User talk:BLongley/Archives/Archive02

This is an archive of discussions from User talk:BLongley. Please do not alter it.

Needle in a Timestack

OK, I have entered the 1979 (Sphere) and 1985 (Ace) editions of this book and Verified the 1985 edition. The big change was in 1979 when Silverberg dropped all stories that were already in print in other collections and added a bunch of others. The 1985 Ace edition followed the 1979 Sphere version. Ahasuerus 00:04, 6 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Serial dates

Responding here because it's a less formal area. Would you believe that I did The Metal Doom that way so it could be used as an example of a badly done serial? If so perhaps we I can meet in Arizona and we can discuss whether or not you would like to buy back London Bridge. Bring cash.--swfritter 17:21, 6 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Only if you believe I've put 500 deliberate mistakes in here for people to find... ;-)

And no thanks to London Bridge, I've got five already, although the title deeds seem a bit delayed in the post. They're better-situated than the Arizona one though. BLongley 17:26, 6 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Cover for Delany's Tales of Neveryon

Bill, I approved a submission by Dgeiser13 for cover art to your verified pub. Can you check to see if it's the correct one? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:11, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Yep: he's even managed to get the right shade of aging for my edition! :-) Fortunately, without the "60" scrawled in pen over the front of my copy. :-/

The number of times I've approved an addition of my own uploaded cover-art to my own verified pub is increasing - I must have got impatient with the delay on Amazon UK more often than I thought. (This isn't one of them, but after the next backup I'm going to run a check about what I've verified that doesn't have cover-art URLs added.) BLongley 16:25, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Having said that, DGeiser13 isn't asking Verifiers directly, so any way you can think of to get his attention would be good. Today seems to have been a very active day, but a day of some severely bad edits that needed catching, or some edits that would probably be OK if people asked a verifier, or that could be improved if people kept up to date with the help: and the breakdown in communication (the tamu.edu problem?) is making a lot more work for the Moderators. I concentrated on trying to educate MA Lloyd as other people were catching other stuff, but again I'm thinking a more rapid way of sharing the mod-work around would stop clashes: I've seen four mods active against three editors making mistakes, it should have been easy to separate the work up. I know I gave up AIM and IRC a while ago when I decided to stop internet-gaming and do something more serious, but I'm tempted to suggest a chat-room or IRC channel or two for Mods and/or editors - no obligation on anyone to join, of course, but questions like "Who's going to tell ALibrarian he's STILL doing Author-edits wrong?" might be quicker in a chat than via this Wiki system. BLongley 16:51, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I'll let Dgeiser13 know about adding cover art to verified pubs. And I agree that communication has been haphazard lately. But the problems can't all be blamed on the tamu.edu problem. Anyone with a modicum of internet savvy or a smidgen of Wiki knowledge could have figured how to get back to their User Talk page. I think we simply have a group of editors who are somewhat reticent (to put it kindly) in their communication skills. I've personally never been in a chatroom nor used AIM or IRC, but I don't think it would take more than an hour to figure out how they work. (And this is coming from a 50 (mumble) year old man!) Mhhutchins 17:43, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Ted White's Sorceress of Qar

You may have noticed that I've been verifying the ISFDB records of Lancer publications against William J. Denholm III's Lancer Checklist, published in Megavore #10 (1980). Denholm states the cover art for your verified pub of this title is by a "Shannon Stirnweis". There are no records for him in the ISFDB but an internet search revealed an artist of that name who specializes in Native American, Western and horse themes. His website gave no clue that he ever did book covers. And this book's cover art doesn't look anything like the art on his website (closer to Frank Frazetta than to Jeff Jones, if you get my drift.) Do you still have access to the original pub to see if the signature comes close to this name? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:59, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Close enough, I'd say. I thought there was a "g" but I now think that's mostly the plant below. BLongley 12:37, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Also, "He did covers for virtually all the New York paperback publishers" suggests there almost MUST have been some work for Lancer. BLongley 12:42, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

And forgot to add: Denholm says the book gives a December 1966 publication date. Mhhutchins 18:02, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Ta muchly, I'll go with that. BLongley 12:37, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

British editions of If

Apparently there were British editions of If published during the 1970's. I have a feeling that they are very close to being almost completely identical since information for both publishers was printed on the table of contents. The data currently entered appears to have been from the British editions. Perhaps you have some special knowledge?--swfritter 17:20, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Nothing really special. I just acquired a British edition of one of the last "If"s, added pagination details and started reading what Visco has to say about them. (Terry does have some interesting info about the series, US and UK versions, it's not just a place to grab art from.) I noticed we didn't have Visco Art for some entries so started working backwards and added it, correcting the other details about British prices and publisher and editor, till I hit one that had been verified as a US edition but still had British details in. (I can't remember where that happened, but it's probably 1973 or so.) I stopped there, as I have no intention of counteracting Specialist Magazine Editors here, but as has been pointed out already, the Visco information IS British from a certain point onwards. Although I'd love to have a British Magazine Editor here, we don't have one, and so I'm happy to let British covers and content details get changed to US entries where all the data-entry already done would help them most, if it's that close. There's a lot of US editions that should be able to be cloned to British editions a few months after, and people ask for it but that's currently not possible (and until Al becomes available I'm not going to push for it). There's some VERY weird variations around like this that can be resolved when interested editors match up, but I'm not a British Magazine specialist by any means. Feel free to ask me anything about these problems, but I admit I have little to go on beyond anything you can already see. For the moment, it seems simpler to let US be US and UK be UK, and the reprints will get resolved when there's enough people interested on each side. BLongley 18:03, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Comments and Questions from a new user

Hi, I am a lifelong science fiction fan (reading since 1956) who just found this site, and I think it is fabulous! For one thing, I just learned that The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, one of my best-loved books of childhood was one of a series!!!!!!!! I was so young when I read it--I never thought to check.

But to business ... here are my questions for a moderator:

1. Do you interface at all with Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreader's Team? It is an awesome project which aims to preserve digitally and make available free to everyone (everyone who has internet access) all books in the public domain. Of course that means the only books, magazines, etc. on which they work are old. I would love to see cooperation between isfdb and PGDP. I have often thought their science fiction collection lacking. Could I please beg you to go look at their website? [1]

At the moment I am too pressed for time to volunteer for much, but it is temporary. If you do not already work with PGDP I would be glad to be a liaison, since I am a member there too. Thank you!

I don't personally do anything on PGDP, I'm too busy here. Some others editors may well do so though: I know at least one editor points to Project Gutenberg texts when they're of a title represented here. BLongley 11:46, 14 Oct 2007 (CDT)

And you never know when another editor is going to pop in with a comment. I have been tracking Project Gutenberg sf titles with tags. There have been discussions in the past about formal methods of documenting Project Gutenberg titles but we will need to come to a mutual agreement. And someone will need to be willing to do the work. User tags are almost totally unrestricted and do not require editor approval.--swfritter 12:18, 14 Oct 2007 (CDT)

2. Is going to someone's talk page the approved way to contact another member? I could not find anything in the FAQ stuff about it. I think it ought to have its own entry under the general HELP FAQ.

Yes, it's the only way to talk directly to one user, if you want everyone to see it then the Community Portal is the other option. However, replying hasn't been standardised yet - do you reply on the Other person's page or your own? I prefer to keep the conversation in one place like this though. When we get a consensus we'll update the Help. It's a good idea to place a Watch on the page of the person you're talking to. BLongley 11:46, 14 Oct 2007 (CDT)

As you can see above, PRIVATE communications are not yet possible! ;-) Which is probably the way it should be, mostly - you can be pretty sure I'm not accepting a bribe to put a book you're plugging on the front page. BLongley 17:23, 14 Oct 2007 (CDT)

3. I would like to see the FAQ page listed under navigation in the sidebar on the left. (I just realized I don't know what that's called).

