ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 31

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 January - December 2022.

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

Expanded archive listing

Words Without Borders

I wanted to add the january 2015 issue of Words withojt Borders but spotted that the series entry has a note about first checking with the mods. The theme of the issue is Uchronia so it should be in scope. My personal interest in it is to add a missing short story to Karin Tidbeck's bibliography. /Lokal_Profil 06:46, 1 January 2022 (EST)

Go ahead and add it. I changed the note from "Non genre webzine. Check with moderators who deal with webzines before adding content." to "Non genre webzine. Only genre contents should be indexed." Our moderation system handles the "check with moderators" part. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks. Submission is now up. /Lokal_Profil 17:22, 1 January 2022 (EST)

Two Shadows; I added the cover to The Shadow Over Innsmouth, coverless on ISFDB since 2007 when it was entered, but there's another record for the same publication, probably redundant and not needed if mods agree. --Username 18:20, 1 January 2022 (EST)

Duplicate deleted. It would be helpful if you just linked to the actual pubs when you post these type things... -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2022 (EST)

Nesbit Collection; I wondered why the publisher, Methuen, didn't have any of the hundreds of other books published by them listed when link was clicked, until I realized whoever entered this spelled it METHEUN. Also, E. Nesbit's Tales of Terror is already listed by Methuen in 1983 on ISFDB, so why this was entered is unknown; this image, [1], from Dalby's site shows ISBN that's in E. Nesbit's Tales of Terror here, so where this other ISBN came from is also unknown; is there an edition from the same year where they changed ISBN for some reason? Edit History reveals this wasn't done by regular editors but by a mod and then added to by another mod; no PV, though, so whoever wants to look at it may find it doesn't really belong here, except maybe for the note. --Username 22:46, 2 January 2022 (EST)

Misspelled tags, and tags that are near duplicates

The tag "Detectve" is misspelled and is probably a duplicate of "detective". Also "fatasy" and "handicapt children" and "hyptonism" that I found with a quick manual scan.

Each of these tags has a "near duplicate" that is identical except that it uses spaces instead of dashes:

  • science-fiction
  • young-adult-fantasy
  • young-adult-sf
  • near-future
  • young-adult
  • post-apocalypse
  • action-adventure
  • mega-engineering
  • into-movie
  • history-of-sf
  • juvenile-sf
  • african-american
  • young-adult-ghost-story
  • time-travel-romance
  • occult-horror
  • african-american-protagonist
  • young-adult-historical-fantasy
  • far-viewer
  • post-apocalyptic
  • post-holocaust
  • Young-adult-post-apocalypse
  • movie-novelization
  • science-fiction-romance
  • young-adult-paranormal
  • high-fantasy
  • sci-fi
  • shape-shifting
  • young-adult-thriller
  • young-adult-alternate-history
  • tongue-in-cheek
  • African-Americans
  • political-science-fiction
  • alien-point-of-view
  • body-switching
  • techno-thriller
  • Pre-WWII
  • shape-shifters
  • civil-rights
  • cultural-identity
  • out-of-body-experience
  • Pre-apocalypse
  • single-parent-families
  • second-person
  • X-rays
  • near-death-experience
  • South-America
  • Middle-East-inspired-fantasy

If you're looking at ISFDB database, this query can be used to find them: select count(*), replace(tag_name, " ", "-") as flat_name from tags group by flat_name having count(*) > 1; Variations of this query can be used to find tags that only differ in capitalization, or plural versus singular, or ones that use apostrophes that aren't needed. --Colink 23:06, 2 January 2022 (EST)

Griff; Fearn's Griff pseudonym was used for a cheap 50's novel; other Griff was used by an artist in the 2000's. --Username 12:36, 4 January 2022 (EST)

The Very Best of Barry N. Malzberg - table of contents corrections


I have the paper copy of "The Very Best of Barry N. Malzberg", 2013, Nonstop Press. (1499157)

I have made a comparison of the TOC and the actual stories in the paper version (in my possession today, checked out of the library) vs the current ISFDB entrees. The current ISFDB paper and ebook versions TOC listed essentially agree, and they are both missing stories and have 1 story in the wrong place/order/page number. If I am not clear, the corrections needed here are essentially the same for both the paper and ebook versions.

Bluesman is listed as the primary verifier for the paper version (none listed for the ebook). The Bluesman Discussion page states that Bluesman is inactive and that I should post about this here.

I am ready to make the edits (1 edit, a number of imports of stories that are missing but are otherwise in ISFDB, and one new entry for the Acknowledgements (i.e., copyright/source info) after I have approval.

Thanks for your help. Dave888 20:15, 6 January 2022 (EST)

We don't index the Acknowledgements as a general rule so that will be just in the notes :) Make sure that the story that is on the wrong page actually is on the wrong page (we go by the book, not its contents page) although a discrepancy should be in the notes. If you are sure that you have the same book and not a later edition/printing of it which added more stories (note that OCLC says "32 stories" so you may want to reconcile that and their list to ours while you are writing notes), go ahead and correct it, adding a moderator note explaining what you are doing and why. Annie 20:34, 6 January 2022 (EST)
1) Thanks for the reminder on the Acknowledgements. I'll handle that in the notes.
2) For the story on the wrong page ("The Lady Louisiana Toy", it appears that the page number entered was a typo. The number entered is "196", and the actual number is "296", both on the TOC and on the page of the book. This also puts it as the last story, which matches the ebook order. So, the ebook and paper TOC matches the corresponding locations in the book when corrected.
3) Regarding the copy I have, it sure appears to be the same edition noted for the tp. It has the same ISBN. It has the same "First Edition, 2013" with no number line. It has the same number of pages and the same price and cover. Checking a few places, so far all of the separate ebook version (Nook, Kindle) that I checked have the same TOC that matches as the paper version I have. In his review comments for Locus, Paul di Filippo's 2013 review notes "some three dozen stories", and mentions one of the stories ("Leviticus: In The Ark") that is in my copy's TOC and not the existing TOC. Taken together, it is likely that his ARC contained the same TOC at 37 and not 33 stories. I concur that the OCLC entry notes 32 stories, but looking at the actual list they have the same 37 stories as my paper copy, in the same order. So, it appears that the summary entry there for 32 stories is incorrect, although they have the correct TOC. What kind of moderator note would I need to use? Would noting that the OCLC summary total is is incorrect be sufficient?
Thanks.Dave888 00:15, 7 January 2022 (EST)
I'd say something like this in the Notes of the publication: "As of 2022-01-07, the OCLC record mentions that there are 32 stories but they list all 37 in the record details." (or words to that effect - feel free to rewrite) thus both dating the note AND explaining what the discrepancy is. If the record is ever updated, our note can also be updated and so on but if we don't notice, we have a record with a date. As for the moderator note - "Working off a copy of the book; to verify after all updates" (if you had not verified yet - some people don't want to verify until they know that all the info is correct because things happen...) is usually sufficient. :) Annie 15:45, 7 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks. That all sounds good. I'll check in if I get confused, and you or someone else will see the edits for approval.Dave888 16:59, 7 January 2022 (EST)

Two related questions on the ebook version. 1) I see a dual ISBN number, " 978-1-933065-55-7 [1-933065-55-9]". Why are there two? Is this really for two different ebook versions, say the Kindle and the Nook? 2) Checking various sources, I don't find either of the existing ISBN numbers are correct for this book. I assume I should update it? Thanks.Dave888 00:08, 10 January 2022 (EST)

That's ONE ISBN only -- in its ISBN10 and its ISBN13 formats. Our ISBN field can contain only one ISBN and we always show both versions when they exist (aka all 978 ISBNs always have both - just look at the paperback as well).
Careful with updating - make sure that it was not there back in 2013 either - this was the ISBN of the epub most likely at the time. Removing ISBNs from old records because the current versions, especially because Kindle/Amazon don't carry them anymore is a very bad idea. If you have the kindle version, mention in the notes that the ISBN is not printed in the book if that's the case - but let's not destroy old data :) Annie 11:23, 10 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks for helping me with these ISBN nuances. I do wonder what source the original ebook ISBN numbers came from; I did not find it. The current ebook versions at Amazon and B&N list the same pair of "new" or current ebook ISBN numbers, neither of which match the original here, in addition to the ISBN for the paper version which does match. I'll eventually add the two ISBNs that are in the ebook to the Notes. It appears one is for the Kindle and the other for the Nook at this time. I'll hold off on this aspect a bit to ensure I've got it, and to give you time to let me know if I don't.Dave888 11:54, 10 January 2022 (EST)
The note tells you was the source. In 2014, Amazon still had the eISBNs - they stopped recording and using them in 2019 or thereabouts (making my life miserable for new books) :)
What two ISBNs? You listed just one above and it belonged to both eBooks editions at the time of the book addition (or at least it belonged to the Kindle version - if the publisher uses different ISBNs per format, then we record the ebooks separately). If the book is reissued with a new ISBN, then we need a new publication for that. :) Annie 12:11, 10 January 2022 (EST)
I cannot honestly tell if the current ebooks (same info) I see on Amazon and B&N are a new ISBN or not, as I was never able to find the original information noted. The ISBNs are definitely different than the original one on this ebook, although the book contents appear to be identical otherwise. 1) the "original" ebook ISBN listed here for the 2013-02-28 ebook is "978-1-933065-55-7 [1-933065-55-9]". 2) the current versions I find on the Amazon version are "kindle ISBN 978-1-933065-50-2" and "epub ISBN 978-1-933065-8". For the B&N version, I see a very similar but not identical (the kindle ISBN is different) "Kindle ISBN 978-1-933065-55-7" and "epub ISBN 978-1-933065-58-8". Looking back, I see that I was incorrect earlier about the ISBN info being the same listed on both ebooks. My apologies, and I will still appreciate your guidance on how to handle this.Dave888 12:25, 10 January 2022 (EST)
In 2013, the kindle version carried an ISBN 978-1-933065-55-7. If the current version in Amazon shows a different ISBN, then it is a reissue. :) Annie 17:04, 11 January 2022 (EST)
Not to be too dense here, but there appear to be two ebooks today with different ISBN than the original Amazon ebook. Does that really mean that I need to create new editions for those two ebooks? Sorry for being slow on this.Dave888 18:17, 12 January 2022 (EST)
Nah, you are doing fine - you are just overthinking it a bit. Unless the same book carried both ISBNs at the same time (Russian books often do that as they have multiple publishers and each of them adds their own ISBN on the same physical book), they are different books for us regardless of their format(s) and we want to record each ISBN separately. So we add them as separate records, each with their own ISBN, ASIN/BN number if available, notes and so on. The same way you would add them if they are paper books - these just happen to be ebooks. If the ISBN is the same (or there isn't one and the formats are the same book essentially), we lump them in one record unless it is a known reissue (so all formats stay together if the ISBN was shared/missing and no differences are known); if they are different ISBNs, we add each on their own. There are a few children's publishers that use different ISBNs for their MOBI, ePub and PDF versions so they get 3 records as well (in theory everyone was supposed to do that - use separate ISBN per format; in practice most publishers don't thus our usual policy). Hope that makes more sense? Annie 18:24, 12 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks for helping me get there. I think I have it now. Definitely new editions for the new ISBN ebooks. I'll take care of that soon.Dave888 12:21, 13 January 2022 (EST)

Clear Queue

I'm wondering if anyone's going to accept the 8 remaining edits in my queue; I'm not sending an e-mail to a mod for something so blatantly obvious, especially since the last time I contacted him on his board he was rude, so if you don't want to approve them they're just going to sit there. I'm tired of most of my edits not being approved except in little spurts throughout the day when some random mod has a few minutes of spare time, and then most of my edits get approved at night by the same mod who runs through dozens of them in a few minutes just to clear the backlog. --Username 09:17, 8 January 2022 (EST)

A few minutes is more like an hour or more and your not the only submitter their are about a dozen more. Anyways happy to plow through them.Kraang 23:00, 10 January 2022 (EST)
No offense, but unlike a lot of other editors here I actually double-check all my edits and make sure everything's spelled properly (by the way, you misspelled "your" and "their") and check them again after they're approved to make sure I didn't make any mistakes or didn't forget to add info, which sometimes I did. So it's kind of insulting when most of them sit there, sometimes for a day or two (with the usual excuses from mods about holidays even when the holidays are long over), and then you approve almost all of them in a very short space of time. It leads me to believe that you're not actually checking any of them for accuracy but simply fulfilling a quota, and the very rare occasions (twice, I believe) when you actually rejected my edits you were wrong and the rejections were un-rejected. I believe you only started approving my edits a few months ago after I added a cover image to a German anthology which you had worked on, so it's good that you feel like paying it forward, but I put a lot of effort into my edits and expect the same from whoever approves them. It's all moot, anyway, because the trend on ISFDB these days clearly is e-books and the like, with the mountain of missing/wrong info on older print books being mostly ignored. I've edited here pretty much every day for over a year now and still never have trouble finding plenty of edits to make, and this site was opened to public editors in 2006, so that should tell you something about the abandonment of the physical in favor of the virtual. I've planned to leave here a couple of times now with unforeseen circumstances getting in my way, so hopefully I will succeed shortly; when my edits suddenly stop for a while, that will be a sign. --Username 09:19, 11 January 2022 (EST)
Never mind, I just cancelled all of them. --Username 10:35, 9 January 2022 (EST)
Please remember that ALL edits are approved by moderators "when some random mod has a few minutes of spare time". This isn't our job, and we get to them when we have spare time to spend on ISFDB. I'm sorry you find that frustrating, but the whole site is run by volunteers, so you'll need to find a way to deal with it. It sounds harsh, but that's the way it is with volunteer projects. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:26, 10 January 2022 (EST)

Clarkesworld Magazine

Annie and Rtrace -- I'm looking to add new information for Clarkesworld but want to confirm some issues that you guys are having to deal with when you moderate my entries. Here's my current assumptions: (1) Title should be entered as "Clarkesworld, Month Year"; (2) The issue number goes in the Notes field; (3) Even though Sean Wallace and Kate Baker are mentioned in the masthead, we're just assigning editorship to Neil Clarke; (4) Even though Clarkesworld is published every month in a print, pdf, and ebook (both EPUB and MOBI) editions, for the purpose of the database we're putting it in as ebook. I think that's everything that I've been doing inconsistently. If there's something else you see, let me know. -- Gengelcox 13:10, 12 January 2022 (EST)

Actually, we want all 3 editions: Print, webzine and ebook (PDF, epub and mobi as one record unless there is a difference in contents) - 3 records per month :) However... there is a problem to be untangled first. We have two series: the ebooks and the paperbacks. These need merging and a bit of fixing but there is a problem in how the editors had been credited on some issues so it is not exactly trivial.
So yes for the title ("Clarkesworld, Month Year"), yes for the issue number (in the notes), the date will be YYYY-MM-00 only. If the three editors are credited, we credit all 3 IMO - see the links above - we had been a bit all over the place with that.
So if you want to add our missing issues, work in the series that now holds the ebooks - but feel free to add all three versions (add in one, import in the other 2 for the contents). I will see what I can do about bringing the ones from the print version series into the other one and we will probably need to add the missing webzines now that they are fully eligible as well. But one step at a time. Let me know if something does not make sense. Annie 13:21, 12 January 2022 (EST)
After edit conflict. I generally agree with Annie with the exception of the editors listed in the name field. Clarke is listed on their website as "Editor-in-Chief", with Wallace as "Editor" and Baker as "Non-Fiction Editor". My understanding is that when there is a hierarchy, we list only the main editor and do not list sub-editors. That being said, it's fine to list the other two in the notes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:34, 12 January 2022 (EST)
When the magazine was up for nomination a few years ago, all 3 were listed as editors - I think this is where the 3 names being used came from. I am fine either way as long as we keep it consistent :) Annie 13:36, 12 January 2022 (EST)
That could arise in two ways. Either all three editors happened to be listed on the EDITOR record when the award was added; or if it was long enough ago, the award record was created with whoever was listed in the nomination. I don't think awards is a good way to look at this (See last year's Hugo nomination for Strange Horizons). I could have sworn this was in the help pages, but it doesn't appear to be there. There are a few discussions in R&S with the latest that I could find here. I don't know if that's a consensus, but the gist of the discussion would mean that we would definitely list Clark, with Wallace debatable. Listing a non-fiction editor would seem to be out by that discussion. Since it's been 8 years since this was discussed, perhaps it's time to bring it up again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:53, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I just added two issues. I thought I had already added November 2021, and my browser seemed to confirm it by auto-filling the fields, but I double checked and couldn't find evidence of it in the current database, either approved or pending. Strange. In any case, I'm getting a message that says Unconfirmed for "Clarkesworld" in the Title Series field. Should I be leaving that blank? -- Gengelcox 14:15, 12 January 2022 (EST)
If you look at the links I posted, the series is actually called "Clarkesworld Magazine", not just "Clarkesworld". :) We will fix that when these are approved but for the future, always a good idea to see how we may have called the series.
I don't see an errored out submission either so maybe you closed the browser before submitting last time? I've done that a time or 6... Annie 14:24, 12 January 2022 (EST)
Doh! Of course (for both issues). Thanks! -- Gengelcox 14:26, 12 January 2022 (EST)

R. Levy; This should actually be this, --Username 16:06, 12 January 2022 (EST)

Fixed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (EST)

Dating publications

The help for entering the date of publications explicitly says what to use: For books, to identify the publication date, try to find a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001". This seems to be pretty clear, but in this argument a moderator has used an interpretation that contradicts the written rules, and is not in line with the latest outcome of a discussion on that topic. The end of that thread enclosed the agreement that a statement in a book should overrule an Amazon date, and I don't see that this has been outruled anywhere afterwards. Stonecreek 01:56, 13 January 2022 (EST)

One of my early difficulties in entering publications was matching a book with no publication date to existing publications of the same title. After failing to find a match in title summary list from the undated (0000-00-00) publications, I would have to search all the dated ones, as people would 'research' a date and use that. At the time I felt that such 'researched' values were misleading, even if the Notes pointed out where the data came from. But having no alternative to offer beyond creating multiple dates (e.g. publication as printed, publication as derived - possibly multiple, copyright - original and renewed) and the bulk of my books entered, I've left the topic alone. But it seems to me that two (?) exceptions to the "document what is in the publication" rule cause more problems (discussion, work, confusion, etc.) than anticipated when they were made. (The other exception being publisher). ../Doug H 08:28, 13 January 2022 (EST)
The help page text is showing one place to look for a date. It does not tell you that this is the only way to determine the date (if it was, we’d have a LOT more 0000-00-00 and YYYY-00-00 books). We allow that field to be filled in based on secondary sources - as long as that they are documented. The interpretation that the sentence means that this is the only way to determine the date ergo we need to ignore all other sources is just weird.
In addition - not keeping the day portion when it is verifiable is losing data which we can have and can be used for research and for differentiating sometimes. That had not been the practice the DB had used in years - we use complete dates for books. Reverting to “month only” makes no sense. Annie 10:41, 13 January 2022 (EST)
PS: More background for the decision above - the date change performed and being reversed by me was not in a single publication as the initial post here implies - all October 2020dates were annihilated with No note added anywhere (ebooks, audio books, audio CD, both US and UK hardcovers). Annie 10:50, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I believe there are a number of issues here:
  • Librarians and bibliographers generally record both the "stated" and the "actual" data values when known. The latter are given in brackets, e.g. "Cambridge [Cambridgeshire"] for the place of publication. We do the same for authors and titles: we capture both the "stated" value and the actual value using our "alternate name"/"variant title" mechanism. Unfortunately, the software doesn't support this type of functionality for other fields like dates, publishers, etc, so we are forced to choose between each field's "stated" and "actual"/"researched" values, at least until the software can be changed to let us record both values.
  • Template:PublicationFields:Date says:
    1. [top of the page] Dates are in the form YYYY-MM-DD, where month and day are filled in if known, otherwise they have the value 00.
    2. [second bullet] For books, to identify the publication date, try to find a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001"; the copyright date is often misleading, since works can be reprinted.
    3. [last bullet] Books with a January publication date may often be bought in the closing weeks of the prior year; they will show the later year's copyright date, even though that year has not yet started. In these cases, the convention is to use the official publication date rather than to try to identify when a book actually first became available.
  • These three statements are confusing at best and contradictory at worst. The first one tells you to use "day ... if known", but the second one seems to tell you to use the month only. Then the second statement warns you not to rely on the copyright date, but the third statement tells you to use the copyright date even though it's possible for a book to say "Published in December 2020" and have a 2021 copyright date.
  • The issue of using YYYY-MM-00 publication date values taken from copyright pages over more precise YYYY-MM-DD date values from other sources was debated back in 2006-2007 when ISFDB 2.0 was launched. At the time, the majority of editors believed that exact publication dates used by Amazon and other online booksellers were unreliable and did not necessarily represent actual publication dates. This resulted in a convoluted process of capturing the exact (YYYY-MM-DD) pre-publication date from Amazon, using it to generate the "Select Forthcoming Books" list on the front page, then changing the date to a YYYY-MM-00 date printed in the book when the publication was verified.
  • To the best of my recollection, this practice was abandoned in the mid-2010s and we switched to keeping the more precise YYYY-MM-DD date when its source was properly documented in Notes, similar to the way we add and document other types of information -- like cover artist names -- from secondary sources. Unfortunately, I don't recall whether it was done as a result of a formal discussion or as a quiet acknowledgement that the transition to online sales had made full YYYY-MM-DD dates more consistent and reliable across the board.
  • To check the current practice, I have compiled a list of primary-verified publications published in January 2021. Out of 126 pubs, only 30 (14 of them are magazines) have 2021-01-00 dates. The rest have full 2021-01-DD dates.
  • Re: the 2012 Rules and Standards discussion, it ended with MartyD planning to come up with new Help language and post it for further discussion, which, as far as I can tell, never happened.
  • Internally, publishers have always used full YYYY-MM-DD publication dates. The problem was that, in the past, they were rarely made available to the general public unless the book was the kind of bestseller that people lined up to buy on the day it was released (think Harry Potter.) With the proliferation of online sources like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Goodreads, etc, publication dates are now readily available in the vast majority of cases.
  • Based on the above, I think it's clear that we need to have a Rules and Standards discussion. At the very least, we need to clean up Template:PublicationFields:Date and eliminate internal contradictions. Ahasuerus 10:55, 13 January 2022 (EST)
Apologies for butting into a moderator discussion, but as the person who kicked off the original talk page conversation about this (not linked in the initial comment for this item), and who inadvertently poured fuel on the fire by digging out the 2012 R&S discussion (that is linked above), a comment. (Some of this looks like it's already been pre-empted by Annie & Ahasuerus whilst I was editing, but I'm too lazy to remove any duplication).
On closer reading of that 2012 R&S conversation, the very first sentence invalidates it as being relevant to the edits that kicked all this off. It states (my emphasis): "If a book has a stated publication date, e.g., "First printing: April, 2010", and it has a known-from-the-publisher actual publication that that is different, e.g., "March 30, 2010", which date should be used in the "Publication date" field?" i.e. that discussion was based on scenarios where the month-and-year in the primary source contradicts the day-month-year from secondary sources.
The edits to (the title and multiple pubs of) The Ministry for the Future, were to change the dates from 2020-10-06 (or 2020-10-08 for the UK hc) to 2020-10-00. None of those yyyy-mm-dd dates (some of which originated from multiple sources, not just Amazon) contradict the yyyy-mm information on the copyright page these edits were based on, unlike the example I quoted from the R&S discussion. To my mind, there is negative value generated by making an edit like 2020-10-06->2020-10-00; some examples of how day-of-month information might be useful are given in my first comment in the discussion page I linked above. In cases similar to that hypothetical example where the entered yyyy-mm-dd value is in contradiction to the month/year value in the primary source, then it's perfectly reasonable to use the latter, but then this should be explicitly mentioned in the pub note, surely?
(This is before we get into separate issues outside the subject of this specific wiki item, such as the edits being done without updating the pub notes to say that the data was changed based on a source other the ones already mentioned in the note, and that those original sources had a different value from what had been made in the later edit, etc.) ErsatzCulture 11:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)
My understanding of the previous discussions (2006/7 & 2012) is that the general agreement was to not use Amazon (or other vendors) dates, if there is a statement in the publication made. The help is quite clear on that, though the statement made after first bullet of the help to use month and day 'if known' can lead to puzzlement. The 2012 discussion made it clear that secondary sources may be used, but they should be dependable, in particular "that a statement in a book should overrule an Amazon date". Christian Stonecreek 12:51, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I always use the in-publication date. I also use the Amazon date if it's more precise and agrees with the in-publication date. For example, if a publication has "October 2021" as the date on the copyright page, and Amazon has "October 14, 2021", I'll use the more precise Amazon date. If the Amazon date was "September 27, 2021" instead (which happens all the time), I would use only the month and year from the publication and note the discrepancy in the publication notes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:08, 13 January 2022 (EST)
Yep, my understanding of both the rules and our practice as well. Use the printed date if it belongs to your printing but if more details are known to complete the date, use them if they do not contradict the primary source information (and always document your sources). Annie 19:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I am not sure what you find puzzling in the "where month and day are filled in if known" statement or why you believe that this part of the help page somehow does not apply and can be just ignored and disregarded. The day of these publication is known - so it can be in the field as per the help page text (and our current practice supports that). The bullet point after that provides assistance on where to look for the information in a book (but does not list the only place for that information or restrict other means of finding the data - not all books have the information on this page) and the third one is a clarification on resolving contradictions. Although I do agree with Ahasuerus that we need to clean up the language on these 2 bullet points. The 2012 discussion was resolving an issue with contradictions again - when primary and secondary dates contradict themselves - and not stating that the field can never be updated based on secondary sources.
You also keep ignoring the fact that the dates of the modern books are also fully verifyable on the publisher sites, Goodreads and other online platforms these days, not only on a vendor site (if you chose to still ignore and Amazon UK as valid data sources for English language new books in their respective countries (especially when that data is fully corroborated)). Deleting information from our records because you chose not to trust the source as listed and you would rather delete the information than either try to verify it yourself or ask the editors who had worked on it to assist, is even worse than applying an obsolete rule which contradicts the current practice IMO. Annie 19:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)
It is the other way round: if a current practice is against a rule, then the practice has to change (or the rule has to be discussed: that's what we are doing now). It is not okay for one moderator to declare a rule as obsolete. I do concede though that I should have looked at the publishers' sites. Christian Stonecreek 01:58, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Please note that of the 3 moderators who have posted so far, all agree with the current interpretation of the rules, so it's not just a single moderator going against the consensus.
Having said that, the scenario that Nihonjoe mentioned above -- a book published on 2021-09-27 with an "October 2021" statement on the copyright page -- is fairly common and leaves us in an inherently difficult position. If we enter "2021-09-27" as the Date value, we very visibly contradict what's stated in the book and violate the "principle of least astonishment". If we enter "2021-10-00" and move the exact date to Notes, we lose granularity and accuracy, especially when it comes to searching and data mining. There is really no good way of solving this conundrum as long as we have only one publication field.
The most obvious solution would be to create a new field for "Stated Publication Date" with the understanding that the current "Publication Date" would be used for "Actual Publication Date" values. This change would require updating:
  • 5 edit forms -- NewPub, EditPub, AddPub, ClonePub, Import/Export -- and related post-submission pages
  • "Publication table" shared by many Web pages
  • Publication Display pages
  • Forthcoming Books pages
  • Advanced Publication Search
  • the Web API
and probably a few other Web pages, but nothing insurmountable.
It would help with the difficulty that Doug H mentioned earlier and may also serve as a prototype for other, more involved, projects which will separate what's "stated" in the pub from our "normalized" values, e.g. publisher names. Ahasuerus 10:26, 14 January 2022 (EST)
This would be a nice & appreciated solution for the conflict. Christian Stonecreek 10:45, 14 January 2022 (EST)
In case I miss the discussion of the implementation of such a solution, a few of observations.
  1. It would be nice to incorporate all changes separating "stated" from "normalized" values. It would also likely make it such a mess to discuss and implement that it wouldn't get done, so I'd 'vote' to use it as a learning experience for future changes.
  2. It would be nice to know the 'source' for exact dates, which means another field or a Notes standard.
  3. In the event of conflict, we should document both dates and the reason for picking one, either in fields or by a Note standard.
  4. Since the fields serve different purposes and seeing both on summary listings is wasting screen real estate, I'd suggest either allowing one to pick the field either on the display or in one's profile.
  5. Since it will generally be a case of one or the other, the preference would be which to show when they conflict and whether to show the value, possibly flagged, regardless.
  6. Multiplicity of values (for disagreeing sources) throws a wrench into all the above...
/Doug H 12:57, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Re: (1), i.e. adding "stated" fields for other values, there is a certain amount of history there. For example, there is an outstanding request to add support for multiple imprints and multiple publishers per publication. That gets complicated real quick. A "stated date" field would be much easier to do.
Re: (2) and (3), i.e. adding a new field for date source(s), I think a separate field would be excessive. All other values are currently sourced in the Note field and I suspect that it's as good as it's going to get.
Re: (4) and (5), i.e. letting users decide which field to display in the standard "Publication table", my concern is that it would result in different seeing very different views of the data. That can get confusing.
Ahasuerus 18:40, 14 January 2022 (EST)
On (4) and (5), show both dates in a bubble on hover over the current date field - that way one can look at them from the table and not need to go inside to see what is what. I think we nee do retain real publication date as the date field in the tables (because that's better for sorting as well) - but the stated one can go in the tooltip. Now... if we can find a way to push there the printing information as well, that would solve the final issue in finding what book you are really holding on multi-printed books (what Doug is also trying to solve I think) but that's a different pony. Or maybe not - it is related to dating. Adding one more field "Printing/edition information" won't add too much effort compared to adding one. And we don't need to define what is in it strictly - just free text so it shows up on the tooltip for the dates in the publication table and people can fill it with whatever feels relevant for that specific book. Annie 18:50, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Printing numbers are a fairly big can of worms because we want both the ability to sort by the printing number AND the ability to tell what kind of "1st", "2nd", etc printing it is. The latest (and hopefully final) iteration of the proposal is documented in FR 794, "Add 'Printing number' and "Printing # Details" fields to pub records":
  • Add 'Printing number' and "Printing # Details" fields to publication records. The first field should be strictly numeric, allowing values like "1", "3" or "27". It will be displayed as a new colum in the he standard Publication table. It will be used for sorting publications that have the same publication date and publisher within t.
  • The second field will allow arbitrary value like "stated fourth Ace printing but actually at least the 6th printing because Ace reset its printing numbers at some point". The value, if present, will be displayed in a mouse-over bubble next to the numeric Printing Number value. (See for further discussion.)
Ahasuerus 11:13, 15 January 2022 (EST)
I remember that. And that’s irrelevant to what I am saying above. I don’t want to make it absolute. I want to allow something to be visible when you are looking at the list of publications for a title without the need to open 11 0000-00-00 books to find out if we happen to have the printing I am holding. Assisting - not defining. Yes - all that stuff above is awesome to have but we never will most likely. So trying to assist editors and make the DB a bit more user friendly may not be a very bad second idea. Just saying. Anyway - let’s drop this for now and deal with the dates - or we will never get anything done. Sorry for bringing it up. Annie 12:58, 15 January 2022 (EST)

(unindent) Apologies to have dropped the ball after that 2012 discussion. What was proposed there, and what I believe was agreed to, is:

  • The publication's statement is the base date unless that statement is known/demonstrated to be for some other printing.
  • Missing date information (whole date or date details) may be supplied from other sources, which must be documented. Unreliable sources may be used if independent corroboration can be found.
  • Where secondary source information is used, the publication's statement (or lack thereof) should be recorded in the notes.
  • Disagreements between the publication's statement and other sources should be documented in the notes.

