ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 28

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page for the Moderator noticeboard. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from July - December 2020.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Moderator noticeboard.

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

Expanded archive listing

Various and Sundry Things

I'm still recouperating from my last stay in the hospital, so I made a couple of mistakes when I entered the book reviews for the latest issue of Analog. I'll correct when this new submission is accepted. Also, I'm sad to say that my copy of Asimov's has never arrived so for the first time in seven years I can't list it on this site, and somebody else will have to do it. I'll try to get a copy when I can, but waiting any longer is unacceptable. I tender my apologies for my lack of quality in my submissions lately. MLB 23:42, 6 July 2020 (EDT)

Take your time to recover. That's more important. Thanks for all your hard work. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:44, 7 July 2020 (EDT)

John Gribbin

Weblinks for John Gribbin JohnGribbin dot co dot uk ends up at a parking page in Spanish The link on the wikipedia page ends up at an American DIY blog. Also cover for Don't Look Back has been confirmed as by David Hardy on his Facebook page. --Mavmaramis 12:21, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Unreject enhancement

Moderators can now unreject rejected submissions from the View Submission page. Ahasuerus 13:01, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Public submission pages linked to the moderator review page

A new link, "Moderator View", has been added to public submission view pages. At this time it is only displayed for pending submissions. Ahasuerus 20:55, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Awesome! This will solve the problem of getting back into the moderator screen both for un-rejected edits and when a moderator leaves a message to an editor (for on hold ones) - both of which required one to find the submission on the moderator screen manually. Thanks! Annie 21:05, 10 July 2020 (EDT)
Two birds with one stone! :) Ahasuerus 10:28, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Need help with submission

I have made this submission I am waiting for days now for it to be accepted. What is the problem? Thank you. Debolestis 05:37, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Sorry, summer months tend to be a slower as not as many people are active. It's been approved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
Thank you, no problem. I just thought I had done something wrong.Debolestis 13:05, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Norman A. Daniels = Norman A. Danberg?

I notice on the "Died Today" section of the homepage today, these two suspiciously similar authors. Wikipedia indicates they are the same , and indeed, the "Daniels" entry says that his legal name was "Danberg".

I'm slightly reluctant to submit an edit to fix this though, as the "lesser" Danberg entry itself has a variant name, one which doesn't seem to be listed for the "main" Daniels entry. I'm not sure if, post merge/varianting, the variants for the "lesser" name get moved over to be variants for the "main" entry or not, or even if there are cases where you wouldn't want that to happen?

Does someone with mod privs, who can sort these things out more quickly and easily than us mere mortals, take a look? ErsatzCulture 16:55, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

It's been fixed. Thanks for finding this. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

The Deep - second set of eyes

We have a few unusual awards on the chapbook here. Am I missing something or do these belong on the novella instead? Annie 03:07, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Looking at the pub history, it was entered as a novel and then changed to a chapbook. The awards were probably on the novel record which was converted to the chapbook. They should be moved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Nope, the change to chapbook was back in September when I added a new copy of that book and converted the whole thing, these awards were not added until 2020. So it was already a chapbook when they were added. I will move them -- I was making sure I am not missing something. Annie 17:01, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Wayland Drew

It has come to my attention that Wayland Drew's earliest SF work The Wabeno Feast (1973) isn't listed on ISFDB but is noted in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Would one of the moderators be kind enough to make the neccessary amendments to add this missing work please. --Mavmaramis 10:47, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

image upload failure

I've been unsuccessful at uploading a new image for The upload appears to be successful, but it doesn't replace the old image. I've tried several times with same result. What am I doing wrong? Markwood 07:38, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

It actually worked. The issue is that the wiki doesn't properly tell the browser there is a new version and so the browser continues to use its cached version (browsers don't download the same content over and over to improve performance). You need to force the browser to reload it (a control-F5 or shift-F5 are common for most browsers). Everyone else sees the new image. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! That was it. Markwood 12:11, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

Sci-Fi Almanac

Well, I flubbed it again, I accidently put the wrong info into the series field of Sci-Fi Almanac. If this submission is accepted, then I'll correct the data MLB 01:42, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

Approved and I renamed the series :) Annie 03:33, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

Author biblio merge requested

Could a moderator merge the two works lists?

Jennifer Cervantes is already listed as an alternate for J. C. Cervantes, but all the works are not shown under the main name. That they are the same can be seen at

Thanks.--Auric 15:03, 14 August 2020 (EDT)

I can do it or I can teach you how to do it. Let me know what you prefer. :)
There is no secret way for the moderators to do it - someone needs to create a variant for each work on the pseudonym page (go to the pseudonym and for each title, press Make Variant and in the lower section swap the author name - unless the work is already on the main page - then just variant to it). Let me know if you want to try or if I should. I will keep an eye on the queue to approve it when it comes through if you want to try. Annie 15:24, 14 August 2020 (EDT)
Thanks, It's been a while since I've had to do this.--Auric 07:05, 15 August 2020 (EDT)

No One Noticed the Cat

I erroneously verified the wrong edition, please remove my primary verification. I have the Wildside/SFBC edition. Sorry Scifibones 18:16, 18 August 2020 (EDT)

We cannot... or not easily (there is a way via the DB but...). You need to do it. Go to the same screen where you verify (the menu "Verify This Pub" on the left side of screen when you have the book open) and you will see the ability to set it back to "No verification:". :) Annie 18:22, 18 August 2020 (EDT)
I took care of it, Sorry it took me so long. Thanks Annie. Scifibones 11:03, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

Author Erica Holzer should be Erika Holzer

Can someone with mod privs fix this name typo please?

The linked Wikipedia page uses Erika with a K, as does the Goodreads page for their only book that's in ISFDB, which includes a cover image to further back up the Erika-with-a-K spelling.

