User talk:BLongley/Archives/Archive05

The Illustrated Roger Zelazny - Twice

I would like to make some changes to this verified pub. It is a heavily edited reprint of this one. For instance, there is a section called "Zelazny Speaks", which has the text of the foreword to A Zelazny Tapestry in the first edition. The original text of the essay was not reprinted. "Morrow Speaks" is only a part of the original, the order of the stories was changed etc. I will edit the first edition, which is not verified, and attributes some of the stories to Zelazny and Morrow. This is inconsistent with the verified pub, where the drawings are identified as interior artwork. Any problems with this? Willem H. 11:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and I'll see what it's like afterwards. BLongley 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This should do it. In the Ace paperback I added the introductory essays, changed the dates to 1978-02-00 when neccesary and deleted the titles I replaced. The contents of the first edition is almost completley new. If you can approve of my changes to the two editions, I can delete the old titles from the first edition, and check the contents again. Thanks Willem H. 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Illustrated Roger Zelazny

Hoping you can get involved with this discussion, since you have the paperback version of this title. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Foundation's Edge -- duplicate/redundant entry?

Hi. I came across your verified FNDTNSDGRJ1983 and the very similar, unverified FNDTNSDGBG1983. The differences seem to be your verified entry uses solely "Del Rey" as the publisher (vs. "Del Rey / Ballantine"), its notes are not explicit about the representation of the printing (vs. restatement of the edition date and observation of no number line), and it has a content entry for the Prologue starting on p. xi (vs. only the main content + Afterword). My copy of this book matches both of these -- your entry's content detail and the unverified entry's publisher and notes.

I prefer "Del Rey" to "Del Rey / Ballantine" as all Del Rey are Ballantine (so why bother with the extra typing?), but not all Ballantine are Del Rey. And as a book may have been published in both, I find it clearer NOT to add "Ballantine" to the Del Rey versions. Unfortunately someone did a mass publisher update that affected a load of my verifications. :-( BLongley 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these entries are for the same printing. If your copy agrees and you don't object, I will move the more explicit info from the unverified entry into your verified entry and delete the other one. Thanks. --MartyD 19:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where mine is at the moment - it's not in the right place on the shelves so presumably is on one of my reading piles. Leave it with me for now. BLongley 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Robot Visions

Added your Amazon.UK image to your verified pub [[1]]. Wouldn't it just have been easier to load it here first??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Back in August 2007, we didn't have that option. BLongley 11:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Spock Must Die! -- pub date

Hi. I have a 13th printing Spock Must Die! that lists dates for all of the prior Bantam / Bantam Pathfinder editions. I was going through fixing up some other entries with incomplete dates, and I came across your verified SPCKMSTDTD1970 for the 2nd printing, dated 1970-02-00. According to the list in my book, the 2nd printing was March 1970, not February (February 1970 is listed for the 1st printing). I figured I'd mention it to you while I noticed it. --MartyD 12:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, notes/date updated. BLongley 12:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Avengers of Carrig -- broken cover link

I replaced a broken cover image link in your verified THVNGRSFCR1969 with this, matching my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, now Fantastic Fiction links are breaking. :-/ BLongley 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed some other Fantastic Fiction ones being flaky for me from time to time, but this one was really gone. Sorry to have been the bearer of bad tidings.... --MartyD 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Book Club Editions

Greetings, youngster! Does/did the UK version of the SFBC follow the same practice as their US counterpart and use the same artwork as the publisher's edition? I have been finding and adding quite a few cover images for the US editions, but don't want to start doing this with the UK ones if this was not common practice. Thanks and cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out our SFBC UK publisher's page. It contains a link to a pretty good British website which may be able to answer most your questions about the club. MHHutchins 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please DO go to the final page, if you're interested in the UK SFBC - the intermediate page probably needs expanding to cover all other UK Book Clubs that handled SF. They're a bit of a mystery to me, and even the few relevant publications I own do not (as is usual, it seems) give much away about the organisations involved. They involve something called "Reader's Union" and I now take that as a warning label. BLongley 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Moonseed [2]

Added the month of publication (from Locus1) to [this] and since I have the hardcover, which has the same artwork, noted that to verify the artist. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

HTML Error Again

Hello Bill, I'm hoping you can help me again. I've made the same html error with the Nav Bars (omitting a caret on the last comment) on this page as noted previously on the Help Page, leaving the page un-editable. I would appreciate any assistance you can render. Thanks!-Rkihara 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, note zapped. I hope you have a replacement handy? BLongley 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I can re-enter the notes.-Rkihara 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It seems Data Thief's capabilities were in demand today, he was fired up already. :-/ BLongley 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Enchanted Village by Van Vogt

There's a problem with this title which is supposedly a variant of itself. Can you check to see how it appears in your copy of Destination Universe. It's one of the two pubs under the lesser populated title. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely "The Enchanted Village" in mine. Which makes me worry that the other title has been corrupted, in a lot more pubs. In Monsters it has no "The". Should we do a mass change back or on a case by case basis? BLongley 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The way the Interiorart for the story is entered here makes me even more convinced there's been a global change. BLongley 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does this happen to stories that have so many freakin' pubs? My best guess is that this record should have been "Enchanted Village" based on that artwork record (but "Enchanged"?, have to ask Swfritter about that!) Also look at this pub's artwork credit. Tuck shows reprints in Conklin's Possible Worlds and Destination: Universe as no "The". There's a lot of evidence all of these shouldn't have "The". I say we go ahead and do a mass change back. Hell, I'll do it now. Thanks for the input. MHHutchins 05:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind of My Mind

An odd one! This [pub] was printed in Canada. Not one where a sticker was just placed on the cover, either. Small print on the copyright page only indication. Was this common for Sphere? The real oddity is that there was an S&J hardcover preceding this and still it was printed 'off-shore'..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it being common for Sphere, but most of mine were entered before I started checking printing location. But there's no real oddity in it being printed in a Commonwealth country. The weirdest "British" pub I have (I can't recall if it was Sphere) was printed in Israel. BLongley 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Morgaine

Shouldn't [this] have a 1990 date of publication? ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. BLongley 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Through the Eye of a Needle

I have the US printing of [this] which states "First Edition: June 1978". Doesn't the Canadian edition have this on the copyright page? Note says "apparent" first edition. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It does, but as the "Printed in Canada" looks overprinted I don't trust it. BLongley 17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk..... we wouldn't lie to you! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Twistor

Think [this] needs some tweaking? Locus1 has this as a June '97 printing, same ISBN but a price of $5.99. That's the only one I can find with Binger as the artist. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked. By the way, shouldn't yours have "Eggleton" rather than "Eggelton"? Or is it their typo? BLongley 22:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My oops! Will fix. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Genus Homo

I replaced the existing image [[2]] for [this] de Camp title as it showed a British edition (sticker over the Berkley logo/price) image. I don't recognize the sticker, can't find a British pb on AbeBooks, OCLC, Currey etc. so can't even create a stub to put this image with. Of the many on AbeBooks they are all of the Berkley. Any help? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no British edition, just the Berkley edition sold at 2/6 here. I've added a note about the sticker. BLongley 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks. Who does the 'TP' with the tepee between represent? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. "Transworld Publishers" maybe, they rebadged a lot of American pubs. BLongley 18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Driftglass

Added a cover image and a note to [[3]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Mars

I updated the notes for Rainbow Mars - Thanks Kevin 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wizards of Oz

Can you check your copy of this title for the author credit of "The Twonky"? Rtrace has changed the credit in the US edition to simply Henry Kuttner. Also the excerpt extension was added to "Affairs in Poictesme". Thanks. MHHutchins 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the Kuttner credit. I'm not so happy about the other change: it makes it look like it's an excerpt from a longer work of the same title, and it isn't: there is no other "Affairs in Poictesme" to confuse it with. The introduction refers to it as a "self-contained episode". At most it needed a note I think, but I can live with it as "Affairs in Poictesme (excerpt from Figures of Earth)" which is more accurate and seems to be a convention of some sort. BLongley 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely that stating where something is excerpted from makes far more sense. The only reason that I used "Affairs in Poictesme (excerpt)" was that this help page specifically states to do it that way: If the excerpt has a title that makes it clear that it is only an excerpt, use that title. Otherwise, use the title given, but add " (excerpt)" to the end; e.g. "A Feast for Crows (excerpt)". This makes sense when the title is the title of the work excerpted from, but not when it is the title of a chapter. I've entered numerous other titles following the advice of the help page (including this pub which is entirely excerpts from larger works).--Rtrace 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I see that help only applies to an "excerpt from a forthcoming book". We definitely need to improve that help, it doesn't reflect what we've been doing for some time, nor does it cover situations like this. BLongley 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ISFDB Web API call Library

Wouldn't it it be nice if we had one? Wonder if it's doable. I think you have been doing some API stuff. Python? I have started playing around with the beta version of the Python Netbeans IDE.--swfritter 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably doable, and if the backups are going to be unavailable for any length of time it's highly desirable. I have been working with the API, but from Oracle PL/SQL. I don't have much in the way of programming languages at home, and haven't learnt Python - yet. BLongley 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The potential might be there for some alternate front-ends - which I assume is one of the motivations for creating the API in the first place.--swfritter 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What, with getpub.cgi the only thing that retrieves data? I think it's all biased towards submission, not retrieval. And as the retrieval is ISBN based, all you can do quickly is check that we haven't got a 1970s or later publication already before a submission. Which is a useful check, don't get me wrong, but I'd like to check rather more against the DB first, without having to retrieve a lot more about existing pubs and process it locally. I don't think there's enough of an API yet to write a complete new front-end. A different "Add Publication to This Title" or "New Novel/Anthology/Collection/Omnibus/Nonfiction" maybe, or some sort of Clone capability. And just "different", I can't think of a way to use the tools to create something "better". Or can you see some opportunity I can't? BLongley 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. With the submission aspect, it would be kind of nice to have an interface that the average person could use for submissions.--swfritter 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New publication, with no reuse of any existing data, should be easy. It would just leave masses of merges to do and typos to fix. And would the average person be able to generate and install their License Key? I guess it would be possible to use all the other usual scripts (pl.cgi, title.cgi, etc) and strip out the extra HTML, but it does seem like too much hard work to me. I've been using fresh backups to have the data locally to query any way I want, and generate the edits for submission. But when they get too far out of step it's not especially safe to do that. BLongley 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt the law of unintended consequences would take precedence. When, or if, I ever get around to using the API I had intended on using the daily backups in the same way. Do you have any Oracle PL/SQL examples?--swfritter 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

None handy, but if people are interested I could post the basic "submit to ISFDB" code (after checking out where I nicked half of it from for license conditions) and examples of how I've used it to fix certain things like a broken end-comment tag making pubs uneditable, or mass-deleting an entire non-genre series. The nice thing is that you can download Oracle XE for free and use it. The bad thing is that the ISFDB backups do (did?) not translate to Oracle directly (mostly due to dates), so I usually recreated the local database in MySQL, queried it in MySQL, and then used those results in Oracle. The fact that I used MySQL to generate Oracle code is a bit ironic, but it worked. (And using MySQL to generate most of the longer Wiki pages I've created is almost as bad: using a dynamic database to create static pages just feels wrong.) But I suppose a lot of brand-new entries created from a private database might be welcome (I must nudge Mike Cross again), so maybe Oracle's ability to go query other database formats may not be unwelcome. It should be able to read Microsoft Access and write MySQL, for instance. I know XML and SOAP and REST is supposed to solve all this, but it hasn't yet - learning two versions of SQL is still easier. (And as I've worked in Sybase, SQL-Server and DB2 before already, it's pretty easy for me, although I really MUST learn more XML, XSL, X-Path and other X-Stuff if I hope to stay employed.) BLongley 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When the Green Star Calls -- broken cover link

I replaced a broken cover image link in your verified pub WHNTHGRNSB0000 --Rtrace 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Might even be better than the old one. BLongley 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tulku - Peter Dickinson

Hi, I have added a cover image (yours, from Amazon UK!) and extra prices to your 2007 verified pub TLKTHZGPCM1982 ...clarkmci/--j_clark 06:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do wonder how many images I left on Amazon UK before I transferred to Amazon US for faster approvals, before I moved to uploading here. I do seem to have wasted a lot of effort at times. BLongley 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

SFBC 50th Anniv. Series

Bill I found this series[4] by the SFBC, is there an easy way of finding the rest and putting the series on the Wiki side? Thanks!Kraang 03:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends on how many people have left meaningful notes. But presumably 50th Anniversary books were published more or less around the 50th anniversary, so should be findable via publisher/year search anyway, if we have them. BLongley 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mike seems to have done it already SFBC_50th_Anniversary_Collection. A script doesn't find any more than he did. BLongley 09:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a list going, but nothing more, yet, than what Mike has found. The only other source has been Locus and until they get '07 and '08 up.........? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My list was from the SFBC editor, Andrew Wheeler, through his postings on the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup. The last titles were published in January 2008. According to those posts, the series is complete. Looking over the list, I see I mentioned that several of the titles had, up to then, never had book club editions. I need to update it to show which titles. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it but how would anyone else have found this page. I've added a link on the SFBC page and also added a note in the "Publishers" field. This should help future users find it a bit more directly.Kraang 00:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this page of links. MHHutchins 03:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We put it under Bibliographic_Projects_in_Progress as the best place we could think of. Can you suggest better? Obviously, some individual projects can also be linked from the Publisher wiki-page - except when their name is too fragmented. BLongley 09:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Methuselah's Children

Added a cover image to [[5]]. Caption says it's for the '83 NEL.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lancer SF Library

I have the complete listing for both series in Megavore #10, a fanzine which has a complete Lancer bibliography. Let me know when you want me to step in with any assistance. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You might as well complete it then, I've taken it about as far as I can - searching notes to see if anybody's mentioned it here, or OCLC to see if they've counted it as part of that series (OCLC doesn't distinguish the two), or checking titles' covers here or on Bookscans.com. I thought about Megavore but as publications stated as entered from there, e.g this, don't mention the library I thought Megavore didn't. BLongley 08:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

API for New Worlds?

Let me see some of scripts please! I think I did close to a thousand Editor records manually plus the consequent Editor merges and I really don't want to see anymore of them.--swfritter 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually did those manually as there were so many other things to fix on the way - e.g. prices inflated 20 times as somebody translated "3/-" to "£3"! Yes, Editor records for John Carnell could have been added easily via the Web API, and with a little more programming could have created easily merged ones too (e.g. I just added "New Worlds - 19xx" records rather than the usual "name of magazine" ones I suspect Fixer would normally create.) I can tell you what sort of thing would be needed, but unfortunately I haven't built in any sort of programmed "check that it hasn't already been done" (and I can't see how, to be honest) so I do it manually for now. BLongley 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Stranger in a Strange Land

Added a cover image to [[6]], but think it a tad blurry. Hard to tell until it shows up in the record. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Too blurry for my liking, I uploaded my own. Metallic lettering always causes problems though. BLongley 11:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondary Verification check

Can you check the verification on this pub? I think you meant to Currey-verify it, as Bleiler's work only covers the 1920s-1930s. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you want Bluesman, not me. BLongley 21:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Gotta get my Bills lined up right. MHHutchins 22:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eyes of Heisenberg

Added artist credit to [[7]]. Sellers on ABeBooks credit Miller for both the NEL HC & PB editions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Priests of Psi

[This] cover has [these] initials. '84 Futura/Orbit edition. Any ideas? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the same person that did this and this? BLongley 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree........ but who is it??? ~bill, --Bluesman 04:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess Fred Gambino. This site agrees, as does one other, but there's very little support for that view really. But if you own any other known Gambino covers you could search them for that sig? BLongley 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bayley's The Grand Wheel

I added price information to this verified pub. Since the primary verification is yours, I added a transient verification. Willem H. 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, the other prices match so I removed the "Price Clipped" comment. BLongley 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thirst! by Charles Eric Maine

There's a listing in Locus #215 (October 1978) for your verified pub giving the publication date as July 1978. MHHutchins 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, change away! BLongley 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Louise Cooper's birthplace

Ashley has Cooper born in Barnet, Middlesex. Should the current data (Barnet, Hertfordshire) be changed? From what I could glean from Wikipedia, it is now part of North London, because of some redistricting in 1965. Or is that another Barnet? MHHutchins 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the same Barnet, and is now in London in a Borough of the same name. Depending on which bit of Barnet it was, it might have been in Hertfordshire for a while. Middlesex is the safest option as the Post Office still accept that as a Postal County even though Middlesex no longer exists. BLongley 12:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Variants...