I know the Main Page is well laid out, but I followed a link to get here, so I didn't see the Main Page.Sallypursell 11:15, 14 Oct 2007 (CDT)Sallypursell

There's a lot of work to do on the Wiki side, but I'm still quite new to that - I work mostly on the database side. But as it's a Wiki, anyone here can improve it! Do you have prior experience with Wiki projects? BLongley 11:46, 14 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Mentoring Program?

My experience with Rkihara was almost by default since I was the single moderator working in that area but I think I learned some valuable lessons in the process. I am directing this message to you before posting it on the Community Portal because you are the first contact with what appears to be a motivated editor with excellent potential. Perhaps if you go through the same process with a new editor we can put our heads together and start developing a protocol. You can also free to contact me at my email address swfritter@yahoo.com.

Mentoring is an excellent idea, and I think it's going to be needed more and more as we expand. I'm quite happy to try it myself, although my specialities rarely overlap with someone that isn't already moderating. Still, helping another moderator is fine by me too. I'm active every day, it seems, which might be the deciding issue: time-zones not matching may ward off the impatient, but then that's not necessarily a bad thing. BLongley 18:10, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)

If submission

This might be an interesting test case for a lot of people. There are at least 10 issues based upon the data you entered. One of them is probably not common knowledge. Three of them are now better documented with the essay series data changes I have made to the magazine page.--swfritter 17:18, 22 Oct 2007 (CDT)

If it's useful to keep around as an example, do so. At some point I'll try a more awkward but possibly less controversial magazine, but I want to try cloning-workarounds first before risking it on a real one. BLongley 12:19, 23 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I will probably be doing a review in the next couple of days. This was the first time Rkihara analyzed a submission from another person. It takes some time to get used to looking at it from that perspective. As an editor he would have handled it correctly.--swfritter 14:08, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Yes, probably better than most more experienced here, if not in magazines. There's more help for magazine editors than when I first started, and I obviously haven't kept up with it, there's more conventions now (some seem to be specific to a magazine, too). I'm glad he spotted "Fred Pohl" eventually - I didn't till I double-checked my submission. As I said, the submission contained no deliberate mistakes: I spotted some problems when I reviewed it again with Mod-eyes, but nothing so deadly I wouldn't have let you approve it and fix later. Hopefully you didn't find any such either, or you'd have let me know by now. I'd appreciate a summary when you finish it: apart from the problems I mentioned in the first place, the ones I spotted at first review, and conventions I see being documented now, I might be missing a few points still. Or maybe some problems are double-counted. I'm happy to leave it with you though, and learn something later. BLongley 16:02, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Formatting Wiki comments

Bill, I have just finished responding to some of your comments over on the Standards board. Ahasuerus

Thank you! I've been waiting for some response to some of those issues for months now. BLongley 18:16, 30 Oct 2007 (CDT)

In retrospect, it took me a while to mentally carve up your comments into chunks that I could respond to individually. Thinking about it some more, it occurs to me that you occasionally address a number of issues in the same paragraph, which sometimes leaves me unsure whether the issues are related and, if they are, what the connection may be. Ahasuerus

I actually try to carve up things as I respond (see this post for instance!): when I have a good rant going though, I'm as guilty as anybody else of posting several thoughts in one stream. Marc Kupper and I discussed it somewhere in the Wiki (probably archived now, and I'm lousy at Wiki search) where we agreed that we should sign each relevant comment separately so that people can insert replies without having to break up the original posters thread, or keep assigning attributions to each paragraph we think SHOULD have been there. BLongley 18:16, 30 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if you could try to make these transitions from one issue to the next more clear by breaking up long paragraphs into smaller ones? Ahasuerus

I can try. BLongley 18:16, 30 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I also wonder if this may be a "British vs. American" thing -- think Jane Austen vs. Hemingway! Then again, we all have our writing quirks (looks in the mirror) and heaven knows they can be hard to change ;-)

That's probably not a good example: Jane Austen put me off reading anything "classic" for ever, so I never got round to reading Hemingway either. It took "Return to the Forbidden Planet" to get me to even reconsider checking some Shakespeare references. ("Most over-rated Author in the English language" still though, IMO.) Probably not wise to mention that though, as Rabbie Burns is the most over-rated author in the Scottish Language (IMO) and using "British" to encompass both should only be done from a safe (preferably intercontinental) distance. BLongley 18:16, 30 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I suspect MY most annoying habit is using the ellipsis to indicate a trailing-off of my train of thought, but hoping people are going to re-stimulate it... (or bracket things too often, showing MY train of side-thoughts, but making them harder to respond to): or maybe I overuse exclamation points! BLongley 18:16, 30 Oct 2007 (CDT)

You have to cut Shakespeare at least some slack - he was a speculative fiction writer, after all! :) Ahasuerus 20:57, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Laumer's The Shape Changer

Looking at your verified The Shape Changer, I see that the cover artist is "Rowene". Checking the cover image, it would appear that it's Rowena Morrill's signature. We also have records for "Rowenna", "Rowena Morril", "Rowena Morrell" and, of course, "Rowena"... Ahasuerus 17:47, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

OK, I'll look closer:

OK, that sloppy last letter is obviously not the same as the fourth, I'll grant it an "a" if we all look slightly to the right rather than the left. (Can we please find a central repository for Author Sigs? I get SO tempted to mess with the Wiki settings that I don't understand that might let us upload images here...) BLongley 18:29, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Nice resolution, thanks! As far as a "central repository for Author Sigs" goes, I wish one existed :-( Ahasuerus 19:03, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Uller Uprising

I was doing my Pipers and ran into your verified Ace edition of Uller Uprising. My 1983-06-00 copy is identical except that I can't find the words "second Ace printing" anywhere. I wonder if we have two different printings? Ahasuerus 19:09, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Usually the problem with Ace is NO stated printing, but I guess the later ones have the opposite problem... :-/

The Full publication history on mine is:

Twayne Edition / 1952
Ace edition /  June 1983
Second Printing / June 1983

I'll add that to my pub, presumably you have the FIRST June 1983 one then? BLongley 19:54, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that's what it looks like. Also, I have updated a couple of your Piper publications with minor comments like "Cover art not credited", which I figured were not worth mentioning. Now, what was it about "sleep" that you recently mentioned? :-) Ahasuerus 20:21, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

"Sleep good, sheep bad"? "The Sleep Look Up" is a good book? "Black Sleep" shouldn't be credited as Artists? "I can't get no sleepifaction"? (Should that be SF for short?) Stuff this for a game of soldiers I'm going to - what's the word? - oh yes, "Hibernate". See you next spring! (Or when I wake up.) BLongley 20:33, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

primary (transient) verification

I seem to remember some conversation about this flag being used as a temporary verification. Rkihara and I are going through Imagination with each one of us doing primary verifications while the other checks the work of the primary verifier. Would it be valid for the checker to use this flag to verify that they have checked the entries of the primary verifier?--swfritter 13:26, 7 Nov 2007 (CST)

Well, it wasn't intended as temporary verification, but as a permanent verification of a pub you only temporarily had in your possession. The idea was to allow people to verify books as best they can while they have them, and NOT be bothered by questions from people that assume "Primary Verification" is "Ownership" of the publication forever.