I suspect the error came from the Prometheus award page which also has the same typo. FWIW SFADB has Erika with a K. ErsatzCulture 16:30, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

Done! Annie 17:43, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

Analog, September-October 2020

I accidently hit the enter button while while entering the contents of this issue. When the submission is accepted I'll correct and add the rest of the contents. MLB 00:40, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Nevermind, I somehow unscrewed it up, and got it fixed. MLB 00:47, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Possible correction

The listing for David's Sling by Marc Stiegler - 1988 Baen Books shows the cover artist to be David B. Mattingly. However the art can be found on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardvark7 (talkcontribs) .

Thanks for finding this. I will notify the active verifier who can double check the publication. If it's a database error, we will simply correct the error. If it's a publication error, we will leave it credited as per the pub, but variant it to the Gutierrez to show the proper credit (along with adding notes). -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2020 (EDT)
I've changed the cover art credit with a note explaining why. Thanks again. Bob 13:38, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

Series edit by Wolfram

Hello fellow moderators. I have this submission by Wolfram on hold as it seems to go against a consensus reached here. It looks like Wolfram does not want to abide by the consensus reached by the German moderators and editors, even after such recent discussion on his talk page here. In addition, DNB has Bastei Lubbe Taschenbuch as publisher, not as series title (so that's not much help either). What do you recommend? Reject and refer again to earlier discussions, and urge him to abide by that consensus (and perhaps ask him to add a note as to what exactly is stated on the copyright page)? Or let it pass, as it -is- stated on the copyright page (only I'm not sure it really is a series title, but can't know as I don't have access to the actual book)... MagicUnk 13:40, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

Well, since he has also stated that he won't answer any inquiry's anymore, I think the only thing to do is reject the submission, referring to the consensus on the Bastei Lübbe publication series. --Willem 14:36, 9 September 2020 (EDT)
I agree with Willem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:52, 9 September 2020 (EDT)
That’s his 11th or so attempt to change this one. The answer is still “Nope”. Reject with “as previously explained”. He is looking for a moderator who will just approve without a question. Annie 16:18, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

The Rule of Five by Don Sakers and Melissa Scott

I would like to protest. Again, somebody tinkered with my edits without asking me. I created “The Rule of Five Universe” parent series, now gone, by Don Sakers and Melissa Scott. The first in the series was The Rule of Five Quarterly ezine, the second series consisted of the novels Five Planes, The Rule of Five: Year One, and The Rule of Five: Year Two.

Well, this has been rewritten, or re-edited. I will admit to possibly being wrong about Five Planes, this may be considered an omnibus as it contains both Year One and Year Two. BUT, under no circumstances are Year One and Year Two variations of Five Planes. Five Planes as a whole is a serialized piece, a novel, that appeared in its serialized pieces in the quarterly ezine. I would like to see this either corrected or an explanation as to why I was wrong. Forgive me if I sound a little annoyed about this. MLB 22:19, 11 September 2020 (EDT)

No problem, I'll try to explain: all these parts (the serialization and the splitted novel) are variants of the original, it just was published in different lengths: serialized, in two parts, and as a whole. The given description for both alternate versions states that they reprint chapters of the whole novel (one each for the serialization; first / second half of the chapters for the split). Christian Stonecreek 01:14, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Looking at the Amazon look inside for several issues of the magazine and the combined editions, I think there is a choice between treating each episode as a seperate story (they are not only numbered, but also have their own title), having 12 parts make up one novel (the combined editions have 12 episodes each, and are titled year 1, year 2 etc.) or have 24 parts make up one novel (the episodes are numbered 1.01, 1.02 through 1.24 and then 2.01, 2.02 etc. and the first 24 episodes are published in one edition, titled Five Planes). If we choose the first, the combined editions should be typed collections, if we choose the second, MLB's solution was right (the Year One and Year Two editions should be novels, Five Planes should be an omnibus) and if we choose the third, Stonecreek is right except for the removal of the series name. In any case, the episodes should be entered as contents of the magazine. I haven't read any of these, but if each episode tells a complete story I would choose the first option. --Willem 15:11, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
(reposting after edit conflict) The magazines are missing their contents which hides the complexity of this series. To date, there are 45 serial episodes published in the magazine. Five Planes reprints only the first 25. It is not the whole series. Ideally, the magazine contents would all be added. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like all are available via Amazon Preview or other sources. I see a couple of ways we can handle this:
  • We treat it as a single serialization. All magazine serial entries would be varianted to a singe record. Any re-packaging of them would be considered a split novel and also varianted to to the single record.
  • If they are going to continue to print novels that consist of subsets of the series, we treat each subset as a separate serial. Therefore the first 25 would be varianted to Five Planes along with the Year One and Year Two publications, but remaining episodes would be considered a new serialization.
Based on what I see today, I think the first is probably our best solution. I'm not sure we have enough information for another option. Anybody have thoughts? I will add what magazine contents we can once there is feedback. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
According to Edit History, I was the editor who originally created the Rule of Five series, which no longer exists. However, I did it based on secondary sources, so I don't have anything to add to what has already been said.
From the process perspective, the main problem here is that, unlike publications, we don't have a "title verification" mechanism which would tell editors and reviewing moderators who else has worked on a title. What we do have is title-level "Edit History". It should be possible to change post-submissions pages for Edit Title submissions to give the reviewing moderator a list of editors who have edited the fields which the current submissions aims to modify, in this case "series name" and "series number". We could then update our Help pages to state that changes to previously entered values should be run by the editors who originally entered (or subsequently modified) them. Would this help? Ahasuerus 14:03, 14 September 2020 (EDT)
All this here could have been prevented if instead of just changing the series to fit someone's idea, the explanation on why it is needed was communicated ahead of time and an agreement was reached. I would not think that we need to have that written down (it sounds like common sense and common courtesy to me in a project to ours) but as it seems like some editors do not think so, adding it to the rules may be our only path. Annie 11:16, 17 September 2020 (EDT)
I should be sorry if turns out that I was wrong but I was just following the title notes which indicate that all publications print & reprint chapters (of one novel): as there was nobody to ask since no one has read the stuff or PVed it, it seemed to be the most sensible thing to do. Chapters are something other than episodes and if the parts were denominated in the latter way I would have hesitated to do it; but with the first phrasing it seems to be the most likely option. Christian Stonecreek 11:34, 17 September 2020 (EDT)
It is not about what is right and wrong for the series - it is about "talk to the the people who did the research before you change". We have history of titles and publications changes now - checking who had worked on these and getting a conversation going (especially when it is predominantly one editor) to ensure that we do not end up here again is all that is needed - just because someone did not PV does not mean that they had not spent a lot of time in research and thinking things through. So how about trying to give the same treatment to an editor who PVd and one who did not (when they worked on the series) when series are involved? Otherwise you have one editor vs another editor opinion and that leads to edit wars and bad feelings. What do you think? :) Annie 12:35, 17 September 2020 (EDT)
Ahaasuerus, my apologies for removing the the title series, Annie and you're right that I should have checked with the title history as well. I didn't - thinking that it was added because there initially was more than only one novel involved.
Rereading this thread it seems that there's still a series ongoing with further instalments already published and possibly upcoming. I hope it was okay that I just re-added the title series (and a further note) to Five Planes. Christian Stonecreek 23:24, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