Hey - Thanks for the support! - I didn't like making that one variant either. I waffled over whether to just change it in the unverified pub and be done with it (and I saw it just sitting there in the queue for so long... I figured someone else was waffling too). Feel free to tell me 'that's a silly edit' now or in the future... Who knows, I might have already been thinking the same thing. - Cheers - Kevin 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A title variation is easy to undo if we change our minds, it's pseudonyms that are almost impossible. I do edit unverified pubs at times particularly if I can spot a dodgy source - e.g. if a missing "The" prefix came from Amazon. But often you just have to leave it for Primary verification and hope people spot the variation. Which they obviously don't at times: see ISFDB:Repair_Variants_of_themselves. BLongley 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Zelazny Amber novels

When you get a chance, can you check the publisher/imprint of these two Zelazny novels: Knight of Shadows and Sign of Chaos. Both are showing AvoNova, an imprint that was created at the end of 1991. I think someone may have did some publisher merging and moved your verified copies to the wrong imprint. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 were wrong actually. Right imprint, wrong date. Adjusted back to what Locus says for them. (Strangely Locus know about the 1st and 6th printings but not the 2nd to 5th?) BLongley 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found that publishers won't send Locus copies of reprints unless there's been more than a year (or several) between them. For instance, a very popular novel (like an Amber novel) may get several printings in the first year. If Locus doesn't get a copy then it doesn't exist as far as Contento's database is concerned. The good thing is, Locus1 can be considered a verified listing of actual publications, and not just some editor's attempt at "filling in the gaps". MHHutchins 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the new covers were significant enough a change. I shall go back and add the Canadian prices now I've got the books out. BLongley 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And now I look at them I realise how little attention I pay to Coverart records. And Artist pseudonyms. And how little I actually care. :-/ Ah well, back to the Interzones for a bit. BLongley 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Discworld Companion Updated

I came across your verified The Discworld Companion Updated earlier tonight and noticed that there was something strange about it. Further digging revealed that it contains 2 Non-Fiction Titles, The Discworld A-Z (1997) and The Discworld Companion Updated. The first one is in the "Discworld Reference" series while the second one is not.

I assume that you originally entered The Discworld A-Z (1997) as Non-fiction because it takes up most of the book, but I wonder if perhaps we may want to change it to Essay or even delete it altogether since the current approach makes it appear on Pratchett's Summary page as a separate book? Ahasuerus 03:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I found 4 A-Zs in the end... changed all of them to essays but didn't merge them as they're different versions. There's probably a few more by now, but I stopped buying after 3 of them. There's probably one in here.BLongley 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ruins of Isis

I added cover art information and a note to this verified pub. Willem H. 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The cover art didn't seem to work ( [8] gets me nothing) so I uploaded my own scan - but thanks for the note, I'd totally missed that and it seems Don did too. BLongley 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Submissions changing your verified pubs

I've place on hold five submissions from ErnestoVeg who wants to add months to your verified pubs. I left a message on his talk page about adding secondary sources for non-stated dates. I'll leave those submissions for you to handle. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed: see the message above the one you left. I hope he's got a good Penguin checklist or something, I'd hate them to be Amazon dates. BLongley 18:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Brain World by Mack Reynolds

A listing in Locus #216 (November 1978) gives October 1978 as the publication date of this pub. MHHutchins 14:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, updated. BLongley 17:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jondelle - added prices/start page number

Afternoon!. This. [9] . I added the other prices on the back of the book, but I am worried about "Malta 55c" which is as printed, but I am unsure. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. I tend to leave "other prices" exactly as stated rather than try to derive other currency symbols for them, there's no point trying to regularise something that we can never programatically use. After a while you can spot a few patterns - e.g. Maltese and Irish prices under a pound should be slightly higher than the British ones, but Malta seems to have divided its pounds into cents rather than pence. Irish prices tend to start getting halfpenny problems in the 1970s and at the pound mark, Malta starts doing all sorts of weird things like "M£1.00c" (is that one Maltese pound or one Maltese cent?). And I never note that Australian prices are just recommended as that appears to be true for all of them. I could expand our currency help a bit more to explain 1960s Australian and New Zealand prices in shillings a bit better, and why dual prices appear, but I think it would frighten off anyone from entering British export publications. The one that really mystifies me is "East Africa". I'd like to know what prices like "7/25" mean, but it's not a major issue. BLongley 23:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I just dumped the prices on it because it seems the thing to do now days. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's always the possibility that a book gets reprinted just because one of the other prices changes, so we can use the information. Not seen that yet though. In my case, I find some books get the UK price obliterated by booksellers so people don't demand they pay that price at a second-hand bookshop decades later (I'd LOVE to buy all the classics at 2/6 or 3/6!) so need people to be sure they have the same edition so they can add info to my copies. (Maybe with their Aus or NZ prices blacked out for the same reasons.) BLongley 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Percy's Magic Greenhouse

I see that you rejected Mr. Percy's Magic Greenhouse since it was "[n]ot SF enough". Admittedly, the Amazon.com review isn't very helpful, but OCLC says that "[w]hen Mr. Percy and his dog enter their greenhouse they travel, after a few magic words, to a jungle full of wild animals and exotic plants". Would you say that "a few magic words" let this juvie squeeze in or do we kick it out into the cold, as it were? Ahasuerus 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, or I'd have let it in. Now if it had said "Venusian jungle", sure. I can wait till someone that's read it submits it. BLongley 17:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Through the Ages I

Doing a bit of cleaning on Mary Shelley's page I found "The Recalcitrant Robot", which I've discovered is an excerpt from Frankenstein. How is it credited in the book? Perhaps it should be dated 1818 and titled with a parenthetical appendix indicating it being an except? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the pub at the moment, my anthologies are in a bit of a mess. Ironic really, as I was working on "I. O. Evans Studies in the Philosophy & Criticism of Literature" when ISFDB went down for the first time this week. BLongley 22:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I got this one. It appears as THE RECALCITRANT ROBOT From Mary Shelley: Frankenstein Don Erikson 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Silverberg's Legends

I'm going to work on this pub from my copy and your verified pub is the only one of the partial issues of this book that is verified. All the current records for these pubs seem to have their stories in the same manner as they are listed in the table of contents of my copy, i.e. series name:story name (e.g. "The Dark Tower: The Little Sisters of Eluria"). In my copy (and continuing with the King example), there is a page with the series name and the author ("The Dark Tower: Stephen King"), followed by an essay about the series (without title and uncredited), followed by the story itself with its own title page "The Little Sisters of Eluria: Stephen King". I'd like to merge these stories to their titles without their series name as a prefix. I'd also add the introductions. Locus lists them by the series title and credits them to Silverberg. This seems to me to be a sensible way to enter them, taking the title of the introduction from title page that immediately precedes the essay. Ideally, I'd fix the titles of all of the partial issues by merging. Since this would affect your verified pub do you agree? Thanks. --Rtrace 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Space Movies

Can you check the spelling of the author of "The Conquest of Space" in this anthology? Most pubs have an "h" in the first name, as "Wernher von Braun". Thanks. MHHutchins 22:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no "h". And there's at least five areas it could have been used and wasn't. Pub updated, but I'm going to have to reconsider what constitutes "the" title page on this and return to it later. BLongley 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll let you handle any variant creation, etc. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Time Travelers Strictly Cash--Please compare yours to mine

Morning and Apologies! This. [10] . I just completed this and wonder if you would compare my notation to your ver copy. I am sorry that this is a pain. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Silver Stallion

I added price information and a note to your verified pub to match my copy. Thanks Willem H. 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I removed the "Price obscured" note though, as it obviously isn't on your copy. BLongley 22:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Damia

Added the month and artist to [[11]], month from Locus1 and the artist as my CDN copy has identical artwork. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Well at the World's End Volume Ii---bumping to you

Morning! This. [12] . I was going to merge the Lin Carter introduction. Mine says "About The Well at The World's End, and William Morris: The Road to the Well" in [13] . Your's is missing the darkened "the". I started to merge, but thought it better to check with you. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good spot, "the" added. BLongley 12:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Local ISFDB

If you get your local ISFDB working and are interested in trying the series changes, send mail to my marty-d alias on users.sourceforge.net. There's a bit of delay in its relay, but the messages seem to come through eventually. --MartyD 13:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Added price.

I added the price to your verified Panther edition of Silverberg's RECALLED TO LIFE, as your copy had the price obscured.Don Erikson 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It always annoys me that so many of my second-hand books have been slightly mutilated. BLongley 22:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Alien™ Resurrection-- Kathleen O'Malley?

Morning! This. [14] . In entering the U.S. printing my title page has "novelization by A. C. Crispin & Kathleen O'Malley". This is the only mention of her in the book, so I am checking with you about it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Kathleen O'Malley anywhere in it. BLongley 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alien: Resurrection

I just approved a submission that credits Crispin and Kathleen O'Malley as co-authors of the American edition. Can you check to see if O'Malley is credited on the title page of your verified copy of the UK edition? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

She isn't. BLongley 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaur Planet II: Survivors

Bluesman has submitted an edit to your verified pub Dinosaur Planet II: Survivors that has been sitting for 6 days adding a month of publication of February to the pub. I accepted the submission. Please re-edit if you have any objections. Thanks Kevin 00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Best of Sf 5

Could you check the Mayflower Dell catalogue # for [this] pub record? Both Currey and Contento have it as 0531. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Ninjas etc

I see that you rejected 5 American Chillers submissions by our friend Fixer the other day. Do you happen to remember how you determined that they were vaporware? The author, Johnathan Rand, has his own (small) publishing company and at first he wasn't carried by Amazon.com and other big boys. Eventually his Michigan series became popular and he was picked up by Amazon, but I suspect that some of his early books may not have left much of a trace and may look like vaporware at first glance. Ahasuerus 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No sign of them for sale on Amazon UK, Amazon US, no copies via OCLC or the usual sites Google throws up for an ISBN search (usually Abebooks or Alibris will have one for sale if they exist), and no mention of such editions on the Author's website. (Which isn't that good for editions really.) I found existing editions which did look plausible to complete the series, but from web-evidence alone I couldn't justify those five. Can you find such? BLongley 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As a related sideline - "South Carolina Sea Creatures" seems to match the pattern, but I'm sure one cover reads "South Carolina Sea Serpents". Did that ever exist? BLongley 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens! I'll poke around later tonight, thanks! Ahasuerus 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Make it "tomorrow night", too many other things going on tonight... Ahasuerus 04:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find South Carolina Sea Serpents and it doesn't match the established psedo-alliteration pattern, but there may have been a mis-titled pre-publication cover somewhere -- Amazon doesn't always replace them with correct covers. Oh well, I haven't found anything definite and it doesn't seem like an efficient way to spend our limited time budget, so we might as well drop it until anything new comes up. Ahasuerus 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

True, not a big problem, just an interesting side-line. BLongley 08:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes and additions to verified pubs

Bill, I've put 6 submissions on hold for you to look at, they either add an artist or make a name change to your verified pubs. Cheers!Kraang 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Most were OK - add obvious signature, changing short signature Melvyn to full name, I just can't see where he got Les Edwards from. BLongley 12:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put two more submissions by User:JLochhas that add cover artists to your verified pubs on hold for you to look at. -DES ^Talk 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto the 1971 Sphere edition of The World of Null-A. Ahasuerus 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Others held for you:

• Sub 1168996 for the 1982 Sphere Deus Irae. On this one JLochhas states: "Artist confirmed via his web site." -DES ^Talk 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Sub 1169000, Jizzle (NEL ed). No helpful note this time.
• Sub 1169002 The Small Assassin 1973 Dello ed.

Let me know is you want me to keep handling thse as I have been. -DES ^Talk 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please hold them for me. Learning where certain people hide sigs is good practice. BLongley 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you wnat these still held for you, now that JLochhas has provided sources on hisn talk page? -DES ^Talk 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Behold the Stars - added notation and interior art

Afternoon! This. [15] . I added a notation this. ""First printed by Ace Books, Inc" on copyright page. This apparently means they copied the Ace material and format. The small illustration on page 5 is signed "Jg" for Jack Gaughan and is the same as in the "M-131" Ace edition on page 5." I have both editions and it is obvious that Priory used the Ace material. I hope this is a 'correct' type of notation. Going to leave same note with Kraang. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK. I wonder if Priory did this a lot? BLongley 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Darfsteller

Replaced a broken link with a new image for [[16]] Really cool cover! --Bluesman 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Artist Credits

Bill, I've added references for most of my edits on my discussion page. --User:JLochhas 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

RlCalvin SFRA entries

Did you clean some of these up? I placed a note to RlCalvin on the magazine wiki page in hopes that we can get his attention.--swfritter 20:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did the ones back to #277. It might be simpler to reject one of the smaller ones with a link to his talkpage to get his attention, that seemed to work with JLochhas. BLongley 20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one that has only one review. I'll try that one. Thanks.--swfritter 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

SFRA issues and a little weirdness

How does this look as a standard for entering these? Note the $0.00 price and the information in the notes about publication months and availability. I will also be changing months from like "Oct/Nov/Dec" wherever they appear to like "Oct-Nov-Dec" wherever they appear in order to adhere to our standards. I actually kind of wish the standard were the former. That seems to me the more common way they are printed in this mag and elsewhere. "A4" is not on our binding list but this is a standard that many editors/moderators are ignoring. Also, try opening the pub in edit mode and let me know if you see something a little, actually a lot, weird. I have no idea why that Anthology line is showing up.--swfritter 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. The "Anthology" line is normal - that's the default for an empty "Content" section. It's needed as all the existing contents are reviews. BLongley 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I wanted to blame a programmer for something. I will soldier on with the other submissions.--swfritter 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am kind of waiting for more input from RlCalvin to make sure he is happy with the way they are being done. I am thinking about listing the issue plus months in the magazine grid as I have done [17]. Weird thing, there is Winter 2008 issue at the end of the year and a Winter 2009 issue at the beginning of the year. Consecutive Winter issues!!! If I had realized how many of these you had already worked on I probably would have left them for you. But I'd rather see you programming.--swfritter 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happier if RlCalvin gets them right first time, they're a pain to fix, hence my suggestions for improvements to editing such. I know DES has raised other issues with such though, which makes programming changes a bit more difficult (there's nothing more frustrating than completely opposite sets of requirements from users). Still, DES has reminded us that there's a long list of feature requests that haven't yet been transferred to Sourceforge so I'm sure I can find something in there to work on that won't cause too much controversy, when I feel in a programming mood. My ISFDB work (off or online) does tend to be the opposite of what I do for a living, so sometimes I get away from a day of hard design and/or coding to do some mindless editing (fix "unk" bindings or transfer one website's data to here) and other times I get back from a day of meetings that are 90-100% irrelevant to my job and want to do some coding. BLongley 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from RLCalvin yet. If you like my idea of using both both issue # and months in the wiki launcher I will approve the rest of them. It is easier to visually recognize which titles go with which link. Maybe he will enjoy the challenge of cleaning them up. As far as I am concerned you can prioritize your own pet peeves since you are doing the coding. As for work, I'm sure the marketing department would appreciate your input.--swfritter 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"issue # and months" looks good to me, go for it. I'm glad RLCalvin has paper issues, it saves me finding mine. (If/when I do though, I'll double-check them and add another verification.) BLongley 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'd quite like to see you freed from moderating and/or editing for a while and doing some testing. Some of the improvements are so good (IMHO) that I'm actually using the proposed software changes and a slightly out-of-date backup of the data to find things that need fixing on the live database. Are you close to getting a local ISFDB working? BLongley 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I had just changed one of my laptops over to Linux because the most complete instructions were for that platform. Now I can't get it back to Windows XP because one of the recovery CD's is apparently damaged. So I may still try to get it going in Linux. Apache and Mysql are automatically installed so I have to figure out where they are in order to adjust the directory paths. Or I might give it a real shot on my Windows 7 machine.--swfritter 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The more platforms we can give instructions for the better. I keep intending to resurrect another old PC to act as an ISFDB server and never get round to it. MartyD got me encouraged enough to try it on my main PC. I should try it on others though - it's not as though I have a shortage of such. One of my past OCD-style hobbies had me running SETI on 12 PCs with about 6 different OS combinations and cables going everywhere between spare bedrooms. I'm better now. (Well, not that much better - I'm only running one PC now, but am only awake at the moment as I've been sneezing blood, which is not a good sign of general health.) BLongley 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