For your purposes it should be fine to use it that way though, unless someone else is using it already. I don't think it's caught on for magazines yet though, so there should be no difficulty there. BLongley 13:36, 7 Nov 2007 (CST)

I will probably use it for our purposes and then I can unverify later. It would be kind of nice if there was a flag that indicated the last person who edited a pub although there are times I am not sure I would want people to know it was me.--swfritter 12:16, 8 Nov 2007 (CST)

I know what you mean. I usually use the SECOND variation of my "Find my verified pubs" script every time I discover a new rule/guideline I missed before. And a lot of the other scripts are for me to find mistakes I know I left in the past, before anyone else finds them. BLongley 15:57, 8 Nov 2007 (CST)

The Comic Inferno

You verified The Comic Inferno but the cover on that ISFDB record shows the title as Comic Inferno. I'll assume it's The Comic Inferno on the title page and if so you may want to add a note. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:48, 11 Nov 2007 (CST)

Note added. The book is indeed "THE Comic Inferno" internally, although the short story didn't gain a "The". BLongley 06:15, 11 Nov 2007 (CST)

Heinlein's Number of the Beast

Bill, can you double check the dating of your verified copy of this edition of Heinlein's novel? Apparently NEL published a hardcover edition in 1980 (before the US edition), but I understand that the NEL paperback edition was published later (probably 1981). Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:12, 12 Nov 2007 (CST)

It definitely says "First NEL paperback publication, January 1980". I'm a bit suspicious of that, as there's an inscription saying "Happy Christmas, 1985" and the price is a little high for 1980 - but it was an unusually large book for the time. Maybe someone with a later NEL edition can confirm what it says about the previous printings? BLongley 12:44, 12 Nov 2007 (CST)

Doh! I still HAVE a later edition, which claims the first paperback was 1981. Which to trust? BLongley 13:08, 13 Nov 2007 (CST)

I'd bet money that the earlier edition dated January 1980 is a misprint. What is the policy when the stated date of publication is wrong? Or for that matter, when any of the data collected are obvious misprints or errors? Mhhutchins 16:02, 13 Nov 2007 (CST)

Policy? I think we have to make one up. :-/ Still, as I have this claimed first paperback, and the 8th (temporarily), that still leaves six others to check: unless the 8th lies too... BLongley 17:03, 13 Nov 2007 (CST)

Fever Season

For your verified pub Fever Season I'd like to change the songs from short fiction to poem. I cloned it and added some material, OK to change the songs and merge it back? Dana Carson 23:35, 15 Nov 2007 (CST)

I'm OK with it, I usually use POEM myself now. I'd forgotten that one: I think I took my lead from this pub where someone had tried to organise Merovingian Songs. BLongley 12:54, 16 Nov 2007 (CST)

Will update than. I've also added to Angel with the Sword Dana Carson 04:05, 17 Nov 2007 (CST)

changes to your verified pubs

I added a bunch of things (editorial, departments, some more interiorart) to a pub you're down as having verified Analog, May 1975. I didn't notice the verification (off the bottom of the screen) until I went back to add series for the titles I'd added, so it's possible that I changed something already there - sorry. (I guess I've really got to start looking for verifications right off. I may yet find some more such in things I edited recently.) -- Dave davecat 08:17, 24 Nov 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the tip-off, I've unverified it as I have no desire to get questioned over that much detail - feel free to take over! BLongley 17:40, 24 Nov 2007 (CST)

Once I get everything entered (only in my Analogs, I mean!) I hope to go back through them verifying - drafting some family member to help. (One to flip pages, one to use keyboard.) I'll need to make sure I do understand verifying a bit better, first.
In the mean time, I will try to watch for anything you've verified (or anyone else, for that matter); but this does mean a conscious remembering to scroll down below the contents, & I'm finding it easy to forget. But, certainly, feel free to unverify anything; I'm trying to make these as good & thorough a description as I can.
In any case, thank you very much. I've been appreciating your help, along with others'. -- Dave davecat 18:56, 24 Nov 2007 (CST)

OK, Now I'm up to October 1975 (in Analog). I see you also verified this. I'll again be adding series ("Science Fact (Analog)", for two of the items you entered), essays for the departments, a couple of notes, & (I feel fairly sure) some more interiorart items. I haven't dug in yet, but (at a glance) I'll be making the Kelly Freas interiorart a variant, & it's possible I'll see other things to change (in which case I'll check back here). -- Dave davecat 11:16, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)
Um. One debatable thing I see: a while back I was told to use "Condé Nast Publications, Inc." as the publisher in Analogs, & I've now entered quite a lot that way. Eventually I ran into one that had "The Conde Nast Publications, Inc." (no accent), & saw that the "The" is in the magazine, & tried to fix the accent. It didn't work, probably because it's in a table that way & re-fixed it, so I went back to what I'd been doing (changing that one). Now this pub (back to Analog, October 1975) has "The Condé Nast Publications, Inc" (accent, no period). My inclination is to change to "Condé Nast Publications, Inc.", but I don't know.
This is a case where direct access to the SQL might be really nice; if it were up to me I'd fix the publisher record for "The Conde Nast Publications, Inc." to have an accent, & then change all the ones I've entered to point to that. <sigh> -- davecat 11:47, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

Yes, it's probably being regularised and I think we're stuck with only one variation of 'e' or 'é' in any particular combination. They 'fold' the same way, I'm told, so first entry becomes the rule. And you can't (yet) edit the publisher directly like we can with an Author that's been mis-entered the first time. I'd keep the "The" as it's definitely there, and probably add the period as that does seem to be there, or can be added under the regularisation rule even if it's a sentence-ending period rather than an abbreviation-ending one. But I don't really care about the publisher names for magazines, and it seems the magazine editors don't either when it comes to preserving the publishers of near-identical British versions. I'll care more when we CAN regularise and fix Imprints and Publishers of books, but that's a long way off. BLongley 16:19, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

One definite change: boosting the page count from 178 to 180. (I was told here that the page count should include the covers; the front cover (though not numbered)are pages 1 & 2, & at least once there's been content (an illustration) on the inside back cover.) -- davecat 14:04, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

Yes, fine by me. I never really understood why as there's the fep/bep/bc special notations for those extras anyway. BLongley 16:19, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

Ack. The art credit for "The Tripper" (p. 63) you have as "Kevin Washington", but it looks like "Nevin Washington" to me. This is the only entry in the database for either name, I think. Is your copy (or your reading of the print) different from mine, or do you have outside knowledge showing this is a typo, or is this a slip? Thanks. -- davecat 14:14, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

It looks like Nevin to me too. I don't recall entering it, but if not I certainly missed that during verification. (I concentrate on the text and authors, not art and artists.) Feel free to change, I've no special knowledge of the guy. BLongley 16:19, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

Who? by Bill Longley

I added the cover art to your verified copy of this novel. It appears that you uploaded this to amazon but didn't link it to the pub. Mhhutchins 12:18, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Yes, there's a few covers left over where there's been a delay in getting them published. It's probably even worse on the .co.uk site. BLongley 12:31, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Searching Masterworks

Thanks for the offer, I was trying to check how many editions from the SF Masterworks are in the ISFDB, and perhaps make a page for them on Wiki. So a list (Author, title, tag, note) would be useful. But I've also noticed some books have additional tags, I have My Tags link but I don't know how to make them, perhaps they could by used to tag publisher's series? Thanks! --Roglo 12:09, 17 Dec 2007 (CST)

I haven't played around with "Tags", unless you mean the Publication Tags rather than the User-defined Tags. Either will get you to the appropriate publication: here's the list.