There was also a bunch of detail around the hierarchy preference for secondary sources. Unless someone thinks I should not, I can recover the ball and propose a wording change encompassing all of that. I believe current practice is usually in line with this. --MartyD 10:22, 15 January 2022 (EST)

Yep - thanks, Marty - although we also need to discuss some of these - unreliable in 2012 and unreliable in 2022 are two different things if someone has been paying attention. :) But getting a proposed language so we can work based on it is a good idea. Annie 12:58, 15 January 2022 (EST)

(Unindent)Re. Ahasuerus' grandparent comment "Add 'Printing number' and "Printing # Details" fields to publication records. The first field should be strictly numeric, allowing values like "1", "3" or "27", could this maybe be slightly relaxed for formats such as ebook? A few ebooks list a version number on their copyright page, which isn't (usually?) an integer, but probably is sortable, and so it would be nice to be able to store this in the printing "number" field rather than the free-text details field. This could be useful in cases where an cover image has been updated, but the ISBN has stayed the same. (Although I do have the sneaking suspicion that covers may well get updated without the version number being incremented, which would make this observation/request a bit moot.)

A couple of examples: decimal format, date format. FWIW I've just downloaded the latter on a different device, and it does indeed have a later/higher version value to go with the different cover image.

I don't know if other version formats are in use, and I appreciate there's probably not a (MySQL or Python) data type that covers integers and decimals and dates, so please take this as more of a comment than a formal request for any hypothetical implementation. ErsatzCulture 11:57, 15 January 2022 (EST)

I have seen ebooks with odd-looking printing designations like "1.2" and even "A". In addition, print-on-demand books occasionally use printing designations which incorporate dates, but can also include other characters. My current thinking is that they are not really "printing numbers" as we understand them, but the industry is changing and perhaps the concept will evolve in the coming years. Until the dust settles, I would be hesitant to add the kind of extra software complexity that would be needed to handle these designation in the same field. Ahasuerus 18:19, 16 January 2022 (EST)

To close the loop on the help text, and to further my attempt to set a cross-posting record: The official Template:PublicationFields:Date has been updated with the proposed text. I hope it will be helpful. --MartyD 12:43, 12 February 2022 (EST)

Notes to moderators

I was wondering what "a" means in the case of the following self-approved edits [2], [3], [4] and [5]. As all those publications are PVed by multiple contributors, "a" seems to me quite a bit too light a justification. As I can't easily dig one book between a few tens of thousands to check what and why have been done, I suppose that I'll have to unverify those titles and I resent this. AlainLeBris 05:50, 14 January 2022 (EST)

When editing a primary-verified publication, editors are forced to enter at least one letter in the "Note to Moderator" field. My best guess is that Kraang thought that the edits were obvious and self-explanatory, so they didn't require an explanation. Let me ask him to stop by. Ahasuerus 10:32, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Title and Transliterated title were reversed on two pubs in another "et" was spelled "at" and the last "Bonhomet" was spelled with two mm's. Found these in the cleanup report. Obvious minor input errors with a simple fix. Do seem to rub a lot of people the wrong way since I returnedClear Queue.Kraang 11:39, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Once approved, the "old" value is not visible anymore - which makes these a lot less obvious when one checks them. Sometimes looking via some of the old edits can help find what changed but it is easier if the note assists. So even if it looks obvious, "values swapped", "et -> at" or something like which describes the change and helps anyone finding this later understand what happened and why is a better idea than just bypassing the mandatory moderator note software check with a random symbol. :) Annie 11:57, 14 January 2022 (EST)

Different statuses for the two collections of authors

In the light of the fact that the two allowed melting pots assemble many authors of diverse languages: shouldn't 'uncredited' (here an example) and 'unknown' have the same status, i. e. have no language attached? Stonecreek 06:34, 15 January 2022 (EST)

I don't think it is possible to edit an author to remove the language. Author records start out with no language when first added from a publication, but any edit to the author record adds one. "null" is not an option in the language pull down list. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:26, 15 January 2022 (EST)
Yeah, but I seem to remember that 'uncredited' once was the same way (or was it established when we had no language assignment around, but 'unknown' should have been around then also).
Also, 'uncredited' is virtually uneditable, 'unknown' maybe should have the same status. Stonecreek 08:23, 15 January 2022 (EST)
The difference between uncredited and unknown is not language. It is that uncredited has so many records the software prohibits viewing the author record. In the database, uncredited has a language of English, you just can't see that in the display. The software could probably be relatively easily changed to not display the language field on the unknown author record. By the way, you really should be putting topics like this on the Community Portal. Moderators opinions are not the only ones that count when talking rules / standards / how the software works. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2022 (EST)
I have copied this discussion to the Community Portal and will respond there. Ahasuerus 13:36, 15 January 2022 (EST)

Draft date help rewording available

Hi mods. Please see User:MartyD/ProposedDateHelp for the first draft of proposed date help rewording. I'm afraid it's a little TLDR, so any pruning help very much appreciated. I'll incorporate any comments received in the next few days and then publish on R&S and Community Portal. Thanks. --MartyD 11:38, 18 January 2022 (EST)

Affected Record

Somebody just made an edit for a Robert Hale book I made edits for months ago,, and I thought it was odd that the original 2013 edit has that info under Affected Record instead of the book title. Don't know if that needs fixing by anyone. --Username 20:24, 20 January 2022 (EST)

YBHS Story Dates; I fixed a ton of dates for the Year's Best Horror Stories series a while ago, and today I started on the remaining volumes. Is the procedure for the Sallee story linked above to change the retitling to the date of the YBHS reprinting or make it the same date as the original? I already fixed the date of original title to the anthology it appeared in. Sallee explains why he retitled it either in YBHS or the later collection it appeared in, but online sites that have that text seem to all be spyware sites I don't want to enter. --Username 13:46, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Unverifying publications

Just a FYI, as Stonecreek, using his/her moderator attributes has decided to change the author credits on some of my PVed publications regardless of my opposition to this move, I'm unverifying all the Perry Rhodan that I've entered and will not enter any more from now on. For all questions about this publications, now just ask him/her or any PV left.AlainLeBris 13:32, 22 January 2022 (EST)

I am trying to understand the scope and the nature of the issue here. Checking Wiki history, I see the following discussion starting on 2022-01-16:
One (or two) additions are worth mentioning, I think: I asked Alain to bring his view of adding '(in error)' up somewhere - at best in the thread on the Community Portal - and I only changed the publication to align the credit with the title (and add two links). Stonecreek 06:34, 23 January 2022 (EST)
I am not sure if this covers everything, so I am going to ask the listed editors to comment. Ahasuerus 16:07, 22 January 2022 (EST)
Yes, that about sums it up, Ahasuerus. I asked about needed changes to have the French credits for a 'Clark Darlton' that has in most cases nothing to do with the real Clark Darlton. The author seems to be credited in each and every volume published in French because of merits as founder of the series (and mostly erroneously so).
I had taken action after two positive responses by moderators on the community portal. I have also changed the credit for 'Clark Darlton', added missing content and some notes for this, which also was primary verified by Alain (it seems that in each and every volume of the French series of translations as edited by Jean-Michel Archaimbault there's content missing).
I can see no reason for you, Alain, to unverify the publications. In fact, I would appreciate your help to have the data right. Christian Stonecreek 00:17, 23 January 2022 (EST)
I totally agree with Christian here. Changing erroneous credits does go along with the common practice and rules on ISFDB, which trump any individual practice or rule. This does not affect the data in any way, since the system automatically produces the “as by …” credit as well as the authentic one. I see no reason why Alain should unverify any pub of this series. Linguist 04:29, 23 January 2022 (EST).
I can't find any other discussions on the subject. Since I don't own any of the French Perry Rhodan's, I can't say much about crediting authors. "Clark Darlton (in error)" looks logical on titles he didn't write. What Christian calls phase 2 are the 2005 and later titles in this sub-series. Since these are (according to the pub notes) translations of German originals (see here for an example), they should be varianted to the German original, not to a fictional French original. --Willem 04:53, 23 January 2022 (EST)

(unindent) Thanks for chiming in! It sounds like we have general consensus re: what we want these records to look like. What I am pondering is what kind of process we want to put in place for handling similar types of situations going forward.

The "self-approver" system was implemented relatively recently, in April 2021. At this time we have only one self-approver, but it's likely that we will be have more editors with self-approver privileges in the future. Inevitably, there will be cases when an editor with self-approver privileges disagrees with an editor without them, sometimes re: primary-verified publications. Normally, it's up to the reviewing moderator(s) to decide what to do and then to communicate the decision to the primary verifier(s), but what should the etiquette be when self-approvers are involved? The only thing that Help says about self-approvers at this time is (in Help:Screen:BureaucratMenu):

  • Manage Self-Approvers. Lets a bureaucrat enter the name of an ISFDB editor and select whether the editor is a self-approver, i.e. able to approve his or her own submissions. Also lists all current self-approvers.

In this particular case the self-approver reached informal consensus with 2 moderators before making changes, but the primary verifier wasn't notified about the decision by a moderator. I think we need to spell out what self-approvers are expected to do when there is a disagreement with a primary verifier, something like:

  • Let a moderator communicate the decision to the primary verifier before making changes

If nothing else, the list of Moderator Qualifications includes good communication skills, which self-approvers are not expected to possess to the same extent.

Thoughts? Ahasuerus 18:46, 24 January 2022 (EST)

I would argue a self-approving moderator should adhere to the exact same rules and requirements as a full moderator. After all, a self-approving moderator has virtually the same level of power to edit the contents of the database, so have to adhere to the same standards as a moderator regarding data accuracy and rules adherence, and being able to communicate clearly with other moderators and editors plays an important part in that (not to speak of being collaborative, open-minded, consensus-seeker (i.e. not being a cavalier seul),... which are also important skills for any moderator to possess). The only thing a self-approving moderator cannot do, is approve or reject someone else's submissions - which can be extended to something in the sense of "don't edit/alter someone else's edits without express permission, or seek approval from moderators". Which is roughly identical to what you are proposing above :) Regards, MagicUnk 06:43, 25 January 2022 (EST)
Keep in mind that there are a number of other things that moderators can do that self-approvers are unable to do: "ignore" records in cleanup reports, merge authors/publishers, remove secondary verifications, remove tags, etc. For this reason I would call self-approvers "self-approving editors" as opposed to "self-approving moderators". Ahasuerus 13:40, 25 January 2022 (EST)
True, but the important element here is the ability to self-approve, hence change any date you like, however you like - so, at least in that respect, we want to hold the self-approving moderators (or editors, if you will) to the same high standards as full moderators have to adhere to. Regards, MagicUnk 09:03, 27 January 2022 (EST)
What it boils down to is that there is no "self-approving moderators" (because approving is part of what a moderator is) - "self-approver" is not a restricted version of a moderator who just cannot approve the submissions of others; it is really an elevated version of an editor, allowing that editor to approve their own work but not giving access to the rest of the moderators' tools or have any expectations in sharing the moderators' responsibilities.
I like the language proposed above. Annie 14:32, 25 January 2022 (EST)
I agree. I also just wanted to comment that it looks to me like everyone involved tried to do the "right" thing, and I think it's unfortunate that bad feelings resulted. It's good to figure out what might be done differently to avoid that the next time. --MartyD 15:39, 25 January 2022 (EST)
I think that at least a part of it was pure communication breakdown - the usage of (in error) was never explained in regards of how its usage helps our DB (the removal of the books from the incorrect author bibliography, the ability to see them where they belong, the ability to connect them to their originals an so on - and yes, it is partially because of how the DB is designed and it does require some weird displays sometimes - but they need to be explained when needed, not just brushed over and considered normal because people know them). Instead there was an explanation on why the credit is in error technically -- but not why it is important for the DB for this to be differentiated somehow. Add to that the change to the data happened after only two days of waiting time (despite our FAQ advising to wait for a week) and I can see where part of the frustration came from. I agree that everyone tried to do the right thing but it feels a bit heavy-handed and rushed.
In addition, there is a bit of a semantics (and/or language) issue that had been bugging me for awhile in the (in error) authors and it also played a role here I think - we use (in error) for two separate things:
  • Real errors (printing mistakes, mis-attributed covers and so on)
  • Conscious decisions by a publisher/editor to use someone else's name - as a house name in this case, as a way to sell more copies for a book "based on" the work of someone (usually in translation and in interesting times - aka Eastern Europe in the 90s for example) and so on.
The latter is not really in anyone's error and I can see why an editor would not want to have that showing up on a book - it is not factually correct. Add to that the fact that (in error) is not really codified in the help page and the usage can be... misinterpreted. I am not sure what we can use? (house name)? (editor choice)? (incorrect attribution)? None of those rings quite right but I hope they illustrated what I mean. Annie 18:46, 25 January 2022 (EST)
I am thinking that this is similar to the issues presented by other ghostwritten works. For example, Virginia Andrews wrote fewer than 10 books before she died in 1986, but Andrew Neiderman has published dozens of books as "Virginia Andrews" and/or as "V. C. Andrews" since her death.
At one point we created FR 346, "Add support for ghostwriters", to address this problem at the software level. Unfortunately, it's been 9 years and I still can't think of a good way to handle it. Ahasuerus 10:09, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Author William Walling has died

Author Reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raygo4th (talkcontribs) .

Updated, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:23, 23 January 2022 (EST)
I took a look at his page and many of the novels and stories are out of order re: dates. Is that wrong? --Username 08:56, 15 February 2022 (EST)
The link above is to his "Alphabetical Bibliography" page. The Summary Bibliography page displays titles chronologically. Ahasuerus 10:57, 15 February 2022 (EST)
I see; 1 positive is when I looked at his record again I thought the obit notice might be "Ana" instead of "Anna" but turns out it's actually "Barbara" so I fixed that. --Username 11:27, 15 February 2022 (EST)

German Dollars?

Mods added info link after prices recently; this page,, has it after DM prices but not after whatever those dollar sign looking prices are. Mentioning in case that needs fixing. --Username 23:10, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Could you please link the Web page that you are referring to? Ahasuerus 23:28, 26 January 2022 (EST)
Hi! That's no Dollar sign ('$'), it's just an 'S' (for Austrian Schillings). I know it looks somewhat puzzling, but the publisher is situated in Austria and sells his publications there and in Germany (like most publishers located in Germany do), the sources for the data unfortunately list prices differently). Christian Stonecreek 01:59, 27 January 2022 (EST)
A note in each of the publications explaining the currency is probably a good idea - saying that it is Austrian shillings. Or on the series level - explaining the shifting currency of the series. Or both really. It is a somewhat uncommon currency around the DB after all and not everyone will make the connection to Austria. :)Annie 02:04, 27 January 2022 (EST)
We don't use "S" for any other currencies; we don't even use lowercase "s" for UK shillings. Why don't we add "S" as our official "Austrian Schillings" abbreviation to Help:List of currency symbols? We could then update the software to display mouseover help for "S" currency values. Ahasuerus 12:58, 27 January 2022 (EST)
But what about Singapore dollars? See here: --Username 13:06, 27 January 2022 (EST)
There's nothing using S$ yet. That would help differentiate between $, C$, A$, and so on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:16, 27 January 2022 (EST)
Help:List of currency symbols already lists "S$" as "Singapore dollars" -- see the "$" row -- although I am yet to update the mouse-over help to accommodate it and a number of other dollar-based currency signs.
"S" followed by a space would be a different currency abbreviation. Alternatively, we could use "öS" ("Österreich Schilling"), which was another officially used "Austrian Schilling" symbol. Ahasuerus 13:53, 27 January 2022 (EST)
Ah, I missed it since I was looking for it in the leftmost column (like A$ and C$). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:05, 27 January 2022 (EST)
Adding S for the Austrian shillings sounds like a good idea indeed. Annie 10:09, 28 January 2022 (EST)
It is! I do expect some more publications to pop up with (only) this currency. After all there are / were some smaller publishers that seem to have restricted themselves to their home country (not to mention the vital fanzine scene of Austria). I remember that the currency in the old times was called 'Alpine Dollars' tongue-in-cheek, maybe because the 'S' symbol was in fact thought to be a Dollar sign. Christian Stonecreek 10:37, 28 January 2022 (EST)
That's what I was thinking as well - we don't really have an Austrian editor so we had not had anyone adding the Austrian books and fanzines - so they had only popped up occasionally from the German side now and again. But Austria is not Germany so there are books out there with the Shilling as the leading currency (even if most probably also have a DM price). Annie 10:42, 28 January 2022 (EST)
The software has been updated to support Austrian schillings, Singapore dollars and a number of other recognized currencies -- see the Community Portal announcement for details. Ahasuerus 17:24, 29 January 2022 (EST)

Self approval status -- process

I would support all of the nominees above (and MLB and Ofearna too), but have a few questions. Is this a moderator only process, or should nominations be on the community portal like moderator nominations, and don't we need something like Moderator Qualifications for self approvers? --Willem 04:11, 27 January 2022 (EST)

That's a very good question. We presumably need to create a "Self-Approver Qualifications and Process" page. I also agree that related discussions should take place on the Community Portal to give non-moderators a chance to raise any issues that they may be aware of. Ahasuerus 13:55, 27 January 2022 (EST)
While the discussion for the process should in CP (better late than never I guess), I am not sure if the nominations should be. Self-approvers get only one new ability - they can self-approve. The only people that have any idea how "clean" their submissions are (do they need follow-ups by someone else, do they complete long chains of edits, do the editor often forget to fix things thus requiring a cleanup, do they communicate properly with PVs, do they follow the entry standards and so on), are the moderators who handle their submissions. Annie 14:18, 27 January 2022 (EST)
The same can be said for the moderator flag in the past though. Those are the same criteria on which the bulk of the moderator decision was made. As can be seen by the unverifying discussion further up the page, self-approvers can cause as much drama as moderators. The community should also have the opportunity to weigh in on self-approvers. It is possible a non-moderator could have had interactions with an editor that might have bearing on the editor's fitness to be even be a self-approver. While one would hope that would have been seen by a moderator, even moderators go absent for periods. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2022 (EST)
There is that. I was thinking more about the fact that moderators are expected to actually deal with other editors directly in a different ways when working on their submissions (or submissions changing data they had PVd) unlike self-approvers whose direct interactions do not change by the status technically. But it is somewhat of a false separation I suspect although an editor and an asleep moderator can cause exactly the same type of drama anyway. :) Most editors are not too shy to post here either - but either way works. Annie 15:00, 27 January 2022 (EST)
OK, I have moved the three sections dealing with the recent applications for self-approver status to the Community Portal. Ahasuerus 17:13, 27 January 2022 (EST)
I thought this page might make for interesting reading. ../Doug H 10:35, 24 February 2022 (EST)

Serials without Standard Parenthetical Disambiguators January 28

The following titles comply with standards and may be safely removed

  • Equinox Mirror - 14 titles
  • Floozman in Space - 38 titles
  • Legacy of the Fallen Stars - 5 titles
  • Living Standards - 13 titles
  • Oikos Nannion - 27 titles
  • Space Girl Blues - 21 titles
  • The Chronicle of Belthaeous - 59 titles
  • The Perils of Dr. Laura Whitfield - 4 titles
  • Two Blind Men and a Fool - 54 titles
  • Winter Ship - 21 titles

Thanks in advance, John Scifibones 16:12, 28 January 2022 (EST)

Done. Can you look at the first two entries here. Are they really "Party" and not just "Part"? Annie 16:27, 28 January 2022 (EST)
Clearly not, fixed John Scifibones!

Stalker : pique-nique au bord du chemin

The problem that I adressed to one of the verifiers here more than a week ago still remains: the credit goes to Arcadi Strougatski, whereas the cover, OCLC and Amazon have Arkadi Strougatski. Moreover, judging from the notes regarding the copyright for the translations of essays assigned for the year 2013 and the page count as stated in my verified publication, it seems that there's also missing some interesting content. Likely both primary verifiers just clicked to pv the publication that was added previously.

(And also the price seems to be erroneously entered: it's the one listed at Amazon, but as far as I understand the French policy, the price is in fact variable and is only given by a price category, mostly on the back of a book). Stonecreek 10:06, 29 January 2022 (EST)

Hello Christian. I can only be sure about the pub I have verified, which is indeed credited to Arcadi and Boris Strougatski. This being said, when Gallimard / Folio SF took over part of Denoël / Présence du Futur's stock, they reprinted some of that stock, but sometimes revised (and improved) the credits, which is obviously the case here. My feeling is that this pub was initially added from this original title, but not correctly updated, as can be seen from later reprints. Then came C1, who never updated previous data when he was PV1, and PV2 followed suit. So despite those two PVs, I think the pub can be safely regarded as unverified, and the credit should go to Arkadi. But to be on the safe side, I happen to know the second translator / reviser of the Folio SF edition, Viktoriya Lajoye (she is the wife of a former student of mine, the latter being a fellow member of miscellaneous regional organisms and societies; you can see it's the same photo, split asunder by myself). So I'll drop her a line, and see what she has to say about the matter. Concerning the price, it is possible for a French book to be priced in francs (or euros) at a certain time, then given a price category. I'll also ask her about that, as she probably owns the first Folio edition she revised. This might take some time, though… :o) Linguist 12:29, 2 February 2022 (EST).
Thanks, Dominique! That sounds like the perfect solution. Do you mind asking her about the possible additional content, too (the essays by Le Guin & Boris Strougatsky)? Christian Stonecreek 05:58, 3 February 2022 (EST)
I have already :o) ! Linguist 06:33, 3 February 2022 (EST).

The Doom Brigade

Hi, I have a question. I found some, what I thought was interesting information about the cover art for the 1996 edition of The Doom Brigade.(Publication Record # 38560) The cover artists are listed as Larry Elmore and Tony Szczudlo. The information I found was that in the Original painting by Elmore, the figures were in a winter scene. Since it took place in the Summer, the figures were imposed in a new summer scene by Tony Szczudlo, explaining the two artist. My submission was rejected by Kraang with the reason "Note added to cover artists title". I'm not sure I understand. The note I want to add only pertains to this record, not the general title. The other versions in the general title have covers by Keith Parkinson. aardvark7 16:13, 30 January 2022 (EST)

See the the cover title record where Krang added the info. He was saying that this belonged on the cover title record and not in the pub notes. That cover title record is specific to that version of the cover art. I agree that is the best place (instead of the pub notes) as it is info about the cover. I would suggest updating the note to link to the original artwork's title record as which one is the original is not clear currently. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (EST)
OK I didn't realize there was another layer deep. I don't know if I can find the link again but will check. I do have a copies of the original cover art and of the final art. They are wrap-around styles. Any interest in those?? and if so which record would they be uploaded to? aardvark7 10:59, 31 January 2022 (EST)

Waiting for primary verifier

I would like to make some changes to the print version of Galaxy's Edge, July 2020 which will also affect the ebook edition. I posted a message on the ebook PV's talk page eight days ago but have not received a response. First, is it necessary to check with the verifier of the ebook if I am updating the print edition (not verified)? Seven items in the ebook will be changed by my changing them for the print edition. And are these types of changes considered major or minor (4 titles need to be merged, 1 author needs to be merged, and 2 titles need to be changed)? Daffodil11 19:44, 30 January 2022 (EST)

Merging identical titles which were missed when the magazines were added (or connecting unconnected reviews) is just housekeeping - no notification needed. The two changes of titles would usually require a notification and would be considered non-minor but as they are done to actually bring the magazine to compliance (aka the change is because of conventions and not because of what the magazines say), they are minor - they should have been changed when the the magazine titles were changed but someone missed them. I'd still notify the PVs on these - but they need changing :) Go ahead and make the updates. Annie 12:34, 31 January 2022 (EST)
I've done most of these, but there are two that present additional problems: Under Merging Authors Help it states that "...the ability to preform Author Merges is only available to ISFDB moderators..." and I am supposed to post a request here to merge author ZZ Claybourne with author Z. Z. Claybourne. Daffodil11 12:55, 1 February 2022 (EST)
You can fix that by editing the title as well -- no need to merge the authors if there is only one title and no details in the author page - you can just fix the author here and you are all set. We can merge the authors if you prefer here but heads up for the second possible option. :) Annie 16:32, 1 February 2022 (EST)
The other problem is a note that the ebook verifier placed in the ebook edition notes field, "'The Dictator and the Butterfly' is mispelled "The Dictator and teh Butterfly" on the story's first page." My understanding of the related Help section is that the title should have been entered with the typo and made into a variant? If that is so, then I should not merge the titles. The title should be edited to reflect the typo instead. And at this point, does this change go from minor to a major change requiring a check with the ebook verifier? I would also have to somehow separate the ebook and tp edition listings for this title because there is no typo in the printed edition of the magazine (I have not looked up or thought this last part out yet). Daffodil11 12:55, 1 February 2022 (EST)
If there is no typo in the print version, and there -is- a typo in the ebook version, then these two titles are to be entered as in the book, and varianted to each other. Also, confirmation is required from the PV of the ebook in this case. Pete is regularly checking, but some patience required :) Regards, MagicUnk 13:56, 1 February 2022 (EST)

A Question

I was approached by a moderator about be promoted to that of being a self-approving editor. I was also informed to come to this page and float the idea. So, after sleeping on it, I thought I would ask. All you can do is say no. MLB 01:11, 1 February 2022 (EST)

The process changed a little bit in the last couple of days so post here with title "Self-approver status: MLB" or something along these lines and it will kick off the process of the agree/disgree posts. Or I can kick start the thread. Let me know :) Annie 16:27, 1 February 2022 (EST)
I might be taken more seriously if you did. Tired of my...ah...eccentric submissions? MLB 06:55, 2 February 2022 (EST)
Shaking head - not really but here you go. I will actually miss working on your submissions - but the whole point of me being always after you to improve things and so on was exactly this :) Annie 12:45, 2 February 2022 (EST)

Duplicate publication record

We have two Primary Verified records for the same publication. Potter's Field 7: Tales from Unmarked Graves created 2022-01-31 10:58:40 and Potters Field 7 created later that day, 2022-01-31 23:23:30. I don't see another format which one of these can be converted to. Since both are PV'd, a moderator needs to handle this. John Scifibones 21:52, 4 February 2022 (EST)

You could try and ask user talk:morganmike or user talk:Elizabeth Hardy to switch their verification. Regards, MagicUnk 07:37, 6 February 2022 (EST)
I'll take care of it. John Scifibones 10:44, 6 February 2022 (EST)
MagicUnk. You asked me to take care of this and I agreed. I have posted questions on each of the editors talk pages as you suggested Elizabeth Hardy and Morganmike. So far, Morganmike has confirmed the title "per the title page as 'Potters Field 7" (no apostrophe). You subsequently posted the folowing on Elizabeth Hardy's talk page, "Potter's Field - check the back cover on Amazon :)". Why? The back cover 'Potter's' and front cover 'Potters' are irrelevant. Here is the text from the help page "Books. For a book, use the title page to get the title. This is typically the page with the copyright information on the back. Don't use the title on the cover, spine, or page running heads".
While waiting for one of the PV's to be transferred, I started merging the duplicate content titles. I discovered two with minor differences. I have asked Morganmike to clarify. I'll merge those after he answers. I am planning on making 'Potter Field' the Series and "Potters Field 7" the merged title. Both pubs will be made identical. As soon as either of the PV's is moved, I will delete the other pub after removing the contents. Let me know of any objections, modifications or if you agree.
I saw your question regarding publishers on the help page. Hiraeth is the successor to Alban Lake. (Spring 2020). How they differ, I can't say. This should have never happened, the second moderator should have rejected the submission and directed the editor to edit and PV the existing publication. John Scifibones 19:14, 8 February 2022 (EST)
If it's Potters field on the title page, then yes, that should be the title (and with a note clarifying the difference with what's written on the back). As to the transfer of PV - I guess if Morganmike is more responsive, he could move his PV to Elizabeth Hardy's record, and then update any discrepancies he notices. Regards, MagicUnk 08:08, 9 February 2022 (EST)
After I finish making the necessary changes, would you mind looking it over and recommending improvements? Thanks, John Scifibones 08:27, 9 February 2022 (EST)

Terry Bisson / Planet of Mystery

Whilst editing and PVing Planet of Mystery I noticed that it has been SVd to Locus1. This is incorrect. The same applies to this version. The SV (Bluesman) is inactive. Could a moderator please amend the Locus1 SVs to "N/A". Thank you. Teallach 13:09, 6 February 2022 (EST)

The CD ROM version of the index covers through 2008, so it is possible these verifications are accurate. I'll try asking on the ISFDB:Verification_requests page and see if anyone has access to that and can confirm or deny. --MartyD 13:48, 7 February 2022 (EST)
Thanks. Subsequent to writing my original note, I have discovered that it is ISFDb policy to allow for the possible future expansion of online reference sources. Therefore, assuming these two Planet of Mystery chapbooks do not show up on the Locus CD-ROM in 2008, it may be more suitable to change the Locus1 SV attributes to "Not Verified" instead of "N/A". Teallach 16:38, 7 February 2022 (EST)

W.C. Morrow Image; FantLab has 2 images of Morrow, the 1 that was on ISFDB which was uploaded from Commons and the 1 I just replaced it with, which is an actual photo and not a drawing. I don't know if mods now have to remove all that legalese stuff about public domain and all that or if it goes away automatically. --Username 10:50, 7 February 2022 (EST)

It still needs a license template. As he died in 1923, the photo would be in the public domain so the template still applies. However, you should have changed the description to match what you uploaded. If you change the umage, it is your responsibility to update the description / license as applicable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2022 (EST)

Out of Order; I just made that edit, didn't see it on my list, it's down near the bottom instead of the top, that's unusual, might be something mods need to know about. --Username 19:36, 8 February 2022 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I know what's going on. It's a rarely encountered sorting issue and shouldn't affect anything else. I should be able to fix the software tomorrow. Ahasuerus 22:41, 8 February 2022 (EST)
Fixed. Ahasuerus 12:11, 9 February 2022 (EST)

Trumps; I did many edits for Dennis Wheatley's Sphere series of occult works by other authors today, and Greater Trumps was the only 1 that didn't have a cover (I added info on prices the last time I worked on these Sphere books a long time ago but didn't upload the cover back then for some reason). Oddly, no ISFDB-friendly site seems to have an image, so I uploaded it from some odd Wheatley site that kept opening new windows every time I clicked on a link. The image is a little small but very sharp and clean; however, I got a message that the Wiki already had a cover, and as you can see another editor uploaded something and then reverted it (twice). So if anyone cares they may want to clean that up. --Username 22:04, 12 February 2022 (EST)

Ruddickn; I fixed/added stuff for a book PV'd by this editor, who hasn't done anything since 2017, so 1 of those "no longer active" notes may be in order. --Username 08:50, 15 February 2022 (EST)


I saw a book with price as "none"; there are 47 such books on ISFDB. Is that a legit price entry? --Username 08:15, 16 February 2022 (EST)

I think free publications are usually entered with a "$0", "£0", etc price, e.g. see these Advanced Publication Search results and this 2011 discussion. I don't recall it being documented in Help, though. Ahasuerus 12:58, 16 February 2022 (EST)
[6]; I don't think most of these are free; many were entered by the same few editors a long time ago who apparently thought that was the way you entered the price if you couldn't find it in the book. --Username 13:11, 16 February 2022 (EST)
If it's not free, then price field should be left blank. Feel free to submit updates & remove the 'None'. Cheers MagicUnk 13:37, 16 February 2022 (EST)
Yup. I noticed only one eligible "$0" price on the linked list: ConFiction: The 48th World Science Fiction Convention, which says "No printed price; free to convention attendees". Ahasuerus 13:39, 16 February 2022 (EST)
Re: the sarcastic message above, obviously I'm not going to do 40+ edits for something so inconsequential; the reason I entered this on the moderator board is because I was thinking maybe there was a batch fix or something similar which only mods are able to do which could change all "none" prices to whatever they're supposed to be, like the way only mods can change a publisher's name for all books by that publisher. If there isn't such a fix then the hell with it; let the mods, many of whom are still around, fix the prices one by one that they never should have approved in the first place. Cheers --Username 18:23, 16 February 2022 (EST)

Amazon image link?