More Penguin SF

The name of the artist is different between the field and the notes in [this] pub. Have a feeling the note spelling is correct. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be transliterated either way. The pub actually only uses the surname. BLongley 17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Flandry of Terra

Two pubs, [this] and [this], both stating sixth printing yet different ISBNs? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. BLongley 17:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

50,000 edits and counting

When Don Erikson mentioned his passing the 10,000 edit point, I checked the list and saw that you recently passed 50,000. So congratulations are in order. Looking forward to the next 50,000! (Hopefully all of your software updates will be implemented before that point!) MHHutchins 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: I think it must have been Fixing Fixer's submissions that did it, I don't feel like I've entered much myself recently. I'm not buying as many books as I used to: I think I've exhausted all the charity shops within 20 miles. :-/ BLongley 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to move? - Congrats. Kevin 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or change the radius! Ahasuerus 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a town in Wales that's one giant book store, you could move there :-/Kraang 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hay-on-Wye. I've carried several hundred books away from there, I'm not carrying them back! BLongley 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's name is as long as a book..... ;-) Congrats! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, the Welsh name is shorter. Y-Gelli. BLongley 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If I ever get to the other side of the pond.... I just know I'll have to buy more luggage just to get the books home. (Actually that almost happened in Texas 3 months ago.... A second piece of cheap luggage would have been cheaper than the overweight bag charges on the airplane) Kevin 02:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Two words - "surface mail" :) Ahasuerus 02:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

SFRA issues in

Yuk! I think the the 2008 Quarterly issues could be legitimately given the same months as the issues in the same column as the previous year although magazine dates pretty much seem to freak everybody out when there is no actual date stated. Even those that have a month listed can be way off. Note in 2002 there are issues dated Sep-Dec and Nov-Dec. According to the notes in the Nov-Dec 2002 PDF the issue was actually published substantially into the year 2003. Also, there is an error on their web page which would lead one to believe that there are two Winter 2008 issues. Not so. The second "Winter" issue is actually dated "Fall" in the pub. I will leave a note on the submitter page and see how much of this he wants to clean up.--swfritter 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember why I retired

The formerly shaky Vista machine is now the currently shaky Windows 7 machine. It's possibly the hard drive that is causing the problems but it could be some other circuit problem that is trashing data. No more Lenovo machines for me. I have constantly had problems with it. After four hard resets on my primary, but getting old, machine I am not about to try to install Apache there again. Who knows but what the recovery disks for that will fail like they did for the machine on which I installed Linux. So the Linux looks like my only option; my oldest machine; starved for memory and processing power. Maybe next week. Oh, by the way, how do you actually launch isfdb once everything is installed and the make has been done? I have no idea if the things I tried were right since my machine is so flaky. You know you are in trouble when you right click on a folder and Explorer crashes.--swfritter 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You go to http://127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/index.cgi BLongley 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it going fairly quickly on my linux machine. The only problem, I don't seem to stay logged in. I get a message saying I am logged in but the rest of the system does not agree. Note to self; don't forget to use SU to log in as supervisor when doing install.--swfritter 00:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like the "localhost" problem described on the Windows installation page:

NOTE: Do not use "localhost" for HTMLLOC and HTMLHOST. Doing so causes IE7 (and possibly other browsers) to decide to ignore the cookies delivered by the ISFDB software when you log in. Using "localhost" will result in the login's succeeding but then your still being in a "not logged in" state.

Ahasuerus 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Domain-less host names (i.e., "localhost") do not get the cookies sent back to them. You need either an IP address (e.g., 127.0.0.1) or a domain or fully qualified host name (foo.com or foo.bar.com). So while http://localhost/cgi-bin/index.cgi and http://127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/index.cgi are equivalent, the browsers will not send cookies back on the former. --MartyD 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was pointed to a non-existent HTML in INSTALLDIRS. So much easier to install in Linux. Thanks. Now where was that code I wanted to change?--swfritter 18:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you file a bug or fix report? Here or at Sourceforge? I'm currently trying to tidy up the things I've fixed or added, and I see DES is busy moving open Feature requests from here to there. There may be some wiki clashes for a bit, but if you can recall something about it either of us may recall where it was. If you didn't report it but recall which screen it occurred on, I can help find the right module. Usually. BLongley 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Day of Forever

Added a note to [this] from Currey indicating contents change from the first Panther edition '67. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Eando Binder

Noticed this:

Menace of the Saucers

Correct cover? Only I notice it says "Eando Binder" rather than by "Earl Binder" and "Otto Binder" as you list it. BLongley 15:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The cover is as shown in the image, i.e., Eando Binder.--Dsorgen 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if the authors internally don't match the authors on the cover it's probably worth a note to say so. We don't yet actually have a publication with "Eando Binder" on the title page it seems. If all versions actually list Earl and Otto as separate authors on the title page then we can remove the variant. BLongley 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

on User:Dsorgen's talk page. I have two, including the one above, pubs that have Eando Binder on the title page. The other one is "Secret of the Red Spot", Curtis 502-07163-075 [this] record. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also very possible that the book is by Otto only. It might depend upon whether the book is based upon earlier source material and how that source material is credited in the ISFDB. If it is not based upon earlier source material then Otto is probably the only author. The magazine entries are pretty well straightened out but I could not find data for the later novels.--swfritter 01:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have the verified version wrong then, and it should be under the Eando name. BLongley 12:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Escape Velocity

Bill, I put this on hold, it looks like Don meant to clone it but instead overwrote some of your data. You can clone and verify your original then approve it.Kraang 01:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

... and unverify Don's version. Done. BLongley 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh! I did it again? I've been trying to be more careful regarding this type of screw-up, even trying to develop little rituals of checking & double checkinq. I'm trying, Honest! Don Erikson 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, we seem to be catching them. There's various feature requests in place to make it more obvious what you're doing, show when something's gone wrong, allow you to delete duff submissions without a mod's help, and even resubmitting the good bits of a bad submission. We can't promise them all soon though. BLongley 00:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

SFRA editor series up to date

And we haven't heard from RLCalvin. Because we did not get a communication from him until after I started processing submissions I did not realize he was using an existing pub as an example. My use of $0.00 as a price was based on this Project Gutenberg discussion and the huge number of records that use the $0.00 convention. The issue was actually unresolved and the official standard as stated is here. Since there is no standard I can change them to "N/A" if you think that is appropriate. The other issue is the ISSN number, another unresolved issue with entries as I have done them and also in the system as #ISSN: NNNN-NNNN and ISSN: #NNNN-NNNN. I think it is important to have the ISSN in there somewhere.--swfritter 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"N/A" seems appropriate as you can't actually buy it. But I'm not bothered if it's $0.00, as the currency seems appropriate. I just don't like "missing price" warnings. BLongley 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree "1068-395X" is worth recording but if it never changes then that seems to be more appropriate for the Wiki page rather than repeating on each issue. But I don't like missing Catalog ID warnings either. The one that's entered as "ISBN: 1068-395X" should be changed though. But there seems no need to enter "ISSN:" or "#ISSN", the number alone doesn't trigger warnings as it's too short to be confused with an ISBN-10 or ISBN-13. BLongley 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are still a lot of missing dates at publication level, are you going to be fixing those? BLongley 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan. Thanks. Although you can't buy it, you can access it for free as a PDF. That won't be true for the earlier issues if they get entered. --swfritter 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for entering "ISSN" would be IMO to facilitate a google search for "ISSN 1068-395X". -DES ^Talk 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be more reason to put it on the magazine wiki page instead or as well. Our search results are more part of the deep Web and Google doesn't find them easily. BLongley 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I've found someone that seems to want to search us by ISSN, so a standard would be good. BLongley 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Either ISSN NNNN-NNNN or ISSN: NNNN-NNNN is alright with me. Entering a "#" anywhere other than as #ISSN NNNN-NNNN would cause search problems. "#", in any case, seems unnecessary to use at all. The last discussion was here.--swfritter 17:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

SQL Help - Searching Cover art URLS

Bill - I'm a complete newbie when it comes to working with SQL on a command line interface. Two questions... Could you point me at a simple primer on SQL, and in the mean time till I get myself up to speed, could you give me an SQL Query to find 'string' in the cover art URL field, and report back the first 10 or so publication tags that have that string? (If I'm asking fof something complex... just let me know and I will find another way). Thanks! Kevin 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

select p.pub_tag from pubs p
where p.pub_frontimage LIKE '%string%'
LIMIT 10

http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/tutorials/sql/ looks like a MySQL primer, but I've never used one. BLongley 18:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I also found http://www.1keydata.com/sql/sql.html which also seems to be on my 'See dick run' level. Now we're cooking with gas! Kevin 18:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing SFRA a year a day

I will also be linking reviews and removing ISSN numbers. I must admit a little trepidation. See the review for Falling Stars in this issue. The reviewer is as credited in the PDF and I assume the paper version. Pseudonym time.--swfritter 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove ISSNs unless you first record them on Magazine:SFRA Review or somewhere else that links to the pub records. I really don't see a good reason to remove them even so. They are printed in the publication, after all. -DES ^Talk 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could easily develop a Navbar link to Worldcat's ISSN service for pubs with ISSNs recorded in a standard format, if we want to keep them in the pub. But those could just as easily be recorded in the Magazine Wiki page. But if we want them in the database proper then there's not really a place to put them yet - at best, add them to EDITOR records? BLongley 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Until and unless code changes to make a particular place for them are created, there are only a few choices:

1. Put them in the ISBN fields of pub records. This makes them easier to search on, and exposes them too Google, when it spiders pub records, but is repetitive since usually each pub record will have the same number, and adds a third use to this field.
2. Put them in the notes section of pub records. This has the disadvantages of 1, but fewer advantages, albeit it does not pollute the field usage.
3. Put them on the proper magazine wiki page. This also exposes the ISSN to Google searches, and the wiki page should normally link to all relevant pub records, so this seems sufficient.
4. Put them in notes in the EDITOR record. I am not at all sure that Google spiders these, so I think this has less value than any of the other options.
5. Don't record them at all. I don't think this is acceptable.

Personally i would prefer 1, but 3 is perfectly acceptable to me, and there are arguments for it. But I don't think 1 should be un-implemented without implementing 3 or an equally acceptable solution. -DES ^Talk 21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I had planned on adding ISSN to the Magazine Template page which will be incorporated with this mag's wiki. Since there is only one ISSN per magazine that will not be a lot of work. The only problem may be determining which issue was the first to have an ISSN. There is still a great deal of work for some volunteer to do on these magazines; only the fantastic fiction reviews have been entered. Definitely still under construction. My own final feeling on using it in the Catalog ID field: #ISSN NNNN-NNNN looks dumb, #NNNN-NNNN does not indicate that it is an ISSN; there are technical issues involved with not using "#" and the issue is not significant enough to warrant code changes.--swfritter 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"...there is only one ISSN per magazine." Actually, ISSNs change when a periodical is purchased by another publisher. For example, the ISSN for F&SF changed when Spilogale purchased it from Mercury Press, and that of Asimov's changed when Dell bought it from Davis. MHHutchins 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's not usually frequent changes though, and such changes could still be more easily noted at higher level than putting it on every issue. Another reason to change ISSNs is apparently if it's published in a different medium or language. I'm not interested enough to check whether current SF magazines have different ISSNs for paper and electronic versions, or foreign language versions. I've just noticed Dragon Magazine changed from an ISBN to an ISSN around 1998/1999 but that may be because some have been back-entered from electronic versions, in which case they may not be accurately representing the paper versions. Which could be an argument to support cloning of magazines so the electronic and paper versions are more easily entered, or to fix entries so that one or other catalog/ISSN/ISBN number is demoted to notes. Not something I'm especially interested in doing, so if somebody cares to remove this from my talk page and put it somewhere else feel free. BLongley 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW should there be a note somewhere to remind editors setting up new magazine pages of the existence of {{Magazine}}? Perhaps on Magazines? -DES ^Talk 23:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I was doing the old cut and paste (and remove data) trick for a year before I found the template. MHHutchins 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly replace the Test Area which has been there for more than a year? I think Al must be done with that by now. It would also be nice if we had some way of honoring Al for doing so much to put the ISFDB together in the first place.--swfritter 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. See Magazines#Creating a new magazine wiki page. -DES ^Talk 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not let them 'bug' you

Take care to bite them back. Hope you feel better soon. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Feeling better? Just be thankful you aren't the one who had to make Steven H. Silver a pseudonym of Steven H Silver.--swfritter 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find that when the ichor coming out of the body turns dark blue, it's a sure sign that it's time to go see a specialist. Don't neglect them, that's what they are there for! Ahasuerus 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The ichor is still colourless. Doctor's and Hospital appointments lined up for Tuesday, if I need them. I've found some non-controversial medicines that seem to help in the meantime, but I'm not doing anything complicated at the moment as I'm still woozy. BLongley 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hospital, Doctor, Pharmacy, and another Hospital visit accomplished. (I thought I'd make a day of it.) No benefit from any of those that I can see, unless it turns out the pills are keeping me this way. No ichor anymore, brain back to near normal. Body still decrepit, but good for another month unless test results show up anything severe. BLongley 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like progress, but do take it easy for a while. I don't know if they have any spare bodies available for sale in England, but they have run out on this side of the pond. Ahasuerus 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Exiles Trilogy

[This] has the artist as Eggleton, yet the first printing with the same image credits Chaffee. That pub is not verified. I'm sure yours is correct, but don't want to change the field for the first printing without confirmation. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going book-hunting till healthier, that one isn't in the obvious place and it looks like I'm keeping another version. So that one will take a bit more time, if I haven't swapped it already. BLongley 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping -- Google

When you have a chance, please take a look at User talk:DESiegel60#Google and let me know if I am understanding your desires well. I have crested {{PubHeader}} to help link publication pages back to the proper db record displays -- do you think this a good idea? -DES ^Talk 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kev has my original idea right, some templates may help in keeping the URL construction easier. BLongley 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Test case for Feature 2795822?