Chris Moore cover not listed

This is aardvark7, in 1992 Hodder & Stoughton Ltd issued a version of Stephen King's Needful Things with a Chris Moore cover. A view of the cover can be found at and a view of the Chris Moore art can be found at aardvark7 21:24, 12 September 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up! Goodreads says that this cover was used on ISBN 045057458X. We have two publication records with this ISBN. They are identical except that one of them says "So-called Open Market Edition (sold in a territory in which no publisher has exclusive rights, as opposed to Mass Market Edition)". Amazon has a different cover for this ISBN, which we don't have on file. It makes me wonder if the "open market edition" may have used a different cover. Would you happen to know anything about this? Ahasuerus 14:14, 14 September 2020 (EDT)

Sorry, I just happened to come upon it in my quest for my Pinterest site. aardvark7 10:55, 18 September 2020 (EDT)

A false positive on the incomplete report: Michael Bishop's Ancient of Days

This novel shows up on [1] the incomplete contents report, seemingly because it has "incomplete number line" in the note. Per the header on the latter link, I'm reporting this here.

I spotted this whilst puzzling over the incomplete tag, which I'll create a new item for on the Help Desk page in a minute... ErsatzCulture 07:25, 18 September 2020 (EDT)

Ignored. Moderators can ignore false positives - I tend to work through the list occasionally to clear them but if you see more, post here and a moderator can ignore. Annie 05:55, 19 September 2020 (EDT)
PS: The incomplete tag is for works which have part of their contents added but are known to contain at least one more eligible title. So we won’t add it to an empty collection/anthology but will add if if an author just adds their own story or if look inside only shows one page of contents and so on. Annie 05:56, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

James Bond and Moonraker Jove version cover art

For the 1979 book from Jove, James Bond and Moonraker by Christopher Wood, I am finding a number of sources that credit the artwork, or at least to a painting that looks like the artwork, to Robert McGinnis. One of those sites is Another is aardvark7 11:06, 18 September 2020 (EDT)

Was I correct that this art was by McGinnis? aardvark7 18:22, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

What should I recommend the editor?

Hello. I have this submission on hold, as I'm not sure how to respond to the submitting editor.

  • I'm sure that two cover art records shouldn't be entered, but I am indecisive as to recommend to have one record with both 'artists', or rather simply to have no COVERART record at all (and make notes)
  • The newly proposed INTERIORART record should have the title just as Cold Storage without the disambiguation. Or should I recommend to remove it altogether (as it's more chaff than anything else), and again recommend to make notes (and remove the +[1] from the # of pages field)?
  • Perhaps a minor thing, but the editor also removed the reference to the source of the 2019-09-03 pub date (which is as of 2019-11-05). I would be inclined to request to not delete that original info. Am I right?

Thanks in advance for your advice, regards, MagicUnk 16:43, 30 September 2020 (EDT)

Well, one of the first things to do is to discuss it with the editor.
Cover: If the pub credits the cover (which appears to be the case from the pub notes), then it should be entered as credited. I would assume it should be a single cover art record with both artists, but you have to ask the editor if there was a reason for two. Maybe the credit lists them for separate elements of the cover (that happens) or something else.
Interior Art: Agree it would be just the pub title and use a page number & pub note to indicate it is a single work for the title page.
Date: You will need to ask the editor if there is a date statement in the pub. If it comes from the pub (full dates are rare, but they happen), then there is no need for a secondary source. If not, then it should have the source.
-- JLaTondre (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2020 (EDT)

Possible correction of artist

Anarchaos by Curt Clark - 1967 Ace Books listing shows artist as Don Lynch. Swann Auction Galleries listed the art with artist as HOWARD KOSLOW and said signed "Koslow" in lower right image. You can see it in the image. Link aardvark7 22:52, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the possible finding! I asked one of the primary verifiers on the matter, here. Stonecreek 04:33, 7 October 2020 (EDT)
The cover (my copy and the one on isfdb) has the image cropped inside of where the vertical KOSLOW is positioned. The copyright page states "Cover Art by Lynch.". --GlennMcG 15:25, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Mutual Art is also saying this piece is by KOSLOW. Could the copyright page be incorrect? aardvark7 21:25, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Sure. I've seen a fair number of books I've PVed with notes about how the credited artist and the actual artist disagree. --GlennMcG 21:35, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Can I assume that the art will remain created to Don Lynch per the copyright page, even though the art says KOSLOW? aardvark7 18:23, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

No, give us some times here to work that one out - not everyone is around all the time. We have two choices here: the "in error" artist credit that gets then varianted to the correct artist or fixing it to the correct one outright and then adding a note with an explanation. It will get fixed -- things just do not happen very fast when PVd records are concerned and when we need to reconcile sources. Annie 18:31, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Is more expected of me other than the comments I made here? --GlennMcG 21:29, 19 October 2020 (EDT)

