonists."

"rouse the more lethargic pastoral tribes against the colonists, and sweep outland Peoples from the face of Venus." and "rouse the more lethargic pastoral tribes against the colonists, and sweep outland Peoples from the face of Venus."

"It's the rust that'll lose us Venus in the end—that, and these Dry Spots." and "It's the rust that'll lose us Venus in the end—that, and these Dry Spots."

So pretty clearly some dodgy editing in the original magazine version and the later one changes it to actually make sense to the reader. Venus is certainly the more logical choice from the setting, too. So it really is the same story, with some errors fixed.n Bluetyson 08:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Valley of Creation - Edmond Hamilton

Probably somewhat similar to Sea-Kings of Mars. My Baen ebook version of this is around 43,000 words. So a pulp magazine version could certainly hold the whole thing SS novella entry :-

According to Tuck, the 1964 Lancer and the 1948 Startling Stories publications are the same. I'll change the magazine record to a complete novel, and link it to the book title. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Adam?

Hi, does anyone know if this has ever been published under the title "Douglas Adam's..." I highly doubt it given the nonexistence of Douglas Adam (at least insofar as regards any "Douglas" related to this publication). Jonschaper 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not impossible. If you look at this page, different variants have been used, at least on the covers (the e-book has "Douglas Adams...". It is possible of course that all titlepages have the correct spelling, but there's no proof. Willem H. 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
An even bigger question: why is Douglas Adams credited as co-author on all of the pub records when all of the OCLC credits give sole responsibility to Terry Jones? MHHutchins 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Amazon's "Look-inside" doesn't show the title page, but the copyright holders are "The Digital Village" and "Simon and Schuster Interactive, Inc." In other words, it's a "work for hire" and, given OCLC's data, Douglas Adams's involvement was presumably limited to writing the introduction. Ahasuerus 03:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
TRICK: You can use "Search" while in Look Inside, and it will often list the title page or a page on either side of the title page, from which the Next/Prev page arrows will get you to the title page. In this case, search for Jones or for Ballantine. (It shows just Terry Jones). You can also search for page numbers to confirm page count. --MartyD 12:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Clever, thanks! Ahasuerus 01:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The title page of my copy states "A Novel by Terry Jones", so I don't think Douglas Adams should be credited as co-author. Willem H. 11:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I too believe that Douglas Adams is erroneously credited as co-author. It began as a computer game designed by Douglas Adams (thus his name in the title -- I personally found the game frustrating because half the gameplay was trying to communicate with very bureaucratic robots, endlessly typing in variations of your questions, etc., but I suspect the frustration factor was deliberate). As per this) my understanding is that Terry Jones wrote the novel based on the game by himself, with the Douglas Adams credit getting carried over from the game. PS, having both played the game and listened to the audiobook of Terry Jones' novel included with the "special edition", I can vouch for the fact that the only real connection between the two was the title and setting. Jonschaper 01:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Amy Grigg cover credit

The cover here accredited to Amy Grigg is not only different but in a totally different style and medium than this verified edition also accredited to her, so I suspect the cover credit for the former is incorrect. Amazon itself does not give a cover credit for that edition. Anyone know? Jonschaper 04:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The credit for the second pub comes from Locus1, who I believe may have simply brought over the credit for the first edition. Tor rarely changes the cover art from hardcover to trade paperback (may have been some objection to the use of the Confederate flag.) I'll remove the credit and note what Locus1 states. Hopefully a primary verifier will come along some day. MHHutchins 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No Good From A Corpse review in Interzone

Now that the two different books have been separated - I suspect that the No Good From A Corpse review should link to the collection, not the novel, given it is a 1999 review which is the date of the Collection coming out. If anyone has the Interzone they could check, but it seems the most logical. Bluetyson 04:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A review in May 1999 would most definitely be of the Dennis McMillan edition of January 1999. I'll move the review to the collection's record. MHHutchins 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Container publications

I recently encountered a collection which consists of a novelette and another collection. The links are meant as examples that illustrate the general situation where one publication contains other titles that are themselves containers. My question: Is there a recommendation or generally accepted solution for recording publications of such titles? Currently I see the following 2 solutions, with some pros and cons:

  1. Pub record is collapsed: The pub record contains only the container titles. This pub is an example.
    • Pros:
      • The pub record can be edited without a lot of effort
      • The pub record's content list is concise, one is not overwhelmed by many details
    • Cons:
      • Container titles do not appear on the pub record's content list at all. In the example pub above, for instance, one cannot see that the publication contains the collection "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil".
      • The pub record's real content (the "detail titles") is not visible at a glance. Since container titles are not visible, it is also impossible to follow an URL to view the details through the container titles' publications
      • The pub record does not appear when one lists the publications of a detail title. For instance, if one looks at the poem title for Bombadil Goes Boating, the pub record that I cited as an example above is not listed among the title's publications.
  2. Pub record is expanded: The pub records contains the container titles and their content. This pub is an example.
    • Pros:
      • The pub record is an exact reflection of the content as actually published
      • The pub record appears when one lists publications of a detail title
    • Cons
      • Possibly a lot of effort to edit the pub record
      • The pub record's content list is cluttered
      • Container titles still do not appear in the pub record's content list
  3. Other solutions?

I personally favour #2, simply because #1 has too many grave drawbacks. In both solutions, though, I am disturbed by the fact that container titles do not appear on a pub record's content list. Is there a reason for this implementation? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally, you have only one Collection Title in every Collection Publication just like you have only one Anthology Title in every Anthology Publication etc. The original idea was to hide these container Titles since typically users are only interested in the Content level items and not the fact that each Collection pub is associated with a Collection Title.
When a Collection contains another Collection, this paradigm breaks down and the only way to make it work properly is to change the Title/Publication Types to Omnibuses, but that can cause other issues. Ahasuerus 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can it be worked around? I have seen titles that to me appear as workarounds, for instance Tree and Leaf: In this example the title type is "novella", which is wrong: "Tree and Leaf" is definitely a collection. Apparently (to me) the title was recorded as a novella so that it appears in pub records' content lists. Is this really how it should be done?

I suspect these matters have all been discussed before, therefore I offer my apologies in advance if I am being tedious. Nevertheless, I would be grateful for pointers in the right direction. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Containers with containers have always been a sticky situation here (trying to figure out how to enter story cycles with an overarching title being similar.) I'm not sure what the standards state, but currently most editors (I assume) use the second method you describe. This has been discussed before in concert with the omnibus dilemma (i.e. what is an omnibus for the purposes of the ISFDB.) No discussion that I can recall came to any definite decision. The record showing Tree and Leaf as a novella is wrong. If it's an essay and a short story, each with their own title, it should be recorded as such in the three records of The Tolkien Reader that give it as a novella. Just as many records give "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" as a poem, when it is actually a poetry collection. We need someone with a great knowledge of Tolkien's work to fix all of these records, or even better, to reconcile all to one standard. If you're up to the task, please proceed. MHHutchins 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I am motivated to do more work on Tolkien, although I feel that my knowledge is not yet sufficient - I'm working on it, though :-) There are a number of helpful websites, although it is sometimes difficult to assess their accuracy. What I currently lack is an authorative bibliographical source, this work being the thing that I most desire at the moment. The problem is it's out of print and it's quite expensive on the 2nd hand market (esp. in view of the possibility of an updated second edition, which unfortunately is still a couple of years in the future, as I was told by the author). Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to fix a few more obvious errors (e.g. "Tree And Leaf" novella title), but otherwise will stop working on Tolkien until I feel better equipped for the task. "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil", by the way, really is a poem with the same name as the collection - the error is that records include the poem title instead of the collection title. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The strongest argument (and the one that I find decisive) that supports the second solution is the ability to see all Publications from the Title page of the constituent stories. Ahasuerus 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to mention. The con statement for the second policy "Container titles still do not appear in the pub record's content list" is incorrect, for the most part. You can (and should) add records for the container as well as its contents, e.g. Lord Darcy, an omnibus of two collections and a novel. The contents section gives links to the constituent collections as well as links to those contents of those collections. It would be nice if the page could be designed to display the three book titles which make up the omnibus with the contents of the collections being offset to make it clear that these individual stories make up the collection. MHHutchins 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that the con statement is not generally true: In the example you mention it is not true, I suspect because the title is an omnibus. At least that's how I understand Ahasuerus initial comment from further up: "[...] this paradigm breaks down and the only way to make it work properly is to change the Title/Publication Types to Omnibuses". Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the improved page design: This would indeed be a nice feature, however I cannot imagine how it could be realized without information about the relationship between collection and collection content. Currently I don't have to enter such relationship data when I edit a pub record, therefore I guess that the ISFDB database structure would have to be changed as well as the software to make entry of such data possible. This is speculation on my part, though, doubtless others (I'm thinking of someone specific :-)) are better informed. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A pro for adding the container title to the contents is that the omnibus will be listed in the publications under the title record of the container. See Murder and Magic, the collection which is reprinted in the omnibus Lord Darcy. MHHutchins 06:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Add Christopher Tolkien as author to "Unfinished Tales" and "The Silmarillion"?