Would you happen to have a test case for Feature 2795822 handy? Something that I could run on the live server and then on my local server and say "Yup, it sure is different"? Ahasuerus 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pub Tag "DCTRWHNDT22222222223333333371979" would be the obvious, but any "Doctor Who and the <FITB>" with similar titles in the same year should do. Remember to clean up the test cases on the live server! BLongley 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Josh Kirby

There's an excellent sire referencing Josh Kirby bookcovers: http://www.ansible.co.uk/misc/joshlist.html Made the amendment for the following book(s):

• SF The Best of the Best Part Two
• SF The Best of Kuttner 1
• A Century Of Great Short Science Fiction Novels
• The Reproductive System

-JLochhas 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits accepted, but I've clarified the wording to "Cover artist credit from http://www.ansible.co.uk/misc/joshlist.html" to show that only that piece of information came from there, the rest is from the actual book. BLongley 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nasty dispute

Please look at this comment, my response and the whole discussion if you would. Was I really out of line here? I feel attacked for simply raising an issue of concern in what I thought was the proper forum, and stating my views as clearly as i knew how, without, i thought, any personal attacks whatsoever. Your views would be welcome. -DES ^Talk 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Too long-winded for me to look at right now. When someone goes off on a rant like that, I leave it a day. And try and keep responses shorter. Unfortunately we have enough mods at the moment that someone may try and clear the queue without seeing a discussion going on, it looks like swfritter may be dragged in as vindication of whatever it is that Harry was on about. It may be that we don't want just "HOLD" and "FLAG for another particular mod's attention", maybe a "WARNING - under discussion" feature. BLongley 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lord Tedric #2

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub to match my copy. Thanks Willem H. 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, good spot. BLongley 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Series Fiction Display Bug?

Take a look at Isaac Asimov and his Black Widowers Series. Some of the items appear at the top in 'Fiction Series', and some of the items appear below in 'Short Fiction Series', while all appear in the series list which displays the series only. I think this is new behavior from either one of the first three changes. I'm also pointed this problem out to Marty as I think you both were doing various updates to series displays and short fiction displays. Kevin 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We have 2 different Series records with the same name, "Black Widowers": 14561 and 9353. It's always been an issue since the software doesn't do a good job of preventing editors from creating duplicate Series name (via renaming etc), but it's easier to spot now that Short Fiction Series display logic has been added. Ahasuerus 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But it seems that the series display for either shows the combined contents of both. -DES ^Talk 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, so it does. It looks like something is off in the display logic and we will need to investigate it, but we also need to create a bug report re: two different series using the same series name. I thought I created it a few years ago, but I am not sure it's still around. (Ditto duplicate Author names, which are even more pernicious). Ahasuerus 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

re display logic: You can even display series by name: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?Black Widowers. It is, however, using series id to find subseries, so you may be missing some subseries (i.e. it is not really combined contents). --Roglo 07:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd fixed all of these a while back. In any case it's easy to fix.Kraang 03:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit and give Marty and Bill a chance to review them :) Ahasuerus 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Author Bibliography display is correct. As noted above, there are two series with the same name, and it is displaying them as they should be. There is a bug in the Series Bibliography display, causing the attempt to view either series to show the combined contents of both. The code supporting that display is using the series title to construct the list, rather than the ID. It looks like it was always doing this, and you notice now because the short fiction series entry on the author bibliography was not being displayed before (its contents would have been among the Short Fiction titles). This is an instance of the "lexical match" problem, where names are used. It is a little bit like bug 174327, where two author records with the same name cause various problems. BTW, here's a list of duplicated series titles:

1992	Battletech(current)
22625	Battletech(renamed)
9353	Black Widowers(current)
14561	Black Widowers(renamed)
25398	Creepers / TINOTS, The International Network Of The Supernatural(current)
25399	Creepers / TINOTS, The International Network Of The Supernatural(renamed)
6993	Cutler Family(current)
6995	Cutler Family(renamed)
12047	Forgotten Realms: Nobles(current)
16921	Forgotten Realms: Nobles(renamed)
20045	If(current)
22525	If(renamed)
928	Jerry Cornelius(current)
25379	Jerry Cornelius(renamed)
13201	Peter Pan(current)
23337	Peter Pan(renamed "Formerly Peter Pan - to be reused") 
24733	Rod McBan(current)
24734	Rod McBan(renamed)
1488	The Avengers(current)
24306	The Avengers(renamed)
21117	The Dissecting Table (Book Reviews - Science Fiction Adventures(renamed) 
21121	The Dissecting Table (Book Reviews - Science Fiction Adventures(renamed) 
5100	The Empires Trilogy(current)
12155	The Empires Trilogy(renamed)
1640	The Next Wave(current)
4330	The Next Wave(renamed)
12661	The Sangreal Trilogy(current)
12671	The Sangreal Trilogy(renamed)
11679	Wizards, Warriors and You(current)
16611	Wizards, Warriors and You(renamed)
20757	Year's Best Australian Science Fiction & Fantasy(current)
24878	Year's Best Australian Science Fiction & Fantasy(renamed)

aside from the "to be reused", et al, duplications. There are also quite a few series with blank titles; I don't know what that means. --MartyD 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was someone clearing a series for reuse/deletion. I have just logged Feature 2807744 which if implemented would help prevent any more such duplicates from arising. -DES ^Talk 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a Bug report against the ability to create blank series titles too. The only way to find them online is to search for '%' (i.e. all of them) and fortunately the blank ones are first. You shouldn't have to hammer the server that way to find them, and I don't think it's wise to allow such anyway - even if they only lead to an extra bullet point in the parent's display. BLongley 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The ones we have seem to be empty child series, so maybe somebody thinks that blanking them out will cause them to be deleted. BLongley 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I recall that a few editors were using blanking to (attempt to) delete Series and I had to explain that it wouldn't work. We have only 20ish No Name Series, so I doubt that it's something that a moderator is doing. Definitely needs a Bug report, though. Ahasuerus 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I fixed (well, moved to "delete/reuse" type names anyway) all the blank series titles I found a month or so ago. So 20 new appearances suggests I was either working from a very old backup, or a moderator is at least approving such changes, if not creating them. BLongley 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, let me install the latest full backup, which includes the "submissions" table and see whether I can find who has been entering/approving Series with empty name fields. Ahasuerus 01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see 6 "noname" Series submissions by Chris J and 1 by Bob Hall in 2008-2009. The rest were done in 2007 and some of them look like the submitter was experimenting. We may want to leave a note on Chris' and Bob's Talk pages with a reminder about Series names. Ahasuerus 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My backup is not the newest, so it is not necessarily the case that they are still present. Guess it's time to import a more current backup. --MartyD 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See FR #2807944 (Prevent series name blanking). -DES ^Talk 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have a minor disagreement over "Bug" versus "Feature Request". Not a problem so long as somebody is on top of them all, finding and deleting duplicates etc. I know I'm not though - I don't think I'm even keeping up on discussions here, I certainly haven't had time to fix any code recently and even some suggestions on design are just getting thrown into the ring. Are we in need of the "Project Manager" role (technical skills not required, ISFDB user experience essential) now? BLongley 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My standard was "we're asking the application to do something new, not fix the way it does something existing, even if the something new is just to prevent a problem" so i saw it as a feature request. Taht is more or less the standard i use at work, where I create and respond to both feature requests and "defect reports" (i.e. bugs). If that really bothers anyone else, it is easy enough to create a new SF bug, copy the text, and close the FR. -DES ^Talk 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to close anything - bugs and feature requests live in the same Sourceforge table, so you can easily convert one type to the other by changing categorization :-) Ahasuerus 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'd see it as "the application is creating something that shouldn't exist, so it's a bug." Not a major difference here so long as we record all the things that need looking at. At work, I have to separate bugs from feature requests as one goes under "OPEX" and the other under "CAPEX". (Fixing broken stuff is Operational Expenditure and adds no overall value, adding new functionality is Capital Expenditure and results in improved asset values for the software.) Of course, they don't make it that simple and all "defect reports" can be reclassified as one or the other, and "development requests" or "projects" or "programmes" may actually only address a defect. BLongley 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Ahasuerus has effectively been playing project manager, in a low key way. (I have patrolled for and marked duplicate features at least.) If he doesn't want that load, somebody else probably needs to take it on. I probably have the skills, but maybe not the time consistently enough, and I am perhaps too strongly opinionated to take the role. -DES ^Talk 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Ahasuerus isn't the project manager, we don't have one. He is the overworked tester and implementer of changes (whether for Bugs or Feature Requests). He is the current essential bottle-neck to make sure we don't implement anything harmful. ("Configuration Manager" and the entire "Pre-Production Test Team" roles if we're comparing here to work.) Managing stuff before it gets to that stage is the sort of thing I'm looking at - we're all volunteers here so there's not going to be any "you WILL work on this" commandments, but someone to at least make sure that people aren't working against each other, or in different directions because one feature disagrees with another, would be good. We definitely don't want someone to enforce opinions on such though, and we need someone with the time to review things for the "big picture" in the long term while allowing small changes through. Sorry, I don't think you're the man for that, I'd rather have you be the balancing view to mine for instance. (Although we seem to agree on too much recently - so we probably need an even more neutral manager.) BLongley 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, we are still working on the "low hanging" fruit and learning the ropes, so most of our changes have no conflicts with other concurrent (or projected) changes. As we start tackling bigger challenges, especially the kinds of design changes that affect database layout and multiple Python scripts, we will need someone coordinating them. I suspect that, given the tools that we are using and the kinds of problems that we are trying to address, Marty is our most experienced developer, so he may end up doing some of this coordination.

As far Bill's point about me being overworked goes, unfortunately it's true, e.g. I'd love to finish testing r2009-04 tonight, but I am all out of juice (and Aspirin) :-( Do we have any testing volunteers with a working system? DO we need to raise this issue on the Development page? Ahasuerus 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It kind of felt like you were taking the lead in testing, since you were shepherding the order of applying the changes. I'm running 'unstable' on my development box, meaning whatever is live on sourceforge, is live on my box. Let me know if you want me to test any particular feature. Kevin 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I expect that I will continue selecting the changes (bug fixes and features) that will go into the next patch and I will also continue putting patches together by tagging script revisions on Sourceforge, but I originally thought that we would have more volunteer testers who would help with testing. Here is the technical stuff:

If an editor wants to be able to test upcoming patches, first he needs to recreate our software as it existed on January 1, i.e. run "cvs co -D 2009-01-01 -P isfdb2". He would then have to get the patches that have already been installed on the live server -- which at this time means r2009-01, r2009-02, and r2009-03 in that order -- by running "cvs export -r r2009-01 -d directory isfdb2", where "directory" is the top level directory where the ISFDB software resides on your local server. Note: I always download all patches to a separate subdirectory tree, check everything there and then move them to the main ISFDB directory using tar/untar, but the method above should also work. You will then need to run "make -B install" to apply the changes to the CGI areas. You can then use the same logic to download and install the patch that is currently being tested, in this case r2009-04.

Keep in mind that it is important to download complete patches. Selecting just the scripts that address the bug fixes and features that you will be testing on Sourceforge may cause problems. However, once a patch has been downloaded and installed, the tester only has to test the bugs/features that he signed up for on the Development page (see the process section on the Development page.) Ahasuerus 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindented)If no one disagrees I'll fix these duplicates tonight.Kraang 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for taking the time to look at what I thought was a bug, but really just an old data problem. Kevin 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Purloined Planet/Evil Men Do

Scanned in a new image for [this] and added some notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Series deletion

Bill I saw the blank series submissions and did one myself and it removed the series title. Was this part of the fixes? I tried this awhile back and it didn't work, now it does. Thanks!Kraang 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Entry to Elsewhen

Added an image to replace a broken link for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Schillings and Sixpence for your thoughts

How should the above amount from this pub be entered. —The preceding unsigned comment added by Swfritter (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 June 2009

Wouldn't that be "2/6" according to Help:Screen:EditPub#Price? -DES ^Talk 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill is quicker.--swfritter 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not when he is overheated. :) -DES ^Talk 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2/6 is correct. BLongley 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Garden of Unearthly Delights

No problems. Thanks for finding and entering your copy. I stumbled on some references to it here and have greatly enjoyed it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Advanced searches

Now that r2009-07 is out, I am trying to see which Advance Search fixes we can release in r2009-08. I have installed edit/aa_search.py 1.5, edit/pa_search.py 1.5 and edit/ta_search.py 1.4 locally and played with them for a bit.

Page count and price searches are fast, almost instantaneous, so they are ready to go. Publisher searches take a few seconds, but the delay is not too bad. On the other hand, Cover artist and Back Cover artist (not that we have more than a few) searches take a long time (30 seconds to 1+ minute) and are probably not ready for prime time. Do you think you could comment out the code for these two types of searches and replace it with a canned message, e.g. "(Back) Cover Artist searches currently disabled for performance reasons"? We could then close this Bug and create a Feature Request to add the missing functionality when we figure out a way to do it gracefully. Ahasuerus 03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

edit/pp_search.py 1.5 committed to disable Cover artist searches. BLongley 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when I search on "Price = $1.00", I get more than 2 pages worth of results. The link to the second page reads 127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/edit/pa_search.cgi?pub_price=$1.00+record=100, which works fine, but the link from the second page to the third page reads 127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/edit/pa_search.cgi?pub_price=\$1.00+record=200 which is apparently broken due to the extra backslash in the URL. Could you please take a look when you get a chance? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, works for "Price = L4.99" though. I think something's trying to escape the "$" character. Not sure what though - and it's not working at all for "£". BLongley 12:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like sys.argv has an additional leading backslash if there is a leading dollar sign. The following code seems to have fixed the problem:

			if entry.startswith('\\'):
                               entry = entry.replace('\\',,1)

I'll investigate "£" next. Ahasuerus 17:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A search on "Price=£3.99" generated the following query:

select pubs.* from pubs where pubs.pub_price='\xa33.99' order by pubs.pub_title limit 100

which suggests that this may be a Unicode problem. Will keep digging - might as well teach myself a bit more Python :) Ahasuerus 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that the culprit is "repr" in escape_quotes in isfdblib.py. Here is what happens:

str = '  £3.99  '
print str
  £3.99  
print repr(str)
'  \xa33.99  '

Apparently, this behavior was changed in a recent (2008) Python 3.0 patch, but there is no way to change Python 2.x because 2.x's strings are non-Unicode and because of backward compatibility concerns. The next question, then, is what does "repr" do for us that makes it required in this case? According to the documentation, it "[r]eturn a string containing a printable representation of an object. This is the same value yielded by conversions (reverse quotes)." A little experimentation suggests that it preserves substrings like "\t" and "\n" which would be otherwise converted to non-printable characters. This is nice, but (a) is it really valuable in our world and (b) can we accomplish the same thing using some other method that doesn't destroy Unicode characters?

P.S. Copied to Talk:Development. Ahasuerus 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This Crowded Earth: Not quite a novel

In your verified pub. The Project Gutenberg version puts the word count at 38k words. Which means novella. This book probably should not have been classified as an omnibus in the first place since the story never had a previous independent book publication. I at first fudged since it was so close and added the LibriVox edition as a novel and changed the Project Gutenberg from a chapterbook. But I should probably do it all correctly.--swfritter 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It might have been made Omnibus under the "Double" exceptions, but this isn't dos-a-dos. And maybe This Crowded Earth stayed as novel as it's 103 pages. (Cover claims both as novels but even I couldn't justify the other.) I'm fine if it becomes a Collection. BLongley 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All Fools' Day

When you get a chance, could you please review this discussion? TIA! Ahasuerus 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rork!