I can't copy an image link from a book with the look inside anymore but still can from one without that link. Has anyone else had this happen. Just started tonight.Kraang 22:05, 17 February 2022 (EST)

Unless you specify browser and OS, it will be very hard to even start helping :) Did you just update a browser or something? Firefox's previous update on Windows had some issues with my usual way (which is to drag the picture to the address bar - it flatly refused) - but the latest update fixed it. Annie 22:09, 17 February 2022 (EST)
Using Windows 10 Edge browser and had there usual systems update today. I'll log back in using Chrome and see what happens.Kraang 22:39, 17 February 2022 (EST)
I'm fine using Chrome must have been the update that screwed something up. Thanks never thought of the browser as the problem.Kraang 22:46, 17 February 2022 (EST)
Always my first suspect when something like that happens. With Edge, try to reboot - the thing is so tied with Windows that sometimes it gets a bit... wonky after updates (which is why I tend not to use it) :) Annie 22:51, 17 February 2022 (EST)

2 Vikings,; Was doing some edits for non-genre Andre Norton books and these 2 Viking publishers are probably the same, so mods may want to merge and combine notes. --Username 19:31, 18 February 2022 (EST)

OCLC has Island of the Lost as Viking Press, and not Viking Books. Comment says 'Viking Books ...not to be confused with Viking Press', so might be another error(?) Probably best to keep them separate and update Viking Books to Viking Press, and update the comment accordingly... MagicUnk 06:20, 22 February 2022 (EST)

Career Moves of the Gods (cover)

Need a moderator to delete the initial image for here. I subsequently loaded the correct size image. Thanks, John Scifibones 16:31, 21 February 2022 (EST)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (EST)

Space Relations Covers; Philfreund just asked 2 people about changing the subtitle for this book, but my 2 edits have been waiting since Feb. 4. It seems someone entered the Millington edition using the Charterhouse cover while the Charterhouse edition had the Millington cover. I uploaded the right Millington cover and an improved 1 because the 1 here and elsewhere online, like Wikipedia, is the same awfully photographed one, so I found 1 that actually looks like the real cover; the Charterhouse cover here was a bad sideways photo so I found 1 on Amazon that was straight. --Username 08:53, 22 February 2022 (EST)

Someone did as I asked; thank you. --Username 12:33, 27 February 2022 (EST)

Author merge (or split?) request

Greetings. This is a rather complicated request, hence me resorting to the moderator noticeboard. Lee Lightner (Author Record #40411) is the pen name of two authors working in tandem:

  • Harry Heckel (Author Record #219629)
  • Jeff Smith


This should be sorted somehow since some of the earlier works attributed to Harry Heckel and Jeff Smith (in tandem) have been republished under the author name "Lee Lightner".

For example, the short story "Engage the Enemy" (Title Record #1653415), published in Inferno magazine #45, is the same as the short story "Engage the Enemy" (Title Record #2737379) published in the omnibus Sagas of the Space Wolves. These titles should also be merged, or at least linked together somehow.

Addendum: "Engage the Enemy" (Title Record #1653415) is attributed to Jeff Smith (Author Record #28215); the author of the Bone comics; this is a different person.

Best regards, --Ir'revrykal 07:29, 25 February 2022 (EST)

Engage the Enemy now has a different Jeff Smith as an author. And I connected the joint pseudonym. Let me know if all looks correct now. Annie 12:48, 25 February 2022 (EST)
That looks good. Thank you. --Ir'revrykal 12:57, 25 February 2022 (EST)
Anytime. If you would like more information about what I did (and why), let me know :) Annie 13:01, 25 February 2022 (EST)
I took a look at the "Recent Edits" log and got the general gist, but it would definitely be instructive to hear exactly what you did—that way I might be able to do something similar without moderator assistance in the future. :) --Ir'revrykal 13:32, 25 February 2022 (EST)
So - we had a couple of interlocking issues on top of each other here:
  • Two Jeff Smiths (probably more than 2 looking at his page but at least two). For that, I edited the title record of the story and added (I) in the name of the author. This is how we differentiate same named authors. Once that was done, edit the author to add a language and any other details you know about that author.
  • The joint pseudonym: Make the pseudonym an alternate name for BOTH its authors. The menu for that is on the left side of the page when you are in the author who is to become a pseudonym/alternate name. You follow the same process for single author pseudonyms and author forms as well - you just connect them to only one other author. If you see anyone discussing canonical form of an author name, that is the one where all pseudonyms are connected to -- and where all the works by them will show up - regardless of what name they published under. That last happens manually, as explained in the next section.
  • Now that we have a pseudonym, all of their works need to show up on the actual author(s) pages - alternate names cannot carry titles. For the one that was published before (the story) under the 2 names, I just connected the reprint as a variant (after fixing the type of the reprint). Menu is on the left (Make Variant) when you are in the reprint title page. For the ones we did not have an older record for, we make an empty parent - same page where you connect existing ones, just use Option 2 to create a new title instead, only changing the author names to tell it where to go. That is required any time we have an alternate name/pseudonym. :)
Let me know if something does not make sense. :) Annie 13:43, 25 February 2022 (EST)
Thank you, that is clear and very much appreciated. --Ir'revrykal 14:18, 25 February 2022 (EST)

Author Image Problem; I added a book cover from to Mitchison's author image which included a big photo of her face; just approved but was broken, so I subbed a rare one that's sideways on Amazon but OK on Open Library; when I entered edit the previous image is just fine. Why it's broken in the record but OK in the edit is a question maybe someone can answer. --Username 19:53, 1 March 2022 (EST)

Let me take a look... Ahasuerus 00:27, 2 March 2022 (EST)
I see what's going on. This is the first SFE-hosted author image -- as opposed to a SFE-hosted cover scan -- that we link to and the software isn't set up to handle it. I plan to update it later today. Ahasuerus 12:10, 2 March 2022 (EST)
Fixed. Thanks for identifying the problem. Ahasuerus 15:47, 2 March 2022 (EST)
OK. There are many Amazon images of that same cover, so why I decided to add it from SF Encyclopedia is unknown. However, in doing so I accidentally uncovered a flaw in the software that's now fixed. Hooray for stupidity! --Username 19:27, 2 March 2022 (EST)

Image Deletion

The wrong size image was initially uploaded here. Please delete, correct image is in place. Thanks John Scifibones 19:24, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Done Annie 19:43, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Image Deletion

Please delete the old image here. Thanks Henna 11:03, 9 March 2022 (EST)

Done Annie 13:44, 9 March 2022 (EST)

Steve Duffy corrections

(I am a disaster at entering, so I will ask a moderator to make these these changes. Thanks!) for the Steve Duffy entry, 2 issues: 1.The 2011 ebook verions of his collection The Night Comes On adds 4 stories (placed at the end of the ebook, after the original TOC): On the Dunes The Lady of the Flowers Widdershins the Barrow Round Off the Tracks

the first 2 of these are already in ISFDB, the last 2 are original to the ebook version

2. There is a second Steve Duffy, who is from Australia and publishes mostly in AntipodeanSF, I can't find much about him, but the short bios in at least 3 antipodeanSF issues make it clear he is Australian. the following should be moved to Steve Duffy (2): The collection 14 Hours to Save the Earth 3 stories all beginning with A Tale of Tyl Feann I didn't find any other Australian Steve Duffy stories listed with the UK Steve Duffy

Thank you Roger

I had been wondering about that Australian collection. He is from somewhere down under indeed - but it may not be Australia proper so I won't add that to the notes.
The 4 additional stories - any idea if they are before or after the "Notes on the stories" essay and if the essay was updated to add notes for these 4 stories as well? Annie 17:23, 11 March 2022 (EST)
for the Steve Duffy The Night Comes on Ebook, there the 4 additional stories following the original stories, then the original "Notes on the Stories", then a "Postscipt to the 2011 electronic edition" is added to the end of Notes on the Stories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerSSS (talkcontribs) .
(Moving the note here where it belongs) - OK, I will move them behind it. Annie 18:12, 11 March 2022 (EST)
The Night Comes On - all fixed I think. Annie 18:14, 11 March 2022 (EST)

random corrections

And a few more random corrections/comments: Rjurik Davidson The Deep is a Warhammer story, should be listed with the other Warhammer story in his listing Terry Dowling The Five Sisters is a Dan Truswell series story Dave Hutchinson in the Catacombs Saints entry the Note should begin "This is an excerpt" not "The is an excerpt" Sarah Monette The Haunting of Dr. Claudius Winterson is a Kyle Murchison Booth series story Garth Nix, Cut Me Another Quill, Mister Fitz is a Sir Hereward and Mister Fitz series story (The story title is a strong hint for this) Don Tumasonis the story Sejanus' Daughter in the anthology Strange Tales, Volume 11 (edited by Rosalie Parker) was published under the psuedonym Hilbourne Carlone, should be listed on the Tumasonis page

here is a link to the Tartarus Strange Tales II page, the second paragraph has the Carlone name with Don Tumasonis noted in parentheses, this seems to be an open pseudonym:

thanks again Roger

The Deep is fixed.
The Five Sisters is fixed.
Catacomb Saints fixed
The Haunting of Dr. Claudius Winterson is fixed
Cut Me Another Quill, Mister Fitz is fixed.
Sejanus' Daughter - fixed.
Except for the last one, the rest were pretty straight forward so maybe you can try to fix such in the future? :) Thanks for noting these.
PS: It will be very helpful if you add links to your requests - it will make fixing these faster and less prone to errors. :) Annie 17:37, 11 March 2022 (EST)

Blades of the Tiger by Chris Pierson

I have found another version of this book printed in 2005 with the same ISBN but with a different cover. It shows up in Goodreads ( and I have found a number of copies of it for sale on ebay as well as the version in the database, so both covers seem valid. Goodreads shows a different page count, 384 vs 410. Goodreads also does not show an ISBN for this cover, but the various sellers show both versions having ISBN 9780786935697 and a 384 page count. The new cover is basically the same as the Audible version that I have just added. Should I go ahead and add this new cover version?? aardvark7 17:41, 11 March 2022 (EST)

Yes - with all of these notes and explanations added to the publication notes. If it is discovered later that it is not needed, we can always delete but it does seem like there are two versions out there - so we want it. :) Annie 18:16, 11 March 2022 (EST)

Winds of Change hardback

I asked for PV approval for making changes to Winds of Change on January 8 here and received no response so I am going ahead and making the changes. A second PV did respond here but referred me to the non-responsive PV. I will PV after the changes are approved. Phil 07:00, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Approved. A month to two months is long enough to wait and the updates looked more than fine.Kraang 10:40, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Sherwood Smith pub changes

I asked for PV approval for making changes to The Fox and King's Shield on January 21 here and received no response so I am going ahead and making the changes. I will PV after the changes are approved. Phil 07:52, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Approved.Kraang 10:40, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Violette Malan pub changes

I asked for PV approval for making changes to The Sleeping God and The Soldier King on February 2 here and received no response so I am going ahead and making the changes. I will PV after the changes are approved. Phil 08:31, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Approved.Kraang 10:40, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Multilingual Publications

The following publications can be flagged as okay

  • Bewildering Stories - 10 Issues
  • Goblin Fruit, Autumn 2009
  • Polu Texni - 23 Issues
  • Samovar, 27 December 2021
  • Star*Line - 3 Issues
  • The Magazine of Speculative Poetry - 2 Issues

Thanks, John Scifibones 13:29, 13 March 2022 (EDT)

All but the "Polu Texni" ones are done. Why would these need to have the language of interior art set differently from that of the magazine and the poem they illustrate? And where are these titles and languages to the images come from -- I don't see them on the site and there is no explanation in the notes of the publication or the interior art.
If the art is used/found elsewhere, the policy is to variant to an original name, not to use a title (and language) the publication never used. In all cases, these need a LOT more notes. Annie 17:39, 13 March 2022 (EDT)
The art credits are shown in different ways, depending on the post.
I have just documented what's on the website. John Scifibones 19:03, 13 March 2022 (EDT)
I just reviewed all 23 since I haven't looked at them for a couple months. Three issues did not explicitly state the credit as above. By opening the artwork in another tab, the credit shows in the webpage link. I can add a note or remove the artwork for these three. What do you think is the better alternative? John Scifibones 19:37, 13 March 2022 (EDT)
I clicked on a couple randomly and did not see the titles anywhere :) Let me look at them again. Annie 13:27, 16 March 2022 (EDT)

Canterbury; I did some edits for Michael Sisson's anthologies, replacing a PB cover and adding prices, adding HC Masque of the Red Death cover, and most importantly finding an eBay listing for the very rare Canterbury Press American edition of In the Dead of Night. Turns out they just printed the same book and only changed publisher and price; looks exactly the same otherwise. But when I tried to upload new cover to the Wiki it didn't give me the usual warning about replacing 1 that's already there. Seems "Bluesman", long-gone now, uploaded a too-big cover. I tried reverting but now both editions are showing the same old cover. So when 1 of you gets around to those edits I'd like the Canterbury cover reinstated; I don't know if there's 2 of the same image now after I reverted or if Bluesman's cover needs to be deleted or what. EDIT: Mod forced the publisher name change I submitted (Canterbury Press changed to The Canterbury Press) but address I entered was deleted by that, so I've re-entered it. Covers on Wiki still need fixing; both uploaded hardcover images seem to be on the same page. I uploaded Canterbury cover with spine showing so that should be the cover for that edition, and will upload new Gibbs cover assuming there's one with the spine showing; I see now that 1 of the Panther covers with the skeleton hand looks bad and could use a replacement, too. --Username 01:06, 19 March 2022 (EDT)

Harme-Oat(e)s; PDF on does indeed spell Butterworth and Jones' story Oates and the character in the story is Oates, but typing Harme-Oates Effect and 1975 into Google only brings up that PDF and ISFDB. has many issues of Science Fiction Monthly but not February 1975, and there doesn't seem to be much info online. 3 PV for the 1975 issue, 2 active and 1 very much not, and SpaceCowboyBooks PV their own publication, so if any of them are reading this and can verify what the title in 1975 was they can be merged, or if different made a variant. --Username 12:55, 23 March 2022 (EDT)

Blunder link with some CGI target at

Probably[*] I have forgotten how in ISFDB Notes fields to link a target at --when the latter is "cgi with arg" if you know what I mean.


  • Several ISFDB publisher names contain "Readers Union" (search report).

ISFDB database

[*]some gross oversight may be more probable. --Pwendt|talk 23:51, 25 March 2022 (EDT)

I approved both edits last night & was to tired to figure out the HTML problem, so looked at it this morning and fixed it[8]. I believe this is what you wanted. Was missing ">" before "search report".11:05, 26 March 2022 (EDT)
Oh, my, yes, a gross hybrid of wiki and database code. Thanks! --Pwendt|talk 18:59, 26 March 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion

The wrong size image was initially uploaded here. Please delete, correct image is in place. Thanks John Scifibones 10:45, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
Thank you.
I noticed this one a couple weeks ago. John Scifibones 13:27, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
Duplicates deleted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / The Dark Light Years

I am editing / PVing Aldiss's The Dark Light Years. The only existing PV is inactive, so this is to advise that I will change the author's name from "Brian W. Aldiss" to "Brian Aldiss" as per title page. Teallach 17:58, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Approved. The content record also needed to be updated so I imported the correct variant and removed the "Brian W. Aldiss" version. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
Thank you! You have saved me the trouble of submitting these edits myself. Teallach 13:19, 29 March 2022 (EDT)


Regarding this illustrator. The French wikipedia entry has her birth name as Jacqueline Barse. Is that something that can be added to her page or no ? --Mavmaramis 12:45, 30 March 2022 (EDT)

I would be careful adding that because (as far as I can tell) there's no source for that information. If you can find a solid source for that information, you could certainly add it here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:01, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
Source is the French wkikpedia article linked so they much have got that information from somewhere. I've done an edit but if you feel the wiki isn't sufficient evidence then feel free to reject. --Mavmaramis 13:03, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
I found this reference, which seems to be good. I'd suggest adding it as another page with information about her. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:06, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
I just approved your edit, then added the link I gave above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:08, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
Just been sent this soucre with her legal name from my Twitter contact. Feel free to add that one as well. Thanks. --Mavmaramis 13:36, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
Added. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:04, 30 March 2022 (EDT)

Clute/Nicholls and "First Edition"

The edition of a book stated by Clute/Nicholls is not necessarily the first edition. As stated on page xxxiii of this print edition and also here in SFE4, their policy is as follows:
'When titles are published in two countries within a few weeks of one another we "follow the flag" and treat first publication as being in the author's country of residence.'
I am bringing this to your attention because I have come across a few ISFDb pub record notes containing statements like:
"Clute/Nichols (sic) has the UK edition as the first"
(or words to that effect) which is not a correct interpretation of what Clute/Nicholls is saying.
Clearly each case should be considered on its individual merits; for example there is no problem if editions in different countries are published years apart. However, when I am editing or PVing a publication record containing such a statement I would like to delete it where appropriate. May I have permission to do this please?
The above quote is from: Edmund Cooper's Deadly Image
Here is an example from a publication that I will be editing / PVing in the near future: Aldiss's Helliconia Winter Teallach 18:41, 3 April 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / Frankenstein Unbound

I am editing / PVing Aldiss's Frankenstein Unbound. The only existing PV is inactive, so this is to advise that I will add the publication month from a secondary source and add notes. Teallach 17:03, 4 April 2022 (EDT)

Merger needed

Moderator Can you please merge the records for Robin F. Rowland with Robin Rowland (preferred) I haven't used the Robin F. Rowland byline since the 1980s. Thanks RR

Done (in fact I did what was possible: since we catalogue titles with the name they were published with, I established a pseudonym relationship). Stonecreek 06:20, 5 April 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / Greybeard

I am editing / PVing 4 different publications of Aldiss / Greybeard, all of which have either no PV or no active PVs. So this is to advise that I will fill out the publication dates from secondary sources and add extensive pub notes comparing the abridgements / expansions / textual revisions between these publications. Teallach 16:41, 6 April 2022 (EDT)

Make sure you add notes on the provenance of the dates. :) Annie 22:18, 6 April 2022 (EDT)

Edna Worthley Underwood canonical name

Edna W. Underwood 137753 should be "Edna Worthley Underwood". Is it appropriate to request that here rather than propose it for discussion at Community Portal? The case is routine given evidence at hand:

We are unlikely to cover any works other than the 10 short stories (her only known shortfiction), which have been collected in two different 9-story collections 1911/12 and 2010/20. --I conclude from Wikipedia and SFE biographies.

"Edna W." is her name at SFE3 and at Tartarus Press, A Guide to Supernatural Fiction [9] but we have no publication genuinely by "Edna W."
The 1911 title page Edna Worthley Underwood [10] credits her by fullname, as does the one known earlier publication in a magazine, The Smart Set 1910-01 p119 [11].
Although "W." is used on front covers (three viewed) of the 2010/20 Tartarus Press collection, there is no "W." on the 2020 title page [12]. (The 2010 edition, not so viewed, shares front cover and publisher.) --Pwendt|talk 16:46, 10 April 2022 (EDT)

I agree that the canonical name should be changed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:19, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-04-12

Please delete the old image here. Thanks Henna 11:06, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Done Annie 11:30, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Cover of Semiosis

I have been on the Albin Michel and Goodreads website and even, the cover that is shown for record 728411 is for the Kindle version. Both Albin Michel and Goodreads show the tp cover as different (no red area) I would like to switch cover and add the Kindle version but don't want to step on toes. aardvark7 12:03, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Semiosis. The red area is a removable half-dust jacket/semi-cover/band/not sure how these things are called which is often added to paper books (but not always shown on the publisher sites or other images). If you want to change the cover to show the cover under it, go ahead. Annie 12:29, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Gene March, The Shakwa (1979)

This weekend I started multiple updates to incorporate two previously unknown pseudonym relations both complicated by publications in translation, and simplified by the pseudonymous authors having no other works. Here is one.

Realnames of joint authors [from SFE]: Patrick Dearen and (new at ISFDB) Al Kinney, Jr.

Our two pseudonymous authors as of last week, when the American was parent to the Greek:

116871 Gene March (currently with one stray publication) --has only the one 1979 paperback original publication
238967 Τζην Μαρτς (Tzin Marts --presumably adapted from "Gene March") --has only the one 1980 Greek language publication

Am I right that 2 Alternate Name and 2 Variant work submissions are needed?

•• separately, Gene March and Τζην Μαρτς both joint pseudonyms of Dearen & Kinney
•• separately, 1979 and 1980 novels both as variants of new 1979 NOVEL by Dearen & Kinney T3019461

I created the 1979 parent novel by making the 1980 Greek a variant --which broke its existing Variant relation automatically, I understand. Was there a more efficient place to start?

I don't recall how to make March a joint pseudonym. Nor Τζην Μαρτς --who needs that, too, if i understand the present state of affairs. --Pwendt|talk 19:04, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Make March a pseudonym of BOTH Patrick Dearen and Al Kinney, Jr. :) Same for the Greek name (and remove the Μαρτς->March relationship if still there). And the way you went was fine. Add a note somewhere (note on the March author record will be probably the best place) on the provenance of the pseudonym though. Annie 19:11, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
Ah, so 6 Alt/Variant submisssions rather than 4?
I infer that Author tags are derived from Title tags, so they will migrate from one Author view to another when all the Alt Name and Variant work relations are done. --Pwendt|talk 23:19, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Accidental upload replacement cover

I uploaded a cover for this before realizing I had a later edition. Could a mod revert that one back to the previous one. I'll re-upload the same image to the correct edition. Thanks. --Mavmaramis 09:43, 15 April 2022 (EDT)

You should be able to revert here and just ask someone to delete the old one in such cases but I did it for you and deleted your image. Annie 11:16, 15 April 2022 (EDT)

Electric Spec

Electric Spec is a quarterly webzine, yet we date it with the specific day of publication. While our standards allow for this, we usually use only the month and year. I plan on adding any missing issues, content, covers, etc. Plus make any changes necessary to comply with current standards. Do we want to continue using the full date or change to month & year only? I prefer the change. Opinions? John Scifibones 11:27, 16 April 2022 (EDT)

Looking at their website, the full date should be used. Per our standards, the volume and issue number should not be part of the title field when a date is present, though they can be reflected in the notes. (see this template 3rd and last bullets). It appears that the August 31, 2021 is the only issue that has been entered correctly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:51, 16 April 2022 (EDT)
Agree on the volume & issue number, that was the source for my remark re standards. John Scifibones 12:01, 16 April 2022 (EDT)
Got it. Regarding the full date vs just month and year, I can see how that help could be read as "<title>, <month in full> <year in full>". I would speculate that the help phrase "The month should be given in full and then the year in full" may intended to prevent abbreviating either the month or the year rather than stating the day of month cannot be entered. In practice we have used some leeway regarding format of dates. There are certainly many examples where the day of month is included, especially if the publication schedule is more frequent than monthly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:43, 17 April 2022 (EDT)
I am using the day, as instructed, with Electric Spec.
When dating periodicals, I certainly agree that a full date is sometimes necessary for disambiguation purposes. For example:
I don't think the day adds anything useful for monthly and larger intervals. I feel sure that I have been advised not to use specific days in those situations, however, I don't remember by whom. Do you think it's worth moving this to Rules & Standards, Even if only to clarify the help section? John Scifibones 12:28, 17 April 2022 (EDT)
You could start an R&S discussion if you'd like. I don't know if it will attract more comments there than it did here. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:36, 17 April 2022 (EDT)
You're problably right. Thanks for your feedback. John Scifibones 13:54, 17 April 2022 (EDT)

Russwothe; Editor has an errant message on front page of his board; hasn't been here since 2013, so probably needs 1 of those "no longer active" headers. --Username 12:20, 18 April 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-04-20

Please delete the old images here. Thanks Henna 10:24, 20 April 2022 (EDT)

Done Annie 12:11, 20 April 2022 (EDT)

How do I add a story to my ISFDB record?

Hello, a new story of mine, "Slow-time Station" was published by Theme of Absence magazine, on Apr. 15, 2022. It is at:

The same magazine also published an interview with me, about my science fiction writing, at:

I would really appreciate any help you can give me in getting these added to my record on ISFDB.

Thank you very much, Andrew Fraknoi (email: )

Hi. Stories get listed by adding records for the publications in which they appear. So for this example, we would create a record for the April 2022 Theme of Absence and then record each story published as content records within that publication. It looks like they publish weekly but then group what they've published monthly, so we'd probably treat this as having monthly issues, with the current month's issue incomplete until after the end of the month. I see we have one record for Theme of Absence (looks like it is for December 2020), but it doesn't quite conform to how a magazine issue ought to be recorded. I am going to check with the verifier of that. It looks like this Theme of Absence is eligible for inclusion in the ISFDB, so we should be able to create a record for this month's issue with the story and interview in it. --MartyD 08:11, 21 April 2022 (EDT)

How do I navigate the import content ban on chapbook titles?

I spent over an hour importing contents of the Paula Guran anthology titled Far Out: Recent Queer Science Fiction and Fantasy (2021). One of the titles, a short story by Nino Cipri, titled "The Shape of My Name," a short story, was issued as a chapbook. The system would not accept it. The entry was grayed out meaning I could not change it, & I had to give up the submission. I also had to reconstruct the early entries because the website was taken off-line for maintenance. It is frustrating to put all that work into a submission & then not have it work. Mike 10:40, 26 April 2022 (EDT)

Mike, I suspect you were trying to import the CHAPBOOK container by mistake. You want to import the actual short story.
You will find the correct title in the contents section of the CHAPBOOK John Scifibones 11:14, 26 April 2022 (EDT) P.S. I answered your question even though I am not a moderator. Ask questions like this on the Help Desk so that anyone online can help you. John Scifibones 11:25, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
You were a great help to me, John. I was able to redo the submission & the system accepted it.Mike 14:21, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
Answering questions -- especially thoughtfully, clearly, and correctly -- on the Moderator Noticeboard is a good way to get yourself drafted nominated for moderatorhoodship. :-) --MartyD 16:47, 26 April 2022 (EDT)

SFE Author Articles to ignore

Re cleanup report "SFE Author Articles without a matching SFE URL in ISFDB Author Records"

Here are some SFE Author Articles to ignore as out of scope here. All are in the Music category at SFE. They may be writers of songs with sf or sf-related lyrics; no more than that. I have read all of the SFE entries, none of which notes a sideline in sf criticism or prose fiction.