pub_id	pub_tag	        pub_title	note_note
3445	BABEL1999	Babel-17	This reprint edition is number 6 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
7127	CTSNLGHT1999	Cities in Flight	This reprint edition is number 3 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
10310	DNDRCSHP1999	Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?	This reprint edition is number 4 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
14032	FLWMYTEARS2001	Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said	This reprint edition is number 46 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
87268	MZFDTHDTXW2005	A Maze of Death	This reprint edition is number 63 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
42932	LTHFHVN2001	The Lathe of Heaven	Volume 44 in the "SF Masterworks" series.
42980	LFTHNDFDR2001	The Left Hand of Darkness	Volume II in the “SF Masterworks” hardcover series.
47896	THSTTNTN1999	The Stars My Destination	This reprint edition is number 5 in the 'SF Masterworks' series. 
It includes an introduction by Neil Gaiman.
111081	MRTHNHMNMK200-	More Than Human	This is number 28 in the SF Masterworks reprint series published by Victor Gollancz.
111111	MNPLSCDRPF2000	Man Plus	This is number 29 in the 'SF Masterworks' reprint series.
155971	LFDRNGWRTM2006	Life During Wartime	This reprint edition is number 66 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
81367	THPNLTMTTR2005	The Penultimate Truth	This reprint edition is number 58 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
109711	TZRQLQWNBS2006	Tau Zero	This edition was number 64 in the SF Masterworks series
109721	MSSNFGRVTB2005 	Mission of Gravity	This edition is number 62 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
109731	THFRVRWRNB1999 	The Forever War	This reprint edition is number 1 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
109741	MLGNDCNVQL1999	I Am Legend	This reprint edition was number 2 in the SF Masterworks series published by Orion.
109761	LRDFLGHTXK1999	Lord of Light	This reprint edition is number 7 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
109771	THFFTHHDFC1999	The Fifth Head of Cerberus	This reprint edition was number 8 in the SF Masterworks series
109781	GTWTLHTRTJ1999	Gateway	This reprint edition was number 9 in the SF masterworks series published by Orion.
109801	THRDSCVRFM1999	The Rediscovery of Man	This edition was number 10 in the SF masterworks series.
109811	RTHBDSKLLT1999	Earth Abides	this reprint edition is number 12 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
109821	THDMLSHDMN1999	The Demolished Man	This reprint edition is number 14 in the SF Masterworks series published by Orion.
109831	THSRNSFTTN1999	The Sirens of Titan	This reprint edition is number 18 in the SF Masterworks series published by Orion.
109841	THDSPSSSSD1999	The Dispossessed	This reprint edition is number 16 in the SF Masterworks series published by Orion.
109861	LSTNDFRSTM1999	Last and First Men	This reprint edition was number 11 in the SF Masterworks series published by Orion.
110781	THSPCMRCHN2003	The Space Merchants	This reprint edition is number 54 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
114241	CSFCNSCNCK1999	A Case of Conscience	This reprint edition is number 30 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
114271	THCNTRDVCR200-	The Centauri Device	This reprint edition is number 31 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
114501	FLLFMNDSTV2002	A Fall of Moondust	This reprint edition is number 49 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
114511	FLWRSFRLGR2000	Flowers for Algernon	This reprint edition is number 25 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115121	THCMPLTRDR2001	The Complete Roderick	This edition contains the complete texts of 'Roderick'(1980) and 'Roderick at                     
                       Random'(1983). Number 45 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115131	MPHRVGMZDT1999	Emphyrio	This edition is number 19 in the 'SF Masterworks' series,
115151	STRMKRDSNT1999	Star Maker	Contains a foreword by Brian Aldiss, as well as a Glossary of terms.
                       This reprint edition is number 21 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115171	BHLDTHMNZV1999	Behold the Man	This reprint edition is number 22 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115181	THBKFSKLLS1999	The Book of Skulls	This reprint edition is number 23 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115191	THTMMCHNTH1999	The Time Machine / The War of the Worlds	This is number 24 in the reprint 'SF Masterworks' series.
115201	BKJHXMSQDK2000	Ubik	This reprint edition is number 26 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115211	TMSCPFFRLB2000	Timescape	This reprint edition is number 27 in the ' SF Masterworks' series.
115221	DRBLDMNMSQ2000	Dr. Bloodmoney	This reprint edition is number 32 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115231	NNSTPFTNNV2000	Non-Stop	This edition includes minor revisions by Aldiss "on 48 pages".
                       This reprint edition is number 33 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115241	THFNTNSFPR2000	The Fountains of Paradise	SF Masterworks 34
115501	BLDMSCQZPQ2001	Blood Music	This reprint edition is number 40 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115511	NWWTFRLSTR2000	Now Wait for Last Year	This reprint edition is number 36 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115521	NVVVPQVKXJ2001	Nova	SF Masterworks 37
115531	THFRSTMNNT2001	The First Men in the Moon	This reprint edition is number 38 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
 It includes a brief (undated)introduction by Arthur C. Clarke , as well as an uncredited short essay - "H.G Wells and his Critics".
115541	JMBSBKVBCZ2001	Jem	This reprint edition is number 41 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
115571	NNSTPKZZJC2000	Non-Stop	This reprint edition is number 33 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
117231	THCTNDTHST2001	The City and the Stars	This reprint edition is number 39 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
117241	BRNGTHJBLK2001	Bring the Jubilee	This reprint edition is number 42 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
117251	VLSRGNBBJS2001	VALIS	This reprint edition is number 43 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
118931	GRSSDWVVNS2002	Grass	This reprint edition is number 48 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
122191	THTHRSTGMT2003	The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch	This reprint edition is number 52 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122201	DWNWRDTTHR2004	Downward to the Earth	This reprint edition is number 56 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122211	THNVSBLMND2001	The Invisible Man	This reprint edition is number 47 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122231	WHRLTTHSWT2006	Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang	This reprint edition is number 67 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122241	DNGNSDFVCG2005	Dying Inside	This reprint edition is number 59 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
122251	RNGWRLDPQP2005	Ringworld	This reprint edition is number 60 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122261	THSMLCRJCQ2004	The Simulacra	This reprint edition is number 57 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122271	TMTFJNTLVC2003	Time Out of Joint	This reprint edition is number 55 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
122611	THDNCRSTTH2003	The Dancers at the End of Time	This reprint edition is number 53 in the 'SF Masterworks' series
158991	THDRWNDWRL1999	The Drowned World	Volume 17 in the “SF Masterworks” series.
161301	STNDNZNZBR1999	Stand on Zanzibar	Volume 15 in the “SF Masterworks” series.
165001	MRTNTMSLPB1999	Martian Time-Slip	Book #13 in the “SF Masterworks” series.
184297	MLGNDBHHHJ1999	I Am Legend	This reprint edition is number 2 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
188265	THSHRNKNGM2002	The Shrinking Man	This reprint edition is number 51 in the 'SF Masterworks' series.
225205	THCMPLTRDB2001	The Complete Roderick	SF Masterworks publication series. (Data from Amazon UK.)
239121	PVNVKKBVNR2000	Pavane	Volume 35 in the “SF Masterworks” series.

Adding Authors to SQL queries makes it a bit slower: and rather messy, if there's more than one author. For pub-level series this should do, I hope? BLongley 12:21, 17 Dec 2007 (CST)

There's also a list here that may or may not be accurate? BLongley 12:28, 17 Dec 2007 (CST)

Great, thank you! --Roglo 12:39, 17 Dec 2007 (CST)

It's Gantlet

In Orbit 10 SFBC edition in case nobody else is home. Can't wait until we have stories that are verified by 10 different people.

gant·let 1 (gôntlt, gänt-) n. A section of double railroad tracks formed by the temporary convergence of two parallel tracks in such a way that each set remains independent while traversing the same ground, affording passage at a narrow place without need of switching. tr.v. gant·let·ed, gant·let·ing, gant·lets To converge (railroad tracks) to form a gantlet.

[Variant of gauntlet 2.] gant·let 2 (gôntlt, gänt-) n. Variant of gauntlet 1.--swfritter 12:11, 20 Dec 2007 (CST)

Ok, a variant it is. It'll probably divide up on US/UK grounds eventually. BLongley 13:37, 20 Dec 2007 (CST)

Fantasy Newsletter/Review

I've added the missing numbers to this page and redid the issue designations from months to numbers on this page. I may even one day create records for Nos. 67-103 and add contents, but I'm not holding my breath. The one issue I entered (#66) almost killed me! Mhhutchins 19:30, 28 Dec 2007 (CST)

Never mind (I'm not that good at spelling after a glass of wine.) Mhhutchins 19:34, 28 Dec 2007 (CST)

List of authors that only exist due to reviews

I worked a little on some of the authors down on the list (in the Ts), either adding pubs that were reviewed or corrected spelling (or title/author inversions.) Should I go ahead and edit the list to remove those that I fixed? Thanks. (Great idea, BTW.) Mhhutchins 16:45, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

Sure, feel free to remove the fixed ones. I won't be able to regenerate the list till the next back-up, so you'll save people double-checking stuff already done. Glad you like it - I was a bit worried the list would be too long to appeal to people, but as Kraang had almost finished the "pubs with no contents" I thought a new challenge would be in order. BLongley 17:40, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

Thank alot, I just about finish one and another gets tossed on my plate! I did one "Barrie Pattison" as a warmup. :-)Kraang 20:18, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

According to my script against the latest backup, there were 138 pubs with no titles still to fix - unfortunately 45 were NOT the "T"s you'd left. :-/ I fixed most of those others (I think) so if you've fixed the remaining "T"s then we might ask Al to make it impossible to enter any new problems like those - someone is still CREATING the problems, but fortunately not as fast as we fix them.