Added a cover image and notes to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Eden Cycle

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks Willem H. 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Add links to submitter's talk page"

I have tested Feature 2807731, "Add links to submitter's talk page", and although the new functionality looks good, it exposed a pre-existing problem (which your code inherited and built upon) with the User links pointing to isfdb.org rather than to the local version of the database. Could you please adjust them when you get a chance? Ahasuerus 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen to adjust those as I can't test them - I don't have a local Wiki setup, but I can be sure about links to the correct live Wiki. BLongley 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is copy the links from the main Submissions page and I'll test them here. I don't have a full Wiki install either, but manually replacing 127.0.0.1 with "www.isfdb.org" in the URL seems to do the trick :) Ahasuerus 20:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see this being a major issue unless there's an imminent move away from the isfdb.org domain name for us? Even if people are using our software as well as our data for other sites, I'm sure they won't want to replicate our user's wiki pages as well? (In fact, I hope they wouldn't even want to attempt such.) BLongley 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If we do want to develop functionality that allows other users of our software to link to their wiki pages, then we should have a nice standard name in "common/localdefs.py" for all the possible Wiki site references. But as it doesn't benefit us here, I've no intention of working on such. BLongley 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we want our testers and developers who have access to a full Wiki install to be able to test the software locally, which requires re-pointing URLs to the local copy. Besides, we already have some URLs behave that way and we want to keep all Python scripts synchronized. It's not a big deal, I can make the changes quickly once I get over my bug :) Ahasuerus 03:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any testers and developers with a full wiki install. But so long as you don't break it for those of us that don't, feel free. BLongley 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Marty has a full Wiki install integrated with the ISFDB database and he has been using it to develop and test Wiki-related changes. Those of us who do not have a full Wiki install should not be affected since the changed URLs (like "User" and "Talk") will be re-pointed from www.isfdb.org to 127.0.0.1: the former is invalid for a locally set up database and the latter is a "no-op". I believe we discussed these issues a few weeks ago and went with the 127.0.0.1 approach, which is why the new URLs on the main moderator page (http://127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/mod/list.cgi?N) point to 127.0.0.1. Ahasuerus 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, for those of us that don't have or want a local wiki setup, we should be able to point at the live ISFDB wiki. I don't think the localdefs are set-up to allow that yet, so should be part of your change. Otherwise, you will be breaking it for me. Testing with local Database and public Wiki is a valid setup that I've used usefully in the past. BLongley 19:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you actually use the www.isfdb.org/wiki links during development! But I am not sure I understand how having them point to www.isfdb.org helps, though. Do you just use them as placeholders to make sure that the URLs will be right when the changes are deployed on the live server? Ahasuerus 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, during testing rather than development. (I do test my own stuff a bit first, I don't just throw it over the fence for someone else to find problems.) As I don't have a local wiki then I can only be sure if the oddities work on the live wiki if I point at the live wiki. I've not yet got a great set of examples of all the oddities, but for instance I can see database problems with people like "Scoop" Goodstuff - do the author search on such, click on the result - I suspect there's just as many oddities with the wiki. I'm not sure how many wiki usernames will cause problems, but when I find such I'll want to test such. Given the URL mangling that such gets, I'm not confident that a local test will reflect what the live wiki software would do. Last I heard, you can't even download the version of the wiki software that we actually use anyway? BLongley 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Double quotes are, unfortunately, a major problem throughout the system. Not only do they cause display and search problems (e.g. Bug 1952365 and Bug 1950102), but they also result in name truncation (Bug 1743286). However, that's a different can of worms. The question at hand, i.e. Wiki linkage on development systems, doesn't affect the end users who always get the correct links, so it looks like something for the Development Talk page. I'll post there shortly and we'll see if we can sort it out. We certainly need to come up with a solution before we deploy even more divergin software. Ahasuerus 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see the Development Talk page re: Reviewed Author searches. TIA! Ahasuerus 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Will go have a look now. BLongley 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a problem, looks fixable, but it's beyond my current MySQL abilities. Sorry. :-( BLongley 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad the code is available for other developers to look at though. This is an example of where we should make the code available easily - there's no possible screenshot or general discussion that will help, it needs people to have access to the code. If somebody needs to modify that area of code for another reason, fine, abandon my change, and I'll keep updating the project page occasionally. BLongley 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fate of the Phoenix

Scanned in a cover image for [this], added the artist (and I needed a magnifying glass) as Bob Larkin and added notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication Series Category

Time to celebrate! We have a Wiki category for Publication Series, thanks to DES. MHHutchins 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Added info

I added cover artist, printing number line, and Canadian price info to your verified [18].Don Erikson 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure how I missed the cover artist. BLongley 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for Yesterday

Does your edition, [this] contain the introduction that the Pocket Books edition has? OCLC has the Roman numerated pages indicating it's there. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC) PS: Think Boris Vallejo's signature is on the cover, bottom right.

Yes it does - it's actually signed "Ann Crispin" though, is it that way in the Pocket edition? And yes, that's Boris. BLongley 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is signed as "Ann". ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rules of Engagement

Added an artist credit to [this] both from my Pocket edition which is signed and from Locus1. Lower left corner, very tiny print. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, same on mine. Now stop picking on books that make me go upstairs and crawl on the floor! BLongley 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Low ceiling or very short shelves??? :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Floor to ceiling shelving, with STTNG being at the bottom of one of the bookcases. BLongley 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Doctor's Orders

Added an artist credit to [this] The Pocket cover is signed, bottom right, very tiny purple lettering. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Death Count

Added an artist credit to [this] as the Pocket edition is signed. Just below Kirk's collar at the edge of the cover. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Trek Pocket numbered

It would appear that after the Titan series 'dissolved' we have the same books. I'm scanning in my covers as I go and expanding the notes. Instead of letting you know every time, Ill just notify you when I get to the end and if you want to just glance through the lot (about 25 to go), please do. If I find anything strange I'll let you know. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished this set and other than a couple of artist credits and a couple of extracts added to the contents, nothing blew up in my face. You can eschew the floor! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going ahead with approving a number of Titan Trek publications based on this notification. Thanks Kevin 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Titans just seem to stop at about #67 of the Pocket series, not sure of the Titan # but then OCLC starts recording a London Pocket edition, same ISBNs as the US Pockets. Since the editions Mr. Longley and I both have have US/CDN pricing, maybe they don't exist? Bill, have you seen any British Pocket Star Treks? Maybe the ones you have have a London address on the title or copyright page? ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

67? I only have evidence up to number 63. Can you update the list if you know of more. BLongley 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I added two more that had Titan numbers and there are two more still, corresponding to the Pocket 66 & 67 but the images are so dreadful I can't make out the numbers and the records don't say. Dare to extrapolate? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This page identifies Star Trek 61 so I guess the other is 62. I can't see Titan publishing them out of order either, and they're clearly different months - Locus confirms simultaneous publication with the US editions. BLongley 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) BLongley 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, shall add the last two. Not sure which editions Kevin was okaying. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Worlds of Robert Heinlein

Could you please check your NEL pub Worlds of Robert Heinlein for the presence of 'Life-Line'? If it's not present then it really needs to be documented as an oddity. Thanks! Kevin 04:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not there. Any idea who entered the second NEL edition? As I'm suspicious of that one, and this might be a title-level difference rather than a pub-level one. BLongley 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the contents to the other NEL Pub. It was totally empty when I cam along looking last night. You want I should put a note in both NEL's and remove Life-Line from the other, and put a title note in the British Variant, or do you want the honors? Kevin 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Put a warning in the other to check, it may have been restored: which would explain the different ISBN. Abe suggests there are other reprints of each. BLongley 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication Series

Can you join in this discussion? I think you and I were among the few that were interested in publication series. Now that a Wiki category has been created, a few others have weighed in on the subject. MHHutchins 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments added. Is that enough waffle for now? ;-) BLongley 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Spock's World

Added the artist and month, courtesy Locus1, to [this] Bill, --Bluesman 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet Academy

You may have to get down on that floor again..... [this] pub and I don't see eye to eye! I have, to all intents and purposes, the same edition/printing as you yet all the ISBNs match, nothing different on the spine or back cover or copyright page, just the one number 0-671-01550-8. I'm just going to leave it alone until you surface from the dust-balls..... or does the cleaning lady get those? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That, fortunately, is not a ST:TNG book. Mine is definitely as stated - the extra ISBN seems to be used by a "Prentice Hall & IBD" paperback according to some booksellers, but this says Pocket all over. BLongley 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And I must find out what's happened to my cleaner, she hasn't been round for weeks. BLongley 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! I shall enter mine as a separate pub. Mayhaps she has seen all the dust-balls you've been hiding down with the ST:TNG editions??? And that's where I'll be heading in a day or three. I'll give you a heads up and maybe just keep a log of the changes, if any, and post them here as one unit? Your call! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

She used to enjoy the clean-ups, but maybe the bibliography got a bit much? Or maybe she's noticed that the floor in the upper library room (former bedroom) and neighboring bathroom is sinking and thinks it may collapse soon? (This would be a major stimulus to move the ST:TNG books elsewhere before they move by force of gravity alone.) Oh well, has the economy collapsed enough that I can afford a disused library now? I've never really wanted a house, buying a small library building and moving my living quarters into what used to be the "Romance" section (and never will be again, bookwise) suits me. BLongley 23:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashes of Eden

Added the artist to [this] from the jacket of the hardcover edition, so you don't have to check anything on the floor! Looking out for you! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Same for [this] ~bill, --Bluesman 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dragon "&" or "and" the Gnarly King?

Your verified THDRGNTHGN1998 uses "&", which is definitely the title on the cover, but Locus1's entry spells it out "and". Amazon has a Look Inside but doesn't show the title page (the Tor book list and the running title on the pages use "and", though). Would you mind double-checking you copy's title page? Thanks. --MartyD 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Title page shows the title in the same way as displayed on the front cover, just in black rather than gold. Only the spine and copyright page spell the "and" in full.

Thanks. I added a Locus1 verification and added a note about its discrepancy. --MartyD 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

mod/ka_new.py

I am in the process of putting r2009-12 together and I am wondering if the removal of the Review- and Interview-specific sections from mod/ka_new.py 1.5 was intentional. As far as I can tell, these two sections were added in 1.3/1.4 and they don't appear to be superseded by the Chapterbook-specific changes in 1.5. Could you please double check just in case there is an unresolved version conflict of some sort? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't intentional. Only the Chapterbook bit should have gone. I wonder how that happened? BLongley 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, easy fix, I'll do that now. BLongley 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fix submitted, and I added an improvement for when you're breaking the variant. BLongley 11:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is your custom made "New Messages" test, Bill. Mind you, no extra charge! Ahasuerus 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. (Well, looks a bit sickly really - is this a case of choosing an obnoxious colour to make people discuss a better one again?) BLongley 17:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the color used by the wiki "you have msgs" banner was at least a partial source. -DES ^Talk 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand that. "partial source"? BLongley 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe Marty has mentioned that the color used by the Wiki software to warn you about new messages was an inspiration. I don't think it's particularly sickly, but then I am hardly the best person to ask about colors :) Ahasuerus 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I like it myself. Might be the inspiration I need to get a second monitor - I'm told this PC can cope with two - but I'm not sure Windows can cope with one colour and one monochrome monitor. (Doesn't have to be Black and White: I remember Black and Green - in fact, I often miss the Black and Amber terminal displays, even better. Ah, the good old days!) BLongley 22:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday World

Added an artist credit to [this], as the signature is visible (just above Worf's left shoulder). Does the British edition contain the Author's Notes by Greenberger? OCLC has the Roman Numerated pages in it's record. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just didn't bother with Author's Notes in those days. BLongley 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And a second one that the Pocket has an introduction, [Perchance to Dream] and OCLC has a different page count, 242, as does the Pocket. I did not adjust the record as I know you can count.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same introduction. It is 242. Although two pages are for "About the Author" - are you not interested in those? I tend to skim them to look for pseudonyms and other titles, but often don't record them as Essays as I'd never go looking for them here. BLongley 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I read them always. It's not a matter of interest, just that a lot of the records on the DB are Locus clones and they only record the page counts for the novels and tend to ignore notes/acknowledgments/etc. even when paginated whereas we record the page count regardless of content. I'm always a little torn about adding Author's Notes when they really are mostly acknowledgments and add nothing about the novel. I do keep asking about this stuff to be sure the British editions match the Pocket ones so, on an unverified edition, I can add contents to BOTH when I know it exists in one. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the Pocket and Titan editions are identical fiction and essay content-wise and even page-wise - but that's based on a small sample, I don't deliberately buy duplicates. Reprints do sometimes vary in cover blurb, and often in "other titles" - but that's usually on unnumbered pages. BLongley 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Guises of the Mind

Replaced a broken link for [this], though I'm a fan of Amazon.UK, the images for the Star Trek books are simply awful. Some not even good enough for placeholders. Smack someone around a little over there, would you? Also added the artist credit from the signature on the cover. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I know they've got some good images, as I uploaded almost a thousand myself. Then I found out how much faster the US site is for approvals and uploaded another thousand. Then we got our own capabilities and I've let them go hang. BLongley 17:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I might try for the round thousand on Amazon UK while I'm at it, but only 65 seem to have been useful. :-( BLongley 18:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And why do people find my 1999 Hobbit image so useful? 13 out of 13? BLongley 18:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Only 47 on Amazon US. I know I started adding those later, but that's a bit depressing. I think I'll stick to ISFDB uploads, where I know every one is cherished [1] without needing voting reassurance. BLongley 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] Except by Ahasuerus when doing the backups, maybe.

Changes to Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, October 12, 1981

I redid that magazine. I'll add the reviews at some point. I plan to redo the whole 1981 Analogs slowly (not much time to do this during the summer, however) This issues happened to be on top of the pile - mainly because I just had it autographed by George R. R. Martin. :-) First issue of Analog I have ever had. Tpi 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some more data, Tpi 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I added book reviews, page count corrected. Hopefully ok? Tpi 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Double Helix: One thru Six

Adjusted all the extra page numbers/contents so they were consistent. Some had [..] some didn't, one used Roman numerals, one was split.... just made them all read the same way. Also changes all the title designations from 1-6 to One-Six as no numbers are actually used. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Heart

Added the artist credit to [this] from the hardcover (same artwork). ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John Christopher's The Little People

I just discovered the British Library Integrated Catalogue (through a submission by an editor that has slipped my mind), and was delighted to learn that 99% of all books that I've checked contain the price! This is something American libraries rarely do. Well, I was going through Sphere paperbacks, starting in 1975 and filling in the missing prices, when I came upon this anomaly. There is no listing anywhere for your pub of the above title, neither on the BLIC, the OCLC, Amazon.co.uk, or any copies available through Abebooks.com. BUT, there's a record for 0-7221-2305-1 on BLIC, which has an ISBN that hits on every catalog. It has a 1978 date, a price of £0.95, and is the only Sphere edition I've been able to find anywhere. So I'm wondering if yours is a second printing, and should I enter the pub I've found. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mine's a second printing of a 1978 Sphere edition. I'm not sure why the ISBN changed though. BLongley 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

An advanced search for "John Christopher" and "Sphere" (I love the fixed Advanced Search, saves me booting up MySQL) suggests this isn't uncommon - about half the times he was republished the ISBN changed, the rest they stayed the same. BLongley 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the 1978 printing sourcing the BLIC, even though they don't know how to spell "catalog". :) I used the same cover image from your record, assuming it would be highly improbable that the cover art would have changed in one year. Am I correct in this assumption? MHHutchins 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd normally be a little concerned - a different cover might be the reason for the new ISBN - but there's another customer image on Amazon UK for that ISBN which matches mine, so I'd guess it's the same. BLongley 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Vogt's Tyranopolis

Is the British price obscured on your verified copy of this title? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. BLongley 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This second printing isn't listed in the BLIC, so I can't find a price. And Locus had stopped listing British editions at this point (and wouldn't start again until the mid-80s.) Oh, well. We'll have to wait until someone comes along with a better copy. Thanks anyway. MHHutchins 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cybersong

Added an artist credit to [this] from a very small signature on the cover "Rogo", which sort of rings a bell, but only a very tiny one... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Turns out the bell was right: Luis ROYO as the signature on "Bless the Beasts" was much clearer! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pathways

Added an artist credit to [this] from the hardcover edition, added note for same. ~BIll, --Bluesman 23:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Farmer Giles of Ham

Did a chapterbook fix and added an OCLC record number to this verified pub of yours. -DES ^Talk 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DS9

And now this series.... For brevity, I'm going to just add to this one post, rather than create individual ones. Largely it will be an expansion of the notes and I will be scanning in all new images. See you at the end of the tunnel!!! [or should I say Chunnel?¿?¿] ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chunnel? You've moved to France? When did that happen? Or has A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! become Nonfiction? BLongley 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Like to visit France one day, but the only move would be to send the dissident Quebecois "back"!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to visit France once, it was closed. I never tried again. Having to deal with the casualties put me off foreign travel for ages: even my later trips to the Channel Islands were nerve-wracking. (They're almost foreign.) BLongley 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 3: Month from Locus1 --Bluesman 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Miners in the Sky

The British Library thinks that your verified 1968 Sphere edition had an ISBN, 0722154828. Could you please double check whether it's listed in the book or whether they derived it from the catalog ID? TIA! Ahasuerus 09:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's derived. Sphere are good for that, the five-digit catalogue IDs usually included the SBN/ISBN check-digit: they must have been preparing for SBNs even before they started printing them in full. BLongley 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 11:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A Dose of Paranormal Romance....