  • Corea, Chick
  • Gabriel, Peter
  • Haley, Bill > Bill Haley and His Comets
  • Hendrix, Jimi
  • Idol, Billy
  • John, Elton
  • Kantner, Paul
  • Legendary Stardust Cowboy, The
  • Martian, The
  • Nervous Norvus
  • Scientist [music]
  • Vangelis
  • Cope, Julian = UK singer-songwriter, formerly lead singer of The Teardrop Explodes
  • Daugherty, Michael = US experimental classical composer
  • Dissevelt, Tom = Dutch instrumentalist and composer
  • Fripp, Robert = UK, best known for founding King Crimson
  • Froese, Edgar = German, most famous as part of Tangerine Dream
  • Grainer, Ron = Australian-born composer [film soundtracks] and musician, resident in the UK from the 1950s. Grainer's most enduring work is the theme to the BBC TV series Doctor Who
  • Hammill, Peter = UK composer and musician, best known as the lead singer of Van der Graaf Generator
  • Holst, Gustav = b 1874; UK composer of Latvian and Swedish extraction
  • Jarre, Jean Michel = French composer and performer
  • Matiushin, Mikhail = b 1861; Russian Futurist artist and composer.
  • Meek, Joe = UK music producer and composer
  • Namlook, Pete = German composer and performer of instrumental electronica
  • Oldfield, Mike = English composer and performer, ... usually vocal-free
  • Rutherford, Mike = UK musician, best known as guitarist of the group Genesis
  • Salonen, Esa-Pekka = Finnish classical musician and composer
  • Sharp, Elliott = US avant-garde classical composer
  • Stockhausen, Karlheinz = German, Avant-garde classical composer
  • Subotnick, Morton = US electronic avant-garde composer

I am not sure that writers of the lyrics for opera (librettists) are out of scope at ISFDB. None is listed here. --Pwendt|talk 13:24, 28 April 2022 (EDT)

For the song-writers and librettists - if the songs/libretto get published as text (in the way we define being published) and they are speculative, they will be eligible thus making the author eligible - they are just poetry after all and speculative poetry is permitted. Same rules as with drama essentially - printed drama (And on paper or in ebooks or in audio when it is read and not performed (a bit murky for drama...))) is permitted. :) Annie 14:12, 28 April 2022 (EDT)
Thanks. Therefore, these 30 SFE entries do need another look. I guess that 25 are out of scope, but the list is merely a rich (or poor from another perspective) vein of out-of-scope ore. --Pwendt|talk 15:08, 29 April 2022 (EDT)
Here's my take on this list:
  • Corea, Chick - Composed only the music, no lyrics, so we can ignore him
  • Gabriel, Peter - Some SF lyrics, so we could likely add anything like that that we can find
  • Haley, Bill > Bill Haley and His Comets - Seems to have written at least a couple SF songs with lyrics
  • Hendrix, Jimi - Based some works off SF stories, so likely can be kept on the list if we can find things to add
  • Idol, Billy - Has an SF album, Cyberpunk
  • John, Elton - Has a few SF songs
  • Kantner, Paul - Had an album nominated for a Hugo (apparently the only album to ever be nominated), also founded Jefferson Starship, which had a number of SF-related songs
  • Legendary Stardust Cowboy, The - A number of SF songs
  • Martian, The - Maybe. If any of his SF songs have lyrics, they could likely be included
  • Nervous Norvus - Has several SF songs
  • Scientist [music] - If any of his songs include lyrics, we could include them.
  • Vangelis - Do any of his songs have lyrics? I know some of the Blade Runner tracks sample dialogue from the film. If any of them do include SF lyrics, they could likely be included.
  • Cope, Julian = UK singer-songwriter, formerly lead singer of The Teardrop Explodes - Has several SF songs
  • Daugherty, Michael = US experimental classical composer - Mostly (all?) instrumental. If he has any SF lyrics, they could be included.
  • Dissevelt, Tom = Dutch instrumentalist and composer - Mostly (all?) instrumental. If he has any SF lyrics, they could be included.
  • Fripp, Robert = UK, best known for founding King Crimson - Maybe? Some of the lyrics apparently reference SF works by PK Dick.
  • Froese, Edgar = German, most famous as part of Tangerine Dream - All instrumental as far as I know, so probably not eligible.
  • Grainer, Ron = Australian-born composer [film soundtracks] and musician, resident in the UK from the 1950s. Grainer's most enduring work is the theme to the BBC TV series Doctor Who - Likely not eligible as all of his SF works are instrumental only (as far as I can tell).
  • Hammill, Peter = UK composer and musician, best known as the lead singer of Van der Graaf Generator - His works could likely be included if we can find print versions that include the lyrics.
  • Holst, Gustav = b 1874; UK composer of Latvian and Swedish extraction - All instrumental, I think.
  • Jarre, Jean Michel = French composer and performer - Maybe all instrumental. Composed electronica and related, so may not have any lyrics.
  • Matiushin, Mikhail = b 1861; Russian Futurist artist and composer. - Maybe. If he wrote the lyrics/narrative to the operas he wrote, then yes.
  • Meek, Joe = UK music producer and composer - Maybe, if the songs have lyrics.
  • Namlook, Pete = German composer and performer of instrumental electronica - If the songs have lyrics.
  • Oldfield, Mike = English composer and performer, ... usually vocal-free - Almost all instrumental, so may not have much to include.
  • Rutherford, Mike = UK musician, best known as guitarist of the group Genesis - Has at least one album that qualifies.
  • Salonen, Esa-Pekka = Finnish classical musician and composer - Has several albums that have SF lyrics.
  • Sharp, Elliott = US avant-garde classical composer - Most (all?) instrumental
  • Stockhausen, Karlheinz = German, Avant-garde classical composer - Most (all?) instrumental
  • Subotnick, Morton = US electronic avant-garde composer -All instrumental
That's my take on them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:04, 29 April 2022 (EDT)

ISBN wrong

Record 672711 ( Le fantôme de Canterville et autres contes shiows the ISBN to be 978-2-253-02346-3. However NooSFere and World Cat has this ISBN for L'enfant tombé des étoiles. (along with Goodreads & For Le Fantome de Canterville : et autres contes, World Cat shows the ISBN to be 2253048089 9782253048084 for the 1988, 1997 edition but no cover pics. NooSFere shows editions for 1982, 1988, 1989 & 1991 for LIVRE DE POCHE Jeunesse. No 1986 edition ISBN : 2-253-02346-9 for 1982, ISBN : 2-010-13984-4 for 1988, 1989, 1991. All have the same basic cover that is shown in the ISFDB page. This file was verified by Linguist back in 2018 and I don't want to step on toes. aardvark7 17:41, 1 May 2022 (EDT)

Bruno Elletori / Elettori

Does anyone know if Bruno Elletori is the same person as Bruno Elettori ? --Mavmaramis 03:09, 2 May 2022 (EDT)

Bruno Elettori is on Instagram. He has artwork posted there matching these Bruno "Elletori" credits:
and one that is similar but not identical (a face in the eye instead of a skull):
--MartyD 10:22, 2 May 2022 (EDT)
If Elettori (one L) depicts Prisoner of the Planets on his website where the credit on the book has it as two L's - does that mean the the two records on ISFDB for the artist should be merged - or some kind of varianting done ? --Mavmaramis 14:04, 6 May 2022 (EDT)
Yes. I think we should make the two-L, one-T misspelled one a pseudonym of the one-L, two-T correctly spelled one. For your case, we would make a variant. You can verify the printed credit is (mis)spelled with two Ls and one T, and we have definitive-enough evidence it's by the person who spells his name with one L and two Ts. We can research the others and either variant (if actually misspelled, or if we cannot tell) or correct. For example, I found Days of Atonement full scan on, and it shows "Front cover illustration by Bruno Elettori". So I'll go correct that one. Would you like to do the pseudonym and varianting, or would you rather I did? --MartyD 18:14, 6 May 2022 (EDT)
p.s. I can see for Days of Atonement that Locus1 has the name misspelled, and it uses the same spelling for Facets. That might be the source for misspelled credits in ISFDB. --MartyD 18:17, 6 May 2022 (EDT)
The entry for the artist will need sorting as well as the publications listed under each. --Mavmaramis 11:41, 8 May 2022 (EDT)
Yes. I will take care of it. --MartyD 07:24, 9 May 2022 (EDT)
This is done. I was able to find a good source of "Elettori" (vs. Grafton's misspelled "Elletori") for all but Beastmaker and Beaststalker (for neither of which was I able to find actual artwork, either). Given the bountiful supply of documented misspellings, I decided it's safe enough to start with an assumption that the same is true for those two. I sent Elettori a message on Instagram, but he has not responded. --MartyD 09:53, 10 May 2022 (EDT)

(Unindent) Found images of Beastmaker at Goodreads and Beaststalker also at Goodreads --Mavmaramis 07:19, 15 May 2022 (EDT)

Wrong Riot

Mavmaramis upped a cover for Riot '71 to the Wiki, but it clearly says WALKER on the cover; the real Hodder cover is here; Editor rarely responds on his board, so I'm letting everyone know. --Username 09:44, 2 May 2022 (EDT)

I was only provided with a photo of the front flap of the dustwrapper by Joachim Boaz which had the Edgar Blakeney credit. He did not state he had a different hardback copy and pointed me to his Ruminations blog for a scan and I did not notice it was a different publisher. --Mavmaramis 05:56, 6 May 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for responding. I assume you'll upload correct cover using my link, and maybe create a record for the Walker edition, too, using your cover. Also, since you saw the front flap and British HC's usually have a price there, was the price obscured, not there, or did you forget to enter it? --Username 10:05, 6 May 2022 (EDT)
As stated I was only send an image of the front flap and nothing else. There was no price printed on it as far as I remember. I have no bibliographic details for the Walker edition nor did Joachim Boaz provide me with any so no I won't be uploading anything - don't shoot me I was merely assisting JB as he's not a registered user here (nor do I suspect he wants to be) and merely uses me to make edits. If you wish to upload the cover you linked then you are free to do so. I cannot create a record for a book I do not own and know nothing about other than the cover artist. --Mavmaramis 16:16, 6 May 2022 (EDT)
OK, I'll upload it. Your friend J.B. has a 2014 review of a 1979 Michael Bishop novel entered on ISFDB, so I'll see if I can find a photo of him to add to his record. Thanks for doing as much as you could. Also, if anyone else reads this and wants to enter any other editions they may own, while checking all this out I saw a paperback cover of Riot '71 with an angry white dude manhandling a black lady, so unlike the almost artistic HC covers the PB cover just went straight for the sensationalism. --Username 18:48, 6 May 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / Helliconia Winter

I am editing / PVing Aldiss's Helliconia Winter. The only PV is inactive, so this is to advise that I will add sourced notes, remove "Helliconia (map)", import the existing "Helliconia Winter (map)" (because the maps for Helliconia Summer and Winter are slightly different) and replace "Both Reginald and Clute have the Cape edition as the first" with "Reginald has the Cape edition as the first" in accordance with my post 'Clute/Nicholls and "First Edition"' on the Moderators' Noticeboard dated 3 April 2022 Teallach 19:13, 5 May 2022 (EDT)

Uploading issues

I've tried to upload some new images but some of them don't seem to appear - 2 of them did do so after some time (even after refreshing / closing and re-opening the website). The third goives me "Error creating thumbnail: /var/www/html/wiki//bin/ line 4: /usr/local/bin/convert: No such file or directory" despite it being within the size limits. --Mavmaramis 14:01, 6 May 2022 (EDT)

The old wiki software the ISFDB uses has a bug in that when you upload a replacement image, it doesn't tell your browser a new version is present and so your browser continues to use its cached version (if the image has already been viewed). You need to force the new image to be displayed (Ctl + F5 on most browsers). Any other user viewing the image will see the new one. As for the convert issue, that can occur even on those images below the size limit. It can be ignored in those cases. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (EDT)

Mel O.; 3 different PV's, all active; question is whether this is supposed to be Mel Odom (artist). --Username 10:32, 9 May 2022 (EDT)

Yes it is, corrected now. --Willem 13:05, 9 May 2022 (EDT)

Duplicate Publication Record: Adams / So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

I was about to PV the Pan pb 2nd printing of Adams / So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish when I realised it appears to have duplicates: Record 1 and Record 2. Note that the publication date of 1985-05-00 for Record 2 looks incorrect because it is a 2nd printing so the date should be "date unknown". I cannot see a tool for merging publication records, so could a moderator please advise how I go about sorting this out? Do I just delete one of the publication records? I am reluctant to do this because it will result in a loss of information about the PVs. Only 1 of the 4 PVs (Linguist) is active. I have left a note on his talk page pointing him at this topic. Teallach 17:44, 9 May 2022 (EDT)

The covers are different, and both are editor-provided scans. The capitalization in the blurb at the bottom is different, and the second record has a Pan logo in the top left, while the first record does not. --MartyD 09:05, 10 May 2022 (EDT)
Although the cover scan associated with Record 1 is editor provided, I do not believe it has come from a pb edition. Compare it with the scan associated with the Book Club edition. From the imperfections on the dust jacket, they are clearly the same. So one of these pub records has re-used the scan from the other. I strongly suspect the Book Club has the correct scan. The hc eds (Pan trade and Book Club) have the cover with no Pan logo to top left. The early Pan pb's have the cover with the Pan logo to top left. Teallach 19:01, 10 May 2022 (EDT)
Likely by sheer coincidence I entered the OL ID for the first (?) printing recently, so if a mod would like to accept that edit then that book can be looked at. Hologram covers, FTW. --Username 19:17, 10 May 2022 (EDT)
Hello, and sorry I only saw the notification to-day. Indeed, both "2nd printings" are identical, Record 1 having the wrong cover. It would have to be deleted, of course, but I don't know whether there is a way to preserve the PVs. I'll ping Ahasuerus about it, he should know if it's possible. Linguist 11:02, 21 May 2022 (EDT).
Unfortunately, Ahasuerus says it's not possible. So I'll suppress one and change the date of the other to “unknown". Cheers, Linguist 04:34, 22 May 2022 (EDT).
Linguist: all looks good now. I have also PVd the kept record. Thanks for cleaning this up. Teallach 06:41, 22 May 2022 (EDT)

To merge or not to merge?

Same title, same publisher - merge these or not? Suggestions? Thanks! MagicUnk 14:31, 11 May 2022 (EDT)

This is why adding a note to excerpts (if possible) is valuable. A simple statement 'Excerpt consists of first two chapters' for example. Glenn is a PV for two of the three. He can tell you if this one and this one are identical. John Scifibones 18:15, 11 May 2022 (EDT)
They're the same... about 3 pages worth. --Glenn 19:03, 26 May 2022 (EDT)

Author L Chan

We have two summary bibliography pages L Chan and L. Chan for this author. Under our rules 'L Chan (no period) is the correct canonical name. Many of the entries under 'L. Chan' should have been credited 'L Chan' initially. I propose to change any title where I can see that it was recorded as 'L Chan' in the publication. Question, where our only source is secondary, should I change those or leave and make 'L. Chan' an alternate name. Obviously, the author only uses 'L Chan', but we show what is actually in the publication. Opinions? John Scifibones 10:43, 13 May 2022 (EDT)

For any of those entered as "L. Chan", if there's a PV, ask them to verify how it's entered in the book. For those without a PV, we can simply variant them to "L Chan" and make "L. Chan" an alternate name to "L Chan". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:24, 13 May 2022 (EDT)
For the secondary-only cases, it can be helpful to look for scans -- Amazon Look Inside,, Google Books, etc. I think if the scan contradicts the secondary source, it's better to correct and include a note about the discrepancy and source of the information used to override the official/blessed secondary. If no scan is available, then I agree we're stuck with keeping the secondary's credit and making a variant. Because we know for sure that some publications used "L.", we cannot assume a mistake on the part of the secondary source. --MartyD 08:43, 14 May 2022 (EDT)

Araminta Station

There is a note onm this record that states "First version, do NOT merge with the second version." but I cannot find the alleged second version listed or depicted anywhere. The note may be there to warn but doesn't actually help in pointing you to the other cover so you can visually see the differences. --Mavmaramis 15:14, 14 May 2022 (EDT)

Dirk P Broer added the note per the Edit History so you can try asking him. It is possible that at one time there was a miscredit in the database or a wrong cover image displaying on one of the editions that made it look like two separate covers. If so, it could have been corrected and the note is now superfluous. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2022 (EDT)

Wiki Covers; So someone uploaded cover with a huge crease running all the way through it, I found one that was uncreased, some other person reverted it back to the creased cover, and this had the fortunate side effect of me finding a better cover than the one I uploaded previously, which is not only uncreased but slightly bigger in dimension yet smaller in size than the creased cover, plus it doesn't have black mark over price like my previous cover. however, am I supposed to do something else now? I ask because it still has the name of the original uploader as the scanner. --Username 09:44, 16 May 2022 (EDT)

The image you uploaded was vastly inferior to the original (smaller, less bright, less sharp, price unreadable), so naturally it had to be reverted. The new one is still less sharp than the original. You could have contacted the (active) primary verifier of course. --Willem 10:41, 16 May 2022 (EDT)
It may not be 100% as sharp as the original, but it also doesn't have a huge fault line running through the entire cover. Does anyone else have an answer to my question above? I'm guessing the "edit" at the top could be used to insert my name in place of the original uploader, but I hesitate to do that since obviously some people are very touchy about anyone improving their work. It's surprising how many terrible book covers/author photos were uploaded to the Wiki over the years when certainly in most cases better ones were easily found online; in the future I'll try to remember if I'm going to upload a better image to only do so for images uploaded by people who aren't here anymore so as not to upset anyone. --Username 11:08, 16 May 2022 (EDT)
Yes, if you replace a cover on the wiki, you should edit the page and change the uploader name to you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2022 (EDT)

Strange Horizons; I was checking the 6 August 2001 review of The Best of Cemetery Dance and the ISFDB link doesn't work, but online Google search found the issue; note search above gave same problem when I clicked the first link, so possibly all of these links don't work. --Username 11:54, 17 May 2022 (EDT)

Peter Sís

The artist Peter Sis should have an acute accent over the "i" in his last name. Would a moderator change it? --Rosab618 04:15, 18 May 2022 (EDT)

Rob C.; I'm uploading a better cover of his PV to A Glass of Stars; hasn't been around since 10/2018 and so should probably get a "no longer active" message. --Username 10:48, 18 May 2022 (EDT)

Duplicate Publication Record: Adams / Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

The Pan pb 4th printing of Adams / Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency has duplicate pub records: Record A and Record B. I propose to delete Record B but it has two PVs, neither of whom are active, hence this post. I have edited / PVd Record A and transferred across all the additional notes from Record B so that no information will be lost. May I please proceed with the delete? Teallach 16:31, 20 May 2022 (EDT)

No objection, seems OK to me. Linguist 07:40, 22 May 2022 (EDT).

Luisa Preißler

Greeting! I have no idea on how to do this but--- Could Author Record # 321880 be merged with Author Record # 232592 isnce they are the same person.

Author Record # 232592 also has Luisa Preissler & Luisa J. Preissler attached and this would join all 4 versions of her name together and hopefully also put all of the book titles together as a group. aardvark7 09:04, 24 May 2022 (EDT)

Done, see here. It's actually quite easy to do. First you make the variant author a pseudonym of the canonical ("Make/Remove Alternate Name" under editing tools), then you variant the titles under the pseudonym to the canonical author. --Willem 10:19, 24 May 2022 (EDT)

Dennys; On a roll of adding prices to Canadian publisher's books; this one had a price that looked funny, so I checked and it was 95, not 96, but has active PV's so I cancelled it. If anyone wants to fix this very minor thing the Google link is at the bottom. --Username 08:11, 25 May 2022 (EDT)

Is there a reason that you are mentioning this here instead of reaching out to the verifiers, both of whom are active? I'm sure either of them would be happy to check the price, though you'll have to use the email system to contact Mhhutchins. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:53, 25 May 2022 (EDT)
Well, besides the fact that I've made it clear recently that I'm not re-doing rejected edits anymore and cancelling my edits that turn out to have active PV so as to avoid the waiting for a response/PV complaining about my fixing of incorrect info, which I believe you thought might be a good idea, both of the PV for this book had particularly less-than-positive responses when I've contacted them to let them know I added or fixed something in their edits, as you can easily see if you go on their boards; Mr. W especially still stands as probably the rudest response I've ever gotten, which is really saying something. You and others are always going on about etiquette and such but when I do the "right thing" often I'm met with hostility for daring to correct something, regardless of the fact that usually it's justifiable, so maybe you should let other PV know how they're supposed to respond. This is a very minor fix, so if nobody wants to change it it hardly matters. --Username 11:30, 25 May 2022 (EDT)

Satanic Panic; After nearly 2 weeks my extensive edits for these books were accepted, but 1 that removed something was rejected with no comment but "Why?" and the same mod removed something himself from the original edition; I can barely remember the convoluted importing and fixing I did for these, so someone look these over if you can spare the time and make sure everything's where it's supposed to be. --Username 18:27, 25 May 2022 (EDT)

Rejected Why?; Can someone un-reject this? The old pic's already on Wikipedia, he's turned to the side, and it's very small; the one I entered isn't on Wikipedia, he's facing forward, and it's quite a bit bigger. Also this,, which was rejected even though there's no PV. Also this,, which wouldn't have been rejected if the previous edit had been approved, because that's clearly where the date came from. Also this,, because previous editor entered #6 incorrectly as both series # and ID. Also this,, because that's what previous editor's note and WorldCat (ID already on book's record) say. The same mod rejected all of these; he also rejected my replacement of E. Nesbit's Tales of Terror cover with the full wraparound cover (featuring art continued on the back) but I'm going to let that one go because there was an actual PV for that one. --Username 15:12, 26 May 2022 (EDT)

I have asked Biomassbob to respond here. Ahasuerus 11:53, 27 May 2022 (EDT)
Username doesn't bother to complain to me because I'm unlikely to buy his arguments. For example, the photo he chose is poor, slightly out of focus, and the existing photo is better. Most of his suggested changes had no explanation of why the existing information was bad, and I rejected them with the question "Why?". He apparently doesn't think he can possibly be wrong, he doesn't want to notify PVs when he makes changes. I liked the cover for Tales of Terror, but he really needs to contact the PV. Another of his favorite tricks is to remove an entry in a pub, then in his next submission, replace it with something he likes better. It would really make things easier for monitors if he would just edit the entry instead of tossing it out before we can know why he wants to remove it. He's a difficult editor to review, obnoxious and arrogant, but he works hard and I'll keep reviewing his submissions. But he should learn to submit reasons for his suggested changes. Bob 19:50, 27 May 2022 (EDT)
Dude, you haven't even approved any edits by me for months; I actually thought you'd given up moderating here because you were barely around for a long time and your attitude when you did work on my edits last year suggested you were doing so under protest or something, rejecting many of them because of some silly reason like "no movie-related info in the notes", which was a common excuse, apparently not noticing the countless other movie-related notes entered by other editors. If you think my Abe photo was poor then you must really think the already-on-Wikipedia, tiny, dark, profile picture currently there is horrible, right? I'm going to find a really great one now just to make you happy. As for PV, there are many things I assume they should know like looking at existing notes or clicking external ID's to verify my edits without me having to spell everything out like I'm working with slow adults, but apparently I give them too much credit. I have explained many of my edits where necessary when the info was something not apparent. As for being wrong, please see the many messages I've left on the boards where I chastise and insult myself as an idiot for making silly mistakes; like the recent Stephen King "Weeds" situation. I already explained that I'm letting the Tales of Terror rejection go because it actually has a PV (unlike your rejection of my importing of something into Dark Energies, which has no PV but only secondary verifications, which don't require contacting the person who did those, as you should know being a PV and all) and I don't feel like waiting for an often really long time for a response just to add a better cover, especially since a lot of the PV left years ago but whoever's in charge of tagging them as "no longer active" never did that. As for the "tricks" you mentioned, I don't even know what to say about that because I have no idea what you're talking about; removing wrong info and importing correct info is a very common thing that I've done many times because that's what you're supposed to do. Your abusive "obnoxious and arrogant" comment would bother me if I cared what you thought about me, which I don't, and recalling from the dim mists of time your attitude when you were a regular moderator and worked on many of my edits long ago, all I can say is: pot, meet kettle. The one thing I agree with you about is that I work hard, since in the slightly less than a year-and-a-half I've edited here I've made more than 25,000 edits, and encouraged others to do many more, all the while putting up with all the constant complaining and insults from others who "work" here while getting almost nothing in the way of feedback about anything I write on the boards. But I shouldn't be surprised about any of this because from reading recent and not-so-recent writings on the boards it's clear many editors have stopped editing here because they couldn't get along with other editors/moderators; as I mentioned somewhere recently, the fact I'm still doing this at all should be cause for gratitude. I think that's about it, so now that I'm going to replace the Abe picture and not bothering with the Tales of Terror cover, see what you can do to approve those other edits you wrongly rejected, or let someone else approve them if you don't want to. --Username 20:42, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

The Other Glass Teat

I found an advert in the back of The Glass Teat refering to this book with blub, size (210 x 140mm) and giving the ISBN as 0 86130 005 X. No evidence this publication from Savoy ever appeared - it doesn't appear on Savoy's website listing of publications - nor does the ISBN appear to exist so should it not be listed as "unpublished" under Savoy's publisher page ? --Mavmaramis 11:43, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

Shape of Fear; I uploaded a better image to this book but didn't get the usual "do you want to replace", apparently because back in 2009 Bluesman entered a too-big image or something, so can a mod get my image,, to show up in the book's record? --Username 12:26, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

The original image was at the "wrong" location. I edited the pub to add the new image and deleted the original. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2022 (EDT)
[13]; uploaded this, and again old one was not replaced because it's a different URL. --Username 14:51, 2 June 2022 (EDT)
Same for this one, edited the pub to point to the new image, then deleted the original. John Scifibones 15:28, 2 June 2022 (EDT); It's not replacing the old image because it has an extra "L" in the URL. --Username 12:48, 12 June 2022 (EDT)

Once Again

Unnecessary rejections: 1); New image has different URL with "SSL" which is, according to mods, the preferred Amazon image address now, but also new image doesn't have the "copyrighted material" bugs at top and bottom, which I replace whenever I see them if I find a cover without them. Un-reject this edit. 2); New image replaces old image with "P" in the URL which, according to mods, should be replaced. Un-reject this edit, too. I'm really getting tired of my edits being rejected incorrectly, especially these very minor image replacements, and having to waste time writing these stupid notes in order to get them un-rejected when that time could be used to actually make more edits. Somebody inform this particular mod that there's a reason to replace old images besides the fact that they "look better". EDIT: Same mod rejected another replacement of a cover with "P" in the URL, saying the new cover looked worse than the old one, but I'm going to let that one go because new cover I got from OL has a proper URL but also has some slight cover differences so I'm just going to make another edit from Amazon where the cover with proper URL looks exactly like the old cover. Most alarmingly, however, is this rejection,, where mod left a long note about stuff including the page count change, when there's an Archive link in the edit which leads to a copy of the book where it's obvious that the much higher page count I entered is the correct one. Un-reject this edit, too. On the plus side, while checking into all this I noticed at the very top of the copyright page the name of the illustrator for Wells' book, so that's been added in another edit; every dark cloud has a silver lining. I don't know what's going on here but let's try not to let this keep happening. --Username 19:05, 2 June 2022 (EDT)

Please add Goodreads Choice Awards "Science & Technology" category

I can't imagine this is going to get much use (especially as they seem to have dropped this category for their most recent iteration), but could we have this category added so that this nominated title can be added to it? I think this is a moderator or bureaucrat task?

Thanks. ErsatzCulture 16:41, 8 June 2022 (EDT)

Any moderator should be able to add a new category to an award type. Only new award types require bureaucrat intervention. Ahasuerus 17:27, 8 June 2022 (EDT)
Done. Ahasuerus 18:03, 8 June 2022 (EDT)
Thanks! ErsatzCulture 18:04, 8 June 2022 (EDT)

Chavey; After constant complaining about adding info about cover images to this guy's PV books at the bottom of a long list I've added a couple recently, but just noticed there's a warning about the length of it being way too long and some browsers possibly not being able to handle displaying it properly. So someone should contact him and advise him on how to break it up or whatever's needed since he rarely checks it. --Username 19:35, 9 June 2022 (EDT)

Our Wiki software is quite old, which is why it displays a warning about the 32K limit, which is not an issue with modern browsers. Al is currently working on upgrading the Wiki software. Once he is done, the warning will disappear. Ahasuerus 11:56, 10 June 2022 (EDT)

Ruleless Stonecreek?

Do the rules for editing PVs only apply to me or do they also apply to Stonecreek? Data was changed and added by him without contacting me. I've been warned for breaking the rules like this, but apparently Stonecreek has fool's liberty, look here.--Wolfram.winkler 09:57, 12 June 2022 (EDT)

Did you read the note: "Adding missing relevant data: date, content, pub. series, sources, links & notes"? All of these were missing - as usual - from the stub record you provided. Christian Stonecreek 11:39, 12 June 2022 (EDT)
Is there no one who can give me a reasonable answer?--Wolfram.winkler 16:52, 13 June 2022 (EDT)
Apparently there is no one who has the courage to comment here. That's sad. --Wolfram.winkler 13:28, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
Stonecreek's self-approver privileges were revoked on 2022-06-14 -- see the link for details. Ahasuerus 16:30, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
I can't comment on your question, but I thought you'd like to know that Stonecreek entered another Hobbit Presse book by Mr. Sullivan,, in case you own that and can also PV. --Username 13:44, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
Interesting information, but I can't see any connection to my question/complaint.
I'll rephrase it: Do the rules regarding editing PV's data apply to all users?
@ Username: I can't see how this information can help to clarify my question. Please explain that to me.
BTW the next rule violation from Stonecreek here (Google translator).--Wolfram.winkler 11:35, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
Well, the missing answers confirm my assumption that there is a two-class society here. I'll give you one piece of advice along the way: stop Stonecreek.(Google).--Wolfram.winkler 12:45, 4 July 2022 (EDT)

How to enter

Very shortly I will be having a box set of four books by different authors (published by Puffin) delivered. My question is how I enter this - would it be OMNIBUS ? --Mavmaramis 15:20, 15 June 2022 (EDT)

Yep. And I would also add each of the books individually (so 5 publications) because these box sets tend to get separated... Annie 15:33, 15 June 2022 (EDT)
Thank you Annie. The four books contained within the box set are already on ISFB anyway (it's an early 1970s set) but I'll still add them as content. --Mavmaramis 10:34, 17 June 2022 (EDT)

Paul Jacquays vs Paul Jaquays

Author Record # 9645 Paul Jacquays is in reality Author Record # 8705 Paul Jaquays. I think the name Jacquays was most likely misspelled when entered. The art for one of the books under Jacquays, Star of Cursrah, can be found on the artist's Facebook page Paul Jaquays now goes as Jennell Jaquays. aardvark7 10:15, 16 June 2022 (EDT)

Mick Van Houten

In email correspondance with this artist in relation to some cover art identities he has informed me that (quoted verbaim) "‘Mike' was a consequence due to 3rd party ignorance, thankfully corrected later, although often I’d still see ‘Van' instead of the correct ‘van'." Would a moderator edit his canonical and legal name to show the correct 'van' please ? --Mavmaramis 10:37, 17 June 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for looking into this. Since we don't create alternate names based on capitalization, I have changed "Van" to "van" in all three versions of the name and added notes. Ahasuerus 16:43, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
No worries and thanks. I'd initially contacted him in regards to Jane Gaskell's The Serpent and he sent me a lengthy reply explaining the error(s). --Mavmaramis 18:53, 17 June 2022 (EDT)

Andrew Robinson / Andrew J. Robinson

The listing for Andrew Robinson includes this interview which should be this Andrew J. Robinson. I have no idea whether any other items listed under the former belong to the later. --Mavmaramis 07:53, 19 June 2022 (EDT)

Fixed. Interviews should always uses the canonical name of the author so I updated the record. They look like two different people. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2022 (EDT)
I'm the one who recently added the photo to Andrew J. Robinson's page from Clive Barker's Hellraiser (1987); however, he's more famous for playing the Scorpio killer in Dirty Harry (1971). I also just now added Andrew Robinson cover credits to the 2 other Windrusher books because he did all of them. --Username 08:46, 19 June 2022 (EDT)


Can one of you do something with this, I think I entered info properly as can be seen in the edit history, but the Michael Trevillion cover credit ended up being on his author page but not actually added to Fantasyworld, then mod deleted something, then the Trevillion author image which I also added showed up on his page where it hadn't been when I checked a few minutes earlier. I wrote to explain this and mod deleted the Fantasyworld author credit so now it doesn't show up anywhere. Someone restore my info as I entered it. Thanks. --Username 19:53, 19 June 2022 (EDT)


I could swear I've seen other editors add "fp" when adding a frontispiece; I've done it rarely but still have done it several times. A moderator asked about this on my page, so if it's not OK to add that then how to go about searching ISFDB for all "fp" and getting rid of them? --Username 12:42, 26 June 2022 (EDT)

Help section Regular Titles subsection Page, bullet point Special designations clearly identifies the allowable abbreviations. The fact that some other record may contain the same error is not justification for ignoring our standards. As always, you are free to propose a change in Rules and Standards. John Scifibones 13:12, 26 June 2022 (EDT)
I asked if there's a way to search for all page fields with "fp" so I can see how many I've done, if others have really done it, too, and to delete them all if that's not a proper page entry; someone with that knowledge hasn't responded yet, assuming anyone will. Also, it's "Rules", not "Rusles"; I'll correct that for you. --Username 13:23, 26 June 2022 (EDT)

Artie Conliffe

In refeerence to this map. It is signed "Arthur Conliffe" so should not not be his true name and "Artie" a variant ? --Mavmaramis 16:21, 26 June 2022 (EDT)

Romanian Names; 2 Titus. --Username 09:39, 27 June 2022 (EDT)

Keeping Up With the Joneses; James Jones' 1 British cover art credit should probably be with the 2 British cover art credits under James Jones (artist), and the American Shadows artist is likely a whole different person. --Username 09:58, 27 June 2022 (EDT)

Joe D. Ripper

I added Joe DeVito cover credit to the 1988 anthology Ripper! using Bibliography page. 2 PV, 1 active and only responding by e-mail, which I'm not using. EDIT: Oddly, the Ripper credit doesn't appear in the extensive cover list but only in a card list further down the page; doing a quick check of the other credited covers, it seems the Ripper credit was the only one missing on ISFDB, except for this late one,, which I just made an edit for to add the credit. EDIT: Many more DeVito cover credits/merges/variants done, pending approval. He also seems to have done the covers for a few of those men's adventure series (American Nightmare, Steele, etc.) but it's not clear if he did all the covers in each series so I didn't touch those. --Username 08:36, 30 June 2022 (EDT)

Machen Dupe; I replaced cover for 1 edition and noticed now that there's another which seems the same, but there's different info in each, in case anyone thinks info should be combined in 1 record and the other deleted. --Username 15:49, 30 June 2022 (EDT)

Christian Vs Chris McGrath

I have been working on artist Christian (Chris) McGrath on my Pinterest account and have been finding a number of titles where his has not been attributed as the cover artist and have been updating those. A number of titles have a preview where you can see that the artist is named as Chris McGrath and in those cases I have been using that name. Under Christian McGrath there are a number of titles where it list the book, then again with the addition "with Chris McGrath"

There are two titles (one by me, one not) that are listed under Chris McGrath but not Christian McGrath. How do I get those titles listed under Christian McGrath with the addition "with Chris McGrath" as well as the others I have submitted?