New Book

I think I have found a book not in the data base: Star Mother by Sydney J. Van Scyoc - 1976 Berkley / Putnam Books. The cover artist is Richard M. Powers. Sorry folks I am rather new here and I'm not sure how to add stuff. I found the book at and I found the cover art at aardvark7 23:25, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

Hello! Please take a look at this listing, and do a proof that the publication is not already part of it. If it's for example the first one, we'd be happy if you primary verify it and add some information, as was supplied by other primary verifiers for the other publications of the novel. Thanks for becoming active! Stonecreek 04:09, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Yes, that's the book. I think that I was thrown and missed as the listing is one word, Starmother, and on the book it looks like two words, Star Mother. Sorry aardvark7 12:07, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Fear magazine

FEAR #41 April/May 2017. Cover by Rodney Matthews Price £3.99. Editor and number of pages unknown by me. Published May 2017 by Newsfield per mycomicshop (

This also looks to be the last issue (

Title of cover painting "On a Storyteller's Night" (from website)

cover at also at aardvark7 13:04, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

So do you want me to teach you how to add it or do you want someone to add it? Annie 03:01, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

I'd like to learn how as I have just found another book not in the database aardvark7 16:36, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Let's start with the book below (easier than a magazine), then we will work on this one. Annie 18:12, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

New entry, same stupid mistakes.

I'm trying to ender this collection and I forgot to list a number of pieces by Andy Sciazko as artwork. If my submission is accepted I'll correct these errors. MLB 01:57, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Approved. And fixed (I think) :) Annie 03:00, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

New addition

City of Thieves by Ian Livingstone. 1984 Dell Books 91374 $1.95 Cover artist Richard Corben. art reference Cover reference aardvark7 16:42, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

I will be posting on your Talk page in a few minutes with an instructions on how to add it on your own -- and will lead you through the process. Annie 18:12, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Incorrect Secondary Verifications by Inactive Editors

From time to time I've across secondary verifications made by editors who are no longer active in the project. One such example is this publication which has a Reginald1 verification. The listing for this title in Reginald1 is for the hardcover edition only, where we also have it marked. Since editors and moderators cannot remove verifications, I wonder if we should bring such errors to the attention of those who have the power to correct these errors. Alternatively, we could either mark it in the notes, or leave the error out there. Thoughts? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:36, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

I agree that it's clearly a problem. FR 1373, "Let moderators remove erroneous secondary verifications", has been created. I'll post an update once the software has been enhanced. Ahasuerus 19:54, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
Yes, this is needed. However, there needs to be a user accessible history for this. We had that past unpleasantness regarding unfounded accusations of removals when it wasn't even possible. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Done -- see this announcement for details. Ahasuerus 16:10, 19 November 2020 (EST)
Thanks for this. I started keeping a list after I asked the question, so I was able to clean up the ones I previously found. Works well. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:27, 19 November 2020 (EST)
Excellent! :) Ahasuerus 18:53, 19 November 2020 (EST)

Covers policy: Second set of eyes needed

I need a second opinion on a series of cover variants I have on hold. Example: this one (naming needs a bit of work, I will deal with that while approving if we do).

  • The cover is reused in one of our eligible books thus making the cover in our publication eligible for addition.
  • The original is in a comics/magazine which is not eligible
    • If any of these magazines/comics has a text story, they will be eligible under the non-genre periodical rules which means no covers
    • However with the covers already in the DB, not adding them will be silly.

We have three options here:

  • Leave the connection in the comments only - that goes against the current rule to variant to the real first publication/real painting).
  • Approve the variants and if any of these magazines/comics ever get added, allow the cover under the "known artist" rule.
  • (This will need to go in R&S but just listing it here): Review the whole "no cover for non-genre magazines" rule. If we relax that, these will be automatically valid.

Any preferences? I lean towards option 2 - allow the variants (known artists and first publication title) and then eventually go to R&S for a bigger discussion. And I may be overthinking it - I think under the current rules and practice, option 2 is what we should do but need a second set of eyes. Annie 01:57, 14 October 2020 (EDT)

Full disclosure: I have never liked the no-covers-for-non-genre-magazines rule; IMO, if we have a publication in the database for any reason, its cover ought to be "in" -- people identify things visually. Be that as it may, I don't think it's such a great idea to allow a non-genre publication to be "in" just because its cover appeared in some context where another use of the same cover art is "in". Consider the case where a painting by Leonardo da Vinci is used as cover art on a genre publication. We certainly wouldn't (shouldn't?) be open to adding all of the non-genre art books, catalogs, pamphlets, etc., where the same painting was used on the cover or in the interior.
My preference for artwork treatment would be that if it appears in a non-genre publication that is allowed in the database for some other reason, then capturing the artwork on/in that non-genre publication and having the variants is allowed. As you say, with the both the artwork and the non-genre publication already in the database, not adding the records for the non-genre publication's use seems silly. Also, this treatment would be consistent with what we allow for editor credits on non-genre magazines. We normally don't allow specific editor credits because we don't want to create author records for people never involved with spec-fic, but if the editor has an author record in the database, we allow the specific editor credit; not doing so would again be a little silly. --MartyD 07:39, 20 October 2020 (EDT)
I agree with you on the no-covers rule (even though I understand why we would not want the Playboy covers...) :)
So how should we date the covers we have then - if it was used in a comics in 1950 and then on a SF book in 1980, if we don't make a parent for the 1950 cover, do we date 1980 or 1950? 1980 does not sound right although at the same time it is a new name for the cover (but we have nowhere to mark the proper date -- which is why I was considering allowing the variants so the covers go in the correct place for the artist's bibliography). Annie 07:56, 20 October 2020 (EDT)
You could start a dreaded R&S discussion.... My gut says use the pub's date (1980). I was going to use my da Vinci example again, but then I came across this gem, although that treatment is not replicated for any of the other paintings (which all use the publication's date). --MartyD 13:04, 20 October 2020 (EDT)
Consistency R Us... :) I will reject the variants and explain to the editor why (and move the unearthed information to the notes). If this get changed, we can reconstruct. If someone is really interested in having these, they can start a discussion - dates from the books is good enough for me. Thanks for responding :) Annie 13:10, 20 October 2020 (EDT)

The War of the Worlds

this book has the wrong cover image attached to it. --Mavmaramis 14:39, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

Yep. I removed it. If you have a correct one, please feel free to add it (or point to it). Thanks for finding it! Annie 14:43, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

How to link

A number of day ago (Oct 11), I uploaded a file showing the Corgi edition of Red-12 ( How do I link that image to the page ??