Saw this at 4 am local and felt like sharing. Soon Morgan must choose between her friends, her enemies, and her libido: to escape a mad demon determined to destroy her completely. Kevin 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence in that paragraph is every bit as good: "As her stalker turns more violent, leaving dead bodies in his wake, Morgan turns to the dark side of her life: a group of demons steeped in secrets, sinful eroticism, and otherworldly family feuds, including one sexy beast who shares Morgan’s body—and some X-rated fantasies." :-) Ahasuerus 10:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New Frontier

[[19]]Book One: Added some notes, extract to contents, adjusted the page count re:extract. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[[20]]Book Two: ditto. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[[21]]Book Three: ditto. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[[22]]Book Four: ditto. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[[23]]The Quiet Place: ditto. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded the notes only on three Excalibur books. ~bill, --Bluesman 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of your edits tonight, but would have asked about the series number deletions for later "New Frontier" titles if DES and Kev hadn't approved them anyway. Were they definitely wrong or just not stated? As we often use other sources for numbering. BLongley 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on "Zucca Design" as an artist either. When was he/she born, and where? I suspect that's a company, not an artist. BLongley 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and we don't capitalise "and" unless at the beginning of a phrase, so "Stone And Anvil" is wrong. BLongley 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm obviously particularly grumpy tonight, I shall go sleep and fix things later. BLongley 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Crystal Sorcerers

Just an FYI that I have added the LCCN to your verified The Crystal Sorcerers. By the way, does your copy say "Nancy Dunnan & Jay J. Pack" on the title page? I can't find these names anywhere else in the book, so I am not quite sure what to make of them. Ahasuerus 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It does. I have no idea why, they appear to be the authors of "Market Movers" and "How to Survive and Thrive in the Recession of 1991". BLongley 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, printer error, perhaps? Ahasuerus 13:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. "How to Survive and Thrive in the Recession of 1991" was another Avon book published around the same time. BLongley 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, it was published by Avon in mass market paperback in 1991. Note added. Ahasuerus 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Before the Golden Age Volume Four

Could you please double check whether "The Human Pets of Mars" is attributed to "Leslie Frances Stone" or "Leslie Francis Stone" in your verified Before the Golden Age Volume Four? Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's with the "e". BLongley 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Volume 3 I got wrong. Fixed now. BLongley 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ISSN numbers

The last time these were discussed, I was convinced that they were useless in the Cat #/ISBN field also (although useful in the magazine's wiki page). But i'm not convinced that a 3rd use for this field (beyond ISBN and catalog number) is a good idea -- to much overloading. Ideally a new field for volume/issue number could be added, but that is a database change. -DES ^Talk 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Overloading it with Volume and Issue number looks useless, overloading it with a nice plain overall issue number might be useful. For instance - magazines with Winter/Summer/Spring/Fall issues. Which year does the Winter issue belong to? Or which year does the Summer one belong to, when you're looking at Australian publications? And when you're looking at countries where "Autumn" is more correct than "Fall", how could we order by season even if we defined a sorting order for the type? BLongley 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A simple overload with a simple number might be of use, for sorting purposes. A new field for "volume/issue number" wouldn't be: TWO fields might. But that gets too complex when someone will want to enter them in Roman Numerals and another will enter them in Arabic numerals, and someone else will spell them out in full. BLongley 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But let's please kill the idea of using ISSN there at least. BLongley 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think use of ISSN in that field is already dead. Whole issue number might be useful, but of course many mags don't have whole issue numbers. I agree that if we are adding a field, two fields might be better than one. But two fields or one, we would need to develop and enforce conventions (no roman numerals, no spelled out numbers, say) just as we enforce the use of a currency symbol or a colon for subtitles. The software could help enforce such conventions: say a rule that in a single volume/issue field, only a single number (in arabic numerals) or a pair of numbers separated by a colon (or a slash or whatever we pick) is valid, and an editor is prevented from submitting anything invalid.

Since we currently don't sort by ISBN/Cat no (or do we) an overload there won't be useful for sorting without a code change. Change the code to sort on that field for mags only? Many possibilities. Perhaps we should move this to ISFDB:Proposed Design Changes? -DES ^Talk 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Overloading the cat number/ISBN field with vol:issue might be useful for searching, if not for sorting. For example i recall a mention that Dragon Magazine, although it has cover dates, is known to everyone primarily by issue numbers. The same is largely true of Whispers magazine, and no doubt of others. -DES ^Talk 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some publishers use "whole numbers" in addition to "volume:number" pairs, so you occasionally run into statements like "MAGAZINE OF HORROR - Volume 6, number 6, whole number 36 - April 1971".

Having said that, we are getting close to that magical point when we will be comfortable making database layout changes (see our recent Series discussion), so we might as well start thinking about various spiffy new data elements that we may want to implement. I hope it won't break anything for the sites that import our data on a regular basis (e.g. Freebase). Ahasuerus 01:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Vogt's The Universe Maker

I've placed a submission of Don Erikson's on hold which wants to change your verified pub into a collection from an omnibus. I disagree with this, but wanted you to make the final decision. Please take over the submission. A bigger problem is that it's missing a title reference which may be the result of it being under the title record of the novel of the same name. (This situation might have attributed to the submitter's belief that the pub should be a collection.) Anyway I'll let you handle the unmerge process to create its own title record, so that it can be distinguished from the novel of the same name. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No unmerge needed, it just needed an Omnibus content record adding. However, looking at The Proxy Intelligence, I think that's more Novella than a Novel so I'm fine with Collection. It could also be a Novel with a bonus story, but there's a similar collection in Science Fiction Special 27 which may be the same edition. BLongley 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lion Time in Timbuctoo

I added OCLC and National Library numbers to Your verified pub. -DES ^Talk 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Towers of Toron

Added a Currey note to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Sci-Fi 3

Can you make sure that the story "In Hiding" is credited to "Wilmar Shiras" on its title page? I'm holding a submission that will make this author a pseudonym, and before I do something we can't reverse, I wanted to double-check. This is the only appearance of the story without her middle initial. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no middle initial in ToC or title page. BLongley 13:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll allow the creation of a pseudonym. MHHutchins 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Build Up Logically"

You're in the best position to answer an editor's question here. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Analog, October 12, 1981

Bill, can you take a look at the submission I'm holding that wants to add an ISBN to the verified pub of this issue? You can respond on the help page here. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not an ISBN, it's the barcode number. I'll add more details later. BLongley 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Triptich or Triptych?

Can you check to see if the spelling of the story in this anthology by Richard Paul Russo is correct? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Triptych. Corrected. BLongley 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you realize that within the span of 24 seconds, we each discovered, and corrected, the two different records that had the same typo? MHHutchins 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have been faster if I hadn't typoed it here first. :-) BLongley 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Date formats discussion in progress

Your views would be welcome at Rules and standards discussions#Date formats including Day of the Month as it is partly in response to your comments that I started this discussion. -DES ^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Review Authors

I can't find the page, but I believed you recently posted an example of a missing Review Author. This is strange since we fixed the software and the data some weeks ago, so you would expect that these errors would go away. Do you happen to know if there are more of them? Wonder if we have another bug in the code... Ahasuerus 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This still looks broken to me? That's why I left the edit on the queue, didn't want the example "fixed". BLongley 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll re-run the "fix Reviews" script using its "look but do not touch" mode and see how many problem records we have in the last backup. Ahasuerus 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the original script addressed one class of cases, but there is also another class of cases that still need to be fixed. Consider the following script:

select t2.title_id, ca2.author_id, 3
from titles t, titles t2, canonical_author ca2
where t.title_ttype = 'REVIEW'
and t2.title_ttype = 'REVIEW'
and t.title_id = t2.title_parent
and ca2.title_id = t2.title_id
and ca2.ca_status = 1
and NOT EXISTS (select 1 from canonical_author ca
               WHERE t2.title_id = ca.title_id
               and ca.ca_status = 3)

Here is the output:

+----------+-----------+---+
| title_id | author_id | 3 |
+----------+-----------+---+
|   193993 |     23457 | 3 |
|   194005 |     12895 | 3 |
|   194007 |     24115 | 3 |
|   194007 |     24116 | 3 |
|   194007 |     24136 | 3 |
|   194011 |     14960 | 3 |
|   194012 |     14960 | 3 |
|   194013 |     14960 | 3 |
|   194014 |     14960 | 3 |
|   194015 |     14960 | 3 |
|   194020 |     14960 | 3 |
|   194028 |     31303 | 3 |
|   194042 |     31324 | 3 |
|   194052 |     31319 | 3 |
|   194061 |     31324 | 3 |
+----------+-----------+---+

Since the number of affected Review Titles is modest (13), we can probably fix them manually. Hopefully, our software fix addressed whatever scenario had led to the creation of these oddities, but it may advisable to re-review the current version of the code and the applied fix just to be on the safe side. Ahasuerus 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we fixed Make Variant, but we didn't do Add Variant. So you can still, for instance, look at a "David G. Hartwell" Review and add a "David Hartwell" variant to it, which will be broken like this. (Why anybody would want to do such is a mystery though.) BLongley 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors work in mysterious ways! :) I am glad we have found the problem, though. We can now create a bug report and fix it at our leisure. Ahasuerus 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, all 13 Titles fixed and linked, Bug 2834684 created. Ahasuerus 01:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Trek to Madworld

FYI: seemed minor so I didn't leave a note. With both of us questionning the artist, seemed appropriate to move the credit to the notes. == Trek to Madworld == In your edit to this verified pub, you removed an author credit and added a note "The artist is not credited, no visible signature [this record had ENRIC as the artist, with no source]". The assumption is that any unsourced data on a primary verified pub record came from the pub itself. Since this change removes data from a field to notes, Please ask Bill about this. I have placed this edit on hold pending his reply. He should feel free to directly approve the edit, if he chooses to. -DES ^Talk 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bill's original note stated he didn't know where the credit came from and just left it. Enric did a lot of the Bantam covers but only the reprints. Haven't found one yet where he did the original. Always possible there's an exception, but he's definitely not credited on this one. No problem waiting until Lord Longley chimes in! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i missed that. You are right. I'll approve your edit, please notify Bill in the usual way. -DES ^Talk 22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

~Bill, --Bluesman 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All the Sounds of Fear

Just added an image for [this], one of yours from Amazon.UK yet there is no verification? No page numbers either... and the artist looks like Lord Goodfellow's work. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. The image was piggy-backed onto the original '73 Panther edition. And here I thought Amazon.UK was more scrupulous than it's obviously inferior US counterpart (it is!). Back into the fray!!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It had to be - Amazon won't create another entry if the ISBN is the same. BLongley 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems you and Brin have separately verified the same pub. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should delete Brin1's, if I can figure out why I left it alone before. I'd better drag mine out and see if someone has been regularising contents. (My usual reason for inaction in the past, when the other editor is non-communicative.) BLongley 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was probably down to "Repent, Harlequin!" versus 'Repent, Harlequin!' and I for one don't want to go there. Added some more details, deleted Brin1's as the inferior copy. BLongley 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you found your cleaner yet???¿¿¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Don't ask about dust. BLongley 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Not Final from generic magazine help

I wonder if you noticed this series of edits in which i mentioned that the date of the removal of the not final tag from Help:Entering non-genre magazines came almost a year ago. -DES ^Talk 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that there are lots of edits going on in the general areas that I should keep up with, but I'm also very aware that I have no time or patience to deal with them at the moment. Long Wiki editing sessions with "edit conflict" results are particular annoying at present, as are questions that require a lot of research. I'm avoiding all long or active threads for the moment for the sake of my blood pressure. I find Wiki conversations to be the most unsatisfactory form of communication I've ever had to deal with. BLongley 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the removal of "Not Final", I appreciate I probably got particularly angry at what I perceived at the time, which was that I saw the warning early in the evening (and copy'n'pasted it aside for later use), and later in the evening it was not there. Dates of edits had nothing to do with it. BLongley 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How I got to see an older version of the page with the warning and think it it was the current one I don't know. The full history of how something with such a controversial proposal in it got left alone to be approved I don't know. When I will find time to investigate such I don't know. It might be best if I never do the investigation - what's done is done, but I hope most things can be undone when necessary. What I particularly don't want to get back into is nights where all my ISFDB time is spent on Wiki talks. It's looking like the current chaos at work, where, for instance, half of tomorrow is booked for meetings on "why we aren't getting further towards PCI-DSS compliance" (answer - because we spend half the time in meetings discussing the problem, and the other half figuring out whose problem it actually is.) BLongley 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Research will be done, apologies will be made and requested, but if there's one thing I've learnt about ISFDB it's that patience is required. BLongley 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are finding wiki discussion frustrating. I will try not to overwhelm you with it. There are various possible ways you might have seen an old version of the page, including going through the history tab. Or you might possibly have confused it with the currently active draft for Help:Wiki Conventions, which has the NotFinal tag in place at the moment. But I assure you that hasn't been the current version for nearly a year, and that the NotFinal wasn't removed until I asked for approval and got one positive response right away, and no further comments for 3 days. I also assure you that I didn't think anything in the Non-Genre magazines page was controversial. The content seemed to me a fairly natural extension of the standards for regular magazines; several editors, including you, discussed the details at some length; and everyone seemed happy with the result before the NotFinal tag was removed. I had no intention of slipping a controversial or stealth change past anyone. Indeed it was a case in which I cared more that there be documented practices than I did what those practices were. If people think those practices should change, the help page can be edited easily enough, and i am not wedded to its current state.. -DES ^Talk 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're at risk of making my own talk page a page I no longer want to look at! How many points did you try to make in the above paragraph? :-/ BLongley 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They're probably all valid, but my immediate thought is "3 Days? You expect a consensus in 3 days?" It needs at least a week, two in holiday season. And "no response" is a "positive response" is something I only expect to see from bullying managers. BLongley 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I like the way you provoke discussions about certain things that seem wrong and should be challenged, but I also dislike the rapid movement to "OK, we're all agreed, I'll do it this way then". BLongley 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I have no time for this discussion either. Goodly Nightitude! BLongley 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On consensus: I agree that 3 days is far too little time for a consensus to form. But when there had been an active discussion, involving several editors on a daily basis; when many comments had been made and addressed; when no further outstanding issue was known; when the response to "Are we ready" was a single "Yes" and then silence on what had been an active talk page, i don't think three days was too short. After all, if someone had come by a week or indeed a month or a year later, and said "wait, i don't think this is ready" the NotFinal could be restored with a single click. Good night. -DES ^Talk 22:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, it's a question of prioritizing: is it more productive and/or more satisfying for an editor to spend his limited ISFDB time on Wiki discussions -- which, as we know, can be very time consuming and often lead nowhere -- as opposed to moderating, data entry, coding, testing, etc. I am rather torn at the moment since I would like to contribute to some Wiki discussions, but almost all of my ISFDB time is spent on software development/testing/support/deployment :( Ahasuerus 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand priorities, although my own are out of whack -- I should be fixing a lawn trimmer right now. I don't object to Bill's avoiding wiki discussion if he chooses. What bugged me was that he seemed to me to be saying "You Cheated!" and I responded "no I didn't, here's the evidence" followed by a couple of days of silence. Not so much as a one-line "Oh, I mis-read that" That's why I started this thread. Sorry if I'm letting this get to me too much. I've been meaning to setup a local development system for the ISFDB for months, and have never cleared the block of time needed. -DES ^Talk 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More developers is always a good thing! :) Ahasuerus 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Alley God

OCLC confirms the publication date for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Numeric tags

I have fixed Bug 2753972 - "Numeric Tags cause Pub links to fail" on my local system and plan to deploy it later this week. However, you left a comment back in May, which reads, in part:

I suggest we add some extra protection on Pub Tag edits though. We only NEED to edit them if we've got duplicates.