They all should be listed under Christian McGrath with that note the artist is named as Chris McGrath. aardvark7 09:57, 2 July 2022 (EDT)

We are using Christian McGrath as the canonical name and Chris McGrath as an alternate name. So if you have something credited to "Chris" McGrath, you should record it that way, then once that record is in place, make it a variant of the same title but credited to "Christian" McGrath. Where your record is used, it will say "by Christian McGrath (as by Chris McGrath)". On the Christian McGrath bibliography page, you will see the title listed with either "[only as by Chris McGrath]" if that is the only reference or "[as by Chris McGrath]" if publications are using the canonical record or any other variant.
For each of the two titles you cite, go to the title's page and choose "Make This Title A Variant" in the Editing Tools menu at the left. In the dialog that comes up, scroll down to the bottom half (there are two forms on the page -- use the second one), and change "Chris McGrath" to "Christian McGrath" and submit. After that is approved, you will see the title on the Christian McGrath page, with the "only as by Chris McGrath" annotation. If there were already a record credited to Christian McGrath, you would use the top half / first form to link the Chris McGrath-credited title to the existing Christian McGrath-credited one. If you make a new one and one already exists, that's ok, too. The two records credited to Christian McGrath can be merged without losing any of the Chris McGrath links. --MartyD 16:40, 3 July 2022 (EDT)

RIP FP; Change in status needed. --Username 18:33, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

Primus; I found Archive copy and fixed the Scientists book by adding Donald I. Fine to the publisher among other things, am going to ask PV of other book to do the same, but that last book is obviously not the same publisher, so mods can decide how to differ it; what language is that, anyway? --Username 15:11, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

The Mists of Avalon

Hello mods. I have been sent details of a copy of this book - the Alfred A. Knopf edition - however it has the number 05925 printed in a white box on the rear of the dustwrapper, it has no gutter code on page 875 (or on any of the 10 adjacent pages), neither does it have 1/83 on the rear flap of the dustwrapper. Since it is a lot cheaper than the Michael Joseph UK or the "proper" Knopf (non Book Club edition) I've gone ahead and ordered it. I'm going to make a big assumption that it is infact a Book Club edition but one that has not yet been recorded on ISFDB. --Mavmaramis 14:17, 8 July 2022 (EDT)

Gollancz / Victor Gollancz

Ok so I've noticed some discrepancies in regards to some publications from this publisher. Eg. The Instrumentality of Mankind is noted as "Victor Gollancz" yet The Rediscovery of Man is "Gollancz". Title pages for both have "Victor Gollancz Ltd". Gollancz editions of The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick all have publisher as Gollancz and again titles pages have Victor Gollancz. Can someone explain why they are all just "Gollancz" and not "Victor Gollancz" ? --Mavmaramis 06:07, 10 July 2022 (EDT)

Author Photo Links

Per this discussion,, a warning when someone adds a non-ISFDB friendly author image might be warranted. I fixed a few but only because I chanced across the cleanup report's mention that there were several dozen that were unacceptable links. --Username 12:41, 10 July 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up. Let me see what the software is currently configured to do. Ahasuerus 12:25, 11 July 2022 (EDT)
After reviewing the linked discussion, I think I see what's going on. The software as it currently exists does warn you if you try to add an image hosted by a site that we don't have permission to link to, e.g. see this 2017 submission -- note the yellow warning. What the software doesn't do is notify the reviewing moderator that the current -- and about to be replaced -- image URL is not allowed.
If you think about it, this is how yellow warning work for all fields. None of them notify you about issues with the about-to-be-replaced data. I suppose we could change the software to do it, but it would have to be done across the board. Ahasuerus 13:00, 11 July 2022 (EDT)

Wrong cover image uploaded

Uploaded and replaced cover scan for this. Not the same edition. --Mavmaramis 12:00, 11 July 2022 (EDT)

Moderator view of certain submissions tweaked

"Moderator review" pages have been enhanced to display links to "Public View" and "Raw XML" views of unapprovable submissions. This applies to rejected submissions, previously approved submissions, and submissions created or held by other moderators. Ahasuerus 17:29, 11 July 2022 (EDT)

"Next Submission" behavior modified

The behavior of the "Next Submission" button on submission review and post-approval pages has been modified. It now skips submissions created by self-approvers. You can still see and access them via the "New Submissions" page. Ahasuerus 13:18, 12 July 2022 (EDT)

P.S. User:JLaTondre has suggested that it may be useful to color-code submissions created by self-approvers the way we color-code submissions created by other moderators. What would be a good color to use? Ahasuerus 13:24, 12 July 2022 (EDT)
What colors are currently being used? I know there's green for new editors, yellow for moderator entries, and blue for the entries of the person viewing the page. Maybe cyan? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:55, 18 July 2022 (EDT)
That's right. Submissions created by other moderator use "#FFFF00", your own submissions appear as "#3333FF" and new editors' submissions are "#00FF33". I assume "cyan" would be the same as "aqua" or "#00FFFF". I have no preference since I am colorblind. Ahasuerus 16:21, 18 July 2022 (EDT)
Yes, that would be the same as cyan. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:29, 18 July 2022 (EDT)
Hearing no objection, I have made the change. Moderators may need to do a full reload of the "New Submissions" page (Control-F5 in most browsers) in order to see the new color. In addition, an explanation of all used colors is now displayed at the bottom of the page. Ahasuerus 12:54, 22 July 2022 (EDT)

Some Summer Lands

There is a listing for Jane Gaskell's Some Summer Lands. Note states "Library Edition" but using the ISBN provides absolutely zero results from ISBN search or any other book dealing websites. It doesn't appear as if Macdonald ever published it in hardback - no library copies seem to exist. Is this a ghost (unpublished) publication ? --Mavmaramis 14:55, 12 July 2022 (EDT)

This ISBN has been verified against Locus1, which does list it as a:
  • Reprint (Hodder & Stoughton 1977) fantasy novel, conclusion of the “Atlan” series. Library edition.
The 1984-1998 Locus Index was compiled based on the monthly "Books Received" column in Locus Magazine. I suppose it's possible that this ISBN was listed by the publisher in a standard "review package" sent to industry reviewers, but was never distributed to libraries for whatever reason. Given this uncertainty, I think the best we can do is document what we know about this ISBN, i.e. where our data comes from and the fact that no online catalog lists the ISBN as of 2022, in the Note field. Ahasuerus 15:16, 12 July 2022 (EDT)
It may well appear in Locus as you pointed out but ISBN search tells me "Sorry, we could not find any information for this book" when using the ISBN 0-356-12118-6. No libraries have a copy (at least none that I could find), OCLC/WorldCat and other bibliographic sites don't find it. If it did exist surely there would be more evidence than a printed note in Locus ? --Mavmaramis 00:46, 13 July 2022 (EDT)
Well, if the totality of the available evidence -- including the fact that finds no traces of this ISBN -- suggests that it was never distributed to libraries, we can change the publication date to 8888-00-00 and add a note explaining our sources. Ahasuerus 09:04, 13 July 2022 (EDT)
That seems to be a very reasonable course of action to take. --Mavmaramis 14:33, 14 July 2022 (EDT)

Tripods Trilogy Macmillan / Collier editions

I have been sent photographic evidence of Roger Hane's signiature (very readadable) for The White Mountains and City of Gold and Lead. --Mavmaramis 14:09, 13 July 2022 (EDT)

UNHOLD button tweaked

The behavior of the UNHOLD button has been modified. Instead of displaying a "dead end" Web page, it now re-displays the submission review page.

I also considered making the same change to the behavior of the HOLD button, but I am not sure that it has the same workflow. Suggestions? Ahasuerus 08:36, 16 July 2022 (EDT)

Jack Sullivan and Penguin; 3 active PV, I just added OL ID for the Archive copy and a note mentioning the Brit price on the front flap (US price not seen but likely bad framing because there's a photo online that clearly says $29.95 at the top), but info on bottom left is obscured; what does it say? If it's the month that could be entered. --Username 13:01, 17 July 2022 (EDT)

Checked my copy. Number bottom left on front flap is: 07288086. Make of that what you will. Price definatley $29.95 printed at top but my copy is price clipped bottom right (presumably UK price). --Mavmaramis 15:20, 19 July 2022 (EDT)

Publication to delete

I had entered Land of Always-Night by Kenneth Robeson and noticed this copy which seems to be the same pub entered under Lester Dent, rather than varianted. I'm happy to moderate and stand behind my own submissions, but would rather a moderator cleaned this one up. Thanks. ../Doug H 22:32, 18 July 2022 (EDT)

A tricky one

The FictionMag lists The Bards as having two authors: "Álvaro de Sousa" and "Holstein Ferreira". This turns out to be incorrect. The actual author is "Álvaro de Sousa Holstein Ferreira". Now, since I don't know whether or not the name is misprinted in the publication itself, or is a typo in the FictionMags entry, I cannot just update the author of The Bards to Álvaro de Sousa Holstein Ferreira. One option could be to variant both "Alvaro de Sousa" and "Holstein Ferreira" to the canonical name - would be awkward though. Any suggestions on how to deal with this situation instead? See also submissions here and here. Thanks! MagicUnk 12:02, 19 July 2022 (EDT)

How do we "know" the attribution is incorrect and the poem was written Álvaro de Sousa Holstein Ferreira rather than two (other) people? Given that our credit relies exclusively on a secondary source and it's rather difficult to properly represent this particular type of mistaken attribution, I would be inclined to change the title to have the single Álvaro de Sousa Holstein Ferreira credit and record in the notes that secondary source FictionMags credits this as the work of two separate authors but secondary (and hopefully more authoritative) source XYZ credits it to just the one person; thus it seems likely the FictionMags dual credit is the result of a transcription error. With no primary verification, it's clear this has not been determined from the publication itself. Note that going any sort of variant/alternate name route mapping this poem to Álvaro de Sousa Holstein or Álvaro de Sousa Holstein Ferreira is relying on the same "knowledge" that this poem is in fact the work of one person, not two. So to do that, we still need a source. --MartyD 12:01, 21 July 2022 (EDT)
A Couple of observations: Miller/Contento also has the credit for this poem as by two separate authors. My understanding is that FictionMags is built off of Miller/Contento and other indexes. Strangely, Locus1 (another index related to FictionMags) skips issue 7 of SPWAO Showcase. However, they do list de Sousa and Ferreira as separate authors in their record for Frontier Crossings. We have it as a single credit, which I believe to be correct. I can see how someone would consider the credit in FC to be two authors. The names are in all caps and the column where the essay occurs is narrow enough so that "Álvaro de Sousa" appears on one line with "Holstein Ferreira" on the next. The credit for the essay in Worldcon 75 Souvenir Book is clearly a single name. I expect we are talking about a single person and that it is entirely possible that there is an error FictionMags for SPWAO Showcase is similar to that in Locus1 for Frontier Crossings. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:24, 21 July 2022 (EDT); author is mentioned several times using 1 name. --Username 18:48, 21 July 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for the advice - I've updated the publication accordingly. Regards, MagicUnk 12:13, 26 July 2022 (EDT)

Carole Nelson Douglas / Probe

I am editing / PVing Probe and am posting this note because I am changing the Format field on a pub that only has an inactive PV. This book is definitely a small tp: 20 x 13 cm. Note that Locus1 incorrectly lists this as a pb which is probably the source of the error in the ISFDb pub record. Teallach 15:31, 20 July 2022 (EDT)

Re-Adding Author Info; I fixed first guy's name to how it is in the book, but now all info on his old name's page is gone. Here's the cached page, [14]. --Username 23:07, 22 July 2022 (EDT)

There are two problems here. First, and most importantly, this edit should not have been made. The edit removed the comma between the author's name and the suffix "IV". This is incorrect regardless of how it appears in the book. Please see this template under "Ranks, suffixes, prefixes" where it indicates that suffixes are regularized to include the comma no matter how they are printed in the book.
The second problem is the "deletion" of the additional author data. When an author is updated in a title and publication record, this does not result as an edit to the existing author. Rather, the old author (in this case "W. E. Butterworth, IV") is removed from the record and a new author (William E. Butterworth IV) is created. In this instance, the author record for "W. E. Butterworth, IV" only occurred on the records where it was removed by the edit, it left that author record (with all of the other data) without any publications or titles, and thus it was deleted. Had this been an appropriate edit, it would have been better to update the author record to remove the comma, which would have preserved the additional date.
Since this edit should not have been done, I would recommend that you update the author data to re-add the comma. The additional data (legal name and notes) will also have to be re-added and can be done at the same time. I suspect the wiki notes (Additional Biographical Data) which are still present will re-link by themselves after the the author name is corrected and matches the wiki again. However, I've never added an author where the wiki notes preexist, so it will be an interesting experiment. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:33, 24 July 2022 (EDT)
I made a couple of edits, first re-adding legal name and note about being the son of..., then an edit adding comma to author's name twice in the book's record. --Username 20:36, 24 July 2022 (EDT)
That won't work. Your first edit will add the author information back. You second edit will will create a new author and since the author you updated with the first edit will have no titles or publications associated with it, it will again be deleted. If they are approved in the opposite order of how they are submitted, I believe the edit to the author record would require a hard reject as the author record edited would no longer exist. I guess my recommendation wasn't clear. All the changes, to the author name, legal name and notes should all be done with a single edit to the author record. That will get everything back to the way it was. I assume an author name can be edited by an editor (i.e. non-moderator). Please let me know if the field is locked for you. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:28, 24 July 2022 (EDT)
Yes, it's locked. I can only change the name by going into the book's record; author's record, no. --Username 21:48, 24 July 2022 (EDT)
OK, I accepted your author edit, rejected the title/pub update, and updated the name on the author record to include the comma. I guess the moral here is that if an author has a single title publication, you'll need to ask a moderator to update the name field if that is required. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:29, 24 July 2022 (EDT)
Ron, I renamed the Wiki Bio page to match the new canonical name. While the wiki page correctly links back to the new author summary page, the author summary does not show the bio page. What am I missing? John Scifibones 10:16, 25 July 2022 (EDT)
The use of wiki pages to document author information has been deprecated. They were used from before there was a notes fields on the author record. Links to old one are maintained, but new links are no longer created. The data is supposed to be migrated into the database and the pages deleted. As there is nothing on this wiki page that is not already on the author record, I will delete it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2022 (EDT)

weblink no more

The webpage on Kevin Ward, Authur record 9505 is up for sale. aardvark7 21:07, 23 July 2022 (EDT)

Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy of on file, so I had to delete the link :-( Ahasuerus 11:48, 25 July 2022 (EDT)

La grande anthologie de la science-fiction

Hi I have been around this beautiful site before and today I am looking for info about Publication Series: La grande anthologie de la science-fiction at

My question is : why are there several entries for some of the books. For example, the 2-253-00060-4 is listed 7 times.

Thank you. Roger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilboquet (talkcontribs) . 00:00, 27 July 2022 (EDT)

We include entries for every printing of every eligible book. In this case, there are several printings of the titles, so there are several entries. I hope that helps. Also, please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~. Welcome to the site! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:14, 27 July 2022 (EDT)

To add or not to add that is the question.

Hello Mods. I'd like opinions regarding Megastructres as to whether it does or does not qualify for inclusion on this site. It's a Kickstarter funded book that has been published in two states - a regular edition and a premium edition with faux carbon fibre boards and chrome foil emblam. I have purchased the premium edition and await it's delivery from the USA. --Mavmaramis 04:45, 30 July 2022 (EDT)

Unless you can find an art piece tied to some fiction, it will be out IMO. Non-fiction (of any type) and art are only eligible when there is a connection to eligible fiction (unless the author is above threshold) or (for art) when it is a cover for eligible book. I suspect we may need to wait for you to get the book and see if there is links to fiction in some/all explanations and that may change things. But from what I am seeing, it is out of scope. Nice book though :) Annie 16:15, 1 August 2022 (EDT)
If that's the case can you explain why this publication is included ? --Mavmaramis 12:29, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
Ask the moderator who approved it. I don’t think it is eligible either unless the images are connected to eligible fiction titles or bssooks. But then we do have a scope creep in some areas (especially around art). If other moderators agree that if is in scope, feel free to add it. For me it is out of scope. But it is a collective project. :) Annie 13:11, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
I was the one who added and approved that one; according to the linked review it has connections to eligible fiction: it seems there are also art pieces of sf magazines included (or was that a wrong understanding?). Christian Stonecreek 13:21, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
I'd consider Megastructures to be eligible given that it is speculating about near future possibilities. That bumps it into science fiction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:52, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
But it is not fiction - look at our ROA. Which category would it be eligible under? Annie 13:07, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
It's nonfiction speculating about possible future stuff, some of which would (currently) be clearly science fiction. It's not speculative fiction stories, but nonfiction about speculative fiction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:59, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
I own a copy of Soviet Space Graphics and as noted all the interior illustrations are covers of Russian magazines. Website for the publication os here - the 'About this Book' has "This otherworldly collection of Soviet space-race graphics takes readers on a cosmic adventure through Cold War-era Russia" and "Presenting more than 250 illustrations - depicting daring discoveries, scientific innovations, futuristic visions, and extraterrestrial encounters". So according to Annie's interpretation none of the images depict any "connection to eligible fiction" or are "cover[s] for eligible book[s]" they are merely visions of a potential future - ones that may or may not happen (i.e. "speculation") and if this a database SPECULATIVE fiction surely art depicting speculative future technoolgies, structures, whathaveyou ought to be included. I'm going to enter the publication anyway when it eventually turns up and see what happens. --Mavmaramis 16:52, 2 August 2022 (EDT)

Merge Authors???

Since David Cherry #78701 is the same person as David A. Cherry #21265, shouldn't someone merge the records of 78701 with 21265??? aardvark7 16:06, 1 August 2022 (EDT)

Nope. We record authors names as they are used (with some regularization as per the rules). In this case some of the books have the initial "A", some don't. So we keep two separate records and we mark one of them as a pseudonym/alternate name for the other. This is already done here. Annie 16:10, 1 August 2022 (EDT)
I guess I was expecting to see the books under David Cherry also listed under David A. Cherry with "(as by David Cherry)" as I have seen else where. aardvark7 15:05, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
The records under David Cherry need to be varianted to David A. Cherry. It doesn't happen automatically. If someone enters a new credit under an alternate name, the variant needs to be manually created. If the submitter & moderator are not paying attention, then they are left dangling. We have a cleanup report to find them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
So I see that the all of the Dave Langford reviews I added need to have a variant created. Is there way to create them more than one at a time? Tom 11:16, 7 August 2022 (EDT)
No, you have to create them one at a time. John Scifibones 11:28, 7 August 2022 (EDT)
Any chance we could get the variant link in the header like the edit link. Scrolling over and over to find the variant link in the editing tools makes the whole process more challenging. Tom 17:54, 7 August 2022 (EDT)

The Purple Pirate

Does anyone know a reason as to why this publication has not been included in this series given it's published by Zebra Books/Kensington Publishing Corp. and has "Volume 4" prominently on the cover ? --Mavmaramis 14:39, 4 August 2022 (EDT)

Because it appears to be the same book as #6 in the other series. Titles can only be in one series and if you put it in the "Tros of Samothrace (Three separate volumes)" series, it cannot be in the main series as well. In cases like that, the original series usually take precedence to later reprints... but there are exceptions.
If there are two books with the same title, they need unmerging. If it is indeed the same book, we choose one of the series and you can use the MultiS template to note that there is a second series and add its name... Annie 15:10, 4 August 2022 (EDT)
Is that something you can do. Copies of those Zebra editions are not cheap - someone on Ebay is selling them (with Queen Cleopatra) for £35 but the postage is a whopping £65. --Mavmaramis 15:32, 4 August 2022 (EDT)
Notes added here and here. That's the best we can do. Let me know if I can assist further and feel free to edit if you want to add details. Annie 16:23, 4 August 2022 (EDT)
Fabulous. Thanks. Does make it clearer. --Mavmaramis 16:19, 5 August 2022 (EDT)

LCCN Help; Recently I noticed a Playboy Paperbacks book I was working on had an LCCN on the copyright page so I entered it, and then saw it wasn't on the LOC site; I own a few horror anthologies from the publisher and saw that none of the LCCN on their copyright pages were on ISFDB, and none were on the LOC site, so I entered those, too. I also searched for books by the publisher and entered some missing LCCN from those, too. There was 1 PV, but since they entered LCCN as a note I thought I would move it to its proper field since many editors over the years have entered info in the wrong places and I try to fix them when I notice them, but this PV obviously doesn't agree and apparently didn't make a mistake but actually wanted it in the notes. I had a chat with a mod recently who mentioned that he remembered from years ago that the LOC site treated paperbacks as unimportant compared to hardcovers and never entered many of them on their site, just storing them away in boxes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were given an official # in the books themselves, and just because they don't show up on the site now doesn't mean they won't in the future if and when they decide to enter them; I highly doubt after I'm finally gone from here that anyone else is going to go back and check to see if they were ever entered on the site and enter the #'s themselves. So the question is, was mod (MagicUnk) right to approve my edit, and, if not, what about the others I entered? I'll remove the # from this particular one, anyway, since I was asked to. --Username 18:45, 5 August 2022 (EDT)

Please see Help:How to create a link to a US Library of Congress (Loc) record. If the LCCN is not in the catalog, it should be listed in the notes & not as an external id. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2022 (EDT)
I've gone back and fixed my edits where I added LCCN to ID, moving them to notes; while doing so I found these,,, the first of which made the same mistake I did and the second of which called it the "LCCN website" instead of LOC, a mistake I made in all my edits which I fixed at the same time I was fixing the ID, so if anyone wants to follow up on those two, there they are. --Username 10:17, 6 August 2022 (EDT)
Clearly my mistake, should not have approved the edits. Apologies.
On a side note: reading the help text, it occurs to me it is a bit ambiguous, and may need clarification. Invalid link is defined as ... an invalid LCCN (one that does not resolve to a LoC catalog record). In that case, it should be noted in the publication notes, along with the explanation that it is invalid, rather than in the external links. There are two categories of invalid LCCN's: 1) real, valid but not available online, and 2) erroneous, invalid (eg because of a printing error). So far so good. The help text goes on to state If the correct number can be found, it should be placed in the external links. This implies that an invalid LCCN can only be an erroneous one, and that a valid one is available, if only we could find it.
So, I would be in favour of adding/rewording so that it's clear that it is for all invalid links, not just the ones that are erroneous (as in, printing error). Add If the LCCN is not in the catalog, it should be listed in the notes & not as an external id. ? MagicUnk 06:10, 10 August 2022 (EDT)

The Ghatti's Tale: Book One: Finders-Seekers

This publication title doesn't follow the current standard of not including series names in titles. I'm getting ready to edit the record and would like to change the title to simply "Finders-Seekers" which would match this title record. Both the cover title and regular title for this record already use only "Finders-Seekers". This record isn't a variant. The two PVs for this publication record are both inactive. Would there be a problem with my making this change? I'll also need to add notes about the LCCN and WorldCat records which show the full existing title. Thanks! Phil 22:34, 20 August 2022 (EDT)

No issue go ahead and make the change.Kraang 13:12, 22 August 2022 (EDT)

Doug(las) Smith; Ruins Extraterrestrial recently uploaded to, I entered page numbers, Doug Smith's story actually by Douglas Smith, only Oceans of the Mind appearance is Doug (the other Oceans story is only by Doug, so that's OK), so unmerging and renaming is needed after my edit goes through. --Username 11:02, 26 August 2022 (EDT)


orider is what's shown under Content when you edit something; should be order, right? --Username 13:14, 29 August 2022 (EDT)

I mean, you're right, it should be "order".--Wolfram.winkler 16:29, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
When typos attack! Fixed, thanks. Ahasuerus 18:30, 29 August 2022 (EDT)

Award Type and Award Category submission review pages upgraded

All Award Type and Award Category submission review pages -- Add, Edit, Delete -- have been upgraded to use the new submission review software. No major user-facing changes although you may notice some minor display differences. Ahasuerus 18:24, 29 August 2022 (EDT)

The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales

Here's something strange: there's quite obviously the second author, Wilhelm Grimm, missing (according to the entries at OCLC). Also, the collection is marked as 'juvenile', which shouldn't be so, since it's a translation of "Kinder- und Hausmärchen". And also, all contents are missing.

Unfortunately the sole verifier and supplier of the 1974 publication (which has the ominous note 'Introduction to Padraic Colum') seems to have left us, at least for a span of time ("I have found it too stressful trying to work with moderators here, & am taking a break from it." - commentary on his talk page on 2022-07-14). His last activity was more than three weeks in the past.

I'll submit the predating of the title to 1944 (according to the notes in the 1974 publication), the deletion of the 'juvenile' flag and the varianting to the original title. How shall we deal with this regarding the other problems (can someone do something about it, please)? Christian Stonecreek 06:38, 31 August 2022 (EDT)

How to treat a collection that contains a novel?

Any advice on how to treat a collection that appears to contain a novel? See this submission that wants to convert a single contents title from Novella to NOVEL. It affects the collection The Knight and Knave of Swords. I seem to remember that we've had this discussion before, but can't find it right away. Thanks! MagicUnk 09:54, 31 August 2022 (EDT)

It stays a COLLECTION, like in this example ("If This Goes On —" is marked as a NOVEL). Christian Stonecreek 10:37, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
Thanks. Do you happen to know where I can find that old conversation (If you remember, that is)? MagicUnk 11:57, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
I believe there was a discussion along these lines re. Binti ~2 years ago, but nothing comes up if I do a Wiki search on that :-( ErsatzCulture 12:21, 31 August 2022 (EDT) EDIT: a 2019 item on my talk page; I'm sure there was a wider discussion relating to that though. ErsatzCulture 12:40, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
Sorry, but no, I don't. I do remember that being an item this year (which had the same outcome), but in my memory it was discussed on a personal talk page. Maybe Annie has a better memory (she's quite good with those discussions). Christian Stonecreek 12:25, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
I agree, it's a collection. 2001: A Space Odyssey COLLECTION vs. OMNIBUS is the only recent thread I could find. John Scifibones 12:27, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
Hehe, thanks for the pointer John - re-reading my own comments that confirm it should remain a COLLECTION... :) MagicUnk 12:38, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
There was a question on the Help Desk in April that is now gone. See . The help (go down to OMNIBUS) cites this example for having a COLLECTION containing a NOVEL. --MartyD 13:12, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
The discussion was archived here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:52, 31 August 2022 (EDT)
My usual rule is “you need 2 full length works for an omnibus”. So 1 novel with a bunch of stories will be a collection (or anthology). See the word “multiple” in the definition of an omnibus which also specifically calls out a collection with a novel (and defines it as a collection). PS: Which is what Marty said - sorry, small screened phone :) So that’s just a confirmation. Annie 15:12, 31 August 2022 (EDT)

<type 'exceptions.NameError'>

Drawing the mods attention to the error message that appears here --Mavmaramis 16:35, 31 August 2022 (EDT)

Fixed -- thanks for report! Ahasuerus 16:45, 31 August 2022 (EDT)

Strange Brew; Just mentioning that Hitchcock anthology Witches' Brew was published several times from 1965 onwards and some person(s) here jumbled the contents, which differed entirely from original edition to later one. So when somebody gets to those that explains why there's an edit where the entire contents of a book were deleted and replaced and a bunch of things had their dates fixed and such. I think I got everything, but maybe not. --Username 14:51, 2 September 2022 (EDT)

Worldcon Special Committee Award


Last Thursday, at the opening ceremony for Worldcon 80, the ISFDB received a special committee award. Thanks to the Chicon committee for the recognition, and congratulations to everyone here. The ISFDB would not be possible without the community effort of all the moderators who ensure the veracity of the user submissions. Alvonruff 07:40, 5 September 2022 (EDT)

Well, that's pretty cool. (^_^) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:27, 8 September 2022 (EDT)

IMPORTANT: Server Move

We've been working this year on updating the ISFDB components (Linux, Apache, Python, MediaWiki, etc) in order to modernize and enable HTTPS. At the same time, our hosting provider (FutureHosting) was sold to another hosting service (Nexcess), and they want us to move ASAP to a new server. Since everything is ready to go, we'll begin this migration the morning of 9/6. It takes about 24 hours to convert the old MediaWiki tables to their new formats, and it may take several hours for the domain name to migrate throughout the Internet. As such, editing will go offline 9/6 at the old server. It will go back online at the new server as early as 9/7 or as late as 9/9.

The old MediaWiki uses MD5 password encoding, while the new version of MediaWiki uses PBKDF2. Since the ISFDB uses the password hashes generated by MediaWiki, this means you'll need to login to the Wiki first (which will force a generation of the new hash), and then the ISFDB second.