In other news, I think we might have fixed all missing or duplicated pub tags now. Data Quality? We've not only heard of it, we're ASPIRING to it! BLongley 20:44, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

I'm almost finished the "T's", but at the bottom of the list there are a bunch of mag's that should be looked at. For these it might be better if Swfritter or someone more familiar with magazines did them.Kraang 20:56, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

I cleared a few magazines too (I only left "T"s alone), but yes this is still a problem for instance - not sure why my query didn't pick that up, it found OMNIDEC92... feel free to clear that list down to the ones you're not sure about and that still need sorting. I like SMALL lists of problems. BLongley 21:09, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

True, small lists are much better than big lists since big lists can be intimidating and/or frustrating. That's why I haven't posted my list of "publications bad ISBNs" yet -- need to break it up some first to make it more manageable. Ahasuerus 22:19, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

This one - Joseph Patrouch - is in a mag verified by you. The Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov is by Joseph F. Patrouch, Jr. OK to change the author to this & add a note in Notes? (Actually this guy - presumably the same guy - is present as

Joe Patrouch - - - -

Joseph F. Patrouch - - - -

Joseph F. Patrouch, Jr. - - - -

Joseph Patrouch - - - -

Joseph Patrouch, Jr. --j_clark 06:57, 30 Dec 2007 (CST)

Joseph F. Patrouch, Jr. it is then. We can sort out the other variants when a canonical name emerges. BLongley 07:43, 30 Dec 2007 (CST)

Garan the Eternal

Just a note that I have changed the Notes field in Garan the Eternal from "stated 10th printing" to "stated 1st printing". I have the same pub and it was one of the last victims of DAW's "number paragraph" (as opposed to the standard "number line") methodology that they used in 1972-1973. There is a discussion of this issue on Marc's Talk page. Ahasuerus 00:10, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)

Yes, that's fine. BLongley 05:52, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)

"Barbara Turner Harris" in Fantasy Review No. 99

The authorship of The Burning Stone was incorrectly credited in this verified pub. I changed it to the correct author (Deborah Turner Harris) and made a note to that effect in the pub. (And dropped "Barbara" from the stray author list.) Mhhutchins 12:46, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)

OK. You might want to check this too and clear up The Torture Garden - Mirbeau or Mirabeau?

Corrected to Mirbeau. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:07, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)

Space Visitor by Mack Reynolds

I'm verifying some paperbacks today, trying to mix it up so I don't go crazy doing the same thing, and saw that we both have copies of this edition of Reynolds' novel. If you look inside the crater at the bottom right corner of the book, you'll see Paul Alexander's distinctive signature. Thanks to my trusty magnifying glass! Mhhutchins 14:17, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ah, this little set of pixels?

I can't see the "Paul" but I agree on the rest. Thanks for the pointer! BLongley 14:41, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Careful with the squinting, folks, replacement eyes are hard to find these days! Ahasuerus 15:04, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

I've got to get a magnifying glass for myself, if not a microscope... my spectacles aren't up to this and the scanner is SLOW at this resolution. :-/ BLongley 15:11, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

And I really should stop overloading pages with graphics - should I move the sample sigs here to each Artist's Wiki page or are they going to be just as unwelcome there? BLongley 15:11, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Well, that don't have to be THAT big, but I think sample signatures of artists would be quite helpful. Mhhutchins 15:24, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

I agree that they would be very helpful to have around, I am just not sure where to put them. Perhaps some centralized place/project/portal in the Wiki so that you could see all potential suspects' signatures (e.g. all signatures starting with an "A") at the same time? With 10-20 images per page so that people using slower connections wouldn't have to wait too long for the images to appear? We could then link to that portal from individual authors' Wiki pages. Or are signatures so unpredictable that you can't really tell ahead of time that Frank R. Paul's signature starts with a "P" while Damon Knight's starts with a "D"? And what about convoluted initials a la Michael Whelan? And where is my aspirin?.. Ahasuerus 15:33, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Time to ask Al about hosting teeny-weeny samples at least? (Once you've decided what size/resolution you'd like these, of course.) I'm happy to provide samples (when someone can tell me where to find them!) but my hosting isn't guaranteed to be stable forever. BLongley 16:01, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Stray Publications

Bill, did you create this [2]? If you did can you run a new copy to see whats been missed or is new. Thanks! :-)Kraang 21:36, 3 Jan 2008 (CST)

Not my script originally, but I created something similar here. There were only 166 problems in the last backup, and I fixed a load myself, and others have been tidied up as part of other problems - but there's a few left for you if you'd like to finish them off!

I suspect though, that some have not been fixed correctly and I should look into mismatched titles and pubs next. I could do with a fresh backup for that though, we've done a LOT of cleanup over Christmas/New Year. BLongley 12:54, 4 Jan 2008 (CST)

The next backup will become available some time early next week, probably Monday night, unless something major happens. Ahasuerus 13:28, 4 Jan 2008 (CST)

Let's hope the new bad ISBNs list keeps Kraang occupied till Monday then... ;-) (Although I'd like to finish off the Stray Authors by then too, or at least leave only the 'Do we want these reviews of comics, cassettes, calendars and other crap as reviews anyway?' examples for discussion. ) BLongley 13:33, 4 Jan 2008 (CST)

Delany's City of a Thousand Suns

I'm working on the Bad ISBN list and came upon this one which you verified. Could the ISBN possibly be 0-441-10719-2 or was it a misprint (as publisher's will do occasionally)? And to answer your note's inquiry. This was a US printing of the revised edition which was first printed in the UK and had a new copyright date (1966). It's not usual for a copyright to be so specific.
Mhhutchins 16:30, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

My typo, fixed now. Thanks! BLongley 17:09, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

Also, when I've made corrections to the records on the listings at the bottom of the Bad ISBN list (not your original list), should I mark them as FIXED or simply remove them? Mhhutchins 16:30, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

I prefer them removed, and edits to the lists marked as "Minor" edits so I can filter them out. 1) So the page-loads get quicker for those of us without broadband, if we have any (and possibly for people that have the browser 32k limits it keeps warning us about) and 2) nobody is getting brownie points for fixing stuff on these lists, so even if they signed each "FIXED!" edit nobody will ever really care or notice in the long run. BLongley 17:09, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

And did you notice that more than three-quarters of those records on the additional listings have been verified? More than the odds would have made one believe. Mhhutchins 16:30, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, and I think if/when I post updated "Fix this!" lists I should mark such so the less-brave or unwilling-to-talk can avoid such. I'm still undecided as to whether to post verifier ID - the plus point is that the verifier can sort out their own mistakes before anyone else, the minus point is that people might see how badly a previously-respected editor can do on certain aspects of editing. I now have a good idea of which editor kept putting the price in the ISBN field, and which thought putting a "0" in front of an 8 digit number made it a valid ISBN... I'm not out to name and shame though, if people get on these lists multiple times it's for their impressive activity and GOOD work. I think most of us have a few skeletons in their editing closet that they'd like to keep quiet about (I do try and fix some of my OWN errors before posting results of these scripts occasionally, but I'm not that proud that I'll try and fix them all first - otherwise the results would be out of date by the time I posted them! BLongley 17:09, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

I openly admit that there were more than a few of my own verified records. When I first started submitting to the ISFDB, I felt funny leaving the ISBN/Catalog # field blank. So on older books (pre-1970) I entered the Library of Congress number. I stopped doing that soon after become a moderator, and didn't want to take the time to go back over 1000+ verified items to see which ones I had incorrectly entered. I'm grateful that your little script did the trick, and I can hide all traces of my youthful indiscretions (well, not all of them, only the ones here on the ISFDB.) Mhhutchins 17:45, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