Do I take the above image link and put it in the Image URL space on the Edit this pub page?? aardvark7 13:33, 19 October 2020 (EDT)

Almost. On that page, below the picture, is a link to the image itself, instead of to the Wiki page for the image. Use that. You'll find it is: Use that in tyhe Edit This Pub page's Image URL field. --MartyD 14:35, 19 October 2020 (EDT)
You can also right-click on the image itself, and select 'Copy image address' from the pop-up menu. Same result. MagicUnk 11:30, 20 October 2020 (EDT)

Suspiciously Similar Artwork

Ed Emshwiller Johnny Bruck Perhaps a note ? --Mavmaramis 15:47, 22 October 2020 (EDT)

The second one already has a note "The cover art is an adaptation of an Emsh picture." But if you want to add some notes on the COVERART records as well, go ahead. :) Annie 15:52, 22 October 2020 (EDT)

Zburătorii nopții

Cover art for this is by Chris Moore. It's a combination of the spaceship from Heritage of Stars and the mountain from the rear portion of Fountains of Paradise. --Mavmaramis 03:38, 23 October 2020 (EDT)

Feel free to submit an update of the publication record, adding the artist and copying over the info about the data sources of the art into the notes. Regards, MagicUnk 12:55, 23 October 2020 (EDT)
As long as we are sure they are the same and not "inspired by" -- see the thread topic just before this one for an extreme example. I'd just add a note that the art looks similar in this case, especially considering that it is a collage of two separate pre-existing covers. Annie 13:44, 23 October 2020 (EDT)
95% sure theyr're the same. I've compared the spaceships and the mountain and they're identical. --Mavmaramis 15:41, 23 October 2020 (EDT)
I even dare say they are 100% the same. I'd update the artist and add a note that it is a collage of two other pieces of art (as you've explained above). MagicUnk 09:21, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
I submitted an edit for the record which as already been passed by you (MagicUnk) so all good. --Mavmaramis 16:44, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

New British Science Fiction and Fantasy Books Published During 1970 & 1971

I'd like to submit an edit for this from the incorreect 1974 date given in Reginald1 to 1972 as per the copyright date in the publication iteself which would seem more logical (to me at least). I'll obviously retain the note re the erronious 1974 date. Hauck is the only other PV for this hence my posting it here. Any objections ? --Mavmaramis 16:47, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Worldcat (3692745 & 1152732889) agrees with the 1972 date, as do some other less authoritative references (for example, this rare book dealer). I accepted your update, and I'll add the Worldcat verifications and tweak the note a little more to cover that. I will also update the dates on the contained titles to match. --MartyD 07:20, 25 October 2020 (EDT)

Please check your mailserver

I have created a a new account yesterday evening. I am able to log in and I am very sure that the mail address I have entered is quite correct. Nonetheless I did not receive the confirmation mail that the wiki sent. Could you please check your mailserver for outgoing mails ... thanks & regards, --Klenzy 04:17, 12 November 2020 (EST)

There are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, we no longer require e-mail addresses to be confirmed before enabling ISFDB accounts, so it's an optional step. Second, some email filters assign high spam values to email messages sent by the ISFDB server. We have seen our email messages routed to Spam folders and even deleted outright.
I had the ISFDB server send a test message to my account a couple of minutes ago and it went through. If you can't send a message to yourself via "e-mail this user", then I suspect that the problem is somewhere between the ISFDB server and your email server. Ahasuerus 11:55, 12 November 2020 (EST)
Ah, I understand. I have been worrying as I thought the confirmation were necessary. So, everything is fine then; thanks. --Klenzy 14:09, 12 November 2020 (EST)

Desperation by Stephen King

Cover for Desperation by Stephen King 1996 Hodder & Stoughton found on ebay file name DSPTT1996D.jpg‎ Ebay listing aardvark7 13:45, 12 November 2020 (EST)

Linking suspiciously similar artworks

Is there a way to link pieces of artwork - either by the same artists or different anrtists that are suspiciously similar - or indeed in the case of the example - a refinement by the same artist (Fred Gambino) other than a somewhat buried note ?
Die Katakomben von Luna
Dangerous Visions
and these --Mavmaramis 08:44, 14 November 2020 (EST)

Notes or tags (or both) - these are the only possibilities. We do not have a "based on"/"stolen from"/"inspired by" kind of relationship in the DB. Annie 11:09, 14 November 2020 (EST)
So what do we use variants of COVERART for? ../Doug H 18:26, 14 November 2020 (EST)
Same we do for text titles: different language, title or author form (plus we variant between interior art and coverart when they are the sam picture). We won't variant the novella which was used as a base for a novel; we don't variant images which are based on each other. Images which are close enough (same image, different colors for example) are considered the same image so we merge them (when everything else is the same) but if they are not something we can merge if their title, author and image is the same, then they cannot be varianted. Annie 20:49, 14 November 2020 (EST)


Maybe me being an idiot but I can't see any difference between this ediion and this edition. Probably the 2nd should be deleted and notes and image transferred. --Mavmaramis 03:32, 19 November 2020 (EST)

None. Deleted. Thanks for finding it :) Annie 04:53, 19 November 2020 (EST)