You can track the status of the move here: User:Alvonruff/ISFDB_Move. Alvonruff 06:44, 6 September 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-09-06

Please delete the old image here. Thanks Henna 08:52, 6 September 2022 (EDT)

Done, John Scifibones 09:16, 6 September 2022 (EDT)

Moderator editing enabled

Moderators (and only moderators) should be able to edit ISFDB records now. If you run into any issues, please post your findings here. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Post-migration bugs and discrepancies found by moderators

Title Merge

Title merge not taking selected conflicting items. I submitted a title merge and selected "Small Gods - 2022" for the title and "2022-00-00" for the year. The opposite selection is what ended up being submitted and showing on the approval screen. I tried twice with the same results. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:32, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

I should have left the edit unapproved, as it is now showing as unavailable. That may be a separate issue. Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:50, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
A "Title Merge" submission appearing as "no longer valid" is expected post-approval. The submission display software tries to pull up the records which existed at the time the submission was created. It then discovers that all but 1 of them no longer exist, so it gives up. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Investigating... Ahasuerus (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
The bug has been recreated on the development server. Debugging... Ahasuerus (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
I believe the bug has been fixed. Please let me know if you run into any issues. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Looks like it's now fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:18, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Excellent! :-) Ahasuerus (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Wiki Toolbar

I'm not seeing the toolbar in the wiki, nor do I see a preference for that. I had to lookup the signature code unless it is now automatic. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:32, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

I did a little digging on the toolbar and it looks like it is no longer provided with this version of MediaWiki. It looks like there is some sort of add on and Wikipedia edit boxes have it. Definitely not a priority item. Thanks. Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:50, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Which toolbar? Or what add on? Alvonruff (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
I have added: wfLoadExtension('WikiEditor'); to LocalSettings.php. That gives something similar to the toolbar blocks that were visible just above the edit window. Try editing and see if that is what you were missing. Alvonruff (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Yes, that is the one that I was seeing referenced. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the signature tool. Wikipedia seems to have the same toolbar, and it also is missing there. Oddly, their documentation does show it. Looking more closely, it's there when you're editing a talk page, but apparently not a project page. I can get used to adding 4 tildes, but I did notice a comment on the community board looking for the same tool (I guess you noticed the same comment). I was more used to using the tool, but I did know there was wiki markup behind it. Anyway, thanks for the quick response. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:27, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Ok. It is possible to enable the signature widget via $wgExtraSignatureNamespaces. Hitting the normal page, user pages, and talk pages was pretty easy, but the page we are on is a custom namespace (ISFDB), so it was hard to find what standard namespace covers that. So the new elements entry is $wgExtraSignatureNamespaces = [ NS_MAIN, NS_USER, NS_TALK, NS_PROJECT ];. And I was able to sign this response by clicking on the signature widget in the toolbar. Yay. --Alvonruff (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Perfect! Thanks again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:21, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Import of Multiple Titles

When importing multiple titles (Option 2), the titles show up in the reverse order in the next page where you can assign the order with the page numbers. It used to keep the order as added in the list of the import page. Not sure if this is a result of the upgrade or a different change - had not needed to import for at least a week... Annie (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Scratch the "reverse". The order is really random once you land on the second page. Which is a pain when you are importing a lot of titles. Annie (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Investigating... Ahasuerus (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
I have been able to recreate this problem on the development server. It works one way under Python 2.5 and the other way under Python 2.7. Debugging... Ahasuerus (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
I believe the ordering bug should be fixed now. Please let me know if it isn't. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Seems to work now (or at least worked on 1 collection). Will keep an eye on it and will let you know if I see it misbehaving again. Annie (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Great! Ahasuerus (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Publication Comparison Bug

The "Title Merge" bug and the "Title Import" bug reported above had the same root cause. After scanning our software for other instances of the same problem, I found that the only other Web page that was obviously (emphasis on "obviously") affected by the issue was "Publication Comparison". It's a fairly minor bug as such things go: the data is displayed correctly, but the publications are not organized by publication date the way they were on the old server. I'll try to get it fixed later tonight. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

The bug should be fixed now. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Next Submission button

Something is weird with the "Next Submission" button after a submission is approved - occasionally it will throw you somewhere else in the queue and not to the immediate next. For example I just approved 5414271. The next one, still open at the moment is 5414273. But "Next Submission" after the approval of 5414271 went to 5414299 instead. It happened more than once today - and it appears to be random - sometimes it goes to the immediate next, sometimes it jumps somewhere. Not sure if me jumping around the queue has anything to do with that but this one happened after a refresh, with a single tab open to the single submission (5414271) - I was trying to isolate it because it felt like doing it but I had too many tabs open to be sure I am not seeing things... Annie (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2022 (EDT)

Investigating. Thanks for the report. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
It turns out the software responsible for the Next Submission button was implicitly relying on undocumented database behavior in MySQL 5.5. Apparently the behavior is not guaranteed to be the same in MySQL 8.0, which is what we are running on the new server. I have changed the code to explicitly sort by submission ID, which should hopefully resolve the issue. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2022 (EDT)

Site Map Broken Links

I don't know if we're still using this topic to report new issues, but I came across a few links in the wiki Site Map page that are broken:

I had thought the last two were due to the reports not running on the new server yet, but the fact that Top Contributors shows is inconsistent with that theory. I have fixed the two that seemed obvious as noted above. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:54, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up. I have changed all HTTP links to HTTPS and fixed/removed broken links. That said, Site Map hasn't been updated in years, so it's only a very rough approximation of the current functionality. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Publications with an Invalid Page Count

Looks like a small problem with the Publications with an Invalid Page Count report. John Scifibones 11:16, 10 September 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the report. I see what the problem is and will fix it after wrapping up the performance enhancements that I am currently working on. Ahasuerus (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2022 (EDT)
Fixed. Ahasuerus (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2022 (EDT)

Wiki search

Wiki search seems to have disappeared from the toolbar. I don't use it very often, but it was very good in searching for old discussions. --Willem (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2022 (EDT)

I think it's at the top right now. --MartyD (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
That's not the same. It has no option to refine the search (Help, User Talk etc.). Searching for a topic like "Lord of the Rings" gives no results. --Willem (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
There is Special:Search, which lets you refine search parameters. Should we add it to the toolbar? Ahasuerus (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
Thanks! It was there, but I just couldn't find it. No need to add it to the toolbar for me alone. :)--Willem (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
Special pages has been beefed up considerably. I haven't explored everything that it links to yet, but some pages look useful. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
A random thing I noticed about the Wiki search while looking at this.... It behaves unexpectedly differently if you enclose the phrase in quotes. Searching for lord of the rings yields this nonsense but searching for "lord of the rings" yields this as you might expect. --MartyD (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
I seem to recall many users complaining about the supposedly counterintuitive way Search behaved in earlier versions. Perhaps the default behavior was changed to address their complaints? Ahasuerus (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
I don't know what they did, but the fact that searching without quotes around the phrase does not find any of the examples that are found when the phrase is wrapped in quotes is beyond counterintuitive. It's downright bizarre. --MartyD (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
I agree with Marty, but I would never search a phrase without quotes. Searching for "lord of the rings" under 'Everything' yields these 4 results, where there should be hundreds. At first glance, the search misses all the archived pages (and probably all sub pages). I tried again under 'Advanced', checking all the boxes, but the result was the same. No high priority of course, but it is annoying. --Willem (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
Al ran a full rebuild of the search index, and I think now you'll find results much more in line with your expectations. --MartyD (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2022 (EDT)
Saw the post on Al's page. Thanks! --Willem (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2022 (EDT)

ISFDB Statistics and Top Lists

When you have a minute, check the graphs under 'Title Statistics' and 'Publication Statistics'. They appear to be showing incomplete data. It's been this way since we migrated.John Scifibones 17:50, 7 October 2022 (EDT)

Bug 818, "Title/Publication Statistics graphs are broken", has been created. Thanks for identifying the issue. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (EDT)
I believe I have fixed the problem with the software. The graphs will be corrected when the weekly process runs next Sunday (2022-10-16.) Ahasuerus (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2022 (EDT)
The charts are back to normal. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (EDT)

Rendering Delays on the New Server

We've discussed in email, but placing here for broader visibility: I've gone through about 3 days of authors born on a specific day, and about every fifth author I encounter a rendering hickup, where the non-bibliographic areas of a page successfully render (title bar, navbar, rendering canvas), and then encounter a 5 to 6 second delay before the author's bibliography renders. This seems to coincide with the mysqld process taking more than 100% cpu. Alvonruff (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

After reviewing what MySQL processes do under the hood, I suspect that the main culprits are "Fiction Title Search" and "All Title Search" in the regular "Search" box. When you enter a value in the "Search" box, the database has to scan all of the records of the specified type. For publishers, series, pub. series, tags and awards, it's not a big deal because we have less than 150,000 records of each type. We have 239,000 author records, but it's still manageable. On the other hand, we have over 2,000,000 title records, so it takes the database engine a couple of seconds to go through all of them looking for matches.
Crucially, all other database lookups that touch title records have to wait while the search is running, which means that their Web pages "freeze". This includes publication pages, title pages and author pages. When the search finishes, the rest of the accumulated queries have to be processed at the same time.
The best way to handle this issue would be to improve the way the database engine searches title records, but that can be tricky. A more straightforward short term solution would be to limit regular title searches to exact matches, which is what most searches are likely about anyway. We could then display a message telling the user that "For title searches, the results are limited to exact matches on the entered value. Use Advanced Search if you want to search for titles that contain the entered value". The main downside to this approach is that users would need to register in order to use Advanced Search. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Has the storage engine changed? cf "MyISAM hasn't been the default storage engine for years. The default_storage_engine was changed to InnoDB in MySQL 5.5.5, which was released in 2010-07-06." and locking issues as covered here and here? ErsatzCulture (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
That's a pretty interesting observation. The titles table is indeed MyISAM. In fact 84 tables are MyISAM, and 16 tables are InnoDB. Is the recommendation to convert the MyISAM tables to InnoDB? That's an experiment we can try over at --Alvonruff (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
That was the first thing that I checked. There have been no changes that I can see. The core ISFDB tables are still MyISAM while the MediaWiki tables are the same mix of MyISAM and InnoDB that we had on the old server. Granted, the MediaWiki update added a couple dozen new tables and it's conceivable that their current engine type doesn't match what MediaWiki recommends. We'll have to take a closer look.
Re: recommendations, last time I looked into these engines they each had advantages and disadvantages depending on how you were searching/updating your database. It's possible that things have changed over the last 5-10 years and one of them pulled ahead. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
(Following was written a reply to Alvonruff, but I got somewhat beaten to the punch.)
TBH, I don't know - my only reasonably current MySQL experience - well, MariaDB for what difference it makes - is running a local copy of ISFDB, and that only gets used one query at a time, so I wouldn't particularly notice any locking issues. I did briefly experiment with converting the database engine a couple of years ago, but that was only in the context of abusing the engine that uses transactions to allow for easy rolling back of database changes, as part of having code in a test framework.
From what I can recall of that, and from skim reading the links above, I think the performance "hack" would be to get things moved (back?) to MyISAM - but maybe the relevant tables are (still) in that form? Having a mix of MyISAM and InnoDB does sound a bit off though?
Some of those links implied that you can add stuff to SELECT queries to not lock tables - I dunno if that's something that could be looked at? (I just checked my local DB, and all tables are MyISAM, but I don't have the mediawiki stuff.) Or perhaps it's something where the database function being used defaults to running queries in transactions that lock stuff, and maybe you can stop it from doing that? ErsatzCulture (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
(This comment is perhaps aimed more at Ahasuerus)
Is it possible to (temporarily) disable the title_views updating? I've only briefly looked at the code related to that, but my recollection is that any title viewing will cause a write to that table, which could have some impact on reads? I found this page about MyISAM locking, but I didn't spot any "smoking guns" that might hint to a cause/solution. ErsatzCulture (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
That's an interesting and possibly relevant article. It states, among other things, that, for MyISAM tables:
  • SELECT operations place a READ LOCK on the entire table.
  • INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE queries place a WRITE LOCK on the entire table.
  • Multiple READ LOCKS can exist on a MyISAM table at the same time. This means that several SELECT queries can run at the same time.
  • A WRITE LOCK can only be placed on a MyISAM table if there are no active READ LOCKS or WRITE LOCKS.
However, when I run SHOW PROCESSLIST on the new server, I frequently see something like the following snapshot taken 5 minutes ago:
  • Executing: select distinct t.* from titles t where t.title_title like [user-entered search value]
  • Waiting for table level lock: update titles set title_views='117' where title_id='1372235'
  • Waiting for table level lock: select * from titles where title_id = 166111
  • Waiting for table level lock: select * from titles where title_id = 1249781
The "executing" query is one of the "Fiction Search" SELECT queries that I mentioned earlier. The UPDATE query is one of the "title_views" updaters which ErsatzCulture mentioned immediately above. So far everything matches what the article said. However, the last 2 queries are different. They are simple SELECT queries, so they shouldn't be waiting for the "Fiction Search" query to finish according to the article. The fact that they are suggests that there may be more going on, e.g. once an UPDATE query gets stuck behind a long SELECT query it may be blocking other SELECT queries.
I'll need to read more about this stuff. If it turns out that "UPDATE title_views" queries are the culprit, then the obvious solution would be to move the title_views field to a separate table, which should be easy enough to do. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

(unindent) I have run a few dozen SHOW PROCESSLIST commands to see if the pattern described above held. Sure enough, it did. Every time there was a bunch of outstanding database requests queued up, there was a "Fiction Search" query executing followed by an "UPDATE title_views" statement followed by a bunch of SELECT queries, all sitting idly and waiting for the "Fiction Search" query to finish making its way through 2,000,000+ records. The following description of MyISAM locking provides an explanation:

  • If a table is being read from when a write request arrives, the write request cannot be processed until all current readers have finished. Any read requests that arrive after the write request must wait until the write request finishes, even if they arrive before the current readers finish.

That's our culprit right there. Every time a user runs a "Fiction Search" and another user requests a Title page, this scenario occurs and everyone else gets locked until the "Fiction Search" finishes.

As I mentioned above, the solution is obvious and easy to implement: move the "view counters" (there are 2 of them) to a separate table. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Fix deployed -- see the announcement on the Community Portal. Ahasuerus (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2022 (EDT)


In case anyone runs into same issue as me: If you have bookmarks that start with, you will probably need to update them to Not sure exactly what is happening, because server looks like it is correctly redirecting http: to https:, but if I access a bookmark that is http:, I show up as not logged in. If I hit any link on that page, it will then show me as logged in on the new page (since the link is https:). However, if the bookmark is to a page that is restricted to editors (or moderators), I see a not logged in error vs. the content desired. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2022 (EDT)

Yes, updating all ISFDB bookmarks to use "" would be for the best. The new server has some residual issues with redirecting from "http" to "https", e.g. certain redirects will send you to "" instead of to "". Due to the way our HTTPS certificate software works, this is a messy area which took Al a long time to get to work at all. The current setup is fragile, so we can't easily fix it. The current plan is to debug it on a separate server and only update the main server when we can be sure that we won't make things worse. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
Linking Templates used in the Wiki result in the same problem. However, they appear to work fine in the database. John Scifibones 08:57, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
That's a very good point. I have updated all Wiki-based linking templates to use HTTPS. Thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2022 (EDT)

99-0?!?; I added a recently uploaded Archive copy of The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film in an edit, linked to my old Portal discussion about the book, got that stupid message above asking me to solve a math problem that a brain-damaged idiot could do, this reminds me of Google's nonsense where they falsely accuse you of being a robot if you search for something too many times in a row and make you do the slide puzzle thing, matching images that don't even work properly a lot of the time and you keep having to do it over and over until you get just the right images that will let you continue on their crap site, I hope this isn't going to be a regular feature of ISFDB now, does anyone even know this is happening or am I the only one? --Username (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2022 (EDT)

These math "puzzles" are generated by "ConfirmEdit", an anti-spam software package which comes with the new version of the Wiki software. ConfirmEdit can be configured to ask math questions, match stylized letters or do any number of other things to confirm that you are human. It's currently enabled, but we can either disable it or (I think) configure it to only challenge new users as opposed to established users. Let me ask Al to stop by. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
We can configure it to do something else, but the default is the simple math question, which is one of the least irritating modes. The other two simple modes are FancyCaptcha, where "Users have to identify a series of characters, displayed in a stylized way" and MathCaptcha, where "Users have to solve a math problem that's displayed as an image". The other three are more difficult, with a presumably higher degree of aggravation. I've disabled ConfirmEdit for now, and we can see how irritating the spam problem becomes. There are other available modules and methods for fighting the spambots.--Alvonruff (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
I have enabled the QuestyCaptcha version of ConfirmEdit. It asks a simple text question real people should know the answer to, and it is configured to trigger only when creating an account, so no one should see it while editing. --Alvonruff (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
Since we're still getting a fair number of spam bots in the system, I have dropped the old easy questions, added numerous SF-related questions, and enabled QuestyCaptcha on both createaccount and createtalk. --Alvonruff (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2022 (EDT)


Jesus Christ, I had to do the same thing in the topic I just added because I included the link to the message about solving the math problem, then I couldn't go back and edit the previous topic because I was logged out, thus the reason for this new topic. What's happening? --Username (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2022 (EDT)

Post-upgrade minor behavior change - add regular titles

After the upgrade, adding additional new regular titles to a pub doesn't consistently result in the new title type defaulting to SHORTFICTION. Sometimes it does, sometimes it defaults to something else. Phil (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Investigating. Thanks for the report. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
I have tried a few things but have been unable to recreate the problem so far. Is it possible that you saw this behavior when adding Content titles to NONFICTION or OMNIBUS publications? By design, new title types default to ESSAY for NONFICTION pubs and to NOVEL for OMNIBUS pubs. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
Yes, I think it was a NONFICTION title. I haven't dealt with many of them so this was unexpected. Sorry for the snipe hunt! Phil (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
No worries, it's better to err on the side of caution :-) Ahasuerus (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Unmerge issue

I don't know if this problem already existed or is a result of the upgrade. I was trying to do an unmerge on this title and wanted to select the pub with date 1992-06-00 and ISBN 0-451-45163-5. That pub record was not shown in the list of titles to unmerge. There are two pub records with a 1992-06-00 date and only the first one is showing in the list. Phil (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

The second is not on the list because it's a variant title. Only the "Christopher Kubasik" titles have been merged, the title record you want is here. Hope that helps. Willem (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
Thanks. I didn't think that the title with the author as Chris Kubasik had been made a variant. In fact, I'm fairly sure that the Chris Kubasik title should be the canonical title and the Christopher Kubasik title should be the variant based the Chris Kubasik title having the oldest pub. However, I'm not sure how that would work with the canonical author name being Christopher Kubasik. Phil (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
See here for how a canonical name is determined. To see an author's total production on one page, everything published under pseudonym or alternate name is then varianted to the canonical name. Does that make sense? Willem (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
Yes. Thanks. Phil (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Donald Trump's biographical data: birth place and occupation

Submission 5413877 was created by User:Username on 2022-09-06 00:59:17 and rejected by moderator User:Dirk P Broer on 2022-09-09 07:39:04. The submission would have changed Donald Trump's birth place from "Queens, New York City, USA" to "Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York City, USA" and added the following note: "45th President of the United States of America." The rejection reason was "Too much honor".

User:Username disagreed with the stated reason for rejection and wrote:

"too much honor" isn't a legitimate reason to reject anything

He also re-submitted the data in submission 5415175, which is currently being held by me. I responded to User:Username's post on the Community Portal as follows:

Even if another moderator approves the edit, there is nothing stopping the original (or another) moderator from removing the data later. When a submission is rejected for an invalid reason, it's important to make sure that the moderator who rejected it is understands why it shouldn't have been rejected, otherwise he or she may do something similar again. I'll post on the Moderator Noticeboard.

On to the substantive issues raised by the rejected submission.

The first thing that stands out is that "Queens, New York City, USA" should be "Queens, New York City, New York, USA". Re: the addition of "Jamaica Estates", we have 10 other author records which specify which subdivision of Queens the author was born in. It makes sense since Queens is home to well over 2 million people.

Re: the addition of "45th President of the United States of America", we generally state authors' profession(s) and then add any particularly notable positions that they may have held. For example, Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes, P.C., M.P.'s note says "Former Australian prime minister"; Shujiang Li's note says "Vice-president of the University of Ningxia in China & writer"; Téofilo Braga's note says:

Writer, playwright & politician. Leader of the Republican Provisional Government after the overthrow of the last Portuguese king, Manuel II, and was also elected the 2nd President of the Republic of Portugal.

Based on this pattern, I propose the following version:

  • US politician, businessman and media personality who served as the 45th President of the United States.

Ahasuerus (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. I would be fine with the original wording, too, though the latter wording is more detailed. I agree that politics shouldn't have anything to do with anything (for the most part...I'm sure there will be an exception) here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:57, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
I once made a more detailed submission than 'city, state/province, country' and was told there there is a standard to which we comply. "We do not need the very doorknob" I was told. "Jamaica Estates" is such a doorknob to me. 'Former US president' or 'Former president of the United States of America' should be enough in my eyes, '45th President of the United States' implies in my eyes that the previous 44 also have entries.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
I don't think "the 45th President of the United States" implies that we have the previous 44 in the database any more than the fact that we mention that Téofilo Braga was "the 2nd President of the Republic of Portugal" implies that we have the first one on file. That said, we could change it to "who served as President of the United States between 2017 and 2021", which is probably more informative than a number like "45".
I agree to that.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
Re: the "City, Administrative division, Country" standard, it's true that it's the language used by Template:AuthorFields:BirthPlace. However, we currently use "Queens" and "Brooklyn" even though they are "boroughs" and not "cities". Similarly, we have a number of author records which list the subdivision ("arrondissement") for authors born in Paris. This is something that we probably want to discuss on the Rules and Standards board. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
I agree to that too.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
OK, I have approved the change and edited the text as per above. I will start a discussion of the use of subdivisions shortly. Ahasuerus (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
Discussion started. Ahasuerus (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-09-12

Please delete the old image here. Thanks Henna (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2022 (EDT)

Done! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:45, 12 September 2022 (EDT)

The Faded Sun Trilogy

Hello Mods. Could someone explain how I determine which version of this publication I have as publication does not have a month printed on copyright page ? --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2022 (EDT)

What does it have on the copyright page? If impossible to determine, go for the one without a month (I'd say to move the month into it and credit locus but there is a possibility for more than one printing in this month so may not be safe). Annie (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
Copyright page has "First published as a single volume 1987" otherwise ISBN, price, page count are idenetical to this --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2022 (EDT)
Which is also identical to this. As I said - it is very very possible it is the same publication so I would go for the one without a month (and which has verifiers) in case we decide to consolidate downstream and move the month based on Locus. The only thing is that we are unclear if the second printing WAS in the same year - if we find the second printing is later, we know these two are the same... Annie (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2022 (EDT)
I'm not a moderator but I'm weighing in anyway :-)
My experience of Methuen pb's of this era is that:
A 1st printing would have something like, for example, "First published in Great Britain 1987" with no mention of reprints
A 3rd (say) printing would have something like, for example, "First published in Great Britain 1987 / reprinted 1987, 1988"
So if your copy does not mention reprints then I think you have this pub: 187677 because the pub notes for this pub: 313545 specifically state "Reprinted 1987" so it is a 2nd printing in the same year as the 1st printing. Teallach (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2022 (EDT)
That's usually true but as it is an omnibus, the reprinted MAY apply to reprint of the novels. Considering all the PVs, it is very suspicious of them to all be on the reprint. And then there is the problem of "is that April book (the one without any PVs) we have the first or the second printing?". These 2 books records are just confused at this point :( Annie (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2022 (EDT)
Alrighty thanks for the input. I'm going to switch verifications from this edition to this edition.--Mavmaramis (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2022 (EDT)

Moderator Queue - performance enhancements

The software that displays the Moderator Queue has been rewritten. The new version should be significantly faster, especially when there are a lot of outstanding submissions in the queue. Also, the name of the "Status" column has been changed to "Held By". It no longer displays the letter "N" when there is no holder. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2022 (EDT)

title note hover box

Hello, the link in the translator's hover box no longer works properly. For example The Voyage of the Space Beagle {{Tr|{{A|Jesco von Puttkamer}}}}. Thanks Henna (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2022 (EDT)

Investigating. Thanks for the report. Ahasuerus (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2022 (EDT)
Should be fixed now. Please let me know if you come across any problems. Ahasuerus (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-09-19

Please delete the old images here and here. Thanks Henna (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2022 (EDT)

Done. :) --Willem (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-09-21

Please delete the old images here. Thanks Henna (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2022 (EDT)

Done! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 21 September 2022 (EDT)

Chavey Cover Info; I added a few recently, and today noticed there's 2 messages at the bottom that are in the wrong place, from O'Fearna and MOHearn, which should probably be moved to the list in the appropriate date slot, if anyone wants to bother doing such a minor thing. --Username (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2022 (EDT)

cover image file

Many times the cover image for the hard, soft and ebook versions is the same. Let us say I first upload the hardback as it came out first. After it is approved I then upload the image file. I then proceed to upload the softback & ebook versions. When these are approved I need to upload the cover images. I enter the form and select upload new cover scan. It gives the image a file name, tells me to select the image. I select my image which is the same as the hc. The software now tells me this image is the same as "blah" and gives me three option: 1st to change the image file name. NOt sure what it means. The software has already assigned a different name for the image I uploaded the 1st time. I can rename my file on my computer but the software still seems to know its the same image. 2nd I can tell it to ignore and upload the new file anyway and 3rd to cancel. My question, should I tell it to ignore and upload my new file under the new name the software gives or should I go to my original upload and copy then paste that link into the new book version? aardvark7 (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2022 (EDT)

You can upload another copy and give each publication record its own, different, cover image link, or you can make the records share the same Wiki image link. FYI, the latter is what ends up happening when you clone a publication record that has a cover image URL and you don't change it. Outside of the cloning process if you want to share the one cover image, do not use the "Upload new cover scan". Instead, go to the other publication record and copy the image URL, or go to the Wiki page of the image you uploaded and copy the image link from there. If you want each record to have its own, separate cover image (which is fine, even if they are identical), then use "Upload new cover scan." If that operation tells you the file already exists, then there already is an image with that generated file name. A common way for that to happen is if multiple printings are recorded having the same publication date -- the name generation algorithm will produce the same name for all of those. You could cancel and go check and see if you want to make your publication record share that image. But if you want to use the image you have, you should not ignore-and-upload-anyway, as that would replace an image being used by other records. Instead, you need to change the destination name for your image. A simple way to do that would be to add a "-" and the printing number or a counter to the end of the generated name, before the extension/file type. E.g., "XXXXX.jpg -> XXXXX-2.jpg". --MartyD (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2022 (EDT)

Robert Silverberg Pseudonym

Somebody mentioned that Silverberg's sixties novel Hot Beat, published as by "Stan Vincent", was being reprinted soon under his own name, so I entered the original book from the lone copy on eBay. Same person apparently made Vincent a variant of Silverberg but didn't do it for the book, so I did it just now, only to see that there's now this,, because they created a separate record for the book a few days ago. So I don't know, merge or something is probably needed. Also, I'd like to ask if there's any way head mods can fix other mods' lists or queues or whatever they're called, because while I currently have 500+ edits awaiting approval, some editors do them in order, skipping over the ones they're not sure about, while others approve edits I just made 5 minutes ago that are at the top of the list, like they're seeing the list backwards or something. --Username (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (EDT)

I merged them. As for ordering, I cannot say if this was the reason at the time you saw it, but if/when multiple moderators are working on approvals at the same time, a lot of time can be wasted reviewing a submission only to find out another moderator has just processed it. An expedient way to avoid that, once encountered, is to start working the queue from the opposite direction. --MartyD (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2022 (EDT)

Moderator Changes

I'm just going to post stuff like this on the general mod board now; it's too random getting on individual boards these days.; unstable Amazon G image needs replacing, MartyD or Hifrommike65. --Username (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2022 (EDT); Bane of Nightmares needs unstable Amazon G cover replaced, GlennMcG; FantLab has a good cover and also shows the back cover. --Username (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2022 (EDT)

Page Layout; Irene Shubik record links to Brian Hayles because he supposedly ghost-edited the anthology with her name on it, but while her page here looks normal Hayles is missing stuff, like those boxes separating things, if you know what I mean. Might be nothing, might be something. Are there others; any way to search? --Username (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (EDT)

An html error in the Notes - missing closing quote on the link - fixed now. When you see something like that, the first thing to check is if there is an html issue in one of the fields when you edit the record. Annie (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2022 (EDT)
I've got a sneaking suspicion this might have been my doing, if so apologies. (I worked on one or both of the Shubik and Hayles entries a few months ago, can't recall exactly what I did though, and I can't see author edit histories.)
Do you recall if this showed up in the cleanup reports that list dodgy HTML? I try to remember and check those at least every other week, and I don't recall seeing anything for authors. Although I suspect detecting unclosed quotes would probably need the HTML to be properly parsed, and I think the current reports are just using regexes or similar? ErsatzCulture (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2022 (EDT)
I know mismatched quotes is one of the things that reports looks for. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:46, 30 September 2022 (EDT)

Just wanted to make sure this one didn't slip through the cracks

From two weeks back--


Settdigger (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2022 (EDT)

It won't - it is on the board so it won't get lost. But as it will require quite a lot of post-approval work (from the way the editors are credited, through the dating (we date magazines based on cover date, not based on when they come out) to the lack of sources (someone will need to chase down the publisher site (hint - adding it to the moderator notes is VERY useful) and some capitalization issues (As and Is are always capitalized for example) plus probably a few more things I missed at a glance. So it will require someone who has the time to work on it to approve it - and with the number of pending submissions at the moment, it just can take awhile. Sometimes things get delayed for one reason or another. Patience :) Annie (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (EDT)

Submission Search modified

Submission Search (moderator only) has been modified. In the past, it was limited to approved submissions. Now you can select either "Approved" or "Rejected" from a drop-down list. The default is "Approved". Ahasuerus (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2022 (EDT)

How to get the Wiki software to ask for confirmation when rolling back Wiki changes

Moderators can "rollback" Wiki edits. By default, clicking a "rollback" link takes effect immediately. Since rolling back a Wiki change is rare, most moderators probably want to have the Wiki software ask to confirm that the rollback is intentional and not a misclick. Here is how you can make your Wiki account ask for rollback confirmation:

Access Wiki "Preferences" at the top of any wiki page. Click "Appearance" and scroll to the very bottom of the page. If you are a moderator, you will see a checkbox which should say "Show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link". Check it and "Save" the page. The Wiki software will prompt to confirm rollbacks from that point forward. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2022 (EDT)

Datlow Anthologies; Since someone at recently uploaded #6 of her old YBF&H I added it and #2 and #17 which were uploaded not too long ago, but then I noticed that whoever entered the nearly 2 dozen volumes here just entered everything in a big mess, with dates and stuff randomly entered properly or not. I'm trying to fix this (there's going to be several dozen edits at the top of my queue which just change a date, annoying but necessary since they can't be changed from within the books themselves all at one time because each volume has at least 2 editions), but that particular link above requires an unmerging or something, so if anyone wants to take care of that. --Username (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2022 (EDT)

Thomas Bailey; 2 different people, I think. --Username (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for this finding! There's now a differentiation between the two Thomas Baileys. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2022 (EDT)

Entries for "Another Story or A Fisherman of the Inland Sea" are messed up

ISFDB tells me that "Another Story or A Fisherman of the Inland Sea", by Ursula Le Guin, is a variant title of "Another Story". This is incorrect. The story's (unfortunate) title is "Another Story or A Fisherman of the Inland Sea". It isn't called "Another Story" anywhere. This is well beyond my abilities to fix. Can someone take a look? Thanks, Danbloch (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2022 (EDT)

Hello! We do have a piece titled 'Another Story' here. I don't know if both are the same by content, but it might be so. Do you have additional information both are different? Christian Stonecreek (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
Looks like there are some others, too: here and here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:00, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for the responses. The 1994 "Tomorrow Speculative Fiction" publication is the initial appearance of the story in question. I still believe that it appeared there under the long title, based on sources like sfadb and the fact that its second appearance, in Le Guin's collection "A Fisherman of the Inland Sea" later that year, used the long title, but I guess I can't be sure. Do you have access to the magazine to confirm it? If not I could buy a copy. Danbloch (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
I do not. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:53, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
I'll get back to you in a week or so. Danbloch (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
ISFDB is right, the original magazine appearance was called "Another Story". The only change I can argue for now is that "Another Story or A Fisherman of the Inland Sea" would be better as the primary name. Regards, Danbloch (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2022 (EDT)
We generally use the title of a piece's first appearance as the parent. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2022 (EDT)

Suspected Duplicate Authors report

I found out Amanda Faye and Amanda Kaye arn't the same person. --Zapp (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2022 (EDT)

I have "ignored" them. Thanks. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2022 (EDT)

Expedition to Earth

Hello Mods. I picked up a copy of [15] this exact edition. Dated 1978 on copyright page, priced at £1.95, ISBN 0-283-98623-9 but has a Danny Flynn wraparound cover - this cover not listed under Flynn either. It's this artwork. Do I clone the existing 1978 edition with the Tim White cover or edit it to reflect the book I have in my hand ? --Mavmaramis (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2022 (EDT)