I think my very hesitant start here helped - I didn't feel confident enough to verify much, if what was here already didn't match what I had EXACTLY. When people were boasting about 20,000 items to work through, I just stuck with what I had (I guessed 1500-2000 items of interest) and was (and still am) ready to rework those again and again until I get them "right enough" for me. The "#" in front of serial numbers was not something demanded when I started (in fact, some moderators told me that they didn't agree with that convention) so I've had to rework a few now. And I only do that as a working ISBN is a nice jump-off point for further research. (Coming from the land that invented SBNs, I can see how useful they are, but also know the pitfalls that pseudo-(I)SBNs induce.) I'm not too embarrassed by my past mistakes - I see some moderators want to unverify all their early verifications, I'm not so keen to unverify my own, the standards keep rising but they were valid at the time. I'm likely to unverify all my magazines as that has gone beyond the "Speculative Fiction" entries and "Speculative Fiction" reviews and even "Books ABOUT Speculative Fiction". One of the reasons I started some of the recent projects - "Rules of Acquisition" may need amending to match what we actually record. BLongley 18:26, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

First Through Time

I inadvertently deleted your entry on my page when I was cleaning it up so I am answering you here rather than on my page, but the cover you indicated is the correct cover. Thx rbh 20:21, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

'Sir' Arthur C. Clarke?

I see we don't use 'Sir Arthur C. Clarke' as a pseudo of Arthur C. Clarke. Should I omit the 'Sir'? (I'm doing this now but I can recreate 'Sir' if needed). Thanks. --Roglo 05:53, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

Record it if that's what's on the title page/first page of story. I know he IS a knight, but I've not seen the "Sir" used in one of his books - still, I don't think I've bought any of his books since he got it. BLongley 06:10, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

It is not a story but one of this '25th Anniversary' letters/essays. So it was rather editors' decision to use the title. Or perhaps it is customary to always use the title? It wasn't used in a 'signature' below the text (like in some Introductions) but printed above the text. --Roglo 08:49, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

Looking at a few recent covers, it seems he doesn't use it for his Novels and Collaborations, but it's usually mentioned when he writes a foreword or introduction. I'm glad he doesn't use it all the time though, imagine how much work it would be to reverse the canonical names! BLongley 10:51, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

Death's Domain by Pratchett

Bill, wouldn't this be better classified as a collection? Mhhutchins 01:08, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

With it stuck under a Nonfiction title (presumably someone is trying to keep all the Discworld reference books together) it doesn't really matter what type it is, it'll still have problems. BLongley 12:22, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Salmon of Doubt

Bill, if it's OK with you I'm going to change this group of publications[3] from novel to collection and make the title story a novella[4].Kraang 08:09, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

Sure, go ahead. You might want to check the audiobooks though, they might not be more than the title story. BLongley 12:28, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

There is at least one audio edition on 7 CD :-) I'm not sure if it's exactly the same as the book, though. --Roglo 12:38, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

There's a lot of stuff in there that just wouldn't be interesting aloud, but they might have included it. (The contents in my pub are over-simplified to avoid going into details of every letter he had published, for instance.) I suspect the 2 CD one IS just the title story though. BLongley 12:49, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Salmon of Doubt

I've changed your verified publication from Novel to Collection. It's a sight unseen changed based on display warnings, that the parent title record was a collection, and that it looks like a collection. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:27, 20 Jan 2008 (CST)

BTW, is "The Private Life of Genghis Khan" a "shortstory"? Ahasuerus 01:05, 20 Jan 2008 (CST)

Probably. I'll have to go find it, someone's changes have lost the title story and made Young Zaphod look a lot longer too. (The Salmon of doubt was an Intended Novel that is probably just a novella due to Adams' untimely death, the rest is mostly filler material that I haven't gone into detail on. But we really do need that title story.) BLongley 06:53, 20 Jan 2008 (CST)

ISBNs by country

You wrote on User_talk:Roglo#Matter "Marc Kupper's insistence that ISBNs still indicate the country is a bogus claim nowadays."

What is it that I'm insisting? :-) I have stated, and provided the logic, for translating an ISBN into a language/country. The language/country is usually that of the publisher and may not reflect the language a book was written nor what country that book was printed in. For example, a DAW book printed in the Canada has exactly the same ISBN as one printed in the USA. If a publisher is from French speaking Canada, or from English speaking Canada, then I'm fairly certain I'd be able to translate ISBNs from that publisher into "French (Canada)" and "English (Canada)" though will not be able to tell you what language the book is written in nor what country it was printed in.

In general though ISBNs map correctly into the language and country of origin for the work. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:25, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Well, several times when I've mentioned that ISBN doesn't indicate country any more you've pointed people at the logic behind the assignments for Country/Language to ISBN, and indeed you have provided logic to convert it back. It always sounds like you're disagreeing with me, otherwise why bring it up? My point is, and remains, that although it's quite informative to see how Countries and Languages were grouped into ISBN ranges originally, and it's handy to know when a single-country publisher or imprint acquired a subset of these, the current multinational publishers and publications situation leads to the situation where, as you point out, an ISBN won't necessarily tell you "what language the book is written in nor what country it was printed in" - also, it won't tell you what currency/ies are likely to be printed on it, and it won't tell you the country the publishing company is headquartered in. Which as far as I'm concerned, means that you haven't determined anything about the "country" for the book. Now, you CAN sometimes use ISBNs to determine something country-specific IF you know the publisher well enough - e.g. I'd bet I know the currency for the price on an 07221 prefix book, but I'd only have a best guess for the language on an 06718 prefix and wouldn't risk betting on the currency at all. BLongley 13:51, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Actually, it was not until last night that I became aware of that you are saying "ISBN doesn't indicate country any more" and it's that specific, seemingly absolute, statement I disagree with. Actually, I disagree with all absolute statements (said absolutely...).

As I'm the one with examples of a disproof (possibly, it depends on what the "country" you derive actually means to you) I think I'm on firmer ground. I can't fault you on the logic that derives an ISBN Country back from the ISBN, but if you say that ISBN xyyz merely shows that it SHOULD be used for an English language publication, which SHOULD be by an American publisher, and I show you it's on a solely-British priced pub printed in Germany for a French publishing company, who's right? Both really. It could or should mean something according to you, it DOESN'T mean anything according to me. Try 0-671-01713-6 and tell me what value your evaluated Country designation gives to me. BLongley 19:26, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

English (USA) - Simon and Schuster using Pocket Books, Archway / Pocket Books, Pocket (Timescape), Washington Square Press, Baen Books, and more. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:00, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, it's a Pocket Books imprint from Simon and Schuster. That could be useful if all I have is the ISBN. Deriving the Country from it might lead to people making assumptions: e.g. priced in Dollars? No. Printed in the USA? Well, one of my three is. The other two are printed in Glasgow, Scotland. Knowing the Publisher from an ISBN can be handy, knowing the 'ISBN country' isn't, to me. BLongley 14:35, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Now I understand. The ISBN you provided was useful in mapping to a publisher and list of potential imprints. We also know the publisher is based in the USA. What the ISBN does not tell us for this publisher is where they printed the book and how it's priced. To make ISBN mapping more useful for you we'd have to research and build out own tables. For 0-671- we could list the known imprints, known printing plants, known pricing methods, etc. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:01, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

It's a good thing they don't teach ISBNs to rocket scientists in school -- their heads may explode :) Ahasuerus 11:01, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

My personal observation of the ISBN mapping process is that it is reliable. USA editions say "USA" and UK editions say "UK"

No, they don't always, and nowadays I find it's more common to have to distinguish by the order of prices, or just simply THE price, that is printed on a book. It probably doesn't actually matter to most buyers: it matters here as we're entering the same book, several times over, and printing numbers and/or covers are not going to distinguish them apart. And for the "First edition collector" it will matter. I remember from my comic-collecting days that British-priced pubs otherwise identical to the US edition would be a small fraction of the price of a US edition: there, you could at least be sure that the US publication was earlier. BLongley 19:26, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

We have been using it on Fantastic Fiction for several years and there has been no trend that I'm aware of towards the mapping getting more or less reliable. Even in this age of publishing giants the individual imprints are using ISBNs that generally reflect the language and country for that imprint.