The Dread Machine

Hello fellow moderators. How should we deal with The Dread Machine? It has been accepted as a webzine, but it doesn't appear to have any separately published issues, so not a periodical. Rather, it looks like an ever expanding collection of stories, corroborated by this submission of new titles. Regards, MagicUnk 15:34, 23 November 2020 (EST)

There are three options:
  • Do not include it based on the policy statement of "online periodicals without distinct issues are not considered webzines"
  • As each story is individually dated on the website, treat it like and enter a single story per issue
  • Treat it like Daily Science Fiction and group them into monthly issues. However, with the Daily Science Fiction, while their individual stories don't really met the policy statement of distinct issues, they used to offer a monthly archive (though those pages no longer work) and monthly eBook versions in the distant past.
You should consider moving this to the community portal. Inclusion, how to handle, etc. issues are not limited to input from moderators. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2020 (EST)
Moved to Community Portal. MagicUnk 11:40, 24 November 2020 (EST)

Double Star

I have uploaded a new image of Double Star by artist Anthony (Tony) Roberts for the 1974 Panther edition showing both front and back covers file DBLSTRLQGP1974A.jpg‎ . Its not the greatest but the best I have found so far aardvark7 14:21, 1 December 2020 (EST) aardvark7 14:22, 1 December 2020 (EST)

Publisher merge: RHCP Digital and RHCP UK Digital

Per prior discussion on my talk page, does anyone object to merging the latter into the former? To summarize that discussion:

  • RHCP UK Digital has just 2 ebooks from 2012 and 2014 to its name
  • Both of those ebooks have Amazon UK product listings stating they are published by RHCP Digital
  • Looking at their Amazon "Look Inside" previews, one has the Puffin logo on the title page, the other explicitly shows "RHCP Digital" on the title page

ErsatzCulture 15:46, 1 December 2020 (EST)

These are so clear cut that I don't think anyone will have anything to say. If no response is posted in a day or so, I will merge them. Thanks for finding them. Annie 16:53, 1 December 2020 (EST)
I support this merge. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:17, 1 December 2020 (EST)
I've merged them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:58, 2 December 2020 (EST)

Before the Golden Age Vol 2

I found an edition of Before the Golden Age Vol 2 edited by Isaac Asimov on eBay but can find zero info other than it was published by Orbit in 1978 and its 319 pages. My year & page info came from But the best pic of the cover comes from aardvark7 16:37, 2 December 2020 (EST)

Fixer tweak

The other day Amazon removed all Kindle and paper books by Brandon Varnell, another example of how transient Amazon's data can be. After entering Varnell's bibliography using Fixer's data, I tweaked Fixer's code a little bit. The Notes field now uses the date when Fixer last captured the data as opposed to the date when Fixer created the submission. Ahasuerus 12:48, 4 December 2020 (EST)

Can we have both dates in the notes? The history will have the second but having them in the notes makes it easier to see when the data was actually from. Annie 13:25, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Sure, I can do that. How should we phrase it? "Data from as of 2020-05-17, entered on 2020-12-04"? Ahasuerus 13:38, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Sure. That does not apply to the ones where the API responds now, right (aka will these have the very first date or the date of the last API response)?Annie 13:56, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Here is the sequence of events as of yesterday night:
  • I specify a bunch of selection criteria, e.g. a set of ISBNs/ASINs, a set of author names, a certain publisher name, a list of eligible bindings, a list of internal priorities, etc.
  • Fixer finds all matching ISBNs/ASINs in his internal database
  • Fixer displays the count of matching records and gives me the option to re-query the Amazon API
  • If I choose to re-query the Amazon API, the "DetailsCaptured" field, which stores the date when the API was last queried for every ISBN/ASIN, is updated for each ISBN/ASIN still recognized by the Amazon API
  • Fixer displays detailed data for each matching ISBN/ASIN
  • For each displayed ISBN/ASIN I decide whether to submit it and who the holding moderator should be
  • When a submission is created, Fixer uses the value in the "DetailsCaptured" field to populate the Note field
So I guess the question is what Fixer should do when the "DetailsCaptured" value is the same as the submission date. "Data from as of 2020-12-04, entered on 2020-12-04" looks kind of redundant, so perhaps Fixer should suppress the second date if it's the same as the first one? Ahasuerus 14:21, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Yep. Exactly why I asked -- for books that are still around (Aka the API brings the values as opposed to posting from the Fixer stores), the two dates will match; it is the old ones which had dropped off the face of the world that need the new notes. Kinda like we have a note when the price comes from B&N in 2014 for example. :) Annie 14:27, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Done -- see this Kindle edition of Arena Book 3 vs. this audio book version of the same novel. Curiously, Amazon doesn't display the original list price of the latter ($19.95) on the main "product" page even though the API returns it. Ahasuerus 14:50, 4 December 2020 (EST)
It does -- under "Buy with one click" as it is usual for Audible books - you need to open the tab and it is under it. Annie 15:29, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Oh, I see. I don't use audio books and I tend to stay away from Amazon's "Buy with one click" button because experience suggests that it's exactly what it sounds like :) Ahasuerus 15:33, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Looking at this ebook - why there was no check again against the API? The way this message reads is as if the data was not checked on the entered day against Amazon - implying that the book was not on Amazon when it was entered (which will be true if Amazon does not carry the book anymore but not in this case). Annie 15:58, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Well, the ebook record was just an example. Normally, I try to remember to re-query the API before creating submissions. A more likely scenario is a difference of a few days between the time the detailed data is captured and the time it's submitted. The API uses throttling, so repeated re-querying is not feasible. Typically, I send a big batch of ISBNs/ASINs to the API before I start processing a month and then I work with the cached data. Ahasuerus 16:31, 4 December 2020 (EST)
If this is what we do, then let's insert "initially" or "originally" before from in the first part of the statement... Annie 16:00, 4 December 2020 (EST)
The concern that I have with using "initially" or "originally" is that it would sort of imply that the data was subsequently re-checked, which would be misleading. Ahasuerus 16:33, 4 December 2020 (EST)
But at the moment it is essentially saying that all that data is from 2019 and was entered based on that cache and nothing else. Which is even worse - and incorrect for books that are still in Amazon. If left that way, I will need to edit it on every single newish book I process which will be counterproductive. Annie 16:39, 4 December 2020 (EST)
The 2019 example was just that, a single example. I chose not to re-query the Amazon API when creating the submission in order to demonstrate what the Note field would look like for pubs which are no longer recognized by the API. I should have used an unrecognized ASIN instead of this ASIN, which is still recognized by Amazon.
That said, let me make sure that I understand the real life scenario that you are concerned about. Suppose Fixer creates a submission based on cached data from 3 days ago. The Notes field will say "Data from as of 2020-12-01, entered on 2020-12-04." The approving moderator will then check Amazon's "product" page, find any discrepancies between Fixer's data and what's displayed by Amazon and correct them. At that point the ISFDB data will really be "as of 2020-12-04" and not as of "2020-12-01". The approving moderator will then have the choice of updating the Notes field manually -- which will get time-consuming over time -- or leaving it "as is", thus creating a discrepancy. The discrepancy will be minor, on the order of a few days, but real nonetheless.
If this your concern, then I agree that it's a legitimate one. However, don't we have the exact same issue with any Fixer submissions which remain in the queue for more than 24 hours? Ahasuerus 18:08, 4 December 2020 (EST)
I am changing the date in notes to have the correct date when I am approving more than a day or 2 post submission. :) I am not worried when it is a few days difference - it is obviously processing time. The 2019 example threw me off - so I asked - with such a difference, it does sound like we are saying we are working from a cache only. If that won't happen for still-existing in Amazon ASINs/ISBNs, we are all good. Annie 18:33, 4 December 2020 (EST)
Another option may be: "Data captured by Fixer from on 2020-01-12. Data added from cache as of 2020-12-04." Annie 18:38, 4 December 2020 (EST)
I suspect that references to "Fixer", especially "Fixer cache", would be opaque to most users. Something like "a snapshot of's data as of ..." would be easier to understand. Ahasuerus 12:24, 5 December 2020 (EST)
That allows us to clearly see what comes from the cache and what is live a the time of addition.(Fixer Cache used when the API does no respond). I had been using somewhat similar syntax lately (usually combining the Fixer data with GR or OCLC data). Annie 18:38, 4 December 2020 (EST)
The reason that the Fixer-generated note currently uses the word "entered" in "Data from as of 2020-12-01, entered on 2020-12-04" is that Fixer has no way of knowing whether the approving moderator will change the submitted data. If the moderator simply confirms that everything is correct and approves the submission, there won't be any added data.