Ideally, we'll use Pub IDs only internally in future and prevent that problem, and Pub Tags will only be needed as we've been recommending those for external links to our data.

It sounds reasonable, so I wonder whether you would like to create a Feature Request since I will be closing this bug shortly? As an aside, we need to centralize all field validation (Tags, Authors, Titles, etc) at some point or else we will soon have inconsistent behavior across the board. Ahasuerus 02:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog One

Can you check the author credit for the story "Prologue to an Analogue" in this pub? I'm holding a submission that wants to make a blanket change in the author credit to Walt and Leigh Richmond, which I strongly believe is in error. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely only the single author in ToC, on title page, and running header. BLongley 17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ST New Voyages

Scanned in an image and expanded the notes for [this]. I assumed the note about the assumed price was because your copy has it blacked out? Mine does not so removed that part of the note. The artist's signature is on the cover, bottom left, almost invisible as it is black on the darkest blue . Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dimension X

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this]. Very neat sculpture! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

She Only Goes Out at Night (. . .)

In your verified pub. The Fantastic Universe appearance has ellipsis as do copies of "The Square Root of Man" in possession of myself and Harry.--swfritter 13:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. BLongley 13:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Made the one with ellipsis the canonical.--swfritter 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Trouble With Tribbles

I'm pretty sure the publisher for this 1973 edition was probably simply "Ballantine" as Del Rey didn't become an imprint until 1977. It may have been edited after you verified it. MHHutchins 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything apparently verified by me as "Del Rey / Ballantine" is not. I think I used to use "Ballantine Del Rey" at times if that's what was on the pub but now strongly prefer to "keep it simple" and prefer "Del Rey" for the Del Rey imprint (which I believe are all Ballantine anyway, so need no further explanation). Unfortunately I don't have that edition anymore (just have a later Del Rey edition now) but agree from the cover I uploaded it was just a plain Ballantine. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I should probably go write a script to find all my books that have been adjusted that way. BLongley 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't left the building yet (still in my "swaps" pile it seems) so consider that a primary re-verification. BLongley 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sleepers of Mars

Does your verified copy of [this] have on the copyright page the statement: "First published in this form . . . 1973" ? There are three pub records that look virtually identical, yours is the only verified one. Currey notes the above statement as from the first edition, so don't want to add it to the wrong one. Think the other two are just stubs and could be deleted. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mine says that. BLongley

Garan the Eternal

Just picked up a first CDN printing of [this] which has a simple "First Printing, March, 1973" statement. Can I assume that the "number paragraph" in your notes refers to the "First printing/second printing/…/tenth printing" style? I have yet to see one like that and am pretty convinced the CDN editions never used it. Is this enough of a difference to create a new record? Or is this something that just gets a note? Seems to be the only difference. My copy also has interior art (frontispiece) that is not mentioned in your verified pub. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean by number paragraph. There is a Gaughan frontispiece on mine too but I could never be bothered to add those - feel free to adjust. If the "number paragraph" never occurred on Canadian editions I'd recommend a separate pub as it's major (rare) feature on the US one. BLongley 18:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did that. Left a note for Marc as well. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

MagicQuest

Don Erikson just updated this pub. Before I remove his notice to the moderator, I wanted you to see it. He removed the note that this was MagicQuest #19. It appears on the publication series page for MagicQuest, one I believe that you created. Was this record the only source that this title was part of the series? Thanks. MHHutchins 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the source was probably something like an Abe listing such as the one here. I've no direct evidence either way. BLongley 17:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since he appears to have the book-in-hand, I'm going to remove the reference to the series on the pub, and the publication series page. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional approvals needed?

In this edit on User talk:Mhhutchins you wrote:

"...we seem to have several "self-approver" mods carrying on as usual, some have branched out (is DES approved to do some of the things he does?)..."

I should like to know what I might be doing that you think I might not be authorized or approved to do. As far as i knew, I was fully authorized to do anything that any mod is, if I felt competent on the issue. And "authorization" aside, am I doing anything that you think is unwise? If so, what? -DES ^Talk 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I might add that I now have 6,633 edits on record, probably 1,500-2,000 before I became a mod, and 8,149 moderation actions, so i have done some 3-4,000 moderations of other editors' submissions. -DES ^Talk 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, you catch me just as I was trying to quantify some of this. (See table below - lifetime contributions are going to be automatically misleading though, there's no indication of what was done before moderatorship rather than after, but I hoped to be able to spot continual self-approvers based on this and other observances, and also some potential new moderators.) BLongley 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Authorisation of what you do is automatically granted when you get Mod status, "Approval" is a bit more nebulous - the only times we seem to get that discussed is through the Moderator approval process. "X is fine with Magazines, let him carry on without waiting for us" or "Y knows his Polish Translations. let him carry on with those without making my head hurt". You're a special case, I believe, in that you got mod status for Wiki-Work first? (Forgive me if I got that wrong, the nominations are now archived all over the place. It might be nice to have all those in one place so you can see how little support I had, although in those days there weren't as many editors TO support.) BLongley 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As to any particular problems I see with what you do, I think I've already explained that I didn't like your Publisher regularisation when it over-rode verifications (that was really an absolute no-no for me), and I didn't like your use of 0000-00-00 for certain content titles which had a definite publication date. (I am open to suggestions on when this might be acceptable - I'd even support it for obviously ridiculous situations where Plato is writing in the 1900s for instance. And there was a Wiki-Discussion about such which seems lost now.) BLongley 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I should probably point out (again) that on the Wiki side, I also object to constant guidance on how we should justify every single upload with a copyright notice and that everyone should learn the templates - but my objections on the Wiki side are far more numerous than anything you do to the database, which is what I'm worried about. So yes, I do have some beefs with you, but they're mostly resolved on the database side and on the Wiki side I'll let people go do what they will an it harm none. BLongley 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Modding Name   Editing
110154 Mhhutchins  81385
64729 BLongley  55225
58777 Chris J  69557
56269 Ahasuerus  40037
37690 Kraang  23477
35977 Alvonruff  19405
27931 Swfritter  25089
27066 Marc Kupper  13928
20653 Rkihara  18338
8149 DESiegel60  6633
5709 Mike Christie  2722
 Bluesman  14692
4922 Unapersson  3287
4471 Scott Latham  3499
 Don Erikson  11385
3779 Kpulliam  5343
3629 Dcarson  3802
2878 Clarkmci  6107
 Rtrace  5101
 Dragoondelight  5038
2054 JVjr  3979
1819 Grendelkhan  1785
1620 CoachPaul  3382
1575 Hall3730  4816
1270 Davecat  3367
1119 WimLewis  3098
679 Roglo  2160
 Alibrarian  2689
 Tpi  2688
 Lorenzr  2495
 Rudam  2437
 Dsorgen  2330
 Brin1  2272
 Willem H.  2219
 MartyD  1813
 MA Lloyd  1331
 Jonschaper  1158
 Thomas conneely  1140
 Phileas  721
 Holmesd  656
 Jprucher  497
 A.kesrith  486
 JLaTondre  466
 Hayford Peirce  375
 Rhschu  266
 Mgpb  225
 Jayembee  202
 Dgeiser13  185
 Afbrown  178
 Md5i  176
 Chenrich  176
 Nowickj  161
 ErnestoVeg  156
 Circeus  147
 Gloinson  125
 Zybahn  116
 Breity  116
 PortForlorn  111
 Von Kupfer  100

Left out again! ;=( Fixer 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no bots allowed! See, I left Dissembler and Data Thief out too. BLongley 11:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I did get the mod flag set early as it also set the "admin" flag on the wiki, and allowed me to edit some pages that had been protected against spam. This was under the agreement that I would not approve my own or anyone else's db edits until I passed the normal mod approval process, which happened a bit later (a couple of months I think, but I'm not sure of the exact time interval). I kept that agreement strictly, but I did spend some time looking at what the mod approval screen showed for both my own and other people's edits, before I was authorized to click "approved" or "rejected" on anything. This may have given me a slight head start. -DES ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "Top Contributors" and "top moderators" figures are at best misleading, but they are the only actual figures we have, AFAIK. (They can also mislead because a given change can often be accomplished through a single edit or multiple edits, and thus comparison of two people's contribution numbers may be apples to oranges. Also 100 novels is not equal to 100 anthologies or 100 magazine issues). -DES ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of your objections to what I did in the matter of publisher regularization, and i haven't done anything of the sort since I became aware of those objections. I do think we should at some point decide what is and what isn't a good way to proceed with publisher regularization, but I'm not pressing the matter at this time. I did think at the time that what i did was good for the db, and had been approved in previous discussion. I was clearly wrong on the "approved" question. -DES ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember the wiki discussion on 0000-00-00. IIRC it was inconclusive. I use 0000 on content items in only a few cases: a) on reprinted items I expect to merge pretty much at once, to help me find the items to be merged. These don't stay in the database long. And b) on items in reprint anthologies, clearly originally published many years before the anthology, and often in the 18th, 19th, or early 20th century, when the publication (or secondary source if that's what I'm working from) does not give an original publication date, and neither do our other records, nor any other source I have consulted. It seems to me very odd to have a shortfiction title dated long after the author died or stopped active work. I now find that I have to resort to 0000 rather less often than it may have appeared from my comments in the discussion of some months ago. I would be ready to discuss the matter again, when and if others want such a discussion. I haven't started one to try to avoid over-burdening the rules&standards page. This issue seems to have come up at least in passing several times, but I think the discussion we both recall is Rules and standards discussions/Archive/Archive06#Date standards. I wish the software supported date ranges -- this would help with "unknown" dates a lot, i think. -DES ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think that when we host an image, the wiki page should include a license tag indicating by what right we host and display it. (This follows the Wikipedia practice.) I think this is more important now that pub records link back to the wiki page. If we are to do this, it is very useful if individual uploaders apply the tags/templates. I have tried to help make the templates as easy to use and well documented as I can. If there is any way i can make them easier to use and remember, i will be happy to help. Once having informed a given editor of the templates i have tried not to give "constant guidance" on such matters -- i apologize if I have over-done such guidance. Of course, if the matter is brought up for discussion and there is an agreement not to use license tags, or to use them differently, I will comply, even if I disagree. I hope that {http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2836579&group_id=199503&atid=969757 FR #2836579 - Add Cover Image to this Pub] will make this much easier, when and if it is implemented. -DES ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to do good for the ISFDB as a whole, and not cause problems for you or anyone else. Please do let me know when anything I do seems to cause a problem in your view. I have responded to your comments point-by-point, but I don't need or expect a detailed response unless you choose -- I'm not trying to start another long thread. Thank you for responding to my question above. -DES ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brief post to acknowledge that what you've said here has been read, and appreciated. It is another long thread though, so I'm going to leave it and respond on important bits as and when I have time and energy. Probably not here though - maybe on your page instead, in small segments. I think we are both "trying to do good for the ISFDB as a whole" so it's important to find out fast when mods are working against each other, unintentionally or otherwise, but as usual most discussions can be left for later as there's still many projects that can be done with no offence caused. BLongley 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Added cover credit

I added cover credit for verified [24] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 18:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. BLongley 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ingulf the Mad - added map credit

Afternoon! This. [25]. I added a map credit for Diana L. Paxson as on copyright page and map of my copy matched to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I own that? Really? I have no memory of it, but I suppose I must do. I remember getting fed up with "Zelazny" at the end of my many bookshelves and bought the "Tully Zetford" set, I don't recall any authors after that... "Zimmer" means "walking frames" to me. I must go read my possessions a bit more often, obviously. BLongley 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Biggest Game

The author of The Biggest Game was changed from Woodcott to Brunner by Don Erickson:

| 2009-04-04 15:08:50 | 2009-04-04 15:09:07 |
<IsfdbSubmission>
  <PubUpdate>
   <Record>31799</Record>
   <Submitter>Don Erikson</Submitter>
   <Subject>Splinters</Subject>
   <Year>1971-09-00</Year>
   <Note>Assumed 1st printing. The Keith Woodcott story appears here as by John Brunner.</Note>
<ContentTitle>
 <Record>191226</Record>
 <cPage>65</cPage>
 <cAuthors>John Brunner</cAuthors>

The approver was Michael, who obviously is aware of this software problem, but must have missed the error since the submission affected many other fields. Yet another reason to change the software behavior to clone changed "Contents Titles" rather than change them. Ahasuerus 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've always been afraid that the long submissions aren't always checked as thoroughly as they should be - I saw Chris J make a similar mistake a few days ago. Maybe "efficient scroll wheel" should be another moderatorship prerequisite. BLongley 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have fixed the record. Ahasuerus 02:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Transient Verifications

I have 'fixed' all 1300. Would you be so kind as to run your script once more just to check? Much thanks (and man is my wrist sore!!!!). ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, when the next backup is available. (Next weekend I guess.) BLongley 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Retief of the CDT