I have been thinking about adding Christopher Tolkien as an author to Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-Earth and The Silmarillion. Especially with "Unfinished Tales", his role as the editor is important and he adds substantial material to the book. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, for "The Silmarillion". What are the opinions on this? I myself have no strong opinion and if there are objections I am quite content to leave matters as they are. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors aren't credited in the author field of collections or novels, regardless of the extent of their effort. He would have to be co-author in order to get author credit. In my copies of both books, the credits read "Edited by Christopher Tolkien". There have been discussions of adding fields for additional roles, editor being one of them. Until that time we record editor credit in the title record's note field.
Looking at his summary page, I wonder why Christopher is credited as co-author of The History of Middle Earth series. The only book in that series that I own is The Lost Road and he's only credited as editor. MHHutchins 01:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Same here, my only book of the series, "The Book of Lost Tales: Part I", credits him only as editor. In fact, Christopher's present co-authorship of the "History" series prompted me to bring up the subject in the first place. I was thinking, if Christopher Tolkien can be co-author for the "History" books, he should also be co-author of at least the "Unfinished Tales". Wrong thinking, as I now see Christopher should be removed as co-author from the "History" series. Unless someone wants to fix this right now, I will put it on my TODO list for future cleanup of Tolkien's biblio. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of "The Eve of RUMOKO"

I have an anthology that contains The Eve of RUMOKO. Throughout the pub the title is spelt "The Eve of Rumoko" (or "THE EVE OF RUMOKO" within the publication, but this doesn't count as all the other titles are also spelt in all-caps). After a bit of research I found out that the all-caps last word "RUMOKO" is indeed the canonical spelling of the story title, so now I'm wondering whether I should add a variant title, or just leave it alone and use the canonical spelling within my anthology. On Billbunter's talk page there is the argument for leaving the unusual spelling intact if it is found in a publication, but what if the publication has "normal" spelling? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation differences aren't going to make any difference to searching, so I'd leave it as the canonical title. Add a note to your pub if you think it's noteworthy that that publication didn't follow the intended capitalisation. We've had this before with MUGWUMP 4 or Four - the capitals are important in the story, but I've yet to see one where it's carried over to the title record properly. I don't mind either way really so long as it doesn't break the search. e.g. if there was a R.U.M.O.K.U. or M.U.G.W.U.M.P. version. BLongley 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Bill's logic makes sense.--swfritter 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Ashley's The Chronicles of the Round Table

Reference: 34873, 974196, and 35394.

I need input on what to do here. The "Michael Ashley" version has no information for the publication other than editor, title, and year. Searching on the web, all the results I found under "Michael Ashley" appear to be the "Mike Ashley" version (i.e. it will be listed under "Michael", but the actual cover shown has "Mike").

There are two options that I see:

  1. Keep the "Michael Ashley" version (974196), but make it a variant of 34873 and delete the 35394 parent.
  2. Delete the "Michael Ashley" version (974196) and the 35394 parent.

I'm not sure which is the better choice. Obviously there is a balance between removing erroneous data and keeping the record for possible variant. I'm not sure where that line is in this case. And, either way, I'm not sure what the result would be on the award information which shows up in both 34873 & 35394. Thanks. --JLaTondre 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete this pub record first, then delete the title record 974196. Merge title record 35394 (with award info) with 34873 (the parent title record). This will transfer the award info to the parent record, and get rid of the "Michael" version (the record is a phantom pub with a stub record). MHHutchins 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --JLaTondre 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Titles merged, but the "Award" is now displayed twice[8]. Is this a known bug?Kraang 03:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I checked the last backup and it turned out that the two original Titles, "Chronicles of the Round Table" by Michael Ashley as well as "The Chronicles of the Round Table" by Mike Ashley, were marked as 1998 British Fantasy Award nominees, an unusual situation. When these Titles were merged, the resulting Title record was associated with both award records. I could probably fix it manually by manipulating the database directly, but it's dangerous and I am not familiar with the Award side of things. We may have to leave it in its current state until Al (or someone else) finishes the award editor and cleans up all Awards. Ahasuerus 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

M.K. Wren's The Phoenix Legacy Cover Art

The ISFDB help says to use the copyright statement for the artist credit. However, how do you handle the situation when the copyright statement and the cover art signatures don't agree?