You can clone it, but uncheck the box for the cover art on the interim page before you get to the the page where you can edit the publication. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:01, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
Except that the only difference is the cover art. Otherwise everything is identical hence my query as I very much suspect that publication record has had the Tim White cover art attached to it by mistake. --Mavmaramis (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
Yes, that's why you can clone it: because everything but the cover is the same. If you uncheck that box I mentioned above, then it will clone everything except for the cover art. You can then add the correct cover art information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:21, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
Or are you saying that the publication is already in the system here, and that the cover art information is incorrect on it? If so, then you'd need to remove the cover art from that publication using "Remove Titles From This Pub", and then edit the existing publication to add the correct cover art info. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:23, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
I'm saying that my edition matches exactly the 1987 publication already in the system except for the cover art. Publisher is Sifgwick & Jackson (as stated on title page) not New English Library (this only noted on cover). --Mavmaramis (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
The cover was added here based on notes in a nonfiction book published in 1981. This book is from 1987 - unless someone had a crystal ball in 1981, the credit is NOT for this edition. Who knows what cover was there before that (it is pre-history). But as it is impossible for a 1981 book to know what a 1987 book will use as a cover, it is safe to say that this credit is bogus and is probably done based on the image visible in the work back when the edit was done - which if it was a /P/ Amazon image, was based on ISBN... or maybe someone just looked at a wrong edition or something. It may have been the correct image for a previous printing? If you are sure you have the January 1987 printing/edition, fix the cover, eject this COVERART record from it and clean up the note. Annie (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
PS: The cover and credit belongs to 1983 reprint and earlier ones; apparently in 1987 changed the cover if everything else matches (they would not publish both a reprint with the old cover AND one with a new cover in the same year using the same ISBN I'd think but who knows). If you are still unsure clone and add notes in both records that they are possibly the same... Annie (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2022 (EDT)
I've gone the safe route and cloned the existing 1987 entry. --Mavmaramis (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2022 (EDT)

Flock of Flamingos; The recent book doesn't belong with the other 3; publisher should be changed in some way while not conflicting with the several other Flamingo publishers already here. --Username (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2022 (EDT)

The picture book is by an Penguin Random House imprint. I have updated the book & added notes on the new publisher record. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2022 (EDT)

More Broken Images

Adding to all the other broken images, I noticed an O'Fearna image broken the other day, and today saw this,, so is her site not HTTPS, is this already known here, etc. --Username (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2022 (EDT)

Her site's HTTPS certificate is configured for "" instead of "" and/or "". Browsers see it as a security violation, so we have to continue using HTTP links until her certificate is fixed. We have 78 pubs which use "" URLs. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2022 (EDT)

First Parameter Not Specified; I get the above message when I click the blue box; that can't be right. --Username (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2022 (EDT)

That looks like a bug. I'll take a look tomorrow morning. Thanks for reporting the issue. Ahasuerus (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2022 (EDT)
The bug has been identified and will be fixed in the next patch. Ahasuerus (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2022 (EDT)
Fixed. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (EDT)

2 Old Flames; I almost filled in the missing info for that first record until I noticed the same book is further down, and I see that I filled in info for that some time ago. The first one was entered by people a very long time ago, so someone came along and entered the later one without noticing, I guess. So I think the first one can safely be deleted by a mod. --Username (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2022 (EDT)

Per the publisher's website, this came in the $40 limited edition and the $175 traycased lettered edition (which is typical for this publisher). I converted the first one to the traycased lettered edition since we did not have a record for it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2022 (EDT)

Feature request: Filter the Moderator Queue per submitter

When working the queue, it is useful to be able to see all the submissions from the same editor - seeing what they already submitted in multi-edits processes or seeing what else is there so you know how to followup makes it easier to process and not to leave things unfinished (or sometimes even processing in a different order to clear warnings before approving (re-dating contents being one of the big example - the updates tend to come after the initial submissions, when the editor had seen the yellow warning). I tend to search on the page and just look through them this way to see what is coming later and what needs fixing on the spot but it will be easier to see them if they can be filtered so a moderator can only see them. Thanks! Annie (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2022 (EST)

This would be extremely helpful. Even if it's a list of usernames at the top, or a drop-down list, being able to do this would be super helpful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:35, 7 November 2022 (EST)
I can see how it would be helpful. One thing that comes to mind is that moderators already have access to a Submission Search menu option. Currently, it lets you search for "Approved" or "Rejected" submissions for a given user, but we could easily add the ability to retrieve a list of "New/Pending" submissions for the specified user.
Once we do that, we could add a link (something like [all]?) to the "Submitter" field of the New Submissions page. Clicking the link will take you to the list of the selected user's "New/Pending" submissions as described above.
We could also display a list of all submitters with outstanding "New/Pending" submissions at the bottom (or top) of the "New Submissions" page. Each name would be linked to the user's list of "New/Pending" submissions as described above. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2022 (EST)
I really like the "(all)" link idea. It could be a simple link to the search results for a feature we already have, too, so shouldn't be that difficult to implement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 7 November 2022 (EST)
Yep, that can work. I also like the idea of the list of the people who have active submissions somewhere on the page - that way we can find the new/infrequent users submissions faster when the queue get busy (as they usually won't be around in a few days to check on what happened)... Annie (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2022 (EST)
FR 1544, "Filter Moderator Queue by submitter", has been created. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2022 (EST)


Submission Search has been updated to support searching for "Pending" submissions. The Queue page has been updated so that all "Submitter" cells link to submitter-specific lists of submissions. A new table, "Counts of pending submissions by submitter", is now displayed at the bottom of the Queue page. Ahasuerus (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2022 (EST)

Any chance to slightly modify the lower table to show how many of these are already on hold? I find it useful to see both the on holds and the really open ones when I go to the filtered page but when everything for a user is on hold, it will be useful not to need to manually check the page to see if something may need attention. Annie (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2022 (EST)
Good point. I'll take a look tomorrow. Ahasuerus (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2022 (EST)
Done. Ahasuerus (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2022 (EST)
Thanks! Annie (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2022 (EST)

Acceptable moderator behavior?

Greetings! Lately, one moderator (Dirk P Broer) has taken to the habit to change publication types without consent of the primary verifiers or even their notification. In addition this has lead to one highly questionable and one wrong attribution.

The questionable one was done here, changing from novel to chapbook (and then varianting to the novella "A Bicycle Built for Brew") with the statement that it's a translation of the novel "The Makeshift Rocket" stated in the notes.

The wrong one was done numerous times, for example here, with the publication well-defined as a CHAPBOOK according to the help pages and a 2020 discussion (of which Dirk was informed of).

In addition, he added insufficient content data (and changed the publication type) here, also without informing the PV; insufficient it was because he added author credits (one author for each one of the novellas) without asking about the actual credit, and didn't use the agreed upon 'Première partie :' / 'Deuxième partie :'.

To add to the list, he rejected numerous valid submissions (for example here), without checking back if they might contain in fact speculative fiction (which they do). Christian Stonecreek (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2022 (EST)

I have asked Dirk to comment. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2022 (EST)
Very childish behaviour of a former moderator that won't play by the rules and constantly keeps making a chapbook from a collection -see the history by changing back the prologue from ESSAY (fitting for supporting fiction in a CHAPBOOK) to SHORT FICTION, fitting in case of a COLLECTION. When I honor his short fiction and do make it a collection he changes it back to CHAPBOOK, when I change it back to ESSAY (always explaining why) he changes it back again. He seems to think that 'in world' always means that it is fiction -see his many fiction type 'Glossar' (glossary) entries in the Perry Rhodan series, but so it the Tourist Guide to Lancre, or Nanny Ogg's Cookbook. The so-called questionable change takes place after a series of requests from JLochhas and Mellotronman, who want to make a novella of both 'A Bicycle Made for Brew' and 'The Makeshift Rocket' (a mere 114 pages in my copy), pointing out in their change requests that they are the same. The statement that Stonecreek attributes to me was the 'Note to Moderator' from Mellotronman Translation of 'A Bicycle Built for Brew', published in book form as 'The Makeshift Rocket'. I hereby request that the self-appoval rights for Stonecreek can be revoked, as he can't even distinguish short fiction from an essay.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2022 (EST)
Dirk, the one you are citing (Le piège de glace should be a chapbook based on the changes we made into the chapbook definition a few years ago, namely:
  • "The following types of SHORTFICTION titles are ignored when deciding whether the publication is a CHAPBOOK: :
    • Supporting and incidental material such as excerpts, synopses, and fictionalized essays
    • Up to one bonus short story, poem or short serial installment, but only if the publication's title page lists only the main title and the main title's author(s)"
The full help page is here: chapbook description. That extra story at the start fits this description thus making the whole thing a chapbook - regardless if it is a story or an essay. Or are you seeing something that I am missing which disqualifies the book from being a chapbook under that provision? Annie (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2022 (EST)
What's wrong with entering a fictionalized essay as an ESSAY? Why entering a mere story outline as SHORT FICTION, and not as an ESSAY? If we have looser rules for CHAPBOOKs, why is the maintenance report not as loose? Or should we disregard maintenance reports altogether, because of the false flags they are raising?--Dirk P Broer (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2022 (EST)
I am not commenting on the type of this text (fictionalized essays had been recorded both ways), I am just mentioning the current rules for the chapbooks. We have an ignore option on this report specifically so we can ignore in these kind of situations. The report cannot be made looser because a human needs to see the two pieces of fiction and see if they qualify - not all books with two stories qualify as chapbooks. Fixing reports’ entries by making the data incorrect is never a good idea - a lot of the reports should really be treated as “take a look at this, it may be incorrect” and not as “fix it now so it disappears from the list”. If the report has the ability to have an entry ignored, it is almost always that “look at it, it may be wrong” case. Which does not mean to just ignore all entries you don’t want to deal with of course :)Annie (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2022 (EST)
What's wrong with entering a fictionalized essay as an ESSAY? If you read closely, Dirk, the answer is already given in your question (I'll point you towards it: fiction is part of both words, 'fictionalized' and 'short fiction', so they cling together like a real essay in our definition (article, report, listing etc.) and nonfiction.
It looks like you think you can freely mix subject and attribute. You can't, it is a logical error, if not a downright a factual lie -try exchanging those. A fictional essay is an essay about fiction. It can be a foreword, an introduction, a summary, an afterword, or an explanation why a certain story wasn't written, as in the piece of Stonecreek.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (EST)
And you didn't answer why you changed it again after having been pointed toward our current rules (disregarding that a moderator should know about this rule).
Please also do leave a comment on entering insufficient content to "Les soldats stellaires" and not cecking back on the actual crediting. Christian Stonecreek (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2022 (EST)
When did I get pointed toward our current rules, and when did I change it back? I did not know about two pieces of short fiction possible in a chapbook until this issue here. Why does the maintenance report use more than one as a criteria, when it should be more than two?
I took my info for "Les soldats stellaires" from Noosfere and made that change because this anthology was until my change without any content whatsoever. Based upon Noosfere, I really don't know what else to enter, but is seems like the Perry Rhodan sub-section of isfdb follows additional rules that I am unaware off. I think I'll take a break till somewhere deep in 2024 to catch up on reading rules and standards -and I am behind on Goodreads challenge, too.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2022 (EST)

(unindent) It looks like there are at least three separate issues here, two of them substantive and one procedural. The substantive issues are:

  1. whether a CHAPBOOK pub can have an additional fictionalized essay entered without the pub becoming a COLLECTION
  2. whether we enter fictionalized and "in universe" essays as SHORTFICTION or as ESSAY

The CHAPBOOK issue is addressed in Help as per the quote above. The SHORTFICTION/ESSAY issue is subjective and has been handled differently by different editors depending on the context.

The procedural issue is the one that worries me the most. When two editors who can approve their own submissions disagree about the best way to enter certain types of content, an "edit war", i.e. reverting each other's edits, is never the right way to handle the issue. Not only does it irritate everyone involved, but it's also completely pointless because the other editor may revert the changes yet again a week, a month or a year later.

The right process is to approach the other editor on his or her Talk page and try to come to an agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the issue should be presented on the Moderator Noticeboard. If a Moderator Noticeboard discussion reveals a gap or an ambiguity in Help, a follow-up Rules and Standards discussion may be needed. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (EST)

On "Les soldats stellaires": The right way to change a primary verified publication in this way (stating a credit for contents) is always to contact the primary verifier who can look up the actual credit.
He hadn't entered anything, so I gave him something to work with. I found it on the list of primary verified publications without content.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2022 (EST)
On the issue of synopsises and pseudo-essays: I don't see how a short(er) (re)telling of a (speculative) fictional happening should be able to change its character into something entirely different. If you take a piece out of an artichoke, by the other logic you would be able to sell it afterwards as meat, just because it's called a 'heart' (but it stays somehow vegetarian, I think). Christian

Stonecreek (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2022 (EST)

An (historical) essay about the Greek history is not the same as the Greek history. An (political) essay about January 6th is not the same a the assault on Capitol Hill. A fictional essay about e.g. space ships in the Perry Rhodan Universe is the same as an essay on space ships in e.g. the Star Wars or Star Trek universe. A glossary about the Perry Rhodan universe is the same as a glossary for any other series. There is nothing special about Perry Rhodan that warrants other rules to be followed.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2022 (EST)
And an essay about the Dutch slave trade is not the same as the hundreds of years of suffering endured by Africans enslaved by the Dutch, while they considered themselves superior to Americans because some of them could paint pretty pictures. --Username (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2022 (EST)
Telling about a piece of fiction makes it a fictional essay. 'essay' is the subject, 'fictional' the attribute. A fictional essay is an essay about fiction. It can be a foreword, an introduction, a summary, an afterword, or an explanation why a certain story wasn't written.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (EST)
I hereby request too that the self-approval rights for Stonecreek must be revoked, it's time to stop Stonecreek! (translation by Google)--Wolfram.winkler (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2022 (EST)
I tried to warn you. Grudges long-held, even by people who quit long ago. Welcome to Hell. --Username (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2022 (EST)

The Haunted Gay

Weird thing happened today; I clicked my errored out edits and there was a new one,, where the record does exist but is a stray publication because it apparently got cut off before the Regular titles part got filled in, so if someone can fix that. A work of such literary quality must be preserved. Also, spell check says "errored" isn't a word; anyone else see the same? --Username (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2022 (EST)

It happens occasionally when things error out at exactly the wrong moment - all it needs is an EditPub to add the missing title.
PS: errored is very much a word, pretty common in computing: even if the spell checker does not like it. Annie (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2022 (EST)

Making variants to non-existing parents (that could exist)

There are a number of submissions in the queue to make a COVERART a variant of an INTERIORART record that has yet to be entered into the database (e.g. this). In these instances the publication containing the INTERIORART is there, but was added with a single INTERIORART record for all the illustrations for the work. I've seen similar edits rejected with a note that the individual INTERIORART record should be added in a publication before the variant relationship is made. I'm a bit less certain, and want to make sure that we are all moderating similarly. I see no harm having a parent INTERIORART record that we don't have in a publication, so long as it is mentioned in the notes. If others feel strongly that this shouldn't be done, I can live with that too. Even if it is not allowed, it should be acceptable to create the variants first and then import the parents into the publication record where they belong. Regardless of whether orphaned records are allowed, I would also that we should not have a mix of individual and comprehensive INTERIORART records in a single publication record, i.e. if we are converting to individual records, we should do all of them. Thoughts? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:43, 15 November 2022 (EST)

Let's start with the obvious for the one you linked: I am almost sure that a Brazilian artist, who mainly worked for French language publications, did not have an illustration called "The Martians fire their gas-guns" in a French book in 1906 unless that was a plaque from an English book and that needs explaining somewhere... It is possible of course but very unlikely. And that is part of my issue with this type of parents creation - their titles will need to match the title as shown in the book they originated in, in whatever language they were there and not whatever Wikipedia or other sources call these in English these days.
I generally do not like creating titles outside of publications unless we have to (parent titles for translations and canonical names for example) and even less for art titles (which may or may not be imported later). I think I rejected one yesterday (this one) and then decided to leave the rest alone and think a bit on how we should be handling these (and you beat me on posting about them). Part of the reason of wanting to go the other way around is that verifying that these are named correctly will require to look at the original work where it appeared - at least this one was in the correct language but I prefer the active PV we have to check the title of that illustration for us.
If we decide to approve these, then we will really need to pay attention to titles and languages... which is much much easier if they get added where they belong first. :) Annie (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2022 (EST)
PS: Apparently the English caption came from the English language PGA/RGL edition which includes the illustrations from the French edition (the one linked from Gutenberg Australia) and from the Pearson's Magazine edition. But that does not make this the original title of the illustration back in 1906 in that French book where it originated. If we are going to make up titles or use later titles for the illustrations, we are better off doing it in notes and not creating titles IMO. Annie (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2022 (EST)
I agree with Ron. Allowing the creation of the parent title seems consistent with how we treat non artwork titles. As far as requiring all the titles to be entered, I'm ambivalent. Choosing to require all the artwork to be included necessitates an additional incomplete template and the corresponding exception report, specifically for artwork.
This submission is incorrect for the reasons Annie points out. The language and title are both wrong. Here is the illustration in the original text. In the credits, ILLUSTRATIONS HORS TEXTE, it is clearly identified as 'La Fumée Noire'. John Scifibones 20:38, 15 November 2022 (EST)
As long as the approver tracks down each of the ones they are approving into its original book and verifies the title and language, I’d be fine with that - there is the argument that having the data is better than not having the data after all. But these will be very labor-intensive because I really don’t trust any of the titles used in these - they belong to a version of that illustration but not necessarily the first one and we want the one in the original book after all. Annie (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2022 (EST)
After thinking some more on this, here is what bothers me in the whole situation. I agree with Ron that we should not be mixing individual and comprehensive INTERIORART records in a single publication record. And here lies the difference between INTERIORART and any other type as INTERIORART is the only type that allows this type of different usage. With any other type, if we create a parent and we have the book the parent is supposed to go into, someone can import it into the book (if it gets created outside of it). With the parents we are discussing here, if the book they belong into uses a single comprehensive INTERIORART record, they will never be importable unless the book is reworked to use individual records. And as using comprehensive INTERIORART records is permitted, that will leave us with a title which belongs inside of a publication but cannot be imported into it and without a link from the publication or any of its titles to the title itself.
With that being said, if the consensus is to allow these, I will of course follow the consensus. But I really dislike the idea of having titles which are unimportable even when the books they belong into are in the DB. Annie (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2022 (EST)
I like the idea of not mixing, BUT.... If we have a situation where we do not have a source for identifying all of the individual art pieces present (say, the typical "Illustrations by XYZ" credit but no PV and no access to the book's interior) and we discover good evidence in another pub identifying one of the pieces, it seems to me we'd want that one piece's details recorded in the original pub, even if we do not know the rest. As for submission order, adding the title to the original publication first, then making the variant later sure would make the review and approval process a lot easier. It is difficult to recognize mistakes when a disconnected parent title is proposed, and requiring approver research is not a good way to direct the work load. --MartyD (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2022 (EST)
I suspect that, as Annie suggested earlier, the underlying issue that we are struggling with is that we use the INTERIORART title type to describe two different types of content: individual illustrations vs. publication-wide artist attributions. In most cases we only have information about one OR the other type of content. When it happens, the context is typically clear, so using the same INTERIORART title type to document two different scenarios is not too confusing. However, when we have information about the publication-wide artist attribution PLUS information about one or more (but not all) individual illustrations, using the same title type becomes problematic.
In retrospect, it may have been better to create separate title types for the two scenarios or to come up with a disambiguating naming convention, e.g. a parenthetical addition like "La Guerre Des Mondes (publication-wide)". It's probably too late for a separate publication type, but perhaps we could come up with an INTERIORART disambiguator to use in pubs which have a mix of publication-wide and illustration-specific INTERIORART records? Ahasuerus (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2022 (EST)
I think that at this point we have two separate but related discussions going on here - how do we want to treat art pieces when we know only some of the titles of the record (which we maybe should move to R&S) - and that is the one that will determine if we make these parents or not and if we do, how we import them - and the pure moderator discussion about what we do with all of these submissions (which lack the details for the proper sources to determine the title easily and will take a lot of time to research in order to approve properly). Approving them as they are without verifying the credit is out of the question IMO. Which possibly opens a somewhat more generic discussion - just how much do we want to do the work for editors who throw a huge number of incomplete or incorrect submissions on the board and when we stop and reject and ask them to redo the work properly (as much as I hate losing data, spending all the available moderator time on essentially doing someone else’s homework and full research is going to burn everyone out from working the queue). I don’t mind helping a new or very infrequent editor when they don’t know what they are doing yet and show them how to improve (and do the leg work for them a few times to show them how it is done) but if an experienced editor sends something like what started this thread? I may approve and fix a few but after the first few, I will send it back for them to be redone. As Marty said - if we need to do that much research to approve, the work load will become a huge problem. Maybe we need to have a restriction in place for number of open submissions by new editors so we don’t get flooded with another 10k, in groups of hundreds of similarly incorrect or incomplete submissions again - high enough not to discourage people (100 for example) but low enough to only come into play when we have another case like the current one. Tie it to a flag on the account or to number of approvals or something like that (although number of approvals would have been high quickly here). Just thinking aloud. Annie (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2022 (EST)
It would be easy to prevent editors from creating new submissions if the number of their pending submissions exceeds a certain threshold value. We could start with 1,000 and see how it goes. Ahasuerus (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2022 (EST)
Since I currently have almost 1,300 edits pending in the queue, I'd vote no on that. I've been considering taking a break after Thanksgiving next week, so if you could wait until then to make your changes that would be great. Or maybe only block ElectricStarboard from making any more until all others are done, since he/she has about 80% of all pending edits, many of them being rejected/resubmitted because they're not done right, and is one of the (many) reasons why things are the way they are right now. --Username (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2022 (EST)
We could set a low number for automatic implementation as Annie suggests. If 100 is too low, maybe 200. Then make the flag editable on the bureaucrat menu same as the self-approver and moderator flags. John Scifibones 11:06, 17 November 2022 (EST)
OK, we can limit the proposed functionality to "new" (green background) editors, which are currently defined as editors with a low count of Wiki edits. I haven't been feeling well the last week+, but I'll see what I can do. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2022 (EST)

Shadow World series info

Hello. I've noticed some missing information on this series.

The series is written by Ian Hammell (or Roxanne Longstreet) pen names of Rachael Cain

I don't know if I need to provide more info. I have the books on paper, I could supply scanned version of the credits if needed.

Thanks (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2022 (EST)

This would be welcome (supplying the credits, I mean): Wikipedia lists only the fourth title in the series as to have been written by Rachael Cain, and to date we think it's possible that Ian Hammell may have been used by other authors as well. Stonecreek (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2022 (EST)
Well, I just found that another Wikpedia page tells about other authors being responsible for the other novels. Do you have different informations? Stonecreek (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2022 (EST)
Ah, now I understand the issue here. I was assuming that Ian Hammell was always used by the same person. Now it makes sense (as the style is different...) ok. Focus :). I have a different source:
* Shadow World (Book 1): The Burning Goddess  Author: Ian Hammel (Clayton Emery) source
* Shadow World (Book 2): Clock Strikes Sword  Author: Ian Hammel (Stephen Billias) source
* Shadow World (Book 3): City of Assassins   Author: Ian Hammel (Clayton Emery) source
* StormRiders (1st edition, 1990) Author: Roxanne Longstreet source
* Shadow World (Book 4):Stormriders (2nd edition, 1996)  Author: Roxanne Longstreet, Ian Hammel (Roxanne Longstreet) source
How does this look? (In the physical books there is only the pen name, here are the credit pages (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2022 (EST)
Thanks, that does fit to the information stated at Wikipedia. I'll add the actual author's names. (It's not as seldom as one would think that a pseudonym is used by several people, it happens more often if there's a franchise behind it, like in this case).
Thank you also for bringing this up. Stonecreek (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2022 (EST)
Awesome. Thank you. Now I also know the correct way of reporting :)
Do I need to delete this section? --Lo CiberSheep (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2022 (EST)
No, we keep it (and archive it eventually). Stonecreek (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2022 (EST)

Illustrator's name misspelled

Good day,

The name of an illusterator in the recent issue of GHOSTS & SCHOLARS (no.43) is misspelled.

Instead of 'Carl Lavoir', it should be: Carl Lavoie.

There's already a page for him:

Could the name please be corrected and the illustration credit linked to the illustrator's profile?

Thank you, and have a wonderful day!


-Carl Lavoie

—The preceding unsigned comment added by Jahrel (talkcontribs) 09:58, November 17, 2022‎John Scifibones 10:35, 17 November 2022 (EST)

Done so.--Dirk P Broer (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2022 (EST)
If it's misspelled -in the publication- then it should be entered as Carl Lavoir, and varianted to Carl Lavoie. Please confirm that it is indeed in the publication itself. MagicUnk (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2022 (EST) P Broer (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (EST)


It seems that has changed its link addresses. If You chose an external NILF link "x" of a pub, fantascienza doesn't show the pub but answeres "NILF/x". Try for example Torre di cristallo. --Zapp (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2022 (EST)

Apparently the URL structure has changed. still links to , but the latter URL is no longer available. redirects to ; NILF URLs no longer work.
The good news is that NILF IDs can still be used to link to the same Fantascienza Web pages. For example, the ISFDB record for Torre di cristallo given above uses 107219 as its NILF ID. You can use the same ID to link to Fantascienza by plugging the ID in a URL. In this case the correct URL is (The URL is then automatically expanded to append "torre-di-cristallo", but that's not an issue for us.)
It should be easy to change our software's definition of "NILF External IDs" to use "" instead of "". My only concern is that Fantascienza's Web pages say "Beta" and still advertise URLs as valid shortcuts, so it's possible that things will change again in the near future. Still, it's a pretty simple change, so we might as well implement it as a short term solution. If and when their URLs change again, we will revisit the issue. Thanks for reporting the problem! Ahasuerus (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (EST)
And fixed. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2022 (EST)
Thank You --Zapp (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2022 (EST)

FantLab Issue, Part ...; Here we go again; did their security certificate run out again or whatever the problem was last time? They seemed to be down for a while today and now this. Not a big deal in this case, that cover is easily found elsewhere, although maybe not so beautifully bright as it is on FantLab. --Username (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2022 (EST)

Nope, that’s just a different domain. We are allowed to link to They seem to have a mirror at (or at least some of their images and/or links also work there - it is unclear if it is a complete mirror) which we had not asked for permission to link to. Just use the .ru URLs. Annie (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2022 (EST)
That's a problem, then, because I typed "FantLab" on Google to get to the site like I always do; if that suddenly takes me and others to their mirror site something's messed up, which I suspected when their site timed out for a while yesterday. Maybe someone should ask them nicely for permission to link to the mirror now. --Username (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2022 (EST)
Google tries to be clever with its search results. For example, the top link returned by Google when I type "FantLab" is "", i.e the English language version of their site. On the other hand, users with Russian IP addresses and/or their language preferences set to "Russian" are presumably sent to the Russian language version of FantLab's site. Since Google uses highly complex algorithms to determine what users see when they search Google's catalog of the Web, there is no telling what different users may be shown in response to the same query.
For now, seems to be stable. Their certificate will expire in a week, but hopefully they will have it renewed before it causes issues. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2022 (EST)

F&SF; The series name doesn't match any of the actual titles, so shouldn't that be changed? If so, what should it be changed to? Also, there are a lot of copies of the series, so I decided to start with the last, 24, and even though both editions are PV the title's wrong in both of them here, so I added links to each and then wrote PV of HC and 1 active PV of PB and asked them to check, but since neither seems regularly active these days maybe a mod would like to step in, since I have a feeling as I continue with the series there's going to be a lot more changes needed. Also, I changed the month in the intro to match the HC, but the Searles essay "Lost Rewards" is called a reprint on the copyright page but has the year of the book and doesn't appear anywhere else in his ISFDB record, so that might need checking, too; maybe it appeared under another title in the magazine? --Username (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2022 (EST)

Series name could be renamed to "The Best from Fantasy and Science Fiction", but not absolutely necessary if you ask me, as series naming is not that strictly regularized. Up to you. MagicUnk (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2022 (EST)

Covers from

We have a bunch of submissions switching Amazing Science Fiction covers from Galactic Central links to ISFDB copies of images downloaded from A lot of work went into loading those files and making all of those edits, I'm sure. Before I do a bad thing.... Is there any reason not to approve them? There's attribution of the original source, and I don't see anything on that we'd be running afoul of. But I figured I should check for additional opinions. Thanks. --MartyD (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2022 (EST)

Galactic Central covers are broken so switching over to local versions is reasonable. As long as the images were uploaded correctly & have a valid template applied, there is no issue. Fair use is fair use regardless of source. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2022 (EST)

New editors limited to 101 pending submissions

As per this discussion, the software has been changed to prevent new editors from having more than 101 pending submissions. If you come across any issues, please post them here. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2022 (EST)

External Id Edits with a long queue

When an edit adding a External ID is waiting in the queue and a subsequent edit adds a different ID where the second edit is approved first, the approval of the first edit effectively deletes the second edit. For example, I made this edit adding Worldcat and Reginald3 numbers on November 22. There was already an edit in the queue to add the same Worldcat ID submitted on November 20, but not approved until November 26. The result of this sequence is that the Reginald3 ID was deleted. We should probably try to be careful with External ID edits while the queue is so large. I'm not trying to call out the moderator who approved this, I may have made the same error myself had I been the one to review it. We probably all should try to be more aware. I'd also like to ask if there is a software solution that we could implement to catch this sequence. Either a warning when an edit is submitted if there are already edits in the queue for the record being edited. Alternatively, a warning on the approval screen if there have been approved edits to the same record after the submission timestamp of the record being reviewed. I don't know if either of those would be difficult, and how large a problem this is, but if feasible, it could prevent these sorts of data loss. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:09, 26 November 2022 (EST)

We have FR 1453, "New yellow warning for conflicting submissions", which would address some -- but not all -- of these issues. The FR says:
  • Create a new yellow warning for conflicting submissions. It should appear if the displayed submission contains a record which is also contained in another pending submission. The yellow warning should include links to the other submissions.
The issue with this FR is that the submission table as it currently exists doesn't store record IDs for pending records in a readily available format. In order to generate the requested yellow warning the display software would have to parse the bodies of all related pending submissions, in this case "EditPub"s. Given the current size of the queue, it can mean parsing thousands of submissions, which may take a few seconds every time a submission is displayed. I would need to rework the way record IDs are stored in the submission table to make it viable.
  • a warning on the approval screen if there have been approved edits to the same record after the submission timestamp of the record being reviewed"
it may be doable because each approved submission record already has an "affected_record_id" value. I'll look into it tomorrow.
Another thing to consider is that the problem that Ron ran into mostly affects "multi-fields" like External IDs and Web Pages. An edit affecting a regular field makes it clear that the current value is about to be replaced with another value. An edit affecting a multi-field just tells you that the submitting editor wants to replace a set of N values with a set of M values. It doesn't tell you whether N is greater than, equal to or smaller than M. It may be helpful to add a yellow warning informing the reviewer about the nature of the change, e.g. "2 unaffected values, 1 value will be deleted, 1 value will be added". Ahasuerus (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2022 (EST)
I've been confused on how external IDs are processed. I assumed it captured the additions, removals, & changes only - not the entire contents - so two edits could add different ids without issue. Since external IDs are stored as separate entries in the database, there is no need to do a wholesale replacement. Improving the moderator screen to show diffs based on the current state of the publication (and not the publication at the time of submission) would help with this (as well as other issues). -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2022 (EST)
Rereading my responses in the linked discussion, I see that I may not have been clear. Sorry about that! Let me step back and clarify how things work:
  • When a submission is created, the software checks each field's data. If no changes have been made for a given field -- be it a single value field or a "mutli-field" -- then that field's data is not includes in the body of the submission. If a change has been made, then the following data is included in the submission:
    • For regular or "single value" fields, the changed value is stored. For example, if the current value of the "Publisher" field is "Ace" and the new value is "Ace Books", then "<Publisher>Ace Books</Publisher>" is stored in the submission.
    • For "multi-fields", ALL new values (unchanged, changed and newly added) are stored in the body of the submission. For example, if the current values of the "External ID" multi-field are "ASIN: B0001111" and "OCLC/WorldCat: 666" and the new values are "ASIN: B0001111" [unchanged], "OCLC/WorldCat: 123" [changed] and "DNB: 234999" [new], then all 3 External IDs are stored in the submission. demonstrates how it works -- the XML contains 2 "External_ID" groups even though the OCLC/WorldCat ID was unchanged.
  • "Differences" and yellow warnings are always generated at the time submission review pages are generated and displayed.
Hopefully this clarifies things. Ahasuerus (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2022 (EST)
I see that I forgot to explain why submissions include all entered values for multi-fields as opposed to just the changed/added values. Suppose a publication record has 3 OCLC IDs, specifically "1", "2" and "3", and a submission aims to replace them with IDs "3", "4" and "5". If the software is to store just the "diffs", it needs to include 4 and 5 as new values and skip "3" as an unchanged values. However, it also needs to specify that "1" and "2" have to be removed, which would require special coding. Instead the software stores all of the entered values in the body of the submission. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2022 (EST)
Instead of a "2 unaffected values, 1 value will be deleted, 1 value will be added" warning, how about showing the specific changes (similar to how the pub notes field does)? So for the edit I approved, showing "-Reginald-3: 26241 [over] +OCLC/WorldCat: 59151543" which would have stood out. The +/- comparison would also be helpful for the web page entries, especially when people edit a record (typically authors) that have a quite a few. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2022 (EST)
That's a good point. Ahasuerus (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2022 (EST)

New Yellow Warning Implemented

As per FR 1548, pending EditPub submissions now warn the reviewer if another EditPub submission for the same publication has been approved since the currently displayed submission was created. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2022 (EST)

Thank you. I'm really pleased to see this. I'm not a moderator but, as an editor, I have been affected by this scenario as I reported here. Teallach (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2022 (EST)
Yes, thank you. That was quite speedy and I think will be quite helpful. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:26, 27 November 2022 (EST)
Glad to hear it looks useful. I'll look into the proposed External ID/Web pages "diff" functionality next. Ahasuerus (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2022 (EST)
Just saw it for the first time: "WARNING: This publication has been modified by the following submissions since this submission was created:". Cool. --Username (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2022 (EST)

Diffs for multi-fields implemented

As per User:JLaTondre's suggestion above, submission review pages have been updated to display "diffs" for all multi-fields. The latter include Web pages, transliterated names/titles, legal names and email addresses. This does not affect authors, reviewers and interviewers, which already have a number of yellow warnings for new, pseudonymous and disambiguated names.