In my experience: Language yes, country no. But that does still depend on what the derived country SHOULD mean. BLongley 19:26, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

I depends also on what do you call a 'US edition'. Recent example: Solaris and their anthologies. The Solaris Book of New Fantasy and SF counterpart have both British and US printings. The US variant has 'Printed in the US' on the cover, price 'US $7.99, CAN $9.99' and a barcode on the 2nd cover (front inside cover). UK variant has 'Printed in the UK' and price '£7.99'. But both variants are by 'Solaris, an imprint of BL Publishing' and the address is in UK. Both use ISBN '1-84416-...', and according to ISFDB data it is the same ISBN (I've seen both but not at the same time, so I'm not sure if full ISBN was the same). Interesting, how would the printing numbering work... Every country with it own line '10 9 8...'? --Roglo 14:53, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

That's one of the big mysteries: e.g. when I have different Glaswegian printings of the same US title, priced for Britain in general, with the same printing number and same ISBN, are those worth recording? If so, we have go beyond ISBN, edition, printing, price, and record even MORE detail. And even then I'm not sure we'd distinguish every possible variation. And I really don't WANT to go that far, it certainly adds no value to me - the WORDS are the same. As is cover art, pagination, etc. Does it matter to anyone else? I can go research whether different PRINTERS have different printing numbers for the same edition, but when they're all tasked with producing a particular publication to a certain standard, are the differences worthwhile? BLongley 18:00, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

The one that rocked me a while back was I verified a DAW 1st printing of Marune: Alastor 933. Later I got a second copy that was also a 1st printing but in re-checking the verification the price was slightly different. I grabbed the first copy stared, and it took me a while to spot that the only difference was "Printed in USA" vs. "Printed in Canada". This was before DAW started dual pricing meaning the publications just stated $2.25 and $2.50.

You bring up a good point in how far should we go with this? A couple of years ago we did not care about printings and only created a new publication record if the price or cover changed. What started to happen is people would note "3rd printing" but then someone else would overwrite it with "5th printing" as both the 3rd and 5th were identical. In my own book database I tried sharing records saying "This is for the 3rd and 5th printing" but that turned into a pain as there was an awfully strong assumption that the record covers the 4th printing. It's human nature to be helpful and people would be "verifying" that the record was for the 4th printing when in fact it may never have existed (publisher skipped it by accident) or maybe it was a special anniversary edition. It turned out to be more reliable to just do one record per printing. There is a feature request/discussion somewhere about improving the display to roll up nearly identical records.

That said - if we did go into more detail it should be with one record per item and I'm I think we are getting enough grief for recording individual printings and now would need to also pay attention to and record the country and or other details? FWIW - some publishers record the printing location as a code as they will have multiple production facilities through the USA and/or planet. Usually it's near the number line. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:29, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

With most ISBN groups are assigned to an authority within a single country. The 0 and 1 ISBNs (English) are complicated in that they are managed by the root International ISBN Agency which then parcels out small groups to management agencies in the various English speaking countries which in turn give them to publishers. My guess is the "should" would be where the publisher is located. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:00, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

'Should' isn't good enough though. I suspect some of our 1970s Australian books are actually the British ones. I'd like to see some more Irish 1970s ones too, partly because I don't recall ever seeing one (British publications with Irish prices, yes, but they'd typically have six or seven prices on for various markets), and also because I'd like to know how we would cope with the '1/2p' that the Irish price typically had on the end! BLongley 14:35, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

I also believe that ISBN have always been useless for machine sorting publications into precise categories such as language, country, publisher, or target market. There have always been too many exceptions meaning humans need to inspect and verify the results. However, machine sorting can give you piles of similar publications that the humans can more easily go through to spot the exceptions. For example, I can give you a pile of "0-441-xxxxx-x" records and say "Everything in here should be English and published by Ace." If there's a data record that says HarperCollins then you'd hunt down that physical publication to see if it's a data error or it's a real exception. (I have not seen a DAW/Harper exception but do have a non-specfict pub that has the ISBN of one publisher but states it was published by another. In that case I know the background story in that the author switched publishers for a reprint and the new publisher did not bother with issuing a new ISBN.)

What might be useful is to somehow construct a hairball graph of the publishers, ranges of ISBNs, and the apparent markets of books found in those ranges. The goal is overall data validation to identify records or publications that need physical verification by humans. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:25, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

This is why I started gathering my own data on publishers and ISBN ranges: e.g. sections 3-29 (currently) on my own page BLongley 19:26, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Very nice! Is this entirely constructed from ISFDB and publisher web sites or are you using other sources too? Marc Kupper (talk) 02:32, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

It started purely from my verified books (and yes, spotting the odd one out in twenty or so did help me go fix some typos!) but some of the publishers/imprints I have few books by led me to include other verifier's examples. I've included some publisher's sites but news-sites seem better: a lot of the publisher's sites are actually revising (or at least being selective) about their history. I paused to try out what I'd learned so far on the Invalid ISBNs project and found it very useful - within certain limits, mostly date limits. I may revisit some of the pages to see what extra details revised scripts can tell me, such as suspect bindings: for example, when I was growing up, Gollancz always meant "Hardback book" to me - when did they start doing paperbacks? Or did they always do them and I just never saw them? Contrariwise, Panther and Sphere and Orbit were always paperbacks to me - but I now own an Orbit hardback. When did that start? And when did these annoying Trade Paperbacks first appear? Not the occasional funny-sized/shaped book we always had at times, but the practice of issuing hardcover, trade paperback a few months later, and later still the paperback book book I actually WANT later? I only have accidental trade paperback purchases, except for Iain M. Banks books, and I wish he didn't prevent them from reaching the desired format. (I should have asked him, but I'd only read his first book when I met him and that had reached normal size.) BLongley 14:35, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Anyway, 'publisher' and 'imprint' are things I think can be usefully tackled, if only to explain "printing number" on British publications, or why one publisher happily credits another that they might look as if they're in competition with. BLongley 14:35, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

I can answer the trade-paperback question for DAW in that they did one in 2002 and then started in earnest in 2005 with 11. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:55, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

All I know about the history of British publishers/imprints is what I have read in Locus and other trade publications over the years (plus the usual stuff that you pick up as part of bibliographic projects), but the US picture has been quite complicated for a couple of decades now. To summarize the summary of the summary, mass market paperbacks, i.e. the kind of paperbacks that are "stripped" of their covers and destroyed when they fail to sell -- as opposed to returned to the publisher -- have been slowly declining for over 20 years now. There are more genre titles published every year now than 20 years ago (see Locus stats), but individual print runs are much smaller, sometimes smaller by an order of magnitude, and the mass market paperback format works best with large print runs. Distribution channels are also changing with more books getting sold by bookstores and fewer by traditional paperback/magazine venues like supermarkets. The shelf life of a paperback is much shorter, in part due to some obscure changes in US tax laws in the 1980s, which made it less profitable to keep books in print for a long period of time. The end result has been the decline of the mass market paperback format and the rise of the "trade paperback" format, although there are various caveats that go along with this statement.