Harry just entered the first printing of this title and I noticed that your second printing has the same date. It appears to be one your early verifications which may explain the dating. (Once I get you to start listing my primary verifications, I'm gonna hate to look at those early ones and see all the errors!) Thanks. MHHutchins 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, although the remaining Pocket editions don't add up in my view: still, I've never understood Canadian printing numbers, it may be OK. BLongley 18:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Place me in the same bunch. One of the few things I know about Canadian printings is that some publishers count them as separate printings and some don't. Don't ask me which publishers though! MHHutchins 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea either. Pocket are especially annoying to me due to them selling over-printed US printings as UK ones at times, or having two identically numbered British printings printed by two different British printers... BLongley 18:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pocket is the usual culprit. I have some Pocket printings that have a maple-leaf on the cover (mostly from the late 60s into the early 70s, I think), but others that only have a statement "Printed in Canada" on the copyright page and nothing else. This statement usually looks like a slipped-in slug line. DAW used to remove the "1" from the number line for the Canadian printing ("2 3 4, etc"). Then the number line "3 4 5, etc" actually meant the second US printing. Go figure. At least they tried to distinguish printings. I have some Ballantines with printing statements that Sherlock Holmes couldn't figure out, that mix US and Canadian printings that only their mother would know which one is which! MHHutchins 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're lucky in that we live in countries that are net exporters of books - I can't recall a single Canadian book I own, if it was worth exporting we got a British version printed instead. I have only a handful of Australian books. The only foreign editions I usually acquire are US ones (thousands) and it seems thousands of my British pubs were also exported to the US - usually clearly marked, until the globalisation of the last decade or so where I have no idea which country a book really belongs to. BLongley 19:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The downside of course, is that a lot my 1960s and 1970s pubs have LOTS of prices on them to enter. :-( BLongley 19:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one Canadian publication in my entire library that was imported to the US which I found on a remainder table. With HarperCollins, Hachette, Random House/Bertelsmann and the Penguin Group's plans for world domination distribution, it seems that the previous boundaries dividing up the English-speaking world into "territories" were arbitrary at best. MHHutchins 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

S&J's edition of Brunner's Quicksand

What idiot art director approved this cover? The danger of being so clever with graphics that know one can tell the freaking name of the book without a decoder ring! Hopefully, the name was spelled out on the spine or bookstore employees wouldn't know where to shelve it so that customers could find it. At least "the naked girl" tag line might draw some attention from teen-aged boys. Weren't you a teenager when this was published? MHHutchins 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I was only 3 or 4 years old, depending on when in the year it was actually published. And yes, the spine is far more sensibly formatted but doesn't mention naked girls, just has a big "SF" tag at the top. (Or maybe that was added by the library?) BLongley 19:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now here's a cover that the art department would love. They saved money by hiring a first year art student! MHHutchins 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe they just took the author's "I want it something like this..." sketch and used it. I think Brunner had some doodles in some of his books, although we don't seem to have recorded any. (There is this but I think that's one of Marc Kupper's experiments to get translators into the DB.) BLongley 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blish's The Devil's Day

Can you see if the title of Black Easter is the extended one (...or Faust Aleph-Null) in your copy of the paperback edition? I have the hardcover SFBC edition and the extended title is used there. Also see this discussion. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it was "Black Easter", and there's a note "or, Faust Aleph-Null" in different font underneath, but it could be read either way. There's no comma before 'or', only after. BLongley 17:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fixing" Verifications

Noticed a note on WillemH's page about this, and am quite curious what you had in mind? Adding more primaries was long overdue, but I can't think of what else might be a good idea? That's purely from lack of inspiration, not thinking the system is fine. I'm not computer/programming proficient enough to recognize any weaknesses in that way. Just curious! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there should be a limit on Primary verifications at all, except one editor/one Primary verification. For instance, I just verified this - possibly our first 5 primary AND 1 transient verified pub, no room for any more. But then we'd probably want display limits so that you don't have to see a million verifications for Harry Potter 5 or whatever our most popular book is. But underneath there are problems - we're not actually verifying against a particular reference's number, we're verifying against its position in the list of references. So we can't reorder them more sensibly, and adding new ones will just make the gaps worse, and we'd require programming changes every time a new one was added to keep "Top Verifiers" right (and there are improvements wanted there) and allow people to search by their verification types (which aren't separated into Primary and Secondary yet), etc. We can bodge a few more things on, e.g. fix the publication lists by Publisher/Year that say whether a pub is verified or not, but we really need to fix the underlying problems and create a more flexible solution. BLongley 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

a

I added cover credit for verified [26] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Colonists of Space

Tuck reports 1968 for this edition of Colonists of Space--ErnestoVeg 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

That doesn't look right, judging by the sequential catalogue numbers Digit used? BLongley 20:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Einstein Intersection

Added the artist to [this] from The Flights of Icarus by Roger & Martyn Dean. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also to [this], same source ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to [this], same source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There are more images that I recognize but the title of the image isn't always the same as the book it adorns. Seem to be all British editions from the mid-'70s. Sure I'll come across the books sooner or later! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Authorship of "The Amphibious Cavalry Gap" in 100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories

Would you check the authorship of "The Amphibious Cavalry Gap" in your verfied 100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories? Elsewhere it is credited to both James E. Thompson and J. J. Trembly, including from a 1978 edition of 100 Great.... Thanks. --MartyD 00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's James E. Thompson alone in ToC and on copyright page, "J. J. Trembly as told to James E. Thompson" on title page. Trembly appears to be a fictional character. BLongley 17:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So what do we do in a situation such as this? --MartyD 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Get into a long and pointless discussion usually. I think the last time this came up there was a majority against crediting characters as authors, but I don't know where the discussion is and don't feel like restarting it. You could see if the other verifiers would be happy to remove Trembly to notes though. BLongley 08:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wheatley story in The Ghost's Companion

Can you check the spelling of Dennis Wheatley's story in this anthology? We have a record for both "...Red-Headed Woman" and "...Red-Headed Women", and I think they should be merged into the latter. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the plural. Go ahead and merge. BLongley 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit for verified [27] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about cover credit

According to the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank, the cover credit for your verified [28] should be Richard Powers where you verified Ralph Brillhart. And it does look like Powers, but I didn't want to change a verified entry without first running it by you. Any objections?Don Erikson 06:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Brillhart came from, there's no credit or signature on the pub. Go ahead and change it. BLongley 08:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit for verified [29] [30] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayge vs Jaygee Carr

Hi, could you double check the spelling of Jayge's name here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?ANLGOCT76 Thanks Jonschaper 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely "Jaygee Carr" in ToC and on title page. BLongley 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made "Jaygee" a variant. Jonschaper 23:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

Expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ringworld Throne

Scanned in an image to replace the ZZZZZZZ and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Something About Eve

I was making some edits to the first Ballantine edition of Something About Eve and I wanted to expand the title of the Carter introduction to "About Something About Eve and James Branch Cabell: The Fair-Haired Hoo". However, since that essay is shared with your verified pub SMTHNGBTVH1979, I wanted to get your buy in before I changed the title. I assume your printing has the longer title. Please let me know if you agree that it should be changed. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 03:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way, but it should be consistent. BLongley 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Swordsman of Mars

I added the essay on page 2 to the contents of this verified pub. Also added some notes. Thanks, Willem H. 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Starport" vs "Star Port"

Hi, can you help out with the following?

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Mhhutchins#Star_Port_vs_Starport_by_Sydney_J._Bounds

Thanks Jonschaper 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Coming

I just submitted a first printing of Haldeman's novel, and I think it's strange that the publication date of your 3rd printing is the same as my 1st. Can you check this? Thanks Willem H. 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to suggest different, but nothing apart from similar prices to say it's the same. Sent to 0000-00-00 land! BLongley 19:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Abbott vs Abbot

Hi, could you double check the spelling of Michael's name here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Michael%20Abbot Thanks Jonschaper 03:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Mike and Michael are double-T. Fixed. BLongley 17:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Volkhavaar - added illustration credit/notation/start page

Morning! This. [31]. I added illustration crediting, notation and start page number after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ship Errant

Expanded the notes and scanned in a new cover image for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Short Stories of Detection, Mystery and Horror, Second Series

I added an OCLC number to Your verified pub. -DES ^Talk 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger Zelazny's This Immortal

Can you see if the copyright page of your copy of this printing lists the first four printings? This led me to mistakenly believe that this is the fourth printing, but it's actually the fifth. Don Erikson pointed out that he has the fourth printing (Ace #80693 priced at $1.25), and that the record I'd verified in error was the fourth (my copy is #80694 at $1.50, like yours.) Thanks. MHHutchins 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, as the note says there's no printing information in it. BLongley 10:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cream of the Jest

I'm working on entering my copy this pub of which you have a verified pub of the same title. I want to make a number of changes to mine and I suspect they may apply to your copy as well.

1. I think the book should be a collection that contains the novel, similar to the way that this title was handled (though it has other issues that I'm working on).
2. The title page of my copy reads "The Cream of the Jest:" over "The Lineage of Lichfield" over "Two Comedies of Evasion" and I would like to use the full title for the collection i.e. "The Cream of the Jest: The Lineage of Lichfield: Two Comedies of Evasion".
3. I'd like to expand the title of the Carter introduction to "About The Cream of the Jest and James Branch Cabell: The Dream Talisman" (I've been doing this to all the Ballantine Adult Fantasies"
4. I'd like to add the subtitles to both the contained novel and novella (genealogy).

Let me know if your copy agrees with mine (I suspect it does) and you agree with the changes. It's certainly easier to do them across the Ballantine / Del Rey editions rather than breaking them apart. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A collection called "The Cream of the Jest: The Lineage of Lichfield" would match title page, I personally wouldn't include the description after that. For the contents, "The Cream of the Jest: A Comedy of Evasion" might apply to all titles, but I'd be suspicious of "The Lineage of Lichfield: Another Comedy of Evasion" - I suspect the description might not be universally included, and is fact only used when collected with another comedy of evasion. But I'm not overly concerned about this book. BLongley 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Land's End

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes slightly for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Planets Three

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Valley of Creation

I added this cover scan to this verified pub to replace a broken Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 15:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

date of "The Man Who Was Milligan" in Tales of the Uncanny and Supernatural

I found a reference for The Man Who Was Milligan on Locus citing a first publication in the November, 1823 1923 Pearson's Magazine. In your verified Tales of the Uncanny and Supernatural (the only verified pub with the title in it), it has a date of 1824 1924. Would you check and see if that is indeed how it is dated? Thanks. --MartyD 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If I could find it, I would. But my hardcovers are always difficult to find - I own so few I have no plan for where they're put. Ah well, I'll find it again. Eventually. BLongley 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very much akin to my own organizational (term used loosely) model. If it's ok with you, I will update the title record with the 1923-11-00 date and a note about the Pearson's appearance, while I'm thinking about it. If you'd rather I left it alone, I will do so. --MartyD 10:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. BLongley 10:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Simak's Brother & Other Stories

I added a cover scan to my copy of this title and noticed that the cover title was different from the title page. I changed the pub record, but left the title record alone because your paperback edition is tied to it. Can you check your copy to see how it's titled? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ampersand gone. BLongley 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Commune 2000 AD

Added a printing note to [this] but if it isn't there, in your pub, then maybe Corgi DID print their own?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Corgi usually did, but there are several titles where there is an obvious Bantam edition over-printed. Like this. A bibliographic nightmare really. BLongley 00:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, IS there a US version BLongley 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I have a US copy in my collection. By the way, does you Corgi copy have an uncredited two page essay "About the Author" after page 181? Ahasuerus 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. An interesting read although not very useful bibliographically. BLongley 10:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

or where they all burnt in an anti-socialist witch-hunt? BLongley 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, his punishment was worse, much worse! They made him write Mission to Horatius! Ahasuerus 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Nothing on Earth

Added month of publication, Locus1, to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Octagon

Added the 'Author's Note' to the contents of [this] and mentioned there is a signature on the cover but even under high resolution I can's quite make it out. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Glory Game

Added the publication month and expanded the notes for this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Transfer

Does the title page add "... and Other Stories" to [this] ? OCLC does and both OCLC and Currey added that to the hardcover Michael Joseph edition. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The words are there, smaller font. I guess it can be treated as part of the title rather than a description. I'll change the title. BLongley 17:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hirschfeld vs Hirschfield

Hi, could you doublecheck the spelling of his name here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?SLPSTCKRLN1978 Thanks Jonschaper 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's Hirschfeld. BLongley 17:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Same to You Doubled

Added the price to [this] from Currey though for some strange reason he had 35¢ instead of 35p..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Return of Retief

I added The Secret to the contents of The Return of Retief. Should it now be a collection, or a novel with a bonus story? Thanks, Willem H. 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Novel with bonus I'd say. And not much of a bonus for people who already had it in Retief: Diplomat at Arms anyway. Good catch - there was nothing externally to indicate the bonus, and I probably wouldn't find it till I read it. BLongley 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wolfe's "The Never-Ending Penny" in Fantasy Tales

Can you verify that the story by Wolfe in this anthology has a hyphen in the title? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, In ToC, acknowledgements and on title page. BLongley 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested on new help page

Today i created Help:How to convert a novel to a "chapterbook", as I mentioned in a community portal post. I recall that you have some definite opinions on "chapterbooks" and on how we define novels vs short fiction. If you have a chance to look at this page and make any comments you think appropriate, i would appreciate it. -DES ^Talk 20:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I've had a quick look and first thoughts include: We probably ought to separate the "How to" from the "When to". (The latter is far more controversial than the former.) And maybe separate the reasoning as well (there are plenty of things the publishers call Chapterbooks intentionally). I don't want to rework thousands of juvenile Novels on page-count or word-count length, using the "jvn" length-type might be a better option, for instance. And if a publisher really wants to call a small collection of poems or "flash fiction" or short stories a chapterbook I don't really have a reason against using the publisher's description rather than forcing it to be a Collection. BLongley 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I helped reenable Chapterbook support mainly so that the Lengthists can classify Award-winning or Award-Nominated short works published standalone to appear both as Books and Shortfiction - the rules of some awards allow a Novella to be nominated as a Novel if published alone so there's wiggle-room within the Award rules anyway, and applying the award rules to "Novels" from before the Awards were created seems over the top to me. I haven't investigated whether there have been length-changes in the award rules over the years, but retroactive classification is a bit too much for me - I can only see the "Novel" category getting larger as books get longer and longer but no better, and I don't want to rework titles if the 40,000 word limit gets lifted to 50,000 for instance. BLongley 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

At the other end of the scale, things that the publisher sells as chapterbooks are fine by me to be classified as such. I don't think I've ever seen a claimed chapterbook being upgraded to Novel. But small Collections and Anthologies and even Nonfiction could be, if ISFDB decides to over-ride Publisher or Author desires and declarations. BLongley 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The last immediate thought is that you're asking for a short-fiction title to be created in all circumstances - I'm yet to be convinced. If a Chapterbook really IS only a few chapters of a longer work, then the content might be better expressed as "Longer Work (excerpt)". And it might be simpler just to leave the Chapterbook to stand alone rather than clutter up the database with extra Shortfiction content that hasn't really ever had that title. My worry is that we will start recording real "chapters" just to make things fit, and that's a level I think we don't need or want to go down to. BLongley 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks again for bringing it to my attention. I'd put it into the appropriate thread but I suspect there will need to be several, and I'm now very short of ISFDB time while I search for a new home - all daylight hours are needed for that, I don't want to search in the dark and discover an unexpected garden or scrap-heap again. Feel free to copy or refer people to these comments if the discussion carries on without me. BLongley 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

I have added section headers to separate the "How to" from the "When to". I have added some comments on JVN books, on chapbooks in the literary sense (I don't think any publishers use the term "chapterbook" for adult fiction) and on the distinction between names of db record types and the names of types of publication or literary work. I hope this improves the text.

I do think that all publication records should have one or more text title type records, either NOVEL or SHORTFICTION for fiction pubs, or ESSAY or NONFICTION. If we create shortfiction titles when indexing promotional excerpts (and we do) then it seems to me there is rather more reason to do so for excerpts published separately. But few if any of the works I have encountered in the chapterbook cleanup project or elsewhere have been simple excerpts of long works; some have been true shortfiction later expanded or extended into novels.

I agree that we don't want to separately index individual chapters of novels as a usual practice. Cases like The Green Mile are still quite unusual. -DES ^Talk 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on the home hunt. -DES ^Talk 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added price

I added the price your verified [32].Don Erikson 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I noticed I guessed wrong. +10% for Rep. of Ireland prices seems more the norm. (And is almost always the reason for a ha'penny in the price...) BLongley 20:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)