(unindent) Let me take a step back and consider the larger picture. Even though Fixer always builds submissions using the data in his internal cache, we really have 3 different scenarios here:

  1. Fixer's cached data is recent, i.e. recently returned by the Amazon API
  2. Fixer's cached data is not recent because the maintainer hasn't asked the Amazon API about the specified ISBN/ASIN recently
  3. Fixer's cached data is not recent because the Amazon API no longer recognizes the specified ISBN/ASIN

Ideally, case 2 should prompt Fixer to remind the maintainer to re-query the Amazon API before creating a submission. Cases 1 and 3 should result in Fixer creating different Notes values. Specifically, Case 3 should read something like "Data from as of 2019-04-01. The ISBN [or ASIN] is no longer recognized by Amazon as of 2020-12-04".

At this time Fixer doesn't capture information about failed API queries. For the new functionality outlined above to work, I would need to modify Fixer's code to store the first (?) time the API query failed. It shouldn't be too hard. Ahasuerus 12:54, 5 December 2020 (EST)

I think we are overthinking it a bit. :) If the API responds OR is not consulted, that means that either we have fresh data or fresh enough for our purposes. In this case the old message "Data as of day of creation of the Fixer submission" is sufficient. Annie 16:55, 8 December 2020 (EST)
Unfortunately, the API not getting re-queried prior to submission creation can happen for a number of reasons. Most of the time the reason is that it was queried just a few days ago and the data is still fresh, but other scenarios are also possible. API queries are expensive because of Amazon throttling, which forces me to batch queried ISBNs/ASINs and makes the process more complicated than it would be otherwise. The complexity makes it harder for me to keep track of what's been queried when, so sometimes I incorrectly assume that Fixer has fresh data. One thing that I can do to alleviate the problem is display the "last queried" date during the submission creation process and make it blink underline it if the date is more than a certain number of days in the past. That's a trivial change and I am going to make it right now. Ahasuerus 16:14, 9 December 2020 (EST)
Done. Ahasuerus 17:54, 9 December 2020 (EST)
Changing it for a few days really does not make a difference. It is really the "we have the data but Amazon does not have it anymore" that makes the difference - and then having both the date the cache is from and the date of submission makes sense (this is also the case I will go chase a second source to supplement the cache). PS: for my proposal above: "added" as in "Added to the DB here" not as in "added to what Fixer had to say". Annie 16:55, 8 December 2020 (EST)
I have been thinking about this issue and I think Fixer really needs the ability to capture the fact that the Amazon API no longer recognizes the submitted ISBN/ASIN. The fact that Fixer doesn't capture this information causes other, unrelated, issues within Fixer's code. Because Fixer has no way of knowing that an ISBN/ASIN is no longer recognized by Amazon, he keeps sending queries, which is time-consuming due to the throttling algorithm mentioned above. Once I add this ability, we will have more options. Ahasuerus 16:23, 9 December 2020 (EST)

Target Rich Environment: Volume 2

I'm cloning an ebook into a pb to avoid re-entering all the story info. However, I missed updating the ISBN. Can someone accept, and then I'll add an other edit? Thanks. [2] --GlennMcG 22:17, 10 December 2020 (EST)