For the Berkley paperback versions of M.K. Wren's The Phoenix Legacy, the first two are signed with the same signature. However, the copyright statements are not the same and don't match the signature. For the first one, it's completely different. For the second one, it looks like a spelling error in the copyright statement. The third book is not signed, but is drawn in the same style. Its copyright statement is consistent with the signatures on the first two books.

I was able to find another book (Roger MacBride Allen's The Torch of Honor) in my collection with the same signature. However, its copyright statement has another variation on the name.

Maybe a table will help clarify:

Book Copyright Credit Signature
Sword of the Lamb Franco Accornero A. Gutierrez
Shadow of the Swan Allan Guiterrez (note the swapped "i" & "t") A. Gutierrez
House of the Wolf Allan Gutierrez none
The Torch of Honor Alan Gutierrez A. Gutierrez

Allan Gutierrez is marked as a pseudonym of Alan Gutierrez.

So, for Sword of the Lamb, how should that be handled when the copyright notice is the wrong person entirely?

For Shadow of the Swan, should it be entered as is in the copyright statement and another pseudonym set-up? Or is it okay to use "Gutierrez" and include that correction in the notes?

For House of the Wolf (and other Allan Gutierrez works), do variants get created for covers the same way that it would for pseudonym publications?

Thanks. --JLaTondre 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion last month concerning the credits for Gutierrez. As for the obvious error in credits: the 1981 editions of the trilogy had covers by Accornero and the 1985 reprints had cover art by Gutierrez. It's certain that someone at Berkley failed to remove the previous credit on the new printings. This has been noted in the past (DAW was one of the major culprits in not removing original credits), so it was determined that we will credit the artist by signature in cases where the copyright or stated credit is incorrect. You should also record the credit as given in the notes field so that a later verifier won't attempt to change the credits based on the copyright. As for all the spellings of Gutierrez's name, each should be made into a variant of the canonical name: Alan Gutierrez. I'll do that part and you can correct the credits on your pubs in hand. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a copy of this pub? I don't want to make Guiterrez a variant unless the pub can be verified to be credited that way. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have a copy. I also have a copy of the others mentioned above. I'll make the changes you mention and verify them (though I'll probably not get to it until tomorrow). Thanks for the feedback. --JLaTondre 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Caduceus Wild

According to the author's note in the Pinnacle edition of Caduceus Wild, the 1978 publication of the novel is a completely new book. Ward Moore states: Although this is a new book, recently written, it is not the first Caduceus Wild with which my name has been associated. Normally I would unmerge the Pinnacle edition from the title, and add notes that these are different versions, not to be merged again. But... the only publication of the original Caduceus Wild was in four parts in Science Fiction Stories, and I have no idea what would happen if I unmerged them. Any suggestions what to do? Thanks, Willem H. 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the author may have been exaggerating the extent to which the Pinnacle edition is a "new book" (of course, it's a new book, because it's the first book publication of the novel!) Strange that the titles would have the same collaborator, yet be completely different books. I would suggest that the 1978 book may have been revised and as such would be a variant of the 1959 serial. That's how it currently stands in the database. Variants based on text are now being handled the same as variants based on title or author-credit, not an ideal situation (there's been talk for some time about creating variants based on text, but it seems to have been placed on the back burner.) The only solution (I can think of) is to record the author's statement in the notes field of the title record.
If these are two works that have no connection whatsoever, you can easily break the variant/parent relationship by placing a zero in the "Link to Existing Parent" field of the "Make this title a variant" function of each of the serial records. You shouldn't unmerge the serial records from the 1978 title record. It will only create identical parent records for each part of the serial, and it will take another submission to change the title of each. (At least, that's what happens when you unmerge a pub from a title record. I don't think it being a serial would be different.) MHHutchins 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Clute & Nicholls in their encyclopedia don't consider the 1978 book as a new work. Their listing in its entirety: "WM's third novel, Caduceus Wild (1959 Science Fiction Stories as with Robert Bradford; rev 1978) is a medical DYSTOPIA whose book publication was long delayed." MHHutchins 16:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I'm happy to leave things as they are. The author's note led me to believe this was an entirely new novel, that shared only the background with the original Caduceus Wild, and so should be treated like Gregory Benford's Deeper Than the Darkness and The Stars in Shroud. I can't compare the two of course, but maybe someday another editor can. Willem H. 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've accepted the submission adding a note to the title record. Can't wait until we can link titles by relationship (revised from x, expanded from y, based on z, fixed up from a, b & c, etc.) Thanks. MHHutchins