In some ways the British market has moved the opposite way - until the demise of the Net Book Agreement, you wouldn't see books in Supermarkets at all. Bookshops are in decline, but the ones that remain have to be bigger: the supermarkets will take the majority share of the bestsellers but won't offer anywhere near the range of the bookshops, possibly only offering the Top 10 or 20 bestselling hardbacks / paperbacks /children's books. BLongley 13:19, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

BTW, writers, with the exception of a few mega-bestsellers, have very little to do with the way their books appear on the stand. The publisher procures the cover art, determines whether the book appears in hc, tp or pb and in what order, sets the price, etc. Ahasuerus 11:01, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, Iain is the only exception I've noted and I assume it's down to him as it only happened after he became quite famous, and his publishers don't seem to do it for their other authors. It's strange: his fame came about the same time as Terry Pratchett's (one year I attended six SF conventions, and Terry was GoH at three and Iain at the other three!) but Terry almost NEVER has Trade Paperback editions. ('Eric' being a notable exception.) BLongley 13:19, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Inversions were published as mass market edition (Orbit 1999). And Tiffany Aching series had medium size paperback UK editions (and I believe I've seen a large tp of Wintersmith but perhaps it was an 'export edition'). Nothing is simple ;-) --Roglo 13:40, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Are you sure about Inversions? It's not verified and looks like an Amazon error to me. And children's editions are often an exception to any general rule. (Comedy books too, which might explain "The Unadulterated Cat".) BLongley 13:59, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

I'm sure but the one above is IMHO medium size. I'm adding the real £5.99 mass market ed. (different ISBN). --Roglo 14:26, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Here it is ...and Dead Air had mass market pb, but I won't manage to find it today. --Roglo 14:49, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Approving Dissembler submissions

Bill, as I recall, at one point you volunteered to approve/clean up Dissembler submissions. The other night I asked Al if it was OK for us to approve them or whether he wanted to review each submission to improve the Dissembler algorithm. Al's response was basically "go for it" :) Ahasuerus 10:18, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

OK, I'll watch out for the runs when I have time: it makes a nice break. BLongley 13:22, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

There are heuristics which filter out books based on key words in the title, authors, publishers, and combinations thereof. If you see a filter pattern of books that shouldn't be submitted, let me know and I'll include it in the next run. I typically do 3 separate runs per target month (sf, fantasy, and horror) and don't start the next run until the previous one has been integrated to prevent duplicate isbns from being submitted. I also usually do cover art updates for next month's books that will show up on the front page. Alvonruff 15:23, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Change that affects your verified pub

The length of "Project Barrier" in the collection Project Barrier has been changed from short story to novelette as a result of a change to the Fantastic Universe appearance. It is 28 pages long in the magazine and appears to be about 30 pages long in the collection.--swfritter 19:01, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

30 pages and 4 lines. Fine by me. BLongley 13:45, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

If, May/June 1974

Bill, if you'll go ahead and approve this update, I'll clone it to create a US edition using Ahasuerus' method of changing the type. Then I'll update your pub to show it's the UK edition. If there's any differences (which I doubt), I'll make the changes as well. By the way, my copy of that issue has the price of 75¢ Xed out with a big bullet below stating "Special Trial Offer" with a giant 59¢ in the center. I wonder if that was so for all of the US copies. Mhhutchins 22:05, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ok, approved and corrections made - still some reviews to check/link but I can wait till I see your version. BLongley 14:08, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Here's the cover graphic from an eBay auction.

BTW, as a Brit, can you translate this page for us merkins. :) Mhhutchins 22:18, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

I doubt Bill will be able to help much -- that's ppint's site and ppint speaks a language all his own :) Ahasuerus 23:03, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

I can decipher that - any particular phrase causing you problems? BLongley 14:08, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Well, I've translated "merkin" as "American" and "bre" as "British reprint edition", but what does "brizzle way" mean? Mhhutchins 15:33, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

"Brizzle" is a common slang name for Bristol, so I read it as the person "moving to a smaller house" would be relocating to the Bristol area, if not Bristol itself. BLongley 15:42, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Actually, thanks for reminding me about ppint and IMT and suchlike - I've meant to visit for a long time, and reading the (not-a-blog) stuff has cautioned me about certain premise-rearrangements of the large-transport variety that will help me prepare ahead. I can still translate on your behalf if needed, though references like "19:10 fruitgum^W" make even ME stop and pause. He THINKS like I do, at times, but posts stuff I don't bother posting as it only leads to demands for translation... which might be his intent, and is occasionally mine. BLongley 18:07, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

British prices on Analog?

Bill, I just noticed on a couple of Analogs I've been entering stuff for. (These are the last of the bedsheet period, Feb. & March 1965, FWIW.) The price on the cover is shown as "50c", which is clearly $0.50, which is what's in the existing records. But next to that there's a circle with "5/-" inside it. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never figured out British monetary stuff for more than half an hour or so at a time (& this has only been exacerbated by the changes the system has undergone). But is that 50 pence or something? And (whatever it is) how do I enter it given that there is the American price present? Or is this buried somewhere in the pub-editor help? <dave tears out hair> Thanks. Dave (davecat) 15:50, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Short answer: the "5/-" means "5 Shillings, Zero Pence". I think the help says the US price takes priority: if a publication is dual-priced, then it's OK to record other prices in notes. So saying "Also priced as '5/-' " in notes makes it look like you're knowledgeable and helpful. ;-) BLongley 17:04, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

FAIRLY short answer: 5 Shillings is a quarter of a British pound, so you can consider that to be equivalent to 25p or £0.25 nowadays. You might see shilling prices recorded as "5/-" or just "5/" or "5s" or "5/0" - they're all the same. Regularisation rules suggest we record all old Shilling prices in the "Shillings Slash Pence" format, with 0 pence being recorded as "-". There's a chance that we'll have to deal with prices in Pounds AND Shillings AND Pence, but most books of that age didn't cost as much as a pound! BLongley 17:04, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Longer answer: We used to divide a Pound up into 20 Shillings (and some still do), and each shilling was 12 old pence. So 240 pence to the pound, which made it easy to divide a pound 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 ways... such a useful feature seems to have been considered relatively unimportant so we went decimal in the early 1970s. There was a true "Decimal Day" when we officially converted, but it was so long in the planning, and we recorded the old prices for so long afterwards, that in book terms it usually doesn't really matter - anything from 1968-1974 might have two UK prices on, pre-decimal and post-decimal. (As well as prices for Australia, Ireland, Cyprus, New Zealand, etc - any English-speaking market we could sell to really, which often INCLUDED Canada but EXCLUDED the USA.) The order of old shilling prices versus new pence prices may switch pre/post decimal day - e.g. "5s (25p)" might become "25p (5s)" on a later printing. The order might help determine the date of the publication, so it's worth recording both prices if you see them. BLongley 17:04, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Complete Side rant: One of the reasons I'm so against us joining the Euro is that in some areas, especially books, the consumer really got screwed at change-over. Maybe it's because publishers had to keep prices the same for so long to make it clear what the changeover would mean to people, but whereas "5/-" was "five shillings" and became "25 pence", still "five Shillings" colloquially - same fraction of a Pound, no change really - many "2/6" paperbacks DOUBLED in price. I think they thought "2/6" to "25p" would make it look like a reduction. (26 to 25 is a decrease, right?) And people would obviously have been confused by a new "12 1/2p" price - we hadn't had halfpenny prices on books for years, if not decades. But we got halfpenny prices added for the Irish prices (although based on the doubled UK prices) so that didn't really wash either... but if we convert again to the Euro, I'm sure all the prices will be rounded UP to the next "X.99" Euro price and I'll feel even more cheated. Nobody should have to go through a currency conversion more than once a lifetime, IMO. BLongley 17:04, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thank you very much! -- Dave (davecat) 17:22, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

No problem - I like to show off when I have a little expertise in the area, and a good waffle afterwards rarely hurts ;-) If anything I say seems particularly useful, feel free to use it for "Help" pages or "FAQs" or something more easily findable. If not - well, I'm happy to explain further: e.g. I resisted explaining "ten-bob notes", "half-a-crown", "guineas", "tanners" - you won't find those on publications but you might find such on sites about a work, and I'm happy to translate English (however colloquial) into something more useful when needed, if I can. ("Speaker for Ppint" might become a regular task, for instance. ;-) ) BLongley 17:52, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

I think I smell a FAQ entry in the making! :-) Ahasuerus 21:02, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)