Looks like Rtrace approved it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:02, 11 December 2020 (EST)

Great! (Although it would be nice if there was a way to edit an edit). --GlennMcG 14:25, 11 December 2020 (EST)

I Apologize

Apologizes are needed for Pulp Apocalypse. For some reason I got a whole bunch of page numbers wrong and I have now corrected them. On the other hand the book is chock full of misspellings of series titles, author's names, and book titles. I have had to correct these after entering them. Hopefully I got most of them. MLB 17:36, 15 December 2020 (EST)

No need to apologize - mistakes happen when people do things - the only person that never makes mistakes is the one that does nothing. :) Approved. Annie 19:00, 15 December 2020 (EST)

Passages / Lackey

I've added [3] and noticed the author typos. I'll fix, rather than entering it all again. --GlennMcG 01:55, 16 December 2020 (EST)

Author Merge Requested

These two records are the same person:

Jen Gunnels is the same as Jennifer Gunnels.

Thanks!--JJ 01:07, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Alternate name established. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Author Merge Requested

These two records are the same person:

Crystal M. Huff is the same as Crystal Huff.

Thanks! --JJ 01:15, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Alternate name established. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Author Merge Requested

These two records are the same person:

Diana M. Pho is the same as Diana Pho.

Thanks! --JJ 01:28, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Alternate name established. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Author Name Correction

These two records are the same person:

Paul Cane is the same as Paul Kane. I'm not sure where the misspelling came from; the cover and title page of Cursed: An Anthology of Dark Fairy Tales clearly spell it with a "K".

Thanks! --JJ 05:38, 20 December 2020 (EST)

Fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2020 (EST)

I Apologize, Part 2

I blame it all on a bladder infection, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. However, I did this anthology even though I knew that this existed. I just meant to add the contents, but I guess I got carried away. Now what? I think mine's better, but that's beside the point. MLB 19:38, 21 December 2020 (EST)

Since you had entered all the contents, I accepted your version and deleted the one without contents. No point in making you re-enter all that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2020 (EST)

Deleted by stonecreek

My notes as PV are deleted/changed by stonecreek, again, here and here and here. Who will stop stonecreek? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfram.winkler (talkcontribs) .

First things first. Your Talk page has the "Inactive" template at the top of the page. It was added based on the following request back in August:
  • Diese Benutzerseite ist geschlossen, Kommentare werden nicht mehr beantwortet [This user page is closed, comments will no longer be answered]
Have you decided to rejoin the project? If so, please let us know and we will remove the template from your Talk page. Ahasuerus 00:50, 25 December 2020 (EST)
And to get things right: absolutely no information was deleted; instead information was added anew that was deleted by Wolfram when editing the notes (among them the re-introduction of the translator template we use, and information about the month of publication); there also was added new information (about the stated first German edition).
What does you make think that the usus of not deleting information and the adding of information missed out - explained to you quite often - has changed in the meantime? Christian Stonecreek 02:52, 25 December 2020 (EST)

@ Ahasuerus

First the note: 4 weeks have passed and no decision has been made.

I am only sporadically active on your stonecreeksite. If I find errors, I correct them as a PV, unfortunately this data is permanently changed by the user stonecreek (who in many cases is not a PV)! Mind you changed, rewritten or changed wording. I am not suggesting that anything is deleted, just manipulated. As long as this user Stonecreek is active here, I will no longer work anyway. And I advise you to clean up your moderators. I miss being respectful to one another. The user Stonecreek is so bold that he even manipulates input from a fellow moderator. There were already subtle complaints from this affected moderator, unfortunately there was no reprimand of the user stonecreek. That sounds a bit harsh, but unfortunately it's the reality. Almost all moderators except user Stonecreek and a few others have respect for the inputs of the users and tolerate their inputs and their formulations, only user Stonecreek always has to change everything according to his taste and his own ideas. Such types simply cannot work in a team, because they want to gain control and feel satisfaction in the process or enjoy the sense of achievement. I don't know user Stonecreeks private environment, I only suspect that he is very fixated on your side and otherwise has nothing else from life. I like to use information from your site, but the positive overall impression is destroyed by the negative influences of some moderators. Hence the question again: Who will stop Stonecreek?

This is a Google translation and therefore partly incomprehensible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfram.winkler (talkcontribs) . 05:44, 21 January 2021 (EST)

Since the manipulation of data (in these cases reformulating) does not stop, I will delete my PV tags, I will no longer support such falsifications of data with the help of my name. It cannot be that a marauding moderator Stonecreek is tolerated and even promoted here. This is not in the interest of a reputable database.
This is a Google translation and therefore partly incomprehensible.

Edit Queue

Not sure why starting yesterday (Dec.30, 2020) my edits suddenly stopped updating. Is there something going on with ISFDB, or is it a mistake? I log in as Username. --Username 08:04, 31 December 2020 (EST)

We have a limited set of moderators and they have lives outside the ISFDB. :-) The queue can slow down a bit around the holidays. Your edits will get processed. When adding a new topic to a wiki page, please use the "+" at the top of the page. This will create a new section which makes it easier to follow. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2020 (EST)

Thanks. The problem wasn't that my edits were not being added by moderators, it was that after I made an edit it wouldn't show up in the pending list. I tried importing 2 stories into Mort Castle's collection Nations of the Living, Nations of the Dead twice and nothing ever showed up on the pending list. This morning I added a few other edits and they're showing up in the pending list as usual, but the Mort Castle imports aren't there. I noticed on the moderators list that the last person who was handling my edits, Dirk P Broer, says he's on a 3 week vacation. I wonder if that had something to do with it. Maybe my account was frozen or something. Anyway, I think you all add edits very quickly. It just must have been some weird mistake or something. Now back to regularly scheduled editing! User:Username

If the issue is with importing titles, then my guess is that you haven't scrolled all the way down on the results page and forgot to press submit at the bottom of the page. Give it another try I'd say :) MagicUnk 18:27, 2 January 2021 (EST)