External IDs have not been upgraded because they are a separate and rather big can of worms. I still need to rewrite the remaining (7) most complex submission review pages, including Edit Publication, and it wouldn't make sense to add more complexity to the way External IDs are displayed only to rewrite the code a few weeks later. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2022 (EST)


Hello Mods. I was reading the inclusions on the policy page but it doen't state wheteher calendars with art illutrations are included or not. I have a 1984 Conan calendar with ISBN 0-937782-05-X illustrated by Bill Sienkiewicz. --Mavmaramis (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2022 (EST)

Same rules apply as any other nonfiction - it is eligible only if it is plausibly connected to speculative fiction: if the illustrations are from fiction books, they are eligible. If they are covers for comics or just art that never illustrated an actual story or just conceptual art for calendar and so on which were never used on eligible books, they are not. Annie (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2022 (EST)
I'd guess the artwork was specifically for the calendar in question so assume ineligable. --Mavmaramis (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2022 (EST)

Records Correction - Name & Profile Display

Hi there,

I'm reaching out as the efforts of other folks to correct my ISFDB page have been rejected several times, though the end result is both (1) inaccurate records and (2) a serious lack of consideration for trans genre writers.

To clarify, my ISFDB page is still listed under “Brit” instead of “Lee.” This is a bit of a different situation than folks who shift pen-names, or publish under multiple names during their career. "Brit" has not been my legal or publishing name for years due to a gender transition, and furthermore, bylines for previous stories and articles with their various publishers have all been changed to "Lee" in the interim as well. Therefore, it’s a both uncomfortable to be incorrectly listed by my deadname on one of the main genre databases... and also doesn't reflect the actual publication record, either. I don't even mind leaving the old name as an "alternate" flag for completionism's sake, but it should not be the "main" name or page anchor.

The necessary updates are simple—

Author: Lee Mandelo Webpages: Used These alternate names: Brit Mandelo

And then there are two pieces noted as “only as Lee Mandelo,” which should be removed (as noted above, my bylines on older stories have been updated by individual publications already as well to no longer be by “Brit” anyway, so that’s the most accurate notation possible).

I know it's not very common to undergo transition with a few pieces published previously, but hopefully this will set a precedent for how to handle it for any other folks in the future to be able to correct their records, etc. In the absence of this correction, I would politely request to have my records removed entirely from the database rather than continuing to be displayed incorrectly. I appreciate any assistance possible, and apologize for the tone of this note (plus having no clue how this sort of thing works in absence of being able to email a mod!), but several efforts have been made prior to this without results.

Thanks for your time, --Lee Mandelo

Welcome to the project! Let me first clarify a few things about the way the ISFDB database works. First, all author names are entered into the system the way they appeared in publications. If a later version of a publication credits the author(s) differently, then we create a separate publication record for it. For example, we have the 1996 edition of Stephen King's "The Regulators" listed as by "Richard Bachman" while later editions are listed as by "Stephen King".
Once we confirm that two different author names refer to the same person and that the connection is publicly known, we link the two names in the software. That's how the software knows to display "only as" and "also as" on authors' bibliographic pages. The emphasis on "publicly" is relevant because we do not list undisclosed pseudonyms even if some ISFDB editors may be aware of them as individuals. "Robin Hobb" and "Julie Light" are two examples of originally undisclosed pseudonyms which we didn't have linked to the authors' primary names until they were publicly disclosed. There can also be complications related to multiple people using the same name, e.g. "house names" and collective pseudonyms which change over time, but that's a separate can of worms which we don't have to worry about here.
Once the connection between two or more author names has been established, we need to decide which name will be listed as the primary or "canonical" name. The current standard, as per Template:AuthorFields:CanonicalName, is:
  • For authors who publish under multiple names, the canonical name is the most recognized name for that author within the genre. The canonical name may be a pseudonym, for instance Cordwainer Smith.
Since "the most recognized name ... within the genre" can change over time, our canonical names have been known to change. At one point Margaret Ogden's canonical name was "Megan Lindholm", but we changed it to "Robin Hobb" once it became her primary working name.
It's been occasionally proposed that we make exceptions to our canonical name policy for certain types of scenarios. For example, Debora Geary published A Modern Witch, a series of popular urban fantasies, in 2011-2013. Then, after a painful divorce, she removed all of them from Amazon and restarted her career as Audrey Faye. A few years ago she published a non-fiction account of her recovery after divorce (Sleeping Solo: One Woman's Journey Into Life After Marriage) in which she explained why she could no longer be associated with the name "Debora Geary". Another example would be a person converting to another religion and changing his or her name to reflect new beliefs. Changing one's gender would be another scenario which has been discussed a few times, including an extensive Rules and Standards discussion in September 2018.
So far these discussions of possible exceptions have failed to lead to a new consensus, in part because of the number of possible scenarios and sub-scenarios. For example, consider Poppy Z. Brite, who has been using the name "Billy Martin" socially since the early 2010s, but whose books continue to be published as by "Poppy Z. Brite".
So that's where our canonical name policy stands at this time. Examining this particular case with this standard in mind, I see one novel (published by, a major publisher) and one 2020 story published as by "Lee Mandelo". On the other hand, I see one anthology, 4 Strange Horizon issues, a dozen stories/poems and half a dozen essays published as by "Brit Mandelo".
Since you indicate that some/most of the older stories have been republished as by Lee Mandelo, we should be able to enter their new records into the database. Once we do that, it should be clear that your "most recognized name within the genre" is "Lee Mandelo", at which point we should be able to change the canonical name. Hope this makes sense! Ahasuerus (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2022 (EST)

Yes, thank you, and, to clarify: I believe the only piece of short fiction listed on ISFDB that has not been updated to Lee Mandelo by the publisher would be the Apex short story from 2012. The anthology and nonfiction chapbook from Aqueduct are under Lee Mandelo as well now on all major sales outlets. Additionally, I think I’ve topped over 40 essays on (outside of columns and reviews which aren’t listed for most folks I assume) in the last decade that are unlisted in the profile — as well as other interviews and feature profiles, etc., which would tip the balance closer to 90% “Lee Mandelo.” The Strange Horizons essay on MR James as well as the magazine issue are also under “Lee.”
Secondary addition: these pieces weren’t republished, in the sense of the Bachman/King, but the original record of publication at the magazines themselves was corrected to reflect the name change (which is a situation I suspect is more unique to transition, or as noted divorce etc, rather than pen-names). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Mandelo (talkcontribs) .
Let me make sure that we are on the same page re: what "updated to Lee Mandelo by the publisher" means. As per Template:PublicationFields:Author:
  • The name of the author of the publication. The name should be entered exactly as it is actually given on the publication's title page. This includes pseudonyms, abbreviated names ("I. Asimov" instead of "Isaac Asimov", "Robert Heinlein" instead of "Robert A. Heinlein"), etc.
We create a new publication record if the publisher puts out a new version where the author is credited differently. These days, with electronic publication commonly available, it happens surprisingly often. JC Andrijeski, who withdrew all books published as by Julie Light in 2020 and republished them as by "JC Andrijeski", would be one example. J. A. Sutherland, who withdrew "Of Dubious Intent" shortly after it was published and republished it as by "Richard Grantham", would be another. In most cases this can be easily checked using Amazon's "Look Inside" functionality.
However, we don't create new publication records if and when publishers, authors and/or online bookstores change the way their books are listed online. If I am reading your response correctly, "updated to Lee Mandelo by the publisher" and "under Lee Mandelo as well now on all major sales outlets" refers to the latter scenario as opposed to new versions of ebooks and/or print books getting published. Is my understanding correct? Ahasuerus (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2022 (EST)


There seem to be two issues worth addressing, which I'll approach separately. First, correcting some of the incorrectly indexed publications currently contributing to the misapprehension on ISFDB that "Lee" would not by my "most recognized" or canonical name. Second, addressing the issue of why, even aside from those records, there are significant gaps in my publication record that simply aren't indexed at all to contribute to "canonicity" as well as a case to be made for "most recognized name" even outside of the confines of, perhaps, what publications ISFDB does and does not index for authors.

The first, here are a selection of the simplest corrections (rather than those involving, for example, the question of republication like the print anthology or nonfiction monograph) where the piece has been indexed under "Brit" but actually appears under "Lee" in the publication itself.


Short fiction:

However, even if those more straightforward corrections weren't permitted, there is the second and perhaps more central issue of "canonicity" of name… which is where things like, "the majority of my nonfiction work on and in the genre has not been indexed to ISFDB" comes in. A brief selection of nonfiction essays that aren't indexed follows, just from the last two years alone, though inclusion of these is of course dependent on what ISFDB is currently indexing versus not (which does, for example with, seem dependent on the writer; I've omitted reviews and columns entirely, as those number an upwards of 300+ credits at this point and aren't worth anyone's time entering as data):

Print publications:

  • “More of Us Beyond This Room’: Solidarity and Feminist History(s) in The Future of Another Timeline,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 48, no. 1, 2022
  • “Necessary Fictions: Haunt(ed) Archives in Caitlín R. Kiernan's The Red Tree and The Drowning Girl,” Capacious: Journal of Emerging Affect Theory, vol. 2, no. 4, 2022

Online publications:


  • Arte Realizzata Magazine, 2022
  •, Profile Essay, " A Catalogue of Touches: Friendship, Loss, and What’s Left Behind in Lee Mandelo’s Summer Sons" by Trisha Low


Furthermore, even if those are left aside, there is the question of "most recognized name in the field," which is where I do feel a bit rude addressing this a public forum… but here we are. Before and after the release of Summer Sons, which was a Goodreads Award Finalist, my work has been featured under the name Lee Mandelo only in such places as the Library of Congress entry for me as an author, as well as a large number of major publications, including for example the below:

  • / GQ India, "7 queer horror novels that should be on your bookshelf"
  • NPR, "Books We Love 2021" & Weekend Edition Podcast
  • Harper's Bazaar, "Best Scary Halloween Reads of 2021"
  • Entertainment Tonight, "Pride Preview: The Most Anticipated LGBTQ Shows, Films,

Albums of 2021"

  • Chicago Review of Books, "Cold Ghosts, Fast Cars, Hot Mess: Summer Sons”
  • Bookpage, Starred Review, "Sweltering Summers, Sliced Through with Cold Terror"
  • Ancillary Review, "Queerness and the Southern Gothic: Lee Mandelo’s Summer Sons"
  • Buzzfeed, "15 Best Books by Trans, Genderqueer Authors of 2021"

And I've omitted far more than I included -- without even getting into podcasts, documentary interviews, and so forth.

There is, more or less, no alternate universe where "Lee Mandelo" would not be (and has not been since approx. 2019) the most recognized name under which I work, receive awards, and am discussed both within the sf genre space and the broader literary/academic worlds. The resistance to addressing that does not reflect contemporary best practices in archiving or digital humanities. Even if prior credits aren't corrected to reflect how they appear in publications, the addition of updated material should shift the balance; even if none of those publications are added, the fact of my "most recognized" name being the one under which I have worked for years and am publicly visible would, one hopes, be sufficient. Taken all together, it would seem clear on a purely factual basis that my ISFDB profile should be housed under Lee Mandelo, with a note allowing that some earlier works were published under the name "Brit Mandelo"… leaving entirely aside what I might call the issue of respect for trans artists. [15:37, 15 December 2022]

So what happens if you decide to de-transition, as so many people in the news have said they're doing lately because they realized they shouldn't have transitioned in the first place? Should everything here go back to your real name? --Username (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2022 (EST)
As I wrote in the 2018 comment linked above, there are at least 3 different types of names that come up during these discussions: legal names, professionally used (or "working") names and "socially used" names. None of them are more "real" than others, they are just different animals. Moreover, a single person can use multiple legal, professional and social names, either consecutively or concurrently. For example, Salvatore Albert Lombino changed his legal name to Evan Hunter in 1952, but he is probably best known as "Ed McBain", one of his pseudonyms. However, we use "Evan Hunter" as the canonical name because it's the name that he is best known under within this genre.
We are not in the business of judging which names are more "real" than others. We are a bibliographic database, which tries to record names, titles, publishers, publication dates, awards, etc as they appear and then link them. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2022 (EST)
Anyway, just letting you know, I've made an edit (not approved yet) adding an link to Summer Sons hardcover, fixing the page count which was way off, and adding the cover artist, Sasha Vinogradova, who's not credited in any edition even though all covers are the same. If you have the trade paperback handy you can let us know what the page count is because it has the same 384 pages on ISFDB as the hardcover; I'm guessing it will be the same number, 372. --Username (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2022 (EST)

(unindent) Thanks for providing additional information about your body of work. As you said, we don't have complete coverage of the field -- unfortunately, nobody does these day -- so we are missing various publications, in part because they are outside of the current scope of the project and in part because we haven't entered the data yet.

Based on the listings that you provided, I think it's fair to say that "your most recognized name within the genre" is currently Lee Mandelo. We'll need to examine the history of the linked Strange Horizon issues and other online publications to see if we need to create separate publication records for the two versions of the credit, but I believe that just your recent works about the genre, which have all been published as by Lee Mandelo, are enough to tip the balance for the purposes of this discussion. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2022 (EST)

I looked up the Strange Horizons editorial and the short fictions titles you listed in the internet archive. They were originally credited to Brit Mandelo not Lee Mandelo as you suggest. John Scifibones 17:04, 15 December 2022 (EST)
My reading of what Lee Mandelo wrote above is that the credit has been changed since the time the original webzine issues were published. That's what I was referring to when I wrote that we may "need to create separate publication records for the two versions of the credit" -- one publication record for the original version and another one for the updated version. It's similar to how we handle self-published authors who replace their ebooks on Amazon when they change their working name or use a new pseudonym/alternate name. Ahasuerus (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2022 (EST)
With our current database, I think the cleanest way to "fix" this would be to create variants for all of the online publications that have been changed to reflect the new name, with notes on each explaining why the variant exists. Since we record information as it was when it was published, we need to maintain the integrity of that information while also making accommodation for situations such as this. Perhaps Lee can provide the approximate dates for when each of these online publications was updated with the new name so we can accurately enter the variants?
As for changed print publication credits, we already handle those using variants, so they shouldn't be a problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:27, 15 December 2022 (EST)
I favor changing the canonical name as the author wishes. We have done that before, Willis Couvillier for example. John Scifibones 19:30, 15 December 2022 (EST)
This record was discussed in March 2017 after it was discovered that it had been configured against Policy. At the time there was no easy way of telling who set it up that way. Now that we have Author History, it would appear that it may have done by User:Rkihara. He has, as he said recently, "pretty much backed off from editing" over the last couple of years, but he still checks the Wiki, so I am going to ask him what his rationale was. The linked March 2017 discussion provides more context, but it's a bit incoherent. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2022 (EST)
P.S. I have also found this submission, which would have changed the alternate name relationship and which was rejected by Stonecreek because "it's the author's will to have it this way, and we try to fulfil author's wishes". The author has continued to publish the vast majority of his stories as by "W. C. Roberts". Ahasuerus (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2022 (EST)
I recently worked on another author in the exact same situation. While she hasn't asked us to make the change, I would like to make it.
I'm not so sure about treating a change in an online periodical's history page as a reprint. What about all the publications where an author's name was misspelled and subsequently corrected? Are these also reprints? John Scifibones 19:30, 15 December 2022 (EST)
But we cannot change the original credit either - if a name had not been used before say 2018 and a story was published in 2005, using the new name there is going to convey a false information. The only mechanism we have in the DB to convey a change in credit is to treat is as a reprint/new edition (and realistically, how is that different from a new ebook reissued with a changed cover or changed author name (and no other changes inside). Another issue for magazines is that their reprints are entered as anthologies in the DB, not a magazines... which adds one more layer of complexity to how we handle these changes. Annie (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2022 (EST)
One additional complication is that it may be hard to determine when the credit was changed in an online publication. If the history of the relevant issue has been captured by the Wayback Machine, it's likely doable with some legwork. Otherwise, we may have to use 0000-00-00 and add a note about a possible date range.
That said, there is significant bibliographic value to having two separate title records when credits are changed. One of the better known examples is The Skylark of Space, which originally had two co-authors: Doc Smith and Lee Hawkins Garby. When Smith rewrote the text in 1958, Garby's name was dropped. We certainly want to have these changes documented, it's just that it's harder to do with webzines because of the nature of the medium. Ahasuerus (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2022 (EST)

Making the changes

So, in order to make the change, the following needs to happen:

Did I miss anything? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:18, 16 December 2022 (EST)

That's it I think (except probably for adding notes into the Interview titles while swapping the name so the usage of a name early on does not look weird). No art credit so we do not need to check if any are secondary sources attribution which will require a direct change of their author credit to the new canonical name. And any reviews/awards that may be there will stay attached to the original titles so we are good there as well. Annie (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2022 (EST)
I can start moving everything if everyone is okay with it. Just need a green light. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:37, 16 December 2022 (EST)
I think you missed Strange Horizons - Our Queer Planet (July 2016) which would require making a variant of of Brit → Lee. We may need to add the reprint magazine with the changed editor credit as well as the changed credit on the contained editorial. This goes to Annie's excellent point above about magazine reprints as anthologies. I believe that we would also need to make a rule change here to allow an anthology with a webzine format. I would support adding such an exception for this situation. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:05, 16 December 2022 (EST)
We already allow Web-only anthologies ("One time speculative fiction anthologies published on the Web") so we are covered on that I think. There was one around the time we were first opening for these that triggered the conversation to start with so it made it into the rules on the first round. They can be considered "One-time" or we can drop the "One Time" from the rules (with an R&S discussion) if we prefer to but I think the rule as it stands now allows for the reprint to be added as an anthology already. Annie (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2022 (EST)
We're referencing two different pages that are slightly contradictory. I see the one time web anthology statement on the policy page. I was referring to this template under webzine. It seems the most logical format for web anthologies, but the template wording just needs a little tweaking to make that clear. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:37, 16 December 2022 (EST)
We have a few in the DB and I suspect we missed to update the help page. Which should be easy enough to do considered both the ROA and the established practice. Annie (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2022 (EST)

Titles Requiring New Publication Records

I've done a bit of analysis on where we which publications have been reissued with a name change and where they have not.

  • eBooks
    • I've examined the Amazon look inside feature for these and none appear to have been republished with a name change. For the chapbooks, Amazon does list the author in the sale listing as "Lee Mandelo", but the title pages from Look Inside and the covers all still have "Brit Mandelo". For anthologies and magazines, I have generally only been able to check the table of contents, which also maintains the Brit Mandelo credit.
  • Webzines
    • Though Smoke Shall Hide the Sun,, February 14, 2014, credit changed to Lee sometime between 4/24/2017 and 7/18/2019
    • Winter Scheming, Apex Magazine, June 2012, We only have the eBook publication which is unchanged. There is an archive on the web which we haven't indexed, but the credit is "Brit Mandelo" there as well.
    • The Finite Canvas,, December 5, 2012, credit changed to Lee sometime between 6/2/2017 and 7/18/2019. also republished this story on 2/14/13 and we should probably add that as a separate "issue". The 2/14/2013 issue was originally credited to Brit and subsequently changed to Lee sometime between 7/17/2017 and 8/5/2020 (was an ad for the eBook).
    • And Yet, Her Eyes, Nightmare and Lightspeed, July 2013, we only index the eBook editions of these two magazines. They do have a web archive where and the credit was originally Brit and subsequently changed to Lee. If we decide to index as a webzine, we would have to do "reprints" of these issues.
    • The Writ of Years,, December 18, 2013, credit changed to Lee sometime between 6/19/2017 and 12/25/2019. Note that the URL which embeds the author's name was also changed between 8/8/2020 and 10/22/2020. I don't believe the URL change necessitates a third publication record. However, we've never discussed this.
    • The Sincerity Game, Uncanny Magazine, January-February 2016, we only index the eBook which has not changed the credit. There is a web archive where the credit was changed sometime between 9/29/2020 and 10/29/2020.
    • The Pigeon Summer,, May 11, 2016, credit changed to Lee sometime between 2/28/2019 and 12/9/2019
    • On Moving Into Your New Home, Ideomancer, December 2011, no changes to the credits in archived captures. The webzine appears to have been taken down sometime before 5/12/2019
    • What I Have Not Done, Expanded Horizons, May 2012, no change in credit as of last capture on 11/9/2019, webzine was taken down at some point.
    • Linguistics for the World-Builder, Clarkesworld Magazine, April 2011, we only index the eBook, there is a web archive, but the credit is still listed as "Brit Mandelo".
    • The Poetry of Joanna Russ, Part I: An Introduction, Stone Telling, December 2011, credit is still listed as "Brit Mandelo".
    • The Poetry of Joanna Russ, Part II: Poems, 1954-1957, Stone Telling, March 2012, credit is still listed as "Brit Mandelo".
    • Introduction to M. R. James's "Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad", Strange Horizons, 29 October 2012, credit changed to Lee sometime between 2/20/2017 and 1/8/2022
    • Gonzo: The Real, the Surreal, and Hunter S. Thompson, Interfictions Online, May 2013, credit is still listed as "Brit Mandelo".
    • Editorial: Our Queer Planet, Strange Horizons, 4 July 2016, credit changed to Lee sometime between 2/23/2017 and 9/22/2020. I'll also note that this editorial appear to be the only source for Mandelo's Editor (guest editor) credit.
  • Others
    • Assuming that all paper publications have not been reprinted.

One more wrinkle regarding the "reprints" of the issues which contain a single story. We were discussing that periodical reprints are entered as anthologies. I think this should apply here as well so we can maintain the editor. i.e. Let's not use CHAPBOOK despite having a single piece of fiction.

I would also recommend new series ( reprints, Strange Horizons reprints) which I believe is consistent with how paper reprints are done. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:47, 17 December 2022 (EST)

Thanks for doing the legwork! Ahasuerus (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2022 (EST)

Swapping the canonical name

It's been three days and it looks like we are in agreement re: swapping the canonical name. Since Nihonjoe volunteered to do the work, I think we should let him do the honors. Once it'd done, we can start adding the missing reprints and other pubs. Ahasuerus (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2022 (EST)

I think it's all done now (just the items I listed above, not any of the new items). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:25, 19 December 2022 (EST)
See here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:28, 19 December 2022 (EST)
Thanks! Ahasuerus (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2022 (EST)
I'll work on the new titles due to publications with a new name. I still have my notes from above. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:28, 19 December 2022 (EST)
Done with these. I did not add new webzines for the archives of magazines where we index the eBook versions (Lightspeed, Nightmare, Uncanny, Clarkesworld). I'm not certain whether we want to add webzines as a separate series (like we do with Lightspeed eBook and print), if we do, it's a larger project than I want to take on at the moment. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:58, 19 December 2022 (EST)
Thanks again! Ahasuerus (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2022 (EST)

Markwood, Part II; Can one of you speak to this man/woman and let them know how books with subtitles are standardized here on this site? Thank you. --Username (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (EST)

Future Is Now; This didn't go where it was supposed to, replacing the GIF image someone else uploaded. --Username (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2022 (EST)

File names include the file type. If you load a different file type, it creates a different name. I cleaned things up. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2022 (EST)

Death on a Warm Wind

I have updated the publishing date of Death on a Warm Wind, Record # 295745. User Talk for the verifier says he is no longer active. aardvark7 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2022 (EST)

Dfrank; I just made an edit on which this person was PV and they haven't left a message since 2014; possibly should have a "no longer active" flag. --Username (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2022 (EST)

FAQ updated

After cleaning up the ISFDB:FAQ to reflect recent-ish changes to transliteration support and other technical issues, I added a new section for author name changes. It reflects what was discussed earlier. Hopefully, having a summary in the FAQ will make it easier to address similar questions in the future. Please let me know if anything in the new section doesn't make sense. Ahasuerus (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2022 (EST)

It's been 4 days since I changed the FAQ and there are no comments, so hopefully the language looks OK.
We have already updated Lee Mandelo's records, so all that remains is to correct the W. C. Roberts/Willis Couvillier situation, which was mentioned earlier. The last linked page currently says:
  • Please note that even though W. C. Roberts is the most commonly used name for the author, this account is used as a canonical name due to the wishes of the author.
As mentioned above, I was going to check with Ron Kihara, one of the approving moderators, to see if he recalled any additional details about the change. He doesn't, so we don't have any other information. In the meantime, our records indicate that this author has continued to publish well over 90% of his stories as "W. C. Roberts". I plan to leave a note on User talk:Wcouvillier about the upcoming change. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2022 (EST)
I have left a note on User talk:Wcouvillier. Ahasuerus (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2023 (EST)
One small comment. The statement "If the most recognized in-genre name changes, the software connection is changed to use the new name as the canonical name." doesn't seem to me to be accurate. Not sure what is meant with "software connection"? Shouldn't that be "... the publication records are updated to use the new name as the canonical name."? MagicUnk (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2023 (EST)
We don’t change the publication records to use the canonical name (except for interviewees and artists entered based on secondary sources). Using your proposed language implies that we will replace the old name everywhere in all publications - which is not anywhere near to how we handle the issue. We can talk about the title records but even there we don’t change them, we change the connections and their order only. Annie (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2023 (EST)
I suspect that what MagicUnk meant was that we "change the database [i.e. the canonical/alternate name relationships and VT directions] to use the new name as the canonical name" as opposed to "the publication records are updated". Ahasuerus (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2023 (EST)
I suspect so but "publication records are updated to use the new name" is as misleading as we can be - it is the opposite to what we actually do. So I reacted. :) Annie (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2023 (EST)
The reason that I used "the software connection is changed" in the FAQ is that I couldn't think of a better way to summarize the process of linking title and author records without going into technical details which would be out of place in a FAQ. Perhaps "the database connection is changed" would be a better way to put it. Ahasuerus (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2023 (EST)
Why not keep it simple: "If the most recognized in-genre name changes, that name becomes the canonical name of the author and the old canonical name becomes an alternate name."? We defined both terms above so why not just use them. Annie (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2023 (EST)
It seems workable. Perhaps tweak the first part to say something like "that name will be promoted to be the canonical name of the author" to indicate that it will require editing as opposed to happening automatically (via the nightly job or some such)? Ahasuerus (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2023 (EST)
That sounds as automated as "becomes" to me... Maybe just add a "Please note that this process is not automatic. It can be initiated by any editor and the steps are here:" and then link to a new help page which explains all the steps for different cases and title types including sorting out dates (for translations and regular variants), how to deal with the canonical names of artists (aka to change and when to variant) and so on. Annie (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2023 (EST)
A new Help page explaining how to swap an author's canonical name with one of its alternate names is definitely a good idea. We could use the steps that Nihonjoe and Annie listed on 2022-12-16 as the basis. Once we finalize the new Help page, we should be able to update the FAQ. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2023 (EST)

(unindent) There has been no response since I posted on the author's Talk page 23 days ago. Hopefully he is OK. The canonical change has been changed from Willis Couvillier to W. C. Roberts. Ahasuerus (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (EST)

Moderator queue tweaked

The recently added table which shows a breakdown of pending submissions by submitter has been updated to displayed a Totals row at the bottom. Ahasuerus (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (EST)

Would it be easy to move that summary table to the top of the queue list? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:31, 29 December 2022 (EST)
I thought it would be more useful at the bottom, but if moderators prefer it up top, I can easily relocate it. Ahasuerus (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2022 (EST)
I think I prefer it at the bottom of the list, but that's not a strong preference and I can go with whatever consensus there is. I very much like having the totals regardless of where they appear. Thanks for adding them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:34, 29 December 2022 (EST)
I prefer them at the top but either way works and I can live with them at the bottom. Annie (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2022 (EST)
Given the 2-to-1 vote, the summary table has been moved to the top of the page. Let's see how well it works. Ahasuerus (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2023 (EST)
I like it! It's a good summary before plowing into the list. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 3 January 2023 (EST)